Thursday, February 28, 2013



Why do you suppose is it that Democrats always feel the need to lie about what their proposals are intended to do and how much good they will provide to so many. Is it because they just can't bring themselves to admit what their real intent is in putting those proposals forward? I mean, it’s like they really think we’re too stupid to know what they’re really up to. Or, are they actually delusional to the point where they’ve been able to convince themselves that what they're doing really will have some positive benefit for society? Either way we were provided with yet another sterling example of this twisted mentality just this past Wednesday from that liberal hag from California, Dianne Feinstein. She who seems to think her version of ‘gun control’ is such a commonsense idea, and who has felt it necessary to tell all manner of lies in her effort to garner support for it. She proceeded to stretch the truth nearly to the breaking point in her effort to make the case in favor of gun control during a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Supposedly this little hearing was assembled in order to further debate Feinstein’s idiotic proposal to ban what been referred to, albeit incorrectly, "assault weapons." The old girl said, "Let me now describe the key features of our new legislation, the ‘Assault Weapons Ban of 2013,’" Feinstein said Wednesday. "The bill bans the sale, transfer, importation, and manufacturing of 157 specifically named semi-automatic assault weapons." She continued, "It also bans any other assault weapon, which is defined as a semi-automatic weapon that can accept a detachable magazine and has one military characteristic, such as a pistol grip, barrel shroud, or folding stock…These features were developed for military weapons to make them more effective and efficient at killing people in close-combat situations." You have to give her credit, she's become very adept at lying about where her proposal really does. And she ignored completely the too many to count unintended consequences that would result.

During her little spiel filled with blatant falsehood and complete with photos of Sandy Hook victims behind her, Feinstein argued that the U.S. has "witnessed an increased number of these mass killings" and called semi-automatic "assault weapons" the one "common thread running through these mass shootings." She went on to make the claim that the gun ban is needed in order to prevent future tragedies. "Sadly, [Newtown] is not an anomaly," Feinstein said. "We have witnessed an increased number of these mass killings. The one common thread running through these mass shootings — from Aurora, Colorado, to Tucson, Arizona, to Blacksburg, Virginia — is that the gunman used a military-style semi-automatic assault weapon or a large capacity magazine to inflict unspeakable terror." But, as is usually the case whenever dealing with Democrat zealots, she either choose to purposely ignore the facts or, which is more likely the case, simply lie.

Because based upon a closer inspection, what we find is that the actual facts don't come anywhere near to supporting her bogus argument. And in going about demonstrating just how false her claims are, let’s begin with her claim that mass killings are on the rise in the United States. According to the Associated Press, those who study mass shootings say they are not becoming more common. "There is no pattern, there is no increase," says criminologist James Allen Fox of Boston’s Northeastern University, who has been studying the subject since the 1980s. Grant Duwe, a criminologist with the Minnesota Department of Corrections who has written a history of mass murders in America, said that while mass shootings rose between the 1960s and the 1990s, they actually dropped in the 2000s. And mass killings actually reached their peak in 1929, according to his data. He estimates that there were 32 in the 1980s, 42 in the 1990s and 26 in the first decade of the century.

Mr. Fox even goes so far as to describe the chances of being killed in a mass shooting, as being probably no greater than being struck by lightning. "Without minimizing the pain and suffering of the hundreds…who have been victimized in senseless attacks, the facts say clearly that [there] has been no increase in mass killings," Fox wrote. When clusters of incidents occur close together, he added, that likely reflects a mixture of copycatting and coincidence. Many anti-gun advocates have noted that six of the 12 deadliest shootings in U.S. history have occurred since 2007. However, mass killings, actually peaked back in 1929. Feinstein also argued that banning so-called "assault weapons" would help decrease mass shootings. However, a study by the University of Pennsylvania concluded that the law appeared to have little effect on gun violence overall, most likely because rifles are used in a small percentage of gun crimes. But such information has done little to dissuade the likes of Ms. Feinstein from achieving her goal.

And then consider this little fact also chosen by Ms. Feinstein to be ignored. Hands and feet, knifes, shotguns, and handguns were all used to kill more people than were rifles in 2010. According to FBI data, 358 people were killed by rifles that year, half that of people who were killed by "hands and feet." Finally, Feinstein argued that semi-automatic "assault weapons" were the "common thread" in mass shootings. While Newtown shooter Adam Lanza reportedly used a semi-automatic rifle during his rampage, Aurora shooter James Holmes’ AR-15 reportedly jammed. Holmes also had two Glock pistols and a shotgun, according to reports. Tucson shooter Jared Loughner reportedly used a Glock 19 pistol with an extended 30-round magazine. All magazines with more than 10 rounds would be banned under Feinstein’s bill. These are just a few examples, however, to insist that only so-called "assault weapons" are used in mass shootings would not be accurate.

As has been reported by those interested in bring facts into the light of day that Ms. Feinstein and others in her party would like to keep well hidden, Mr. Jordan Hunter, director of marketing for Daniel Defense, a company that engineers and manufactures parts, accessories and rifles for Military Small Arms and who is focused on providing small arms product solutions to our military and law enforcement community, said a semi-automatic rifle is not the weapon most commonly used in mass shootings. Hunter said, "We tracked 62 mass shootings wherein 5 or more people were either shot or killed from the early 1980’s to now; 41 times pistols were used, 12 times shotguns or some type of hunting-style rifle was used, and 9 times semi-automatic rifles were used (14 percent)." Overall, Feinstein’s claims — the basis of her gun ban — don’t appear to hold up under scrutiny. However, it may be important to note that Sen. Feinstein’s bill refers to certain types of handguns and shotguns as "assault weapons."

Take a look at the full list of weapons that would be banned under the "Assault Weapons Ban of 2013."

Rifles:All AK types, including the following: AK, AK47, AK47S, AK–74, AKM, AKS, ARM, MAK90, MISR, NHM90, NHM91, Rock River Arms LAR–47, SA85, SA93, Vector Arms AK–47, VEPR, WASR–10, and WUM, IZHMASH Saiga AK, MAADI AK47 and ARM, Norinco 56S, 56S2, 84S, and 86S, Poly Technologies AK47 and AKS; All AR types, including the following: AR–10, AR–15, Armalite M15 22LR Carbine, Armalite M15–T, Barrett REC7, Beretta AR–70, Bushmaster ACR, Bushmaster Carbon 15, Bushmaster MOE series, Bushmaster XM15, Colt Match Target Rifles, DoubleStar AR rifles, DPMS Tactical Rifles, Heckler & Koch MR556, Olympic Arms, Remington R–15 rifles, Rock River Arms LAR–15, Sig Sauer SIG516 rifles, Smith & Wesson M&P15 Rifles, Stag Arms AR rifles, Sturm, Ruger & Co. SR556 rifles; Barrett M107A1; Barrett M82A1; Beretta CX4 Storm; Calico Liberty Series; CETME Sporter; Daewoo K–1, K–2, Max 1, Max 2, AR 100, and AR 110C; Fabrique Nationale/FN Herstal FAL, LAR, 22 FNC, 308 Match, L1A1 Sporter, PS90, SCAR, and FS2000; Feather Industries AT–9; Galil Model AR and Model ARM; Hi-Point Carbine; HK–91, HK–93, HK–94, HK–PSG–1 and HK USC; Kel-Tec Sub–2000, SU–16, and RFB; SIG AMT, SIG PE–57, Sig Sauer SG 550, and Sig Sauer SG 551; Springfield Armory SAR–48; Steyr AUG; Sturm, Ruger Mini-14 Tactical Rife M–14/20CF; All Thompson rifles, including the following: Thompson M1SB, Thompson T1100D, Thompson T150D, Thompson T1B, Thompson T1B100D, Thompson T1B50D, Thompson T1BSB, Thompson T1–C, Thompson T1D, Thompson T1SB, Thompson T5, Thompson T5100D, Thompson TM1, Thompson TM1C; UMAREX UZI Rifle; UZI Mini Carbine, UZI Model A Carbine, and UZI Model B Carbine; Valmet M62S, M71S, and M78; Vector Arms UZI Type; Weaver Arms Nighthawk; Wilkinson Arms Linda Carbine.

Pistols:All AK–47 types, including the following: Centurion 39 AK pistol, Draco AK–47 pistol, HCR AK–47 pistol, IO Inc. Hellpup AK–47 pistol, Krinkov pistol, Mini Draco AK–47 pistol, Yugo Krebs Krink pistol; All AR–15 types, including the following: American Spirit AR–15 pistol, Bushmaster Carbon 15 pistol, DoubleStar Corporation AR pistol, DPMS AR–15 pistol, Olympic Arms AR–15 pistol, Rock River Arms LAR 15 pistol; Calico Liberty pistols; DSA SA58 PKP FAL pistol; Encom MP–9 and MP–45; Heckler & Koch model SP-89 pistol; Intratec AB–10, TEC–22 Scorpion, TEC–9, and TEC–DC9; Kel-Tec PLR 16 pistol; The following MAC types: MAC–10, MAC–11; Masterpiece Arms MPA A930 Mini Pistol, MPA460 Pistol, MPA Tactical Pistol, and MPA Mini Tactical Pistol; Military Armament Corp. Ingram M–11, Velocity Arms VMAC; Sig Sauer P556 pistol; Sites Spectre; All Thompson types, including the following: Thompson TA510D, Thompson TA5; All UZI types, including: Micro-UZI.

Shotguns:Franchi LAW–12 and SPAS 12; All IZHMASH Saiga 12 types, including the following: IZHMASH Saiga 12, IZHMASH Saiga 12S, IZHMASH Saiga 12S EXP–01, IZHMASH Saiga 12K, IZHMASH Saiga 12K–030, IZHMASH Saiga 12K–040 Taktika; Streetsweeper; Striker 12.

Belt-fed semiautomatic firearms:All belt-fed semiautomatic firearms including TNW M2HB.

Which, I suppose, brings us back to where it was that we started. I feel confident in saying that most of us realize what's truly underway here. It's to implement some manner of gun control, that can then essentially be used it a starting point for even stricter gun laws and the eventual confiscation of guns from law abiding citizens. The Democrats are desperate to achieve the same level of 'success' in limiting American's access to gun that they were able to achieve in seizing control of our healthcare with the ‘passage’ of Obamacare. And you all remember the number of outrageous number of lies that were told in that effort. Well this is déjà vu all over again. So as we should know by now, Democrats can get rather creative in their telling of lies and in their making all manner of claim regarding just what it is they are trying to do. It has nothing to do with some desire to increase public safety or an effort to better protect our children. And only the most foolish among us would believe that that is what’s motivating Democrats.


Wednesday, February 27, 2013



Ok, so let me see if I have this right because it really is getting a little difficult to keep up with all of Barry's lies. Apparently we now have the very guy who dreamt up this whole idea of the much talked about "sequester" thing now out there telling just about anyone who will listen to him about how unfair it all is, and about how he had absolutely nothing to do with coming up with it. According to Barry, and others of his ilk, it's all the fault of those Republicans who only care about protecting those greedy rich folks. Have I got it right? So now we're all supposed to believe that the mandatory reductions in anticipated federal spending required by the Budget Control Act that Barry "Almighty" signed into law are, why, they just are "not fair." That's what he said on Tuesday. "They’re not smart. They’re not fair. They’re a self-inflicted wound that doesn’t have to happen," Barry told workers at Newport News Shipbuilding. Well, he must have thought that they were was smart and pretty fair when he came up with the idea. Don't you think? Now all he wants to do is to run as fast and as far away from it as he can all the while blaming the whole thing on the Republicans. Typical!

In trying to make his case Barry invoked the concept of fairness twice in what was essentially nothing more than yet one more campaign speech. The second time, he used it to, of course, buttress his argument for even more taxes on the wealthy: "We can’t just cut our way to prosperity," Barry told the shipbuilders. "We can't ask seniors and working families like yours to shoulder the entire burden of deficit reduction while asking nothing more from the wealthiest and the most powerful. We're not going to grow the middle class just by shifting the cost of health care or college onto families that are already struggling, or forcing communities to lay off more teachers or cops or firefighters or shipbuilders, and then folks who are doing really well don’t have to do anything more. That’s not fair, and it's not good for the economy." Ya know, the stuff that comes out of this guy's mouth just doesn't surprise me anymore. I've been listening to his crap for more than five years and it's always the same. He maintains that he’s trying to grow the middle class when, in actuality, he’s trying to destroy it. It's my understanding that Barry has some discretion in making required cuts and that he intends making them cut as painful as possible for no other reason than to make a political point.

So what is it that Barry sees as being the only acceptable alternative to the automatic and indiscriminate spending reductions, otherwise known as the sequester? It’s pretty simply really. Because, as is always the case with this guy, Barry sees the solution to the entire problem as being nothing more than to, again, raise taxes on those, he says, can afford it. Now as we all know that's something Republicans, at least so far, have refused to go along with. And one reason for that is that they just approved tax-rate hikes demanded by Barry and his fellow Democrats as way to delay this "sequester" until 1 March. As Republicans back in Washington railed against the president's constant campaigning instead of negotiating, Barry "Almighty" told shipyard workers to "keep up the pressure" on Congress. "If you stand up and speak out, Congress will listen," he said. But on the subject of taxes, I do think that there is one segment of our population who could pay more than what they're currently paying. That would be the 50 percent that are currently paying no income tax and who can still manage to receive a rather substantial 'refund' every single year. THAT'S what's not fair! But I digress.

And something that I found to be absolutely hysterical is the fact that Barry actually described himself as being open to compromise and negotiation. Sounding ever the used car salesman, Barry said, "If the Republicans in Congress don’t like every detail of my proposal, which I don't expect them to, I’ve told them my door is open. I am more than willing to negotiate. I want to compromise. There's no reason why we can't come together and find a sensible way to reduce the deficit over the long term without affecting vital services, without hurting families, without impacting outstanding facilities like this one and our national defense." Barry also told those assembled, "I'm not interested in spin; I'm not interested in playing a blame game. At this point, all I'm interested in is just solving problems." Excuse me? But spin is all that this pathetic liar is interested in. He's only interested in playing politics, as he goes about repeating that we do not have a spending problem. And he seems to expect that even though he got his tax hikes back during the last go around, he can still demand more. Now is the time for spending cuts, significant spending cuts.

Shortly before Barry made the claim that he's not at all interested in playing a blame game, he indicated that Congress should be blamed if the sequester produces another recession: "Now, all of you, the American people, you’ve worked too hard for too long rebuilding and digging our way out of the financial crisis back in 2007 and 2008 just to see Congress cause another one." Barry said after four years as president, "you get pretty humble." Right, like every time somebody looks at Barry they see a humble guy. Not even close! "You’d think maybe you wouldn't, but actually you become more humble. You realize what you don't know. You realize all the mistakes you’ve made. But you also realize you can't do things by yourself. That's not how our system works. You’ve got to have the help and the goodwill of Congress, and what that means is you’ve got to make sure that constituents of members of Congress are putting some pressure on them, making sure they’re doing the right thing, putting an end to some of these political games." I find it as being more than just a little ironic that Barry speaks of "political games."

Barry certainly is not generating any goodwill among House Republicans. House Speaker John Boehner said on Tuesday he doesn't think the president wants to find a solution to the sequester: "The president has been traveling all over the country, and today going down to Newport News in order to use our military men and women as a prop in yet another campaign rally to support his tax hikes," Boehner told a news conference on Capitol Hill. "Now the American people know if the president gets more money, they’re just going to spend it. The fact is is that he’s gotten his tax hikes. It’s time to focus on the real problem here in Washington, and that is spending. "The president has known for 16 months that the sequester was looming out there when the super committee failed to come to an agreement. And so for 16 months the president’s been traveling all over the country holding rallies instead of sitting down with Senate leaders in order to try to forge an agreement over there in order to move a bill. We have a moved a bill in the House twice, we should not have to move a third bill before the Senate gets off their ass and begins to do something."

More and more over the course of the last few weeks I heard, and from various sources, how it is that the American people are becoming sheep, choosing to except all of this drivel as being inevitable instead of fighting against it. That just seems to be so un-American. Because if "We the People" don't pull our collective head out of the sand, and soon, and at least for long enough to recognize the fact that we on the receiving end of one of the most well orchestrated con jobs in our history, then I'm afraid we're done for. A con job, by the way, being executed by one of the most divisive and most corrupt politicians ever to hold his office. Certainly the most divisive in recent history. And if we refuse to recognize what’s going on right before our eyes Barry will have had more than enough time to complete what he once described as being the "fundamental transformation" of our country. But I wonder if there are still enough of us who actually see that as being a bad thing. I mean, I'd like to think so, but I'm nowhere near as sure as I used to be, that for sure. When I listen to people around me, I'm absolutely amazed at some of the stuff that I hear. It's scary!




Tuesday, February 26, 2013


I think it pretty safe to say that just about every thing about our current president’s drive for gun control, as well as a good many other things, is hidden by a shroud of smoke and mirrors. And something that kinda backs up that little theory of mine is the fact that on this past Monday, a Texas Republican said that Barry "Almighty's" current gun control campaign is nothing more than a complete fraud based on fake messages over Twitter. Rep. Steve Stockman accused Barry of trying to make support for his position look stronger than what it really is by flooding Twitter with messages from all manner people who simply don't exist. "Obama's anti-gun campaign is a fraud," Stockman said. "Obama's supporters are panicking and willing to do anything to create the appearance of popular support, even if it means trying to defraud Congress," he added. "I call upon the president to denounce this phony spam campaign."

Stockman said that in response to Barry's call for people to start tweeting their congressman in support of gun control legislation, he received just 16 tweets. But he said that all of these messages were identical, and that a closer look at them revealed that only six were from real people. Imagine that! "The other 10 are fake, computer-generated spambots," his office said in a press release. As evidence, he said these 10 tweets use default graphics and names, and have not engaged in any interaction with other people. Two of the tweets were sent at nearly the same time, and both follow just one person: Brad Schenck, Barry's former digital strategist. Look, I think it's pretty obvious what we have going on here. But you know, if Barry really thinks that his gun control measures were a good idea why would he feel it was necessary to trick us into going along with him? Why resort to such juvenile antics as bogus Tweets?

Stockman also added that only one of the six tweets was from a real person who is a constituent of his in Texas. "If you are a real person who contacted us about your support for the president's anti-gun campaign, we are listening," Stockman said. "We do not agree with you, but we appreciate your sincere opinions and encourage you to continue to contact us." He went on to say, "But the vast majority of the president's supporters have no feelings because they fake profiles from spammers." Stockman said Barry's anti-gun activists "are trying to defraud Congress using the same scam that sells 'male enhancement pills.'" I rather like the analogy put forth by Rep. Stockman because I think it's pretty safe to say that what Barry is trying to do to us is pretty much the equivalent to what those who take those little blue pills hope to do. Let's face it, Barry has been busy screwing us ever since he first diddy-bopped into the Oval Office.






I must admit, he's already worse than even I thought he would be. In the past I've accused Mr. Kerry-Heinz of being the man who knew too little, but it's even worse than I feared, he knows absolutely nothing. This guy has absolutely no business being our Secretary of State, which is, as bizarre as it sounds, most likely precisely the reason that Barry selected him. You see, America's new top diplomat has already exhibited more than just a little confusion as he begins a two-week trip the major focus of which was supposed to be on coalescing international action on Syria not on his inability to pronounce those countries to be involved. Kerry-Heinz, on Monday, was finally able to correctly name Kazakhstan as the venue for multinational talks this week on the Iranian nuclear standoff, five days after a fumble in his first speech as America’s top diplomat appeared to fuse the Central Asian country with its neighbor, Kyrgyzstan.

Speaking in London on the first stop of his inaugural foreign trip as secretary of state, Kerry-Heinz referred to the "P5+1 talks with Iran that take place in Kazakhstan." Tuesday’s meeting in Almaty brings together Iranian officials and representatives of the five permanent members of the Security Council – the U.S., Russia, China, Britain and France – plus Germany. During a February 20 speech at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, Kerry-Heinz lauded State Department employees who, he said, "support democratic reforms in Kyrzakhstan and Georgia." And in an effort to prevent Kerry-Heinz’s from looking anymore stupid than we all know that he is, the State Department in its transcript of the speech corrected it. Both the department’s transcript and closed captioning on the video clip render the phrase as "support democratic reforms in Kyrgyzstan and Georgia."

Typically, State Department transcripts of briefings and speeches include any errors as delivered, with an asterisk and a correction at the bottom. Kyrgyzstan is a country of 5.5 million people in Central Asia, slightly smaller than South Dakota, and home to the Manas air base, which since 2001 has been an invaluable facility in support of coalition operations in Afghanistan. Kazakhstan is its much larger northern neighbor, four times the size of Texas and with a population of 17.5 million. Neither is a free democracy, although Freedom House in its 2013 annual report grades Kyrgyzstan as "partly free" and Kazakhstan as "not free." Along with Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan, they made up the Central Asian component of the Soviet Union before its collapse led to their independence as separate sovereign nations. But hey, to guy like Kerry-Heinz that's just trivial 'stuff.'

Before succeeding Hitlery Clinton as secretary of state, the less than brilliant Kerry-Heinz was a longstanding member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, even serving as its chairman for the past four years. Which just goes to prove that the primary qualification for being awarded a committee chairmanship is to simply have the luxury of having been able to hang around forever. Also of note regarding the "Kyrzakhstan" slip was the fact that most of our state-controlled media outlets reporting on the speech failed to mention it at the time, or since, although the speech was pretty widely covered. A university spokesman said Monday that 68 media credentials had been issued for Kerry’s speech. Kerry’s gaffe did make headlines in Kyrgyzstan, however, noted both by the independent AKI Press agency and also by the national Kabar news agency, which ran a Voice of Russia dispatch on the issue.

Picking up on that report, national radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh commented during his show, "Can you imagine if George W. Bush had done this? Here it’s Monday and we’re just now finding out about this. This happened five days ago." As many of you can remember, President Bush was frequently mocked for verbal gaffes, including some relating to geography and foreign general knowledge. While running for the presidency he called Greeks "Grecians" and was derided for being unable to name leaders in four hotspots – Pakistan, India, Taiwan and Chechnya. In 2001 he described Africa as "a nation that suffers from incredible disease." Stories about Bush stayed in the news for days, sometime weeks at a time. This would be funny if it weren't so serious, because every time Kerry-Heinz makes himself a laughing stock it makes America just a little less credible. And thus, things get just get a little more dangerous.

And Barry "Almighty" has also made his fair share of stupid gaffes that make him, too, pretty hard to take seriously as a supposed world leader. Visiting Burma last November he repeatedly mispronounced the name of Aung San Suu Kyi, one of the world’s most famous human rights figures. Standing alongside a woman he called "an icon of democracy," Barry called her Aung Yan Suu Kyi four times. And it will come as no surprise that the White House transcript didn't reflect the error. A year earlier, Barry referred to an attack on "the English Embassy" in Tehran before correcting himself and adding, "the embassy of the United Kingdom." England is a component of Great Britain and has not maintained its own diplomatic missions for centuries. And as we remember, he also made the claim that there were 58 states and that Hawaii was part of Asia.

It's sad, but whenever you have someone as inept as Kerry-Heinz so obviously is, and in the position that he's now in, it just makes it all that much more difficult for America to have any sort of a positive influence in a world that becomes more dangerous every single day. And he is a direct reflection of the president that he serves. And I tell you something else, if the world does in fact descend into the chaos that is now being predicted by so many, in whatever world history it is that may some day be, eventually, written, it will very clearly show that it was the election of one particular American president that can be said to have marked the point at which that chaos, while it had already begun prior to his election, accelerated considerably. By his essentially reducing America to a paper tiger he made it possible for those eager to fill the void left behind, free to exert their own less-than-positive, and less freedom supporting, influence.

Monday, February 25, 2013




Ya know, until all of this talk about the Second Amendment started, I guess never realized just how many constitutional scholars we seem to have in our entertainment industry. And there now seems to be yet another voice entering the argument and it comes from that renowned expert on the U.S. Constitution as well as American History. It's none other than hip hop mogul Russell Simmons. According to Mr. Simmons, people just don’t need to have guns in their homes as they did back during Revolutionary War days. "Guns are not for people to have in their houses," Simmons said in an interview with ReutersTV published on Feb. 20. "That’s an old idea from when ‘the Redcoats are coming,’ or whatever. That’s old. So that’s a silly argument, but now I have to accept that’s the way people think."

Simmons advocates a gun buyback program similar to those that were implemented in England and Australia. "What should be done is like Australia and England -- buy back all the guns and that’s it. There’s no reason to have a gun to kill anything," Simmons said. "If we’re all this Christian nation, then why would we kill animals for sport? So an automatic weapon, you don’t hunt with an automatic weapon." This punk, Simmons, is the founder and former CEO of DefJam Recordings, the hip hop record company he founded in 1984. Now I'm sure old Russell here isn't the least bit concerned with how this country is currently coming apart at the seams, or with the fact that it's the policies of his bro Barry which are the primary cause. He's just another moron who sees himself as somehow being special.

Why is it that every time we hear from one of these imbecilic entertainment types, all we ever get from them is more of the same idiotic drivel that amounts to nothing more than do as I say not as I do nonsense. Because I'd be willing to bet that our little hip-hop genius here, has got more than a few guns in HIS house. But hey, thas different, right? He has to protect his sef, ya know what I'm sayin. Don't you just love it when these scumbag entertainment boobs feel that they are somehow able to take it upon themselves to dictate how the rest of us must live our lives. And I always find it pretty amazing that this group of individuals, most of whom weren't even bright enough to graduate from high school, actually perceive themselves as being someone that, those of us who did graduate, should be listening to.


Robert Menendez, Senator from New Jersey and yet another Democrat, who in the spirit of Ted Kenney, just can't seem to keep his private parts firmly inside his pants, has now come out and made the idiotic claim that source of all his current troubles is not his own inappropriate behavior, but is instead that sinister right-wing conspiracy or what he refers to as, those "right-wing sources." He claims they are falsely claiming that he improperly helped a Florida campaign donor. Menendez, 59, recently pulled out the old race card while speaking to a crowd of 300 folks at a Black History Month celebration at Shiloh Baptist Church in Trenton, and recounted his own struggle against discrimination during a political career that led him to become the first ethnic minority from New Jersey to serve in the U.S. Senate.

"Now we face anonymous, faceless, nameless individuals from right-wing sources seeking to destroy a lifetime of work," said Menendez, the son of Cuban immigrants. "And their smears are false. I have worked too hard and too long in the vineyards, too long with my hands, for the harvest to be soured." Well, ya know, if there's anyone anywhere who would know a thing or two about smear tactics that are false, it would be a Democrat, and this Democrat in particular. Because old Bobby, here, has made more than his fair share of what were nothing more than baseless smears throughout the years. Let's face it, it’s not any faceless or nameless accusers who are responsible here, but apparently he doesn't see that he's guilty of anything. Which is typical for Democrats. They're always pure as the wind driven snow.

"Chester the Molester" Menendez was re-elected to a second six-year term this past November, and what he was referring to here are the growing number of media reports that he had done a few favors for Salomon Melgen, a Florida eye doctor who, it just so happens, donated more than $700,000 last year to the senator’s campaign and to other Senate Democrats, at least according to the Washington Post. Man, he must be one Hell of an eye doctor. Bobby back in 2009 and also in 2012 had raised concerns with top officials at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services about the agency’s finding that the doctor had overbilled the government by nearly $9 million, according to the Post. I guess that then made him able to afford handing over 700 grand to Democrats.

It was back on Jan. 29, that the FBI, along with officials from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) inspector general’s office, raided Melgen’s office in West Palm Beach, Florida. It was all part of a probe into allegations of Medicare fraud, according to a person with knowledge of the investigation who asked not to be identified in discussing the matter. A day after the raid, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a watchdog group, released a letter it sent in July to the FBI and Justice Department asking them to investigate accusations raised via e-mail by a tipster. The tipster also claimed that little Bobby Menendez had engaged in some rather unsavory sexual activities with underage prostitutes while ‘vacationing’ with Melgen in the Dominican Republic.

Until recently, Menendez hasn’t publicly responded to the allegations beyond a Feb. 8 interview with Univision, a Spanish- language television station. "No one has bought me," he told Univision. "No one. Ever." He called the prostitution allegations false and has denied all wrongdoing. Supposedly his approval rating among voters has fallen to 36 percent, a 15-point drop since January. Which for New Jersey is something that I find pretty amazing. Usually in order for voters of that very blue state to turn on a Democrat it's got to be because of something far more serious than merely having sex with underage girls, hookers or otherwise. Like I've said before, for Democrats such behavior is usually viewed as being a resume enhancer. Hell such behavior worked for Teddy Kennedy for decades!

FBI agents also are looking into Menendez’s role in pushing for enforcement of a port-security contract in the Dominican Republic held by a company in which Melgen is an investor, also according to the Washington Post. Melgen stood to gain a substantial windfall if the contract, which calls for operating X-ray scanners to screen cargo at the country’s ports, was enforced, the Post said. Following the FBI raid, Georgia Senator Johnny Isakson, the top Republican on the chamber’s six-member Ethics Committee, said the panel would review the matter. Menendez said he wrote a $58,500 check last month to reimburse Melgen for two 2010 trips the lawmaker took to the Dominican Republic on Melgen’s private jet once the senator’s staff discovered the trips hadn’t been paid for earlier.

Look, the issue of the Medicare fraud aside, such perverted behavior as cavorting around with underage prostitutes by a sitting U.S. Senator is something that simply should not be tolerated. But such things matter very little to most Democrat voters and are usually overlooked by those who seem to be much more interested in making sure that they're able to continue receiving their government check every month than with the inappropriate behavior of one of their senators. They're only too happy to accept whatever excuses are offered up. After all, we wouldn't want to take the chance of doing anything that might end up jeopardizing the ability of the Democrats to maintain their majority in the Senate, now would we? Hey, it's all about priorities, here. And really, I'm sure those underage girls were willing, right?


In today's Hollywood, which has the well deserved reputation of being a hotbed of liberal lunacy, it's pretty rare to ever hear any references being made to God. But as odd as it may seem that did happen, sort of, during the red carpet lead up to last night's Oscars, that silly annual gathering of fellow narcissists who seem to be of the opinion that their God given talent, is anything but. And while this supposed awards show has over time morphed into what is essentially nothing more than a blatantly political event, in terms of the selection of nominees and winners, red carpet interviews, usually the scene for bland discussions of clothing choices, with any mention of politics is actually something of a rarity.

But that didn’t stop Dustin "Midget Boy" Hoffmann from explicitly endorsing a political position in his silly red carpet interview with none other than CNN’s resident ratings loser, Piers Morgan. "I was watching you on television, and I think you said something about turning fifty," Hoffmann said to Morgan. "I’m not turning 50. I’m 47! I’m turning 48," Morgan protested. Hoffmann joked, "I know. Nevertheless, that means I could be your father." And then, "So treat me with a modicum of respect." Morgan that asked, "Have you had a little shot of tequila before you came out?" To which Hoffmann responded, "No, no, I thought I’d have a little bit of vodka this time," Hoffmann responded.

A bout of what was nothing more than the typical idiotic blather about what it feels like to be nominated for an Oscar seven times followed, after which Morgan asked the question that must have touched a subject that is near and dear to Hoffmann’s heart and that then resulted in a rather odd, bizarre even, exchange between the two. "Do you still get starstruck?" Morgan asked. "I feel extraordinary that I’m talking to you!" Hoffmann replied. "And God bless you for what you’re saying about gun control!" Morgan responded, "Well, thank you. I’ll have to have you onto my show sometime." "Yes!" Hoffmann said. So I guess in that case we’d have one brain dead liberal being interviewed by another.

I think we can assume that should Hoffmann ever make actually make an appearance on Morgan’s show nothing of any actual substance would be discussed, what would most likely take place would most likely be nothing more than a mutual love fest. Morgan, would then have as a guest a true ally and another anti-gun lunatic and hater of the Second Amendment. It would much different than what has transpired with guests such as Breitbart’s Ben Shapiro to radio host Alex Jones. Morgan has done his best to both lie and distort the facts all in what has been his effort to justify, in his twisted opinion, the need stricter gun laws that would be more in line with those that they have over in jolly old England. Laws that have failed miserably in what they were intended to do.

Saturday, February 23, 2013


While everybody is used to hearing from the NRA and any number of various other conservative groups regarding the need to protect our Second Amendment, new and, what I might have thought to be rather unexpected, voices seem to have now immerged to also now enter into the argument. Several of those voices were heard at a Friday event billed as a Black History Month press conference. And one of those voices, in particular, was that of Ms. Star Parker. Ms. Parker made the statement that African Americans in Congress who support gun control efforts by Barry "Almighty" and his administration should consider the history of blacks in this country and of people around the globe who were oppressed, including being banned from owning firearms.

Ms. Parker is the founder and president of the Center for Urban Renewal and Education (CURE) and was recently asked, "There are a lot of African Americans and people of color in Congress who are backing Obama’s plan for gun control. What would you say to them because today [at this event] it was revealed that there is a direct effect on the African American community with this gun control?" Her response was simple and very much to the point. She said, "Well, I'd say they need to revisit their history – black history, black slave history, black Jim Crow history -- and they should visit the histories of other tyrant nations where we had people like Hitler and Stalin and Mao." Although she is correct in her assessment, we all know the penchant those pushing gun control have for rewriting history.

She went on to say, "Every single time there is someone who wants to take away all other rights of the people, the first right they take away is your right to bear arms." Adding, "I believe that the Black community, or the Congressional Black Caucus is absolutely out of step with black America today on this issue." And how can you argue with that? You can’t! Whether you’re black, white, brown or red, Ms. Parker makes an excellent point, and one that bears repeating by many more within the various minority communities. To hear such comments coming from leaders of the NRA is one thing, but to hear them coming from the likes of Ms. Parker, I think, is something else entirely. And I think that her willingness, as well as the willingness of others, to make those comments adds much to the discussion.

Several speakers at the event in Washington, D.C., defended the Second Amendment and its guarantee that American citizens have the right to keep and bear firearms. They all emphasized the same point that the government should not infringe on that right, including Ken Blackwell, chairman of the board of the Center for Urban Renewal and Education (CURE) and a board member of the National Rifle Association. "That right to protect one’s life and liberty is a God-given right," Blackwell said in a statement. "It is a gift from God, not a grant from government." Frankly, I find it somewhat depressing that someone would actually have to point out such a thing, and it demonstrates just how far it is that we have managed to stray from what the Founders provided to us.

Ms. Parker said that her organization held the event to allow black leaders a forum from which they would be free "to express our deep concern of efforts currently under way to limit our God-given and constitutional right of self-defense." The gun control laws that banned or put restrictions on African Americans from owning firearms in the United States are documented on a timeline from 1640 to 1995 by the National Rifle Association’s Institute of Legislative Action and can be found here. Gun control dates back to laws before and after the Civil War that prohibited or restricted African Americans from owning firearms, a group of black leaders said Friday at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. "History is [rife] with examples." Those advocating more gun laws pay little attention to history.

There’s a direct correlation between gun control and black people control," Stacy Swimp, president and CFO of the Frederick Douglass Society, also said at the event. Swimp compared the call for universal background checks for gun purchase to the time when blacks were required to register with the government. "The first gun laws were put into place to register black folks, to make sure that they would know who we were – that we could not defend ourselves," Swimp said. "I think if you look right after the Emancipation Proclamation – what was going on down in the southern states, it’s very clear that the Dixiecrats wanted to disarm black people to keep us from defending ourselves against the Klansman, who were murdering white and black Republicans to control the ballot box," Swimp said. "There’s a direct correlation between gun control and black people control."

Ken "The Hutch" Hutcherson, former linebacker with the NFL’s Dallas Cowboys and pastor of the Antioch Bible Church was also in attendance and said in an interview, "gun control is about controlling people." He was asked, "From what was said today, it seems in fact that gun control hurts the African American community." He answered by saying, "It absolutely does, there’s no doubt about it." He went on to say, "It began that way with history. You see why there was so much gun control earlier in life – in American life – because it controlled African Americans." And in sounding the very common theme that we have heard from other defenders of the Second Amendment, he said, "Gun control is about controlling people." And that’s really the bottom line here.

He went on to question those within the black community regarding their willingness to trust, and their willingness to go along with their supposed leaders. He implied that that trust may be misplaced. What he said was, "We need to understand that those who need to be trained, who need to be armed is the African American community, and I don’t understand why any African American that is there in Congress right now would have the slightest thought about taking guns away from African Americans. We need them." I think most of us would agree that the Second Amendment should be considered as being our last line of defense again tyranny. And my friends, we never been as close to living in tyranny as we are at this particular point in time. Democrats sense that this is their time, they are determined to succeed. We must ALL gather together to defeat them.

Friday, February 22, 2013



It sounds like it all started out rather innocently enough but evidently a fella by the name of Mike Fayette broke some rather important rules that I can only assume he didn't know even existed. That's always the danger one runs whenever dealing with liberals. You see, Mr. Fayette is, or was, an engineer at the New York State Transportation Department, and his little sleigh ride to Hell began with what, he must have thought at the time, was a harmless interview that he gave to a reporter from The Adirondack Daily Enterprise. In this interview, Mr. Fayette actually praised Gov. Andrew Cuomo and the transportation workers who had labored to repair roads and bridges washed out by Tropical Storm Irene back in 2011. No matter that he was offering praise, his supervisors said he had not been authorized to speak to the press, and before Mr. Fayette knew what hit him, they moved to fire him, but he chose to retire instead and left in February. And this story might have died right there, but for the rather bizarre reaction from the Cuomo administration to an article about the strange scenario that appeared on Wednesday of this week in The Daily Enterprise.
On Thursday, absolutely livid that some engineer from the Adirondacks was now being portrayed as yet another victim of Cuomo’s rather well known penchant for control, a top aide to the governor, some boob by the name of Howard B. Glaser, took to the airwaves to defend the honor of his boss. He did so by actually reading aloud Mr. Fayette’s disciplinary history, on the radio, describing him as a troubled employee who had previously been penalized for having an improper relationship with a subordinate, misusing his work e-mail to send sexually explicit messages and using his state-assigned vehicle for personal errands. "It is not the policy of this administration to terminate people solely for improper contact with the press," said Mr. Glaser, adding, "If that were the issue here, the only issue, there would not have been a termination." So, what, I guess we're to believe it was just all some strange coincidence? Needless to say, Mr. Fayette, who had worked for the state for 29 years, was stunned. Are we really expected to believe that after 29 years it was decided at this particular moment in time to fire this "troubled employee?" Sorry, I'm not buying it!
"It’s absolutely outrageous," Fayette said on Thursday. "The governor needs to say, ‘Hey, look, guys, you’re embarrassing me, you’re embarrassing the state, you’re going after this guy like he’s freaking killed somebody.’ " Mr. Fayette said he believed Mr. Glaser broke the law by disclosing his record. "If anything, someone should be investigating that clown," Mr. Fayette said. "You can’t do that. That is so over the line it’s not funny." He added, "He’s just daring me to hire an attorney and sue him." Glaser, acting all indignant and such, countered Fayette's threat to sue, by saying that all of the information he disclosed on WGDJ-AM, in Albany, had come from a document that was a public record. "Some in the press were breathless to fit this incident into a favored narrative about the Cuomo administration control of information," Mr. Glaser wrote in an e-mail. "But the facts turn out to be inconvenient to that tired story line. If reporters had taken the time to get the whole story, a much different picture would have emerged of a quirky but basically routine personnel matter." Well, he sure told them!
This rather idiotic case began back in August, when a reporter at the newspaper, writing a series of articles on the first anniversary of Tropical Storm Irene, asked to speak to Transportation Department workers. And when a spokeswoman for the department chose not to respond, according to the newspaper, the reporter contacted Mr. Fayette, who was the agency’s resident engineer in Essex County. Mr. Fayette, 55, had grown up on a farm near the Canadian border and had worked for the department since college graduation. He agreed to an interview, saying he feared the newspaper would otherwise accuse the department of "blowing off" its request. The resulting article, which was published on Aug. 30 with the headline "D.O.T. Engineer on Irene: ‘We Were Up for It,’ " suggested that the department had worked valiantly after the storm. Six days later, Mr. Fayette received a letter ordering him to attend a "disciplinary interrogation" in Albany, which he said he later found out was a result of the interview he had granted. He was soon told that the state would seek to fire him but he later decided to simply retire instead.
Cuomo administration officials said no one in the governor’s office had known about Mr. Fayette’s case until it was reported in the paper. Right, and if you believe that I've got some ocean front property in Arizona I can sell you dirt cheap. As for the Transportation Department, whose silence in response to an inquiry from a reporter set off this rather idiotic chain of events? Its communications office did not respond to a request for comment on Thursday. This is the way liberal psychotics like Cuomo operate. Through no fault of his own this guy Fayette was simply made an example of so that others will think twice about speaking before being "authorized" to do so. And it's hard to question his motives, he saw agreeing to the interview as way to avoid any perception that his department was trying to dodge the press. And what does he get for his efforts? He gets to be unemployed. Ah well, like they say, no good deed goes unpunished. The bottom line here is that Cuomo's a dick and those who work for him are dicks. He's got New York as screwed up as Barry as has the rest of the country. Therefore, I guess, he thinks of himself as deserving to be president.


It was duriing what was described as being a "discussion" which took place on Thursday between Barry "Almighty" and MSNBC host Al "Bull Horn" Sharpton that, according to POLITICO, Barry made the idiotic comment that the only thing holding an otherwise deeply divided Republican Party together is its love of helping the rich. Barry is reported to have said, "My sense is that their basic view is that nothing is important enough to raise taxes on wealthy individuals or corporations, and they would rather see [billions in sequester cuts to social programs]… That’s the thing that binds their party together at this point," the president said, referring to the spending cuts scheduled to take effect March 1." Barry continued by actually making the claim that "75 percent" of Americans supports his so-called "balanced approach." Right, his balanced approach which essentially consists of nothing more than higher taxes. He later attacked Republicans for saying that there needs to be more spending cuts, stating that their arguments are bogus.

Actually what's really bogus is the fact that Barry has any interest, whatsoever, in getting people working again, getting our economy back on track, and resolving our huge debt problem brought about by his radical spending. Let's face it, what self respecting economist, and I'm not talking about some Paul Krugman type here, can look at any of the policies that have been put in place since January 2009 and say with confident the intent behind those polices was to get our economy out of the ditch and to put people back to work? It's been completely the opposite! Because instead of getting more people working all that Barry has accomplished is getting more folks on unemployment, more folks on food stamps, more people on some for of disability and more people out of the work force. And it's because of his sheer recklessness in the area of spending that we had our credit rating downgraded for the first time in our history, and that too he tries to blame on the Republicans. People need to be able to keep more of their money so that they can spend it.

And this stupid, sophomoric comment that he made about the Republicans, especially coming from the guy who bailed out Wall Street and the top 6 banks in the country, is more than just a bit hypocritical. Which is really nothing new for this lying sack of dog squeeze. These same banks had over a 100 people at each facility that got over a million bucks in bonuses. He bailed out GM and then gave the proceeds to the Unions and shafted the stock holders. It was the folks who had GM stock in their 401 retirement program who essentially took it in the shorts. The money was always to go to them first and then any left over was to be paid to venders and then to the union. There are bankruptcy laws in place for just such an occasion which Barry choose to ignore, overrule or manipulate, so that he could better help out his union buds. So I'm always more than a little surprised whenever I see some poll that points out that a majority of the American people actually approve of his style of dealing with the economy. Because he's working to destroy it!

Barry, and the Democrat Party as a whole for that matter, continues to insist that it is they and they alone who are the rightful guardians of the middle class. But in what is yet another example of truth being stranger than fiction, nothing could be further from the truth. They are the ones that those of us in the middle class need to be most wary of. Because they do not have our best interest near and dear to their hearts. We are considered as being nothing more than a piggybank. At least for the time being, until they finally manage to drive us all onto some form of government assistance. So while he claims that the Republicans love helping out the rich folks, the actual truth of the matter, and what is more than just a little scary, is that it's the Republicans who are the only thing standing between the middle class and Barry when it come to raising our taxes. And if they cave, which is what we have watched them do more times that we care to count, it'll be like a vampire lunging out of the shadows with Barry going straight for our collective throat.

Thursday, February 21, 2013



If there was ever any doubt that John Kerry-Heinz would prove to be a major disaster as Secretary of State, those doubts have now been erased. Because in his first public address since assuming his current position, Kerry-Heinz, who I also believe spent a very brief yet very personally rewarding time in Vietnam, told an audience of students and faculty at the University of Virginia to "be ready to join" him and Barry "Almighty" in curbing the potential threat of ‘climate change.’ So 'climate change' is now the number one challenge in need of being addressed by our State Department. Really? Anyway, Kerry-Heinz droned on, as only he can, saying, "We as a nation must have the foresight and the courage to make the investments necessary to safeguard the most sacred trust we keep for our children and our grandchildren, and that is an environment not ravaged by rising seas, deadly superstorms, devastating droughts and the other hallmarks of a dramatically changing climate." Kerry-Heinz added, "President Obama is committed to moving forward on that, and so am I, and so must you be ready to join us in that effort." Actually, what Barry is truly committed to is seeing just how much money he can waste under the false pretense of 'global warming.'

In his recent State of the Union address, which was really nothing more than another campaign speech, Barry also mentioned the potential consequences of what is the fictional manmade apocalypse of climate change, and what he views as being the necessity of trying to do all we can to prevent it. But even if it is occurring, those who really should know, say it would be impossible to effect it in any meaningful way. But Barry is of a different opinion, saying, "Now, it's true that no single event makes a trend. But the fact is, the 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15. Heat waves, droughts, wildfires, floods, all are now more frequent and more intense." He continued, "We can choose to believe that Superstorm Sandy, and the most severe drought in decades, and the worst wildfires some states have ever seen were all just a freak coincidence. Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science and act before it's too late." I thought it was a bit of a stretch for Barry to make the blatantly false claim that there is an "overwhelming judgment of science" that backs up the 'climate change' theory. Because it’s simply not true. The manipulation of data that has taken place in the continuing effort to somehow prove it's taking place, is incredible

But the actual facts never seem to quite sink in with these zealots, these practitioners of what has become the equivalent of a cannibalistic type of religion. Kerry-Heinz said, "And let’s face it – we are all in this one together. No nation can stand alone. We share nothing so completely as our planet. When we work with others – large and small – to develop and deploy the clean technologies that will power a new world, we’re also helping create new markets and new opportunities for America’s second-to-none innovators and entrepreneurs to succeed in the next great revolution." Kerry-Heinz called for collective action to deal with this problem. "So let’s commit ourselves to doing the smart thing and the right thing and truly commit to tackling this challenge," he said. "Because if we don’t rise to meet it, rising temperatures and rising sea levels will surely lead to rising costs down the road. If we waste this opportunity, it may be the only thing our generations are remembered for. We need to find the courage to leave a far different legacy." And on he went, "We cannot talk about the unprecedented changes happening on our planet without talking about the unprecedented changes in its population – another great opportunity at our fingertips." Pure unadulterated drivel!

And then Kerry-Heinz kinda veered off in another direction altogether as he went on to say that the greatest challenge to U.S. foreign policy is not an emerging China or even Middle East instability. What it is, of course, is the United States Congress. Ever the patriot, Kerry-Heinz cited the adage that "we can't be strong in the world unless we are strong at home." He called the budget impasse a threat. The State Department has said that automatic spending cuts would jeopardize $2.6 billion in aid, security assistance and other international programs. Kerry-Heinz said legislators need to avoid "senseless cuts." Senseless Cuts? Otherwise, he said his credibility as a diplomat might be damaged. His credibility as a diplomat? He's joking, right? He didn't possess any credibility as a U.S. Senator the whole damn time he was a member of that august body! Kerry-Heinz said, "Think about it: It's hard to tell the leadership of any number of countries that they must resolve their economic issues if we don't resolve our own." Jesus! No shit Sherlock! How did this idiot get this job? Rhetorical question. It's the Democrats who have been determined in their effort, including Kerry-Heinz himself, to stymie every single attempt to resolve those economic issues to which this freakin idiot refers!

In his remarks, Kerry-Heinz said he chose the University of Virginia as the location for his first public address because American foreign policy has effects on the everyday lives of Americans in a globalized world. "The reason is very simple. I came here purposefully to underscore that in today’s global world, there is no longer anything foreign about foreign policy," Kerry-Heinz said. "More than ever before, the decisions that we make from the safety of our shores don’t just ripple outward. They also create a current right here in America." What a crock of shit! Sadly this is the cockamamie mentality of those who are now in charge of our country. A country that is literally going down the tubes on just about every level. Economically, financially, morally, you name it, and what morons like Kerry-Heinz seem to be the most worried about is something we could in no way fix, even it were really taking place. But look, how many of us really believe that all this talk about 'climate change' is out of some genuine concern for the planet? The left is seeking a way to destroy the economic system that has been a boon to the entire planet. And with Barry as our president and with another 4 years to go, they see this as being their prime opportunity. They're determined not to waste it.


Wednesday, February 20, 2013


Our 'Dear Beloved Leader,' or he who has been described by some as being their "Lord and Savior," Barack Obama, recently made what I thought was a rather funny claim, and he was even able to so with a straight face. And by funny, I don’t really mean haha. Anyway, he made the claim that since he has been president both parties have worked together to cut the federal deficit by $2.5 Trillion. Now, I’m not sure how he comes up with that number because I know the national debt has increased nearly $6 Trillion during that period same time, which is actually more than it increased under all presidents from George Washington through Bill Clinton, combined. "Over the last few years both parties have worked together to reduce our deficits by more than $2.5 trillion," Barry said in a speech at the White House in which he called on Congress to avoid modest automatic cuts in anticipated spending that are set to begin on March 1.
Describing spending cuts that I can only assume must have taken place somewhere in the deep recesses of his narcissistic mind, Barry said, "More than two thirds of that was through some pretty tough spending cuts." Now I don't really recall any spending cuts having been made at anytime during Barry’s tenure thus far, neither of the "pretty tough" variety or any other kind. Barry continued with his rather bizarre fictional account of fiscal prowess, saying, "The rest of it was through raising taxes, tax rates, on the wealthiest one percent of Americans. And together, when you take the spending cuts and the increased tax rates on the top one percent, it puts us more than half way to the goal of $4 trillion in deficit reduction that economists say we need to stabilize our finances." I really don’t have the slightest idea what he might be talking about, and I doubt he does either. After all, I’m sure it get quite difficult to keep track of all his lies.
It was back in August 2011, when Barry and House Speaker John Boehner cut a deal to give Barry an additional $2.4 Trillion in borrowing authority, and Barry was able to blow through that entire sum by Dec. 31. 2012. That’s freakin amazing! The legislation that Barry and Boehner agreed to back in 2011 also said that starting two years later, for you liberals that would be fiscal 2013, Congress and the president would begin cutting about $1.2 Trillion from the anticipated spending that the government would do in the following ten years. Automatic across-the-board cuts, the much talked about sequestration, in anticipated federal spending—split between defense and domestic spending--were supposed to begin on Jan. 1, if, by that date, Congress and Barry had not agreed to an alternative package of equivalent cuts. So here were are again, essentially at the same spot we were back in August of 2011.
But instead, Barry and Congress made the so-called "fiscal cliff" deal, which increased federal taxes, but as is usually the case, postponed the automatic cuts in anticipated spending until March 1, and reduced them from about $109 billion for this year to $85 billion. However, the actual amount of those automatic cuts is actually, in the big scheme of things, a rather miniscule $44 Billion. Barry’s claim to have made spending cuts actually appears pretty ludicrous when you put it up against the actual facts. And the fact is that when he was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009, the federal government’s debt was $10,626,877,048,913.08. As of the close of business on Feb. 14, 2013, the federal government’s debt was up to $16,540,800,290,147.46. Thus, since Barry has been president, the federal debt has increased $5,913,923,241,234.38. So I’m just not seeing where it might be that he cut $2.5 Trillion.
The federal debt was last below $5.913 trillion back on Feb. 1, 2002, during the time when that evil George W. Bush was still president. Federal spending and federal deficits have both increased sharply under Barry "Almighty." In fiscal year 2008, the last full fiscal year before Barry took office, the federal government spent $2.9716 Trillion. An astronomical amount by anyone’s standards, but far from we find it in fiscal year 2012, when the federal government spent a staggering $3.538 Trillion. In fiscal 2008, the federal deficit was $454.8 Billion. In fiscal 2012, it was $1.2967 Trillion. By this measure, Barry did not reduce federal deficits by $2.5 Trillion as he so proudly claims, what he did do was to actually increase the annual deficit by $841.9 Billion. Barry feels free to lie about such things because he knows that no one other than Fox News and those in Talk Radio are going to mention it.
So the propaganda campaign continues, perpetrated by both Barry and the congressional Democrats with both loudly and proudly proclaiming to be the excellent stewards of the people's money. But it’s all a farce, as they have essentially been doing nothing more than robbing from the rich and giving to those whom they deem as being 'poor' and disadvantaged. While Barry works to blame everything on the opposition, at the same time he insists that in no way do we have a spending problem and that if only those greedy rich folks can be forced into paying, what he calls, their fair share everything would be just fine. He sees no need to cut our obviously out of control spending, and his claim is nothing short of hilarious. But that hasn't kept from making all manner of claims that he just wants to make sure that everyone pays their fair share. Everyone, I guess, but those who make up the 50 percent of us who pay absolutely anything.


So now Barry and many of his fellow Democrats are quite busy trying to create all manner of a doomsday scenarios in their effort to warn us of the catastrophe that will occur if the automatic cuts in the sequester are allowed to take effect next week. They claim that criminals will go free, parents will lose day care, airport security will be compromised and the sun will be extinguished. Ok, that last one was mine. But Barry did recently say, as he was flanked by a group emergency responders, meant to serve as nothing more than window dressing, "As a consequence, we’ve got these automatic, brutal spending cuts that are poised to happen next Friday." Spewing his typical idiotic rhetoric he went on to say, "Now if Congress allows this meat cleaver approach to take place, it will jeopardize our military readiness, it will eviscerate job creating investments, education, energy, medical research.

And as is usually the case whenever Barry is trying his best to create the impression of yet another supposed crisis that simply doesn't exist, he went on to say, "Border Patrol agents will see their hours reduced." Barry said, "FBI agents will be furloughed. Federal prosecutors will have to close cases and let criminals go. Air traffic controllers and airport security will see cutbacks, which means more delays in airports across the country." I think this is all a bit over the top even for Barry, he seemed to get a little carried away with himself in his attempt to create as much hysteria as possible. Because as if wanting to make sure he was making his point, he added, "Thousands of teachers and educators will be laid off, and thousands of parents will have to scramble to find childcare for their kids. Hundreds of thousands of Americans will lose access to primary care, preventative care, flu vaccinations and cancer screenings"

If we back up just a bit, we see that under the terms of the sequestration deal, which was dreamt up by Barry and agreed to by Republicans in 2011 under the guise of what's called the Budget Control Act, the Office of Management and Budget is responsible for coming up with $1.2 Trillion in cuts in discretionary appropriations and mandatory spending to be divided equally among defense and non-defense and to take place between 2013 and 2021. John Boehner has said no one wants the sequester and called on Barry to work with Congress. "Today the president advanced an argument Republicans have been making for a year: his sequester is the wrong way to cut spending," Boehner said in a statement. "That’s why the House has twice passed legislation to replace it with common sense cuts and reforms that won’t threaten public safety, national security, or our economy.

Boehner added, "But once again, the president offered no credible plan that can pass Congress – only more calls for higher taxes," Boehner continued. "Just last month, the president got his higher taxes on the wealthy, and he’s already back for more. The American people understand that the revenue debate is now closed." He did go on to say, "We should close loopholes and carve-outs in the tax code, but that revenue should be used to lower rates across the board. Tax reform is a once-in-a generation opportunity to boost job creation in America. It should not be squandered to enable more Washington spending. Spending is the problem, spending must be the focus." It's not often that I find myself agreeing with Speaker Boehner, but on this I have to say he's right. The focus MUST be on spending, because it's our spending that out of control!! Real, meaningful cuts must be made, we really have NO choice.


Barry "Almighty" has said repeatedly that his top priority, that which he refers to as being the "north star" of his second-term, is to do "everything we can to grow the economy and create good, middle-class jobs." And, apparently, his primary means og doing that is to steal even more tax money from 'wealthy' Americans, on top of the higher tax rates that Congress went along with just a few months ago. When speaking at the White House earlier this week Barry pretty much lied through those pearly whites of his when he said that the Republicans have a choice: "Do you want to see a bunch of first responders lose their jobs because you want to protect some special interest tax loophole?"

Barry insisted that Democrats have proposed what he called a "balanced plan" to avoid the sequester, that is the across-the-board spending cuts that will take effect on March 1 unless Congress agrees on a different way to reduce the deficit. "I know that Republicans have proposed some ideas, too," Barry said. "I have to say, though -- so far, at least -- the ideas that Republicans have proposed ask nothing of the wealthiest Americans or the biggest corporations. So the burden is all on first responders, or seniors, or middle class families." Barry said Republicans have expressed a preference for huge, his word, budget cuts to take effect rather than close a single tax loophole for the wealthiest Americans.

And of course Barry went on, "Well, that's not balanced. That would be like Democrats saying we have to close our deficits without any spending cuts whatsoever -- it's all taxes. That's not the position Democrats have taken, it's certainly not the position I've taken." Ah, that’s not exactly true. He added, "So now Republicans in Congress face a simple choice: Are they willing to compromise to protect vital investments in education and health care and national security and all the jobs that depend on them, or would they rather put hundreds of thousands of jobs and our economy at risk just to protect a few special interest tax loopholes that benefit only the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations? That's the choice." No, Barry, that NOT the choice.

And far from being done spewing what was nothing more than his standard propaganda, he said, "Do you want to see a bunch of first responders lose their jobs because you want to protect some special interest tax loophole?" Then he asked, "Are you willing to have teachers laid off, or kids not have access to head start, or deeper cuts in student loan programs, just because you want to protect special interest tax loopholes that the vast majority of Americans don't benefit from?" Then Barry made what was, I suppose was something he intended to be a threat, saying that he will not sign a plan that harms the middle class. This coming from the same who has spent nearly his entire president trying to drive the middle class right out of existence!

However, the Republicans, needless to say, don't quite see things the same way. They say Barry already got his tax increases. Rep. Paul Ryan, appearing on ABC's "This Week," made the point that it was Barry who came up with the sequester idea in the first place, and it is the House Republicans who have twice passed legislation replacing it with what Ryan called "smarter cuts." "The Senate hasn't passed a bill to replace the sequester," Ryan told ABC. "The President gave a speech showing that he'd like to replace it, but he hasn't put any details out there. So that is why I conclude, I believe it's going to take place. But take a step back. We are here because the President back in the last session of Congress refused to cut spending in anyplace, and therefore we wound up with the sequester."

We've continue to be told that unless Congress acts soon, automatic spending cuts totaling $85 billion will happen between March 1 and the end of the fiscal year in September. The actual amount of the cuts is actually ONLY $44 billion, but no matter the amount, over half of the cuts will come in defense and the rest in non-defense discretionary spending. Barry and his fellow Democrats say any alternative to the sequester MUST include MORE tax revenue, but Ryan and his fellow Republicans say Barry needant come knocking asking for higher taxes, because he already got his tax increases last year, when Congress passed a bill raising tax rates on families making $450,000 or more (and individuals making $400,000-plus).

Rep. Ryan said, and correctly so, that closing tax loopholes, as Democrats now want to do, would only fuel more spending. He said Republicans advocate closing loopholes as part of overall tax reform, not to create more 'stimulus' spending. The Budget Control Act of 2011, signed into law by Barry on August 2, 2011, required across-the-board spending cuts of $1.2 trillion over the next ten years if Congress could not agree on alternative ways to limit spending and reduce the nation's debt. The sequester was scheduled to happen back on Jan. 1, but the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 -- which raised tax rates for wealthy individuals -- moved the date to March 1, 2013, giving Congress more time to come up with a plan. No spending cuts were even discussed at that time.

So now Barry, and I've heard the same bullsh!t coming from Steny Hoyer, is now out there telling anyone too stupid to know better that the whole notion of the sequestration was all a Republican idea. And that is nothing more than a flat out lie. One more, by the way, on a very long list of many that this president has now told. He's proven time and again that he'll lie about absolutely anything! Having come up with the idea of sequestration in the first place, it is not something that he should now be allowed to away run from or to try to blame on others. This little jewel of an idea was all his, and now he's in full propaganda mode and trying to do all he can to make it appear otherwise. Enough of the American people are going to have to come to their sense here, we simply cannot go on spending like this.

Tuesday, February 19, 2013


Every once and a while I'll hear something or read something that leaves me scratching my head. Something that makes the point much better than I could ever hope to, that we here in America have finally lost our freakin minds. The most recent example of that something that captured my attention comes to us, of course, by way of one of our so-called institutions of ‘higher learning.’ To be specific, from the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs and its Department of Public Safety. Apparently the odd assortment of individuals responsible for this department have now updated an online statement advising female students to consider a variety of rather unusual actions if they are ever find themselves being attacked. These 'unusual actions' which they now recommend include, vomiting, urinating and to claim that they are menstruating.

And what may be nothing more than a coincidence, I’m sure, this supposed 'advisory' was updated this past Monday evening, just hours after the Colorado state House of Representatives, which is controlled by Democrats, passed a package of gun control bills. Bills that include one that would actually make it illegal for people with concealed weapons permits to carry guns on the campuses of public universities. However, the bills still must go on to the state Senate and then to the governor for signature. Some of the other more interesting pieces of advice that are now offered in this updated ‘advisory' are ones, I suppose, that many would find familiar, from running away without looking back to "yelling, hitting or biting" your attacker. Seriously folks, only some liberal could come up with such idiotic nonsense.

But there were two suggestions that, I think it fair to say, can be described as being a little unorthodox to say the least, and that are already causing quite the stir on social media. And they are: "Tell your attacker that you have a disease or are menstruating," and/or "Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone." These, ah, rather less-conventional methods for fighting off a would-be rapist are apparently now a standard part of ‘Rape Aggression Defense Systems,’ an actual class that the school's public safety department promotes as a means for female students to boost their self-defense skills. Come on ladies, is this really what you want to be as your primary means of self-defense, puking or peeing? Talk about embarrassing. Imagine being force to shout, "Stop, or I'll pee on you!"

What I do find as being more than just a little curious though, is the fact that the site providing these useful little pointers to the women on campus, was updated at 6:30 p.m. Monday which suggests that the move may have been motivated by the Colorado House's passage on Monday of HB 1226. That’s the specific bill which would effectively ban all people, including concealed-weapons permit holders, from carrying guns on the campuses of the state's public universities. The House passed the bill on Monday by a vote of 34-31, but not before it became the center of a major controversy when Democrat state Rep. Joe Salazar made comments during Friday's debate arguing that students should not have access to guns to protect themselves from being raped. I don't think I'd be allowing my daughter to attend any school in Colorado.

"It’s why we have call boxes, it’s why we have safe zones, it’s why we have the whistles," Salazar said, according to KDVR News. This moron went on to say, "Because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at. And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop -- pop around at somebody." The comments drew the ire of a number of conservative pundits, as well as several Republican Colorado lawmakers who were offended by the insinuation that would-be rape victims should rely on rape whistles and safe zones rather than arm themselves against potential attackers. Yup ladies, just run into one of those 'safe zones!'

Salazar did eventually apologize, sort of, for anything that he might have said that anyone may have taken offense to, but he didn't back down from his basic premise that guns are not needed to protect women from attacks on the campuses of Colorado's public universities. "I’m sorry if I offended anyone. That was absolutely not my intention," Salazar said. Adding, "We were having a public policy debate on whether or not guns makes people safer on campus. I don’t believe they do. That was the point I was trying to make. If anyone thinks I’m not sensitive to the dangers women face, they’re wrong. I am a husband and father of two beautiful girls, and I’ve spent the last decade defending women’s rights as a civil rights attorney. Again, I’m deeply sorry if I offended anyone with my comments." What a Democrat dope!

"Updated message from February 18, 2013 at 6:30pm from the Department of Public Safety:

The ten points of information below were used in a context supplemented with additional information during the in-class training covered in the Rape Aggression Defense (RAD) class. The R.A.D. class is offered free of charge as a public service to women who are part of the greater UCCS community. Rape Aggression Defense Systems (RAD Systems) is a hands-on, women only self defense and risk reduction education program designed to teach women realistic ways to defend and protect oneself from sexual and abductive assaults. RAD is an international organization of certified law enforcement instructors. For more information regarding the RAD class, classes scheduled for the spring semester, or any other crime prevention programs, please visit the following pages:

What To Do If You Are Attacked:

These tips are designed to help you protect yourself on campus, in town, at your home, or while you travel. These are preventative tips and are designed to instruct you in crime prevention tactics.

1. Be realistic about your ability to protect yourself.
2. Your instinct may be to scream, go ahead! It may startle your attacker and give you an opportunity to run away.
3. Kick off your shoes if you have time and can't run in them.
4. Don't take time to look back; just get away.
5. If your life is in danger, passive resistance may be your best defense.
6. Tell your attacker that you have a disease or are menstruating.
7. Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone.
8. Yelling, hitting or biting may give you a chance to escape, do it!
9. Understand that some actions on your part might lead to more harm.
10. Remember, every emergency situation is different. Only you can decide which action is most appropriate."

With it being Democrats who came up with these idiotic, and potentially dangerous bills, I can only assume that this is what women must actually want. Because, after all, as we all know, most women have the rather peculiar tendency of voting for Democrats, and on a pretty regular basis. Therefore I can also only assume that most women, if they were to ever find themselves being attacked, would much rather have as being their last resort the ability to simply puke or pee on their would be attacker. That, and again I can only assume, must be highly preferable to being able to pull out a gun and proceeding to then blow the guy's b@lls off! Is that right ladies? Would you really rather it be a full bladder instead of a full clip that's your last line of defense in just such a situation? Is this really what we as Americans have now been reduced to? A bunch of puking and peeing wussies?