Government Shutdown Is To Inconvenience You
Oct 2, 2013 Commentary, Political
The Democrats shut down the government because they are inflexible and are unwilling to negotiate. Barack Obama said he would not negotiate on the budget or the debt ceiling which is interesting. You see, he has labeled the people with whom he disagrees terrorists and those seem to be the only people he will actually negotiate with.
The Democrats wanted the government to shut down. The Republicans did not which is why the Republicans funded every part of the government except Obamacare. Democrats refused to fund the government (all of which would have been) if Obamacare was not part of it. They are lock step with Barack Hussein Obama.
Make no mistake the Democrats wanted the government shut down. The conventional wisdom is that this benefits them in the next election. Democrats are all for anything to win elections no matter what it costs or who it hurts so it is reasonable to conclude they wanted the shutdown to win the next election.
To make matters worse the Democrats, through their supreme leader Obama, have worked to make the shutdown as troublesome as possible. They are deliberately using the shutdown as a reason to screw with people even if it is not necessary to apply the shutdown to specific areas.
Here are a few examples:
The monuments in DC are closed to the public. Many of them are in open areas and are not regularly staffed. They are patrolled by the Park Police and those police officers are still on duty because they are deemed essential. So what has changed? Nothing. The monuments are still in open areas where people roam about each and every day. They are not manned so there is no difference and they are patrolled like they are every other day. The government spent money to erect barriers in places where, on any other given day, people walk about without government workers manning a station. The monuments are in the open at night. They are in the open on weekends. They are in the open each and every day and yet Barack Obama has closed them with barricades and the only reason is to inconvenience people.
[note]World War II veterans who showed up to see the WWII Memorial moved the barricades and proceeded to the monument. I somehow doubt the people who fought that war are intimidated by barriers that serve no purpose other than to harass and inconvenience people.[/note]
There are more Park Police at these things now than there are when the government is fully funded and not on shutdown. Why?
A Virginia Park that receives absolutely NO government money has been shutdown. The Claude Moore Colonial Farm has been ordered to shut down until the government reaches a budget deal. The problem here is that the park receives no money to operate and the people who work there are volunteers or people not paid by the federal government. Managing Director Anna Eberly hits the nail on the head:
“You do have to wonder about the wisdom of an organization that would use staff they don’t have the money to pay to evict visitors from a park site that operates without costing them any money,”
How else are the Democrats causing undue harm? They are closing down the military commissaries. For those unfamiliar commissaries are the grocery stores located on military bases where authorized patrons shop. Items are sold at cost plus 5% and save authorized patrons a lot of money. Only 2% of the commissary budget is appropriated. The other 98% comes from the 5% surcharge and that money is what pays for the system.
The only congressionally appropriated money spent in the three exchange systems comes in the form of utilities and transportation of merchandise to overseas exchanges and for military salaries. A non-appropriated fund activity (NAF) of the Department of Defense, the exchange services fund 98% of their operating budgets (civilian employee salaries, inventory investments, utilities and capital investments for equipment, vehicles and facilities) from the sale of merchandise, food and services to customers. About.com
Considering the military must work through the shutdown does it not make sense to ensure their support services are available?
Well we can’t have that. The Democrats need to make this tough on everyone and the fact they get to screw the military is a plus. Barack Obama hates the military so this is a way for him to stick it to them. He knows that a huge majority of the service members do not like him, do not think like him and have no respect for him so he cares not if they are screwed as long as they protect him, fly him and carry his freaking bags…
At least Obama might not be able to play golf…
It is a crying shame that the commissaries will close and service members will have to shop in the local community when welfare recipients will still get money to purchase food. In a proper world those takers would be denied money and the military would be supported.
Those are just a few things that are evidence of a deliberate effort to make this shutdown as painful as possible. The Democrats did that with sequester when they implemented all kinds of things that hurt people. It was obvious then and it is obvious now.
[note]The DNC is 17 MILLION dollars in debt while the RNC is MILLIONS in the black. The Democrats run their business like they run the country’s business, into the ground. The RNC has offered to pay to keep the WWII Memorial open. Which party do you want managing your money?[/note]
There is no doubt that all of this is by design and it is likely that they left wants to incite riots and civil unrest so that it can take drastic measures to control the population. That would fulfill the Obama dream of fundamentally transforming this nation into a socialist country.
Fortunately, he was unable to disarm people before this all took place. If the feces hits the rotating cooling device look for armed patriots to restore order and defend against government tyranny.
Like those WWII veterans demonstrated there is no barrier that we cannot overcome. There is no barrier government can erect that will stop us.
And that goes for any barriers anywhere government erects them….
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: barriers, commissaries, Democrats, lies, Military, Obama, parks, shutdown
Obama Out Of Step With Military
Sep 19, 2013 Political
The President of the United States serves as the Commander in Chief of the armed forces and of the militia when it is called into federal service. It is an important marriage of the concept of civilian control of the military and was designed by our Founders to keep the military in check because the Founders were suspicious of standing armies.
Samuel Adams put it this way in 1768:
“Even when there is a necessity of the military power, within a land, a wise and prudent people will always have a watchful and jealous eye over it”
And Elbridge Gerry, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, stated:
“standing armies in time of peace are inconsistent with the principles of republican Governments, dangerous to the liberties of a free people, and generally converted into destructive engines for establishing despotism.”
The Founders established a Constitution that gave all three branches of government some portion of control over the military so that no one branch could use the military for its own agenda. For example, the Legislative raises and supports the Army and Navy and provides its funds and rules. It also has the authority to declare war.
The Executive enforces the rules established by the Legislative and has control over how they are used; the Commander in Chief commands them. These checks are supposed to keep us from rash decisions about war and quick use of our armed forces.
This has played out recently with the Syrian chemical agent use issue.
[note]The US effectively has a standing Army though the Constitution requires appropriations of monies not to last for more than two years (to provide the ability to dismantle the raised army). This is why the appropriations are supposed to happen every other year. As is the case with most things government, the process is a tangled mess that distorts the original intent of the Founders.[/note]
The Syrian issue has shown more than the Constitutional conflict. The crisis has also shown an uneasy relationship between Obama and the nation’s military leaders.
The military, while declaring it is prepared to execute any order given (I assume they mean any lawful order), has also expressed displeasure at a strike that would allegedly be punitive and have no clear goals. There is worry that things could escalate and require a larger response or the movement of troops into the area.
The article points out that there is a feeling among the leaders that the military has been burned with half measures. There is disgust over the way Iraq has been handled and there is concern over Afghanistan.
The military, in other words, has lost faith in its civilian leader.
This should come as no surprise as Obama (who appoints many people who feel as he does) is not a fan of the military. He is a typical liberal and has a dislike and a distrust of the men and women in uniform. He has never served and he has never been a leader.
There is weakness at the top and the military can see it.
It must have frosted many of our leaders to see Putin wax Obama’s ass over Syria. The military does not like to see a foreign leader’s footprint on its Commander’s ass.
While many people looked to Obama to lead them out of the desert and into the Promised Land they are now seeing that Obama cannot lead.
[note]“A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed at some indefinite time in the future.” ~ George S. Patton Jr.[/note]
George Bush once said that history would make its decision about him.
Members of the military seem to bringing that sentiment home as many report that, unlike Obama, “…Bush had his stuff together.” They report that when he made a call, whether good or bad, at least he was making it.
History seems to have arrived sooner than one might have thought.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Obama took charge of people who did not want him to begin with and he has done nothing to boost their confidence in him.
They probably feel like I do. Obama sees the military as his pawns.
And they don’t think he knows how to play the game.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: Bush, commander in chief, constitution, distrust, lies, Military, Obama
Betrayal Of Trust
Jun 19, 2013 Commentary, Military
There is a lot of uproar right now about sexual assaults in the military. This has gotten the attention of members of Congress and the top brass of the military. Unfortunately, the response is the same as it has been for the past two or three decades.
The response is to have well publicized hearings where people are degraded and then promises are made that it will improve. This has happened in every major case since at least the Tailhook case. They always promise to improve. They always promise that they will get on it and make it better. They make the promises and put into place a bunch of nonsense and feel good measures.
But things never really change. This time there are stand down days and mandatory training directed at all workers, civilian and military, the huge majority of whom are not and have never been involved in a sexual assault.
The solution to the problem is to hold those who engage in such behavior accountable. Therein lies the rub. You see, in today’s society we lack responsibility and we lack accountability. This comes from the president on down as evidenced by his constant blaming of everyone else (particularly George Bush). The other side of the coin is that no one holds him (the Limbaugh Theorem) or any other officials accountable.
People need to act responsibly and when they don’t they need to be held accountable. Society has abandoned this idea. When a shooter murders a bunch of people we do not hold that person accountable. We blame guns and then punish the millions of gun owners who had nothing to do with the crime.
In these sexual assault cases in the military we blame the environment and then preach to those who have not done anything wrong.
Hold those who are found guilty of sexual assault accountable by punishing them. In addition, if someone makes a false claim and that is found out the person making the false claim should receive the punishment the accused would have gotten had he actually committed the crime.
There are other ideas that are directed at solving the problem but they are moronic at best. Deebow at Blackfive explores one such solution and puts it much better than I could hope to.
Sexual assault in the military is a betrayal of trust. The person assaulted has placed trust in another member of the military and that trust is betrayed by a person to whom an allegiance has been formed. It is a violation of the very core and foundation of teamwork and it is despicable.
Members of the military are a very select subset of the population. They are people who have vowed to put their lives on the line to preserve our country and our way of life. The training in the military brings these very unique people together and teaches them to put others and their nation above themselves. We place our lives in each other’s hands and we expect that our backs will always be protected.
When someone in the military is sexually assaulted by another service member that sacred bond, that trust, has been violated and is more painful and more damaging than an attack by our enemies. We would not stand for an enemy attack on our service members and we work hard to prevent such things. Why would any member of our armed forces attack another member this way?
Right now there is a case going on at the Naval Academy where three members of the football team are accused of sexually assaulting a female midshipman who got drunk at a party. It appears as if she was punished (for getting drunk) while they were allowed to remain on the team. The spotlight on the incident seems to have sparked the current investigation.
If these men raped this woman then they should go to jail for a very long time. It does not matter how drunk she was because that is not and never will be justification for what they allegedly did. If she violated some rule by drinking or getting drunk then the Academy can deal with that separately. But when she was drunk her comrades let her down. That was when she was most vulnerable and that is when they should have protected her. They should have ensured she got home safely.
If what they are accused of is true then they turned their backs on a fellow midshipman and let her down. They did not have her back and they violated the trust she had in them as comrades in arms.
It is criminal that they very people she trusted caused her harm. In the military we are a family and we are supposed to protect each other.
These men are accused of doing something to her that they would never allow to happen to their sisters.
Anyone who does this is a cretin and is unfit to wear the uniform of this nation.
We are better than that my brothers and sisters in arms and if you don’t feel that way then it is time for you to pack your stuff and GTFO.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: crimes, Military, naval academy, sexual assault, solutions
Military On The Sexual Assault Hot Seat
Jun 6, 2013 Political
The leaders of the Armed Forces are in hot water because of an increase in sexual assaults. They promise to combat sexual assault and admit they let the ball drop. In a grilling by members of Congress two Democrat female Senators had a field day and went all in over the issue. Senator Gillibrand implied some commanders were stupid by claiming “…not every single commander can distinguish between a slap on the ass and a rape…” While I get the dramatics I think just about all can tell the two apart.
Senator McCaskill made the claim that looking at someone the wrong way can be sexual assault. I guess there could be looks that can be considered assault but can’t seem to think of one. What look conveys imminent harmful contact?
I am not making light of the issue of sexual assault whether it is in or out of the military. However, I do have a few problems with all of this.
The incidence of sexual assault has had an uptick over the past year or two. What is the root cause of this? It seems as if the uptick happened after gays were allowed to openly serve so it would be worth looking to see if the increase is same sex assault. Not that it matters BUT in order to solve a problem the root cause needs to be found and if the uptick is because of the repeal of DADT then it needs to be looked into to see why it happened.
I also have a problem with Congress wanting to take the discipline of sexual offenders out of the hands of commanders. If the issue is reporting and punishment then require commanders to report all claims of sexual impropriety to their higher commander and have that higher commander review the results of investigations. Commanders need to retain the ability to investigate and punish those who have done wrong. If any commander is not doing that job then relieve that commander. Do not use some blanket policy because of an increase particularly if that increase is due to the repeal of DADT. Find a solution for it that does not involve hampering all commanders.
My last issue is with these Democrat females and their indignation. Where were they when Bill Clinton was sexually molesting women? I realize that these two were not in office when that occurred (not in federal office anyway) but their body, the Senate, voted to let Bill off the hook.
How come there was not the same uproar from liberal woman about Bill Clinton’s alleged rapes and his confirmed affair back then? Why are these folks acting as if they have some moral authority when they still worship the ground Clinton walks on?
It seems to me that folks who apply their anger selectively over the same subject lose credibility.
Sexual assault is a crime. My solution is to investigate the accusation, prosecute those with merit; if they are guilty put them in jail and if they are not guilty put them back to work.
That seems like a good solution to me.
As far as Gillibrand and McCaskill, how do you ladies feel about Bill Clinton and what he did? What do you say about the accusations of rape?
Are you as mad at the Senate for the way they let him off as you are at the way the military handles sexual assault cases?
Your answers will tell us a lot about you…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: Clinton, dadt, gillibrand, mccaskill, Military, sexual assault, slap on ass
Sequestration Saves The Troops
May 13, 2013 Military, Political
The sequestration is a bogeyman that the Democrats are trying to use to blame Republicans for everything that happens. The fact that Obama came up with the idea is not part of their thinking process because they are interested in blaming everything on the right. They have hopes that they can pin this on Republicans and that it will help them keep the Senate and take the House back.
[note]They had better hope that they do both because if Republicans get the Senate and keep the House Obama will almost certainly be impeached for his cover-up of the Benghazi murders.[/note]
The idea that Sequester is debilitating is moronic. The cuts amount to 2 cents of every dollar. That is not much money and any pain felt is because Democrats have specifically made cuts to areas that would cause harm. They can shut down White House tours while still allowing million dollar donors to show up. They can allow TSA to furlough employees to harm the public because it is the only way. Of course another solution was found as soon as some member of Congress was inconvenienced by the travel delays.
These facts have not stopped Democrats from using sequester as their talking point. One Democrat blamed sequester for the events in Benghazi when sequester took place after the murders there. As an aside, the alleged cut in money for security is a smoke screen. We had money to put electric car charging stations but not for security? Get real.
Nancy Pelosi is the latest Democrat to blame the sequester for something. It seems that San Fran Nan is blaming the sequester for the fact that she did not take a delegation to Iraq or Afghanistan to thank mothers and grandmothers for serving in the military:
“Every year for the past few years on Mother’s Day I’ve taken a delegation to Afghanistan – or Iraq – to say thank you to our moms – and by the way, our grandmothers – who are serving there – to also thank all of our troops for what they do to protect America’s families. I won’t be going this particular weekend because we don’t have – you know, under sequestration – we don’t have (inaudible).” IJ Review
I don’t know how much money it costs to take a delegation to Iraq or Afghanistan but it is not cheap and we don’t have money to begin with. I also do not know why Pelosi thinks it is necessary to fly around the world to say thank you to mothers and grandmothers. It would be much easier and far less expensive for her to put out a thank you on her website and then have Defense notify the troops it is there through their systems. She can’t possibly visit every mother and grandmother in these countries so the message sent electronically would at least make it to as many as she would have visited.
It sounds to me like Nan just wants and excuse for a trip. I know these places are not garden spots but think of how many places she can visit on the way out and the way back, I mean since they are already in the neighborhood.
Pelosi makes this statement as if it is a bad thing that she could not go and seems to think blaming it on sequester will hurt Republicans.
First of all, I venture to bet that most of the military do not want to see her or visit with her. She is a liberal moron who does not support the troops.
Second of all, if she could not waste money on this trip because of the sequester then I say it is doing what it is supposed to.
However, I will buy her a one way ticket if they promise to keep her there.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: lies, Military, mother's day, Pelosi, sequester