Big Dogs House

Democrats Wrestle With Court Decision

Jan 25, 2010 Political

This past week the Supreme Court ruled that corporations were allowed to spend as much as they want to support or oppose a political candidate or issue. Corporations are still limited in how much they can donate to a candidate but they are now allowed to spend what they want on things like political ads that favor or oppose a candidate. The issue revolves around free speech and the Court ruled that this was a free speech issue.

Democrats had expected this ruling and are now looking at ways to curb the process. Several ideas are floating around that would involve CEOs being required to get shareholder approval before funding political advertisements and not allowing the costs to be deducted as a business expense on taxes. There is also an idea that would require the CEO to be the voice on the ad approving the message.

Will any of these restrictions apply to the unions? SEIU spent millions of dollars in support of Obama and helped get him elected. The unions spent over half a million dollars trying to get Coakley elected in Massachusetts. The unions, and you can name them from SEIU to the teacher’s unions, spend huge sums of money on Democrats in order to get them elected. There has never been any concern among Democrats with regard to curbing the spending of their supporters. Since they view this ruling as something that will favor Republicans they now want restrictions placed on the process.

I don’t like the idea of any group spending a fortune to get a candidate elected or to push a particular agenda but they have the right to spend their money as they wish. My problem lies in the expected favors that follow. Groups spend money (in favor of or opposed to both political parties) and when all is said and done they expect payback. Democrats have their feathers ruffled now but they have been the recipients of huge sums of money from their supporters who seem to be able to spend as much as they want.

I wonder why the unions don’t have to get the permission of union members before they spend money on a candidate. Perhaps if the unions stopped spending millions and millions of dollars on candidates and issues they would have the money to fulfill the obligations they have to their members. Maybe then they would not have to come to the taxpayer with hat in hand looking for us to pay their way.

We scream about Wall Street paying huge salaries and bonuses and then taking taxpayer money to get right and yet we do not make a sound when the unions spend millions on candidates and then beg us for money to keep their members employed and plush with benefits.

I don’t like all the influence that is bought by any organization spending money on politics but it is their money and they can spend it however they wish. But if the Democrats are going to impose all kinds of rules then those rules need to apply to everyone, including their friends in the unions.

Source:
WSJ

Share on Facebook

Tags: donations, free speech, influence, law, politics, supreme court

How To Abuse Power (Liberal Version)

Sep 24, 2009 Political

In the urge to assume total control of the people and reduce our freedom- loving population to serfdom, while the Bi- coastal “Elites” keep on living their hypocritical lifestyle, complete with their Gulfstream jets, and entourage of SUVs on their way to some red carpet event, the government is seeking to quash any semblance of freedom of speech, because that “freedom” might actually adhere to constitutional law.

In order to cram their bastardized version of “Healthcare” down our throats, Max Baucus and the HHS Secretary Sebelius have throttled the Insurance companies- forbidding them from telling their clients that there will be, under Obama’s plan, drastic cuts in the Medicare Advantage plan, and this might cut some procedures and treatments from their plan- not a good thing if you are a senior.

But somehow, AARP has been granted an exemption- curious, huh? Perhaps it is to buy their support for this betrayal of their members- betrayal is expensive, huh?

“This is American — citizens, either as individuals or grouped together in companies, have a fundamental right – a fundamental right – to talk about legislation they favor or oppose in this country,” Mr. McConnell added. “This is the core of the First Amendment’s protection of speech.”

Mr. McConnell also challenged Democrats to explain how Humana’s advocacy around the health care issue was any different than The Washington Post or The New York Times lobbying Congress in favor of a law shielding reporters from prosecution or contempt of court citations for refusing to disclose confidential sources.

“Using the full weight of the federal government’s enforcement powers to stifle free speech should trouble all Americans and all of us even more,” Mr. McConnell told his Senate colleagues.

prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com

The cat’s out of the bag now- that is, if there are any seniors who still read these leftist rags that pass for news organizations these days- the gag order, it would seem, is moot- but the government keeps on plugging on in auto mode.

“This is so clearly an outrage,” McConnell said on the Senate floor. “For explaining to seniors how legislation might affect them, the federal government has now issued a gag order on that company, and any other company that communicates with clients on the issue, telling them to shut up — or else.

“This is precisely the kind of thing Americans are worried about with the administration’s health care plan. They’re worried that government agencies which were created to enforce violations even-handedly will instead be used against those who voice a different point of view,” he said.

The investigation was first suggested by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, whose committee has jurisdiction over Medicare. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) — which officiates over the Medicare program for seniors and Medicare Advantage options — ordered a “cease and desist” order on all of Humana’s health care mailings until the investigation is concluded.

foxnews.com

Yes, Virginia, Liberals are being punitive to anyone who gets in their way- talk about abuses of power- they really push the envelope, and if they aren’t careful, they will overreach. The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that Corporations are “people” in the eyes of the law, thusly entitled to freedom of speech, which cannot be muzzled by the government. Indeed, these companies have a duty to inform their customers of anything that might adversely affect their relationship with their customers.  And yet, here we are, with the government acting like Chicago union goons. What a pitiful vision they have for our country.

Proposed health reform legislation would sharply reduce funding for Medicare Advantage plans, and the insurance industry has been battling to prevent that from happening. The bill unveiled last week by Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, would directly cut payments to Medicare Advantage plans by an estimated $123 billion over 10 years, and it would indirectly reduce funding for those plans by another $15.6 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The big insurer Humana triggered the HHS crackdown with a letter to Medicare enrollees claiming that health reform proposals could hurt “millions of seniors and disabled individuals” who “could lose many of the important benefits and services that make Medicare Advantage plans so valuable.” The letter was sent in envelopes marked “important information about your Medicare Advantage plan — open today!”

washingtonpost.com

The fascist state is beginning- the gagging shall commence- it doesn’t matter to these dregs of humanity that what they are doing is unconstitutional, they just continue to do this as if there was no such thing to prohibit them, even other parts of the government. The Congressional Budget Office has backed up the assertions of Humana, where they said there would be drastic cuts in the benefits if the Baucus plan passed in the Senate.

Obama has insisted that despite planned cuts to Medicare providers, seniors would not see their benefits reduced under a health care overhaul. But CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf contradicted that Tuesday under questioning by Finance Committee Republicans, saying seniors in the private Medicare Advantage plans could see reduced benefits under Baucus’ legislation. Proposed changes “would reduce the extra benefits that would be made available to beneficiaries through Medicare Advantage plans,” Elmendorf said.

Humana spokesman Jim Turner said Wednesday that the company is cooperating with CMS in its investigation. But, Turner added, “We also believe Medicare Advantage members deserve to know the impact that funding cuts of the magnitude being discussed would have on benefits and premiums.”

A Republican aide told FOXNews.com that the investigation is a clear breach of First Amendment rights and said the Republican leader is asking the CMS to provide legal justification for its investigation. The aide said CMS’s investigation follows a pattern of intimidation put forth by the administration for any kind of dissent in the health care debate.

foxnews.com

Yes, it is true- they are clearly ignoring the Constitution, and indeed have been for some time, in several key areas- our freedoms have been and are continuing to be curtailed- this Medicare Advantage dustup is just the latest manifestation of their contempt for the Constitution and their equal contempt for the people they are supposed to govern.

This struggle here is all about power, nothing else- it is about the direction of our country, and the treatment of our citizens. The Liberal Progressives really do not care about our citizens, this is becoming plain to see, as they increasingly tighten their grip, and figure they do not have to act like they care anymore.

Take a real good look at our future with these POSs- is this the change you envisioned? Less of everything? Less opportunity, less money, less healthcare? Because this is the truth here- there is only so much butter for the bread here- instead of getting more butter, they just want to spread it thinner and thinner, until there is just the scent of butter, and little else. That is the “Progressive” way.

Oh, the “elites” will still have plenty of butter- they will justify that their having the butter is “essential” to running the government well- and the Hollywood types will justify their butter because they entertain, and well, they are just so damn handsome that they should have the butter.

Not so much for us- we have to get used to less.

Somehow, this doesn’t seem right to me.

Share on Facebook

Tags: free speech, hypocrisy, lies, medicare advantage, Obama

Mark Lloyd And The Racist Agenda

Sep 23, 2009 Political

Finally there is a “beginning”, or genesis of a conversation about Mark Lloyd and his racist rants and beliefs. Much like Van Jones, his comments are finally beginning to catch up to this fascist thug who has now become our newest unvetted “Diversity” Czar. Here is a man who believes that “White people” have a disproportionate share of the airwaves, especially when it comes to “Conservative” talk radio. One of the ways he would address this would be to “charge” stations 100% of their Gross Revenue as their licensing fee- in other words, they would have to be willing to work for nothing in order to continue to work at all.

And that is not all- he would then give this money that he extorted from the talk radio stations to “liberal”, or minority” stations, so they could operate without having to make a profit. Mr. Nice Guy, Huh? Finally at least one paper has decided to write some of this warped little man’s comments down, and it is a good thing, because if Mr. Lloyd has his way, every part of the media will be subject to his heavy hand, much like Venezuela which he admires for their censorship of their media. 

President Obama’s diversity czar at the Federal Communications Commission has spoken publicly of getting white media executives to “step down” in favor of minorities, prescribed policies to make liberal talk radio more successful, and described Hugo Chavez’s rise to power in Venezuela “an incredible revolution.”

Mark Lloyd’s provocative comments – most made during a tenure at the liberal Center for American Progress think tank – are giving fodder to critics who say Mr. Obama has appointed too many “czars” to government positions that don’t require congressional approval. They are also worrying to some conservatives who fear the FCC might use its powers to remove their competitive advantage on talk radio and television.

Many of the remarks have been unearthed by conservative-leaning writers and bloggers and discussed on cable television amid a broader critique of Mr. Obama’s penchant for czars that exploded with the ouster this month of “green jobs czar” Van Jones.

In one of his more eye-opening comments, Mr. Lloyd praised Mr. Chavez during a June 2008 conference on media reform, saying the authoritarian Venezuelan president had led “really an incredible revolution – a democratic revolution.”

washingtontimes.com

Oh yeah, Marky baby loves him some Hugo- but he is wrong in describing the Chavez regime as “democratic”, but then he probably didn’t spend much time with dictionaries and definitions- being too busy thinking of warped scenarios to try out on the American public. Sometimes you have to wonder where these whackos come from- and then you get the sinking feeling in your stomach when you find out they came from teaching our children this perverted crap.

At another conference, Mr. Lloyd spoke about the need to remove white people from powerful positions in the media to give minorities a fairer chance.
“There’s nothing more difficult than this because we have really truly, good, white people in important positions, and the fact of the matter is that there are a limited number of those positions,” he said.

“And unless we are conscious of the need to have more people of color, gays, other people in those positions, we will not change the problem. But we’re in a position where you have to say who is going to step down so someone else can have power.”

He added: “There are few things, I think, more frightening in the American mind than dark-skinned black men. Here I am.”

washingtontimes.com

Oooohhh- scary- I’ll remember to trot out my Mark Lloyd scarecrow for Halloween this year, if I can remember just where I put it- oh well- scaring children is not uppermost on my mind now. Mr. Lloyd scaring people because of his warped views of the Constitution is.

Apparently, Marky baby just can’t understand market forces, and the capitalist system- if liberal talk radio had an audience, it would succeed, plain and simple- and people who wanted to make money, whatever their color might be, would invest in liberal talk radio. But in truth, we might as well be talking unicorns here- Liberal talk radio is just not interesting- have you heard NPR? It puts die- hard progressives to sleep faster than Ambien.

“At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies,” Mr. Lloyd wrote. “The purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance.”

washingtontimes.com

Free speech or freedom of the press is a “distraction”? The purpose of free speech is “warped”? I don’t think so, Mr. Lloyd- it is your perception of these freedoms that is skewed, biased, and warped beyond belief- and lend credence to the inherent “wrongness” of having unvetted people in positions of policy formation. In short, Mr. Lloyd, you are a nutjob whacko, and I am being polite here.

Seton Motley, communications director for the conservative-leaning Media Research Center and contributing editor to Newsbusters.org who has written critically about Mr. Lloyd on several occasions, said Mr. Lloyd appeared Tuesday at a meeting held by the FCC’s advisory committee on diversity that discussed the need to increase lending and licensing to minority-owned media outlets.

“They say he’s not involved in licensing and he’s involved in researching diversity,” Mr. Motley told the Washington Times, “but he sat in a meeting where licensing is very much part of the deal.”

A meeting agenda posted by the advisory committee says that “national broadband plans recommendations” also were discussed.

washingtontimes.com

Finally, we are at last getting some media to sit up and pay attention to this thug- when you combine him with Cass Sunstein, the Regulatory Czar, who also believes that free speech is over rated, you have a possible scenario where today it is the conservatives who are silenced, but tomorrow it might be the liberals who are legislatively gagged.

Because one thing is for certain, and Liberals should take this to heart- 

What goes around, comes around.

Share on Facebook

Tags: diversity, free press, free speech, hypocrisy, Mark Lloyd

Is Wimpy Banned, Too?

Aug 26, 2009 Political

Liberals and “progressives”, are trying to co-opt the language so as not to give offense to anyone, including terrorists, I mean “extra-territorial fighters”. No more War on Terror, just the weakly titled “Overseas Contingency Operations”. Talk about mealy- mouthed, wishy- washy, weak- kneed  questionably appropriate responses to what is happening- these people are actually afraid that words hurt in a physical way. 

So, just to make sure that they do not offend someone, they are going into our children’s textbooks, so they can brain wash indoctrinate educate our precious little small pre- teen, adolescent children. First up is the term that has been around for as long as we have had a country, Founding Fathers.  Nope, can’t have that- it has something that indicates a male presence, and that can’t be tolerated, especially from the feminists pit bulls assertive females- Founding persons, indicating an amorphous vague “person”, is Okay.

Chairman is out also- “Chair-Person” is in. Congressman is taboo- “member of Congress” is the term to use. Even the Geico Caveman has that dreaded three letter word- man, so out it goes, and “cave person” enters the lexicon of mushy, weak, cowardly words that liberals are afraid to use.

But this extends to other words- words that you might not think were objectionable. Words like “Able- bodied”- now, you might say, not that- there could be nothing objectionable to that, but apparently there are a LOT of liberals who are not able bodied, as physically able, which might explain why evidently words DO hurt them, apparently A LOT, because they are so busy feeling the emotional impact of these words, and trying, I mean actively TRYING to find words that might, in some bizarro world of their delusional paranoia justifiable worry hurt them. Liberals apparently, wear their nerves on the outside of their body. Can I say that? OK? For now?

The problem, is that these wimps deluded people A$$hats  gentle people think that they should purge delete, gently lift these “objectionable” words from our children’s textbooks. They actually have the gall hubris arrogance right in their minds to do this, but it’s politically correct speech gone wrong on steroids, and will lead to less comprehension than if you had just plain speech that conveyed the gist of the idea concisely.

Now the Socialists Communists Progressives Liberals who ever in the hell they want to call themselves today want to dance around the meanings of words, and that creates a “Tower of Babel” effect, where you end up not quite sure of what someone means, and that gives the speaker “wiggle room” to vacillate like Bill Clinton did with his “Depends on what the definition of “is” is”- what arrogant BS. 

What is wrong with the word “teenagers”? Now people want to use “adolescents” exclusively to describe teens. I, however, see no need to change my speech to suit someone’s very tender feelings. These people need to develop a thicker skin.

In everyday talk, black mark is now verboten, presumably because someone might object to the word “black”- likewise, indian, (excepting Indian cuisine) or any word that even one person finds objectionable. This is so ridiculous that I hardly have the words to describe this phenomenon.

I am sure “niggardly” is on the list, as is “picayune“- even though those words do not mean anything insidious, or derogatory, except as describing someone’s behavior. I guess that is enough in these wimpy times to earn a strike from the wordsmiths on the left.

They need to be careful, however, or soon they will have abandoned or deleted almost all words, except, as I have found out, apparently wingnut and moron are still fair game for them. 

Probably not for us on the right.

I guess we are handicapped verbally constricted in the words we can use.

And that’s a pity- we know how to speak plainly.

Share on Facebook

Tags: free speech, politicall correct, textbooks

HOA Wants Vet To Remove Decals From Vehicle

May 29, 2009 Political

A Homeowner’s Association in Dallas wants a Marine veteran to remove the Marine Corps stickers from his vehicle. They claim the stickers are advertisements and therefore violate the Association by-laws.

This is a ridiculous claim. The stickers are signs of pride in his service, a service that resulted in injury. He fought for the right to display the stickers and they should be allowed just as any political sticker should. I wonder if Obama bumper stickers have to come off because they are advertisements for The Won?

Fortunately for Marine Frank Larison, many of his neighbors are on his side.

Source:
My Fox Houston

Share on Facebook

Tags: dallas, free speech, homeowner's association, marine, sticker