A Look At The News

Debt Limit Surpasses 20 TRILLION!

The US debt limit (debt ceiling) has exceeded 20 TRILLION dollars (debt counter in right sidebar). The claim is that the debt jumped 317.6 Billion dollars in one day but that is only due to the funny math and accounting procedures used by the federal government. You see, the debt limit was reached months ago. In March we hit the statutory limit and the federal government has been using what it calls extraordinary measures to keep paying the bills. This involves taking money from the government funds in pension plans, stopping government contributions to pension plans and other methods of manipulating money the government does not own but controls (one day they will just confiscate it and pay the bills and dare you to do anything about it).

The reason there was a spike in the debt which had held at the same number since March is that President Trump and Congressional Democrats agreed to a plan to extend the debt ceiling and pass a continuing resolution moving the time to 15 December at which time the government will need to come to an agreement on the budget. Republicans wanted to kick this can down the road and Trump wanted to accomplish it by the end of the fiscal year (30 Sept) but the two hurricanes pummeled Texas and Florida and money is needed for disaster relief. Remember, Trump was ready to shut down the government if he did not get what he wanted but doing so now that people are suffering would be a stupid move so he agreed to increase debt, a CR and disaster relief until 15 December.

If he is smart (he keeps saying he is) he will use the holidays to hold Congress hostage and not let them adjourn until he gets what he wants or he can let the government shut down through the holidays. If he goes to the public now explaining what he expects and what will happen if he does not get it he might be able to get what he wants. Time will tell if he is a deal maker or a deal faker.

Rand Paul Has A Better Plan

Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky said that the disaster relief for Texas, Florida and other states affected by the hurricanes should come out of the foreign aid budget. He introduced the America First Amendment that would do just that. It would take billions of dollars from the foreign aid we send to other nations and use it instead for disaster relief. This is a wonderful idea. Who could not get on board of actually taking money that we usually give to nations that tolerate us, hate us or want to kill us and use it HERE in our own country instead? Who cannot get behind the idea of using American tax dollars to help Americans in America rather than letting it go to help people in foreign nations?

Evidently most of the Senate can’t because they voted against the Amendment 87-10. That means 87 US Senators thought it would be a better idea to send US tax dollars to other nations rather than spending them here to help our own people. One of those who voted against is a Senator from Texas. Sad, very sad indeed.

Remember this when these jackasses ask for your vote.

More Of The Police State

The Miami Herald is reporting that many folks who live in the Florida Keys and followed the mandatory evacuation orders are not being allowed back into the Keys. The police have blocked the road and tensions are high as people try to get back to their properties to see what their losses are. The police claim there is debris and live wires (even though all the power is out) across the roadway. The indications are it might be a week before these folks are allowed back in. They are being told to go to a shelter (26 miles away) and wait to be told they can enter.

People are not happy at this police state. The claim that public safety is a priority can only go so far. Emergency vehicles and certain others who live in specific areas of the Keys (the outraged claim it is the rich people who live there) are crossing the roads and making it in. There is no reason that the people who live there can’t get in to survey their properties and determine if they can stay or if they need to pack belongings and bug out until repairs are made. This is government making a bad situation worse by flexing its muscles.

Many folks interviewed are letting the police and elected officials know that the next time they will ignore the mandatory evacuation orders and stay home. They claim this is why most people do not follow those orders. They say getting back home is the problem and officials are only making it a certainty that more people will be placed in harm’s way the next time.

Gouging Bad Unless Government Does It

Remember not that long ago as Harvey was approaching and people were told to evacuate? Remember how the news was filled with stories of disgusted people who were faced with eight and nine dollar a gallon gas and water ranging from forty-eight to seventy-two dollars a case? Does anyone remember government officials claiming gouging will not be tolerated and businesses that price gouge should be ashamed and will be held accountable? I seem to remember a lot of bluster from government stooges who claimed they would tramp down hard on people found to be gouging.

It is amazing that people in Florida will go to Disney and spend three dollars for a bottle of water (which is seventy-two dollars a case) and not bat an eye but when they have to pay a dollar and a half or two dollars a bottle they scream bloody murder.

Well now, it seems those very anti price gouging politicians who would come down hard on the price gougers are guilty of the very same thing. The Mayor of Houston has proposed a 9% increase in property tax to pay for some of the cleanup from hurricane Harvey. Yes, the very officials who were talking about how immoral it was to gouge for water and gas are now gouging for taxes.

The tax increase would be temporary (they always start that way) and would be in the tax bill due the first part of 2018. Isn’t it amazing that a gas station that will be shut down raises its prices and charges more for water to curb hoarding and make up for future loss is condemned by the very government that thinks it is OK to raise taxes on people who have suffered huge financial losses and who will have trouble making ends meet and rebuilding?

I think if I lived there and Houston politicians wanted to increase my property tax I would force them to come reassess my property so I could pay taxes on the lower value now that it is damaged.

In any event, politicians are all the same. They think people are ATMs and that money can be withdrawn at any time for any reason.

Remember these jackasses when they ask for your vote.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog


2014 Out With The Old, In With The New

Yesterday Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) engaged in an old fashioned filibuster where he spoke for over 13 hours. His filibuster was in opposition to Barack Obama’s pick to head the CIA and the regime’s stance on using drones to kill Americans on American soil (the filibuster was to hold up the process until he got answers). The regime refuses to state whether or not it feels it has the right to conduct such strikes and Paul wants answers. Given the recent reports about the issue and the regime’s evasive words on the subject, it is a reasonable thing to ask about. People do not have to agree with Paul but he followed Senate procedures and did everything in accordance with the rules of the Senate.

While Rand Paul and some of the new and young Senators were involved in the filibuster the old guard of the Republican Party was at a restaurant dining with Barack Obama.

Yes, while Paul was working to get an answer involving a Constitutional issue the old RINOs were out eating dinner with the guy who is the subject of the debate.

Today Lindsey Graham and John McCain ridiculed Paul and claimed he broke the rules of the Senate. They said his assertions were ridiculous because no one has ever been killed on American soil from a drone. The old guys were upset that Paul would even ask if the government (it just happens to be under Obama right now) would murder Americans without due process. C’mon, we wouldn’t do that and it is ridiculous to even bring it up. Our government would never kill someone before they had their day in court.

The people from Waco and Ruby Ridge were not available to comment on this issue.

It is refreshing to see a politician stand up for what is right. It is refreshing to see someone who believes the Constitution means something and is willing to fight to ensure it is followed.

It is also refreshing to see the young members stand up and bring some freshness to the stale old Senate that is full of old lifers who are more interested in living like royalty than doing the jobs for which they were elected.

John McCain needs to be in a retirement home yelling at the television and Lindsey Graham needs to be in the private sector as an ambulance chasing lawyer filing frivolous lawsuits to make ends meet.

And there are plenty of others in both parties who need to be out on the street.

You are correct Senators; our government has not used drones to kill Americans on American soil. You can think it is ridiculous to even think our government would do such a thing.

Not long ago people scoffed at those who said government would try to infringe on the Second Amendment. Ban guns? No way! Confiscate firearms, they would never try that.

And yet they are working on just that.

It is time to primary these clowns and get candidates who will stand for the Constitution and not for their personal agendas.

2014 is coming and we need to throw out the old and bring in the new…

Washington Times
American Spectator
Gateway Pundit

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog



Now We Are Political Terrorists

First they published a memo calling all people who have conservative values Right Wing Extremists. The chilling report labeled people with single issues like opposition to abortion, as extremists. It was distributed to police agencies so they could be on the look out for us. Though that met stiff opposition and was reportedly quashed, I would not be surprised if those sentiments were still held and we are all being observed under the radar.

Then came the snitch campaign where the Obama White House wants people to report anyone who says something about the health care plan that might be “fishy.” There is an email address that people can forward such things to. This means if you send an email to a friend and it gets passed on to the White House, you will be in a database of opponents. This is reminiscent of the Nazi campaign to snitch on neighbors, particularly to rat out Jews. Is it any wonder that someone would feel compelled to carry a swastika to a protest event. Yes, it appears that two were seen at different events. All the other signs were ignored and the swastika was the focus of attention. I challenged Pelosi to find one and one of her lap dogs did. I am willing to bet there were more of them at one anti Bush rally than have been at all the protests combined. Why would they feign indignation now when they were not bothered then. It is because they are trying to paint all protesters as right wing radicals rather than the diverse group that includes Democrats, liberals, Republicans and conservatives. They want you to believe that only Republicans and conservatives are involved and they are radicals who have, gasp, a swastika. How dare they insult Herr Obama?

Now we have a columnist at the Washington Post chiming in. He has labeled those who are voicing opposition to the plan as political terrorists. Steven Pearlstein says:

The recent attacks by Republican leaders and their ideological fellow-travelers on the effort to reform the health-care system have been so misleading, so disingenuous, that they could only spring from a cynical effort to gain partisan political advantage. By poisoning the political well, they’ve given up any pretense of being the loyal opposition. They’ve become political terrorists, willing to say or do anything to prevent the country from reaching a consensus on one of its most serious domestic problems. [emphasis mine]

So Steven, what were the Democrats and Obamadinejad when they opposed more than a half a dozen bills that would have reformed health care? If they were concerned about this serious domestic problem then why did they all oppose items that would have provided reform without a complete overhaul in order to cover a small percentage who have no insurance?

The claim by Mr. Pearlstein is that Republicans are making claims that this will result in a government takeover of health care and he contends that there is no way to read what has been proposed and conclude that. This is, of course, a matter of opinion. However, the words of Obama saying that he wanted a single payer system and of Barney Frank saying the way to get there was by first passing a government run plan are clear indications of what they want and what they have in mind. The claims that the opposition is being misleading or disingenuous are funny considering that those who are pushing the plan are misleading and disingenuous.

This is another example of someone presenting two options. Obama has said it a number of times. People who oppose this want to keep things they way they are. This straw man argument is designed to make people believe there are only two options. The reality is that many members of Congress have introduced legislation to reform and those items did not involve the complete overhaul of our system. Democrats opposed these because they want to control it all.

There are plenty of options as I have discussed in the past. We can drop the mandates in coverage. States require a number of things to be in a plan before it can be offered. Some companies do not want to put those plans out so only a few are allowed to offer. This means less competition. Insurance should be like a cable plan. There are items that are essential such as catastrophic care, emergency care, dental care, vision care, surgical care and any preventive care that involves more than a routine office visit. Then other items can be offered if the consumer desires them. It makes no sense to force a single male to pay for a plan that includes abortion services or OB/GYN. It is nonsensical to force people who do not drink or do drugs to pay for substance abuse treatment. Some people might like aroma therapy but others see no benefit. Allow those who want it to add it on and pay for it and those who do not to pass on it. Just like cable TV, you have a basic package and you add on the extras that you want. People should also pay for wellness visits. We have car insurance but that does not pay for routine maintenance. Why should people not pay for their routine care?

We should also remove restrictions on buying insurance across state lines. If a person likes a plan offered in another state then he should be able to buy it. Restricting to in state companies stifles competition and drives costs up.

I also think Doctors should be given tax credits for seeing people with no health insurance. I heard Congressman Ron Paul’s son discuss this and I think it is a great idea. Rand Paul is a doctor (Ophthalmologist) and he is running for a Senate seat in Kentucky. He believes that doctors should see those without insurance and receive a tax credit for doing so. This will provide care to those who need it and compensate the doctors providing the care. Of course there will need to be oversight or some will abuse the system but I think it will provide incentive for doctors to see those who truly cannot pay.

These are but a few ideas that would help to reform the system and they would make health care more affordable. People will still have to pay but it will not cost as much. I am sure if they can afford a cell phone, two cars, high speed internet and cable TV with the premium channels they can squeeze in health insurance.

For the absolute destitute among us, we still have government plans that will cover them.

No, I am not a political terrorist for opposing the health care scheme and wanting less government regardless of what any reporter says. I do wonder though, where this guy was when the left was using similar tactics to oppose Bush? Has he called the Code Pink morons who harassed Marines in Berkeley political terrorists?

The First Amendment protects our right to free speech and the right to peaceably assemble. Opposing health care or any other plan in a peaceful fashion is not political terrorism, it is an exercise of our Constitutional rights.

Those who cannot see that or would work to oppose it, are the real political terrorists.

Big Dog salute to Stop the ACLU

Big Dog

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.