Big Dogs House

Our Founders Did Not Give Us This Government

Jan 11, 2012 Political

First the rogue government passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which includes a provision that allows the government to arrest anyone (including citizens) and detain them indefinitely for any acts the government deems support terrorism. It is well documented that language was introduced that would clearly exclude citizens and that it was voted down.

The language is ambiguous so they will be able to do what they want and will be able to defend their acts using the cover of an illegal law.

But just in case, there is a bill, HR 3166, that would strip US nationals of their citizenship for acts of hostility against the United States. Yes, if the population decides to take the same action against the government that our Founders took then the government would strip those involved of their citizenship. That would certainly make it easier for them to detain us under the NDAA.

Enemy Expatriation Act – Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to include engaging in or purposefully and materially supporting hostilities against the United States to the list of acts for which U.S. nationals would lose their nationality. Defines “hostilities” as any conflict subject to the laws of war. [author note: they can decide what constitutes acts that are subject to the laws of war] Summary

Perhaps the people in Congress are worried because they have long ago passed the kind of tyranny from which this country fought to escape. They might have an inkling that the country is a powder keg and at anytime the collective last nerve will be plucked.

We conduct our revolutions at the ballot box in this day and age but that does not mean the people do not reserve the right to disband the bonds that tie them to government should that government fail to serve those people.

This bill is designed to allow our government one more tool to usurp the authority granted under the Constitution and to drive another nail in the coffin holding our freedom.

Dissent is patriotic and it is even more patriotic to fight peacefully or otherwise to keep our freedoms and I will be damned if any government official will ever remove my citizenship because I defended the Constitution against any enemy foreign or domestic.

The government is moving toward total control. How long will it be before we are approached with the words, “papers please”?

Oh wait, we already get that when we travel, unless we are illegals and then we are left alone (or given government welfare).

They have us under surveillance, they can detain us indefinitely without due process and now they want to strip our citizenship if we ever defend ourselves against their tyranny.

It would serve them well to remember these timeless words:

“When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.” Read the rest of the US Declaration of Independence

Big Dog salute to Addicting Info

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Tags: freedom, hr 3166, independence, tyranny

Obama And Congress Shred The Bill Of Rights

Jan 3, 2012 Political

The United States Congress and Barack Obama have codified what the Nazis did in World War II. They have taken the reprehensible act of rounding up free citizens and locking them away without the benefit of a trial and sanctioned it by passing a law that says it is OK.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for this year took the drastic steps of basically designating the US a battlefield and then allowing people (citizens and non citizens alike) to be taken into custody by the military, detained who knows where and kept as long as the government deems necessary.

Make no mistake, the provisions apply to US citizens the caveat is that the military is not required to take citizens into custody. They have permission to but are not required to. There is no absolutely clear language that forbids US citizens from being apprehended and held without trial and in violation of the rights enumerated in our Constitution. Senator Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat from California, introduced an amendment that would clearly forbid US citizens from being affected by this. It was soundly defeated so you know it applies to citizens.

This was passed by Republicans and Democrats alike and signed into law by Barack Obama. History will show that he was the one who signed a bill into law that shredded the Bill of Rights and turned America into the kind of country that led to the atrocities of Nazi German.

This is no right vs left issue. This issue involves all Americans and the attack on us is coming from both sides of the aisle. Republicans and Democrats worked together to do this to us and it matters little that the man who signed it into law is a Democrat. It would have been just as egregious if it had been done by George Bush (though I can’t help but wonder how many Democrats who remain silent would be screaming bloody murder had it been he) or any other Republican. This is an assault waged by the entire government on the citizens of the country.

The issue has hit a hot button among people from all political beliefs. Salon has an excellent article showing how this applies to US citizens and why it is bad. The ACLU is against this law (though I disagree with their position that it is illegal to hold anyone indefinitely regardless of their legal status) and US Representative Justin Amash has written in length about it. Natural News busts the myth about this not applying to citizens and the points made align with those of the other linked articles.

This Republic is in serious trouble and it is getting worse as those in office continue to clamp down on us and our freedom. We will not take this lying down but how many people will have to whisked away before the general population starts to pay attention? How long do we allow the people in office to have their way with us before we do something about it?

This coming November is a huge election and it is up to us to have a peaceful revolution at the ballot box. VOTE OUT EVERY PERSON WHO VOTED FOR THIS.

And that includes the man who signed it into law. Yes, I know he used a signing statement to express his concerns but signing statements are no more valid when he uses them than when Bush or anyone else used them. They do not bind anyone and have no weight should the issue be challenged. A president can do one of three things when presented with a bill. Using a signing statement is not one of the three. They do not bind future presidents and they do not bind the one who made the original statement. Obama could decide he would rather follow the law as written at any time and his signing statement would mean nothing. Like Executive Orders against abortion…

We have a chance to right the ship by getting rid of all these people and the first step is in the peaceful election process. Should that not work and should they start locking up Americans in violation of the Constitution, well it won’t be a good time in American history. Let’s just leave it at that.

Remember, the argument that if you did not do anything wrong you had nothing to worry about did not fly when the Patriot Act was being debated and it should not fly now.

Keep silent at your own peril but remember, First they came…

See also

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Tags: Bill of Rights, freedom, laws, lies, nazi, ndaa, revolution, socialism, Stop the ACLU, tyranny

Two Steps Forward, Four Back…

Apr 10, 2011 Political

The federal government is patting itself on the back for the so called largest budget cuts in history and while Barack Obama is taking credit for the deal, the deal is not worth mentioning. Te Republicans were looking for 61 billion dollars in cuts and they got 38 billion. Democrats were looking for much less and were unwilling to waiver on cuts to the murder factory known as Planned Parenthood. While the government was busy haggling over a few billion dollars and ultimately cutting 38 billion, the debt jumped 54 billion dollars.

That is right, the entire deal was wiped out and 16 billion more in debt was added to the mix while they were busy debating the issue.

We absolutely need the largest cuts in history and they need to be a hell of a lot more than 38 billion or even 61 billion. Had republicans been successful in getting 61 billion they would have a net gain of 7 billion. This is no way to run a budget.

No entity can run deficits forever without failing and governments are no different. Our Founders realized this and preached the virtue of paying off the bills. They ran deficits but made paying them off a priority.

Now, of course, it is different. Our government is hell bent on providing everything to everyone and it has succeeded in creating a class of people who rely entirely on government to exist. These people cost us more and more because they contribute little or nothing to the equation. This is not the America our Founders envisioned.

People need to go out and work. They need to be productive members of society and realize that if they produce they will live better lives than by sitting around waiting for the government to deliver a check once a month.

Our government needs to recognize its limits, the limits placed on it by our Constitution, and it needs to live within those limits. That means providing the services for which we the people chartered it and nothing more.

Then, and only then, can we start to realize the prosperity our Founders dreamed of when they gave us the gift of freedom.

While freedom isn’t free, enslavement to the government costs a lot more than can be imagined in money, honor and dignity.

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Tags: budget, follies, freedom, lies, no deal, Obama

Have We No Freedom?

Mar 11, 2011 Political

A law is being considered that would require that alcohol detection devices be installed on cars to keep people from driving while intoxicated. The interlock devices must be blown into and an alcohol level below a determined limit (the article states 0.03) must register before the vehicle will start. The devices are designed to require the driver to blow at intervals to ensure that a sober person did not initiate the original air that allowed the vehicle to start. If a person is over the limit six times the car will no longer start.

Interlock devices are sometimes court ordered for DWI offenders as a condition of keeping their licenses.

Installing these devices on all vehicles is a bad idea. The nanny state is now trying to force all drivers to prove they are not over the limit before starting a car. This would be another loss of freedom in this country. Forcing the millions of people who do not drive while intoxicated to do this because a relatively small number of people drive drunk is ridiculous and another infringement into our lives. Since the records can be downloaded it is another way for Big Brother to see what you have been up to. I can imagine a future where the records are pulled each time a person goes to renew a driver’s license and that person being denied because they tried to drive after a few too many.

I have no problem with people who have DWIs being required to have one of these on their cars. That would be a condition of their being allowed to continue to drive. They drove drunk and they have to pay the price but why does everyone have to pay the price with preemptive breathalyzer tests before they can operate a vehicle?

These things are not easy to operate and it takes time to get use to them and even then it is time consuming. Suppose some woman is getting into her car late in the evening and she notices a group of nasty looking men heading her way. On any given day she could lock the doors, start the car and leave. If she is delayed because of the device or the device does not work then she will be at the mercy of potential attackers.

Who will be responsible for that?

I am tired of the nanny state. We have laws against driving while intoxicated and we have police officers to look for those who do so. We do not need to infringe on the rest of the driving public to make some do gooder feel good about himself.

We do not need to be told what to do and we do not need to be monitored in all aspects of our lives.

Most of us are smart enough to do the right thing.

And we have laws to take care of those who are not.

But Big Dog, what if this would have saved a family from being killed by a drunk driver. That will be little consolation to the family killed because a person was busy reblowing while driving so the machine could ensure a drunk was not behind the wheel.

And how often are people killed or injured by drunk drivers? The number is small compared to the number of non impaired accidents and other ways people die.

Stay out of our lives you nanny state morons.

As for me, I will rebuild my vehicle from the ground up before I buy a new car that must have one of these and I don’t even drink.

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Tags: freedom, interlock, law, nanny state

Economic Freedom?

Mar 1, 2011 Political

I’ve heard people claim that America is the “land of the free.” I’ve even heard them say, “At least we have economic freedom.” Well, not really. Certainly not according to Bronx City Councilman James Vacca. You see, Mr. Vacca says:

They’re obligated to be in sync with surrounding gasoline prices in the immediate community.

In other words, you, as a person who invests your time and money in a business; a person who takes the risk with your capital and resources; you who can buy things that people want; have no right to determine how much money you will make. Your profits are, according to Mr. Vacca, supposed to be exactly what Mr. Vacca says that they should be, and not one dime more. Because, of course, if everyone else raises their prices with you, then you would be guilty of collusion.

Mr. Vacca hates freedom, plain and simple. The fact that there are other gas stations just blocks away with lower prices, instead of satisfying Mr. Vacca, infuriates him. Mr. Vacca gets to decide what everyone should pay for gas, and he doesn’t give a damn how much it costs the gas station owner to obtain that gas. So according to Mr. Vacca, you are not free to buy and sell things in America — at least not without getting his personal permission and approval of your profit margin.

Oh, and keep in mind — as the gas prices rise and people start again complaining about the “obscene profits” made on gas — the entity that makes the MOST “profit,” by far, on each gallon of gas sold is the government. The average gas station in America earns 2.7 cents per gallon of gas sold. On average, the government makes 45.9 cents per gallon sold.

Tags: economics 101, freedom