User Profile: AboveMyPayGrade


Member Since: July 12, 2011


123 To page: Go
  • [2] December 16, 2014 at 10:56pm

    Maybe the idiots in Chicago are calling for martial law, but I doubt very much that people living in Big Sky country, where blacks are very few in number, would welcome martial law just because blacks in Chicago and a few of our OTHER urban hellholes are slaughtering each other.

    And there’s my oft-repeated question on this site about this topic: Obama can DECLARE a national state of martial law, but SOMEONE is still going to have to IMPOSE and ENFORCE it, so just WHERE is Obama going to get the necessary bully boys who will DO it?

    The plain and simple fact is, most of that imposition and enforcement would have to be done by local law enforcement personnel, and if Obama were insane enough to try to impose a national state of martial law and ordered local law enforcement to enforce it, I firmly believe that the vast majority of local law-enforcement personnel would REFUSE to obey such orders – I give you Maricopa County, AZ Sheriff Joe Arpaio as Exhibit A here – so what does Obama do THEN?

    If Obama DID try to impose a national state of martial law, Americans by the TENS OF MILLIONS actually WILL be locking and loading. I seriously question where Obama is going to find the necessary bully boys who will be willing to brave all those guns to carry out such a diktat.

  • [3] December 16, 2014 at 10:47pm

    Even Chris Matthews – yet, THAT Chris Matthews – admitted years ago that one big problem with liberals is that they just don’t want to see evil.

    But that has never surprised ME. Because I think that one of the biggest reasons that liberals don’t want to admit the existence of evil is that it undercuts their belief in the perfectibility of man.

    Besides, when you don’t want to accept any moral constraints, as is increasingly the case now with contemporary liberals, then you don’t want to admit the concept of evil, because people who don’t want accountability for or judgment about their actions don’t want to admit that their actions could EVER be evil.

    Also, of course, since the concept of evil is clearly presented in the Bible, to admit the existence of evil is to open the door to the possibility that the Bible might actually be TRUE. And liberals certainly can’t have THAT.

  • [97] December 13, 2014 at 12:02pm

    Yes indeed, if black lives supposedly matter so much to those who are loudly proclaiming that fact, then why aren’t all these marchers protesting against the black-on-black bloodletting that is going on in Chicago?

    Of course, we KNOW the reason why: when blacks kill other blacks, there’s nothing in that the race hustlers like Sharpton and Jackson can profit from.

    So to the progs, black lives matter – except when they DON’T, like in Chicago.

    Oh, and by the way, should the Latinos that have flooded across our southern border as of recent start taking their OWN toll of black lives, given the fact that Latinos are now the new love interest of the Democrat Party, don’t expect these same progs to be saying anything about the killing of blacks by LATINOS, either.

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] December 13, 2014 at 11:57am

    @ Libsknowbetter

    Actually, I DON’T believe that Obama is the Anti-Christ, for the following reasons:

    because everything that I’VE read about the Anti-Christ in the Bible tells ME that the Anti-Christ will be a man of GENUINE talents, that he will be a person of skilled oratory who WON’T need a teleprompter to be able to convey it and will be fairly adept at off-the-cuff speaking as well, and that he will be a man who will be able to stand quite well on his own two feet and won’t need massive propping up by others.

    NONE of these things is true of Obama.

    Not to mention the fact that the world will WELCOME the Anti-Christ. By now, there is NO sentiment left ANYWHERE in the world, not even in America’s inner cities, to make Obama the Ruler of the World. Obama by now has totally squandered the good will he had to his credit all over the world in the early part of his presidency: he’s even more hated now in the MUSLIM world than he is HERE, for crying out loud, and even the Europeans, once entranced by him, have grown cold to him.

    By the way, the ONLY thing that your typical liberal knows better than your typical conservative is his fellow man’s anal cavity.

  • [4] December 13, 2014 at 10:05am

    And I’m sure Obama was DELIGHTED at the news of the deaths of these two American servicemen.

    Clearly, Obama WANTS to bleed our military, with the asenine ROE’s he has put on them.

    Responses (1) +
  • [21] December 13, 2014 at 10:01am

    Yet ANOTHER Darwin Award winner winnowed from the gene pool!

  • [4] December 13, 2014 at 9:56am

    I fully agree with those who have opined that Bachmann should never have gone to the party in the first place.

    What kind of treatment did she EXPECT from Obama? He treats those in his OWN caucus with contempt, so did she as a member of the opposing caucus expect any better from him? ESPECIALLY in the wake of the beatdown Obama got on November 4.

    I would never want to be at any social gathering that Obama was at.

    If Obama had HIS way, seeing as how she is a WHITE conservative, he wouldn’t be merely patronizing and condescending to Bachmann, he’d have her lined up against a pockmarked wall.

    Besides, hasn’t Bachmann figured out yet that Obama WANTS Iran to develop nukes – and hopefully, use them on Israel? And if one of more of those Iranian nukes happened to find their way to America to be detonated on American soil, Obama would be perfectly down with THAT as well – just as long as it wasn’t detonated anywhere near any place where HE was at the time.

    If Bachmann hasn’t figured out by now that we have a president who’s actively trying to bring about the destruction of the country he leads, then I don’t know what to tell her.

    Responses (4) +
  • [2] December 11, 2014 at 4:47pm

    @ sasquatch08

    I agree with much of what you stated.

    I agree that it is unlikely Obama is going to try to actually physically CONFISCATE guns, because he KNOWS the reaction he would get in this country to such an attempt. And as I’ve indicated in other posts, I think he’d have a VERY hard time dragooning the necessary forces for such an endeavor, given that those sent out on such an assignment would know that for many of them they were being sent out on a SUICIDE MISSION, and thus I believe that VERY few would actually report for such duty.

    I fully agree with you that the progs are trying to condition the population, especially the young, into fearing and hating guns – although ironically, their incitement of racial tensions in this country is working at cross-purposes to this effort, because the more they inflame non-whites to violence against whites, the more people are going to want to arm themselves. We saw this in Ferguson: as the date of release of the grand jury’s verdict drew ever closer, more and more guns were flying off the shelves of local gun vendors. And we’ve seen this nationwide: I read that applications for background checks for potential weapons purchases on Black Friday either set a record for that day or very nearly did.

    As far as trying to force people to register all their guns, there will be a LOT of resistance to THAT: just ask the government of Canada how much cooperation it got when IT initiated a national gun registry.

  • December 11, 2014 at 4:40pm

    @ draginass

    You posted, “No Obutthead will sign the nato treaty and the Rushians and Chineese will come for your guns.”

    If the treaty you’re referring to is actually that U.N. Small Arms Treaty, I believe that either Obama or someone else in his administration has ALREADY signed it.

    But it has not been ratified by the U.S. Senate, and frankly, ESPECIALLY now with Republicans about to take control of the U.S. Senate, I very strongly doubt Obama ever WILL submit it for a Senate vote.

    But if Obama tries to use this treaty, sans Senate ratification, as the basis for executive orders striking at the 2nd Amendment, THEN there’s going to be BIG trouble, and he’s going to get a LOT of defiance from the states.

    And if what you were implying is that Obama will bring foreign forces to this country to forcibly disarm this country because America’s OWN forces WON’T do such work, I believe that the moment that Obama issued such an order, a real-life James Mattoon Scott would emerge in our military, only THIS real-life JMS would do what his movie counterpart played by Burt Lancaster in the film Seven Days In May COULDN’T and successfully depose the president.

    If the Russians and Chinese were going to send troops here at Obama’s invitation to try to disarm this country, frankly, given the casualties they’d be looking at if they tried it, they would be better off to send them to try to openly topple our government and take over this country for themselves.

  • [1] December 11, 2014 at 2:00pm

    @ Los2000

    I spoke to why I think that Obama would not be able to get either the civilian law-enforcement or military communities (at least in any numbers worth talking about) behind him in such an effort in my 12:31pm response to barber2′s 11:23am post, so I don’t need to repeat that all over again, you can read it for yourself.

    As far as Katrina, I heard that those in a unit of Utah National Guardsmen who were sent to the Big Easy to help keep and restore order in the wake of Katrina explicitly told their superiors that they would NOT obey orders to disarm the locals.

    And in any case, I’ve oft-argued on this site that those in law enforcement in a liberal-dominated big-city enclave like New Orleans (or NYC, Chicago etc.) are a BAD template to use for how civilian law-enforcement in general, ESPECIALLY in much of “flyover country”, throughout this country would act if given such orders.

    I don’t see what emergency Obama could use to try to disarm the citizenry, Massive race riots? About the LAST thing that the citizenry at least in much of this country is going to agree to in such a circumstance is to give up their best means of self-defense. A jihadist attack, as you hinted at in your 1:39pm response to johnpaulkuchtajr’s 11:45am post? Same argument applies as with riots. A major economic collapse? If THAT happened, before the citizens would agree to unilateral disarmament, I think a fair number of states would SECEDE FROM THE UNION first.

  • [1] December 11, 2014 at 1:11pm


    In fact, I think NOW, in the wake of the mid-terms, that if Obama TRIED to declare a national state of martial law sometime during the remainder of his term, that even the vast majority of his OWN caucus would OPPOSE him on that.

    The plain and simple fact is, as you indicated in your 11:59am response to barber2, is that Obama has pretty well isolated himself by now (and will all but certainly only FURTHER that isolation in the months ahead). NO ONE anymore, even those in his OWN caucus, is going to go out on a limb for this guy, much less do it in a way that puts their OWN neck squarely on the chopping block.

  • [2] December 11, 2014 at 1:05pm

    “he won’t have any power to ban or restrict guns so who cares what he thinks about guns”.


    Guess it really IS true about what they say about a blind squirrel.

  • [7] December 11, 2014 at 1:04pm

    You’re forgetting, for right now, the DEMOCRATS are still in control of the Senate, which has sole power of confirmation of Obama’s nominees, and that Harry Reid did away with the filibuster for confirming presidential nominees apart from Supreme Court nominees, so there’s really nothing that the Republicans can do to STOP this guy’s confirmation if he is confirmed before the current Senate recesses.

    But as CrazyTravis stated at 12:37pm, “he won’t have any power to ban or restrict guns so who cares what he thinks about guns”.

    The only way that this nominee’s anti-gun views can POSSIBLY become public policy even if he’s confirmed by the Senate is if Obama tries to MAKE them so by executive order – and if he tries goes THERE, he’s going to have a revolution on his hands like he won’t BELIEVE.

    Responses (1) +
  • [4] December 11, 2014 at 12:44pm

    You’ve got THAT right!

    There are many MILLIONS of Americans who were NEVER gun owners before Obama became president and who probably had never even THOUGHT of being who are NOW. And I’M one of them!

    Responses (2) +
  • [12] December 11, 2014 at 12:39pm

    @ ObozoMustGo, regarding your 11:07am response to millerlight’s post:

    You stated: “miller… tyrants usually are very good gun salesmen. This is because they want all your guns, but they want YOU to pay for them before they confiscate them.”

    If what you’re implying is that OBAMA is going to make an effort to confiscate Americans’ firearms, Cavallo’s 11:24am response to you pretty well hit the nail on the head.

    And as I’ve oft-asked on this site in this realm, just WHO is Obama going to be able to dragoon who would DO the confiscating?

    Our military? NOT BLOODY LIKELY! Civilian law-enforcement? See: “Our military?”.

    Our civilian federal workforce? Well, let’s take a look at a RECENT incident involving representatives of that workforce and armed citizens, the standoff at the Bundy ranch in Nevada early this year.

    Let’s see, did the bravehearts of the feds, for all the armament they’ve acquired under Obama, fearlessly charge down the guns of the scores of armed citizens who flocked to Nevada to stand in solidarity with Cliven Bundy and in frankly open defiance of the feds? No, they BACKED DOWN INSTEAD!

    My bet is that if those forces of the feds HAD been ordered by Obama to disarm/fire upon those citizens, at least the vast majority of them would have DISOBEYED that order. In fact, I think that’s one of the biggest reasons Obama didn’t give that order: he couldn’t afford to take the chance that his OWN forces would have made him look impotent.

    Responses (7) +
  • [3] December 11, 2014 at 12:31pm

    I heartily second Sargeking’s 11:59am response to you.

    As I’ve oft-stated on this site since November 4, the martial-law ship sailed for Obama on that day, if it can even be argued that it was ever at the dock to begin with.

    And there’s STILL the question I’ve oft-asked on this site to those who have floated the martial-law meme: just WHERE is Obama going to get the bully boys who will IMPOSE and ENFORCE a national state of martial law should he be fool enough to declare one?

    As I’ve oft-stated, I think the two bodies from which Obama would MOST need support in such an endeavor are our military and civilian law-enforcement.

    Well, after Obama’s repeated insults and abuses visited on those in our military since Day 1 of his presidency, I am firmly convinced that Obama would get fairly few from that body, at least at the “boots on the ground” level where he REALLY needs them as opposed to those in the E-liner ranks at the Pentagon, to obey any such orders.

    And after the Obama administration’s meddling in Ferguson, and ESPECIALLY in the wake of the Ferguson and NYC grand jury verdicts where Obama effectively vilified the vast majority of our civilian LEO’s as racists, I am firmly convinced that he burned almost all his bridges to THAT community as well, and that like with our military, he will find VERY few takers among them to try to impose martial law, certainly among LEO’s outside our major liberal-dominated big-city enclaves.

  • December 11, 2014 at 10:26am

    In fact, it seems to me that if this funding bill actually gets to Obama’s desk, since a Democrat-controlled Senate would be AGREEING to the short-term funding of DHS, Obama would be very hard-pressed to VETO the bill, and if he DOES, I think there would be enough votes in BOTH chambers of Congress to override it. And if this funding bill IS enacted, when the battle for DHS funding beyond February comes up next year, Obama can no longer hold the operations of the REST of the federal government hostage to that battle, so the Republicans will be able at THAT point to really put the screws to Obama on funding any executive action on immigration.

    Now if this funding is bill is enacted, whether by Obama’s signature or by a override of his veto, and when the battle for DHS funding past February comes up next year, if the Republicans cave on doing anything to deny him the funds to make any executive action on amnesty a fait accompli, at THAT point, I will be joining the chorus of those screaming bloody murder at the Republicans, but for now, I’m willing to hold my fire.

    Although WHATEVER happens with the funding bill, it STILL doesn’t change my oft-stated position on this site that the main line of defense against Obama’s unconstitutional overreaches has to come from the STATES, and that Republican governors backed by their state legislatures and state law-enforcement personnel should openly defy Obama on those and DARE him to do something about it.

  • [-1] December 11, 2014 at 10:21am

    I’m not exactly thrilled at this “cromnibus bill”, but I’m also aware that there ARE political realities, the biggest one of which that the Republicans won’t be in control of both houses of Congress for another three weeks yet, and thus I tend to find myself in agreement with sdeciant when he posted at 8:35pm “The GOP will be at full strength in January. That’s the time to strike.”, and with Distelfink’s 8:34pm post in which he stated, “The real test for the GOP leadership will be January and February of 2015 when they have a majority in the Senate. After that – – - “, and Ghandi was a Republican’s 10:48pm post in which he stated, “I’m okay with it. It’s next year that matters and it’s a hole new ball game. I have no doubt. This was paddy cake, next Month it’s big league. The pubs haven’t even bee sworn in yet. The dems have the seats. New ball game come February.”, and LakeHartwellSailor’s 8:32pm post, and MrSkeptic’s 6:51am post.

    And as awake_ex_democrat pointed out at 9:21am (and this is of no small importance), “Obama has yet to actually issue any executive orders in relation to immigration. Feel free to look it up in the archives online, it’s open to the public. The only thing Obummer has done is send a memo. Last I checked, memos can’t be defunded”.And as The-Monk posted at 8:42pm, “Can’t do anything until early January anyways… let’s hope they have the common sense to do some helpful things for America.”

    (more in a subsequent post)

    Responses (2) +
  • December 11, 2014 at 9:24am

    WHO actually even READS the New York Times anymore?

    Judging by all the layoffs that rag has had as of late, that number is getting smaller with each passing day.

    The fact that it took 17 paragraphs for the Times to acknowledge who conducted the investigation was probably not even noticed by the Times’ remaining readers (those whose employment ISN’T in the media) – all nine of them.

    The same dynamic applies to The Blaze reporting on something the New York Times prints as to The Blaze reporting on something said on MSNBC: the attention that The Blaze shone on these media outlets probably brought more awareness to more people on what these outlets had been reporting than those who got it straight from the horse’s mouth.

  • December 10, 2014 at 10:56am

    “but if Barry has his way; the Emperor would stay most likely”.

    I have no doubt that Obama has the DESIRE to be Emperor, but fortunately, he doesn’t have the SMARTS to be able to pull off what would be needed to make this a fait accompli.

    Fortunately by now, Obama has pretty well alienated almost all those he would need MOST to have in support of him if he gets the fool notion to try to make himself president-for-life. He’s utterly alienated our military folks, at least at the “boots on the ground” level, which is where he would most need the military, since it is those at that level who would have to do the actual dirty work required to make him fuhrer.

    And with his administration’s involvement in Ferguson and his comments since the Ferguson and NYC grand jury verdicts indicting our nation’s law-enforcement personnel as racists, he has all but certainly lost the vast majority of what little support he may have had previously from our nation’s LEO community.

    And as barber2 noted in his reply to you, he’s now thrown the CIA under the bus, again, ANOTHER group you don’t want to have alienated if you’re planning a power play. Although regarding barber2′s comment about the Secret Service being spared this round of Democrat demagoguery, Obama ALREADY lashed out at THEM, when he cancelled the White House tours last year during the budget showdown in October – and then blamed the cancellations on that outfit. Yet ANOTHER crucial group alienated.

123 To page: Go