Saturday, March 30, 2013


On this past Tuesday Black Entertainment Television (BET) founder Bob Johnson said something that I wholeheartedly agree with. He said that the nation would "never tolerate white unemployment at 14 or 15 percent." He went on, "No one would ever stay in office at 14 or 15 percent unemployment in this nation, but we’ve had that double unemployment for over 50 years." Now having said that, Reagan, the evil conservative, inherited a black unemployment rate of over 21 percent, when he left office it sat at 11. "The national average is 7.7 percent, and African-American unemployment is 13.8 percent. To be honest, it’s probably greater than that when you count the number of African-Americans who have simply given up on finding employment," said Johnson, who is also founder and chairman of The RLJ Companies.

First of all, anyone who seriously thinks that the 7.7 percent number being thrown around by Barry is an accurate reflection of our current employment situation in this country, is nothing but a complete moron. And I would also argue that a more accurate percentage of black unemployment would be a number somewhere well over 20 percent. But be that as it may, to hear these complaints coming from someone who most certainly voted for the one man most responsible for so many blacks being unemployed strikes as being more than just a little disingenuous. And if blacks as a whole are so pissed off about being without a job, why did THEY vote in huge numbers for the guy who has essentially put them out of work? Obviously, their priorities don’t include being able to find a job to support themselves.

Johnson is just another fraud who seems to take great pains to make excuses while ignoring the obvious. He said the challenge was to figure out why the unemployment rate for blacks has been so high, "and if that doesn’t change, somebody’s going to have to pay, 34 million African-Americans are not going to leave this country, millions of African-Americans who don’t have jobs." Well gee, I would think that would be a simple thing to figure that out, especially for a smart guy like Johnson. The reason millions of blacks don’t have jobs is because there aren’t any jobs. And what exactly has our first black president done in an effort to stimulate job growth. That would be, ABSOLUTELY NOTHIN! There are 10 Million fewer people in the workforce today than there were on January 20, 2009. Let’s see, what happened on that day, Mr. Johnson?

According to a poll Johnson commissioned, which was conducted by Zogby, 50 percent of African-Americans blame the "failure of the education system for minorities/African-Americans" for high unemployment among blacks. Also, 48 percent say the "lack of corporate commitment to hiring minorities/African-Americans" is to blame for unemployment in the black community. Twenty-five percent of respondents actually blame the lack of government policies for the high rate of black unemployment. Eighteen percent don’t blame anyone or anything, and twelve percent aren’t sure. Well as far as faulting the education system, who’s in charge of that? Ah, well that would be the same folks that blacks vote for, the Democrats. So as far as I’m concerned if blacks are looking for someone to blame they can look in the nearest mirror!

Johnson went on, "We can’t be competitive if we don’t put all our people on the field to work, and African-Americans can’t be consumers if they don’t have jobs. They can’t buy houses, and the reason the wealth gap is so high, we don’t [have] home ownership. We don’t have savings. We don’t have investments, and part of that is because we don’t have capital." He added, "So a white household can buy a home. Now it’s even more difficult to buy a home. There’s talk about taking the home deduction away as part of a chance to balance the budget, so all of these things, as I said, however the solution comes out, it’s going to impact us." he said. The net worth of median white households is $118,000 and stands in stark contrast with the net worth of median black households at only $11,800, Johnson said, again citing the Pew Research Center.

In 2009, the median net worth of white households was $113,149, while the median net worth of black households was $5,677, according to a July 26, 2011 report released by the Pew Research Center entitled, "Wealth Gaps Rise to Record Highs Between Whites, Blacks, Hispanics Twenty-to-One." Ok, so from where I’m standing that should the best indicator of all that points out the difference between willing to work versus willing to do nothing more than to live off of other who are willing to work. Ya know, and this is something that Mr. Johnson should know, you only get out of life what you put into it. If all you put into it is $5,677 worth of effort, guess what? So really, if you’re looking for a shoulder to cry on, you’re gonna have to look elsewhere!

And Mr. Johnson either ignores completely, or simply wishes not to discuss it, that the ability to ‘change’ things rests in the hands of blacks themselves. They have played a very significant role in where it is that they find themselves today. They have insisted upon perpetuating the most destructive force to ever hit the black community, the Democrat Party. And now the have the nerve to complain about what it is that they’ve created? Over the course of the last 4 or 5 years there has been much talk about ‘change’, but very little has taken place, at least any positive ‘change’. So if blacks, including Mr. Johnson, are truly interested in ‘change’ then they know what the must do. But I seriously doubt that they have the necessary courage to do what’s needed. And look before someone decides to go off the deep end and start accusing me of being racist, again, what have I said that isn’t true. Our fate, no matter what our color, rests in our own hands.

Friday, March 29, 2013


Well I suppose it was just a matter of time before those who furnish the large amounts of cash to Democrat candidates began inserting themselves into what has become the continuing debate on the need for more stringent gun control. And with more than a few red state Democrat Senators waffling on their level of support for Barry’s rather dictatorial gun proposals, at least two top Democratic donors are now stepping forward and applying a bit of pressure by vowing to withhold any and all future financial contributions from any Democrat who doesn't play ball and get fully onboard with supporting the centerpiece of Barry’s plan. That being, of course, expanded background checks. So now that the threats have now been officially issued, I suppose we wait and see what the impact will be.

And with things being what they are, it really shouldn't come as any great surprise that these two very vocal money men, a dynamic duo of the world of leftist donors, reside in two of our most liberal states. Kenneth Lerer is a New York businessman and is chairman of Buzzfeed.com and David Bohnett is a technology entrepreneur and philanthropist based in Los Angeles. Both are major financial supporters of Democrat candidates, and have each given more than a few very substantial contributions over the years. They are both key players in the world of Democrat fundraising and wield considerable influence among other donors and fundraisers. Neither intend to give another dime to any Senate Democrat who does not fully support expanded background checks. And that, it seems, is the name of that tune.

But going beyond that, both also intend on taking things to the next level, so to speak, and plan on suggesting to many, if not all, of their fellow high-dollar donors that they should do the same. The move seem to reinforce what's seen as the rising importance of gun control as a major issue in Democrat politics, as well as the rising level of frustration in some Liberal circles with those elected officials who remain a little gun shy, no pun intended, in their continuing to regard gun politics as somehow being a third rail, at the very moment that many on the left think presents them with the best opportunity in a long time to accomplish that which they have long sought, the gutting of the Second Amendment. And they seem to think that Barry's gun proposals enjoy near universal public support.

Lerer has also said that he would be intensifying his contributions to Democrat Senate candidates in the next few years, excluding, of course, any that don’t take a strong position on gun control. "We intend to get very active in Senatorial campaigns during the next cycle and the one after," he said. Bohnett, too, has made it clear that he will not be giving any more money to Democrats who he perceives as lacking the necessary resolve on guns. "If they don’t do the right thing on background checks, donors like David won’t be able to support them," said Michael Fleming, some guy who 'advises' Bohnett. "You look at what some senators from rather conservative states have done when it comes to supporting marriage equality — they ‘re willing to take a tough stand. We would expect nothing less on the gun issue."

And something else that should come as surprise, rumor has it that 'Nanny Mike' Bloomberg’s little pro-gun-control group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG), has also been 'informally' reaching out to a few top Democrat contributors and encouraging them to evaluate candidates on the basis of their support, or lack of, for strong gun legislation before providing any cash. And a third major fundraiser, Grace Tsau-Wu of Chicago, who was on Barry’s national finance committee in 2012, also has said that she won’t help any candidates who are weak on guns get connected with her network of donors. "It’s hard for me to personally fundraise or get involved in the campaigns of any Democrats who don’t support background checks and aren’t behind the president on the issue of guns," she said.

So this is what we're now going to be up against here folks. We’re going to see a growing number of rabid leftists loaded with cash that they are not afraid to use in an effort to bribe, threaten or just plain buy off as many Democrats as possible in their effort to make it easier for the government to steal our guns. So you see, in the end it really matters very little what 'We the people' may think, or what our Constitution may actually say, it's what the guys with the big bucks want that will ultimately prove to be what's of most interest to our slimy politicians. And I’ll tell ya, if we don't get busy this whole thing is liable to get away from us, and there'll likely be very little time for us to play catch-up. These people smell blood in the water and it's going to take everything that we have to successfully beat them back.


Further proof of the hypocrisy that seems to run pretty deep in the black community comes to us now in the form of a new poll which was recently commissioned by Black Entertainment Television (BET) founder Bob Johnson and conducted by Zogby. What the poll shows us that 55 percent of African-American adults do not agree with the LGBT community’s claim that gay rights are the same as civil rights for blacks. And yet the folks that blacks continue to insist upon voting for do not agree with them on this issue. Democrats view the 'struggle' of gays to be the equal of the civil rights struggle experienced by blacks. But the holding of such an opinion seems to have very little impact when it comes to voting patterns of those in the black community. They continue to be very firmly entrenched in their commitment to voting for Democrat candidates, no matter what.

"There weren’t any real surprises. On the issue of gay rights, African-Americans are far more conservative on that issue than I think the general population, so that wasn’t a surprise," Johnson, who is also founder and chairman of The RLJ Companies, said Tuesday at the National Press Club when asked what findings surprised him most. "We had another question that we … didn’t put in the speech: Did African-Americans believe that gay rights are the same as equal rights for African-Americans, and surprisingly they shared the view that gays can make the argument that their rights are tantamount to African-Americans, equal with civil rights," Johnson, who is also founder and chairman of The RLJ Companies, said Tuesday at the National Press Club when asked what findings surprised him most. But his claim isn't actually supported by the poll's results.

Johnson’s remark on gay rights seems to contradict the section of his own poll on equal rights for gays, which actually found that in fact, 55 percent of those surveyed said no when asked, "Do you believe that equal rights for gays are the same as equal rights for African Americans." In contrast, only 28 percent said yes. That’s almost two to one who said that equal rights for the gay community is no the same as equal rights for blacks. However, respondents were basically split on the issue of gay marriage. When asked, "Do you believe marriage should be restricted to between a man and a woman or do you believe that persons of the same sex should be allowed to marry and receive similar benefits as heterosexual couples," 42 percent said marriage should be between a man and woman, while 40 percent said same-sex couples should be allowed to marry with benefits.

Respondents were also asked: "Do you believe ministers who oppose homosexuality, including the rights of gays and lesbians to marry are right, wrong, or no opinion." A majority of respondents (35 percent) had no opinion, but 34 percent said ministers were right to oppose homosexuality and gay marriage, and 31 percent said ministers were wrong. While the gap has most definitely narrowed over time, the majority opinion would seem to be the complete opposite of the position held by the Democrat Party, the party that remains the favorite of the vast majority of blacks. Hence my rationale for accusing the black community of hypocrisy. I'm not sure how else to say it. If you are voting for candidates who do not support your values or your positions on issues that are important to you, what else can you call it but being a hypocrite? Seems pretty cut and dried to me.

And I'm constantly hearing about how it is that the Republican Party needs to do more to entice minorities to join its ranks. How it needs to be a 'big tent' party. But I disagree. Blacks continue to place their need for a government check above all else, and until THEY decide to vote for those who actually support their views on such things education, the family, and gay marriage, there is nothing that we can do as Republicans that will convince them to come over to our side. It should be quite obvious to even the dimmest of bulbs that the Democrat Party has been the most destructive entity to ever hit the black community. And yet, blacks remain blindly obedient to the party. They have essentially enslaved themselves to a party that seeks only to prevent them from improving their lives. All we can do, as Republicans, is to present blacks with a viable option, the rest is up to them.

Thursday, March 28, 2013


I'm sure pretty much everybody as heard about how the Democrats who are in charge of such places as New York, both State and City, as well as Chicago, continue to make the claim that if only we had stricter gun laws, we could finally rid ourselves of senseless gun violence. Well, a funny thing. Because as it urns out the very districts that contain Chicago, Los Angeles and New York City happen to be ranked dead last, no pun intended, in terms of federal gun law enforcement in 2012. And that would be according to a new report from someplace called the Syracuse University's Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), which tracks federal data. Plus we also know that since Barry "Almighty" first stepped foot in the Oval Office, prosecution of gun crimes on the federal level is down more than 40 percent from that of his predecessor.

Federal gun crimes include illegal possession of a firearm in a school zone, illegal sale of a firearm to a juvenile, felon, or drug addict, and illegal transport of a firearm across state lines. In Chicago, where there were over 500 gun related homicides last year, the majority of gun charges last year were for firearms violations. The districts of Eastern New York, Central California, and Northern Illinois ranked 88th, 89th and 90th, respectively, out of 90 districts, in prosecutions of federal weapons crimes per capita last year, but it wasn't always this way. All three districts fell lower on the list than they had been in years past. In 2010, for example, Chicago was 78th in federal weapons prosecutions. These cities also have some of the nation's most restrictive gun laws, and at the same time some of the most active mayors in championing stricter gun control.

And another funny thing is that New York Mayor Michael "Nanny Mike" Bloomberg, Chicago Mayor Rahm "Dead Fish" Emanuel and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa are all proud members of the national Mayors Against Illegal Guns campaign. Washington D.C., which also has tough gun laws, was in the lower half of the list in 2012, coming in at 78th. In 2011, D.C. prosecuted a higher number of gun crimes, coming in at number 49. National Rifle Association (NRA) chief Wayne LaPierre first pointed to the report on 'Meet the Press', when he essentially demanded to know why it is that the national press corps wasn't asking the White House or state attorneys general to explain their obvious lax federal enforcement of gun laws. But of course, no one's interested in doing that, least of all any of our faux journalists employed anywhere in our state-controlled media.

And apparently Mr. LaPierre's comments didn't sit all that well with many gun control zealots, in particular the nutty little group that calls itself, Moms Demand Action For Gun Sense In America. "It's like, 'don't look at us, look at gun enforcement'," said the group's screwball founder, Shannon Watts. "But the NRA works to block gun prosecutions all the time." I think that the esteemed Ms. Watts has been drinking just a bit too much of her own Kool-Aid. But that's the way these gun control nuts do, they think they can get away with spewing all manner of untruths because no one in the media is going to call them on it. Of course we need to look at enforcement, or the lack of it, as being at the very least a significant contributing factor to what's going on in these cities. What sense does it make to create more laws if the ones currently on the books aren't even being enforced? DUH!

And let's face it, who's surprised by the fact that requests for comment from the U.S. Attorney's offices in both New York and California were not immediately returned. But, and this would be really funny if it weren't so tragic, the U.S. attorney's office in the Northern District of Illinois maintains that federal weapons law enforcement is among the top priorities of their office. "We have a number of different methods of attacking gangs, guns, drugs and violent crime," says spokesmoron Randall Sanborn, who notes that many gun arrests are reviewed to determine whether the arrest should stay with the county or be brought to the federal level. "We look at which court the defendant is likely to get a substantially greater sentence... More cases that used to be brought federally are now staying in state courts because [they are] now able to get a sentence equally great or greater," he says.

The TRAC report notes that many more gun arrests happen at the state and local level than happen at the federal level, and that it's difficult to assess how many prosecutions happen overall. While the districts that ranked lowest last year for federal gun crime prosecutions all contained major cities, the districts at the top of the list for its enforcement were almost exclusively rural. The districts of Southern Alaska, Kansas and Western Tennessee ranked first, second and third in prosecutions of federal weapons laws per capita last year. Oddly enough, Susan Long, a statistician and co-director of TRAC, said the data revealed a stronger federal enforcement presence in rural areas than urban ones. That struck me as being rather odd. Could it be because that's where folks are perceived as having a tendency to cling to their guns or religion? No, I'm sure it's all just a coincidence, right?


Well my friends, slowly but surely we seem to be quite willing to allow liberals in this country to continue on their mission of slowly but surely turning us into what is nothing more than a nation of pussies, a bunch of pansies who are too afraid to fight back! The most recent example comes to us from yet another bastion of liberal lunacy, New Hampshire. In the little community of Windham it has now been made official, the playing of that venerable game of dodgeball is to be no longer permitted. Yup! Can you believe it? With each passing day I am to recognize my country a little less.

So sadly the classic gym class game that has been a rite of passage, of sorts, since even before I first played the game, dodgeball has finally met its match in the form of four limp-wristed wimps on the Windham School board, which at a recent meeting voted 4-1 to end dodgeball and other of what it termed as "human target" activities, games with names like bombardment and slaughter. Most likely, these folks are probably the very same wimps who regularly got their asses beat as kids playing the game and saw this as being their opportunity for a little payback. Better late than never I suppose.

The school district told, what I guess is a local television station, WBZ-TV that a handful of parents had complained about bullying, that their kids were actually targeted during dodgeball. Then, of course, the district studied the issue, with a special committee then making the recommendation that the games be ended. Look, I played the game as a kid, and I remember getting walloped on more than one occasion. But I didn't go home crying to mommy and daddy. I made sure to get the ball and to try to wallop the kid that had nailed me. It's called part of growing up!

Stephanie Wimmer, the school board’s vice chair, told WBZ-TV the board is always "looking at our curriculum" for changes. Right, change. We must always be looking for ways to change things. However, change is not always for the better, as we have seen, repeatedly over the course of the last four years. Hey, here's a novel idea. How about schools go back to actually teaching our kids the three 'R's', and let the kids be kids, now there's a concept. Life isn't easy, nor is it fair. And I think we do our kids a huge disservice by doing what was done in Windham.

Comments on the ban varied. One parent, and obviously a liberal loon, Michelle Alllard, said, "There’s a lot of organized games that they could be playing that don’t entail trying to physically hurt the other person, so I have no problem with them banning it." Gina Lanouette, another Windham parent, says the bullying aspect is a sign of the times. "You can see how most kids would enjoy it but you can see how some children are targeted more than others," said Lanouette. Which makes me wonder, was the playing of the game mandatory? Let kids who don't want to play, sit out.

Windham’s Superintendent, Dr. Henry LaBranche, told WBZ-TV the school district is trying to teach students to respect one another, and the games "create conditions inconsistent with that message". What a bunch of idiotic pabulum. I'd like to challenge this goof to a good game of dodgeball. Of course in my day we called it "Battle Ball." Imagine the outcry from wimps like 'Dr.' LaBranche over that? All this is just another example of how this country is nothing more than a meer shadow of its former self. People used to be proud to call themselves 'Americans,' now I'm almost embarrassed.

Frankly, I suppose I shouldn't be all that surprised that something like this would happen in the northeast, one of those areas of the country where wimps seem to rule supreme. But I just get so tired of this 'minority rule' system that we seem to have going on here. Just because "a handful of parents" complain that their little Johnny, or maybe Sally, was being singled out as being perhaps an easy target, nobody gets to play what really is a rather harmless game. Why must we always punish everybody because of a "handful" of liberal crybabies? It's nothin but ridiculous!


If not, why not? Together this man and his corrupt political party are systematically destroying our country. They must be stopped. We must stand up to them. If not us, who? If not now, when?

Wednesday, March 27, 2013


Supporters of the 380 sheriffs, in 15 states, who have, at least so far, vowed to defy new state and federal gun control laws, claim that legislation is now starting to pop up all around the country, the specific purpose of which would be to allow the firing of any state elected or appointed law enforcement official who decides not to obey federal orders. The first example of such legislation has emerged in Texas. It has been proposed by some bonehead Democrat by the name of Yvonne Davis, and if it becomes law would allow the removing of any sheriff or law enforcement officer who refuses to enforce state or federal laws.

What's more, this legislation would all the removing of any elected or appointed law enforcement officer for simply stating or signing any document stating that they will not obey federal orders. A gun lobbyist is spreading the word and has been telling certain folks, "Beware because once something like this is introduced in one state, it will be followed very quickly in several other states." Democrats, as everyone should be well aware of by now, are a rather devious and dishonest bunch, and anytime they think that they might be able to get away with something, they will most certainly give it the old progressive Democrat try.

There are as we speak select media outlets that have been charting the growing group of sheriffs who are making it known that they oppose new gun control initiatives. They argue that citizens should be allowed by buy any type of weapon they want that will allow them to properly defend themselves and their families. They also claim that there is no way to tell the difference between old rifle and pistol magazines and the new ones that Barry "Almighty" wants to ban. But apparently, being the brain dead Democrat that she is, that matters very little to the likes of Ms. Davis. According to here, these Constitution supporting sheriffs need to just shut up and do what they're told!

This is the standard operating procedure for scumbag Democrats like Ms. Davis. They dream up some cockamamie regulations that are blatantly unconstitutional, claiming all manner of good intentions and drone on about how their plan will drastically improve public safety. And when people then begin to shoot holes, no pun intended, in their little scheme, they come up with creative ways to try to force compliance, one way or another. Now while these latest legislative attempts don't actually require firing any of these sheriffs for not enforcing laws they view as being unlawful, they do make it possible. But it's still nothing more than an act of pure intimidation.


I’m sure that there are, today, people in this world who look at America and all that it stands for, or at least what it used to stand for before Barry came onto the scene, and wonder what is it, exactly, that we Americans can possibly be thinking. Many of these people live in such places as Eastern Europe, Russia, China and Southeast Asia, and experience every day, or have experienced in the past, what it's like to live under an oppressive system of government. Millions of people yearning to live in freedom are watching us here in America as we continue to hand over, and quite willingly, more and more of our individual freedoms to what is nothing more than a cadre of corrupt bureaucrats. And I’m sure they must be wondering, why is it that we insist upon becoming more and more like them? Why do we seem so enamored with our government?

And, quite frankly, I don't really have any kind of an answer for them. Other than to say, freedom for many in this country appears to have become something that's simply too difficult to have to deal with. More and more people in this country apparently NEED someone to be telling them what to do and how to live their lives. It’s just easier that way, I guess. That way when something goes horribly wrong, they always have someone other than themselves to blame. However, when trying to explain it to those who have never been fortunate enough to live in freedom, that argument, most likely, makes very little sense. Because to them, what could possibly be more important than being able to live in freedom? Those qualities once viewed as being so uniquely American, and that set us apart from the rest of the world, have simply ceased to exist.

Sadly freedom over the entire course of human history has been, I think it safe to say, a very rare commodity. So you would think individuals blessed to live in a nation founded on freedom, would jealously guard that freedom against those who would try to take it from us. And yet, we here in America a seem to take our freedom somewhat for granted and seem quite eager to simply relinquish, completely, what few freedoms we actually have left. These days to be an American means something far different than it did as recently as just a decade or so ago. Where it once meant to be ruggedly independent, it has come to mean completely the opposite today. Where we were once proud to be able to stand on our own two feet, wanting nothing from our government, now too many us seem to think we just can't get by without government assistance.

And too many of us fail to realize, or to understand, that the more dependent one becomes on the government, the more say that same government will have in how one goes about living one’s life. Because it then has the power to dictate how you are to live you life and failure to obey those dictates, risks losing those services that one has become so dependent on the government to deliver. So now many around the world now look at us scratching their heads, wondering what it is that we can be thinking? They know first hand the hazards involved whenever the government has total control over the population. And yet we seem determined to be willing to ignore the evidence right before our eyes that which is always the result from providing government with too much power. Abject misery and universal poverty is always the natural result.

Tuesday, March 26, 2013


If you’re one who’s fond of listening to morons then, I suppose you won’t be surprised to hear that John "Cancel the Sequester" Conyers, recently declared that there ‘really’ is only one major political party. Back on March 12 during some sort of an event, while discussing the need to focus on job creation, old, dim bulb, John told the Detroit branch of the NAACP, "the Republican party is fading out of sight almost, so there is really only one major political party of any significance." He went on to add, "Actually without being biased, the Republican party is fading out of sight almost, so there is really only one major political party of any significance."

He continued in his brilliant assessment of things saying, "And what we got to do is not just say – ‘we’re in it’, but how do we make it better, " Conyers continued. "How do we really make it mean something to so many people that say – ‘well, that’s okay Peters you're in the business, you’re a politician, that’s what you do.’ But how do we make it as real as we can for ordinary people that are up against the biggest issue in our country today – jobs." He added, "That’s number one – and I try to, I’m always extremely polite when I go into the White House, but that’s what I try to get to our beloved president."

Now, in a way, I suppose you could say that this senile old dope has a point, in the sense that there does not seem to be all that much of a difference between our two political parties. And that’s the fault of our obviously defective leadership. And that is something that needs to be remedied, and soon. We need to not only stand for those things that put us in stark contrast to Conyers and his crowd, but we need to be able to properly articulate the advantages of our positions over those advocated by the borderline communists that seem to make up the majority of our opposition. The fault lies not in our message, but in our rather lackluster delivery.

And ya know, on the topic of job creation, what is it, exactly, that Conyers and his fellow Democrats have done over the course of the last four years that has actually, and in any way, encourage job growth in the private economy? NOTHING! On the contrary, they have been at war with the very ones capable of creating those jobs. And for this sorry sack of shit, Conyers, to claim that it is suddenly now the number one priority is nothing but one more attempt to deceive the American people! That’s what scum like Conyers practice, out and out deception, and a significant portion of our population believes them, sadly to their own detriment.

We now have over 10 Million fewer people in the work force than we did four years ago and real unemployment is very firmly in double-digit territory, with minorities suffering the most. And that, my friends, is because of, not in spite of, the policies enacted by he who Conyers describes as being "our beloved president," and enthusiastically supported by Conyers and his fellow congressional Democrats. All the more reason for those on our side to spend more time pointing out just what has actually resulted from those policies and what needs to be done if we are genuinely interested in getting more people back to work.

Monday, March 25, 2013


I’m sure most everyone is familiar with Alan "The Loud Mouthed Douche Bag" Grayson, yet another elected Democrat from here in Florida who possess an IQ somewhere in the single digits. Alan has now joined the chorus of those coming out and calling for an end of sequestration. Actually, Grayson has actually demanded the end of sequestration. The basis for such a demand, according to this dolt, is that it would lead to a "work until you die" society. "It will cause pain," Grayson said Thursday after delivering a petition to House Speaker John Boehner’s office. "It will cause economic dislocation and then, the wailing will begin. The wailing will begin."

This petition that Grayson is said to have delivered to Boehner’s office supposedly contained some 300,000 names that had been gathered by an online effort from liberal groups, the Other 98%, MoveOn.org and Social Security Works. Of course, as is usually the case whenever dealing with such highly reputable liberal organizations such as these, it’s always difficult to determine exactly how many of those names actually belong to living, breathing human beings and not to folks who have been long dead or to someone’s family pet. I think if we’ve learned anything over the years, it’s that we can never take as face value what these folks say.

"Then they’ll say OK instead of the sequester that is causing all this pain, let’s cut Social Security, let’s cut Medicare, then let’s cut Medicaid," Grayson blathered. "This is the first step down a slippery slope towards you work until you die. That’s why this has to be fought so vigorously. Washington does not normally see 300,000 speak as one." Again, if we’re really talking about 300,000 real people. But, I would venture to guess that upon closer inspection of this petition we’ll be lucking to find a third of the names, if that, belong to real people. History tells us the liberal group can get rather, how shall I say, creative when collecting ‘names.’

I think by this time there are very few people left who don’t know that sequestration was the automatic 2.3 percent reduction in the growth of federal spending that took effect on March 1 as a result of Congress and Barry "Almighty" being unable to reach a deal. But depending on wgo you may get your ‘news’ from, you may not know that the sequester was concocted by Barry as a result of the 2011 debt ceiling negotiations and was meant primarily to box Republicans into the position of having to agree to tax hikes. Like I said, if you listen to the mainstream media it was something forced upon Barry and the Democrats by those crafty Republicans.

And one more little item regarding this moron Grayson is that he’s also a co-sponsor of that brilliant piece of legislation entitled, "Cancel the Sequester Act." And in the endeavor he joins some other Democrat luminaries, John Conyers, Sheila Jackson Lee, and fellow loon from right here in Florida, Frederica Wilson. Quite the brain trust, don’t you agree? Not a brain cell between ‘em. As I’ve mentioned before, I don’t recall hearing any of these geniuses complaining about it when Barry brought the whole thing up. And don’t you think it more than a little lame to claim that we can’t cut a measly $44 Billion from the $3.5 Trillion being spent?


Speaking like the true progressive/liberal/fascist that we all know him to be, New York City Mayor ‘Nanny Mike’ Bloomberg actually said on Sunday that, in his humble opinion, sometimes the government does know what’s best. And he actually recommended that on such occasions, Americans should simply cede their rights. "I do think there are certain times we should infringe on your freedom," ‘Nanny Mike’ said, during an appearance on NBC. He made the statement during discussion of his soda ban, recently shot down by the courts, and insistence that his fight to control sugary drink portion sizes in the city would go forth.

"We think the judge was just clearly wrong on this," he said, on NBC. "Our Department of Health has the legal ability to do this. … [They’re] not banning anything." ‘Nanny Mike’s’ remaining months in office have included a firestorm of regulations and policy pushes on wide range of issues. Aside from the soda size ban and a well-publicized call for tighter gun control, another contentious policy he pushed: Nudging hospitals to lock up baby formula to force mothers to breast-feed newborns. You’ll also recall his latest idea to keep all tobacco products out of sight. Meanwhile 80 percent of New York City high school graduates can’t even read.

I’m curious about something though, just who is it that makes up those brilliant individuals in government who are supposed to know better than I, how to run my life? Let’s face it, I think we’re all very much aware of the average level of intelligence of your typical government employee, and it’s these folks that we’re supposed to trust as knowing what’s best? Most of them are individuals who are either too stupid to get a job in the private sector, were hired because of some sort of racial or gender quota, or because they knew someone who got them the job. Sorry but that just doesn’t instill much confidence. And I’m not about to cede anything to morons like that!

Sunday, March 24, 2013


Ya know, I’ve just never really understood those people who, solely because they are fortunate enough to live in this country, have been able to accumulate significant wealth, and who then decide to use that great wealth essentially as a weapon ‘against’ their own country. Is it that they somehow, because of their wealth, feel morally superior to those of us who do not possess such wealth? Now while the list of such individuals would be far too long to include here, the one that I wish to point out here is, yet again, ‘Nanny Mike’ Bloomberg, Mayor of New York City, who seems to be determined to do whatever it takes in his effort to protect us from ourselves.

It was back in 2006 that ‘Nanny Mike’ and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, two flaming progressive zealots, founded a little group called, Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG). At the group’s most recent gathering, ‘Nanny Mike’ announced its new $12 million television ad campaign, the purpose of which is to push senators in key states to back gun control efforts, including comprehensive background checks. ‘Nanny Mike’ announced the ad buy Saturday, just days after Senate Democrats touted stronger background checks while acknowledging insufficient support to restore a ban on assault-style weapons to federal gun control legislation.

"These ads bring the voices of Americans — who overwhelmingly support comprehensive and enforceable background checks — into the discussion to move senators to immediately take action to prevent gun violence," or so ‘Nanny Mike’ said in a statement issued by this group of corrupt malcontents. The false premise being presented in these ads, is that Americans actually "overwhelmingly support" what he describes as "comprehensive and enforceable" gun laws. But what this really is, is nothing more than a ruse, a propaganda campaign, of sorts, the purpose of which is to even further undermine our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms!

The two ads posted on the MAIG's website are ironically entitled, "Responsible" and "Family," ironic because liberals are neither responsible, nor family oriented. Anyway the ads show a gun owner holding a rifle while sitting on the back of a pickup truck. In one ad, the man says he'll defend the Second Amendment but adds "with rights come responsibilities." The ad then urges viewers to tell Congress to support background checks. In the other ad, the man, a hunter, says, "background checks have nothing to do with taking guns away from anyone." The man then says closing loopholes will somehow stop criminals and the mentally ill from obtaining weapons.

The Senate is now scheduled to debate federal gun control legislation next month. On March 28, ‘Nanny Mike’s’ little group, here, plans for more than 100 events nationwide in support of passing gun control legislation that includes background checks. Mayors Against Illegal Guns and other gun-control advocates frequently cite a mid-1990s study that suggests about 40 percent of U.S. gun transfers were conducted by private sellers not subject to federal background checks. Based on 2011 FBI data, the group estimates 6.6 million firearms transfers are made without a background check for the receiver. But as has been pointed out, and numerous times, that 40 percent number is completely bogus!

A spokesman for ‘Nanny Mike’ could not, or would not, immediately say if the $12 million was coming from Bloomberg or the mayor's political action committee, Independence USA. But figure the odds. I think it’s pretty fair to assume where the money is coming from. The New York Times, which first reported the ad campaign Saturday night, said ‘Nanny Mike’ was bankrolling the ad buy. Andrew Arulanandam a spokesman for the National Rifle Association (NRA) blasted Bloomberg and the new ads, saying NRA members and supporters would be calling senators directly and urging them to vote against proposed gun control legislation.

"What Michael Bloomberg is trying to do is ... intimidate senators into not listening to constituents and instead pledge their allegiance to him and his money," said Mr. Arulanandam. It’s common knowledge that ‘Nanny Mike’ has long been a supporter of efforts to curb gun violence, even stooping to actually sending New York City undercover investigators into other states to conduct straw purchases from dealers. And just last month, Bloomberg's PAC poured more than $2 million into ads supporting Illinois state Rep. Robin Kelly, who won a special primary and ran partly on a platform of supporting tougher gun restrictions.

These new ads will be airing in the 13 states that MAIG believes are divided on gun control and will therefore have the potential for the greatest impact: Arkansas, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, New Hampshire, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio and Pennsylvania. So folks in those states who support our Second Amendment are going to need to be prepared to do all that they can to counter this effort. They need to do all they can to make sure that this $12 Million expenditure by ‘Nanny Mike’ turns out to be nothing more than a huge waste of money. We simply cannot allow these, these fascists, to win.

Saturday, March 23, 2013


I think most of us are pretty well aware of the fact that, slowly but surely, we are losing more and more of our right to privacy. And I’m also pretty sure that we do not need the likes of Mike "The Nanny" Bloomberg to tell us that efforts are now underway that will allow the government to snoop on us more and more. But be that as it may, recently the good mayor of "The Big Apple," took it upon himself to give to those of us who he deems as being the little people, an advanced warning, of sorts. A warning that our right to privacy is very quickly expiring. It came during a recent appearance on the John Gambling radio show when Mike, and quite proudly so, made the declaration that in about five years, "there’ll be cameras every place." The purpose of which, I can only assume, is so that he and his fellow elites will be better able to keep an eye on we, the unwashed masses.

Furthermore, when he was asked about the implications of domestic drones, Mike said "you can’t keep the tides from coming in." He went on to add, "We’re going to have more visibility and less privacy. I just don’t see how you could stop that." Anyone who has been to New York knows that the NYPD already has hundreds of cameras set up at various spots all around the city. However, Mikey went on to say that there’s no reason law enforcement can’t use drones up in the sky for surveillance as well. "It’s scary, but what’s the difference if a drone is up in the air or on a building," he remarked. If find the fact that he can speak of such things in such a matter-of-fact way, more than just a little disconcerting. It tells me that he views improving the government’s ability to snoop on the public as being much more important than the ability of the public to prevent such snooping.

What does the NYC mayor say to people who argue against turning government into "big brother?" Well, as to be expected, and in his typical snarky fashion, he said, "Get used to it." Going on to say "When there’s a murder, a shooting, a robbery of something the first thing the police do is go to every single building in the neighborhood and say let’s see your security camera." And still he went on, "We should have red light cameras everyplace, why not?" And on, "If you break the law, why not do it? And we should not use our police officers for that. Our police officers have too much to do. They put their lives in danger all the time. … It isn’t gonna result in any fewer police officers being employed. It’ll just make them more valuable because they can work on more important stuff, like bringing crime down or preventing crime to begin with."

So, my friends, take a good long, hard look at the monster that we ourselves have created courtesy of our eagerness to continue to elected these believers in the all knowing, all seeing and all powerful government. Zealots whose only interest is in the creating of ever more inventive, and efficient, ways of making them even more capable of controlling us. They profess to be solely interested in improving public safety and our wellbeing, but, really, nothing could be further from the truth. It’s all nothing more than a sick sort or political charade. And be it out of ignorance, gullibility or pure naiveté, we’ve been more than willing to go along with them at the expense of more and more of our own freedom. Their intent is to intrude ever further into the private lives of the American people and it doesn’t take much imagination to realize that their motives are far from being honorable.

Friday, March 22, 2013


After all of the applause resulting from Barry’s address to students in Jerusalem, some Members of Knesset are now coming forward and offering up a few of their rather harsh criticisms. One lawmaker went so far as to actually call Barry’s speech "offensive to Netanyahu," with another saying it contained "filth." Now I suppose one could justifiably argue that that should really not come as much of a surprise, considering that in his speech, Barry encouraged the Israeli students to push their political leaders to "take risks" for peace. This, even though the Israeli public went to the polls only two months ago to democratically elect their leaders. But hey!

Barry said, "And let me say this as a politician — I can promise you this, political leaders will never take risks if the people do not push them to take some risks. You must create the change that you want to see. (Applause.) Ordinary people can accomplish extraordinary things." And then he added this little jewel: "That’s where peace begins — not just in the plans of leaders, but in the hearts of people." So instead of demonstrating any real leadership abilities, he chooses to, instead, go into another country, an ally no less, and attempt to circumvent that country's government by attempting to incite, really, a specific segment of that country's population. Rather low rent, don't you think?

Member of Knesset Miri Regev, a member of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud-Beiteinu party, was quite specific in her criticism, going so far as to call Barry's speech "offensive to Netanyahu." "I was surprised by his words about a Palestinian state, that he didn’t mention the word ‘Jerusalem’ and that he said, ‘Leaders must bring peace,’ as if Netanyahu doesn’t want peace," she said. Regev slammed Barry’s decision to sideline the Knesset in favor of a speech to more left-wing students. She said Barry should not have "gone over their heads." But let's face it, that Barry's standard operating procedure, his modus operandi.

Ms. Regev did go on to say, "I thought Obama arrived with a greater understanding of the diplomatic process between us and the Palestinians, but I see that he hasn’t changed his stances, not about settlement construction and not about two states for two nations, and decided that the young people must influence their leaders to put public pressure on the government so it will implement [Obama’s] agenda." I think her frst mistake was not to understand why Barry made this trip in the first place, and her second was to assume that Barry possesses any actual understanding of the complexities involved in dealing with an issue that goes all the way to 1948.

Moshe Feiglin, a hawkish Likud lawmaker, said Barry’s speech contained "a lot of filth in the middle." Though he praised Barry for acknowledging the connection of the Jewish people to the land of Israel, he suggested Barry’s call for peace was naïve, saying this: "When Obama talked about forcing us to make peace, all I could think about was baby Adele, who was injured by stone-throwing near Ariel last week." Barry may be many things, but naïve is not one of them. What he is, is vindictive and quite untrustworthy. What naïve is to believe anything that he says. If there was a politically expedient way he could cut Israel loose, he would.

Now I'm pretty sure that this is something that I really don't need to mention, but those left-wing politicians who were in attendance made it known that they enthusiastically supported Barry’s address. And that, quite rankly, is something that should have been expected, after all, those are his kinda folks. For example, Justice Minister Tzipi Livni of the Hatnua party went so far as to call Barry's speech, "important and inspiring." She added, "It is our job to implement our Zionist vision as is reflected in his eloquent words for the young people of Israel – those who were in the Convention Center and those at home." Ah, to be a brain-dead leftist, life would be so simple.


Barry "Almighty's" very first official trip/photo-op to Israel since being elected 'Dear Beloved Leader', comes during at time of much change in the Middle East. Too bad for him though that most of the change isn't necessarily for the better. That much talked about Arab Spring, has pretty much been a bust, first raising hopes of freedom and dignity, then veering off down a much darker path toward Islamist authoritarian rule. In Syria, tens of thousands of innocent people have died in what is a worsening civil war that has recently seen its first use of chemical weapons by a murdering despot desperate to remain in power. And Iran continues its steady march toward obtaining a nuclear weapons, ignoring international condemnation, what little of it there really has been. And Barry's rather one sided effort to seek peace between Palestinians and Israelis is now essentially in tatters.

So I guess it shouldn't come as too big of a surprise that the White House has, of late, been quite busy lowering expectations for Barry's sideshow trip to Israel all. As Barry will announce no new peace plan, no grand design or no major foreign policy initiative. His advisers are now resorting to calling the trip a "listening tour" and we all know how good Barry is at actually listening to anything other than the sound of his own voice. That is what you call a state visit when you have little, or nothing, as is the case here, to say. He who views himself as being a great and wondrous orator, has gone over with a resounding thud. But despite downgrading the trip, many still see Barry's arrival as being something of a sequel to his 2009 visit to Cairo, where he announced a "new beginning" with the Muslim world. However, four short years later, but as I recall, that was kind of a dud too.

And now, at least according to a recent survey by the Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project, confidence in Barry among those in Muslim countries dropped from 33% to 24% in his first term. Approval of Barry's policies declined even further, from 34% to 15%. And support for the United States in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Pakistan is lower today than it was in 2008, the final year of George W. Bush's administration. In his famed Cairo speech, you will remember, Barry, while apologizing for America, pledged a relationship between America and Muslims around the world "based on mutual interest and mutual respect." But in 2013, interests are diverging, and respect is in very short supply. But then, that's what happens when you project weakness and not strength. Barry is very conciliatory in his rhetoric and that only makes him appear to be weak,

Of all the strained relationships in the Middle East, the partnership with Israel is the most important and, potentially, the most easily repaired. That is, if Barry had a genuine interest in actually doing so. Barry has never been what you could call popular in the country, and with regard to some of the things he has been heard to say, it would appear that that bothers him very little. A poll released just last week showed that he had a scant 10% approval rating in Israel, with an additional 32% saying that while they may respect him, they certainly don't like him. And his attempting to make some gestures in an effort to heal the breach, such as visiting the grave site of Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern Zionism, are viewed by manny as being nothing more than the actions of an opportunist and something that are purely symbolic in nature.

But if Israelis don't like Barry, I think it safe to say that the Palestinians like him even less. With Washington's perceived failure to take a harder line with Israel over the final status of Jerusalem, and U.S. opposition to President Mahmoud Abbas' successful campaign for higher Palestinian status in the United Nations, have engendered a deep sense of frustration. Passions spilled over in Bethlehem this week, when young Palestinians defaced a billboard with Barry's image and burned pictures of him in the streets. Barry's symbolic nods to Israel's history are likely to raise Palestinian ire even further. Still, I think it safe to say, judging by his many previous comments, that Barry's heart lies much more with the Palestinians than with the Israelis, and I think if he felt he could cut Israel loose he would do so in a heartbeat. Deep down inside of Barry, beats the heart of a Muslim sympathizer.

Thursday, March 21, 2013


Providing a bit more proof that they are not quite the last line of defense that they perceive themselves to be, the House Republican leadership, on Thursday, again violated the pledge that they made to the nation back in 2010. You know, the one that said if they regained control of the House of Representatives they would put "all pieces of legislation" online for at least 72 hours before bringing them up for a vote. This time around, it was on Wednesday at 4:29 p.m that the Senate passed a 574-page continuing resolution that will fund the federal government for the rest of fiscal year 2013. This 574-page continuing resolution differed substantially from the 269-page version of the same continuing resolution that the House had passed back on March 6. Nonetheless, our less than stellar House Republican leadership brought the Senate language up for a vote in the House at 10:54 a.m. on Thursday, or only 18 hours and 15 minutes after it passed the Senate.

The Hill published a piece at 10:01 p.m. on Wednesday reporting that the House Rules Committee had released the text of the Senate-version of the CR that the Senate had approved five and a half hours earlier. "The House Rules Committee late Wednesday released the text of the Senate-passed bill that keeps the government funded for the rest of fiscal year 2013," said The Hill. "The bill is the Senate-amended H.R. 933." Remember now, this was back on Sept. 23, 2010, when House Republican leaders were busy reaching out to Tea Party folks in hopes of winning back control of Congress in that year’s midterm elections, even releasing a document they called "A Pledge to America." In it they said, "We will govern differently than past Congresses of both parties." They also promised, "We will require that every bill contain a citation of Constitutional authority. We will give all Representatives and citizens at least three days to read the bill before a vote."

At the event the Republican leaders staged for release of "A Pledge to America," Rep. Jason Chaffetz stood with then-House Minority Leader John Boehner, then-Minority Whip Eric Cantor and then-Deputy Minority Whip Kevin McCarthy and explained that this language meant the Republicans were promising to the nation that they would post all pieces of legislation online for "at least 72 hours." Chaffetz announced, "We are taking a pledge today to do a number of things." He went on to say, "It starts with all pieces of legislation be available online for 72 hours--at least 72 hours--so that the public has a chance to review the legislation and so that members of Congress can actually read the bill." McCarthy, who is now the House Republican Whip, went on national television twice and reiterated, rather strenuously, that the Republicans were pledging to America to post legislation online for 72 hours before voting on it.

And it was on Sept. 23, 2010 that McCarthy told Fox News he would love to debate Democrats about the provisions in the pledge the Republicans had released that very day. "Do they disagree that a bill should be put online for 72 hours and actually read before it’s voted on?" McCarthy asked. And it was again, on Oct. 10, 2010, that McCarthy told CNN, "When you look at the Pledge to America that the Republicans have laid out, there is a cultural change in there." He went on to say, "There is something that opens up the floor that hasn't been done for quite some time, where bills won't be written in the back of the room, where the bills have to be laid out for 72 hours, where bills actually have an open rule, where people can bring amendments up on the floor, which any freshman congressman that's sitting there today has never even seen that happen under the rule of Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats."

After the Republicans did win back control of the House in the 2010 election, Speaker-to-be John Boehner even went so far as to release an op-ed on Nov. 12, 2010, in it he highlighted his and his party’s pledge to post bills online for 72 hours before voting on them. "We will make it easier to cut spending, require bills to be published publicly for 72 hours before Congress votes, and end the practice of using 'comprehensive' bills to lump together issues that have nothing to do with each other," wrote Boehner. Back on March 6, when the House Republican leaders called a vote on their version of the CR, they also broke their "Pledge to America" to post bills online for at least 72 hours. It was reported at the time that the text of that 269-page version of the bill was posted at 2:21 p.m. on Monday, March 4 and voted on at 2:03 p.m. on Wednesday, March 6. Only 27 House Republicans voted against it the Senate version of the CR.

Ok, so back to Boehner's silly claim that we are now supposed to somehow consider Republicans in the House as being our last line of defense. Sorry, but I'm just not seeing it. And frankly, I'm not seeing all that much difference between him and Pelosi. And I'll tell ya, if people don’t see all that much of a difference between the parties where's the incentive for them to vote Republican? It would be nice if we could take Boehner and our leadership team at their word, but sadly, such was not the case. Then as now they do nothing more than to tell us what they think we wanted to hear, and there's no intention of ever following through. So why should we view them as being anymore trustworthy than Barry "Almighty?" At this point in the game our leadership team in the House has a bit of a credibility problem. And sadly I see very little evidence that they are least bit concerned about it, since they seem to be taking no action, whatsoever, in an attempt to alter that perception.


As I mentioned in a previous post, it was during a recent gathering of donors that Speaker John Boehner was heard to say that the House Republicans were essentially the country's last line of defense against what Barry is trying to get accomplished. So in what is an effort to provide a little proof that nothing could be further from the truth, I would like to draw attention to the fact that the Republican-controlled House is preparing to vote today, and may have already done so, on the Senate-approved continuing resolution to fund the government for the rest of this fiscal year and that it would give Barry "Almighty" the discretion to slightly DECREASE the number of Border Patrol agents. And this would be on top of their going along with the funding of Obamacare.

Their decision to go along with this would make 2013 the second year in a row that the administration has DECREASED the size of the Border Patrol, and that's according to official data released by the Border Patrol itself. In fiscal 2011, according to the Border Patrol, there were 21,444 Border Patrol agents. Of these, 232 were deployed along U.S. coastlines, 2,237 were deployed along the U.S.-Canada border, and 18,506 were deployed along the U.S.-Mexico border. In fiscal 2012, again, according to the Border Patrol, the total number of Border Patrol agents decreased by 50 to 21,394. Of these, 224 were deployed on U.S. coastlines, 2,206 were deployed on the U.S.-Canada border and 18,516 were deployed on the U.S.-Mexico border.

The continuing resolution (CR) that passed the Senate on Wednesday and that the Republican leadership will rush to the House floor on Thursday, only requires the administration to maintain at least 21,370 Border Patrol agents, another 20 less than the government fielded last year, and 70 less than it fielded two years ago. To keep the government funded another CR only needs to be enacted by March 27, six days from now, when the current CR expires. The section of the new Senate passed CR, that the House takes up today, that governs spending on Customs and Border Protection says: "Provided further, That the Border Patrol shall maintain an active duty presence of not less than 21,370 full-time equivalent agents protecting the borders of the United States in the fiscal year."

In a January 29 speech calling for "comprehensive immigration reform" that would give illegal aliens a "pathway to citizenship," Barry "Almighty" boasted that his administration had put more Border Patrol agents on the southern border than at any previous time. "First, we strengthened security at the borders so we could stem the tide of illegal immigrants," Barry lied. "We put more boots on the ground, on the southern border than at any time in our history." And a page on the White House website dedicated to Border Security actually made the claim that Barry has "doubled" the number of Border Patrol agents. "President Obama has doubled the number of Border Patrol agents and today border security is stronger than it has ever been," says the page. "But there is more work to do."

However, according to the official Border Patrol data, Barry did not double the number of Border Patrol agents. There were 20,119 Border Patrol agents in fiscal year 2009, which started on Oct. 1, 2008 before Obama was elected president. Of those 20,119 Border Patrol agents on duty in fiscal 2009, 223 were on the coastlines, 1,887 were on the Canadian border, and 17,408 were on the Mexican border. In the four fiscal years from 2009 through 2012, the overall number of Border Patrol agents did not double. It went from 20,119 to 21,394—an increase of 1,275, or 6.3 percent. From 2009 through 2012, the number of Border Patrol agents specifically deployed to the U.S. Mexico border went from 17,408 to 18,516—an increase of 1,108 or 6.4 percent.

Up through fiscal 2010, which ended on Sept. 30, 2010, the Border Patrol used a metric called "border miles under operational control" to measure its performance. A border mile under operational control, according to the Government Accountability Office, was one in which the government "had the capability to detect, respond to, and interdict cross-border illegal activity." Less than a month ago, on Feb. 26, GAO Director of Homeland Security and Justice Issues Rebecca Gambler told the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on the Border in written testimony that when the administration stopped using border miles under operations control to measure the Border Patrol’s performance, 56 percent of the U.S.—Mexico border was not under control.

That means the U.S. government did not have the ability to detect and interdict illegal border crossers along more than half of the U.S.-Mexico border. "At the end of fiscal year 2010, DHS reported achieving varying levels of operational control of 873 (44 percent) of the nearly 2,000 southwest border miles," Gambler testified. So, what do you think, are the House Republicans really acting as our last line of defense? There's an old saying that I think is applicable regarding our current situation. It's the one that says, "With friends like you, who needs enemies?" And that's how I feel whenever I hear Boehner make the idiotic claim that were it not for him and the House Republicans things could be, and would be, so very much worse. It's a crock!


I'm not sure what it is that John Boehner might be smokin, snortin or shootin up, but whatever it is, it must certainly be some pretty potent stuff. My reason for suggesting such a thing in the first place is the fact that Boehner was recently heard telling donors at a fundraising event that Barry’s second term was "supposed to be the president’s honeymoon, and our nightmare." Boehner then added, "Instead, he’s been the one on the ropes." However, I would beg to differ with the Speaker on that point. "This isn’t the way the talking heads said it was supposed to be," Boehner said at the National Republican Congressional Committee’s large March fundraiser at the National Building Museum, or so Politico reports.

In what was nothing more than and exercise in blowing smoke, Boehner said the president is hampered because House Republicans are balancing the budget, while Barry has no such plans to do so. Boehner told the gathering that the House Republican Conference is the "last line of defense" against what he believes will be a left-leaning agenda from Barry "Almighty" if Democrats take the House in 2014, according to a source who was in the room. And what I thought was particularly humorous was when he said, "I don’t know what these next few months will bring, but I do know one thing," adding, "We are the minority here in Washington…we are the last line of defense." Now is that a ballsy statement, or what?

And then, I guess, in an effort to blow his own horn, and trying to make the case that at least it's better than having the Democrats in charge, he said, "The president, his goal is to retake the House for Democrats and make Nancy Pelosi Speaker again." He went a little further by saying, "He’s got a whole laundry list of policies – like a 'cap and trade' national energy tax – that he knows he can only get with a Democratic House. (Oregon Congressman) Greg Walden is working hard on a plan to put a stop to all this. But we need your help." While it all sounds pretty good, I just don't have enough confidence that Boehner has the requisite spine to actually carry through with any of what he says. Recent history would indicate that he's just not up to the challenge.

And I'm very curious to know what it is, exactly, that has old John so convinced that Barry is "on the ropes" as he says he is. What does he offer up as being proof of his assessment of things. Is it the fact that the Republicans have decided to keep funding Obamacare? Sorry but they're out of excuses on the topic. But you have to give old John credit, he sure does talk a good line. But, I'll tell ya what folks, if the Republicans in the House are truly our last line of defense, then, my friends, we're very likely to be in much more trouble than we thought. Don't get me wrong, there are a few stars on our side, but far too few to make a difference. Boehner has gone to great pains to pretty much marginalize all those folks.

What needs to placed in the works, and right now, is a search to be put underway the purpose of which is to locate a genuinely conservative candidate capable of going up against Boehner in a primary. Because I think we all know, or should know by now, that Boehner is not a conservative, even though he tries to play one every time he goes on television. Boehner long ago outlived what little usefulness he might have once had. Personally, I'd argue that if anyone is on the ropes, it's our Republican majority in the House. Our leadership team of Boehner, Cantor and McCarthy, for lack of a better term, SUCKS! I think we can all agree on that. They all seem to be far more interested in their own 'careers', than actually saving the country.

Wednesday, March 20, 2013


Well folks I think it pretty safe to say that we now have a rouge political party whose members apparently feel that they are entitled to run roughshod over those of us for whom they are supposed to be working. It seems that they get just a little bit more out of control with each passing day, and every time they run up against rules that should prevent them from moving forward, they take it upon themselves to simply alter those rules. And it matters to them very little whether their altering of said rules is constitutional or not, because you see they have very little use for our Constitution. It's very much a fact that the majority of those who proudly identify themselves as being Democrats, despise the Constitution. They view it more as being an impediment than anything else.

The latest example of this corrosive rhetoric comes to us from one of the more rabid ideologues, "Little Chuckie" Schumer, Democrat douche bag from New York. You see, 'Little Chuckie' was heard to say, very recently, that the Democrats will "fill up the DC circuit one way or another," even it means changing the rules in the Senate to get nominees confirmed.. It was while at some March 10 dinner event that "Little Chuckie" took it upon himself to criticize Republicans for rejecting Barry "Almighty’s" nomination for judge in the 10th circuit, which currently has four vacancies. You see, Democrats like 'Little Chuckie" here are of the opinion that they alone have the right to reject any judge that doesn't meet their criteria, but that same ability is not one to be enjoyed by the opposition.

Talking about the Republicans, "Little Chuckie' said, "They just rejected on specious grounds a fine New Yorker named Caitlin Halligan for the second time." Droning on he went on to say, "Our strategy will be to nominate four more people for each of those vacancies [on the 10th Circuit Court]. And if they filibuster all of them, it will give those of us that want to change the rules and not allow 60 votes to dominate the Senate but require a talking-filibuster to prevail. So we will fill up the DC circuit one way or another." Earlier this month, Barry's nomination of Caitlin Halligan to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit failed to garner the 60 votes needed to overcome opposition and get a vote. So if you don't like the way the games is being played, simply change the rules. That’s the typical Democrat modus operandi.

Just briefly here, the reason that many opposed Ms. Halligan’s nomination to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit was because of what they say is her history of legal activism; most specifically, they say that as the solicitor general of New York State, she worked to advance the "dubious legal theory," in the words of Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, that gun manufacturers could be held legally responsible for criminal acts committed with their guns. "In short, Ms. Halligan’s record of advocacy and her activist view of the judiciary lead me to conclude that she would bring that activism to the court," Mr. McConnell said on the Senate floor. "Because of her record of activism, giving Ms. Halligan a lifetime appointment on the D.C. Circuit is a bridge too far."

In January of this year, 'Dingy Harry' Reid, slime-bag Democrat from Nevada, made a move to do away with the requirement of 60 votes to overcome minority opposition and force a talking-filibuster. The move would have required senators to hold the floor and debate in order to prevent votes on matters they oppose. However, the maneuver to force a talking-filibuster was removed in the filibuster reform deal struck by Reid and Sen. Mitch McConnell. "Little Chuckie" told the audience at the Central Brooklyn Independent Democrats dinner why he felt the need to have Halligan seated as a judge: "We have a federal court system and the second most important court in that system is the D.C. Court of Appeals because it controls all kinds of government decisions."

Making all manner of screwy accusations that the court is nothing more than a bunch of right-wing extremists, Chuckie said, "There are now four vacancies on the court and it’s dominated by the hard right." Blathering on he added, "Here’s what they have done in the last year: they have overturned the EPA’s ability to regulate existing coal plants which send their pollution here and kill the Adirondack mountains. They have rendered the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) impotent by saying that the SEC can’t pass rulings unless they do what is called a cost-benefit analysis, which ties any rulings to go after our financial institutions in knots." What's been done is nothing more than an attempt to force Barry to abide by limitations placed on his office by the Constitution.

And still Chuckie went on, saying, "And third, they have ruled that recess appointments couldn’t be taken into account," said Schumer. "Why did they do that? They did that because the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) which has finally begun to swing the pendulum a little bit back so that workers and unions could actually organize people as opposed to the rulings under the Bush administration --which for eight years -- but now they are going to render those decisions moot. So we have to fill the 10th DC circuit." In talking about the NLRB Chuckie conveniently leaves out the fact that it's Liberal majority insist on operating well outside of what has always been considered as being it normally accepted confines. Chuckie's being more than just a bit hypocritical.

You know, it's really a pretty sad state of affairs when elected officials feel the need to game the system when they're not achieving the results they want. These days it seems to be much more important that guys like Chuckie be permitted to freely move forward with their highly toxic agenda than to ensure that that remain within the confines of our Constitution. This drive to "fundamentally transform" our country seems to have been allowed to get entirely out of control and when even the slightest amount of interference is encountered, slime like Chuckie are quick to cry foul. As we have seen, especially over the course of the last 4 years, the Democrat Party has been infected with a form of liberal dementia. They're desperate to pull out all the stops in their effort to destroy our country.

Nothing should be permitted to stand in their way, for their cause is the more righteous one. They alone know what's best for us, they alone are capable be being able to rescue us from ourselves. And if you're gullible enough to believe any of that nonsense that you're part of the problem, not part of the solution. No one party should be able to dictate how our government is to operate, the only result will be abuse. Currently the liberals/progressives/socialists/Democrats have control of the Executive and Legislative branches of our government. And many would argue that they also now control the Judiciary as well. And far too many Americans seem to be oblivious to the peril that this 'perfect storm', of sorts, puts us in. These are perilous time my friends, we are hanging by a thread.

Tuesday, March 19, 2013


As time goes on it seems that more and more of my fellow Americans have become quite content to wrap themselves up in what is nothing more than the warm, fuzzy, blanket of blissful ignorance. They move through their lives as if all is well and right with the world, choosing to ignore completely the fact that with each passing day our nation is being forced ever closer to a cataclysmic event, the magnitude of which will rattle the futures of their great, great grand children. Future generations who may never know what it feels like to live in true freedom, or free from the ever watchful eye of an all knowing, all seeing government, a government that sees itself as the sole purveyor of certain rights.

Far too many Americans seem to be of the opinion that's is just better to just go along and to not rock the boat. They seem confident in their assumption that things will work themselves out if we just give it enough time. But I hate to be the bearer of bad news here, because those of us who have been waiting for things to fix themselves have, essentially, been nothing short of derelict in our duties. We were supposed to be the guardians. And now our laziness may well have an impact on generations going far into the future, quite possibly a future of darkness and here in the same land where once the light of freedom burned so brightly that it could be seen from anywhere on the globe.

We who make up this present generation were handed something really quite special by those who made up of those called "the greatest generation" and, sadly, we have not been very good stewards. We put ourselves above everything else, including the safeguarding or our freedom. In short we squandered it, we were unwilling to display the same level of courage so that we too could then hand over to those who follow us a nation that was even stronger and more free than the one that was handed to us. But instead what will be left for us to hand over is a country that is a mere shadow if its former self. One that is much weaker and one where freedom has now been placed on life support.

I’ve always tried to think of myself as being a ‘glass is half full’ kind a guy. Although, I must admit it was a much easier task in my younger days. And with us having been stupid enough to elect Barry to four more years, it’s now come to be damn near impossible. Because I guess I’ve finally allowed myself to come to the realization that yes, I am pretty significantly outnumbered by those who unwilling to take a stand against those trying to ‘fundamentally transform’ my country. I have yet to be able to figure out, exactly why said transformation is now required, but it matters not, because so many more seem to think that it is something that’s required. So, here we are on our downward spiral.


I think it pretty safe to say that most reasonably intelligent folks realize that the Democrats posses no real interest in cutting any amount from our current, and impossible to maintain, level of spending. That would be because it's all part of their master plan to essentially force our country over the fiscal cliff, once and for all. So it is then, that we continue to see Democrats in the House claiming that there is simply no way that we can possibly cut even a measly $44 Billion of spending, while at the same time introducing what they describe as being a budget plan, just yesterday, that includes $1.2 Trillion in new taxes and $200 Billion more in supposed stimulus spending, or twice the stimulus spending that the Democrats in the Senate proposed last week.

Meanwhile, House Republicans have put forth their own budget plan for 2014, one that would cut tax rates and spending by $5.7 Trillion compared to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) baseline, or, at least, so The Hill is reporting. In talking about his budget, Rep. Chris Van Hollen, one of those Democrats who proudly represent the People's Republic of Maryland, "We focus immediately on accelerating the economic recovery, on growing jobs rather than shrinking jobs." Also according to Van Hollen, the House Democratic budget would end tax breaks for individuals and corporations, raising $1.2 Trillion in revenue over ten years. It also includes, at least according to The Hill, higher guaranteed transportation spending,

According to this crook Van Hollen, the Democrat budget proposal also included more spending cuts than tax increases, if the $1.5 Trillion in cuts approved by the last Congress are included. He also noted that his budget, like that of Senate Democrats, ends nine years of automatic cuts through the sequester that took effect on March 1, again all of which is being reported by The Hill. And again we hear from Democrats about how their plan "saves jobs" when this imbecile, Van Hollen, made the 'impossible to prove' claim that the changes would save 750,000 jobs in 2013 alone, unlike the House Republican budget, which cuts $4.6 Trillion in spending along with the sequester cuts over a decade. Spending is the problem. Spending needs to be CUT!

It didn’t take the House Republicans very long to start pointing out a number of very significant holes in Van Hollen’s silly little budget plan. "The House Democrats’ plan imposes over $1 Trillion of taxes on families," William Allison, the House Budget Committee spokesman, told The Hill.. He went on to say, "It increases spending by $476 Billion. It allows the safety net to unravel and jeopardizes the retirement security of America’s seniors." Adding, "By clinging to the status quo, the House Democrats have doubled down on Obamacare-style cuts to Medicare and even greater tax increases on families," Allison said. "We need a responsible balanced budget, so we can promote a healthier economy and help create jobs.

Allison said, and I am very much in agreement with him on this, "It is disappointing to see House Democrats take such an unserious approach to budgeting." That's only because the Democrats are in NO way serious about creating a budget that works toward solving the fiscal problems that they are primarily responsible for creating in the first place. Come on, how can anyone look at what they are proposing, from John Conyers idiotic, "The Cancel the Sequester Act of 2013," to this silly budget from Van Hollen, and perceive them as being genuinely concerned about our budgetary mess? They have a vested interest in bringing about a complete financial and economic collapse in this country, and they are working feverishly toward that end.

Monday, March 18, 2013


To say that John Boehner has been little more than a disappointment as Speaker of the House is something that I think, most would agree, is an understatement. The grand hopes we all had after the election or 2010 just never materialized. Political capital was wasted because of poor leadership. And the list of reasons for why we can no longer afford to trust Boehner has grown to be a rather lengthy one. And over this past weekend that same list became longer by one. You see, it was during an interview that Boehner said that he "absolutely" trusts Barry "Almighty", not that they don't have their differences.

In his recent appearance on ABC's "This Week," Boehner said that he and Barry have a good relationship and that they're "open with each other ... honest with each other." But the Ohio lawmaker says they're trying to bridge some big differences. And as bizarre as this may sound, the one issue that they seem to agree on is the fact that the U.S. doesn't have an immediate crisis in terms of debt. I guess I'm a little curious to know just what it might take for Boehner to finally come to the realization that our current debt crisis is just that, a crisis. I'm not sure how it can be viewed as anything else.

I feel quite comfortable in saying that more than a few conservatives have come out and criticized Barry for his saying just last week that our country doesn't really have an immediate debt crisis. And Boehner apparently agrees with him on that point, saying that a debt crisis does loom in the years ahead because entitlement programs are not sustainable if they aren't changed. He says balancing the budget will help the economy. I guess I just don't understand how it is that someone can look our nearly $17 Trillion in debt, and NOT view it as being a crisis RIGHT NOW!.

And another thing that puzzles me is how anyone, who I assume has at least half a brain, can bring himself to trust someone who is a pathological liar. Barry has proven, more times that I care to count, that he will lie about anything. So just how is that Boehner can bring himself to trust someone who has lied to him, repeatedly. Either Boehner is simply not as smart as I give him credit for, or he's one of the most gullible people on the planet. Either way it's pretty obvious that he's now become much more of a hindrance than a help to the cause. We need more responsible leadership.

Sunday, March 17, 2013


You know, there seems to be, among Democrats at least, an odd competition, of sorts going on. A competition of who it is, exactly, that can come up with the most bizarre analogy regarding Barry’s ‘sequester’ and our supposedly non-existent spending problem. The latest player entered the contest just last Thursday when we heard from the brilliant Sheila Jackson Lee. Ms. Jackson Lee saw fit to compare the series of automatic federal budget cuts, that took effect on March 1, to the Japanese tsunami of 2011 that killed more than 15,000 people and left millions more without power and water, while sparking a nuclear reactor meltdown. Yup, in presenting her bizarre little analogy, the esteemed Ms. Jackson Lee said, "And for those whose memories fade, I want you to be reminded of the tsunami." And then she went on to say, "For it does not give notice and it is tragic and reckless for those who say ‘You know what, the sequester has started and I feel pretty good’ because you have not been hit by the tsunami." Again let’s not forget, this is Barry’s sequester.

She also went on to "warn" that this supposed "tsunami" of effects from the cuts, known as The Sequester, could come at any time – even at a time when Congress is not in session. "It may come at a moment -- when we are away on work recess, or when the speaker has sent us home and we’re not here working. And all of a sudden a great percentage of America will be walking around without benefits, without childcare, without teachers in our schools, and we’ll ask the question ‘What happened?’" she said. "It was the tsunami of the sequester," she added. Jackson Lee appeared at a Capitol Hill news conference in support of the "Cancel the Sequester Act of 2013," introduced on 6 March by her Democrat House colleague, and fellow loon, Rep. John Conyers. Let’s face it, who but a liberal Democrat could conceive of such a cockamamie idea as "The Cancel the Sequester Act of 2013?" How is it that they, the Democrats, feel they should be taken seriously when discussing our current budgetary when make such nutty proposals as this?

So now we have a number of liberal Democrats that are urging the House Republican leaders to join with them in an effort to simply eliminate the provision in the Budget Control Act of 2011 that authorizes $44 Billion in across-the-board cuts to take effect each year for the next ten years, amounting to about $1.2 Trillion in total cuts after one decade. The Sequester, that is, Barry’s sequester, which took effect on March 1 came about as a result of the failure by both Congress and the White House to negotiate a deal for alternative cuts, accounts for about 1.2 percent, or $44 Billion, of this year’s overall federal budget, a paltry sum, really, in the big scheme of things. The automatic across-the-board "cuts," however, only slow the rate of growth of federal spending, rather than reduce the amount of funding that is already available. For the past four years, the federal budget deficit has not fallen below $1 trillion. And the Democrats can look at that and come to the conclusion that in no way can we, or should we, cut spending by even $44 Billion?

At the time of this idiotic gibberish, recently spewed by Ms. Jackson-Lee, our nation’s debt stood at a staggering $16,700,634,854,470.52. Now if this silly "Cancel the Sequester Act of 2013" proves anything, it’s that Democrats are not the least bit interested in cutting spending, only in raising taxes. And that, as anybody with a brain can readily recognize, in a recipe for disaster. Which I contend, is exactly what Jackson Lee and her fellow Democrats are trying to bring about, a financial and economic disaster. Where was she, in making her idiotic analogy when Barry first dreamed up this whole notion of the sequester? I really don’t really recall her raising any kind of objections at the time because she recognized it as what it was. A tactic dreamt by Barry to put pressure on the Republicans, so Democrats, all Democrats, were only too happy to sign on at the time. Now, apparently thinking that we’ve forgotten that it was all Barry’s idea, they think that can now say the Republicans came up with it, and it must now somehow be averted. Nope, ain’t happenin’.