What Democrat Amnesty Is All About
Feb 24, 2015 Immigration, Political
In case you doubted it when I and many others pointed out that the only reason Democrats want to push amnesty and get it passed is so they can have millions of new voters a Democrat has said just that.
Democrat Kurt Schrader of Oregon supports amnesty and he said right out that whoever wins the fight over the issue will have control of the country for the next 30 years (a lot of bluster but he believes it). He indicated that the Democrats have ticked off a lot of the white folks in their base with attacks and that those folks need to be reigned back in and new voters added. You see, whether they like to admit it or not, they still need lots of white people (and there are plenty of white liberals) to vote for them or they lose. Adding millions of illegals will help make up for those who might sit it out over the way they have been treated.
This issue is not about all the feel good stuff Democrats spew when they discuss it because they don’t really care about the plight of the illegals. They only want the votes.
The sad reality is they want to reward illegal behavior just to add to their voter rolls.
We need to deal with those who broke the laws and dealing with them should involve punishment for their behavior. Democrats want to reward it.
It is sad but they put their party above the country.
And we heard that right from the donkey’s mouth…
As an aside McConnell should change the rules in the Senate to get the bill funding DHS and eliminating Obama’s amnesty through and send it to Obama to veto. If he does HE AND HE ALONE will be responsible for “shutting down*” DHS. I would love to see this just to hear the Democrats cry about the rule change after they praised Harry Reid for doing the same thing.
*Shutting Down is not accurate. A majority of DHS is mission essential so they have to continue working. They will get paid eventually but we will not be less safe if they are not funded.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: amnesty, democrat voters, dhs, funding, illegal aliens, lies
GOP Is Not Shutting Down DHS
Feb 14, 2015 Political
Barack Obama and the Democrats are.
The last budget deal funded everything except the DHS through the end of the fiscal year (ends 30 September 2015). DHS was funded through the end of February because of one thing and that is Barack Obama’s unlawful Executive Order on illegal immigrants. Obama is moving forward with his plan to allow millions of illegals to receive some sort of legal status and of course, all the benefits that American taxpayers can provide.
The Republicans funded DHS short term so they could work the issue out. Democrats do not want to work things out and are now crying about the things they used to do and are doing the things they used to cry about.
Democrats say the DHS should not be held hostage because of immigration and that the issue should be a separate issue in a separate bill. Really? They loved to put bad things in must pass bills to force Republicans to vote for them when they were in charge.
They are also filibustering in the Senate. They hated it when Republicans did so and decried the party of NO. Now they are the party of NO and are doing the very thing they said was wrong to do.
I have no problems with either party using whatever parliamentary procedures they can legally use. This is how politics work. But it is hypocritical for either party to do one thing and cry later when the same thing is done by “the other guy.”
As far as I am concerned they can shut down the DHS until Obama and his illegal actions are stopped. We did not have a DHS prior to 2001 and we survived up until then. Shut them down for as long as it takes to force Obama to stop violating his oath and OUR Constitution.
Nancy Pelosi is telling people what is right and wrong with all of this as if she actually has a clue. She lacks a brain and should be in jail for her illegal actions and for violating her oath.
Pelosi is upset at short term continuing resolutions and says they are not the way to do things. Her party used CRs for years because they never passed a budget. They always let things get to the brink of disaster and then forced votes in the middle of the night or during the holidays in order to coerce people to pass bills no matter how bad they were. She is also as responsible as anyone for the number of CRs that have been used in years past.
Shut up Nancy. No one wants to hear what comes out of your mouth because it has no brain to connect to and if it did it would be a mush filled liberal brain that is devoid of logic or intelligence.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: constitution, Democrats, dhs, executive action, illegal immigrants, lawless, lies, Obama, Pelosi
See Something, Say Something
Jun 24, 2013 Political
I do not agree with what Bradley Manning or Edward Snowden did. Manning did not just expose some cover up of an incident, he released tens of thousands of documents the contents of which could have an adverse effect on our national security. He apparently had a meltdown over his gender identity issues and, in a snit, released lots of stuff. There were other avenues for him to reveal the cover up but he chose an incorrect one. Some hail him as a hero but he is not.
In addition to exposing the illegal spying by our government, Snowden took untold numbers of documents and his actions could damage our security. There were plenty of ways he could have gotten the spying information out that would not have landed him in hot water. He chose an incorrect one and while his actions have enlightened millions of Americans the issue will be more about him than the wrong he exposed.
The interesting thing in both of these cases is that, while what they did was wrong, they both followed the instructions of Homeland Security. For years now the DHS has been telling us that if we see something we should say something. These people, as misguided as their methods were, saw something and said something.
Unfortunately for them they saw something the government was doing or had done and said something about it. Big government does not like its misdeeds exposed. It only likes when we are reporting each other TO them. Being reported for their wrong doing enrages them and results in criminal charges.
I personally think that these two broke the law and should be punished BUT I admit that they had valid concerns and could have exposed the wrong doing legally. They would have had more credibility and would have avoided trouble.
In any event, they were doing as DHS instructed them.
I wonder if DHS thought their see something, say something campaign would come back to bite them…
No matter what, things are wrapping up for Manning but the Snowden saga is just beginning. Regardless of the outcome we are much more aware of government wrong doing because of him.
I just wish he had done it the right way.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: dhs, lies, manning, say something, see something, snowden
Government Defines AR 15 As Suitable For Personal Defense
Feb 7, 2013 Political
The term assault weapon is a manufactured term applied to firearms that the anti gun crowd finds scary. The state and federal government’s anti gun folks and their stenographers in the media use this term to demonize those who own them. This is why you hear the term assault weapon whenever an AR 15 is used. They want you to think that this is some magical firearm that can be used to kill more people than a firearm that is not designated as an assault weapon.
The anti gun (which means anti Constitution) crowd banned these firearms in the past. The bans were based on cosmetic items and had nothing to do with functionality. Any firearm that did not have the cosmetic items but fired exactly the same was not an assault weapon.
Bans do not work. Columbine happened in the middle of the last ban.
[note]One of the cosmetic items is a bayonet lug (for non gun folks that is the part of the firearm that allows a bayonet to be attached). This item makes a firearm an assault weapon despite Barack Obama’s assertion that we have not used bayonets in about 100 years.[/note]
When people who own these scary firearms say they use them to hunt and for personal protection the anti gun folks say that no one needs an AR 15. These firearms, we are told, are only suitable for the battlefield or for the police. Taking the battlefield argument out of it (despite what we have been told, America is not an actual battlefield) why do the police, the people who interact with citizens in America, get to have them? If the people do not need them then neither do the police.
Hell, the very same people who tell us that items that are suitable ONLY for the battlefield should not be on American streets are all too happy to have police departments and government law enforcement agencies patrolling around in vehicles designed for battle with people who carry weapons designed for battle.
But I digress.
The gun grabbers say your AR style firearm is not a personal defense weapon.
However, the government has designated these types of firearms as suitable for that very purpose. In fact, a DHS solicitation for 7000 select fire weapons (semi automatic AND fully automatic) indicates that the department solicited for 5.56mm NATO select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense
If the firearm the DHS will use is suitable for personal defense then the civilian model of that firearm is certainly suitable for the same purpose.
Those of us with a brain already knew this and can see the hypocrisy of the words used in the solicitation.
The Second Amendment protects our right to keep and bear arms and that Amendment does not define what those arms shall be. SCOTUS rulings have already made it clear that firearms protected under the 2A are those with a military function and our Founders made it clear that citizens were to be allowed arms equal to those used by a standing army to ensure we had the ability to fight our government should it become tyrannical.
Politicians at all levels of government have limited authority to define what kind of firearms free people may possess. It does not matter what they like or feel the 2A is clear. Government has no authority to limit the number of rounds one can buy or the number of rounds a magazine can hold. It has no authority to ban or confiscate firearms that it does not like.
Period.
Our Founders protected our right because of the very things we are seeing today.
It would be unwise for any government to try and disarm us. DHS knows it because it has purchased 7000 personal defense firearms to fight the people with dangerous assault weapons. /snark
The government is setting up the perfect storm and it is preparing for the unrest it is encouraging. The government has purchased many more firearms than this and has purchased over a billion rounds of ammo. That is enough to wage a war the scare of Iraq at the highest level of ammo expenditure for 30 years.
Any question about what they are planning?
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[jpsub]
Tags: 5.56mm nato, ar 15, assault weapon, dhs, lies, personal defense firearm, Second Amendment, tyranny
The Terrorist Gays
Aug 16, 2012 Political
Janet Napolitano of Homeland Security is quick to label people who are affiliated with the TEA Party or right wing as terrorists even though none of these people have been shown to cause violence against government or any group of people. TEA Party rallies have been peaceful and the places where they gather are always left in better shape than when they arrived.
The violence committed has been committed by the left. The recent violence has been caused by people with leftist beliefs.
Despite this, the Democrat media contorts itself to make some connection to the right. They will falsely claim that a right winger is the cause or blame Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh for the violence when the truth is that left wing nut jobs cause the problems. The left loves to try and make right wingers out to be terrorists (the DHS calls them potential terrorists).
The latest terror attack was against a conservative group by a radical gay activist who has taken the violence of the gay movement to a new level. The gays have been physically violent and verbally abusive when they do not get their way. They have been known to attack little old ladies just because those ladies disagree with the gay agenda.
Now, gay activist and terrorist Floyd Corkins II of Virginia is the latest left wing nut job to commit violence and this time the violence was against a conservative group. Corkins walked into the Family Research Council and opened fire after denouncing their policies. He shot a guard who was able to subdue him despite his injuries.
The media that is quick to label anyone as a right wing terrorist when the target is a left wing entity has remained relatively silent about this shooting. Perhaps this is because the media is happy about it. The left wing groups have labeled FRC as a hate group so it only stands to reason that those who attached the label are responsible for the violence.
After any other shooting involving a left wing victim the media goes out of its way to blame Palin, Limbaugh, Malkin, Hannity and any other right wing public figure. It is their “hate speech” that incited the violence, they say.
If that is the case then it stands to reason that the various liberal entities that have labeled the FRC as a hate group are responsible for the FRC shooting.
Though I doubt you will hear anyone in the liberal media jump to make that claim. Hell, I doubt they will ever make that claim. If anything the media will claim that the gunman was pushed to it by the right.
When a nut uses a gun to cause harm the liberal left is always ready to ban guns and blame the right (even though most of the violence is caused by the left) so I want to know if the FRC shooting shows we need to ban gays…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: conservative, dhs, gay activist, liberal violence, media, terrorist