Tuesday, December 31, 2013


Thanks to loudmouthed, self-serving bigots like those supposed men of God, Jesse "The Extortionist" Jackson and Al "Bull Horn" Sharpton, to name just a couple, who have created for themselves a very profitable business out of doing nothing more than the pushing of racial hatred, far too many blacks today operate under the rather misguided notion that the GOP consists only of rich racist white people. However, in reality, things are really quite different. And something about which I’m certain most blacks have no clue, is the fact that the GOP was founded to free blacks. And only five years after slavery ended, there were black congressmen, all Republicans. The KKK, Jim Crow laws, segregation, and denying blacks the right to vote were all created by the Democrat Party and all in an effort to keep blacks ignorant and in their proper place. After all, they didn’t need no uppity blacks.

Even today, Democrats are still desperate to "keep blacks in their place", which is very firmly on the Democrat plantation. They do so by telling them that without lowered standards, or affirmative action, or all manner of special programs and taxpayer funded freebies, blacks have no hope of ever being able to succeed. Democrats constantly send blacks the message that, no matter how hard they may try, they’re just not as smart was whites. For example, Democrats love to claim that having to show ID when voting only serves to disenfranchises blacks. This is merely a tactic by which the Democrats implement voter fraud. However what they’re really saying is that blacks are simply too stupid to find their way to the DMV or other places to acquire a proper ID. This is just one example of numerous ways Democrats tell blacks they are inferior and need Democrats' help to succeed.

Republicans, on the other hand, whether blacks wish to believe it or not, chose to deal with blacks on a much more respectful level and as, dare I say, equals. They believe that blacks are more than capable enough to succeed all on their own. The Democrat approach, because the party thrives on blacks believing themselves to be victims, despite being blessed to be born in the greatest land of opportunity on the planet, is very different. After all, foreigners are trying to get to America in cardboard boats held together with duct tape. Democrats punish and hate blacks who compete with whites and succeed without Democrat lowered standards and involvement. While sold as compassion and "fairness," Democrat programs are always about making as many people as possible dependent on government to secure/buy votes. In the long run, all Democrat policies and programs only hurt people!

Obviously, there remains a very significant number of black racists who would much rather believe the lie than the truth. Blacks can continue to view all white as racists if they wish, but if they hope to ever advance beyond that, they need to take a good long look at themselves in the mirror. They need to rid themselves of the notion that just because of slavery, they have a right to be racist. Racism is evil, period, whether it comes from blacks or whites. In reality, history confirms that the black community has been sleeping with the enemy for years by monolithically voting Democrat. News flash, black voters: the Democrats "ain't" your friends. Every program which serves to demean and stifle blacks has come, and continues to come, from the Democrats. Republicans continue to be the party extremely supportive of black individuality, the party full of nurturers of black entrepreneurial success.

Democrats still refuse to allow blacks beyond the borders of their plantation and they do so by way of increasingly more costly government handouts -- thus keeping blacks dependent on government, thus keeping blacks voting for Democrats, who promise to give them all manner of ‘free’ stuff via programs. To make their scam work, Democrats also tell blacks that Republicans are burning the midnight oil planning new ways to "keep them down." Thus blacks are made to believe that they need Democrats in order to keep evil rich white Republicans off your backs. In a nutshell, blacks are being played by the Democrats. But they don’t see that because they are essentially being betrayed by many in their own community, those ‘leaders’, who in exchange for a seat at the Democrat Party table, act as willing accomplices is the spreading of that which they know is nothing but a lie.

Now, if I may, I’d like to talk a little about the Tea Party. First of all, anyone who actually thinks the Tea Party is racist is completely ignorant of the facts beside being just plain wrong! I am sorry, but that is the gospel truth. You too are being "played" by the Democrats and their many cohorts in the state-controlled media, who also "secretly" think that blacks are inferior and need their help to succeed. Tea Party folks do not oppose Barry's policies because of his skin color, they oppose them because they are harming this country. And it only serves to inflame when a Congressional Black Caucus member says that the white folks at the Tea Parties want to "see blacks hanging from trees." Such a statement is nothing short of irresponsible, absurd, shameful, and divisively evil. In other words, all about ginning up racial hate and securing votes for Barry. To me that’s simply despicable!

Anyway, as far as I’m concerned, blacks in this country continue to be their own worst enemy. And as long as they remain too stupid to recognize the fact that the Democrat Party wishes nothing more than to be able to use them, and pretty much at will, they’ll get no sympathy from me. Of course the down side to that is the fact that as long as they stubbornly refuse to vote for someone other than Democrats the entire country will be made to suffer. Sadly, until blacks come to recognize the fact that, by hitching their wagon to the Democrat Party, they have succeeded in doing nothing more than to guarantee themselves a life of dependency on a government that cares very little if they are ever able to succeed in life not much will change. And as long as they vote for a party which prefers that they don’t succeed, they have created for themselves a life that is much less that it could be.

Monday, December 30, 2013


Ya know, these days anyone looking for still more evidence that Charlie Rangel has become more than just a bit demented, certainly wouldn’t need to look very far or very hard. Because it was recently that old Charlie, by saying that, quite frankly, he doesn’t understand the Tea Party, actually referred to the group as "a cult-type of group", and going on to say that to campaign to repeal laws "is an illness", made it obvious that he has now gone round the proverbial bend. It was in a New York Daily News video posted back on Oct. 24 that Charlie said, "So politics is changing for me at this late age, to have to deal with a cult-type group of people."

And it’s in the same video that this senile old stooge, in what I guess was his own little way of defending Obamacare, goes on to say, "When a handful of people can control a larger number of people, to repeal a law that has been passed by the House, the Senate, and declared constitutional by the courts - and they campaign on the issue that it should be repealed- this is past Civics 101. This is illness." Ya know, this is the same mantra so oft repeated by Democrats, and it’s one that quite obviously ignores completely just how it was that the Democrats ‘passed’ this fiasco. They seem to think if they repeat it enough, we’ll come around to believing it. But it’s BULLSHIT!

Now also keep in mind here, that it was earlier this month that Rangel came out and announced that he’s planning on seeking his 23rd term in the U.S. Congress. Rangel, who is now 83 years old, has now served in Congress since 1971, or since the year after I graduated from high school. Come on folks, really? I’m sorry but you can’t tell me that somewhere in the district that this turd represents there is not a more qualified candidate than this pathetic antique, and quite corrupt, politician. I just don’t understand the fascination that so many seem to have for this guy? He has spent nearly his entire adult life on a mission to destroy our country.

"I understand Democrats and I used to understand Republicans," Rangel says early in the previously mentioned video, "There is something going on in this country that I don’t understand and that’s the Tea Party." This boob then goes on, "I have never met or dealt with politicians that don’t mind losing, that don’t mind taking down their party, the Republican Party, or their speaker or the country – or the president or the party for that matter." Obviously what this brain dead old asshole doesn’t understand, or simply has no interest in trying to understand, are those people who genuinely believe in the concept of limited government and individual liberties.

And the fact that Rangel has been in Congress for 42 years very clearly demonstrates the fact of just how screwed up we’ve now allowed things to get. And it also points out the fact that the IQ of those who make up his district, when added all together, would likely be somewhere in the single digits. What, exactly, has this boob done that would make him in any way worthy of being reelected 23 times? Is it just because he’s black? Because he certainly is far from being the most intelligent guy in Congress. I mean really, how much smarts does it take to support programs that essentially do nothing more than to rob from one group and give to another?

Rangel represents the problem that I have with allowing the ignorant among us to vote. Ok, maybe ignorant is too course of a term, even though it’s the perfect description of what’s occurring. How about those not having any skin in the game. Because those who are never required to contribute to the keeping of our great republic afloat, have absolutely no problem whatsoever with voting for slime like Rangel who then make sure that those of us who are required, are made to contribute an ever increasing amount. And thus the end result is that we continue to get guys like Rangel elected and then re-elected time, after time after time.


Well I doubt very much that anyone remains in need of being reminded of the fact that we continue to spend a substantial part December doing nothing more than to argue about what is essentially the opinion of one man, Mr. Phil Robertson. While much of the attention has been focused on what some have described as being his rather harsh, even mean-spirited, comments regarding the topic of homosexuality, there were also several who, shall we say, were unable to resist themselves from making what were some rather bizarre accusations regarding his comments on that topic of race relations in this country.

Now while I suppose some might be inclined to describe Mr. Robertson as being rather naïve, somewhat blind or simply a liar, none of those descriptions seemed to go far enough to suit that faux preacher, and professional race-baiter, Jesse "The Extortionist" Jackson. Jackson, much like his buddy Al "Bull Horn" Sharpton, who I seem to have heard very little from during this entire dustup, has managed to turn the business of inflaming hatred between the races into what as become, for him, a very lucrative one. And he is never one to turn down an opportunity that might allow him to add to his own personal coffers.

In choosing how best to describe the comments made by Mr. Robertson, Jackson once again demonstrated his eagerness to insert racism into situations, even where no racism exists. He said the following about Mr. Robertson: "These statements uttered by Robertson are more offensive than the bus driver in Montgomery, Alabama, more than 59 years ago. At least the bus driver, who ordered Rosa Parks to surrender her seat to a white person, was following state law. Robertson’s statements were uttered freely and openly without cover of the law, within a context of what he seemed to believe was ‘white privilege.’"

So let’s just cut right to the chase, here, shall we? Jackson is not only well known as being a race hustler but also a very successful fraud when it comes to who it is that he says he is. Many facts have been ignored over the years, being either bullied from ever seeing the light of day or significantly altered by way of an extensive revisionist whitewashing designed to prevent the truth from getting out. Personally, I doubt very much he is even a reverend. After all, he actually dropped out of seminary school. But the fraud doesn't stop there, and explains a lot of why so many follow him out of nothing more than ignorance.

In looking over the bio of the good reverend Jackson, more questions are raised than are answered. For instance there are questions about, not only his personal infidelity, but the good deal of the criminal behavior of his half-brother, as well as the many exaggerations, false claims (MLK died in my arms etc.), anti-Semitism, and, especially, the examples of what is nothing less than the extortion of money from US corporations in the name of diversity initiatives that mainly lined the pockets of Jackson and his wealthy friends, friends who in turn would donate to PUSH-Excel and other commingled Jackson ‘non-profits’.

Which kind of makes you wonder, what is it, exactly, that makes Jackson think that he has, and in any way, the moral authority to criticize ANYONE about ANYTHING? There’s an old adage that I would think that Jackson, being a reverend and all, would be familiar with and that I’m quite sure Mr. Robertson is. It’s the one that says, "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone." And if there’s one thing I think we can all agree on, it’s the fact that Jackson is far removed from being devoid of sin. But that, most certainly, has never prevented him from pronouncing the guilt of others regarding misdeeds, real or imagined.

Saturday, December 28, 2013


I think it’s pretty safe to say that, after having been made to endure eight years of Barry "Almighty" in the Oval Office, if the American people can actually bring themselves to elect Hitlery Clinton in 2016, we will then be able to say, and with some degree of certainty, that the demise of America will have been made complete. Both Hitlery and Barry are essentially cut from the same cloth. As progressives, they both hate all that this country stands for, although I do think that Barry’s hatred is on a much more…personal level. Hitlery is more capable of keeping her feelings toward her country under control than is Barry.

Hitlery was, at best, a very mediocre U.S. Senator. And it was during her tenure as secretary of state that America’s foreign policy was essentially nothing short of a disaster. Next to the presidency, no other office in the country bears the responsibility of being the primary representative of the United States to the rest of the world. Unbeknownst to most Americans is that, for the founding generation of the Republic, the position of secretary of state served as a kind of training grounds for future presidents. Thank God we were able to work past that little tradition, especially when looking at those who have held that position in more recent history.

And upon closer inspection of that span of time where Hiltery was our face to the world, there were more than a few foreign policy decisions undertaken by the administration of Barry "Almighty" that were simply outright disasters. In looking at how our foreign policy was conducted by the team of Barry and Hitlery, what almost immediately comes to mind is that the entire exercise can be said to very closely resemble a case of the blind leading the stupid. And what is there that could possibly make us think that under a Hitlery presidency the approach would be any different, any different at all? After all, leftist minds think alike.

When you look across the world now at the major issues, you have to ask youself, are Arabs and Israelis closer to peace? How about Iran and North Korea and their nuclear programs? Have they been halted or seriously set back? Has the reset with Russia, which she so famously introduced with a photo op in Moscow with the reset button, has that led to a new and more cooperative relationship? Is there a Clinton doctrine that we can identify that she has articulated and formed as Secretary of State? Are there major treaties that she has undertaken and negotiated through to a successful conclusion? The answer to all those questions is a very resounding, NO!

And the one thing that remains very much stuck in my craw is her absolute callousness in how she apparently felt about how our four fellow Americans, including our ambassador, were essentially butchered in Benghazi, Libya. Her making the statement of, "What difference at this point does it make?", I thought was nothing short of disgusting and quite unbecoming for our secretary of state. And then she actually had the nerve to follow that up by saying, "It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, senator." And yet those who committed this terrorist act remain very much alive and free men.

Hitlery has made it clear, or as clear as she willing to, that she is in no hurry to decide about a potential 2016 bid for the White House, saying it is a decision "not to be made lightly." Asked how she plans to combat any conflicts she may face related to her political legacy, she said the best course is to "find common ground." "I have a lot of reason to believe, as we saw in the 2012 election, most Americans don't agree with the extremists on any side of an issue," Clinton said in an interview. "But there needs to continue to be an effort to find common ground, or even take it to higher ground on behalf of the future." Like Barry, she is a rabid ideologue and as such has very little interest in finding common ground with those who disagree with her.

Now, of course, Hitlery is not without her loyal fans, with one of the more vocal ones being Nancy "Too Much Botox" Pelosi, who has said, on any number of occasions, that if Hitlery decides to run, "she will win." And in demonstrating the fact that she is either quite delusional, or completely unfamiliar with what it takes to be qualified to be president, Old Nancy has also said, "And when she becomes president, she'll be one of the best-equipped, best-prepared people to enter the White House in a very long time." Ah, I think I would beg to differ with Nancy on that point. She has neither the temperament, nor intelligence, demanded by the position.

But having said all that, if there is one point on which I feel I can agree on with Nancy, it’s when she makes the point that Hiterly would be "more prepared than President Obama." But I’m not sure that that’s really saying all that much. After all, let’s be honest here, you would be very hard pressed to find anyone who could not be considered as being more qualified to be president than Barry "Almighty." But just because she may be more qualified than Barry, does not mean that she is anywhere near being sufficiently qualified to be president. Because she most certainly is not. She was in over her head and secretary of state and would be more so as president.

The next time around what we Americans MUST do is to elect someone who will restore America’s credibility, internationally, and someone, and this may be even more important, who will be taken seriously. I can’t help but think that foreign leaders, most of whom are men, would look at Hitlery and see what they see in Barry. And that would be a naïve patsy. We have witnessed over the course of the last five years how, in the absence of strong American leadership, the world descends into chaos. And the electing of Hitlery as president would do nothing to stop, or to even slow, that process from continuing. A vacuum yearns to be filled.

Friday, December 27, 2013


Not that it’s likely to matter all that much to Barry "Almighty", of that I’m quite sure, but apparently there has been a new poll recently released according to which the number of Americans who now think that Barry will go down as being "one of the worst presidents" in history has increased by 5 percent from this same time last year. But like I said, I’m pretty sure he isn’t about to let such a trivial thing bother him. I mean, let’s face it, he’s pretty much set for life. After all, he will forever be known as the man who presided over the decline of America.

So it’s according to a recent Fox News survey of 1,027 registered voters, that more than one in four respondents, a record high of 28 percent, actually said that they believe that Barry will go down as being one of the worst. It was in a similar survey taken last December that 23 percent of respondents admitted to feeling that way. In 2009, after less than a year in office, it was only 16 percent of folks who felt that he would turn out to be one of the worst presidents. But that was before we all got to know just how determined he was to destroy our country.

This new Fox survey, conducted Dec. 14-16, also found that 16 percent of respondents view Barry as being "a below average" president. Last year it was14 percent who held that view. Meanwhile thirty-three percent of those asked, rated Barry as an "average president," compared to 19 percent who said the same thing last year. In this year's survey, only 16 percent, probably the blacks, described him as being a "great president," compared to the 2012 survey when 29 percent predicted that he would turn out to be a "great president."

Taking the rating just a step further, we find that six percent of respondents described Barry as the "greatest" president, compared to 12 percent who saw him that way a year ago. When questioned about his trustworthiness, a record low of 49 percent said he is not "honest and trustworthy," compared to 45 percent who, somehow, are still able to bring themselves to believe that he is. Another 10 percent of respondents who voted for Barry now said they actually regret doing so. Which begs the question, what were they thinking when they voted for him?

Back when he was first elected I think there were a great many of us saw who his presidency, and we made our opinions known, as being nothing more than a simply continuation of Jimmy Carter’s. Carter, also a Democrat, is another president who most Americans view as being pretty much of a ideology driven loser . The warning bells that there were ringing all around Barry back in 2008 and again in 2012, were drowned out by his cheering section in the media. And now Barry has become just another fraud who has been unable to live up to all of the hype.

But you know, it really is kind of a shame that the first black president, and really a guy who held so much promise, allowed his ideology to get the better of him, and in what was a relatively short period of time. Because, and I mean this, he really could have been, and every easily so, so much more than what he has turned out to be. It would seem that since day one of his becoming president, he has done nothing more than to seek out ways to damage the country here at home as well as to diminish its leadership role in the world as its sole superpower.

Because in the beginning, Barry was the ultimate American story. He was the personification of the American dream, able to become the president of the United States by rising from the humblest of beginnings. But how things have changed, all thanks to the hubris of a man who actually believes that he is something more than what he really is, because everyone else told him that he is. Barry has never followed the Constitution as it was written or intended. He has always sought out loopholes to bypass what the founding fathers so eloquently established.

It has been said of Barry that, "He acts in the most hateful, spiteful, malevolent, vindictive ways in order to manipulate and maintain power and control over others. Perhaps, because, as a child, he grew up harboring an abiding bitterness toward the U.S. that was instilled in him by his family and mentors … it seems to have never left him." And thus it would seem that it’s this same bitterness that has been the driving force behind his continuing effort to "fundamentally transform" this, the last best hope of man. And to achieve a great level of success doing so.


Apparently being quite eager to demonstrate the fact that it no longer supports the American economic system of free enterprise nor the America way of life, it now seems that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is ready to wage what can only be described as being a full scale war on the Tea Party, at least when it comes to 2014 Senate primaries and elections. It will do so by providing a deep-pocketed boost to those it deems as being ‘acceptable’ Republican candidates. "Our No. 1 focus is to make sure, when it comes to the Senate, that we have no loser candidates," Chamber strategist Scott Reed told The Wall Street Journal. "That will be our mantra: No fools on our ticket." I’m not quite certain I quite agree with how they go about determining which candidates to support.

The financial support, which The Hill has now reported, could pour as much as $50 million into the campaigns of those candidates that the group had identified as being "centrist" Republicans, and is all part of what has become a very aggressive approach toward Tea Party Republicans. It’s something that has essentially been underway since the 16-day October government shutdown. The Chamber has expressed its displeasure with Tea Party favorites Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, who resisted passing a budget without a provision to defund Obamacare, triggering a stalemate. However, if what is now being undertaken by this the group does anything, it serves to expose its highly questionable agenda. An agenda that is in no way good for America.

It was just a month after what was really only a partial shutdown of the government that we saw the Chamber insert itself into the intra-party GOP voting by choosing to back establishment GOP candidate Bradley Byrne over Tea Party prospect Dean Young in an Alabama special House election. Sadly it was Byrne who came out on top in the contest, and who then went on to an easy victory in the Dec. 17 special election, defeating Democrat Burton LeFlore. And while I suppose it can be said that at least the Republican won, I would argue, was it the best Republican? So, with one victory firmly under their belt, The Chamber is now airing ads for Rep. Mike Simpson in Idaho, where he faces a Tea Party-backed challenger in his race for a ninth House term.

Meanwhile, the head of Heritage Action is vowing to challenge Republican leaders on a number of fiscal issues, and to keep active with grassroots activists. "Lawmakers do not have a monopoly on information, and we will continue to communicate directly with their constituents on important legislation as it moves through Congress," Michael Needham, chief executive of Heritage Action, the political arm of the Heritage Foundation think tank, said in a recent interview with the Wall Street Journal. He said most lawmakers "will find it difficult to go back home and defend votes that increase spending, increase deficits and undermine the rule of law." It is groups like the Heritage that we must work to support however we can in this battle for the soul of America.

So I think it very fair to say that what The Chamber is now very actively engaged in is not merely a war against the Tea Party, it’s also a war that is, and very aggressively so, being waged against the American people. And we, as freedom loving Americans, can ill afford to allow ourselves to be swayed by such a group, a group that so obviously does not share our values, especially when it comes to something as important as our deciding whom it is that we choose to vote for. I think we’re all able to recognize the fact that there is very little difference between these "centrist" Republicans and your basic, run-of-the-mill, Democrat. So why would we choose to vote for them? The fate of our country is in the balance, and The Chamber of Commerce is not on our side!

"We the People" will need to focus all of our energy on working to rally our own forces and to make it very plain to those who decide to take the same position as The Chamber appears willing to take, that we will not go quietly into the night and we will not simply rollover in the same manner that most of our Republican leaders have a tendency to do. We are willing to fight for that which we view as being ours and it is we, and we alone, who will decide who it is that’s to be the recipient of our vote. But if we are foolish enough to vote for any of these ‘centrist’ pukes that we are being told we must vote for, we will be doing ourselves no favors. What is essentially taking place here is that we are simply being conned by those who profess to be on our side.

Thursday, December 26, 2013


Well, apparently, it seems, according to yet another recent poll, this one conducted by two conservative organizations, that most Americans are now of the opinion that government corruption has gotten much worse during the tenure of Barry "Almighty". This most recent survey, having been conducted by the conservative Judicial Watch in partnership with Breitbart.com, shows that 77 percent of the 1,000 adults questioned are concerned about government corruption with 52 percent of them actually thinking that the problem has gotten worse since Barry first took office.

"The Judicial Watch-Breitbart poll shows that the American people are thoroughly disenchanted with a government they see as corrupt and secretive," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. Mr. Fitton went on to point out, "The support for the rule of law on immigration runs against the establishment narrative pretending there is overwhelming support for mass amnesty. On a host of issues – ranging from corruption to transparency, to election integrity, to Obamacare – President Obama is completely out of touch with the American people." I’d say that about sums things up.

The poll taken Dec. 15-16 also sought information on attitudes concerning other subjects, including voter fraud, immigration policy, and Obamacare. When it comes to government corruption, Republicans tended to be more concerned, the survey revealed, with 88 percent being most concerned, followed by independents at 75 percent and then of course, and as to be expected, Democrats were less concerned about any corruption that may taking place, coming in at 68 percent in this poll. Democrats are quite content to turn a blind eye to corruption as long as it’s their guys who are corrupt.

Overall, the poll found that Americans think the government is doing a pretty crappy job of policing its own corruption, with 52 percent saying matters have gotten very much worse in just the past five years. Only 18 percent of those surveyed thought the government is doing a better job at self-policing. Must be Democrats. The survey also found that four out of five respondents do not believe that Barry has come anywhere near to fulfilling his 2008 campaign pledge to have "the most open and transparent [government] in history." Gee, can’t imagine why that might be, can you?

And respondents also expressed skepticism about several other of Barry’s agenda items, including immigration and healthcare reform. Forty-nine percent of those polled said they believe immigration laws currently on the books should be enforced, and think illegal immigrants should return home rather than stay in the U.S. Of those polled, 71 percent favor enforcing current immigration laws, while just 21 percent actually support changing the laws. So while the people favor what is the commonsense approach, our political leaders insist upon doing just the opposite.

The survey also revealed that most respondents are far more confident in their states' ability to handle healthcare issues than they are the federal government's. But nearly one-third of the respondents don't have confidence in government at any level to coordinate healthcare. As far Obamacare was concerned, two-thirds of those surveyed said they are satisfied with the insurance they have now. But even though we were all told that we would be able to keep our insurance if we liked it, that doesn’t now appear to be the case.

So where, exactly, does this leave us? We are now being ridden roughshod over by a government that has become, by nearly everyone’s standards, out of control. A government that seems to be made up of individuals who are of the opinion that they can do whatever they want, whenever they want. And who do you suppose it is that we have to blame for this predicament that we presently find ourselves in? Well, that would be none other than "We the People". We’ve managed to do it to ourselves, all by ourselves. But now, I suppose, the bigger question might be, just what the HELL do we intend to do about it?


As much as I would love nothing better than to see ‘Dingy Harry’ Reid demoted from his current position as leader in the Senate, I’m not about to start getting my hopes up. The election is still a very long way away, politically speaking. But, my hesitance notwithstanding, according to a new national poll it would at least appear at this date in time, that the Democrats have apparently lost whatever advantage they may have had, with Republicans now having a slight edge in the battle for control of Congress.

A CNN/ORC International survey released Thursday also indicates that it’s Barry himself who may be dragging down Democratic congressional candidates. It was only two months ago that the Democrats held a 50%-42% advantage among registered voters in a generic ballot, which asked respondents to choose between a Democrat or Republican in their congressional district without identifying the candidates. So that just goes to show you that political momentum can change pretty quickly.

But having said that, it’s rather obvious that, at least for time being, the Democratic lead has now pretty much evaporated. It was also a CNN poll a month ago that, indicated then, the GOP holding a 49%-47% lead. And now this new survey, conducted in mid-December, indicates Republicans with a 49%-44% edge over the Democrats. The 13-point swing follows a political uproar over Obamacare, including the botched website rollout and controversy over insurance policy cancelations due to the new health law.

"Virtually all the movement toward the GOP has come among men," CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said. "Fifty-four percent of female voters chose the Democratic candidate in October; 53% pick the Dem now. But among male voters, support for Democratic candidates has gone from 46% in October to just 35% now." Republicans have a 17-seat advantage in the House and Democrats hold a 55-45 majority in the Senate. But these poll results are a long way from predicting what will happen next November.

"There is just under a year to go before any votes are actually cast and the 'generic ballot' question is not necessarily a good predictor of the actual outcome of 435 separate elections," Holland cautioned. "A year before the 2010 midterms, for example, the Democrats held a 6-point lead on the generic ballot but the GOP wound up regaining control of the House in that election cycle, thanks to an historic 63-seat pickup," he added. And there is a lack of voter enthusiasm that must also be taken into consideration.

Because it’s also according to this latest poll, that only three in 10 registered voters now say that they are extremely or very enthusiastic about voting for Congress next year, compared to more than four in 10 who felt that way in late 2009. And 43% say they're not enthusiastic about voting, up from 25% who felt that way four years ago. Thirty-six percent of Republicans say they're extremely or very enthusiastic about voting. That number drops to 22% among Democrats.

Another GOP advantage would be Barry "Almighty’s" current standing with the public: 55% of registered voters say that they are more likely to vote for a congressional candidate who opposes the President than one who supports him and four in 10 say they are likely to vote for a candidate who supports Obama. "Those kind of numbers spelled early trouble for the Democrats before the 1994 and 2010 midterms, and for the GOP before the 2006 elections," Holland said.

So while I think we can very safely say that this poll, like the majority of all polls, should be taken with a grain of salt, it does, to a certain degree, also offer some encouragement to those who would like nothing less than to alter the current makeup of the Senate. Granted, my confidence in Mitch McConnell, should he come to find himself in charge of a GOP majority in the Senate, is nowhere near where it ought to be. I’d feel much better about things if it were a Ted Cruz or Rand Paul who would be in that position.

But, as they say, beggars can’t be choosers, and we must, as always, play the hand which we are dealt. And what that means is, is that if we are in fact fortunate enough to acquire a Senate majority, then it most likely will be McConnell who we will then be forced into dealing with. But even that would be better that having to deal with ‘Dingy Harry’ Reid. But, as I have said, next November is still a very long way away and there remains plenty of time for the Republicans to, once again, shoot themselves in both feet.


Am I really the only one who happens to be of the opinion that removing any and all involvement by the federal government in the delivering of our mail is now something that has become long overdue? I mean, let’s face it, these days, because of more efficient ways to communicate with one another, fewer and fewer of us are choosing to take advantage of this rather archaic method of communication which has slowly, but steadily, been going the way of smoke signals and the telegraph for some time now. Anyway, the only reason I even bring this up is because it’s now be made official that it will soon becoming a bit more expensive just to mail a letter.

Regulators for the Postal Service, on Tuesday, approved what’s being referred to as being a temporary price hike of 3 cents for a first-class stamp, bringing the cost for mailing a letter up to 49 cents. Supposedly this is all in an effort to help the Postal Service recover from severe mail decreases brought on by the 2008 economic downturn. So I guess this is sort of a delayed reaction, or what? And we’re also told that many consumers won't feel the price increase immediately. Forever stamps, good for first-class postage whatever the future rate, can be purchased at the lower price until the new rate becomes effective on Jan. 26.

Now if you can believe it, which I personally do not, buy you can if you wish, this higher rate is supposed to last no more than two years. This or so we’re also told, will be sufficient time to allow the Postal Service to recoup $2.8 Billion in losses. And it was by a 2-1 vote, the independent Postal Regulatory Commission rejected a request to make the price hike permanent, though inflation over the next 24 months may require that anyway. The surcharge "will last just long enough to recover the loss," Commission Chairman Ruth Y. Goldway said. Now look, I may be been born at night, but it most certainly wasn’t last night.

However, bulk mail, including such things as periodicals and package service rates will actually rise 6 percent, which was a decision that drew immediate consternation from the mail industry. Its groups have opposed any price increase beyond the current 1.7 percent rate of inflation, saying charities using mass mailings and bookstores competing with online retailer Amazon would be among those who suffer. Greeting card companies also have criticized the plans. "This is a counterproductive decision," said Mary G. Berner, president of the Association of Magazine Media. But let’s face it, such users are considered as being nothing more than a captive audience.

The service says it lost $5 Billion in the last fiscal year alone and has been trying to get Congress to pass legislation to help with its financial woes, including an end to Saturday mail delivery and reduced payments on retiree health benefits. The figures through Sept. 30 were actually an improvement for the agency from the $15.9 Billion loss in 2012. The post office has struggled for years with declining mail volume as a result of growing Internet use and a 2006 congressional requirement that it make annual $5.6 Billion payments to cover expected health care costs for future retirees. It has defaulted on three of those payments.

To say that the Postal Service has now officially outlived its usefulness would, I think, be a very obvious understatement. Here in the 21st century there are now any number of more efficient and less costly ways to accomplish that which the Postal Service appears to be no longer capable of providing. And were it not for its union, I’m sure Congress would have long ago been willing to make such a decommissioning take place. But with postal service union members come Democrat Party voters, hence it’s the Democrats who remain the substantial speed bump in simply making it go away. But I think few people would argue in favor of keeping it going.

Wednesday, December 25, 2013


As one who is constantly on the prowl of any opportunity to accuse someone who’s white of being racist, comes that well known publicity whore, Jesse ‘The Extortionist’ Jackson. And as such he has now seen fit to enter the fray regarding the supposed ‘controversy’ now surrounding some comments made by Phil Robertson in an interview. In an announcement that was sent out on Christmas Eve, Jackson actually felt it as being appropriate to compare Robertson’s recent comments about blacks, gays and women, to comments made by the driver of Rosa Parks’ bus. It was in this stupid little release that Jackson said, "At least the bus driver, who ordered Rosa Parks to surrender her seat to a white person, was following state law." Old Jesse went on to say, "Robertson's statements were uttered freely and openly without cover of the law, within a context of what he seemed to believe was ‘white privilege.’"

Operating under the premise that it’s some sort of a human rights group, the true purpose behind Jackson’s idiotic group, the Rainbow PUSH Coalition, has nothing to do with protecting rights. What the group does is to specialize in the shaking down of those companies or organizations deemed by Jackson to be "racially intolerant". The group has now demanded meetings with A&E and with Cracker Barrel regarding the two companies’ treatment of Robertson. Jackson’s group, along with LGBT group GLAAD and the National Organization for Women, urged A&E to keep Robertson on an indefinite hiatus from the show, which the network started following Robertson’s comments criticizing homosexuality in his interview with GQ magazine.  Cracker Barrel removed Duck Dynasty items from its shelves and then quickly put them back Sunday after customers very loudly protested the company’s action.

And I’m assuming that what got Jackson’s, and the other group’s, panties in such a bunch is the fact that in it’s own release the Tennessee-based company stated, "We respect all individuals’ right to express their beliefs." Adding, "We certainly did not mean to have anyone think different." And that, apparently made Jackson, and the leaders of the other groups, none too happy as they are now demanding a sit-down meeting with Cracker Barrel and A&E in the next couple of days. And in what was yet another press release by the group leaders, they said, "It is unacceptable that a personality who has been given such a large platform would benefit from racist and anti-gay comments." And yet, had Mr. Robertson’s statements been seen as supporting such things as gay marriage there would have been no concern whatsoever for those who would have disagreed with that statement. So it’s all quite obviously hypocritical.

So as one of everyone’s favorite faux preachers, Jackson seems to perceive himself as being someone one who possesses the requisite moral authority to be able to criticize Mr. Robertson for making his comments. But I fail to see how a man who has such a long, and rather storied, history of having a difficult time with telling the truth, as well as his producing a child with one of his young staff members, is actually able to criticize anyone. But, as it always is with liberals, it’s another case of, do as I say not as I do. Jackson, as well as the other race-baiters that we are constantly being forced to contend with, is always looking for ways to maintain his relevancy. And wouldn’t you think that if a man truly was the man of God that he professes himself to be, he would be just a tad bit more accepting of the rationale behind another man’s simply stating his beliefs? But then acceptance and tolerance now appears to be but a one way street.

But none of this is really the least bit new. We who find the act of two men having sex to be not only disgusting but, from the health aspect, dangerous, are supposed to keep our beliefs firmly under wraps so that we don’t risk offending those to partake in such risky behavior. I’m sorry, but if you’re someone who chooses to participate in such activity, then you should also, and at the same time, be prepared to take whatever criticism may come your way for doing so. There’s an old adage that says, "If you can’t stand the heat, stay outta the kitchen." And I think that it can be said to apply here. And all Jackson, and his cohorts in this little endeavor to intimidate, is trying to do here is to turn behavior that is usually viewed as being unacceptable into being acceptable. And apparently neither Mr. Robertson, nor his sponsors, are buying any of it. And what I say to that is, "Good for them!" Jackson’s idiotic claims notwithstanding.

Tuesday, December 24, 2013


So, I have a question. Why is it that one is always, or nearly always, considered as being a racist for doing nothing more than to point out what is really pretty obvious. In this particular instance what I’m referring to is the fact that the only reason that the majority of Blacks and Hispanics so reliably vote Democrat is because of their rather well known dislike for anything having to do with being required to work to support oneself. We seem to be living in a day and age where those folks who comprise what is essentially an entire class of parasites possess a rather misguided sense of entitlement that replaces a love of country. Especially when it comes to those in our minority communities. And that’s not being racist, that’s just telling it like it is. And if there are those who may feel offended, too bad. Because they are the ones who have made this perception possible. After all, it doesn’t, or at least it shouldn’t, take a genius to recognize the fact that the Democrat Party is called home by those for whom work is nothing more than a dirty four letter word. These people seem incapable of recognizing the fact that someone has to work in order for them to get what they view as being the freebies that they deserve.

Anyway, as a way to support my argument here, the state of Georgia can be used as the perfect example. We do so because Georgia is a state that now seems to have the Democrats salivating regarding what they think is the fact that they may, and sooner rather than later, be able to turn a very deep shade of blue. They see their chances getting better because of the fact that Georgia is quickly becoming less white and less rural. In 2000, Georgia's population was 63 percent white; as of the 2010 Census the state's population is 56 percent white. Of the state's 1.5 million new residents between 2000 and 2010, more than 80 percent were non-white. Over the past decade, the 6 percent growth among Georgia's white population pales in comparison to the 26 percent growth rate among African Americans. This is in stark contrast to the growth patterns of the 1990s, when Georgia's white population grew by more than double that rate. Since 1990, Georgia has gained more than 1.2 million African-American residents and has served, according to The Wall Street Journal, as a "magnet for black professionals" from other parts of the country.

Georgia's Hispanic population grew by 96 percent over the last decade, a growth rate double the national average. From 1990-2010, the state's Hispanic population has risen from roughly 100,000 to more than 800,000, now totaling 9.1 percent of the state's population. Additionally, Georgia's Asian-American community grew by 81 percent from 2000-2010 and has almost quintupled since 1990. African-Americans in Georgia vote overwhelmingly Democrat, and party leaders believe they can, thanks to Republican policies on immigration, do well among Latinos. But with the current numbers, it is unlikely to be enough to change the outcome this year. Some Republicans realize they face a challenge down the line. Charlie Harper, editor of the conservative blog Peach Pundit, said any Democrat talk of a resurgence this year or in 2014 is wishful thinking on their part, but said six or eight years from now, things will likely be different. "The Democratic voter base is growing faster than the Republican base," said Harper, who also writes a column for a chain of rural newspapers. "If Republicans aren’t able to figure out how to solve some of the problems they’re grappling with now, Democrats will have a chance to take Georgia blue, or at least make it purple."

Georgia’s 16 electoral votes are not trivial and would, if lost, also do grievous damage to Republican prospects. Yet we hear relatively little about possibilities for a blue Georgia, despite the fact that Georgia is, in many respects, a more plausible candidate than Texas for changing colors. In the last decade, Georgia had a rapid rate of increase in its minority population, going from 37 to 44 percent minority over the time period. The increase in the minority population accounted for 81 percent of Georgia’s growth over the decade. The biggest contributor to minority growth came from blacks, who alone accounted for 39 percent of Georgia’s growth. The next largest contributor was Hispanics, whose numbers increased at a scorching 96 percent pace and accounted for 26 percent of the state’s growth. And as I have already said, minorities in general have very little interest in the general welfare of our country, being much more interested in the general welfare of themselves. Hence they make what are ideal supporters of the Democrat Party. Minorities makes it very plain that their votes will go to the highest bidder, and as long as we have a political party willing to buy, not much will change.

There continues to be many who argue that the Republican Party needs to do more to entice minorities into its ranks. But apparently the only possible way to do that is by offering all manner of taxpayer sponsored freebies, hence the dilemma. Which means that the survival of the country now hinges on the fact of whether minorities can ever be convinced into put the country above their own rather selfish desires. And, quite frankly, I just don’t see that happening any time soon. And again there is nothing racist in what I’m saying here, I’m just being honest about what I see as taking place. And I’m sure there will be those who insist upon calling my position racist, but by doing so all they really do is to add support to my position. And the truly sad thing here is that if both political parties were more interested in the needs of the country than they were determined in their efforts to accrue more political power for themselves, everyone, including those in our various minority communities would be much better off. But it’s highly unlikely that something like that is going to happen anytime soon. So here we sit, essentially at the mercy of those who perpetually have their hand out.


And here we have yet another public official, this time in the person of Susan Rice, who were it not for the fact that she’s black, would most definitely be unemployed. It was in a recent "60 Minutes" interview on the Communist Broadcasting System, aka CBS, that this brainless bimbo said, in referencing the September 11, 2012 terror attack in Benghazi, Libya that, "I don't have time to think about a false controversy." You’ll remember that we lost four of our fellow Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens in that attack, through what was nothing more than pure negligence on the part of Barry "Almighty" and Hitlery Clinton.

And I’m also quite sure you will remember how it was that Ms. Rice, five days later, made the rounds to all five Sunday talk shows insisting, and rather forcefully so, that the attack was a spontaneous event arising from a little-known anti-Muslim YouTube video knowing full well that what she was saying was nothing more than a blatant lie. In simply evading the issue, Rice told "60 Minutes" questioner Leslie Stahl, "In the midst of all of the swirl about things like talking points, the administration's been working very, very hard across the globe to review our security of our embassies and our facilities. That's what we ought to be focused on."

And yet, even with all of this, what Rice describes as being, "very, very hard" work, we’re no closer to finding out who killed those four brave Americans than we were on September 13, 2012. Because it continues to be seen by those who profess to be our leaders as being something that remains, quite simply, no big deal. It’s because of a, "they knew the job was dangerous when they took it" mentality that is possessed by these people, these supposed ‘leaders’, and therefore it requires no further serious action to be taken. Those in charge today view ALL those who perform in the service of their country as simply being expendable.   

And when questioned regarding why it was than then-Secretary of State Hitlery Clinton didn't do the interviews on Sunday, Sept. 16, 2012, Rice opined, "She had just gone through an incredibly painful and stressful week. Secretary Clinton -- as our chief diplomat -- had to reach out to the families, had to greet the bodies upon their arrival at Andrews Air Force Base. If I were her, the last thing I would have wanted to do is five Sunday morning talk shows. So I think it's perfectly understandable. So when the White House asked me, I agreed to do it." And yet, apparently, Hitlery somehow still feels that she is somehow capable of being president?

I mean, really, if Hitlery can be so stressed out because of a single terrorist attack, how is it, exactly, that she can at the same time feel that she is up to the challenge of being president? And let’s face it, as secretary of state her performance was less than stellar and barely competent. There were no great achievements during her tenure, in fact, I think one can safely argue that our foreign policy was in much worse shape after her being in the position than it was before. And with john Kerry-Heinz coming in as her relief, things have only continued to deteriorate, and at an expedited rate. Further proof of how the incompetent are able to thrive in the era of Barry.

Monday, December 23, 2013


Oddly enough, it seems that Democrats everywhere, from Nancy Pelosi to Chuckie Schumer, continue to insist that Obamacare is actually something that the Democrats will not only be able to run on come next November, but, according to Schumer, at least, Obamacare won’t even be the number one issue in the next election. He claims that, instead, Americans will be far more concerned with who can get the middleclass going again. Pretty brave words, I’d say, especially in light of the fact that just when it seemed that Barry "Almighty's" approval numbers couldn't possibly get any lower, two new polls released just today, Monday, revealed that his signature healthcare legislation is now considered by many Americans as being his biggest disaster.

According to the most recent Gallup poll, more than a third of voters now view Obamacare as Barry’s greatest failure as president. And not surprising, while views on what has become the unaffordable, Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, vary greatly by party affiliation, there does seem to be what is a common thread of discontent that essentially binds together both ends of the political spectrum. That was signaled this past Sunday by Democrat Sen. Joe Manchin, a pretty reliable ally of Barry "Almighty’s", who said that the law appears to be on the verge of "meltdown." Also it’s fifty percent of Republicans believe Obamacare is Barry’s greatest failure, compared with just 25 percent of Democrats. No surprise there!

And to be expected, conservatives can barely hold back their glee. "Democratic senators in red and purple states are going to have a tough time defending their vote for a health-care law that wasn’t ready for prime time," writes National Review columnist Matt Kibbe, referring to the law’s rather embarrassing rollout that was plagued with all manner of persistent technical and public relations issues. And New Hampshire Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, also a Democrat and Obamacare supporter, is already the target of a biting television spot linking her to Barry and hammering her decision to vote for the law. Persistent reports suggest that former Sen. Scott Brown is now preparing a challenge based in part over her weakness on Obamacare.

And then we have what is a new CNN/ORC survey that also supports the notion that the number of those who say they support the healthcare law has pretty much plummeted to a new record low. It’s according to this poll that most Americans predict that their costs for medical care will skyrocket and that a third don’t believe they will be able to keep their doctor. In that poll, CNN reports support for the law is down five points in less than a month, to just 35 percent of those questioned. Opposition for Obamacare is up four points from November, to 62 percent, also according to CNN. So how bad is it? Well, Gallup states, "Even Democrats recognize the negative issues associated with the new healthcare law and its implementation."

Most of the newest opposition comes from women, which is a traditionally a core constituency for both Barry and the Democrats. But apparently, free birth control notwithstanding, sixty percent of women polled do not like the law. "That's bad news for an administration that is reaching out to moms across the country in an effort to make Obamacare a success." CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said. Not getting along with Republicans and Congress (9 percent), a lack of communication (5 percent) and a lack of leadership (4 percent) were listed as the president’s next three biggest failures, according to Gallup. However, none came close to the 36 percent figure looming over Obamacare.

But still, Barry does continue to maintain supporters in his corner, according to Gallup, with 22 percent of those surveyed seeing Obamacare as being his greatest achievement. And, believe it or not, some of those who oppose the law, 15 percent of all respondents, choose to do so because they actually think it’s not liberal enough. So what that means is that half of the public either supports the law or thinks it is not liberal enough. Just 16 percent said they think their family will be better off when most of the law takes effect next year, a number that is essentially unchanged from earlier in the year. And when it comes to cost though, with 63 percent saying they believe their healthcare costs will rise under the law.

So in the face of these numbers, I find it somewhat odd at how it is that Democrats can remain so confident that all of this Obamacare outrage will simply blow over. They seem to see website as being the only problem, choosing to ignore the millions of folks who have now lost their insurance and will continue to do so. They keep repeating, ad nauseam, how once Americans get to know more about Obamacare, they will come to like it. But I’m just not getting the logic behind such a mindset. Because it’s now pretty common knowledge that as people find out more about it, they like it even less. And with the ‘law’ changing on a daily basis, it only gets more confusing. The bottom line here is that I think we all know that there is only ONE way to get rid of it.


Well my friends, here we sit at the precipice. A spot that I would have never imagined in my wildest dreams that we Americans, a supposed freedom loving people, would have ever found ourselves. And, sadly, we have no one to blame but ourselves. We were warned, and repeatedly so, and yet we chose to ignore. And what is truly scary, is the fact that time is rapidly running out if we wish to correct our errors of the past. We must now take matters into our own hands if we hope to possess anything that we can leave to our children upon our passing. Our situation is dire, and there is plenty of blame to go around when determining which political party is more responsible. But let me be very clear, the ultimate responsibility lies with us, "We the People," and it always has. It’s easily to blame the politicians, but doing so is simply passing the buck.

Because we have allowed ourselves to be convinced that we have become totally incapable of handling our own lives. We’ve been told that we now "NEED" the government in order to be able to successfully navigate the various situations that we are made to face during our lives. And we insist upon believing most of what we have been told. It’s now time for us to ask ourselves what our ancestors would have done if faced with a government that has grown far too powerful and far too controlling of the people. Those ancestors who braved the wilderness alone and against the elements and who went on to create this greatest example of human freedom in the history of the world. Or, came from foreign lands, unable to speak the language, and yet went on to make a life for themselves and we proud to call themselves, Americans.

It’s either that or we will end up throwing away that which they worked so hard to bring about. Is that really what we want to do? Have we become that selfish, that self-serving, that…greedy? Has it now become easy for many to look into the eyes of their children knowing full well that what we are demanding today in the way of ‘government benefits’, will have to be paid for by them. Do we think that as they grow older they won’t come to realize that which we essentially did to them, and then come to resent us to some degree? Resent us because we saw ourselves as being more important than them? And even if we presume it to be already too late to take action, we should not, no, we MUST not, allow that to convince us that there is now simply no point. Because there is a point, it’s to safeguard what was handed down to us so that we can then pass it down to our kids.

Sunday, December 22, 2013


In spite of the abysmal unemployment problem that continues to plague the United States, notwithstanding Barry’s claim to have created millions of jobs, Barry, along with any number of other Democrats, have, of late, once again began repeating their mantra regarding the need for raising the minimum wage. This despite the fact that raising the minimum wage makes very little sense on a number of levels, but especially economically. But having said that, we recently saw in New York, Chicago, St. Louis, and Detroit groups of fast food workers, and joined by many that were actually union paid protestors, walk off the job and strike demanding higher wages. Specifically, in Detroit, the Michigan Workers Organizing Committee, a coalition of labor, religious and community organizers is calling for a national minimum wage of $15 an hour. The sin is, they know such a wage is just not practical.

The common denominator for just about everyone who claims to want to raise the minimum wage is the claim that the current government-mandated minimum wage of $7.25 for hourly workers is simply too low for them to make what’s commonly referred by liberals as being a "decent living." Then there are the recipients of low wages, those who claim their value, after years of faithful service to an employer, is much higher than the wages they receive. For them, raising the minimum wage is the only way they can potentially get what should be coming to them, a higher rate of pay. At the end of the day, proponents of raising the minimum wage assert that it is simply a matter of ‘fairness’ to give those at the bottom rungs of the socio-economic ladder a little more. Well, there are any
number of problems problems with the above reasoning, all of which are simply ignored.

In the first place, if you’ve spent "years" working in a position that pays only the minimum wage, then you have much bigger problems that you need to come to grips with. Because contrary to all that you might have heard from most Democrats and nearly all of those in the state-controlled media,
only 2% of wage earners in America actually work for minimum wage. While workers under 25 years of age account for just 20% of hourly paid workers, they make up close to 50% of those earning the federal minimum wage, or less. In other words, very few workers are affected by the minimum wage and those that are, tend to be young, first time wage earners. You know, the teenager working at McDonald's after school. Naturally, older folks with familial responsibilities should find it hard to live making the current minimum wage, but then the system is really not set up for them.

Then there is also the economic problem caused by raising the minimum wage, namely unemployment. Now, I know that there have been studies on both sides of the issue, but it is nothing short of economic fallacy to actually believe that the minimum wage does not bring about additional unemployment as being one of those unintended consequences that we’ve all heard so much about. Basic supply and demand tells us that as the price for a good or service increases, demand decreases. Conversely, as price falls, demand increases. By its very definition, the minimum wage is a price fix for labor above the market rate. Thus, as the minimum wage level is greater than the equilibrium wage or wage level where demand equals supply, fewer workers will be demanded and a consequent surplus of workers will result.

Or to put it another way, unemployment caused by the minimum wage is the difference between the amount of workers demanded and the amount supplied at the minimum wage level. To decrease unemployment, or that which is defined as being a surplus of workers, wages have to drop, just like the price of a good, to reach the clearing equilibrium price. Naturally, this is impossible under federal and state laws, so unemployment persists until the minimum wage is overtaken by the market wage rate. Look, Democrats understand that what they are demanding is in no way economically feasible. But then their real rationale behind calling for raising the minimum wage has nothing to do with those at the bottom of economic ladder. They simply see it as a tool they can use to do further damage to our free-market system and replace with a much "fairer" system that has the government being in charge.

Democrats have long been at war with American capitalism.  Being socialist, or as some like to call themselves, progressives, they have what is a natural dislike for such things as profit, success and a system that actually rewards an individual. or group of individuals, who can come up with a good or service that other people might want to purchase.  The wonderful thing about this country is that we are all free to work toward that end. The thing is, that some of us are able to succeed in that endeavor, but many more are not.  But those of us who are not, more often than not, usually end up being employed by those folks who are.  They are the small businessmen in this country who create the majority of jobs in this country.  And commonsense tells us, or it should, that if forced to pay a %15, or even $9, minimum wage, they would be able to then hire fewer workers, thus driving up unemployment.


Saturday, December 21, 2013


I gotta tell ya, I'm about this close to giving up entirely on the American people. We are now at a time when we are being faced with what must be considered as being the most dire situation, a $17 Trillion debt, that we have ever been made to face in our history. And make no mistake, it’s a situation that we have essentially brought on ourselves. We hear everyday from those who tell us that this simply can’t go on and that at some point our entire economic and financial structure is going to come crashing down on us. But what is it that we choose to do instead of actually trying to fix it?

Well, apparently, what we’re willing to do about it is nothing more than to ride it out and right into the ground, because where things are headed. We seem to be perfectly comfortable with the fact that we’re doing nothing more than to live off the money that our children have yet to make. We’ve decided that what’s best for us is to simply throw our kids overboard without the benefit of a life preserver. Because instead of believing those who are doing their best to warn us, we would rather believe those who continue to tell us that everything is just fine. Believe me when I say ignorance is not bliss.

But we’re, apparently, too stupid to see that those who are telling us that everything is fine and that there is no need for us to worry, have their own motives for doing so, none of which have anything to do with us or the country. Those folks, and I include Barry and just about every other Democrat in that crowd, have spent decades trying to engineer just the collapse that they are now on the verge of turning into a reality. And I’m not naïve enough to think that they haven’t had plenty of Republican accomplices along the way, because there have been plenty of those.

But our fate is in our hands. However, we are rapidly running out of time to exercise any options. To see what can be the only outcome possible regarding the current path we are on, one need look no further than Detroit, or nearly any other big city where Democrats rule. Sadly, we’ve allowed things to go on for so long now that anything that can be considered as being a true remedy to our current situation is going to be painful. But painful or not, we’re going to have to do what, I would hope in our hearts, we all know has to be done. And I can understand the fact that people are afraid, but we must act.

And by acting I mean that we need to start listening, I mean really listening, to those who profess that we have absolutely nothing to worry about. And we need to seek information outside of those sources that we typically use, if any, to gain information. We need to use ourselves as being the example for what’s going on in the country. Most folks live on a budget, they don’t spend their money willy-nilly. This country has not had a budget in 6 years. You can’t spend more money than you bring in, but that has become the standard operating procedure for country, more so in recent years.

And what we are going to have to do, and this might be the most difficult of all, is to put party politics aside. What we must do is to look past whether a candidate has a D or an R after their name. We need to focus on what it is that they intend to do about the fact that we, as a country, are simply spending too much money. And we need to be very wary of them if they insist upon being one of the naysayers who smile and then tell us that we have nothing to worry about. In today’s political environment it has become very difficult, if not impossible, to trust anyone in politics, but we may be forced to.

But having said that, we’re going to have to change how we look at career politicians. Folks talk about term limits without considering the fact that if, when voting, Americans chose to put the overall condition of the country as their top priority, those who seem to be so determined to destroy it would be voted out, no matter how long they had been in office.  We the People have the power, the question is will we ever choose to use it? Our survival as a free nation rests squarely in our hands. We can save ourselves, but the clock is running and we have very little time left. Either we act now, or we die.

And just one last thing here, if we think that we can rely on those in our state-controlled media to tell us the truth, then we’re only fooling ourselves. Because it’s just not going to happen. It’s pretty common knowledge, or at least it should be, that the majority of print and broadcast media is very firmly in the Democrat camp, and can be counted to reliably spew nothing more than the Democrat position on any issue. And anyone who disagrees with them is portrayed as being an extremist. We can no longer afford to fall for such nonsense. It’s simply no longer a viable option. It just isn’t.

Friday, December 20, 2013


Man, it must be stressful being our Despot-in-Chief. Let’s face it, how else can you explain the fact that Barry "Almighty", who departed today on yet another taxpayer funded vacation in Hawaii, and one that will reportedly last until Jan. 5, took more annual vacation days on average in his first term than your average private-sector worker gets after 20 years on the job. Barry took an average of 21.5 vacations days per year in his first four years as our fearless leader. By comparison, private-industry workers here in the good old U. S. of A. who have at least 20 years on the job get an average of 19 days of paid vacation per year. And, by the way, they don’t have the luxury of having the U.S. taxpayers to pick up the tab. They have to pay for their vacations.

The Government Accountability Institute (GAI), headed up by some guy named Peter Schweizer (who is also a research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University), published a study of Barry’s calendar on April 28, 2013 that included an accounting of the vacation days Barry took from his coronation on January 20, 2009 through March of this year. According to GAI’s accounting, Barry took 21 vacation days in 2009, 34 in 2010, 20 in 2011, 7 during his re-election-campaign year of 2012, and 4 in January 2013 before his second inauguration on Jan. 20, 2013 marked the end of his first four years in office. The 86 cumulative vacation days that Barry took in his first four years in office worked out to an average of 21.5 days per year.

Even if you do not count the four days of vacation Barry took in early January 2013, before the end of his fourth year in office on January 20, 2013, the 82 days of cumulative vacation he took in his first four calendar years in office equals an average of 20.5 per year, which is still more than the 19 paid vacation days per year that the average private-industry worker gets after 20 years on the job. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, workers in private industry get an average of 10 days of paid vacation after they have been at the job one year; they get an average of 14 days paid vacation after they have been at the job five years; 17 days after they have been at the job 10 years; and 19 days after they have been at the job 20 years.

It would difficult for anyone to deny the fact Barry is easily the most expensive president in U.S. history. For example, in his first three years, Barry and family enjoyed 16 vacations. It was in 2010 that their trip to Hawaii cost American taxpayers $1.5 million. And I’m sure we all remember when Barry and his Mrs. enjoyed a "date night" in New York City for about $240,000. In 2011 alone, Barry’s travel expenses total $1.4 Billion, in comparison to, say, the royal family of England whose travel cost was only $57.8 Million. In addition, there was the Obamas' Christmas holiday that year, for 17 days, and that totaled $4 Million. And then we had Barry’s weeklong family vacation to Africa this past year, which exceeded $100 million.

If there is one thing that Barry has demonstrated a knack for, it’s the talent he has for wasting other people’s money. And while most hardworking Americans have a difficult time remembering the last time they were able to take their family on a nice vacation, Barry, would have no such problem. But hey, they only have the stress of having to deal with the pressures brought about by they’re trying to provide for their family. You know, like being able to put food on the table, putting their kid, or kids, through college and making sure they can pay their bills. Now Barry, on the other hand, why, the stress that he must deal with on a daily basis, by comparison, literally demands that he take not only numerous vacations, but also very costly ones.


Ex-president, and the man who seems to look at, with some level of pride, the fact that he joins Andrew Johnson, another Democrat, on the list of impeached presidents, 'Slick Willie' Clinton, claims that if U.S. lawmakers realized the economic impact of having the country’s population growth coming to a halt, it would energize immigration reform, "because it’s the only way to keep our country growing." This is but the latest reason to be floated by a Democrat and for no other reason than the desire of the Democrat Party to create millions of new voters.

But anyway, the 'Slickmeister' made his rather idiotic comments while discussing immigration reform earlier this month on something called the "America with Jorge Ramos" program. "I think that we're trying to pass immigration reform. The country needs it. If – I wish that all these members of Congress who oppose immigration reform, and who feel threatened by it, had been with me on my recent trip to Asia," "BJ" said. This guy would make a good used car salesman. He’ll say absolutely anything if he thinks there’s a chance that it will be believed.

Then old Slick went on to say, "And they – and Japan and China where they're worried about the population growth just coming to a halt. And what it's going to do to them economically," Clinton continued. "And I think it would give a lot more energy to immigration reform in America. The – we're going to have to do it, because it's the only way to keep our country growing. And the sooner we do it, the better." His entire argument makes absolutely no sense, unless, of course, you’re either a Democrat or a RINO. Then it makes complete sense.

But look, at a time when we have a ‘real unemployment’ rate that is well into double-digits, and even much worse for minorities, and the fact that over 11 Million people have now left the nation’s workforce, most because they couldn’t find a job, in just the last 5 years, I simply don’t see the logic behind his silly argument. And also when you take into account the fact that over 1,200 abortions occur in this country every single day and nearly 57 Million have taken place since 1973, and his argument becomes even more nonsensical.

Population growth, as it relates to our economy is a non-issue. We have more than enough people in this country without suddenly granting amnesty to the millions who are here "ILLEGALLY". As I said, the ONLY reason Democrats favor what’s commonly referred to as ‘comprehensive immigration reform’ is because they are quite confident in the fact that the vast majority of those illegal immigrants will be only too happy, once being declared legal citizens, to troop off to the polls and vote for Democrats who will likely return that favor by ensuring the gravy train continues to roll.

Thursday, December 19, 2013


Just for the record, and I’m sure it will come as no surprise to anyone who happens to be a frequent visitor to these pages, I am one of those who wholeheartedly agrees with those now calling for a boycott of the cable network A&E. One of those also calling for a boycott is conservative political activist Ralph Reed, who on Thursday called on the 800,000 members of the Faith & Freedom Coalition to boycott the A&E Network until "Duck Dynasty" patriarch Phil Robertson is reinstated to the program. "Phil Robertson’s suspension is a brazen act of anti-Christian bigotry," Reed, the coalition's chairman, said in a statement.

Robertson was placed on indefinite suspension by the cable network on Wednesday after he compared homosexuality to having sex with animals in a published magazine interview. But Robertson has since received broad support from conservatives and Republican politicians ranging from former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal. In the interview, Robertson "never represented his views and values as being those of A&E or the producers of 'Duck Dynasty,' " Reed said. "He was specifically asked about his views on sin and God’s best plan for humanity, and he answered honestly, forthrightly, even directly."

"His comments were based on his faith in God, not animus directed at gays or others who might be different from him," Reed added. He went on to say, "To suspend Robertson under these circumstances is sanctioning him for holding Christian faith and beliefs — and it is a sign of a broader intolerance, bigotry, and discrimination against Christians that has no place in America."  The coalition's boycott efforts will also include telephone calls, email blasts, mailings, and text messages. Members are urged to write A&E executives to protest the suspension. Reed said that he, too, wrote network officials over the matter. There is also a petition supporters can sign.

"Sadly, A&E is in danger of destroying one of the most-valuable franchises in the television industry and offending 40 million Americans in the process," Reed said. "If its management is smart, they will move swiftly to repair the damage before it is too late." So I guess we’ll see just what the network’s priority is, is it kowtowing to a bunch of gays or is it supporting a man’s freedom of speech, guaranteed by our Constitution? My own personal opinion on the topic that got Phil into such hot water, is that I find the act of one man having sex with another, by way of the orifice through which we all rid our bodies of solid waste, to be more than a bit disgusting.

But I’ll tell you something else. How this family itself treats this whole thing, is also likely to have an impact on the shows popularity. Because a lot of their popularity comes from what is their devotion to family. But as they say, fame has a funny way of effecting people, and I’m sure while out doing a little Christmas shopping we’ve all seen the Robertson boys on everything from coffee mugs to door mats to greeting cards. So I’m just curious if these folks are what they seem, or if they have now become smitten with fame and all the money that goes with it, and might therefore be willing to allow the network to get away with treating Phil the way they have.

And I’m here to tell you that if I was Willie Robertson I would have already told those A&E bigwigs that either Phil is allowed to make a very hasty return, or folks will have to start tuning in to another network if they wish to watch the show. And I’ll tell you something else, I would be very disappointed in the fact that if in the end this family is not what they profess themselves to be and are, in reality, nothing more than a bunch greedy opportunists. So I’m not only curious to see what sort of action A&E is going to take, but I’m just as curious to see just how far the Robertson clan is willing to go in their effort to expedite Phil’s return.


So at this particular point in time, and being not sure if he’s delusional, exhibiting what can only be said to be a rather severe case of wishful thinking, or if, perhaps, he has been recently diagnosed with Dementia, ‘Dingy Harry Reid, the scumbag Democrat who happens to be the leader of the U.S. Senate, is exuding an uncommon level of confidence regarding the 2014 elections. But no matter what the case, he actually makes the claim that Obamacare will undoubtedly prove to be a very big benefit on which Senate Democrats will be able to run. He seems to be under the impression that it will be something that the Democrats can very proudly brag about. Now if you’re one of those folks who happen to possess even the slightest amount of intelligence, I would think that you would have to be asking yourself, "What the Hell is he talking about?" I guess he figures that if he says it enough, people will believe it.

Reid told ‘The Hill’, "I think for sure it will be a net positive. I think so by then for sure." ‘Dingy’ was delighted that Phil Schiliro, a senior White House adviser now in charge of implementing Obamacare, met with Senate Democratic incumbents in danger of losing their seats in 2014. He gushed, "Phil Schiliro ... came up today and had a good meeting with my 2014ers. The discussions were led by [Senate Majority Whip Dick] Durbin [(D-IL)] and it was an extremely positive, good meeting. That’s what we’ve needed from the White House for some time now, is someone to be able to reach out to." He noted that White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough is a "good person but he’s overwhelmed with work, and he did not have the capacity, which is time, to do the hands-on work that is necessary with my senators." ‘Dingy’ has quite obviously gone round the proverbial bend.

‘Dingy’ criticized senior White House staffers for their lack of answers when the Obamacare rollout fizzled. "There was a period of time there where there were no questions that were answered because they were so overwhelmed with trying to get that program fixed… The only thing I want from the White House in 2014 is for them to be available to my senators who are running for reelection." And then, whether he was trying to convince himself, or others, old ‘Dingy’ expressed that he was rather ‘hopeful’ when it came to the topic of discussing Barry "Almighty’s" rather low poll numbers. He stated loftily, "His numbers are going to go up. It's a question of what's gone on with this healthcare thing. It will get better. I've seen this over the years. You'd be surprised what three months' difference makes." Reid also has big plans of his own, saying of 2014:

"We’re going to come back and we’re going to do unemployment. I’m pleased that as I understand it that [Sen.] Jack Reed [D-RI] and [Sen.] Dean Heller [R-NV] are going to be the people who are going to move the bill forward. Then we’re going to do flood insurance. Then we’re going to do minimum wage. Those things are not going to take care of the income inequality although it would help significantly. And then we have [to] process important nominations."

‘Dingy’ sounded very confident in that he doesn’t think that the Republicans will get the six Senate seats that they need to gain a majority in 2014. He sounded very much like a man who intends to stay in his current position well into the next decade. "I don’t want to do it more than eight more years," he said of serving as his party’s leader in the Senate, in another interview with CQ Roll Call. ‘Dingy’ will be up for re-election in 2016 and has said he intends to run again. He reiterated that intention again on Wednesday and indicated he’s looking forward to serving another full term running the Senate. If he and Democrats are able to hold onto power that long, ‘Dingy’ would be the leader for 16 years, matching the current record set by the legendary Montana Democrat Mike Mansfield. ‘Dingy’ celebrated his 74th birthday earlier this month, meaning he would be into his 80s by the time his next term would end at the beginning of 2023.

As long as he remains leader, ‘Dingy’ said he would not rule out more changes to Senate rules and precedents as a way to impose further limits on debate and filibusters. As those who have been paying attention are already aware, it was just last month that ‘Dingy’ used the "nuclear option" to eliminate filibusters on most nominations. While attempting to make it sound that he is in no way eager to make more changes in the immediate future, he wouldn’t rule it out either. "I hope we don’t, and I hope it’s not necessary," ‘Dingy’ said, noting the increase in the number of filibusters over the past several decades. "I’m not precluding anything. It’s just according to how we get along here." Right, as long as Barry gets what he wants, I guess there won’t be more changes. If it were the Republicans doing that which ’Dingy’ has done, and has made clear he is willing to do again, Democrats would be screaming bloody-murder.

‘Dingy Harry’ is nothing more than a walking, talking piece of shit. But I tell ya, and I gotta be honest here in that I’m not a big fan of the guy on our side, Mitch McConnell, who would assume the position of leader of the Senate, should our side actually gain the majority come next November. I’m afraid the only upside to that would be the fact that ‘Dingy’ would no longer have the job. If I was confident that McConnell would act just a bit more like ‘Dingy’, in some instances, and a little less as the gutless wimp that he is, I might be more optimistic. Of course, having said that, I’m also hoping that his primary challenger, Mr. Matt Bevin, can somehow win, but I doubt we’ll be so lucky. That will most assuredly be an uphill battle as McConnell can call in many favors. So I guess the best we can hope for is to work toward achieving a Republican majority in Congress, and keep our fingers crossed that McConnell will somehow grow a spine.