Oct 11, 2013 Political
The Federal Government has shut down 17% of its operations and one would think the end of the world is near. The petulant child in the White House has been giving directives to departments to make the shutdown as painful as possible for the public. The Democrats have expressed that they “are winning” so they do not care how long it lasts. I have addressed that attitude before but suffice it to say they care not a bit about this country or the people in it. Obama has refused to negotiate and Harry Reid is making demands that he will not bend on.
They are out of control.
Certainly some things will shut down when the government is closed (or partly closed) but this government has shut down things that do not need to be shut down and it has done so for the sole reason of hurting people.
The government shut down a road that runs through federal property which caused school buses to stop taking kids to school. Buses are unable to use the alternate road so parents are forced to take their children to school. Government does not man the road but it decided to shut it down to make things tough.
Government has removed people from their own homes because those homes are located on federal property. People were forced by gun toting jack booted thugs of the government to leave their homes. Government does not pay for or maintain the homes but the owners had no choice.
Government shut down open air monuments and memorials that are never manned and cost nothing to visit. They barred veterans of WWII from visiting the open air WWII Memorial just to cause harm.
The government forced a bunch of old people on a bus trip to get back in a bus that was touring Yosemite after they stopped to take pictures. The people were allowed to go to their hotel rooms and were forced to stay in those rooms for a few days (they were NOT allowed out) as armed officers kept them under house arrest. They were then placed back on the bus and allowed to leave They were not permitted to stop at a rest place, usually frequented on those tours, to use the restrooms. Nothing they did cost the government money and they paid for the trip. This was done to hurt people.
People using campgrounds on federal property were forced to leave even though they paid to use the facilities, their presence does not cost the government and their money results in revenue to the Treasury. This was done to hurt people.
The stories go on and on and they all involve the government deliberately doing something that harms people. They claim it is because of the shutdown but the actions they are taking involve things that are not affected by the shutdown. This is all out of Rules for Radicals and it is all on the orders of Obama.
He told people to make it as unpleasant as possible.
Hell, Obama had the military commissaries shutdown even though 98% of their funds come from user fees. His regime did not pay death benefits to the families of warriors who died after 1 October just to use these grieving families as pawns.
What does any of this have to do with Obamacare?
Let us suppose that Obamacare was fully implemented and money was flowing all over paying for procedures and people were getting health care. Now this is fantasy because it will not run well but that does not matter. Just suppose it is up and running.
Do you for one second think that the petulant child in the White House would not use Obamacare to hurt people and make the shutdown even more painful?
He could simply say that all health care facilities are closed because the government is shut down and these facilities fall under a federal law and are getting federal money. Medicare is on autopilot so they really would have a hard time doing it with that but with Obamacare they could easily inflame the country and point fingers at the mean old GOP by shutting down facilities.
If anyone reading this thinks that Obama would not do just that then you would be a moron. He would do it in a New York City second.
Look at how many things he closed down that were never closed in other shutdowns. Look at how many things he closed that government has nothing to do with. The stated goal was to make it hurt and he could do that by shutting health facilities.
So those of you screaming that Obamacare is wonderful and should be left alone keep that in mind when it is used against you someday.
Wouldn’t it be ironic if a Republican president had a shutdown someday because Democrats would not agree to a budget and that president took a page from the Alinsky playbook that Obama uses and shut down the health clinics? None of you liberal morons would have grounds to say a thing because you are allowing Obama to do the very same thing right now.
The Democrats shut down the government. They refused to negotiate and they are holding America hostage. They are holding a gun to our heads.
That’s how good it is! ~ Ann Coulter
Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer and all the others are radical terrorists who are out to destroy this country. They all belong in Gitmo with the rest of the terrorists.
As an aside, those of you who hate George Bush keep this in mind. There was not one day of government shutdown when he was in office.
One last thing. Why do liberals always scream that Social Security checks won’t go out and the military won’t get paid. We know SS is on autopilot and that the military will eventually get paid but the liberals like to use fear to make seniors, those who have been enslaved under Social Security, fearful of not getting a check.
If you are worried about your money and have no other means then perhaps you should learn to vote better. And buy lots of cat food.
One thing I never hear is that welfare checks might not go out. Liberals place a higher value on crack whores and welfare queens getting their checks than they do the seniors who paid in and the military who protect this nation.
Really not bright to threaten not to pay the people with all the tanks, jets, helicopters comprised of the finest fighting forces in the world. They can point their weapons in any direction and are sworn to protect and defend the Constitution, not politicians.
And that would be against all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC.
Obama and his henchmen are domestic enemies.
Never surrender, never submit.
The Democrats shut down the government because they are inflexible and are unwilling to negotiate. Barack Obama said he would not negotiate on the budget or the debt ceiling which is interesting. You see, he has labeled the people with whom he disagrees terrorists and those seem to be the only people he will actually negotiate with.
The Democrats wanted the government to shut down. The Republicans did not which is why the Republicans funded every part of the government except Obamacare. Democrats refused to fund the government (all of which would have been) if Obamacare was not part of it. They are lock step with Barack Hussein Obama.
Make no mistake the Democrats wanted the government shut down. The conventional wisdom is that this benefits them in the next election. Democrats are all for anything to win elections no matter what it costs or who it hurts so it is reasonable to conclude they wanted the shutdown to win the next election.
To make matters worse the Democrats, through their supreme leader Obama, have worked to make the shutdown as troublesome as possible. They are deliberately using the shutdown as a reason to screw with people even if it is not necessary to apply the shutdown to specific areas.
Here are a few examples:
The monuments in DC are closed to the public. Many of them are in open areas and are not regularly staffed. They are patrolled by the Park Police and those police officers are still on duty because they are deemed essential. So what has changed? Nothing. The monuments are still in open areas where people roam about each and every day. They are not manned so there is no difference and they are patrolled like they are every other day. The government spent money to erect barriers in places where, on any other given day, people walk about without government workers manning a station. The monuments are in the open at night. They are in the open on weekends. They are in the open each and every day and yet Barack Obama has closed them with barricades and the only reason is to inconvenience people.
There are more Park Police at these things now than there are when the government is fully funded and not on shutdown. Why?
A Virginia Park that receives absolutely NO government money has been shutdown. The Claude Moore Colonial Farm has been ordered to shut down until the government reaches a budget deal. The problem here is that the park receives no money to operate and the people who work there are volunteers or people not paid by the federal government. Managing Director Anna Eberly hits the nail on the head:
“You do have to wonder about the wisdom of an organization that would use staff they don’t have the money to pay to evict visitors from a park site that operates without costing them any money,”
How else are the Democrats causing undue harm? They are closing down the military commissaries. For those unfamiliar commissaries are the grocery stores located on military bases where authorized patrons shop. Items are sold at cost plus 5% and save authorized patrons a lot of money. Only 2% of the commissary budget is appropriated. The other 98% comes from the 5% surcharge and that money is what pays for the system.
The only congressionally appropriated money spent in the three exchange systems comes in the form of utilities and transportation of merchandise to overseas exchanges and for military salaries. A non-appropriated fund activity (NAF) of the Department of Defense, the exchange services fund 98% of their operating budgets (civilian employee salaries, inventory investments, utilities and capital investments for equipment, vehicles and facilities) from the sale of merchandise, food and services to customers. About.com
Considering the military must work through the shutdown does it not make sense to ensure their support services are available?
Well we can’t have that. The Democrats need to make this tough on everyone and the fact they get to screw the military is a plus. Barack Obama hates the military so this is a way for him to stick it to them. He knows that a huge majority of the service members do not like him, do not think like him and have no respect for him so he cares not if they are screwed as long as they protect him, fly him and carry his freaking bags…
It is a crying shame that the commissaries will close and service members will have to shop in the local community when welfare recipients will still get money to purchase food. In a proper world those takers would be denied money and the military would be supported.
Those are just a few things that are evidence of a deliberate effort to make this shutdown as painful as possible. The Democrats did that with sequester when they implemented all kinds of things that hurt people. It was obvious then and it is obvious now.
There is no doubt that all of this is by design and it is likely that they left wants to incite riots and civil unrest so that it can take drastic measures to control the population. That would fulfill the Obama dream of fundamentally transforming this nation into a socialist country.
Fortunately, he was unable to disarm people before this all took place. If the feces hits the rotating cooling device look for armed patriots to restore order and defend against government tyranny.
Like those WWII veterans demonstrated there is no barrier that we cannot overcome. There is no barrier government can erect that will stop us.
And that goes for any barriers anywhere government erects them….
Never surrender, never submit.
Sep 19, 2013 Political
The President of the United States serves as the Commander in Chief of the armed forces and of the militia when it is called into federal service. It is an important marriage of the concept of civilian control of the military and was designed by our Founders to keep the military in check because the Founders were suspicious of standing armies.
Samuel Adams put it this way in 1768:
“Even when there is a necessity of the military power, within a land, a wise and prudent people will always have a watchful and jealous eye over it”
And Elbridge Gerry, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, stated:
“standing armies in time of peace are inconsistent with the principles of republican Governments, dangerous to the liberties of a free people, and generally converted into destructive engines for establishing despotism.”
The Founders established a Constitution that gave all three branches of government some portion of control over the military so that no one branch could use the military for its own agenda. For example, the Legislative raises and supports the Army and Navy and provides its funds and rules. It also has the authority to declare war.
The Executive enforces the rules established by the Legislative and has control over how they are used; the Commander in Chief commands them. These checks are supposed to keep us from rash decisions about war and quick use of our armed forces.
This has played out recently with the Syrian chemical agent use issue.
The Syrian issue has shown more than the Constitutional conflict. The crisis has also shown an uneasy relationship between Obama and the nation’s military leaders.
The military, while declaring it is prepared to execute any order given (I assume they mean any lawful order), has also expressed displeasure at a strike that would allegedly be punitive and have no clear goals. There is worry that things could escalate and require a larger response or the movement of troops into the area.
The article points out that there is a feeling among the leaders that the military has been burned with half measures. There is disgust over the way Iraq has been handled and there is concern over Afghanistan.
The military, in other words, has lost faith in its civilian leader.
This should come as no surprise as Obama (who appoints many people who feel as he does) is not a fan of the military. He is a typical liberal and has a dislike and a distrust of the men and women in uniform. He has never served and he has never been a leader.
There is weakness at the top and the military can see it.
It must have frosted many of our leaders to see Putin wax Obama’s ass over Syria. The military does not like to see a foreign leader’s footprint on its Commander’s ass.
While many people looked to Obama to lead them out of the desert and into the Promised Land they are now seeing that Obama cannot lead.
George Bush once said that history would make its decision about him.
Members of the military seem to bringing that sentiment home as many report that, unlike Obama, “…Bush had his stuff together.” They report that when he made a call, whether good or bad, at least he was making it.
History seems to have arrived sooner than one might have thought.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Obama took charge of people who did not want him to begin with and he has done nothing to boost their confidence in him.
They probably feel like I do. Obama sees the military as his pawns.
And they don’t think he knows how to play the game.
Never surrender, never submit.
There is a lot of uproar right now about sexual assaults in the military. This has gotten the attention of members of Congress and the top brass of the military. Unfortunately, the response is the same as it has been for the past two or three decades.
The response is to have well publicized hearings where people are degraded and then promises are made that it will improve. This has happened in every major case since at least the Tailhook case. They always promise to improve. They always promise that they will get on it and make it better. They make the promises and put into place a bunch of nonsense and feel good measures.
But things never really change. This time there are stand down days and mandatory training directed at all workers, civilian and military, the huge majority of whom are not and have never been involved in a sexual assault.
The solution to the problem is to hold those who engage in such behavior accountable. Therein lies the rub. You see, in today’s society we lack responsibility and we lack accountability. This comes from the president on down as evidenced by his constant blaming of everyone else (particularly George Bush). The other side of the coin is that no one holds him (the Limbaugh Theorem) or any other officials accountable.
People need to act responsibly and when they don’t they need to be held accountable. Society has abandoned this idea. When a shooter murders a bunch of people we do not hold that person accountable. We blame guns and then punish the millions of gun owners who had nothing to do with the crime.
In these sexual assault cases in the military we blame the environment and then preach to those who have not done anything wrong.
Hold those who are found guilty of sexual assault accountable by punishing them. In addition, if someone makes a false claim and that is found out the person making the false claim should receive the punishment the accused would have gotten had he actually committed the crime.
There are other ideas that are directed at solving the problem but they are moronic at best. Deebow at Blackfive explores one such solution and puts it much better than I could hope to.
Sexual assault in the military is a betrayal of trust. The person assaulted has placed trust in another member of the military and that trust is betrayed by a person to whom an allegiance has been formed. It is a violation of the very core and foundation of teamwork and it is despicable.
Members of the military are a very select subset of the population. They are people who have vowed to put their lives on the line to preserve our country and our way of life. The training in the military brings these very unique people together and teaches them to put others and their nation above themselves. We place our lives in each other’s hands and we expect that our backs will always be protected.
When someone in the military is sexually assaulted by another service member that sacred bond, that trust, has been violated and is more painful and more damaging than an attack by our enemies. We would not stand for an enemy attack on our service members and we work hard to prevent such things. Why would any member of our armed forces attack another member this way?
Right now there is a case going on at the Naval Academy where three members of the football team are accused of sexually assaulting a female midshipman who got drunk at a party. It appears as if she was punished (for getting drunk) while they were allowed to remain on the team. The spotlight on the incident seems to have sparked the current investigation.
If these men raped this woman then they should go to jail for a very long time. It does not matter how drunk she was because that is not and never will be justification for what they allegedly did. If she violated some rule by drinking or getting drunk then the Academy can deal with that separately. But when she was drunk her comrades let her down. That was when she was most vulnerable and that is when they should have protected her. They should have ensured she got home safely.
If what they are accused of is true then they turned their backs on a fellow midshipman and let her down. They did not have her back and they violated the trust she had in them as comrades in arms.
It is criminal that they very people she trusted caused her harm. In the military we are a family and we are supposed to protect each other.
These men are accused of doing something to her that they would never allow to happen to their sisters.
Anyone who does this is a cretin and is unfit to wear the uniform of this nation.
We are better than that my brothers and sisters in arms and if you don’t feel that way then it is time for you to pack your stuff and GTFO.
Never surrender, never submit.
Jun 6, 2013 Political
The leaders of the Armed Forces are in hot water because of an increase in sexual assaults. They promise to combat sexual assault and admit they let the ball drop. In a grilling by members of Congress two Democrat female Senators had a field day and went all in over the issue. Senator Gillibrand implied some commanders were stupid by claiming “…not every single commander can distinguish between a slap on the ass and a rape…” While I get the dramatics I think just about all can tell the two apart.
Senator McCaskill made the claim that looking at someone the wrong way can be sexual assault. I guess there could be looks that can be considered assault but can’t seem to think of one. What look conveys imminent harmful contact?
I am not making light of the issue of sexual assault whether it is in or out of the military. However, I do have a few problems with all of this.
The incidence of sexual assault has had an uptick over the past year or two. What is the root cause of this? It seems as if the uptick happened after gays were allowed to openly serve so it would be worth looking to see if the increase is same sex assault. Not that it matters BUT in order to solve a problem the root cause needs to be found and if the uptick is because of the repeal of DADT then it needs to be looked into to see why it happened.
I also have a problem with Congress wanting to take the discipline of sexual offenders out of the hands of commanders. If the issue is reporting and punishment then require commanders to report all claims of sexual impropriety to their higher commander and have that higher commander review the results of investigations. Commanders need to retain the ability to investigate and punish those who have done wrong. If any commander is not doing that job then relieve that commander. Do not use some blanket policy because of an increase particularly if that increase is due to the repeal of DADT. Find a solution for it that does not involve hampering all commanders.
My last issue is with these Democrat females and their indignation. Where were they when Bill Clinton was sexually molesting women? I realize that these two were not in office when that occurred (not in federal office anyway) but their body, the Senate, voted to let Bill off the hook.
How come there was not the same uproar from liberal woman about Bill Clinton’s alleged rapes and his confirmed affair back then? Why are these folks acting as if they have some moral authority when they still worship the ground Clinton walks on?
It seems to me that folks who apply their anger selectively over the same subject lose credibility.
Sexual assault is a crime. My solution is to investigate the accusation, prosecute those with merit; if they are guilty put them in jail and if they are not guilty put them back to work.
That seems like a good solution to me.
As far as Gillibrand and McCaskill, how do you ladies feel about Bill Clinton and what he did? What do you say about the accusations of rape?
Are you as mad at the Senate for the way they let him off as you are at the way the military handles sexual assault cases?
Your answers will tell us a lot about you…
Never surrender, never submit.