Saturday, May 31, 2014
Having only been in office for 5 years Barry has still managed to compile what is a rather long, and equally impressive, list of scandals. A list that I’m quite confident would have made even Richard Nixon blush. Since the very beginning of the most recent scandal, this one involving the VA, Barry "Almighty" had repeatedly claimed to take full responsibility. But when it comes to scandals, Barry has one thing that Richard Nixon didn’t have, he has George W. Bush. Because on Friday instead of taking full responsibility for the events that have occurred, in what has become the stand modus operandi for our "community agitator" of a president, Barry proceeded to spread the blame around, claiming that the problem "predates my presidency."
It was at the news conference where he announced the resignation of the VA Secretary, the highly incompetent Eric Shinseki, that Barry "Almighty" also took the opportunity to do that which he has been doing practically since day one of his less than transparent, and boldly corrupt, administration. He did his best to weave what would be a timeline that led right back to the Bush administration. And in once again lying through his teeth, Barry said, "In terms of responsibility, as I've said before, this is my administration; I always take responsibility for whatever happens, and this is an area that I have a particular concern with." It was then that he, and in his very typically arrogant fashion, boldly declared, "This predates my presidency."
Barry said, "When I was in the Senate, I was on the Veterans Affairs Committee." And he then went on to say, "I heard first-hand veterans who were not getting the kinds of services and benefits that they had earned. And I pledged that if I had the privilege of serving as commander in chief and president, that we would fix it. The VA is a big organization that has had problems for a very long time ...." Barry’s very brief, and really quite insignificant, tenure in the Senate ran from January 2005 until November 2008, during the administration of President George W. Bush. But it was only three short months into his own new administration that Barry began pointing the finger of blame at Bush for nearly every problem that he encountered.
"By any measure," the president said on March 4, 2009, "my administration has inherited a fiscal disaster," The Washington Post reported, adding: "Obama had initially been content to leave partisan defense strategy to his proxies, but as the fiscal picture has continued to darken, he has appeared more willing to risk his image as a politician who is above petty partisanship to personally remind the public of Bush's legacy." Apparently this strategy still works, at least if you can believe the Communist News Network (CNN). Because according to a CNN survey that was conducted back in February, it would appear that most Americans still blame Bush for the bad economy even five years after the "official" end of the recession.
Let’s just say for the sake of argument that this nutty CNN poll accurately reflects the sentiment, and the intelligence, of the American people. I mention intelligence because how is it that anyone, well anyone who isn’t black, can look at the economic policies that have been put into place by Barry, and his party, over the course of the last 5 years, policies the specific purpose of which were to cripple our economy to the point where any kind of a ‘real’ recovery is now nearly impossible, and still say our current economic woes are tied to Bush? And it’s the same with the VA. What problems there were that existed when this asshole took office have now, through a combination of neglect and sheer incompetence, proceeded to get so much worse.
The only reason that this boob Shinseki even got the job in the first place was because he was a rather vocal critic of George W. Bush. So I suppose in that respect you could say that all of this ‘is’ Bush’s fault. Look, Bush had his faults, all that ‘compassionate conservatism’ crap which resulted in some pretty crazy spending. But when he was elected Barry told us all that he was just the guy to get things going in the right direction. But instead of focusing in getting things fixed, he instead went straight to work "fundamentally transforming" this country, and has now succeeded to the point where our country is barely recognizable compared to what it looked like when Barry first took office. Blame Bush? No, I don’t think so, I blame Barry "Almighty"!!
Friday, May 30, 2014
Despite the fact that we’ve had Barry’s many minions, both in government and in the state-controlled media, calling Obamacare's enrollment numbers an overwhelming success, and despite a multi-million dollar, taxpayer funded, ad campaign, a never-ending stream of outrageous lies having been told, or the fact that, supposedly, there have been more than 8 million sign-ups reported through the April 15 deadline, it seems that we still have a majority of the American people who oppose this thing called Obamacare. Because a recent poll seems to show that it’s still less than half of all Americans that actually support it.
This most recent poll to which I refer comes to us from Gallup and it points out that 43 percent of the American people actually claim to support Obamacare, which is the same number that approved of it back in April. And it’s also in this latest poll, that we still have 51 percent of Americans who disapprove of it. The final number of enrollees, which both critics and insurance companies have called into question, and with good reason knowing as we do the tendency of this administration to ‘fudge’ the numbers, was a strong finish for a sign-up process that began with the botched rollout of the Obamacare website last October.
Public approval of this law, which as we all remember the Democrats shoved through Congress, practically in the dark of night and by using every shady political tactic imaginable, in 2010, bottomed out at 38 percent in January as the healthcare.gov website still failed to work as advertised. The new poll numbers show that 37 percent of Americans feel the law will make the healthcare system in the U.S. better, while forty-four percent say it will only serve to make things worse. And in speaking as one of those who has been personally impacted by this disastrous creation of the Democrats’, it’s safe to say that I’m one of those who’s no fan of it.
And as to be expected there is a rather large discrepancy in Americans' approval of the law based on their race as well as their politics. The Gallup poll points that 79 percent of Democrats claim to support the law while just 8 percent of Republicans support it. And 76 percent of blacks approve of the law, while 35 percent of whites do. Hispanics carry a 57 percent approval rating of the law. But I have to wonder, do blacks support it out of some blind devotion to their black president, or do they genuinely think that it will make healthcare better? After all, there is no other group in this country for who race plays such an important role.
So while I may have a very specific, and much more personal, reason than some for being opposed to this bastardized piece of shit, there is no shortage of other reasons why a majority of Americans continue in their opposition to it. And maybe, just maybe, the reason behind how it is that so many people still oppose this outright seizure of our healthcare system by the government, is the fact that Barry & Co. continues to espouse what are eight pervasive "myths" about Obamacare, aka the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Mr. John R. Graham, senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, outlined those myths in a new report released Thursday.
Mr. Graham, said, "The myths peddled by the Administration to sell ObamaCare are not harmless fairy tales. They have resulted in a program that is harming people’s access to health care." He went on to say, "Favorable media coverage of the 8 million people who have enrolled in health insurance via exchanges has allowed the administration and its allies to revive discredited claims about Obamacare’s benefits." But "the numbers touted by the administration disguise the fact that many of these people lost previous coverage in the period prior to open enrollment, and people are no longer free to acquire the health insurance they want," he said.
Myth No. 1: If you like your health plan, you can keep it. The health insurance policies of six million Americans have already been cancelled, and most of the policies purchased in the individual market by another 19 million people do not comply with ACA requirements, Graham pointed out. He also quotes a government memorandum suggesting that nearly all employers with employee health care plans that are currently "grandfathered" in will lose that protection by making even small changes to their coverage. Eventually, nearly all businesses will be forced into more expensive, government-regulated plans, he predicts.
Myth No. 2: If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Many health care plans sold on federal and state exchanges have a limited number of in-network physicians to choose from, Graham says, pointing out that 70 percent of doctors in California are not in their state exchange's network. And with millions of newly insured people seeking care from a dwindling number of physicians, "there is no realistic way to meet this demand."
Myth No. 3: There is an "employer mandate" to offer affordable coverage. Employers who don’t offer health benefits can be fined $2,000 for each employee, which is considerably lower than the cost of providing health insurance. So many employees will stop offering coverage, Graham predicts. The ACA allows self-insured employers to require workers to pay up to 9.5 percent of their annual wages in premiums, he adds, but an employee making $50,000 a year would have to pay $15,000 for family coverage, and employees who declined the coverage would not be eligible for federal subsidies on the exchanges. "Few workers would willingly spend nearly one-third of their take-home pay on health insurance," Graham says.
Myth No. 4: Health reform will lower the cost of health insurance by $2,500 a year for the average family. Graham points out that "because of Obamacare’s mandates and regulations, coverage will be more expensive for everyone outside a small portion of older, low-income adults who can obtain highly subsidized coverage in the exchanges."
Myth No. 5: There is an "individual mandate" that ensures everyone has health coverage. The ACA’s "individual mandate" requires that most legal residents of the U.S. buy a qualifying health insurance policy or pay a fine. However, "the individual mandate was effectively deferred until at least 2016 when the Obama administration’s Department of Health and Human Services allowed people to decide for themselves if they qualify for a ‘hardship exemption’," Graham writes, "to reduce the liability of fining people before the November 2016 election." Since there is a congressional election every two years, he adds, "the individual mandate is highly unlikely ever to be imposed."
Myth No. 6: Individuals cannot be denied individual coverage due to pre-existing conditions. "This was only true if they applied for Obamacare coverage before March 31, 2014," Graham writes. "If they missed that deadline, they cannot get coverage at all until November 15, 2014, unless they experience a life-qualifying event, such as getting married or having a child. In the individual market, prior to Obamacare, people could apply whenever they wanted to."
Myth No. 7: Health insurers no longer can cancel a policy after an insured individual gets sick. "Before Obamacare, a health insurer could only rescind a policy if the insured had misrepresented her health status on her application," Graham says. "On the contrary, Obamacare has caused many cancellations." And despite the fact that "nearly three-fourths of states agreed to allow insurers to reinstate canceled health plans…it appears that most insurers were not able to do so."
Myth No. 8: Medicare has been strengthened. "In general, the Medicare spending cuts exceed the new benefits by a factor of more than 10 to 1," Graham points out. "As a result, one of every two people expected to participate in Medicare Advantage over the next 10 years (7.5 million of 14 million) will lose their coverage entirely." To make matters worse, "Medicare’s chief actuary believes the planned cuts in fees may cause some doctors to retire and force some hospitals out of business" just as demand for health care increases. "The real costs of Obamacare will continue to burden Americans, despite the apparent success of the first open enrollment," Graham concluded.
So there you have it. If you’re still looking for a reason to stand against this massive abuse of power by the Barry & Co., simply pick one. And let’s be real here, there is nothing about this supposed act of ‘reform’ that has absolutely anything do with any of the numerous claims that were made, and continue to be made about it. What this is all about is control, pure and simple. And what we will all be forced into dealing with, if unable to convince those on our side to get rid of it, is a healthcare system that is on the same level as the system that our veterans are currently being forced to contend with. Because that is how socialized medicine works.
Thursday, May 29, 2014
Word now comes to us that allies of Speaker Boehner are now attempting to busy themselves by circling the wagons in what appears to be an all-out effort to ward off any and all potential challenges to his leadership, and I use the term loosely, by their Tea Party colleagues. And by so doing they are once a demonstrating a willingness to put politics over country. I think many of us will agree that Boehner has definitely outlived whatever usefulness he may have once had. Our Tea Party brethren are only looking to do that which so desperately needs to be done.
And it’s according to Politico there is now a group, including fellow Ohio GOP Rep. Pat Tiberi, that has been very busy plotting different strategies that could be utilized to punish those members who do not support the party's nominee during a floor vote, such as, for instance, withdrawing membership on certain committees. And there are even some who are advocating the putting out of a letter with the names of dozens of lawmakers pledging to vote only for the 64-year-old, thereby removing the possibility of a conservative rival getting himself, or herself, elected.
The effort among the GOP Establishment is but the latest attempt to signal its dominance in the battle with Tea Party forces which broke-out during the government shutdown last year and is continuing to play out in several primaries. It is also an attempt to quell speculation about plans for Boehner to retire, while solidifying his authority over the conference. Let’s face it, Boehner has been an unmitigated disaster, and those who are now so energetically acting on his behalf only serve to reveal where it is that their true allegiance lies, and it most definitely is not with the people.
While the leadership contest is still eight months away, allies want to get an early start to prevent a repeat of 2013 when Boehner's leadership was challenged after a dozen conservatives chose other Republicans during the leadership vote. Michael Steel, a spokesman for Boehner, has said that Boehner "has said repeatedly he expects to be speaker in the next Congress, so when the House Republican team meets after the election, he hopes and expects he will be their choice for speaker, and once that decision is made, that the team will vote for him on the floor in January."
If the House picks up the predicted five to 12 seats, as expected, Boehner could count it ‘another success’ of his leadership. Meanwhile, at least 12 lawmakers who voted against him will be leaving Congress at the end of this term, and some who are staying have shifted their loyalties in favor of him. Regardless, unseating any incumbent speaker is always difficult, given the voting procedures which start with a closed meeting by secret ballot in which one must secure one vote more than half. Then a floor vote follows, with the successful nominee requiring 218 votes to win.
And of course adding to the degree of difficulty in replacing Boehner is the fact that potential opponents, at least at this point in time, appear to be somewhat disorganized, and no obvious candidate has yet emerged to take on Boehner. And with the leadership taking early action to gain open support for Boehner, it appears they are looking for possible opponents to show their cards early as well. "If you disagree with a play call, you say so in the huddle," said one GOP leadership aide aligned with Boehner. Who went on to say, "You don't go your own way on the field."
Look, it would be nice, and likely a lot less messy, if those in Boehner’s district would be able to see the light and simply choose not to re-elect him. But I suppose such a fantasy takes wishful thinking to a whole new level. Or, Boehner could make himself into a real hero by choosing to put the needs of the country above his own selfish desire for political power and simply remove himself. But I suppose that’s even more of a fantasy than the first option. So we’re left only to watch those whom we elect to be our advocates dueling it out like punks in a schoolyard.
It’s just all so frustrating, and rather disappointing, that as our country continues headed down the drain there remains so little interest by so many of our elected officials in doing even the slightest thing to prevent, or to at least to slow down, that which now appears to be the inevitable. It doesn’t take, or at least it shouldn’t, a brain surgeon to see that Boehner simply does not possess the necessary skillset to be able to get done that which must be done. And with us now on the verge of running out of time, we no longer have the luxury of allowing the incompetent to ‘lead’.
Wednesday, May 28, 2014
I’m pretty sure that if there is one thing on which we can all agree, it’s that Democrat Elijah Cummings simply has not got the brains of your very average ice cube. I mean when one first meets the congressman it’s assumed that he simply can’t be as stupid as he looks. But as soon as he opens his big mouth, all doubt immediately evaporates. As proof of that we need look no further that how it was that this boob recently ramped up his feud with House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa by accusing him of "going rogue."
During an appearance on that Al Sharpton’s rating juggernaut ‘Politics Nation’ on MSNBC, Cummings said, "I actually believe that Chairman Issa is out of control." He then went on to add, "I think he’s going rogue." Cummings lashed out at the California Republican over his decision to subpoena Secretary of State John Kerry-Heinz to testify before the committee, even though Hitlery Clinton was head of the State Department at the time of the attack on the Libya mission in Benghazi back in September of 2012.
Cummings, who is the ranking Democrat on the committee, and is one of those pro-Hitlery folks who have been assigned the task of trying to sabotage the House special select committee on Benghazi, called Issa’s subpoena for Kerry-Heinz to appear in June "very, very political." Whoa, now wait a minute here, ain’t that the pot calling the kettle black. A Democrat actually accusing someone of doing something that is based solely on politics. Like old E-Lie-Jah would never be caught doing such a terrible thing. Frankly I like it when we play the game their way.
Cummings’ confrontations with Issa began last year when the chairman said that Cummings had made some "extreme and reckless" comments by stating that the IRS targeting of conservatives groups was a closed case. The feud turned rather ugly in March when Issa cut off Cummings’ microphone after a heated hearing with former IRS official Lois Lerner over the scandal. But his whining came to be seen for what it was after it was discovered that old E-Lie-Jah may have played a more ‘active role’ in this particular scandal than he was willing to let on.
You’re not likely to find another guy who is as pathetic as old Elijah. He’s another one of those black politicians who have no problem, whatsoever, with selling their people out in exchange for a little political power. And yet the majority of blacks in this country continue to be too stupid to see who it is that’s really screwing them over. These people still believe whatever garbage it is they’re told by scumbags like Cummings, especially about how it is that they are somehow the victims of a racially unjust society.
Well, it would seem that it’s not only those of us on right who are unsure of where old Hitlery may stand on many of today’s important issues, but it would appear that there are also many on the left who are more than a little unsure themselves. Because while her supporters are more than a little enthusiastic about the prospects of her making another run at the Oval Office, many of them, in public as well as in private, admit that they're not quite sure where it is that she stands on many of their core issues. But knowing the old girl like we do, I think we can safely guess what her positions may be.
One those expressing concern is a guy by the name of Charles Chamberlain, executive director of some outfit by the name of Democracy For America. He said, "We're waiting with bated breath to see if she runs and, assuming she's going to run, what will these positions be." He went on to say, "Right now, we have no sense of where she's going to be." It’s Chamberlain's group, which was founded by Howard ‘The Screamer’ Dean, along with a few other progressive organizations, saying they're concerned about Hitlery's stand on the Keystone XL pipeline and immigration, among other issues.
And it was in making note of Hitlery’s rather close ties to Wall Street and her six years spent, although decades ago, on the board of WalmarChamberlain that Mr. Chamberlain said, "I think there's a lot of concern in the progressive community about where she stands on income inequality." He then went on to say, "We're all wondering, has Hillary evolved? Now that’s a rather interesting way to describe things. I guess that’s what Barry did on the issue of gay marriage, he evolved. I think we all are able to recognize the fact that ‘evolving’ it’s just another way to say, pandering for votes.
And it was earlier this month that 30 environmental groups joined in sending Hitlery a letter asking her to, of all things, oppose the Keystone XL project. And it was Bill Snape, senior counsel at a group that identifies itself as the Center for Biological Diversity, one of the groups that signed that afore mentioned letter who said, "I think she's been conveniently coy on Keystone. We'd like her to be much more definitively against the project." While it was Ilya Sheyman, executive director of MoveOn.org Political Action, who said liberal groups like his "expect to hear where every candidate stands on income inequality."
Hitlery's new book, "Hard Choices," will, we’re told, lay out where she stands on many of the issues, or so says Seth Bringman, communications director for the Ready For Hillary super PAC. This boob went on to say, "As she gets out there more, when the book comes out and as she campaigns for 2014 candidates, we're going to continue to amplify her message." Another Hitlery fan is someone by the name of Bill Burton, one of those who co-founded Priorities USA and who now works as a ‘consultant’. He said Hitlery’s book tour will provide those pro-Clinton groups with more material.
Hitlery has been making several public appearances, of late, and has made comments on Iran and Russia said to be ‘tough’. However, she has yet to get involved in any actual policy debates, most likely because if she states what her positions are too soon, it would, most likely, open her up to attacks from Republicans and to challenges from Democrats. Burton said there is "no reason that she would actively be out there giving people a sense of what her message will be. But even though there's no campaign message that's been fleshed out, that doesn't mean people don't have a reason to be excited for her."
I think it safe to say that if Hitlery does finally decide to enlighten us all regarding where it is that she stands on the more important issues, we can assume that whatever those positions may turn out to be, it’s a safe bet they won’t be positions that are in the best interest of our country. Because, like Barry, Hitlery possesses a deep and very intense hatred for this country. And also, like Barry, she is a very devoted disciple of Saul Alinsky. And if elected she would undoubtedly continue us down the path that Barry has set us on and like him would not willingly accept the confines placed upon her, as president, by our Constitution.
Tuesday, May 27, 2014
Well if anyone out there is truly interested, that fat-slob-of-a Hollywood-hypocrite, Michael Moore, has finally issued his official response, if you wanna call it that, to what apparently has been the many requests for comment regarding the shootings that took place at the University of California, Santa Barbara. And I’m sure many of us were waiting with bated breath to hear just what this moron would have to say about this horrible event. And as to be expected Moore’s response was just as idiotic as many of us expected that it would be. He said, "Guns don't kill people; Americans kill people." He’s just so clever, is he not?
Mikey wrote on his Facebook page on Saturday, "We are a people easily manipulated by fear, which causes us to arm ourselves with a quarter-billion guns in our homes that are often easily accessible to young people, burglars, the mentally ill, and anyone who momentarily snaps." It was back in 2002 that Mikey made what was billed as being a ‘documentary’, "Bowling for Columbine," which while it was touted as being an examination of gun violence in America, was really nothing more than a fictional account of the horrific event that occurred in 1999 at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado.
Six people are now dead after a student at Santa Barbara City College shot three near the UCSB campus after stabbing three others at his apartment. Seven others were also very seriously injured. The gunman, Elliot Rodger, the son of some Hollywood movie director, reportedly ended the rampage by having the good sense to kill himself. And of course this very wonderful father of what he claimed was a very wonderful son, rather than accept any level of responsibility regarding, what must have been, his rather questionable parenting skills, instead was quick to place blame for this tragedy on the NRA.
To no one’s surprise, Mikey went on to argue that the "true" symbol of the United States is really "the gun, not the eagle." He said, "While other countries have more violent pasts (Germany, Japan), more guns per capita in their homes (Canada [mostly hunting guns]), and the kids in most other countries watch the same violent movies and play the same violent video games that our kids play, no one even comes close to killing as many of its own citizens on a daily basis as we do." But a point that this fat slob conveniently leaves out is the fact that in many instances a gun is not always the first weapon of choice.
Mikey of course made the claim that "nearly all of our mass shootings are by angry or disturbed white males." But the casualties from those ‘mass shootings’ to which Mikey chooses to refer actually pale in comparison to the number of blacks who are murdered each day by their fellow blacks and in the very places that have the strictest gun laws. But you’ll notice, Mikey never really talks about those. He also claims that 90 percent of Americans want tougher laws on guns, but that "Congress refuses" to act. Which, of course, we all know is really nothing more than an example of liberal bullshit that we always hear from these people!
Mikey wrote, "We won't pass the necessary laws, but more importantly we won't consider why this happens here all the time." And then this genius went on to say, "When the NRA says, 'Guns don't kill people -- people kill people,' they've got it half-right." Before he finally added, "Except I would amend it to this: 'Guns don't kill people -- Americans kill people.'" Moore ends his idiotic little rant by claiming to be clairvoyant, telling his readers that "this will all happen again very soon." Actually, I’m thinking that Mikey’s is among those people who are hoping that it happens again. It’s good for their cause.
The bottom line here is that Mikey is nothing more than another one of those arrogant elites who seem to think that it’s perfectly acceptable that they are permitted to surround themselves with gun toting Neanderthals, while the rest of us little people are to be left unarmed and without any means to defend ourselves and our loved ones. We’re told that we must simply accept the fact that we have no recourse other than to depend upon our local too-slow-to-respond police department to protect us. Sorry, but I beg to differ. I have just as much of a right to protect my family as folks like this slob do.
Sunday, May 25, 2014
|MIGHT THIS 'REALLY' BE OUR NEXT PRESIDENT?|
Because if the American people come to the conclusion that they want even more of what they will have gotten as a result of having Barry "Almighty" as their president for eight years, then they will most assuredly vote for Hitlery Clinton. But if they decide that they have had enough of this socialism and they want to try something better, then they will likely vote for someone else. The bottom line here, is that if a majority of the American people actually WANT more of the same, then there is absolutely nothing that any Republican candidate, or group, will be able to do to keep Hitlery from getting elected and killing off what's left of our liberty.
There is a theory now being floated by some that with the right amount of Republican-led scrutiny, Hitlery might decide to not even run after all. At a time that the former secretary of state, first lady and New York senator prepares for a high-profile book tour beginning in June, Republicans have begun using a variety of approaches to try to define Hitlery and drive down the mostly positive approval ratings she built while in Barry "Almighty's" Cabinet. At the same time, the GOP is building what is said to be an anti-Hitlery infrastructure that aims to undercut her appeal more than two years ahead of the presidential election.
"Ultimately our goal is to stop Hillary Clinton," said Garrett Marquis of the Stop Hillary PAC, which formed last year and has raised $500,000 and says it has 250,000 enlisted supporters. "If we can do that by dissuading her from running for president in the first place, then we'll consider our effort a success," Marquis said. But if Hitlery runs, Marquis said, the extra time will help "build a campaign to stop her." Hitlery's less than impressive record at the State Department is likely to receive a pretty thorough public dissection once she begins promoting "Hard Choices," her memoir of her time as the nation's top diplomat.
Republicans say, and rightfully so, that Hitlery's tenure while at the State Department lacked any significant or notable accomplishments and that many of those hard choices to which she refers in her new book were bad ones. When Hitlery recently criticized Nigeria's Boko Haram for its mass kidnappings of young girls, Republicans said she had failed to label the group a foreign terrorist organization while she was in charge. On Benghazi, her testimony to a Senate committee, and her now famous sound bite, "What difference does it make?" remains a formidable issue among Republican activists and the basis for countless fundraising pitches.
Researching Hitlery's past has become the major task for America Rising LLC, which is a Republican group founded by Matt Rhoades, who was Mitt Romney's former campaign manager. The group has raised money through a website called StopHillary2016.org and also has 20 paid trackers who follow Democrat candidates in search of "gotcha" moments that can shift momentum in campaigns. Executive director Tim Miller said the group will send camera-carrying trackers to some of Hitlery's book events. He said, "My feeling is that Hillary Clinton is already running for president." That would be a very safe assumption to make.
America Rising, he said, has sought to "provide a counterbalance and hold her accountable so that she doesn't just get a platform to kick off a presidential campaign without the scrutiny that should rightly come along with that." Stop Hillary PAC, meanwhile, warns on its website that by 2016, "it will be too late to stop Hillary. We've got to hold her accountable right now." Marquis said the group, led by a Colorado state senator, Ted Harvey, aims to mobilize voters against a future Hitlery campaign and hopes to have 1 million supporters by the end of 2014. But then there's also the notion that Hitlery might not run. On that issue we can only hope.
But as I said at the very beginning, if the American people truly believe that it is an all powerful government that is the answer to all their problems, than no matter what the Republicans, nor any of these many Stop Hitlery groups, do, it will, very likely, be all for naught. And those of us who believe that it’s that very same government that’s the root cause for most of our problems will come up short in our effort to send Hitlery off forever into private life. Thanks to what will be by then eight long years of Barry, the electing of Hitlery Clinton would be that final nail into our coffin. Whether or not that will come to pass rests solely with the American people.
Saturday, May 24, 2014
Whenever going in search of that near perfect Barry "Almighty" apologist, one really never needs to look any further than that former National Public Radio commentator, and now, bizarrely, a Fox News contributor, Juan Williams. Williams is another one of those folks who, although they will deny it to their dying breath, have put their race above the very survival of this nation. I can only assume that they see how Barry is destroying our nation as being some sort of retribution over the fact that blacks were made to serve as slaves in the early years of our history. Personally, I see that as being rather a sick and somewhat twisted way of looking at things.
Williams has been there to defend Barry on everything from ‘Fast & Furious’, ‘Benghazi’, ‘Obamacare’, and the ‘IRS’. Yes indeed, he’s been a good little soldier, saying whatever it is that needs to be said in order to defend his black president. And it was recently that Williams once again came rushing to the defense of Barry regarding this latest scandal in which his president has now become embroiled. I think most of us can agree that when it comes to TV punditry, there's your garden variety liberal talking points, and then there's your absurdly over-the-top liberal spin. And in his eagerness to defend Barry, Williams chose to rely on the latter.
Because in his effort to defend his black president during a recent appearance on Fox News, Williams actually went so far as to hint that, if anything, his buddy Barry cares a little too much about America's military veterans. Williams enthusiastically insisted that Barry has nearly gone "overboard" in his support of veterans. This rather idiotic claim was part of his response to what was really a relatively simple and straightforward question from the show’s host, Jon Scott: "[I]f, as the president said this was one of the causes of his presidency, why hasn't it [the persistent problems with the VA] been fixed?" An honest question, deserving of an honest answer.
But apparently that’s not quite how Williams saw it. He took it as being an attempt to slander his beloved Barry "Almighty’, and as long as he was there, that was not going to go unchallenged. Williams said, "Look, I think you have to put this in some kind of context. I don't think anybody, Republican or Democrat, doubts that the President has been heavily and emotionally invested in veterans and veterans affairs since he's been president. He's made a big show of it. Some people might even say gone overboard." Personally, other than someone like Williams, here, I’m not sure who it is that would be willing to say that Barry has gone overboard on this particular issue.
For Williams to even make such a claim, a claim that he knew was patently false the very second he chose to utter it, only serves to make it all the more obvious that this guy is about as far removed from being an objective ‘journalist’ as one can possibly get. And it proves that he’s little more than a paid propagandist who has zero credibility whenever the topic of discussion is Barry "Almighty". You would almost think that the guy is on the White House payroll. And the funny thing is that he still has the nerve to act all offended whenever such an accusation is made. He does his best to act the part of a bona fide journalist, but that’s really all it is, just an act.
Friday, May 23, 2014
Well it would seem that that little light bulb buried deep within the dank nether-regions of ‘Dingy Harry’s’ rather miniscule mind has now at least begun to flicker ever so slightly. The reality that he may actually be in jeopardy of losing his powerful position is at least beginning to sink in. Because it was earlier today that he revealed the Democrat Party ‘could be’ in some pretty "deep trouble" in the upcoming midterm elections. Now of course it goes without saying that he accepted absolutely no responsibility for this current dilemma that the Democrats now find themselves in.
But anyway, it was in a breathless fundraising email pitch which had as its subject line "deep trouble", and which has was recently obtained by a media outlet on the side of the good guys, that ‘Dingy Harry’ says: "The polls say it better than I ever could: We need you to make a contribution BEFORE MIDNIGHT TONIGHT.'' He goes on to back up his concern by using some new polls showing that Republicans are running neck-in-neck with their Democrat challengers in four key Senate races. Races that up until now were, I guess, seen as safe by old ‘Dingy’ and his gang.
The four races to which old ‘Dingy Harry’ was referring to were: North Carolina where Thom Tillis (R) and Kay Hagan (D) each have 41 percent of the vote; the race in Colorado where we see Cory Gardner (R) with 44 percent and Mark Udall (D) with 45 percent; the race in Arkansas where Tom Cotton (R) has 42 percent and Mark Pryor (D) has 43; and finally the race in Alaska, where we see Dan Sullivan (R) with 37 percent and Mark Begich (D) with 42 percent. All are races that, I suppose, are way too close to call for either candidate, but are close enough to cause ‘Dingy’ some worry.
In his attempt to emphasize the need for all the donations that he can possibly get, old ‘Dingy Harry’ went well out of his way to use what I’m sure he sees as a scare tactic by including in his appeal the amount of money that he claims Republican strategist Karl Rove has pumped into each race: $3.5 million in North Carolina; $2.8 million in Colorado; $1.7 million in Arizona; and $1.8 million in Arkansas. ‘Dingy Harry’ said, "Karl Rove’s $10 million spending spree could put Republicans in the driver’s seat in the four states he’s targeting." So ‘Dingy’ pleaded for more.
And in sounding perhaps a bit desperate, ‘Dingy’ said, "Polling is close in 11 states, and only six seats protect us from Republican control over everything from health care reform to the Supreme Court. We’re matching all contributions 3-to-1 – but only until midnight tonight.'' He said, "If we hit our goal tonight, that money will be answering attacks in Senate battlegrounds like North Carolina and Colorado come tomorrow morning." He added, "But if we fall short, Rove could seize the momentum, and we might not have time to get it back. Only you can stop Karl Rove and the Republicans."
Look, I’m no fan of Rove’s, especially after all of his whiteboard bullshit during the lead up to the 2012 election. And I don’t see him as being much of an ally to our truly conservative candidates. But I did rather like it when earlier this month he became more than a bit of a thorn in the side of just about all Democrats, sparking their anger with an inquiry about the health of former secretary of state and the presumed 2016 Democrat presidential front runner, Hitlery Clinton. But I won’t be giving him any money, what money I do give will go directly to the candidates of my choosing.
I feel fairly confident when I say that Democrats, as a whole, have a very low opinion of those who have served, or continue to serve, in our military. And as if we needed any more proof of that fact we got some just yesterday. You see, it was a Republican attempt to pass a bill making it easier to fire Veterans Affairs (VA) officials responsible for an ‘allegedly’ deadly delay in care to sick vets that was blocked in the Senate by, you guessed it, the anti-veteran Democrats.
And this was done despite efforts by individuals such as Sen. Marco Rubio who was said to have pleaded for quick approval of the House measure passed Wednesday so that it could then be sent on to Barry "Almighty", who really doesn’t care all that much for those who serve either, for signature before the Memorial Day recess.. But it was just not to be thanks primarily to that Socialist from "The Green Mountain State", Bernie Sanders, who chose to slam on the brakes.
It was this piss-poor excuse for a public servant who said, "Some of us are old-fashioned enough to know that maybe folks in the Senate might want to know what is in the bill before we voted on it." He went on to say, "I do not want to see an enormous amount of paperwork and obstruction go forward before we can get rid of incompetent people. But before we vote on legislation, it might be a good idea to understand the full implications of that legislation." Excuses is all we get from Democrats.
Bernie, who also, rather ironically, happens to be the chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, said he'd see about holding a hearing on the bill but unfortunately that would have to wait until the Senate returns in late June. I guess he’s holding out for a few more vets to die. ‘Dingy Harry’ Reid said the House bill was "not unreasonable," but would wait for Sanders to plot its course, adding: "I don't think we should wait around for a long time." What an asshole!
Boehner was incensed and rightfully so. He said, "As we head into the Memorial Day weekend, I am disappointed, and — frankly — shocked that Senate Democratic leaders chose to block legislation that would hold VA managers accountable, which passed the House with strong support from both parties." He added, "As we head home to honor the men and women who have sacrificed so much for our freedom, it's fair to ask why Senate Democrats won't stand up for more accountability?"
Mitch McConnell also was annoyed at the political blockade established by the Democrats. McConnell said, "I was surprised to see Senate Democrats block this important, bipartisan bill. There's no reason for us not to pass it quickly here in the Senate. And the President should call for its passage right away too." And it was House member Rep. Jeff Miller, Republican, who said "given the VA's continued pattern of stonewalling, there is good cause" for quick passage.
And on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" program, it was Democrat ‘Little Dick’ Durbin who made it quite clear that he, too, isn’t really bothered all that much by the plight of of our veterans. He said firing Shinseki wouldn't solve the VA's problems. This asshole said, "It is easy to point fingers of blame and say if one person goes, that will solve the problem. It is more than that." He added, "It is an overwhelming challenge to a system, but a promise that we've made that it is going to work."
And like the true piece of sh!t that he is, it was ‘Little Dick’ Durbin who in an attempt to prove that he is every bit the imbecile that we all know him to be, was the first to blame the entire VA fiasco on George W. Bush. I can’t help but wonder if Democrats feel they can get away with this type of behavior because this is not a big issue for those who vote for them. But veterans have fought for all of us, including the morons who vote for Democrats. And we should ALL be outraged!
Thursday, May 22, 2014
Apparently a Durham, North Carolina restaurant with a sign on its front door reading, "No Weapons, No Concealed Firearms," got itself robbed at gunpoint back on May 19. And try as I might to work up a little sympathy for the owner of this fine eating establishment, I’m just not feelin’ it. Because as far as I’m concerned, they brought it all on themselves.
I’m told that it was a website by the name of Gunsnfreedom.com that published a photograph of the sign on May 21, making "The Pit" restaurant a self-declared gun free zone--the same kind of zone that Michael Bloomberg and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America are doing their best to pressure other restaurants into becoming.
According to Durham's ABC 11, around 9 PM "three men wearing ‘hoodies’ entered the restaurant through the back door with pistols, and forced several staff members to lie on the floor." The armed men "also assaulted two employees during the crime." The suspects appear to be still on the loose, perhaps on the lookout for other such gun-free restaurants to rob.
I’m sure most are now quite familiar with the fact that Chipotle recently announced their intended gun ban by saying the sight of law-abiding citizens carrying guns caused customers "anxiety and discomfort." And it was shortly thereafter that Breitbart News responded with what was a very simple and straightforward question.
The question was: If law-abiding citizens caused customers "anxiety and discomfort," what will those customers feel like when a criminal enters Chipotle, now confident that no victim in the restaurant is allowed to have a gun with which to fight back? Perhaps the armed attack on "The Pit" can be of some help in answering this very basic question.
All this talk of ‘gun free’ zones sounds good, but no one seems to take into account all of those unintended consequences that always raise their ugly head. I mean it doesn’t, or at least it shouldn’t, take a rocket scientist to figure out that the first place that any robber is going to go is somewhere where they KNOW there will be no one with a gun. DUH!
Come on folks, just how stupid does someone really need to be to put a sign like that right on their front door? Might as well have a sign that says, "Come on in and rob us!" How is it that these days we have fewer and fewer people who possess any amount of commonsense? Because who in their right mind would ever think such a sign was a good idea?
Ok folks, it’s time for us as a nation to finally get a grip. The insanity that represents this era of Barry "Almighty" is now on the verge of, quite literally, swallowing up our country. Personally, I think it’s a pretty sad state of affairs when we’ve allowed ourselves to get to a point where we have members of the U.S. Senate who see as being the number one problem that we face, the name of a particular football team. Because when something as ludicrous as that happens then I think it’s pretty fair to assume that the end can’t be all that far away.
So anyway, believe it or not, we recently had fifty of our very esteemed senators take part in the writing of a letter to the National Football League (NFL) demanding that it pressure the Washington Redskins to change the team’s name, which they claim is "racially offensive" to Native Americans. The letter, signed by all but five Democrat senators, comes in the wake of the "thought-police’ sort of action recently taken by the National Basketball Association against LA Clippers owner Donald Sterling for making what were said to be racist statements.
According to this letter, "The NFL can no longer ignore this and perpetuate the use of this name as anything but what it is: a racial slur." And it goes on to say, "We urge the NFL to formally support a name change for the Washington football team. We urge you and the National Football League to send the same clear message as the NBA did: that racism and bigotry have no place in professional sports." So, is this perhaps an attempt by the Democrats to sow up the Indian vote as part of their strategy to maintain control of the Senate this November?
NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy appeared to defend the team’s name in a statement: "The intent of the team’s name has always been to present a strong, positive and respectful image," according to the statement, which was quoted by the Times. "The name is not used by the team or the NFL in any other context, though we respect those that view it differently." The NFL said it hasn't received the letter from Senate Democrats. And when they finally do I’d recommend that they respond in what would be a very simply manner, and with a big fat, "F*CK YOU!"
The Washington NFL team, owned by Daniel Snyder, has refused to change its name, claiming that many Native Americans approve of the name Redskins, which the team says is a tribute to the strength and courage of Native Americans. However, this sophomoric little letter said that "Indian Country has spoken clearly on this issue," while pointing out that groups representing 2 million Native Americans and 300 sovereign tribes had called for the name to be changed and declared it racially offensive. I simply don’t believe anything that Democrats say.
The letter was circulated by Sen. Maria Cantwell of, where else but, Washington and proudly endorsed by none other than ‘Dingy Harry’ Reid. And for what would seem to be obvious reasons, it wasn’t passed on to Republican senators. ‘Dingy Harry’, who has been an outspoken critic of the Redskins name, said he was surprised that the league was unwilling to alter the moniker. "I have 22 tribal organizations in Nevada," ‘Dingy’ said. "They are not mascots. They are human beings. And this term Redskins is offensive to them."
Look folks, we’re now $17 Trillion in the hole, we have nearly 50 million people on food stamps, a total of 100 million Americans now on some form of government assistance and a workforce that has now shrunk by over 10 million workers in just the last 5 years. That and we seem to have a new scandal, directly involving Barry, coming to light nearly every week. I realize that for many I’m merely stating the obvious here, but apparently things are not so obvious to the Democrats. Or why else would they rather waste time focusing on far more trivial issues?
Wednesday, May 21, 2014
I wish I could find someone who could tell me what the Hell it is about Florida that seems to make it a breeding ground for some of the most bizarre politicians you’ll find anywhere. Let’s face it, down here we have Debbie Wizzerman Schultz, Corrine Brown, Frederica Wilson, Alcee Hastings, Bill Nelson, and Alan Grayson just to name a few. And let me tell you, it’s with each passing day that I question the wisdom of my decision to retire here in 2002 upon leaving the Navy after 24 years.
And just when I thought I was pretty familiar with all of the crackpot-losers down here in ‘The Sunshine State’ another turd seems to float to the surface in the person of second year House member, Joe Garcia, recently made famous for having been caught on camera eating his own earwax. And now he seems to have gotten caught red-handed in yet another gaffe just this week, claiming that low crime rates in border cities with lots of federal immigration workers is proof that "Communism works."
This moron made this imbecilic claim during something called a Google hangout that he convened last week to talk about comprehensive immigration reform with his supporters. Yes, as amazing as it may sound this boob actually has supporters, although we’re not sure how many were tuned in to the event. Anyway, this escapee from a mental ward attempted to point out how, for all their talk about limited government, many Republicans are fine spending loads of government money on border security.
And then in an attempt to prove his rather idiotic point, he said, "Let me give you an example, the kind of money we’ve poured in." And then he went on to say, "So the most dangerous — sorry, the safest city in America is El Paso, Texas. It happens to be across the border from the most dangerous city in the Americas, which is Juarez. Right?" And he made what had to be his most idiotic claim by saying, "And two of the safest cities in America, two of them are on the border with Mexico."
Garcia continued, "And of course, the reason is we’ve proved that Communism works. If you give everybody a good government job, there’s no crime." He then added, "But that isn’t what we should be doing on the border," he continued. "The kind of money we’ve poured into it, and we’re having diminishing returns." Is this really the caliber of individual that the people of his district want representing them in Congress. If not, then I suggest that they might want to think about raising the bar just a hair.
Garcia, who, I guess, is supposed to be of Cuban descent, along with many of his south Florida constituents, told the Miami Herald he never meant to espouse Communism and was, or so he claimed, instead taking a tongue-in-cheek shot at his GOP opponents. And of course he then proceeded to do his best to downplay the entire episode by saying, "This is an absurdity, accusing the son of Cuban immigrants of believing in Communism is just ridiculous." I might believe him if he weren’t a Democrat.
Garcia’s district is already said to be a toss-up by the Cook Political Report, and with their second attack on the congressman in a week, America Rising, a Republican PAC created in 2013, clearly senses an opening in the south Florida district. Coupling the earwax video with Garcia’s rather enthusiastic endorsement of Communism and Republicans now have a rather robust chest of opposition material to deploy in Florida this fall. And let’s face it, the people of Florida’s 26th District simply deserve better than this boob.
Now call me crazy, but wouldn’t you think a guy who is as beloved by the socialist elites in this country, as is Barry "Almighty", would have very little trouble in coming up with more than the necessary funds required to build one bodacious presidential library? After all, ‘Slick Willie’ Clinton didn’t have any trouble at all in coming up with the money he needed to build his presidential library/porno theater/massage parlor. But apparently the funds for Barry’s little monument to himself have been slow in coming. But then ‘Slick Willie’ was actually the first black president.
Anyway, it was just recently that ‘Little Dick’ Durbin, Democrat from Illinois, was out urging that the State of Illinois put up at least some seed money for the creation of Barry’s library, to be built right in the heart of ‘The Windy City.’ It was just last week that ‘Little Dick’ was telling reporters, "It's going to have a long-term positive economic impact and this is where it ought to be." And he went on to say, "I believe an investment in this library by the State of Illinois will pay back in terms of visitors to our state, more business, more jobs and people paying taxes." Is he serious?
Now ‘Little Dick’ didn’t go so far as to actually endorse a bill that’s currently in the Illinois legislature and calls for up to $100 million in state seed money to create Barry’s presidential library. And it was back in May 12 during a visit to Loyola University that ‘Little Dick’ was heard to say, "Whether $100 million is the right dollar amount, I don't know." According to ABC7 Chicago, if the funding bill does pass, Illinois would be the first state to bid for a presidential library with public money. Ok, and who would be surprised by this? After all, this is Illinois that we’re talking about!!
A Capitol Fax poll showed likely voters in the state are actually opposed to the measure, with 67 percent of those responding to the poll saying that they disapprove of state funds being used to bid on the library. But hey, since when have the politicians of this, the most corrupt, state in our union ever really cared about what the people had to say about anything? So it comes as no surprise that Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel have been quite vocal in their support of Illinois offering millions of dollars toward the building of this edifice.
Usually, presidential libraries are built exclusively with private donations and then eventually are handed over to the National Archives for regular operation. And as it happens, Barry's presidential library foundation is also considering sites other than Chicago. Other possibilities are Honolulu, where we’re told that Barry was supposedly born, and New York City, where we’re told that he went to college. Personally, I’m thinking a site somewhere in the Middle East would be far more appropriate. After all, what better location is there than that to build a tribute to the man who so hated America?
Tuesday, May 20, 2014
With the midterm elections rapidly approaching and with Obamacare and the economy not really working out too well for them, the Democrats seem to be busily searching for something, anything, on which to run. And they may have finally struck upon something. Because word now comes, just today, that Barry "Almighty" and his fellow Democrats in Congress have achieved something which they can claim is actually a direct result of the policies that they have worked so hard to put into place over the course of the last 5 years.
Because what Barry and his fellow Democrats have now achieved in this country is yet another new record for the number of Americans who are living on disability. The total number of disability beneficiaries in the United States rose from 10,981,423 in March to 10,996,447 in April, or an increase of 15,024, setting yet another new all-time record. That bit of information is according to newly released data from the Social Security Administration. Democrats will be able to make the claim that thanks to their policies even more folks can now stay at home.
And what’s even more amazing, at least to those who are not big supporters of Barry’s or his socialist policies, the number of Americans receiving disability benefits continues to exceed the populations of Greece, Tunisia and Portugal, and is approaching the population of Cuba, which according to the CIA World Factbook is 11,047,251. And even though I kind of meant this as a joke, I’d be willing to bet that nearly every one of those folks currently on disability, or at least those who can vote, will likely vote Democrat in an effort to keep their gravy train going.
Ya know, the sad fact of the matter is that I simply don’t know what to make of my country anymore. I really don’t. It seems like all that a politician has to say these days is, "If you vote for me you’ll never have to work again." And this issue may actually be just what the doctor ordered for the Democrats going into this fall’s elections. I mean, seriously, who’s actually going to vote for those candidates who want to improve the economy so that people can go back to work when people have now become very content not to work. That’s where we’re at now.
Well it would seem that the Democrats, despite all of the claims made by Barry, Nancy, ‘Dingy Harry', and any number of other luminaries of the left, may be running out of things to talk about as we slog along through this current election season. After all, we already know that Obamacare is unlikely to be a hot topic of discussion, at least by the Democrats. And now Democrats running in this November’s midterm elections are being advised to avoid using the phrase "economic recovery" as a big selling point. Especially since their core constituencies, which includes women, blacks and Hispanics, are not exactly feeling the uptick.
According to an April memo from a group of Democrat schemers said to include such folks as ‘Slick Willie’ Clinton’s political strategists, James Carville and Stanley B. Greenberg, "As a start, Democrats should bury any mention of 'the recovery.'" The memo instead encouraged Democrats to zero in on a more "populist message comparing the fortunes of the top 1 percent with the struggles of everyone else." In other words to simply resort to those tried and true tactics of the past of simply making shit up and hope that a majority of voters will be stupid enough to fall for it. After all, Barry’s ‘economic recovery’ exists almost solely on paper.
And for proof of that fact one really need look no further than what transpired over the course of Barry’s first term in office. Because what we saw at the end of that little sleigh-ride to Hell was that the mean income had declined 4.5 percent for black households, 4.2 percent for Hispanic households and 2.2 percent for white ones. And it was during that same period of time that pretax income for the top 1 percent had skyrocketed by 31 percent, compared with just 0.4 percent income growth for the remaining 99 percent. And all was a direct result of the policies that were put into place by the socialists who still remain pretty much in control.
We’re told that the economy has seen a supposed decline in unemployment figures, which in reality is nothing more than a product of some pretty creative math as well as some impressive use of smoke and mirrors. And while there has also been some promising stock market activity that too, upon closer inspection, is built on rather shaky ground. And it was Carville who stated in a recent interview, "There’s a recovery for some people, you know, and other people, not so much." He went on to compare today’s economic climate to 1994, when the GOP walloped Democrats at the polls even though the economy was "clearly in recovery."
Though the unemployment rate for women has declined from 8.1 percent in the 2010 midterms to 5.7 percent today, that progress is very clearly nothing more than a mirage. Because when delving a bit further into the numbers it quickly becomes very obvious that the number of women with jobs compared with the total female population is worse than it was in 2010. The reason? A "disappearing work force: people giving up and dropping out." And it was in February that the black unemployment rate stood at 12 percent, compared to 5.8 percent for whites. But both numbers are about as far removed from reality as you can get.
Underemployment, or those who are unemployed or working part-time jobs while desiring full-time work, is 20.5 percent for blacks, 18.4 percent for Hispanics and 11.8 percent for whites. And it has been reported that more than seven million Americans report holding more than one job, up from 6.7 million in 2010. And although I have a hard time believing it, it has been reported that support for Democrat congressional candidates has plummeted, from 93 percent to 77 percent, among black voters just since the 2012 presidential election. These folks really have no one to blame but themselves, they all voted for Democrats.
And yet, as bizarre as this may sound, despite all of the evidence that proves just how thoroughly the policies that Barry and the Democrats have put into place have failed, and continue to fail, it seems that a majority of Americans STILL have more confidence in the Democrats when it comes to handling the economy. So what else is it that needs to take place before these folks will finally come to realization that socialism simply does not work. It has never worked, anywhere. So will this so-called populist tact work for the Democrats come this November? I’d like to think that most Americans will be able to see through it, but one just never knows.
Monday, May 19, 2014
So, just how big of a hapless, imbecilic boob is our current, and incredibly inept, secretary of state, John Kerry-Heinz. Well if there is one thing that we should all know for sure, it’s that he’s certainly no improvement over our last secretary of state. And there is no one who is able to prove that point better than John Kerry-Heinz himself. You see, it was Kerry-Heinz who, just today, warned graduates of Boston College that they have doom and destruction to look forward to if they don't take ‘climate change’ more seriously than previous generations.
Kerry-Heinz said, "And I know its hard to feel the urgency as we sit here on an absolutely beautiful morning in Boston," adding, "you might not see climate change as an immediate threat to your job, your communities or your families." And then sounding like the true climate alarmist that he is, he said, 'But let me tell you, it is. If the U.S. does not act, and it turns out that the critics and the naysayers and the members of the Flat Earth Society, if it turns out that they're wrong, then we are risking nothing less than the future of the entire planet."
Kerry-Heinz take great pleasure in ridiculing those that refuse to buy into this leftist propaganda of climate change as being the Flat Earthers of the discussion. But Kerry-Heinz is a liar. And in proving that the bar has always been set pretty low for those graduating from this particular institution, Kerry-Heinz, himself, even graduated from Boston College Law School in 1976. That was after he had spent what was a very short (4 months) and yet a very personally rewarding (3 Purple Hearts, a Silver Star and a Bronze Star) period of time in Vietnam.
It was also over the weekend that Kerry-Heinz gave the commencement speech at Yale, from which he too graduated in 1966. And it was at both Yale and Boston college, Kerry-Heinz spoke about the U.S.' role in helping fix crises abroad. He told those in attendance at BC's commencement ceremony, "Today I promise you that is one of the greatest challenges of America's foreign policy - ensuring that even when its not popular, even when it's not easy, America still lives up to our ideals and our responsibilities to lead." Not so much!
Kerry-Heinz said, "In times of crisis, violence, strife, epidemic, inability, believe me, the world still looks to the United States of America as a partner of first resort." But he conveniently left out how it is today that far fewer in that world to which he made reference look upon this nation as they have in the past, and primarily because of people like him and the man who serves as his boss. He went on to say, "People aren't worried about our presence, they're worried about our leaving." he said, citing examples of U.S. humanitarian work.
And then he said that the successful that work America has done abroad should give graduates the courage take on yet other global challenges such as, of course, climate change. And he said, "If we're going to live up to our values, this is a test that we have to meet." He reminded students of two recent, and yet very bogus, studies completed by the U.N. and retired U.S. military leaders that warned he world of the consequences it will face if countries do not move more quickly to reduce human contributions to climate change.
And, as to be expected since he was after all in front of a crowd of young and impressionable minds, Kerry-Heinz wasted little time perpetuating the myth about how supposedly 97 percent of scientists supposedly agree that "climate change" is 'urgent' because, he said, "it will lead to food and water insecurity, and 'things will change in a hurry. And they will change for the worse." He also made the claim that scarcity of resources due to climate change is 'directly' linked to greater conflict and instability throughout the world.
Kerry-Heinz went on to say, "If we make the necessary efforts to address this challenge, and supposing I'm wrong or scientists are wrong - 97 percent of them, all wrong - but supposing they are, what's the worst that can happen?" He said, "We put millions of people to work transitioning our energy, creating new and renewable and alternatives? We make life healthier because we have less particulates in the air and cleaner air and more health? We give ourselves greater security through greater energy independence? That's the downside."
Little, if anything, that Kerry-Heinz said today actually made any sense. Because it’s not ‘if’ people like him are wrong, they are wrong, terribly wrong. In fact they couldn’t be more wrong. And the biggest sham of all is that they KNOW they’re wrong. This entire cockamamie scheme of theirs has absolutely nothing to do with anything other than them coming up with some way of destroying that which used to be the most potent economy on the planet. Everything he said was a lie, and he knew it was a lie when he said it. Because it’s all about politics.
And you know, I’m not sure what pisses me off more about this guy. Because what I think what’s even worse than his blatantly lying to these kids about the supposed dangers of bogus ‘climate change’ is the fact that many of those kids listening to him today, for whatever bizarre reason, actually do respect this ass. And it’s because of that respect, misplaced or not, that there will be a tendency for them to believe him. And he knows that, that’s why his lying to them is all the more despicable. Because most of those kids are too naïve to think that this boob would actually lie to them.
|"DEER IN THE HEADLIGHTS"|
It was during her appearance, just this past Sunday, on that less that widely viewed Communist News Network (CNN) program, "State of the Union" with Candy Crowley that Feinsteain said, "I think it’s ridiculous." And of course she then proceeded to take things a step further by saying, "I think it’s a hunting mission for a lynch mob, actually. I think that's what's going on." Now of course the old girl declared that she was quite confident that all questions about the Benghazi attack and its aftermath have been answered at least "to the satisfaction of the Intelligence Committee," which, by a sheer coincidence, she also happens to chair.
And of course she wasted very little time I attempting to compare the attack on Americans in Benghazi with the Reagan-era attack on the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut: "If you compare it to Ronald Reagan, who is the big Republican hero, and what happened in Beirut, with three attacks, with 240 servicemen, with seven CIA officers, with one chief of station being tortured to death, and Reagan admitted we weren't ready for it -- well, since then, a lot of … things have been done. There were faults. The intelligence was there. Action should have been taken." These scumbags are always desperate to compare themselves to Reagan.
And then it was later in the same interview that old Candy asked Feinstein about her strained relationship with the CIA. Feinstein responded by saying, "[W]hat I have to do is oversight." She then went on to say, "I'm not there to be the most popular person in any building. It's to see that my committee is diligent, that we do the work of oversight, that when they're wrong, we do something about it. When there is something going on that shouldn't be, we do something about it." Oddly enough, the very last time that this mental midget saw there being any kind of an urgent ‘need’ to ‘do’ something, George W. Bush was president.
Let’s face, there is absolutely nothing that these scumbag Democrats will not do to protect one of their own. They will leave no lie untold nor accusation left unmade. And have you ever noticed how they always love to compare something that happened on their watch to something that occurred under Reagan, implying that they handled it just as well as he would have? But who is there now among us that has any doubt if the attack in Benghazi had happened during the Bush presidency, this shriveled up old douche would not have been one of those very far out in front and very loudly demanding his impeachment?
Friday, May 16, 2014
In a move that I’m sure must have left at least a few scratching their heads, earlier this week the NAACP took what I would say was an unusual step and one likely to further reduce what credibility it may still possess as an organization whose primary purpose was once to promote racial equality. And in choosing to demonstrate that it has become nothing more than a mere shadow of its former self, and in the process nothing more than a front group for the Democrat Party, the Los Angeles chapter of this once venerable organization made its selection of its "Person of the Year."
As you all know, or should know unless you’ve been living under a rock, it was the Los Angeles chapter that withdrew its lifetime achievement award intended for embattled LA Clippers owner Donald Sterling last month. So as it set out on a quest for a suitable replacement it evidently had little luck in finding someone who would actually be worthy of the award. So with very few options available to it, it was forced to settle for, of all people, Al ‘Bull Horn’ Sharpton as its ‘new’ "Person of the Year." This bogus award was given to ‘Bull Horn’ on Thursday evening, in Sterling's absence.
In his acceptance speech old ‘Bull Horn’ wasted little time in taking a jab at Sterling, saying to those in the audience, "Sterling may be rich but he’s not as rich as the history of this organization." Well that might be a bit of an exaggeration, especially if we’re going to be including this organization’s more recent foray into Democrat Party politics. And while the group may have chose to distance itself from Sterling after a recently released recording of his using racial language, there’s no arguing that old Al ‘Bull Horn’ Sharpton has his own history of racial controversy.
I’m sure most will remember ‘Bull Horn’s’ involvement in any number of racially tainted incidents over the years including the making of false accusations in the racially charged Tawana Brawley case, the inciting of anti-Jewish mobs in New York in the early 1990s, or fanning racial outrage in the Trayvon Marin case. So it strikes me that if this group was truly interested in what it claims to be interested in, the last person that they would have seen as worthy of being their "Person of the Year" would have been Al. Such a selection only serves to demean all the previous winners of the award.
Well it would seem that we have yet another Democrat willing to praise Red China, at least in the way it educates its young. None other than Sen. Patty Murray has come out and praised Red China’s eagerness to invest in early childhood education. She made her comment at an economic summit in Washington, D.C. Wednesday. But in so doing she also oddly enough neglected to mention anything about how literally millions of children are either killed or denied an education under Red China's "one-child policy." I’m sure it was just an oversight, I mean it couldn’t have been anything else, right?
But anyway, Murray said, "China today is investing heavily in early childhood education." And she went on to say, "This is actually a no-brainer. Fifty years of study shows that investing in early childhood education means we have a workforce who has the skills that they need, that can grow the economy, we have fewer people in jail, we are much more secure." Ah yes, spoken like a true utopian believer as well as a useful idiot. But the workforce of which this moron speaks has now shrunk by 12 Million in just the last 5 years because most can’t find a job, because of policies that she herself has supported.
But human rights activists such as Ms. Reggie Littlejohn, founder and president of Women’s Rights Without Frontiers, say that Red China’s population control policies actually deny an education to some children, and that millions more never have a chance to be educated at all because of forced abortions. She said, "It is ironic that Sen. Murray would hold up China as a shining example of early childhood education while ignoring the fact that China has prevented 400 million children from being born—too often by forced abortion under China’s one-child policy." Yes, ironic indeed.
Ms. Littlejohn went on say, "In addition, the Chinese government has denied countless millions of children the right to an education and healthcare if they are born without birth permits." And she continued,, "Children born without official permission are denied hukou, or household registration. They become illegal aliens in their own country." Adding, "In addition, the Chinese government will deny the children of dissidents the right to education." So of course, I don’t suppose we should be all that surprised by the fact that none of this was mentioned by a Democrat senator.
At the 2014 Fiscal Summit, entitled "Our Economic Future," CBS correspondent Nancy Cordes asked Murray to explain her thoughts on education spending and its role within the American economy. After singling out Red China as an economic competitor that America should emulate, Murray emphasized the positive effect that investment in early childhood education has on a nation’s economic wellbeing. She said, "We are doing the exact opposite as China and some of our other future competitors, by undermining all of our education system today by using it to help solve our fiscal problem."
Look, our education system sucks because it has been shanghaied by progressives like Murray. No longer is the goal to teach the three R’s, instead the primary goal has become one of brainwashing our young into believing that the government is to be the sole arbiter of our rights and primary decision maker in our lives. Children are no longer even taught the history of their country, only that they should be accepting of all lifestyles no matter how perverse. The sad fact is that today less than 40 percent of our kids leave high school being prepared for college which is a pretty piss poor return for all of the money that’s spent.
So I fail to see how, as Ms. Murray would have us believe, that becoming more like Red China would be something that would have a positive impact on either our educational system or our economy. But then I’m not a progressive Democrat, so I just don’t think the way she does. And you would think that anyone with an ounce of commonsense could look back over the last 5 years and very easily recognize the fact that what has been done, nearly anywhere one wishes to look, has not resulted in an outcome that could, by using anyone’s standard of measurement, be described as being a success.
Well, if you can believe Barry "Almighty’s" top adviser and fellow communist, Valerie Jarrett, and I’m not saying that you can or cannot, it seems that we may once again be on the verge of being knifed in the back by our stellar Speaker of the House, John Boehner. It was Jarrett who told a group of global elites on Thursday in Las Vegas, Nevada that Boehner has made a commitment to the White House to try to pass ‘amnesty’ legislation this year.
After hailing the Senate's amnesty bill that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) determined would actually lower wages for American workers, Jarrett told attendees at the yearly invitation-only SkyBridge Alternatives Conference that Boehner would help the White House make a push to get immigration reform enacted in the next three months. While I’m not saying that I believe her, but Boehner has proven that he can’t really be trusted.
Jarrett said, "I think we have a window this summer, between now and August, to get something done." And she went on to say, "We have a commitment from Speaker Boehner, who’s very frustrated with his caucus." Actually, I’d say many in his caucus are frustrated with him, especially when it comes to his willingness to bend over backwards to assist Barry while claiming at the same that he’s doing no such thing. He’s absolutely useless!
In making the claim that the Senate's bill would pass in the House if Republicans brought it to the floor, Jarrett was echoing the sentiments of Rep. Luis Gutierrez, Democrat, who has said that Democrats would want a piecemeal approach to immigration reform ‘IF’ they get all of the pieces of the Senate bill, said that there were "a lot of ways to skin a cat" and that there would be "mounting pressure" on amnesty legislation in the coming months.
The Senate's bill would double and possibly even triple the number of H1-B visas that high-tech lobbying groups covet even though our universities are graduating more workers in the science, technology, engineering, and math fields than there are jobs for. In addition, illegal immigrants put on a path to citizenship and given work visas could qualify for any job, reducing opportunities for Americans on the bottom rungs of the economic ladder.
Boehner, who hired Sen. John McCain's top amnesty adviser at the end of the last year, has previously told fundraisers in Las Vegas that he was "hellbent" on getting amnesty legislation done this year and then mocked conservative opponents of amnesty at an event in his Ohio district. Boehner also said that what he and Barry agreed the most on, when they met at the White House in February of this year, was on amnesty legislation.
House GOP leaders like Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), the GOP Conference Chair, have also floated an August deadline to get legislation on the House floor while business executives have said they thought amnesty legislation would be the "final act" of the lame-duck session. What is this urgency that Republicans have for, quite literally, creating for the Democrat Party 11 Million brand new, freshly minted, constituents? It’s insanity!
And it becomes all the more infuriating when we’re told by such party luminaries as Sen. Marco Rubio, as well as other GOP leaders, as we were on Wednesday, that even if Congress is pressured not to act on immigration legislation this year, Republicans in the Senate would "absolutely" try to pass ‘amnesty’ legislation again in the next Congress if Republicans are successful in their attempt to win back the Senate in November.
I simply do understand this need the Republicans have to be in such a hurry to bring about what would be the effective end of their party. I voted for Rubio, and now very much regret doing so. I might as well have voted for Crist. Why is it that we can’t simply enforce the laws we already have on the books? The very same laws that are now being treated as if they simply don’t exist by the same guy that Boehner seems to be so hellbent to assist!
Thursday, May 15, 2014
Well it would seem that once again we will get to find out just what the priorities of American women really are. Will it be their ability to obtain an abortion, or free birth control that remains the most important issue for women, or is it commonsense that will prevail this time around with the most important issue being their ability to find a job? Personally, I’m not holding out for commonsense to make much of an appearance. I’ve never really been able to understand how so many intelligent women could go so absolutely stupid upon entering the voting booth.
So rumor has it that Democrats are now busily strategizing on how they can best get women to the polls this November, postulating that the fairer sex may be the party's best hope of saving it from near total decimation in November. While acknowledging that there is little hope of Democrats doing well enough to gain control of the House, pundits and pollsters alike believe there is a strong likelihood that the GOP may well win back the Senate. And the party leaders are hoping that women may be just the ticket, allowing the party to limit the damage.
Anyway, the supposed plan that Democrats will attempt to activate is one that has them doing their best to: recruit female candidates in competitive districts, craft a message that the GOP is anti-woman, and use technology to target unmarried women in an effort to get them to the polls for the midterms. Female Democrats have always struck me in much the same way that black Democrats do. These people lie unabashedly to those like them, and for no other reason than to convince them to vote against that which is in their own best interest. It’s all really quite bizarre.
It was the Wall Street Journal which has reported that combining all Wall Street Journal/NBC News polls conducted in 2014, 49 percent of women prefer a Democratic-controlled Congress, compared with men, who prefer, by 13 points, a Congress controlled by the GOP. College-educated white women, who the Journal characterizes as "stalwarts of the party", tilt even more toward Democrats and are also more reliable to make it to the polls. But winning their votes in the current political climate may be more than an uphill battle.
Apparently white women are unhappy with Barry's economic record with 58 percent saying they disapprove of his performance in the economy and by a 3-point margin, 46 percent to 43 percent, have said this year that they prefer a Congress controlled by Republicans to come out of this year's election. Also, older white women lean more Republican than do younger women. It would seem that with age and responsibilities, comes a little wisdom. That and perhaps the ability to easily recognize just which party it is that’s truly waging a war on women.
As things appear right now, House Democrats plan on taking a page from Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe's victory last year, a win credited primarily to women voters, who supported him by 9 points over the Republican candidate, Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. Unmarried women, or I guess those who prefer to spend their days flat on their back, instead of working to support themselves, supported McAuliffe at an even larger margin, 67 percent to 25 percent. So once again we were witness to the self-destructive priorities of many women.
Meanwhile those of us fighting to save our country may, yet again, be forced to deal with a bunch of brain-dead females whose primary purpose in life appears being able to continue on their search for that ever elusive, perfect orgasm. After all, that’s just oh so much more important that protecting our country for future generations. Right? I don’t know, maybe I’m wrong. If the country’s already lost, why bother trying to save it. Why not join those on their search for that perfect orgasm. Maybe there’ll be some stragglers to be had. Just kidding!
Riddle me this…Why is it that the United States Department of Agriculture would need to purchase .40 caliber submachine guns, and with 30 round magazines, no less? Because on May 7th there was a solicitation made by the U.S. Department of Agriculture seeking "the commercial acquisition of submachine guns [in] .40 Cal. S&W." I’d be very curious to know what exactly these folks might be expecting to be called upon to do.
According to the solicitation, the Dept. of Agriculture wants the guns to have an "ambidextrous safety, semiautomatic or 2 round [bursts] trigger group, Tritium night sights front and rear, rails for attachment of flashlight (front under fore group) and scope (top rear), stock collapsible or folding," and a "30 rd. capacity" magazine. Why would we EVER need to weaponize our Dept. of Agriculture? Does that make sense? To anybody?
AND, they also want the submachine guns to have a "sling," be "lightweight," and have an "oversized trigger guard for gloved operation." The solicitation directs "all responsible and/or interested sources...[to] submit their company name, point of contact, and telephone." Companies that submit information in a "timely" fashion "shall be considered by the agency for contact to determine weapon suitability." Weapon suitability??
What the Hell is going on here? It seems that with each passing day I am able to recognize a little less of my country. And to say that I have virtually no trust in the sleazy thug who now sits in the Oval Office would be an understatement. Now I’m no fan of conspiracy theories, but I gotta say, that when something like this happens all kinds of things can start running through my head. And what’s the rationale for something like this anyway?
And at what point are the American people going to finally say enough of this rabid arming of these government agencies that have absolutely no business possessing weapons of ANY kind! This is another perfect example of the madness that has been steadily underway in this country ever since that fateful day back in January of 2009. We’re going to have to come to our senses before it’s too late, if it’s not too late already! WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!