With the Obama regime neck deep in scandals, all of which are real and deserve scrutiny, the Senate is forging ahead with immigration reform. Read that as backdoor amnesty because Senators from both parties are working on ways to promise us one thing and do another. They are also working to pass as much as they can while our attention is focused on the Obama criminal regime.

The Senators keep telling us that these illegals will not be allowed to get taxpayer funded assistance. No welfare for them when they come out of the shadows. This is absolute BS.

First of all, the Senate Judiciary Committee has passed an amendment to the immigration legislation that will allow illegals who are magically changed to legally here eligible for welfare.

Even if this were not the case they would still get it. How is that, you ask?

Quite easy! Under the misinterpreted and misapplied 14^th Amendment any child born here to these illegals will be called a US citizen. The parents, though illegal, will apply for any benefits that a child who is a US citizen can get. These people will have welfare rolling in and spend it on whatever they want (they do this now so how will it be any different when we make them legal). Those who claim that they will get no welfare will then tell us that those kids are citizens and “deserve” this.

No, we did not lie because citizens are getting your money, not those illegals we waved our amnesty wand over.

The liberals in the Senate have already balked at removing the eligibility for the Earned Income Credit (EIC) on their taxes. This credit is a wealth redistribution scheme where people who pay no taxes (or very little that they usually get back) get money because they have children. It is a scheme that allows those who pay no taxes to get what was withheld back AND THEN SOME.

The Senate passed the amendment allowing welfare so it matters not but regardless of how they approach this, the illegals will be getting taxpayer money. If that is not bad enough, the alleged fines these people will have to pay (as in fines and back taxes) is all a ruse.

As pointed out, they pay little or no taxes. How can we force them to pay back taxes when they end up not having owed any taxes? No, this is all smoke and mirrors so the government can claim that these people paid their dues.

No restriction is allowed on all of these lawbreakers. The advocates for these illegals are screaming about an amendment making conviction of a third DUI grounds for deportation. No, we can’t have such a strict thing for people whose first act in this nation was to break our law.

Look, these folks can be wonderful and hard working pillars of their shadow communities but the reality is that they are all lawbreakers. They came here illegally and now want to be rewarded for their crimes. They expect special treatment over those who are trying to do things the right way.

I personally have a friend who is highly skilled and has a job offer pending at a hospital but she cannot get here because of all the illegals and non English speaking people gumming up the works. She has been waiting for years to come here and she would be an immediate asset. She is skilled in a profession that is in short supply and she has a job offer. She would start working and begin paying taxes immediately.

But she can’t come here because of all the future Democrat voters who are demanding they be rewarded for breaking the law and because liberals in Congress are listening to them.

We need to put systems in place to flush these folks out where they self deport or we send them packing and we need to change our laws so that those who try to come here the right way AND HAVE SOMETHING TO OFFER are processed quickly.

We conservatives are not against immigration. We are against illegal immigration.

We are also against members of Congress who pander to people who break the law and expect to be rewarded for it.

I have an idea. Let’s evict the United Nations, tear down the building and ship the bricks to the south. Then round up the illegals and make them build a wall between them and the US with those bricks. Once it is done we will let them walk back home without being put in jail. In exchange for their labor we will allow them to apply for legal entry in 15 years, may never become a citizen and may never vote in an election.

Even Democrats won’t want them here if they can’t vote.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

I have always believed that a point of view depends upon whose ox is being gored. With the Second Amendment the media are silent with regard to what our Founders intended and will help push an agenda for anti gun (and anti American) liberals. In order to ignore what our Founders said and what they clearly intended the media will gladly tell us that the Constitution is a living document and that it must evolve with the times. Things change for the media when the right under attack is the one that affects them the most.

The idea that the Constitution is a living document is an incorrect assessment of the Constitution. It is not a living document subject to interpretation based on a particular point in history. It is the Supreme Law of the Land and the Founders did not intend for it to be interpreted this way or that. What they did was give us a method to change it should things change or should new situations arise.

In any event, the media love to bash the Second Amendment and tell us how things have changed. That point of view changes when the right attacked is the one that affects the media.

In light of the Justice Department’s infringement of the AP’s First Amendment right the media, at least the AP, have suddenly decided that the Constitution is not a living document and that the infringement by the Justice department is wrong. Here is what Gary Pruitt, the president and CEO of the AP, had to say about the incident:

Pruitt told CBS’ ”Face the Nation” that the government has no business monitoring the AP’s newsgathering activities.

“And if they restrict that apparatus … the people of the United States will only know what the government wants them to know and that’s not what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment,” Washington Post

Well isn’t it interesting that Pruitt mentions what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment? When it comes to the Second Amendment the media will tell us that things have changed, the framers could not have anticipated modern firearms (they did anticipate which is why they do not mention a specific type. People can have what the government has). They tell us that it is a living document and that we need to advance with the times. They dismiss any argument that claims if people are disarmed there will be no way to fight a tyrannical government as if the government is wonderful and would do no wrong.

It looks like the AP incident and Pruitt’s words now reveal that the media were wrong. The incident shows the tyranny of government and Pruitt indicated that this kind of tyranny leads to people only getting the information government wants it to.

I imagine it will be difficult for many anti gun zealots to see that these two issues are one in the same. Many, and I imagine Pruitt would be among them, will not see how the framer’s intent applies as much to the Second as it does to the First (and all parts of the Constitution for that matter). They will continue to dismiss the valid concerns of gun owners and tell us how we need to change with the times while crying foul over what the government did to them.

Mr. Pruitt, conservatives are on your side because we know all parts of the Constitution need to be defended against all enemies foreign and domestic. We know that the erosion of one right will lead to the erosion of another until the domino effect takes place. We wake up one day and are North Korea where people are disarmed, totally dependent on government and fed only the news government wants.

Mr. Pruitt, you and others in the media are responsible for this. You media folks pushed an agenda for liberals for decades. That was the anti gun agenda and it allowed for the slow erosion of the right to keep and bear arms. You folks in the media carried their water on this issue while cheerfully claiming that things have changed, this is a living document, the framers could not have anticipated the future, blah, blah, blah…

While you were helping with the slow erosion of our Second Amendment right you were putting in place the mechanism that allowed government to start going after the other rights. You allowed the camel’s nose to get under the tent and now you are feeling the effect of your failure.

Without a Second Amendment there will be no protection for the First or any other. Without a well armed citizenry there will be government tyranny. You helped bring this upon us by ignoring or dismissing the framer’s intent when it came to our right to keep and bear arms.

You in the media became stenographers for the liberals in government. You abandoned your obligation to the people and stopped being our watchdog. YOU enabled government to encroach further and further on our rights and into our lives. You failed us and now you are reaping what you have sown.

How about you get on board and start supporting the Second Amendment the way you want the First supported? How about you push the message of the people and tout the intent of our framers with regard to the right to keep and bear arms? What say we the people and you the media work together to keep government in check?

Let me help you out with it:

• “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
• “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.” –Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787)
• “What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.” – Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356
• “No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]
• ” … to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” – George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380

Quotes from the George Mason webpage of Walter E. Williams

I along with most conservatives do not like what took place with regard to the AP. We do not like the violation of a Constitutionally protected right because we support all of those rights. It is time for the AP and all other media outlets to get back to doing their jobs.

You can’t cry that your Constitutional right has been violated when you willfully ignore your responsibilities under that right.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Researchers conducted a study and concluded that men who are physically strong (have more upper body strength) tend to be conservative and men who are physically weak tend to support welfare and wealth redistribution. This should come as no surprise when one looks at liberals. They are metrosexuals who need someone to care for them because they are not able to care for themselves.

It is obvious that liberals are a bit wimpy, have you ever seen Obama throw a baseball? Lest we forget he bowled a 37…

Why do you think liberals oppose firearms? These are tools of strength and liberal men can’t have that. They would prefer to sip frou-frou coffee and collect government assistance because they know they are not able to care for themselves.

Now I know there are some liberal men who are physically strong (I know many) and some conservative men who are physically weak (I know some of them too) but the research does not say the results are true in all cases, just that they tend to be so.

Look at the liberal men you see on TV and see if they appear to have more upper body strength or less and also look to see if they look a bit girly. It should not be hard to find a number of these liberal weaklings beyond Obama and Holder. Look around in everyday life and you can figure which men are self supporting and strong and which ones are weak and need to be taken care of.

The study links the finding to evolution and claims that humans have always been political but in the past governments and courts did not make decisions about the distribution. These were done through shows of strength. The strong were able to enjoy the fruits of their labor while the weak depended on others to help them out. If you were strong it was unlikely someone was going to take your stuff or that you would produce much of your own.

Why do you think liberals always fear conservatives coming to power? Why do you think that liberals run on fear that some mean conservative will take your free gubmint stuff if elected?

They are not strong so they fear that their lifeline, the stuff gubmint has extorted from the strong, will go away.

Liberals want big government give aways because they are unable to support themselves and they fear having to try.

Liberal men equals girly men.

The study showed no difference between conservative and liberal women. My study shows conservative women are smarter and better looking…

And libs, please don’t argue. As Al Gore would say, the science is settled…

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Liberals who want more gun control will tell you they support the Second Amendment. They will tell you that nothing they are doing will interfere with people and their right to keep and bear arms. This is a lie because the things they enact infringe. Maryland is a prime example where the Nazi Governor and his minions have imposed unconstitutional gun laws that restrict law abiding people. The tragedy is that these gun laws will do no good which will lead to calls for even more gun control.

Liberal logic (if you can call what liberals use logic) demands supporting the Second Amendment.

In light of this week’s revelation that the Department of Justice has obtained phone records from the AP the media is up in arms and there will be backlash. The first thing to note is that what Justice did might not be illegal under the law.

But what they did is much larger in scope than anything that has happened before and though the reason given is to find the source of a leak the reality is it gives the appearance that the First Amendment right of the media has been violated. It looks like Justice is trying to intimidate the media (in this case specifically the AP but indirectly all media) and is sending a message that it will go through huge amounts of records to get what it wants.

The media are out discussing how this took place and expressing their outrage while those at the AP have expressed anger, shock and disbelief. They feel their communications are being monitored and that their rights have been violated.

They have the support of conservatives who are also wary of these kinds of government tactics. In other words, conservatives support these organizations in their belief that even if it is legal to do (and that is a questionable thing right now) the idea of trampling on a right is sickening.

I only wish the media and other liberals outraged by the AP records scandal felt the same way about other rights. When other rights are violated, particularly if the violations affect conservatives, the liberals say it is OK and justified. Look at how the former head of the NAACP and others have reacted to the IRS violations of the rights of conservative groups. They have said that it is OK because those groups are racist. First of all, they are not racist BUT even if they were they have the same rights as everyone else.

Racist groups like the KKK, the Nation of Islam and the Black Panthers all have rights and those rights should not be violated just because we do not agree with the message.

Once we start rationalizing the violation of our rights it becomes easier to rationalize other violations until pretty soon we have no rights left.

The left loves to push gun control even though most gun control laws violate the Second Amendment. They rationalize that it is for safety or for the children or that no one needs certain types of firearms. This allows them to continue eroding our Second Amendment right until the judiciary is comfortable removing those rights based on what we have allowed to creep in.

I wish that these liberals would be as outraged by the violation of the Second Amendment as they are at the alleged violation of the First. We on the right support ALL rights and do not like when any of them are violated. It is high time the left jumped in and supported us the way we are supporting them.

Perhaps they now know how those of us who believe in and support the Second Amendment feel each and every day as we battle the forces of evil that are hell bent on denying us that which has been endowed by our Creator. Perhaps, but I won’t hold my breath.

So the AP scandal shows that liberals, if they actually had any integrity, would fight for the Second Amendment (and all other rights) as hard as the one that affects them the most.

Interestingly, the Gosnell abortion/murder case gave Harry Reid the chance to show why there should be less gun control instead of more.

Dr. Kermit Gosnell was an abortion doctor who murdered babies born alive and performed late term abortions in violation of Pennsylvania law. He was found guilty of murder and a number of other charges and will spend the rest of his life in jail.

Harry Reid wants us to believe that pro life supporters have forced women to go to clinics like the one run by Gosnell. He says that people have been pushed into holes like that clinic because of people who picket abortion clinics. Reid also blamed this all on restrictive laws.

He believes that having less restrictive abortion laws would have prevented the murders Gosnell committed.

Interestingly, Reid and his ilk are the ones who think that MORE restrictive laws will curb gun violence. Yes, to Reid and other gun grabbers more restrictive laws will stop gun crimes but less restrictive laws will end the crimes like those committed by Gosnell.

If we were to apply Reid’s logic to gun ownership (and publicly carrying them), then we can conclude that less restrictive laws will prevent more gun crimes. In fact, this has actually been proven time and again.

Reid is incorrect about Gosnell. We do not need less restrictive laws for abortion. The crimes committed by Gosnell had nothing to do with laws being too restrictive. They had to do with this; First Gosnell is a monster. Second, Gosnell performed late term abortions (after the time PA says they can be performed) so women who waited too long or did not know went to him because he would do it. They went to him because he would skirt the law.

His clinic was not filthy because of laws that are too restrictive and he did not have all those aborted kids in containers because the law was too tough.

His clinic was in that condition and he was doing what he was doing because it was not inspected by the government agency responsible for ensuring medical businesses are clean and operate according to established law (and medical standards). The Health Department (or whichever agency PA has given the task) did not make unannounced visits to ensure his clinic was clean and up to standard. Less restrictive regulations would not correct this and it did not happen because people protest abortion clinics. It happened because the laws in place were not followed; the laws requiring health inspections as well as the laws regarding late term abortions. Any inspection at any time would have caught these problems early on.

Keep in mind; they were only brought to light because a woman died at his clinic because of his negligence.

Harry Reid is wrong because his root cause analysis is wrong. He is right that less restrictive laws would lead to fewer problems if this were applied to gun control because that has been shown time and again. Criminals do not obey the law.

Gosnell got away with his crimes because the state did not enforce the law (which, by the way, is why many gun crimes happen).

So the media is now positioned to defend rights. Good, defend them all and apply the same standard to the Second Amendment as to the First.

Harry Reid is now on record saying less restrictive laws would lead to fewer problems. Good, beat him and the other anti gun zealots over their heads with Reid’s words. Make them apply the same standard he wants to apply to abortion. He might be wrong about why they happened but there is no doubt he believes fewer laws would mean fewer problems.

It is ironic how all of this has come to light at this time.

I think it is quite possible that these items (including the IRS scandal) were made public (and Reid commented on Gosnell) because they want to draw focus away from Benghazi.

I have read a lot of liberal sites where they are calling the AP scandal the only real scandal of the Obama regime. If the left can get the public to believe the AP phone records scheme is the only scandal and then later show Justice acted legally then the other scandals (which are REAL scandals) will be swept away.

I do not put anything past these criminals but we should use their words and deeds to our advantage. Who knows, maybe we can change their minds and get them to see where they have been wrong. We might be able to make them leave the liberal plantation.

Hell, a few pro abortion folks have changed their views after the horror of Gosnell.

And David Axelrod now agrees with TEA Party folks that government is too big.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Eric “The Red” Holder might have stepped in it big time now that we know The Justice (or is it Just Us) Department secretly obtained the telephone records of people at the Associated Press. Justice did not say why they took the records but it is believed they were obtained to discover who leaked classified information to the AP.

In all, the government seized the records for more than 20 separate telephone lines assigned to AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012. The exact number of journalists who used the phone lines during that period is unknown, but more than 100 journalists work in the offices where phone records were targeted, on a wide array of stories about government and other matters.

In a letter of protest sent to Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday, AP President and Chief Executive Officer Gary Pruitt said the government sought and obtained information far beyond anything that could be justified by any specific investigation. He demanded the return of the phone records and destruction of all copies.

“There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters. These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP’s newsgathering operations and disclose information about AP’s activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know,” Pruitt said. FOX News

Benghazi, IRS targeting conservative groups, HHS Secretary extorting money from insurance companies and now this.

How many of you Obama toadies are still on board? How many of you still think he and his minions are wonderful people looking out for you?

They are using the same tactics that the Communists use. They are doing things that are ILLEGAL in order to push their progressive/commie agenda and they are crapping on the Constitution and the people of this country at the same time.

These people are enemies of our nation and we need to put them on trial and get rid of them. Any politician who opposes is part of the problem and must go as well.

The irony of this AP news is that the media spent so much time covering for Obama no matter what he did and now they have been bitten by him. I doubt they will learn anything from this but who knows? Perhaps the media will start doing some investigation. Folks at the AP are hopping mad so maybe they want to play hardball…

What Obama has done and continues to do is far worse than anything Nixon did.

IMPEACH him and put the rest of them on trial. Time for a deep colon cleansing in the bowels of DC.

In other words, time to get rid of the crap.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

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.

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.

During the 2008 presidential election Hillary Clinton put out an ad about a 3 am phone call. In it something bad happens in the middle of the night and the viewer is left with the impression that if there is a middle of the night (3 am) emergency we want Hillary to answer the phone. I imagine she has experience answering late night calls with Bill as her husband…

In any event, the ‘who is best to answer the call’ contest began with Clinton and Obama each claiming to be America’s next best hope for late night emergencies.

Obama won that contest as voters decided that he was the one to lead. He was the one they had been waiting for, in Obama’s words…

It now turns out that neither of them has the qualifications to do anything more than answer an emergency phone call. Whistleblower testimony shows that Americans were in danger and made calls that might have been answered but were not acted upon. It appears that Obama blew off the calls so he could get some sleep for a next day fundraiser and Hillary answered the calls and gave no decisive orders that involved saving our people.

As a result of the inept leadership four Americans are dead.

Obama’s response to his phone call failure is to blame it on a video, claim that they could do nothing and tell other lies in order to win reelection. Clinton’s response; what difference does it make now?

There are interesting story lines with regard to the murder of our diplomats. The Secretary of Defense said we did not send help because we could not get there in time. How did he know that? The attackers did not broadcast their intentions. The fight went on for hours and hours. We had military units ready to launch and they were told to stand down (several times).

Our military answered the 3 am phone call for help and were ready to go. The people who told us they were the best qualified to answer the phone kept them from going.

Let us assume for a minute that we did not think our military could get there in time to help. Would that be reason enough not to send them at all? If Obama had sent all available assets as soon as he knew what was happening this whole ordeal would not be an issue even if those assets did not get there in time. It would be evident that we made every possible effort to save our people but could not get there fast enough.

As it stands now it looks like they decided that either we could not get there or they did not want to send them there so they just said the hell with it and sacrificed the lives of our countrymen.

Imagine if a house in your neighborhood (or your house) was on fire and it was pretty well engulfed in flames. How would you and your community respond if you called the fire department and told them that your house was on fire and that it was pretty well engulfed and they told you that since they probably could not get there in time to put out the fire before the house was consumed they were not going to bother showing up?

Would you stand for that? Probably not and even though your mind might tell you the house was going to be a total loss your heart would leave doubt. You would always ask if anything could have been saved if they had just responded.

While I am in the camp that believes we should have sent forces to help as soon as we knew and would not support any other decision I could have at least listened to the other point of view if Obama had not lied about it all. I can’t see any reason he could give to justify NOT sending help but at least he would be on more solid ground if he told us the truth when he explained it.

Instead, he and Hillary worked hard to cover up their inability to lead by lying to us. They called this a spontaneous demonstration over a video rather than a terror attack even though they knew right away that it was terror and not a video. They knew it was well organized and that their refusal to beef up security resulted in the attack and eventual murder of our people.

So they decided to cover it all up. They have been obstructing people trying to get to the truth and have exacted revenge on people who dared to step forward with it.

The 3 am phone call placed by those in danger did not get a busy signal and it did not get anyone qualified to help.

It reached people who place their agendas and their political aspirations ahead of human life.

And the message it sent was loud and clear;

Obama and Clinton are not qualified to lead…

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

The excrement will hit the fan today as whistleblowers testify about the Obama cover-up regarding the attacks in Benghazi. Obama and his minions knew that it was a terror attack almost immediately but blamed it on a video. That story continued for weeks as America tried to understand how four of their fellow countrymen were murdered.

The facts in the case will show that Obama did not send help, that those who were ready to go help were told to stand down and that it was all covered up. The probable reason is that Obama was running for reelection and part of his platform was that al Qaeda was on the run and he was beating terror back. In other words, Obama lied in order to win reelection.

I can’t imagine that the low information voters have any idea about this particularly since the Obama stenographers in the Main Stream Media have been spinning stories and covering for him and his people. They are particularly focused on protecting Hillary Clinton so she can run for the presidency in 2016.

Low information voters are not aware of many things. 40% of people surveyed did not know the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) was a law and most Americans in that low information group think gun crime is up even though it has decreased 39% since 1993.

Many of them still think Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her house and a lot still think Obama has some secret stash of money he can dole out to them.

So I doubt many of these people know what happened in Benghazi or will understand the implications of Obama’s actions. Most will think that Republicans are just trying to attack Obama based on baseless accusations because that is what the MSM will tell them.

Richard Nixon resigned because of a cover-up after the Watergate break in. No one died as a result of the activities that ended the Nixon presidency.

Obama is directly responsible for the death of four Americans and he is responsible for the cover-up that followed all so he could win reelection.

I don’t know if his presidency will survive the aftermath of the issue though some are predicting this will end it for him.

I do know that if he is forced out of office we will be stuck with Joe Biden (unless he is involved in the cover-up) and that is not good for America. Biden could not pour water out of a bucket if the directions were written on the bottom.

In any event, the aftermath of all this will substantially weaken Obama and probably end any hope Hillary has for becoming president.

Time will tell…

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

A 5^th grade boy wrote on his desk and the teacher caught him. Now most adults would recognize that the child did something wrong and then provide an appropriate punishment. The child could have been made to wash his desk and all other desks in the classroom during recess or after school. The child could have been made to wash his desk and then be given detention for a certain period of time.

There are plenty of methods of punishing a child for doing something wrong that will provide the child a lesson and prompt him not to do the bad thing again. The teacher’s punishment was not appropriate. She forced the child to lick the desk clean.

The parents of the child were very upset and wanted something done to the teacher for the inappropriate punishment. They have gone through the proper channels to get their concerns addressed but have been stonewalled. They even said that the issue could be resolved if the teacher were forced to get in front of the class and apologize but the principal says he can’t do that because it would be a directive which he cannot give (what sense does it make to be in charge then) and that it would not be sincere.

They have been advised that the teacher was dealt with but the situation is confidential.

I have an idea that will get them a response. The parents should get an attorney and sue the school and the teacher for a ton of money.

I bet that all kinds of directives can be issued by the principal if they will avoid a huge lawsuit and I bet the teacher would publicly apologize and be sincere if it will keep her from paying out money.

Of course I think it is too late for that and the parents should go for all they can get. The people in these positions need to be made examples of in order to keep them in line.

I do not condone what the child did and certainly he deserved an appropriate punishment. If that had happened there would be no issue.

But this teacher went over the line and the principal is not working to resolve it to the satisfaction of the parents so now it is time to make them pay.

If they can’t get satisfaction then lick them in court…

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Governor Cuomo of New York will launch an ad campaign in other states touting the benefits of locating businesses in the Empire State. Cuomo’s ads will air outside New York and feature the voice of actor Robert DeNiro telling folks that New York is on the rebound.

The first problem with this is that the state is using money from the federal disaster aid sent to help those who were impacted by Hurricane Sandy. That money is supposed to help those people restore their lives and rebuild their properties. While many are still without a home or power the governor is taking money meant to help them and using it to lure business to the state.

This seems like a criminal act and should be investigated. The money sent to the state came from taxpayers all over the country and was designated for use in helping victims of the hurricane. Using it for any other purpose is wrong. Why would any business want to relocate to a place that does this kind of thing?

The next issue is the environment in New York. New York is a high tax state. Many wealthy people and a number of businesses have left the state because of its high taxes. Why would a business want to move to New York when states like Florida and Texas offer more tax friendly environments?

It is also important to note that New York is not a state where freedom is honored or protected by the politicians in charge. New York City has a mayor who thinks he should dictate how much salt and trans fats a person can eat and what size sugary drink they can consume. The state has recently enacted restrictive and unconstitutional gun laws (on top of already restrictive and unconstitutional gun laws) that infringe upon the rights of law abiding citizens.

Why would any business want to go to New York knowing that the government there does not uphold the Constitution?

While it is true that some business owners might be anti gun and welcome that environment it is important to note that if the state is willing to ignore the Constitution with regard to gun rights then it will feel free to ignore other constitutionally protected rights. Once a business assumes all the costs involved in moving it will be held captive to a government that has no problem raising taxes and infringing on rights.

Businesses should consider tax friendly and freedom loving states instead of New York.

And Cuomo should be investigated for improper use of federal tax dollars.

Be wary business owners. The lure will be filled with honey but the result will be full of manure…

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.