Big Dogs House

How Democrats Plan To Win – Cheat

Oct 26, 2010 Political

The Democrats are pulling out all the stops to win next Tuesday but things are still looking rough and they are likely in for a long night. But that is not to say they are throwing in the towel. They have an ace in the hole, or up their sleeves, as it were.

They plan to cheat. There is no other way to put it, they plan to cheat.

We already have evidence in the Florida Governor’s race. Alex Sink broke the rules to which she agreed in her debate and read a note from her make-up person. Candidates signed an agreement not to get notes during the debate but during a commercial Sink’s make-up artist brought her an electronic device with a message from an aide.

Sink read the message instead of shooing the person away and telling her it was against the rules. Sink only addressed the issue after she was outed by her opponent, Rick Scott.

Then we have early voting, where in several states the machines have been doing things to benefit Democrats.

In Nevada the polling machines already have Harry Reid’s name selected when the voter puts a voting card into the machine. This is one way to steal the election, program the machines to select the candidate the Democrats want.

Nevada is not the only place. In Craven County, North Carolina, the machines select the entire Democrat ticket when voters slect the button to vote the entire Republican ticket. Voters who select the button to vote the Republican party are seeing the screen come back with all Democrats selected. This happened several times after a voter cleared the screen and tried again.

Cheating and stealing elections is their specialty. In the Democrat party the dead and the illegals are allowed to vote right alongside the felons.

After Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, and John Murtha died, they were removed from the rolls of Congress and placed on the voter rolls in Chicago.

That is how they roll so watch out for cheating and check your ballot several times before submitting it.

And be sure to report all suspected voter fraud.

I also recommend using a cell phone video to record the problem so you have proof (Check to make sure it is legal to record there).

UPDATE: No wonder Nevada is able to cheat. The voting machine technicians are SEIU. They are in the bag for Reid and the Democrats. If it is shown they cheated there will be hell to pay. We can either do it the right way or we can do it the hard way…

UPDATE 2: Dems try to deceive voters in PA

UPDATE 3: Democrat union official discusses being involved in voter fraud. What a surprise.

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Tags: debate, Democrats, florida, fraud, nevada, north carolina, Obama

Obama Wants Spending Freeze He Once Opposed

Jan 26, 2010 Political

What a difference a campaign makes. Back when Obama was a candidate he opposed the idea of a spending freeze. In the presidential debates John McCain said he would consider a spending freeze for the government except for veteran’s programs, national security and certain other vital programs. Obama said that the problem with this was that it was taking a hatchet to the budget when a scalpel was needed. Obama said that the freeze would halt vital programs that would hurt people.

Obama is expected to call for a spending freeze during tomorrow night’s State of the Union Address:

The freeze would take effect in October and limit the overall budget for agencies other than the military, veterans affairs, homeland security and certain international programs to $447 billion a year for the remainder of Obama’s first term, senior administration officials said Monday, imposing sharp limits on his ability to begin initiatives in education, the environment and other areas of domestic policy. Washington Post

When John McCain proposed this idea Obama poo pooed it but now that he finds it necessary to tact to the right he is in favor of it. The right is not happy because Obama raised the budgets of most agencies by as much as 50% so the freeze will be at a higher level and the left is upset because it does not want any freeze on its ability to spend, spend, spend.

By requesting this freeze Obama is admitting that the country cannot afford his agenda. He tried pushing it and the public became outraged at the excessive spending particularly in these hard economic times. Obama has ceded the fact that we cannot afford what he wants and has given the right ammunition. Any Democrats who oppose the freeze will be labeled as out of touch while the right points out that even Obama wants the freeze. If things in the economy get better during Obama’s time in office and he tries to push his agenda the public will quickly be reminded that he admitted we could not afford what he wants.

Considering that Obama has tripled the deficit which will hit 1.4 TRILLION dollars again this year, the freeze amounts to very little but it is nothing different than what McCain called for and Obama discounted out of hand. Obama is a rookie and this pandering to the middle class will not work. People have seen the man behind the curtain and they do not like what they have seen.

Nancy Pelosi tried to pin the deficit increase on Bush but Gateway Pundit sets the record straight:

For the record, during the Bush years, despite the 2000 Recession, the attacks on 9-11, the stock market scandals, Hurricane Katrina, and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush Administration was able to reduce the budget deficit from 412 billion dollars in 2004 to 162 billion dollars in 2007, a sixty percent drop. In 2004 the federal budget deficit was 412 billion dollars. In 2005 it dropped to 318 billion dollars. In 2006 the deficit dipped to 248 billion dollars. And, in 2007 it fell below 200 billion to 162 billion dollars. During the Bush years the average unemployment rate was 5.2 percent, the economy saw the strongest productivity growth in four decades and there was robust GDP growth. These were amazing accomplishments considering the unexpected challenges. You certainly didn’t read much about this in the press.

But, things changed in 2007. Democrats took over Congress, gas prices started to rise, and at the end of the year and into 2008 several financial institutions started to crumble as the housing bubble began to burst. Of course, it should be noted that President Bush publicly called for the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Democrats, on the other hand, blocked reform numerous times. It was later reported after the 2008 election that Bush had nothing to do with the financial crisis. Hoover Institution visiting fellow Scott S. Powell wrote in Barron’s in February of 2009 that the present crisis began in the 1970s, during the Carter administration, with passage of the Community Reinvestment Act to stem bank redlining and liberalize lending in order to extend home ownership in lower-income communities. This risk was acknowledged in the Bush administration’s first fiscal-year budget, released in April 2001. Sadly these warnings were ignored by Congress.

Obama said he would rather be a real good one term president than a mediocre two term one. Of course people who have real good first ones usually get a second one. Obama will be lucky to be as high as mediocre when his first (and only) term ends.

Barack Obama took an axe
And gave the budget 40 whacks
When the libs saw what he’d done
His term in office was just one.

Others:
Pajamas Media
Real Clear Politics (video of Obama opposing spending freeze on four different occasions)

Tags: budget freeze, debate, lie, McCain, Obama

Now We Are Political Terrorists

Aug 7, 2009 Political

First they published a memo calling all people who have conservative values Right Wing Extremists. The chilling report labeled people with single issues like opposition to abortion, as extremists. It was distributed to police agencies so they could be on the look out for us. Though that met stiff opposition and was reportedly quashed, I would not be surprised if those sentiments were still held and we are all being observed under the radar.

Then came the snitch campaign where the Obama White House wants people to report anyone who says something about the health care plan that might be “fishy.” There is an email address that people can forward such things to. This means if you send an email to a friend and it gets passed on to the White House, you will be in a database of opponents. This is reminiscent of the Nazi campaign to snitch on neighbors, particularly to rat out Jews. Is it any wonder that someone would feel compelled to carry a swastika to a protest event. Yes, it appears that two were seen at different events. All the other signs were ignored and the swastika was the focus of attention. I challenged Pelosi to find one and one of her lap dogs did. I am willing to bet there were more of them at one anti Bush rally than have been at all the protests combined. Why would they feign indignation now when they were not bothered then. It is because they are trying to paint all protesters as right wing radicals rather than the diverse group that includes Democrats, liberals, Republicans and conservatives. They want you to believe that only Republicans and conservatives are involved and they are radicals who have, gasp, a swastika. How dare they insult Herr Obama?

Now we have a columnist at the Washington Post chiming in. He has labeled those who are voicing opposition to the plan as political terrorists. Steven Pearlstein says:

The recent attacks by Republican leaders and their ideological fellow-travelers on the effort to reform the health-care system have been so misleading, so disingenuous, that they could only spring from a cynical effort to gain partisan political advantage. By poisoning the political well, they’ve given up any pretense of being the loyal opposition. They’ve become political terrorists, willing to say or do anything to prevent the country from reaching a consensus on one of its most serious domestic problems. [emphasis mine]

So Steven, what were the Democrats and Obamadinejad when they opposed more than a half a dozen bills that would have reformed health care? If they were concerned about this serious domestic problem then why did they all oppose items that would have provided reform without a complete overhaul in order to cover a small percentage who have no insurance?

The claim by Mr. Pearlstein is that Republicans are making claims that this will result in a government takeover of health care and he contends that there is no way to read what has been proposed and conclude that. This is, of course, a matter of opinion. However, the words of Obama saying that he wanted a single payer system and of Barney Frank saying the way to get there was by first passing a government run plan are clear indications of what they want and what they have in mind. The claims that the opposition is being misleading or disingenuous are funny considering that those who are pushing the plan are misleading and disingenuous.

This is another example of someone presenting two options. Obama has said it a number of times. People who oppose this want to keep things they way they are. This straw man argument is designed to make people believe there are only two options. The reality is that many members of Congress have introduced legislation to reform and those items did not involve the complete overhaul of our system. Democrats opposed these because they want to control it all.

There are plenty of options as I have discussed in the past. We can drop the mandates in coverage. States require a number of things to be in a plan before it can be offered. Some companies do not want to put those plans out so only a few are allowed to offer. This means less competition. Insurance should be like a cable plan. There are items that are essential such as catastrophic care, emergency care, dental care, vision care, surgical care and any preventive care that involves more than a routine office visit. Then other items can be offered if the consumer desires them. It makes no sense to force a single male to pay for a plan that includes abortion services or OB/GYN. It is nonsensical to force people who do not drink or do drugs to pay for substance abuse treatment. Some people might like aroma therapy but others see no benefit. Allow those who want it to add it on and pay for it and those who do not to pass on it. Just like cable TV, you have a basic package and you add on the extras that you want. People should also pay for wellness visits. We have car insurance but that does not pay for routine maintenance. Why should people not pay for their routine care?

We should also remove restrictions on buying insurance across state lines. If a person likes a plan offered in another state then he should be able to buy it. Restricting to in state companies stifles competition and drives costs up.

I also think Doctors should be given tax credits for seeing people with no health insurance. I heard Congressman Ron Paul’s son discuss this and I think it is a great idea. Rand Paul is a doctor (Ophthalmologist) and he is running for a Senate seat in Kentucky. He believes that doctors should see those without insurance and receive a tax credit for doing so. This will provide care to those who need it and compensate the doctors providing the care. Of course there will need to be oversight or some will abuse the system but I think it will provide incentive for doctors to see those who truly cannot pay.

These are but a few ideas that would help to reform the system and they would make health care more affordable. People will still have to pay but it will not cost as much. I am sure if they can afford a cell phone, two cars, high speed internet and cable TV with the premium channels they can squeeze in health insurance.

For the absolute destitute among us, we still have government plans that will cover them.

No, I am not a political terrorist for opposing the health care scheme and wanting less government regardless of what any reporter says. I do wonder though, where this guy was when the left was using similar tactics to oppose Bush? Has he called the Code Pink morons who harassed Marines in Berkeley political terrorists?

The First Amendment protects our right to free speech and the right to peaceably assemble. Opposing health care or any other plan in a peaceful fashion is not political terrorism, it is an exercise of our Constitutional rights.

Those who cannot see that or would work to oppose it, are the real political terrorists.

Big Dog salute to Stop the ACLU

Tags: constitution, debate, health care, political terrorist, rand paul, rights, Steven Pearlstein

Al Gore; Silly To Keep Debating It

Mar 8, 2009 Political

Al Gore has led the crusade against the catastrophic event known as Man Made Global Warming. He has a PowerPoint slide show and he goes around talking about all the calamities that will occur if we don’t spend untold (but no doubt huge) sums of money correcting the problem. Gore, who uses more energy in a month than most people use in a year, stands to profit greatly from his scheme. The problem is, selling it.

The way Gore sold it was to get a bunch of scientists who agree with him (many of whom receive government money to do the research) together, ignore the large numbers of those who disagree and then claim the science was settled. The “scientist” Al Gore claimed that the science was settled even though there has been no proof (only evidence) provided by the scientific community that he claims is on board.

Gore was at the WSJ’s Eco:nomics conference in California and he was confronted by a skeptical Danish environmentalist named Bjorn Lomborg who challenged Gore to debate the issue. Gore’s response was typical:

“I want to be polite to you,” Mr. Gore responded. But, no. “The scientific community has gone through this chapter and verse. We have long since passed the time when we should pretend this is a ‘on the one hand, on the other hand’ issue,” he said. “It’s not a matter of theory or conjecture, for goodness sake,” he added. WSJ

First of all I reject the claim that the science is settled. Gore however, feels that it is settled and should not be debated because the experts have said it is so.

Now, let’s go back to the 2000 election which should not be too difficult because my friends on the left live there. They cite Florida as an example of how Republicans steal elections (while ignoring places where they are really stolen by Democrats) and they have always referred to Bush as an illegitimate president. There were a number of recounts after the election and every one showed that George Bush won. The vote count and the election ARE settled but that has not stopped the left from continuing to debate it.

Al Gore refers to himself as a person who was once the next president of the United States.

Perhaps it is time for Al and his minions on the left to pay heed to their own advice. Or to put it in Al’s language:

“I want to be polite to you,” sayeth the Big Dog. But, no [we don't want to debate the 2000 election]. “The media have gone through this chapter and verse and counted and counted. We have long since passed the time when we should pretend this is a ‘on the one hanging chad, on the other hanging chad’ issue,” he sayeth. “It’s not a matter of theory or conjecture, for goodness sake, Al, you lost”

Unlike the 2000 election, global warming is far from settled. However, if liberals are concerned they can participate in my carbon offset plan.

Tags: 2000 election george bush, debate, global warming, gore

What President Is Obama Like?

Mar 5, 2009 Political

We have heard references to Lincoln who I heard is Obama’s favorite president. Obama swore in on Lincoln’s Bible, which was purchased the day of his [Lincoln's] inauguration because he did not have his family Bible. I have heard the comparisons to FDR and given that Obama has spent a trillion dollars to pay off political favors I would say that he is like FDR except he spent a hell of a lot more. I have compared Obama to Carter because he is doing some of the things Carter did that hurt us for a long time. But I think Obama has demonstrated that he is more like Richard Nixon right about now.

Obama is following in Nixon’s footsteps in that he has an enemies list consisting of people in the media. Before some liberal gets his panties in a bunch, it only has to be a list committed to memory, not written down. However, since Obama’s henchmen have been plotting to go after one of these people since the latter part of last year, I think it is safe to say that this is a tactic and not a passing fancy.

The people on the list, so far, are Jim Cramer, Rick Santelli, and Rush Limbaugh. It would seem that every time a personality on radio or TV has something to say about The Evil One, that person is called out by the petty players in the White House.

Limbaugh is on the list because the Democrats think they can make a case that he leads the Republican party and that he wants America to suffer financial ruin. None of this is true and the Democrats are taking him out of context. They think they can get the best of him but he can gin up quite a bit of support for a lot of things.

Limbaugh will make them look like fools when all is said and done. The White House is all bluster and even though nobody messes with Joe and Obama, the metrosexual, talked tough about being ready for a fight nothing could be farther from the truth. Obama plays Chicago politics and would rather have someone cap you in an alley than confront you head on.

Limbaugh has already fired a response salvo. He challenged Obama to a debate at his studio, on his radio program, at a time convenient for Obama. Rush offered to send his private jet for Obama, send a caravan of SUVs to pick him up, put him up in a 5 star hotel and to have that $100 a pound steak Obama likes flown in. Limbaugh said he would foot the bill for it all so that it cost no taxpayer money (except obviously the routine expenses like Secret Service) if Obama would come to debate him.

Limbaugh made a good point when he said that if Obama debates and wins he will have the country to himself. Of course, I doubt Obama could debate Limbaugh in the arena of ideas and even come close to winning. This would be especially true since Limbaugh said just you and me. No advisors, no teleprompters, no note cards, no nothing but the two of them.

There is no way Obama will accept this offer. He knows he has more to lose than to gain. Yes, he would have the country in his hand if he won but if he lost he would be toast. By doing nothing he stays above the fray (well, he does that anyway by having his henchmen do the assaulting) and he does not have to worry.

I think it was a tactical blunder for the Obama folks to directly attack people in the media, especially Rush Limbaugh. When this is all said and done Limbaugh will have made them look foolish as he has done time and again.

Anyway, all the talk about who Obama is like is moot now. With his enemies list he is like Nixon.

Barack Milhous Hussein Obama.

Wonder if he has the place bugged…

Tags: cramer, debate, enemies list, fdr, Limbaugh, lincoln, nixon, Obama, santelli