Big Dogs House

Obama’s Words Come Back To Haunt Him; For Now

Feb 1, 2011 Political

Federal Judge Roger Vinson struck down Obamacare as unconstitutional dealing a blow to the liberal plan of taking over health care in this country. Judge Vinson wrote a detailed ruling which basically eviscerated the claims of those who pushed this monstrosity on us. Though the ruling correctly dispels the notion that the Commerce Clause allows Congress to force people to buy a product, the most interesting part of it comes in the form of a note at the end where Vinson uses the words of Barack Obama against him:

“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that, ‘If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of his 78-page ruling Monday. Washington Times

Obviously this is not a reason to make the ruling (and the ruling was based on the Constitution) it is interesting to see the judge use Obama’s words to remind people that he opposed the idea when running for office. It is a historical record that shows how Obama said one thing as a candidate and then did another. Future historians will see one more piece of evidence of the failure that is Obama.

This ruling is but one step because no matter what happens this will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court. This might get more interesting because Justice Kagan might have to recuse herself from the issue if she had anything to do with it while Solicitor General. If that is the case then there is a possibility the court will end in a 4-4 tie on the issue (depending on Justice Kennedy). If that is the case then the lower court ruling stands. There have been two rulings that state the law is Constitutional so the first one to the SCOTUS might decide the issue.

If Kennedy rules with the conservative side of the Court (which he does more than not) then it matters not which appeal gets there first.

This law needs to die a quick death and today’s ruling is a first step in that endeavor.

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Tags: constitution, lies, obamacare, roger vinson, supreme court

Then Why Should The Rich Pay Social Security?

Dec 1, 2010 Political

Social Security is a bad program that has gotten worse over the years. It is designed to keep people enslaved to the government by taking money from them while they earn and then giving them a small retirement when they end their working careers. This deprives them of the opportunity to save and invest the money on their own, a step that would actually allow them to earn much more money and allow them to say what is done with it.

The Supreme Court has ruled that no one has a legal right to Social Security benefits. This is a bad decision but it looks like it will play out that way in the long run. Social Security is broke and there is no reasonable way to fix it. There will be no money left for those who are paying today.

A Democrat Policy Group is recommending that Social Security be fixed by denying payments to those who are wealthy when they retire. If you have the brains to put money away and save for retirement and happen to do well then you might not get the benefit that you paid into for all of your working career.

In what world is this fair?

Why should the rich pay into Social Security (or a person who is not particularly wealthy during his working career but saves a lot) only to be denied the money when they retire? What rule allows for the confiscation of a person’s money and then the redistribution of that money to others?

Why should the rich pay into Social Security? To top it off, the plan calls for higher Social Security taxes and raising the income level (the cap) on which it is collected. Why would people pay into this knowing full well that they would not get anything when they retire?

Most Democrats oppose this plan while some Republicans favor it or some variation of it. Who the hell do these people think they are?

As for me, I don’t need them to pay me Social Security. All I want is for them to send me a check for the money I have paid in (and I don’t even need any interest on it) and for them to stop taking Social Security out of my check. I will be more than happy to invest the money myself and I will live quite well in retirement. I am also sure the people who are actually rich (and even those considered rich by the government) would be happy to do the same.

I am not rich by any stretch of the imagination. I just work hard for my money and I save some of it for the future.

Others would do well to follow that example.

The members of Congress would do well to learn from that as well.

Class warfare is here and they are stoking the fire. Keep it up and things will get ugly as the rich find other things to do with their money.

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Tags: benefits, Congress, lies, rich, social security, supreme court

Is Specter Selling Kagan Vote For Job In Obama Regime?

Jul 15, 2010 Political

Arlen Specter is an opportunist. He was a Democrat (1951-1965) and then changed to Republican and then when it looked like he was going to lose in the 2010 election, he changed parties again and became a Democrat. In fact, Specter ran as a Republican in 1965 after losing the bid in the Democrat primary. He ran as a registered Democrat and then changed parties when he won. Who says you can’t go home?

Ironically, Specter lost the Democrat primary to Joe Sestak so now he is looking for a new job.

In steps the Obama regime. Specter told the White House he would like to continue his public service. Before I go on, he never did public service. He did Specter service as demonstrated by his switching parties in order to keep his job though it didn’t quite work out that way. Specter will be 81 when he leaves office. He has been sucking up a government paycheck for decades and it is time for him to hang it up.

Now, back to Specter and his desire to continue screwing the public. Looks like Obama might be interested in having Specter work on Syrian/Israeli relations and possibly broker some kind of peace agreement. And what would it cost to get such a job? Hmmm, how about voting yes on Elena Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court?

Specter, who opposed Kagan for Solicitor General and who was none too happy with her during the Senate confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court, has now stated that he supports her for the Court.

Could this be another quid pro quo from the Obama regime? They tried to bribe Sestak to leave the race so Specter could win and now it looks like they might be bribing Specter for his vote.

Whether Specter personally opposes the nomination is of no matter here because Specter only does things to benefit him and if voting yes on Kagan will land him another government paycheck then he will say yes in a New York City second.

Perhaps that was Specter’s campaign slogan:

Putting Arlen First…

Source:
ABC News – Jake Tapper

Never surrender, never submit.

Tags: arlen specter, elena kagan, jake tapper, quid pro quo, supreme court

Kagan Changes Tune Now That She Is In The Seat

Jun 30, 2010 Political

Elena Kagan will be confirmed barring any major gaffe (a Joe Biden type gaffe) on her part. There is no way (short of a filibuster) to stop her confirmation even though she has little experience for the position which should not be an issue, she is after all, in the mold of Barry and he was the least qualified person to hold his current job.

Kagan will end up being a Justice on the Supreme Court and despite what she says, her politics and personal views and NOT the Constitution will guide her. Chuck Schumer describes her as a moderate which she is definitely not. She seems intelligent and articulate but moderate she is not.

She banned military recruiters at Harvard (and yet insists she didn’t) because she disagreed with “don’t ask, don’t tell.” I have no problem with that action as long as she then refused federal funding in accordance with the law. Kagan has been describing what she did but her version is different from reality. She opposed DADT but did not initially ban recruiters because of the funding issue. As soon as a lower court ruled the Solomon Amendment unconstitutional she banned them. This is because she would not lose the money. When the Supreme Court overturned that ruling she allowed recruiters once again. She is not as principled as she claims because she put getting taxpayer money ahead of her so called principled views.

A principled person would have banned them regardless of the money.

But having principles is not necessarily her strong point. Case in point, she avoided many questions by claiming that the issue might come before the court which is not unusual for a nominee to do. However, in her case she is doing that which she railed against in the past:

Kagan in 1995:
In a 1995 book review, Ms. Kagan wrote that recent Supreme Court confirmation hearings had taken on “an air of vacuity and farce” because nominees would not engage in a meaningful discussion of legal issues, declining to answer any question that might “have some bearing on a case that might some day come before the Court.” She called on senators and future nominees to engage in a much more open and detailed discussion of legal issues.

Kagan today:
Under questioning by the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, Ms. Kagan said she thought it would be inappropriate for her to talk about how she might rule on pending cases or cases “that might come before the court in the future” — or to answer questions that were “veiled” efforts to get at such issues. The New York Times

The common feeling is that nominees evade things during confirmation and claim they will follow the Constitution and then do what they want once on the bench. Of course Kagan and her supporters say she would not do such a thing but she has demonstrated that she will change her stance based on politics. She said that nominees should be more open but now the politics of the issue requires her to do the exact opposite.

Kagan also refused to comment on past rulings of the Court because she felt she would be grading the Court. How is this even an issue? She should comment on the so called settled cases and let the Senate know how she would have ruled or how she feels about a ruling. You can bet she would not mind commenting on past cases that are popular. If someone asked her how she felt about Brown v. Board of Education or the Dred Scott Decision you can bet she would tell how wonderful it is that we now have fully desegregated schools and and how the Fourteenth* Amendment overturned Scott and made freemen citizens and not property.

So why not opine on other decisions? If stare decisis is so sacrosanct, why not comment?

It is also alleged that Kagan was instrumental in altering a document in order to present a view to the Supreme Court that was not intended by the experts who wrote the document. This is dishonest and should have resulted in her disbarment. The document altered changed an opinion of OB doctors from anti partial birth abortion to pro partial birth abortion. This should tell us all we need to know about her.

There is no doubt Kagan is a progressive and will rule based on progressive ideals. We expected that when Obama nominated her. Her lack of experience is troubling and we could end up with the same kind of disaster we call Obama. The difference is, the longest we can possibly be stuck with him is eight years. She is young and her appointment will be for a lifetime which could be 30 or 40 years.

Well, at least that is plenty of time for on the job training.

At least Al Franken had a good time. I have to say it is a pretty good drawing.

*changed from Thirteenth

Never surrender, never submit.

Tags: al franken, inexperience, kagan, Obama, recruiters, solomon amendment, supreme court

Supreme Court Decides What We Already Knew

Jun 29, 2010 Political

The fact that the Second Amendment is an individual right is indisputable except to lefties who have trouble understanding what the words “The People” and “shall not be infringed” mean. These are the same folks who refuse to believe in individual rights even though the Founders clearly stated such in their writings.

The issue changed to one of applicability to the states once the left lost its battle against individual rights. Then the issue became, well sure it applied in DC but that is not a state. It does not apply to the states.

The SCOTUS cleared that all up today with a decision that overturned a lower court ruling and remanded the issue back. The SCOTUS, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that the Second Amendment applies to the states and that is because of the Fourteenth Amendment. For a long time the Fourteenth was not considered to apply to the states but that changed a half century or so ago and decisions have been reached that made the Bill of Rights (with exceptions to some portions) apply to the states. This idea is what allowed abortion to become legal and forced the states to comply. If the rights spelled out in the Constitution did not apply to the states then the Court could not have ruled that abortion was legal because it would be a federal, and only a federal, issue. This ignore the fact that abortion is not a right and is indicated only because it is “settled” law where the right was somehow found.

The Second was never considered though thinking people knew that it was included in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth; “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” Which, as an aside, means the Arizona cannot violate Due Process since illegals are NOT citizens of the United States. But that is an issue for another time.

Interestingly but not surprising, gun grabbers are vowing to basically ignore the ruling issued today. Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago has vowed that his city will enact a new law soon that will prevent people from getting guns. This amounts to ignoring the law and is typical for Alinsky progressives. If the courts don’t rule your way then just ignore them. After all, this is what the Obama regime is doing with the drilling moratorium. They have vowed to ignore the court and issue a new moratorium.

How long will they do this before WE THE PEOPLE, decide to ignore the rules they come up with?

As for Daley, he is a first class slug and a hypocrite. While Daley does not believe that the people should be allowed to have guns, his aldermen are allowed to carry them. Richard Daley has about a dozen body guards on his detail and all of them are armed. Why is it that a person who works for the people of Chicago can have armed guards to protect him but will not allow the people to be armed to protect themselves.

No politician is any more important than the lowest in our society because even that person is the employer of the politician. I have little problem with presidents having armed security. Our enemies would love to attack a president and kill him. Other politicians are not that important and their demise would not cause turmoil in this country.

Think about it. If Richard Daley was killed by a would be criminal, would Chicago be in turmoil? No, they would replace him with another corrupt politician and keep on going. But Daley does not have to worry about that because he deems himself more important than the people who pay his salary. He is so against the people for whom he works that he will enact a law to keep people from getting guns because he knows better than our Founders, our Supreme Court and YOU.

Daley has no worries because his armed guards go with him even when he travels out of state. One of Daley’s armed guards caught an escaped criminal near the family vacation spot in Michigan while Hizzoner and the family were there. If you or I had been there we might well have been victims of the criminal.

I have a real problem with people like Daley, politicians who feel they are more important than the average folks and who deserve more protection. And the people are not even asking for taxpayer funded security. All we want is the ability to defend ourselves. This goes for people like Barack Obama who would love to ban guns and put more people in danger because average citizens are much more likely to be victims of crime than most politicians, particularly a president.

The Supreme Court put an end to the idea that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states today and it should be as sacrosanct to liberals as the issue of abortion. If it is settled law then let it be settled and let the people have their guns.

The opinion is a good read and in it Justice Scalia excoriates Justice Stevens as well he should. Stevens (and Breyer) ignore US history and the words of the Founders in their opinion and rely on the actions of other nations as well as their liberal views. Even though the facts are completely spelled out with historical references as to what keeping and bearing arms meant (and still means), these two ignored the facts and presented the progressive view. Justices should provide a legal view, not a political one.

How nice for the dress down of Stevens to be in the record for all time and to be issued on his last day on the Court. As Scalia put it (after destroying Stevens’ arguments):

In a vibrant democracy, usurpation should have to be accomplished in the dark. It is JUSTICE STEVENS’ approach, not the Court’s, that puts democracy in peril.

While today marks a victory for Americans and for freedom one thing is overshadowed. There are four Justices who voted against the Constitution and against the long history of this matter. They voted with the legacy of the Democrats in the south who made gun control laws that applied to blacks in order to control them.

These progressive liberals perpetuate that desire to enslave the citizenry in this nation. And this time they want to enslave all of us, regardless of color.

One last note. Any politician who is in favor of gun control and/or denies people the right to keep and bear arms should not be allowed to own or carry a gun and should NOT receive armed guards.

If you believe that there should be NO guns then there can be none for you. That goes for Obama, Daley and all the other hypocrites who think they are more important than we who employ them.

UPDATE: After the Heller decision Mayor Daley predicted all hell would break loose. That has not happened and gun crime in DC has dropped to pre gun ban levels.

Never surrender, never submit.

Tags: blacks, gun control, Obama, scalia, Second Amendment, slavery, stevens, supreme court, thomas