Dumb And Dumber, The Intervention Of An Addict

Anyone ever had an addict in their family??? I have. what drives any form of addict is the bloodthirsty need to have power or control over another or a situation. It is the nucleus to the disorder…and trust me, it is a HUGE disorder…for every addict to remain so, they must have one or more co-addicts. hat being a willing person or partner who doesn’t engage in the addictive act, but does nothing to stop the active addict.

What I witnessed by both Republicans and Democrats at their convention was the disease of addiction and their willing co-addicts. That feeling of watching something occur and asking yourself if you really did just see what you saw. Surreal. The debris inside the eye of the storm flying everywhere, must have been what it felt like to be a delegate of anyone but Mitt Romney. And let’s not give the Dems a pass either…same for any Democratic delegate who places God as their supreme guide in life decisions and behavior.

Those of us on the outside of that eye of the storm can see things for exactly what they are, and it isn’t a pretty sight for either party if they continue this assault on rules, laws, and citizens. Judging from how many citizens don’t bother to vote, and how many dead citizens continue to vote, I’d say this is an utter failure. How about you?

To push away all those elected delegates by the people of their states, and change the rules at the last second to get your boy the 1144 delegates he needed, was less than the “big tent” you claim you are Republicans. And to push God out of any reference in your little party in Charlotte was equally divisive Democrats. You’re not winning anyone over.

How many of you would like to have another choice? How many would like to hear Gary Johnson in the debates, who is on the ballot in all 50 states? I know I would. I would like to hear what a former Governor of New Mexico, who was one of only four Governors to leave office with a budget surplus, has to say. I would like to hear what the former Governor has to say about cutting taxes, because he did so 14 times and still left the treasury with 222 million to the 28 million when he arrived. I would like to hear what the former Governor who won two terms with a wide margin has to say about school choice, since he was the first to lead the challenge on a statewide voucher program. I would like to hear about a former Governor who actually cut 1200 government jobs without firing one government employee. I would like to hear from the former Governor who vetoed 750 bills during his tenure, more than any other Governor in the country. I would like to hear about health care from a former Governor who has participated in several Iron Man triathlons and summited Mt. Everest in 2003. 

If the Republicans throw another game in November, just remember, there was a third choice…he just wasn’t invited to the party…maybe because he isn’t a power hungry, controlling addict?? Maybe he isn’t drinking the Kool Aid that requires an intervention.

Was Arizona A Sacrificial Lamb?

One would like to think that any court, especially the Supreme Court, would rule based on the Constitution. In an ideal world the judges would look at a case and compare it to what is allowed in the Supreme Law of the land and then decide if it passes muster or not.

Unfortunately, our country is not like that as many judges ignore the Constitution in order to push a political or idealistic agenda. For instance, there is no way that a case involving the right of an American citizen who is not otherwise disqualified (criminal, mental illness, addiction, etc) to own a gun should be shot down by any court. The fact that Second Amendment cases have been 5-4 decisions in our highest court speaks volumes about how some justices view the Constitution and the citizens who own that document.

Today the Supreme Court struck down three of four provisions of the Arizona Immigration Law, a law that was written with the same wording as the federal law and one that did nothing more than enforce ALREADY existing federal law.

Chief Justice Roberts voted with the majority on this and there might be a good reason. Justice Kagan recused herself because she was Solicitor General and was involved in the case against the law. If Roberts votes the other way the decision is split at 4-4 and the lower court ruling that invalidated the entire thing would be upheld. At least this way Roberts ensured that the most important part of the law, that which allows police officers to check immigration status, was upheld.

There is another take on this that I have heard and it is that Roberts voted this way because Obamacare is going to be overturned (or parts of it are) and Roberts wants to be able to show the Arizona case as proof that he is thoughtful in his process and that overturning Obamacare was not political.

It is sad that this takes place but the Court has been a political entity since FDR fiddled with it. Justices are selected based on their political ideology and less so on their judicial qualities. Presidents put people on courts not who will uphold the Constitution but who will provide political decisions in a party’s favor. If justices ruled by interpreting the Constitution (and this means reading what the Founders wrote about what it means and not some liberal living document mumbo jumbo) then there would be no issues and there would be fewer 5-4 decisions.

There would also not be a necessity for justices to vote one way to demonstrate that their decisions are not political. There would be no outcry over judicial activism and we would not have Barack Obama and his liberal minions berating the court and trying to intimidate them.

Another case decided today mirrored the Citizen’s United Case but at the state level. It was decided the way the CU Case was. What are the odds that this happened as a slap in the face to Obama for calling out the Court in his SOTU Address?

Supreme Court Justices are supposed to interpret law in accordance with the Constitution and base their decisions ONLY on that document. There should be no reference to foreign law or public feeling or opinion polls and there darn sure should not be decisions that run contrary to the words of the Constitution and those who wrote it.

We have these things because nine people sit on a court and play games.

As an aside, Justice Scalia wrote agreat dissenting opinion in the Arizona Case. His was well reasoned and followed the Constitution. It is too bad others could not do this as well.

I think that Roberts voted the way he did in order to keep the entire law from being shot down because of the split. But I can’t help but wonder if he feels as if this were a blessing because now he is on record as voting with the liberals on the Court in favor of Obama’s position so that when Obamacare is shot down (if it is) he will have cover.

It is a shame that our system of government has come to this and unless changes are made we will soon hit a death spiral from which we cannot recover.

On Thursday of this week we will know how Obamacare plays out. We will know if the Court takes its job and its duty to the Citizens seriously or if they have committed us to the loony bin of a banana republic.

Time will tell. I think at least part of the law will be struck down but with politics instead of adherence to the Constitution the MO of the SCOTUS, one can never tell.

Justice Kagan recused herself from this decision because of her role as Solicitor General. She should have recused herself from Obamacare but since she was placed on the Court by Obama to uphold it you can bet she will vote on it.

Though it might get interesting if she did recuse. That would make it a 4-4 and things would really be boogered up.

We will see Thursday if we are a nation of laws or a nation of men.

In Arizona Sheriff Arpaio already answered regarding law…

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

Obama Squeals; Upsets Seals

Barack Obama opposed everything George Bush did with regard to the Global War on Terror (and nearly everything else). He opposed all of the things that led to the killing of Osama bin Laden and when Seal Team Six carried out that mission Obama told Americans that he would not show pictures or make a lot out of it because, as he said, we don’t spike the ball.

That did not stop Barack Obama from taking all the credit for the success of the mission. Obama turned the mission over to a Naval Officer, Admiral William McRaven, and it was he who put the plans into place. Then Seal Team Six carried the mission to success. All of this was done with the mechanisims put into place by George Bush. Then Obama took all the credit.

Congrats to him for giving the order to carry out the mission. That is where his credit ends and the credit begins for all thoise who were actually in harm’s way. You see, while Obama might have suffered political damage from a failure, those who carried out the mission would have suffered injury or death had things gone badly. One only needs to remember Jimmy Carter and his disasterous plans in Iran to see what happens when a mission goes bad. Carter lost reelection but is still alive. Those who participated in his ill conceived mission in the desert have been dead for decades.

Now, the Navy Seals are not very happy with Barack Obama. They give him credit for giving the go on the mission but are very unhappy that he is using it as a political tool in his bid for reelection. They do not like being props for Obama’s campaign and they do not like the spotlight on them or their actions. They are upset that Obama is claiming that only he would have given the order and that Mitt Romney (the presumptive Republican nominee) would not have done so.

There is no way to know what Romney would have done but the Seals believe that any president would have given the order.

I have to disagree with that a little. While I have no doubt that Romney possesses leadership abilities and would have given the order, I have to disagree with the idea that any president would have.

Bill Clinton had the opportunity to take out Bin Laden on three occasions and he declined to do so. There is no doubt that Clinton had Osama bin laden in our crosshairs three times and each time he said no. One of his advisors (Sandy Berger) even stole papers from the National Archives to cover up information relating to this. If Bill Clinton had given the order on any of those occasions 9/11 might not have happened.

Ironically, the campaign ad the Seals are upset with features Bill Clinton telling viewers that Obama took the harder and more honorable path when he ordered that bin Laden be killed. This means that Clinton took the easier and less honorable path.

It is also interesting to note that the ad starts with the word Forward which has been a Socialist slogan for a very long time.

It was a great day for America and the world when Obama put into action the plans made possible by George Bush and ended the life of Osama bin Laden. It is not so honorable for the leader of this country to use this for political gain in order to be reelected.

The Navy Seals don’t like it and in the overall scheme of things their opinion matters more than that of Obama.

He gave the order but they risked it all to make it happen.

And it is not just the Seals who think this…

Is the luster wearing off?

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

Obamacare Becomes A Liability, Again

We already know that a number of Democrats lost their seats in the last election because of their support for Obamacare. This has been well documented and accounts for over a dozen seats that were lost. But Democrats like to say that was not an issue and that it is a wonderful thing even though we had to pass it to see what was in it.

One thing Obama did in his Socialist takeover of health care was to cut Medicare funds (and double count them) and there was a lot of bluster about Medicare Advantage. The DHHS rated many of the plans as “average” and a number of seniors would likely be forced into regular Medicare. A lot of them were not very happy about that and the support among seniors is the lowest with regard to Obamacare.

We are approaching an election season and Democrats are again worried that Obamacare will cause them problems so now Obama wants to give some Medicare Advantage plans bonus points to make them above average and infuse about $6 billion into the system. The regime claims this is to ease a problem and that politics is not involved but the reality is that they are trying to delay some of the more painful parts of Obamacare until after the next election.

They are trying to use taxpayer money for political purposes to the tune of $6 BILLION dollars. We are in a crisis and they are still piddling around spending billions of dollars.

AARP endorsed Obamacare and a lot of seniors left that organization because of it. The plan was rammed through and there was little regard for how it would affect people because the elitist pigs in DC know better how to run our lives than we do. Remember, this was supposed to be a great, pie in the sky plan that everyone would love once they understood what was in it and how great it would be. Now that the uncomfortable parts might hurt Democrats they want to change things.

Screw that. They need to keep it the way it is. People need to feel lots and lots of pain for supporting this and they need to know how bad it is so that they will stop supporting the Democrats who are bound and determined to hurt them.

There are two options, keep it like it was passed or repeal it all together. No Republican should support any change unless that change is repeal. They said it was wonderful and now it is showing to be anything but so we need to hang it around their necks.

Do not allow these weasels to change anything and avoid the wrath of the public. Make them stand on their votes and on their forceful imposition of an unconstitutional law on the American public.

Make them fall on their swords and die for supporting it.

Period.

Repeal is the only option. In fact, repeal should be a part of any plan to raise the debt ceiling and that plan should include a provision that any signing statement makes the entire thing null and void. Obama has already lied about his use of signing statements and he will do so again.

Hang him and his Democrats with their Socialist law.

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

Political Blame Game

Of course, the political blame game continues in full force today. Everyone is yelling and pointing fingers. The left is in full attack mode, blaming the right. The right is in full defense mode, pointing out all the times that the left has used the exact same words. But few people are actually blaming the shooter.

I like what Pat Buchanan has to say. I like his comparison to the 1933 assassination and the swift justice. But that’s not the political reality of today, is it?

I’d like to mention one other aspect of this story. I know it’s not going to be a popular opinion. In fact, it might even get me tossed from this blog. Big Dog, it’s your blog, and if you feel my views are too far out there, feel free to let me know. But I have been thinking about this since yesterday, and I think it needs to be pointed out, even if it’s only to the four or five readers of this blog.

First, I want to point out, I’m not in favor of violence to achieve political ends. I don’t believe it can work in this country. I don’t like violence at all. I think defensive violence is justified. But I do not think that this shooter should have shot the Congresswoman. I don’t support him, or anyone using violence against the system. In fact, as I have pointed out numerous times on this very blog, I don’t support using force against people to get them to make any decisions. I think using force to achieve political goals is wrong. But know who doesn’t? Do you know who believes in hiring mercenaries and using violence to reach political goals? I hate to say it, but Gabby Giffords does.

When she supported the Obamacare bill, she supported legislation that will force people to spend money the way she wants them to spend money. And that legislation hires policemen to make people pay. And if you don’t pay, that very legislation will send police to your house to jail or kill you if you do not do as Mrs. Giffords says. That’s not my opinion, that’s a fact.

So again, I do not support using violence to get my way. I don’t think Mrs. Giffords, or anyone else, should be shot for disagreeing with my political views. I’m not blaming Mrs. Giffords, I only blame the person who pulled the trigger. I pray for Mrs. Giffords and everyone else shot, and I hope she recovers. But I don’t see how people can be too surprised at violence used here — because the government supports using violence against people to achieve their political ends every single day.

Gunline

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.