May 30, 2013 Political
Liberals are well known hypocrites. They pass laws that do not apply to them, they pass feel good legislation and then balk when they are affected by it or they do things counter to what they said is best for the rest of us. Some anti gun liberals have concealed carry permits or armed guards or both. These people do not bat an eye at imposing gun control to keep the population disarmed while they carry a firearm for protection or are escorted by armed police officers. Michael Bloomberg, the idiot from New York, is one such hypocrite.
In California two supporters of a homeless bill of rights, legislation that negates many of the vagrancy laws, have been caught having the police shoo “homeless” people from their neighborhoods and places of employment.
People from Project Veritas pretended to be homeless and did everything allowed under the legislation (sat, loitered, begged) in front of the home of one of the sponsors. They were there for a while and nothing happened. Not long after the politician backed out of his driveway and drove past them the police arrived and told them they could not be there.
They were also at the government building where one (or both) work and they were accosted by officers from the DHS. The police state is alive and well as the DHS police threaten them and violate their rights.
This is typical behavior from the brown shirts in the police state and it is typical behavior from liberal politicians.
They pass feel good laws and all is fine unless it affects them. If they are bothered by what they impose on everyone else they call the police and have you harassed.
The video highlights the hypocrisy.
Ironically, the DHS officers demand to see what is on the camera as if it is illegal to record in public. All this from workers at an agency that wants more video surveillance cameras to record everything we do.
We need more recording of what the people who work for us are doing. Hell, the recent number of murders at the hands of police officers is justification for everyone to record.
And for the absolute defense of the Second Amendment.
Never surrender, never submit.
Feb 7, 2012 Political
Barack Obama said he was against super PACs and their involvement in American politics. He excoriated the Supreme Court for its decision in the matter of political donations during one of his State of the Union Addresses. In 2010 Obama said that PACs were a corporate takeover of our Democracy (we have a Republic). Here is what he had to say about it:
“The worst thing of all they don’t have to reveal who is having to pay for them.” Obama said, criticizing Republicans for “keeping the American public in the dark.”
“We cannot allow a corporate takeover of our democracy,” Obama added, vowing to fight this type of advertising. “Let’s challenge every elected official who benefits from these ads to defend this practice or join us is stopping it.” he declared.
“Millions of Americans are struggling to get by and their voices shouldn’t be drowned out by millions of dollars in secret special interest advertising,” Obama added, “Their voices should be heard.” [emphasis mine] Washington Examiner
Obama said our voices needed to be heard and that the challenge was for every elected official to defend the infusion of PAC money or to join Obama in stopping it.
Looks like the Won, the messiah, the change we can believe in has changed his mind on the subject.
In a change of position, Barack Obama’s reelection campaign will begin using administration and campaign aides to fundraise for Priorities USA Action, a super PAC backing the president. CNN Political Tracker
In a change of position, well he did promise us change.
Obama is now playing the game he said he opposed. He is getting involved in the super PAC game in order to raise money for his reelection effort. His minions (and no doubt his toadies who will read this) claim that he needs to do this because of the large influx of money from super PACs on the Republican side.
Obama is doing this because he needs more money and that is supposed to make it OK. The same argument could be made that those who do not oppose super PAC money take it because they need the money to get elected. They too are outgunned (David Axelrod said there is an “array of guns pointed at us” so is this a violent metaphor we can use to blame him if there is violence?) by the people who they are running against. Democrats get large amounts of money from donors (despite the claims of small donors there are lots of big name and big money donors) and they use that money for Democrats to get elected.
A few years ago when Obama was getting boatloads of money for his campaign would he, Axelrod (or any other Democrat) have accepted the excuse from John McCain that he had an array of guns pointed at him so he needed to take PAC money? Hell no! They would have screamed what Obama said in 2010 about corporations taking over our Democracy.
But since Obama wants the money it is now OK to be involved with super PACs.
Here is a video of Obama slamming John Edwards for claiming to be against this kind of money but taking it. Obama says that you can’t just talk the talk; you have to walk the walk.
Mr. Obama, you are now taking the money when you claim to be opposed to it. You can’t talk the talk; you have to walk the walk.
Obama is a hypocrite. I know that liberals will defend this position because they will claim lil’ Barry has to keep up with opponents but that does not make it right. He said he was against the money so he should not take the money.
Then again, this is the guy who said that George Bush was unpatriotic and demonstrated poor leadership for adding trillions of dollars in debt to the country and then promptly added 5 trillion dollars of debt to the country.
If you voted for Obama in 2008 to prove you were not a racist you must vote against him in 2012 to prove you are not an idiot.
Never surrender, never submit.
May 11, 2011 Political
The funny thing about people who love gun control and continually ignore the Second Amendment is that while they do not want us to be able to protect ourselves they are always on board with having their own protection. We have seen several liberals who think that all guns are bad and that people should not be allowed to carry them only to have it revealed that they have permits and carry handguns. Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer are two that come to mind. Then there are those like Rosie O’Donnell who don’t want to allow you protection but are wealthy enough to hire armed body guards.
The sleaziest among us are politicians who tell us how safe society is and that we do not need weapons of our own while they enjoy armed protection that we provide. The leaders in Congress have security details and the security for the president is out of this world. One might think that it is necessary and maybe so but why does a president need security in Chicago or in DC? These places have some of the most stringent gun control in the country and yet these people travel with armed men.
We all know why. Gun control does not work and when law abiding citizens are disarmed the only people who have guns are criminals (which makes those of us who can’t afford armed guards, prey).
The Governor of Maryland is one of these morons who says that all is fine and that we need tough gun control (read that as infringing on Second Amendment rights) because it makes society safer. He has a state police detail of about six armed officers who keep him safe.
We pay his salary and we pay for his protection. What makes him better than the rest of us?
The biggest hypocrite is Richard Daley, the recently retired Mayor of Chicago. This moron has been against gun ownership all his life and he has worked very hard to violate the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The unconstitutional gun laws in Chicago were struck down by the Supreme Court so Daley went to work and set up roadblocks that make it nearly impossible for a resident to get a gun much less carry it. There is no way anyone could call what Chicago does, reasonable.
Daley is retired** and get this. While he does not want the people of Chicago to keep and bear arms he wants an armed protection detail to look out for him. Daley wants a team of armed men paid for by the taxpayers to keep him safe while he has done everything in his power to keep the people of Chicago from being able to protect themselves. He has made them less safe while demanding they pay for his safety.
Now that is first class hypocrisy and it smacks of liberal elitism where this schmuck thinks he is better than the average guy (read this as those who pay his salary and for his protection) and that he deserves better protection than the people who actually pay the salaries of the police officers of the city.
Do you think any average citizen in Chicago could request and get an armed detail to provide a safe environment?
I think the people of Chicago should use whatever legal means are available to keep Daley from getting protection. He should be in the exact same position as everyone else.
He should be just as vulnerable as those whose Constitutional right he has violated.
Perhaps if these politicians were to get a dose of the real world they would wise up.
Perhaps not, especially liberals, but at least without armed protection he has the same chance of being murdered as the next guy.
That, after all, is a level playing field and we all know how much liberals think that all things should be fair and equal for everyone.
Until, of course, to comes to their lives. Then they like things tilted in their favor.
People of Chicago, just say NO.
** Daley leaves office on 17 May
Never surrender, never submit.
Apr 26, 2011 Political
The price of a gallon of gas when Obama took office was just under two dollars after it had nearly doubled that mark causing Democrats to blame the “oil men” in the White House for the problems. Investigations were launched (nothing was ever found) and when prices went down again, the Democrats moved on to their next item with which to beat the Republican president.
Now gas prices are way up and have eclipsed five dollars a gallon in some places and the price has risen for 35 consecutive days. Obama’s answer has been to blame speculators (were there no speculators the last time) and to tell people perhaps they should not be driving cars that get eight miles to a gallon (without actually knowing if that was the case). Democrats are mostly silent and though Obama is talking the talk, the fact is he wanted gas prices to go higher.
He would have preferred that it was more gradual but he wanted them to rise. In his mind, rising gas prices will force people to cut back consumption and allow him and his regime to pursue their “green” agenda of solar and wind, as if either can power a car.
Before Obama took office he discussed gas prices and said he wanted them to go up so keep this in mind when he acts as if he is pained by it actually happening. He wanted it to happen and it has.
Saying he wanted to see gas prices go up and actually having it happen has a bright side for the Obama supporters.
He finally kept his word on something.
Never surrender, never submit.
Apr 7, 2011 Political
Barack Obama took office as a wet behind the ears rookie with so little experience and so many words that calling him an empty suit was an insult to empty suits. He showed up with his bird chest pumped out ready to take on the world. He had majorities in both chambers of Congress and things were going to be his way. He thought so because he believed the hype about himself. It is a good thing (for him) that he did not try to walk on water.
Believing and doing are two different things.
After taking office Obama was challenged by a Republican on the contents of a package and Obama’s response as to why it would be a certain way; “I won.” To interpret that for you, Obama said it is my way or the highway.
After two years of driving us over the cliff and advancing toward Socialism the American public had enough of this upstart and his sock puppets in Congress and they sent him a very clear message. Obama and his Democrats lost a lot of seats in a historical midterm election that changed the balance of power. Now that Obama does not have majorities all over government, majorities that blamed its failures on Republicans, he has a slightly different tune. In a speech today he told the audience that Republicans cannot have it their way and that this is not how it works.
“At a time when you are struggling to pay your bills and meet your responsibilities, the least we can do to meet our responsibilities is produce a budget. That is not too much to ask for. That is what the American people expect of us, that’s what they deserve. You want everybody to act like adults, quit playing games and realize it is not my way or the highway,” President Obama said in Pennsylvania before he is set to hold a fundraiser tonight. Real Clear Politics
Perhaps an appropriate GOP response to Mr. Obama would be; “we won.”
You see, this is how Democrats work. When they are in charge then things have to go their way and they do not care about anyone or anything. The last Congress made that clear when it passed Obamacare, the unconstitutional law, over the wishes of the majority of Americans. They wanted it and they did not want to hear any other opinion. To them, it was their way or the highway. Democrats went against the will of the people while ignoring the jobs situation and suffering a net job loss over that period of time.
As soon as Democrats lose though, they want to talk about bipartisan compromise and working together. They start whining like a room full of Chuck Schumers about how the other side is not playing nice, blah, blah. They did not want to play nice when they had control and they said, on a number of occasions, we won and it is our way or the highway.
Now they have to eat humble pie and suck it up because, to be quite frank, we won and it is our way or the highway.
America is on a path to financial ruin which has been a long time coming but has been accelerated by a man who has spent more money in two years than all the presidents from Washington to Reagan combined!
[I stated this incorrectly. It should read:
In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan. CNS
I regret the error]
Now the adults are in charge because THEY WON and it is time for the Democrats to step aside and let them get down to the business of bringing fiscal sanity back to our country.
It is also important to remember, particularly as all the Democrats are out screaming about a government shut down and troops not getting paid, that the Democrats are entirely responsible for this. They had the majorities when the 2011 budget was due and they punted the ball. They refused to pass a budget because they were afraid to do anything prior to the election. If they had done their duty and passed a budget we would not be having this discussion right now and the Congress could be working on other important things.
To the victor goes the spoils and while Obama does not espouse that attitude now he certainly did back when he was still messianic.
Fortunately, he does not get to dictate how the game is played. It works how we want it to work because:
Never surrender, never submit.