Recent Articles

Liberals Backtrack On WMD and War Powers

It is amazing how politicians see things when their party is in power as opposed to how they see them when they are not in power. When George Bush was the president Congress gave him authority to use military force and about three of the nearly twenty items dealt with weapons of mass destruction (WMD). When it was reported that no WMD were found and when the war in Iraq was in chaos liberals started talking about Bush’s illegal war and that he overstepped his authority.

Fast forward to now. Barack Obama has made a mess of Iraq and his “greatest achievement” is falling apart as terrorists slice through that country like Hitler through Europe. He is considering military action in Iraq and Nancy Pelosi has indicated that he does not need to come to Congress for approval because the authorities are already there as a result of the 2001 and 2003 legislation that Bush used to engage in Iraq.

Pelosi told reporters that she agreed that the president has all of the authorities that he needs in the authorizations to use military force passed by Congress previously.

“All of the authorities are there. That doesn’t mean I want all of them to be used, especially boots on the ground,” she said. “But I definitely think the president has all of the authority he needs by dint of legislation that was passed in 2001 and 2003.”

She appeared to be referring to the authorizations to use military force passed after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and the 2002 authorization to use force in Iraq. Neither of those authorizations have [sic] expired, although the official White House position is that the Iraq authorization should be repealed.

Obama is using, and Pelosi is supporting, the authorizations that the White House thinks should be repealed.

In other words, Pelosi and her liberal pals all said Bush did not have the authority to do what he did but that Obama has the authority, under the same legislation, to do what Bush did even though Obama thinks the authorization should be repealed.

This is how liberals think. They gave Bush authority and then said he abused it but now that Obama is doing the very same thing (or considering doing it) they say he has the authority.

Remember the claim that Bush lied about WMD? I told you then that a lot of the WMD made their way into Syria (where do you think Syria got the ones they used?) and that there was no doubt Hussein (Saddam, not Barack) stockpiled them. Some of them were declared to the UN inspectors and locked in bunkers. Remember the warnings about what would happen if they got into the wrong hands? But, but, he didn’t have any. Bush lied, people died.

Turns out that there are plenty of WMD in Iraq and while many of them have been degraded they are still lethal. The terrorists in ISIS have seized those chemical weapons.

Chemical weapons produced at the Al Muthanna facility, which Isis today seized, are believed to have included mustard gas, Sarin, Tabun, and VX.

Here is the CIA’s file on the complex.

Stockpiles of chemical munitions are still stored there. The most dangerous ones have been declared to the UN and are sealed in bunkers.
Although declared, the bunkers contents have yet to be confirmed.

These areas of the compound pose a hazard to civilians and potential blackmarketers.

Numerous bunkers, including eleven cruciform shaped bunkers were exploited. Some of the bunkers were empty. Some of the bunkers contained large quantities of unfilled chemical munitions, conventional munitions, one-ton shipping containers, old disabled production equipment (presumed disabled under UNSCOM supervision), and other hazardous industrial chemicals.

There were WMD in Iraq when the US issued its ultimatum and Hussein moved many to Syria. The rest are in bunkers and pose a threat if they fall into the wrong hands.

Well, they have fallen into the wrong hands and now they will be used by the blood thirsty ISIS animals to harm many more people.

If they end up in the US you can blame Pelosi and all the other liberals who screamed about ending the war and that no WMDs exist and all the BS about Bush lying.

You can blame Barack Obama for the inept way he has handled everything in Iraq. His ego led him to believe that the bad guys will love us if we appease them.

How is that working out?

While Obama dances around like his ass is on fire and his head is catching Iraq is literally disintegrating before our eyes.

Now the bad guys have chemical weapons, the ones the liberals said did not exist, and they WILL use them.

Government officials are putting a great spin on this about the items being old and unstable and how they doubt they can be used to make chemical weapons.

Are these the same experts who told us that the terrorists were defeated, in shambles? Are these the same folks who said that Iraq was stable and we could leave? Are these the same people who have been wrong so many other times?

The belief is that the chemicals could not be safely moved. Really? Does anyone think that will stop the people who have just scored the Holy Grail of terror weapons?

The ISIS leader said he is coming for America (IN America). I bet now he will be even more motivated to do so.

If some of these chemicals make their way here you can thank the liberals and their policies for the deaths that occur.

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.

Government Red Faced Over Redskins

The federal government’s patent office removed the Washington Redskins’ trademark protection in a move that Harry Reid says will force the team to change its name. There is no doubt this is politically motivated and the government is intruding on things it has no business in. The government did this before but the Redskins won on appeal and kept their trademark.

If the patent office will remove trademarks because the name or logo might be offensive then there is a lot of work to be done. They need to work hard to get Notre Dame to change from being the “Fighting Irish” and there are a number of high school teams named Redskins so don’t waste time Congress, hop to it.

It is not like anything important is happening in the world that could use your attention.

I imagine it is long past time for Red Man tobacco to get its comeuppance and have its trademark removed. Unless, of course, the big tobacco money is making its way to politicians…

If I were the owner of the Redskins I would change my logo to the red potato and keep the name redskins. Then I would cancel any elite ticket plans held by members of Congress and NEVER allow them to attend my games unless they paid and sat in the regular seats with everyone else. No more owner’s box or VIP box for them.

The Patent Office removed the trademark because, it claims, a majority of Native Americans find it offensive. There is no actual reliable information to support that claim but that is what the action was based on.

I am a white person and I think it is high time Nabisco lose its patent for Saltines. I am offended that they are called crackers…

As for the Redskins, I do not think Congress belongs involved. If people do not like the name then they don’t have to go to the games or watch on TV. Most people probably don’t pay much attention to the issue of the team’s name but if we want to ensure the name of the team is ignored by politicians perhaps they could be renamed:

The Washington Federal Deficits.

Maybe the owner can just move the team someplace else (whether he is forced to change the name or not) and remove all the offensive revenue the team generates for DC.

Regardless, it is long past time for the word Washington to be removed from the name because more people are offended by Washington than Redskin.

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.

Taxes For You But Not For Me

Liberals love to talk about disparity and wealth redistribution. People like Barack Obama like to say that at one point he feels you have made enough so you should pay more in taxes as if he is the arbiter of what is enough. He is not alone in the liberal world. Bill and Hillary Clinton love to discuss how terrible America is with regard to taxes and how the evil rich people should just pay more.

The wealthy in this country pay most of the federal taxes in this country.

The interesting thing about all this is that these liberals do not put their money where their mouth is. John Kerry selected the box on the MA state tax form to pay at the lower rate and docked his yacht in another state to avoid taxes.

Barack Obama diverts some of his money to his children to avoid taxes on it.

Bill and Hillary Clinton, the liberal dream team, use every part of the law possible to avoid taxes.

Take the inheritance tax. That is the one where the government taxes your estate at about 40%. This means that after you pay taxes all your life the money that you already paid taxes on is taxed again at 40% when you die.

The government snaps 40% off the top before your heirs get what you left them. There are some limits so that only the higher estates are taxed but this is the group that liberals have been after all along and it is the group that many of them are in.

The Clintons are well into the 1% with their millions of dollars and their income is in the range they target when they espouse their redistribution schemes.

But, and this is a big but, when it comes to their own wealth the Clintons have set up trusts in order to avoid paying taxes. This is not to suggest they are doing anything illegal. The tax code allows it (and ALL politicians ensure the tax code helps their own wallets) and I have no problem with that.

What I have a problem with is that the people who are always demanding that the rich pay more are the very ones who work to avoid that same fate.

All wealthy politicians work to reduce their tax burden (as well as the wealthy in general) so Bush, Romney, Buffett, Obama, and Clinton all work the tax code to ensure their burden is as small as possible. Even Harry Reid who famously claimed that Mitt Romney did not pay taxes games the system.

The big difference for me is that Romney, Bush and other wealthy conservatives (or those at least more conservative than the liberals) work to lower the amount of taxes everyone pays so we can all enjoy the same breaks as they. Liberals, on the other hand, work tirelessly to increase taxes on the wealthy (and everyone else) in order to fuel their insatiable appetite for OPM (Other People’s Money).

If they are going to demand more be paid by the wealthy then they should pay the absolute highest amount possible and lead by example.

Bill Clinton once said he did not pay enough in taxes as a rich guy but he sure works hard to pay as little as possible.

But they won’t because they are above the fray. They are special and we just don’t understand how it really is. You know, I even heard that Hillary and Bill left the White House dead broke. That little fact did not prevent them from purchasing a house that was more than a MILLION dollars or having one in DC that was about 5 MILLION.

No, they have no idea how life is for the real folks because these people have lived off the taxpayer for nearly their entire lives.

Now they take advantage of the tax system to avoid what they want to do to everyone else in their income brackets.

Can you say hypocrisy? How about elitist?

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.

Obama’s Failure In Iraq

Obama ran as a guy who opposed action in Iraq and he vowed to remove our troops from that country as soon as he could. Once he decided to leave he announced it to the world and he did not entertain ideas about leaving security forces to ensure the peace.

The man who has never run anything and who has no military experience was warned that announcing a departure date was stupid because the enemy would know when the chance of running into American forces would end. It had the end date.

The bad guys also knew that if none of our forces remained then they would be able to regroup and attack.

That has now all happened. Iraqis in many parts of the country are being attacked and murdered by the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Shams (Isis). That group is taking cities at a fast pace and leaving murder and mayhem in its path. The decapitated heads of policemen and soldiers line the streets of Mosul as the carnage continues.

Sharia Law is being imposed and anyone who refuses or breaks the law will be murdered.

This is what Barack Obama has given the people of Iraq and it is because of his ego. He thinks the world loves us because he is in charge. He thinks all he has to do is make nice and others will do the same. The enemy knows that America does not have the stomach to recommit troops to Iraq after many years of war and it is taking advantage of our (Obama’s) weakness.

Members of Congress who fought in Iraq are wondering aloud what the point of their (indicating our armed forces) effort was if Obama was just going to allow it to disintegrate into chaos.

Joe Biden once said that Iraq was one of Obama’s great achievements. Well how great is the achievement now that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are being displaced and untold numbers are being murdered?

I don’t know what can be done for Iraq short of sending military assistance (drones and air power) but it is a good bet that we will not be sending ground troops. I am not advocating that but I know even if it were one hundred percent right to do so Obama would not. That would be admitting that his policies and what he did all resulted in failure and Obama does not admit his mistakes.

I am curious how many Democrats will be screaming that we need to do something to help those folks after spending years screaming about our involvement there and saying we needed to get out. How long before they blame George W Bush for the chaos? [UPDATE: That did not take long]

During the last presidential election debates Mitt Romney said it would be a mistake to remove all our troops from Iraq.

How many more times do his past utterances, ones ridiculed by liberals, have to come to fruition before people who worship Obama realize Romney was right and Obama was wrong?

How long before people begin to realize he does not know what he is doing?

How long before they realize the Emperor has no clothes?

How many people in Iraq will be murdered because Obama is a weak inept leader with no real experience?

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.

Make No Mistake, Obama Wants To Confiscate Firearms

Barack Obama will tell you he supports the Second Amendment and he will tell you he does not want to confiscate your firearms but he is a liar. Barack Obama is lying about firearms related incidents by telling people that these incidents are off the chart. Well they are but they are off the bottom of the chart. The number of firearms related incidents is down and are now at their lowest in over 20 years.

Obama says he wants common sense laws for gun control. He wants what he thinks is common sense to be imposed on a constitutionally protected right. Interestingly, he is against any restrictions on abortions. It is all about control.

Even Washington DC has seen a decrease in murders by firearm.

Interestingly, these numbers are down despite the huge increase in firearms ownership and the large stockpiling of ammunition. These numbers are down even though many states are shall issue states and some do not require a permit to carry a firearm either open or concealed. These numbers are all going down.

Except in places like Chicago where gun control is alive and well. In that city people are murdered with firearms all the time. They are murdered with firearms that they are not allowed to have.

How could that possibly happen and how could places where the Second Amendment is not infringed upon have lower firearms related incidents? How could DC have a drop in firearms related murders?

More guns equal less crime. Criminals do not want to try bad things in places where someone else might have a firearm and might actually use it. In DC the Heller decision seems to have given criminals pause.

The availability of firearms in free (or freer) places keeps crime down.

It is not gun control and it is not any kind of scheme where people are restricted as these schemes always lead to more firearms related crime. Once again, look at Chicago (and for that matter any place run by liberals where gun control exists) and you will see what happens.

Criminals simply do not obey the law.

Barack Obama is upset that Congress will not work on gun control measures so he has decided that he will do all that he can through executive action. Obama will circumvent Congress and the Constitution in order to infringe on a constitutionally protected right.

And his actions will not involve registration and background schemes. No, Obama will look for a way to ban and confiscate firearms. He has already given support for that kind of law.

Obama praised Australia’s gun laws that took effect after a mass shooting. Australia banned most types of firearms and confiscated them. There are still plenty of firearms related incidents in Australia (how can that happen when gun have been banned and confiscated) but that is beside the point. Obama praised Australia’s gun law and part of that process was the confiscation of privately owned firearms.

Obama would love nothing more than to confiscate all firearms but not because he thinks that will make us safer (people are not safer in so called no gun countries). He wants to confiscate guns because they are the means to resist tyranny.

Obama knows that he could not push too far (though the compliant media and testicle lacking Congress let him get away with too much) so long as people have the means to fight back. The standoff at the Bundy Ranch showed what well armed people can do to tyrants from the government.

The article in National Review is spot on when it indicates that Obama cannot praise the Australian Law without praising the mass confiscation program.

Obama envies the Australian government because it confiscated firearms. He wishes he could do the same and might just try some variant via executive action.

We need Congress to reel Obama in and stop him from his lawless acts. He is far more dangerous to this country than citizens with firearms.

Citizens who, by the way, will never allow their firearms to be confiscated…

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.