Big Dogs House

Chains You Can Believe In

Apr 5, 2009 Political

There is no doubt among those of us with brains that Barack Obama is moving us toward Socialism. As part of that effort he is working toward government having a hand in business so that government can tell business what to do, how much to pay, and who needs to be fired. We have seen ALL of this already.

I have made it clear that government has no business getting involved in business but there is a little problem and that is the bailout money. Obama and the Congress are setting conditions that were not in place when bailout funds were distributed. They failed to have restrictions or conditions when the money went out so they added them later. This is a violation of the Constitution and needs to be stopped.

One other problem is that some financial institutions took bailout money because they were forced to by the government. There were plenty that wanted nothing to do with it but they were FORCED by the US government. Now they are stuck with the same rules that those who wanted the money must endure.

Well why don’t they just pay the money back?

That is the problem. Stuart Varney is reporting that the Obama administration is refusing to take back TARP money and Varney asks and answers this question; “So why no cheering as the cash comes back?”

Varney reports that financial institutions that want to pay back the TARP money are not being allowed to do so. That’s right folks, those who took the money (many who were forced) are not being allowed to pay it back. Why would the government not want the money to come back in? The answer is very simple and Varney nails it:

My answer: The government wants to control the banks, just as it now controls GM and Chrysler, and will surely control the health industry in the not-too-distant future. Keeping them TARP-stuffed is the key to control. And for this intensely political president, mere influence is not enough. The White House wants to tell ‘em what to do. Control. Direct. Command. Wall Street Journal

The government wants control. It is that simple and it is a necessary element in order to have Socialism. The government wants control. Say it over and over until you understand it. The government wants control.

The government is using the manufactured crisis in order to gain control over larger parts of our society and it is giving up our sovereignty to the rest of the world. Obama bows to Kings and Obama has allowed foreign countries to decide executive pay of US companies to oversee “Corporate Social Responsibility.” According to Dick Morris our Declaration of Independence was repealed on 2 April 2009 by Barack Obama at the G-20.

Corporations have no social responsibility. They have a responsibility to their stockholders. It is not up to companies to ensure people can afford products or that they are available to everyone. Companies are in business to MAKE MONEY, not run welfare clinics. Companies who took TARP money (or had it forced upon them) have obligations so long as they hold the money. The US is refusing to take it back so that it can continue to exercise control over those companies.

It is time for the companies to contact the government and tell Obama that the money is ready to be repaid and if it is not accepted by the government the debt will be considered forgiven and the company no longer accountable for it. Then the companies should do what they want and tell the federal government to piss off.

The idea that there is some social responsibility is what drives Obama and his Socialist buddies. They believe that the producers are responsible for providing to the looters. There is no doubt that this mentality was ingrained long ago when he was a dope smoking teen in whatever nation his parents decided he belonged. Obama was the beneficiary of affirmative action, of handouts, of his hatred of whites and the exploitation by them (read his book). It is only natural that he would think that he is the one to make the achievers give to the looters. Who is John Galt?

Obama wants everyone under the thumb of oppression. He wants everyone to be sunject to the whims of the federal government at all times. He wants people unable to do anything without the government mandating it and he wants those who achieve to pay for it.

What will happen if all the companies just stop? The ILLEGALS get together once a year and riot, uh, protest their conditions and they do it on May Day, which is a Communist holiday. They think they can shut down the country by not working for a day.

The true achievers could. If we all decided not to work or shop for one day the revenues would stop. If businesses decide to stop dealing in the US then it will get worse. At some point we will have more looters than providers. As Margaret Thatcher once said; “Socialism is great until the other guy’s money runs out.”

Then what happens?

In any event, Obama and the US government are not taking back the TARP funds because they want to keep their hooks in the financial institutions. They want to make more rules that are burdensome and require some sort of social responsibility, the same kind that started this mess (regardless what the lefties say).

Rahm Emanuel said not to let a crisis go to waste (even a manufactured one). It would appear that this is the case in their financial dealings as well. It is well known that Democrats got rich driving Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into the ground. It is well known that Democrats benefit from Wall Street political donations and it is well known that some of those hedge funds were run by Democrats (Chelsea Clinton got a job at one as a favor). They all became rich driving companies into the ground.

Now there is word that some of the Obama minions have become wealthy as a result of dealings with TARP recipients. Never let a good crisis go to waste especially when you manufactured it or caused it, take you pick.

The Democrats, with King Hussein at the helm, are looking to take over and rule the country under Socialism. They are following Alinsky’s rules to take over and people are sitting back and letting them. Pretty soon we will all be completely under the thumb of oppression.

Chains you can believe in. (Thanks Angel for that title)

Certainly chains that will be hard to unshackle.

Related:
Axelrod makes millions

Tags: bailout, crimes, Obama, oppression, socialist, stuart varney, take over, TARP

Nationalized Socialism Is Obama’s Goal

Mar 21, 2009 Political

It is no secret to people who are not infected with Obamaitis that he is a radical who has studied Saul Alinsky and that he wants to make this country a Socialist haven. He has already worked toward that and his grand plans include socializing health care and confiscating wealth from the affluent and giving it to the less affluent. His toadies are also working on back door gun bans to run around the Second Amendment. Top it off with the re-imposition of slavery in this country and it is not hard to see we are heading in the wrong direction.

Recently, the government demonstrated its intentions by using the tax policies to negate legal contracts and to punish those who received money to which they were entitled. The punitive taxes are being implemented because Congress failed in its duties. They are punishing people in order to cover the mistakes they made and that Obama allowed. This is how government will handle laws it does not like. Unfortunately, this will probably stand because the courts do not like to get involved in tax legislation.

I know there are many who are happy about this but they ignore the rule of law in their delight. But, but, Congress is only taking care of the mess that these companies made. These companies got taxpayer money so we Congress can make sure they act right.

I know, people believe that Congress has every right to get involved in businesses that taxpayer money has gone to (even though some companies were forced to take the money) but now Obama wants to go after all executive pay regardless of whether the companies received a bailout or not. Drudge is reporting that a Sunday New York Times piece will report that:

Obama will call for increased oversight of ‘executive pay at all banks, Wall Street firms and possibly other companies’ as part of sweeping plan to ‘overhaul financial regulation’, NY TIMES reporting Sunday, newsroom sources tell DRUDGE…

What gives Obama the right to decide executive pay in any company? What gives him the right to decide how much money an individual is allowed to make?

Nothing in our system of government does but Obama does not like our system of government. He wants us to be a Socialist nation where government decides what people do and how much they make. He wants to take wealth and move it in a downward direction rather than encourage people to make money and move upward.

Maybe a few things can happen to derail this phony leader and his gang of Socialist conspirators. First of all, companies that did not get bailout money should tell the administration they WILL NOT cap pay or bonuses and that as long as they make money they will decide how to spend it. All companies (whether they got bailout money or not) should stop ALL political donations. If they employ lobbyists then they should fire them. Not one dime should come from anywhere in the financial district. That would reduce the amount of money going to politicians by millions. I also wonder how it would screw things up if all the folks at AIG who received bonuses donated enough of it to charity to offset the punitive taxes imposed by Congress. I would donate 100% of it to charity before I paid 90% in taxes on it.

Congress and the usurper in the White House are out of control. They are going balls to the walls in order to steamroll this country. They want Socialism and they are working very hard to get it. I read a quote that Socialism works until you run out of other people’s money. We are already spending the money of future generations. When will the madness stop?

I asked earlier why the Democrats are not going after union contracts the way they did the AIG contracts. They want more union people in this country and they are working hard to get all the workers unionized through card check and through fast track amnesty plans for illegals. They want nationalized socialism with workers who do the bidding of their charismatic leader.

They called George Bush the Nazi and compared him to Hitler but Obama is more closely aligned with those items. If we do not oppose him now it will not be long before brown shirted Obama Nazis will be marching in our streets.

What do you think a national civilian security force is for? Here is a hint: It is not to stop people from outside our borders. That only leaves those within…

Join the resistance.

Wake up America.

Tags: aig, bonus, confiscation, nazi, Obama, socialist, taxes, wealth

Obama Says Wanting To Keep YOUR Money Is Selfish

Oct 31, 2008 Political

First we had Joe Biden telling us that it was patriotic to pay more in taxes. He said that the rich should pay more because it is the patriotic thing to do. I am pretty sure he did not mean that those who pay no taxes are unpatriotic but that is what the statement implies.

Then came Barack Obama preaching to us from the Communist Manifesto by telling Joe the Plumber that he [Obama] wanted to “spread the wealth”. This spread the wealth theme was similar to what Obama discussed in a 2001 radio interview where he expressed disappointment that the Supreme Court did not inject itself to bring about a spreading of the wealth.

Now we have Barack Obama saying that people who object to the rich paying more in taxes are expressing a selfish attitude. While discussing his plan and saying that it will help everyone move up and be better off (it won’t) he stated:

“John McCain and Sarah Palin they call this [spreading the wealth] socialistic,” Obama continued. “You know I don’t know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness.” ABC Political Punch

So, the Obama/Biden plan is that they will take more money from people making somewhere between $150 and $250 thousand dollars (In Obama’s infomercial, he said families making $200,000 a year) and give, or redistribute, it to those who pay little or no income tax. The Obama plan will increase the top tax rate from 35% to 40% and then that money will be used to send checks to people who pay NO income taxes.

Biden says doing so is patriotic and Obama says those who oppose are selfish.

Perhaps we should look at the charitable donations of the people that Obama and Biden believe are selfish and see how they compare to the candidates. Biden gave about $350 a year (would that be selfish of him). Obama gave more and a lot of it went to the church where anti American Pastor Jeremiah Wright spewed hateful and racist remarks (would this be an example of Obama’s patriotism). It is also worth mentioning that Obama has an uncle who was evicted, and aunt living in a slum and a half brother living in a hut in Kenya on his $12 a year salary. So excuse me if I doubt the sincerity of a man who says he wants to help everyone when he has not helped his own family. As president, Obama will not have to worry about taking care of his family. He can use your tax dollars to do it.

Having our money forcefully confiscated and given to someone else is not sharing and resenting the idea of doing so is not selfish. Taking money from one group who earns it and giving it to another that does not is definitely Socialism. Mr. Obama, when someone voluntarily gives money it is sharing, when money is forcefully taken and then shared, it is Socialism. There is nothing patriotic about that at all.

No matter how Obama tries to spin it and no matter how irked Joe Biden gets from the Marxist questions, the fact remains that Obama’s playbook could have been written by Marx.

No doubt though, that it was inspired by him.

Tags: biden, Obama, patriotic, selfish, socialist, taxes

Is New Yorker Cover a Ploy to Help Obama?

Jul 16, 2008 Political

The New Yorker published an unflattering cover of Barack Obama and his (now) proud wife and it displayed every negative thing that has been said about him during the race for the White House. The New Yorker insists that this cover is a response to all the false things stated about Obama [by the Republicans]. Obama received most of his criticism during the Democratic Primary where DEMOCRATS spread rumors about him or where the words of his clueless wife were used against them. It was operatives from Hillary Clinton’s camp that spread the Muslim rumors and pictures of the Messiah in Muslim garb. It was Michelle’s radical words and lack of pride that came under fire. It was members of the Democratic Party who played the race card and it was Obama’s camp that attributed racism to every criticism. Still, the attacks from the left did not prevent Obama from saying that the right would be on the attack:

“They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?” Yahoo News

Since Obama made that claim about a month ago there have been no attacks like what he described, at least not from the right. McCain denounces any utterance that might look like an attack on Obambi and the 527s that Obama warned about have been from the left (mostly Soros) attacking John McCain. Where are all these attack ads? Where is this plan where we are going to make people afraid of him?

The fact is, it is not there. In steps the New Yorker with the cover that has drawn scorn from the contenders in both parties. Did this magazine make this cover to give Obama the attack he predicted? Did they do this so that he could say I told you so? Certainly the magazine is supportive of Obambi so why else would they do this?

I think they wanted it to appear as if the Prophet Obambi (PBUH) was right. Most people outside of a small group of elitists do not read the New Yorker and quite a few don’t know what kind of magazine it is so the general public will be left with the impression that this is a right wing attack on the Messiah. The magazine also gives the impression that the cover depicts what most people on the right think about Obama.

I believe that the cover was intended to help Obambi and he knows this. His indignation is probably feigned and he is relishing the idea that the cover will give his predictions of attacking Republicans some legs.

FWIW, I do not oppose Obama because he is black or for what his religion is. I believe him when he says he is Christian. Whether he is a good one is another question. I feel sorry for his wife because she has not felt pride in the many accomplishments of this country and I don’t care if he wears a Flag pin ( I just wish he had the testicular fortitude to stick with his original position and not pander). I oppose him because I know he is a socialist and that he will tax us to no end. I know he is inexperienced and that he is dangerous for this country. I also feel that he is not a true patriot and that he believes in a one world concept rather than having a national identity.

I also believe that the New Yorker and many other publications will do whatever they can to help him win. That cover had a purpose and hurting Obambi was not it.

Tags: cover, new yorker, Obama, socialist, terrorist