Big Dogs House

Stupak Sold Out The Babies And America

Mar 24, 2010 Political

Bart Stupak held out for a long time. He said that he needed language in the health care bill that would disallow the use of federal dollars for abortions. He sounded principled and he had a little gang that followed him. The votes of the gang were obviously needed because it passed by just four votes.

The initial word was that Obama was going to sign an Executive Order stating federal dollars would not be used for abortion. The EO has no weight and the bill Obama signed into law will be the final word on the matter. Obama, by the way, had a big ceremony to sign the bill but had no time to sign that pesky EO.

He might get around to it.

But does it matter? Stupak claimed the EO allayed his worries and changed him to a yes vote. The reality is that Stupak received $726,409 in federal grants for three small airports in his district. After that money was obligated, he changed his vote. I do not believe in coincidences in politics so there is no doubt in my mind that Stupak was bought off. The airport money bought his vote and the EO provided him cover.

Add this three quarters of a million dollars to the amount of money the health care legislation will cost. We can add that to the 10 billion dollars the IR-SS will need to track insurance compliance, the amount needed for the doc-fix, and the untold millions or billions used to bribe other members of Congress. All of this money is part of the cost of the legislation no matter where they hide it because it was needed to pass the legislation.

Stupak showed his true colors and now we need to look closely at his other so called pro-life hold outs to see what special money they got for their votes.

We are going to run roughshod over Congress this November and throw a lot of the bastards out of office. They will pay for their treason with their jobs though I have no doubt Owebama will find them other jobs in government.

They are unworthy of their jobs and they are unworthy of the name American. They are traitors who usurped the Constitution and they need to go. Nothing less than a bloodbath is acceptable.

And if these people think they will sway public opinion with their trinkets and shiny beads they have another thought coming.

If they are not in a solidly blue, safe seat, they will be in trouble.

Mr. Stupak, I hope you feel good about your decision and I hope the thirty pieces of silver were what you really wanted because you are history this November.

It is time to abort these sell out Democrats.

UPDATE: Stupak intended to vote for the bill all along even if the abortion issue failed. This video spells it all out. Stupak is a weasel. [Thanks to the Lonely Conservative]

Tags: bart stupak, constitution, lies, Obama, traitor

Obama Gives Away Just A Little More

Dec 27, 2009 Political

I guess the following will give Glenn Beck something to discuss for the next week. It seems that Obama has signed an Executive Order that grants Interpol immunity from searches and FOIA requests. Looks like that police force that Obama wants to put out there might be here sooner than we think. As Anchoress puts it:

This now says that Interpol is no longer subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Their premises or staff can no longer be searched either. Their files are not subject to legal subpoena or discovery. Our government could just hand documents and files over to Interpol and Americans would no longer have access to them. Interpol can legally keep files now on all citizens of the US with no right to redress.

This is one example of the liberals giving away the sovereignty of our nation a little at a time. And it is an example of the MSM’s assistance. The EO was not reported by the MSM and little fuss was made of it since we were preoccupied with Tiger Woods and the health care takeover. The reality is that Interpol can now keep records on Americans that are untouchable. Any American arrested through Interpol activity will have less due process than the terrorists Obama so desperately wants to help. As Ed Morrissey puts it:

. . .it appears to mean that Americans who get arrested on the basis of Interpol work cannot get the type of documentation one normally would get in the discovery process, which is a remarkable reversal from Obama’s declared efforts to gain “due process” for terrorists detained at Gitmo. Does the White House intend to treat Americans worse than the terrorists we’ve captured during wartime?

Ronald Reagan signed the original EO that gave Interpol personnel diplomatic status with two exceptions. Interpol had to produce records when demanded by the courts and could not be immune from their actions. This required them to have the same accountability as our law enforcement agencies. Now, Interpol can do just about anything, not turn over any records related to what they did and then claim diplomatic immunity.

NRO explains it this way:

On Wednesday, however, for no apparent reason, President Obama issued an executive order removing the Reagan limitations. That is, Interpol’s property and assets are no longer subject to search and confiscation, and its archives are now considered inviolable. This international police force (whose U.S. headquarters is in the Justice Department in Washington) will be unrestrained by the U.S. Constitution and American law while it operates in the United States and affects both Americans and American interests outside the United States.

~snip~

Why would we elevate an international police force above American law? Why would we immunize an international police force from the limitations that constrain the FBI and other American law-enforcement agencies? Why is it suddenly necessary to have, within the Justice Department, a repository for stashing government files which, therefore, will be beyond the ability of Congress, American law-enforcement, the media, and the American people to scrutinize?

Where are the media on this? Why are they not investigating to see why this rookie in the White House is signing away protections put in place by a much wiser man? What possible reason could Obama have for doing this? Why has there been no attention given to this?

This EO has the potential to cause a lot of problems for American citizens and has the potential to take some of our sovereignty away. Why is the moron in the White House doing this to our country? Until a response that is well reasoned and makes sense comes from the White House my default position is that Obama did this to weaken this country and it is a precursor of bad things to come.

Considering the sordid history of Interpol, this cannot be a good thing no matter how one spins it. It must be bad or Obama would not have done this on the sly. When he thinks he is doing a good thing he has a media blitz. He hid this one. It is part of that transparency that has not been so transparent.

Buy lots of guns and even more ammo.

Here are links to others weighing in on this very bad thing.

Threats Watch | Death By 1000 Paper Cuts | The Patriot Room | Pierre Legrand’s Pink Flamingo Bar | Brutally Honest | Wizbang | Atlas Shrugs | Noisy Room

Thanks to GM Roper for the image.

Tags: immunity, interpol, nazi police force, Obama, ronald reagan, sell out, traitor

Why Wouldn’t Kerry Visit Our Enemy?

Dec 26, 2009 Political

John Kerry is floating the idea of visiting Tehran. He would be the first high level person to visit there since 1979. Barack Obama said he would meet with Iran’s leader without preconditions and so far the diplomatic effort has been a dismal failure. Iran has balked at any discussions about its nuclear plans and has basically laughed in the face of Obama.

Iran has bought itself another year to work on its nuclear program which is, no doubt, a vehicle for developing nuclear weapons.

It should not surprise anyone that John Kerry would work on getting to Tehran. He has a history of going to meet our enemies. Who can forget that Kerry, as a Vietnam War protester, visited with the North Vietnamese while we were at war.

Kerry’s anti war antics likely earned him a dishonorable** discharge from the Naval Reserve. That Dishonorable Discharge would have been changed under a program that President Carter implemented. There is no way of telling because Kerry has not released his records for review even though he promised to do so. He probably does not want any embarrassing items circulating.

Regardless, this is par for the course for Kerry. He likes to visit with our enemies.

It should surprise no one.

**I indicated Dishonorable but it is likely he had a LESS THAN HONORABLE DISCHARGE, not a DISHONORABLE one.

Source:
Wall Street Journal

Tags: john kerry, tehran, traitor, vietnam, war protest

Arlen Specter Trusted The Democrats, Bad Move

May 7, 2009 Political

I am absolutely ecstatic that Arlen Specter finally went home to the Democrats where he belongs. I will not miss him in the party and I hope he gets his rear end handed to him on a platter in the next election. He changed parties for one reason and one reason only and that is because he could not win as a Republican. His switch had nothing to do with aligning more with Democrats because his views have aligned with them for a while. He was the guy who derided those who switch parties during a term and stated he would introduce a rules change to prevent it. He also said he would not switch parties as recently as March.

But then he found out that his narrow victory last time was no fluke and that Republicans were not happy with how he voted on the stimulus. He decided to switch parties rather than face the voters who put him in office.

He is a coward.

However, he has learned a tough lesson. The Democrats promised him the moon to get him to switch and that included him keeping his seniority on the committees on which he served. Looks like that promise, made by Harry Reid, had a shorter shelf life than an Obama promise. Now that Specter is a Democrat he will be moved all the way to the end of the seniority line except on one committee where he will be next to last. The Democrats stripped him of the seniority they promised him he could keep.

Couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy. Now he is a non issue except he gives the Democrats enough votes to avoid a filibuster (assuming Franken wins his contested race). However, he has been screwed and will be all the way behind all the other Democrats, even those who were children when he was first elected.

HA HA HA

I think it is great. If this twerp had stayed a Republican he would have retained seniority. Of course he can’t switch back because the Republicans will not have him and even if they did he would lose the election in 2010.

I have always said that you should never trust a Democrat. Specter was a darling when he voted with them and when they were courting him. Now that they have him he is not so special.

Enjoy what little time you have left in the Senate Arlen. Enjoy your lack of seniority.

Big Dog salute to Gribbit

Tags: arlen specter, coward, seniority, traitor

The Phantom of the Oprah

Jan 21, 2008 Political

Oprah Winfrey has been very vocal in her support for B. Hussein Obama. In her first venture into the political scene, Winfrey campaigned for Obama at several events and he is the only candidate that has appeared on her show. Winfrey has been paying a bit of a price for her support of Obama and has been labeled a traitor by women who think she should be supporting Hillary Clinton.

This kind of thinking is very dangerous for the political scene because it places emphasis on a physical characteristic rather than on policy issues and qualification for the job. Winfrey is in a particularly difficult position because if she supports Clinton she will be labeled a traitor by the blacks who support Obama. Race and sex are not supposed to play into the selection process and picking a candidate based solely upon those, or any other characteristics, is a silly way to select leaders. Imagine what kind of uproar there would be if famous male supporters of Hillary were labeled traitors by other men who think a male should be president or if whites were labeled traitors for their support of Obama.

Think of how ridiculous it would be if the supporters of other candidates did the same thing. The elderly and Vietnam vets would label other elderly or VN vets who do not support McCain as traitors. Balding men would label as traitors those who do not support Thompson, evangelicals label other evangelicals as traitors for not supporting Huckabee, trial lawyers would label other trial lawyers as traitors for not supporting Edwards, those who have been divorced several times would labels others with that history as traitors for not supporting Giuliani and successful businessmen would label other successful businessmen as traitors for not supporting Romney.

Ron Paul supporters already label anyone who does not support Paul as a traitor.

These examples are just as ridiculous as concentrating on the fact that Obama is black or Hillary is a woman. Of course these are barriers that have never been broken but electing someone just to break that “glass ceiling” (as Hillary calls it) is not the correct way to select leaders. If one is a liberal there are many reasons to vote for Clinton or Obama and if one is a Conservative there are plenty of reasons not to vote for either of them. The color or sex of the candidates does not fit into this equation.

In order to see how invalid the idea of support based upon color or sex is one only needs to ask the question; is it OK to oppose Clinton because she is a woman or Obama because he is black? Would a person who said that he will not vote for Clinton solely because she is a woman be labeled a sexist and would a person who says that he would not vote for Obama solely because he is black be labeled a racist? If the answer is yes (and we know the answer is yes) then support based upon those two items is just as wrong.

This country is ready for a woman president and it is ready for a black president and there are plenty of both who would do a great job. These two just are not the ones.

Tags: Clinton, Obama, oprah winfrey, race, sex, traitor