Friday, January 31, 2014


Well it would seem that Henry Waxman, whose primary job, before being able to finally convince folks in a California congressional district to send him off to Congress, was as an exhibit in a traveling carnival’s freakshow, is now finally retiring from the House of Representatives after 40 long years. That he was able to serve for that long kinda makes you wonder about the mental state of those folks who saw fit to keep re-electing this creep.

But anyway, at least now he’s finally leaving, and all I have to say is good riddance to this clown who was one of the more liberal members of Congress. The guy was nothing short of a complete crackpot who favored such issues as climate change and touted all of the supposed benefits of Obamacare. And he was quite successful in his efforts to increase the size, scope and power of the federal government during his tenure, in fact more so than many others.

Over his too long career, Waxman demonstrated himself to be one of the most progressive/communist screwballs to ever come along. And I really can’t that I’m sorry to see him go, but I am sad that I still have to wait until the end of this congressional session. "Forty years have gone by very quickly. I have a great deal of satisfaction in our legislative accomplishments. There’s obviously more to be done," Waxman said in an interview.

Well I’ll tell ya what, forty years may have gone by too quickly for him, but it hasn’t gone by nearly quickly enough for those of us who have been forced to watch as this brain-dead creep and his many Democrat compatriots busied themselves in an effort to completely destroy our country. And I’m sure Waxman, being the socialist that he is, is very proud of the fact that he was able to have played a part in the destruction of America.

And rumor now has it that it’s none other than that resident slut of the Democrat Party, Sandra Fluke, who is said to be contemplating running for the seat that Waxman will vacate and none-too-soon. And I’m quite sure that she’ll have little trouble convincing the Democrats who reside in that particular district that she possesses all of the necessary, and even somewhat unique, qualifications. After all, she’s probably slept with a good many of them.

So anyway, while I suppose old Henry will be sorely missed by those who, like him, hate this country and want to turn it into even more of a haven for the perpetual moochers among us, those of us who still love it and resent what assholes like him have been able to accomplish through their continuing efforts to remake America, his leaving could not have come soon enough. I’m glad he’s leaving, and I hope his retirement is a very short one.

Thursday, January 30, 2014


Do you ever get the feeling that our less-than-stellar House leadership may actually be trying to sabotage whatever chance it is that the Republicans may have to takeover the Senate this year? Because I gotta tell ya, the thought certainly has crossed my mind on more than one occasion. And apparently I’m not alone of that opinion. Because, you see, Sen. Ted Cruz also seems to think that the House GOP leadership’s renewed push, just this week, to grant amnesty to illegal aliens could very well destroy the Republican Party’s chance to retake the Senate in 2014. So at what point do we at least try to yank Boehner up by his short hairs?

Cruz questioned how establishment Republicans, who have unilaterally caved to Democrats on everything from the farm bill to the budget to the debt ceiling and more, could possibly think that amnesty is in any way a good idea at this particular time. Cruz said in a statement provided exclusively to Breitbart News on Thursday, "Right now, Republican leadership in both chambers is aggressively urging members to stand down on virtually every front: on the continuing resolution, on the budget, on the farm bill, on the debt ceiling." And he said they may or may not be right, but their argument is that we should focus exclusively on Obamacare and on jobs.

He went on to ask, why on earth, then, would the House choose now to dive into immigration? It makes no sense, unless you're Harry Reid. Republicans seem poised for an historic election this fall--a conservative tidal wave much like 2010. The biggest thing we could do to mess that up would be if the House passed an amnesty bill--or any bill perceived as an amnesty bill—that would demoralize voters going into November. And he’s exactly right, IT MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE! And yet, all we continue to hear from those geniuses over in the House is how we need to get our immigration situation fixed and fixed as soon as we can.

He said that rather than responding to the big-money lobbying on K Street, what we need to do is to make sure working-class Americans show up by the millions to reject Obamacare and vote out the Democrats. Amnesty will only ensure that they stay home. Cruz added that granting amnesty now--while wrong in his opinion at any time--would ensure that ‘Dingy Harry’ Reid would remain in his position after the 2014 elections. I mean it kind of makes you wonder if maybe Boehner & Co. might actually be on the payroll of the Democrat National Committee or the White House, or maybe even both! It’s another example of their political incompetence!

Sen. Cruz said, "Amnesty is wrong in any circumstance, and if we are going to fix our broken immigration system--and we should--it makes much more sense to do so next year, so that we are negotiating a responsible solution with a Republican Senate majority rather than with Chuck Schumer." And he went on to say, "Anyone pushing an amnesty bill right now should go ahead and put a 'Harry Reid for Majority Leader' bumper sticker on their car, because that will be the likely effect if Republicans refuse to listen to the American people and foolishly change the subject from Obamacare to amnesty." And he’s 100 percent right!

Why is it that we seemed to be cursed with having our most inept politicians in positions of leadership at this very crucial time? Crucial for both our country and our party. It’s just all so frustrating. If these guys in the House insist on moving forward with this insanity then, and as much as I hate to say this, maybe it is time to simply cut our loses and send the Republican Party to the bone-yard, and to then focus all our energy on creating a new political party and one that would be a true conservative alternative to the Democrat/Communist Party. Even with all the risks involved in doing that, we’re simply going nowhere fast under the current party structure.


RINO Paul Ryan has become one of those members in the House leading the charge for tackling immigration ‘before’ the election, and confirmed, on Wednesday, that the Republicans are now looking to give illegal immigrants legal status right away, with the chance for a green card, and citizenship, down the line. While there have been rumors that something like this has been in the works for some time, Ryan is the first member of the GOP leadership to lay out the Republican vision publicly. But I just don’t see the need to rush.

Apparently we can’t do something as simple as enforcing current law when it comes to how best to handle the already more than 11 million people already in the U.S. illegally. And most House Republicans oppose the Senate approach, whereby all qualified illegal immigrants would first win legal status, then have the chance to apply for legal permanent residence (also known as a green card), and then for citizenship. House Republicans call that a "special path to citizenship" that is unavailable to those who followed the law.

Many House Republicans have been talking since last summer about a different approach, a "piecemeal approach", and ‘RINO’ Ryan laid it out on Wednesday in an interview with MSNBC’s "The Daily Rundown." According to Ryan, first, illegal immigrants would be offered a "probationary" status, allowing them to work while the government tightened border security and interior enforcement. Officials have explained that this would allow people to work legally while they wait for permanent legal status.

‘RINO’ Ryan said it would make sure that the Barry went ahead with the enforcement provisions. "We want to make sure that we write a law that he can’t avoid," Ryan said. After that, they would be eligible for a "regular work permit," he said. "If those things are met, you satisfy the terms of your probation, you’re not on welfare, you pay a fine, you learn English and civics, and the border’s been secured and interior enforcement independently verified, then you can get a regular work permit," he said.

At that point, this group could apply for green cards using the same system available to any newcomer. "That’s the kind of process we envision," he said. "Which is not a special pathway to citizenship and it’s not going to automatically in any way give an undocumented immigrant citizenship." Some Democrats and immigration advocates have signaled that they could accept this approach, depending on the details. It’s unclear whether enough Republicans would feel the same. But let’s face it all that would really be needed is 34 RINOs.

So, all that ‘Team RINO’ really needs to succeed in getting immigration ’reform’ through the House is to convince at mere 31 of their fellow RINOs to join with them and what will most assuredly be all of the Democrats, in voting to move the measure on to the Senate. That should be easy enough. And so with our joke of a ‘leadership team’ now comprised solely of RINOs, I don’t hold out much hope that what we will come to see legislation billed as ‘comprehensive immigration’ being anything other than exactly what the Democrats want.


I can only assume that brain-dead ‘Dumb-as-Dirt’ Sheila Jackson Lee must fancy herself as being on the same level as Barry "Almighty" when it comes to being some sort of a ‘Constitutional Expert". And I base that assumption of mine on the fact that in her referencing Barry’s pledge, during his State of the Union speech, to advance his agenda on climate change and the minimum wage by executive order, old Sheila said "executive orders are legal" and that he is "acting on behalf of the American people." Acting on behalf of the American people? Since when? And why is it that these executive orders are considered as being legal only when done by corrupt Democrats?

On the very night of Barry’s less than impressive speech, Sheila was asked, "What about the Republicans criticizing the use of executive orders when it comes to climate change and minimum wage – his use of executive orders?" The brilliant Sheila said, "As I was saying, [the address] was appealing to the needs of the American people. And, frankly, if the American people are crying out for relief - they’re crying out for unemployment insurance, or climate change or the Affordable Care Act and the president is mandated to do what he can on behalf of the American people – executive orders are legal and they will be addressed by the legal system if they are overreaching.

Then this escapee from some Texas mental ward actually had the gall to say, "Frankly, the president knows his confines." And she added, "He knows the Constitution." No, Sheila, I don’t think so. Or if he does supposedly ‘know it,’ he most certainly does not respect it. And of course she went on to say, "We know what is right on behalf of the people of the United States." Then added, "And he has a right to use executive order." And this reject from a carnival sideshow then proceeded to say, "My friends in the Congress who are Republicans always say as Democrats, ‘Let’s work together,’" Then said, "If we can work together and pass legislation, the president has already said he will sign it."

Frankly, I just don’t hear all that many Americans crying out for relief from climate change. After all, it doesn’t make much sense to need relief from that which most true scientists have now proven simply does not exist. And when it comes to the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, what most people are crying out for, is for it to go away. But can we expect to see an executive order that does that? I don’t think so. And let’s face it, it makes absolutely no sense to claim that your desire is to create jobs when, at the same time, you’re out there advocating for raising the minimum wage. Because all that will do is to further limit the already miniscule number of available jobs.

Sheila said Congress should put people back to work. "Let’s create job legislation that puts people back to work," she said. "Technology. Energy. Putting people back to work rather than criticizing work on behalf of the American people. Let’s come together and do work on behalf of the American people." I guess Sheila must be as blind as she is stupid since she seems to be completely oblivious to the fact that the House has already sent roughly 30 jobs bills to the DEMOCRAT controlled Senate where they promptly died. But none of that matters because the Democrats aren’t really serious about jobs anyway. After all, if a person has a job they are less likely to ‘NEED’ government ‘assistance.’

Wednesday, January 29, 2014


Ya know, what a pathetic bunch of hypocrites these damn Democrats are. But then I suppose I’m not telling you folks anything that you don’t already know. What I’m talking about here in this particular instance, though, has to do with one Ms. Debbie Wizzerman Schulz. You see, despite criticism of Barry’s pledge that he plans on using his pen and his phone to advance his socialist agenda, regardless of Congress, Ms. Wizzerman Schultz said that Barry "should use his executive authority." I wonder, though, if she would have felt the same way about, say, George W. Bush making the same kinda threat? Call me crazy, but I don’t think so.

Anyway, it was at the U.S. Capitol last night following Barry’s rather lackluster State of the Union speech that Wizzerman Schultz was asked, "What do you think of the criticism about using executive order(s) to get things done on climate change or [the] minimum wage?" And in making a reference to Republicans, everyone’s favorite crackpot bitch from here in Florida said, "Well, the ball’s in their court." And then she went on to say, "I mean, they have an opportunity to work with him." But why would they ‘want’ to work with Barry on ‘climate change’, that doesn’t exist and raising the minimum wage that’s a proven job killer?

Wizzerman Schultz, who also happens to be the chairmoron of the Democrat National Committee, said, "The president made that very clear." And again she went on to say, "We want to make sure that we’re working together and deepen our impact by passing legislation, but there are urgent challenges that we [are] facing and the president is going to have to use his executive authority." She added, "And I agree that he should use his executive authority because if the Republicans continue to try to be obstructionists, then we’ve got to make progress." Why is it that Democrats can never be accused of being obstructionists?

It was during his address that Barry said he would use his "authority" to advance his agenda, including increasing government control over federal land. He said, "And while we’re at it, I’ll use my authority to protect more of our pristine federal lands for future generations." And in referencing his executive order to increase the minimum wage for federally-contracted workers, he said, "To every mayor, governor, and state legislator in America, I say, you don’t have to wait for Congress to act; Americans will support you if you take this on." Adding, "And as a chief executive, I intend to lead by example." He doesn’t know how to lead!

The fact that so many of the American people continue to fall for this kind of ideological tripe is reason number one why I have pretty much given up on them as far as they’re ever being able to figure things out. I suppose I could blame it on their ignorance, but I think it’s more purposeful than that. Because what they’ve done here is to put their desire to collect a government check above the survival of the country. Personally, I think that’s kind of sad that they have allowed themselves to be reduced to being parasited. It’s just so un-American. But hey, what they’ve now allowed Barry and his band of Democrats to make them into is, Europeans.


Ah yes, he who sees himself as being on a much higher plain than those of us who are but mere mortals, Barry the Beneficent, made yet another journey down from his retreat, to spend a brief moment in time with those who he and Queen MeeShell view as being the little people. And if I understand things correctly, in so doing, Barry made it quite clear that he, as someone so much wiser than the rest of us, sees absolutely no reason why he must abide by the limitations placed upon him, as president, by our Constitution.

Personally, I just couldn’t bring myself to watch this rather idiotic display of blatant dishonesty last night, mainly out of fear of losing a rather expensive dinner. However, most of the honest morning-after-the-night-before commentary regarding Barry’s fifth State of the Union, would seem to indicate that I really didn’t miss anything. By most accounts there was no, or very little, there, there. It was more about Barry’s portrayal of what he apparently views as being a government of one, with himself being ‘The One."

Supposedly Barry promised to clear red tape away from highway projects that are actually stalled because of the fact that there’s no money for them, not because any governmental red tape stands in the way. And we all know that Barry intends to order a higher minimum wage for federal workers under contract, which affects no one now and not many later. And as much as he might wish, going it alone without Congress first making a law, just doesn’t go as far as Barry made it sound last night in his silly little speech.

Anyway, so what follows here is but a very brief look at some of the facts and the corresponding political circumstances behind Barry’s claims:

What Barry said: "Today, after four years of economic growth, corporate profits and stock prices have rarely been higher, and those at the top have never done better. But average wages have barely budged. Inequality has deepened. Upward mobility has stalled."

And what the facts are: The most recent evidence suggests that mobility hasn’t worsened. A team of economists led by Harvard’s Raj Chetty released a study last week that found the United States isn’t any less socially mobile than it was in the 1970s. Looking at children born between 1971 and 1993, the economists found that the odds of a child born in the poorest 20 percent of families making it into the top 20 percent hasn’t changed.

What Barry said: "We’ll need Congress to protect more than 3 million jobs by finishing transportation and waterways bills this summer. But I will act on my own to slash bureaucracy and streamline the permitting process for key projects, so we can get more construction workers on the job as fast as possible."

And what the fact are: Cutting rules and regulations doesn’t address what’s holding up most transportation projects, which is lack of money. The federal Highway Trust Fund will run out of money in August without action. To finance infrastructure projects, Barry wants Congress to raise taxes on businesses that keep profits or jobs overseas, but that idea has been a political nonstarter.

The number of projects affected by the administration’s efforts to cut red tape is relatively small, said Joshua Schank, president and CEO of the Eno Center for Transportation, a think tank. "The reason most of these projects are delayed is they don’t have enough money. So it’s great that you are expediting the review process, but the review process isn’t the problem. The problem is we don’t have enough money to invest in our infrastructure in the first place."

What Barry said: "In the coming weeks, I will issue an executive order requiring federal contractors to pay their federally funded employees a fair wage of at least $10.10 an hour, because if you cook our troops’ meals or wash their dishes, you shouldn’t have to live in poverty."

And what the facts are: This would be a hefty boost in the federal minimum wage, now $7.25, but not many would see it. Most employees of federal contractors already earn more than $10.10. About 10 percent of those workers, roughly 200,000, might be covered by the higher minimum wage. But there are several wrinkles. The increase would not take effect until 2015 at the earliest and it doesn’t apply to existing federal contracts, only new ones. Renewed contracts also will be exempt from Barry’s order unless other terms of the agreement change, such as the type of work or number of employees needed.

The fact-checking website Politifact also gave Barry "Almighty" two "true" ratings and a "half-true" last night:

Firstly, the site reports that Barry was telling the truth when he argued "average wages have barely budged." Citing federal statistics, "the average annual wage increased by 8.3 percent between 2008 and 2012. … "However, this raw wage data doesn’t take into account inflation — something economists like to consider when determining whether a wage ‘barely budged.’" Some will surely argue the debate isn’t as settled as the president claims.

Secondly, Politifact also gave Barry a "true" rating on his claim that "more oil [has been] produced at home than we buy from the rest of the world – the first time that’s happened in nearly 20 years." But what Barry conveniently left out is the fact that all, or nearly all, of the oil being produced is from private lands.

Barry’s claim about reducing carbon pollution received only a "half-true" rating. "Over the past eight years, the United States has reduced our total carbon pollution more than any other nation on Earth," Barry boasted. But if the cuts are measured by percentage, his claim doesn’t hold water, at least according to Politifact.

So at the end of the day I feel quite comfortable in that I missed very little last night by choosing not to tune in to watch our Liar-in-Chief. As is usually the case with Barry’s speeches, the speech last night was said to be extremely short on substance while including all manner of his typically grandiose, and rather nonsensical, rhetoric. But again, I am relying on the impressions, and the critiques, of others whose job it is to watch, suffering through such things as tis, and to then offer their opinion. Thankfully, that is not my job.

Tuesday, January 28, 2014


I’ve never really been much of an O’Reilly fan, the man is nothing but an ego on steroids. So when I heard that he was going to be doing another interview with Barry "Almighty", the only guy who thinks more of himself than does Mr. O’Reilly, I said big deal. O’Reilly may take some level of pride in his little "No Spin Zone" but all he really does is to put out his own brand of spin. And he rather enjoys bragging about ‘his’ books, but I often wonder just how much of the writing is actually done by him.

Anyway, so once again we will apparently be able to tune in and watch as O’Reilly, the egotistical jerk, interviews Barry, the arrogant, lying sack of shit. And in sounding his ever his pompous self, O'Reilly says he believes that he was picked to grill Barry "Almighty" during the Super Bowl pregame show this Sunday because his interview style is more "controversial" than most television news anchors or hosts and will likely attract more viewers. So we’re supposed to believe that Bill’s gonna be grilling Barry?

O’Reilly said, "You'd assume there would be five or six of us that could conduct an interview like that in live-time. They chose me to do it because they understand that the last time we did it we had almost 20 million people watching it. You're going to get a little bit of bump with a controversial guy like me, and they know that." I guess Bill puts himself in a rather elite group of five or six ‘journalists’? Ya right, a controversial guy like him. Give me a break. If I really thought it was going to be a serious interview, I might tune in.

You may remember, or may not, that O’Reilly also interviewed Barry before the 2011 Super Bowl and said at the time that he felt that Barry came across as being rather "thin-skinned." But he said he has a "respectful" relationship with Barry. "I've interviewed him twice: once on the campaign and then once at Super Bowl. I really think he believes I give him a fair shake. Now that does not mean we're in his camp, but we're not trying to deliberately hurt him. We do want to hear his side," O'Reilly said. We know his side!

O’Reilly added, "I think that's the key thing. I'm genuinely interested in hearing his response to my questions. I'm not trying to make him look good or bad. I think he respects that; I hope he does. I run into him and we've always had an amicable relationship." I really have no interest in hearing his questions, because I doubt that they will be all that challenging, or in hearing how Barry chooses to respond, because I’m quite sure will be quite evasive. I’d rather see him challenged on why it is that he seems to be bent on destroying the country.

O'Reilly, who also interviewed President George W. Bush in the past, has declined to say which president gives a better interview but said he believes it's important to show a certain level of respect for the office of the presidency. "I've interviewed four presidents, and they know how much I respect the office and so they know when they tell me, 'Hey, that's it,' I'd move on." Respecting the office is all well and good, but lets face it, Barry has done more to tarnish the office than even ‘Slick Willie’ Clinton did.

What I would do, were I the one interviewing Barry, would be to treat the office with as much respect as he has shown to it. Which is really not much. He has disgraced the office on more occasions than I care to count. So as far as I’m concerned he is not deserving of much respect, if any. I have a difficult time respecting a man who is nothing but a serial liar and is someone who seems to be so determined in his efforts to destroy my country. He needs to be confronted, and I doubt old Billy will do that.


I have always prided myself on being a ‘the-glass-is-half-full’ kinda guy. But I must admit that, especially over the course the last several years, that has become exceedingly more difficult. And now with all of this talk swirling around about how Hitlery Clinton being perceived as the anointed successor to Barry, I find myself getting even more depressed. And so it would seem that I may have now arrived at the very same place where many of those with whom I routinely associate, have been for quite some time now. For I have come to the stark realization that America is really already dead, and that many Americans can’t bring themselves to admit it.

And the fact that I have children, and will someday, no doubt, have grandchildren, makes this admission all the more painful for me. But while it pains me to admit it, there’s simply no longer any point in denying it. And the fact that I will be leaving behind to my children and their children, a country that pales in comparison to the one I knew in my youth, makes me sick. And ya know, it would be easy to blame the politicians, especially those like Barry, or those of a particular political ideology, but it goes far deeper than that. Because it seems that we the people have made the very conscious decision that it was time to bring an end to America.

So Barry will become that which he hoped, and will come to reap all of the rewards that go with being the man who orchestrated, and then presided over, the demise of what was that grand American experiment. But Barry had plenty of help along the way, the millions of Americans who saw fit to first elect, and then to reelect him. So, you see, the politicians did nothing more than to engineer that which they were elected to bring about. Now admittedly, you might still be hard pressed to find many Americans who would admit in having taken an active part in the destroying of America, but that doesn’t alter the fact that millions have, and very willingly.

I wish I was wrong, but with so many people now running around proudly declaring how excited they are that Hitlery Clinton might run, someone who’s just as much of a flaming socialist as is Barry, I just don’t think that I am. It’s appears that many Americans, at least those on receiving end of government ‘assistance’ that precludes them from having to work, have now become infected with some disease that impairs their ability to recognize when they’re being lied to. And whenever you point out to them that they are being lied to, their natural response is, "Ya, but all politicians lie." I guess I just don’t see their point.

And it never ceases to amaze me how it is that so many people can simply look the other way when it comes to the amount of damage that is being done to our country a daily basis. Everything seems to revolve around their desire to continue receiving any number of taxpayer subsidized freebies, and the fact that the entire country is going down the tubes seems to matter very little to them. And I’m not quite sure whether it’s out of stupidity or ignorance, or if it’s because, even though they can see and recognize that which is going on right before their eyes, they simply choose not to care. At least as long as they continue getting their goodies.

I wish I could say that I had all the answers, but I don’t. Or that I possessed some magic wand that I could just wave around and that would somehow magically bring all rational folks back to their senses. To make enough people suddenly realize that it is simply impossible to maintain, for very much longer, the crazy level of spending which is now currently underway. If only there was some way that we could provide to people a glimpse, however brief, into the future that most assuredly now lies in wait for them and their children. Maybe that would make them realize that if we were to act, right now, such a dark future might still be avoided.

But sadly none of that is possible on this day when we will once again be listening, if we choose, to a man who is nothing less than a rabid ideologue who has shown that he is quite determined to reduce this country to the point where it becomes equal to some Third World dictatorship. He will stand before us tonight and tell us how it is that HE intends to do what others will not do. But we need to be wary, because nothing of what he has done, or has tried to do, over the course of the last five years would seem to indicate that he means to do anything other than to destroy all that America is. He is not someone to be trusted.

But make no mistake, all this is not to say that I plan on surrendering anytime soon. I will do my best to reveal what our ‘community agitator’ of a president is up to and will also do my best to drive a stake through the heart of she who many would like to see as his successor, that ‘Sadistic Bitch of Benghazi’, Hitlery Clinton. It’s going to be a long two years over the course of which there will be little time to rest. If we are to have any hope of saving our country we may have only the briefest of windows of opportunity, that being the period of time between 2014 and 2016. We must not squander that opportunity. Our children are depending on us.

Monday, January 27, 2014


Wouldn’t we all just love to go through life with absolutely nothing ever being our fault. And wouldn’t it be nice to lead such a charmed life where we had the privilege of being able to blame others for all of our mistakes? But unfortunately that’s just not the case unless, of course, you happen to be Barry, the one guy who it seems, can never be blamed for anything. I caught part of one of the Sunday talk shows yesterday and there was one of Barry’s idiotic ‘advisors’ confidently claiming that even after five years of his boss being in charge, and succeeding in only having made things worse, the fact that things are worse, is because of Bush.

So ask yourself, is it really any wonder that fewer and fewer Americans have much confidence in Barry's rather questionable ability to lead, and I use that term very loosely here. The confidence seems to slipping further as Barry prepares to deliver his sixth State of the Union Address on Tuesday. There’s a new poll out, this one conducted by Washington Post/ABC News, that finds that 50 percent of Americans now disapprove of the way Barry is handling his job as president; 55 percent disapprove of the way Barry is handling the economy and 59 percent disapprove of the way Barry is handling the implementation of his new health care law.

This same poll also shows that 62 percent of Americans now think that things in this country have "gotten pretty seriously off on the wrong track", while 51 percent say Barry is not a strong leader; 52 percent say he does not understand the problems of "people like you." Also 63 percent now have low -- or no -- confidence in Barry's ability to "make the right decisions for the country's future." And these people are just now seeing this? Jon Karl, the fill-in host of ABC's "This Week," asked White House spokesmoron Jay Carney on Sunday, "How can the president lead when barely a third trusts his ability to make the right decisions?"

And then came the response that we have become quite accustomed to hearing over the course of the last 5 years. There was no accepting of any blame, only the placing of blame on others. Carney responded by saying, "Jon, I think what we saw last year in 2013 was a Washington that did not deliver for the American people. And the president sees this as a year of action, to work with Congress where he can and to bypass Congress where necessary to lift folks who want to come up into the middle class." I think we can all agree that if there is one thing this White House seems to excel at, it is in the area of creating all manner of pathetic excuses.

Karl noted that Barry "Almighty", in last year's State of the Union, called for a higher minimum wage, immigration reform, and expanded background checks for gun buyers -- and none of it happened. Why would 2014 be any different, he wondered. Carney again responded in typical fashion saying, "Those were calls for action that involved Congress." He then went on to say, "The president is very disappointed that the Senate failed to heed the will of the vast majority of the American people when it came to expanding background checks." These days, where Carney doesn’t lie, he simply leaves things out.

Carney said, "On immigration reform, we're actually optimistic that 2014 will be the year that Congress delivers to the president's desk a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform bill that meets the principles he laid out and that he can sign into law." As for Americans' disapproval of Obamacare implementation, Carney said "it is absolutely worth it, no matter what happens politically." Adding, "I just disagree that Republicans are going to have a winning issue on this, if they decide to run on it, because they got to explain what repeal means." That’s easy, repeal would mean the opposite of what we have now, which is total chaos.

And on a topic of income inequality, which has now become the favorite topic of Barry and the Democrats as they attempt to draw attention away from the Obamacare debacle, and one that is expected to be a key element of Barry's speech, Carney said it's a problem that's been in the making for "over 30 years." And he said Republicans who blame Barry for pushing millions of Americans into poverty are overlooking "the worst recession since the Great Depression, which was in full bloom when President Obama was sworn into office." So here we have Carney once again sounding like a broken record, reverting to the old "Blame Bush" mantra.

And you know, as much as Democrats like to blame Bush, he really had little to do with bringing about this great recession to which Carney refers. Although I will admit that I was not a big supporter of TARP which Bush was a major player in. But having said that, the foundation for the collapse that occurred in 2008 was laid by a Democrat, Jimmy Carter, and was then built upon by yet another Democrat, ‘Slick Willie’ Clinton, in the form of the Community Re-Investment Act. Under this little jewel the government was able to literally force banks into loaning money to folks who would never be able to pay it back. And they didn’t.

And this is another instance where I find myself in complete agreement with Sen. Ted Cruz who says Barry should begin his speech on Tuesday night with an apology to the American people. He should apologize for forcing this attempt by government to seize control of our healthcare, apologize for the tens of thousands of new regulations that have had an adverse effect on the life of just about every American, apologize for taking more money from us in taxes, money that we have worked hard for in an effort to provide for our families, apologize for trying force his "climate change" agenda down our throats, and the list goes on!

As for the speech on Tuesday night, I won’t be tuning in. I simply refuse to sit there and continue to be lied to. This man who is orchestrating the demise of my country should be in prison, or at the very least he should be impeached, barred from being anywhere near that podium from which he will be speaking on Tuesday night. He is easily the most corrupt individual to ever hold his office, and were it not for the fact that he is black he would have long ago been impeached. He makes dictatorial threats describing how he intends to circumvent Congress and expects those of us who still believe in our Constitution to go along with him.

Friday, January 24, 2014


Democrats, practically since their party first came into existence, have always posed a very serious threat to the survival of the republic. There has been a long string of culprits, going all the way back to Woodrow Wilson, who was quite determined in his efforts to undermine our Constitution as written. Franklin Roosevelt, icon of the Democrat Party, would later come along and would advance the assault on the Constitution even further with his "New Deal" which was really nothing more than a "Raw Deal." Then would come Lyndon Johnson with his "Great Society", followed then by Carter who, although only in office for four years, had more than enough time to inflict his own unique brand of damage. And it was Carter, of whom it can be said, that laid the foundation for what would later become the financial meltdown of 2008.

And then of course we have ‘Slick Willie’ Clinton, one of only two presidents ever to be impeached. Even though in office for eight years, old "BJ" was held somewhat in check by a Republican controlled Congress. But even so, he too was determined to take full advantage of every opportunity that was available to him that would allow him to inflict as much damage as possible to our republic. One thing that ‘Slick’ was able to achieve was to build upon that which was began by Carter. He very purposely set about, taking that which was begun under Carter in the form of the Community Reinvestment Act (ACT), to literally force banks into loaning money to those who had no hope of ever being able to pay it back. By doing so, "BJ" became another principle player in making the 2008 financial collapse inevitable. And then in that in same year where we have Barry "Almighty", a devout socialist, elected as president.

So here we have quite the rogue’s gallery of Democrat presidents who have all played a very prominent role in how our country has now been brought to the brink. They were all proponents of big government, and all did the best that they could to increase the size, scope and power of the federal government. And with the election of Barry there has taken place that which has been described by Democrats everywhere, as being a great leap forward. And one of the most ardent defenders of that same great leap, is none other than ‘Little Chuckie’ Schumer, Democrat Senator from New York. And it was just this past Thursday that we heard what was some very strong language coming from 'Chuckie'.  Because according to this arrogant old gasbag, while the Tea Party's influence is "undeniable," it is not inevitable, and also according to Chuckie, it must be crushed for the good of the nation. Interesting terminology that he chooses to use.

Chuckie also said, "They've won elections, stymied Democratic priorities and taken a sledgehammer to programs that are important to tens of millions of Americans," he complained. Among other recommendations, Chuckie suggested that what is now needed is an IRS crackdown on funding for Tea Party groups. He added, "We have to look at electoral reform." He went on to say, "Our very electoral structure has been rigged to favor Tea Party candidates in Republican primaries, even when the district or the state may not be that red." Chuckie said "the tea party machine" has a particularly strong influence on Republican primaries, partly because the far right turns out to vote; and partly because of gerrymandering -- "where Republicans have learned to capture state legislatures and then use innovative technology to draw districts where a Democrat could never be elected. And Democrats would never do such a thing? That’s politics!

Chuckie went on to say, "Hence, the Republican House member only has to look over his right shoulder and moves much further to the right than the average voter in his or her district would want." He said one way to "lessen the grip of the Tea Party on the electoral process" is to have a primary where voters of every party can vote, leading the top two vote-getters, regardless of their party affiliation, into a run-off. Chuckie added, "This would prevent a hard-right candidate from gaining office with only 22 percent of the vote. It would force the most extreme candidates in Republican districts to move closer to the middle to pick up more moderate Republicans and independents in order to be one of the top two vote-getters and enter the run off." But apparently Chuckie is nowhere near as concerned about those hard-left candidates, these leftwing extremists, who might gain office courtesy of some relatively low vote totals.

The basic Democrat philosophy has always been centered around the premise that any government is considered as good government. And in sounding like the true believer that he is, Chuckie faulted Democrats for failing to counter Tea Party attempts "to make government the boogeyman." Instead, Chuckie made "Tea Party elites" the boogeyman, portraying them as "wealthy, hard right, selfish, narrow" and fearful of "an America that's not reflective of themselves." He said these "elites" have manipulated their millions of grass-roots followers into believing that "government is the explanation for their ills." He went on to say, "Their mantra -- 'dramatically shrink government and our problems will end' -- is the fundamentally false, but not effectively challenged premise, that is the core weakness of the Tea Party, and one we can exploit to turn American politics around to the benefit of our nation."

According to Chuckie, the best way to deal with the Tea Party's "obsessive anti-government mania" is to "confront it directly" and show people that they really do need government "to help them out of their morass." But that’s just it, for the most part, people don’t ‘need’ government. But they have been conned by sleazy clowns like Chuckie into believing that they do, that they are not capable of navigating through life without the help of government. And this morass to which he refers is a direct result of the policies that have been put into place by those who tout the benefits of an all-powerful government. Chuckie offered up a number of examples where Democrats have failed to provide what he called an "antidote" to the Tea Party's "quack medicine." For instance, he said Democrats didn't do a good enough job explaining the nature, causes, severity of the financial crisis, nor did they "explain how the stimulus and government spending would help ameliorate the problem."

And after the financial crisis, as has been shown to have been created by the Democrats, Democrats next turned their attention to what continues to be hysterically referred to healthcare reform and as since moved onto income inequality. While healthcare reform "was a worthy goal," it wasn't a concern for most Americans Chuckie admitted, saying, "they weren't focused on it because they weren't unhappy with the health care they had." Chuckie then said that Democrats must make the case that government helps Americans. "The average Tea Party member, like the average American, likes government-run Medicare, likes government-built highways, and likes government support for education, both higher and lower." My point, and I think many would agree with me, is that government does not HELP the average American. More often than not, the government does nothing more far more harm than good.

Let’s look at the four ways that Chuckie seems to think that Democrats can "answer the Tea Party" and convince its followers that government is not always the problem and is often the solution to middle-class woes:

First of all Chuckie says that the Democrats must "stop playing defense and go on offense when it comes to the need for government. We must state loudly and repeatedly that we believe government is often a necessary force for good." Personally if we look only at what the government has done during just the last 5 years, it becomes very obvious, very quickly, that government is anything BUT a force for good. We now have 20 percent of our households living on food stamps, we 10 Million fewer people in the workforce, 11 million people on disability, 100 million people now on some form of government assistance, a real unemployment rate in double-digits, and the list goes on. We may never be able to recover from the damage our government has done to our economy, damage, I would argue, that has been done on purpose.

Chuckie’s second recommendation is that Democrats in 2014, which we all know is an election year, must focus "on four or five simple but compelling examples of where government can help the average family. (He mentioned raising the minimum wage, paying for college with a "simple, concrete government-funded program," increasing aid for K-12 education, infrastructure spending, equal pay for women, and fair trade.) While all these example may make for good political soundbites, none really make very good sense or are without unintended consequences. For example, the consequence of raising the minimum wage would be that the already too low number of available jobs, would be further reduced. But that’s of very little concern to dishonest boobs like Chuckie.

And according to Chuckie, the third way that Democrats can answer Tea Party claims is to "constructively channel frustrations, is to address the damage done by the Supreme Court's Citizen United decision," which created "huge holes in our campaign finance laws. ...Obviously, the Tea Party elites gained extraordinary influence by being able to funnel millions of dollars into campaigns with ads that distort the truth and attack government." Schumer said although the House is controlled by Republicans, "there are many things that can be done administratively by the IRS and other government agencies, we must redouble those efforts immediately." I like how Chuckie keeps talking about Tea Party ‘elites’. I don’t consider myself as being hard right, selfish or narrow. I love my country and want to protect it from scum like Chuckie.

And Chuckie’s fourth and final recommendation, already discussed, is electoral reform. "By proudly and repeatedly voicing a generalized philosophy that government is a force for good and highlighting specific issues which demonstrate how government can be part of the solution, not the problem, we can take America back to a place where gridlock fades, smart government-oriented solutions pass, and the middle class can reclaim the American Dream," Chuckie concluded. Look, it’s because of Democrats and their policies that the American Dream has been reduced to what is nothing more than a nightmare. There is no scenario that would have the government being part of the solution. Government is ALWAYS the problem! ALWAYS!

I think it fair to say that the Democrat Party of today, especially with it being led by such scumbags as old Chuckie, can now be described as having declared war not only on women, but on the American people as a whole. And that becomes all the more apparent when we have politicians claiming that the best way to handle the opposition is that they "must be crushed for the good of the nation." Now I don’t know about any of you, but where I come from, those are pretty much fightin’ words. And what it’s going to come down to is that we the people will have two very simple choices in this fight to defend what’s left of our republic as we go forward from here. We can either simply rollover and bend to the dictates coming down from high from the likes of Chuckie, or we can choose to fight back, to draw a line in the sand, and very confidently declare this far and no farther. That for the good of the Republic we will make our stand.


Well old ‘Botox Nancy’ made it pretty clear nearly four years ago, that we would need to pass this thing, that’s now not so fondly referred to as Obamacare at least by Democrats seeking to distance themselves from it, in order to find out what was in it. And as Americans have come to find out more and more about what’s in it, more and more of them are coming to not like what it is that they see. Or, they have now been made to be on the receiving end of what’s in it.

So much so that, apparently, we have now arrived at what is yet another new record number of voters who say that they oppose the 2010 Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, and a record low number of folks who are somehow able to support it, at least according to the latest Fox News poll.  In addition, we also now have a pretty substantial majority of Americans who think Obamacare will only increase their health care costs, while few think it will result in improving their quality of care.

This new poll finds that 59 percent of voters now oppose the health care law, which is up from the 55 percent who opposed it just six months ago. And the increase in opposition comes from both independents and Democrats. And we seem to have gotten to the point where nearly a third of Democrats, or 30 percent, oppose the law, up from the 22 percent who opposed it in June. Opposition among independents has gone from 53 percent to 64 percent today.

Overall, only 36 percent of voters still claim to be in favor of Obamacare. That’s down another 4 point from the 40 percent who said they favored it in June, and marks a new low. I suppose it really shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that of those who proudly identify themselves as Democrats, 64 percent actually claim to still be able to support Obamacare. Meanwhile, it’s only 29 percent of independents and only 11 percent of Republicans who seem to like Obamacare.

Some apparent reasons for opposition to Obamacare include the fact that solid majorities think the new law will increase their taxes (63 percent), increase their insurance costs (62 percent) and increase the federal deficit (56 percent). Meanwhile, only one voter in five thinks Obamacare will increase the quality of their health care (19 percent). More than twice as many expect the quality of their care to get worse (39 percent) and another 37percent think it will stay the same.

This poll also points out that by a 44-36 percent margin, voters think that the quality of healthcare for all Americans will decrease rather than increase as a direct result of Obamacare. Also, voters disapprove of the job that Barry "Almighty" is doing on healthcare by a pretty impressive margin, 59-38 percent. His highest rating on health care was 48 percent approval in September 2012, while his lowest was 36 percent in November 2013. I guess he’s simply told a few too many lies.

And in adding to what many see as already being the too many to count problems with this Democrat conceived debacle, some lawmakers are now questioning the security of the healthcare exchanges and raise the possibility of identity theft for participants. The new poll finds 60 percent of voters lack confidence in the website’s ability to keep their information private. Thirty-seven percent are at least somewhat confident, including nine percent who are "very" confident.

Ok, so what are we really to make of all this? Now granted, the current level of dissatisfaction may very well prove to be beneficial, to some degree, for the Republicans in this November’s midterm elections. But what’s the best that those of us who are the most affected by this disaster, can hope for? Let’s face it, as we have seen on more occasions than I care to count, what we think about things far too often doesn’t seem to translate into action taken by those whom we elect.

And as much of an albatross as Obamacare may prove to be for the Democrats in November, Republicans would be foolish to make the campaign about just this one issue. I mean what we have here is really somewhat of a target-rich environment. We have the debt problem, our chronic unemployment problem, our stagnant economy, our out of control spending, needed entitlement reform, and the list goes on. So it’s important that we keep things in their proper perspective.

Thursday, January 23, 2014


Ok, at first I wasn’t even going to bother commenting on this silliness, but now I kinda feel compelled to do so. For those of you who watched the 49er’s and the Seahawks playoff game last weekend, I’m quite sure you saw the sideline 'interview' with loudmouth Richard Sherman. My first impression of the guy as I watched him go off was, "What an asshole." Now I can, sort of, understand that in the heat of the moment one might get a little over excited. But this was clearly over the top. And as someone who spent a career in the military, if there’s one thing that you learn right away, it’s that there is no ‘I’ in team. Sherman made it sound as if that were it not for him his team would have lost.

He has since, and it think apologize might be a little too strong of a word, attempted to make the point that, yes, he did get a little carried away, but after all, his team had just won the game that would give them their chance to take part in the Super Bowl. But still, I guess, what seemed to bother Sherman the most was that because of that post-game interview he was now being referred to as a thug. And I’ll tell you something as someone who doesn’t watch much football except for this time of year and has never seen this guy before, my first impression of him was that he at least came across as being thuggish. There in dreads, shooting his mouth off into the camera about how great he was.

Sherman would later be asked if being called a thug bothered him, Sherman said he was bothered and disappointed that he was called a "thug" after his crazed post-game rant on Sunday because he said it seems like "thug" is the "accepted way of calling somebody the N-word nowadays." The new N-word? Give me a break! Are we not being just a bit over sensitive? So I guess the big bad football player feels offended because someone, after witnessing his rather outlandish post-game behavior, simply called that behavior as they saw it? The behavior of a thug. The bottom line here is that if one doesn’t like being referred to as thug, then one shouldn’t behave like one. It’s really pretty simple.

Anyway, it was during a press conference on Wednesday that http Sherman said, "The only reason it bothers me is because it seems like it's the accepted way of calling somebody the N-word nowadays." He added, "There was a hockey game where they didn't even play hockey, they just threw the puck aside and started fighting. I saw that, and said, 'Oh man, I'm the thug? What's going on here?'" He went on to say that he has "done nothing villainous" and noted he has not gotten suspended for fighting off the field or arrested or any other thing associated with "thugs." Like I said, first impressions are lasting impressions. And what I saw was not the behavior of someone who, like it or not, is a role model.

I’m not sure what I find more aggravating about this guy, whether it’s his post-game antics or his whining about how "thug" is now to be considered as the new "N-Word". In most cases, if you look like a thug, talk like a thug and act like a thug, guess what, you’re likely a thug. So Sherman needs to get over himself. Because in choosing to behave in the manner that he did, he automatically, in a manner of speaking, becomes guilty by association. And he can whine about it until the cows come home because what has people using the "T-word", which is now, I guess, the new "N-Word" is what they saw on their televisions after the game. If he doesn’t want to labeled as such, then he shouldn’t act as he did.

Wednesday, January 22, 2014


Not that I think it matters all that much to him, but according to yet another new poll it’s now a majority of American voters who disapprove of the job that Barry is doing on four out of the top five priorities that they say Barry and the Congress should focus on this year. According to a Quinnipiac University survey conducted Jan. 15-19, Barry's overall job approval rating continues to hover at near historic lows, with just 40 percent giving him a positive approval, compared with 54 percent who disapprove.

In the national survey of 1,933 registered voters, respondents listed their top five priorities for 2014 as being: the economy, health care, combating terrorism, managing foreign policy, and handling Iran. On every issue except his handling of terrorism, the public gives Barry a negative approval rating. Oh well, I’m sure Barry sees going one for five as being not really all that bad. And even at that I’m sure as sure that he views the fact that he’s only one for five as being anyone’s fault but his.

Specifically, 56 percent of respondents disapprove of Barry's handling of the economy, against 39 percent who approve. Fifty-nine percent disapprove of the way he’s handling health care, while 36 percent support his policies. Forty-nine percent have a dim view of how he is handling foreign policy, compared with 40 who approved, and 47 percent gave him a poor grade on his approach to Iran, compared to 39 percent who say he’s on the right track. I can just hear the spin, it’s all the fault of those who refuse to work with him because he’s black.

Barry's only positive score was on his handling of terrorism, with 48 percent of those surveyed saying they approve, compared to 41 percent who disapprove. "'It's the economy, Mr. President,' say dissatisfied American voters who are not yet willing to give President Barack Obama a thumbs up on his presidency," said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. Personally I can’t quite figure out what Americans see that have actually convinced them that Barry is doing an adequate job on terrorism.

But anyway, Malloy went on to say, "If — and it's a big IF — the president can convince the American people that the economy is getting better and that Obamacare will be good for them, it will go a long way to rebuilding his sagging job approval ratings." Look, if anyone is stupid enough to believe that our economy is actually improving or that somehow Obamacare will eventually end up being something that is actually beneficial for them, than the American are dumber than even I think they are.

Fifty-three percent of voters also say that the Barry "Almighty" administration is not competent when it comes to running the government. Forty-two percent say the government is operating properly. Forty-seven percent think Barry is not paying attention to what his administration is doing, the poll found. Look, in no way should this be viewed as being a question of competency. Instead it should be seen for what it is, a sinister attempt to purposely destroy our country. Barry knows full well what those in his administration are doing.


I know that I’ve said, and on any number of occasions, that I think things are pretty much over, that the fat lady has begun the last chorus and it’s now all now just a matter of time before Barry, having been successful in his attempt to "fundamentally transform" America, will be out doing his victory lap. But, and this may not make much sense to many, I keep hoping, even praying, that enough of the American people will wake up in the nick of time and we can avert what I know is now be headed our way.

Now that’s not to say that we’re going to be left with enough time to fix things, only that we might just have enough time to go into full damage control mode and prevent that which Barry and the Democrats have been so determined to bring about. That being, of course, a complete economic and financial meltdown. But even if we are provided with such an opportunity, the salvaging of what’s left of our country is going to be far from a painless experience. This is, in fact, gonna hurt, and hurt a lot.

The focus of our salvage effort should be the coming election, this November. And we must formulate it into a two pronged attack. First of all, we need to focus on getting rid of every single Democrat that we can. Secondly we need to force incumbent Republicans, who refuse to join in our little salvage mission, into primary races against those candidates who possess strong conservative credentials. And if the incumbents come out on top, we must then energetically support, and not simply abandon, them.

Everything, and I do mean everything, hinges on the level of success that we are able to attain for ourselves this coming November. Now is not yet the time to even begin talking about 2016, despite the state-controlled media’s best efforts to get us to do so. The focal point of our efforts must be the midterm elections, because if we are unsuccessful in achieving at least some level of success, 2016 becomes a moot point. Winning control of Congress must be viewed as being our primary objective.

And while I have also been one of the louder voices calling for the impeachment of Barry, I think that if we are successful in our attempt to gain control of both houses, such an action would only serve to squander the victory. I think it would be very counter-productive when there are so many other issues that will, by then, be in urgent need of attention. We should not waste any of the time that we may have left on Barry. But that’s not to say that we do not need to work on limiting any further damage.

So I think it fair to say that the countdown has now officially begun. We know what needs to be done, and from here on out we need to be very methodical and systematic when it comes to determining the best course for achieving our desired goal. That being, of course, the neutering of Barry, in the political sense of course. We must be united and we must speak with one voice. We must not be afraid to defend our point of view and we must not back down when being challenged by the opposition.

And there will be little or no time to make up for lost opportunities and we must be ready to strike whatever there is a misstep by our opposition. We must have a Plan A, B and C always at the ready because everything will be riding on what we are able to make happen on November 4, 2014. Mark it on your calendar as D Day. The day we will all stand together against those forces who wish to destroy our country as we fight to keep that which was handed down to us for safekeeping. And we must never forget about the future generations who are counting on us to succeed.


Well it would seem that Barry "Almighty" has been a very busy, and also quite successful, fellow as he has gone about implementing his radical plan to "fundamentally transform" that which was once the most prosperous nation on the planet. Because over the course of what has been his rather disastrous presidency, he has managed to put into place all manner of policies that actually serve to encourage people to become less self-sufficient and more dependent upon government. Policies that make the point that there exists for anyone who so chooses a RIGHT to live off the government and, therefore by proxy, those of us who still work and pay taxes.

One example that makes very plain the level of success Barry has been able to achieve, is the fact that we now have a record 20% of all American households, or one in five, now being on food stamps in 2013. The numbers also show there was a record number of individuals who were on food stamps in 2013 and that the cost of the program, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), was at an all-time high. The USDA says that there were 23,052,388 households on food stamps in the average month of fiscal year 2013, which is an increase of 722,675 from fiscal year 2012, when there were 22,329,713 households on food stamps in the average month.

In 2013, according to the Census Bureau, there were 115,013,000 households here in the U.S., which means that the households on food stamps, those 23,052,388 households, equaled 20.0% of all households. It’s been in the past five years alone, that the number of households on food stamps has literally skyrocketed. In fiscal year 2009, or Oct. 1, 2008 through Sept. 30, 2009, the total number of households on food stamps was 15,232,115. Just five years later, in 2013, that amount had increased by a staggering 51.3% to reach that total of 23,052,388 households now on food stamps. Quite an achievement for our "Food Stamp President."

But it’s not just in households where we have seen a major increase in food stamps’ participation, but so too has then number of individuals increased pretty dramatically. In 2013, the monthly average for individuals on food stamps hit an all-time-high of 47,636,084, according to the USDA, an increase of 1,027,012 over the 46,609,072 individuals who were participating in the program in 2012. That number has also rather dramatically increased from just five years ago. In fiscal year 2009, the number of individuals participating in the food stamp program was 33,489,975. In 2013, the number was 47,636,084, an increase of 42.2%.

And, as was mentioned earlier, the cost of food stamps, or the program referred to as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), has reached an all-time high. For fiscal year 2013, the SNAP program cost $79,641,880,000, which is a 164% increase over just the past decade. When adjusted for inflation, the cost of the SNAP program was $30,153,090,000 in fiscal year 2003. During the last five years, the SNAP program has grown by 36.8%, from $58,223,790,000 in 2009 to $79,641,880,000 in 2013. So we’re now spending nearly $80 Billion to feed what has now become 20 percent of American households.

Now is anyone, other than me, seeing what might be called a common thread here? I mean, it should be relatively easy to identify, after all there has been a clue repeatedly mentioned. That clue being, of course, that these rather dramatic increases all took place over the course of the last five years. Now let me see, the last five years. What occurred five years ago that might have resulted in all of these people suddenly being convinced that living off the is a good idea? Oh, wait a minute, I know! It was five years ago that Barry "Almighty" began his first term as president, and the era of "Hope and Change" got under way.

Well that certainly hasn’t panned out too well. After five long years, and as many presidential scandals, along with the fact that we now have 10 million fewer people in the workforce, 100 million now on some form of government ‘assistance’ and over 11 million now collecting a federal disability check, this "Hope and Change" thing hasn’t turned out so good. But then I doubt it was ever really intended to. I think the game plan, all along, has been to implement the most radical of agendas and to work toward forever changing what it is that America has always represented to people all across the globe. And sadly, those working toward that end have been very successful.


I suppose this latest revelation coming from our less than stellar first lady should come as no real surprise. The revelation to which I refer is the one where the very classless Mee-Shell Obumer says that one of her role models is none other than another classless bitch, "Hanoi Jane" Fonda. Remember now, this is the same bitch for whom it took the electing of her corrupt husband for to finally be able to be proud of her country.

So I guess her declaring of Ms. Fonda as one of her role models came during some silly interview with People Magazine. Mee-Shell "O" listed "Hanoi Jane," as one of the people she would like to look and live like when she's 70 or 80 years old. "There’s Jane Fonda, a beautiful, engaged, politically savvy, sharp woman," Mee-Shell said. Somehow those aren’t exactly the adjectives I would use to describe someone who’s a traitor.

And I’m sure that this rather idiotic comment is likely to enrage Vietnam War veterans, which I’m quite sure is exactly what was intended. Many still remember how Fonda, now 76, went to North Vietnam in 1972 and was photographed sitting on an anti-aircraft battery. Fonda denounced U.S. military leaders as "war criminals" and later called tortured American POWs "hypocrites and liars," telling them to "get a life."

Mee-Shell's comments are already receiving criticism. Writing on Breitbart, David Webb said, "Michelle Obama often comes across to me as an angry black woman who had all the advantages such as going to Princeton University after coming from basically nothing. Yet instead of maximizing her advantages in life she seems to wear them like a burden and projects the burden onto others." Sounds pretty accurate.

A post on the conservative blog, Weasel Zippers said it best, saying, "Only a die-hard liberal thinks Jane Fonda is anything less than a traitorous scumbag." While another reader at Newsbusters said, "Oh gee, a communist being a 'big fan' of another communist, who’d have thunk it?" And still another said, "These are the type of people who now rate tribute in our great Republic? This story is sad on so many levels."

Never before in the history of our country has there been two more classless people residing in "The People’s House" than the Obumers. And have you ever noticed that those who possess the least amount of class are always Democrats? Let’s face it, who besides a Democrat would EVER think it even marginally appropriate to be on the receiving end of a ‘BJ’ in the Oval Office? But, it’s really all we can expect from these scumbags.

Tuesday, January 21, 2014


Blacks, without a doubt, have to be the most self-destructive group of people that you will find anywhere on the entire planet. I really don’t know how else to explain the phenomenon of where one cannot not be considered as being truly black unless one is also a devoted follower of the Democrat Party. I just don’t understand why the blind obedience to a political party that has done more to decimate the black community, or how its inhabitants can so easily be made to turn on one of their own. As I say in the title of this piece, racism remains very much alive and well in America, and it has a home, just as it always has, in the party of slavery, Jim Crow and segregation. And that would be the Democrat Party.

Anyway, why I even bring this up is because of the fact that we recently had, in the person of a prominent NAACP official, someone who saw fit to recognize Martin Luther King Day by labeling black senator Tim Scott a puppet for the Republican Party. What this faux preacher said, in referencing Mr. Scott, was, "A ventriloquist can always find a good dummy." This buffoon’s name is reverend William Barber II and he is, I’m told, the president of North Carolina’s NAACP chapter. Now I never knew Dr. King, but in judging him by his words, I would have to say that if he were still with us today, he would have much more in common with Sen. Tim Scott than he would with this wannabe preacher.

The State reports that Barber’s remarks came in a speech in Scott’s home state of South Carolina. "The extreme right wing down here," he said, "finds a black guy to be senator and claims he’s the first black senator since Reconstruction and then he goes to Washington, D.C., and articulates the agenda of the Tea Party." Keep in mind that it was just last year that this boob, Barber, gained national attention leading the "Moral Monday" protests in opposition to North Carolina’s Republican governor, Pat McCrory. Barber is another black guy, much like Jimmy Clyburn, who derives a great deal of pleasure from running around and ranting about how it is that the Tea Party is nothing more than a bunch of racists.

And in proving that he’s a bigger man than this preacher, Scott chose to simply dismiss Barber’s idiotic remarks as "baseless and meaningless rhetoric." Scott said, "I will honor the memory of Dr. King by being proactive in holding the door for others and serving my fellow man. And Rev. Barber will remind me and others of what not to do." But the sad thing is that many more blacks tend to side with these supposed black men of God, than they do with the likes of Sen. Scott. And why is it that I must be made to lose more and more of what I work for in order to subsidize their existence? They are where they are in their life not because of anything that I, as a white guy, have done, but by their choice.

I think we can all agree that, as a civil rights group, the NAACP long ago lost any and all credibility. And I’m sure if Dr. King were alive today he would most certainly shun the group as well as many of those who are recognized as being the leaders of this group. Because what was once a bona fide civil rights group is today nothing more than a front group, and an extension of the Democrat Party, whose purpose has become one that’s more about the spreading of party propaganda that it is about anything that might relate, even remotely, to civil rights. And it most certainly is no friend to black community. Blacks must wake up to that fact or be content to forever live their lives in servitude to a corrupt political party.


Looking much like an escapee from a traveling carnival’s freak show, we have yet another Democrat desperate to divert attention away from the debacle that is Obamacare by talking about what has now become the latest mantra of the Democrat Party.  Rosa DeLauro, scumbag Democrat, who by the way is worth millions of dollars according to her congressional financial disclosure statement, says Congress needs to tackle income inequality because it "poses an existential threat to our nation and our way of life."

It was from the House floor last Wednesday that DeLauro said, "Every generation of leaders in this institution has faced their own time of testing. Whether it’s an economic panic, Great Depression, slavery, Jim Crow, Civil War, World War, Cold War. There are times when our country is confronted with a crisis that poses an existential threat to our nation and our way of life and Congress needs to stand up and act." She droned on saying, "The test of our time is inequality."

Far from being done she went on to say, "It’s not too much to say that inequality threatens the continued existence of the middle class in America and even the American Dream itself." Adding, "The question before us now is: are we going to continue to be the land of opportunity, social mobility and the nation that forged the largest middle class in human history during the 20th century, or are we going to become a nation of very few haves and millions of have-nots?"

Now according to her congressional financial disclosure statement for 2012, DeLauro is worth between $5 million and $25 million. The form allows members to state ranges of value for their assets rather than exact values. In November 2013, the website Celebrity Networth listed DeLauro’s fortune at $20 million in its "Richest Politicians" category. So I guess it's only ok to be wealthy if you're a Marxist scumbag just like it was under the Soviet Union. The rest of us have to live with the government tyranny.

This woman talks right out of the communist manifesto. Of course, she's talking about the 'little people'. She and her cronies are exempt, because they are just oh so important. They NEED their posh digs, their junkets, and all their freebies so they can manage all the inferior beings that they 'represent'. Do they even listen to themselves and hear how ridiculous they sound? I guess their world is so detached from reality that they unable to recognize that they’re full of BS.

And so it is then that solving the issues of income inequality has now become the top priority for the Democrats. But despite all of the supposed urgency with which they claim the issue must now be addressed, the solutions being presented are wholly naïve and reveal an understanding of capitalism that’s even less than your average fifthgrader’s. And while it’s a fact of life that disparities between rich and poor are as ancient as civilization, that seems to matter very little to Democrats.

But if Democrats were really as serious about it as they claim, one obvious way to lessen income inequality would be to stop with the transferring of wealth from young to old, or to tackle entitlement reform. But Democrats want no part of that, they only want only to raise benefits, clinging to entitlements that disproportionately help the rich and middle class. While liberals say that government can’t completely solve income inequality, they fail to admit that it has been increasing it through bad policies for decades.

Democrats push around scraps of relief as substitutes for dealing with the underlying drivers of income inequality, including family erosion, high school drop-out rates, the marriage crisis, globalization and the primacy of knowledge-based economies, high incarceration rates among inner-city men and the fact that rich, well-educated people tend to marry other such people, maximizing wealth in high-income households. And the simplistic solutions put forward by Democrats don’t match the causes.

And raising the minimum wage is not the way to go, and there are mounds of data that back that up. Economist David Neumark, an expert on minimum-wage economic studies, says that an economic rule-of-thumb is that every 10% increase in the minimum wage reduces teen employment by about 1% to 3%. In October the U.S. teen jobless rate was 22.2% and for black teens it was 36%. A higher minimum wage combined with the health mandate could mean up to a 10% reduction in jobs for the poor and young.

Capitalism has many benefits compared to other economic forms.
1.In general, capitalism produces more wealth.
2.Capitalism actively rewards positive traits like hard work and ingenuity. Similarly, it punishes negative traits such as laziness and theft.
3.Capitalism is more compatible with democracy than other systems. In fact, there are few republics or democracies in the modern world that are not capitalistic.
4.Capitalism is more compatible with Christianity than other systems.
5.Free markets are the natural state of trade. Unlike socialism, which requires government interference, capitalism can develop naturally. Therefore, capitalist societies tend to have smaller governments.
6.Free markets can conduct certain functions that are normally handled by the government. Therefore, capitalist societies tend to be more efficient and free from government control.
7.The competition between markets and businesses will create more productivity in the work place, allowing the rate of technological innovation to increase. This will cause the society to advance while the costs of goods and services will decrease.
8.Governments in capitalist societies tend to generate more wealth, since more wealth is being produced. Therefore, capitalist societies tend to be stronger.
9.Capitalist societies usually do not have large black markets. Therefore, capitalist societies tend to have less crime.
10.Capitalist nations promote free trade allowing more nations to cooperatively work together for more economic liberty. This will likely mitigate disputes between nations.

Liberals must care deeply about inequality because their policies do so much to increase it. But let’s face it, what’s really going on here has very little to do with what’s being called income inequality. The Democrats are desperate to come with something that they can use to distract attention away from Obamacare as the next election edges closer with each passing day. And they also hope to be able to further divide us, because the more divided we remain the better their chances of holding onto their power.

So folks, it’s going to be up to us. Are we going to fall for this latest ploy by the Democrats, or are we going to be willing to look past all the smoke and mirrors and be able to recognize things as they are. And if we allow them to succeed in pulling off this little charade, we certainly won’t be doing ourselves any favors, plus I’m sure they’ll all get a good laugh out of once more being able to pull the wool over our eyes. So whatta we gonna do? Be played for suckers yet again, or do something about it?

Monday, January 20, 2014


Barry "Almighty" has a little birthday gift for all you 4,130,665 kids who were born in 2009, the year that he first took office. But hold on there kids, before you get all excited about what your ‘gift’ from the president might be, I’m pretty it’s not be exactly what you might be expecting. Because what he’s giving to you comes in the form of a bill for $1,608,304, which will go to cover the amount the debt has risen since you all were born. What, you say, there’s no way that you can pay it? Oh well, not to worry, Barry will just continue to put it on your tab, for the rest of your life.

Now if the federal government were to continue accumulating net debt throughout the expected 78.5-year lifespan of a baby born in 2009 at the same average annual pace it has accumulated net debt during Barry’s first five years as president, the government would add more than $104 Trillion in net debt during the life expectancy of those babies. So far during Barry’s presidency, the federal government has borrowed a net total of $6,643,363,305,451.78. That works out to an average of approximately $1,328,672,661,090 per year, or $104,300,803,895,565 over 78.5 years.

The National Center for Health Statistics estimates that the life expectancy of a baby born in the United States in 2009 is 78.5 years. The $104,300,803,895,565 the federal government would borrow during the lifetimes of babies born in 2009—if the government were to continue to borrow at the annual pace of $1,328,672,661,090 it maintained in Barry’s first five years, would equal approximately $25,250,366 for each of those babies. At the close of business on Jan. 20, 2009, the total debt of the federal government was $10,626,877,048,913.08.

At the close of business on Jan. 16, 2014, the latest day reported, the total debt of the federal government was $17,270,240,354,364.86. The $6,643,363,305,451.78 that the federal debt has increased during Barry’s first five years equals approximately $1,608,304 for each of the 4,130,665 babies that were born in the United States in 2009. It also equals approximately $321,661 per year over the last five years for each of the babies born in 2009. And a little side note, forty-one percent of those babies born in 2009, or 1,693,658 of them--were born to unmarried mothers.

The $6,643,363,305,451.78 that the federal debt has increased during Barry’s first five years in officer also equals approximately $57,762 for every one of the 115,013,000 households that the Census Bureau now estimates there are here in the good old U. S. of A.. It also equals an average of about $11,552 per year per household. The $6,643,363,305,451.78 the federal debt has increased under Barry is more than all the debt the U.S. government accumulated under all presidents from George Washington through "BJ" Clinton. That’s just crazy!

So kids, you might want to bring that little fact up to your parents, and especially if they happen to be ones who thought it such a shit hot idea to vote for Barry. And if so, you might also want to ask them just what it was that they were thinking when the voted for Barry. Was it that they were sure that you’d be only too happy to cover the costs incurred by their lifetime of living off the government? And that you really wouldn’t mind never having any money as long as it meant that they would never have to work a day in their lives? Well kids, for your sake I hope they were right, because you’re nothing but screwed!


Well, well, well, what do we have here. It would seem that the pro-abortion movement’s latest heroine isn’t exactly all that she’s claimed herself to be. I’m sure you all remember Wendy Davis, the Texas state senator whose filibuster for abortion rights made her a Democratic superstar overnight which then prompted her to launch a campaign for governor. Apparently she has now admitted to the Dallas Morning News that she lied about some key events in her life, including her first divorce. And worse, Davis may even have lied under oath, testifying in a federal lawsuit over redistricting saying that "I got divorced by the time I was 19 years old," when in fact she was divorced at the age of 21.

Other discrepancies found on her resume include the fact that it was her second husband who paid her way through law school and that she then divorced him the day after the last payment was made. Also her ex-husband accused her in initial court filings of adultery, and was awarded custody of their two daughters and that she first ran for city council in Fort Worth as a Republican. And in admitting that her campaign biography has been a little less than truthful, she sounded like a true Democrat in saying, "My language should be tighter." Tighter? Now that’s a rather unique way to explain the fact that she lied. Democrats are so…creative when it comes to explaining why they lie.

Now what remains unclear is whether the article in the Dallas Morning News, written by senior political writer Wayne Slater, is intended to be an exposé or some kind of weird defense of her lies designed to reveal embarrassing details in the best light possible and to present an overall picture of competence. One unidentified source, who said that Davis is "going to figure out a way to spin herself in a way that grabs at the heart strings," is also quoted as saying that "she’d be a good governor." Regardless, the fact that Davis "blurred" her biography raises questions about her integrity. Look, no offense here, but Ms. Davis appears to be nothing more than a complete fraud practically from the ground up!

I think by this time we should all be pretty much aware of how those in the media bend over backwards in their efforts to protect Democrats, most notably, Barry "Almighty", Davis's contemporary at Harvard Law School, when they present what are false "composites" of their lives. It remains to be seen whether they’ll treat Davis in the same manner. Of course it doesn’t hurt that she’s female, so that’s definitely a point in her favor. If she was some white guy caught in similar lies, she’d be toast. But if you’re black, a female, or both, and a Democrat, you become, almost instantaneously, a media darling. So will this prove to be the demise of the Texas all-female ticket? I suppose that is yet to be determined.


Well I knew it was only a matter of time before would blame the fact that is approval rating is in the basement on the fact that we’re all just a bunch of racists. And finally it was according to a story posted on the New Yorker magazine’s website just today that Barry blamed his softening popularity over the course of the last couple of years on what he called, "racial." It was in an article penned by someone named David Remnick that Barry said, "There’s no doubt that there’s some folks who just really dislike me because they don’t like the idea of a black president." Barry went on to say, "Now, the flip side of it is there are some black folks and maybe some white folks who really like me and give me the benefit of the doubt precisely because I’m a black president." The benefit of the doubt? Are you kidding me? Look, the only reason many blacks voted for him was for no other reason than because he’s black. They’re the racist ones!

I don’t suppose there’s any chance whatsoever that his popularity could be suffering because of the number of appears to be growing numbers scandals that he and several members of his administration now find themselves embroiled in. Or, could it be the number of lies that he personally has told the American people about Obamacare. Or the secrecy this administration is steeped in. Nope, the only acceptable reason has to be because we’re all just a bunch of racists! Barry’s approval rating among all voters is 39 percent and his disapproval rating is 53 percent, according to a Gallup Poll conducted Jan. 14-16. In the 2012 presidential election, Republican candidate Mitt Romney won 59 percent of the white vote, compared with Barry’s 39 percent, according to exit polling by a consortium of major news outlets. Barry won 43 percent of the white vote in 2008 against 55 percent for opponent John McCain.

Meanwhile, Sean Spicer, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee paint a much different picture saying, "Poll after poll makes it very clear that Obamacare and other job-killing policies are the reason." And Mr. Spicer is dead on in what he says. I mean, why is it that I’m not allowed to disagree with policies that I see as being blatantly socialist without then being accused of being a racist for no other reason than because the guy behind those policies is black. I don’t suppose we should be surprised by such accusations, since this is the standard modus operandi for Democrats. Because you see, their well-intended policies can never be seen as being the problem, so therefore some other reason must manufactured in the attempt to discredit those who oppose their progressive policies. And in this particular instance the most expeditious way of doing just that is to cry racism.

And you know I really resent being called a racist. Because, like I said earlier, the ones I view as being the true racists here are the ones who chose to vote for Barry "Almighty" for no other reason than because he’s black. And I’ll tell you something else I resent, it’s to be called anti-woman because the last person I want to see in the White House, after eight years of Barry having occupied the Oval Office, is Hitlery Clinton. I don’t hate women anymore than I’m supposed to hate blacks. But what I do most definitely hate are those who so proudly identify themselves as progressives/liberals who seem quite determined in their efforts to destroy my country. All of these accusations are really nothing more than desperate attempts to silence any and all voices of opposition to their agenda. An agenda, the basis of which is not to improve the general welfare of the American people, but to increase the government’s power over them.