Big Dogs House

Barack Obama Is Misleading America

Apr 30, 2009 Political

Today marks the 100^th day of the Obama Residency and he marked the occasion by holding a prime time press conference. I did not watch it but I have read about it. I did not watch because I have had enough of him and I knew what he was going to say. He basically told everyone how wonderful he is, what a great job he is doing, how much hard work is left to do, and that George Bush is to blame for any of the bad stuff.

I have written before that Obama does not really understand the Constitution and that he has stated that it has too many restrictions that he wanted (and wants?) the Supreme Court to remove. This guy is a lawyer and he was reported to be a Constitutional scholar but he knows very little about the Constitution except what Bill Ayers told him while they were passing a bong around. One thing is also clear from the speech tonight and that is; Barack Obama lies through his teeth or he does not understand the law, or both.

Specifically:

President Barack Obama said Wednesday night that waterboarding authorized by former President George W. Bush was torture, and the information gained from terror suspects through its use could have been obtained by other means. “In some cases it may be harder,” he conceded at a White House news conference marking a whirlwind first 100 days in office. Breitbart

I want you liberals to read this carefully and I want you to try to understand. Waterboarding is not torture under the definition of torture established by the Congress, an august body to which Barack Obama once belonged. It does not matter how you FEEL about waterboarding and it does not matter if you THINK it is torture, the fact is that Congress has decided that it is not.

The memos that Obama released are very lengthy and contain a great deal of legal opinion on the issue and they reference Congresses’ definition of torture and use it to come to their conclusions. Waterboarding is not torture which might explain why Nancy Pelosi voiced no objection to it when she was briefed on it at the time. Yes boys and girls, despite her objections and denials, Nancy Pelosi was at the meetings and she was told about waterboarding and the plans to use it. She told the CIA to do more (more work to get information).

The Bush administration allowed these enhanced interrogation techniques to take place because they were in accordance with the law. It does not matter that Obama says waterboarding is torture. What matters is the law and what real lawyers who actually practiced it had to say about it. I imagine if Obama insists on prosecuting the legal folks who rendered the opinions they might end up at the Supreme Court. It would be interesting to see what they have to say about the law Congress wrote.

In any event, Obama is continuing to blame Bush for things that are in the past. He was merely applying blame and mentioning torture to justify his stupid release of classified memos, and act that many have criticized. The release will have a chilling effect on how our intelligence gathering efforts move forward and function. Obama had to make it look like he did the right thing so he called waterboarding torture so he could claim to have brought it all to light.

He is, after all, all about transparency. He had to release those memos and it was all about transparency. Let me clear that up as well. Obama released those memos for political gain. He has not released any of the memos that show how successful enhanced interrogation was because it would not allow him to score points by claiming to be the one who stopped torture. If Obama were so interested in transparency he would release his original birth certificate. The REAL one that is hand or type written with ink signatures from a doctor. The REAL one that contains all the pertinent information. If he really believed in transparency he would do that.

He is not in favor of transparency. He only wants you to see what he decides you should see. It seems to me that if you claim to be transparent then it means you are transparent in everything.

Interestingly, the release of the memos might hurt him in the future. If he prosecutes those who rendered the opinions then those lawyers in his administration who will be asked to render opinions might be a bit gun shy if they think the next administration can come after them for doing their jobs. They might not give good opinions or ones that he wants because of fear, a fear he will have created through his stupidity.

Obama is still on this kick that he can blame everything on Bush and get away with it. That will work for a while with the moonbats who follow him but it is already wearing thin to those of us who believe he is full of excuses and an apologist for American greatness.

Barack Obama is only interested in remaking America. He wants to make it into a Socialist nation where government is huge and takes care of everyone by taking from those who produce and giving it to those who mooch off them. He does not understand the Constitution or he ignores it (either is bad) and he puts politics above what is good for this country.

He is a political hack and he is amounting to one huge failure.

Tags: CIA, law, memos, Obama, relased, speech, terror, traiter

State’s Rights v Obama Administration

Apr 16, 2009 Political

The Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution says “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People.”

This may end up being the single most important amendment in our lives at this moment, as His Anointedness attempts to do an end- around with respect to “offering” the states bailout money. If the Governors decline the money, the O’bama administration says that the respective Legislatures may override the Governors veto of the money.

If, however, the states do take the money, they will find the Federal government doing extensive oversight on these states, and intruding into state business in clear violation of the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment, but then this has been a trend for some time, and it needs to cease now.

States know better what their own citizens needs are than do the mokes in Washington, and perhaps there needs to be some failure and pain in this nation regarding the overspending of money, whether by an individual or a government.

After all, pain is a wonderful teacher- the lesson usually only needs to be experienced once to make an impression. There need to be consequences for actions taken, and a state that has been fiscally responsible should not have to take this money when so many unconstitutional strings are attached.

In Texas, two state lawmakers, Rep. Brandon Creighton, and state Sen. Robert Nichols introduced legislation in their respective chambers, asking the Federal Government to respect the rights of states, as defined by the Tenth Amendment. Will the Feds do so, or will they strong- arm the states, just so they can try to exert control? This is a dangerous game they play here.If the feds try this maneuver, many of these states will refuse, and that could lead to a confrontation over whose jurisdiction is pre eminent in this country.

The founders of this country put in the tenth amendment so some states, nervous that they would lose their autonomy in dealing with their people and the various needs with regard to ethnicity and religion, would sign on to the Constitution. Even as airlines and 24/7 news helps us grow together, we still find that it is not only the “buy locally” that makes sense here, but the “govern locally” also applies to the situations that come up in the day to day business that states do. I find it incredible that the Federal Government even wants to try to micro manage all the states this way. This is a plan that is a fast track to disaster for the feds, and it is an insult to all of our people in the states. The last thing we need is a mother- being coddled is not our nature.

We are Americans, we are independent, innovators, and explorers. We are inventors, and tinkerers- we find a way to make something out of what others thought was trash. This is what we are, and to stifle this by trying to coddle us from failure,  when it is failure that toughens us. It makes us more determined to get it right, and get it right now. This is nothing more than an attempt to kill the American spirit. There are some in government who are jealous of the independence of the American spirit, and they seek to quash it, quell it, tame it for their own uses.

It will not succeed. It should not even be tried.

Tags: constitution, law, Obama, tenth amendment, texas

A Crime To Insult Islam

Mar 30, 2009 Political

Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs is reporting that the UN has passed a resolution calling for the criminalization of any criticism of Islam. Islam is the cult that pretends to be a religion while causing violence and destruction around the world. The resolution only names the cult of Islam as the potential aggrieved party to which the crime will apply. Under this UN resolution would it be illegal to profile, like this?

Islam is nothing more than a sick cult that was founded by a child molesting pervert who fooled everyone into believing he was a prophet. He was a blood thirsty tyrant who spread his cult by killing those who refused to join it, a practice that is still in existence today.

The UN wants to protect the members of this cult so that people who criticize it will be criminals instead of the cult members who murder at will.

Screw Islam and its cult members and screw the UN.

Now, come and get me Ban Ki-moon. I just broke the Islam Insult Law…

Tags: criticism, cult, islam, law, un

Obama And Dodd Are To Blame For AIG Mess

Mar 18, 2009 Political

There is a big uproar about the retention bonuses that were paid to AIG employees after the company received over 170 billion dollars of bailout money. There are a lot of players involved but Barack Obama and Christopher Dodd are the primary culprits in this mess. More on that later.

The idea of bailing out AIG or any other company did not appeal to me and I was against it from the start. There are many people who felt that we had to bail the companies out to keep the economic foundation from collapsing. To you folks who wanted this, you got what you deserved.

The government, that is the taxpayer, should not be bailing out companies. They make it on their own or they fail and someone else takes over. By allowing government intervention we have opened a Pandora’s Box. All that happens as a result of the government sticking its nose where it does not belong is that things get even more screwed up. Very few of the people in Congress have any experience actually running a business so this, coupled with the speed with which the first bailout was passed, was a recipe for disaster and a disaster it was. The people in Congress (along with the Bush administration) who wrote the bailout bill failed to provide oversight and they failed to ensure that there were strict guidelines as to how the money could be spent.

The Obama administration took over and he asked for more money to be released. He also, with reckless abandon, pushed a bill through that he dubbed a stimulus plan. That plan was absolutely needed and if it was not passed the world would come to an end, or at least this is how Obama presented it.

This is where Obama and Dodd assumed the liability for the mess. AIG employees were not paid bonuses because the issue was not addressed. They were paid bonuses because it was addressed and Dodd made sure they could get paid. Dodd added an amendment to the stimulus bill that specifically allowed the bonuses to be paid. The members of Congress were well aware of the bonuses that were due and they were aware last year when all this was being worked on. They ignored that issue until Dodd put these words in the bill:

Crack down on bonuses, retention awards and incentive compensation:
Bonuses can only be paid in the form of long-term restricted stock, equal to no greater than 1/3 of total annual compensation, and will vest only when taxpayer funds are repaid. There is an exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009.

For institutions that received assistance totaling less than $25 million, the bonus restriction applies to the highest compensated employee; $25 million to $250 million, applies to the top five employees; $250 million to $500 million, applies to the senior executive officers and the next top 10 employees; and more than $500 million applies to the senior executive officers and the next top 20 employees (or such higher number as the Secretary determines is in the public interest). Fox Business (includes graphs showing who AIG donated money to. Now you know why Dodd added the amendment) [emphasis mine]

Dodd’s amendment allowed the bonuses to be paid. Let me write that again; Dodd added an amendment that allowed the bonuses to be paid.

Certainly the amendment had to be voted on so there is no excuse for people not to know that the bonuses were going to be paid. Obama pushed this bill through at light worker speed. The bill was over a thousand pages long and no one had time to read it before it was voted upon. Obama did not read it before he signed it. So what we have is a trail of incompetence.

Senator Dodd is now trying to get the money back. He suggested heavily taxing the money and that moron Chuck Schumer stated today that the new CEO of AIG had better convince the employees to return the bonuses or Congress was going to tax nearly 100% of it to ensure it got back to where it belongs “in the hands of the taxpayer.”

First of all, it will never get to our hands. Congress will spend it on something else. Second of all, why all this phony concern for taxpayers now? They had no concern for us when they passed the trillion dollar, pork laden, spending bill and they had no concern for us when they passed the omnibus and its 9000 items of pork. Why the righteous indignation now? And who does Dodd think he is to vocally oppose this when he added the amendment that allowed it to happen?

Obama and Dodd as well as all the other screamers (like Barney Frank and Chuck Schumer) are trying to cover up the fact that they screwed this up royally. They are now using the power of Congress to punish people who only got that to which they were entitled by virtue of a contract and a bill signed into law by Obama.

I don’t like the idea that AIG got the money and I don’t like the idea that these issues were not addressed when the original bailout was written and that they were not addressed correctly when the pork filled stimulus was crafted. But, the fact is, under the law, the people who received bonuses are entitled to them.

Another fact is that Obama, Dodd and the others are trying to put this on AIG when these morons knew this was going to happen. When the news broke and people started complaining these so called leaders all of the sudden acted like this was a shock to them. They acted like it was irresponsible and an affront to taxpayers when they all knew about it and they codified it; Dodd with the amendment, members for voting on it, and Obama for signing it.

Another thing to address is whether Congress can make a law that specifically taxes specific employees in one particular company. Does Congress have the authority to write a law that says that a certain group of people in a certain company must pay 90 or 100% tax on a specific bonus? I would imagine that this would be an issue for the Supreme Court to decide under the issue of equal protection.

If Congress can do this then what would stop them from deciding that that a certain job class or certain workers in other companies made too much money and then pass laws taking as much of that income as they wanted? This is a very important issue and it gets at the heart of just how much power Congress actually has.

If they screw these workers out of their bonuses (sorry folks but no matter how you feel about it, they are entitled to them) then they could be asking for trouble. Congress sunk 170 billion dollars in AIG because if AIG fails then the economy will follow it, at least according to those who pushed the bailout. What would stop AIG from saying screw it and closing its doors. What would stop them from just shutting down and causing turmoil? The government owns about 80% of the company now but the government can’t run it.

Speaking of owning 80% of the company, the entire issue shows just how wrong it was to bail them out in the first place. Government said they were buying up shares in companies in order to help them get back on their feet. We were told they had no interest in nationalizing these companies (at least no more than short term) and that government had no interest in controlling them.

Today Barney Frank said that we [the government] own 80% of the company and that it was time to exercise ownership and stop the bonuses from happening. This is nothing more than a push closer to socialism. Government tells you how much you can make and how much you have to give back. Government takes control of companies and decides what employees can or cannot do regardless of contractual obligations. Government erodes the freedoms that people enjoy and soon instead of building wealth government ensures that all of us are equally poor.

Those who voted for Obama, this is what you voted for. Those who wanted the bailouts, this is what you asked for. You have no right to complain and you have no right to be upset about what is taking place because you wanted this to happen.

As for those of you that are threatening the lives of AIG workers and directing your anger at them; you are wrong. Your anger should be directed at Obama and Dodd and everyone else who voted for the stumulus package. Dodd added the wording and Obama signed it into law. THEY KNEW ALL ABOUT IT FOR QUITE SOME TIME AND THEY ALLOWED IT TO HAPPEN.

Direct your anger at Congress and at Obama. They deserve your wrath.

As an aside, this is the second time not reading a bill has caused embarrassment. Obama issued an EO allowing federal funding of embryonic stem cell research and then signed the omnibus which specifically forbade using federal money to pay for it. He also signed the stimulus allowing the AIG employees to receive their bonuses.

One final point. If there are other companies with employees who had contracts for bonuses then they will be entitled as well. Dodd’s amendment was not specific to any company.

This is what happens when inexperienced, incompetent, self serving people run things. They gave us the financial meltdown and now this.

We need a do over. Let’s get rid of everyone in Congress and the Administration and replace them with competent folks.

**The Obama administration is claiming that it only found out about the bonuses a month ago despite media claims to the contrary. The bonus issue was known for quite some time by members of COngress and probably Geithner. Dodd certainly knew. He would have to know so he could take care of those who have contributed so much money to his campaign.

***Obama received 100 thousand dollars in donations from AIG

Also:
NewsMax

Tags: aig, bailout, barney frank, contract, dodd, law, Obama, schumer, taxes

Obama Says No Need To Stock Up On Guns

Dec 9, 2008 Political

Barack Obama must be aware that since he was elected to the presidency the sale of guns and ammunition has gone through the roof. Many gun stores report a 50-60% increase in sales, gun shows have more people than at any time in recent memory and ammunition supply places report that they are out of ammo and most is on back order. This is all because Americans are aware of Barack Obama’s stance on gun control.

But Barry says not to worry. He said that people did not need to stock up on guns because he has no intention of taking them.

“I believe in common-sense gun safety laws, and I believe in the second amendment,” Obama said at a news conference. “Lawful gun owners have nothing to fear. I said that throughout the campaign. I haven’t indicated anything different during the transition. I think people can take me at my word.”

Before it was common sense gun laws. When that did not fly it changed to safety laws and who is to say exactly what that means and according to what person’s definition of safety? Obama’s common sense laws have led his hometown to have countless murders by gun, guns that are illegal to possess in a city from which this so called gun friendly man hails (and served in office). Barack Obama has a long history of abusing the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. There can be no doubt about this regardless of what he or his kool aid drinking followers say. Obama’s legislative record tells a much different story than the one he fabricated in order to get elected. He did not believe that it was an individual right and he sided with DC in the Heller case. It was not until after the SCOTUS ruled that gun ownership was an idividual right that Obama told us he has believed that all along (remember, if he says “like I have always said” or “I have not changed my position” then he is lying). Take him at his word? All of his promises come with expiration dates, just ask his kooky left wingnuts who are not real happy with him.

The NRA is not fooled by Obama:

But National Rifle Association spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said it’s not Obama’s words — but his legislative track record — that has gun-buyers flocking to the stores.

“Prior to his campaign for president, his record as a state legislator and as a U.S. Senator shows he voted for the most stringent forms of gun control, the most Draconian legislation, gun bans, ammunition bans and even an increase in federal excise taxes up to 500 percent for every gun and firearm sold,” Arulanandam said.

Obama answered “yes” in 1996 to a questionnaire from an Illinois group on whether he supported a handgun ban. But he later said a staffer filled out that answer and he did not support a ban.

Obama said that a staffer filled out the questionnaire but it was filled out in Obama’s handwriting. That is a talented staffer indeed. Obama wants to take guns away because an unarmed citizenry is more easily controlled by government. This government is getting more and more out of control and it will get worse under Obama. He wants complete control so he can run his Socialist Utopia and he knows that the armed among us will not take his crap.

It should surprise no one that Obama will ignore the Constitution because he is doing so right now. He has not proven he is a natural born citizen and thus will be an illegitimate president. Maybe this is the perfect ruse for him. He can impose all kinds of things and then when the armed take the country back he can say that it is not his fault because he is not really qualified for the job. He can then throw whomever failed to properly vet him right under the bus.

If Obama is telling you there is no need to stock up on guns then you need to stock up on guns. He and the idiots who want to remove guns from society believe they know better than you how to live your life. They believe they are smarter than you and they should be deciding on dangerous things like guns. This is what Peter Hamm of the Brady Center against Gun Violence had to say:

“Anyone who thinks they need to rush out and buy a firearm clearly has not been paying attention to how quickly we make progress on this issue. We don’t think these are first-time buyers. We think they are people who already have more than enough guns at their homes to protect themselves and are buying more.”

These are people who already have more than enough guns. Who is this jerk to decide how many is enough? Does this guy go around telling people they have too many cars, or too many pair of shoes, or too many clothes? If people have the money and they want to buy lots of guns then who is Hamm (or anyone else) to say that they already have enough? This is the same philosophy that liberals use when they take you money in taxes. You already have enough so we will take some from you.

Barak Obama must think that he has credibility because he won an election. He lost his credibility a long time ago and were it not for white guilt and dreamy eyed liberals (coupled with blacks voting for race) he would be another name in a history book. His word is his bond but only to the idiots who supported him. The rest of us know better.

But Barack Says there is nothing to worry about and that we do not need to buy guns. He even says he is all in favor of gun ownership. Yes, Barack Obama is a friend to the gun owner. I don’t believe that for a minute.

And judging from the sales of guns and ammo, neither do a lot of others.

Source:
Chicago Sun Times

Tags: ammunition, confiscation, gun shows, guns, law, liar, Obama, Second Amendment