Big Dogs House

Live From DC, It’s Al Franken

Jul 27, 2011 Political

Weird Al Franken, the “what were they thinking” Senator from Minnesota was on the floor to discuss the current debt ceiling debate and he had a few charts that were rather disturbing. He borrowed the first chart from the set Obama placed on the southern border. The chart read; Welcome Terrorists. Then he went on to explain that members of the GOP were briefed about what would happen if the debt ceiling was not raised. He showed how much money there was and where it would go and what would not be paid.

Franken listed the following as being paid (all numbers in billions); Service debt-29.0, Social Security-49.2, Medicare/Medicaid-50.0, Defense Vendors-31.7, and Unemployment 12.8.

The next chart shows what would not be paid and it includes Military pay and Veteran’s benefits for a combined 5.8 billion dollars. There are other agencies listed as well including the Department of justice at 1.4 billion dollars.

Franken is trying to scare people into believing that we will invite terrorists in because the military and the DOJ will not be funded. What he is actually pointing out is that Franken (and by extension, his Democrat buddies) would rather pay unemployment benefits to people who are not producing anything (regardless of why they are out of work) and not pay the active military and veterans. He would also rather pay the unemployed than pay the Department of Justice.

So tell me, under this scheme, who is actually inviting the terrorists into the country.

The idea that those who are sitting at home doing nothing would be paid while the men and women who defend this country would not makes my skin boil and the fact that Franken has prioritized it this way is enough to earn him a well deserved butt kicking. They should take him and anyone who tries to implement something like this out back of the Capitol and hang them for treason. I am sure we can make the case they are giving material aid and comfort to our enemies. Welcoming terrorists is an act of treason and if not raising the debt ceiling would invite terrorists then it is Franken and his ilk who would be sending the invitations.

I don’t even think the vendors should be on the list. They get paid when the issue is settled. If they want they can charge interest for carrying the debt load. Or perhaps it would be a good time to review our contracts and eliminate those that are not actually needed.

No matter what, the military should not go without pay. How dare this half baked moron even suggest that the unemployed should keep getting unemployment checks while our brave men and women go without.

This is a scare tactic and it shows that Democrats are either not serious about the issue, don’t understand the issue or actually hate the military.

I bet it is all three.

I wonder what would happen if all those men and women showed up with their weaponry and demanded their paychecks.

I also wonder if Franken includes members of Congress in the federal employees who do not get paid. No member of Congress should ever get paid before a member of the military.

And neither should the unemployed (and if we are lucky most of Congress will be unemployed in 2012).

But if Franken and his colleagues insist on this scheme then we can take the 15 million or so people drawing unemployment and ship them to the borders to keep the terrorists out. We can also send half a million of them to the Middle East and bring our troops home.

Al Franken is an absolute moron who couldn’t pour urine out of a boot if the directions were written on the bottom.

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Tags: al franken, debt ceiling, Military, moron, terrorists

No Election Fraud, Keep Moving

Jul 14, 2010 Political

When George Bush won the presidency in 2000 the Democrats claimed that fraud was committed around the country and particularly in Florida where horror stories of voter polls being purged denied people their vote. Whenever a big bureaucracy is involved in anything there are certain to be mistakes but for the most part, people were purged because they were not supposed to be on the list of eligible voters. The purge removed convicted felons, those in jail and people who were registered at the same address as hundreds of other people or at addresses where no residence existed. In short, people were removed because they did not belong on the list.

It had nothing to do with race (though that is always the motive when liberals get their panties in a wad) and had everything to do with the law. We have laws governing who can vote and they should be followed. Liberals do not like them followed because they lose seats when the felons cannot vote.

In 2008 there was certainly voter fraud. The Democrats mobilized the fraud groups such as ACORN and those groups ensured that the votes were there even when they were not. In some places in this country more people voted than actually lived in the voting jurisdiction. Democrats, to this day, tell us that no fraud took place and certainly not enough to make a difference in any race.

Enter Al Franken. Franken might have benefited from Minnesota’s inability to purge its voter rolls and then its inability or refusal to disqualify votes that were illegal during the long recount process. Al Franken won by 312 votes (recounts almost always result in just enough ballots being “found” to ensure victory for a Democrat) but an 18 month analysis of the vote shows that 341 felons, who were not authorized to vote, actually voted in the contest. This means there were more illegal votes than the margin of victory. Did enough of those votes go to Franken to ensure victory? That is unknown but if the voting rolls had been purged and then the votes scrutinized during he recount we would not have any reason to be suspicious.

The six-month election recount that turned former “Saturday Night Live” comedian Al Franken into a U.S. senator may have been decided by convicted felons who voted illegally in Minnesota’s Twin Cities. FOX News

When Bush won the presidency the next eight years (and to this day) had Democrats screaming about an illegitimate president. There have been no such claims by the left with regard to Franken because they refuse to concede that any fraud took place and if they hint at it they minimize it. There is only fraud if their candidate loses.

Never surrender, never submit.

Tags: al franken, felons, voter fraud

Kagan Changes Tune Now That She Is In The Seat

Jun 30, 2010 Political

Elena Kagan will be confirmed barring any major gaffe (a Joe Biden type gaffe) on her part. There is no way (short of a filibuster) to stop her confirmation even though she has little experience for the position which should not be an issue, she is after all, in the mold of Barry and he was the least qualified person to hold his current job.

Kagan will end up being a Justice on the Supreme Court and despite what she says, her politics and personal views and NOT the Constitution will guide her. Chuck Schumer describes her as a moderate which she is definitely not. She seems intelligent and articulate but moderate she is not.

She banned military recruiters at Harvard (and yet insists she didn’t) because she disagreed with “don’t ask, don’t tell.” I have no problem with that action as long as she then refused federal funding in accordance with the law. Kagan has been describing what she did but her version is different from reality. She opposed DADT but did not initially ban recruiters because of the funding issue. As soon as a lower court ruled the Solomon Amendment unconstitutional she banned them. This is because she would not lose the money. When the Supreme Court overturned that ruling she allowed recruiters once again. She is not as principled as she claims because she put getting taxpayer money ahead of her so called principled views.

A principled person would have banned them regardless of the money.

But having principles is not necessarily her strong point. Case in point, she avoided many questions by claiming that the issue might come before the court which is not unusual for a nominee to do. However, in her case she is doing that which she railed against in the past:

Kagan in 1995:
In a 1995 book review, Ms. Kagan wrote that recent Supreme Court confirmation hearings had taken on “an air of vacuity and farce” because nominees would not engage in a meaningful discussion of legal issues, declining to answer any question that might “have some bearing on a case that might some day come before the Court.” She called on senators and future nominees to engage in a much more open and detailed discussion of legal issues.

Kagan today:
Under questioning by the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, Ms. Kagan said she thought it would be inappropriate for her to talk about how she might rule on pending cases or cases “that might come before the court in the future” — or to answer questions that were “veiled” efforts to get at such issues. The New York Times

The common feeling is that nominees evade things during confirmation and claim they will follow the Constitution and then do what they want once on the bench. Of course Kagan and her supporters say she would not do such a thing but she has demonstrated that she will change her stance based on politics. She said that nominees should be more open but now the politics of the issue requires her to do the exact opposite.

Kagan also refused to comment on past rulings of the Court because she felt she would be grading the Court. How is this even an issue? She should comment on the so called settled cases and let the Senate know how she would have ruled or how she feels about a ruling. You can bet she would not mind commenting on past cases that are popular. If someone asked her how she felt about Brown v. Board of Education or the Dred Scott Decision you can bet she would tell how wonderful it is that we now have fully desegregated schools and and how the Fourteenth* Amendment overturned Scott and made freemen citizens and not property.

So why not opine on other decisions? If stare decisis is so sacrosanct, why not comment?

It is also alleged that Kagan was instrumental in altering a document in order to present a view to the Supreme Court that was not intended by the experts who wrote the document. This is dishonest and should have resulted in her disbarment. The document altered changed an opinion of OB doctors from anti partial birth abortion to pro partial birth abortion. This should tell us all we need to know about her.

There is no doubt Kagan is a progressive and will rule based on progressive ideals. We expected that when Obama nominated her. Her lack of experience is troubling and we could end up with the same kind of disaster we call Obama. The difference is, the longest we can possibly be stuck with him is eight years. She is young and her appointment will be for a lifetime which could be 30 or 40 years.

Well, at least that is plenty of time for on the job training.

At least Al Franken had a good time. I have to say it is a pretty good drawing.

*changed from Thirteenth

Never surrender, never submit.

Tags: al franken, inexperience, kagan, Obama, recruiters, solomon amendment, supreme court

Al Franken And The Constitution

Oct 5, 2009 Political

Al Franken was questioning Assistant Attorney General David Kris with regard to the Patriot Act and Franken was particularly interested in the roving wire taps. Franken asked a few questions and then pulled out the copy of the Constitution that he received when he was sworn in and cited the Fourth Amendment. He then asked if Kris believed that the roving wire taps were in accordance with the Amendment. Kris explained that they were and cited the courts that have ruled on the issue.

Kris further explained that they actually go above and beyond what the FISA courts require.

It is also important to remember the Fourth Amendment deals with unreasonable searches and seizures.

I wrote long ago about the wire taps and the precedent as well as the court rulings. Carter, Clinton and a host of other presidents have done the same thing because it has been ruled as Constitutional and not unreasonable.

I agree with John at Powerline when he states:

Still, one can only commend Franken for reading that copy of the Constitution they gave him when he assumed office. Maybe he’ll let us know whether he finds anything about owning automobile companies and controlling American citizens’ health care.

I commend Franken for reading the Constitution even if he is fuzzy on what he has sworn with regard to it (“And I was sworn to uphold it, or support it anyway, and protect it”).

I have a copy of the Constitution that I carry with me. Every citizen should have one and every citizen should actually read it.

I would like to know how Franken weighs in on gun ownership and the right to keep and bear arms. I wonder if they get to that debate if he will wave his Constitution and cite the Second Amendment (which is the one that ensures all the others) while proudly affirming that the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Or will he decide that this Amendment is different and does not deserve support. You see, Franken has been against gun ownership and for tighter control and only changed his views when he ran for office:

Franken has expressed past reservation about private gun ownership and admitted to attending marches for gun-control; in Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot And Other Observations, he wrote that having guns in the home was “too dangerous” and included mocking language about needing a shotgun for every room of the house. In 2003’s book Oh, The Things I Know! he also wrote that those who donate to the NRA should volunteer at hospitals that treat gunshot victims. During the campaign, Franken took a more moderate stance, saying he supported the right to own and bear arms for protection and hunting, but it’s unclear how those statements will transfer to his Senate votes. Who Runs Gov

So it would seem that Franken is one of those folks who waves the Constitution but believes that only parts of it apply. He, like many liberals, believe that the Constitution does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms. Gun control is infringement and violates the Second Amendment, so I wonder if Al will have his Constitution when that debate ensues.

I also wonder if Al could find that passage in the Constitution that allows abortion (Franken is strongly pro-abortion). Perhaps he could find the part that allows the government to take money from people and give it to other people (he is a proponent of heavily taxing the wealthy to pay for government largess). Like John, I would like to know what part allows government to own car companies and I am particularly interested in where the Constitution first defines the right to free health care and then where it says that the government has the right to force other people to pay for it. I would also be interested in the part that gives government the authority to force people to buy it.

I would like Franken to reconcile his positions that run contrary to the Constitution since he has waved his copy and decided that it should be followed (even if he does not understand when things are being legally followed).

Anyone who has Franken’s ear, please ask him how he can put on such a charade when his positions run contrary to the Constitution.

I would be interested in how he answers the questions though I have a feeling he would rationalize his unconstitutional positions.

Totally unrelated link to The Other McCain

Tags: al franken, constitution, fourth amendment, gun control, Second Amendment

Now Franken Wants To Ignore The Voters

Jan 13, 2009 Political

When Democrats are losing then every vote must count. When the race is close, every vote must count and they always vow not to stop until every last vote is tallied so that the will of the people will not be ignored. They maintain that position until the Democratic candidate takes a lead and then they want the counting stopped, certificates signed, and everyone to go home.

This is what Al Franken is up to. The recount in Minnesota was automatically triggered because of the margin of Norm Coleman’s victory. Then all kinds of hanky panky started. Franken demanded that rejected absentee ballots be counted if they were rejected erroneously. But, not in areas where Coleman would have an advantage. The Wall Street Journal listed about a dozen hinky things that took place and others have pointed out how it is nearly impossible for one candidate to benefit at such a high rate. Top this off with votes that were “found” and there is a problem. Democrats are good at stealing elections. They tried in 2000 and many of the tactics used by Franken were used by Gore in Florida. The donks have just gotten better after honing their skills in Washington state by pulling the same shenanigans.

A recount is supposed to count the ballots cast on election day. It is not a chance to add more that were “found” or to argue over rejected ballots. If the race had been won (by either candidate) by a large margin then neither of the candidates would have worried about the votes. They were rejected for whatever reason which means they were not counted. Recount means to count again so if they were never counted, how can they be counted again?

Franken is not content with what is now taking place. That would be Coleman’s attempt to ensure that all votes really are counted and that they are counted only once. Coleman, exercising his right, has filed suit in court challenging the results based upon the irregularities in the recount. He would like some explanation as to how certain places registered more votes than the number of people who showed up to vote. It is little things like that which tweaks Coleman and his legal team.

Franken started out wanting every vote to count but now that he and his buddies have cheated enough to give him the lead, and he has been declared the winner, he wants to stop. Coleman had seven days to file his suit contesting the recount and he did just that. Minnesota law says that a certificate cannot be issued until the matter, including the court challenges, are resolved. Franken does not like that idea and he wants to have a signed certificate so he can get to DC and do the people’s business. He said that it is not right the state is only represented by one Senator with so much important stuff going on.

Is there anyone who believes that Franken would feel this way if Coleman had 200 more votes and was declared the winner? Franken would not care about there only being one Senator and he would be challenging the results as well as saying “hell no” to giving Coleman a signed certificate.

Franken needs that certificate before the court gets a chance to look into things. Once he is seated the court would be reluctant to say that things were wrong and he needed to come home. If he is not certified the court can more objectively look into the matter and see where the misdeeds were done. Franken does not want to get caught up in that.

Remember, these are Democrats, they have no spine. This is particularly true for Franken who is a twit that likes to attack people and talk tough. But, he is from that group of people that knows how to steal elections. All votes must count unless they are votes for the Republican. If it is in any way shape or form a vote for a Republican it must be lost, stolen, challenged or otherwise not counted. But all votes must count for Democrats. This is the group that routinely disenfranchises the military. They are always trying to discount the votes of the men and women who protect that very right.

However, they will go to great lengths to ensure convicted felons, illegal aliens, and other people not so entitled, get to vote. The Democratic party is such strong advocates of voting that they even ensure the non living get to vote. Yep, there are lots and lots of dead voters on the Democratic rolls. What most Americans call obituaries, Democrats call voter rolls.

ACORN, George Soros, and the culture of corruption have combined to steal this victory for Franken and he wants to get out of town before things get hot.

Funny how they always talk about the rule of law and all votes counting but then they want to ignore the rule of law when it opposes them. Reid wanted to seat Franken and Franken wants the signed certificate even though obtaining it would violate state law (Franken asserts that federal law trumps the state but I don’t think so in this case).

In any event, the governor has denied Franken’s request to usurp the law and now it is Franken who might sue to get the certificate. Why should he worry about the law when he broke it to win?

It is a mess in Minnesota and the only fair way to sort it out would be to hold another election. Since it is a fair way the Democrats would never go for it.

I really hate that guy but I am sure he will end up winning. I only hope he is as good a Senator as he was a comedian. In that case he will suck very badly. The people of Minnesota deserve that for almost electing him and the Democrats in the Senate deserve the jackass for supporting him.

Source:
Wall Street Journal

Tags: al franken, crime, democrats cheating, norm coleman, stolen election