Time To Pull The Plug On Obamacare
Sep 23, 2013 Political
This week will be full of back and forth fighting over Obamacare and the budget. Conservatives are trying to defund Obamacare while providing funds for all the rest of the government but Barack Obama and his henchmen in the Senate are holding the country hostage over the failed legislation. Those of us affected by it are in the dark…
A huge majority of Americans does not want Obamacare and they want to be left out of it. Obama and the Democrats (as well as obedient establishment Republicans) are ignoring the will of the people and threatening to shut down the federal government if they do not get their way.
These people want to ignore the majority of Americans on this issue and impose this on them against their will.
Interestingly, Democrats think we should follow the majority opinion when it involves something they want. They falsely claim that a majority of Americans want the gun control they are pushing (this is untrue) and use that alleged support as a reason to impose unconstitutional restrictions upon us.
When the majority actually does favor something (like getting rid of Obamacare) they ignore the will of the people.
Obamacare is a failure, period. More than half of the lawful deadlines have been missed and Barack Obama has illegally changed the law to benefit businesses and his buddies (the Executive cannot change a law unless there are provisions for the changes in the law, otherwise, only the Legislative can change the law).
Obamacare is so great that Obama has exempted a great number of organizations who do not like it (most of whom supported it). The law has even been changed in order to keep Congress and Congressional staffers from participating.
The law they passed is good enough for YOU but not for them. Democrats are fighting attempts to ensure the law is followed and that Congress is not exempted and they are receiving help from Republicans who do not want it either. I do not blame Republicans for not wanting it because none of them voted for it. However, the law is the law and if it passed and must be followed by the rest of us then they should not be exempt.
I feel sorry for the millionaires in Congress who can’t afford health insurance on over $170,000 per year but they are just going to have, to quote Obama, to eat their peas.
Efforts to ensure Congress must follow the law are also aimed at Chief Justice John Roberts. People want him to have to be in Obamacare since he ruled it Constitutional (actually he changed the law by rewriting it which is not the job of the Legislative Branch).
It appears as if the people who work for us are having trouble doing the jobs they are authorized to by the Constitution and are too busy involving themselves in things they do not belong in.
The Republicans can defund this. If the Senate will not get on board then the House should send single bills to fund other parts of government. The first one should be for Defense to ensure the soldiers get paid (Social Security is on autopilot so people will get their checks). Let the Senate vote that up or down.
Then the House can do that with each other part of government covered in the entire budget. They can make it so nothing can be added to it because it will be a single budget item.
Let Democrats vote each item of the government up or down and hold them accountable.
If Obama vetoes any item then hold him accountable.
These folks are playing games and we are the collateral damage of their petulance.
I know that the brain dead witch Pelosi said there was nothing else to cut from the budget but if they hire me, give me the budget and two months I will have cuts for them.
And since I am not in elected office I can’t be swayed by the desire to get reelected…
Related:
Obamacare will vary by state
Fish wrap of record finally sees the truth…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: budget, constitution, defund, establishment republicans, fight, john roberts, lies, obamacare
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
I Agree With Senator Feinstein
Sep 17, 2013 Commentary, Second Amendment
[note]This article assumes the shooting at the Navy Yard was not a false flag operation. I have no doubt in my mind that the government or its agents are capable of using mentally unstable people to get what it wants. Life means nothing to those who want to infringe upon our freedoms. If they cared about life they would not allow children to be murdered in the womb. Obama will use Executive Orders to get what he wants leading to speculation of a false flag operation.[/note]
It is not often that I agree with any liberal particularly Dianne Feinstein and particularly on gun control but I find myself in agreement with her statement after the senseless shooting at the Navy Yard. Feinstein stated:
“When will enough be enough?”
~snip
“Congress must stop shirking its responsibility and resume a thoughtful debate on gun violence in this country. We must do more to stop this endless loss of life.” Washington Times
This statement is mostly true (more later) but the solution is where we part ways.
First of all it is important to note that the deaths from mass shootings account for an extremely small part of the number of murders. It is less than one-tenth of one percent. These statistics do not count gang related murders and shootings where a person kills relatives or others linked to him. Even those do not put us at an epidemic.
The sensationalism involved makes these things seem much more common and Obama lamenting that once again we are dealing with a mass shooting makes it appear that way. It is like air travel. It is the safest way to travel but a plane crash that kills hundreds of people gets more press than the few people at a time that die in traffic accidents.
More children in the womb are murdered than all the gun related murders combined.
Shootings like the one at the Navy Yard lead to a push for more gun control and the banning of more types of firearms even though these things will not work. Washington DC has very strict gun control laws and federal property, particularly military installations, have extreme gun control (thanks Bill Clinton). One does not just walk around a military post with a firearm unless the job requires them to carry one. Unless there is on post housing or an on post range there are no private firearms registered on the installation. If there are registered firearms they must be properly secured.
In addition, one must go through a secure point when entering a post. The fact that DC has strict gun laws, military posts have even stricter gun rules (and I might add, infringing rules), and that one must pass through a security entrance to gain access did not stop the shooter from murdering a dozen people at the Navy Yard.
Just as the on post rules and security did not stop a radical Muslim soldier from murdering over a dozen people at Fort Hood.
Laws only affect the people who are inclined to obey them in the first place.
[note]The AR 15 is a firearm hated by the left. The initial reports indicated that the shooter used one at the Navy Yard however; new reports indicate he used a shotgun (he sneaked in) and two pistols he took from security guards. This will not stop the gun grabbers from blaming the black rifle and calling for a ban on it.[/note]
No gun law in the world would have prevented any of the mass shootings that have taken place. None of the gun laws passed after the shooting in Newtown would have stopped that event. The gun laws passed in New York, Maryland and other places were all knee jerk reactions that took advantage of a tragedy to get more control over our lives. It matters not to Governor O’Malley of Maryland that his unconstitutional gun laws would not have saved those children. He does not care if children die. His major concern is his next elected office. If he can use dead children to promote his cause he is perfectly OK with that.
But Big Dog, you said you agree with Senator Feinstein, how so?
I agree with her question; when will enough be enough? I also agree with her statement that we must do something to stop the endless loss of life.
OK, I mostly agree because it is not endless. That is hyperbole and drama to make it seem worse than it is but I agree we need to end these shootings.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. The solution is not what Feinstein wants, it is just the opposite. We need to end having gun free zones and we need to stop infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The guy at the Navy Yard was able to do what he did because once he illegally sneaked his firearm(s) onto post he had a shooting gallery of trapped, unarmed workers. All citizens who are not otherwise disallowed (felony conviction, mental illness, addiction, etc) should be allowed to carry a firearm either openly or concealed. Teachers and other workers at schools should be allowed to carry firearms. Workers at federal facilities should be able to carry firearms.
We would not have active shooters if they did not have helpless prey to hunt and government does nothing but make us helpless and make us prey.
Feinstein is perfectly happy to continue the failed government policies that have resulted in the very murders she laments because she is not affected. She is part of the protected class. You know who they are. They have armed guards or permits to carry firearms.
The police, by the way, are not the answer. In Newtown every person was dead before the police arrived. At the Navy Yard the on base armed security that effectively had a criminal on a locked down facility could not neutralize him before he murdered a dozen people. Anyone of his victims could have stopped the carnage had they been armed.
If you want to end the violence, and I mean if you truly want to end it, then stop disarming the people who suffer from unconstitutional gun laws.
No law stops criminals from committing crime.
Let us not forget that it is already against the law to murder people…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: constitution, feinstein, gun control, navy yard, Obama
Maryland Governor Is An Out Of Touch Tyrant
Sep 10, 2013 Political
The liberal governor of the people’s Republik of Maryland, Martin O’Malley, is out of touch with the people and he is out of touch with the Constitution (both the US and the State) but he is right in step with Barack Obama.
O’Malley is a tax and spend liberal. He never met a tax that he didn’t hike and he never met a social program that he did not spend (and overspend) on.
And he wants to be president.
O’Malley led the push of draconian and unconstitutional anti gun laws during the last session and those gun laws are set to take effect on 1 October. These gun laws will do absolutely nothing to stop gun violence in Maryland which already has some of the nation’s toughest laws. Criminal upon criminal with felony records routinely get guns and use them in the commission of crimes. The only people affected by O’Malley’s unconstitutional laws are those who actually obey the law.
The law sets up a requirement for a handgun license in order to purchase a handgun, mandates all kinds of training and removes a number of firearms (that the unintelligent call assault weapons) from the list of firearms that may be purchased.
This was all done after the shootings in Newtown which O’Malley used as a reason for tougher gun laws. His approach was that we need to do something because a Newtown might happen in Maryland. O’Malley thinks that the rare possibility of such an incident warrants the infringement upon the rights of the law abiding. Interestingly, the O’Malley State Police refuse concealed carry permits to people who use the reason that they might be a victim of crime as their good and substantial reason for the permit. Yes, Maryland requires people to show a reason in order to exercise a Constitutionally protected right.
In any event, the possibility of being a victim of crime is not enough to get a concealed carry permit but the possibility of a Newtown type shooting is justification enough to impose gun laws on law abiding people who would never do such a thing. In reality, a Maryland citizen is many times more likely to be the victim of a violent crime than any school here is likely to experience a Newtown type event. But O’Malley danced on the graves of children to get his unconstitutional gun laws passed because he is against freedom and he is against the Constitution.
The US Constitution protects the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. The State Constitution says that the US Constitution will be the Supreme Law of the State.
O’Malley has violated both.
And the irony is that NONE of the laws being enacted will stop gun crime and none of them would have stopped Newtown.
This is just one step that O’Malley and the gun grabbers have taken. Once their law is in place and crime does not go down they will shoot for a complete ban on guns. We can see how such bans work when we look at Chicago or any Communist nation.
Since O’Malley started this anti gun process the number of applications for firearms has skyrocketed so much so that the approving authority, the Maryland State Police, cannot keep up. The police are in violation of the law that requires them to disapprove or not disapprove in seven days. Gun dealers are allowed to release if no determination has been made in that time but the MSP has put pressure on gun dealers not to release. In other words, to violate the law.
O’Malley sees the increase as a fear. He is surprised and disappointed that so many people have purchased firearms ahead of his Communist type ban. People have a right to fear government that violates the Constitution and they are justified in fearing any government attempt to disarm them.
A disarmed population is not a free population it is enslaved. There never would have been slavery in this nation if those who were enslaved had been armed.
When the only people with the guns are the government and the criminals then we live in a tyranny and Martin O’Malley is a tyrant. He is a tyrant that was aided by his sock puppets in the legislature, some of whom have guns and carry permits.
O’Malley does not like guns except for the ones carried by the six police officers who are protecting him at any given time and the politically connected who get a permit.
You see, he is more important than the people who pay his salary. It is good to be the king.
The schemes enacted by the liberals in this state are designed to keep people from buying guns. They are expensive, burdensome and unconstitutional.
O’Malley can be disappointed all he wants. Real citizens are disappointed in his tyrannical power grab and violation of the Constitution. He is an embarrassment and he should never, ever, be considered to lead this nation.
O’Malley is an abortion supporter and the Supreme Court has decided that an abortion is the right of every woman.
Would O’Malley ever consider legislation that required women to provide a good and substantial reason to get an abortion, to pay for fingerprints and a background check to see if they can get one and then make them sit through training to learn about the ramifications of their decision?
We know the answer to that.
And abortion murders more Maryland children each year than all gun related murders (that are committed by people who will not be stopped by the new laws).
Martin O’Moron is a disgrace and should be put in prison for violating his oath and usurping the Constitution.
And so should any politician who voted for the mess.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: abortion, constitution, gun control, gun grabber, martin o'malley, tyrant
What Is The Threat To The US?
Sep 4, 2013 Military, Political
Some entity in Syria used the nerve agent Sarin in the ongoing civil war. The United States claims that the government used the nerve agent and the UN says the rebels used it. The US report on the issue is full of caveats including one that we do not have assets on the ground. There is even some doubt as to whether Sarin was used or if chlorine was the gas that killed all those people (some report smelling chlorine). The Obama regime wants to attack Syria as a punishment for using the chemical weapons.
Is our military supposed to be used to punish other nations?
Regardless of the reason for the use of force the US Congress is the body given the power to authorize the use of force. There is a law (50 USC Chapter 33, ss 1541) called the War Powers Resolution. The purpose of this was to give presidents the ability to respond to an emergency requiring military force when the response was needed before Congress could act to authorize it. There are three items listed that allow the use of force and they are:
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
There has been no declaration of war and there is no statutory authorization (such as a treaty or UN Resolution), and there is no national emergency created by an attack upon our country, its territories or possessions or our armed forces.
Given these facts there is no authority for the use of force under the War Powers Act. Barack Obama and his sock puppet John Kerry claim Obama has the authority but he clearly does not.
The US Congress must authorize the use of force and that is being debated at this time. Keep in mind during the debates that saving face for an American president is NOT one of the reasons that use of force is allowed.
The UN is unlikely to authorize the use of force as that body contends the rebels used the nerve agent and given that Russia has a veto vote and is a strong supporter of the Syrian government they will likely veto. This leaves it to the US Congress (unless, of course, Obama decides to strike no matter what) to allow or disallow the use of force. That body should think long and hard before it commits the use of our nation’s military and it should look at what threat is posed by the use of chemical weapons in Syria as well as the likely ramifications of the use of force.
If we attack Syria what will happen? Syria and Iran will attack Israel as punishment for the attack. We will condemn such acts but is their use of force for punishment any worse than ours?
The attacks on Israel will draw a huge military response form that nation and many other countries will be drawn into the conflict. World War Three will begin.
What happens if we attack Syria and hit the chemical weapons storage sites and those agents end up killing untold numbers of people? We claim we will not attack the storage sites but how do we know where they are and what is to say that Assad (or the Rebels) will not move the agents to places we are likely to hit in order to have such a release? How will we be viewed if our acts cause death by chemical agent?
What happens if we attack the Syrian Government and it turns out the Rebels used the nerve agents? If Obama thinks he needs to save face now what will he do if he attacks and was wrong all along? There will be no face saving measure in the world if he attacks and is wrong about it.
As far as I am concerned the nerve agent attacks in Syria took place in a civil war and their use did not affect us in any way whatsoever. Our property, our nation and our people were NOT attacked so there is no reason to shoot at anyone involved in that conflict.
If we decide to use force against the Syrian Government we will be helping al Qaeda (the Rebels) and these people are our enemy. These Rebels have been filmed murdering children at a firing squad and cutting out the heart and liver of a soldier and eating them. Are these the people we want to help?
Why in the name of all that is good would we want to help either side in this conflict? Both sides have animals in them but right now those animals are fighting each other. We should sit back and watch the fight and not get involved unless we are attacked.
Obama is foolish and inexperienced. It was his mouth that backed him into this corner and that is his problem. We should not use our military to help him save face.
We will end up looking like fools.
Any member of Congress on the left who screamed all those years about Bush lying to get us into war should remember all the things they said about Iraq not attacking us before they vote on Syria. Obama should remember he said he would not have voted to authorize force (yes Bush went to Congress and got approval regardless of what anyone thinks of the reasons) and John Kerry should remember what he said about Vietnam not posing any threat to the US when he was an anti war protestor oh so many years ago.
Republicans, you better sack up or you will face backlash on election day.
As for Democrats, who knows what they will face. Their party has mind numbed drones with short memories who follow the collective.
Say no to attacking Syria…
Related:
Will Rand Paul Filibuster?
Syria hiding weapons and moving troops
France now wavering
Putin warns US
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: assad, constitution, john kerry, Obama, rebels, Syria