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.

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.

Barack Obama has ordered all insurance providers to provide birth control with no costs and no co-pays. It is dubbed as free birth control but it is not free. The people who pay insurance premiums will see their rates rise and those who don’t use birth control (for whatever reason) will pay for a service for others. It is not free no matter what any moron in government says.

Houses of worship are exempt but religious based hospitals and heath care providers have a one year delay before they must comply even if it goes against their beliefs.

I have heard the arguments about a woman’s right and I am sick of hearing it. Yes, birth control is legal and women have a right to use it. That is where their right ends. What right do they have to pay nothing for it? What right do they have that requires others to pay for their medication?

People have to pay co-pays for just about everything and some of the costs to the patients are not cheap. Why is it that women have to pay absolutely nothing for birth control? People who need medications to live (inhalers, blood pressure, heart, etc.) all have to pay something for their medication.

Women though, pay absolutely nothing for a medication that is not needed to live. It is not life saving and it is not vital for existence.

I know that part of this is Obama pandering to women prior to the election but this goes much deeper. It involves more of the same regarding pitting people against each other and infringing upon religious institutions. Obama has no regard for religion and he has no regard for the idea of responsibility.

He thinks that we should all be paying for the stuff others get and this has got to stop.

You want birth control pills, abortions, aroma therapy or any other thing then pay for it yourself.

We are not our brother’s keepers and it is high time we put this man child in his place.

November cannot come soon enough.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

It is no secret that Barack Obama has little regard for the Constitution. He thinks it puts up to many barriers to redistributive change (taking from one to give to another). He believes that there should not only be a level playing field (everyone has the same chance) but that outcomes should be equal. This is one of the things Socialists like and they particularly like the part where they live like kings while the rest of the population lives in poverty.

So there is little regard for the Constitution, no surprise there. Democrats do not like the thing because it makes it harder for them to run roughshod over us.

Eric Holder, the lawless Attorney General, made a speech today discussing voting rights. He was with the head of the NAACP in South Carolina where the US has blocked voter laws. Yes, the US has blocked ID laws because Democrats think it will discriminate against voters (OK, they think Democrat voters or they would not care). They might have a point, illegals are voting in our elections. This is the Democrat voting base so yes, laws would discriminate against them but not in a bad way. They are not allowed to vote.

This is what laws are for and this is one of the reasons states are getting tougher. They are doing it because the system is broken and is wide open for fraud despite what the morons in DC say. The regime knows that it is in deep stuff and that it needs every vote it can get, legal or otherwise, in order to win. Voter laws that improve the integrity of the system are a barrier that the regime does not like. Then again, integrity is not a strong point of these people (and by these people I mean Democrats).

To Democrats the Constitution is a document of convenience. If it suits their purpose they will use it and if it does not they will ignore it.

Eric Holder does not even know the thing. He filed suit in a federal court to block Arizona’s immigration law but the Constitution clearly states that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction when any state is a party.

Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 says:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction…

From an article in Canada Free Press. Bold as appears in the article.

This regime is lawless and will do whatever it can get away with in order to push its agenda of making America a Socialist nation. Many Americans are too blind or too deluded to see this but those who lived under an oppressive government can see what is going on. Russian immigrants are not thrilled with Democrats and are flocking to the GOP.

The states need to push back against the tyranny of the federal government. States need to enact whatever voting laws they desire and take the feds to court if they interfere. Arizona needs to continue with its immigration laws and ignore the court that decided against the state because that court and its judge had no Constitutional authority to act.

It is time for the states to take control and to put the federal government and the Obama regime in their place.

Related:
The Examiner

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

The jobless rate has dropped a bit over the last month and we are bombarded with stories about how the Obama recovery plan is working. This is proof (though when it continued to rise it was not proof that the recovery plan was a failure) and we should all be thankful that we have the fourth greatest prez ever running the country (his own assessment, not mine).

The jobless rate is down for several reasons. The seasonal hiring for Christmas helped and the number of people looking for work decreased as people became disparaged and stopped actively looking. These people are not counted. The rate will go lower if the denominator is smaller.

Now that Christmas is over and companies have let the temps go the number will rise again. Once people start actively looking again, the number will go up. How will the regime spin those numbers.

You can be sure that the very people who ignored the people who stopped looking when the number went down will be jumping up and down telling us that the number is only higher because of those very people.

Things are not good and they are really not any better than when King Barack Hussein took office. The economy is sinking, the national debt is rising rapidly and crushing us under its weight. We have plans for cutting that amount to the effect of spitting in the ocean and saying the level had risen. They are pathetic and will not bring us back to fiscal responsibility.

We need to get a handle on social welfare programs. We need to cut spending across the board and we need to eliminate redundant government programs. Lacking this, we will be Greece in no time.

Our debt is now more than 100% of our GDP and that is a very bad sign of things to come.

While Rome burns Nero Obama is fiddling. He is playing class warfare to let us know he will not let the 50% who pay no federal taxes be burdened by the 50% who don’t pay their fair share…

November is our chance to get things back on track by throwing the Socialist and his regime out one their ears.

Related:
Bloomberg

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Barack Obama went to Congress with hat in hand and asked for another trillion dollars of debt. He wants the debt ceiling raised another trillion dollars so he can borrow and spend more. This will likely be done because Congress can do nothing to stop it.

Under the deal struck last year, Obama can ask for the increase and unless Congress votes not to allow it then it will happen. Since the Democrats control the Senate they will likely not vote to stop it and if they do (it is an election year) Obama can veto them and there are not enough votes to override the veto.

Obama and his policies have given us the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression and he is on track to borrow more than all the presidents from Washington to Clinton combined!

According to the Washington Post, Obama formally notified Congress on 12 January that he will raise the debt ceiling by 1.2 trillion dollars. The Congress has 15 days to say no or it will automatically happen. The House does not return until the 17^th and the Senate the 23^rd. So Congress will have very few days to actually work on this. This also brings up an off topic question.

Obama’s justice Department sided with him on his recess appointments saying that Obama is unable to communicate with the Senate because it is not in session. He, according to Justice, was able to make recess appointments because he can’t communicate with the Senate because they are not there. How is it then, he is able to communicate with Congress regarding his desire to raise the debt ceiling? How can he formally notify them of his desire to raise the debt and then claim he can’t formally notify them of nominations because they are not there?

OK, back on target. I think Obama will raise the ceiling because the cowards in Congress set it up so they do not have to deal with it. They can claim they never raised the ceiling even if they make a show of trying to stop it. They gave up their power on this issue just as they have done with many other powers they have.

I think that Obama is going to have a hard time convincing people that we need to keep borrowing to get out of debt. Borrowing money to put it into the economy does not stimulate anything and makes as much sense as taking water from the deep end of a pool and putting it in the shallow end and claiming that the shallow end is getting deeper while the deep end is getting shallower.

It simply does not work.

But it is an election year and Obama needs more seed money to pay off his base.

We need a do over on government. We need to get rid of them all and start over with the fresh minds of people who have not been corrupted by their position in office.

November is our revolution.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

The Justice Department, headed by corrupt Attorney General Eric Holder, has weighed in on King Barack Hussein’s “recess” appointments and has found, surprise, that Obama did nothing wrong.

Justice noted that pro forma sessions are not breaks of the longer recess and that the Senate is not able to receive communications from the White House or to advise and consent. Perhaps this would be true if the Senate was in recess (and only courts can determine it) but the Senate was never gaveled into recess. It has adjourned every three days since December and I can find nothing in the Congressional Record indicating the Senate body made a motion to recess.

So the Senate was never in a recess. This was done, as indicated on the Senate website, so that one body does not have to ask the other for permission to adjourn (longer than three days requires consent of the other chamber).

It happened under Harry Reid so contrary to the referenced article, the Republicans did not do this, they carried it on. It is likely Reid did this to keep from having to ask the House for permission to adjourn because they were in a heated debate on the tax cut plan and the House might have said no.

In any event, the pro forma scheme has been used by both parties to block recess appointments and Ted Kennedy wrote an amicus for a court over a Bush recess appointment. In that brief, Kennedy made the argument that everything Obama has now done is wrong. He was arguing against a Bush appointment but the argument would clearly apply to what Obama is doing.

It is no surprise that the Fast and Furious Justice Department sided with Obama. They support his power grab and their actions in the past show they have little regard for the Constitution or the rule of law.

Justice argues that the pro forma sessions do not constitute a functioning body that can render advise and consent on nominees. First of all, the Senate is capable of taking in communications and second of all the names in question had already been submitted. In other words, Obama would not have needed to submit their names for consideration because they were already submitted for consideration and had not been acted upon. One was in process and the other two were so new that the Senate had not even had the chance to act on on them.

Second, even if the entire Senate was in session the nominations would not have been acted upon immediately. It is likely, given past experience, that the Senate would take quite some time deliberating on the nominations.

So no matter how it is sliced, Obama made a power grab and did an end run around Congress. That end run will probably run afoul of the Constitution and embarrass the inexperienced power grabber in chief.

All these people need to be run out of town come November.

We need to remove King Hussein from his throne.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.