Saturday, August 31, 2013
Friday, August 30, 2013
Growing up as I did in a rural part of America in the 1950s and 60s, never in my wildest dreams did I ever imagine that America would ever look as she does in 2013. Granted, as a kid back then I rarely, if ever, gave all that much thought to the politics of the time. But I do, however, remember hearing my father, a fella who never made it past the 6th grade, make that rare comment every now and then about certain politicians. He was a staunch Republican and man who never really had a good word to say about those whom he labeled as being, "God-damned Democrats."
And so in being unable to go back to, what I view as being, those better days, I'm now forced to contend with some of the most unscrupulous people to ever hold public office, and also am made to worry about the future that they have now created for my daughter through what is nothing more than their unquenchable thirst for political power. I watch as they waste Trillions upon Trillions of dollars that are spent for no other reason than their continuing efforts to buy more votes. And I wonder how kids like my daughter will ever have any hope of being able to pay any of it back.
And strangely enough, that seems to bother very little, most of the people with whom I work, many of whom, I'm quite sure, voted for the very same ones doing most of the spending. And in listening to some of them talk, they seem to be totally oblivious to what those they voted for, are really up to. It's really quite amazing. And when I hear them complaining about the price of gas, or about how high their last utility bill was, I simply ask why it is that they're not ecstatic, since it's the very ones they voted for, who are the very same ones mainly responsible for the high cost of both.
But they just look at me as if to say, "No way!" And then they shake their head in disagreement, like I'm just making it all up. Sadly there seems to be far to many people just like that, people who are either blissfully ignorant or don't mind in the least that their only legacy to their children will be one of a mountain of debt that will most likely prevent their children from ever being able to have a good and decent life. Parents used to want the best for their children, but I assume that that sentiment no longer holds true, as the primary cause of our growing debt stems from the greed of those very same parents.
So if I'm ever lucky enough to win the lottery, what I plan on doing is to take my wife, my daughter, her husband, and his parents if they wish, along with my cats and move everyone to someplace far, far away from here, to a place where we'll be well out of reach from the growing madness in this country. It would be difficult, I admit, but necessary. But barring a big lottery win, I'll be forced to stay here and do the best I can to ensure the survival, and safety, of my family. But the odds favoring my being able to succeed in that endeavor become less and less with each passing day.
In what was yet another obvious attempt by those on the left to simply rewrite those periods in our history that, upon closer inspection, would reveal them to be less what they portray themselves as being, we now have three over zealous 'journalists' at the LA Times doing their best to portray the Republican Party as being the political party possessing a history steeped in racism and slavery. This most recent case in point stems from a statement in an article written by these three, that has no basis in historical fact: "Since Democrats led the passage of civil rights legislation that marchers pushed for in 1963, Republicans have struggled to recover with black voters".
Now had these three geniuses behind this article cared to do even the slightest amount of what's normally referred to as being research, they would have found out, and pretty quickly, that it was only 64 percent of the Democrats in Congress who actually voted in favor of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The actual numbers were, 153 voting for and 91 against in the House, while 46 voted for and 21 against it in the Senate. But it was 80 percent of Republicans, or 136 who voted for the 1964 Act with 35 against in the House; and 27 voting for, 6 against in the Senate. So, exactly which party is it that can be said to have led the passage of the legislation in Congress?
Now I know I was educated in New York, but the last time I checked my math, 80% is greater than 64%. That would indicate, to me at least, that it was the Republicans who were actually out in front and leading the way on this issue. And without their overwhelming support, despite the fact that Democrats held majorities in both the House and Senate, this legislation would never have been passed, since Democrats were far, far short of the 218 they needed in the House (65 votes to be precise) and four votes short of 50 in the Senate despite commanding 67 seats. Now if I can find out this information, why is it that these so-called reporters could not?
Despite the fact that it was the GOP who played the bigger role in getting both the Civil Rights Act in 1964, and later the Voting Rights Act in 1965 passed, 99 percent of those blacks who vote in this country, gladly go out at every election and vote for members of the very same party that, had it been able to have its way, would have been quite content to keep blacks segregated and sitting forever in the back of the bus. But the Democrats, have been able to execute one of the greatest heists of all time, because in a sense, Democrats were able to have their cake and eat it too, as they have succeeded in keeping blacks on their plantation courtesy of a monthly check.
With the creation of the 'Great Society', which was enacted in February 1964 under LBJ, came what amounted to something that was really nothing more than a new kind of slavery. It was a plan to keep blacks forever indebted to the Democrat Party, even though its impact on the black community was nothing short of devastating. And I've always thought it kinda sad how nearly an entire community of people could be convinced to remain loyal to a political party that has caused them to experience so much misery. Whether we're talking about the ruin of the black family, the number of black males in our prisons or the 70 percent of out of wedlock births, blacks have been made to suffer greatly at the hands of Democrats. And yet...
Drum roll Please…Barry "Almighty", a man considered by many as being a great president, perhaps the greatest president this country has every had, and for no other reason than because he's black, has managed to accomplish a feat not seen in this country in over 30 years. Or in other words, since the presidency of that other great Democrat president, Jimmy "The Douche Bag" Carter. The great feat to which I refer is the fact that Barry has now succeeded in getting the percentage of Americans who actually have a job, or are actively looking for one, which is known as the labor force participation rate (LFPR), back to the same percentage that it was during the Carter years. That information comes to us by way of a new report from staffing company, Express Employment Professionals.
The New York Times actually reported on the study and suggested that "another cause [of the Great Shift] may be the rise in the number of workers on disability." No shit, ya think? How much easier has Barry made it to go on disability once your unemployment 'benefits' run out? Pretty damn easy. And if you're just too stupid to figure out how to work that scam, there are plenty of slip and fall lawyers who have now expanded their business into the area of helping those poor unfortunate souls get the disability that they so rightfully deserve. A record 8,733,461 people now receive disability benefits, a figure greater than the population of New York City. So thanks to Barry, today there are nearly 90 Million Americans who are no longer in the labor force, or 10 Million more than there were when he first took office.
Thursday, August 29, 2013
It was in a video that Mr. Gutierrez was heard to say, "What we need to understand is today, someone is going to die in that desert trying to return to their families; women and men are going to die in that desert." He went on to say, "Someone’s going to lose a finger, a hand, an eye, a life today because an unscrupulous employer is going to put them in harm’s way. Someone’s going to die." He continued, "There’s a woman that’s going to be raped in a field somewhere in America today because she has no rights in this country, and we need to end that." These people are coming here ILLEGALLY! I’m just not sure why it is that I should be all that concerned about whether or not theyh survive the trip.
And then, of course, as is always the case with these sleazy, dishonest Democrats, Gutierrez then encouraged his audience to think of all the poor children saying, "There are children who are going to cry and there are marriages that are going to be destroyed because someone is going to be deported, and there are going to be children that are going to be left orphaned in this country." Adding, "For all of those reasons, we would accept that [the Senate’s bill]." Come on, really? I’ve heard some idiotic arguments before, but this crap takes the cake. Gutierrez, by the way, has been leading the charge in the House Democratic Party's efforts to push for amnesty and claims to have a significant number of Republicans with him.
Ok, so let’s look at this objectively. Contrary to what lying sacks of shit like Mr. Gutierrez, essentially on both sides of the aisle, would have you believe, our country was not founded by immigrants, it was, in fact, founded by colonists who were out to forge for themselves, and those who would come after, a new country out of the wilderness. It is our inheritance, our birthright, and it is willingly being sacrificed/squandered at the table of political correctness. And just as surely as Esau, son of Isaac, gave up his inheritance for a pot of stew, Americans are being forced into giving up their inheritance for the porridge of a false self-righteousness of "multiculturalism" that is nothing more than the death of our way of life and our freedom.
The third world bottom-feeders to whom Socialists, like Gutierrez, wish to grant amnesty as soon as possible, have no history or tradition of natural rights, and in fact they have never heard of the concept. Nor do they understand that our Constitution was an attempt to codify those natural God-given rights. Which makes them completely incapable of understanding what our Founders understood, that men who are drawn to centers of power are by nature the worst among us, and that laws are needed to keep them in check. They neither understand nor do they respect that the Constitution was written as a witness against the fallen nature of man, which has not changed, and will not change, until that nature has become angelic.
The descendants of America's founders are now slowly, but surely, being replaced with what are essentially a foreign people, which was all part of the grand design. The American gun-owning, freedom-loving middle-class was seen as being the biggest impediment to One-World-Government-equally-distributed-misery plans of the ruling elite, and therefore had to, somehow, be removed. So it was no accident that American wages started stagnating in the 1970's and have continued to decrease ever since. Simple supply and demand. Since that wasn't enough, because things were still moving too slow, more jobs were moved overseas and more foreigners were then moved in to take those jobs that were still here.
Ben Johnson said this about the 1965 Immigration Act in an article for FrontPageMagazine in 2002:
The 1965 Immigration Act: Anatomy of a Disaster By: Ben Johnson | Tuesday, December 10, 2002
"Despite the overwhelming assurances of the bill's supporters, the 1965 Immigration Reform Act has remade society into the image its critics most feared. Immigration levels topping a million a year will increase U.S. population to 400 million within 50 years. Meanwhile, exponents of multiculturalism insist new arrivals make no effort to assimilate; to do so would be "genocidal," a notion that makes a mockery of real genocides. Instead, long-forgotten grudges are nursed against the white populace. Native citizens take to flight as the neighborhoods around them, the norms in their hometowns, are debased for the convenience of low-paid immigrants and well-heeled businessmen. All the while, indigenous paychecks drop through lower wages and higher taxes collected to provide social services for immigrants. And this only takes into account legal immigration.
"Americans must realize demographic trends are not inevitable, the product of mysterious forces beyond their control. Today's population is the result of yesterday's immigration policy, and that policy is as clearly broken as its backers' assurances were facetious. A rational policy will only come about when native Americans place the national interest above liberal howls of 'prejudice' and 'tribalism.'"
Sadly, things have only proceeded to get worse, much worse, since Mr. Johnson first penned those words. I think the time as come to call what's going on here by it's rightful name. What we now have and, quite frankly, have had for some time now, is a war against the American People and our culture, and I think it's pretty obvious that those of us who love our country are losing that war, and losing badly. The cards have been stacked against us by those in Washington who are interested in nothing more than permanently skewing the political playing field. And thus appear determined to shove yet another piece of bogus legislation down our throats. The time as come for us to create our own 'red line', but we must be more committed, than our president, in enforcing it.
You know, for a guy who it's been rumored used to teach the Constitution, Barry "Almighty", our Dictator-in Chief, seems to know very little about the actual document and even less about how it's designed to work. I guess it's either that, or he's simply choosing to ignore it because he knows that no one, but maybe a hand full of Republicans, is going to be calling him on it. Certainly there's no one in the media who is going to be heard sounding the alarm anytime soon. So anyway, once again attempting to justify his taking action that is blatantly unconstitutional by claiming to do so because Congress refuses to, 'Team Barry' announced new steps on Thursday regarding gun control, curbing the import of military surplus weapons and proposing to close a little-known loophole that lets felons and others circumvent background checks by registering guns to corporations.
So four months after watched his gun control drive collapse, and rather spectacularly so, in the Senate, Our 'Dear Beloved Leader', Barry "Almighty" has now added two more executive actions to a rather impressive list of 23, that Barry has somehow determined that he can ‘legally’ take on his own to reduce gun violence. With the political world now focused on Mideast tensions and looming fiscal battles, the move was designed to show he hasn't lost sight of the cause he took up after the shootings at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn. A tragedy that he and the Democrats worked feverishly to exploit in their effort to bring about stricter gun laws. 'Slow Joe Biden', Barry's supposed point-man on gun control, unveiled the new actions Thursday at the White House. "It's simple, it's straightforward, it's common sense," 'Slow Joe' said. 'Slow Joe' talking about commonsense? Funny!
One new policy that Barry has come up with, will end a government practice that lets military weapons, sold or donated by the U.S. to allies, to be reimported into the U.S., where some may end up on the streets. The White House said the U.S. has approved 250,000 of those guns to be reimported since 2005; under the new policy, only museums and a few other entities like the government will be eligible to reimport military-grade firearms. 'Team Barry' is also proposing a federal rule to stop those who would be ineligible to pass a background check from skirting the law by registering certain guns, like machine guns and short-barreled shotguns, to a corporation or trust. The new rule would require people associated with those entities, like beneficiaries and trustees, to undergo the same type of fingerprint-based background checks as individuals if they want to register those types of guns.
Still out of reach for our Dictator-in Chief, at least for now, were the steps that gun control advocates and the administration's own review claim could most effectively combat gun violence in the U.S., like an assault weapons ban and fewer exceptions for background checks for individual sales. But such claims are nothing more than smoke and mirrors. And anyway, only Congress can act on those fronts, but with this guy you really never know. When looking at public opinion, there's really very little evidence that support for gun control legislation has grown in any way since April, when efforts died in the Senate amid staunch opposition from the NRA and most Republican senators. "Sooner or later, we are going to get this right," Barry said on that day in the White House Rose Garden, as he surrounded himself with the families of Newtown victims as well as former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords at his side.
In the months since the Senate vote, 'Slow Joe' has been heard to say that there has been a handful, or so, of lawmakers who opposed expanded background checks and now have told him, in private of course, that they have since changed their minds and would very much like another chance. Of course neither 'Slow Joe' nor anyone over that White House has named any of those lawmakers, but I’m sure they exist. Renewing his pledge to keep working for a legislative fix, ‘Slow Joe’ said that he hoped that the midterm elections would provide to the anti-gun forces an opportunity for improving prospects for stricter gun control. Many liberal groups have made it known that their plan is to hold accountable in 2014 those lawmakers who voted against gun control. "If Congress won't act, we'll fight for a new Congress," 'Slow Joe' said. "It's that simple. But we're going to get this done."
I think if we've learned anything from watching this guy over the course of the last 4 and a half years, it's that we can never afford to turn our back on him, not even for a second. He’s simply not to be trusted. To make the mistake of thinking that he is an honorable man willing to operate as the Constitution says that he must, could prove fatal, politically speaking. His reckless disregard for our Constitution should always be taken very seriously and should never be in doubt. He seems to think that there is something special about him, something that puts him above his predecessors and above our Constitution. And that makes him very dangerous. We need to be very mindful of the fact that this man who is now our president sees himself as being above the law, and as being one able to operate unmolested, and at will, outside, and sometimes well outside, of what has been, up to this point, considered as being the normally accepted confines of his office.
Simply unable to let go of this Trayvon Martin 'thing', many still stubbornly refuse to recognize the fact that he was just another thug, not the sweet, innocent victim that they just love to portray him as being. So it is, then, that we now have Andrew Young joining the chorus, saying that he spoke with Trayvon Martin’s mother after the acquittal of George Zimmerman and compared Martin’s death with that of Emmett Till, going so far as to call both martyrs in the ongoing racial struggles of African Americans. So now we're to view this punk as somehow being a martyr? Really, Andy? Sorry, but I'm just not seeing it.
"It's a needless sacrificial death and I told that to his mother [Sybrina Fulton]," Young, a former ambassador, U.S. congressman, and two-time mayor of Atlanta, said in a recent interview. A needless sacrificial death? Well maybe if Trayvon hadn't decided to try to beat the crap out of a cracker, he wouldn't be lying six feet under right now. He made the decision that resulted in his death, no one else. So old Andy can take this martyr shit and shove it, because it's nothing more than another attempt to incite, and to inflame as best he can as much racial hatred as he can. In that sense, Young is no different than Sharpton or Jackson.
But Andy wasn't done, going on to say, "I said, you know, Dr. [Martin Luther] King always said that unearned suffering is redemptive and that in the church, we've always said that there's no remission of sins without the shedding of innocent blood." Innocent blood, right. Sweet little Trayvon, innocent as a new born babe, and gunned down for no reason. Give me a break! Andy went on to say, "I [also] told her, I feel sorry for Zimmerman too. I mean his life is ruined." Adding, "Trying to substitute a gun for real manhood is not the way we want to raise our young people. That was a no-win situation for America. And every incident of violence is that way."
Real manhood, that's rich, especially coming from a sleazy bag, race-baiter like Young. How many 'real' men are there in the black community today, Andy? Men who go out and beat up old white folks just to get their sick jollies, or shoot little white babies in the face. Or how about the men who go out and have sex with just about anything that walks, only to produce kids who will grow up never knowing who their father is, nor caring, really. I'd like to know if that's how old Andy, here, defines manhood? No, really, I'd like to know! What kind of 'man' beats up a 89 year old WWII vet, or shoots a 13 month old in the face, right in front of the mother?
I think we all know that Martin was shot to death by Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer, during a confrontation down in Sanford, Florida. A confrontation instigated by Martin. And because of pressure from the likes of hucksters like Young, Zimmerman was arrested even though there was no evidence that requried it, was then forced to go through a trial, before eventually being acquitted of murder and manslaughter amid allegations the incident was sparked by racial profiling. That, even though jurors said that, from the evidence provided, race was not a factor and even members of the prosecution team said that race was not a factor.
Now on the other hand, it was in 1955 that Till, who was then 14, was visiting relatives in Money, Mississippi, when he was beaten and shot dead for reportedly flirting with a white woman. Two men were acquitted of Till's murder, but admitted it later in a magazine interview, protected against double jeopardy. So, of course, even a blind bigot can see the obvious similarities between the two events, right? Not! And for Young to compare the two events, and throw around the word martyr, does nothing more that to belittle the true tragedy that occurred in 1955. And for what reason, exactly? Makes you wonder what is it that scum like Young are really hoping to accomplish here.
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
One such loon who obviously was not there out of any deep respect for Dr. King, was the president of a some silly front group for the Democrat Party that claims to be dedicated to increasing black civic participation. This particular individual went so far as to compare our conservative Supreme Court justices to KKK members and also made the claim that Voter ID laws are being enacted to prevent another black president. Actually, it sounds as if this idiotic little group, which this racist nut is the president of, is more then likely dedicated to the inciting of racial violence. To make such a rant on an occasion like this, is really nothing short of disgusting.
So in what was purely an act of besmirching the memory of man who she was supposed to be there to honor, Melanie Campbell, president of the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation, said though black Americans are not threatened by biting dogs and KKK members in white hoods, the "dogs are still biting in other ways" and there is still "racism and inequality." Ok, so can somebody explain to me how it is that anybody with a clue is supposed to be able to take a brain dead cow like this seriously? Her dumb ass should've been yanked off the podium! But why wasn't she? Because, my friends, what she spoke of was the theme of this little gathering.
Instead, this moron was allowed to continue, as she went on to say, "Today there are no white sheets, but there are judges in black robes in the U.S. Supreme Court striking down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, opening the floodgates in many states to pass more voter ID laws... with the goal of ensuring we never see a black man elected to the president, or woman, of the United states of America." Come on really? You know, by her making such an idiotic claim, she serves only to demean, or trivialize, the lives of those who really were subjected to unfair hardship for no other reason than the color of their skin. However, Barry was never one of them.
And something that I'm pretty sure such people as this Ms. Campbell are fully aware of, is that the objections most have with Barry, has nothing whatsoever to do with his race. It's his socialist policies, his efforts to completely dismantle our economy as well as his drive to increase the size of government beyond which anyone ever thought possible. But that doesn't stop loons like this Campbell boob, who continue their attempt to make it appear as if it is all about race, when it's really about ideology. So she's being more than a little disingenuous, even dishonest, in making her asinine claims which she makes for no other reason that to rile up the crowd.
Whenever I listen to the eldest son of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. speak, what I most often hear is someone who sounds much more like a Jesse "the Extortionist" Jackson or an Al "Bull Horn" Sharpton, than someone who sounds like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He reminds of someone who would rather live off his father's name, than to perhaps actually go out into the cold, cruel world and do something on his own that would not only build upon his father's already impressive legacy but that would allow him to stand on his own and not merely in his father's shadow. To do something that would actually help those people whom he professes to be fighting for.
He says that while blacks can rightfully celebrate his father's life and work with pride, there is much more that remains to be accomplished. And I would agree. But most of that which remains, needs to come from within the black community. I find it somewhat hypocritical that he can complain about the "staggering unemployment" among black males 18 to 30 years old, and instead of going out and advocating the fact that true change is what's needed in order to have a chance at increasing prosperity for all, he actively encourages those same individuals to go out and vote for the very ones responsible for this disgusting statistic.
Ignoring completely the amount of damage that has been done to this country in just four short years he heralds Barry "Almighty's" election as the first African-American president, which realistically speaking, has been nothing but a grand nightmare on so many levels, a major breakthrough for America. And he bases that declaration not on the content of Barry's character, or because of any great accomplishments, but solely on the color of Barry's skin. We are all, for some bizarre reason, supposed to be proud of the fact that we elected Barry, perhaps the most ill-prepared individual to ever hold the job, as our president. Sorry, but I'm not!
King also told NBC's "Today" show in an interview that he believes young blacks today still "are first judged by their color and then the content of their character." Well what I would only say to that, is before one can be judged on the content of one's character, one must first possess that character. And character is one of those things that one most often learns by example from one's father, and how many black men even know who their father is. Which is nothing but another result from having the government become the main provider for a family thus making it completely unnecessary for there to be a responsible male figure involved in the raising of most black kids.
So it would seem to me, that if the son were truly interested in furthering the father's legacy, he would have the courage to act in a way that would run counter to that of Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. Increasing the dependency on the government does not make for a bright future for anyone. The goal here should be to decrease that dependence, and that starts with voting for those who favor unleashing our economy, instead of burying it under needless regulations, an unbearable tax burden and the weight of Obamacare all of which accomplish nothing more than the stifling of job growth. But, you see, that would require leaving the Democrat plantation.
People, all people, need to be shown the advantages of being self-reliant as well as self-sufficient, and the benefits of family. But apparently the son sees it another way, a way different than how his father viewed things. The black community today is laying in tatters, it has quite literally been decimated by decades of what is nothing more than a addiction to government 'entitlements.' And yet, what is the son saying we need more of? If he was genuinely interested in carrying on with his father's dream, he would be doing all that he could to convince as many as he could to wean themselves off of the government, and to assume some level of personal responsibility.
There are those that do comprise the voice of reason within the black community and they are plentiful. That would be, of course, folks like Ben Carson, Allen West, Mia Love, Tim Scott and the Herman Cain, to name only a few. But, oddly enough, somehow it's they who always seem to get drowned out by poison coming from the race-baiters and the haters like the Jackson, Sharpton, Farrakhan, Wright, all, strangely enough, who are supposedly men of God. And it's rather confusing how anyone would willingly choose to listen to Al "Bull Horn" Sharpton over someone like Ben Carson or Allen West. That someone would do that, however, actually explains a lot.
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
Faux reverend, and another one who is able to make a darn good living for himself by stirring up shit, Jesse ‘The Extortionist’ Jackson, has once again demonstrated that that one lone brain cell of his has become extremely overworked. And he has also let it be known that, like his old buddy and fellow race baiter, Al 'Bull Horn' Sharpton, he will go to any lengths, leave no stone unturned, and say absolutely anything in his effort to ensure the highest success rate possible in inciting as much racial hatred as is humanly, or as in his case, not so humanly, possible. Jesse, and those like him out there in the race industry are simply merchants of hate.
The most recent example from him on the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington came when he made the claim that Republican opposition to Barry "Almighty’s" policies is motivated by nothing more than racism, or as Jesse put it, racial animus reminiscent of the Civil War-era South. "The tea party is the resurrection of the Confederacy, it’s the Fort Sumter tea party," Jackson told Politico’s Glenn Thrush. Ok, so because I'm of the opinion that I'm paying way too much in taxes to cover the cost of a government that I think has grown way too big, and does way too much for far too many people, I'm trying to resurrect the confederacy?
No, say it ain’t so, Jesse. I don’t suppose that opposition, to which this racist bonehead refers, could, in any way, have the slightest thing to do with the socialist policies that Barry is so determined to inflict upon this country, right? Or be because of his very obvious, and very blatant, hatred of our country and all that it stands for? Nope, it couldn't be that! It has to be that there is concerted effort underway to bring back the glory days of the Jeff Davis and Robert E. Lee. That HAS to be the only explanation. Needless to say, most of those who were, and still are, in favor of bringing back the confederacy, are all Democrats. But Jesse don't want to hear that.
So Jesse, who for some bizarre reason, this moron Thrush actually referred to as being the man "who more than anyone occupies the no man’s land between his mentor King and Obama," is "absolutely" convinced that attempts to thwart Barry "Almighty’s" agenda are motivated solely by his race. Making such incendiary remarks is really nothing new for Jesse, it's his stock-in-trade. It's how this pathetic piece of shit makes his bread and butter. He and his imbecilic cohort, Al ‘Bull Horn’ Sharpton do nothing more than to use the very people whom they claim to be fighting for, as way of making themselves incredibly wealthy.
But as near as I can figure, the majority of blacks in this country seem to be either too stupid to care, or they don’t mind in the least that they're being used in such an unseemly manner as long as it’s blacks who are getting rich, even racist dirt bags like Jesse and Al. Now if most blacks aren't already wise to these two scam artists, then I don't suppose they ever will be. Or maybe they are just so filled with hate, it does their hearts good to see these two go after the crackers. But I'll tell what, I sure would love to live just long enough to see a majority of blacks finally wake up to what it is that these two goons have been doing to them for decades.
And another thing about Jesse that really ticks me off is the fact that this douche bag seems to have no problem whatsoever with the fact that open season seems to now have been declared on old white folks, by racist black thugs. And hardly a day goes by that I'm not reading about, or seeing on television, how it is that another old white person has fallen prey to some black thug, or group of black thugs, who for no other reason than for sport, or boredom, decided that it would be a good idea to beat up or to kill someone who happens to be white. Such behavior is nothing more than the byproduct of that is being sold by this race huckster and his old buddy Al.
I think blacks get a sick thrill out of trying to intimidate whites. I would argue that that's what Trayvon Martin might have been trying to do the night he died. And I'll tell you what, I have a gun and a permit to carry it, so if someone wants to take the risk of trying to intimidate me for fun, I'd be careful about that. Because I'm not going to end up like 'Shorty.' And if forced into firing my 9mm handgun I ain't gonna be aiming for a leg or an arm, I'm gonna be aiming for the head. I’ve got 15 rounds and you can bet that I'm gonna be doing my best to put 15 holes into whoever it is that thinks it might be fun to try to threaten me. This is where listening to Jesse, Al and Barry has gotten us. Ain't it just great?
Police say on Sunday, Aug. 25, the elderly white man was eating a hamburger in the Goffe Street Park following a Toni Harp mayoral campaign-sponsored event that afternoon when he was approached by the 35-year-old black male. Police say DelaPaz told the elder white male that he shouldn’t be "in his park where young black kids are playing". When the man refused an order from DelaPaz to pick up a football, DelaPaz punched the man multiple times in the face, knocking him to the ground. Police say several witnesses supported the victim’s account of the unprovoked attack. At least this time around, the elderly white man survived the attack. Poor Shorty, as you may recall, wasn't quite so fortunate. He was beat to death by two black thugs using flashlights. Perhaps that would be a most fitting manner for both of these scumbags to also depart this world!
Anyway, when police arrived at the scene, somewhere around 3:40 p.m., DelaPaz responded by doing what blacks always do when faced with taking responsibility for their bad behavior, he fled the scene. When he was finally apprehended, police say he resisted arrest and injured the leg of a responding officer. After being detained, police found a Sig Sauger P239 handgun, a set of brass knuckles and a voter registration card in DelaPaz’s book bag. DelaPaz gave multiple false names before his identity was determined. Police say DelaPaz is a convicted felon. Big surprise there, being a black man in his particular age group. So as the epidemic of black on white assaults continues, we hear nary a word from our racist president or his just as racist attorney general. Imagine the outcry if it were whites beating up old black folks. It would 24/7 news coverage.
Monday, August 26, 2013
That little piece of cinematographic tripe that Oprah has thrown her rather impressive weight behind, otherwise known as the movie "Lee Daniels' The Butler" saw its box office receipts take a pretty significant hit over the past weekend, plummeting by nearly a third, down from $24.6 million in its opening week to $17 million last week. Many seem to credit that decrease in ticket sales to the storm of protests from Republican and veterans groups.
Having not seen this movie myself and I'm relying on those who have, I'm told that the film depicts a White House butler who served eight presidents. It has come under fire for what some say is it's rather questionable portrayal of former President Ronald Reagan and his wife Nancy as being racially insensitive and for casting "Hanoi Jane" Fonda as the first lady. Supporters of President Reagan and veterans groups especially have criticized the film, with some actually calling for boycotts.
Though the film remained at No. 1 in sales this weekend, film critic Christian Toto says "The Butler," as most people are calling the movie, is benefiting from slight competition at the box office and advantageous timing this summer. "This time of year is generally considered a dumping ground for projects without major commercial appeal. It is also that rare movie that plays to more sophisticated moviegoers, unlike most of the material at the theater right now," said Toto.
The casting of "Hanoi Jane" to play Nancy Reagan in the movie has sparked a backlash among military veterans who cannot forgive her for her actions during the Vietnam War. Toto said, "I do think the team behind the movie made a mistake by casting people like Jane Fonda in the film. It stirred up a few news headlines, but it likely angered those who might otherwise check the movie out." Adding, "Fonda is in the film for less than a few minutes, so her talents weren't needed."
And in Elizabethtown, Ky., it would appear that one movie theater owner, Ike Boutwell, is none too fond of Fonda, telling The News-Enterprise that he would not show the movie, or any Jane Fonda film, in his cinema. Add to that the fact that Joe Davis, of the Veterans of Foreign Wars said, "We're telling people that if you don't like Jane Fonda, don't go see the movie." Personally, I wouldn't see one of her movies even if the darn thing was free! And they gave me free munchies!
And former Reagan associates – including former Attorney General Edwin Meese III, former White House chief of staff Ken Duberstein and former Sens. Paul Laxalt and Richard Schweiker have all come out and said that the depiction of the president as racially insensitive in the movie was inaccurate. Meese has said the true Ronald Reagan "treated everyone extremely well, including people who were in a position of assisting him in one way or another."
But look, when the best that the Democrats have to offer up as being examples of what a president should be, are such boobs as Carter, Clinton and Barry, you can't blame for trying to tear down Reagan. Even Kennedy was nowhere near the man they portray him as being. He was nothing more than a womanizer who was seriously hooked on some sort of pain medication. All the Democrats have are a bunch of pathetic losers. So they have to work to bring our guys down to their level.
Well, well, well, it was quite the impressive assortment of race-baiters, wannabes, outright racists and politicians who came out to supposedly pay tribute to a man who was in all likelihood looking down on them from above and shaking his head in disappointment at all the goings on in his name. And I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if he was feeling just a tinge of anger as he listened to how some of these hypocrites proceeded to throw his name around as if they were somehow kindred spirits of the man in whose honor they were gathered. So it was that tens of thousands of people gathered on the National Mall Saturday to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s 1963 March on Washington
In indicator of the true purpose of the event, can be easily determined by seeing who it was that sponsored event. Such as faux reverend, and professional race-baiter, Al 'Bull Horn' Sharpton's organization, the Democrat Party front group known as the National Action Network, Martin Luther King III and the NAACP. That Sharpton and the NAACP were involved should really tell you all that you really need to know about the purpose behind the gathering. And if that doesn't, a look at the list of featured speakers most definitely will. For the list included such notables as old 'Bull Horn', Eric "I'm A Racist" Holder, wannabe senator, Cory Booker and of course that well-known Georgia racist, and member of the House, John Lewis.
And while some of the speakers actually did address race relations in optimistic terms, describing America's progress as encouraging, just as many simply could not resist the urge to turn what was meant to be a gathering to honor a very special man, into what was really nothing more than a political rally. They took the opportunity to delve into such controversial fare as the Supreme Court's recent decision overturning parts of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and, of course, the shooting death of Trayvon Martin. And in so doing they accomplished nothing more than to disrespect the man in whose honor they claimed they claim to have gathered. But then again, that how most of these people operate.
In 'paying tribute' to his father's legacy, Martin Luther King III said, "Five decades ago my father stood upon this hallowed spot" and "crystallized like never before the painful pilgrimage and aching aspirations of African-Americans yearning to breathe free." King's message was not a "lament" or a "diatribe," his son said, but a call to action, and a reminder that the work always goes on. "The task is not done, the journey is not complete," he said. "The vision preached by my father a half-century ago was that his four little children would no longer live in a nation where they would judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Sadly, through such things as affirmative action, the dream has remained unfulfilled.
And I guess being just unable to resist, he went on to say, "However, sadly, the tears of Trayvon Martin's mother and father remind us that, far too frequently, the color of one's skin remains a license to profile, to arrest and to even murder with no regard for the content of one's character." Calling for "stand your ground" self-defense laws to be repealed in states where they have been enacted. Oddly enough, there was no mention of the number of blacks that die in our cities every single day at the hands of other blacks. And King apparently also felt compelled to slam the Supreme Court for having, in his words, "eviscerated" voting rights protections, calling for citizens to "fight back boldly" to restore those rights.
And then of course there was Al 'Bull Horn' Sharpton who can always be counted to spew his own rather unique brand of drivel. In claiming to be looking back on the original marchers, Al said, "They came to Washington so we could come today, in a different time and a different place, and we owe them for what we have today." Still, he droned on, "Today we face continuing challenges." Sharpton was especially outraged by the court ruling on voting rights and by the efforts of state legislatures around the country to erect what he called new voting restrictions, such as voter identification laws. "Our vote was soaked in the blood of martyrs, and you can't take it from us," he said, promising to march in each state mulling voting restrictions.
And then, there was John Lewis, who urged Saturday's audience to continue marching on behalf of equality, implying that things had not progressed since the 1960s. "Fifty years later, we cannot wait, we cannot be patient," he said. "We want our jobs and we want our freedom now ... we cannot give up. We cannot give out." He too reserved particular outrage for the recent high court decision on voting rights. "I gave a little blood on that bridge in Selma, Alabama, for that right to vote," he said, referencing the police brutality against civil rights demonstrators in Selma in 1965. "I am not going to stand by and let the Supreme Court take the right to vote away from us." Such hypocrisy is nothing short of staggering!
The we had Corey Booker, another corrupt Democrat from New Jersey, and a guy seeking a Senate seat from that same state, who noted that he was not alive during the original march, urging his younger generation to remember that their freedoms were "bought by the struggles and the sacrifices and the work of those who came before." His generation can never pay back that contribution, Booker said, "but it is our moral obligation to pay it forward." He cautioned the audience against becoming "dumb, fat and happy, thinking that we have achieved freedom." Adding, "There is still work to do," naming gun violence, discrimination in the justice system and the continuing effects of poverty as issues in need of redress. Blah, blah, blah!!!
And then, no tribute can ever be complete without hearing from Eric 'I'm A Racist' Holder, whose Justice Department has seen fit to come up with all manner of creative lawsuit against voter ID laws in various states all across the country. Holder implied that there remains a need to protect the rights of eligible citizens to vote "unencumbered by discriminatory or unneeded procedures, rules or practices." Holder, the first African-American attorney general, most likely the most corrupt in our history and the most inept since Janet Reno, credited the work of civil rights activists of the past 50 years with Barry "Almighty's" election and his own ascension to the top of the Justice Department.
While they all claimed to be attending out of respect and to pay tribute to the man, they were really there for another reason entirely. You see very few of them can actually bring themselves to recognize the fact that the racism that they warn against no longer exists. That is not to say that there are no racists in America today, because there are. But, and much as these people will refuse to admit it, racists do come in other colors than just white. Racism today is much more prevalent in the black community that it is amongst white. And yet there was not so much as a word mentioned about that during this tribute to a man who so obviously hated ALL racism. Because that's does nothing to further the agenda.
So it's all quite sad really, that this tribute turned out to be less about Martin Luther King and much more about the effort of some of the attendees to remain relevant. Hence the impassioned claims that racism in 2013 America just is not all that much different than the racism of 1940s, 50s or 60s America. And despite the fact that the focus was to be on race, many speakers managed to sneak in more than a few plugs on behalf of a variety of progressive causes. We heard about women's reproductive rights, gay rights, climate change, public education, organized labor, gun violence, immigration reform, student loan debt forgiveness, during a number of speeches, making the rally nothing more than a call for increased left-wing activism.
Sunday, August 25, 2013
‘Colon’ Powell is another one of those not-so-smarts, on what has become a very long list of many, who actually think that they were somehow able to become ‘successful’ because their own hard work and in spite of their skin color. But the fact is, to use Barry’s expression, ‘Colon’ didn’t do that! Because were it not for his skin color, and all of the racial preferences that go along with it, old ‘Colon’ would never have made it as far as he has. This man who, not once but twice, stooped so low as to actually put his race above his country by voting for the most corrupt president in our history, should be considered as being nothing more than the equivalent of a traitor to our country. And as such, he long ago forfeited the privilege of being able to offer up any critique of this country.
And in what was really nothing more than his own thinly veiled attempt to further stoke the flames of racism, old ‘Colon’ recently went so far as to claim that the jury verdict that freed George Zimmerman, you know the guy who, in the act of defending himself, shot and killed black teenager Trayvon Martin, was "questionable." Questionable? And, apparently, he isn't sure that it will have staying power in the public consciousness. Speaking on CBS's Face the Nation with senile old Bob Schieffer, Powell said cases like Martin's "blaze across the midnight sky" and are forgotten. So why should it have any staying power? Zimmerman was found not guilty by a jury of his peers, that’s how our system is designed to work. I would have thought that a smart guy like ‘Colon’ would know that.
The first black chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and first black secretary of state, both positions which he would never have attained were it not for the fact that he is black, ‘Colon’ is of the opinion that America has come a long way toward racial equality 50 years after Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech. Ya think? That’s quite the admission coming from someone who possessed nowhere near the aptitude normally considered as being a prerequisite for the important positions that he has held during his life, but was promoted to them anyway, and is more than just a little hypocritical. He used his race throughout both his career in the military as well as in public service to his own advantage, and now has the nerve to make it sound like much more progress remains to be made.
Minorities have many more opportunities today, but, according to ‘Colon’, King would still demand work to be done in the areas of education, housing and economic opportunities. I find it more than just a little ironic that old ‘Colon’ would focus specifically on those very same areas that have been purposely destroyed by the Democrat Party, the same party with which ‘Colon’ seems to now so very closely identify, and really always has. He has spent his entire life as nothing more than a disgusting fraud! He has never been what we were all told he was. He was not the genius behind the ‘Persian Gulf War’, that was the white guy Norman Schwarzkopf. And as far as his abilities as Secretary of State, he caused far more problems for the George W. Bush administration than he was ever capable of solving.
And that this idiot can make any of his wildly racist claims at the same time that a white guy here in America from Australia can be gunned down because some black punks happened to be bored, two black kids beat to death a WWII vet using flashlights, two black thugs set a homeless guy on fire in Memphis, two black shoplifters beat a white guy with a hammer and then stole his cell phone and when, not long ago, two black assholes shot a killed a white baby while they made the mother watch. And ‘Colon’ calls it ‘questionable’ that George Zimmerman would be in fear for his life to the point where he felt his only option to prevent is dying at the hands of another black thug was to shoot his black assailant? ‘Colon’ is a racist moron determined to do the best he can to become relevant again. And as such he will say just about anything.
Saturday, August 24, 2013
Is Batman in the process of, like the rest of America, becoming wussified? When I first heard the news that Affleck would be he next Batman, I’ll admit, the first thing that came to mind was that we are about to be subjected to yet another politically correct superhero in a movie where we’ll see Batman coming out of the closet. I mean, seriously folks, what self-respecting villain would be scared of Batman who’s Ben Affleck on the inside? Personally, I would wager a very few would be shaking in their shoes at the sight of old Ben.
And apparently I’m not the only one currently questioning the wisdom of this idiotic casting decision. Thursday night after Warner Bros. announced that it would be old Ben who will play the Caped Crusader for its Superman and Batman team-up movie, the Internet literally erupted with those voicing their strong opposition. Petitions with thousands of signatures were launched to urge Warner Bros. to rethink their decision, and apparently to no avail. I guess we’ll see if their decision was a good one.
Supposedly, the film is scheduled to begin shooting sometime next year and, at least at this point, is supposed to be released during the summer of 2015. Affleck's casting speaks to a larger shift in this age of the superhero blockbuster. He will be following in the footsteps of Christian Bale, the star of Christopher Nolan's "Dark Knight" trilogy, which was seen as the artistic apogee of the superhero movies, a series that treated its hero not as cartoon but a vessel for exploring themes of terrorism and justice. And I admit, I only saw Bale’s first outing as Batman.
But, sadly, it would seem that the days of such aspirations appear to be dwindling. Most of the most popular superheros are on their second or third reboot. After the success of Joss Whedon's "The Avengers," Hollywood is looking increasingly to pairing its comics. Another "Avengers" film is on the way. And after the Superman-Batman movie, a "Justice League" film (with Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Flash, Aquaman and others) is rumored to follow. I did see the Avengers, and I while I thought it was pretty good, the not-so-thinly-veiled lessons I was there to learn became tiresome. Enough so, that I doubt I’ll be seeing and sequels.
But being what some these day consider as being a major star, Affleck comes with a lot of baggage that many expect will grate similar to how George Clooney, up until now the worst ‘actor’ to ever play any superhero, did in Joel Schumacher's 1997 "Batman and Robin". That film was considered to be so bad that it's often been cited as being the catalyst for more serious, dramatic interpretations of superheros. I waited to watch that one on TV, turning the channel at the halfway mark because it simply became unwatchable.
I doubt very much that I’ll be seeing this movie, as these days I’m making fewer and fewer trips to the theater, partly because it’s simply become too expensive, party because I don’t like being lectured to about how screwed up my country is, and partly because I refuse to support these leftwing actors who seem to be quite determined, in their off time, to do all that they can to destroy my country. So, I guess, in the big scheme of things, it matters very little to me who it is that plays Batman, because I won’t be seeing it anyway.
Friday, August 23, 2013
|NO DIFFERENT THAN TRAYVON MARTIN|
Jackson, who, I guess, has been criticized for what was described as being his rather tepid Twitter comment on Lane’s brutal slaying, complained that conservatives "seem to have forgotten" a June 2012 Oklahoma case when two white men killed three people in the black community. So what's Jesse trying to do here, justify the actions of these three thugs? That's what I hate about this scumbag, while he comes absolutely unraveled every time a black is killed by a white, no matter what the circumstances, he bends himself into a pretzel in trying to defend every black who kills someone who's white.
In making this idiotic statement, and idiotic statements are something that he's pretty well-known for, Jackson was responding to an MSNBC question about whether he thinks "some on the right are making a false equivalency" between Martin, the black Florida thug, and Lane, a young white baseball player. Jackson, of course was quick to respond in the affirmative saying, "Yeah." Adding, "They want to connect what happened in the Trayvon Martin case with these three young men on this foolish rampage killing this ballplayer." Foolish rampage? Is that how Jesse sees this? What a pathetic boob!
On Wednesday, Jesse tweeted the actions of Lane’s killers should be "frowned upon." Wow, old Jesse really laid it on the line there. "I hope we all see that it is not right, that what these young men did was flat out wrong and sick," Jackson said Thursday. "And what happened there in June last year was wrong and sick, killing people for no cause." But that was nothing more than a blatant attempt by Jackson to steer the discussion away from making any kind of a comparison between the of act premeditated murder by these three thugs and an act of self-defense by George Zimmerman.
For some conservatives, the comparisons between Martin and Lane are striking.
Rush Limbaugh said on his show Wednesday the case was "Trayvon Martin in reverse, only worse." On Tuesday, Former Florida Republican Rep. Allen West took Barry "Almighty" to task on Twitter, suggesting a racial double standard. "We were bored & decided to kill somebody." 3 black teens shoot white jogger. Who will POTUS identify w/this time? West posted, referring to the president's personal remarks about the racially charged death of Martin. I wonder, could any of these punks also have been his son?
If we're being honest here, there are far more similarities than differences between Trayon Martin and these three shooters. I think we can all agree that had George Zimmerman not been carrying a gun that night in February of last year, he too would have been found the next morning lying dead in the street. Martin possessed the very same mindset as these three murderers, and whether it was out of boredom or just seen as an opportunity to beat up a cracker, Martin fully intended on doing Zimmerman bodily harm. There is virtually no difference between any of these black punks!
Strangely enough, black unemployment in this country, after breaking the pattern at end of the Bush administration, that had been up until that point, a decades-long pattern of being twice white unemployment, has once again resumed that disturbing and prolonged trend under our black president, Barry "Almighty". According to Pew Research, the unemployment for blacks now stands at 13.4 percent. And if you're really stupid enough to believe that it is actually that 'low', then, I suppose, you're also stupid enough to have voted for Barry. But hey, I suppose if you were genuinely interested in working, you might have actually voted for the white guy.
In a report timed for release on the eve of the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "Dream" speech, Pew said on Thursday, "Much has changed for African-Americans since the 1963 March on Washington (which, recall, was a march for 'Jobs and Freedom'), but one thing hasn't: The unemployment rate among blacks is about double that among whites, as it has been for most of the past six decades." Look, the real unemployment rate for whites is actually closer to 16 percent, so that would make it somewhere in the vicinity of 30 percent for blacks. Which is probably a lot closer to being right than what we're hearing from Pew.
The trend broke at the end of former President George W. Bush's administration with a recession that had a greater impact on hit whites and boosted their unemployment rate. But over the course of the last four years, whites have picked up more jobs. According to Pew white unemployment is 6.7 percent, or exactly half the black rate. Also, according to Pew, the trend has history on its side. It said that going back to 1954, the earliest year that data was available, the white rate was 5 percent and the black rate 9.9 percent. But with these numbers coming from the government I'm not sure they are anymore accurate than the numbers today.
But look, I think we're all able to very easily recognize the fact that most blacks don't really want to work, it's seen as somehow being beneath them. Then there's that rabid sense of entitlement. That and the bizarre mentality that has many dropping out of school looks cooler to their friends than does graduating. And it's nearly impossible to find very many in the black community who possess much of a work ethic. Combine them all with the fact that once you hire one, and that lack of work ethic becomes glaringly obvious, you can't fire them out of fear of being sued for being a racist. A tactic actively encouraged by this administration.
So why would anyone with a business put themselves through the stress and aggravation of even hiring a black in the first place when you know the chances of them 'wanting' to come to work and 'wanting' to do a good job, are slim and none, and Slim just left town. And all that Barry has done since assuming office is to put in the minds of these people the notion that they don't need to work if they don't want to. He's made it very easy for folks to get on multiple forms of government subsistence, thus leaving them more free time to enjoy their favorite pastimes of beating up and leaving for dead old WWII vets, murdering foreigners and white babies.
And yet Barry insists upon taking a great deal of pleasure in blaming American racism for the high unemployment of blacks. When in reality, it has been the policies that he himself has put into place since coming into office, and the notion that he has placed in their heads, that working isn't necessary, that are really what's to blame for so many blacks being out of work. He took what was, at the time, a struggling economy, and quickly proceeded to put in on life support. Between the thousand's of new regulations he's created, Obamacare and higher taxes placed on small business owners, there's very little left to pay new full-time employees.
If blacks genuinely want to rejoin the workforce, then what's required to take place is a fundamental change, to use Barry's term, within the black community. The first step in moving forward with that change is for there to be a refocusing on the family. And there needs to be instilled in people a desire to be self-reliant, and a willingness to be a productive member of society as a whole, as well as a willingness to learn and to work. As has always been the case, blacks control their own destiny, but it was back in the 1960's that it was decided that it would just be easier to hand over that control to the Democrats. And sadly, the consequences of that decision have been both disastrous and long lasting.
Thursday, August 22, 2013
So, where's the incentive for anyone in this ‘Age of Obama’ to go in search of an actual job, even one that pays the minimum wage, when in 35 states welfare benefits top the amount one could earn, after taxes are factored in. That little bit of information comes to us by way of a recent study conducted by the Cato Institute. And you may not know that many welfare 'benefits' are actually tax-free. "The current welfare system provides such a high level of benefits that it acts as a disincentive for work," the report for the libertarian think tank says. "Welfare currently pays more than a minimum wage job in 35 states, even after accounting for the Earned Income Tax Credit." Is that not just plain nuts?
And if that doesn’t get ya, in 13 of those states, the total value of welfare 'benefits' actually exceeds $15 per hour, or $600 a week. "If Congress and state legislatures are serious about reducing welfare dependence and rewarding work, they should consider strengthening welfare work requirements, removing exemptions, and narrowing the definition of work," the report states. The report went on to say, "Moreover, states should consider ways to shrink the gap between the value of welfare and work by reducing current benefit levels and tightening eligibility requirements." Well now there's a no-brainer, but what do think the odds are of it actually being done?
The federal government spends $668.2 Billion a year on welfare, while states dole out another $284 Billion. So what we're really talking about here is nearly $1 Trillion, much of which is nothing more than pure waste! The report goes on to name Hawaii as being the most generous to its welfare recipients, followed close behind by Washington, D.C. and Massachusetts. No surprise there, as these are three of the most liberal enclaves that you'll find anywhere in the entire country. Such are the symptoms of the disease known as liberalism where it has now become accepted behavior for able-bodied people to simply forgo employment and to instead simply live off those who do choose to work.
Is this not completely the opposite of what it used to mean to be an American? The American work ethic was the standard against which the work ethic of others were measured. But somewhere along the line that all changed, and now, as we find ourselves trapped in the 'Age of Obama', this willingness, if eagerness, to become what is really nothing more than a parasite on our fellow man, is now at near epidemic levels. What happened to us? When taken as a whole, many countries now work more hours than do we Americans. We no longer set the standard. We've essentially become nothing more than a joke, a has-been, and therefore no longer worthy of respect.
And yet, I see very little evidence that most Americans even care. We've allowed ourselves to become convinced that there is absolutely nothing wrong with being with being mooch. It’s beats having to work for a living. And there would seem to be no amount of shame or guilt that will convince very many in this country today that there is much more to be gained than a paycheck from going out and putting in an honest day’s work. Try to tell that to someone who expends the majority of their daily exertion going no further than the mailbox to pickup their welfare check, and all you get in return is that proverbial deer in the headlights look. Ah yes, the "Age of Obama."
So it was then that everybody's favorite bigot and third-ranking House Democrat, Jimmy 'The Tea Party Is Nothin But A Bunch Of Racists" Clyburn, recently took to the airwaves to put on a demonstration of ignorance rarely seen, even by him. On Wednesday Jimmy actually went so far as to accuse the U.S. media of spreading what he referred to as being "manufactured controversies" that pose dangers similar to the propaganda spread by the Nazis during the Holocaust. So, by "manufactured controversies" I'm assuming that Jimmy speaking of those same phony or trumped up scandals that Barry has been talking about? Oh, and as a little side note here, the only reason this moron is even the third ranking Democrat and not the second or the first, is because he's black. And even at that, it's more of a ceremonial position than it is a position of actual 'leadership'.
But anyway, it was during some program called, "The Morning Briefing with Tim Farley" on Sirius XM's POTUS channel, that old senile Jimmy proceeded to accuse those who represent what he called the modern Internet-based media of misrepresenting the statements of people for no other reason than to hurt their reputations. "You have people's words and phrases being misrepresented and looped through the news media and thrown out there on the Internet, and people run with it because these things start getting reported in the mainstream media, and before you know it, people believe that stuff," Jimmy said. The consequences of such misrepresentation, Jimmy warned, could be severe. What we need to be wary of, is allowing scumbags like old Jimmy, here, to get away with describing the truth as somehow being a misrepresentation of the facts.
And then old Jimmy seemed to come entirely off the rails when he said, "The people of Germany believed Hitler’s foolishness that led to the Holocaust. They believed that stuff." Going on to say, "People will tend to believe what they hear through the media." And I'm sure it comes as no surprise that old senile Jimmy wasted little time in singling out "extreme right-wing" bloggers in particular for his criticism. He accused such bloggers of forcing Shirley Sherrod to resign from the Department of Agriculture after misrepresenting statements she made to make her appear racially biased. He also said they had libeled the progressive group ACORN, leading to the group’s disbandment. Such obviously dishonesty makes it near impossible to take Jimmy seriously. And who else but a Democrat could dream up such a cockamamie analogy? Nazis? Really?
"Most of these people are not media people; they are bloggers, and they are bloggers for the extreme right wing," he said. In trying to resurrect Hitlery's "vast right wing conspiracy", old senile Jimmy went on to add, "People tend to act now and ask questions later." He also said that Barry "Almighty" was vulnerable to misrepresentation due to the media abdicating its responsibilities. Actually, what makes Barry vulnerable is his own arrogance. Jimmy added, "The media has not been discerning enough, in my opinion, to say to people, ‘This ain’t news. This is foolishness." Why is it that whenever we're pointing out the level of corruption that seems to be so prevalent in Barry's administration, or the attempts being made by Jimmy and his fellow Democrats to destroy our country, it's described, by them, as being nothing more than foolishness?
The bottom line here is that this is nothing more than another, less than subtle, attempt, in what seems to be a continuing, as well as blatantly dishonest, trend, to somehow downplay to any extent possible the growing number of scandals being produced, nearly nonstop, by what has turned out to be the most corrupt administration in our nation's history. Guys like old senile Jimmy are desperate to portray, and in any way that they can, these scandals as being phony or trumped up when it's just the opposite that's true. And what's really foolish is to actually think that this administration can, in anyway, be seen as being transparent. The only thing about it that seems to be transparent is its level of corruption that would have made even Richard Nixon blush. But in what is typical fashion for scum like him, rather than admit any wrongdoing, old Jimmy goes after those doing their best to sound the alarm.
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
Now this is just my own personal opinion, and I am by no means an expert in the area of politics, but is the fact that one party is able to bring in more cash than its opposition an accurate reflection of how well it’s able to get it's message out? Does one thing have anything to do with the other? I'm just not sure whether it's something that can be, or even should be, used as a gauge when one is trying to get a feel for where the country might stand, as a whole, on any issue. Especially a significant issue.
Now the only reason I bring it up is because, apparently, the RNC now has significantly more cash on hand than does their Democrat counterpart. It had $12.3 million in cash on hand and no debt at the end of July, while the DNC had $4.1 million in cash on hand and nearly $18.5 million in debt, which is an increase from the end of June. But can we make too much out of this? And do we have a tendency to rely too heavy on such numbers when trying to measure the success of our message?
The RNC reported raising about $5.9 million and spending $6.3 million last month, while the DNC raised $3.9 million and spent $5.4 million. The RNC has outraised its Democrat counterpart so far every month this year, and that would be despite the fact that Barry "Almighty's" has been pretty heavily involved in fundraising for the Democrat Party and campaign committees. So are we to take heart the fact that the Democrats are bringing less money in, or would that be reading too much into it?
While I suppose it all may serve a purpose as far as bragging rights might be concerned, and may even make for some good party propaganda, I find myself wondering if such news might actually have an adverse effect, at least to those on our side. Might it actually play a role in creating what could be a false impression that there are more people in favor of such things as, say, the passage an amnesty bill or ensuring that Obamacare gets funded, than may actually exist? Just askin.
And might it also be possible that those contributing the money may have an ulterior motive of trying to create some false impression that would then sway public opinion on certain key issues? Might there be hope that if enough money, coming not from those of us who have been the most vocal in voicing our opposition, but from those who make up what’s often referred to as being the party’s establishment, can be shown to be coming in, voter opinion could then be nudged more toward what is seen as the ‘proper’ position?
Those of us who live out here in the real world must not allow such information to cause us to start doubting ourselves when it comes to the positions that we hold on the truly important issues that this country now faces. We mustn’t allow ourselves to be treated like, somehow, it's us who are actually on the wrong side here. Or to consider the possibility that those giving all the money can’t be wrong, or why else would they be giving all that money. Many give money out of an attempt gain influence.
Personally, I stopped giving any money to the RNC sometime ago, deciding, instead, to focus on providing what money I can to specific candidates. And even then I took it in the shorts because I gave money, and cheerfully so, to Marco Rubio's campaign. That has since turned out to have been a complete waste of my hard earned money. I put very little stock in reports of which party is raising the most money, because I just don’t see how that translates into useful. I dunno, maybe I’m all wet.
I'm not what you'd call a big fan of Sean Hannity, because I think, to a certain degree, his success has gone to his head. Maybe not on the same scale as say, a Bill O'Reilly, but still, there are those occasions where I do find myself in agreement with him. One of those occasions was last night, when he told his guest, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), that if Republicans pass a government funding bill next month that includes money for Obamacare, they'll lose his support. Now while some might say that by his even saying such a thing demonstrates a kind of arrogance, I would argue that, instead, it was said out of nothing more than pure frustration. Because I'm feeling pretty much the same way, but I don't have the platform from which to make my frustration known nor am I anyone that those in Washington listen to.
Gowdy, who I am a big fan of, supports defunding Obamacare, and has predicted a "robust debate" over funding the healthcare law that Barry "Almighty" is now rather selectively enforcing. Gowdy told Hannity, "We just have to have one of those 'come to Jesus moments' as a party where we say, 'You know, what do we stand for? What is enough to fight over?'" This is where Hannity piped up saying, "This is it for me." Going on to say, "I'm going to tell you, congressman, you guys don't do this, you've lost me. I'm done. Because there's no difference between you, then, and the Democrats at that point. None." Gowdy responded by saying, "Juries like contrast. Voters like contrast." Adding, "This is a wonderful opportunity for us to provide contrast." But will it just be another opportunity squandered?
As anyone knows who has been paying even the slightest amount of attention, in the absence of regular budget bills, Congress must pass another continuing resolution (CR) to fund the government at current levels as the new fiscal year begins on October 1. Conservative Republicans insist that the CR must not include money for Obamacare, but Democrats will never agree to that, and a stalemate on funding the government would cause much of it to shut down. Democrats, Barry "Almighty" included, would be only too happy to blame Republicans for a government shutdown because it would give them fodder for their attempt to regain control of Congress in the 2014 midterm election. And that worries Republican leaders. But I think they are wrong. Desperate times call for desperate measure.
And as is usually the case, our lily-livered-lint-licker of a House Speaker, John Boehner, has been his usual noncommittal self when it comes to discussing the passing of a CR that defunds Obamacare, saying in July, "No decision has been made about how we're going to deal with the CR next month." However, Boehner and other Republicans see the repercussions of Obamacare -- including the loss of full-time jobs -- as a winning midterm campaign issue for themselves. In the House, Rep. Tom Graves (R-Ga.) has sponsored a bill, H.R. 1005, the Defund Obamacare Act. Gowdy is one of the bill's 138 co-sponsors. And in the Senate, Republicans Ted Cruz (Texas) and Mike Lee (Utah) have sponsored similar legislation. But these guys can't win on their own, and sadly those in leadership aren't helping.
There's an old country song that goes: "You've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything, You've got to be your own man not a puppet on a string, Never compromise what's right and uphold your family name, You've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything." The Republicans in Congress have now, I believe, arrived at what could very well prove to be for them, and therefore the country, a very pivotal moment. And the urge to support something in the name of political expediency must be set aside in favor of supporting that which is in the best interest of our country. So I find myself in agreement with Mr. Hannity, in that if the Republicans refuse to do what we all know must be done, then, essentially, there is no difference between them and the Democrats! And if there’s no difference, why vote for them?
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
Despite the overwhelming amount of evidence that proves entirely the opposite, and the many emails that were leaked some time back which provided further proof that the entire theory of 'global warming' is nothing more than a well executed hoax, we still have geniuses like Hank Johnson, Democrat from Georgia, continuing to sound the alarm, warning us all of a coming calamity that, quite frankly, just ain't ever going to get here. And yet, he is calling on all of us to join in the fight, and to put on fast forward, measures that would not only succeed in shoving our economy further into the ditch, but would force millions more Americans onto the unemployment lines and push the cost of gas and electricity through the proverbial roof. And for what exactly? To somehow combat something that doesn't even exist?
So it was then that Rep. Hank Johnson stated on the House floor just last month that Republicans just need to finally acknowledge the fact that climate change "is real and it’s already affecting the earth in profound ways," including the United States of America. "Unpredictable and destructive weather patterns are making it harder for farmers to grow crops, while rising sea levels threaten our coastal cities and beaches from sea to shining sea," Johnson said. All this, of course, begs the question, just what in the Hell is it that old Hank has been snortin, smokin, or shootin up? But the fact of the matter is that this is really nothing more than the typical Democrat style of politics. Ignore the facts or manipulate the facts so that they can somehow be made to support your bizarre and patently false claims.
But old Hank was far from being done. He went on to say, "The scientific consensus is clear: Human activity is causing our planet to warm to dangerous levels. Scientists agree that higher temperatures are raising sea levels and driving severe weather patterns that threaten our economy and our way of life." And then he proceeded to chastise GOP members, saying, "Here in Congress, the [House] majority refuses to even acknowledge that we have a problem while the rest of the world seems to understand that it’s the moral imperative of our time." Adding, finally, "I urge my colleagues to put politics aside, listen to the science, and come together and begin to help prevent the worst effects of climate change," Johnson said. The ones ignoring the science are not the Republicans, that would be Hank and his fellow Democrats.
As it has been previously reported, as recently as a June 20, in an interview with Spiegel Online, German climate scientist Hans von Storch said that despite predictions of a warming planet, the temperature data for the past 15 years shows an increase of 0.06 or "very close to zero." Also, he said, "So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break." Storch added that "recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared." He went on to point out that, "As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years." But we didn't. We had a rise in CO2 and no corresponding rise in temperature.
But as I said, the actual scientific facts matter very little, if at all, to Democrats like old Hank. What they’re much more interested in, I think, can be much better defined as being scientific propaganda. But if anything, Democrats are quite well versed in the strategy that states if you repeat a lie often enough and loud enough, the odds are in your favor that people will eventually come to recognize it as being the truth. And that’s all that’s really underway here by scumbags like old Hank. And the fact that Americans, as a whole, still aren't all that concerned about it, hasn't seemed to deter liars like Hank from perpetuating their lie, or like Barry from using his EPA to put into place regulations the specific purpose of which are to further cripple our economy. Which has been Barry's goal from day 1 of his being president.
But the fact is, we are now at a 60 year low for the number of tornadoes that occur here in the United States, NOAA, who hasn't been right regarding its hurricane predictions since, I don't know when, just revised their 2013 prediction downward, and many states are already be experiencing colder than normal temperatures for this time of year. And yet, those on the left insist that if left unattended, a catastrophe is headed our way, and that for the sake of our children we MUST do something. Yet, at the same time we're busy burying those same children under an absolute mountain of debt that they will have very little hope of ever getting out from under. So which do you think poses the bigger danger? Something that we know exists, the debt, or something that there is no real proof that it does exist, 'global warming?"
Monday, August 19, 2013
In ordinary times I doubt that I'd even be wasting my time talking about this because it would be too ludicrous to imagine. But sadly, as we all know, this age of Barry "Almighty" is anything but ordinary times. What I'm talking about here is the fact that word now comes to us that 'Slow Joe' Biden is actually busy laying the groundwork for a 2016 presidential campaign, with confident supporters going so far as to assure him that he would defeat Hitlery Clinton in a Democrat primary.
According to the Wall Street Journal, 'Slow Joe's' political allies, who must be folks on some really good shit, are already making campaign plans and 'Slow Joe's' official itinerary now has him traveling to some of the early-primary states. "There's definitely a path forward for him" even if Clinton decides to run, said Larry Rasky, an aide on Biden's presidential campaigns in 1988 and 2008. Wouldn't it be nice if that path was to lead him directly over a very high cliff. Just wishful thinking.
Anyway, "Slow Joe's' camp is said to be exploring the formation of a political action committee which would then allow 'Slow Joe' to lavish key Democrat candidates with donations in an effort to gain some early support. 'Slow Joe' is also planning to attend Democrat political events in Iowa and New Hampshire. Despite the assurances of Biden's inner circle that he could clinch the nomination, polling in New Hampshire shows Hitlery leading the pack with more than 50 percent support.
And I guess it was during some interview earlier this year where he sat down with GQ magazine, that 'Slow Joe' made it known that, yes, he is seriously considering another presidential run. "I can die a happy man never having been president of the United States, but it doesn't mean I won't run," Biden said. Man is that a nightmare scenario, or what. I can't even bring myself to imagine a president Biden. I'm sure nothing would make him happier, but that's far from what this country needs.
Officially, those close to 'Slow Joe' are downplaying the election, and say he is focused on his current job. "Any talk of other future plans is complete speculation," an aide said. 'Slow Joe' turns 74 two months before Inauguration Day, and, if elected, would be the first president older than 70 to take office. He would be more than four years older than Ronald Reagan was when he took his first oath of office. And let's face it, after having watched this guy in action, is he presidential material?
But as I previously mentioned, these are far from being ordinary times, by any stretch of the imagination. And a contest between 'Slow Joe' and Hitlery would be nothing more than a contest to see who it is that could give the most away, both here at home and internationally. And with a populace that, the near majority of which, has now become firmly addicted to all manner of government goodie, the chances that a 'Slow Joe' presidency could actually become a reality, couldn't be better.
There's little doubt that those who are interested in nothing more than in seeing how much they can get for nothing, will vote for the Democrat candidate no matter who it is. And as we found ourselves after "BJ" Clinton, we, as a country, are now once again in desperate need of some adult supervision. And 'Slow Joe' is anything but an adult. He's the equivalent of your senile old grand-dad that you visit on the weekends. And as such, the last place we need to find him is in the Oval Office.
It would seem that with the electing of Barry, not once but twice, the priorities of the American people have shifted. Because, instead of choosing to elect a leader whose main goal is to make sure that we do all that we can to maintain a stable and prosperous country that we can then handover to those who come after us, we seem to be perfectly content to elect those who are only too happy to bury future generations under a mountain of debt so that we can then sit back and do nothing.
Such is the scenario that would seem to make a 'Slow Joe' presidency all the more likely. We've become nothing more than a nation of parasites, with fewer of us everyday even seeing the slightest thing wrong with that. We've apparently decided that it has become perfectly acceptable to enjoy the fruit of our child's labor while that child is still in diapers. Kinda gives a whole new meaning to being selfish. Is this really where we are a nation? If so, am I the only one who sees that as being more than just a little sad?