Obama – Admission on Changing the Law.

H/T – Firehand



He’s respectful and listened to the people……so why don’t we let him know that we don’t agree with his action on ‘changing the law’.

PHONE NUMBERS –  Comments: 202-456-1111   Switchboard: 202-456-1414

TTY/TTD  Comments: 202-456-6213 

Let’s light up the switchboard; respectfully of course. I think it would be hilarious to have the Whitehouse complaining about all the people calling on this issue.
Let him know what we think about amnesty in general and his use of executive action in this case. I know I’ll be calling today.



It Is Not “Just….”

…poverty. Or ‘gun control’ or health care.

A recent exchange on another blog really highlighted this for me and I believe it is one of the greatest issues with people who blog only occasionally about issues. And even some of the people who delve deeply into the issues either don’t get it or gloss over the fact.

The issue on the other blog was about poverty and how we, Americans, aren’t doing enough to address the issue. Well, rarely is a problem singular or isolated in nature.
I pointed out how the laws, regulations, rules, etc create such a huge hurdle and administrative burden that few people can successfully start a new company or keep one going for more then a few months.
I pointed out how our education system is failing; due to the leftist policies implement over the decades.
I pointed out how our tax system is already skewed heavily and that increasing the progressive nature of the system moves our country toward socialism.

Many people forget to consider the impact or the direction which the moves takes our country. Or they deliberately discount the foundation behind our objections. “Oh come on, who doesn’t want to help feed the hungry”. No one but if it means we exist in a socialistic society the price is too high to pay.

I’ve started trying to point out this when I engage online. Maybe this is something that should be obvious and is to many others but I think it needs to be done.

Which brings me to my last “Just….” as in “Just another blog saying the same thing as many others”.

Please don’t let that stop you from saying it anyways. Don’t let it stop you from commenting; either on blogs or news media sites. All too often the silent majority is just that- silent. We need to speak up; to show those that have the same beliefs they are not alone. To show those who believe differently that we are paying attention, that we do oppose their ideas. Not their right to have them but where those ideas will take our country.

We need to raise such a strong consistent voice that it can not be ignored.

Speak up folks, don’t be afraid of sounding like an echo chamber. I’ve been amazed how one person can phrase things in a way to encapsulate the problem or solution better than everyone else has…..on a subject that just about everyone talks about.

Speak up folks, if for no other reason then the fact we can say “We told you what we wanted, we told you what would happened if you did this” if the time comes.


Please join the discussion.

Ego On Display

From last night’s speech

And to those Members of Congress who question my authority to make our immigration system work better, or question the wisdom of me acting where Congress has failed, I have one answer: Pass a bill.


Hey President Obama, you pompous egotistical arrogant jerk — Congress has passed a BILL! It’s the current law you egotistical blowhard!

What you are really saying President Obama is ‘pass a bill that I lik’ and I won’t have to act without legal authority like I just did’.
Sorry but the unbridled hubris of this man just chaps completely raw.

Personally I encourage every illegal immigrant in the country to take up residence — IN THE WHITE HOUSE.
I mean, if President Obama is encouraging people to stick around after breaking the rules; why not let him support them himself — he can use the proceeds from his 2 autobiographies to cloth, feed and shelter all the illegals.


Harness The Power…..

of the media spinning the election results. If I could just figure out where to put the wires, we could harvest mega-watts of electricity from the spin.

Good question. It’s always dangerous to speak of a country of 319 million as having a singular will, or of an election expressing that will. That’s particularly true when only about 40% of eligible voters show up for midterm elections. Like every party that wins, the GOP will claim that “the American people” have endorsed its agenda in full, and therefore if President Barack Obama stands in its way, then he’s thwarting the public’s desires.  We’ve established that the public is fed up with a Congress seemingly incapable of getting anything done. The trouble is that the voters — unanimous in their abhorrence of gridlock — just delivered a result almost guaranteed to produce more gridlock.  To be fair, there was one party assuring them that their votes would do just the opposite. Republican candidates promised voters that they’d stand in Obama’s way, and also promised that they’d “get things done,” sometimes in the same sentence. As The Atlantic’s Molly Ball reported last week, “these two seemingly contradictory messages are at the heart of Republican Senate campaigns across the country. I’ve heard them from candidate after candidate.”

I wonder if Mr. Waldman has ever even considered the idea that the people are getting tired of a Congress that keeps pumping out new law, new regulation, new restriction, new fees and taxes. That ‘gridlock’ in this case is the Republicans finally waking up (to a very small degree) to that fact.

It’s one thing to vote Republican because it’s the party that reflects your beliefs. But if you’re voting Republican because you want to see Congress become more conciliatory and productive, you really should have been paying closer attention the last six years.

That’s because obstructionism hasn’t been an accident, or a reaction to moves on Obama’s part that Republicans found objectionable. It was a strategy they employed from the outset. Literally on the day Obama was inaugurated, Republican leaders gathered over dinner and made a decision to oppose everything he proposed, to deny him both substantive progress and whatever political benefits might accrue to a president who looks like he’s accomplishing things.

I did vote for the Republicans because they have been reflecting my beliefs (at least lately) — stop growing the government. And most importantly stop growing the government in the direction that people like President Obama want to take it. It isn’t amazing how now Waldman is pushing for a conciliatory and productive; I wonder what his views where when either George Bush was president. Did he argue the Democrats should go along and get along?

And it worked. What was the result of six years of unprecedented filibusters, debt ceiling crises, a government shutdown, 50 futile Affordable Care Act repeal votes, endless conspiracy theorizing and a dramatic increase in general buffoonery? Republicans took back the House in 2010, and have now taken the Senate.

Voters rewarded their misdeeds by returning them to power.

Love how trying to stop the run away borrowing and spending is a misdeed. How trying to turn back an incredible over reach of the government (Affordable Care Act) is a misdeed. And ‘endless conspiracy theorizing’ — man that simple phrase dismissing the scandals plaguing the administration should produce about 5 megawatts just by itself.

Perhaps Mr. Waldman should spend a little more time reading the output of the company that pays him

October 2011 - Investigators uncover memos indicating Attorney General Holder had known about Operation Fast and Furious for close to a year, not a few weeks as he had stated in May 2011.

And maybe he could talk to the family of Brian Terry or Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.

I’m sure that attempt could end power the country for a couple of weeks. Of course the EPA might step in and stop it — the CO2 from all that hot air would be dangerous to the environment. Let’s not forget other minor scandals like the IRS targeting conservative organizations, hacking reporter computers and so on.

I wonder what the next two years are going to bring from the media. How are they going to cover President Obama’s apparent inability to work with the opposition….heck, his inability to work on anything other then his golf game.

Please join the discussion.

I voted…..and for Prop 1 I Voted NO

Texas makes it fairly easy to vote early; the polls are even open on Sunday. So after church, I stopped by and cast my vote.
As usual, I voted for those I believe will support a small government. Or at least not growing it as fast as possible.

On the ballot is a state-wide Proposition

“The constitutional amendment providing for the use and dedication of certain money transferred to the state highway fund to assist in the completion of transportation construction, maintenance, and rehabilitation projects, not to include toll roads.”

Let’s look at what the Proposition does and then I’ll explain why I voted against it.

The additional transportation money would come from directing a portion of the state’s annual oil and gas production tax collections to the State Highway Fund. Currently, the state’s Economic Stabilization Fund (ESF) receives 75 percent of the state’s annual oil and gas production tax collections that exceed the amount collected in fiscal year 1987, when it was created. If approved by voters, half of the money currently destined for the ESF would be dedicated to the State Highway Fund. The remaining half would continue to build the unspent balance of the ESF. According to estimates from the Texas Comptroller, if voters approved the Constitutional Amendment $1.7 billion would be transferred in to the State Highway Fund in the first year alone.

Okay….First reason is right there — it takes money that is supposed to be dedicated to the Economic Stabilization or “Rainy Day” Fund and directs it to transportation projects such as roads and bridges.

Second reason;

(c) Not later than the 90th day of each fiscal year, the comptroller of public accounts shall transfer from the general revenue fund to the economic stabilization fund and the state highway fund the sum of the amounts described [prescribed] by Subsections (d) and (e) of this section, to be allocated as provided by Subsections (c-1) and (c-2) of this section. However, if necessary and notwithstanding the allocations prescribed by Subsections (c-1) and (c-2) of this section, the comptroller shall reduce proportionately the amounts described by Subsections (d) and (e) of this section to be transferred and allocated to the economic stabilization fund to prevent the amount in that [the] fund from exceeding the limit in effect for that biennium under Subsection (g) of this section.Revenue transferred to the state highway fund under this subsection may be used only for constructing, maintaining, and acquiring rights-of-way for public roadways other than toll roads.

Breaking down the politician weasel wording; Each legislative session the politicians would vote for a ‘floor’ on how little money has to stay in the Rainy Day fund and then split any money (remaining  above and beyond that) and new money into the Rainy Day fund and the State Highway fund.

So letting the politicians decide how much we should keep in the rainy day fund is a bad thing (more on this later). Related to this is the tendency of politicians to vote against appropriating the necessary amount of money for the important projects and then use other money to prop it up.
Sorry folks, if the State Highway fund isn’t getting enough money; the answer is simple; either vote for more taxes or stop spending money wastefully.



The constitutional amendment would provide significant progress in addressing the state’s unmet transportation needs by providing $1.7 billion in the first year alone. However, this amendment alone does not “solve” Texas’ transportation funding challenge. Experts say Texas has at least $5 billion in unmet transportation needs each year. This measure is expected to provide $1.7 billion annually to address these transportation needs.

Yeah, won’t come anywhere close to solving the problem but it would siphon even more money off from the Rainy Day fund. Yes, this is the final problem — the Rainy Day fund is a political slush fund that politicians tap on a regular basis and it needs to stop. NOW.

I feel we need to vote against every transfer of money out of that account. I think we need to hold politicians accountable for its depletion. Our recent history in the last 5 to 10 years shows how rocky the economy can be. We need to be prepared, as individuals and as a polity, to weather uncertain or hard times.

So, that is why I voted against it.

What do you folks think; would you vote for or against?


Say WHAT Hillary

If no other reason ever existed, this idiotic statement should be sufficient for this person to never hold public office again. EVER.

Of course that means she is the dream candidate for the leftist, nanny-staters.

T.A.B.C. Withdraws Alcohol/Gun Show Proposal

It’s a short notice on their website

TABC Staff Recommends Withdrawing Proposed Gun Show Amendments.

The proposed amendments to TABC Administrative Rule 36.1 (Possession and Sale of Firearms on Licensed Premises) are being placed on the agenda for the September 23, 2014, Meeting of the Commissioners. The Commission Staff is recommending that the proposed amendments be withdrawn. The decision on what action to take will be made by the Commissioners. If the Commissioners vote to withdraw the proposed amendments, the current rule will remain in place.

Other sites do have a little more coverage of the issue though.

Staff at the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission has recommended withdrawing last month’s proposal at the panel’s next meeting on Tuesday.

Alcohol sales would have come with strict conditions, such as banning the sale of live ammunition, a requirement that firearms be disabled and not allowing a buyer to walk out with their weapon.

It was, in my opinion, a combination of the banning the sale of live ammunition and preventing a buyer from walking out with his/her purchase that was the main sticking point.

Beck said the rule was drafted to address the Dallas Safari Club’s annual convention, a massive event that draws up to 50,000 people that is mostly designed as an exhibit and may include only a few booths with weapons.

While it may have been designed to address the Safari Club’s convention; it would have hit dozens of other events like the Friends of the NRA banquets or even my gun club’s Annual Banquet. These events are often either great fund raisers or opportunities to increase membership. This was not a ‘gun friendly’ proposal.


 (f)   A location that has a license or permit authorizing the on-premises consumption of alcoholic beverages may only allow a gun or firearms show or display at the location if:
   (1)   the location is owned or leased by a governmental entity or nonprofit civic, religious, charitable, fraternal, or veterans’ organization;
   (2)   the location is used for a gun or firearms show or display only on an occasional basis; and
   (3)   a written agreement between the operator of the show or display and the permittee or licensee is filed at the commission’s district office and approved by the commission 30 days prior to the gun or firearms show or display and the agreement includes the following:

If nothing else, this section was worth defeating because it greatly limited where gun shows could be held.

Great job folks, I do have to mention the spin put on this by the state.

The commission asked for public feedback and hundreds of responses poured in from all sides.

“It was for the most part negative,” agency spokeswoman Carolyn Beck said Friday. “They were either against it because they didn’t think alcohol and guns should mix, or there was feedback against the restrictions.”

Yeah……..notice Ms. Beck ‘casually’ lumped those two very different reactions together. I’m betting there were many more comments against the restrictions then anything else.