Apr 29, 2013 Political
The recent police state in Massachusetts, as police equipped with all the military equipment Obama says has no place on our streets, has people jumpy. If one of our largest cities can be locked down while police conduct illegal house to house searches for one guy then what will stop them from locking down any city and violating our rights for whatever reason?
A recent poll shows that more Americans are afraid that our government will violate our constitutionally protected rights than are afraid government will fail to protect us.
This should come as no surprise. While the news is filled with stories of government’s inability to keep us safe it is also filled with daily stories of government working to violate our rights. In some states, such as Colorado, New York and Maryland, the government has passed laws disarming people. These laws violate our rights and are designed to keep us from protecting ourselves from bad people including bad people in our government.
The Second Amendment protects a right that preexisted the Constitution. It is in place so that if government ever starts shooting at the people the people can shoot back. Governments who want to disarm the people do so for only one reason and that is to control the people by removing the people’s means to protect themselves from government oppression.
If the people are properly armed and their rights are not infringed (they can carry) then there is no need to lock down a city to look for one guy. Bad people are not likely to stick around a place where anyone, at any time, could produce a firearm and eliminate them as a threat.
The poll shows that Americans fear the loss of their rights and this is for a very good reason. Our government (at all levels) is working against us and the Constitution. There are laws requiring us to purchase things (call it a tax but it is a requirement to buy a good), to detain us without due process, to spy on us and invade our privacy, and to disarm us.
People know when government gets too powerful and when it has effectively disarmed the population then it can control people. A look at history shows how this has resulted in the slaughter of millions of people who were first disarmed.
Our government is no different from any of those and could easily be moved to impose its will through the use of deadly force.
I know that the naysayers believe that could not happen in America but anyone with a brain knows otherwise.
Any government that would ignore its Constitution and the will of the people (as it is exercised within that Constitution) is capable of murdering people to get what it wants.
Our government has slaughtered people in this country before and if it effectively disarms us there will be nothing stopping it from doing so in greater numbers.
Anyone who watched the government impose a police state in Massachusetts as it violated the rights of the citizens living there and can’t see that it would not take much for government to round people up and detain or kill them is not living in reality.
It will get much worse before it gets better, if it ever does…
Never surrender, never submit.
Feb 24, 2011 Political
In the movie First Blood, John Rambo (played by Sylvester Stallone), was a Vietnam veteran who was harassed by a small town sheriff and mayhem ensued. When Rambo’s old commander shows up and communicates with him, Rambo explains that they drew first blood. John was telling his former commander that he did not start the fight and was fighting back because of that.
Representative Michael Capuano, a Democrat from union heavy Massachusetts, told union members that they needed to get bloody in their battle.
“I’m proud to be here with people who understand that it’s more than just sending an email to get you going,” Capuano said, according to the Statehouse News. “Every once and awhile you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary.” The Hill
One would think that the way the media went nuts over a map with cross hairs on it (that Sarah Palin used) and the call for civility by Barack Obama, the media would be all over this. Who am I kidding though, the same media ignored all the Nazi, Hitler, and cross hair signs in Wisconsin.
No doubt because Democrat supporters were the ones carrying them. If it had been a Tea Party rally the media would still be talking about it.
But I digress.
Capuano has issued an apology stating that he wished he had chosen better words. Too late because the damage has been done. The union thugs have their marching orders and there will, no doubt, be thuggery in the future.
Before the union thugs and their partners in the Democrat Party decide to get bloody in the streets they should remember John Rambo’s words, “they drew first blood…”
They would also do well to remember what happened when Rambo decided to retaliate and draw a little blood himself.
Never surrender, never submit.
Aug 14, 2010 Political
The state of Massachusetts had Obamacare before there was an Obama to worry about. It came under Republican Mitt Romney and it is basically the same thing that the federal government shoved down our throats. It is also a huge failure. Imagine how life will be when all 50 states are full of Obamacare hospitals:
Four Massachusetts community hospitals are investigating how thousands of patient health records, some containing Social Security numbers and sensitive medical diagnoses, ended up in a pile at a public dump.
The unshredded records included pathology reports with patients’ names, addresses, and results of breast, bone, and skin cancer tests, as well as the results of lab work following miscarriages. boston.com
There will be no privacy and there will be little if any competence. Government grows bigger and programs get bigger and as they do the incompetence is more and more evident. There are countless examples from the mismanagement of Stimulus funds to the payment of benefits for dead people and these will only become more frequent and more egregious as government grows bigger and sinks its fangs deeper into the neck of America.
Never surrender, never submit.
Jul 18, 2010 Political
The elites want you to bathe in the oil while they eat lobster in Maine
Michelle Obama told people that there were plenty of clean beaches in the Gulf and that people should vacation there. She told them to take their kids with them, you know to enjoy the place.
But that did not apply to Michelle and her husband. Perhaps you have heard of him. He is the Socialist who is currently in charge of the country and who spends most of his time playing one sport or another or being on vacation. But his vacation is not in the Gulf, no, no, no. The Obamas are in Maine, the place Bill Clinton liked to vacation. They are hobnobbing, interrupting the real Americans who are trying to enjoy a vacation, and ignoring the Gulf, the very place Michelle told people to visit.
The Gulf, where one could potentially be contaminated, is for the peons among us and not the elitists who spend their time in places like Martha’s Vineyard.
I bet if it was called the GOLF Coast he would vacation there…
ABC News Jake Tapper
Elena Kagan is another Socialist who hates the military
She hates the military. There is no other way to look at her ban of recruiters on the Harvard Campus because of the policy against open homosexuality. One might think that she took a principled stance but she allowed the Saudi recruiters on campus to discuss and promote Sharia Law. Sharia Law calls for murdering homosexuals. Kagan is not so much in favor of homosexual rights as she is against the military. Here is the transcript from this video:
As Dean of Harvard Law School, Elena Kagan banned military recruiters from campus because US law said they couldn’t enlist homosexuals. Well, she invited the Saudi’s “recruiters” to promote their legal code — Shariah — which calls for homosexuals to be murdered and women to be treated like animals. If Kagan tolerates promoting the injustice of Shariah law on the campus of Harvard, what kind of injustice will she tolerate in America during a lifetime on the Supreme Court?
Big Dog Salute to American Power
How is that universal health care in Massachusetts working out?
The Unites States contains 50 pitri dishes that allow for things to take place and be worked out. The states can try things and if they are good the country can adopt them and if they are bad the country can reject them. This is good in theory but the federal government and the individual states, by and large, continue doing the things that cause problems.
In any event, Massachusetts enacted a health care law much like the one the federal government imposed on the rest of us earlier this year. Despite the failings of the MA health care plan, the federal government pushed forward (against a majority of people in the country) and forced their plan on us. Opponents of the law warned that it will lead to rationing, it will lead to bureaucrats making medical decisions, will force businesses to drop their employees (dump them on the taxpayer), and will cost a lot more than government predictions. The model was there in MA but it was ignored because the law is not about health and it is not about care.
It is about control.
Here is what is now taking place in Massachusetts.
The relentlessly rising cost of health insurance is prompting some small Massachusetts companies to drop coverage for their workers and encourage them to sign up for state-subsidized care instead, a trend that, some analysts say, could eventually weigh heavily on the state’s already-stressed budget. boston.com
The Massachusetts law was supposed to reduce costs. It was supposed to make health care more affordable. It was supposed to allow people to keep their current insurance. It was designed to make it affordable for employers so they could cover their employees.
Sounds just like what the liberals told us about Obamacare.
And it too will cost more than they said, will lead to rationing, will lead to death panels (denied care that leads to death is a death panel), and will force businesses to drop employees and dump them on the government plan. Just ask Massachusetts how it all worked out…
Everyone on the government plan is what the progressives have wanted all along but this is not what we were told.
Looks like it is November or never.
Never surrender, never submit.
Jan 20, 2010 Political
The Democrats suffered a huge defeat last night, a defeat that could spell disaster for them because it leaves them between Barack and a hard place. Their leader, Barack Obama, is determined to press on with his health care takeover plan. Fortunately for him he does not have to worry about being reelected for nearly three years unlike every Democrat in the House and many in the Senate who will face the public in ten short months.
Some Democrats have expressed that maybe, just maybe, they need to slow down on this health care issue. Maybe they need to scale it back, involve some Republicans and work things out rather than just ramming through a poor bill.
This is because they know what happened in Massachusetts can happen in any state in the union. They are aware that they can be defeated and lose their cushy, all expense paid jobs.
The problem the Democrats now have is that they forced a vote before Christmas which means it was before the election in Massachusetts. In their haste to pass something, anything, before Obama’s State of the Union Address they shot themselves in the foot. Why would they have had anything to worry about? Massachusetts is considered a very blue state and an easy win. Looks like they took Massachusetts and its people for granted.
The Senate Democrats rammed this through in the dead of night and forced it upon us. The people saw this and decided that electing a Republican would take away the filibuster proof majority and put some checks in place. That is how Scott Brown, a virtual unknown, came out of nowhere to beat the name recognition candidate on the left.
Democrats have spent quite some time telling us how wonderful this bill is and that they are looking out for us and they would not vote for it if it were bad blah, blah. Now they might have to decide if they really want to vote for it. Those who did then but don’t now will lose credibility because the public will see that they were lying about how wonderful it was. The public will see that when they said they were willing to lose their jobs to pass it they really did not mean it. And if they do not pass the bill it will be perceived as a failure by the left wing base.
If they decide to pass it with no regard for what took place in Massachusetts then they will be siging their own political death warrants.
Make no mistake, this was about health care. A lot of things can be said to have played in on this such as Coakley being a poor candidate or running a poor campaign but the reality is that Brown campaigned on being anti this legislation. He signed autographs with the number 41 indicating he would be the 41st vote and would end this mess.
Barack Obama flew up to Massachusetts like Mighty Mouse to save the day and he did not once mention health care in the speech he gave (neither did Coakley). If the health care was so wonderful and Obama wanted it passed and people loved it so much, why did they not mention it?
They did not mention it because people are not in favor of it. People do not want the mess they are peddling and Obama knows this and that is why he did not mention it. Any other time he is talking about it and the need for it. He did not discuss it here because it was the defining issue in the campaign.
Perhaps the voters of Massachusetts noticed that he failed to speak about his signature legislation and figured that there was a reason.
Whatever they felt, the people of Massachusetts did a wonderful thing for this country by driving a stake through the hearts of the blood suckers in the Democrat machine.
Hey Washington, can you hear us now?