Friday, May 31, 2013


A comment that I'm sure had old Mahmoud Ahmadinejad shaking in his little shoes was when our loser of a secretary of state, John Kerry-Heinz was heard to say on Friday that he did not have high expectations that an upcoming presidential election in Iran would change the calculus over Tehran's nuclear program, repeating it was unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon. Unacceptable but, according to the foreign policy geniuses that we how have in charge, apparently not worth doing what all responsible people know is necessary if we wish to prevent to prevent these crazed fanatics from going nuke.

It was at some joint news conference with German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle, that Kerry-Heinz said Iran needs to understand that international patience was waning over the nuclear program that Tehran says is meant for peaceful purposes. "Every month that goes by gets more dangerous," Kerry-Heinz said. Westerwelle also said more diplomatic talks were necessary. Yup, for sure, that is most definitely what's needed, more diplomatic talks. I fail to understand how anyone could possibly think that more talking will be what it takes to finally convince Iran that, yes, time is running out.

Obviously from listening to this Guido Westerwelle character, he isn't any brighter than is our own favorite boob, John Kerry-Heinz. And this insistence on the notion that these Persian lunatics can be talked to as if they are rational human beings, and convinced to see the error of their ways and to abandon their desire to possess nukes, is at best simply naïve and at worst just downright stupid. These primitive sand-dwellers in the Middle East understand one thing and one thing only. But these limp-wristed aristocrats disguised as diplomats just can't bring themselves to do it.

So because of completely incompetent goofs like these two, things have been allowed to run pretty much on automatic, because nobody wants to do what I everybody 'knows' needs to be done. Especially if we are to have any hope of averting a gang of absolute madmen gaining access to the most destructive force yet conceived of by man. With each passing day we move ever closer to having bon fide maniacs with their finger poised to hit the button that will unleash an event that will forever change our world. And yet everyone seems to be quite content to do nothing more than to sit on their hands and talk.

The bottom line here is that Kerry-Heinz, as well as this clown Guido, have absolutely no business being in the job that they’re in. Kerry-Heinz has continued to demonstrate that he’s so far in over his pointy little head as to be almost comical to watch as he goes about his supposed duties as Secretary of State. Honestly, in his short tenure he has come to serve no real useful purpose, whatsoever. And it's more than just the Middle East scenario. We're watching Communist China growing bolder, Russia selling weapons to Syria, and any number of other hot spots on the verge of erupting all across the globe.

In just the last few short years America has become dangerously weakened. Weakened to the point where we have now essentially lost our ability to provide any level of stability to an increasingly unstable world. And I can't help but think that that was the intent all along. And we have done this to ourselves and I'm afraid there is liable to be a terrible price to be paid by this country and her people before all is said and done. Because despite what all of the America haters may think, and say, there are definitely worse things than having a strong America as the world’s sole superpower.


We've got a long way to go to 2016, but, I suppose, it's safe to say that it'll be here before we know it. And I can't help but wonder, or worry, about how much of this country will be left when it gets here. And while there has been much speculation about old Hitlery Clinton taking the reins from Barry, her mishandling of the debacle in Benghazi, with the assassination of the U.S. ambassador has tarnished her image a bit. Her approval ratings are now down from an all-time high of just three months ago, at least according to a new poll. But as has been proven on more than one occasion, the memory of the American voter is akin to some sort of political dementia.

While Hitery's favorability rating in February was 61 percent, newly released Quinnipiac University poll out just today, Friday, has it now down to 52 percent and her once double-digit lead over her potential GOP presidential challengers Jeb Bush and Sen. Rand Paul has been cut to less than 10 percent. Frankly, I can't even imagine that we're talking about electing yet another Bush. But then I suppose anyone would be better than another Clinton. I think that if Hitlery were to be elected, I'd seriously begin to consider dumping my U.S. citizenship and taking my entire family to someplace like Belize or Costa Rica. Because it that were to happen, this country would no longer be America.

Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipac University polling Institute said, "Her score is down substantially from her all-time high score in February. The drop in her favorability is substantial among men, Republicans and independent voters. One reason for her drop may be that 48 percent of voters blame her either a little or a lot for the death of the American ambassador in Benghazi." The drop in her favorability rating follows a series of GOP-led congressional hearings into the State Department's mishandling of the Benghazi affair. More are planned and lawmakers have demanded that Clinton's top political aides at State appear to testify. She cannot be permitted to hide.

Still, this pathological liar and accomplice to the murder of four Americans remains the Democrat's best chance to succeed Barry "Almighty" in the Oval Office. In matchups with the leading Republican hopefuls, Clinton beats Paul 49 percent to 41 percent and Bush 48 percent to 40 percent. 'Slow Joe' Biden is her chief rival, if you can really call him that, for the job. But in the new poll he loses to Bush by six points and Paul by four points. Democrats, being the bottom feeders that they are, I'm sure will have no problem whatsoever overlooking the fact that she stood quietly by on the sidelines as four of their countrymen were butchered, if it means getting another progressive in the White House.

Democrats, as a whole, are really a rather pathetic lot. They have a rather peculiar set of priorities and possess no core principles. And nearly to a person you'll find that most possess what can only be described as a strong dislike for this country, one that borders on hatred. And while I'm not sure why that is I can only assume that it's because if one expects to succeed, then one must be willing to work. And for most Democrats, at least the majority that I've come in contact with, work is nothing more than a dirty four letter word. And for some bizarre reason Democrats seem to be of the opinion that they are deserving for no other reason than because they…'are.' It's really quite remarkable.

And therefore even with someone like Hitlery, It doesn't matter to Democrats that she is both a failure as a leader but also as a human being. What's remains most important is that she, if elected, would continue the policy of robbing from those who choose to work, only to give what was taken to those who, well, would just rather not. Whereas anyone on the Republican side would be far more likely to have a slightly different approach to things that most Democrats would likely find objectionable, even offensive. Let's face it, today we have nearly 68 Million people dependent on the federal government. That means 1 in 5 Americans (21.8%) receive some level of government assistance.

America is a nothing if not a product of it's citizens. And as mentioned earlier we now have 68 Million people who have no problem living off the rest of us and, most of whom, would be only too happy to elect someone who's willing to keep those checks coming even at the expense of taking all of us over the cliff. And if that were to happen there's not much the rest of us could do but either go over the cliff, or choose to abandon this once great and proud ship called America. It's sad really that so many Americans, today, have made what appears to be a conscious decision to cede or forfeit all that what being "American" used to signify. And for what, really? I just don’t get it.

Thursday, May 30, 2013


I'm sure by now most of you have all heard about how it was that some supposedly crazy gun rights supporter allegedly sent two letters containing the poison ricin to 'Nanny Mike' Bloomberg and the director of his idiotic little group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns campaign, Mark Glaze. The letters were said to make references to Mikey’s gun control efforts, saying something to the effect of, "This is a taste of what’s to come if you come to take my gun," although law enforcement, for some peculiar reason, is not willing to release the exact wording. Look, is it me or does this whole thing seem to be more than just a little too coincidental, that some moron would go out of his way to make sure any and all suspicion would be directed toward just the right group?

Now let me pose a little question to you. How many of you are familiar with the tactics of Saul Alinsky? I mean how many times have you heard about something like this being done only to find out later that the perpetrator turned out to be some nut from the left and for no other reason than to make it 'appear' as if it have been committed by those whom they oppose on some particular issue. In this case it's Mikey's pet project of gun control that we're supposed to believe sufficiently riled up some supposed gun nut to the point where they thought sending a poison letter to old Mikey was a good idea. But I'm curious, couldn't it just as easily have come from someone who's opposed to Mike's stand on big sugary drinks or his nutty idea of keeping cigarettes well hidden?

Then in what was quite possibly nothing more than an attempt to make sure things were nudged in the 'right' direction, NYPD deputy commissioner, Paul Browne, told CBS News stations WCBS 880 and 1010 WINS, "The FBI has an investigation ongoing and so things like the exact wording and the postmarks, etc. we’re not going to disclose." And according to the New York Times, Browne did eventually state the letters "bore the same postmark…indicating they had been sent from roughly the same time and place," and even went on to divulge "‘something about the way it was addressed’ raised suspicion about the letter sent to New York." Right! Sorry, Paul, but I'm just not buying this stupid little premise here, at least not until I have some actual, verifiable, proof.

New York Daily News reported that the letter addressed to Mikey arrived at the city’s mail center and was somehow 'miraculously', "flagged by a worker who deemed it suspicious." Well, what sharp-eyed little postal workers they must have there. We're also told that some personnel who came in contact with the letters were supposedly afflicted by some sort of mild, non-specific, illness. "Nobody was hurt," NY Daily News said, adding, "but three members of the NYPD Emergency Service Unit who handled the letter Friday came down the next day with mild diarrhea — a symptom of ricin exposure." And now that, what I'm sure was, some 'very thorough' testing of these letters has been done, we'll soon be told about just how close to death it was that old Mikey really came.

And wasn't 'Mikey' perhaps a little too quick in taking the opportunity, after his life thankfully had apparently been spared, to, guess what, push for more gun control? "There’s 12,000 people that are going to get killed this year with guns and 19,000 that are going to commit suicide with guns, and we’re not going to walk away from those efforts. And I know I speak for all of the close to 1,000 mayors," blathered Mikey at a museum gala Wednesday night. "This is a scourge on the country that we just have to make sure that we get under control and eliminate." I'm sorry, but to me this all just seems way too convenient. The gun issue had been pretty much out of the news for awhile and then comes this 'ricin attack' which then allows Mikey to climb back up on his soapbox..

And I'm quite sure very little prompting of the media will be required to ensure that all blame for this recent bout of 'poison letters' is placed on the 'proper' gun rights advocates. Only time will tell if these letters fool anybody or have the desired result of leading to any new anti-gun legislation or laws geared at further destroying what few civil liberties we still have left in this country. What this most likely is, is nothing more than a sinister charade, an attempt to fool people into believing that those of us who believe we have a right to own a gun are not as rational as those to wish nothing more than to place 'reasonable' limits on that most basic of rights guaranteed to us by our Constitution, the right to keep and bear arms. Personally, I'd be willing to bet that old Mikey not only knows exactly where those letters came from, but who it was that sent them.

Wednesday, May 29, 2013


If there is one area in which it can be safely said that Barry seems to excel, it would be in the area of growing the number of people who now find themselves, in one way or another, firmly attached to the government teat. My rationale for making such a claim is the fact the total number of people in the United States now receiving federal disability benefits has once again managed to hit yet another new record. As of May, that total now stands at an unbelievable 10,978,040, which is up from the 10,962,532 million we had in the previous month. These numbers are according to newly released data from Barry's own Social Security Administration.

And, you know, as amazing as this may sound, those 10,978,040 disability beneficiaries here in the United States now actually exceeds the population of all but seven states. For liberals, that mean they outnumber the folks in 43 states. For example, there are more Americans collecting disability today than there are people living in Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, New Jersey or Virginia. The record 10,978,040 total disability beneficiaries in May, included a record 8,877,921 disabled workers (up from 8,865,586 in April), a record 1,939,687 children of disabled workers (up from 1,936,236 in April), and 160,432 spouses of disabled workers.

And another rather amazing fact is that May was actually the 196th straight month where we saw the number of American workers collecting federal disability payments increase. The last time the number of Americans collecting disability actually decreased was back in January 1997. It was during that month that we saw the number of workers taking disability drop by what was a staggering 249 people—from 4,385,623 in December 1996 to 4,385,374 in January 1997. And, as the overall number of American workers collecting disability has increased, the ratio of full-time workers to disability-collecting workers has decreased.

In December 1968, 1,295,428 American workers collected disability and, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 65,630,000 worked full-time. Thus, there were about 51 full-time workers for each worker collecting disability. Now fast forward to May 2013, with its record 8,877,921 American workers collecting disability and 116,053,000 working full-time, and we now have only 13 Americans working full-time for each worker on disability. And while Barry cannot be held responsible for every one of those 196 months, it's his policies that can be said to be responsible for there now being 10 million fewer people in our workforce.

According to the latest Census Bureau population estimates, if disability were a state in the union it would rank eighth in population, coming in after Ohio but ahead of Georgia:
1. California 38,041,430
2. Texas 26,059,203
3. New York 19,570,261
4. Florida 19,317,568
5. Illinois 12,875,255
6. Pennsylvania 12,763,536
7. Ohio 11,544,225
8. Disability 10,978,040
9. Georgia 9,919,945

Maybe I'm showing my age here, but apparently being an American no longer means what it once did. Whereas in the old days folks did their best to avoid taking what was then considered to be a handout from the government, these days it's just the reverse. Of course, I suppose, it doesn't help matters much when you have the government aggressively searching out folks who can be easily enticed into becoming a government dependent. After all, the more people who become wards of the state, the more folks there are that can then be 'persuaded' into voting for Democrats. Because once these parasites become addicted to that steady government handout, they'll want it to be more, and Democrats will cheerfully promise to make it more.


I think it safe to say that, in one sense or another, every CEO can be said to be a politician. However, the same rarely holds true in trying to describe most politicians as being CEOs. And nothing proves that point better than the growing numbers of scandals that have now seemed to plague Barry "Almighty". And I think it fair to say that they are as much management failures as they are political, legal and ethical failures. There is a price to be paid for having no market-facing executive experience in his inner circle. Barry’s first cabinet was nearly completely devoid of any private sector management experience but yet seemed to be awash in 'experience' the source of which was leftist academia. Hence a big reason for where we find ourselves today economically, socially and internationally.

For those who pay attention to such things and who are nowhere near foolish enough to believe that all of those involved in business are evil and greedy, most of our better presidents have had at least some level of business and/or military leadership experience. And this has very often proven to be an invaluable asset and one of tremendous value when running the world’s largest organization. Those who haven’t, such as 'Slick Willie' Clinton who was himself tested by failure as a politician, knew that private sector executives have a different view of what successful management is and therefore had the wisdom to keep a few close at hand. However, being the caliber of politician that he is, such is not the case with Barry "Almighty," and it shows.

If he, or she, has any hope of being a success, every CEO must be capable of dealing with a crisis, and more often that not several occurring at the same time. Crises that stem from irate customers to those created by any number of suppliers, regulators, and even investors. CEOs must be able to deal with faceless markets that can’t be manipulated and can be prove to be considerably volatile due to any number of outside influences. And on the political side of being a CEO it's pretty simple as it essentially boils down to just one thing: Get a big decision wrong you lose your job, tomorrow! Manage a crisis well and your "decision wisdom" grows and so does your market value. It's all pretty cut and dried really, just ask the recently fired CEO of JC Penney.

Successful executives understand their organizations inside and out, they possess a keen sense of the talent level, culture, and the values that drive their companies. They are always on a quest to try to improve all three. No chief executive trying to improve the performance of their company would be foolish, or reckless, enough to simply "trust" the firm’s bureaucracy. Private sector presidents know "Bureaucracy eats strategy for lunch." Barry seems to value bureaucracy to the point where he’s made it bigger, much bigger, and paid it better even when taxpayers have lost jobs, income and substantial household wealth. But, as he might now be discovering, just as in private sector companies, an unmanaged bureaucracy eventually will bite its boss.

To put it quite simply, Barry has brought much of his trouble on himself. Had he sought counsel from those CEOs who weren’t busy cozying up as members of his advisory panels, most of whose companies enjoy larger federal subsidies from his administration, his political life might be a lot better. For starters, even those of like me who can't stand this guy realize that none of these crises 'had' to happen! CEOs pay attention to history. They know the "why" of the steel industry reinventing itself in micro-mills, the Tylenol crisis story and what went wrong inside Enron. They put themselves into such stories to understand how success and failure happened and to test what they would do. My point here is that crises are going to happen, but you prepare as best you can so you can then prevent, or limit the damage they cause, as many as you can.

When there was trouble afoot in Benghazi on 9-11 that should have prompted caution. A CEO would have said to his NSC chief: "No incidents on the anniversary." The activity of lower level IRS agents was apparently known by more than a few people close to Barry. An executive office staff that saw their boss as being vulnerable, as every CEO is, would have made sure that he was aware and prompted an early and public intervention. Likewise the AP story; instead of going outside, a route any CEO would instinctively know held danger, focus inside. Before tramping on constitutional rights, he should work the White House information chain backwards, who knew leaked facts? Federal employees with secret clearance know that lie detector testing comes with the job.

It is said that Barry’s political talent is without equal. What I know for sure is that his ability to lie is certainly unmatched, even by the Clintons. Barry's path to being a CEO is one of learning by doing. First, he would need to get back into grace of his bosses, the voters, and not just the ones who voted 'for' him! He should apologize loudly and often, taking full responsibility and actions that matter. The CEO’s script: "I can’t believe federal servants didn’t protect diplomats, spied on the press, and singled out conservative groups using the tax code. It seems the apparatus of Washington forgets who has the ultimate authority – not aides, deputies, and not bureau chiefs. It’s mine; I’m President." Like that's going to happen! That's just not how Barry operates.

Then he should say, "I mean to run government in a way that inspires trust. I am firing the Attorney General, the head of the NSC, the Chief of the Joint Staff, and my White House counsel. I don’t know what the Attorney General did. It really doesn’t matter. Justice so abused the 1st Amendment I have no choice. NSC and Defense misjudged the potential in Benghazi badly and failed to save American personnel in ongoing danger — I can’t tolerate such bad management. My White House counsel knew of the IRS investigations for weeks without telling me." He should appoint some former judge of the Tax Court to clean up the IRS. Then he should preempt the Congress by saying that he wants them to reconsider Obamacare, taking away any role for the IRS. But again, ain't gonna happen.

And if he were to do all that, Barry would essentially kill two birds with one stone, he'd have his mojo back almost instantly and the Republicans would be completely flummoxed. He could then claim that he was focusing on getting the economy growing again. Because after 4 plus years of stimulus, taxes, expensive initiatives, and regulation we still have zero real job growth. If he proposes material revisions to Obamacare the economy will jump on the news. Endorsing Keystone also makes the economy leap. And, if like JFK he were to reject his leftist economists’ advice, and cuts taxes and spending, he’d leave office with GDP at 6+ percent! The nation’s affection for "BJ" Clinton will look like puppy love. What private sector CEOs know and do might be of enormous help to both Barry and the nation just now.

But after having said all of this and having made all of the above comparisons, I think it pretty fair to say that not much of it will occur. Most of us are able to recognize the fact that Barry is the quintessential anti-CEO. He votes present, takes no responsibility for anything and blames all of his problems on either his subordinates or his opposition. He has demonstrated, on any number of occasions, that he's not the least bit hesitant about throwing those under the bus who can be used to deflect blame. And at the same time he goes to great lengths to claim sole responsibility for those things perceived as being good. That's not leadership in any sense of the word. But then Barry is not a leader, what he is, is a devoted follower who got himself elected. A longstanding disciple of socialism. And he is determined to move this country in that direction by any means.

Tuesday, May 28, 2013


John Kerry-Heinz is perhaps the most prefect example yet for anyone determined to make the case that there exists no requirement that someone first possess a great intellect in order to be qualified to become either a U.S. Senator or Secretary of State. Kerry-Heinz has presented us with a spectacular number of examples throughout his years in Washington, proving beyond the shadow of a doubt just how much of a moron he really is. But perhaps his most recent display can be said to be the clincher. And it also demonstrates that he really has no business being in his present position. You see, apparently it is his opinion that the many accomplishments as well as the economic prosperity of Israel is what is actually preventing the peace process from moving ahead in the Middle East.

Now you may be thinking that I'm either quite literally out of my mind to make such a claim, or that I must have misundertood what is was that he really said. But here's what he said in a statement to reporters (via the official State Department transcript), just last week, before his meetings with Israel’s leadership, then you decide. Secretary John Kerry-Heinz told reporters: "I think there is an opportunity [for peace], but for many reasons it’s not on the tips of everyone’s tongue. People in Israel aren’t waking up every day and wondering if tomorrow there will be peace because there is a sense of security and a sense of accomplishment and of prosperity." Kerry-Heinz’s comments were delivered three days before his appearance at the World Economic Forum on the Middle East last Saturday.

Almost immediately after making that rather idiotic statement, there were numerous responses posted online. It was The Jewish Press that opined: "So, Secretary Kerry thinks it would be better for Israel to approach negotiations from a position of precarious poverty? Does he think Israel’s quest for legitimacy and security in an unstable, over-armed and hostile region would be better received if Israel were a needy, insecure supplicant to Palestinian and Arab interests? Or that the Palestinians would have pity on an unnerved and anxious Israel struggling with a bankrupt, aid-dependent economy?" Apparently the answer to all of those questions, at least as far as the esteemed Mr. Kerry-Heinz is concerned, is a very enthusiastic, YES!

And then the day after meeting with Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu and Palestinian President Abbas, Kerry-Heinz again addressed the press and curiously made mention of the Palestinian’s "priority concern" that includes becoming a "prosperous state": "Palestinians have a priority concern with respect to knowing that they can secure an independent, sovereign, and prosperous state with clear lines as defined previously by them and others along the 1967 lines with swaps and recognizing changes that have taken place on the ground, as President Obama stated in his vision in 2011." Look, when one's primary focus in life is figure out how best to go about lobbing missiles or sending suicide bombers into Israel, it's difficult to find time to become prosperous.

Concerning Kerry-Heinz’s statement that peace is not a priority for Israel because "there is a sense of security" in that country, many Israeli’s point to their country’s need to have an "Iron Dome" system to protect its people from what has become regular missile attacks. And then, of course there's that little problem of Iran’s nuclear program and that little nutjob, Ahmadinejad's, regular promises to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Neither of which seems to bother Kerry'-Heinz or, for that matter, his boss. It’s easy to see why it is that people in Israel would be confused by Kerry-Heinz’s imbecilic statements. He appears to be saying that Palestinians need to be independent and prosperous, while claiming that Israel’s prosperity is seen as something that’s blocking the peace process.

So, are you one of those who actually agrees with John Kerry-Heinz's assessment of the situation? Would a less prosperous Israel actually be helpful in making the Middle East peace process more likely? Let's face it, except for Israel, which also just happens to be the only bona fide democracy in the region, the Middle East is essentially an intellectual wasteland. I think it's been demonstrated, on more than one occasion, that Muslim countries are simply incapable of exporting anything other than oil and terrorism. Think about it, what great discovery or innovation can be said to have come from any Arab country. The bottom line here is that if they didn't possess oil, and in the amount that they do, even the small part of the Arab region that has managed to crawl out of the Stone Age, wouldn't have ever made it.


If by some strange chance you aren't already convinced of the fact that hypocrisy is known to run pretty deep in the Democrat Party, the fact that many key Democrats continue to reject any and all calls for a special prosecutor to investigate the ongoing IRS scandal that has continued to plague Barry, should definitely make that fact painfully clear. According to these hypocritical boobs, the rationale for arriving at such a decision is that two weeks of unfolding details, congressional hearings and forced resignations have simply not allowed these brain surgeons enough time to ‘study’ the issue. Personally, I have a rather difficult time believing that if the guilty party involved here were not a Democrat, impeachment proceedings would already be well underway with many of these same Democrats leading the charge.

Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus, the Montana Democrat whose committee held one of the hearings, actually told The Hill that there is quite simply not enough evidence to warrant a special prosecutor. Not enough evidence? I’m find myself a little curious about what it might be that old Max is looking for, exactly, that would cause him to finally come to the conclusion that a special prosecutor might be needed after all. It all seems pretty cut and dried to me, but then I’m not a corrupt Democrat. And according to yet another Democrat, Rep. Richard Neal, a Massachusetts Democrat who sits on the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, such an appointment would only make the probe metastasize into something unwieldy. So what, Dick! Again, I doubt that old Dick here would possess the same level of concern were the president involved in what appears to be a growing scandal not a fellow Democrat.

And then we have yet another scumbag Democrat, Joe Crowley of New York, a member of the House leadership, who we find taking great pains to come up with even a more rather creative argument against bring in a special prosecutor. This freakin simpleton made the idiotic claim that lawmakers should first exhaust Congress’s investigative power before calling for a special prosecutor. Presently not much is known regarding what compelled the IRS to subject Tea Party, and other conservative, groups to what was rather questionable scrutiny. We've had one scapegoat, so far, with the resignation of the acting IRS chief. Also Lois Lerner, the director of the tax-exempt organizations division at the Internal Revenue Service, was placed on administrative leave, albeit with pay, after her ridiculous appearance before a House panel last week.

And last, but never least, we have that congressional genius from the People’s Republic of Maryland, E-Lie-Jah Cummings, the ranking Democrat there on the House oversight panel. It was this blithering idiot who was actually heard to say, "I haven’t seen anything yet that would make me think that we need to take this to a special prosecutor. Period." I think it quite obvious that this clown has all the brainpower of your basic 10-watt light bulb. Democrats continue to crab at straws in their attempts to point this entire scandal in any other direction than in one that points it toward the guilty party, Barry "Almighty." They stress that the entire matter can be blamed on clumsy management of applications that conservative groups filed for tax-exempt 501(c)(4) status, but say they are still angry with how the IRS responded to lawmakers concerns.

So you see, if you listen to these hypocritical Democrats, the fault of making it appear as if these organizations were somehow made to face closer scrutiny than other organizations, rests with the groups themselves, not with the IRS, who was only doing its job. It was all nothing more than just a harmless mistake, unintentional in nature, and politics, most definitely, never really even entered in to it. At least that’s their story and they’re sticking to it. And I'm sure there are many who will believe this cock and bull story. And you'll find the lion's share of those folks on the left. But anyone who possess a brain should be able to see right through this political smoke screen. Right along with able to see through all of the claims that Congress needs to be working on more important things that these supposed scandals. We have a president who is corrupt, these scandals need to be properly investigated. And the sooner the better!


Once again I would like to take the opportunity to thank not only all of those brilliant folks who saw fit to vote for Barry "Almighty" a second time, but also all of those who, for some bizarre reason, thought that simply staying home on Election Day would make a jim-dandy way for them to make some sort of a political statement. Well, the fruits of their monumental stupidity are now coming to bear. Because, you see, the so-called "Cadillac Tax" facing employers who offer premium healthcare plans to their workers is already having an affect on many employees, even though it doesn't officially kick in until 2018.

Now according to The New York Times, not normally a publication I pay all that much attention to, many employers say that they have to get started bringing down costs now, so those employees who may be used to $20 co-pays at the doctor's office and $500 deductibles are learning a new, and rather costly, reality. Many of those folks are now looking at deductibles that could be as high as $6,000 for families. And that is exactly how the Obamacare planners designed it, the Times story says. And it's exactly what many who, at the time were accused of spreading rumors, were trying to warn us about.

I think most of us understand that it was the intent, all along, of what is officially known as the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, to get companies to simply drop plans that protect workers from the high cost of healthcare, which can lead to unnecessary tests and procedures. "The consumer should continue to expect that their plan is going to be more expensive, and they will have less benefits," Cynthia Weidner of the benefits consultant HighRoads told the Times. The lies that were told to the American people by Democrats determined to pass this thing, become more apparent everyday.

Still, the tax is one of the most controversial parts of the healthcare law. It imposes a 40 percent tax on the portion of a health plan's cost that exceeds $10,200 for an individual and $27,500 for a family. That cost includes what both the employer and employee pay. Some employees are feeling the pinch already. The Times talked to a nursing assistant who had to drop out of school and get extra jobs to pay for medicine for her husband, who has cystic fibrosis. "My husband didn’t choose to be born this way," said Abbey Bruce. That, apparently, is not how the Democrats view it.

"The reality is it is going to hit more and more people over time, at least as currently written in law, " said Bradley Herring, a health economist at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Herring estimated that as many as 75 percent of plans could be affected by the tax over the next decade, unless employers manage to significantly rein in their costs. Look, the point of Obamacare was never to reduce cost or make it possible for more people to obtain insurance coverage. Anyone who believes that is a complete moron. It was to put our healthcare under the control of the government.

Killing Obamacare must be the rallying cry for the 2014 election. And it must be used against not only Democrat candidates, but also against any Republican who has refused to act whenever an opportunity to weaken it, or to cut funding for it, presented itself. Sure there have been votes taken to repeal it, but every time there has been a chance to reduce its funding, our stellar House leadership has taken a pass. We must attack Obamacare on multiple fronts until the day comes when we are able to finally drive a stake right through its black heart, because the government has no business in our healthcare.

Monday, May 27, 2013


While in Ethiopia, our less than stellar Secretary of State, John Kerry-Heinz, spent some time today doing his best to straddle the diplomatic boundary between presenting the best face of America and at the same time a rather misleading one. It all came about during a question-and-answer session with some young Ethiopians on Sunday, during which time Kerry-Heinz exaggerated, to say the least, the U.S. record on climate change, appeared to conflate past U.S. policy on drones with Barry "Almighty's" new policy and gave a rather incomplete account of how he opposed the Iraq war. A day earlier, he struggled with economic data as well as the contents of his own department's terrorism blacklist.

Now let’s take a look at how some of his statements square with the actual facts, shall we:
Here’s what Kerry-Heinz said on drones: "The only people that we are going after are confirmed terrorist targets, at the highest level. ... We will not fire when we know there are children or collateral damage. ... I am convinced that we have one of the strictest, most accountable and fairest programs."

Versus the actual facts: Barry "Almighty's" recently amended drone policy includes some of these elements, but that was not always the case. According to the New America Foundation, the CIA and U.S. military have killed 3,364 militants and civilians with drones over the last decade. Although the number of noncombatants killed is not known, the dead have not all been "highest level" terrorists. The New America Foundation maintains a database of the strikes and compiles its numbers from reports in major news media that rely on local officials and eyewitness accounts. It estimates that one in five of those killed by drones is a noncombatant. Barry’s administration says the number of civilians killed is in the single digits. As for comparisons, no other country is known to use armed drones to kill individuals in foreign lands.
Here’s what Kerry-Heinz said regarding his ‘opposition’ to the war in Iraq: "I opposed the president's decision to go into Iraq."

Versus the actual facts: This is a simpler account of his complex position on the Iraq war than the one that caused him grief in his 2004 Democratic presidential campaign against President George W. Bush. Speaking during the campaign about money for the war, Kerry declared, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." Critics shorthanded this comment to "I was for it before I was against it," painting him as a flip-flopper. Although Kerry turned against the war, two years earlier he had voted to give Bush, in his words, "the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein."
Here’s what Kerry-Heinz said on climate change: "We're below the Kyoto levels now."

Versus the actual facts: The 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which the Clinton administration signed but never won ratification for, called on the U.S. to cut its greenhouse gas emissions 6 percent from 1990 levels. Although a natural gas surge and economic woes have helped the U.S. lower emissions, they were still up some 9.5 percent from 1990 to 2011, the last year for which full data is available. Kerry also said the country met a target to cut emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020. Government data shows about a 7 percent reduction from 2005 to 2011.
And here’s what Kerry-Heinz said on talking with terrorists: "The requirement for the Taliban to come to the table was that they agree that they will not engage in violence against other people and violence against other countries; they won't engage in terrorism and they will not threaten the Afghanistan constitution and so forth."

Versus the actual facts: Those are the conditions the U.S. laid out for any peace agreement with the Taliban. But it held talks with the Taliban in 2011 without ever securing an agreement from their militants to drop their fight or endorse Afghanistan's constitution.
Here’s how Kerry-Heinz described what legacy he might leave in Africa: "I'm here to try to help. President Obama wants to try to help. And maybe our legacy will be what we do to try to help. I think of what we've done with PEPFAR. I was proud. I wrote that legislation."

Versus the actual facts: To be clear, the $48 billion President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, started in 2003 under Bush and therefore is part of his legacy. Obama also has embraced the effort. Then-Sens. Kerry and Bill Frist laid the groundwork for the program. So in speaking about what "we've done" to expand AIDS prevention, treatment and support programs in countries hit by the epidemic, Kerry meant the U.S. over two administrations, not the Obama administration alone.
Here’s what Kerry-Heinz said yesterday (Saturday): "Boko Haram is a terrorist organization."

Versus the actual facts: The State Department hasn't designated the Nigeria-based, al-Qaida-linked extremist group as a foreign terrorist organization. It has set sanctions against several of Boko Haram's leaders.
Here’s what Kerry-Heinz said (Saturday) regarding Ethiopia economic growth: "Ethiopia's ... up in the double digits in growth."

Versus the actual facts: Ethiopia's economic growth was 7 percent last year, following several other years of growth in the mid to high single digits.

You know, it wasn’t all that long ago that I would have sworn that it would have been impossible to ever have a worse secretary of state than Hitlery Clinton. But damn if Kerry-Heinz hasn’t already managed to prove me wrong. Because in his brief tenure he has not only proven himself to be as bad as she was, but so much more. He has to be the least capable individual to ever hold the job. He really has accomplished something that I would have never have thought possible by managing to demonstrate even less skill at the job than those who I view as being the most inept foreign policy ‘geniuses’ in my lifetime. Such uniquely unqualified characters as Cyrus Vance, Warren Christopher, Madeleine Albright and of course Hitlery. He’s an embarrassment!

Sunday, May 26, 2013


Why does something that makes as much commonsense as the requiring of those who accept taxpayer money in the form of unemployment compensation, welfare, food stamps or even Medicaid be made to submit to drug tests, seem to be seen by so many as being totally unacceptable, even insulting? Well, the good folks down in Texas certainly don’t see it that way. Because in Texas under a proposal recently approved by the Texas Legislature, workers who lose their jobs would now have to clear a drug screening in order to qualify for unemployment compensation under a proposal approved by the Texas Legislature. Makes sense, right?

Under current law, employers take out insurance policies to help laid-off workers survive on weekly payments of $62 to $440. Those who are fired for cause, including failing an employer-sponsored drug test, do not qualify. The changes approved Saturday would require laid-off workers to fill out state questionnaires. Answers considered suspicious would lead to drug tests. Workers who fail would lose their benefits. It just makes sense, after all, why should those furnishing the funds, the taxpayers, essentially be made to subsidize drug habits? But folks in such groups as the ALCU are of the opinion that such will dissuade people from applying.

Republican Sen. Tommy Williams said the program will help maintain a competent workforce. But something that should come as being no surprise, and also something that proves even in Texas, they are a rather pathetic bunch, Democrats have managed to successfully block a separate measure that would have required drug testing for welfare recipients. So at least for the time being, with help from Democrats, those collecting welfare checks have dodged the drug-testing bullet. But the bill targeting unemployed workers will now go to the governor where I think it’s pretty safe to assume that it will be signed into law by Gov. Rick Perry.

Saturday, May 25, 2013


So, can someone please explain to why is it, other than because he’s Barry’s longtime cohort, that Eric "I’m A Racist" Holder is still the Attorney General and is not now wearing prisoner number 60606-016? Especially since we now know that it was Holder who gave the official ok for the search warrant issued against a Fox News journalist’s, James Rosen, private emails. And now we’re finding out that the Justice Department begged a federal judge to not tell Mr. Rosen that it was tracking his telephone calls and emails in a probe regarding a national security leak. And I really don’t care what you say, if Holder is in this deep, his buddy Barry is as well.

It was U.S. Attorney Ron Machen who argued in 2010 that the traditional 30-day notice period did not apply to Rosen as Justice secretly monitored his Gmail account, according to new exhibits unsealed this week and disclosed by The Hill. "Where, as here, the government seeks such contents through a search warrant, no notice to the subscriber or customer of the e-mail account is statutorily required or necessary," Machen wrote in a June 2010 motion. "Thus, this court's indication on the face of the warrant that delayed notice of 30 days to the customer and subscriber was permissible was unnecessary."

Machen, through another request granted by the court, stopped Google from telling Rosen that Justice was spying on his e-mail account, the Hill reports. The prosecutor had demanded to see all of Rosen’s emails, including deleted messages, emails in his trash folder and all attachments sent to and from him. The original warrant in the Rosen case was signed personally by Attorney General Holder, which NBC News reported this week. This administration has been involved in an ongoing battle with Fox News going all the way back to be Barry was elected the first time, because it was discussing things that Barry didn’t wasn’t discussed.

Meanwhile, Fox News President Roger Ailes on Thursday blasted Justice for targeting journalists as if they were criminals and said the government's seizure of reporters' emails and phone records would not stand "the test of law." "The administration’s attempt to intimidate Fox News and its employees will not succeed and their excuses will stand neither the test of law, the test of decency, nor the test of time," Ailes said. "We will not allow a climate of press intimidation, unseen since the McCarthy era, to frighten any of us away from the truth." Good for Mr. Ailes as he hits the nail on the head by calling this exactly what it is, intimidation!

Barry "Almighty", on Thursday, asked his faithful sidekick, Holder, to review Justice’s guidelines on leak investigations and news organizations. Holder promised a report by July 12, or so the Hill reports. Reports of the FBI's tracking of Rosen's movements, phone, and email conversations with a former State Department contractor, Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, followed the disclosure last week that phone records of editors and reporters at The Associated Press had been secretly seized by Justice in another probe that supposedly centered around possibly leaked government information. But it was really nothing more than a politically motivated ruse.

But unlike the AP reporters, Rosen was named as a "co-conspirator" by FBI officials in the warrant signed by Holder. And that was done most likely because of who Rosen’s employer is, that of course being Fox News, the one news organization actually doing it’s job when it comes to keeping an eye on this most corrupt administration to come along in quite sometime. And now that Barry finds himself mired in a growing number of scandals, any one of which has the potential to prove lethal to his presidency, he seems to determined in his efforts to pull out all of the stops to keep as much information as possible from ever reaching the public.

And if Barry can intimidate a few reporters, well, all the better. Although, let’s face it, how many actual reporters presently exist in what is today’s state-controlled media complex. I would venture to argue, very few. The media has been very firmly in the tank for Barry going all the way back to 2007. They’re not going to report on anything that has even the slightest potential to cause Barry any political pain unless they’re pretty much forced to do so. Hence another benefit from our being fortunate enough to have a Fox News. There is much going on that should be of concern to anyone who loves this country. We’ve only seen the tip of the iceberg.

Friday, May 24, 2013


As I have said on several previous occasions, I have become more than a little disappointed in my junior senator from here in Florida, Marco Rubio. I had some pretty high hopes for him when I marched off to the polls back on 2010 to proudly cast my vote for him and even before that, when I cheerfully wrote a hefty check, by my standards, to his campaign. Those once high hopes have, sadly, pretty much evaporated. I feel like, maybe, I was led on, and told what it was thought I needed to hear before offering my support. That’s not likely to happen again.

So now with the Senate Judiciary Committee having approved the controversial ‘Gang of Eight’ immigration reform bill, by a vote of 13-5, it now moves on to the full Senate. And arguably the most instrumental supporter and spokesman of the bill has been my senator, Marco Rubio. And it’s fair to say that that support has come at a price, with many of his ardent supporters deserting him, with some even going so far as to state that they will no longer support him at all because of his backing an immigration bill they feel is simply "amnesty" for illegal immigrants.

Rubio, quite stubbornly, will contend that his bill is not "amnesty" and that he never has or would support a blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants. Rubio has gone as far as to call the current immigration system "de facto amnesty." But there are many conservative critics, of which I am one, who disagree with him on that point and believe that the bill itself is tantamount to "de facto amnesty" regardless of how tough the border security and enforcement measures text reads in the bill. We’ve heard it all before. To use Barry’s phrase, there’s no there, there.

While the other co-authors of the bipartisan immigration reform bill do not have nearly as much to lose as Rubio, should this bill ultimately fail in any number of regards, Rubio has everything to lose. And has actually lost much already. Senators Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and Ted Cruz (R-TX) have picked apart the provisions of the proposed legislation, and Sessions has pointed out the fact that the bill would indeed grant federal benefits for illegal immigrants who become eligible to legally work in the U.S. if the bill were to become law.

"One of the things we identified a year or two ago was that large numbers of [illegal immigrants] have become eligible immediately for the earned income tax credit. The average person who qualifies for earned income tax credits gets about $2,000 a year… It’s actually a direct check from the United States government…

EITC is generally available to anyone that has a Social Security number… As these [registered provisional immigrants] are all established and get a Social Security number, they will qualify, it appears under the law, for earned income tax credit. I’m not sure the sponsors understood that, because they’ve insisted that RPI aliens will not receive any federal benefits under the bill. But [their legislation] would grant such benefits to millions and be a substantial burden on our country’s finances…"- Senator Jeff Sessions

Rubio has aggressively tried to dispel this very notion that federal benefits would be granted to illegal immigrants while they are allowed to legally reside and work in the country. With other conservative Republican 2016 presidential hopefuls paying close attention to the outcome of this immigration bill, Rubio’s potential presidential candidacy could hinge on whether or not he heeds the advice of many prominent conservatives who are urging him to withdraw his support of the bill. I truly do hope that he will come to his political senses.

Other members of the U.S. Senate such as Chuck Grassley, remember voting for a similar "amnesty" bill back in 1986, and according to CBS, Grassley said that the 1986 bill, like Rubio’s bill, "promised to crack down on illegal immigration, but said that it had failed to do so." So what makes us all so sure that we want to head down that very same road yet again, Rubio or no Rubio? Ya know, and something else makes me in no big hurry to support this thing. The Democrats want it way too much! And that always makes me very nervous.

It is hard to grasp that a single ‘Yea’ or ‘Nay’ vote on a Senate bill could tremendously impact the political career of one of the most likeable politicians in recent history, but the sober truth for Rubio is that it very likely will. For better or worse, Rubio’s vote will cast him as either a supporter of amnesty for illegal immigrants or as a leader who tried to do the right thing for the country but was forced to drop his support for a bill that became too flawed to support. So, Senator Marco Rubio’s decision point has now arrived. Do I hear a distant drum roll?

Thursday, May 23, 2013


Despite the fact that the Democrats were quite determined in their efforts to portray our American healthcare system as being so badly broken that it essentially needed to be replaced from the ground up, many Americans have never agreed with that premise. And now a recent polls would seem to indicate that a majority of Americans remain convinced that their family will be much worse off under the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare. They also seem to think that it would be much better to go back to the pre-Obamacare health care system. It was a Fox News poll released Wednesday that found while 26 percent of voters say their health care situation will be better under the new law while twice as many, 53 percent, say that it will be worse. And then, as always, we have 13 percent who actually say that it won’t make any difference.

Now I'm sure that it'll come as no big surprise to anyone to find out that almost all Republicans, or 85 percent, are convinced that they will be far worse off under Obamacare. What does comes as sort of a surprise, at least to me, is the fact that just over half of independents, or 51 percent, actually agree with the Republicans. I've always thought of independents as being folks afraid to call themselves Democrats. But what comes as no surprise whatsoever, is the fact that nearly half of all Democrats, or 48 percent, expect that they'll better off, while only about a quarter, 24 percent, agree with those who feel that they will be worse off. Young voters and seniors are most pessimistic about Obamacare, as well they should be. Majorities of those under age 35 and those 65+ think things will be much worse under the 2010 health care law.

Which, I suppose, helps to explain why a 56-percent majority wants to go back to the health care system that was in place in 2009, while only 34 percent think that we should stick with the new law. Three in ten, or 30 percent for those too stupid to figure it out, Democrats would rather go back to the pre-Obamacare system. That view climbs sharply to 55 percent among independents and sharper still, to 85 percent, among Republicans. The desire to go back to the 2009 system is widespread. Majorities of higher and lower income groups feel that way, as do men, women, voters with and without college degrees, and voters across all age groups. So despite the fact that Barry now has some high-powered PR firm out there trying to sell the benefits of Obamacare to anyone who will listen, most people aren't buying the propaganda.

The new poll also asks voters why the economy is not doing better under Barry "Almighty’s" leadership. Forty-one percent actually think that Barry "Almighty" has had some good ideas, but too few of them have actually been passed. That’s down 11 percentage points from 52 percent who felt that way in 2011. Forty-nine percent say Barry’s ideas have been bad and far too many of them have been implemented, and that's up from 37 percent two years ago. By a 14-point margin, independents say Barry’s ideas on the economy have been bad. That’s a reversal from 2011 when they thought his ideas were good by a 15-point margin. So that's a pretty good swing. Again I'm surprised to see such a swing among those who call themselves independents, because most folks I know who refer to themselves as independent, are essentially Democrats.

And how do voters feel about the sequester? By a 61-29 percent margin, they think the automatic across-the-board cuts that took effect March 1 were a bad way for the president and Congress to deal with the country’s budget problems. Majorities of Republicans (67 percent), independents (61 percent) and Democrats (57 percent) all agree it was a bad way to handle the issue. And I would agree, but only up to a point. Because when you have Democrats who absolutely refuse to agree to any kind of spending cuts, no matter how trivial, the options remaining are very few in number. And something had to be done in order to cut even the measly $44 Billion that was brought about because of sequester. It doesn't take brain surgeon to be able to recognize the fact that we simply cannot go on spending the way we are.

And so it would appear that most Americans remain pretty firmly opposed to Barry's signature piece of legislation that has succeeded in essentially doing nothing more than to guarantee that good medical care will be much harder to come by, and they also seem to be less than impressed with his piss-poor handling of the economy. Neither of which seems to bother Barry all that much, as he doesn't have to worry about another election and, short of impeachment, he's not going anywhere for at least the next three years. Short of gains in the Senate that would make it veto-proof, Obamacare is here to stay at least until we have a Republican in the White House and GOP majorities in both Houses of Congress. But, having said that, if we had some GOP leadership in the House who possessed some balls, we could work on killing funding for obamination.

As far as the economy goes, you'd think that after a hundred years, or so, of evidence that makes it very apparent that the socialist approach doesn't work, Barry wouldn't still be trying to prove that it will work. He's managed to do nothing more than to take an already bad economic situation and make it much worse. He's added $7 Trillion to our national debt, and for what? We have nearly 10 million fewer people in the workforce that we had on day one of his first term, and a real unemployment rate that remains very firmly in double-digits. As well, we have more people than ever before on some form of government subsistence. And because of his rather perverse spending habits, the credit rating for our country was lowered for the first time in our history. People are tired, but I guess not tired enough to have elected somebody else in 2012. 

Wednesday, May 22, 2013


Well folks, apparently we could quite possibly be positioned on the verge of something that is quite historic in nature, with ‘The Big Apple’ perhaps going the way of the dodo bird, and being replaced with, of all things,…'Weinerville.' Because making his grand return after what was a rather torturously slow and painful departure from public view, in choosing to resign from Congress nearly two years ago, Anthony Weiner has now officially resurfaced and is, apparently, in the running for mayor of New York City.

Weiner formally announced his candidacy with a two-minute, 16-second video that he posted online at midnight Wednesday. "I made some big mistakes and I know I let a lot of people down, but I have also learned some tough lessons," Weiner says in the video, posted on YouTube. Weiner goes on to say, "I am running for mayor because I have been fighting for the middle class and those struggling to make it my entire life, and I hope I get a second chance to work for you."

Weiner’s wife is longtime Hitlery "What Difference Does It Make" Clinton aide Huma Abedin. And it was during Weiner's video that she took it upon her self to offer up a little testimonial, of sorts, to her husband, declaring, "We love this city and no one will work harder to make it better than Anthony." The unconventional campaign launch culminates a comeback tour that began in early April with a magazine interview and continued with the posting of a policy booklet online filled with ideas for the next mayor.

Although the sexting scandal pretty much made our buddy Weiner a national punchline, it also resulted, and we've yet to find out in a good or bad way, in providing him with a significant level of name recognition. So he does at least have the potential of being a force in the mayoral race. As well, he has plenty of cash, $4.3 million in campaign funds, raised before his political career took a sharp turn to the south. It’s the second-largest war chest among all the candidates, after that of City Council Speaker Christine Quinn.

Sources close to Weiner insist he's jumping in only because he feels he can win, and that his campaign isn’t simply meant to redeem his public image to boost his new consulting business or lay the groundwork for some future bid for higher office. Time was running out for him to enter the fray. He was required to declare by June 10 to be eligible for taxpayer funds under the city’s campaign finance program. And to appear on the Democratic ballot, he must gather the signatures of 3,750 Democratic voters by July 11.

He first spurted back onto the scene last month, sitting down for a lengthy magazine profile and a series of television interviews. His rollout followed in fits and starts: he re-launched his website but largely stayed out of sight. But now that he has officially returned to the political arena, questions about his past will be harder to avoid no matter how badly Weiner wants to change the conversation - particularly since the candidate has alluded to the fact that there may be more women who could likely come forward.

In the big scheme of things Democrats, as a whole, care very little about whatever the perversions may be that are enjoyed by their candidates. One could almost assume that they rather enjoy living vicariously through the weird lives of their favorite politicians, as was the case with Ted Kennedy and "BJ" Clinton. Such behavior is, more often than not, seen as a form of resume enhancing. What remains most important to Democrats is being able to scam more 'free money' from those of us who are still made to pay taxes.

If Weiner is anything, he's a devoted Democrat. And those voters who are naturally drawn to such politicians will be bothered very little, if at all, by his past indiscretions. Because for them it essentially all boils down to just one thing, how much they can garner for themselves while expending the least amount of effort. So if he can keep from doing anything stupid from this point on, then, who knows, he may be able to win this thing and then, as I mentioned earlier, next New Year's we'll all be watching the ball drop in 'Weinerville.'

Tuesday, May 21, 2013


You know, it takes a very special kind of moron to be able to trust anyone who calls himself, or herself, a Democrat these days, especially wherever issues of ethics and corruption are concerned. I’ve always been confused about how it is that anyone with a brain can view the party of Ted Kennedy, who was not only a drunk and a pervert, but someone who got away with murder and who was also a traitor to his country back during the Vietnam era, can in anyway be seen as the party of patriotism. Or how the party of racist Robert ‘KKK’ Bird can be seen as the party of racial equality. Or how the party of ‘Slick Willie’ Clinton who was getting bj’s while on the phone discussing matters of official business can be seen as the party of moral character. It just all seems so bizarre.

But apparently the straws that can be said to have finally broke the camel’s back, causing the Democrat Party to finally lose it’s luster, is to allow four Americans to be murdered in Libya and then have our president trying to it cover up, and to then have that same president sic the IRS on all manner of conservative group and then try to cover that up and then to also have his Justice Department seize phone records of reporters and to even go so far as to accuse a Fox News reporter of committing criminal activity. Yup, that’s all it took. Amazing, ain’t it? So it is then that the Democrat Party's edge over the GOP on who the public trusts more on ethics and corruption issues has now flipped in the wake of the above mentioned scandals, at least according to Rasmussen Reports.

According to Rasmussen, not only do voters trust Republicans more now, they also have their highest level of confidence in the GOP and the lowest level in Democrats in seven months. While the Democrats, strangely enough, had an eight-point "trust advantage" over Republicans just a month ago, Rasmussen's latest poll said that edge has now disappeared and with the GOP now holding a two-point advantage. "With growing questions about Benghazi and actions taken by the Internal Revenue Service and the Justice Department, Democrats' noticeable edge over Republicans in voter trust in the area of government ethics and corruption has disappeared," said Rasmussen. But I find myself wondering how long it might last.

Anyway, in this latest poll, 39 percent of likely voters said they trust Republicans more to handle the ethics and corruption issue. Slightly less, 37 percent, say they still trust Democrats and 24 percent are unsure. The unsure crowd must be even bigger morons than those who make up that 37 percent who still trust the Democrats. But, said Rasmussen, "this marks a big shift from March when Democrats held an eight-point trust advantage over the GOP - 42 percent to 34 percent. Now the president's party trails by two. The newest finding is the highest level of confidence in Republicans and the lowest level for Democrats since last October. It's also the smallest gap between the two parties in nearly a year." But like I said, we’ll see how long it lasts.


It would now seem that a majority of Americans are at least beginning to come around to believing that the IRS did, in fact, improperly target conservative groups and that the administration is now quite busy in its efforts to cover up important details about the Benghazi attack in Libya. But for some bizarre reason they seem to be a little confused when it comes to trying to determine just who it is that might be behind it all. And more bizarre still is the fact that they just can't seem to bring themselves to think that it might be Barry "Almighty". Well, at least that's what a new poll says.

According to a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, granted not the most reliable of sources when it comes to polling data, Barry's job approval rating oddly enough sits at 51 percent and has remained pretty much steady over the last few months despite a growing number of allegations of impropriety related to what many are calling very serious scandals. Now having said that, 54 percent of the respondents said that they now see the federal government as threatening the rights of average Americans, compared to just 38 percent who believe the government is protecting them.

The survey of 1001 adults was conducted May 16-19 and found nearly three-quarters of Americans across the political spectrum believe the IRS's targeting of conservative groups was inappropriate, with most saying they feel "strongly" that it was wrong. However Republican and Democrats take opposing positions about the administration's culpability. Two-thirds of Democrats say the administration has been honestly disclosing what it knows, compared to about three-quarters of Republicans who accuse the administration of a cover-up, or so the Post reported.

Fifty-five percent of respondents, including 81 percent of Republicans, also believe that Barry and members of his team are desperately trying to cover up facts related to the Benghazi attack last September. But results show that people are evenly split about whether congressional Republicans are raising legitimate concerns about it or simply engaging in partisan posturing. Why were the toxic accusations made against George Bush never seen as "partisan posturing"? And yet, we now have the most corrupt guy to come along in years and any attempt to find out just how corrupt is being partisan?

On another matter putting pressure on Team Obama, a big majority of Americans, 69 percent, say they are at least somewhat concerned that the Justice Department's seizure of Associated Press telephone records will improperly intrude on freedom of the press, while 52 percent believe the action was justified. I find it more than just a little disconcerting that over half of those polled are actually of the opinion that sleazy Holder was in any way justified in the seizing of those phone records. I'm guessing that they wouldn't mind all that much if it were their calls which were being monitored?

I don't know, how stupid do people really need to be in order to ignore that which is right in front of their face? Or might it be something else altogether? Do these people who blindly support Barry, and his cadre of corrupt Democrats, do so for no other reason than because there's something in it for them? You know, like all that free money that seems to appear as if by magic, getting automatically deposited in their bank account every month. The money that then affords to them the luxury of enjoying their favorite drug, booze and/or titty-bar. Ah yes, such is the price for their support.

Monday, May 20, 2013


There maybe, now I did say maybe, just a little bit of an upside to this ongoing mess in Washington where we now have a growing number of scandals that seem, for the most part, to be calling the Barry White House home. Now if you'll remember, it was concerns over Obamacare that essentially helped make it possible for Republican Scott Brown upset Democrat Martha Coakley in a special Senate election in Massachusetts back in 2010. And we may now have beginnings of that pattern forming yet again, with history now, and in some small way, on the verge of repeating itself.

Because now with the trio, and soon to be perhaps a quartet, of scandals currently plaguing Barry "Almighty", and perhaps congressional Democrats as well, apparently not going away anytime soon, there are some in the Bay State thinking repeat as GOP nominee Gabriel Gomez faces off against Democrat Rep. Edward Markie. At least that's what's now being reported by National Journal. Now the comparison might not pan out, National Journal also notes, because there currently is no data to show that Barry's approval has suffered because of the scandals. So only time will tell for sure.

Still, Gomez has taken the opportunity with a new ad to try to tie Markey, a 36-year congressman, with the dysfunctional D.C. culture. "Washington is in the midst of some of the biggest scandals in our lifetime -- the IRS targeting citizens for political reasons, DOJ seizing phone records from the press, and new conflicting accounts on Benghazi," Gomez said in a prepared statement. "These scandals mark a major abuse of government power and a lack of transparency in government. And what is Congressman Markey doing about them? Nothing." Not bad.

Mr. Gomez is a former Navy SEAL and in echoing Brown's campaign is saying that he would provide a fresh face in Washington compared to the Democrat who would simply only make things worse. "No two elections are the same, but the circumstances in Massachusetts have eerie similarities between 2010 and 2013 in terms of a changing political environment and a Democratic candidate who is viewed as not necessarily in touch with the average voter in Massachusetts," GOP strategist Brian Walsh told National Journal. But, in the end will that matter to the voters?

After all, Mr. Walsh does go on to point out that, "It's still a very blue state, but as in 2010, Democratic strategists have to be increasingly nervous." And of course he's right, there aren't many states bluer than Massachusetts. But with the thugacracy that we currently have operating out of Washington DC, we have to focus on looking for whatever silver lining we can find. Because if we allow ourselves to focus solely on what a corrupt piece of shit our president really is, then we're just liable to convince ourselves that there's nothing we can do to get our country back and on an even keel.


Look, I've never claimed to be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but, come on, am I really expected to believe that the White House's top lawyer was alerted sometime back during the week of April 22 to findings from an internal audit of the IRS that revealed a significant number of conservative organizations had been improperly targeted for scrutiny, and yet this person didn't bother to inform Barry? Sorry, but I'm just not buying it! Because I think we all realize that if there is one thing that we can be pretty sure of, it's that Barry is quite the control freak.

So in taking that little fact into consideration, Barry's claim, that he has made both strenuously and repeatedly, the he learned of this controversy at exactly the same moment in time that everybody else learned about it, on May 10, simply does not ring true. Now is it safe to assume that he would lie to us? You bet your ass it is! Let's face it, I think it more than fair to say that there hasn't been a day that's gone by since this scumbag was first elected, that he hasn't lied to the American people about something. That's just how they play in Chicago.

This latest revelation has now sparked yet another debate about whether the Office of the White House Counsel and its chief lawyer, some bimbo by the name of Kathryn Ruemmler, should have immediately informed the president, and what, if anything, might have been known by other senior officials at the time. And more importantly what was known before the November 2012 election but kept firmly under wraps by folks desperate to get Barry re-elected. This entire administration now appears to be hip deep in a level of corruption not witnessed since the days of Watergate.

And then we have the ever-brilliant Lanny Davis, who you may, or may not, remember as being a former special counsel to 'Slick Willie' Clinton. Old Lanny, here, told the Journal that "anyone who knew about this a few weeks ago and didn't tell the president shouldn't be in the White House." Hey Lanny, wake up and smell the coffee, my friend, the list of the people who shouldn't be in this White House, including Barry himself, would likely stretch at least as far as from the Washington Monument to the Lincoln Monument. None of these slugs actually 'belong' there!

But of course, as is usually the whenever dealing with this caliber of pond scum, there are others, those desperate to tell any lie in an effort to salvage this incredibly corrupt president, who say the White House counsel was correct to withhold the information from the president, since the inspector general's report was not finalized and that his early knowledge of the situation could have led to charges he was trying to unduly influence the outcome of the independent investigation. Personally, if I were Barry, which I'm glad I'm not, I'd be pretty pissed for not having had a heads up here.

One of those making the claim that things were handled exactly right is that perpetual dim bulb, Dan Pfeiffer, I watched this guy on some of the Sunday shows. This clown is actually described as being a White House senior adviser, and stated quite matter-of-factly , mentioning it while on NBC Sunday, that the matter "was handled in the exact appropriate way." This brain dead stooge went on to add, "We do not ever do anything to give the appearance of interference in an investigation," he added. "What would be an actual scandal would be if we somehow were involved."

Republican lawmakers, meanwhile, are moving forward with their own investigation into the matter, with hearings set for this week before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. "Exactly who in the administration knew what about the IRS targeting is one of the key outstanding questions," asked Rep. Darrell Issa in a statement, according to the Journal. Issa went on to say, "In waiting so long to address wrongdoing and inform the public, President Obama and his administration seem more preoccupied with having deniability than quickly addressing serious wrongdoing."

So here we are. And all of this could have so easily been avoided if only enough of the American people had been willing to see this guy, Barry, for what he is. But nope, they were far more interested in making sure their taxpayer subsidized checks kept arriving, and the only way to make sure of that was to re-elect a crook. So, that's what they did. So now we're faced with the mess of three ongoing scandals with yet another waiting to bubble completely to the surface. This is all far from over, and sadly is unlikely to end in impeachment, but at least Barry's very slimy side is beginning to be exposed.

Sunday, May 19, 2013


Barry’s spinmeisters have officially slipped fully into overdrive as polls now begin to indicate that there may be a growing number of Americans finally waking up. Indications are they would very much like to see Congress finally get to the bottom of what seems to be the growing number of political shenanigans they see flowing forth from Barry’s White House. Because with each new day there seems to come some new revelation that makes it all the more clear that this president, as well as many members of his administration, now consider themselves to be pretty much above the law. But then, that’s been obvious to many of us since day one.

So making the rounds on all of the Sunday talk shows we had some buffoon, described as being a White House senior adviser, by the name of Dan Pfeiffer. And from what I could tell from watch this guy, he ain’t the sharpest knife in the drawer. Sounding like a broken record, this goof, Pfeiffer, quickly set to work defending Barry over charges that he was somehow unaware of the IRS scandal until hearing press reports. If we are to accept that statement as being anywhere near true, then we must also then assume that either those on Barry’s team possess some very poor communication skills or they are simply incompetent to the extreme.

Determined to use pretty much every imaginable excuse his little pea-brain could conjure up, the first rather lame excuse offered up for public consumption was when Mr. Pfeiffer said, "Here's the cardinal rule … for all White Houses." He then went on to say, "You do not interfere in an independent investigation, and you do not do anything to give off the appearance of interference in an independent investigation." Come on, Mr. Pfeiffer, I’m sure you’re paid very handsomely to come up with much better excuses than that. If anything, that sorry little line does nothing more than to add fuel to fire and imply some level of guilt on the part of Barry.

Pfeiffer, as was to be expected and which therefore came as no surprise, continued to stand by the claim that Barry learned about the IRS scandal on May 10, the same day as the public, even though Treasury Secretary Jack Lew and Rep. Darrell Issa, California Republican, were aware of the probe earlier but alert the White House about it while the investigation was ongoing. Regardless of the level of his conviction applied to the claim, I don’t think many people are buying that line any longer. Oh I’m sure there are many Barry’s diehard supporters who will, but not many others will.

So Mr. Pfeiffer’s sole purpose in making the rounds of five Sunday talk shows was to do damage control, to say whatever he needed to in order to defend the administration following what had been a week of blistering news regarding the, now several, Barry administration scandals. And his favorite word of the day, whether he was talking about any of the laws that might have potentially been broken in the case of the IRS scandal, or where it was that Barry was on the night that four Americans died at the hands of murdering Muslim terrorists, was "irrelevant." So everything, at least as far as Barry is concerned, is to be considered as being irrelevant, right?

The brilliant Mr. Pfeiffer did receive some good news while on CNN's "State of the Union," which reported Barry's job approval is somehow now at 53 percent. Strangely enough his numbers were up 2 percent from early April, and up 6 points from their low of 47 percent in mid-March. Which, I would argue, says much more about the ignorance of the American people than it does about Barry’s job performance. "I think the American people have great faith in the president," Pfeiffer said. No, what I think is that many Americans remain less than informed about just how much of a crook their president really is.

But something that most likely was not received as being so much good news by Pfeiffer, is the fact that the American public is also coming to believe that Republicans in Congress are doing the right thing in investigating the Benghazi attack and looking into the IRS targeting of conservative groups. Only 42 percent are happy with how the White House handled the Benghazi attack, and 59 percent think the GOP is handling the investigation properly. I think we can very safely guess which segment of our population makes up that 42 percent. They’re the ones whose primary concern in life is how much they get by expending the least amount of effort.

If we can believe Mr. Pfeiffer, or any of the other boobs making the same idiotic claim, Barry was not involved in crafting talking points that went through 14 iterations before U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice went on all five Sunday shows herself five days after the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks. "But what he was aware of, is the consensus of the intelligence community at the time," said Pfeiffer. I’m curious about something, why was it, exactly, that being aware of "the consensus of the intelligence community at the time" didn’t work for George W. Bush and his claim that Iraq did possess weapons of mass destruction? Just sayin!

Sen. Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican, appearing on CNN following Pfeiffer, said the talking points that were crafted by the CIA with input from the State Department were a "misdirection" and political in nature. Paul said the main point is that "someone made the decision to put an embassy and a consulate in a war-torn country with no host country to guard" it, leaving it up to local militia. "That decision alone was a terrible and tragic error," Paul said. And if Barry didn’t know about it, then he should have. Ignorance, as they say, is no excuse. The buck is supposed to stop with the person at the top, not with any of the unfortunate souls under them.


Where, I suppose, it was once that those of us who attempted to point out that the Democrat Party is really nothing more than a cesspool of corruption were typically scoffed at and told to prove it, lately as each day passes by we’re now finding out just ‘how’ corrupt they really are. And we’re also finding out who some of the more prominent players are in that ongoing corruption. We now know that more than a year before the recent revelation by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that it had targeted conservative and Tea Party organizations, a group of scumbag Democrat senators, headed up by none other than Little Chuckie Schumer, actually requested that the agency to do that very thing. That little bit of news comes to us from the Daily Caller.

Little Chuckie, along with his merry band of Democrat misfits Michael Bennet, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jeff Merkley, Tom Udall, Jeanne Shaheen and, of all people, Al Franken, contacted the IRS last year and requested that the agency cap the amount of political spending by groups presenting themselves as "social welfare organizations." This cadre of shysters told a series of whoppers in their claim that gray areas in the IRS rules had created a loophole allowing political groups to improperly claim 501(c)4 status and may even be permitting people who donate to these groups to wrongly claim tax deductions for their contributions. The senators said they would present legislation to rectify these problems if the IRS did not act to fix them first.

In a press release from Little Chuckie’s office dated March 12, 2012, the senators wrote: "We urge the IRS to take these steps immediately to prevent abuse of the tax code by political groups focused on federal election activities." This idiotic statement went on to say, "But if the IRS is unable to issue administrative guidance in this area then we plan to introduce legislation to accomplish these important changes." You know, this really all goes back to the Supreme Court and the Citizens United decision, and the fact that it so pissed off Democrats. They have been determined to find a ‘work around’ ever since, it’s just that the one they landed on ain’t quite legal. But then, since when has something not being legal ever stopped Democrats from doing it?

A number of those senators held in a press conference regarding their efforts on March 21, 2012, and Al ‘Stuart Smalley’ Franken addressed what he called lack of oversight of 501(c)(4) status.  Franken said, "I think that there hasn’t been enforcement by the FEC and the IRS, and so there are entities that are taking a 501(c)4 status, and under that they’re supposed to have more than half of their activity be non-political." He went on, "That’s pretty hinky. I mean, they really aren’t doing that, and that I think there needs to be a look at that, that even under the laws that already exist, there are people who should be disclosing who aren’t." Finally adding, "And I think that is where we’re seeing the effect of, lack of effective enforcement and just oversight."

My question is, why are these sleaze-bags at least being brought up on some sort of ethics charges? Oh, that’s right, they’re all DEMOCRATS so all of this is really nothing more than just a big misunderstanding. Personally I’d like to see every one of these creeps being marched off to a federal prison somewhere, but I know that’s not going to be happening. I mean, come on, can anyone possibly imagine the outcry, he demands for justice, if this had been a group of Republicans, headed up by say John Thune, and who had asked the IRS to go after leftwing groups. Why you would have been made to think that the entire Republic would be on he verge of collapse. But because it’s Democrats it’ll all be quite neatly swept under the rug.

Friday, May 17, 2013


Such is the typical modus operandi of Barry & Co. who now occupy the White House and which was further evidenced by Spokesmoron Jay Carney's appearance on that CNN ratings juggernaut referred to as "Piers Morgan Live" on Thursday night to answer what were supposed to be questions related to the three scandals that have turned the federal government on its head over the last two weeks. And as is usually the case on this dopely little show, that's not exactly how things turned out.

What Carney’s answers to the typically softball questions that were hurled in his direction by the show's lame hosts did was to briefly sum up that there are not now, nor have there essentially ever been, any scandals involving our decent, upstanding, all-American president, Barry "Almighty." And that would be, of course, because he is such man of high moral character who is, to hear Carney talk, honest to an absolute fault. "You’re concocting scandals that don’t exist," Carney said.

The show's brilliant host, Piers Morgan, asked how Barry "Almighty" would be able to "restore the faith that some Americans have lost" in its transparency. "Especially with regard to the Benghazi affair that was contrived by Republicans and, I think, has fallen apart largely this week," Carney said. He then continued, "The fact of the matter is that this administration has a record on transparency that outdoes any previous administrations. And we are committed to that. The president is committed to that."

Well, a little kink has developed in that 'transparency' beginning last week when several high-level government officials testified on what happened leading up to the attack on an American consulate in Libya in September, two other scandals potentially implicating Barry have also continued to develop: One in which the IRS unfairly targeted conservative non-profits for scrutiny, the other involving the Department of Justice secretly seizing the phone records of Associates Press reporters and editors last year.

Regarding the Benghazi attack, Carney dismissed it as "a faux controversy stirred up by Republicans." Regarding the IRA scandal, Carney said, "When [President Obama] found out… that there had been inappropriate and wrong conduct by IRS personnel… he spoke out about it, he made clear he thought it was an outrage and he has taken action." (Acting IRS Director Steven Miller submitted his resignation Wednesday.) Ya, but the guy was gonna be leaving in a couple of weeks anyway!

And on the Associated Press scandal, which Barry has only commented on to say that the White House had no knowledge of: "It is entirely inappropriate for a president… to engage in… a criminal investigation." There was no mention of yet another blossoming scandal involving the Environmental Protection Agency and its harassment of conservative groups in search of information. But I'm sure Carney would have claimed that there is no there there to this looming scandal either. What a group we have!