May 15, 2013 Political
Liberals who want more gun control will tell you they support the Second Amendment. They will tell you that nothing they are doing will interfere with people and their right to keep and bear arms. This is a lie because the things they enact infringe. Maryland is a prime example where the Nazi Governor and his minions have imposed unconstitutional gun laws that restrict law abiding people. The tragedy is that these gun laws will do no good which will lead to calls for even more gun control.
Liberal logic (if you can call what liberals use logic) demands supporting the Second Amendment.
In light of this week’s revelation that the Department of Justice has obtained phone records from the AP the media is up in arms and there will be backlash. The first thing to note is that what Justice did might not be illegal under the law.
But what they did is much larger in scope than anything that has happened before and though the reason given is to find the source of a leak the reality is it gives the appearance that the First Amendment right of the media has been violated. It looks like Justice is trying to intimidate the media (in this case specifically the AP but indirectly all media) and is sending a message that it will go through huge amounts of records to get what it wants.
The media are out discussing how this took place and expressing their outrage while those at the AP have expressed anger, shock and disbelief. They feel their communications are being monitored and that their rights have been violated.
They have the support of conservatives who are also wary of these kinds of government tactics. In other words, conservatives support these organizations in their belief that even if it is legal to do (and that is a questionable thing right now) the idea of trampling on a right is sickening.
I only wish the media and other liberals outraged by the AP records scandal felt the same way about other rights. When other rights are violated, particularly if the violations affect conservatives, the liberals say it is OK and justified. Look at how the former head of the NAACP and others have reacted to the IRS violations of the rights of conservative groups. They have said that it is OK because those groups are racist. First of all, they are not racist BUT even if they were they have the same rights as everyone else.
Racist groups like the KKK, the Nation of Islam and the Black Panthers all have rights and those rights should not be violated just because we do not agree with the message.
Once we start rationalizing the violation of our rights it becomes easier to rationalize other violations until pretty soon we have no rights left.
The left loves to push gun control even though most gun control laws violate the Second Amendment. They rationalize that it is for safety or for the children or that no one needs certain types of firearms. This allows them to continue eroding our Second Amendment right until the judiciary is comfortable removing those rights based on what we have allowed to creep in.
I wish that these liberals would be as outraged by the violation of the Second Amendment as they are at the alleged violation of the First. We on the right support ALL rights and do not like when any of them are violated. It is high time the left jumped in and supported us the way we are supporting them.
Perhaps they now know how those of us who believe in and support the Second Amendment feel each and every day as we battle the forces of evil that are hell bent on denying us that which has been endowed by our Creator. Perhaps, but I won’t hold my breath.
So the AP scandal shows that liberals, if they actually had any integrity, would fight for the Second Amendment (and all other rights) as hard as the one that affects them the most.
Interestingly, the Gosnell abortion/murder case gave Harry Reid the chance to show why there should be less gun control instead of more.
Dr. Kermit Gosnell was an abortion doctor who murdered babies born alive and performed late term abortions in violation of Pennsylvania law. He was found guilty of murder and a number of other charges and will spend the rest of his life in jail.
Harry Reid wants us to believe that pro life supporters have forced women to go to clinics like the one run by Gosnell. He says that people have been pushed into holes like that clinic because of people who picket abortion clinics. Reid also blamed this all on restrictive laws.
He believes that having less restrictive abortion laws would have prevented the murders Gosnell committed.
Interestingly, Reid and his ilk are the ones who think that MORE restrictive laws will curb gun violence. Yes, to Reid and other gun grabbers more restrictive laws will stop gun crimes but less restrictive laws will end the crimes like those committed by Gosnell.
If we were to apply Reid’s logic to gun ownership (and publicly carrying them), then we can conclude that less restrictive laws will prevent more gun crimes. In fact, this has actually been proven time and again.
Reid is incorrect about Gosnell. We do not need less restrictive laws for abortion. The crimes committed by Gosnell had nothing to do with laws being too restrictive. They had to do with this; First Gosnell is a monster. Second, Gosnell performed late term abortions (after the time PA says they can be performed) so women who waited too long or did not know went to him because he would do it. They went to him because he would skirt the law.
His clinic was not filthy because of laws that are too restrictive and he did not have all those aborted kids in containers because the law was too tough.
His clinic was in that condition and he was doing what he was doing because it was not inspected by the government agency responsible for ensuring medical businesses are clean and operate according to established law (and medical standards). The Health Department (or whichever agency PA has given the task) did not make unannounced visits to ensure his clinic was clean and up to standard. Less restrictive regulations would not correct this and it did not happen because people protest abortion clinics. It happened because the laws in place were not followed; the laws requiring health inspections as well as the laws regarding late term abortions. Any inspection at any time would have caught these problems early on.
Keep in mind; they were only brought to light because a woman died at his clinic because of his negligence.
Harry Reid is wrong because his root cause analysis is wrong. He is right that less restrictive laws would lead to fewer problems if this were applied to gun control because that has been shown time and again. Criminals do not obey the law.
Gosnell got away with his crimes because the state did not enforce the law (which, by the way, is why many gun crimes happen).
So the media is now positioned to defend rights. Good, defend them all and apply the same standard to the Second Amendment as to the First.
Harry Reid is now on record saying less restrictive laws would lead to fewer problems. Good, beat him and the other anti gun zealots over their heads with Reid’s words. Make them apply the same standard he wants to apply to abortion. He might be wrong about why they happened but there is no doubt he believes fewer laws would mean fewer problems.
It is ironic how all of this has come to light at this time.
I think it is quite possible that these items (including the IRS scandal) were made public (and Reid commented on Gosnell) because they want to draw focus away from Benghazi.
I have read a lot of liberal sites where they are calling the AP scandal the only real scandal of the Obama regime. If the left can get the public to believe the AP phone records scheme is the only scandal and then later show Justice acted legally then the other scandals (which are REAL scandals) will be swept away.
I do not put anything past these criminals but we should use their words and deeds to our advantage. Who knows, maybe we can change their minds and get them to see where they have been wrong. We might be able to make them leave the liberal plantation.
Hell, a few pro abortion folks have changed their views after the horror of Gosnell.
Never surrender, never submit.
May 2, 2013 Political
Nancy Pelosi said we had to pass it to see what was in it and Obama promised it would not add costs (I think he said it would bend the cost curve down) to the budget. Looks like Pelosi was right because we have been finding all kinds of bad things that no one knew about now that the monstrosity has been passed.
Obama was wrong when he said it would not increase costs. It is more likely he lied in order to create a new crisis that must be solved with more money because that is how progressives work. They create a problem, come up with a solution and when that solution causes more problems they develop solutions to the newly created problem. Those solutions involve more money and bigger government (and more problems). It is a never ending cycle.
Democrats are blaming Republicans for everything under the sun (even though the Democrats caused the problems) in hopes of retaking the House in 2014. But secretly Democrats are worried they might lose the Senate, in part, because of Obamacare.
The Democrats are vulnerable in 2014 because Senate seats in red states are up for reelection and many red state citizens are not happy with Obamacare. The costs continue to rise and every day a new item is found that people do not like.
Max Baucus (D- MT) has stated that Obamacare will be a train wreck if it is not implemented properly (and all indications are that it is not) and he has seen the writing on the wall. He has decided he will not run for reelection and the thinking is that his seat will turn Republican. Many other Democrats face similar circumstances and will be in trouble.
Republicans will hang Obamacare around their necks (remember, not one Republican voted for it).
Harry Reid has recently concluded that Baucus is correct and is saying that more money is needed to properly implement Obamacare. So there you have it, the monstrosity that is Obamacare needs MORE of our tax dollars in order to be implemented. The bill was touted as costing fewer than a trillion dollars (900 billion) but many people who looked at it stated it would end up costing in the neighborhood of 2.5 TRILLION dollars. Looks like we are approaching that level.
So much for bending that cost curve down.
Obama was wrong, or he lied. Either way we are stuck with paying more for a law that will not do what it claimed. It will not save us money, it still leaves millions uninsured, people can’t keep their doctors, there will be death panels, and illegals will be covered by the law.
Yes, it is a progressive monstrosity. Like Social Security, it is a progressive plan designed to enslave people to government and will end up costing more than claimed (by design).
It is good that Democrats could lose the Senate but that will only solve one problem. It will keep Obama in check for his last two years (but it will give him another entity to blame) but having Republicans in charge is no solution to our problems either. We have had that and we ended up with problems.
We need to have a complete overturn of Congress. The Senate can’t happen all at once because of the way they are voted on. We can solve part of the problem by repealing the Seventeenth Amendment and go back to how our founders wanted Senators installed, by appointment from the states (not the people). That will take a while and is not likely to happen at all given the Amendment process.
However, WE can vote them out every two years until we turn the upper chamber over.
We can also get rid of EVERY member of the House in one fell swoop.
All it takes is for the people to take back the country.
We can do it but we need to put country above party and ensure we hold ALL politicians accountable. Remember, they think they are better than you. As they discuss more money for Obamacare they are working on ways to exempt themselves and their staff members.
The country needs an enema to flush the toilet floaters out of DC.
Never surrender, never submit.
Aug 10, 2012 Political
Harry Reid has made the claim that Mitt Romney did not pay taxes for the past ten years. This is a matter of public record even though Obama followers will tell you that Reid only said he was told that Romney paid no taxes. Reid though, went on the Senate floor and said it was known that Romney paid no taxes. Reid made this allegation and then said it was up to Romney to prove otherwise by releasing his tax returns.
Though it does not surprise me that a Democrat would lie I am amazed that a guy like Reid would make such accusations considering that Reid was not wealthy when he entered the Senate and is now worth millions of dollars. Reid has been involved in shady real estate deals and involved in legislative actions that were designed solely to enrich HIM. Harry Reid will tell you he has released his financial disclosure forms but he has not released his taxes. I would like to see those for the time he has been in the Senate so we can see exactly how he got rich. I believe he got rich by breaking the law and it is up to him to prove otherwise.
Now Barack Obama has an ad out that implies Romney paid no taxes. This is an act of desperation. The Obama regime has no dirt on Romney and there are no divorce records or criminal records for him to have his cronies unseal. Romney is pretty clean when it comes to those things so the Obama regime must get into Romney’s tax records so it can manufacture a myth about Romney not paying taxes.
Romney has paid more in taxes than most of these people have earned in their lives but this will matter not to the Obama throng.
I have never seen Romney’s tax returns but he has released those for the last two years. We can only imagine that all his others are like these. They have complicated dealings with all kinds of calculations and additions and deductions for more transactions that most of us will ever deal with in our lives. They are very complicated and it would be quite easy to manipulate the numbers to give the impression that Romney did something wrong. This is what the left wants to do.
As an aside, I looked at Barack Obama’s tax returns and they are quite complicated as well. He has income from his book deals and he had money he transferred to his children as gifts. These gifts were then written off his taxes. How would the left feel if people went through those tax forms and said Obama gave those gifts to reduce his tax burden (he is rich so why did he do it)? Keep in mind that anyone could go through Obama’s complicated taxes and make things appear bad just as they could do for Romney.
Romney’s tax returns, like those of Obama and countless other wealthy people, are complicated and those who dig deep enough can find things that could be spun to appear questionable.
But there is absolutely one thing that cannot be found in Romney’s tax returns and that is:
Nowhere in Romney’s tax returns will anyone find the reason that Obama has performed so terribly over the last four years.
That’s right. The reason Obama has done a terrible job is not in Romney’s tax returns.
The only thing that the left will find is another set of distractions to keep people from focusing on how bad Obama has done and how terrible our economy is.
Quit looking at the shiny stuff and pay closer attention to what is going on.
Never surrender, never submit.
Aug 6, 2012 Political
Harry Reid told a whopper of a lie last week when he claimed that he received a call saying that Mitt Romney has not paid taxes for the past decade or so. It just so happens that the Obama campaign can’t find any dirt on Romney like it has in all of Obama’s other campaigns so it is inventing some. The Democrats want to get hold of Romney’s complicated tax returns and pour through them to find some obscure thing most folks don’t understand and then portray it as Romney avoiding taxes.
Romney is having none of it and he shouldn’t. If Romney had not paid taxes in the last decade the IRS would have gone after him. You can also bet that Reid is lying because if Romney had not paid taxes the Obama White House would have leaked his tax returns.
The cretin Reid took to the Senate floor to say that Romney had not paid taxes. Reid knows that the only way to prove he is wrong is for Romney to release the returns. This is the plan. The ends justify the means and the end for Democrats is to get those returns so they can invent some issue with them.
Reid is an idiot and should be removed from office. Once Romney wins the presidency he should release his returns, show he paid taxes and sue Reid for defamation.
How can Harry Reid even question Romney? Reid is the cretin who was involved with the mob in regards to gaming in Nevada. Reid is the one who made illegal land deals and became quite wealthy doing so. And Reid has ensured that his family was taken care of by using his position.
The latest example is Harry Reid pushing for green energy from a China firm that he played a part in getting into Nevada. Why did Reid do this? Because his son represents the Chinese company.
Harry Reid is using his position to help his son and this is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Reid’s ethical challenges. Reid lacks integrity and is a criminal, period. Hey Harry, you have been hit in the head too many times and your brain has turned to mush.
It is amazing to me that Obama and his Democrats want Romney to release tax returns when Obama’s vital records are locked up tighter than a gnat’s behind.
Some folks are calling Harry Reid a liar. That is absolutely true. He did not receive some mysterious call and he did not get some inside information about Romney. Reid made it all up.
In addition to being a liar Reid is a criminal who is using his office to enrich himself and his family. His ties to the criminals in organized labor ensured his reelection and his ties to shady people made him very rich.
If anyone in the Senate has testicular fortitude they would challenge Reid and demand an investigation into the lie he perpetrated while speaking to that body.
Then again, the best rebuke of Reid would be to relegate him to minority status in the Senate.
Never surrender, never submit.
Jan 4, 2012 Political
Barack Obama took an unprecedented step today by making the appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Why is this unprecedented? Because the Senate is still in session. The Senate is the body that advises and consents to Presidential appointments and presidents are only allowed to make an appointment when the Senate is in recess and unable to take up the process.
The Senate is in pro forma session. They meet every three days so they are still in session. It is obvious that this is being done to prevent recess appointments and it is not something new. Harry Reid did the exact same thing to prevent George Bush from making recess appointments.
Of course, Reid supports what Obama did because he now views the process as obstructive. Got that? When Democrats do it then it is good but when Republicans do it then it is obstructive.
The morons at the Daily Kos are happy with Obama and support the move. Imagine how they (and Harry Reid) would have reacted had Bush appointed someone during the pro forma sessions held by Democrats. We don’t need to imagine. We know they would have lost their minds and called Bush King George and a dictator. But when messiah Obama does it then it is fine and dandy.
It was reported just yesterday that Obama would not make any appointments during this recess (that is not a recess) but he evidently was persuaded by his handlers to do this.
Obama has engaged in a power grab in order to hurt the country. Obama himself said he did this because Congress refuses to do the things that will hurt the nation:
“I refuse to take ‘No’ for an answer. I’ve said before that I will continue to look for every opportunity to work with Congress to move this country forward. But when Congress refuses to act in a way that hurts our economy and puts people at risk, I have an obligation as president to do what I can without them.” [emphasis mine] USA Today
Obama makes two admissions here. The first is that Cordray will hurt the economy and people and the second is that if Congress refuses to hurt the economy and the people then it is up to Obama to do so.
Obama has been doing things that circumvent Congress since he took office. He continually claims that he wants to work with Congress but if the Congress does not do what he wants then he will look for other ways. This is not how the country works. Our government is supposed to be one of checks and balances and the Constitution spells out how things are done.
Obama has rejected the checks and balances and the Constitution in order to push his agenda. This is the mark of a dictator and Obama has left no doubt that he fits that bill.
He sees himself and his position as being above the rules and the process.
He sees himself above following the Constitution.
And he will end up getting lots of pushback from Congress. This matter will end up in court, it will end up being an issue in the campaign and it will end up biting him in his rear.
The Republicans in Congress need to refuse to do anything for this man from now on. Do not debate legislation, do not take up what he wants, and do not do any of it at all. Tell him that he gets NOTHING.
King Barack Hussein needs a swift kick in his donkey.
And to the liberals, if you think this is OK then you all need to remember that a Democrat will not always occupy the White House. If this stands then a precedent has been set and a Republican president can appoint anyone during any pro forma session and you all will need to STFU about it.
Looks like this appointment runs in opposition to the view of Obama’s own Justice Department…
Never surrender, never submit.