The Bernie Madoffs in Congress

 Amusing  Comments Off on The Bernie Madoffs in Congress
Mar 192009
 

This can all be solved with two words… Term Limits!

Throw the bums out!

Everyone hates Bernie Madoff. He is the new face of what’s wrong in America. He has been called an evil monster, but, according to his victims, these words are inadequate.

You have to hand it to Madoff. He lived large – no, huge – off this Ponzi scheme. It was great while it lasted and no one, including Madoff, thought it would go on as long as it did.

While Madoff was considered a financial genus, his plan was surprisingly simple: Take money from investors. Give them an annual return that they could get no where else by taking money from new investors.

Of course, he kept the lion’s share for himself, socking it away in thousands of places, preferring to plead guilty to all charges, rather than cooperate and name any accomplices.

The government estimates that Madoff stole $65 billion from his clients. It has been called the biggest case of fraud in history. I beg to differ.

By my calculations there are some 465 Bernie Madoffs, who are operating a similar Ponzi scheme right under our very noses, stealing billions from hardworking Americans each and every year.

They take our money in the form of tax dollars and dole it out to their friends in the form of pork barrel projects called “earmarks,” who give it back to them in the form of campaign contributions and sweetheart business deals for themselves and members of their families. While a few – very few – members have been prosecuted, most of what they do is legal, though unethical, and they operate with impunity.

Last year, the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense compiled data that showed that 60 percent of the members of the House Armed Services Committee who arranged earmarks also received campaign contributions from the companies that received the funding. Almost all the members of the committee received campaign contributions from companies that got earmarks this year.

We look at Madoff, and we point a finger at federal regulators and say, “Why didn’t somebody do something?” What about the 200 million eligible U.S. voters who have oversight of Congress or, at the very least, the 90 million who pay taxes? Why don’t we do something? After all, we are the victims of this Ponzi scheme.

A large chunk of this money is recycled and doled back to the states, which is supposed to make us feel better about it. In fact, most Madoffs in Congress brag about this practice and use it as a tool to get re-elected. Take the money from taxpayers. Launder it through layers of bureaucracy and give 50 cents on the dollar back to the states for projects the majority of people there don’t need or want.

How much better it would be to cut federal taxes, leave the money in the states and let the people who live there make the hard decisions on how to spend it! But, no! That doesn’t increase the power of our representatives in Washington!

Obama promised to get rid of earmarks but he just signed a $410 billion omnibus bill outside of the glare of the cameras that contained 9,000 of them!

It’s important to identify the Madoffs who passed this bill. In the Senate, it includes all Democrats with the exception of Bayh, McCaskill and Feingold. It also includes Republicans Shelby, Murkowski, Snowe, Cochran, Wicker, Bond, Specter and Alexander.

In the House, the Madoffs include all Democrats with the exception of these 20: Bean, Cardoza, Costa, Speier, Childers, Cooper, Tanner, Donnelly, Hill, Driehaus, Giffords, Mitchell, Kind, Kratovil, Marshall, Matheson, Minnick, Nye, Peterson and Taylor.

The Madoff Republicans are: Bono, Mack, Brown-Waite, Cao, Capito, Castle, Dent, Gerlach, Murphy, Emerson, LoBiondo, McHugh, Miller, Upton, Reichert, Whitfield and Young.

However, these are not the only Madoff Republicans in the House. Despite their “no” votes, all but 39 Republicans had earmarks in this bloated omnibus bill.

In all, only six senators and 64 House members have signed the “no earmark” pledge. Check it out at http://earmarkpledge.com/signers.php. The rest clearly are Madoffs, and they should be dumped in the next election.

They all have excuses – some worthwhile project their state just couldn’t be without. Don’t buy it!

There are those who will argue that earmarks are only a small part of the problem in Washington. This is true. However, when you clean out something, you start with the part that smells.

Source…

Obama’s Gun Ban List

 Amusing  Comments Off on Obama’s Gun Ban List
Mar 172009
 

It looks like it’s time to Lock and Load! Send this to every gun owner you know.

Obama’s Gun Ban List Is Out

Here it is, folks, and it is bad news. The framework for legislation is always laid, and the Democrats have the votes to pass anything they want to impose upon us. They really do not believe you need anything more than a brick to defend your home and family. Look at the list and see how many you own.

Remember, it is registration, then confiscation. It has happened in the UK, in Australia, in Europe, in China, and what they have found is that for some reason the criminals do not turn in their weapons, but will know that you did.

Remember, the first step in establishing a dictatorship is to disarm the citizens.

Gun-ban list proposed. Slipping below the radar (or under the short-term memory cap), the Democrats have already leaked a gun-ban list, even under the Bush administration when they knew full well it had no chance of passage (HR 1022, 110th Congress). It serves as a framework for the new list the Brady’s plan to introduce shortly. I have an outline of the Brady’s current plans and targets of opportunity. It’s horrific. They’re going after the courts, regulatory agencies, firearms dealers and statutes in an all out effort to restrict we the people. They’ve made little mention of criminals. Now more than ever, attention to the entire Bill of Rights is critical. Gun bans will impact our freedoms under search and seizure, due process, confiscated property, states’ rights, free speech, right to assemble and more, in addition to the Second Amendment. The Democrats current gun-ban-list proposal (final list will be worse):

Rifles (or copies or duplicates):

M1 Carbine,

Sturm Ruger Mini-14,

AR-15,

Bushmaster XM15,

Armalite M15,

AR-10,

Thompson 1927,

Thompson M1;

AK,

AKM,

AKS,

AK-47,

AK-74,

ARM,

MAK90,

NHM 90,

NHM 91,

SA 85,

SA 93,

VEPR;

Olympic Arms PCR;

AR70,

Calico Liberty,

Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU,

Fabrique National FN/FAL,

FN/LAR, or FNC,

Hi-Point20Carbine,

HK-91,

HK-93,

HK-94,

HK-PSG-1,

Thompson 1927 Commando,

Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;

Saiga,

SAR-8,

SAR-4800,

SKS with detachable magazine,

SLG 95,

SLR 95 or 96,

Steyr AU,

Tavor,

Uzi,

Galil and Uzi Sporter,

Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle ( Galatz ).

Pistols (or copies or duplicates):

Calico M-110,

MAC-10,

MAC-11, or MPA3,

Olympic Arms OA,

TEC-9,

TEC-DC9,

TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10,

Uzi.

Shotguns (or copies or duplicates):

Armscor 30 BG,

SPAS 12 or LAW 12,

Striker 12,

Streetsweeper.

Catch-all category (for anything missed or new designs):

A semiautomatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and has:

(i) a folding or telescoping stock,

(ii) a threaded barrel,

(iii) a pistol grip (which includes ANYTHING that can serve as a grip, see below),

(iv) a forward grip; or a barrel shroud.

Any semiautomatic rifle with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds (except tubular magazine .22 rim fire rifles)…

A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and has:

(i) a second pistol grip,

(ii) a threaded barrel,

(iii) a barrel shroud or

(iv) can accept a detachable magazine outside of the pistol grip, and

(v) a semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.

A semiautomatic shotgun with:

(i) a folding or telescoping stock,

(ii) a pistol grip (see definition below),

(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine or a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds, and

(iv) a shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

Frames or receivers for the above are included, along with conversion kits.

Attorney General gets carte blanche to ban guns at will: Under the proposal, the U.S. Attorney General can add any “semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General.”

Note that Obama’s pick for this office, Eric Holder, wrote a brief in the Heller case supporting the position that you have no right to have a working firearm in your own home. In making this determination, the bill says, “there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the

United States military or any law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.” In plain English this means that ANY firearm ever obtained by federal officers or the military is not suitable for the public.

The last part is particularly clever, stating that a firearm doesn’t have a sporting purpose just because it can be used for sporting purpose — is that devious or what? And of course, “sporting purpose” is a rights infringement with no constitutional or historical support whatsoever, invented by domestic enemies of the right to keep and bear arms to further their cause of disarming the innocent.

 Older Entries  Newer Entries