Proceed With Caution

Today, the ones of us who voted for Trump are at a minimum relieved while some are thrilled and celebrating. If you supported Clinton, then you're probably a little down, maybe even pissed, but the one thing all of us can agree on is that we're glad it's over. For the first time in a long time, I won't have to empty my "BS" filter before going to bed tonight.

English: Seal of the President of the United States (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

If you supported Trump, I want to encourage you to not get too excited just yet. He is just one man and try as he might, he cannot fix all that ails the country overnight. It will take time, and he will have to have help. Plus, there are other things to consider, too. For instance:

1. Exactly what are we getting with Trump? Are we getting the Trump who years ago was a liberal? You know, the one who was "pro-choice", supported some gun control, and contributed money to liberal politicians. Or, are we getting the Trump who campaigned for the presidency on much more conservative values? The answer is - we don't know. Only time will tell.
2. Trump smacked the establishment around unmercifully, both Republicans and Democrats. Heck, some of the upper echelon Republicans didn't even support him as the party's presidential nominee. I even heard today where former President George W. Bush didn't even bother to vote for president. So, I'm wondering if the establishment in Congress will even work with Trump in fixing what ails us, which they caused, or if they will just make his life difficult.
3. The Republicans now control the House, the Senate, and the White House. They have absolute power over us, which we have given them, and "Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Will they limit themselves to the powers granted them by The Constitution, or will it be "anything goes"? Will they keep Trump in check, or will they set on their asses like they did with Obama and let him do whatever he wants? House Speaker Paul Ryan said today that Trump had been given a "mandate". When I heard that, shivers went up my spine. It's eerily similar to Lamar Alexander, the U.S. Senator from Tennessee, saying, "Elections have consequences" after Obama won the presidency in 2008. One party with this much power could prove to be very dangerous, folks. Contrary to what some may think, just because it's the Republicans, it doesn't mean they're saints. Some Republicans are just as low-down evil as some Democrats. I know from first-hand experience.

So, I want to encourage all of my fellow Americans, and especially the Trump supporters, to proceed with caution in regards to their post-election celebrations. Don't get me wrong, I am thrilled that Hillary Clinton was defeated, but the fact is we don't know where a Trump presidency will actually take us as a country. We are in uncharted waters. However, I know one place it better take us to, or we're doomed to failure, and that's the instruction of 2 Chronicles 7:14, which says:

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; THEN (emphasis added) will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. (KJV).

Pure Evil

Up until now, The Sheepdog's been pretty silent regarding the 2016 presidential race, and there's two reasons for that:

1. I'm sick of politics. It just keeps getting uglier and uglier. The Republicans and the Democrats are basically the same - they're in it for themselves, not to serve, and are more interested in what's good for their party instead of what's good for the country. It's why I left the GOP back in 2010. The current GOP disgusts me as much as the Democrats.
2. Plus, all the candidates, from the more than a dozen so-called Republicans that started the race, to the few Democrats, to the current third party candidates, totally suck. As my friend, The Colonel used to say, "There ain't a statesman in the bunch". Not one. You disagree? Then, let's review some of them.

The so-called "Republicans":

• Bush III - really? Another one? I can already hear the Democrats if he had won the GOP nomination, "It'll be 4 more years of the same failed policies of the past."
• The anchor baby (Rubio).
• The birther (Cruz) - I still don't understand how the GOP supported this guy after raising so much cain about Obama's birth certificate. Cruz was born in Canada. Total hypocrites.
• The Billionaire, Brattish Bully (Trump)
• George Soro's boy (Kasich).
• Chris Christie - pro-homosexual marriage and governor of one of the most anti-gun states in the country.
• Lindsey Graham - not the sharpest tack in the box and the 2016 version of John McCain.

The Democrats:

• The Progressive Extremist, and
• the Socialist.

Really? Is this the best we can do as a country?

English: Khusruwiyah Mosque in Aleppo, Syria Français : Mosquée Khosrowiyé à Alep en Syrie (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

And then, of course, there's the third party candidates led by Gary Johnson. You remember him, right? He wants to be Commander in Chief and institute his foreign policies, but he doesn't know where Aleppo, Syria is, the center of the Syrian refugee crisis caused by that country's civil war. Additionally, Johnson is supposedly conservative, but yet he is "pro-choice" for abortion and wants to legalize marijuana. Neither of those stances equate to conservative principles and values. He should actually be a Democrat.

Since all the candidates suck like a Hoover vacuum, who should Americans vote for? Since a third party candidate has as much chance at winning the election as a Volkswagen Beetle does at winning the Daytona 500, and both major party nominees have more baggage than a Boeing 747 headed for Europe, it's a tough choice. That is until you are aware of the information I am sharing below. It's shocking and no one is talking about it.

In fact, what I will share the remainder of this post, regarding this presidential election, is far more important than the economy, foreign policy, gun control, jobs, and even abortion. I doubt you will see this information anywhere else, but in my opinion, it's the #1 issue to consider before casting your vote for the presidency.

Back in 2009, Hillary Clinton proudly went on record as someone who "enormously" admires Margaret Sanger (click here for video). Now, who the heck is Margaret Sanger? She was a well-known proponent of eugenics after World War I. In simple terms, eugenics is the idea that some people's lives are more valuable than others. It teaches that people with "undesirable" traits should not be allowed to reproduce and pass their "undesirable" traits to their offspring. Eugenicists desire to reduce or totally eliminate such traits from the human gene pool and are not opposed to eliminating living humans possessing these "undesirable" traits. These traits include:

1. physical disabilities,
2. mental disabilities, 
3. chronic health issues a.k.a. pre-existing conditions,
4. being poor, 
5. being an immigrant, and
6. being a members of a racial or ethnic minority.

Eugenicists consider "undesirables" as "unfit", as in unfit to live, and a waste of oxygen and / or other resources. On the other hand, eugenicists believe people with "good stock", not having one or more of the traits listed above, should be encouraged to have many children. In other words they want to build "a master race." Anyone see a problem here besides me? Eugenics is a dangerous philosophy and has it's pitfalls, such as:

A major criticism of eugenics policies is that, regardless of whether "negative" or "positive" policies are used, they are vulnerable to abuse because the criteria of selection are determined by whichever group is in political power. Furthermore, negative eugenics in particular is considered by many to be a violation of basic human rights, which include the right to reproduction. Another criticism is that eugenic policies eventually lead to a loss of genetic diversity, resulting in inbreeding depression instead due to a low genetic variation. - Wikipedia

Does any of this sound familiar? Think back to the 1930s and '40s and Adolf Hitler, the Nazis, and the Jews. The Nazis were huge proponents of eugenics which led to millions of Jews being slaughtered during World War II. The Jews were considered "undesirable", so Hitler wanted them annihilated in order to establish a master race. He might have accomplished his goal, too, if he had not been greedy, arrogant, and power hungry in deciding to go to war with the Russians, while at the same time fighting The Allies. Heck, I even read somewhere that Hitler himself admired Margaret Sanger.

English: Margaret Sanger Square is the leafy intersection of Mott St. and Bleecker St. in New York City's Greenwich Village. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Take a few minutes and Google Sanger's name. You will find that she is also the founder of Planned Parenthood. You will also find some of the things she said and  / or wrote revealing her racist ideologies and attitudes regarding African-Americans and others. She even conspired with pastors in black communities in order to get them to encourage their members to use more birth control. Her motivation was to reduce the numbers of African-Americans. She was also one of the early promoters of abortion and even spoke at women's chapters of the Ku Klux Klan (read here). So, considering all this, could it be that the original intention of abortion was not about women's freedom to choose to end unwanted pregnancies, nor the freedom to do what they want with their bodies, but it was instead rooted in bigotry and racism as a means of reducing the African-American population and others considered to be "undesirable"?

Eugenics is PURE EVIL. The Nazis proved that. It amounts to humans, sinful, fallen humans, playing God. I could provide link after link in this post showing the connection between eugenics, Margaret Sanger, racism, and other evil, but the post would run on forever. So, I encourage you to take the time and educate yourself. Get on the web, Google Sanger, eugenics, eugenicists, and do your own research. You will be shocked. You probably never knew that such evil thought processes existed in this world except in movies and TV dramas.

Typically, when someone admires another person, it is because they have something in common with them. Many times it's a shared value, principle, ideology, or goal. Since Hillary Clinton is on record as saying she admires a racist woman whose life work was in eugenics, doesn't it also stand to reason that Hillary Clinton very well may hold the same, evil views as Sanger? To me, that's the scary part of thinking about her being president.

So, what might things be like in the U.S. if a Hillary Clinton presidency were to be influenced by the values of her "hero", Sanger? In addition to the traits previously listed as "undesirable", and thinking about the above quote containing the potential problems with eugenics, consider the following:

• We already know she hates guns. In fact, some Democrats have wanted them all banned for a long time. The so-called "Assault Weapons Ban" and the Brady Bill, which became law during Bill's presidency, are direct evidence of that. Would gun owners become "undesirables"?
• She's previously expressed her contempt for Christians and their beliefs. Would Christians, and perhaps Jews, and other people of faith, also become "undesirables"?
• She's has contempt for the so-called "vast right wing conspiracy" and conservatives, because she thinks they're out to get her and Bill. Would they, or the Clintons' other political enemies, or people who disagree, with them become "undesirables"?
• Remember the section in The Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. ObamaCare, regarding "end of life care"? Remember how Sarah Palin and others raised concerns about that? That section of the law is so broad that it could be interpreted to mean many things. What if that section was determined to mean that people who are elderly, have chronic health conditions, or some type of disability, whose care is too expensive, should not be given medical treatment but instead just be left alone to die because they're "undesirables"? That would be a eugenicist's utopia, and ObamaCare was basically HillaryCare once upon a time. Could it get any more barbaric than that? God help us.

Now, I'm sure someone reading this post is gonna object to this line of reasoning. They'll say something like just because Hillary admires a woman who was big into eugenics doesn't mean she shares those same ideas, or, that The Sheepdog's nuts and none of this will ever happen. Well, then consider this - do you remember the adjective Hillary used to describe Donald Trump's supporters? She referred to them as "deplorable". Sounds pretty similar to "undesirables" to me, but there's more to consider in making my point than that. Please, read on.

Hillary Clinton in Hampton, NH (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I've read reports telling of an incident, involving Hillary, which took place at the Arkansas governor's mansion during Bill's gubernatorialship. An Easter egg hunt for special needs children was held. She became frustrated and upset with the youngsters, because they were finding the eggs at a much slower pace than she would have liked. So, she popped off saying, "When are they going to get these f---ing ree-tards out of here?!? You can read more about the incident here. Additionally, within the same article, she is quoted as referring to Jews as "kikes" and one Jewish man in particular as a "f***ing Jew bastard". Plus, her temper and fits of rage over the years, culminating in furniture and other items being broken in the Arkansas governor's mansion, and the White House, have been reported in various media. So, in my opinion, if you mix her temper tantrums, with her racist remarks, and her love for a eugenicist, we have a major problem. These are not the qualities we need in the White House. It's a recipe for a disaster.

Hillary made her admiration for Margaret Sanger known about 7 years ago at a Planned Parenthood awards ceremony. Others have been influenced by evil people before and later recanted their admiration for their mentor as a mistake. Hillary has had plenty of time to do the same, but yet she never has. Therefore, it only stands to reason that she still admires Sanger and her ideals. At a time when race relations are tense in this country and people are held accountable and even ostracized for bigoted behavior and words, why has Hillary Clinton not been held accountable for her allegiance to Sanger?

Another thing to consider before voting is that if Hillary Clinton is elected president, she will likely have the opportunity to nominate more than one justice to the U.S. Supreme Court. Does it not stand to reason that anyone she nominates for the highest court in the land will likely hold the same influences, values, principles, or lack thereof (depending on how you look at it), that she does? Do you remember what United States Senator Lamar Alexander from Tennessee said when he was criticized for his vote confirming Sonia Sotomayor as one of Obama's Supreme Court nominees? He said, "Elections have consequences" (read here). In other words, he took the viewpoint that since Obama won the presidency, he could appoint whomever he wanted and get a free pass in doing so. What if a majority of Congress takes that same attitude during a Hillary Clinton presidency? Consider for a moment the ramifications? We cannot as freedom-loving, decent people allow her that opportunity and give her the power that comes with the presidency. We CANNOT do it.

The answer to the question of which presidential candidate to vote for is a hard one to swallow, especially for a conservative like me. Even with all his baggage, such as insulting people, being rude and crude, arrogant, and a bully, we must elect Donald Trump as president. There is no other way to stop Hillary Clinton from having absolute power and potentially setting up her own "Evil Empire". "But Sheepdog, Congress and the Supreme Court will limit her power through our system of constitutional checks and balances?" Really? Where have you been the last 8 years and the last few years of W's administration? Congress and the Supreme Court have set on their "assets" and allowed Obama to run wild. Heck, the Supreme Court even ruled that ObamaCare is constitutional!! Yet the power to regulate healthcare is mentioned NOWHERE in the constitution. NOWHERE. So, what makes you think those lazy bums will do anything to limit a President Hillary's power?

Now, look back over this post and review who a eugenicist, like "Hillary's Hero", would consider "unfit" or "undesirable" or a "weed". Now, is that you, or one of your loved ones? Is that your spouse, your child, your boyfriend / girlfriend, your parent, your best friend, or someone you care about? If it is, then you have ONLY one choice in this election - Donald Trump. If you stay home and don't vote, or vote for a third party candidate instead of Donald Trump, then you will be helping Hillary Clinton, an evil woman, gain absolute authority over you and the country. It's the equivalent of a chicken voting for a fox AND leaving the door to the chicken coop unlocked and standing open.

If Trump were running against anyone else, it's likely that myself and many others would not vote for him. So, here's what it boils down to for me. Donald Trump has said and done a lot of unacceptable stuff. However, I'm not aware of him even once expressing his admiration for someone like the evil, racist, eugenicist Margaret Sanger who was also admired by Adolf Hitler. Hillary has, and she's proud of it.

Now, this article should not be interpreted as my prediction that the potential scenario I've painted will definitely happen with Hillary as president. If I could predict the future that accurately, I would have already won the PowerBall multiple times. All I'm saying is that when you put all this information together, including Hillary's fits of anger, her bigoted comments, and her admiration for a racist eugenicist, it adds up to it being too risky to give her the power of the presidency.  I'm not willing to take that risk. Are you?

So, with early voting already starting around the country, The Sheepdog is endorsing, and will be voting for, Donald Trump. I do it for one reason and one reason only - to defeat Hillary Clinton and prevent her rise to power. I want to encourage everyone to do the same. Please do not stay home and not vote. Please do not vote for a third party candidate. If you do either of these things, you will be helping The Mother of All Wolves rise to power and risking her finishing Obama's "fundamental transformation" of this country.

The Sheepdog don't like wolves, and Hillary Clinton is the epitome of a wolf. Grrrrr.....

P.S. I'm sure this post has pissed off many people. However, that was not my intention. In fact, I hope in goes viral, so please share it. I am simply a patriot and am concerned that a Hillary Clinton presidency will be a disaster. America will NOT survive it. Therefore, she must be defeated at the ballot box. Therefore, I wrote this out of love for my country and am not concerned with losing, keeping, or making friends as a result of it. It had to be said, and no one else is saying it. Too much is at stake. I'm sure some will want to leave comments, which I welcome. If you do, you MUST follow my blog policy for comments (click here to read). I had the balls to put my name on what will be considered a controversial post. So, if you don't have the "cojones" to put your name on a comment, or you fill it with profanity, it will NOT be posted.

P.P.S. If I disappear from the blogosphere after this post, it's safe to assume that either "they" got me or Google and Blogger shut the blog down. Just know I fought the good fight and did what I could to save my country from a potentially Evil Empire. 

Hail to the ..... 'Skins?!?

As a football fan, I've been following this whole "Redskins controversy" ..... oops, I said the Red-word. Sure hope I didn't offend anyone. Honestly, though, I think the whole thing's silly, especially with Congress and Big O getting involved. The country's on fire, basically, and they're worried about a football team name? Puh-lease.

It kinda reminds me of how the U.S. Senator from the state of Tennessee, Lamar Alexander, touted his bill to prevent the Corps of Engineers from restricting fishing access on Tennessee's rivers below dams. Yes, I'm not kidding - millions out of work, terrorists running wild, Americans fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that goofball's worried about fishing. Ridiculous. He still brags about that on his website, too. We need to vote him out this year, Tennessee. But I digress.

Glenn Beck did a piece about the whole 'Skins thing, after their trademark was revoked, on The Blaze the other day. I got a copy of it in his e-mail newsletter, and I thought I'd share. Two videos were in the article. One of them, about the history of the Washington Redskins name, is embedded below. The second, not embedded below, is Beck's interview with Dana Loesch, a Blaze contributor, about the whole issue. Both videos and the article, "What the Woman 'A Lot More' Native American than Elizabeth Warren Thinks About the Redskins Decision", on The Blaze can also be watched, and read, by clicking here.
 

I just hope that when this mess is over they haven't outlawed "the Redskins' song". Back in the day, when I was pulling for the 'Skins and the Steelers, I loved that song, especially when the Redskins were winning Super Bowls.

Maybe folks will be able to compromise on the song. "Hail to to the 'Skins", .... maybe?

Related articles

• Hail to the Redskins (thegabriellahoffman.com)
• President Obama is Stripping Washington Redskins Trademarks After Owner Refused to Give Up Team Name (ijreview.com)
• 'Redskins' stripped of trademarks (politico.com)
• Washington Redskins: U.S. Patent Office cancels team trademarks, calls name "disparaging of Native Americans" (wjla.com)
• Redskins fans in L.A. sing 'Hail to the Redskins' (washingtonpost.com)
• Trademark board slams Redskins name (news.yahoo.com)
• Awesome! Redskins Not Backing Down, Vow To Defend Name... (weaselzippers.us)
• Glenn Beck Rips U.S. Patent Office For Canceling Washington Redskins' Trademarks (downtrend.com)
• Throwback Post: Hail to the Redskins (jasonranderson.com)
• Washington Redskins - now and forever! (insidetherightmind.com)

The Haslam Administration - Cronyism Or Just "Good Business"? You Decide - Part 7 of 7

As promised on Tuesday, today, on Freedom Friday, I am wrapping up sharing the video series, "Questions of Influence", NewsChannel5 ran concerning the questionable dealings of the Haslam Administration. Part 7 is basically a summary of the first 6 parts, but it does add some new information, too. The video for Part 7 is embedded below, or can be watched by clicking here.

Below today's video, I review what we've learned.

NewsChannel5.com | Nashville News, Weather

NewsChannel5 brought out the following in this investigative report :

1. The state's motor pool was turned over to Enterprise Rental Car without any bids being taken.
2. Maintenance of state vehicles was contracted out to Bridgestone without any bids being taken, and the current state Finance Commissioner, appointed by Haslam, once headed up Bridgestone.
3. A $330 Million contract for the management of state buildings was given to Jones Lang LaSalle (JLL), a company which has been one of Governor Haslam's "major investments." JLL was given the authority to negotiate leases on behalf of the state with third parties, and then collect a 4% commission on any new leases it completed.
4. Haslam's personal political consultant, Tom Ingram, is a professional lobbyist with The Ingram Group. Ingram not only is Haslam's consultant, but he frequently lobbies state agencies and appears to have Haslam's ear on anything and everything.
5. JLL recommended tearing down the Cordell Hull State Office Building due to a leaky foundation. Then, it was revealed that the leak wasn't that big of a deal, but JLL got paid for the advice anyway. As a rsult of its contract, JLL could get paid for every state building it recommends being torn down, overseeing each building's demolition, and for overseeing the moving of state employees from any state building it recommends be demolished.
6. Tennessee's Comptroller of the Treasury, Justin Wilson, and others raised concerns about the multiple no-bid contracts. Those concerns were basically ignored by the Haslam Administration and the state legislature. An audit by the Comptroller's Office said JLL had an "unfair advantage" in the contract process. Once again, the findings were ignored.
7. Current U.S. Senators from the state of Tennessee Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker also pay Tom Ingram for similar services as those Ingram renders to Governor Haslam. Alexander and Corker disclose those payments on their campaign financial reports. Haslam refuses to.

English: former Congressman and Governor of Tennessee Ray Blanton. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

All these nice, cozy deals and contracts are, as Rep. Mike Turner said in the videos, "nice if you can get 'em." When watching this investigative report on TV, I was shocked at the news. My blood pressure went up, too. I thought back to another Tennessee Governor's Administration, Ray Blanton's, and how it eventually shamed the state of Tennessee. It was rocked by multiple scandals including :

• Extravagant spending,
• Friends being taken on trips on the state's dime,
• Bar tabs on the state's dime,
• Limousine rentals on the state's dime,
• Blanton's family's company getting a paving contract at a state park, and 
• selling surplus state-owned cars to political cronies.

However, these were not the worst of it. State officials were bribed for pardons of convicted criminals. Some state officials were arrested, but not before Blanton issued over 50 pardons and was planning more. 

Blanton wasn't charged in regards to the pardons, but was later accused of selling liquor licenses. He was eventually indicted for mail fraud, extortion, and conspiracy, convicted, and served nearly 2 years in prison after being run out of the governor's office. It is my opinion, based upon NewsChannel5's investigation, the Haslam Administration could eventually make the Blanton Administration look like Boy Scouts. Oh - by the way - did you hear about the latest Haslam Administration investigation? The Feds may even get involved. It appears Haslam may have attempted to influence the union vote at the Chattanooga Volkswagon plant. Oops.

The real problem I'm having with the whole thing, though, is the lack of outcry. Yes, you can chalk up the outcry from the Democrats contained within these videos to politics if you like. However, wrong is wrong no matter who is doing it. It doesn't matter whether you're talking about Republicans or Democrats. Well, at least it shouldn't. However, in Tennessee, it appears it does. In this one-hour series, the only Republican who is shown being critical of the Haslam Administration is Rep. Mark Pody from Lebanon. I'm not the biggest fan of Pody, but he is right in this case.

The question I have for other Republican members of the state legislature is this - Republicans supposedly are conservative. Part of being a conservative is following and enforcing the rules, no matter what. So, why has Haslam gotten a pass on all these no-bid contracts, appearances of conflicts of interest, not disclosing campaign payments, etc.? I'm sure if Haslam was a Democrat the GOP would have been all over him. I imagine they might even want him removed from office. The people of Tennessee deserve better. The GOP is in power. They should be holding the Haslam Administration accountable, but they are not. They are turning a blind eye and letting this administration do whatever it pleases. In fact, the State Legislature hasn't even done an investigation! They've been too busy legalizing hemp, making sure Tennesseans can buy wine in grocery stores, and telling the Federal government it can't enforce Federal gun laws in Tennessee. Stupid, useless laws. While the GOP is busy with all that crap, the Haslam Administration is running wild. One can make an argument that the GOP controlled legislature is derelict in its duty.

Tennessee State Seal (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The good news for Tennesseans is that Haslam is up for re-election this year. I so wish that every Tennessean would see this investigative report prior to voting this year. If you have friends and family who may not have had an opportunity to see this report and learn about all these shenangians, please forward these videos to them or refer them to my blog or NewsChannel5's website, so they can. The information is vitally important to everyone being an informed voter. I've heard rumors that Haslam has his eyes set on one of Tennessee's two seats in the U.S. Senate after his days as governor are over. Do we really won't him having even more power in Washington D.C.? The answer is no, so he must be defeated now.

Haslam has a bunch of opponents, too, including primary opponents. They are listed here on the Secretary of State's website. Look this list over, do your own homework on Haslam's opponents, and vote him out. Later in the year, prior to the August primaries, I plan to profile all of them. I'm looking forward to voting against him twice this year - once in the GOP primary, and then again in the general election, if he wins the primary. It will be hard to beat him. He has the money to buy the office again just like he did in 2010. However, if conservatives will get together and support one candidate, I think it's possible to oust him. However, if the vote is split between multiple candidates, Haslam will win re-election in a landslide.

Tennessee is in a dangerous position. The Republicans control the governor's office, the State House, and the State Senate. No party should ever be given that much power, because when it happens, that party runs wild like the GOP has for the last few years. As hard as this is to say, if Haslam wins re-election, then the next best alternative is for Tennessee voters to give one of the two chambers of the legislature back to the Democrats.

Yes, I know some of you are now thinking I'm off my rocker, but Haslam has to be kept in check somehow, even if it means giving some power back to the Donkey Party. What we've got now ain't working. As the title of this series has asked - The Haslam Administration - Cronyism Or Just "Good Business"? - in my opinion, it's cronyism with a capital C, and it has to stop. It's wong.

Related articles

• The Haslam Administration - Cronyism Or Just "Good Business"? You Decide - Part 6 of 7 (thesecondchancesheepdog.blogspot.com)
• The Haslam Administration - Cronyism Or Just "Good Business"? You Decide - Part 5 of 7 (thesecondchancesheepdog.blogspot.com)
• The Haslam Administration - Cronyism Or Just "Good Business"? You Decide - Part 4 of 7 (thesecondchancesheepdog.blogspot.com)
• The Haslam Administration : Cronyism Or Just "Good Business"? You Decide - Part 1 (thesecondchancesheepdog.blogspot.com)
• Congress Looking into Haslam's $300 Million Offer in Union Vote (fantasyradionews.com)
• Haslam and Corker Issued Subpoenas (fantasyradionews.com)
• UAW Subpoenas Haslam, Corker To Appear At VW NLRB Appeal Hearing (thetruthaboutcars.com)
• WATCH: Leaked Documents Show GOP Governor Illegally Interfered With Volkswagen Union Vote (addictinginfo.org)
• Tennessee Governor Used Public Funds to Bust Autoworker's Union (readersupportednews.org)
• Report: Haslam considered giving downtown tower to Sears for corporate HQ (bizjournals.com)

Is Obama To Blame ?

Today's post is one that I've been thinking about and "Ruminating" on, as my buddy Dale likes to say, for quite some time. Since early voting has started, I decided it's time to stop rolling it around in my head and "get it on the record." It's gonna be one of those that some people like and one that really pisses some off. However, the purpose of it is not for anyone to like it or hate it. It's purpose is to get people thinking. It will also be my last one involving politics for a while.

With 2012 being a presidential election year, people are once again clamoring that "it is the most important election in the country's history." Is it ? We hear the same thing every four years, and we could argue until we are blue in the face whether or not it's true. For the last four years, we've heard Obama blame all the country's ills on former President Bush. We heard the Democrats in the Senate and in the House of Representatives blame everything on the Republicans. We've then heard the Republicans turn around and blame it all on the Democrats. It's been politics at its finest, or its worst, depending on how you want to look at it and which side of the aisle you're on. The question is, though, whose fault is it ... really ? I'm gonna give my opinion on that question below.

Official photographic portrait of US President Barack Obama (born 4 August 1961; assumed office 20 January 2009) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Folks who have been reading my blog for a while know that I have never been a fan of Mr. Obama. Many of my past posts make that perfectly clear. I didn't vote for him four years ago and won't this go around, either. Since he supports higher taxes, bigger government, socialized medicine, more gun control, and wants more control over Americans every day lives, I suspect that the only thing he and I would agree on is the fact that both of us like sports.

Furthermore, in prior posts, I've also made it clear that I'm no fan of Mitt Romney, either. In many ways he is a big government Liberal / Progressive just like Obama. Additionally, he has a habit of flip-flopping on issues. In fact, he flip-flopped on each of the following issues just before or right around the time he got presidential aspirations. They include :

• gun control - Romney went from anti-gun to pro-gun. As Massachusetts governor, he signed into law some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the country, including a permanent "assault weapons" ban.
• abortion - Romney went from pro-choice to pro-life.
• taxes - as Massachusetts governor he signed into law one tax increase after another. Now, while running for president, he wants lower taxes.

My opinion is that Romney "formally" changed his position on these issues just to get elected president but actually still holds his original position. He knew that no anti-gun, pro-abortion, tax-loving Republican would ever win the presidency.

Additionally, while Massachusetts governor, Romney initiated, supported, and signed into law the state's version of ObamaCare. In fact, ObamaCare was modeled after RomneyCare. Romney has stated, while campaigning for president, that he oppposes, and would work to repeal, ObamaCare, but yet he stands by the Massachusetts version of it. His reasoning is that socialized medicine is o.k. on the state level but not on the federal. Say what ?

Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts, 2008 US presidential candidate. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I suspect that many don't know that recently, on "Meet the Press," Romney announced that he is flip-flopping on another issue, too. According to a report in NewsMax magazine titled "Romney : I'll Keep Parts of ObamaCare", he now says that after originally promising to repeal all of ObamaCare, he now only wants to repeal part of it. He wants to keep the parts protecting people with pre-existing conditions and allowing kids to stay on their parents insurance until the age of 26. Now, I support preventing insurance companies from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions. However, I do not support letting "kids" stay on their parents insurance until they're 26. They should get off their butts, go get a job or open a business, and get their own insurance. Stop living on mom and dad's dime. You're 26 for crying out loud ! Once again, Romney has flip-flopped on an issue. With all his flip-flopping, I don't think the dude can be trusted to keep his word.

As for the blame game that's been going around - Obama at Bush, Congressional Democrats at Congressional Republicans and vice versa - it's time for it to stop. In my opinion, there is plenty of blame to go around. Yes, Bush should get some of it as his administration was the bailout "initiator." The blame for the housing meltdown and current recession can be laid on Bush, Obama, and presidents going all the way back to Jimmy Carter and their applicable Congresses **. During Carter's administration, the Community Reinvestment Act was passed into law, and signed by Carter, forcing banks to give home loans to people with poor credit. No Congress or presidential administration afterwards made an effort to stop this government overreach. Therefore, they are all responsible for millions of Americans currently being out of work and losing their homes and businesses. Yes, all of them. The Community Reinvestment Act should never have became law. Never.

** During the rest of this article, any time you see the term "Congress," I am referring to the entire U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives, all 535 members, combined.

As for Obama, let's take a quick look at some of his first term "accomplishments." They include :

• ObamaCare is now the law of the land.
• His administration has refused to allow the expansion of domestic oil drilling, contributing to higher gas prices.
• The Patriot Act has been re-authorized, and even expanded infringing on Americans privacy even more.
• He has hired 30+ czars to help implement his agenda.
• The federal debt is now over $16 Trillion.
• He has appointed two ultra-Liberal Supreme Court Justices, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.

Now, back to my original question and title of this blog post. Is Obama to blame for the mess the country is in ? The answer is ... no, not entirely. He is to blame for some of it but not all of it. Before you say, "Sheepdog, you're off your rocker again." Allow me to explain my reasoning below. Also, please know that I don't say this in order to support Obama in any way. I just want to make the point that the blame is not 100% his.

The country's founders set up our system of governance with a Constitutional implemented system of checks and balances. Each branch (executive, legislative, and judicial) of the federal government is set up to keep the others in check, so that none of them become too powerful and get out of control. Each branch is specifically delegated certain roles and powers that MUST be followed. The problem is that the three branches aren't following their Constitutional duties anymore, and the biggest culprit is Congress.

Yes, you heard me. Most of the blame for the country's problems can be placed on Congress. For instance, think about Obama's "accomplishments" above and consider that :

• Congress could have shot down ObamaCare. 
• Congress could have pushed domestic oil-drilling forward, whether Obama wanted it or not.
• Congress could have killed The Patriot Act and its overreach into Americans' privacy.
• Congress could have said, "No czars." 
• Congress could have cut spending, but they've even refused to pass a budget for the last several years.
• Lastly, Congress could have voted down Kagan and Sotomayor, but chose not to. In fact, Sen. Lamar Alexander, of Tennessee, defended his vote to confirm Sotomayor by saying, "Elections have consequences." In other words, Obama won, so he can do what he wants. Do what ? He needs to go if he's not gonna do his constitutional mandated job. He's a joke.

Additionally, part of the blame for ObamaCare can be placed on The Supreme Court, also. They had an opportunity to shoot down the biggest unconstitutional power grab in the country's history and chose not to.

By now, somebody's probably thinking, "Hey Sheepdog, what about all of Obama's executive orders ? Those are on him." Ummm - not completely. There is no explicit constitutional provision that grants the president the authority to issue executive orders. There is only a brief open-ended phrase about "executive power" which Congress and The Supreme Court have allowed presidents to expand and abuse for years. What many don't know is that presidential executive orders can be squashed or overridden. Congress can pass a law to override an executive order and / or the courts can strike one down if they feel it is an overreach. In fact, both President Truman and Clinton had executive orders struck down. Therefore, Congress and the courts could keep Obama's executive orders in check, but they have chosen not to. As with everything else mentioned above, at least part of the blame for Obama's abuse of executive orders is on the legislative and judicial branches for not doing their jobs. They should have smacked his hand a long time ago.

In summary, here is where I'm going with all this. I'm not trying to tell anyone who to vote for as far as the presidency goes. Each of us has to do what he or she thinks is right. As for me, I won't support Obama and will have a hard time pushing the button by Romney's name. I'm considering going the Independent route for president for the first time ever. However, I'm still undecided.

English: President Barack Obama speaks to a joint session of Congress regarding health care reform (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The point I really want to make is that Congress is not performing their constitutional mandated duties, and that's the reason Obama and others have been out of control. Congress is too busy collecting their fat salaries, enjoying their nice benefits, playing the blame game, and trying to figure out how to get re-elected instead of doing the job they were elected to do. Usually, when someone doesn't do the job they are paid to do, they get fired. It's time to fire nearly all of Congress. There are a few good members left, but they can probably be counted on your fingers.

Four years ago, the Democrats praised Obama as being "The One" to solve all of the country's problems. Now, Republicans are blindly, due to party loyalty, heaping the exact same praise on Romney. I would encourage them to be careful. I believe Romney is dangerous for the flip-flopping reasons mentioned above. He is simply another big government progressive.

I believe that if Americans choose to elect Romney as president, then they need to take things a step further when they go into the voting booth. We need to vote out all the left-leaning, Liberal, Progressive members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans. Then, replace them with people who will actually exercise their duties and preserve, protect, and defend the constitution. It is necessary in order to keep the progressive Romney in check if he wins, or keep Obama in check if he gets re-elected. If I was a betting man, I wouldn't bet against Obama, though. The fact is that if we don't replace the members of Congress who are derelict in their duties, then mark my words, absolutely nothing will change, and things could actually get worse with Romney. No problems will be solved, and just like with Obama, within a year of Romney taking office, the ones who voted for him will have a severe case of buyers remorse.

Think I'm wrong ? Well, think back to my October 21, 2010 post where I expressed my concerns about then candidate and now current Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam. I stated that I didn't believe he was a conservative, and therefore, would not vote for him. I also said I hoped I was wrong about him. People told me I was wrong and didn't listen to me. Now, Tennesseans everywhere are having buyers remorse. Why ? Well, less than two years into Haslam's first term, he has gone after the state's teachers, screwed gun owners by opposing the Safe Commute Bill, and also appointed a Shariah finance expert to his cabinet. That's just for starters. I could go on and on.

I nailed it on Haslam, although I hoped I was wrong. I hope I'm wrong about Romney, too, but I don't think I am. So, mark it down - just like with Haslam, you heard it from The Sheepdog first.

If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck .........

The NRA - incompetence, or just not 100% pro-gun ?

Back in May, the controversial and poorly named "Patriot Act" was extended for four more years by Congress. The bill has been constantly debated since it's passage due to the additional, and arguably unconstitutional, surveillance powers it gives the Federal government. Even the ACLU, whom I usually disagree with, is on the right side this time. They have criticized the bill's infringement upon Americans' civil liberties.

My longtime readers know that at one time, I was an NRA member. However, over the last few years I have become very unsatisfied with the organization. I have criticized them on a number of occasions in earlier blog posts, because they no longer appear to have the best interests of gun owners in mind. I was very critical of them last year in regards to their boondoggle on The Disclose Act. In fact, they have dropped the ball so much that I am no longer a member of the organization. The NRA's lack of leadership in the renewal of the mis-named "Patriot Act" is the latest of their "fumbles." If they were an NFL running back, they would have been traded or cut by now.

Rookie U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R -KY) (pictured upper right) attempted to add an amendment to the re-authorization of "The Patriot Act" that would have exempted the records of Americans' firearms purchases from the warrantless searches authorized by the so-called "Patriot Act." In my opinion, it was an amendment that was needed since Janet Napolitano's Department of Homeland Security has issued a report deeming gun owners as potential "terrorists." Sen. Paul's proposed amendment stated :

Nothing in the USA PATRIOT Act (Public Law 107-56; 115 Stat. 272), the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-177; 120 Stat. 192), the USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-178; 120 Stat. 278), or an amendment made by any such Act shall authorize the investigation or procurement of firearms records which is not authorized under chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code.

Sen. Paul's amendment might have passed, too, if the NRA had pulled it's head out of it's butt and done the job it's members expect and pay it to do - stand up for them and the 2nd Amendment. However, instead of supporting Sen. Paul's amendment, the NRA took no position as shown in the following statement sent to Sen. Saxby Chambliss by the NRA's Chris Cox :

NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, Washington, DC, May 26, 2011

Dear Senator Chambliss :

Thank you for asking about the National Rifle Association's position on a motion to table amendment # 363 to the PATRIOT Act.

The NRA takes a back seat to no one when it comes to protecting gun owners' rights against government abuse. Over the past three decades, we've fought successfully to block unnecessary and intrusive compilation of firearms-related records by several federal agencies, and will continue to protect the privacy of our members and all American gun owners.

While well-intentioned, the language of this amendment as currently drafted raises potential problems for gun owners, in that it encourages the government to use provisions in current law that allow access to firearms records without reasonable cause, warrant, or judicial oversight of any kind.

Based on these concerns and the fact that the NRA does not ordinarily take positions on procedural votes, we have no position on a motion to table amendment # 363 .

Sincerely,

CHRIS W. COX

Due to the NRA's failure to support Sen. Paul's amendment, the U.S. Senate voted to table it effectively killing it. I'm irritated not only by the amendment's failure to pass and the NRA's failure to act, but also by the fact that both so-called "Republican" Senators from Tennessee, Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker, voted in favor of tabling it. Both have claimed to support gun owners, but when they have a chance to prove it, they voted against us. They didn't stop there, though. They both proceeded to vote in favor of the extension of the "Patriot Act." They both have got to go, and I can't wait for a chance to vote against them.

Furthermore, I'm can't understand what the NRA was thinking when it chose not to take a position on Sen. Paul's amendment. The organization's statement that the amendment would "... allow access to firearms records without reasonable cause ..." is simply untrue. A simple glance at what the amendment says shows that it would have done just the opposite and prohibited such access. Can the NRA not read ? Is it completely incompetent ? Or, is it simply not the pro-gun organization it claims to be ? Perhaps it's a combination of all of the above.

Related articles

• NRA Claims Rand Paul's Gun Amendment Would Have Hurt Gun Owners More Than PATRIOT Act (reason.com)
• NRA Joins Mitch McConnell Against Rand Paul and Gun Owners for America (reason.com)

Sheepdog on the Warpath - part 3, The Finale - The GOP

One afternoon, over 30 years ago, I was sitting on the couch at home with my mom watching TV. I was only nine years old but yet I was old enough to understand that in this country, there's basically two sides when it comes to politics - the Democrats and the Republicans. We were watching a speech by Ronald Reagan during his 1979 presidential campaign and two things jumped out at me about him - his wisdom and his passion about what he believed in. I asked my mom what party he belonged to and she said, "the Republican." I thought, "then, that's what I am," and I have remained one to this day. As I grew older, I began to understand what this thing of "Republicanism" was really all about. Reagan taught that Republicans :

1. believe government should be small with limited powers, 
2. believe taxes should be low,
3. believe in the free market / capitalism ,
4. support individual liberty,
5. support a strong national defense,
6. have a moral compass (know the difference between right and wrong),
7. are pro-life, 
8. are pro-2nd Amendment,
9. should treat people well,
10. believe in individual responsibility, and
11. believe in strictly following rules and laws. 

However, lately, I've been disappointed and somewhat angry with some of my fellow Republicans in regards to their votes on bills, stances on issues, their morals, and other things. They've gotten away from their roots and the values that President Reagan held dear. I've wondered several times, "Is this the best this party has got to offer now ??"

For instance, consider the following :

• U.S. Senator (Arizona) and 2008 Presidential nominee John McCain - He's a great man and a military hero, but some of his votes on bills in the Senate have been peculiar. For instance, he voted in favor of The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) which has resulted in thousands of American jobs being transferred out of the country. He voted in favor of the financial system bailout. He also supported Cap and Trade and is in favor of restricting gun sales between private individuals.
• U.S. Senator (Tennessee) Lamar Alexander - voted in favor of the financial system bailout, in favor of Sonya Sotomayor's confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court, and against carry permit holders being able to carry concealed handguns to protect themselves and their families in National Parks. He also voted in favor of confirming John Holdren as Obama's Science Czar.
• Mitt Romney, former Massachusetts Governor and 2008 Presidential candidate - raised numerous taxes and fees as governor and instituted "RomneyCare" which forced all Massachusetts residents to have health care insurance. RomneyCare has been a disaster as it's costs are skyrocketing and rationing is taking place.
• Rick Scott, 2010 Republican nominee for Florida Governor - left the Columbia / HCA hospital chain he founded after they were hit for a $1.7 Billion fine for Medicare fraud.
• Bill Haslam, 2010 Republican nominee for Tennessee Governor - The Haslam Family supported instituting a state income tax during former Governor Don Sundquist's administration. His stance on the 2nd Amendment is sketchy. At one time he was a member of Michael Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns group which is inappropriately named. It is actually a anti-gun group that wants to ban all guns. He only resigned from the group and joined the NRA when he decided to run for governor because he knew Tennesseans would not vote for an anti-gunner for governor. Furthermore, when Knoxville opted-out of Tennessee's local park carry law, Haslam said he was o.k. with it.
• Tennessee State Senator Mae Beavers - voted in favor of tax increases on nursing homes and HMO's which will ultimately be passed onto consumers by these entities. Furthermore, she has spoken multiple times on how she opposes "stimulus money" but then will take advantage of photo ops with projects paid for by "stimulus money." In addition, she voted in favor of the anti-gun Jimmy Naifeh for Speaker of the Tennessee House on four separate occasions.
• South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford - caught in affair with woman from Argentina. Many of his trips to see her were at taxpayers' expense. 
• Linda Elam, Republican nominee for Tennessee House of Representatives District 57 - during her tenure as Mt. Juliet, TN mayor, she has on multiple occasions asked to suspend the rules of order in order to do things her way. She also attempted to get the City Commission to approve a raise for her and benefits equivalent to those of full-time city employees. Shortly after those were voted down, she announced she was running for the Tennessee House. Apparently, she's determined to get those benefits some way.

These are only a few examples. I could go on and on showing how The Republican Party has time and time again given the voters less than desirable candidates and expected us to vote for them anyway. It's gotten to the point where our only option is to choose from the lesser of the evils instead of actually voting for a good conservative candidate. I now understand how Ronald Reagan felt when he switched from the Democratic Party to the Republican saying, "I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The party left me." The Republican Party has done the same thing to me.

For too long, myself and many other Republicans have walked into the voting book and looked for the "R" beside a name. It's one reason we are stuck with as many lousy Republicans as we are Democrats. I will not do that anymore. I will do my research on the candidates and pick the one that most matches my principles and values. If the Republican doesn't, I'll vote for the Independent, if they do. If there's not an Independent, I may just vote for the Democrat as a protest vote. However, it won't be as much a vote for the Democrat as it will be a vote against the Republican that doesn't match the principles and values I expect out of a Republican. It'll be my way of saying, "I'm not gonna take it anymore."