Wednesday, July 31, 2013
I know it’s been awhile since our last episode here, but it’s been awhile since I've been paying attention to anything that Steny has had to say But, proving further that Democrats seem to be of the opinion that we must all think as they do, old Steny, who you'll recall is from the People’s Republic of Maryland, said just yesterday that racism is "present in all of our minds" and has gone on since Biblical times. Well I think safe to say that we knew all along that that's how pretty much all Democrats think. But it's certainly not how most Americans think!
Anyway, it was during some hearing before something called the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee called by old Nancy Pelosi, that Steny put on his most recent display of stupidity. He said, "Racism is present in every one of our communities, and as you pointed out Dr. [Maya] Wiley, present in all of our minds." He then went on to say, "We need to be conscious of that and confront it. That’s why I think this conversation is so important. Racism is not simply about African Americans. It is about the very psychology of our country."
This idiotic little hearing of Nancy's, entitled, "A Conversation on Race and Justice in America," featured testimony by Morris Dees, founder of the Southern Poverty Law Center; Eugene Robinson, columnist at The Washington Post; and Maya Wiley, founder and president of the Center for Social Inclusion. And the panel consisted of pretty much the same bizarre cadre of leftist loons that Sandra Fluke appeared before in describing her 'need' for free contraceptives. And this hearing was about as pointless as the one Ms. Fluke took part in. Maybe even more so.
During Hoyer’s opening remarks, where he again appeared to be speaking for Democrats everywhere, he said that racism is inherent in America, and he doesn’t see an end to it. This moron from Maryland said, "This conversation is not new, and my speculation is it will never end. I don’t know why that’s the case, but if you read the Bible, thousands of years have gone by and we're still having grief's about our differences, about not the content of character, but the color of skin or the religion." I had no idea that folks in his 'Blue' state were such bigots. Go figure!
And on and on old Steny went. He said, "The Irish all look alike but they have a different religion and they tend to hate the other person." And on, saying, "And we’re getting there, we’re moving—but Shia and Sunni, you could just name so many examples." And on some more, saying, "Here in America, race of course is the most visible and most evident difference between us, gender as well, obviously." Is this now the kind of silliness that Democrats feel they need to resort to in order to convince blacks that they really are on their side?
As you might have guessed, this pointless hearing was called in the wake of George Zimmerman’s acquittal of murder in the shooting Trayvon Martin. Dees said "clearly race was involved" in Martin’s death, and that despite the fact that the FBI found no evidence of racial bias from Zimmerman when it conducted its own thorough investigation. So what, then, does this clown base that opinion on. I mean we've all been told that the jurors said race was not a factor, the prosecution team said race was not a factor and Zimmerman himself said race was not a factor.
I think most of us would agree that, in representing the party of segregation, Jim Crow, slavery and the Ku Klux Klan, old Steny most likely knows more than just a thing or two about racism and being racist. And probably a lot more than he knows about anything Biblical. And the sad thing is that blacks continue to allow themselves to be bought off, having essentially sold their soul to guys just like Hoyer. And for what? What exactly do they have to show for all their years of servitude? And yet, there seems to be no willingness to try something different.
Using the rather twisted logic that only an America hating, Socialist, Progressive, Liberal, Democrat could ever possibly understand, Barry "Almighty", in citing the job losses since he took office, actually made the very idiotic claim that, "the economy would be much better off," unemployment would be 6.5 percent and the national deficit would be in decline if 'only' there were more federal, state and local government workers. Now is that not about the most insane argument you have ever heard to justify increasing the size of the federal government? Is he grabbing at straws, or what?
Barry "Almighty" actually said, "If those layoffs had not happened, if public sector employees grew like they did in the past two recessions, the unemployment rate would be 6.5 instead of 7.5." And he furthered his idiotic claim by adding, "Our economy would be much better off, and the deficit would still be going down because we would be getting more tax revenue." Just how stupid does one need to be to believe any of this imbecilic drivel? And I'd be curious to know if Barry might still be using some sort of illicit drug, and what exactly it might be. Because how else can you possibly explain such a cockamamie way of looking at things?
Barry spewed this his typical brand of bullsh!t on Tuesday while at the Amazon Fulfillment Center in Chattanooga, Tenn., where he promoted plans that he claimed would help the middle class, such as corporate tax reform, increased federal spending on infrastructure, more education spending, public-private partnerships and rolling back the sequester. But, you know, I couldn't help but wonder if that's the same middle class that he has spent the better part of his time in office trying to decimate? Because Barry has done nothing but to make matters worse on just about all fronts. And has demonstrated very little concern regarding the damage he has caused.
Barry has been unrelenting in his continuing assault on the middle class. And he has been as thorough as he has been aggressive. Every time I go to fill up my car, I'm spending more. Every time I go to the grocery store, I'm paying more. Every month when I get my utility bill, I'm paying more. More, more, more! Meanwhile I get to watch his dumb ass go on multi-million dollar vacations and throw big parties at the White House. My disposable income has all but disappeared since this asshole first came into office. So all of this working to help the middle class is nothing but a load of crap!
Barry said, "Instead of using a scalpel to get rid of programs we don’t need and keep vital investments that we do, the same group has kept in place this meat cleaver called the sequester that is just slashing all kinds of investments in education and research and our military." And then went on to add, "Yet all the things that are needed to make this country a magnet for good middle class jobs, those things are being cut. These moves don’t just hurt our economy in the long term. They hurt our middle class right now," he added. Again with this faux concern for the plight of the middle class. A situation that he, himself, has created!
And I can't believe this sniveling little douche bag is still whining about the sequestration, especially when it was all his idea from the start. Sequestration, for those who haven't been paying even the slightest attention, was the automatic 2.3 percent reduction in the growth of federal spending that took effect on March 1 as a result of Congress and Barry being unable to reach a 'deal.' The sequester is a result of the 2011 debt ceiling negotiations and was meant to be a trigger to force the two sides to reach some sort of a deal. Actually what it was, was an attempt by Barry to get the Republicans to, essentially, cave on the sequestration.
Barry wasted little time in citing Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the sequester would, supposedly cost some 750,000 lost jobs this year and 900,000 lost jobs next year. But I think it far to say that those numbers are highly suspect. Barry then proceeded to reference additional government jobs lost since he took office in 2009. "Over the past four years, another 700,000 workers at the federal, state and local levels of government lost their jobs. These are cops and firefighters." Yup, and all with very bloated pensions that we simply can no longer afford to cover the cost of.
And then in making very little sense, Barry said, "About half of them are people that work in our schools. Those are real jobs. It doesn’t help a company like Amazon when a teacher, cop or a firefighter loses their job. They don’t have money to place an order. That’s hundreds of thousands of customers who have less money to spend." Adding, "If those layoffs had not happened, if public sector employees grew like they did in the past two recessions, the unemployment rate would be 6.5 instead of 7.5." Anybody believing any of this load of pure BS?
Look, let's forget all about this idiotic notion that somehow our unemployment is really at 7.5 percent. That's just plain nuts! Because IF we were to have the same number of bodies in the American workforce that were there when Barry first took office, our unemployment rate would be in the range of roughly 16 or 17 percent. But of the fact that we now have roughly 10 Million fewer folks in that same workforce, we're provided with a number that is nothing if not a work of pure fiction. That being the 7.5 percent number, that we constantly hear being bandied about, is nothing but just one more LIE on a very long list of many!
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
Ok, so now I'm a little pissed. Why is it that our guys in Congress feel they need only to listen to those who contribute the largest amounts of money while the rest of us can go suck wind? If that's gonna be the general rule now, then I guess I don't need to contribute my paltry little amount anymore, especially if all that's going to happen is for them to gladly take my money after which I’m simply expected to get lost. Well, I'm hear to tell you I’m through giving money, and I ain't about to get lost. And I am not going to support anything that puts more people onto the government dole. No way! No how!
Look, the only reason I bring any of this up is because, apparently, there were about a hundred, or so, top Republican donors, as well as some rejects from the Bush administration who got together and sent a letter to the House Republicans on Tuesday. The purpose of which was to urge lawmakers to pass a bill that legalizes illegal immigrants, arguing that the current system is already allowing them to stay and so it only makes sense to register them and bring them into the system. Wrong! It makes no sense whatsoever! And there is no way that you can spin it where it does make sense.
The donors, led by former Bush administration Cabinet officials Carlos Gutierrez and Spencer Abraham, also worked to perpetuate the myth that somehow these immigrants are potential Republican voters who can be won over, if only the party can be seen as welcoming to immigrants. "Doing nothing is de facto amnesty. We need to take control of whom we let in our country and we need to make sure everybody plays by the same rules," the donors said in their letter. These immigrants are interested in nothing more that finagling for themselves a free ride, which makes them potential Democrat voters.
These donors aimed their little pitch at House Republicans, who are now trying to figure out a way forward as they find themselves trapped between angry rank-and-file voters, that would be you and me, who say legalizing illegal immigrants amounts to amnesty, and those party elites and donors who say the GOP cannot survive nationally without embracing legalization as part of a strategy to win over Hispanic voters. How stupid is that? I simply do not buy the party-line that says the ‘only’ way for the GOP to survive is to welcome in, and with open arms, those who have willfully broken our laws?
This donor letter happened to come the same day that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, together with some 400 other businesses and umbrella groups, fired off a letter to House leaders of both parties, urging them to pass something, though the business leaders did not specifically call for legalizing illegal immigrants. Both the business leaders and donors appeared to be sensing that the momentum for immigration legislation maybe slipping away, little more than a month after the Senate passed its version of amnesty. Frankly I hope that that 'momentum' is fading! At least until the border is SECURE!
That Senate vote of a month ago served to highlight the divisions within the GOP. While all 54 members of the Democrat Party voted for the Senate bill, Republicans were split, with 14 voting for it and 32 voting against it, including all of the GOP's top leadership in the chamber. And among those of us who had voted for Marco Rubio, there was much disappointment after he showed his true colors by his choosing to ally himself with sleazy character like Chuckie Schumer, 'Little Dick' Durbin and the two RINOs, McCain and Graham, as a member of the "Gang of Eight." And he won few friends for doing so.
It goes without saying that among the national party operatives, there is strong support for legalization, stretching all the way back to President George W. Bush, who, as you may recall, repeatedly tried to get his party to embrace his plans to legalize illegal immigrants. Mr. Gutierrez, a former secretary of commerce who led Tuesday’s donor letter, was point man for that 2007 effort, which failed in a stunning bipartisan filibuster on the Senate floor. A fate that it deserved at the time and a fate that should have been suffered by the most recent attempt to accomplish what is the very same thing.
So now the question on all our minds should be: Who will our supposed leaders choose to listen to? And will they listen to we the people whose votes they need, or will they listen, instead, to the folks who can be relied upon to fork over the big bucks. It would seem to me that you can have the bucks you want, but if you can’t convince folks to vote for you that it doesn't really matter. And I refuse to vote for ANYBODY who supports amnesty and refuses to secure our border. Just like I have no intention of ever voting for Rubio again, I'll not vote for anyone else who sees fit to ignore me!
Everybody's favorite faux reverend, Al 'Bull Horn' Sharpton, known mostly for his never-ending racially divisive rhetoric and as a media whore, political candidate, and talk show host, has now come out and laughably accused conservatives Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly, who he termed "the unholy triumvirate of right-wing reaction" of "exploiting differences between us for their own advantage" following the George Zimmerman verdict. Actually, it sounds more like Sharpton is actually talking about himself and his fellow racial anarchists, Jesse 'The Extortionist' Jackson and Barry "Almighty". But that's probably just a coincidence.
"We have a long history in this country of some people exploiting differences between us for their own advantage," Sharpton said on his talk show, and MSNBC ratings juggernaut, Politics Nation, on Friday. "It’s a cynical appeal to the worst instincts in our great country." Most, if not all of those to which he refers have been Democrat. Anyway, old Al then went on to denounce conservative talk show hosts who commented on the acquittal of Zimmerman, 29, who had shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin after an altercation in February 2012. Zimmerman said his actions had been in self-defense, and a jury agreed.
But old Al, who remains quite displeased with the verdict, wasn't done. Nope, not by a long shot. Because he went on to say, "And in the time since George Zimmerman’s acquittal, some right wingers have gone into overdrive to push the most negative stereotypes of the African-American community for their own gain." Sharpton then added, "The Rush-Hannity-O’Reilly crowd, the unholy triumvirate of right-wing reaction, has been desperate not to have a real conversation about the injustices of the criminal justice system." Personally, I heard no one pushing stereotypes of any kind. Except, of course, for Al and his fellow race baiters.
I think most folks, at least those possessing some semblance of a brain, are able to pretty easily recognize Sharpton for exactly what he is. Let's face it, he has always been, to some degree or another, nothing more than a purveyor of some of the most vile hatred imaginable. It was back in 1987, that this sleazy moron claimed that Tawana Brawley, then a 15-year-old black woman, had been abducted and then raped by a group of white men. After the case was later determined to be a fraud, Al lost a $345,000 defamation lawsuit, but refused to recant his allegations. This is the kind of slime that blacks insist upon putting up with.
Then we fast forward just a few short years to 1991, when a Hassidic Jewish driver in Brooklyn accidentally struck and killed a 7-year-old back child, Gavin Cato. Enter Al Sharpton, always on the prowl of an opportunity to stir shit up. It was then that this so-called 'Man of God' referred to Jewish people as "diamond merchants" during Cato’s funeral. Al also led demonstrations through Jewish neighborhoods in New York City. One of the demonstrations became violent and led to the stabbing death of a rabbi student. How many people have died needlessly because of the actions of Al Sharpton?
And then it was in just another 4 short years, in 1995, after the Jewish owners of Freddy’s Fashion Mart raised the rent on a black-owned music store, that this same loudmouth racist came riding into town to lead yet another demonstration, all in the name of racial justice, this one in front of the establishment. Al reportedly said, "We will not stand by and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business." Yup that's right Al, make it all about race when race has nothing to do with. But I think we all are able to recognize that that's exactly how this piece-of-shit, Sharpton, operates
Let's face it, if there's anyone, anywhere, who can be said to be guilty of exploiting the differences between us, especially for their own personal, or political, advantage, it is none other than the slimy race baiters like Sharpton, Jackson and, yes, even Barry "Almighty." And, ya know, to be honest, I really don't think we can expect things to change unless, and/or until, enough members of the black community actually wake up and smell the bullshit that they're constantly being fed by these pathetic hypocrites! And Lord knows when that'll be. Because far too many still seem to be quite content to listen to the hate that these preachers, preach.
Well my friends, if this doesn't send a very cold chill down your back then I'm afraid, YOU MUST BE DEAD! Because, you see, just two weeks after Janet Napolitano announced her resignation as Secretary of Homeland Security, that odd assortment of racists, opportunists, and racial turncoats comically referred to as being the Congressional Black Caucus, has actually come out now and suggested that Sheila Jackson Lee be named to fill her spot. So now we might be considering replacing one moron with an even bigger one? Please, God help us!
In a letter dated July 25 and signed by another well-known racist and rabid imbecile, Marcia Fudge, Democrat from Ohio, and caucus chairwoman, urges Barry "Almighty" to consider Miss Jackson Lee for the position. In proving just how detached from reality she actually is, Ms. Fudge hysterically refers to Jackson Lee as a "voice of reason" that the agency could stand to gain. Actually, what Jackson Lee is, is much more like a voice of complete insanity! Let's face it, all you need to do is to hear her speak to know that he ain't got the brains of an ice cube!
This ridiculous letter actually reads, "Representative Jackson Lee would serve as an effective DHS Secretary because she understands the importance of increasing border security and maintaining homeland security." I'm assuming the basis for such an insane suggestion is the fact that Jackson Lee currently serves as a ranking member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security, a position that the caucus said she "stands as a strong and honest ‘voice of reason.’" This would be funny if it wasn't so completely idiotic and dangerous.
You know, I've never actually heard anyone refer to Jackson Lee in such a manner before. She has shown herself to be anything but the voice of reason. If you were to ever look back over the years at some of the ludicrous things this loon has said, I think you'd be pretty amazed. Because 'reason' or, for that matter, any level of intelligence, is pretty much vacant. And to put someone, who possesses the mental capacity which has her barely able to tie her own shoes, into such a position is, at best, reckless and at worst downright insane. Which means that Barry will probably do it.
Monday, July 29, 2013
Am I the only one who sees it as being rather confusing that somehow the White House can continue to bar average Americans from touring "The People's House" while at the same time it can find money to spend, and rather lavishly, on all sorts of special invitees, from diners like last week’s Iftar dinner breaking the Muslim fast to sports teams and foreign diplomats. Or, am I just reading too much into this? I mean I would hate to be making a mountain our of a mole hill.
As you may, or may not, recall soon after the outcry over the cancellation of tours due to the dreaded sequester, the White House promised to see what could be done to allow some visits to resume. But nothing was done and no one can visit, unless Barry "almighty" finds you useful or amusing. Favored guests have poured in this month, even though Barry spent part of that time on what was yet another multi-million dollar vacation, this one to Africa.
Last week’s glittering Iftar dinner featured about 130 guests who were 'treated' to remarks by Barry and bread breaking with senior aide Valerie Jarrett and National Security advisor Susan Rice. Barry held a mass reception for the entire diplomatic corps July 19 and hosted the 2013 NCAA Men’s Basketball Champion Louisville Cardinals on July 23. And supposedly he will gather with the World Series Champion San Francisco Giants, today.
And as amazing as it may sound to some, Barry even found room in the White House for a team from his home town that hasn’t won a game in 50 years. That would be the 1963 Loyola University of Chicago Ramblers championship basketball team. Meanwhile, he had some old buddies in for a July Fourth celebration. And Michelle staged a "Kids’ State Dinner" with dozens of children and their parents to promote her healthy eating initiative.
June’s events included a raucous celebration of LGBT Pride Month, a special movie screening in the White House theater, and visits by the WNBA Champion Indiana Fever and Super Bowl winning Baltimore Ravens and Division III Women’s Basketball Champion DePauw University Tigers. So is it any wonder that I'm a bit confused by the goings on in the Barry "Almighty" White House? All serve as more examples of the rather bizarre priorities of our scumbag president.
Well, there seems to be another anti-Libertarian voice that has been added to that of Chris Christie, that, of course, being the voice of New York Rep., Peter King. King makes the claim that if Republicans don't quash the libertarian streak shown recently by some of their members, they risk following the destructive lead of Democrats in the 1960s. Now look, I don't consider myself a libertarian, however, the ones I blame for putting the future of the Republican Party in jeopardy are those who profess to be conservative and are anything but. Those, of course, would be the same ones who are our current leaders in Congress.
King said Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union," "When you have Rand Paul actually comparing [NSA leaker Edward] Snowden to Martin Luther King or Henry David Thoreau, this is madness." He went on to say," This is the anti-war left-wing Democrats of the 1960s that nominated George McGovern and destroyed their party for almost 20 years. I don't want that happening to our party." I didn't hear exactly what it was that Paul said, nor the context in which he was making his point. But having said that, I don't think it does the party any good to air its dirty laundry on, of all places, CNN.
King has said he is considering a run for president in 2016 because he fears where Republicans such as Paul, a Kentucky Republican, are taking the party. King said he favors a healthy debate in 2016 between two legitimate candidates, "not fringes like Rand Paul." Well with all due respect to Mr. King, I don't consider Paul to be on the fringe. At this point in time what is of most concern to me is the fact that I continue to get lied to by people like Boehner and McConnell. And the lies being told have involved multiple issues, including the NSA leaks, raising the debt ceiling, immigration and a possible government shutdown over funding for Obamacare.
I would argue the reason for this supposed split is the fact that we have far too many in our party who are simply for big government. They want to take us to exactly the same place that the Democrats do, albeit at just a slower pace. And we have people, nowhere near enough, who are saying no to that. And apparently guys like Mr. King are less than pleased. So they set about trumping up this bogus libertarian line of attack. King said healthy debate within the party can be good, but said it is "absolutely disgraceful" that 94 Republicans voted to defund the National Security Agency in a close vote in the House last week.
On the contrary, Mr. King, I'm on the side of those 94 Republicans and I am not, as you say, a libertarian. I'm an American citizen concerned about a government that has already grown far too big and far too intrusive. "This is an isolationist streak that's in our party," King said. "It goes totally against the party of Eisenhower and Reagan, Bush. We are a party of national defense." King said he'd like to see Republicans reach out to labor unions of construction workers, police and firefighters. "These are people that are socially conservative and want to agree with us, and too many people in our party drive them away," he said.
And on the subject of immigration, Peter King went on to make it quite clear that he is in no way in agreement with comments made by Rep. Steve King of Iowa. He made it clear that he doesn't agree with the words his colleague used when talking about illegal immigrants in a recent interview. Steve King made the point that those pushing immigration reform are painting an inaccurate picture of illegal immigrants as a monolithic group by noting that some children of illegals have become valedictorians of their classes. He also made the point that for every valedictorian there are 100 "hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert."
GOP leaders including John Boehner and Eric Cantor were, of course, quick to denounce Steve King's words, but he has since refused to back down from them, saying the numbers back him up. Peter King told CNN that Republicans have to address the immigration issue in "an intelligent way and a humane way." I guess I just don't understand what guys like Peter King mean when they talk about immigration policy that's "humane." What other country anywhere here on good old Planet Earth makes that as part of the criteria when discussing immigration policies? Guys like him are the problem, NOT guys like Paul!
So who do you think represents the greater danger to the future of the Republican Party? People like Boehner, McConnell and our friend, here, Peter King, or guys like Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and Steve King? Personally, I have no doubt that it's the former rather than the latter. The future is in doubt because of wishy-washy pukes like those in our leadership positions, not only IN Congress, but outside of it as well. Where the focus must be, is on putting the country first. We must be better at demonstrating the fact that the GOP recognizes what 'NEEDS' to be done and is willing to act, regardless of the political consequences that may come as a result.
The Republican Party simply can no longer afford to continue as it has as being nothing more than part of the problem. It has to be part of the solution, if there is even a solution to be had at this stage of the game. Taking about the many problems that we now face as if they do not exist or are minimal in the amount of damage that they are causing, and will continue to cause, is what the Democrats do. And we most definitely do not need to be casting those who are attempting to do nothing more than to tell the truth as somehow being out to destroy our party. Such idiocy will only assist those who wish to make our problems even worse.
Saturday, July 27, 2013
And here we have yet another piss poor example of what passes for Republican leadership in Congress these days. I say that because while his office would not say whether Mitch McConnell is advising his GOP colleagues to oppose a plan by Sen. Mike Lee to defund Obamacare through a must-pass continuing resolution funding measure, his office did say that his party is "united" in getting rid of the unpopular health care law. Ok, does that not sound like a modern day version of "Who’s on first, What’s on second, and I Dunno’s on third"? It’s well past time for our emasculated congressional leadership to be replaced with someone who actually has some balls! Our current clowns simply talk out of both sides if their mouths.
Some boob, by the name of Don Stewart, who we’re told is the communications director for McConnell said in an email, "Republicans are 100 percent united in their support for repeal of Obamacare, and the Leader is a co-sponsor of a bill to defund it and a bill to repeal it." However, Stewart would not say whether McConnell opposes Sen. Lee’s plan or if news reports that McConnell is actively working against Lee are true. The continuing resolution, or CR, is legislation to fund the government for a certain period in the new fiscal year, which starts on Oct. 1. It is must-pass legislation that Congress and the president must come to an agreement on by Sept. 30 or the government would shut down for lack of congressionally authorized funding.
Lee wants the CR to include language prohibiting any further funds for Obamacare, particularly the individual mandate, which, as it stands now, is supposed to kick in on Jan. 1, 2014. A separate and distinct bill to repeal Obamacare would not have the same budgetary bite as the CR, which must be passed to keep the government operating. This guy, Stewart said, "The Senate Republican Conference is united in its goal of a full repeal of Obamacare. Sen. McConnell is a co-sponsor of a bill to defund the law and a bill to repeal it." He then went on to say, "Members are having multiple and ongoing conversations about how best to repeal and defund the law—but all with the same goal." Sorry, but that sounds like a bunch of political bullshit to me!
Senator Lee is circulating a letter to his Senate colleagues that he plans to send to ‘Dingy Harry’ Reid calling for defunding any further implementation of the health care law. At one time the letter reportedly had as many as 17 signatures. However, the number is down to 12, according to Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard, who is citing McConnell as being one reason Senators are now backing away from Lee’s plan. Top GOP Senators, including John Thune and John Cornyn, had signed on. But by Wednesday, five senators who had supported the letter initially, had "asked to have their names removed," including Cornyn. Sens. Kelly Ayotte, John Boozman, Mark Kirk and Roger Wicker have also reneged on their support.
"This wasn’t a coincidence," Hayes wrote. "Sources tell The Weekly Standard that Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell made clear he didn’t like Lee’s approach and the fact that media reports were suggesting Republicans were eager for a shutdown." Ryan Taylor, communications director for Sen. Wicker said, "Upon reflection, the senator became convinced that the implicit threat of a shutdown is not the most effective way to influence the final result." And in speaking of Wicker, Taylor actually went on to ‘claim, "He is a proud cosponsor of multiple legislative efforts to stop the Obamacare train wreck, and he will not stop pursuing those efforts." This is just more political BS!
And then we had Sara Lasure, a spokesperson for Senator Boozman, who simply said, "Those reports are incorrect," when asked if Boozman was told to back away from the letter after first signing on. She chose not to elaborate further on the subject. The Club for Growth also pointed straight to McConnell. "We are disappointed by rumors that Senate Republican leadership is pressuring Senators not to sign Lee’s letter or to remove their names, they should instead encourage others to sign on," said Club for Growth President Chris Chocola in a statement Wednesday. He went on to say, "If Senator McConnell is committed to defunding ObamaCare, then he should sign the Lee letter and promise not to support a continuing resolution or any budget that funds Obamacare." Right On!
While the status of Lee’s push remains uncertain, a similar effort is underway in the House, and being led by a letter from Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.). As of Thursday, the House letter had 65 signatures and "members are still signing on to support the effort," Emily Miller, communications director for Meadows, said in an email. Those signed on in the House may face opposition from the GOP leadership, as Speaker of the House, Bonehead Boehner said no decisions have yet been made on how to handle the Affordable Care Act’s, aka Obamacare, funding in the continuing resolution to fund the government past Sept. 30. Boehner has to decide if he’s going to do what’s best for the country, or what’s politically expedient.
Our limp-wristed Speaker of the House, John Boehner, said the House will do "everything we can to make sure this doesn’t really go into effect," on Thursday, but when asked if that includes defunding the law in the CR, he would not say. His idiotic response was to say, "No decision has been made about how we're going to deal with the CR next month, in September." Boehner has been very critical of calls to shut down the government before, insisting that is not in the Republican’s plans either over the increasingly unpopular health care law or fights over raising the more than $16 trillion debt limit. "The Democrats think they benefit from a government shutdown," Boehner said in 2011, during a budget over the debt ceiling. "I agree."
So here we are, folks, once again finding ourselves between a rock and a hard place because we seem of have no one who possesses the necessary leadership skills, guts, or political will to do what we all know is necessary. Instead they pussyfoot around, claiming to be united in their stand against what is the nightmare of Obamacare, and yet seem perfectly unwilling to do that one thing that they know would rescue us from the consequences of it. So here we sit, waiting for these guys to do what we elect them to do and what we pay them for. Which is the arrangement that a majority of these folks seem totally unable to grasp. And they seem to expect us to accept how it is they view that arrangement. We can no longer allow that sentiment to continue!
Friday, July 26, 2013
As much as I hate to admit it, there have been a couple of instances where I've allowed myself to be seriously fooled by those whom I really thought were guys that I could very easily support. Maybe it was my fault for not doing the necessary homework or, may it was just that I wanted, so badly, to have them be what they seemed, that no homework was needed. But boy, was I wrong! First I was badly fooled by Marco Rubio and more recently by Chris Christie. I think my rationale for feeling that way about Rubio is obvious, so I'll focus here on why I now feel pretty much the same way about Christie. Other than, of course, the way he kissed Barry's ass after Hurricane Sandy and dissed Romney
Anyway, Christie recently offered up a very clear broadside against Republicans drifting toward a more libertarian view of foreign policy, ripping libertarians, including Sen. Rand Paul, for challenging government surveillance programs and failing to understand the dangers of terrorism. "This strain of libertarianism that’s going through parties right now and making big headlines I think is a very dangerous thought," Christie said at a Republican governors forum in, of all places, Aspen, Colo. He added, "You can name any number of people and (Paul is) one of them." So here we have yet another Republican, in making references to dangerous thought, sound much more like a Democrat.
Christie, who appeared on a panel with Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, all potential 2016 rivals, used the same old tired, and rather lame, 9/11 justification in making the same idiotic claim that people who are questioning government surveillance programs should confront the families affected by the 9/11 attacks. "These esoteric, intellectual debates — I want them to come to New Jersey and sit across from the widows and the orphans and have that conversation. And they won’t, because that’s a much tougher conversation to have," Christie said. He suggested that they be made to explain their position to victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
The House, of which my representative was one, earlier this week narrowly voted against a reduction in funding for the National Security Agency, as libertarian-leaning members from both sides joined together to vote for the amendment. In talking about that vote, Christie said, "As a former prosecutor who was appointed by President George W. Bush on Sept. 10, 2001, I just want us to be really cautious, because this strain of libertarianism that’s going through both parties right now and making big headlines, I think, is a very dangerous thought." Asked whether he includes Paul in his criticism, Christie didn’t back down. "You can name any one of them that’s engaged in this," he said. So now we’re talking about "dangerous thought"?
Christie acknowledged that there will always be mistakes when it comes to national security and protecting privacy, but said Americans need to stay focused on what’s at stake. He dismissed some of the current privacy/national security debates as "esoteric." "I think what we as a country have to decide is: Do we have amnesia? Because I don’t," he said. "And I remember what we felt like on Sept. 12, 2001. Actually what I think needs to be the primary focus here is, do we trust our government. And I think the response to that question is a resounding NO! Granted, no one wants us to experience another 9/11, which is exactly why that's repeatedly used as being the justification for government eavesdropping.
But I think what's taking place here is less about preventing another 9/11 and much more about the government being able to keep tabs on us. And all that information may become too tempting of a resource, for some politician, especially one like Barry "Almighty", to not want to take full advantage of. The line has to be drawn somewhere. And we, as Americans, will need to determine what's the acceptable level of risk when it comes to keeping the government firmly out of our private lives. Personally, I would argue that our government is being rather selective in it's efforts to 'protect' us from another attack the magnitude of 9/11. And we're simply expected to comply with anything no matter how remotely it might be tied to those efforts.
Now I know I have repeatedly slammed those 14 Million folks who chose to stay home last November, which essentially resulted in Barry being able to hang around for another four years. But, I don't know, maybe I'm coming around to their position. Because I'll tell you something right now. If this boob, Christie, ends up being the guy I have to vote for in 2016, then I can garo-freaking-tee that I will not be voting for the Republican candidate. Because in that case, there would be absolutely no difference than if I were to vote for Hitlery, assuming that she is the candidate that the Democrats will settle on. Because the end result for the country, no matter which of these two got elected, would be exactly the same.
I will never again simply vote for the person whom I view as being nothing more than the lesser of two evils. Win or lose it just never seems to work out. We Republicans, as a party, are going to have to learn to tune the media out, and select the candidate that we think best represents us and not listen to those in the media as they tell who they think is the candidate that best represents where it is that we want the country to go. Now having said that, I am not looking to find a candidate who agrees with me 100 percent on every issue, because I think that would be unrealistic. But the candidate and I would have to agree on what we see as being the job of government and what's the best direction for the country.
Thursday, July 25, 2013
On Thursday John Boehner again made the claim that Republicans will do "everything we can" so Americans are not put through the "horrific experience" of Obamacare but stopped far short whether that includes blocking its funding in the continuing resolution, the surest way to halt the individual mandate and other aspects of the law slated for implementation in 2014.
"No decision has been made about how we're going to deal with the CR next month, in September," said out esteemed Speaker of the House when asked if he agreed with Sen. Mike Lee, that funding for the individual mandate be halted in the continuing resolution, or CR, in the fall. Boehner is pathetic, and spends nearly as much time talking out of both sides of his mouth as does Barry.
"Obamacare in my view, it’s driving up the cost of health insurance. It’s denying people access to quality care, and it’s killing jobs in America," Boehner said during a press conference on Capitol Hill. "That’s why we voted some 39, 40 times to defund or repeal Obamacare." So freakin what, John. Here's your big chance o actually get that done, and what do you do? You wimp out!
Laughably, Boehner then proceeded to take credit for forcing Barry "Almighty" to make changes to the health care law, such as delaying the employer mandate for big corporations -- but not for small businesses and individuals -- until past 2014. "And I would remind you that the president has signed seven changes to Obamacare into law," he said. This clown didn't force Barry to do anything.
Boehner ten said, "That would never have happened had it not been for our continued efforts to defund this and repeal it." That's bullshit John and you know it. And to be honest it all means next to nothing as long as this monster is still alive and breathing. A stake needs to be driven straight through its heart, and so far, for whatever reason, Boehner hasn't shown that he has the guts to do it!
"As we get into the fall, we’re going to continue to point out what I think are big flaws in the system," Boehner said. "How can you provide subsidies through these health exchanges without verifying people’s income? Our job is to protect the American people. It’s to spend their taxpayer money wisely. I think it’s wide open for abuse." THEN DO SOMETHING BESIDES TALK ABOUT IT!!!
"[This is] just one of a number of issues I expect we’ll continue to work on as we do everything we can to make sure this doesn’t really go into effect," he said. But when asked if "everything we can" includes defunding the law — and specifically in the continuing resolution — Boehner was, as is usually the case, non-committal. It's what he does best and what we have seen him do countless times!
"We will continue to do everything we can to defund it, to repeal it and to make sure that the American people aren’t put through this horrific experience," he said. Boehner was asked about Senator Lee’s plan to block any funding bill that includes spending to implement Obamacare. Boehner said, "No decision has been made about how we're going to deal with the CR next month, in September."
Boehner was asked again, "Just on that note also, are you ruling out the CR? Sen. Lee and others in the House are saying it's now or never to block funding for Obamacare, so do you agree with that?" To which Mr. Spineless responded, "We have not made any decisions about how we're going to deal with the CR." Well why the Hell not, John. What the Hell are you waiting for? Until it's too late?
A CBS News poll released this week found that more Americans than ever want Obamacare repealed, and 54 percent disapprove of the health care law. Would you think that would stiffen Boehner's backbone a bit. But nope! On Wednesday, Rep. Michele Bachmann questioned whether Boehner and the GOP leadership have "the guts" to defund Obamacare. I doubt any of them do!
"Republicans are the only possible salvation that we have, because Democrats have made their decision," Bachmann said. "And so it’s whether or not the Republicans in the House have the guts to fight, because it’s like [Winston] Churchill famously said – if you don’t fight now, it’s going to be a lot harder to fight later," she said. "This is it," Bachmann said. "This is our last big effort."
I'd feel much better about our chances of killing this thing if we were to have someone other than Boehner in charge of getting it done. Just once I wish he would put the country above politics. He could be known as being the guy who rescued the country from this nightmare, instead, I'm afraid, he'll be known as the guy who recognized the horror, yet did absolutely nothing to stop it.
Once again our less than stellar Speaker of the House, John 'Spineless' Boehner, has made it crystal clear that's he far more interested in being politically correct than he is in dealing honestly with what is a growing problem in this country. His most recent demonstration came when he said that it was "deeply offensive and wrong" for fellow Republican Rep. Steve King to suggest many younger unauthorized immigrants are drug runners. You know, sometimes the truth can be a little hard to take, but that doesn't mean you simply choose to ignore it. And facts are facts, and you can't ignore them in the hopes that they'll just go away.
Boehner already had issued a written statement earlier in the week condemning King's comments, but at his weekly news conference Thursday he chose to elevate his criticism and took the unusual step of calling King out by name. Boehner said the Iowa Republican's comments don't reflect the values of the American people or the GOP. Obviously, Boehner has a rather difficult time dealing with things as they are, preferring, instead, to see them the way he wishes they were. And this is the main reason he's been such a disaster as Speaker. In order to deal with the substantive issues hurting this country today, you have to be a realist.
What seems to have caused Boehner so much angst is the fact that Mr. King told a conservative news website that with respect to immigrants brought illegally to the U.S. as kids, "for every one who's a valedictorian, there's another 100 out there that weigh 130 pounds and they've got calves the size of cantaloupes because they're hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert." As far as I'm concerned, there more than just a little truth to what Mr. King said, and if Boehner is incapable of dealing with the truth, then maybe he should just pack his things up and head back to Ohio! Because he's doing us no good in his present position!
During the same period of time that all of these supposed phony scandals have been piling up, the unemployment rate, going all the way back to when Barry was inaugurated in 2009, has been at 7.5% or above. That's 54 straight months, which is the longest stretch of unemployment at or above that rate since 1948. That, I think it can safely be said, is a scandal in itself. Obamanomics has been proven to be a disaster, and on so many different levels. Because of the policies that he has put in place there are, today, 10 Million fewer people in the American workforce than when he took office. If that does not define the situation as a disaster, nothing does. He claims to be on the side of the middle class, but he has done more to decimate the middle class than anyone in recent memory.
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
Every time I hear this crazy old bitch open her big fat pie hole, I am nothing short of amazed by the fact that it's actually a district in Texas that she represents. You'd think it would be a district located somewhere like the outer-reaches of the planet Mars. I mean, she is an absolute loon! I've always pictured folks from Texas as being, I don't know, maybe a little more American. But not her, nor, apparently, many of her constituents!
Anyway, this the latest trip down crazy lane involving the esteemed Ms Sheila Jackson Lee, is one that occurred on Wednesday, and had to with a piece of legislation that she said she would soon be introducing for general ridicule. And the specific purpose of this rather silly piece of legislation crafted by this genius, would be to cut federal funding to any state that doesn’t require neighborhood watch programs to register with police.
Now when it came to selecting a name for her ingenious little piece of legislation, she settled on the "Justice Exists for All Act". You gotta be kidding me. And apparently it's in response to the trial of George Zimmerman, who, as we all know, was found not guilty of murder or manslaughter in the of shooting Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman was the neighborhood watch coordinator in the Florida neighborhood where the shooting took place.
In attempting to portray that there is somehow a need for such an idiotic bill as hers, this doddering old boob said, while on the House floor, "We will … decrease the incidence of gun violence resulting from vigilantes by reducing by 20 percent the funds that would otherwise be allocated… to any state that does not require local neighborhood watch programs to be registered with a local [law] enforcement agency." Ok, now how do you spell stupid?
And she went on to make the claim that her bill would also use the threat of less federal money to entice states to change their "stand your ground" laws. Jackson Lee said her bill would only allow states to avoid a cut if their laws are amended to include a "duty to retreat." So now, at least according to this moron, we all have the duty to retreat. Spoken like a true Democrat. But what about all of the blacks who benefit from 'stand your ground' laws?
And then she went on to say, "For states that do not require a duty to retreat, we will question their federal funding and assess their Justice Department funding and reduce it by 20 percent." She was not specific about what the change might mean for state laws, but I seriously doubt whether she's really bright enough to even be able to comprehend such things. I mean, let's face it, like most Democrats, such things are of little concern.
I must be honest with you though, listening to this imbecile spew her endless drivel always does my heart good, because, you see, it makes folks aware that Florida is far from being the only state to send morons to Washington. I mean, down here we have such notables as Corrine Brown, Alcee Hastings and Frederica Wilson to name just three. Needless to say, the collective brainpower generated by these three wouldn't light up a 10 watt bulb.
Well folks, I was just wondering if you're feeling that knife going into your back? Again? If you don't, you should, because rumor has it that a group of our stellar Republican senators is now apparently "open to $600 Billion in revenue" in order to reach a 'deal' with the White House regarding the debt ceiling limit later this fall. At least that's what's being reported by the National Journal. Now I'm pretty sure that we're all smart enough to figure out that when these scumbags say 'revenue, what they really mean is higher taxes. And aren't taxes really high enough already?
Anyway, it would seem that in recent weeks, those who make up our usual suspects among the ranks of GOP Senators, you know the ones, John McCain, Kelly Ayotte, Saxby Chambliss, Johnny Isakson, Bob Corker, Lindsey Graham, John Hoeven and Richard Burr, have attended at least four meetings with top Barry "Almighty" aides, engaging in preliminary talks over how to raise the debt ceiling. So once again we have the equivalent of some idiotic 'gang' essentially conspiring against "We the People". And is that really why we send them to Washington?
According to 'Dick' Burr, Republicans are said to be open to $600 Billion in revenue, but "want to see it come from a mix of entitlement and tax reform," again as reported by the National Journal. And strangely enough, all the senators reported to be in the meetings have signed the Americans for Tax Reform pledge to not raise taxes, except for Sen. Hoeven. The pledge states that the senator must oppose all tax rate increases and any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits—unless accompanied by cuts in rates. So they were just lying to us when they signed that pledge?
As mindboggling as it may sound, the U.S. is expected to once again slam headlong into its borrowing limit of $16.699 Trillion later this year. Congress and the president must agree on a deal to raise that debt ceiling, and the sides remain far apart. The White House is still insisting on the offer it made in December to avert the fiscal cliff, which included tax hikes of $600 billion and $400 billion in cuts to Medicare. Personally, I don't give a squat what our thug-in-chief is insisting upon. He's has already got his tax hikes. Now is the time for spending cuts. And not simply cuts in future growth, real cuts!
On Tuesday, everybody's favorite spineless Speaker repeated his position that any increase in the debt ceiling should be matched with spending cuts. Boehner said, "We all know that we’ve got the issue of the debt ceiling coming up this fall," he said. "We’re not going to raise the debt ceiling without real cuts in spending." He went on to say, "It’s as simple as that." Well, it just never quite turns out to be that simple. And how many times have we heard this guy tell us one thing to our face, only to have him, once behind closed doors, say something quite different? Too many to count!
President Obama already secured tax increases on Americans earning more than $400,000 per year, as part of the fiscal cliff deal in January, which raised tax rates for top earners from 35 percent to 39.6 percent. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, another guy that I'm none too fond of, is reportedly "encouraging the conversations" between some of his Republican members and the White House in hopes of striking some big deal. The only thing that is likely to come out of these "conversations" is nothing more than another big fat concession from the Republicans! And they're too STUPID to see it!
RINO McCain said, "My hopes are that we could agree on what the deficit is and then begin formal negotiations with the White House." Adding, "There are already a lot of informal conversations going on." And Burr said something that about the dumbest thing I've heard ins quite some time. He said, "You can’t accomplish big things in Washington without a level of trust between both parties." He then went on to say, "That’s in the process of trying to be rebuilt." That these guys have the nerve to call themselves conservatives makes me wanne puke! No wonder we keep getting screwed!
And then it was back in February, during talks about the then-looming sequester, that that bonehead RINO Lindsey 'The Dumb Ass' Graham actually said, "I'm willing to raise revenue. I'm willing to raise $600 Billion of new revenue if my Democratic friends would be willing to reform entitlements." Lindsey, Lindsey, Lindsey, you really do need to get your head outta your ass. Democrat friends? Just how naïve, or is it stupid, are you? Yes folks, I think it is way past the time for old Lindsey to finally be put out to pasture, and into the home, somewhere, for senile old RINOs!
Now look, in the big scheme of things, what, or where, is $600 Billion in supposed 'revenue' really going to get us? Especially when we're talking about a $16.99 Trillion debt. All that is going to succeed in doing is to take even more cash out of circulation. And anyway, what is that, like 3 percent? That's laughable. And it's made all the more laughable when you consider the fact that Barry and the Democrats will never agree to any level of spending cuts, no matter how minute. Wasn't that the reason we ended up with the dreaded sequester? Look, for the same reason that there should be no immigration reform without there first being border security, there should be no further tax hikes without there first being made some pretty sizable spending cuts. END OF FREAKIN STORY!
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
After having hit a bit of a stumbling block in getting the Democrat attempt at socialized medicine off the ground, it now seems that Barry is hoping that his many Hollywood sycophants will be more than happy to assist him in that little endeavor. And in so doing Barry met, just this past Monday, with some of those so-called celebrities who are now pitching in to help him to lie to folks about the supposed benefits of his signature healthcare law ahead of the October 1 launch of state insurance exchanges.
According to CNN, Barry dropped by a White House meeting with 'American Idol' loser, Jennifer Hudson and actress Amy Poehler, as well as representatives for Oprah Winfrey, Alicia Keys, and the fella who actually cried the night that John Kerry-Heinz lost in 2004, Jon Bon Jovi. Other imbecilic attendees included officials from the Grammy awards and the Funny or Die website, which is a brainchild of that sophomoric boob, Will Ferrell and director Adam McKay. Such are the ‘stars’ Barry hope to use to get people to sign up for his healthcare.
"The President stopped by the meeting to engage artists who expressed an interest in helping to educate the public about the benefits of the health law," a White House official told CNN. "The reach of these national stars spreads beyond the beltway to fans of their television shows, movies, and music – and the power of these artists to speak through social media is especially critical." The Washington Post reported that the meeting was led by, who else but, senior adviser Valerie Jarrett.
The celebrity outreach effort coincides with the attempt by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to recruit top athletes to help promote the insurance exchanges. Last month, Sebelius told reporters she had been "very actively and enthusiastically engaged" with the National Football League (NFL) who, or so we're told, turned her down. The administration is planning a massive blitz ahead of the opening of the exchanges, where individuals who are currently without coverage can buy subsidized insurance.
The White House is hoping that it will be able to eventually hoodwink at least 3 million healthy adults who are without insurance into enrolling, enabling the cost savings necessary across the program. "We have the next couple of months laid out with a very busy and engaged schedule to make sure we're ready for marketplace enrollment on Oct. 1," Sebelius said. Yup, and these pathetic scumbags will leave no lie untold in their effort to con as many people as possible in to signing up for this disaster.
The ridiculously named 'Affordable Healthcare Act', aka Obamacare, that was literally shoved through Congress and then shoved down the throats of the American people back in 2010, when the Democrats had complete control of Congress, has never really been all that popular. And it always been highly partisan. But apparently a new Washington Post-ABC News poll now finds that a group of once loyal Democrats has been steadily turning against Obamacare, those would be Democrats who are, or so they claim, ideologically moderate or conservative.
Just after the law was 'passed' in 2010, fully 74 percent of moderate and conservative Democrats supported the federal law making changes to our, what had been up to that time an excellent, healthcare system. But according to this most recent poll, that support seem to have now fallen to just 46 percent, down 11 points in just the past year. Liberal Democrats, by contrast, have continued to support the law at very high levels, 78 percent in the latest survey. Among the public at large, 42 percent support and 49 percent oppose the law, retreating from an even split at 47 percent apiece last July.
The shift among the Democrat Party’s large swath in the ideological middle– most Democrats in this poll, 57 percent, identify as moderate or conservative – is driving an overall drop in party support for this piece of legislative manure. Just 58 percent of Democrats now support the law, which is down from 68 percent last year and the lowest since the law was enacted in 2010. This broader drop mirrors tracking a survey by the supposedly, but not really, non-partisan Kaiser Family Foundation as well as Fox News polls, both of which found Democratic support falling earlier this year.
Politically speaking, the downward trend among who identify themselves as moderate and conservative Democrats may be inconsequential. Senate Democrats have essentially ignored more than three dozen House Republican efforts to repeal the law, and even if they lost control of the chamber in the 2014 midterm elections Barry would surely veto any attempt to undo what he sees as being his signature legislative 'achievement'. And the chances of the Republicans winning in large enough numbers to override a veto are, at least at this point in time, pretty remote. No one has yet made such a prediction.
But persistent skepticism of Obamacare does continue to pose a bit of an obstacle to getting key parts of the law very far off the ground. Barry's gang is said to be planning to exert enormous 'education efforts' in the next 12 months in an attempt to 'persuade' uninsured Americans to sign up for new health insurance exchanges. Barry has also sought some much needed help from professional sports well as from many out there in the land of the fruits, the nuts and the flakes known as, Hollywood. It seems that Hollywood has been much more willing to assist than has anyone in major league sports.
Now I gotta be honest with you, here, if I was truly a bettin man I would have swore that those who consider themselves to be conservative and/or moderate Democrats were long ago made extinct. But I guess maybe I might have been a bit to hasty in making that assumption. I still have a hard time believing that there exits today any actual conservative Democrats. That just seems like too much of an oxymoron. But hey, if that's what they say they are then so be it, I guess they ought to now, and anyone who hates Obamacare is ok in my book, Democrat or not. We'll need to work together if we want to get rid of it!
I think we can all admit that racism does exist right here in the good ol’ U.S. of A. But the practitioners of said racism are not the ones the race baiters would have you believe. They are, instead, no one but the race-baiters themselves and those who choose to follow them. And, they are rather selective in their application of the rather toxic accusation. And to find an example of something that makes that point all the more obvious, we can go back to 2009, to a night when a man, Mr. Roderick Scott, was asleep on his couch when he woke to hearing some noise outside of his home. He grabbed his gun, told his girlfriend to call 911, and then proceeded outside. Once there, he confronted three youths who were attempting to break into a neighbor’s vehicle.
Scott’s only intent upon arriving at the scene was to merely detain the three. He specifically stated he was not there to shoot anyone, but to make sure they staid put until the police arrived. As he approached the three, he could see that the dome light of the vehicle was on and at least one person was inside the vehicle, rummaging around. From that point on, things started to deteriorate. "At that point, Scott testified he pulled his handgun out of the holster, and chambered a round. ‘I wanted to protect myself and I intended to,’ Scott said." As he approached one individual, that individual began walking away, but there were still two who were looking through things on the inside of the vehicle.
And it was at this point, Scott said that he took the "shooter’s stance" because he said he did not know what he, exactly, was up against and had no idea if any of the individuals were armed. "He told the individuals to stop, that his girlfriend had called 911, and that he had a gun. The individuals stopped, and a few seconds passed. Scott says the teens were talking, then one of them ran around the front of the truck. The other ran down the driveway toward him, screaming. Scott warned him he had a gun, then shot him." Sounds familiar? Like maybe the Zimmerman/Martin situation? While there are similarities in the events that took place, there are also some very obvious differences.
One of those differences is the fact that the shooter, Mr. Scott, was immediately arrested and charged with murder. A citizen’s grand jury would later recommend the lighter charge of manslaughter, which was what the prosecution decided to go for in trying Mr. Scott. There was a trial, which resulted in Mr. Scott being acquitted of all charges that were placed against him. Oh, and there is one other rather important difference worth mentioning here. And that is, that Mr. Roderick Scott, is black. And the person that he shot, Chris Cervini, was white and was only 16-years-old. That means that Scott shot a child who was, in fact, unarmed.
In fact, as it turns out, Cervini was actually an honor student. Following the verdict of not guilty, Cervini’s father, Jim said, "The message is that we can all go out and get guns and feel anybody that we feel is threatening us and lie about the fact…My son never threatened anybody. He was a gentle child, his nature was gentle, he was a good person and he was never, ever arrested for anything, and has never been in trouble. He was 16 years and four months old, and he was slaughtered." Sounds eerily familiar to what Tracy Martin has said about his son, Travyon, who, most definitely, was not an honor student. But still, we're supposed to believe that he too, was a gentle child, simply on his way home after "not stealing" a packet of skittles.
But the differences don’t stop there. Because, you see, before Zimmerman ever touched his gun, Martin had already sucker-punched him, most likely breaking his nose and knocking him to the ground. Then, Martin climbed on top of Zimmerman and allegedly began pounding his head into the concrete slab. In the case of Roderick Scott and Chris Cervini, Cervini never even come in contact with Scott and yet Scott opened fire, essentially gunning him down. There are a lot of people who believe that Zimmerman was at fault for what happened the night Martin died. They say that he didn’t have to follow Martin. He should have simply stayed in his vehicle, etc.
Personally, I’m of the opinion that the same could be said about Mr. Scott. I mean, did he have to physically go outside and confront the three intruders? Did he have to take out his gun, assume the "shooter’s stance" and then shoot Cervini two times as he ran toward Scott? Had Scott remained inside his apartment, or simply followed the three individuals at a safe distance noting where they went, he could have been very helpful to the police. Moreover, he also could have taken a video of the individuals from his phone to help the police track down the suspects later. But he did none of those things. And yet, were there claims that he was the one at fault for what happened that night?
Because of instead acting in a more precautionary fashion, Scott made the decision to use deadly force against Chris Cervini and he, Scott, didn’t even have a scratch on him. There was no broken nose. There were no cuts and/or bruises on the back of his head. Nothing. Because Cervini never got close enough to lay a hand on Scott before he was shot down in what was, essentially, cold blood. Most likely, Scott could have very easily subdued the 16 year old white kid without ever having to resort to deadly force, but he chose not to do so, because he felt threatened by someone who he had no way of knowing whether or not they too had a weapon. So he pulled the trigger.
I’m sure everyone remembers hearing Barry "Almighty" when he recently stated that had Trayvon Martin been white, the outcome might have been different. Well we have that scenario and we can very plainly see that the outcome was NO different. ‘No' different at all. I’d say that that kinda shoots down that little theory of Barry’s, wouldn’t you say? In fact, comparing the two situations, it appears that Zimmerman was much more careful than Scott, and far more justified in choosing to use his weapon. This situation proves that race-baiters like Barry, Holder, and Sharpton are just that, race-baiters speaking lies that are far too often received as truth with no one willing to take the time to look past the lies.
Roderick Scott shot not once but twice and killed a child, 16-year-old Christopher Cervini, and in, what many could argue was cold blood. And he was still fully acquitted of all charges by a jury of his peers. And yet, the white community did not come so completely unhinged. There were to cries from within the white community to announce a 100-city tour of "Justice for Chris" rallies. And white people did not go on rampages, attacking blacks and other minorities that had nothing to do with this senseless killing. Whether we agreed with the verdict or not, we were content to allow the system to work. Because race was no more a factor in this incident than it was in what occurred that between Zimmerman and Martin. At least on the part of Zimmerman.
Roderick Scott is a black man who appears to have gone above and beyond what the situation called for. He could have done things differently, but he didn't. Because of his actions, along with the actions of Chris Cervini, the latter died that not for no other reason that because he made a bad decision. It’s too bad that Cervini made that terrible decision to be with his friends that night and it’s too bad they chose to break into a vehicle across from Roderick Scott’s apartment. It’s too bad that Scott went outside and helped to create a situation where he wound up deliberately shooting a 16-year-old "child." It’s also too bad that the police hadn’t arrived sooner.
I don’t believe for a moment that Roderick Scott actually "profiled" the three intruders, who, as it happens, were all white. He simply heard a noise and went out to investigate. Unfortunately, the situation turned south rather quickly and in Scott’s mind, it forced him to defend himself and to the point where he felt he was left with no real choice. I don’t believe Zimmerman profiled Martin either. He saw something, so he said something by calling 911. He followed Martin to see where he was going. At one point, Martin ran past Zimmerman while Zimmerman was on the phone to 911, as Zimmerman asked them to send officers quickly. He even said "please."
After Martin disappeared, he came back and confronted Zimmerman. He sucker-punched him, breaking his nose and knocking him down. He jumped on him and started bashing Zimmerman’s head into the concrete. If Scott felt he was being threatened and was forced to shoot, how much more did Zimmerman believe he was put in the position of wondering whether he was about to lose his own life that night? Neither the Scott nor Zimmerman case is about race, except to race-baiters everywhere. It’s about poor decisions and justice. Chris Cervini – an honor student – should not have been doing what he was doing that night. And sadly, it ultimately cost him his life.
Trayvon Martin, a thug, should have kept going to Brandy Green’s townhouse where he was staying. Instead, he circled back and confronted, and then attacked, George Zimmerman. Each case has its problems. Each case resulted in murder charges being filed. And each case involved blacks and whites, or in one case, a White-Hispanic. And each case resulted in acquittals. But only one case is being used to stoke the fires of racial discontent. The media did not mention Roderick Scott at anytime during the entire Zimmerman trial. They did their best to paint Zimmerman as a racist, as it turns out, to push for more gun control.
If Zimmerman can be accused of being a racist, then why can’t it also be argued that Roderick Scott is also a racist? Are we to believe that just because Scott is black he's incapable of being a racist? Zimmerman had far more reason to shoot than Scott did, and yet in both cases, juries ruled that the shootings were, in fact, justified. I think both of these cases make it all the more apparent that if this world did not have professional racists, people would likely get along a whole lot better. Proof of that is the very low turn outs for the "Justice for Trayvon" rallies held by racist-in-chief, Al Sharpton. This world would actually be a far better place if people did not constantly stoke the fires of racial hatred. Sometimes it is simply, self-defense.
Monday, July 22, 2013
Ok folks, just what the Hell is going on here? Are we really that determined to let what's left of our country slip from our grasp? I mean when I hear about some poll that actually shows that New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and former Secretary of State Hitlery Clinton are who most Americans are looking at to take over from Barry, I gotta tell ya, it scares the crap outta me! But, apparently, both of these less than stellar individuals are said to be leading their respective packs, tied at 41 percent each in a head-to-head presidential poll in Iowa. At least, according to a new survey by Quinnipiac University.
The survey of 1,256 registered Iowa voters which was taken July 15-17 found that Chridtie edged Clinton by a slim margin of 37 percent to 36 percent among independents and leads 45 percent to 35 percent among men. But Clinton, the poll found, beat Christie among Iowa women by 47 percent to 37 percent. And when it came to favorability ratings, 52 percent of Iowans said they have a favorable view of Clinton, compared to 41 percent who do not. Christie, however, registered a 42 percent favorability rating compared to only 16 percent who said they didn't care for him. Personally, if I had been one of those 1,256 people I’d have been in the 16 precent.
Peter Brown, assistant director of Quinnipiac's Polling Institute, said in a statement, "Christie's favorability ratio of almost 3-1 is impressive." He did go on to say, "The question is whether he can sustain it as he becomes better known. If so, he could be a strong contender in 2016. Quinnipiac has tested Clinton against a variety of Republicans in a number of states, and Christie seems to be running the best so far." I'd like to think that it's still way too soon to be looking at anyone, especially these two, as being our next president, because, quite frankly, I wouldn't care to see either one in the White House. There has to be someone we can all agree on.
In another one-on-one match-up, Clinton leads Republican Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin by 46 percent to 39 percent among Iowa voters. The Quinnipiac survey also found that Christie tops 'Slow Joe' Biden 49 percent to 32 percent in Iowa, and Walker leads Biden 42 to 39 percent. It wasn't all that long ago that I was looking to Marco Rubio as being the torch bearer for our side in 2016, but that sure ain't gonna happen now. Now I'm not sure who I'd be willing to support. But I do know that in a contest between Christie and Clinton a vote for Christie wouldn’t be all that much different than a vote for Clinton. Thank God it's still only 2013.
Look, the bottom line here is that there just isn't all that much that separates these two boobs on most of the truly important issues. For instance, Christie's a big believer in the bogus theory of 'climate change' just as Hitlery does. Christie is far from being a conservative, and therefore agrees with Clinton on far more of the issues than he disagrees with her. If these two were to be their respective party's nominees, where would be the incentive to vote for one over the other? What we do not need is another election that is nothing more than a popularity contest, we need to elect someone qualified, not a novice or a socialist. Nor someone who hates America.
One thing is for sure, there will be no Ronald Reagan this time around to come riding to our rescue, sweeping in as he did in 1980 to clean up the God awful mess that was left behind by Jimmy ‘The Jerkoff’ Carter. Of course, I think it's safe to say that the mess left behind by Carter pales in comparison to the mess that will ultimately be left behind by Barry. But, ya know, as much as I hate to say it, even if we did have someone like a Reagan, I doubt very seriously whether a majority of the American electorate would be smart enough to elect him or her. Sadly the America of 2013 is not the America of 1980. If only it were.
Finally, I’d like to mention the fact that I say a little prayer each and every night that a conservative someone will come along who is capable of truly uniting we Americans in the same manner that Reagan did. Someone capable of making us proud to be Americans. And someone capable of convincing enough of the America people that we all are going to need to work together if we our nation is to survive. And someone who can convince those in doubt, that a strong America is just what the world needs. A world that seems to be growing a little less stable with each passing day because America has decided to remain on the sidelines for the last 5 years.
If Detroit serves as being anything, especially these days, it would be that it has become the prefect example of what America is very likely to look like by the time that Barry "Almighty" completes the "fundamental transformation" that he said our country was so badly in need of. Detroit’s long, painful, descent into darkness has been nearly legendary. Once the fourth largest city in the nation, and home to its largest industry, Detroit’s population has been cut in half, from 1.5 million in 1970, to less than 700,000 in 2012. The median household income is $27,862 compared to the state median of $48,669. The poverty level is 36.2 percent compared to a statewide level of 15.7. The murder rate is 11 times that of New York City, and the unemployment rate is above 18 percent, more than double the ‘reported’ national average. Detroit Public Schools (DPS) have been under emergency management for 5 years. In late February, the state review board revealed that the city faced a short-term cash $327 million budget deficit and an estimated $14 billion in long-term debt, primarily driven by, what else but, unfunded pension and retirement health care obligations.
As a result, the city cannot now provide even the most basic of services. The Detroit Fire Department has become so short of critical resources, rotating "brownouts" of city fire companies are now required. Forty percent of the city’s street lights are broken. For the past two years, City Mayor David Bing’s administration has slowly adopted a city "triage" system, best described by the Detroit Free Press. "Infrastructure improvements, demolition activity, outdoor maintenance and development incentives will henceforth be concentrated in a relatively small number of neighborhoods that boast the high numbers of owner-occupied homes and little evidence of residential and commercial blight," it reports. To accord with this plan, the city’s 139 square miles have been broken down into four categories by Detroit’s Planning and Development Department: "steady," as in little blight and a high number of owner-occupied homes; "transitional," as in a neighborhood on its way up or down; "varied" as in some streets are stable and others are not; and "distressed" as in large amounts of blight, and few amenities, such as grocery stores.
Detroit residents have responded in kind. A staggering 47 percent of the owners of Detroit’s 305,000 properties didn't bother with paying their property taxes in 2012. Homeowner Fred Phillips illuminated the frustration many of those residents feel. "Why pay taxes?" he asks. "Why should I send them taxes when they aren’t supplying services? It is sickening….Every time I see the tax bill come, I think about the times we called and nobody came." Well it’s hard to argue with that! Yet it’s even worse than that. Detroit has some of the highest big city property taxes in the nation, and property assessments remain overly inflated, amounting to as much as ten times the market price of the property, and that's according to recent research compiled by two Michigan professors. This has led to another rather unique phenomenon. Property owners are allowing themselves to be foreclosed upon, and then re-buying the same property at a reduced price, legally eliminating their outstanding debt in the process. Six hundred properties were repurchased in this manner in 2012, triple the number that occurred in 2010.
In short, Detroit is a city that now finds itself on the brink of total collapse. And the primary cause of that collapse being, 50 years of Democrat rule. The last Republican Mayor the city had was Louis C. Miriani, who lost his reelection bid in 1961. Enter, Democrat, Jerome Cavanagh, who brought with him the "Model City" program, fashioned after Soviet Union centralized efforts to transform entire urban areas at once, to a nine-square-mile section of the city. Using a commuter tax and a new income tax as his vehicle, Cavanagh promised residents "the rich" would pay for it all. Yet because people were being told by government how to run their businesses and their lives, in exchange for government goodies, the program ended up failing spectacularly. Then in 1967, after police broke up a celebration at an after hours club, an enraged neighborhood began to riot, igniting the worst race riot of the entire decade. Black-owned business were looted and burned to the ground. Forty people were killed and 5,000 were left homeless, and the "white flight" out of the city center, totaling 140,000 people over an eighteen month period, ensued. The city was never the same after that.
Ever since an unbroken chain of Democrat mayors have followed, all of whom have played a hand in the implementing of all manner of progressive, and very destructive, policies, highlighted, of course, by the giveaways to public service employees. Their outlandish salaries and benefit packages, coupled with highly inefficient work rules, succeeded in the killing off of the golden goose: the auto industry. It and its attendant industrial community headed South, where taxes were lower and right-to-work rules allowed them to keep their businesses afloat. The same swath of progressive policies successfully destroyed the public school system as well. Perhaps nothing illustrates the corrupting influence of those policies better than the Detroit Federation of Teachers’ success in scuttling a $200 million offer by businessman and philanthropist Robert Thompson to build 15 charter schools in the city in 2003. Ten years later, the Detroit Public School (DPS) system remains a cesspool of failure, corruption and bankruptcy. Today nearly half of Detroit's adult population is functionally illiterate, quite the badge of honor for the city's public schools, don't you think?
Considering some of the men who have run this city, Detroit’s descent into socialistic ruin should come as a surprise no one. From 1974 to 1993 it was Coleman Young, who was later revealed to be a member of the Communist Party, that was mayor of the city. He failed to stem Detroit’s descent into chaos, and in 1992 his police chief was convicted of stealing $2.6 million from city taxpayers, even as Young defended him. Michigan’s hard-left U.S. Senator Carl Levin was Young’s chief supporter, serving as Detroit City Council president. The most recent crook to be mayor of the city was Kwame Kilpatrick, who served as Mayor from 2002 to 2008. In 2008, he pleaded guilty to two felonies and no contest to a third one, receiving a sentence of 120 days. In 2010, he received a five year sentence for probation violations stemming from his obstruction of justice conviction. Currently Kilpatrick, along with his father, Bernard Kilpatrick, and his longtime contractor friend Bobby Ferguson, who got millions of dollars in city work, are awaiting a jury verdict on racketeering, bribery and tax charges that could send them all to jail for 20 years.
All of these polices and politicians have had their effect. In 2012, Forbes Magazine rated Detroit the most dangerous city in America. A Detroit News poll revealed that "Detroit’s crime crisis" has gotten so bad, a staggering 40 percent of its residents intend to leave the city within five years. Another two-thirds say the city is on the wrong track. The poll also found that all of Detroit’s public officials were held in low esteem, except for Police Chief Ralph Godbee–who 'retired' due to a sex scandal after the poll was taken. Now ordinarily you might think that those living in the epicenter of Democrat-inflicted misery for fifty years might consider changing course. But nope, such is not the case. If you were to assume such a thing you would be completely wrong. And what was yet another demonstration of blatant stupidity is the fact that in 2012 Barry "Almighty" received 98 percent of the vote. And on the same night Detroit voters elected a convicted felon, Brian Banks, to serve in the state legislature. Other election results show overwhelming margins of victories for Detroit Democrats as well.
To make the claim that Detroit's current situation has nothing whatsoever to do with the implementation, by Democrats, of decades worth of socialist policies is to either be living in denial, suffering from delusions, or simply being ignorant. So you can bet it’s certain that Detroit’s Democrat dominated city government will resist any and all efforts made by Gov. Synder, and the Republicans who run the state legislature, to keep the city from going under. Also, I'm sure it goes without saying that much of that resistance will be framed in racial terms, a theme that has already been stoked by U.S. Rep John Conyers, Democrat and certified moron, who has represented Detroit for 47 years. "How come all of the jurisdictions put under emergency management are majority African American? Has anybody noticed that?" he wondered. Well, John, I'll tell ya, one thing that a lot of people have "noticed", and it's that if blacks were to ever become just a little interested in becoming productive citizens and not just a bunch of parasites, their city might be in much better shape. Also, John, you might also be interested to know that the top ten most dangerous cities in the nation are each led by a Democrat mayor. Just sayin, John.
Detroit residents have had fifty years to demonstrate the initiative necessary to fix their city's problems. They chose not to. Instead, their insistence on electing corrupt Democrat after corrupt Democrat, has succeeded only in bringing their city to the point where bankruptcy is the only option left. And here's just a brief summary of what that fifty years of Democrat rule has accomplished for the city, and what the residents of Detroit seem to have been quite content to receive in exchange for their votes: 1) The city’s unemployment rate has nearly tripled since 2000 and is more than double what's being reported as the national average. 2) Its homicide rate is at historic high levels and the city has been named among America’s most dangerous for more than 20 years. 3) Detroiters wait an average of 58 minutes for police to respond, compared to the national average of 11 minutes. 4) 40 percent of the city’s lights didn’t work in the first quarter of 2013. 5) Roughly 78,000 structures are abandoned in the city. 6) Detroit owes more than $18 billion to creditors. 7) The city’s population has declined 63 percent from its peak, including a 28 percent drop since 2000.