Republicans Must Save Country From Slavery, Again
Dec 7, 2009 Political
It looks like Harry Reid is cracking up under all the pressure being put on him to get a health care bill passed. Combine that pressure with his diminishing chance for reelection and it all adds up to a crack-up. Today, Reid compared Republicans’ resistance to the health care legislation to those who opposed the ending of slavery in this country.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid took his GOP-blasting rhetoric to a new level Monday, comparing Republicans who oppose health care reform to lawmakers who clung to the institution of slavery more than a century ago.
The Nevada Democrat, in a sweeping set of accusations on the Senate floor, also compared health care foes to those who opposed women’s suffrage and the civil rights movement — even though it was Sen. Strom Thurmond, then a Democrat, who unsuccessfully tried to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and it was Republicans who led the charge against slavery. Fox News
It was indeed the Republican party that ended slavery in this country and the Democrats were the ones opposed to it. Republicans were the movers and shakers in the ending of the suffrage of women and in getting civil rights legislation passed. The Democrats were the ones who opposed all those things so at least Reid has his party’s history to look at when making the comparison.
The Democrats still espouse slavery in this country and they work hard to keep minorities, particularly blacks, on their plantation. Democrats do not work for equality and support plans that view minorities and women as second class citizens who need a helping hand because they are unable to make it on their own. The Democrats keep select groups enslaved in order to ensure votes. They are aware that as long as they keep promising to make things better they will keep people in chains, beholden to the Democrats who look down upon them.
The health care plan being pushed along will make every American, except the very wealthy and the political elite, slaves to the government. We will depend on government for one of the most important and personal items in our lives, our medical care. The Democrats know that if they can take over health care they will hold people hostage and will use this advantage to ensure wins in future elections.
Look at how the elderly are held hostage over Medicare and Social Security. The Democrats, at election time, always talk about Social Security and how it will be lost under Republicans. The Democrats use the threat of decreased SS or Medicare benefits as a weapon to keep the elderly in line. Fear of losing these benefits is what the Democrats want.
This will happen if we are all forced to be at the mercy of government. The government can justify anything it wants if it holds the keys to the health care mansion. They will regulate what you eat, how much exercise you get, what your kids do, and will increase taxes all under the threat of health care expense and in the name of the common good. It is a dangerous game and it is up to Republicans to stop it.
Republicans ended slavery in this country at the cost of a lot of lives all because Democrats wanted to keep blacks on a leash as servants.
After bondage ended the Democrats worked to enslave blacks and other minorities with social programs that keep the downtrodden at the bottom of the social ladder and always looking up for a hand.
“Please sir, I want some more.”
Republicans have traditionally believed that people who need a helping hand get one but that it is temporary and that the help one gets should be in helping him to improve his lot in life. We believe that you cannot make the poor wealth by making the wealthy poor and that making people dependent will not miraculously lead them to independence. Democrats don’t actually believe it either, they know that making the wealthy poor makes everyone poor and that the best way to control people is to make them dependent. This is their goal.
Once people are hooked they will always do what their masters say because they are afraid of losing what meager things they get.
One only needs to look at how people in New Orleans were unable to care for themselves after Hurricane Katrina to see the harm of dependence on government.
Republicans must rise up and defeat this health care legislation so that we maintain our independence.
I never want to have to tell my grandchildren that they are servants of the government because I stood silently and allowed it to take away our freedom.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: democrat, dependence, health care, Obama, Reid, republican, Senate, slavery
ACORN Can Still Be Paid
Nov 29, 2009 Political
Congress voted to stop paying taxpayer money to the liberal support group ACORN. This took place after damning videos were released which showed members of that corrupt organization showing a pimp and prostitute how to avoid the law, how to avoid taxes, and how to bring underage girls into the country to use for prostitution.
Attorney General Eric Holder has weighed in on the matter and has ruled that ACORN may still be paid under terms of contracts that existed prior to the Congressional ban.
If Congress voted to cut funding why is it OK to continue to pay them? Are we to believe that the contracts were made with the non-corrupt branch of this organization?
Seems to me that if a defense contractor was found to be breaking the law and Congress voted to cut funding then contracts would not be paid.
It looks like Obama’s AG figured a way to continue paying the corrupt organization our hard earned money. ACORN is a partisan group that supports Democrats and only Democrats. The government gives them our money to do just that.
Big Government has been on this story and has clearly demonstrated that ACORN is a wing of the Democrat party. Documents that ACORN threw away in order to destroy evidence shows that they work to get Democrats elected. It is time to stop giving them any taxpayer money.
And it is time for the Executive Branch to stop usurping the authority of Congress.
Related:
Big Government
Big Government
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
As Obama’s Numbers Fall, Democrats Revolt
Jul 9, 2009 Political
Looks like the Won is finally coming down to Earth. His approval rating country wide is the lowest it has been at 56%. His supporters will say that this is a good number, and it is, but it has continued to trend downward and poll numbers for individual states are lower with Ohio at 49% and Virginia at 48%. George H.W. Bush had approval numbers in the 70s following the Gulf War and they rapidly disappeared (within a year). Obama had a wave of excitement because he screamed Hope and Change and because he is the nation’s first half black leader. Some of the shine is starting to wear off. His approval is up but his approval index is -5.
Obama said we had to act now with the stimulus or we would be doomed. They acted “now” without even reading it and we are still doomed. The unemployment number, the one he promised would peak at 8% with the stimulus, has reached 9.5% and will likely hit 10% by the end of Summer. He has spent trillions we do not have and he continues to push for more spending that is unwise and reckless. People are beginning to see he is out of his league and that he is taking us the wrong way. While Germany, which said no to stimulus, is rebounding from its recession, we are heading deeper into ours and Obama’s solution is to have another stimulus. He wants to do more of what did not work. These very acts are the ones FDR took when HE drove us into a depression.
The Democrats of his majority are bucking him. A large number oppose the health care plan because it is too expensive and would add to the massive debt they are creating. The cap and tax bill has met stiff resistance in the Senate where Robert Byrd has been extremely vocal about not supporting it. Others have reservations as well. Even the liberal Brookings Institute says it will cost too much and be damaging to us financially.
Universal health care and cap and trade will have a tough time passing even though the Democrats can do that without any Republican support. This economy and all the things going on belong to Obama and his party and the consequences are theirs as well. The Democrats in Congress are aware of this and they are thinking about their next campaigns to be reelected.
Obama’s numbers will continue to fall unless, by some miracle, his policies start to make things better. However, since history shows that we will suffer high inflation (a position many economists predict) things will not get better any time soon.
While Obama works on another stimulus to spend even more money we do not have, Germany is seeing the outcome of acting responsibly. Contrary to what some of his advisers think, a second stimulus will not help any more than the first one did.
If he continues on this path 2010 will be a good year for Republicans (if they can get good candidates to run).
We will have to wait to see if we still have a country in 2012 to make predictions.
As an aside, Congressman Hoyer says health care bill would not get votes if members had to read it. [Big Dog Salute to Stop the ACLU]
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
I Don’t Have To Wait On Sotomayor
May 26, 2009 Political
After years of having Bush judicial nominees hammered by Democrats in the Senate as soon as they were nominated the Republicans decided they would wait to pass judgment on Obama’s first judicial nominee. They pretty much have to because Obama selected a Latino who happens to be a woman so if the Republicans jumped all over her right now they will be painted with every brush in the liberal arsenal. Racist, sexist, blah, blah.
I don’t have to wait because, despite Obama’s claims about her qualifications (which seem to be only her ethnicity and her sex) I have already determined she is not qualified based upon several things.
First she is an activist judge and she is a racist. Obama did say he wanted someone who would empathize with those before the court. Empathy is an emotion and the courts are supposed to base decisions on the law and not emotions. Sotomayor is on record as saying that the court is where policy is made. This is absolutely untrue in our system. I am not saying it does not happen but her acceptance of that premise disqualifies her.
That statement is not the only place she disclosed that life experiences dictate rulings. Sotomayor stated; “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” New York Times
In one fell swoop she managed to show that her rulings are guided by life experiences (empathy or sympathy depending on the circumstances) and that she is a racist. Her comment about white males is out of line. Imagine if Justice Alito had stated; “I would hope that a wise white man with good family values and experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion that a Latino woman who has not lived that life.” (Sotomayor was also involved in a case where whites filed a discrimination suit. She was not in favor of their rights)
The liberals would go nuts. Ted Kennedy would have stroked out with his “concern” for women. Alito would have been labeled a misogynist pig and Borked out of contention. But I am willing to bet this issue will be left untouched by Republican Senators and if they address it the left will attack. Remember, you can only be a racist or sexist if you are a Democrat. One only needs to see how Kennedy or Clinton were treated compared to Justice Thomas. A murderer and an adulterer were defended and a man who had unfounded allegations thrown at him was slammed.
It is obvious that Sotomayor is fuzzy on how the judicial system works and though she claims to be in favor of staying in line with the Constitution she is either lying or does not understand the document. It is obvious from her statements of making policy and life experiences that she is an activist but the icing on the cake for me is her position on the Second Amendment.
Sotomayor does not believe that the Second Amendment is an individual right and believes it only applies to the federal government so the states can do what they want which would make it different than any other Amendment in the Bill of Rights and runs contrary to the equal protection clause. I know there are many anti gun zealots out there who believe the same thing but the reality is that gun ownership is an individual right and the right existed before the Constitution and before we were a country. The Second does not say the government gives the right, it states that THE RIGHT (meaning it already exists).
How is it that the Bill of Rights is a list of INDIVIDUAL rights but the Second Amendment is not one? How can that be? How is it that the Founders are on record as stating that gun ownership is an individual right but our activist judicial system has ignored that? A list of Founder’s quotes on the Second Amendment is here. Here is a sample:
“Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
— Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution [emphasis mine]
The quotation states the people which is the phrase that means all of us and private arms. This means the people and the arms do not have to be part of the militia especially when the first part discusses raising military forces to pervert power and injure fellow citizens (not members of the militia). The words of the Founders echo this sentiment. The Bill of Rights contain individual (civil) rights. To say the Second is not an individual right like the rest perverts the Constitution and demonstrates a misunderstanding of it.
I know that the argument has been made that the issue is settled law and gun control advocates point to the Miller decision. This is what was decided:
In the case of U.S. v. Miller, the 1939 Supreme Court ruled there was no Constitutional basis for Miller to own a sawed-off shotgun without registering it under the National Firearms Act (GPO 1193). Miller’s argument was based upon the Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms” and as such, was not required to register his shotgun (ibid). After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that:
“[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view” (1194).
Continuing, the Court defined the militia as a force consisting of “civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion” and that it was “comprised [of] all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,” who, “when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time“ (emphasis added) (ibid).
Whereas the Court had ruled that the firearm in question was not exempt from registration, it also highlighted two key points that reinforce the notion the Second Amendment provides for private firearm ownership. First, the Court states that the militia was composed of “civilians primarily,” which is contrary to gun-control activist’s views that the militia of the Constitution equates to the National Guard (i.e. “professional soldiers”) of today. Second, the Court states that those civilians, when called into service, “were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves,” which is only possible if private firearm ownership is permitted. Lythosants
People claim that this is the only definitive adjudication of the Second Amendment (until Heller) but that is not true. If one looks at the Dred Scott decision then one can see the court acknowledged that carrying a weapon was an individual right. The merits of the case and whether they got it right is a subject for another time. The important thing here is this argument against granting Scott’s petition:
“It would give to persons of the negro race, …the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, …the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”
~snip~
The Territory being a part of the United States, the Government and the citizen both enter it under the authority of the Constitution, with their respective rights defined and marked out, and the Federal Government can exercise no power over his person or property beyond what that instrument confers, nor lawfully deny any right which it has reserved.
A reference to a few of the provisions of the Constitution will illustrate this proposition.
For example, no one, we presume, will contend that Congress can make any law in a Territory respecting the establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people of the Territory peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for the redress of grievances.
Nor can Congress deny to the people the right to keep and bear arms, nor the right to trial by jury, nor compel anyone to be a witness against himself in a criminal proceeding. [emphasis mine] Cornell Law
This is case law and it is an opinion by the Supreme Court. It clearly states that firearm possession is an individual right and this is affirmed by discussing a negro (not a militia member) would be allowed to keep and carry a firearm. Dred Scott is not brought up in the gun debate as anti gun forces work very hard to deny us our basic right. The same people who will fight to the death to protect a “right” that is NOT in the Constitution (abortion) will fight just as hard to deny one that IS in there and is clearly defined.
Sonia Sotomayor is not fit to serve in the Supreme Court. She rules by empathy rather than the rule of law, is a racist and lacks a fundamental understanding of the Constitution.
Maybe she sat in on one of Obama’s lectures. I hear he was a Constitutional law professor.
The Republicans in the Senate need to do their homework and come prepared to batter her on the Second Amendment. She needs to be beaten as hard and as badly as Alito and Roberts were with the issue of abortion. She needs to be hammered on her racist views just as Sam Alito was for his membership in the Concerned Alumni at Princeton (CAP). Kennedy portrayed Alito as a racist for belonging to that group. The Republicans need to hammer on Sotomayor for her racist views as well. If any Democrat objects, take him out back and shoot him (a tongue in cheek remark clarified for the benefit of Meathead).
Drudge has a headline asking if Republicans can vote against a Latino nominee. Why not? They are not voting on Miss Latin America or for an ethnic issue, they are voting to put someone on the highest court in the land. What they are is of no consequence; what they believe and how they administer the law is.
Besides, it is not like the Republicans are going to get much of the Hispanic vote. That demographic is captured by the promise of Democrats to give away other people’s money and to give them amnesty. They will vote for the party that gives away what is not theirs and enslaves people in the name of diversity and the common good.
So hammer Sotomayor because it won’t make one bit of difference with regard to election day.
Besides, it is better to lose an election doing what is right than to win one while selling out the country.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: activist judge, alito, constitution, democrat, law, Obama, policy, republican, roberts, Second Amendment, sotomayor, unqualified
Speaker Of The House Can’t Speak For Herself
May 16, 2009 Political
Nancy Pelosi keeps digging the hole she is in deeper each time she opens her mouth. The video of her trying to lie her way out of the mess shows a flustered person grasping for words that can’t be shown untrue and for words that will appease the people listening. She is in a downward spiral and even though dyed in the wool liberals will defend and support her, America is seeing the true Pelosi. She is a calculating politician who only cares about power.
Case in point; she claimed that she was against the water boarding, that she was not, repeat not, informed about (how can one oppose that which one is unaware) because she was too focused on winning Democratic seats in Congress. That’s right, after 9/11 her concern was winning seats and not national security.
Pelosi has had many, I repeat many, versions of her story and they all contradict each other and they contradict the truth. I believe Hillary would call it a willing suspension of disbelief. According to Pelosi, she did not know, was not, repeat, not informed, heard from someone else, and then knew about it. Along the way she has ticked off more than a few professionals in the intelligence community. You see, Nancy called them liars.
Pelosi is backtracking on her recent claim that the CIA lied to Congress (and her) about the Enhanced Interrogation Techniques. She now claims that she meant that the Bush administration was lying to her. I was wondering how long it would take her to follow Obama’s lead and blame it all on Bush. That always seems to get the liberal base all riled up. The problem is, Pelosi clearly blamed the CIA. She is now saying that she did not mean them but her words at the time made it quite clear about whom she was talking. Here is what Pelosi said during her attempted backpedal:
“My criticism of the manner in which the Bush Administration did not appropriately inform Congress is separate from my respect for those in the intelligence community who work to keep our country safe,” Pelosi said in a statement. The Hill
The reality is, she blamed the Bush administration AND she called the CIA liars. She specifically said that the CIA misleads Congress ALL THE TIME. She did say the Bush administration misled Congress with regard to weapons of mass destruction but her words directly implicated the administration AND the CIA as liars. If she had only called the people in the Bush administration liars it is unlikely that Panetta would have released the memos and defended the Agency. He had to defend it because Pelosi directly attacked it. Here are a few of her quotes:
Pelosi was particularly harsh in describing the CIA.
“They mislead us all the time,” she said. And when a reporter asked whether the agency lied, she did not disagree. Breitbart
“I am saying that the C.I.A. was misleading the Congress and at the same time the administration was misleading the Congress on weapons of mass destruction,” Ms. Pelosi said. The New York Times
Here we have Pelosi clearly calling the CIA liars and saying that they misled Congress while Bush was misleading on WMD (which he was not).
As anyone who is not a Kool Aid drinking liberal can see, Pelosi was clear and she meant what she said but now that she has ticked off the intelligence folks even more, she had to say she only meant the Bush administration. She mentioned them BOTH and there is no doubt about what she meant.
This woman is the Speaker of the House. She can’t even speak for herself.
As my other writer Blake says, she is on medication but to me it looks like she forgot to take it or the dose needs to be increased.
Remember, Pelosi was more concerned with getting Democrats elected than protecting the country or paying attention to her job.
She is a typical Democrat and she needs to step down as Speaker.
Then, the people in San Fran need to vote Gaspy Pelosi out of office.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: Bush, CIA, democrat, lies, Obama, Pelosi, water boarding