Tuesday, April 30, 2013
I have to admit, when the big guy, Chris Christie, first burst onto the scene, I was a huge fan. He made a big splash, and I remember thinking at the time, that we needed more guys like him. I liked his no nonsense approach and his apparent eagerness to tell it like it is. And I even made sure that I'd be able to watch his speech, which was a bit of a disappointment, at the Republican Convention. But with his, what I thought was a, blatant snub of Gov. Romney, at what was a pretty key moment in the 2012 campaign, the bloom pretty abruptly fell off of the Christie rose. And these days when I hear his name being mentioned as a possible contender for the GOP nomination in 2016, I just shake my head and say, "No way!" He's not what we need!
But do others share my opinion? I only ask because as Christie lauds Barry "Almighty" (again) over Hurricane Sandy, I wonder if he's seen as digging himself in deeper. As he gave Barry a tour along the Sandy-devastated Jersey Shore last October, Christie gave Barry the body hug – call it a non-endorsement endorsement – that some conservatives, me included, still think cost Romney the election. Six months later, Christie, a Romney supporter, appears to be unrepentant. He says presidential politics was the last thing on his mind that day. And, he once again gave Barry the Christie-seal-of-approval as far as super storm Sandy is concerned. "He’s kept every promise that he made," he said Monday morning on MSNBC's imbecilic program, "Morning Joe."
Might that be another non-endorsement endorsement of Barry "Almighty"? Or, is it nothing more that a frank assessment of the Billions of dollars pouring into the Garden State? And, could his assessment of Barry vis-a-vis New Jersey cost him conservative votes? Personally speaking, I think conservatives would have a difficult time voting for Christie. But according to political analyst Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia says it’s just another example of Christie’s stubborn nature. "He didn’t back off the October statements about Obama," recalls Mr. Sabato. But, at the same time, he says Christie needs all that money from Washington to help rebuild his battered state. And, as it rebuilds the state, it helps his standing with voters from both parties.
So far, New Jersey voters have a high opinion of Christie. According to an April 24 Quinnipiac University poll, the governor leads Democratic state Sen. Barbara Buono by 58 percent to 26 percent in his reelection bid this fall. Christie’s approval rating is a high 67 percent. But polls this early aren’t that meaningful, Sabato says. "There are a lot of politicians who are out of office who assumed their April numbers will be their November numbers," he says. Nationally, Republicans ardor for Christie has cooled somewhat. In a poll of New Hampshire Republicans just last Thursday, Public Policy Polling found Christie (14 percent) behind Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky (28 percent) and Sen. Marco Rubio (25 percent) of Florida.
On Monday, Christie tried to separate his approval of Obama’s response to the storm with his other political views. He told MSNBC that "everyone knows I have like a 95 percent level of disagreement with President Barack Obama on issues of principal and philosophy, but the fact of the matter is that he’s got a job to do. And, what people expect out of people they elect is for them to do their job." Sabato, however, thinks it’s unlikely Christie will win the Republican nomination no matter what he says about Obama. "Christie is too moderate," he explains. "It is not just what he said about Obama but a whole range of social issues. It just does not comport with the very conservative base of the Republican Party."
But his constant ass-kissing of Barry is really only the least of my concerns in determining that Christie is far from what we need as a party. He holds many questionable positions, one of which is in the area of the environment, with his seeming to be a believer in the cockamamie theory of manmade global warming. A position that is less than consistent with others who are also said to be in the running for 2016 Christie apparently thinks that climate change is a problem and humans are causing it. "Climate change is real…[and] impacting our state," he said in August 2011. "Human activity plays a role in these changes." His apparent willingness to support a theory that has been so thoroughly disproven, makes me wonder what might motivate him to do so.
So I'm over him. He may decide to throw his hat in the presidential ring next time around, but if he does I hope people are smart enough to see through him. The media will most likely fawn all over him in their attempt to convince those of us on the right that he would be the ideal candidate, but we can't allow ourselves to fall for that old trick again. Old Chris may be good for a laugh or two, but with the country being the shape that it's now in, laughs aren't really what we need. What we need is an anti-Obama, which means no Hitlery Clinton or anyone like her. We need a conservative willing to do what we all know needs to be done if we are to have any hope. Now I know there are many loudly proclaiming that there is no hope, but we can't give up, not yet. That's why 2016 is so important!
Monday, April 29, 2013
The House Committee on the Judiciary recently reported that that committee's resident imbecile, Sheila Jackson Lee, a Democrat, and very vocal anti-gun advocate as well as a staunch opponent of any and all voter ID laws, took what was a little "round-the-world trip" back in February at a cost to you and me, the U.S. taxpayers, of $23,646. Her 16-22 February jaunt, which was billed as being official but, most likely was nothing of the sort, included commercial flights to Korea, Vietnam, and Cambodia.
Now, Ms. Jackson Lee, being ever the responsible public servant that we all know her to be, did not travel over or back with CODEL Landrieu that included several members of the Congressional Coalition on Adoption, whatever the Hell that is. That little delegation was scheduled to meet with local community leaders, adoption officials, and other government officials, such as the Vietnamese Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Labor, Invalids and Social Affairs.
You see, seeing herself as being above the common folk, Ms. Jackson Lee chose, instead, to take commercial flights over and caught up with the delegation in Seoul, South Korea. After visiting South Korea, Vietnam and Cambodia she then left the delegation early for her return commercial fight by way of Frankfurt Germany. I guess the old girl must have thought that was the shortest and most cost effective route home. The trip costs included $19,970 for transportation, $1,292 for per diem, and $2,385 for other purposes.
As far as I’m concerned this ignorant bitch ought be to forced to pay back every damn dime to we the taxpayers. We're not her personal piggybank. And I'm curious about what it was that was perceived as being of value that the presence of this moron added to this trip. Let's face it, she hasn't got brains enough to come in out of the rain. Her one saving grace, I’m willing to assume, is that her constituents must not be any brighter than she is! Ah yes, this is your government hard at work.
So apparently with all this talk of sequester there still seems to be more than enough money to send this cow around the world at our expense. And just what did we get for our investment in 23 grand and change? I'm wondering, though, did this moron actually accomplish anything that would have justified the cost of this trip? I sincerely doubt it! Let's face it, what does she do that actually makes her deserving of her pay as a member of Congress? And hooting her big fat mouth off doesn't count.
Our Dear Beloved Leader, Barack Hussein Obama, on Saturday, in calling on the US Congress to end the "reckless" and "dumb" budget cuts known as the sequester, and to adopt a plan of "smarter" cuts to fuel economic growth, spewed nothing but pure propaganda. Personally, I thought this little 'demand' of his was a bit odd, since this whole notion of a sequester was his idea in the first place! And I'm kinda curious about something else too, what exactly is a dumb budget cut? I assume it would be any budget cut that Barry is opposed to, I mean, I doubt he would ever admit to being in favor of cuts that he considered as being "dumb", right? Barry's idiotic little weekly rant came after Congress, on Friday, overwhelming approved a bill putting furloughed air traffic controllers back on the job, thus undoing one of the most high-profile effects of the $85 billion in automatic budget cuts that took effect March 1 and hit federal spending across the board that comprise Barry's sequestration. High profile because Barry made them that way.
Barry perpetuated is propaganda campaign by saying, "This week, the sequester hurt travelers, who were stuck for hours in airports and on planes, and rightly frustrated by it. And, maybe because they fly home each weekend, the members of Congress who insisted these cuts take hold finally realized that they actually apply to them too." He continued by saying, "Republicans claimed victory when the sequester first took effect, and now they've decided it was a bad idea all along. Well, first, they should look at their own budget. If the cuts they propose were applied across the board, the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) would suffer cuts three times deeper." According to Barry, Congress on Friday "passed a temporary fix. A Band-Aid. But these cuts are scheduled to keep falling across other parts of the government that provide vital services for the American people. And we can't just keep putting Band-Aids on every cut. It's not a responsible way to govern." Come on, what does Barry honestly know about governing?
Barry did his best to play up his rhetoric of "dumb" cuts by making the claim that there were plenty of people, including low-income children being cut from government education programs and seniors dependant on food programs, who are suffering from the "reckless" automatic budget cuts. He said, "I hope members of Congress will find the same sense of urgency and bipartisan cooperation to help the families still in the crosshairs of these cuts." He then went on to say something that was absolutely hysterical in urging the legislature to adopt his proposed budget, which "replaces the next several years of these dumb cuts with smarter cuts; reforms our tax code to close wasteful special interest loopholes; and invests in things like education, research, and manufacturing that will create new jobs right now." Barry's Republican adversaries have rightly accused his administration of "needlessly" disrupting thousands of passengers for political gain in the dragged-out battle over mandatory budget cuts.
Look, I think it's pretty safe to say, here, that there has been more than enough evidence presented that makes it pretty clear, that Barry has, and remains so, quite determined in his efforts to make sure the American people feel as much pain as possible because of what amounts to a rather miniscule cut to the federal budget. And let's be serious, you'd have to be a complete moron, which Barry is counting on, not to be able to recognize that fact. But despite that mountain of evidence, the White House has continued to claim otherwise, pointing the finger of guilt at the Republicans. Like I said before, it was Barry and his cadre of political thugs who devised and approved the budget sequester, and it's now that same crowd who now appears to be quite purposeful in their efforts to make it far worse that it ought to be. Hey, I've got a better idea. How about we STOP blowing money on dumb things? The following are just a few of the completely outrageous ways that the U.S. government is wasting our money:
1. The National Science Foundation has given $384,949 to Yale University to do a study on "Sexual Conflict, Social Behavior and the Evolution of Waterfowl Genitalia". Try not to laugh, but much of this research involves examining and measuring the reproductive organs of male ducks.
2. The IRS spent $60,000 on a film parody of "Star Trek" and a film parody of "Gilligan’s Island". Internal Revenue Service employees were the actors in the two parodies, so as you can imagine the acting was really bad.
3. The National Institutes of Health has given $1.5 million to Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts to study why "three-quarters" of lesbians in the United States are overweight and why most gay males are not.
4. The National Institutes of Health has also spent $2.7 million to study why lesbians have more "vulnerability to hazardous drinking".
5. The U.S. government is giving sixteen F-16s and 200 Abrams tanks to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt even though the new president of Egypt, Mohammed Morsi (a member of the Muslim Brotherhood), constantly makes statements such as the following…
"Dear brothers, we must not forget to nurse our children and grandchildren on hatred towards those Zionists and Jews, and all those who support them"
6. During 2012, the salaries of Barack Obama’s three climate change advisers combined came to a grand total of more than $370,000.
7. Overall, 139 different White House staffers were making at least $100,000during 2012, and there were 20 staffers that made the maximum of $172,200.
8. Amazingly, U.S. taxpayers spend more than 1.4 billion dollars a year on the Obamas. Meanwhile, British taxpayers only spend about 58 million dollars on the entire royal family.
9. During 2012, $25,000 of federal money was spent on a promotional tour for the Alabama Watermelon Queen.
10. The U.S. government spent $505,000 "to promote specialty hair and beauty products for cats and dogs" in 2012.
11. NASA spends close to a million dollars a year developing a menu of food for a manned mission to Mars even though it is being projected that a manned mission to Mars is still decades away.
12. During 2012, the federal government spent 15 million dollars to help Russian weapons institutes recruit nuclear scientists.
13. Over the past 15 years, a total of approximately $5.25 million has been spent on hair care services for the U.S. Senate.
14. The U.S. government spent 27 million dollars to teach Moroccans how to design and make pottery in 2012.
15. At a time when we have an epidemic of unemployment in the United States, the U.S. Department of Education is spending $1.3 million to "reduce linguistic, academic, and employment barriers for skilled and low-skilled immigrants and refugees, and to integrate them into the U.S. workforce and professions."
16. The federal government still sends about 20 million dollars a year to the surviving family members of veterans of World War I, even though World War I ended 94 years ago.
17. The U.S. government is spending approximately 3.6 million dollars a year to support the lavish lifestyles of former presidents such as George W. Bush and Bill Clinton.
18. During fiscal 2012, the National Science Foundation gave researchers at Purdue University $350,000. They used part of that money to help fund a study that discovered that if golfers imagine that a hole is bigger it will help them with their putting.
19. U.S. government is giving hundreds of millions of dollars to the Palestinian Authority every year.
20. Federal agencies have purchased a total of approximately 2 billion rounds of ammunition over the past 10 months. It is claimed that all of this ammunition is needed for "training purposes".
21. During 2012, the National Science Foundation spent $516,000 on the creation of a video game called "Prom Week" which apparently simulates "all the social interactions of the event."
22. If you can believe it, $10,000 of U.S. taxpayer money was actually used to purchase talking urinal cakes up in Michigan.
23. When Joe Biden and his staff took a trip to London back in February, the hotel bill cost U.S. taxpayers $459,388.65.
24. Joe Biden and his staff also stopped in Paris for one night back in February. The hotel bill for that one night came to $585,000.50.
25. If you can believe it, close to 15,000 retired federal employees are currently collecting federal pensions for life worth at least $100,000 annually. That list includes such names as Newt Gingrich, Bob Dole, Trent Lott, Dick Gephardt and Dick Cheney.
26. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has spent $300,000 to encourage Americans to eat caviar.
27. The National Institutes of Health recently gave $666,905 to a group of researchers that is conducting a study on the benefits of watching reruns on television.
28. The National Science Foundation has given 1.2 million dollars to a team of "scientists" that is spending part of that money on a study that is seeking to determine whether elderly Americans would benefit from playing World of Warcraft or not.
29. The National Institutes of Health recently gave $548,731 to a team of researchers that concluded that those that drink heavily in their thirties also tend to feel more immature.
30. The National Science Foundation recently spent $30,000 on a study to determine if "gaydar" actually exists. This is the conclusion that the researchers reached at the end of the study….
But nope, we can't do that! So rather that cut any of the above spending, that is obviously nothing but wasteful to the extreme, Barry's brilliant team of hoodlums decided to instead, cancel public tours of the White House, release illegal immigrants from detention centers, cut airport security screenings, slash animal and plant health inspection expenses, and make other equally dire-sounding cuts. The Washington Times actually uncovered an internal Department of Agriculture email in which an official ordered a subordinate not to implement sequester cuts intelligently but rather to ensure that they are irrationally across-the-board. The message was clear: The public needs to feel the pain. So when Barry starts talking about the need to be making smarter cuts, that's not what he really means. As is usually the case, whenever dealing this lying sack of shit, he's the one making the dumb cuts and trying to blame it all on the opposition. Such is the rather warped philosophy of Barry "Almighty."
Friday, April 26, 2013
As perverse as this may sound, Barry "Almighty" actually praised the Planned Parenthood Federation of America for, of all things, saving lives and helping women and families in what was a brief 12-minute, 3-second speech on Friday. Now just as a side note here, that span of time would have been sufficient for 7.6 abortions to have taken place at Planned Parenthood clinics, if we can believe the abortion data in their latest annual report. And it's according to that report, covering the 2011-2012 abortion season, that Planned Parenthood and its affiliated clinics performed 333,964 abortions in fiscal year 2011. That averages out to one abortion every 94 seconds. Barry spoke to Planned Parenthood for 720 seconds today. Thus, over the course of his speech, on average, 7.69 abortions would have been performed at Planned Parenthood facilities.
In his speech, Barry referenced two women that he said faced health problems with fertility and cancer, and claimed that they had found help at Planned Parenthood facilities. Barry said, "So every day in every state and at every center Planned Parenthood operates, there are stories like those." He went on to say, "Lives you saved, women you’ve empowered, families that you have strengthened." Then, upping the rhetoric a bit, he said, "That’s why no matter how great the challenge, no matter how fierce the opposition, there’s one thing the past few years have shown," he stressed, "It’s that Planned Parenthood isn’t going anywhere." He then added, "It’s not going anywhere today, it’s not going anywhere tomorrow." Let's be honest here, this organization is nowhere near the boon to women's health that it's made out to be. It simply murders babies!
Planned Parenthood performed 333,964 abortions in fiscal 2011, and that would be an increase of 4,519 from the 329,445 abortions that it did in 2010, at least according to a fact sheet that Planned Parenthood published last year. Over two years, Planned Parenthood says it has murdered, whoops I mean aborted, 663,409 babies. The 2011-2012 report states that Planned Parenthood received $542.4 million in "government health services grants and reimbursements," which it states includes "payments from Medicaid managed care plans." The report also shows that Planned Parenthood’s total assets top $1 billion dollars, specifically $1,244.7 billion. Democrats are always quite fond of ranting about the NRA's blood money and those who take it, but here we're talking about ‘real’ blood money, money covered with the blood of dead babies. That's just sick!
In wrapping things up Barry said, "As long as we’ve got a fight to make, make sure women have access to quality, affordable health care and as long we’ve got to fight to protect a woman’s right to make her own choices about her own health care I want you to know that you’ve also got a president who’s going to be right there with you fighting every step of the way." In closing Barry said, "Thank you Planned Parenthood and God Bless you." God bless them? Really? Do these people even believe in God? I mean, how can they? How, exactly is it, that you can murder hundreds of thousands of babies every single year, and still believe in God? I'm just not making the connection there. You simply can't do that and still believe in God. It's impossible. I doubt, very much, that even Barry actually believes in God. The only thing he believes in, is the State.
And so it is then, that Barry "Almighty" will now be able to lay claim to yet another feat that has never before been done in the history of our country. Under his brilliant stewardship the federal government's debt has now increased by an amount per household that actually exceeds the annual median household income in this country. Since Barry’s first inauguration on that fateful day back in January, 2009, the federal debt has climbed a staggering $6,167,472,778,984.22. That equals roughly $53,616 for each of the 115,031,000 households that the Census Bureau currently estimates are in the country. Quite the accomplishment by Barry, wouldn't you agree?
By contrast, the Census Bureau’s most recent estimate of the median household income was $50,502 (for 2011). So, if Barry and his fellow Democrats increased taxes sufficiently to take from the private sector the equivalent of $50,502 for every household in the country—that is, an amount that equals the median household income multiplied by the total number of households ($50,502 x $115,031,000), the government would only take in a mere $5,809,295,562,000. That $5,809,295,562,000 tax increase would not be enough to pay back the $6,167,472,778,984.22 that Barry has borrowed so far on the credit of American taxpayers.
In order to actually pay back what Barry’s has already borrowed, the federal government would need to tax away from the private sector an amount that equals more per household than the median household earns--and then it would need to refrain from spending those additional tax dollars on new or expanded government programs so the money could be used to pay down the debt. On January 20, 2009, when Barry first took the oath of office, the federal debt stood at $10,626,877,048,913.08, according to the U.S. Treasury. At the close of business on April 25, 2013, it was $16,794,349,827,897.30. What's wrong with this picture?
Ok, let me see if I have this right. Apparently, a person, who many are now saying will most likely be a candidate for president the next time around, doesn't actually need to read what it is that she's apparently signing. What do we have here, the Henry Blake management style, or what? That seems to be the story that the White House is now sticking to at least when it comes to Benghazi and the performance of our stellar former Secretary of State, Hitlery Clinton. The White House dismissed the signature of Ms. Clinton on documents ignoring security concerns in Benghazi, calling it "protocol" for government official "signatures" to ‘appear’ on documents they did not sign. So they, what, just appear, like, by magic. I tell ya, these Democrats are something else!
According to Spokesmoron Jay Carney, "It is standard protocol that cables originating from the department in Washington go out under the authority of the current Secretary of State with their signature, i.e. their name, typed at the bottom," using his fingers for quote marks when he said "signature." He continued. "This practice has been in place throughout this administration and across prior administrations, both Democratic and Republican." Look, I may have been born at night, but it wasn't last night. This is just so much bullshit! Have you ever noticed how it is that no one in this entire administration is ever willing to take any responsibility for anything. They never have. I guess we're just supposed to believe that it all runs on autopilot.
A report released on Tuesday, after an investigation into the matter conducted by five House committees, found that Senior State Department officials, including old Hitlery herself, had approved of reductions in security at the facilities in Benghazi, Libya. The report cites an April 19, 2012, cable bearing Clinton's signature acknowledging a March 28, 2012, request from then-U.S. Ambassador to Libya Gene Cretz for more security, yet allowing further reductions. On Sept. 11, 2012, terrorists killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, in Benghazi. And as you'll remember, administration officials first told the public that the attack was a spontaneous response to some 4 month old, anti-Muslim You Tube video, which was pure bullshit!.
So on this past Tuesday, one of the enterprising young reporters present asked the question, "I wanted to bring up the House report yesterday on Benghazi. They point to cables that reportedly had secretary -- technically then-Secretary Clinton’s signature on it that referenced a request for additional security and in which instead cuts were made and some members are saying that this shows administration culpability in the security problems there, and some have gone so far as to say signs of a cover-up. I just wanted to get your response on that." In responding, our brilliant Spokesmoron, Carney, started out in what has be now become very typical fashion, by pointing fingers and saying that the entire Benghazi matter has now been so politicized.
Well gee, Jay, that's only because everybody involved in the incident, from Barry on down, has been doing nothing more than to tell one lie after another about what it was lead up to the attack, what took place during the attack, and about everything that has taken place since the attack. This whole thing stinks of a cover-up. And yet all this boob, Carney, can do is to accuse the Republicans of playing politics, and whining about how it was that the Democrats on the respective panels weren't specifically asked to play. Well there's a reason for that, Jay, if you are genuinely interested in looking for the truth why would you invite those to participate whose only interest is in covering things up? That just don't make no sense.
And then in trying to explain Clinton's signature being on certain documents, our shifty little shit of a Spokesmoron, Carney, continued, "And on the issue of the signature, you have to be factual and acknowledge reality here. It is standard protocol that cables originating from the department in Washington go out under the authority of the current Secretary of State with their signature, i.e. their name, typed at the bottom. This practice has been in place throughout this administration and across prior administrations, both Democratic and Republican." He said, "Additionally, all cables originating from our overseas posts are similarly signed, i.e. have the name at the bottom, by the ambassador and are addressed to the secretary."
Early on Wednesday, House Speaker John Boehner was asked about the House Democrats complaint. "The committee chairmen involved in Benghazi came together in terms of this report," Boehner said at a press conference Wednesday. "I think they’ve done a very good job in outlining what we know thus far and also raising questions about what we don’t know. I hope that our chairmen would reach out to their ranking members because I happen to believe ranking Democrats on the committees are just as interested in the truth as we are." I think it fair to say that that little statement is nothing more than further proof that Boehner's nothing but a dope. I amazed he could say such a thing with a straight face.
I think everyone knows, even Boehner, that the last thing that Democrats on any of these committees are truly interested in is getting to the bottom of the administration's Benghazi blunder that resulted in the death of four Americans, one of whom was our Ambassador. All they are interested in doing is to try to drag this thing out until it finally surpasses the typical time span of recoverable memory of the average American. Uncovering the truth is of absolutely no interest to them. Terrorism, even when it results in the death of Americans, is of very little interest to Democrats. So they see no real need, to get to the bottom of what occurred in Benghazi, these people knew the job was dangerous when they took it and were therefore considered expendable.
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Apparently, our rather shifty congressional leaders, from both parties, have been quite busy of late conspiring about the various ways that lawmakers and their aides would be able to avoid having to participate in Obamacare health insurance exchanges like the rest of us poor schmucks. Now that hardly seem fair and we are, after all, all about what's fair, right? Now at least according to Politico, these talks involve the White House, House Speaker John Boehner, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and other congressional leaders and have essentially been going on for months now. I think it safe to say that they are seen as being extremely sensitive, given the potential for political fallout. Why should these clowns be allowed to crawl out from something that is their making? Where's the fairness in that?
These talks were apparently prompted by concerns on Capitol Hill that the provision in this gem of a law requiring lawmakers and congressional staffers to join the exchanges could cost them thousands of dollars in new healthcare costs, which could force many staffers to leave their government jobs in search of higher-paying employment. Too bad! Various proposals have reportedly been submitted to the Office of Personnel Management, which will administer the benefits and decide whether and how lawmakers and their staffs will be covered. One proposal exempts lawmakers and their aides, while another exempts staff members only, reports Politico. NO ONE should be exempted! As far as I'm concerned either we're ALL in this piece of shit together, or we're ALL out of it! It's just that simple
Michael Steel, a Boehner spokesman, told Politico that the speaker’s goal is "to spare the entire country from the ravages of the president’s healthcare law," explaining, "He is approached daily by American citizens, including members of Congress and staff, who want to be freed from its mandates." Steel added, "If the speaker has the opportunity to save anyone from Obamacare, he will." That statement would be a whole lot more convincing if I'd seen some sort of action that could be pointed to as backing it up. But there's none. So excuse me if I'm none to quick to buy what this guy, Steel, is selling. Every time the Speaker has had the opportunity to effect the funding of this monstrosity, he's taken a pass, which makes it a bit difficult to believe any of the claims that his office is currently making.
But by excusing themselves from a key component of the controversial 2010 Affordable Care Act, leaders on Capitol Hill just might be putting themselves in a bind, or sorts, being made to face a backlash from both an angry public and jealous politicians not able to pull the same stunt. And very rightfully so! Congress already is taking heat from the public over the sequester and other issues. By writing themselves an exemption to Obamacare, Politico noted that lawmakers could be seen as holding themselves to a different standard than the people who elected them. DUH, ya think? But what the Hell else in new? The majority of these crooks long ago lost the whole concept of how this representative form of government of ours is supposed to work. It's they who work for us, not the other way around.
And then we have Mitch McConnell's spokesman, Brian McGuire, telling Breitbart News, "Senator McConnell does not support, and is not involved in drafting, legislation that would do special favors for Congress when his constituents are still facing the increased premiums and taxes, the mountains of red tape, the loss of health care plans they like and want to keep and fewer jobs under Obamacare." He went on to say, "It’s no surprise that Democrats would want to exempt themselves from the train wreck they created in Obamacare," McGuire continued, "but Sen. McConnell believes the entire country should be exempt from this historic mistake. The law is a disaster and needs to be repealed." But again, McConnell has done nothing that would cause me to believe such claims.
That would be fine little analysis of the situation but for one thing, it's not only the Democrats who appear to be trying to make themselves exempt from what is the "train wreck" that the rest of us are going to be forced to have to contend with. I think both parties possess an equal amount of guilt in this little charade here. Look, the Obamacare law is set to take effect in January, 2014 and it'll be in November of that same year that voters will go to the polls to elect a new Congress. The theory goes that that vote could set the stage for the repeal of Obamacare. Voters will then have the chance to exempt themselves from Obamacare. But will they? After all, they had the chance to do the very same thing last just November, and yet they didn't. So what makes anybody think that they'll do so the next time around?
Well, as if we didn't already have enough things being taxed, Congress is now busy preparing to take action on a 'bipartisan' proposal to raise taxes on, of all things, flu vaccines. This is not a tax on the wealthy, but rather on a broad swath of Americans, or at least those who choose to be immunized against the flu. Is that not just bizarre? I mean, come on. We're now resorting to taxing flu vaccines? So apparently there is absolutely nothing we are willing to do to cut spending, and nothing we won't do when it comes to raising taxes. It's absolutely freakin insane!
Back in February, identical bills were introduced in both the House and Senate to add seasonal flu vaccines to the IRS code as being taxable. The legislation would exact a 75¢ per dose tax on any "vaccine against seasonal influenza." Given that the Centers for Disease Control projects that 135 million doses of flu vaccine will be used this year, the government's take on flu vaccines alone is over $100,000,000 per year. And that's more than enough to make our esteemed members of Congress, and apparently in both parties, to start seeing dollar signs.
Along with taxes on other vaccines, this tax would fund the Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund. The fund is a "no-fault alternative to the traditional tort system for resolving vaccine injury claims that provides compensation to people found to be injured by certain vaccines." However, the fund is by no means in the same kind of trouble that other government "trust funds" are. What strikes me as being completely ridiculous is that we even have a, "Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund." What kinda country is it that I'm living in today?
The balance in the fund, as of November 2012, was more than $3.5 billion. And as unbelievable as it may sound, since the program's inception in 1988, the fund has actually paid out $2.5 Billion in the 25 years that it has existed for cases involving all vaccines, not just the flu vaccine. This means the balance in the fund could conceivably last another 25 years with no further tax revenue. Which begs the question, why create a tax that is so obviously is not needed? This apparent addiction to raising taxes is getting a bit out of control. Don't you think?
The House bill (H.R. 475) was submitted on February 4, by Republican Jim Gerlach with Democrat Richard Neal co-sponsoring, and the Senate version (S. 391) was submitted by Democrat Max Baucus and co-sponsor Republican Orrin Hatch. The same legislation had been introduced in the 112th Congress just months ago. And can you believe it, both the House version died in committee, but the Senate version actually passed by 'unanimous consent' the day it was introduced. Is there no longer anyone on the side of 'We the People?'
Now, a posting on the Senate website reports that the Senate has reached an agreement on the current legislation. Although this flu season is winding down now, the tax could easily be in place by next winter if the House follows suit and the president signs it: "The Senate reached an agreement that if the Senate receives H.R.475 from the House of Representatives and the bill is identical to the text of which is at the desk, then the bill be read three times and the Senate proceed to a vote, at a time to be determined by the Majority Leader in consultation with the Minority Leader, with no intervening action or debate. H.R.475, a bill to amend the internal Revenue Code of 1986 to include vaccines against seasonal influenza within the definition of taxable vaccines."
Now I think it's pretty much a no-brainer that our tax-crazy president won't hesitate a second to sign this thing when, not if, it reaches his desk. After all, I think it's quite fair to say that Barry has never met a tax that he didn't want to make higher. As is the case with all government "trust funds," there is no actual cash set aside to pay out claims. According to the November 2012 report on the vaccine trust, the $3.5 billion balance is invested in "US Treasury Securities." In other words, financing a portion of our HUGE $16.5 trillion national debt.
So what's wrong with picture? This is not why I vote for Republicans, so that they can then feel free to act like Democrats. Taxing flu vaccine, REALLY? As far as I'm concerned this is just one more reason not to get a flu shot. I stopped getting flu shots some ago anyway, because I have concerns about the safety. I just don't trust the folks who are telling me it's safe to have injected into my body. So this cockamamie tax won't effect me, but that's beside the point. With each passing day I become a little more convinced that the time may have finally arrived to at think start thinking about getting the Hell out of Dodge.
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
I don't suppose this will come as much of a shock to anyone who frequents these pages, but apparently, when it comes to Benghazi, both our stellar president and our former Secretary of State are nothing more than a couple of pathological liars. Whoa, didn't see that coming, right? Anyway, what has now come to light is that the woman who far too many would just love to see succeed Barry in the White House purposely lied to cover up the outright incompetence that directly resulted in the death of four Americans. Sound almost like some vast-type conspiracy thing. Anyway, neither Barry nor Hitlery are deserving of any position that would find them above the rank of dogcatcher!
So, after some pretty thorough investigating having now taken place, House Republicans have now concluded that the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence agencies bear no responsibility for failing to halt what was a terrorist assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, last year, releasing a report Tuesday that made it quite plain that Barry "Almighty" and the State Department set up the military for failure. The report also found that plenty of intelligence presaged the attack, but the White House and State Department, including the secretary at the time, Hitlery Clinton, failed to heed the warnings. Why shouldn't they? After all, they're the smartest folks in the room.
In what was the most damning conclusion, House Republicans said Barry’s team of political malcontents essentially lied about the attacks afterward, first by blaming mob violence spawned by an anti-Muslim video, and then wrongly saying it had misled the public because it was trying to protect an FBI investigation. "This progress report reveals a fundamental lack of understanding at the highest levels of the State Department as to the dangers presented in Benghazi, Libya, as well as a concerted attempt to insulate the Department of State from blame following the terrorist attacks," the GOP investigation concluded in its 46-page report.
Also it should come as no surprise that this gang of political thugs that we currently have occupying the White House dismissed the report as a rehash of old questions the administration has already answered, and said it has provided extraordinary cooperation. The report was released after rank-and-file Republicans feared the pressure to get answers on the Benghazi attacks was subsiding. Some House Republicans want to create a Watergate-style special committee to investigate the attacks, but leaders have resisted, saying the existing investigative, defense, foreign affairs, intelligence and judiciary committees can handle it. Tuesday’s interim report is the result.
It's thought, by some, that the report could dog old Hitlery if she should decide to return to politics, God forbid. Although, in the end, I doubt it will have much of an impact, if any. Most people who reliably vote for Democrats, these days, aren't really bothered by such inconsequential things as having their fellow citizens attacked by terrorists, and being made to die on foreign soil. All they really care about is making sure that their check will keep coming in the mail and in a timely manner, or that they'll be able to keep getting their 'free' contraceptives, or that they'll be able to marry their gay lover. Such are the priorities for the majority of today's Democrat voters.
But, be that as it may, the Sept. 11 attacks on the consulate in Benghazi left four Americans dead, including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Steven, the first Americans Ambassador to die in the service of his country since the glory days of Jimmy Carter. The GOP report said the White House was responsible for prohibiting the mention of terrorism, and the report said administration officials were trying to shield themselves from criticism that they had been too lax in security. "It is clear that the State Department expressed concerns, and was backed by the White House, that the information be removed to avoid criticism for ignoring the general threat environment in Benghazi," the report said.
And as to be expected, numerous scumbag Democrats from the five committees immediately fired off a letter Tuesday saying they were left out of the report-writing entirely, and that the end result was biased. "You are sacrificing accuracy in favor of partisanship," the ranking Democrats on each committee said in a letter to House Speaker John Boehner. Democrats talking about partisanship, right! They hate American and all that it stands for, and are constantly attempting to portray themselves as being patriot Americans when nothing could be further from the truth. Their actions speak far louder than they very empty words.
And we have White House National Security Council spokesmoron, bimbo Caitlin Hayden, making the same idiotic claim in that the report does nothing more than to go over old ground and that some of the conclusions conflict with the State Department’s internal review. Frankly I'd be surprised if the GOP did not conflict with the State Department's supposed internal review. When sense does it make to ask the foxes in charge of the henhouse how it was that the hens met their untimely demise? I have now qualms in making my own little declaration here that this "internal review" was most likely packed with every lie they thought that the could get away with!
"The State Department’s Accountability Review Board — the independent body charged with reviewing the attacks and evaluating the interagency response — released its report which specifically found that the interagency response was ‘timely and appropriate’ and ‘helped save the lives of two severely wounded Americans,’ while also making important recommendations to improve security that we are in the process of implementing," she said. Lying through her pearly whites, she said the administration has cooperated fully with the House committees’ efforts to investigate. We all know that to be true, right? This group as a rather odd definition for "cooperation."
But House Republicans said the State Department's supposed review fell pretty far short. The GOP report said blame for lax security extended all the way up the chain to Mrs. 'Slick Willie'. Of course the State Department didn’t bother comment on the report, but Secretary of State John Kerry-Heinz, who took over for Mrs. 'BJ' Clinton earlier this year, told House lawmakers last week that he would appoint a special liaison to try to dispel lingering questions. Still, he dismissed the core of the GOP’s charge. "I don’t think anybody lied to anybody," he said. Well gee, that certainly makes me feel much better, especially hearing it from a sleazebag like Kerry-Heinz.
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Sometimes I find myself wondering just how much of a sick fuck our president really is. I mean at a time when we are being inundated on a daily basis with some of the most horrific descriptions of absolute brutality regarding illegal abortions, performed by someone described as a doctor, but who is, in reality, nothing more than a serial baby killer, I just think it a bit unseemly that Barry "Almighty" would agree to deliver the keynote address at Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s annual fundraising dinner scheduled to take place this Thursday.
Now oddly enough the theme for this little gathering of sadistic ghouls, which is to be held in Washington, is a "Time for Care." Caring for who exactly, the millions of babies who have been essentially butchered since Roe versus Wade came into being?. Planned Parenthood President and head ghoul, Cecile Richards, said Barry has done more than any president in history for women’s health and rights so she is delighted to have him help promote the gala dinner with his presence. I do have some difficulty connecting the mass-murdering of defenseless babies with women's health.
You know, I just don't get people who can, in any way, justify the murdering of innocent babies. This rather twisted old bitch went on to say, "He understands that access to birth control and preventive health care are economic issues for women and their families." Adding that, "We fought alongside him to ensure that women’s health access was expanded in the landmark Affordable Care Act, and now we have to fight hard to ensure that the full promise of health care reform is realized for millions of women." What a crock of unmitigated BULL SHIT!
It's no surprise that abortion opponents quickly seized on the news, arguing that Barry should rescind his agreement to speak or even attend the dinner, considering the gruesome revelations emanating from the trial of Philadelphia abortion doctor/mass murderer, Kermit Gosnell. "These accounts by former clinic staff have shell-shocked the nation, and it is incumbent upon the president to reconsider his support for the abortion industry and Planned Parenthood, which last year profited from abortion $87 million committing over 300,000 abortions," said Lila Rose, who heads Live Action, an anti-abortion group.
Barry’s new health care law included a new mandate requiring most U.S. employers, including religiously affiliated hospitals and schools, to provide health care plans that cover contraceptive services for female employees free of charge. The abortion-rights community and Barry "Almighty" hailed the guidelines, first proposed in August 2011. But the Catholic Church and other religious organizations, which oppose some forms of contraception, tried to lobby for a clear exemption of affiliated institutions from the new rules, but was less than completely successful..
Also scheduled to take place at this gala dinner, the pro-abortion rights group plans to bestow upon that senile old hag, Dr. Ruth Westheimer, its highest honor, the Margaret Sanger Award for her "lifelong commitment to empowering women and men to talk openly and honestly about sex and sexual health. Margaret Sanger, that devout racist and promoter of eugenics. And Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa will also be honored with the "Care No Matter What" award for his dedication to 'protecting' women’s health care in the City of Los Angeles.
I'll tell you what. Barry "Almighty," together with every other scumbag who'll in attendance at this disgusting little event, are all folks for whom there will be, no doubt, some very special seating arrangement being made in Hell. And they will most assuredly be finding themselves in some very friendly company. First of all, there will be everyone who has the last name of Kennedy as well as every person whom these people have ever viewed as being a hero of their cause. My one wish for these people is that they be made to spend eternity on the receiving end of all manner of excruciating pain, just like the millions of babies that they have murdered.
Remember last week when we saw Barry was standing outside the White House lamenting the defeat of the expanded background check bill in the Senate. He stood there, repeating, ad nauseam, how it was that 90 percent of all Americans wanted such a law and how it would not have infringed on the rights of a single American. He called the pro-gun lobby liars for calling it registration. But to say that Barry was misrepresenting the facts would be an understatement, because it wasn't the pro-gun folks who were lying, as is usually the case, it was Barry who was doing all the lying.
Now Barry can say, and until the cows come home, that the bill outlawed a registry, but to what effect? Congress passes and overrides laws all the time. And having spent a rather brief period of time in that body, Barry's very well aware of that fact, as is anyone with a single course in civics also knows very well. To tout this as proof that there will never be a registry is disingenuous at best and at worst purposely dishonest. And choosing between the two, especially when it comes to this president, is relatively simple. He is, without a doubt, the most dishonest president in my lifetime.
Look, the bottom line here is that when you have a paper trail put in place for every gun purchase, or at least the vast majority of them, you have created a de facto registry. That's a fact no matter what Barry would have anyone believe. And I understand that it’s held at the gun stores, but for how long? No one said that this bill created a registry, but we knew it would make the creating of a registry all that much easier. And is that something that we really want to be doing, especially when we have someone now as our president who is so blatantly untrustworthy.
So in his effort to chastise those who voted against the recent gun legislation, Barry maintained that 90 percent of Americans support expanded background checks, and therefore Congress had an obligation to pass such legislation. But this claim of his was a bit of a stretch since it was based on a single question which was open to interpretation by anyone taking part in the poll. You see, some would think it just means expanding the process to make sure the mentally ill can’t purchase guns, while for others, it’s complete registration. So there’s a great deal of wiggle room here.
Further questions, and other polls, have found just how soft those numbers are in fact, with 53 percent of gun owners believing that expanded background checks would lead to registration and confiscation. No mention from Barry "Almighty" on that statistic. Barry said that the expanded background checks wouldn’t infringe on the Second Amendment rights of a single American. Really? So, telling me I can’t purchase a gun through an ad in a newspaper – a part of Pat Toomey’s "compromise" – without getting permission isn’t infringement of my rights?
Look, whenever those in government ask for more power, it is not just about what they’re asking for, but what they’ve asked for in the past and what they may ask for in the future. This bill wasn’t just about expanding background checks, it was about what comes next. Washington is notorious for being given an inch and then turning around to take a mile. Barry knows this. He may play ignorant, but he and his staff aren’t. They know how the system works, as does anyone with a fully functioning brain. They get what they can today, and then work to get even more tomorrow.
Monday, April 22, 2013
Everybody's favorite dried-up-old-hag-of-an-actress, Susan Sarandon, a gal who doesn't look a day over her nearly 67 years, seems to hold the rather bizarre opinion that, somehow or other, the war on drugs is "completely racist." She argues the point by claiming it’s only lower level drug defendants who get locked up, "mostly people of color." So what's she saying here? As far as I'm concerned this is nothing more than the typical gibberish most often heard from someone who spends a great deal of their time, fucked up. Anyway, this senile old dolt made this idiotic statement last Wednesday. But, as is usually the case with these imbecilic celebrities, she was far from being done.
So, this genius went on to say, "The war on drugs is ridiculous, because you’re only getting—you’re spending a huge amount of money. It’s completely racist. You’re picking up everybody at the lower level because mandatory minimum drug laws let you trade in to get off, so if you don’t have anyone to trade in, if you’re at the bottom, you’re going to jail." She then, I guess, felt compelled to further add, "If you’re up at the top, you just trade in somebody and then you get off, so the people at the bottom are the ones that are filling up our jails, mostly people of color. And you’re wasting taxpayers’ money, and you’re allowing drug cartels to make money."
Sounding like every other modern day Hollywood nut, the esteemed Ms. Sarandon advocated for the legalization of marijuana, saying "I would like to see everybody be able to smoke pot." And in attempting to point out the benefits of legalization, she went on to say that it would produce revenue for states. "If you taxed it, we’ll see what happens in these states that have passed it. You would have a lot of income," she said. Voters in Colorado and Washington State legalized marijuana through referendum. And sounding like she might have been more than a little high at the time, she said, "I mean Colorado has done studies. It could completely save our ass if we legalize just marijuana."
She went on to advocate for the decriminalization of marijuana, using as the basis for her rather twisted argument the fact that people who are high on marijuana are not a threat. Really? "I mean marijuana doesn’t—you never hear anybody robbing stores when they’re too high. They don’t drive cars. I mean alcohol causes more damage to your body, so it’s just a hang-up from ignorance, and it’s become politicized also," Sarandon said on Huffington Post Live. Now is that a brilliant piece of logic, or what. I swear, nothing these Hollywood types say anymore surprises me. I think it pretty obvious that this old burnout must now be down to operating on one lone brain cell.
When asked if she thought that the U.S. was at "some kind of a tipping point" on the legalization of marijuana, our dim bulb responded, "Yeah, we are." Saying, "I think we are, because it’s about education, and baby boomers know that it’s not a gateway drug, and it’s not going to kill you and all those other things." Well according to a lot of the data that I've seen, it's a rather large percentage of those who start out by experimenting with pot who sooner or later move up to those drugs that are far more dangerous and far more addictive. Sarandon is just another loony liberal who obviously cares little about the consequences that those who listen to her drivel are often made to face.
As twisted as it may sound, far too many of these Hollywood freaks are looked up to by younger members of our society. Not that that many are likely to look up to Sarandon, but she is far from the only entertainment-type out there who's busy promoting the use of illegal drugs. These people are the dregs of our society. Whenever they get popped for using drugs, even the repeat offenders, all they get a slap on the wrist and made to promise they’ll go into rehab. Your average person who, using one of their favorite celebrities as their example, goes out and lights up, shoots up or snorts up, gets to go to jail. And how much do you think that bothers the likes of old Susan? Not one bit!
So I do have a theory here. What Susan and her fellow drug users are attempting to do here is to use the little people in their effort to get drugs legalized for everybody. Their claim is that in order to avoid the unfairness of the punishments administered, simply legalize the drugs. As far as I'm concerned the answer isn't to start legalizing drugs, it's to start making an example of folks like Susan. If she wants to light up, then she should be made to face the same consequences as the rest of us. Maybe it would do her some good to be a cell-mate of some fat old dyke name Bertha, who has a penchant for worn-out celebrities. Everyone should treated the same. No one should be above the law.
Nothing demonstrates the high level of confidence that Barry has in his supposed 'reform' of our healthcare system better than his feeling the need to now hire a PR firm in his effort to convince the American people that he knows better than they what's best for them. So with the implementation of Obamacare, aka the Affordable Care Act, having now hit a couple of speed bumps, of a sort, in the form of massive cost overruns and uncooperative states, what is a socialist president to do? Well, apparently seeing very few options available, Barry has struck upon the idea of bringing onboard some folks to essentially bullshit people into signing up.
You see, what Barry "Almighty" has decided to do here is, pretty much, what any self-respecting con artist would do, he went out and hired himself a slick public-relations firm, or in this specific instance, the rather large firm of Weber Shandwick, to help in his efforts to sell Obamacare to the uninsured and persuade them of the 'benefits of enrolling in a healthcare plan. But, it may be a little harder than was previously thought. The supposed premise behind the healthcare law was to cover uninsured Americans by expanding Medicaid and by imposing an "individual mandate" requiring everyone to either have insurance or to pay a tax.
But the real concern now is just how many of the nation’s supposed 37 million uninsured would rather pay the penalty tax than actually buy into the new law? Advertising Age reports, "Weber Shandwick won a $3.1 million contract to assist the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) with rolling out a campaign to convince skeptical, or simply confused, Americans that the act is good for them and persuade them to enroll in a health plan." But the question is, will it be enough? With folks having much less disposable income these days, thanks to Barry, many will most likely decide to go the cheaper route.
The PR objective will seek to implement "rollout communication" based on "old-fashioned marketing principles," according to the magazine. The Health and Human Services department responsible for the propaganda campaign is the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. After all is said and done concerning this massive entitlement, the very people it is supposed to help are its biggest problem. Let's face it, most of those who don't have health insurance, don't have it by choice. They're younger people who feel they don't need it, and who would rather spend the money on something else. They're likely to pick the cheaper alternative, the fee/tax.
So I'm quite sure that we are now, once again, on the verge of being bombarded with all manner of lies, exaggerations and blatantly false promises about what a true boon Obamacare really is. And I'm just as sure that this little propaganda campaign will make sure to gloss over the many flaws while all of the supposed benefits of the program will be exaggerated to the extreme. Like any other 'advertising' campaign, the purpose here will be to convince people of the benefits of purchasing a product regardless of the hazards of doing so may effect the purchaser. I'm sure there will be people stupid enough to believe whatever it is that they're told.
Sunday, April 21, 2013
Americans are a rather strange bunch. I’m not sure if they’re are merely confused, terminally ignorant, or just plain stupid. But it’s very obvious that something is going on here. Because while more and more Americans seem to be content with, or merely resigned to the fact that it’s inevitable, we do have far more people today than ever before who are, in one form or another, dependent on the government. But, and for the third year in a row, the nation's ‘economic recovery’ has hit a springtime soft spot. Reflecting that weakness, only 1 in 4 Americans now expects his or her own financial situation to improve over the next year, so says a new Associated Press-GfK poll. I wonder how many of these folks voted for Barry, and what were they really expecting when doing so?
And it’s this sour mood, of sorts, that is undermining support for what, more and more, Americans are now beginning to view as Barry "Almighty's" poor economic stewardship and for government in general. What the poll shows is that just 46 percent of Americans approve of Barry's grotesque mishandling of the economy while 52 percent disapprove. That's a negative turn from an even split last September, shortly before his re-election, when 49 percent approved and 48 percent disapproved. Just 7 percent of Americans said they trust the government in Washington to do what is right "just about always," the AP-GfK poll found. Fourteen percent trust it "most" of the time and two-thirds trust the federal government just "some of the time"; 11 percent say they never do. Personally speaking, I’m with the 11 percent!
The downbeat public attitudes registered in the survey coincide with several dour economic reports showing recent slowdowns in gains in hiring, consumer retail spending, manufacturing activity and economic growth. I find it unsettling how it is that we have anyone in this country who can, today, bring themselves to actually trust our government or give Barry marks that are anywhere near being positive for his disastrous handling of our economy. Especially with there being so much proof right before their very eyes that socialistic economic policies don’t work, and history makes clear have never worked. And yet, there remains in this country a very significant portion of our population who seems to be quite convinced that socialist-style domestic policies are what we need. But you can’t have it both ways.
In the new poll, few say they saw much improvement in the economy in the last month. Well I’m certainly in that crowd. Just 21 percent say things have gotten better, 17 percent say they've gotten worse and 60 percent thought the economy "stayed about the same." But amazingly, the public seems to be split on whether things will get better anytime soon, with 31 percent saying the national economy will improve in the next year, 33 percent saying it will hold steady and 33 percent saying it will get worse. Further, about 4 in 10 expect the nation's unemployment rate to climb in the next year. If anything those results make it very clear that at least one third of our population consists of those who have their heads buried very firmly in the sand. Either that or they are very devout in their choosing to watch MSNBC on a regular basis.
And the public's outlook for its own financial future is at its worst point in three years. Just 26 percent think their household economic well-being will improve over the next year, 50 percent think it will stay the same and 22 percent expect it to worsen. About 27 percent of those with incomes under $50,000 are the most likely to expect things for them personally to get worse in the next year compared with fewer than 2 in 10 among those with higher incomes. Democrats, who typically rate the economy better under the present Democratic president than do Republicans, have become less optimistic about their financial prospects since January. Then, 41 percent of Democrats thought their finances would improve in the next year while only 30 percent feel that way now.
Jeremy Hammond, 33, of Queensbury, N.Y., a Web programmer, says Congress should focus on "the incredible debt and lack of spending control." For instance, he said, it's absurd for Congress to try to force the Postal Service to continue Saturday mail delivery — an effort that has so far failed — when the agency says, "We can't afford it.' This guy, Hammond, says he considers himself a political independent, which just another way to say Democrat who hasn’t the guts to admit it. He says he voted for Barry in 2008 but not in 2012. Probably doesn’t want to admit that either. Barry's overall job approval in the poll is at its lowest point since his re-election, at 50 percent, with 47 percent disapproving. His approval among Republicans is just 10 percent; among independents, 49 percent disapprove.
So I guess what I’m trying to point our here is that we American people seem to be in favor of socialism when it comes to any number of Barry’s domestic policies, they seem to be somewhat conflicted about how well his socialist approach to the economy might be working. And I can’t help but wonder how many of those willing to say that he’s doing quite well with the economy aren’t doing so out of some misplaced loyalty to the man behind the governments’ making it increasingly simple, actually encouraging, to be on the receiving end of any myriad of ‘entitlement’ programs. Today we have more people dependent on the government, to some degree, than ever before in our history. But at some point things are going to have to change. We can’t go on spending the way we are. And at this point there is going to be no easy fix.
Friday, April 19, 2013
I'm sure by now everyone should be quite familiar with all of the many claims coming from just about any Democrat you wanna name, including our genius Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, about how it is that our southern border has never been more secure that it is today. But apparently, we seem to have more than a few in law enforcement who do not agree with that brilliant assessment. One of those is Rockingham County, N.C. Sheriff Sam Page, who told reporters on Thursday that "our borders are unsecured" and he faces the same challenges from illegal aliens as do his colleagues in our border states.
"In the United States, our borders are unsecured," Page said at a press conference held by Sens. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) and David Vitter (R-La.) and Rep. Lou Barletta (R-Pa.) to respond to what’s being called the "Gang of 8’s" comprehensive immigration legislation which was unveiled Thursday and includes a pathway to citizenship. "I can’t understand why the representatives in Washington cannot figure it out," said Page, who is also the co-chairman of the National Sheriffs Association’s Immigration and Border Security Committee. "It’s not secure." I’m getting really tired of these various "gangs of 8, 10, 12 or `14" that keep cropping up every now and again.
"When drug traffic and cartel members end up in Rockingham County – two to three days from the border – with weapons, drugs and money and are housed up my county, that concerns me," Page said. He added, "I am a border sheriff also – from North Carolina." Well I gotta tell ya, I'm right there with Sheriff Page regarding my confusion over what part of the border not being secure that the fools in Washington just don’t get. And I must say that I am very disappointed in my junior Senator from here in Florida, Marco Rubio, that he would be willing to attach his name to thing. This is the wrong legislation at the wrong time. It does nothing to fix the problem.
The lawmakers were joined by a large contingency of law enforcement personnel – including Chris Crane, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent -- who oppose a law that they say would virtually amount to amnesty for millions of illegal aliens and would make it impossible for them to enforce existing immigration laws. Sessions said at the press conference that the 844-page bill would put "amnesty before enforcement" and would give illegal aliens "immediate legality with the promise of enforcement." This is all just ass-backwards. Now I can understand why Democrats would be all for this, but for the life of my, I fail to see why ANY Republican would.
"We can have no confidence in future law enforcement until the current constitutional law is upheld," Sessions said. And Sheriff Page added, "We must secure our borders." And I absolutely agree with both of these guys. After all, how can you argue with anything that either of them have said? It is nothing short of pure fiction to assume that our southern border is now more secure than it has ever been. That’s just plain nuts. Anyone who makes that claim is a liar! If anything, it's 100 time more porous than at any point in our history. Seems we have politicians on both sides of the political aisle who are very busy trying to convince us as being true something that we know to be a myth!
Providing further proof, as if we needed any, that she supports the Constitution far less than she does Barry "Almighty's" being able to do even more damage to our Constitution, progressive 'Gabby' Giffords made her feelings known in a New York Times op-ed titled, "A Senate in the Gun Lobby’s Grip." In it the former Arizona congresswoman expressed her outright displeasure with those senators who chose to reject universal background checks and other related gun measures. In addition to hitting back at lawmakers, Giffords, who was one of the victims in the Tucson, Ariz., shooting in 2011, dismissed the role of the gun lobby in the political process.
In what was obviously nothing more than her attempt to somehow chastise those members of the Senate who voted against this obvious assault on our Constitution, Ms. Giffords wrote, "Senators say they fear the N.R.A. and the gun lobby. But I think that fear must be nothing compared to the fear the first graders in Sandy Hook Elementary School felt as their lives ended in a hail of bullets." She went on, "The fear that those children who survived the massacre must feel every time they remember their teachers stacking them into closets and bathrooms, whispering that they loved them, so that love would be the last thing the students heard if the gunman found them."
The former Democratic representative charged that senators "gave into fear" and inevitably dismissed what she believes was "common-sense legislation" that would have helped prevent guns from getting into the hands of the mentally-ill and criminals. Giffords also wrote that the bill would have prevented tragedies like what has been observed of late in Aurora, Colo. and Newtown, Conn., to name just two recent mass shootings. But I'm more than just a little curious on what it is that she bases her assumption on, because there's really no proof that it is in anyway accurate. It all sounds quite nice, but there is absolutely no truth to it, nor facts to back it up.
I think it safe to say here that what Ms. Giffords is doing here is to simply repeat the same drivel that we continue to hear from those whose only purpose, in all of this, is to completely disarm the American people, essentially removing that last line of defense against tyranny. Progressives, like Giffords, work very hard at convince us all that we really have absolutely nothing to fear from our government, calling those of us who warn against allowing government to possess to much control, paranoid. But if history tells us anything , it's that one should NEVER place too much power in the hands of those who make up government. It's a mistake that could very well prove to be fatal.
Showing little patience for senators who decided not to back Democratic leadership, Giffords said that the vote should have been an easy one for every official. But, instead, she made the claim that special interests like the NRA won due to their powerful influence:
"Some of the senators who voted against the background-check amendments have met with grieving parents whose children were murdered at Sandy Hook, in Newtown. Some of the senators who voted no have also looked into my eyes as I talked about my experience being shot in the head at point-blank range in suburban Tucson two years ago, and expressed sympathy for the 18 other people shot besides me, 6 of whom died. These senators have heard from their constituents — who polls show overwhelmingly favored expanding background checks. And still these senators decided to do nothing. Shame on them.
I watch TV and read the papers like everyone else. We know what we’re going to hear: vague platitudes like "tough vote" and "complicated issue." I was elected six times to represent southern Arizona, in the State Legislature and then in Congress. I know what a complicated issue is; I know what it feels like to take a tough vote. This was neither. These senators made their decision based on political fear and on cold calculations about the money of special interests like the National Rifle Association, which in the last election cycle spent around $25 million on contributions, lobbying and outside spending."
"I’m furious," she continued, pledging not to rest until the senators’ wrong-headed legislative moves are corrected. Giffords appealed to "every reasonable American" to join her in a quest to progress greater gun control measures. "I am asking for mothers to stop these lawmakers at the grocery store and tell them: You’ve lost my vote. I am asking activists to unsubscribe from these senators’ e-mail lists and to stop giving them money," she continued. "I’m asking citizens to go to their offices and say: You’ve disappointed me, and there will be consequences." On that note I would only ask that all those who favor the Second Amendment make our voices heard as well!
Ms. Giffords concluded her op-ed by noting that Congress will hear her message — and the messages of those who disagree with her — clearly. Judging from her little article here, it would appear that her fight against current gun laws will continue. It would seem to me though that if she were really as "furious" as she claims, she would be asking Barry "Almighty" why it is that, since he's been president, enforcement of current gun laws is down more than 40 percent from what they were under George W. Bush. That she doesn’t, or hasn’t, says much more about what she's truly seeking here than does this stupid little op-ed of hers. She's nothing but another Democrat fraud.
Look, as I have said before, I truly am sorry that she was injured, and that she will never be as she was before that fateful day. But having said that, that does not give her the right to essentially use her injury in such an unsavory way as she attempts to justify the need for even more stringent gun laws. But you have to admit, the tactic is brilliant, because who would actually think someone would resort to such a thing? But let's not forget, what remains most important to all Democrats is the advancement of their progressive agenda. First on their 'To Do List" was to seize control of our healthcare, next is the robbing from the American people their right to keep and bear arms!
Thursday, April 18, 2013
I think that it can safely be said that what we were witness to yesterday, upon his hearing the news that the latest Democrat attempt to gut our Second Amendment had essentially gone up in flames, was further proof of the level of arrogance possessed by Barry "Almighty". We once again saw how it is that Barry behaves whenever things don't quite go the way that he wants or feels that they should. He went so far as to accuse those who voted against this bill of turning their backs on the American people and of choosing to ignore what he described as being their overwhelming support for this legislation that, in the end, went down to defeat 54-46. Now keep in mind here that there were five Democrats who also voted against this bill, one of which was 'Dingy Harry’ Reid himself, but you wouldn't know that from listening to Barry's pathetic little tantrum. And, of course, there were also three dependable RINOs who actually did vote in favor of it.
And in demonstrating what has become that trademark brand of arrogance with just a hint of hypocrisy, Barry chose to ignore the fact that he is far more guilty of using the tactics that he so confidently claimed were used by others in order to bring about the defeat of this bill. It matters not that this was a seriously flawed piece of legislation, it was what 'HE' wanted. Think about it, Barry and the Democrats went far out of their way to pull every sleazy political trick in their play-book and told all manner of lie to the American people in their effort to get Obamacare through Congress and to Barry's desk. And that was hailed as somehow being a great day for our country. But when the Constitution is actually upheld and the rights of the individual are protected, it’s a shameful day in Washington? The measures that were taken to ensure the defeat of this bill can in no way be compared to the deceitful tactics employed to get Obamacare passed.
And so as an ‘angry’ Barry "Almighty" declared it a "shameful day for Washington" after a group of senators successfully blocked an amendment to expand background checks for gun-buyers yesterday, at the same time, he seemed to imply that this was but one skirmish in a longer fight, as he vowed that it was "just round one." Flanked by the family members of Sandy Hook Elementary victims, who were only too happy to allow themselves to be used as props by this political thug, as well as by former Rep. 'Gabby' Giffords, demonstrating her own obvious disdain for the Constitution, Barry said a "minority in the U.S. Senate" went against the wishes of an overwhelming majority of the American people. The hypocrisy here is so thick you could cut it with a knife. Because all one has to do is to look back over the last four years to realize that’s exactly what Barry has continued to do since day one of his presidency.
"Families that know unspeakable grief summoned the courage to petition their elect leaders," Barry said. "A few minutes ago, a minority in the U.S. Senate decided it wasn’t worth it. They blocked common sense gun reform even while these families looked on from the Senate gallery." He said that while "a majority of senators voted yes to protecting more of our citizens with smarter background checks," a minority of members were able to use a "distortion" of Senate rules to derail it. Actually, the bottom line here is that this went down to defeat primarily because of five members from Barry's own party, including the Democrat leader in the Senate. I find it a little unsettling here that Barry would make such accusations, because what we have here is a president who has demonstrated time and again that he is perfectly willing to lie about absolutely anything if he thinks that by doing so it will assist him in furthering his socialist agenda.
The amendment had been described as being a bipartisan effort put together by Sens. Joe Manchin and Pat Toomey — "a Democrat and a Republican, both gun owners, both fierce defenders of our Second Amendment with ‘A’ grades from the NRA," Barry said. "Instead of supporting this compromise, the gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill…[they] claimed it would create a ‘big brother’ gun registry," Barry said. He said the "pattern of spreading untruths" about the legislation served a purpose: to enrage a vocal minority of gun owners. Sorry, but I will call into question anyone’s being described as a fierce defender of the Constitution, when they seem determined to come up with legislation, the specific purpose of which is, to undermine one of our fundamental rights that it guarantees. Because I just don’t think the two things are in any way compatible. And for Manchin to later claim that this bill would have prevented the shootings in Newtown, that's simply nothing but a flat out LIE!
Barry made the idiotic claim that the opponents of the amendment had "no coherent arguments" about why it should be harder for criminals and those with mental illness to buy a gun, but that senators "caved to the pressure and they started looking for an excuse, any excuse to vote no." Barry said there will be some who will call the amendment’s failure a victory. "A victory for who? A victory for what?" he asked. "All that happened today was the preservation of the loophole that allows dangerous criminals to buy guns without a background check." Actually what it was, was a victory for the Constitution and for the rights of the individual, two things that Barry absolute abhors. To Barry, the Constitution impedes the government, and in his view it is the government who should be the final arbiter when it comes to deciding who it is that should be provided with certain rights, and what is required for those rights to be forfeited.
In what I thought was behavior rich in irony, Barry angrily blamed the defeat Wednesday of his centerpiece gun-control proposal on what he called the lies supposedly spread by the National Rifle Association (NRA). Barry said, "The gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill." He added, "It came down to politics." Ok, so just for the sake of argument let's say that the NRA lied. I can only assume then that the only ones permitted to lie about any piece of legislation and its supposed benefits, would be Barry and the Democrats. I mean let's face it, they've lied about the supposed benefits of some very bogus 'stimulus' legislation, they've lied about the need for us to reduce our insane level of spending and most of all they lied about the so-called benefits of Obamacare. So shouldn't it be seen as being just a little disingenuous to be now labeling those who were essentially telling the truth about this horrible piece of legislation, as liars?
Barry and his team of anti-gun zealots had considered background checks the most likely gun restriction to be approved by Congress, with polls supposedly showing that as much as 90 percent of the public was in favor of the measure immediately following the Newtown shootings. Barry, of course, put the blame squarely on the NRA, which he accused of spreading falsehoods that the legislation would lead to a national gun registry. Sorry, but when it comes down to who to trust on this issue, it sure ain't Barry. He said, "They claimed that it would create some sort of big-brother gun registry, even though it did the opposite." Going on to say, "This pattern of spreading untruths … served a purpose. A minority in the U.S. Senate decided it wasn’t worth it. They blocked common-sense gun reforms, even while these families looked on from the Senate gallery. It’s not going to happen because 90 percent of Republicans just voted against that idea."
Throughout this entire exercise Barry repeatedly went to great lengths to talk about the suffering of those who lost family members in Newtown, but oddly enough there has never been the same level of concern for those who lost family members in Benghazi or because of his botched 'Fast and Furious' debacle. You see, with Barry it's all about the politics of the issue. It's about how it can used to, say, manipulate, or sway, public opinion. There was nothing that the dead bodies in Libya could be used to accomplish, politically speaking, while those dead bodies in Newtown were viewed, by Barry, as being political gold. I think most of us are able to recognize the fact that this guy is nothing if not the consummate political opportunist. So while he was busy exploiting the death of children, he was just as busy sweeping the deaths that resulted from the attack in Benghazi and from "Fast and Furious," under the political carpet.