Latest Entry: Democrat Rep. Steven Lynch: The Worst Parts of Obamacare Are Yet to Come     Latest Comments: Talk Back Here

Latest Entries

April 22, 2014

Democrat Rep. Steven Lynch: The Worst Parts of Obamacare Are Yet to Come

A Democrat that is willing to actually tell the truth about Obamacare?

Yep, they actually exist, and in this short and edited clip by Boston Herald Radio Massachusetts Democrat Rep. Steven Lynch tells Boston Herald Radio that the worst is yet to come and its "going to hit the fan" ... there are still Obamacare taxes to be implemented, like the ones on 'cadillac' insurance plans, that are coming and they are really going to hurt both unions and employers. Add to this all the stuff that has been postponed because it simply isn't palatable (hat tip - The Right Scoop):

"There are parts of Obamacare, or the Affordable Care Act, that were postponed because they are unpalatable, ... The "Cadillac tax" that goes into effect in a few years and taxes employer health plans over a certain value, will be "the first time in this country's history that we have actually taxed health care."

... "We will lose seats in the House," ..."I am fairly certain of that based on the poll numbers that are coming out from the more experienced pollsters down there, and I think we may lose the Senate." ...

Via Mediaite:
[...] Lynch did not mince words when he said that the Democrats' dire political straits are "primarily because of health care."

The elements of the law that Lynch cited which have yet to kick in are only some of the more onerous aspects of the law that continues to tick ominously like the economic time-bombs they are. Many analysts believe that the flood of cancelled individual insurance plans that characterized the law's early implementation period was merely a prelude to when (or, as former White House Press Sec. Robert Gibbs said, if) the ACA's employer mandate is enacted.

While the White House and their allies in the press have seized on a Congressional Budget Office report that predicts insurance premium rates will increase at a slower rate than in years past, some health insurers continue to predict double-digit premium increases for some marketplaces in 2015. Others warn that that rates could double over the next two years.

The biggest rate hikes, experts say, will occur in states that were slow to adopt aspects of the ACA. In related news, Democrats are presently defending incumbent Senate seats in six states that former Republican nominee Mitt Romney won handily in 2012. Republicans need just six seats to flip control in order to retake the Senate.

The stakes surrounding the Affordable Care Act are high. So high, in fact, that it serves some of the president's allies more to insist that the debate over the success of the ACA is "over." It would seem that no matter how many supportive blog posts are published, candid statements like those made by Lynch and others indicate that Obamacare will persist as a political problem for Democratic political aspirants and incumbents.

More here ...

You can hear the full interview here (the uncut version on Obamacare starts at the 17:47 mark.)

Posted by Hyscience at 4:51 PM | Comments () / TrackBacks

The Battle for Bundy Ridge - Powerline weighs in

No different than the rest of us, attorney John Hinderaker of Powerline had to read and dig to find information on the situation at Bundy Ranch.

Saturday, April 12 - here. Before I had quite figured out what to make of the Bundy Ranch standoff, it appears to have been resolved. The Bureau of Land Management has announced that in view of the risk of violence, it is withdrawing its forces, which include snipers, from the area. (How many federal agencies employ snipers, anyway? Too many, it is safe to say.)

Monday, April 14 - Why You Should Be Sympathetic Toward Cliven Bundy - three excerpts -

Over the last two or three decades, the Bureau has squeezed the ranchers in southern Nevada by limiting the acres on which their cattle can graze, reducing the number of cattle that can be on federal land, and charging grazing fees for the ever-diminishing privilege. The effect of these restrictions has been to drive the ranchers out of business. Formerly, there were dozens of ranches in the area where Bundy operates. Now, his ranch is the only one. When Bundy refused to pay grazing fees beginning in around 1993, he said something to the effect of, they are supposed to be charging me a fee for managing the land and all they are doing is trying to manage me out of business. Why should I pay them for that?

The bedrock issue here is that the federal government owns more than 80% of the state of Nevada. This is true across the western states. To an astonishing degree, those states lack sovereignty over their own territory. Most of the land is federal. And the federal agencies that rule over federal lands have agendas. At every opportunity, it seems, they restrict not only what can be done on federal lands, but on privately-owned property. They are hostile to traditional industries like logging, mining and ranching, and if you have a puddle in your back yard, the EPA will try to regulate it as a navigable waterway.

So let's have some sympathy for Cliven Bundy and his family. They don't have a chance on the law, because under the Endangered Species Act and many other federal statutes, the agencies are always in the right. And their way of life is one that, frankly, is on the outs. They don't develop apps. They don't ask for food stamps. It probably has never occurred to them to bribe a politician. They don't subsist by virtue of government subsidies or regulations that hamstring competitors. They aren't illegal immigrants. They have never even gone to law school. So what possible place is there for the Bundys in the Age of Obama?

Truly I found this a very sad commentary and for me it has nothing to do with having "sympathy" with the Bundys. It has to do with right and wrong.

Something like this maybe
- The Epic Hypocrisy of Tom Steyer - Billionaire hedge fund operator and "green" energy magnate Tom Steyer has pledged $100 million in the 2014 election cycle to help Democratic candidates who oppose the Keystone pipeline and who favor "green" energy over fossil fuels.

On can't help but wonder how he feels about the state of Nevada.

And speaking of right and wrong -

Posted by LadyR at 7:47 AM | Comments () / TrackBacks

Shotguns are for weddings, deer hunting and - what's that DHS?

Now what good would a shotgun be without shotgun shells? We may just be fixing to find out because DHS needs 25 million - allow me to repeat that - 25 MILLION rounds! (Note added below video.)

POTRBlog - Homeland Security Orders 25 MILLION Shotgun Shells AFTER Shotgun Ammunition Factory Explodes = Big Shortages

Clarification: After reviewing as much of the government information as time permitted I sent the following tweet to Potrblog and received the following answer -

Ladyravensdc - I am seeing solicitation to bid but not actual order. It is for 5 year time period. Have you more clarification of immanent order?
Potrblog - FedBizOpps has all the info your looking for, offers by 5/23/14 followed by an award for FAI, & then followon orders

Posted by LadyR at 5:52 AM | Comments () / TrackBacks

Our Imperial President was against terrorists before he was for terrorists!

Might I suggest reading the excerpts before accessing the provided links as this is lengthy but required as no single article told it all.

NOTE - here on American soil
- "Individuals with diplomatic immunity cannot be prosecuted or even charged with so much as a traffic ticket, let alone an act of terrorism."

TPNN - Obama Signs Cruz 'Anti-Terrorist' Bill into Law, Says He WON'T Enforce It!

In 1979, there was a student takeover of the United States Embassy in Tehran. For 444 days, 52 Americans were held hostage. Then President Jimmy Carter was lambasted for his weak foreign policy which lead the Iranians to view him as an inconsequential leader. Therefore, they did not fear America. When Ronald Reagan became president in 1980, with the spinelessness of Jimmy Carter purged from the White House, the hostages were released on the very day of his inauguration.

Hamid Abutalebi has been selected by Iranian President Hassan Rouhani as their United States Ambassador. Abutalebi was one of the hostage takers of those 52 Americans. While he claims he only served as a translator and negotiator, the United States Congress voted unanimously to deny his entry into the United States, since the U.N. meetings are held in New York.

The bill passed by Congress was authored by Republican Senator Ted Cruz from Texas and Congressman Doug Lamborn from Colorado. Continue here.

Toledo Blade - Obama blocks visa for Iran's UN ambassador Hamid Aboutalebi (Editor's note: The title is misleading as I can find NO information where the visa of H.A. has actually been blocked.)
Obama signed the bill a day after the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, declared that Iran was meeting its commitments under a landmark nuclear pact signed Nov. 24.

Since then, the IAEA said, Iran has diluted half its higher-grade enriched uranium reserves to a content that is less usable for weapons.

In response, the Treasury Department moved to release a $450 million installment in Iranian funds that were frozen under sanctions.

State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said that "all sides have kept the commitments made" under the nuclear deal and that the United States, France, Germany, Britain, China, Russia and the European Union "will continue to uphold our commitments as well."

When Congress passed Cruz's bill by unanimous consent last week, the White House said government lawyers weren't sure if it would pass judicial muster because of America's commitments as the host nation to the U.N.

Obama thus added a caveat when he signed the bill. He said he would treat the language regarding diplomats as "advisory"... More here.

Washington Post - Another Obama Administration signing statement - In full here.

Acts of espionage and terrorism against the United States and our allies are unquestionably problems of the utmost gravity, and I share the Congress's concern that individuals who have engaged in such activity may use the cover of diplomacy to gain access to our Nation. Nevertheless, as President Bush also observed, "curtailing by statute my constitutional discretion to receive or reject ambassadors is neither a permissible nor a practical solution." I shall therefore continue to treat section 407, as originally enacted and as amended by S. 2195, as advisory in circumstances in which it would interfere with the exercise of this discretion.

It seems that Iran had gotten word that this bill was being put forth and attempted to be proactive in their stance on it. The date is April 14th the signing date was April 18th.

Iran calls for investigation on visa issue -

The US government, contrary to article 4 of hosting country agreement with the UN on its obligation to issue visa for ambassadors and diplomats of other states, has declared that it would not issue a visa for Irans choice for its representative in the UN, Hamid Abu-Talebi. Iran protested the decision and has said it will follow the case through legal procedures.

So the first question is - will he, won't he? The second question is - when are we going to physically kick the UN out of America and out of our business? And the third question - refer to question two and substitute "our imperial president" for "UN."

Posted by LadyR at 4:41 AM | Comments () / TrackBacks

April 21, 2014

USA Today: 'Harry Reid reaped $1.1 million from sale of land he didn't own'

reid.jpgHarry Reid is the despicable, disgusting, unrelenting liar, chosen by the Democrats in the Senate to be they're leader, and now he's being connected to what appears to be yet another scandal..

Via USA Today:

[...] Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid collected a $1.1 million windfall on a Las Vegas land sale even though he hadn't personally owned the property for three years, property deeds show.

In the process, Reid did not disclose to Congress an earlier sale in which he transferred his land to a company created by a friend and took a financial stake in that company, according to records and interviews.

The Nevada Democrat's deal was engineered by Jay Brown, a longtime friend and former casino lawyer whose name surfaced in a major political bribery trial this summer and in other prior organized crime investigations. He's never been charged with wrongdoing -- except for a 1981 federal securities complaint that was settled out of court.

Keep reading here .... The more you read the more incriminating the story gets. This guy doesn't belong in the senate; Charlie Daniels suggests, this guy should be in jail for 'impersonating an American,' but Dingy Harry's repeatedly lying on the senate floor and his crooked deals should also qualify him for being placed in a 6x6 cell.

Posted by Hyscience at 3:45 PM | Comments () / TrackBacks

The Battle for Bundy Ridge - Cattle rustling used to be a capital offense!

Maybe bringing back the practice of publicly hanging some folks is not such a bad idea!

Damn good food for thought in article here. It isn't about hanging for cattle rustling, but we need to get back to consequences for actions be it ordinary citizens or government personnel. The lack of consideration of others property and the inhumane deaths of these animals at the Bundy Ranch "should" (ha!) have people seething!

The obvious sick pleasure some took in killing these animals (my guess they took it out on the animals because they were not given the "go" to take out the Bundy supporters) can easily migrate into something worse. Public Hangings? Bring 'Em Back! ... J. D. Longstreet -

Do we southerners have a different take on the value of human life than other Americans? I don't THINK so. See, we equate a human life for/with a human life. No life is more valuable than another and no life is less valuable than another. Stated frankly, and flatly, -- southerners feel that of you take a human life, for any reason other than self defense or the defense of others, you forfeit your own life. It's very simple and very straight forward. So far as we are concerned you are a dead man walking from the very moment of the murder. So, to us, an execution is no big deal. It just seals the deal with southern society.

With crime rates spiraling upwards in our cities and even out in the rural parts of America, it sometimes seems we are producing, and raising, young ANIMALS rather than young PEOPLE. Since nothing much seems to make an impression on theses young psychopaths maybe seeing a few of their friends and associates tried, convicted, and hanged -- right in front of them, might have SOME effect. Whole article here.


Posted by LadyR at 12:58 PM | Comments () / TrackBacks

April 20, 2014

Truly Bizzare: Obama Uses Easter Address to Promote Islam ... Claiming It Teaches Us to 'Love Our Neighbors As We Love Ourselves'


Most Bizarre, indeed, but certainly nothing new or unexpected from this pro-Islam president that is infamous for the bizarre. The phrase is right out of the New Testament and is, of course, one of the ten commandments of Jesus Christ. But Barack Obama, never one to pass up an opportunity to promote Islam ... even during a Christian holy day, went so far in his Easter Address this year to say that the great religions, 'including Islam,' teach us to "love our neighbors as we love ourselves." Keep in mind that Barack Hussein Obama NEVER mention Christians or Jews or Hindus when he makes his long-winded Ramadan messages. Pamela Geller reminds us that he's used his holiday message to Jews to equate the liberation Jews from 400 years of slavery to the Islamic supremacist revolutions in Egypt, Libya etc. And he's even strongarmed Rabbis to politicize the beamer on high holy days.

In other words, blaspheming Christianity and Judaism while sugar coating and proselytizing for Islam is certainly nothing new for Obama. It's, so to say, 'par for the course.'

Via the White House website:

Hi, everybody. For millions of Americans, this time of year holds great meaning ...

For me, and for countless other Christians, Holy Week and Easter are times for reflection and renewal. We remember the grace of an awesome God, who loves us so deeply that He gave us his only Son, so that we might live through Him. We recall all that Jesus endured for us -- the scorn of the crowds, the agony of the cross -- all so that we might be forgiven our sins and granted everlasting life. And we recommit ourselves to following His example, to love and serve one another, particularly "the least of these" among us, just as He loves every one of us.

The common thread of humanity that connects us all -- not just Christians and Jews, but Muslims and Hindus and Sikhs -- is our shared commitment to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. To remember, I am my brother's keeper. I am my sister's keeper. Whatever your faith, believer or nonbeliever, there's no better time to rededicate ourselves to that universal mission ...

Reading these words 'supposedly' coming from Barack Obama almost seems a bit creepy, especially in the context of these 20 quotes from Barack Obama on Islam contrasted with 20 quotes from Barack Obama on Christianity.

Oh, and as for Obama's claim that Islam teaching us to love our neighbor as we love ourselves, here's what the Koran has to say about loving your neighbor (hat tip - Pamela Geller):

Qur'an (5:51) "O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people."
In other words, yes Muslims believe in loving their neighbors, as long as the neighbors are Muslims .. and they are the right kind of Muslims (i.e. Islamists).

Take note, and ask yourself ... when's the last time you've heard a Muslim, other than Dr. Zuhdi Jasser or someone in his group, speak out against Muslim violence against Christians and Jews. The answer is, of course, never. Not once, Nada, Zippo.

Hat tip - Jim Hoft.

Posted by Hyscience at 9:16 PM | Comments () / TrackBacks

Georgia Governor To Hold Special Ceremony To Sign Expansion Of The Concealed Carry Law

Unlike lefty anti-2nd Amendment loon nanny Michael Bloomberg and others like him, Georgia's Governor Nathan Deal (R) is a man that recognizes the danger disarmed, law-abiding citizens face in "gun-free zones," and will sign Georgia's expanded concealed carry bill -- the Safe Carry Protection Act of 2014 -- into law on April 23rd during a special ceremony.


Via Breitbart News:

[...] The bill recognizes a church's right to allow its congregants to be armed, allows Georgians with concealed carry permits to carry their guns in unsecured areas of airports, expands concealed carry to "more bars," and will expand carry privileges for teachers with concealed carry licenses.
Read the whole thing here.

As Ed Lindsey, a Republican state lawmaker in Georgia, aptly noted at The Hill in November 2013, gun-free certainly doesn't mean violence-free, it's high time to take a hard look at gun-free zones and admit that they far too often become dangers to public safety rather than serving as sanctuaries from violence. And it's clear that Georgia recognizes this reality, as should the rest of the states. Unfortunately, states controlled by liberal lawmakers (i.e. Democrats) are essentially brain-dead to this reality and are more likely to follow the line of thinking exemplified by anti-2nd Amendment proponents like former NY mayor Michael Bloomberg and his Everytown for Gun Safety campaign ... spot-on described by Conor Higgins at CDN. Here's a few excerpts from his piece:

[...] ETGS is a response to an imaginary problem: skyrocketing, apocalyptic levels of gun violence that have left America strewn with bullet-riddled corpses. While that America is foreign to most Americans, it is the America inhabited by people like Bloomberg. Along with Mayors Against Illegal Guns and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, ETGS will raise money to fund political campaigns and initiatives that erode the intent of the Second Amendment while leaving the filthy thing formally intact.

[...] IF ETGS is to be successful, Bloomberg needs to learn from his earlier "gun safety" groups. If Mayors Against Illegal Guns taught us anything, it's that groups that go after law abiding, rational, gun-owning Americans and their rights will succeed mostly in swelling the ranks and coffers of the NRA.

If Moms Demand Action has taught us anything, it's that people who are completely ignorant of firearms and who are filled with irrational fear of their neighbors' constitutional rights are highly effective at getting pro-gun Republicans nominated for office. If Bloomberg has learned from these previous errors, perhaps he can make ETGS a success.

With a name like "Every Town for Gun Safety," how can he lose? Well, rather than promote gun safety, ETGS might focus its resources on combating the NRA, a grassroots, gun-owner organization with nationally certified gun safety programs. If it does that, it might fail spectacularly.

And it might not. The ETGS strategy is simple: Scare people, restrict their rights to bear arms, coerce the market into producing "smart guns," and eventually disarm the populace. They hope to make us safe from ourselves, to make America free of gun violence forever, because no one will have guns. They have met the enemy, and it is us.

As Dave Gibson pointed out at the Examiner back in 2012, what Liberal-progressive anti-gun rights activists like Bloomberg and his ilk deem a 'gun-free zone' is actually seen by violent criminals as a 'free-fire zone.' The fact of the matter is that criminals are emboldened by gun control laws, and the old adage always holds true ... "laws are only for the law-abiding." Fortunately for Georgians, the politicians in their state recognize this reality.

Top Ten Concealed Carry Mistakes And How To Avoid Them
13 Rules Of Gunfighting Everyone Should Know

Posted by Hyscience at 7:54 PM | Comments () / TrackBacks

My brother the taxi driver

Brother in spirit, not in blood. He speaks for me. How much more clear-eyed can one get than when somewhere along in his rant he uses the Dennis Miller quote below? When he speaks of what he wanted from a life he was/is willing to work for, my will to continue in this battle strengthens as his dreams are mine and the dreams of so many others I know. And I want the same dreams for my children and grandchildren.

An excerpt from Taxicab Depressions - The Pig Trap -

The Founding Fathers wouldn't have put up with any of this shit. The Founders started blowing people's heads off because the government put a tax on their breakfast beverage... and it wasn't even coffee. Can you imagine how batshit those guys would have been on a double espresso? Dennis Miller

So in the context of the early 1770s, what would the Founders think about the government secretly and illegally trafficking thousands of military-grade arms to criminals, brigands, and pirates, knowing full well that those criminals will kill thousands of innocent people with said arms, as a ploy to disarm their own citizenry... and when caught red-handed in this criminal and despicable act, the governmental appointee responsible for executing this disgraceful policy lies, dissembles, and stonewalls, and suffers no sanction or penalty?

What would they think of the government reading, and oftentimes copying and warehousing, every single letter of their correspondence, their diaries, their conversations, their most private and intimate of communications?

What would they think of government agents standing on rooftops and street corners, monitoring and documenting the comings and goings of every citizen every day of his life, whom they speak with and associate with, and what they purchase and from whom?

What would they think about their government spying on journalists, town criers, and pamphleteers, and swearing out false oaths to judges to have them surveilled?

What would they think about government tax agents given specific orders to harass, intimidate, penalize, and obstruct any person who speaks for peaceful, legislative reform of the government or is critical of the government, even demanding that they document the content of their prayers?

What would they think about a government that routinely ignores laws already on the books solely for material and political gain, a government that creates punitive laws through specious methods, and then exempts themselves from being subject to those laws, and when their agents, officials, and appointees are caught in serious crimes and malfeasance, they are simply reassigned and protected by the government, never to face trial or pay any penalty for their acts or the harm they inflict on ordinary citizens?

I'll tell you what I believe... I believe the shooting would have already started. It's not that I want something terrible to happen, it's that I am positively astonished that something terrible hasn't already happened.

The Founders set out to create a limited government. They did not create a Constitution that spelled out what the government may not do, they created a Constitution that detailed exactly and precisely what the federal government MAY do, and nothing more. This far, and no further. All other powers were specifically and deliberately left to the individual states, and to the people themselves. The Bill of Rights was added at the insistence of several of the Founders to protect the individual citizen from future tyranny and avaricious government.

Yet today, our government has no compunctions about monitoring all my communications, tracking my movements, deterring my business success with punitive taxes and onerous regulations, accessing my banking records, compelling my participation in an ill-conceived healthcare system that will most assuredly give me substandard care and higher prices and may violate my personal wants and perhaps even my religious beliefs, and regulating almost every aspect of my day-to-day life, right down to the type of the car that I may drive, the lightbulbs I am allowed to buy, and the kind of toilet I am permitted to shit in. And thanks to the NDAA, if my government deems me to be a terrorist, I can be black-bagged and zip-tied, arrested without warrant or charge, held incommunicado without legal representation indefinitely, and perhaps even tried by a military tribunal in secret and summarily executed.

So tell me again... just what are the limits of my so-called limited government?

I feel like I have been ripped off. I recognized at a very young age that I had won the lottery; of all the millions upon millions of people born on this planet the same year as I was, only a small segment of them were lucky enough to be born Americans, and now, a small group of lying and avaricious politicians and leftist activists have stolen my birthright.

All I want is the government that I was promised by my ninth grade civics teacher... a government of laws, not of men, a government with checks and balances, lawfully enforced to restrain and contain the government from infringing on the rights of populace. But all of this has been swept aside in my lifetime; now criminals like Eric Holder and Charlie Rangel and Al Sharpton and Lois Lerner and Jon Corzine suffer no sanction or consequence for openly and nakedly breaking the law. They are now part of a protected class, when 250 years ago, they would have been lucky to only have suffered being tarred and feathered.

I would be content with an ordinary and ultimately forgettable life. I've strived for excellence from a young age, but never been consumed with the pursuit of wealth, fame, or power. I would be satisfied with enough money to take care of my family, to send my progeny to college, to live in modest comfort and to enjoy a few vacations and indulgences here and there, and to leave my children with a better life than I had. I am a simple man with simple needs. I would like to die in my bed at the age of 106, surrounded by my children, grandchildren, and my 22 year old second wife, with a couple of old guns in the closet, now rusty and dusty from disuse.

But I don't think that is going to happen. I truly believe, deep in my heart, that I am going to need those guns before I die, and not for a burglar. .

Start from the beginning here


The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
The Mad Jewess

Posted by LadyR at 4:06 PM | Comments () / TrackBacks

The Battle for Bundy Ridge - At what point did the slaughtering stop?

That's my question. Did it stop when the militia arrived? Or when BLM knew there were Bundy supporters flying overhead taking pictures? The company hired by BLM for almost a million dollars to do all the dirty work would not have just stopped on their own. Who gave the order to slaughter them? And then who gave the order to stop, and when, and why? Curious minds would really like to know...

Posted at the Bundy website - Saturday, April 19, 2014 11:49pm

Digging up 1 of the HUGE holes where they threw the cows that they had ran to death or shot.

I feel that this NEEDS to be put out for the public to see.


I have two pieces also that I believe the public needs to see. The first is the cattle release. It is long. Just a bunch of cattle comin round a bend and heading home? No, it is much more than that.

It is the cowboys whose job it is to take care of them. Their horses and their dogs. It is the cattle coming up the dry riverbed and believe it or not the very first animal is a beautiful male. America at work as we should be. And it is a moment in time when those in support can say - we are all Bundy cowboys.

The second is a montage of the confrontation start to finish. History being made by we, the people.

Posted by LadyR at 7:40 AM | Comments () / TrackBacks

April 19, 2014

MSNBC host Chris Hayes debates Michele Fiore on Bundy ranch. Doesn't fare well for Hayes.

This story comes to us courtesy of The Right Scoop via Hot Air. While people gathered at Cliven Bundy's ranch in protest of the BLM's handling of affairs there, the protesters were joined by Nevada Assemblywoman Michele Fiore. This prompted MSNBC host (and liberal loon) Hayes to interview (attack) her, and the Scoop captures the video for us.

It becomes almost immediately clear that Fiore wasn't about to have the conversation steered to any liberal talking points:

Jazz Shaw sums it up at Hot Air (emphasis mine):

Hayes tries his very best to repeatedly get Fiore to agree that Bundy is a criminal of one sort or another and goes the extra mile in slyly trying to get the Assemblywoman to say she agrees with Bundy that the federal government has no authority. She's having none of it, and drives the conversation back to a few key points like a jackhammer.

- Why is the federal government sending men with guns to collect a debt, assuming one is owed?

- How much, if anything does Bundy actually owe? Liberals have been throwing around the figure of A MILLION DOLLARS for some time now, but then backed off to possibly only being a couple hundred thousand.

- Why is Harry Reid so heavily involved when something definitely looks "suspicious" about that?

By the end of the interview it becomes clear that Hayes is more than happy to see it end. As for Fior's last point, yes there's most definitely something "suspicious" (actually downright fishy - it stinks to high heaven) about Harry Ried's involvement in this mess.

Posted by Hyscience at 11:34 PM | Comments () / TrackBacks

Dinesh D'Souza to Fox's Megyn Kelly: Bundy Ranchers Are Facing Real Domestic Terror From Their Own Government (Video)

As Dingy Harry Reid doubles down on calling Bundy ranch supporters domestic terrorists and as western lawmakers are now discussing taking control of federal lands back to the states, Dinesh D'Souza joined hundreds of fellow patriots in Nevada on Good Friday at a rally in support of Cliven Bundy. D'Souza told Megyn Kelly the ranchers are facing real domestic terrorism from their own goverment.

"The real question is, who's the real crook? Who's really fanning the flames and tensions? You know terrorism is when you target innocent civilians and when you call people domestic terrorists you almost implying that they should be targeted and killed. So this is very inflammatory and I think irresponsible rhetoric from Harry Reid and the people here are very angry about it ... This is not really about whether Mr. Bundy has paid his taxes or not. This is really about the rule of law and whether this administration is enforcing it evenhandedly. Or, whether or not the Obama guys are enforcing the laws they want to enforce.

"Megyn, quite honestly my case is going to trial in May and I'm preparing for it. It's creating in me a sense of vulnerability, and, of course, a sensitivity to these kind of issues of justice. Of course, I didn't have SWAT teams on me. I wasn't in the sights of snipers. So, I feel that these guys here have been facing some real domestic terror from their own government. That's a very scary idea in America."

It's a very sad day in America when Americans face what equates to a form of domestic terrorism (intimidation, tazing, shoving, snipers, attack dogs, a 1st Amendment 'Area', etc ... essentially all over 'grass') ... and we've gotten here as a result of allowing progressive leaders (i.e. Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats) to expand the federal government's power and control over our lives far beyond the intent of our founders and what is allowed under our Constitution. We are indeed in the grip of the Federalists on steroids bent on redistributing their way to total power.

Take away question: Is anyone going to be surprised if we find out that dingy Harry Reid has his dirty little hands all over some ulterior motive behind this ... with, of course, the full backing of and collusion with Barack Obama and company? In other words, is all this really over grass and a effing tortoise?

Posted by Hyscience at 10:51 AM | Comments () / TrackBacks

Rand Paul to Harry Reid - Shut up old man!

A note from our attorneys: This is not a real quote.

And then - and then Harry doubles down and backs down! Just breathtaking!

"If there were ever an example of people who uh were domestic violent terrorist wannabe's these are the guys. But no one called Bundys uh domestic terrorists, I said the people who came there were." And THAT is a real quote!

Both videos H/T BC at I'm 41 who never misses a thing!

Posted by LadyR at 10:19 AM | Comments () / TrackBacks

Would We the People Ratify the Constitution Today?

'We are in the grip of the Federalists on steroids bent on redistributing their way to total power.'
We the People are the opening words of the preamble to the Constitution. Many patriots glory in that name, "We the People" holding it aloft as a banner against the encroachments of an ever expanding central government. In the minds of many it is connected somehow to Lincoln's famous description of America's government, "Of the People, by the people and for the people."

Both of these were revolutionary terms when first spoken.

The people of the founding generation did not think of themselves as "Americans," instead they saw themselves as citizens of their respective States. The thirteen colonies, with the singular exception of North and South Carolina, were each founded as separate entities. Each had its own history and relationship with the crown. They banded together for the Revolution during which they established the Continental Congress under the Articles of Confederation. This established a confederation composed of thirteen independent States.

When the secretly drafted Constitution was finally revealed to the public many of the leading lights of the Revolution were enraged by what they saw as a counter-revolution seeking to supplant the legally constituted Confederation of States in favor of a consolidated central government. Some of them say the truth was revealed in the first three words, "We the People."

Every school child can recite the most famous words of Patrick Henry, "Give me liberty or give me death." You probably said those words in your head before you read them once you saw his name. He is synonymous with America's defiance to tyranny. While these famous words ring in the heads of all, few know his opinion on the Constitution.

At the Virginia Ratification Convention in 1788, Patrick Henry said,

And here I would make this inquiry of those worthy characters who composed a part of the late federal Convention. I am sure they were fully impressed with the necessity of forming a great consolidated government, instead of a confederation. That this is a consolidated government is demonstrably clear; and the danger of such a government is, to my mind, very striking. I have the highest veneration for those gentlemen; but, sir, give me leave to demand, What right had they to say, We, the people? My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask, Who authorized them to speak the language of, We, the people, instead of, We, the states? States are the characteristics and the soul of a confederation. If the states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great, consolidated, national government, of the people of all the states.
Ever since the Civil War fatally warped the original federal structure and We the People became a reality the central government of the United States has assumed more and more power until today totalitarianism appears to be within its grasp. I am not referring to the crude overt totalitarianism of a Nazi Germany or a Soviet Russia instead I am referring to a soft totalitarianism, a kind of nanny state smothering of individual freedom, personal liberty and economic opportunity. After the complete subjugation of the States to the central government by the Lincoln administration combined with the increased mobility of the modern era, we the people actually became the way most people think of themselves.

In America today we have a president who in a 2001 interview expressed his inner most thoughts about the Constitution,

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I'd be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the Federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.
That is as clear a statement of the way our Progressive leaders view America's founding document, a charter of negative liberties. A charter that they believe needs to be expanded with a second bill of rights first proposed by FDR in his 1944 State of the Union Address,
1. A realistic tax law -- which will tax all unreasonable profits, both individual and corporate, and reduce the ultimate cost of the war to our sons and daughters. The tax bill now under consideration by the Congress does not begin to meet this test.

2. A continuation of the law for the renegotiation of war contracts -- which will prevent exorbitant profits and assure fair prices to the Government. For two long years I have pleaded with the Congress to take undue profits out of war.

3. A cost of food law -- which will enable the Government (a) to place a reasonable floor under the prices the farmer may expect for his production; and (b) to place a ceiling on the prices a consumer will have to pay for the food he buys. This should apply to necessities only; and will require public funds to carry out. It will cost in appropriations about one percent of the present annual cost of the war.

4. Early reenactment of the stabilization statute of October, 1942. This expires June 30, 1944, and if it is not extended well in advance, the country might just as well expect price chaos by summer. We cannot have stabilization by wishful thinking. We must take positive action to maintain the integrity of the American dollar.

5. A national service law -- which, for the duration of the war, will prevent strikes, and, with certain appropriate exceptions, will make available for war production or for any other essential services every able-bodied adult in this Nation.

According to Cass R. Sunstein, the former administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, President Obama not only believes in FDR's Second Bill of Rights he seeks to implement them,

As the actions of his first term made clear, and as his second inaugural address declared, President Barack Obama is committed to a distinctive vision of American government. It emphasizes the importance of free enterprise, and firmly rejects "equality of result," but it is simultaneously committed to ensuring both fair opportunity and decent security for all.

In these respects, Obama is updating Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Second Bill of Rights.

We are in the grip of the Federalists on steroids bent on redistributing their way to total power. The question before us today is, "Would we the people ratify the Constitution today?"

Continue reading "Would We the People Ratify the Constitution Today? "

Posted by Robert Owens at 10:15 AM | Comments () / TrackBacks

April 18, 2014

Sans comment


Posted by LadyR at 7:09 PM | Comments () / TrackBacks