The DOJ alleges the statute is unconstitutional and is basing its entire case on the claims that it violates the provision in the constitution known as the supremacy clause. The effect of this clause is that Federal law trumps any incompatible state law. The exact language of the clause goes like this:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

The problem with the DOJ case is that there is nothing “to the contrary” in the Arizona law. In fact, just the opposite is true. The Arizona statute follows Federal law. All it does is put the state in the business of helping the Feds enforce their own law. Obviously, this is help the Feds don’t want because they have no intention of enforcing the law.

There is some irony in the DOJ’s complaint that the Supremacy clause renders the Arizona statute unconstitutional while doing nothing about the so-called “sanctuary cities” that actually are acting “to the contrary” to Federal law. By protecting illegal aliens, prohibiting their police officers from inquiring into the immigration status of suspicious persons, and failing to turn over discovered aliens to the Federal authorities, these cities are engaging in practices that would land an individual in jail for obstruction of justice.

It what appears to be an attempt to give the lawsuit some moral basis, President Obama declared that the Arizona law “has the potential” of being enforced in a discriminatory manner. And that, of course, is true even though the plain language of the statute prohibits racial profiling. The problem with the President’s claim is that is true of just about any law.

Suppose, for example, the U.S. Dept. of Justice were to enforce the Federal Voting Rights Act only when the accused violator is white and the victim is black. Should that ever happen it still would not be grounds for striking down the statute. Although it would justify firing the U.S. Attorney General. But of course, that would never happen. Did it? I mean, would it?

There is also the idea that a state has it own jurisdiction over immigration. In an old (1837) case the city of New York had a statute that required the captain of a vessel entering New York harbor with aliens on board to report in writing to the Mayor of the City, giving certain prescribed information. The Court found this did not conflict with Federal authority over immigration. The majority opinion ruled that a state “has the same undeniable and unlimited jurisdiction over all persons and things, within its territorial limits, as any foreign nation, where that jurisdiction is not surrendered or restrained by the Constitution of the United States. That, by virtue of this, it is not only the right, but the bounden and solemn duty of a State, to advance the safety, happiness and prosperity of its people.”

Apparently, in the absence of an explicit prohibition the state is free to enact its own laws even if the Federal government also deals with the same subject provided there is no conflict to trigger the supremacy clause

In addition to a weak legal case, the President appears also to be skating on thin political ice. A new Rasmussen survey finds that 56 percent of voters disagree with challenging the Arizona law and only 28 per cent agree. Another 16 per cent are not sure. The survey also found that 61 per cent of voters would like to see a similar law enacted in their state.

Even worse for the President and his party is that 86 per cent of likely voters say the immigration issue is at least somewhat important to how they will vote for Congress this November, and 55 percent say it is “very important.” Among voters who consider the immigration issue “very important” to how they will vote 72 percent disagree with the challenge.

It would make no difference if Obama were born in Mayberry right down the street from Sheriff Andy.  He is not an American and it is not because of where he was born. It is because he does not consider himself an American and has no loyalty to this country and what it stands for.

The recent flap over Joe Barton and his apology to BP are an example.  It is an American maxim that everybody is entitled to his day in court and that the burden of proof is on the prosecution.  Nobody has to prove he is innocent.  But Obama, in that lame speech about the oil spill, simply stated as a fact that BP was “reckless” and that he was going to extract at least $20 billion from the company and put it into an escrow fund to compensate persons injured by the spill.

This was contrary to the principle of separation of powers which is a key factor distinguishing the American form of government from that of its European predecessors.  It is also contrary to the explicit language of the Constitution which states that “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”  That means BP’s alleged recklessness must be proven in court and if it is, the court will determine the remedy.  Barack’s action was more kingly than American.

By the way, Joe Barton was right the first time.  It was a shakedown and the GOP leadership that jumped all over Barton needs to grow a pair and stand up for the constitution.

Another uniquely American ideal is the belief, spelled out in the Declaration of Independence, that “governments are instituted among men” in order to secure our rights.  This was a reversal of the old European notion that kings ruled by “divine right” making governments the agents of God.  In America, the government was made  the agent of the people.

A mid-June Rasmussen poll reveals that almost half of Americans (48 per cent) believe that principle has been abandoned and that government has become a threat to our rights.  Only 37 per cent believe the government is performing the job for which it was created – protecting our rights.

Which brings us to another hallowed principle underlying the American form of government – the belief — set down in the Declaration of Independence – that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Only 21 per cent of Americans, according to the Rasmussen survey, believe that today the government has the consent of the governed.

Would a true American, elected to the presidency, choose for a science adviser a man who believes the government has the right to introduce sterilizing chemicals into the nation’s drinking water in order to limit population growth?  Science adviser John Holdren set out his views on population control in a book he co-authored with population fanatic Paul Ehrlich who predicted in 1968 that the human race wouldn’t make it through the 1970s because of population pressures.

And Holdren doesn’t confine himself to the U.S. government determining how many children we should be allowed to have.  He believes that chore should ideally be turned over to a “Planetary Regime.”  This Planetary Regime, he suggests, could determine the “optimum population” for the world and decide each country’s share of population.

And the Regime’s authority shouldn’t stop at population control.  Such an international, body, he proposes, “could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable.”

Does that sound like someone an American president would turn to for advice on science issues?

It’s pretty clear that Obama, regardless of where he was born, does not identify with this country, its history, its fundamental values.  In fact, the waves of immigrants who came to America in the 19th century, although born in places like Italy, Ireland, Poland and Russia, were more committed to American values than the interloper who now presumes to govern this country.

The most important thing we can do now is work to elected an American to the White House in 2012.
Your Favorite Political Pooch
Jack M. Pinscher

Nancy Pelosi warned us.  She said the Obama health care bill would have to be passed so we could find out what was in it.

Thanks to Paul Guppy, Vice-President for Research at Washington Policy Center, we’re finding out a few things about the health care bill which is now the health care law.

What may be the biggest Jack in the Health Care Box is a 3.8 percent tax on home sales and other real estate transactions.  That means if you sell a house for $200,000 you will owe a tax of $7,600 if the profit from the sale pushed your gross yearly income above $200,000 – which it surely will if you sold the house for that much.

“Other real estate transactions” includes income from rental properties.  This is paid by the property owner but renters should not deceive themselves that they are not affected. The property owner gets the money to pay the additional tax from his tenants.

The same facts apply for the $200,000 income threshold.  This will be advertised as “soaking the rich” but renters, who are among the lowest earners in society, will be providing the money — in the form of higher rents – that the “rich” will be turning over to the government.  Since many rental properties are owned by real estate corporations, very few renters will avoid contributing to the property owner’s payments.

The government labels money gained from renting homes and other property as “unearned income.”  And this is typical of the deceptive language the government employs to sugar coat its raids on our money.    In truth, “unearned income” is money you find on the bus.  There is nothing “unearned” about rental income.  The property owner pays the mortgage on the property, he pays for its upkeep, he pays the property taxes on it, he pays to insure it against fire and other damage. In the real world, as opposed to government, rental income is certainly earned.

Another important point, about this additional tax, it is applied to money that is already taxed.  The property owner pays regular income tax on the rents he collects.  And then pays the additional 3.8 percent tax on that same income if his total income from all sources is more than $200,000.    Again, since many rental properties are owned by real estate corporations –or individuals with other sources of income – most will exceed that $200,000 level.

This real estate tax is just one of 19 new taxes imposed by the health care bill.  It also imposes a 3.8 percent tax in investment income.  Individuals earning over $200,000 and families making $250,000 are covered.  Guppy points out that this is not indexed to inflation so, just like alternative minimum tax, it will hit more people every year.  Seniors on fixed incomes and people with IRAs and 401 (k) plans will be hardest hit.

Then there is the coerced purchase of health insurance.  Individuals who don’t purchase a health insurance policy, or who purchase one that doesn’t suit the government, will be taxed up to 2.5 percent of their annual income.  What kind of policy will satisfy the government?  You’ll find out when the IRS comes around to take your money.

Families with children will be hit with a penalty of $347 per child, up to $2,250 per family, if they don’t buy a government approved health insurance policy.  There are a lot of things wrong with this, in addition to the loss of freedom it entails.  A couple may decide they will not have any more children and don’t need maternity coverage.  But if the Feds include maternity benefits in the required coverage, that couple will be forced to buy and pay for it.

The government may decide that a suitable health insurance policy must pay for abortions.  Americans who oppose abortion on moral and religious grounds would be forced to pay for a policy that covers hem.  The bottom line is that nobody knows what kinds of policy we’ll have to buy to avoid the penalty.

There are just too many families with too many differing needs and preferences for the government to get into the business of dictating what kind of health insurance policy we all have to buy.

Your vote-dictatorship or capitalism?

For one thing, Sen. John McCain, who lives in Arizona and knows a thing or two about military matters, says at least 6,000 troops are needed. That’s how many President George W. Bush and it didn’t stop the flood of illegals. Senate Democrats shot down an attempt to increase the deployment to 6,000.

For number two, the U.S. State Dept. has announced that the troops will not be used to stop illegal immigration. This, according to AP, came at the urging of the Mexican government. So instead the troops will be used to counter the movement of guns and drugs across the border. Reportedly, the Mexican government is cool with that. State Department spokesman Philip Crowley announced, “We have explained the President’s announcement to the government of Mexico, and they fully understand the rationale behind it.”

Apparently Obama is confused about which country he works for.

Even within that limited mission, the troops will not operate like soldiers. Instead, they will perform, “support function” to free up civilian law enforcement personnel to patrol the 2,000-mile-long border. In other words, they will wash cars, do office work, go for coffee and do other chores unrelated to confronting drug smugglers, terrorists and other illegal border crossers.

The bottom line is that Obama’s deployment of National Guard troops to the border is a joke and he is still taking his orders from the President of Mexico.

While our alleged President is continuing to refuse to do his job, a recent incident in Dallas demonstrates that there is more involved in border security that jobs, drugs, and street crimes. Hosam Smadi, an immigrant from Jordan in the U.S. illegally has admitted setting what he thought was a bomb in a garage underneath the 60-story Fountain Place Building.

Fortunately, the FBI was onto Smadi and an agent, posing as an al Qaeda operative, gave the terrorist a decoy. After attaching a timing device, he left a truck with the fake bomb in the garage and rode away with an FBI agent. When he tried to detonate the bomb with a cell phone, the phone rang an FBI number and he was arrested.

AP reported that Smadi came to the U.S. in 2007 and overstayed his visa. The FBI said they started tracking him after his name showed up on an extremist website.

It’s worth noting that if Smadi had been living in Arizona instead of Texas he might have been caught any time after his visa expired. Fortunately, this was one of those rare cases when the Federal authorities acted.

At the same time that the Federal government is refusing to enforce the border, and demonizing Arizona for trying, Fox News reports that Feds are warning Texas to be on the lookout for a suspected member of a Somalia-based terrorist group who might try to enter the U.S. through Mexico. This warning comes after a Somali man was indicted in Federal court in Texas for bringing hundreds of Somalis from South America and across the Mexican border. Many of these illegal immigrants have ties to other Somalian terror organizations, Fox reports. These groups are a danger to Americaans and to Texans in particular.

But that doesn’t bother the Mexican government so it doesn’t bother President Obama.

If Americans turn out in massive numbers and transform the Congress into a body that will defend our nations against all enemies – foreign and domestic – maybe that will pull Obama’s chain and persuade him to do the job he took an oath to do.

There has been a lot of commentary about her booting the military recruiters off the campus at Harvard and less about a far more important problem with Kagan – her anti-constitutional view of freedom of speech.  Put simply, she just doesn’t believe in it.

While the Constitution says “Congress shall make no low . . . abridging the freedom of speech or of the press,” Kagan says Congress can too make a such a law provided its motives are pure.  In a 1996 article in the Univ. of Chicago Law Review entitled, “Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine,  Kagan said that determining the government’s motive is “the most important” when deciding whether a law restricting speech or press violates the First Amendment.  Restricting speech would be a violation if it were done just because the message or messenger may be harmful to elected officials or their political priorities.

Even more disturbing is her view of the free marketplace of ideas. Kagan simply does not believe in it.  In that same article she argued that the Supreme Court – on which she is about to sit – should not be concerned with protecting the free marketplace of ideas because, she wrote, “it is impossible for the court to determine what constitutes an ideal marketplace.”

In that same article she seems to contradict herself by asserting that the marketplace of ideas must be managed by the government.  If there is an ‘overabundance’ of an idea in the absence of direct governmental action — which there well might be when compared with some ideal state of public debate — then action disfavoring that idea might ‘un-skew,’ rather than skew, public discourse,” Kagan wrote. Kagan refers to this government micro-management of speech and press as  “redistribution of speech.”

So, according to Kagan, the government can and cannot decide what is the ideal state of public debate.  And it is permitted by our constitution to limit the expression of certain ideas if it determines those ideas are being expressed too often, or too loudly or too effectively or too whatever the government decides.

This bizarre interpretation of the First amendment would certainly allow the government to silence talk radio if it determines that it is dominated by conservatives causing an “overabundance” of conservative ideas being expressed.

Kagan’s notion about an “overabundance” of some ideas could also be applied to the Internet, another target of the Obama administration.  Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski was recently rebuffed by a Federal appeals court which said his agency had no authority to exert the kind of control he was seeking.  With Kagan on the Supreme Court Genachowski could appeal that ruling with some expectation of a different outcome.

This is an expectation that Obama appears to share. Obama was highly critical of the Supreme Court when it ruled that a corporation has a right under the First Amendment to express a political opinion.  In that case, Kagan, as Solicitor General of the United States, contended that Congress could constitutionally prohibit corporations from publishing pamphlets that advocate the election or defeat of a candidate for federal office.

Responding to her claim, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that her interpretation of the First Amendment, “would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet, and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern.”

It could even, Roberts continued, “empower the Government to prohibit newspapers from running editorials or opinion pieces supporting or opposing candidates for office, so long as the newspapers were owned by corporations — as the major ones are.”

Kagan on the Supreme Court would be a threat to the most fundamental liberties the constitution was written to protect – the right to speak our minds and express our opinions.  It is hard to imagine any right more central to the notion of representative government.

What remains to be seen is whether the Republicans in the Senate will stand up to this threat or do their customary trick of rolling over and hoping the New York Times will rub their belly.

Usually, I just take life easy and let the world go its own way.

But lately I’m seeing so many things going wrong, my scent is scrambled, my human friends are befuddled — government taking over auto companies, hounding the investment industry, controlling health care, running up enormous debt and raising taxes. I’ve reached the end of my leash and it is time to bark, and bark very loud.  So I’m going to give it to you with the bark on.

Right now, President Obama is pushing legislation proposed by lame-duck, not to be confused with a good meal, Sen. Chris Dodd  (D-CT) that is supposed to end the bailing out of financial institutions by the taxpayers.

Actually, the bill will do just opposite.

Just Monday night, the Senate removed a provision to create a $50 billion permanent bailout fund. But, make no mistake that was just to throw us off the scent.  Instead of the permanent bailout fund, the bill now permits the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. to borrow from the Treasury, whatever it needs to bail out a failing company.  The bill allows Treasury to try and get the money back from shareholders, creditors and the sale of the company’s assets. The bill requires that any additional costs be recouped from the financial industry.

So under this bill, the bailouts will continue and in return for tossing a company this bone, the government asserts the right to control its operations, or treat bag. This can include replacing the chief executive officer, dictating the salaries of company executives, handing over part ownership of the company to the employees’ union.

In fact, establishing government control seems to be the true purpose of the bailout.  After all, every time Obama opens his yap he tries to inflame public opinion against the evil corporations and build support for more government control.  For example, administration officials never stop whining about banks making risky loans and creating sub-prime mortgages.  They hope you’ll forget – with the help of the media – that these risky home loans to people who couldn’t possibly repay them were made because the Federal Community Reinvestment Act passed in the mid-1970s required banks to make them.  Predictably, the defaults came and the banks were stuck foreclosing on properties worth less than the balance of the mortgage.  That’s why bail outs happened.  But it doesn’t do any good to bail out a boat if you don’t plug the hole in the bottom.

Instead of passing new laws, bringing the financial industry to heel, the Congress should repeal the Community Reinvestment Act.

But nobody’s barking about that.  Except me!

Jack M. Pinscher
Stand up and be counted!
Putting the Cool back into Politics!

Everywhere I go, I hear from Americans who are both disturbed at the change they are seeing in America and wonder just how we got in the shape we are in now.

With only about half the citizens paying income taxes, a run-away federal budget, a national debt which is astronomical, and our liberties and freedoms slipping away with every vote of Congress.

Just how did the land of opportunity, the last best hope for mankind, end up in this condition? I will give you may analysis.

It didn’t happen overnight.  It may appear that it has, and certainly we have the most liberal President ever to occupy the White House, but that is far too simplistic a rationale.

We are in the shape we are in because politicians are the only vertebrae who have learned to walk upright without having a spine.
That’s right.  Okay, I kid just a bit, but we can’t lay all the blame on the politicians.  We voters have to share the shame a bit too.  We have been asleep at the wheel.  We allowed Republicans to get away without acting like the limited government advocates they report to be.  And we didn’t do our homework in electing our President.

Let me start with the latter.  President Obama ran as a moderate.  Had he run for office and said:

- When elected, I will fire the president of a large private corporation and ran through a big bailout so we Americans own stock in the failing company.

- And in the process I will shortchange the stockholders and give the company to the union thugs who elected me.

- I will regulate the Internet and if Congress won’t go along, I will appoint someone to the FCC who will.

- And I will further reward those union thugs I mentioned earlier by making it easier for them to unionize thereby further rewarding my mobster friends and feathering my own political future in the process.

- I pledge to you, the voters, that I will also push the largest tax increase in history in the form of cap and trade – capping our economic growth and trading our jobs to China .

- I will provide massive funds for socialist “community organizers” who gave me my political start.

- Oh, and in the process, I will socialize one-sixth of the US economy and put a government bureaucrat between you and your doctor.

- Elect me, Barack Hussein Obama, and I pledge to change America in ways you can only imagine, taking your freedom, liberty and choices away.

Now, would you have voted for that Presidential candidate?  No, Americans would have soundly rejected him.  But we didn’t do our homework.  (Please let me give credit where credit is due – some of these ideas came from a speech former TX Solicitor Ted Cruz gave recently.  I took notes, and vowed to pass it along.  So there it is!)

And don’t let me sound as if I am blaming liberals – I am not.  Republicans probably deserve more of the blame than anyone.

John McCain lost his grit somewhere in the Senate and vowed not to talk politics during the campaign.  He said he was a maverick and has subsequently said he never considered himself a maverick.  So he has defined himself as a liar.

It may not be “good dog” talk, but you deserve to know the truth.

I will say one thing for Obama and his lap dogs Pelosi and Reid.  They are willing to risk their political futures and the future of the Democratic Party on their commitment to socialize American.

Since when has a Republican in Washington , D.C. , had that kind of commitment to his or her principles?  Not since Ronald Reagan, if you ask me.

Obama has spent as much time on the road visiting other countries apologizing about America as he has doing anything else except maybe helping tend the White House vegetable garden.

How did we get in the shape we are in today?

We were asleep at the wheel, fat and happy, taking cat naps and feeling superior to the world.  We are an exceptional country, but we must be vigilant.

It was Benjamin Franklin, who was asked what kind of government the Founding Fathers had given this fledgling country.  “We gave you a Republic, Mam, if you can keep it” was his reply.

If we can keep it indeed.   Another of our Founding Fathers once said “The eternal price of freedom is vigilance.”

Today, we are being called on to work to take back America .  I am optimistic we can do it – but we must work to repeal and replace the massive government take-over of our health care system, and we must fight the Obama-Reid-Pelosi agenda every step of the way.

I am happy to be a pack leader, but Americans must be willing to help lead this country out of socialism.  Are you with me?

Till next week – this is Jack and  Obama Don’t  Know Jack!

Thursday was tax day – April 15 and taxpayers everywhere were upset, not just those of us who showed up at the tea parties; we have every reason to be upset.  After all, this year the federal deficit hit an all-time record of $1.4 trillion!  Forty one cents of every individual income tax dollar (that is you) goes to pay the $425 billion interest on the national debt.  Keep in mind, that is just the interest!

While we are working hard to take care of our litters and pay our taxes, only half of us are even paying taxes.   Of those who do pay taxes  we work over 100 days – just to pay our federal, state and local taxes – spending more on taxes than we do on food, clothing and dog house.

The President, who campaigned he would not raise taxes on the middle class-LIED.

YOU BET we are angry.    Just look at all the tax increases in Obama has enacted:  http://www.campbell.house.gov/images/stories/tax_increases.jpg.

Cong. John Carter sent tweets out this week – one for each tax increase in the healthcare bill and my cell phone was tweeting for days.  (Thanks, Judge Carter!  I love Twitter.)

This week, the NYT pointed out that 18% of Americans consider themselves tea party supporters (according to Gallop, it is 28%)….Asked what they are angry about, Tea Party supporters offered three main concerns:
the recent health care overhaul,
government spending, and
a feeling that their opinions are not represented in Washington .
Wow – the NYT got something right.    We are mad about those things.

But then Bill Clinton says that we tea party pooches are dangerous – he said:
“There can be real consequences when what you say animates people who do things you would never do,” Mr. Clinton said in an interview, saying that Timothy McVeigh, who carried out the Oklahoma City bombing, and those who assisted him, “were profoundly alienated, disconnected people who bought into this militant antigovernment line.”

(Now, I wonder what animated then-President Clinton to play tushie with intern Monica Lewinski in the Oval Office?)

With the 15th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing approaching, former President Bill Clinton on Thursday drew parallels between the antigovernment tone that preceded that devastating attack and the political tumult of today, saying government critics must be mindful that angry words can stir violent actions.
Actually, it was the 98th anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic – and that is a much better description of what is happening in America now.

But if the liberals are so fearful that we tea party pooches will “do things we would never do” no wonder they want to register our guns on our income tax forms.

The tea parties are not just social gathering for protesting – we were sending a strong message to elected officials – we are going to put the NO back into November.  That’s right, November is coming.  www.NovemberIsComing.com is a website which we are using to send a strong message to congress.

I will vote NO:
if you Voted yes to the government takeover of HC
Or if you voted yes to cap and trade or fail to stop the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases
If you voted yes to more bailouts or failed government stimulus
Or if you fail to stop regulation of the Internet
I will vote NO if you fail to protect the American Dream.

We are taxpayers, we are voters, and we are watching you.

Corrupt backroom deals continue to drive Obama’s agenda for even more big government.  November is coming and you can’t hide from the voters.

If you vote YES to freedom-killing legislation, I will vote NO on you in November.

(I strongly encourage you to sign onto www.NovemberIsComing.com) and join that peaceful revolution – it will certainly piss off the liberals who are wanting to incite something.

Yet while Washington liberals are working to destroy America as we know it, we have good news in Texas and we have a model we want the country to follow

Texas has the most vibrant economy in the country…and we have launched a new website – www.LoneStarStrong.com

Here in Texas , we have worked hard to create and preserve a job-friendly economic climate, where innovation is rewarded and employers have the best chance to succeed.

The Lone Star State has an unemployment rate is the lowest among the nation’s 10 largest states and we produced more private sector jobs than any other state in the nation over the past 10 years.

Why?

Texas has enacted public policies –
low taxes,
reasonable and predictable regulatory climate, and
enacted tort reform so we no longer practice jackpot justice.
Thanks to good policies -
More individuals, families and discriminating canines chose to move to Texas than anywhere in the U.S. in 2009.
Texas was recently named the number one exporting state in the nation for the eighth year in a row,
Texas has more Fortune 500 companies than any other state
And we are #1 in government transparency.
Forbes lists Texas as having one of the lowest debt burdens in the country, yes, Washington , D.C. could learn from Texas .

Texas is the beacon of fiscal sanity in the country – and we want Washington , D.C. to look to Texas where we have enacted tort reform, kept taxes relatively low, and don’t over-regulate.

In short, I’d rather bury my chew toys in Texas than any other state.

Texas is the model for the rest of the country…while we aren’t perfect, I would rather be a Texas canine than live in any other state – and I’d rather the country look like Texas than like NY or California or Chicago, Mr. President!!!

Working together, we can make America more like our founding fathers had envisioned, more like Texas , and we will take back America !  Never stop Barking About It!!

I got my census form in the mail.  Plan to fill it out stating “One Canine” and under ethnicity “yes”.  No way the feds need to know more about me.  Right now, Obama Don’t Know Jack and he won’t know Jack!

Let’s face it, now that we have health insurance mandates and what will relate to our having health insurance but no health care, what is next?

Well, with the passage of ObamaCare, creating a vast new entitlement program like European countries have, a national sales tax of the kind near-universal in Europe is inevitable.

So now everything you purchase can be taxed again if the DemoRats have their way.

But to hear that the ObamaCare legislation was written with such lack-of-care that the pre-existing conditions for children aren’t covered is outlandish.

The $2.5 TRILLION plan is full of surprises.

Americans, we just bought a pig in a poke.  That’s right.  We have no idea what is in the bill.  Is it a pork-laden pig or a nasty rat?  I suggest it is the latter, but Congress will have to pass a lot of pork for us to pay for the ObamaCare “rat in a sack.”

So here is the bottom line:  Obama took office saying he was going to “take care of us” (and in the mafia sense, he is).

He’s providing us via our money and our government

* Health care  – er, insurance
* Housing – er, never mind – he gave the banks billions but they aren’t lending
* Clothing – oops!  The uniforms aren’t ready yet
* Food – food stamps are still around, aren’t they?
* Opportunity – sorry, that’s gone
* A legacy of debt – that’s it!  Obama is guaranteeing us a legacy of debt

By now, you also know that the ObamaCare legislation passed by Congress also eliminates all student loans offered by the private sector – with the exception of a couple of banks which got “earmarked” into the bill through the corrupt process used behind those closed Congressional and Oval Office doors.

We, mere voters and taxpayers, are subjects of King Obama and are to speak when spoken to.  We are not to question or to challenge.  We are simply to pay the bill and accept the erosion of our freedoms, our jobs, our health care system, and our independence.  It is the DemocRATic Party way.

We bought a pig in a poke, but www.NovemberIsComing.com

Jack – signing off for now