The federal government has done a good job of making a large number of people slaves to government and it has done so at the expense of those who work. The government does this by giving our tax dollars to people who pay nothing in taxes by allowing credits and other deductions so people receive money even though they paid nothing.

This is redistribution of wealth and government loves being involved in it. Recently, the government raised a lot of hoopla about cutting the Social Security tax by 2% and the battle to extend that cut received a lot of attention. The cut is not paid for and will lead to an even larger deficit in Social Security but government did manage to redistribute wealth in the deal. It added a fee to new or refinanced mortgages that lasts the life of the loan. The cut is for two months and even if extended will not last as long as the fee added to the mortgages. The money will go to the general fund instead of being used to offset the SS cut. No matter what it is used for, it was taken from producers who buy houses to pay for something else.

Another program exists that cost those who pay their own bills 1.6 BILLION dollars. That program provides low income Americans with free cell phones (not free, just no cost to them). The phones are paid for with the Universal Service Fee that people pay for their landline and cell phones. As you can imagine, it is poorly managed and has a lot of waste.

This is another example of where people pay a fee that is added to their bill to provide for those who don’t have something. There is no way to claim cell phones are a right or a necessity. Cell phones are a luxury and nothing else. People in this country existed and did quite well for a long time before cell phones ever existed. Why do we have to provide cell phones for people who cannot afford them on their own?

If you can’t afford a cell phone then you should not have one, period.

The poor in America, those who pay little or no federal income tax, would be rich in most other countries. This is what the poor look like in America:

The following are facts about persons defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau as taken from various government reports:

• 80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. In 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
• 92 percent of poor households have a microwave.
• Nearly three-fourths have a car or truck, and 31 percent have two or more cars or trucks.
• Nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite TV.
• Two-thirds have at least one DVD player, and 70 percent have a VCR.
• Half have a personal computer, and one in seven have two or more computers.
• More than half of poor families with children have a video game system, such as an Xbox or PlayStation.
• 43 percent have Internet access.
• One-third have a wide-screen plasma or LCD TV.
• One-fourth have a digital video recorder system, such as a TiVo.

Read more at Heritage and The LA Times

Being poor in America is not as bad as it is made out to be by politicians who are hell bent on keeping large numbers of people enslaved. Why would anyone who has all this stuff and is able to receive a welfare check or some other help plus a “free” cell phone have any kind of incentive to do better?

Why go at it on your own when you can get all this stuff from the sweat of another?

Politicians like people to be enslaved to government because it gets them votes. Yes, most welfare programs from food stamps to cell phones are nothing more than methods to buy votes. Sure, the programs do provide legitimate help to people who really need it but there are far too many people feeding at the trough. Most do not need to be there.

I read this somewhere and it is true, if you rob Peter to pay Paul you can always count on Paul’s support.

Government assistance, or safety nets, should be there for people who truly need them and they should be short term, temporary programs that are uncomfortable for those who use them. Most of all they should encourage people to get off them.

Unfortunately, government encourages people to get on them and stay on them creating generational poverty and increasing the Democrat voter block.

If you live off the taxpayer or off those who pay fees with their bills then you are a dependent of those folks.

Don’t forget that when we require you to take drug tests or provide some kind of community service to earn your keep.

Earn your keep? Get real. These folks get by because we earn their keep.

End dependence…

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

The Catholic Church is up in arms about a rule from the HHS requiring those who provide health care benefits to provide birth control, including the morning after pill (and at no cost at that). The Catholic Church is not the only religious institution upset about this but it has been the most vocal. The ruling does not apply to the houses of worship themselves but to organizations run by the Church such as Catholic hospitals and charities.

As far as I am concerned the federal government has no right to do this. The First Amendment does not allow any government action to establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof. The Church is exercising its beliefs with regard to birth control and has every right to do so.

However, I have no sympathy for the Church because it supported Obamacare. The Church was perfectly happy when it was supporting something that required the rest of us to do things we did not want but now it is having a cow over it being forced to do something it does not want (The two have something in common; they are both likely unconstitutional).

The Church received assurances that it would not be forced to do things that ran counter to its beliefs but it looks like those assurances were designed to get support. Like many liberal constituencies the Church was used when needed and is now discarded. The Church should remember that when it lies with dogs it will get fleas.

There is uproar and the Church is indicating it will not comply with the law and says it will drop all insurance if the law is not changed. This plays right into the liberal’s hands because they want everyone to be forced into government run care. That was the goal from the beginning and it has not changed.

The people who will be affected by this should remember who did it to them and make things right in November.

But I think that will not happen. The Obama regime is catching hell over this issue and it might respond by dropping the requirement. Obama needs to get reelected and he can’t afford to have millions of Catholics turning against him.

Catholics though, should not fall for this. If, and it is a big if right now, Obama changes course it will be solely for political purposes and it will be temporary. If he gets reelected and no longer has to worry about reelection he will do as he wishes and impose his will on everyone. He will reinstate the requirement and thumb his nose at the Church.

Beware Catholics. He screwed you once and he will do it again.

But, you got what you asked for and though I disagree with the rules I think you got what you deserved.

This is what happens when you have to pass bills before you know what is in them. She lost her job and now regrets her vote.

So far the White House is standing firm.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

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.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

In the world of liberals they not only want a level playing field but equality of outcomes. I think everyone agrees that people should have the same opportunities in life and in America those opportunities are there. However, just because everyone has the same opportunity does not mean that everyone takes advantage of it. The phrase about leading a horse to water comes to mind.

People have the opportunity to go to school and study to get good grades. Some do just that while others either waste their time or drop out. It is only the fault of the one who did so when his outcome is different.

This does not stop liberals from insisting that everyone not only have the vaunted level playing field (which they do) but that the outcomes for everyone be the same. In the world of the liberal everyone should have the same amount of wealth and should have houses and cars and all kinds of other stuff simply because they exist. If they fail to achieve those things then liberals look to redistributive policies to ensure equality of outcome.

Not everyone is a Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, or Mark Zuckerberg. Therefore, not everyone deserves the same outcomes these people had and since they are liberals they are left alone. Liberals, by and large, go after the wealthy with whom they disagree or say they disagree. The liberals excoriate Wall Street types (while praising the Occupy Wall Street mob) but take millions of dollars from Wall Street. They call them bad and insist that they and other rich folks (the definition of which changes regularly) need to have their money taken so that things will be equal for all. Obama tells us that Jesus wanted that by claiming there is a mandate in the to whom much is given, much is required passage. That passage never says that wealth is involved and it certainly does not tell us that government is supposed to make it so.

In any event, in the liberal world the Superbowl would always end in a tie. The playing field is a level one and the teams are evenly matched and in the real world that is sufficient. It is up to the teams to take it from there and work hard to win. Even teams that are not evenly matched are required to go out and work hard. They are expected to try to win the game.

Liberals would have none of that. You see, to them it would be necessary that once the playing field was level and both teams had the same opportunity to win that they both have the same outcome. Equality of outcome would require a tie because both teams cannot possibly win.

This is how they feel about life and it is how they would feel if they ran the Superbowl.

But in real life the outcomes are not the same. Some people achieve greatness and others live happy, peaceful lives that they believe are fulfilling. People have the same opportunity but they do not have the same outcome and that is OK. Without the possibility of achieving something more than someone else our society would stagnate.

Be thankful that the liberal philosophy is not in force at the Superbowl.

Regular Americans expect both teams to play their best and that the team that plays better will win. Regular Americans would be appalled at the idea of a tie because the outcome must be the same.

And yet, millions of Americans have no problem demanding an equal outcome in all other aspects of life.

The sad thing is that many so called leaders feel the same way.

Funny though. Those leaders don’t want a tie or an equal outcome when they are running for office. They want to win.

Yes, class warfare and equality of outcome is for the little people, not those in government who fail to follow our Constitution and who fail to lead. For them, life is about things being slanted in their favor from insider trading to tax breaks that others cannot get. It is about access and being treated as if they are special.

If they lived by what they preached they would soon abandon the idea that equality of outcome is a good idea.

Until the day comes when we get rid of all these people and their anti American policies we will just have to be happy that they have not injected their stupidity into the Superbowl.

Tie games suck just like equality of outcomes in all other aspects of life.

Or as Alan West said, take that stuff and get the hell out…

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Those were the words Obama used when he was discussing the latest jobs numbers. Obama was telling members of Congress not to muck up the wonderful job Obama is doing with the economy. The problem with all this is that Republicans are not mucking things up and the jobs numbers are once again an illusion.

The 0.2% drop from 8.5% to 8.3% is not the result of more people getting work it is the result of a continually shrinking labor pool. The Obamabots and the BLS have figured the best way to get the numbers down is to stop counting. In that light we have seen the numbers drop slightly over the past few months and those numbers have dropped because there are fewer people in the labor pool.

In order to make Obama look really good this month 1.2 MILLION more people have been knocked off the labor rolls. That is right, 1.2 MILLION people have been knocked off the rolls in one month.

Look for this trend to continue as the regime works to make it appear as if things are getting better when they are not. Keep in mind that just because these 1.2 MILLION people (who are only a small part of the total number) are no longer counted as part of the labor pool does not mean they are not people who need money and need a job. They are just people who are not counted so the numbers will look better.

The real unemployment rate is well above 10% but, as with anything involving numbers, the data can be manipulated to portray whatever is desired. Obama strung the country along for three years and now that he wants to be reelected numbers will be manipulated to make it look as if things are working.

We have 5 TRILLION dollars in new debt since this man took office. In just three years he surpassed the debt George Bush left us after eight and his policies have been complete failures. This does not even take into account the disaster we will see once Obamacare takes effect. Hell, why do you think they set it up to take place after the 2012 election?

We cannot afford four more years of Obama particularly when he will not have to worry about being reelected. He has led us down the path of ruin and if he gets four more years he will destroy us.

If we can’t get rid of him we need to ensure that the Congress is completely in the hands of the Republican party so we can do to him what Jesse Jackson wanted to do.

Yes, Barack Obama told Republicans not to muck this up. His party has failed to pass a budget in over 1000 days and Harry Reid said the Senate will not pass one this year. Another election year act of cowardice. Republicans need to tell Obama and Reid that NOTHING will be considered until a budget is passed and signed, period.

One other thing. While Obama was finger wagging about mucking things up he said:

They just need to get it done. It shouldn’t be that complicated. Now is not the time for self-inflicted wounds to our economy. Now is the time for action. Breitbart

The 2% cut Obama wants continued is the cut in Social Security that workers pay. The Social Security Ponzi scheme is in serious financial trouble and will be insolvent in a decade as politicians continue to use the money collected to expand government and drive us into bankruptcy. Cutting from the fund that is already in financial trouble is the very definition of a self inflicted wound. This will have to be addressed in the future but by then we will probably be at the point of no return with Obama demanding a 100% tax on rich people who will be defined as anyone who makes money.

We have a person with no leadership experience and a Socialist philosophy running the country into the ground.

His handlers must be proud and there is no doubt his mother and father would be proud. After all, they came from a long line of Socialists and Communists.

We need to vote this man out of office (along with the rest of the idiots in his party) or we need to have our own occupy movement, one that they definitely will not like.

Our Founders would be shooting by now…

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Barack Obama is a religious man of convenience. In other words, he is religious when it suits his purposes. He will quote scripture and tell us how we should all do things according to his incorrect interpretation of a Bible passage and then turn around and ignore the Bible when it suits his political agenda. Today Obama discussed Luke 12:48 (though it is unlikely he knew this is where his paraphrased quote came from). Obama said he did things (like Obamacare and Dodd-Frank) because of Jesus. Obama tells us that government needs to take more money from wealthy people because Jesus says those who have a lot are required to give more:

“And I think to myself, if I’m willing to give something up as somebody who’s been extraordinarily blessed, and give up some of the tax breaks that I enjoy, I actually think that’s going to make economic sense. But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that ‘for unto whom much is given, much shall be required,‘” Obama said, noting Jewish and Islamic teachings say much the same thing. [bold mine] Buzzfeed

Of course the scripture does not discuss wealth and deals with knowledge. Those who have been given the knowledge are required to do more because they have to teach. Even if we equate this with wealth, nowhere does it say that what is required is to give that wealth away. In fact, if you earned your wealth then it was not given to you but that matters not to Obama. The uninformed will swoon over his words and act as if Jesus was for wealth redistribution.

It is also important to note that nowhere in the scripture Obama mentioned does Jesus require someone else to ensure that those who have give. There is no mandate for Obama to step in and ensure those who have give to those who don’t.

What Obama conveniently igonres are Commandments from the Bible, the Commandments God gave to Moses. Obama is pushing for people who do not have things to be jealous and envious because others have what they do not. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s. [Exodus 20:17].

Obama would take that which belongs to one person and give it to another and he would do so against their will. Thou shalt not steal. [Exodus 20:15]

And since Obama supports murdering unborn children and allowing those born after unsuccessful abortions to die it is obvious that Thou shalt not murder is something he choses to ignore.

I know these things come from the Old Testament and Obama was quoting Jesus because, by golly, Jesus guides Obama’s life.

So let us look at these two passages from the New Testament and use Jesus’ own words to see if Obama is really following the teachings of Christ:

For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies [bold mine] Matthew 15:19

And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages. [bold mine] Luke 3:14

Yeah, Obama uses scripture to push a social agenda and acts as if he is guided by the teachings of Jesus but it is obvious that it is a matter of convenience for him.

So as you listen to this so called leader telling you that it is government’s job to take property from one person and give it to another keep in mind that this is the liberal/progressive/Socialist teaching and not the teaching of Jesus.

Or as one of our Founders put it:

“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.” –John Adams, 1787

Amen!

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

NBC and Tom Brokaw have expressed displeasure with Mitt Romney for using footage from the 1990s, featuring Brokaw, in ads attacking Newt Gingrich. I read comments posted and people say NBC is imposing on the right to free speech. People are upset that Brokaw and NBC would request Romney to cease and desist.

The most important thing about this is that it is not a free speech issue.

However, Barack Obama used Brokaw in an ad when he was running in 2008 and NBC sent him a cease and desist order as well. In this particular case Brokaw is acting no differently toward the Republican than he did the Democrat. It is easy to see how folks would not see this since the MSM is overwhelmingly liberal and has protected Democrats (particularly Obama) from day one.

What should bother people is Brokaw’s stated reason for not wanting Romney using the clip:

I am extremely uncomfortable with the extended use of my personal image in this political ad. I do no want my role as a journalist compromised for political gain by any campaign. Politico

Who in their right mind thinks of Brokaw as a journalist? That would require objective reporting and proper vetting of political candidates. It would require an allegiance to the public and upholding the tradition of the media being a watchdog for the people of this country.

Brokaw is another member of the media wing of the Democrat party and he has failed to act as a journalist.

A commentator, sure, but in no way a journalist…

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

The FLEA Baggers (those affectionately called the Occupy Protesters by Democrats and their media wing) are causing ruin everywhere they go. In all the parks they occupy they bring in filth, rats, and disease (not including the STDs they are spreading). This is what happens when progressive types are left to set things up. They have some kind of organizational structure but there are very few rules in the do what you want environment so sanitation and hygiene become issues.

The FLEA Baggers have been given extraordinary access to public spaces. They have been given plenty of space and the laws have not been strictly enforced. If any other group of people had broken the laws and occupied spaces illegally they would have been removed but the laws were ignored by those charged with enforcing them.

Baltimore is a prime example. FLEA Baggers occupied an area in that city for quite some time stealing electricity and causing problems. The city finally sent the police to break up the crowd.

In DC, the FLEA Baggers have been occupying two parks in violation of the law. They are allowed to stay there but there are laws against erecting temporary structures and camping at McPherson Square and Freedom Plaza. The National Park Service will finally enforce those laws and tell the FLEA Bag crowd they must remove their tents and they are not allowed to camp there.

Ironically, they are protesting along K Street which is lobbyist road. The FLEA Bag crowd has attracted rats to their encampments but there is no indication if the rats are the vermin that lobby in DC or the four legged rodents that carry disease. My guess is the rats are the furry kind.

This will not go over well. The FLEA Bag folks have been given a pass on the laws and now they believe they have a right to break the law. The police should have been there enforcing the laws right from the start and there would be no confusion. By allowing the FLEA Baggers to stay for so long the police have given them reason to believe that the laws do not apply to them and that they are entitled to be there.

How long are people allowed to violate the law before police respond? How many times can people drive drunk or rob a bank (with police knowledge) before they are arrested? It seems that if you are a FLEA Bagger you can go for quite sometime while the police ignore you.

This will likely get ugly and the police will be perceived as the bad guys by the progressives and their media allies. The police will be cheered by those of us who think it is about time they enforced the law.

Unfortunately, if this is not peaceful the police will share the blame because they brought this on themselves by allowing the group to get away with breaking the law.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

A new study shows, according to those who researched it, that women are 14 times more likely to die during or after giving birth than they are from complications of an abortion. Dr. Anne Davis tells us that both procedures are safe but they are trying to let women who have reproductive issues know that abortion is not as dangerous as the anti abortion forces claim.

There is no doubt that childbirth is very stressful for women. A lot of stress is placed on the body and sometimes there are complications that lead to death.

However, while a woman giving birth might be 14 times more likely to die than if she had an abortion, the unborn children are nearly 100% more likely to die from an abortion than from child birth. I say nearly 100% because some infants die during child birth and some survive an abortion attempt (until Obama lets them be murdered) but they are much more likely to survive childbirth than abortion.

The study only takes into account the women involved and does not mention the unborn children. The fact remains that if women never died during childbirth or abortion, the unborn child almost always dies during abortion and almost always lives after childbirth.

These studies are designed to make abortion more acceptable and to attempt to discredit those opposed to the procedure. Abortions are safe, don’t worry about it. My God, you are 14 times more likely to die giving birth than you are having an abortion. Get the abortion, it helps you, it protects you, and it lines the pockets of Planned Parenthood.

How long will it be before the federal government requires the abortion murder clinics to tell women they are safer having an abortion than having a child?

Imagine if doctors told women that they are relatively safe either way but that their unborn children are nearly 100% assured of dying a horrible death if they have the abortion.

I know liberals. It is a woman’s body and her right to do what she wants with it. My question is, if it is her body then why are they tearing the arms and legs off her unborn infant. Whose body is it that gets aborted?

Pesky little kids, thank goodness we have abortions so that girls are not punished with pregnancy and they can have the same chances as boys in our society.

And it is safer than giving birth.

Really, tell that to the unborn children who thought they were being protected by their mothers…

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

The left fawns over Barack Obama. He, according to them, is the smartest prez ever, worldly, experienced, and a new kind of politician. He was, you know, a Constitutional Law Professor and he knows that document. We need to listen to King Hussein because he will bring us back to the Constitution.

Obama spoke to commemorate the Supreme Court’s flawed decision in Roe v Wade, the decision that gave us federally recognized abortions and removed the decision on whether to allow them or not from the states. The decision violated the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution which states that anything not in the Constitution (or prohibited by it) belongs to the states or to the people.

If you search the Constitution you will not find anything about abortion. There is nothing in there that allows the federal government to decide on abortions. Therefore, the issue belongs to the states or to the people.

But the SCOTUS decided on it anyway and we have been stuck with a flawed decision ever since.

Obama said that the 39^th anniversary of Roe is a chance to recognize the “fundamental constitutional right to abortion.” There is no fundamental Constitutional right to an abortion because it is not enumerated in the document. Allowing an abortion or not is something that should have been left to the states but that would overshadow Obama’s murderous position on the subject.

Obama also said that abortions allow our daughters the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams. Really now? Murdering your unborn child gives you this? I guess it should come as no surprise since Obama thinks pregnancy is a punishment.

What amazes me is that the alleged expert on the Constitution is all too happy to run around touting a nonexistent right while he completely opposes a right that is clearly enumerated in the Constitution.

Barack Obama opposes gun ownership. He is a big proponent of gun control and he was even involved in a scheme to gin up phony gun problems in order to push for tougher gun laws (Fast and Furious). Obama does not believe that gun ownership is an individual right even though the SCOTUS has affirmed that which is written in the Constitution. Obama covertly works to impose tougher gun laws in violation of the Constitution.

The Constitution is a document of convenience for liberals and Obama is no exception.

Interestingly, Obama made this claim:

“As we mark the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a woman’s health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters.” [emphasis mine] CNSNEWS

How come that broader principle does not extend to not having to buy health insurance if you do not want it? That is a choice, that is a private issue and yet Obama is not on the side of allowing us to decide for ourselves. He will force this on us. Why is it that Obama favors gun control and wants to remove the private matter of whether to own a firearm?

Obama and his liberal/progressive/Socialist party have no problem getting involved in our private family matters each and every day. We have an intrusive government and Obama is fine with that. He has no problem being involved in private matters, just not abortion.

Obama thinks that pregnancy is a burden on women and that abortion allows our daughter to have the same opportunities as our sons.

Don’t you wish his mother had felt that way?

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.