The Obama Administration wants to require any company that contracts with the Federal Government to disclose its political contributions. Theoretically, this is to prevent the making of contributions in return for contracts.
COMMENTS:
There is a whole slew of laws on the books already to deal with this issue. This is nothing more than a thinly disguised Chicago-style political payback program; if this disclosure does not indicate that you contributed to the Democratic Party or the Obama Reelection Campaign, you will be automatically denied the contract. That’s all it is, pure and simple. And now, they are coming out in the open with the fact that they are a bunch of thugs. This country has had enough of this bullshit, the type that Obama swore he was going to end and now so openly condones.
TODAY’S QUERIES & ANSWERS:
Q. I am a little ticked off. I just heard that they are going to be calling my cellphone with changes in the national alert status and messages from the President? What in the hell is this crap? (Manny ~ Las Vegas, NV)
A. I guess you are ticked off. Yes, they will call you with those things plus any missing child alerts, etc. The President wants to be able to call you and make sure you vote for him on Election Day. I happen to think the concept is okay, but they should give me the ability to decide whether or not I want their calls. What happens if I am an important business call and get interrupted by an alert for a missing child on the other side of the country? What if I don’t want to hear from the Supreme Czar? Frankly, this is the last straw of mandatory government intervention in my life. I am ticked off, too. Let’s go stick some salt peter in his coffee.
Q. What would be the economic impact in this country if they outlawed guns? (Jerry ~ Phoenix, AZ)
A. I don’t know about the country as a whole, but I did read recently that gun owners and sportsmen in California contribute $6.3 billion to that state’s economy every year. And that’s just the legal gun owners!
Q. Is Obama putting on the “muscle” regarding the Mexican border? (Kyle ~ Redding, CA)
A. He has told all states that they had better not butt in on the Federal jurisdiction over immigration. Now, every state has the right to protect its borders and the Federal government is charged with protecting the national border. Where the national border and the state border are contiguous, (the same), I believe the states have a right to force the government to enforce the laws or the right to enforce the laws themselves. That will be argued before the Supreme Court and I think the answer will be 5-4 in favor of the states, if they agree to hear it. In the meantime, Obama has made it clear that he will withhold whatever Federal funding he can regarding any matter if a state decides to enact its own law or to start enforcing Federal law. And, by the way, he did swear to uphold the laws of the United States when he took office, as if that means anything.
TODAY’S QUOTE:
“Nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced.” ~ Albert Einstein
TODAY’S VIDEO: (Courtesy of your local anti-gun lobby)
No comments:
Post a Comment