Thursday, July 31, 2014


Apparently these days of you happen to be some big shot football player in the NFL, and you also happen to be in the state of New Jersey at the time, it’s perfectly acceptable if you want to go out and beat the shit out of your significant other. Because word now has it that once Baltimore Ravens thug Ray Rice completes a pre-trial intervention program for first-time offenders, the 3rd degree aggravated assault case currently against him, stemming from a ‘domestic incident’ with his now-wife, will be dismissed. What a deal!

When asked if domestic violence cases for first-time offenders were typically handled in a similar manner, Jay McKeen, spokesperson for Atlantic County, N.J., prosecutor’s office said, "That’s a normal outcome given the same circumstances for anyone." Rice was arrested and indicted by a grand jury for the alleged physical assault of his then-fiancée Janay Palmer in an Atlantic City casino. Videotape surveillance footage showed Rice carrying an unconscious Palmer out of the casino elevator.

At first both Palmer and Rice were charged with simple assault and then released on summons complaints. The assault complaint against Palmer was later "administratively dismissed" on March 27, but grand jury indicted Rice on one count of aggravated assault. The indictment then prompted NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell to suspend Rice for TWO whole games, a decision seen by some as too lenient, considering other far less serious offenses have resulted in more suspension time. Like, why bother?

On May 1, Rice entered a not guilty plea and applied for Pre-Trial Intervention (PTI). And it was prosecutor Jim McClain who said in a press release, "This decision was arrived at after careful consideration of the information contained in Mr. Rice’s application in light of all of the facts gathered during the investigation. After considering all relevant information in light of applicable law it was determined that this was the appropriate disposition." That and I’m sure the fact that he’s a millionaire athlete didn’t hurt.

According to the press release, successful completion of the program will result in dismissal of the case, and the arrest will remain on the applicant’s record, but no conviction. "PTI is a New Jersey program for first-time offenders accused of 4th and 3rd degree crimes, similar to probation in that it avoids incarceration and requires the satisfaction of prescribed conditions. The program ranges in duration between 6 months and 4 years," the press release said. All this is just a slap on the wrist.

Now you can call me crazy if you wish, but somehow I’ve got this sneaky suspicion that if I, a white non-athlete type, were to suddenly have the overwhelming urge to beat the shit out of my wife, whether first offense or tenth offense, I would immediately go to jail. But hey, this kind of stuff goes on all the time. Frankly I was surprised that that Hernandez creep didn’t get off. And you know, while I’m all for capitalism and the free market, as far as I’m concerned paying 20-somethings millions of dollars is just asking for trouble.


Ya know, if it weren’t for all the uneducated, the uninformed people we have in this country, or all those who remain completely unconcerned about whether or not our country survives, there would be no one who would vote for Democrats. And as I watched a video clip, or as much of it as I could stomach, from Barry’s speech in Kansas City yesterday, which was said to be focused on the economy, I found myself wondering about those fools on the screen standing behind him and cheering. I was curious about what it was that they were cheering about.

And as was to be expected, Barry performed in typical fashion and at his arrogant best as he set about making his claim that the Republicans should stop "hating" and "being mad all the time". Barry accused Republican lawmakers of needlessly suing him, instead of doing their jobs. He said they should be more focused on the economy. Now I will agree with Barry in that I think this lawsuit is a waste of time. And Republicans in the House do need to focus more on their, specifically their job of controlling just how mush Barry is permitted to spend.

And it was during the clip of his speech that I focused on the many happy and smiling faces standing behind him. And for the life of me I couldn’t help but wonder what it was that they all had to be so happy about. There Barry was standing right in front of them, lying through his pearly whites, and yet they were applauding. They were all on the younger side, so I suppose that might explain it. And you know Barry is very willing and quite capable of exploiting the naivete and foolish idealism of our younger generation.

Barry, as is usually the case with crowds of his zombie-like followers, had these people eating out of the palm of his hand. And I know that on the inside Barry had to be laughing his ass off at just how stupid all these people were. In speaking about the Republicans, Barry told the crowd, "They have not been that helpful." And he went on to say, "They have not been as constructive as I would have hoped and these actions come with a cost." Barry is a fine one to talk about being constructive, because all that he has been is to be very destructive.

Barry took great pleasure in making note of the current 6.1 percent unemployment rate, and stated that it is the lowest since September of 2008. But what he neglected to mention anything about is the fact that the unemployment rate for the age group in which many of those standing behind him, would appear to be in. And it sure ain’t 6.1 percent, nowhere even close. Whether they were unaware of that fact of simply didn’t care, needless to say, they all seemed to be taking great please in being just to be where they were at that moment in time.

Nor did Barry expound on the fact that there are also now 10 Million fewer people in the nation’s workforce than there was back in 2008. Or how it is that that 6.1 figure he was bragging about bears no resemblance to the number of folks actually out of work, or who have basically given up even looking for work. Nor did he, apparently, feel it necessary to mention the 50 Million Americans who now find themselves on food stamps or the 100 Million Americans who have been force to accept some form of government assistance. Not a word.

No, Barry talked about none of these things. All he did was to blame the Republicans for preventing him for doing more ‘for’ every day Americans. Personally, I would prefer that he stop doing things ‘for’ me because it has now gotten to the point where I simply can’t afford it. My health insurance is now $3,000 more expensive that it was before, my grocery bill has essentially tripled, as has my utility bill. And I’m also now paying $2.00 more for a gallon of gas than I was when Barry was first elected. So I really do need him to stop doing things ‘for’ me!

Wednesday, July 30, 2014


There seems to be going on, at least amongst those leftists who have come to be regulars on ‘Fox News’, a competition of sorts, with those involved all vying for the rather bizarre title of, ‘Most Enthusiastic Obama Apologist’. I’m sure the names of the primary players in this little competition will come as a surprise to absolutely no one. First of all we have that CNN reject Jerry Rivers, aka Geraldo Rivera, next we have NPR reject, Juan Williams and finally we have Bob Beckel. Apparently Beckel’s only claim to fame is that he was that he once masterminded a presidential campaign that garnered one state for his candidate.

Frankly, I am constantly amazed by the fact that any of these boobs are able to remain anywhere on television. But anyway, regarding the previously mentioned competition, the most recent example submitted for judging came from Jerry, who recently took it upon himself to blast the creator of the Drudge Report, Matt Drudge. Rivers actually accused Drudge of trying to start a "civil war" with his aggregated coverage of the U.S.-Mexico border crisis, specifically the popular website’s emphasis on stories of unaccompanied minors crossing into the U.S. illegally. Personally, I think old Jer went a little over the top in making his claim.

Now I think we can all agree that old Jerry Rivers is far from being the brightest guy that you’re going to find anywhere on television. But frankly I thought for him to even say such a thing was pretty imbecilic, even for this boob. Rivers said on his radio show, "I have to say that the level of discourse on these unaccompanied children from Central America has been appalling." And he went on to rant, saying, "It has been disgusting. It is the worst kind of jingoistic rhetoric ever. And Matt Drudge with this massive website is doing his best to stir up a civil war. I mean, shame on Matt Drudge." No, shame on Jerry Rivers.

But apparently his little radio tirade wasn’t quite enough to satisfy old Jerry’s current preoccupation with Drudge, because at some point he went on to voice his wrath courtesy of Twitter, choosing to post about Drudge’s links regarding the influx of unaccompanied illegal minors entering the U.S. His Wednesday tweet read: "Shame on Drudge. His authoritative website has gone hysterical on issue of immigrant children. 14 stories like ‘Could Ebola sneak across?’" Ya know, I find it more than a little ironic that a guy like Jerry would have the balls to make the claims that he has, especially with his peculiar history.

Rivers chose to list a series of headlines currently on the Drudge Report, including "Senate Dems try to revive amnesty" and "Pelosi says we cannot have deportation without representation." But Jerry took the greatest offense to the link headline "Could Ebola sneak across," which he labeled "despicable." Rivers actually compared Drudge’s treatment of the current illegal immigration situation to historical fear mongering about Irish, Chinese and Jewish immigrants who came to America. That was quite the stretch, to say the least, but like most liberals, Jerry never been one to let the facts get in the way of the rhetoric.

Jerry said, "This is exactly what they did to the Irish in the 19th Century, and to the Chinese in the 19th Century and then to the Jews and the Italians in the 20th Century. Not only do they bring crime, they bring disease. Be afraid! Hide your daughters!" Jerry cited the Drudge headline early on Wednesday: "Border Bill: Surrender to Lawless President." Rivers concluded: "Ladies and gentlemen we have to reject this hysterical, jingoistic rhetoric. This inflamed hysteria hyped by irresponsible political ideologues. This is not America. This is not New York. Reject this. This is horrifying." No, what this is, is bullshit!

That Jerry can in any way be referred to as being a journalist, is to bend that term into what is a near pretzel-like shape. As a journalist he rates right up there with others of his kind, Maury Povich and Jerry Springer. What Jerry practices is ‘National Inquirer’ journalism. He is so desperate in his attempt to provide some manner of cover for Barry "Almighty" that there is no accusation he will not make if he feels it will in anyway defend his leftist hero. Rivers is a joke, an authority on absolutely nothing. He rarely, if ever, makes much sense and when he’s done talking you’re usually left wondering what point he was actually trying to make.


So once again we have Steny Hoyer, that stellar member of the House who hails from the People’s Republic of Maryland, appearing in yet another episode in our continuing series, ‘The Gasbag Chronicles’. It’s in this latest episode that we find Steny enthusiastically making the argument that while Barry "Almighty" "can’t legalize" the illegal aliens in the United States, he "can implement the laws as he believes they should be implemented." Oh really? I’m curious if Steny would feel the same way if, say, we had a Republican in the Oval Office, instead of a communist? Call me cynical, but somehow I very much doubt it.

Hoyer was asked, "Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution states that Congress has the power to make laws governing naturalization. Given this, does President Obama have the unilateral power to legalize illegal aliens?" To which this senile old f*ck responded, "I don’t think he does." And he continued, "and I don’t think that’s what he’s going to do. You’re right. He can’t legalize them." But he quickly added, "What the president can in fact do, however, is implement the laws as he believes they should be implemented." I always get a bit of a kick out of how these leftist Democrats interpret our Constitution.

Anyway, old Steny went on to say, "And there have been a lot of scholars – and I’m not going to go through the quotes now – who have said the President clearly has broad authority to decide how he’s going to implement the law." He added "But that does not mean he can legalize people. He can’t make them citizens." And then he said, "Not according to the law." But since when has Barry ever demonstrated a willingness to abide by the ‘law’? Ever? And when have Democrat scumbags like Hoyer ever demonstrated a desire to criticize him, or to hold him to account, for his flagrant disregard for the law? That would be, NEVER!

Hoyer said he’s "not going to speculate" on the possible outcome of Barry's usurpation of congressional authority in his executive actions on immigration. He said, "I’m not, I’m not going to speculate on that." He added, "The president is discussing [this] with his lawyers, and he’s made it very clear he wants to do that, which is in his authority. But he’s also made it very clear he wants to take such action as is appropriate legally, that is consistent with his responsibilities, in light of a refusal of the Congress to even consider fixing a broken system either through their [Republican] bills, or with our bills, or with Senate-passed bills. The continual refusal to act has put the president in this position." That’s just BULLSHIT!!

The U.S. Constitution states in Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 that "Congress shall have the power…To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." This power is not granted to the president, meaning Barry could not legally grant citizenship to illegal aliens apart from Congress via executive action. And now with Congress expected to adjourn at the end of this week for a month-long vacation, without passing a bill addressing comprehensive immigration reform, Barry has has been making all kinds of noise about his taking executive action by the end of the summer to "fix as much of our immigration system as [he] can, without Congress."

According to various press reports, such ‘executive actions’ which Barry might take include granting thousands of work permits to illegal aliens, with some Democrats also calling for Barry to use his ‘executive power’ to defer deportations. Barry’s pledge comes after more than 202,000 illegal aliens, mostly from Central America, have been apprehended at the southwest U.S. border since October, including more than 57,000 unaccompanied children. And this at a time when numerous Democrats continue to make the rather idiotic claim that our border is more secure that it has ever been before.

Republican leaders in Congress point to executive orders issued by Barry such as the DREAM Act and the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals as incentives that opened the floodgates for thousands of illegal aliens and their children to pour across the border in hopes of being able to stay here in the United States. Boehner said during a press conference Tuesday that he expects to move a border security bill this week, which includes $659 Million in funds to increase security and stem the tide of illegal alien crossings. The funds are expected to last until the end of the current fiscal year on Sept. 30.

Barry has asked for $3.7 Billion in ‘emergency funding’ to address the border crisis. Like all we need in order to fix the problem is to simply throw more money at it. And just where the Hell is that money going to come from? As I have said before, on any number of occasion, why is it that we even need to be going through any of this? Why can’t we simply enforce what has to be thousands of immigration laws already on the books? Why are we constantly being told that the easiest fix for our immigration mess is to come up with even more laws that, too, likely won’t be enforced? I’m losing my freakin’ mind here!

Tuesday, July 29, 2014


Despite the fact that there is nothing that I would like to see better than the impeachment of our worthless piece of shit president, I think we can all agree that the likelihood of it actually happening is pretty remote. But be that as it may, the fact that it ain’t gonna happen hasn’t slowed down the Democrats in their effort to advance the narrative that House Republicans are pushing for Barry’s impeachment. It’s all part of their plan to stir the party’s base and raise some money along the way in advance of this coming November’s elections.

In the effort to get their people worked up, Democrats continue to insist that House Speaker John Boehner and his colleagues in the House are in fact mulling over the possibility impeaching Barry "Almighty". Even though Boehner and a number of other mainstream Republicans, as well as more than a few conservatives have been pretty outspoken in their opposition to pursue impeachment proceedings. Instead, our stellar Republicans prefer to focus on their planned, albeit pretty idiotic, lawsuit against Barry for executive overreach.

"No, no, no, no," National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Rep. Greg Walden said when asked about the possibility of impeachment hearings or proceedings in the House against Barry. "Democrats are the ones talking about it, and they're trying to fundraise off it." Rep. Devin Nunes, who is close to both Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, also has said that there are "very few" Republicans who want to "move to impeachment." Barry certainly warrants being impeached, more so than being sued.

Only two U.S. presidents, Andrew Johnson in 1868 and ‘Slick Willie’ Clinton in 1998, both Democrats by the way, were impeached by the House. Both and both were later acquitted in the Senate, where a two-thirds vote is necessary to convict. The Senate vote on Johnson was one vote short of conviction. And as much as Barry deserves to join the ranks of the impeached, maybe even more so than those whose company he would be joining, it obviously something that’s not going to be happening.

A report in The Washington Post earlier this week said that the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee has been claiming the GOP supports impeachment in an effort to boost fundraising. "Republicans are drastically overreaching with their lawsuit and impeachment talk, and the result has been a massive surge of enthusiasm from our grassroots supporters," DCCC Chairman Steve Israel told the Post. But from where I’m standing, the only ones here doing any overreaching are Barry and the Democrats.

But according to the Post's report, the strategy being employed by the Democrats has enabled the DCCC to raise $3.7 million from 200,000 online donations since June 25. And it was reported earlier this month that the DCCC regularly sends out all manner of inflammatory emails mentioning GOP-backed impeachment in their continuing effort to drum up support for the party. "If you are OUTRAGED by this IMPEACHMENT threat, we NEED you this instant," the DCCC wrote in one blast.

Democrat National Committee spokesmoron, Michael Czin, said at the time, "Today, the contrast for our supporters, and the electorate, couldn't be clearer: while Democrats are fighting to raise the minimum wage, pass equal pay legislation and common-sense immigration reform, more and more Republicans are discussing the specter of impeachment just to rally their base ahead of the midterms." What a bunch of gibberish. The only ones stupid enough to believe such drivel are those firmly in the Democrat camp!

Meanwhile, Glenn Beck has suggested that Barry himself is behind talks of impeachment as part of a "PR battle" against the GOP. "The birther thing is over, the black thing is over, so now … he needs to be able to call for justice," Beck said during his show on Monday. "Do you think anyone in Washington in the GOP is serious about impeachment?" Beck continued. "Do you think one person? Have you spoken to one person? Not one. So who wants it? The president does. Because then he'll be able to say, 'I demand justice.'"

What we see here is nothing more than another Alinsky-style tactic. It’s like those instances where some black found the N-Word scrawled on their door and then we find out later they wrote it on the door themselves. Democrats are now throwing around the I-Word, without there being any mention of it at all by the congressional Republicans. It’s just another bullshit tactic that many Americans seem to be, for whatever reason, too stupid to see through. And then there are times where it seems the Barry is actually daring the Republicans to impeach him.


It seems to me that with each passing day things become all the more flipped upside down. Things just seem to make a whole lot less sense than they used to. And I get so frustrated that it doesn’t seem that there all that many people who seem to be all that concerned about the fact that the country is not so slowly being made to come unraveled. It’s like they don’t want to expend any amount of effort to do something about it. They content to remain nothing more than bystanders, more interested in just watching things come apart than taking any sort of action to prevent what’s taking place right before their eyes.

One particular example that points out just how upside down things have now become would be for one to ask, "Where else but in America would one be able to find a crowd of individuals, who by the way are in the country illegally, permitted to assemble outside the residence of the leader of that country without them being immediately rounded up, arrested and then, shortly thereafter, deported? Because it’s just such a thing that occurred yesterday when a crowd of undocumented immigrants picketed the White House, urging advocacy groups to refuse meetings with Barry "Almighty" until he agreed to include them in any talks.

One of the organizers of this idiotic little gathering of illegal immigrants was some moron by the name of Rosi Carrasco. Ms. Carrasco told the Washington Times, "We are among the millions of people who will either benefit or be harmed by the decisions the president makes, and we are here to represent ourselves in any future negotiations." This crowd was comprised of people who are nothing more than criminals, since they are breaking our laws. And many were heard chanting, "No more meetings about us, without us," at a rally near Lafayette Park. These people knew they had nothing to fear, as far as being apprehended and then deported

The ‘protest’ was organized by some group that identifies itself as being the National Day Laborer Organizing Network. Supposedly this group is worried that Barry may be trying to lower expectations regarding what it is that he claims that he can do and that advocacy groups may be far too accommodating in the process. The immigrants' picket line went up after protesters made unscheduled visits to the Center for American Progress, which is one for those George Soros front groups, as well as to the National Immigration Forum and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.

Though advocacy groups want to maintain momentum on the immigration issue, and halt deportations, Barry has come under increasing pressure to deal with this outgoing surge of migrant children crossing into the United States illegally through the southern border. "We have one shot to convince him to do the right thing," a letter sent to the advocacy groups' offices said. I’m curious, though, what is it that makes these people think that they are ones to decide what is the right thing to do? They don’t even belong here! They are breaking our laws and still feel entitled to dictate to us, and to lecture us, regarding how OUR laws are to be enforced.

No other country in the world would tolerate such a thing. And yet we in this country are expected to. Mexico certainly wouldn’t nor would any other country in Central America. And since we now have, in Barry "Almighty", a president who sees this as being the perfect opportunity to expand his party’s base, nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing, is being done to fix this growing problem. At the same time he’s calling for ‘comprehensive immigration reform’, he refuses to enforce any of the immigration laws on the books. And by doing so he’s only encouraging more people to come here.

Monday, July 28, 2014


Apparently the folks over there at Barry & Co. seem to have gotten their panties in a rather substantial bunch over what’s being called a torrent of Israeli criticism of Secretary of State John Kerry-Heinz's latest bid to secure a cease-fire between Israel and the murdering terrorist group, Hamas. And in what was some rather unusually harsh language, even for these losers, officials said the criticism of Kerry-Heinz could put the relationship between the U.S. and Israel in jeopardy. You mean even further in jeopardy that it already appears to be under Barry?

Look, what we have here, in this gang of thugs who now occupies the White House, is a group whose opinion of Israel is roughly the equivalent of those who have been quite busy killing innocent Israeli civilians. They make the claim that personal attacks against Kerry-Heinz cross the line and are particularly disappointing at a time of active conflict. Isn’t it ironic, that these idiots who are quite adept, themselves, at hurling personal attacks should now chastise anyone else for using personal attacks? Now ain’t that the pot calling the kettle black?

Israeli media commentators, and very rightly so, have leveled almost nonstop criticism at Kerry-Heinz in recent days because of his attempts to bring Qatar and Turkey, two countries viewed by Israel, also rightly so, as strong Hamas supporters, into the cease-fire negotiations. The Israelis feel that America is deserting them, and they are right to feel that way. And while many of our ‘leaders’ have in fact done so, the majority of the American people have not. Israel must not be left to fend for itself, we cannot

In trying to implement the cease-fire over the weekend, "U.S. Secretary of State of State John Kerry ruined everything," wrote columnist Ari Shavit in Monday's Haaretz, Israel's leading liberal newspaper. "Very senior officials in Jerusalem described the proposal that Kerry put on the table as a 'strategic terrorist attack'." Kerry-Heinz, is desperate to come up with something that he can claim demonstrates that America, and therefore Barry, remains relevant. And it matters very little if it is actually in the best interest of Israel.

Kerry-Heinz did not directly mention the harsh criticism during brief remarks Monday. However, he did seek to debunk the notion that the U.S. had backed away from its support for the demilitarization of Gaza, which has been a top priority for Israel. Kerry-Heinz said, "Any process to resolve the crisis in Gaza in a lasting and meaningful way must lead to the disarmament of Hamas and all terrorist groups." Which makes for good rhetoric, but it’s not really the position of Barry & Co. They would like nothing more than for Israel to simply disappear.

And then in what was really nothing more than the typical juvenile behavior that we’ve come to expect from this crowd, the White House made sure that Barry’s ‘frustration’ with Israel managed to seep into the readout of a phone call that took place on Sunday between Barry "Almighty" and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The White House said Barry told Netanyahu that the U.S. had "serious and growing concern" about the worsening humanitarian situation in Gaza. Barry also called to an "immediate, unconditional humanitarian cease-fire."

And apparently, White House national security adviser Susan Rice, the bitch who apparently can’t be fired, was expected to address the situation in the Middle East sometime today. I’m not sure if it ever took place, and it matters very little if it did. Anything she would have said wouldn’t mean much, nor could it have been believed anyway. The U.S. officials who described the administration's view of the Israeli criticism insisted on anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter on the record by name.

Let’s face it, as secretary of state, John Kerry-Heinz, like Hitlery Clinton before him, is about as worthless as a screen door on a submarine. I feel for Netanyahu, I really do, because he must be the one who is justifiably frustrated, he’s the one who has to deal with someone as incompetent as Kerry-Heinz. Having John Kerry-Heinz at the controls is like handing over the keys to your 1970 Hemi ‘Cuda to a 10 year old, telling him to take it for a spin and expecting to get it back completely unscratched. It’s insane. And yet here we are.


To tell you the truth, I honestly thought the old girl was dead. But alas, apparently such is not the case. And so it is then, that one of our less than impressive secretaries of state, and obviously one of those who possess a rather over-inflated sense of importance felt it necessary to once again impart upon us more of rather her simplistic view of the world. Apparently she must think there remains anyone who has some level of interest in what it is that she might have to say.

So it was then that anyone who chose to tune into ‘Face the Nation’, with senile old Bob Schieffer still at the helm, this past Sunday, was treated to the rather warped view of the world possessed by this shrivelled up old has-been. Because once again Ms. ‘Not So’ Bright was offered the opportunity to go in front of a television camera and spew her idiotic drivel as if anyone but her friends on the left would be at all interested in hearing what she thinks.

This genius implied that back when the West could focus only on the Soviet Union as the main enemy, while the world "clearly was dangerous", it was less so than today when there are multiple points of conflict and the danger is much harder to focus on. But why is it, exactly, that we now have these "multiple points of conflict", I wonder. Might that be a direct result of the ineptness that’s consistently on display by our less than stellar foreign policy team?

According to Ms. ‘Not So’ Bright, in the diplomatic world there is something going on all the time and it is the job of diplomats to manage it. So our first problem is that for the last 5 years we haven’t had anyone capable to doing that. She mentioned that there have been "two huge game changers." Those "game changers", according to her, are Putin's behavior on Crimea and eastern Ukraine, and the conflict in the Middle East. Neither of which have we ‘managed’.

‘Not So’ Bright, who served under ‘Slick Willie’ Clinton, said she admires Secretary of State John Kerry-Heinz's work in the Israeli-Hamas conflict. I’m sure she does, because she was no better at doing the job than he is. Have you ever noticed how it is that Democrats always make for some of the worst secretaries of state this country has ever had? Think about it, when was the last time that we had a decent secretary of state under a Democrat president?

Ms. ‘Not So’ Bright is another one of those who continues to believe that the two-state solution for the Israelis and Palestinians is the only possible solution. While she believes Israel has the right to defend itself against Hamas attacks, she fears its image is being damaged because of its ability to overwhelm Hamas on the battlefield. So what is it, then, that she would have the Israeli’s do? You would think that she would be calling for such overwhelming force to be used.

There is only one way for there to be a lasting peace in this part of the world. Israel must unleash its full power on these terrorists. These Palestinian thugs must be, quite literally, bludgeoned into submission. Israel is going to have recognize the fact that it is not going to win the PR battle, but Israel must not allow itself to be dissuaded from taking this battle to its only logical conclusion, and one that will provide security for its people. Regardless of those like Ms. ‘Not So’ Bright.

Saturday, July 26, 2014


In this age of our "Dear Beloved Leader", Barack Hussein Obama, it would seem that far too many of our politicians, Democrats in particular, have come to possess a rather peculiar notion of what the role is that they are supposed to play in our system of government. Whether it’s when they arrogantly tell us that are permitted to simply make up the rules as they go along or brazenly declare that we have no right to know what goes on in our government, they have made it very plain that they are now officially out of control.

Every 2, 4 or 6 years our so-called elected leaders take part in their constitutionally required pilgrimage to pay homage to "We the People." They tell us all how wonderful they are and what a wonderful job they are doing for us, and if we only agree send them back into office even more great and wondrous things will some our way. And like saps, many of us believe them and, like sheep being led to slaughter, we dutifully march off to the polls and send them back so that they can do even more damage.

And so after accomplishing their mission, they return to their ivory tours until such time as they are forced once again to lower themselves to go mingling about "We the People." Once back in their more familiar surrounding they proceed to pick up right where left off, working feverishly to forever alter this the nation that once referred to as "the last best hope of man", working to turn into something that is not so slowly but surely becoming completely unrecognizable. That is what they see as being their mission.

Because "We the People" have now allowed things to have progressed so far, we have come to leave ourselves very few options when it comes to reversing things. And the question that remains is, will we be able to make up all the ground that we were so quick to forfeit to those whom we were to blind to see were robbing us blind. Well my friends, that’s the question that remains to be answered, isn’t it. And as much as it pains me to say it, at this stage of the game I’d say our chances appear to be rather slim.

The leftists, many of whom now call the Democrat Party home, have made it very clear what it is that they wish to inflict upon us. They propose skyrocketing energy prices, skyrocketing healthcare costs and skyrocketing food prices. Does that not remind anyone of something, at least those old enough to remember. I’ll tell you what it reminds me of, it’s of the old Soviet Union, or any other socialist country that exists today. Is this really the direction in which we wish to go? Is that what we wish to leave to our children?

Friday, July 25, 2014


Apparently we are now supposed to believe that this gang that can’t shoot straight is somehow capable of drawing up a strategy the specific purpose of which is to defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and to prevent the group, which is linked to al-Qaida, from expanding as a global terrorist threat. So says Gen. Martin Dempsey, our pathetic excuse for a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He’s kidding, right? Come on, this gang couldn’t come up with a strategy that would give a troop of Cub Scouts a hard time.

Anyway, I guess it was during a keynote address he gave at something called the annual Aspen Security Forum, that Dempsey said, "The United States military does consider ISIL [ISIS] a threat to, initially to the region and our close allies, longer term to the United States of America." This boob went on to say, "And therefore we are preparing a strategy that has a series of options to present to our elected leaders on how we can initially contain, eventually disrupt, and finally defeat ISIL over time." He’s dreamin’.

I think by now those of us who have been paying attention are well aware of this group, ISIS. It is an Islamic terrorist organization with an estimated membership of some 7,000 religious fanatics, whose aim is to set up a Muslim caliphate. It has already violently taken control of a number of major cities in the northern and western regions of Iraq, and American officials have warned the group wants to use the area as a base of operations from which to launch terror attacks on Europe and the United States.

Dempsey told the gathering of current and former military, intelligence, and national security officials, "This is a group that has aspirations and seeks a sense of religious legitimacy." Supposedly he did not rule out the future use of American air attacks against ISIS if the group becomes a more direct threat to the United States, but said that ultimately to defeat ISIS would require "pressure from multiple directions and with multiple partners." Most likely this is nothing more that just another ploy designed to make us think these losers are tough on terror.

Specifically, he listed a stable government in Baghdad, and support from moderate Sunnis in the region to reject ISIS, including Turks and Kurds. At the same time, he rejected any suggestion that the United States should cooperate with Iran against the organization on the basis that it was responsible for the killing of many Americans during the Iraq war. He said, "This isn't about us deciding that ISIL is the latest in a series of threats and taking it on unilaterally." Well, what is it about, exactly? We never get the truth from any of these people.

Dempsey also said that military leaders have come to the conclusion that there was no reason to defend the regime of Iraqi President Nouri al Maliki due to the failure of its American-trained security forces to resist the ISIS incursion and its demonstration of a lack of unity for the cause. Well perhaps if we had been in less of a hurry to get outta there, no matter the cost, things might have gone a little differently. But again, as with everything else with this administration, politics was the driving force behind the decision.

Look, in order to succeed in such an endeavor as the one being discussed here, one must first want to succeed. And with this administration easily being the most pro-Islam administration in recent memory, I really do question their level of their commitment. I can’t help but wonder if this is just another ploy of some kind meant to sway voters as the midterm elections are now just around the corner. Dempsey is far from being credible, and like Colon Powell, he got where he is not because of his leadership ability, or military prowess, but because of his ability to kiss ass.


Just last night our poor excuse of a first lady, Moochelle Obummer, urged her fellow Democrats to "dig deep" into their pockets and "write a big fat check" before the midterm elections. And then, oddly enough, it was just a few minutes later that the old cow was busy complaining about how there is too much money in politics. Speaking at a party fundraiser in Chicago, Moochelle said Democrats must triumph in the November contests if Barry "Almighty" is to make progress on his agenda during the final two years of his term.

And of course she made sure to allow herself plenty of time during the evening to blast those special interest groups that dare to funnel money to those evil Republicans. Moochelle said, "So, yeah, there’s too much money in politics. There’s special interests that have too much influence. But they had all that money and all that influence back in 2008 and 2012 and we still won those elections." She then urged her fellow Democrats to add even more money to the political system. Anyone other than me seeing the hypocrisy here?

She said, "There is something you can do right now today to make a difference, and that is to write a big, fat check. I kid you not." And then she went on to say, "I’m going to be honest with you. That’s what we need you to do right now. We need you to write the biggest, fattest check that you can possibly write." This is the twisted sort of mentality that we are up against as we go about trying to rescue our country. Anyone who dares to disagree with Barry’s agenda for America now has no right to even take part in the debate.

These creeps take, not only hypocrisy but, arrogance as well, to what can only be described as being some lofty new heights. We’re constantly being told how their agenda is the only agenda, the only one worthy of support. But it’s their agenda that has proven to be so detrimental to this country. For crying out loud, LOOK AROUND YOU! And according to this bitch, those on our side should not even be permitted to raise money nor afforded the opportunity to ward off all of what her kind is trying to inflict upon us?

You know, I may go to Hell for saying so, but I truly do hate this bitch. Both she and her husband have never had to work for anything and neither of them have ever actually been in charge of anything. Oh sure, Barry is the president, but that clearly is not a job that he has demonstrated any sort of serious aptitude for. I mean any ‘community agitator’ could walk in off the street and do what Barry has done. Barry is not a leader by anyone’s definition, what he is, is a rabble-rouser who seeks nothing more than to destroy America.

And wouldn’t it be nice if after electing, and then re-electing, the most corrupt individual to have ever held his office, America could be said to have learned a very valuable lesson. That perhaps Barry’s presidency would come to be one of those ‘teachable moments.’ That if there was one positive thing that we could all walk away with from this horrible experience, it would be for us to be much more careful next time? But, that most likely is wishful thinking on my part. Personally, I think we have now progressed way too far around the bend.

Thursday, July 24, 2014


First of all, make no mistake about it, there is definitely, my friends, underway in this country a war on women. The only point of contention, I suppose, would be the identity of who it is that’s waging it. The Democrats would like everyone to believe that it’s those mean old Republicans, whose only interest, we’re told, is in establishing some sort of a theocracy. But the facts would seem to indicate something very different entirely. And so it is then that there is now an effort underway that seeks to clarify that point, as Republicans and some conservative groups have now begun waging a of their own war on the "war against women."

And first out of the gate, or nearly so, we have former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina who, just this past June, launched something called the UP Project. In describing why she thought such a thing was even needed, she recently told Breitbart News, "We need to name and shame Democrats who play the 'war on women' game." The UP Project, is essentially a Super PAC, the focus of which will be on reaching women at the grassroots level. The UP Project stands for "Unlocking Potential" and will aim to support and mobilize Republicans by directly taking on the Democrat narrative as it pertains to women's issues.

In an interview with CNN's S.E. Cupp, Ms. Fiorina said her PAC was a direct response to the Democrats campaign strategy. Fiorina said, "And the idea really came to me when I spoke at CPAC [Conservative Political Action Committee] earlier this year. In my speech, I took on the 'war on women' directly, and the response was overwhelming. I heard from so many women saying this is what they needed. It can help deliver their messages and provide resources to get them mobilized." For far too long the Democrats have gone virtually unchallenged in the arena of women’s issues. Ms. Fiorina hopes to end that.

According to Gallup, Barry "Almighty" was able to beat Mitt Romney with female voters in the 2012 election by 56 percent to 44 percent, which just goes to show you just how gullible so many women appear to be. Meanwhile among men, Romney was able to beat Barry by 54 percent to 46 percent. That total 20-point gender gap was said to represent the largest Gallup recorded since it began compiling the vote by major subgroups in 1952. The Democrats have been quite successful over time in getting young women to become increasingly dependent upon government. Many women have seen that as being preferable to growing up.

In Michigan, former Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land, is running against Democrat Rep. Gary Peters for the Senate seat left vacant by the retirement of that left wing loon, Carl Levin, Ms. Land chose to address the issue of this ‘war on women’ quite directly. Her first salvo came in an April in the form of a television ad actually mocking the ‘war on women.’ The ad, which is titled "Really,"  was designed to poke fun at Mr. Peters for being arrogant enough to accuse Ms. Land of being anti-woman. "Really? Think about that for a moment. I might know a little bit more about women than Gary Peters," Land quips in the ad.

‘I Am Created Equal’ is yet another organization which aims to frame healthcare and contraception as issues of freedom not as some mythical fundamental right. This election cycle, the group has produced several ads in key Senate campaigns, including a recent radio ad attacking Colorado Democratic Sen. Mark Udall. "I have to ask, Sen. Udall, why do you get your underwear all in a bundle about women and birth control?" ‘I Am Created Equal’ founder, Laura Carno, asks in the ad. "Do you honestly think we need the government to make these choices for us?"

Conservative women also have launched a counter to the liberal PAC Emily's List. Maggie's List says its goal is to promote the candidates "whose policy views and legislative behavior promote fiscal conservatives, less government, more personal responsibility and strong national security." Now while that sounds like a wonderful message, and as much as I would like to think that young women would latch onto it, years of brainwashing will have to be erased in the process. Young women have been told for decades that Uncle Sugar was there to take care of them. And that all they ever need to do, is to ask.

And so, as we have seen in election after election, the Democrats have done a pretty thorough job in both getting women addicted to government and in convincing them that having the government in their life is much better than having to depend on some man. And it’s in that manner that they have created for themselves a very reliable block of voters. So the task at hand, I suppose, becomes one of convincing women, or enough women, that they have been convince into doing, is to willingly give up a substantial portion of their freedom in exchange for endless promises that are never really kept. Sadly, they ever intended to be kept.


Rumor has it that a few White House reporters are a little pissed off by the fact that they were barred from several recent presidential fundraisers. Personally, I don’t know what that have to be so pissed off about, after all, if it weren’t many of the supposed ‘news’ organizations that most, if all of these ‘reporters’ belong to, Barry would have never been elected in the first place, let alone re-elected. Because they chose not to tell so much of what they knew to be true.

Remember now, these are the very same people who were so desperate, both in 2008 and 2012, in their efforts to make sure Barry would be elected that they made a very conscious decision to not do their job, choosing instead to lie to the American people. They did so by failing to report on the mountain of facts about this man that would have very clearly painted a picture of someone who was so completely undeserving of the office that he would come to be elected to.

But, be that as it may, the White House Correspondents' Association recently criticized their onetime hero, Barry "Almighty", for excluding reporters when he addressed a Senate Majority PAC fundraiser on Tuesday at the Seattle home of Jim Sinegal, the former Costco CEO. Attendees were made to contribute a minimum of $25,000. The fact that our even our extremely biased media was excluded from the event, should make one very curious about what was said.

And then on Wednesday, Barry was at the Four Seasons hotel in San Francisco meeting House Majority PAC donors, and once again frustrated reporters were kept outside and well out of range. The press was also barred from covering Barry's remarks to donors in New York last Thursday. Talk about naïve, what was it that these media-types were really expecting from this guy? Were they really expecting actual transparency from this guy?

And then earlier this week, coverage was even limited when Barry welcomed the Apollo 11 astronauts Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins along with Carol Armstrong, widow of Neil Armstrong, to the Oval Office to commemorate the 45th anniversary of the moon landing. But it does kind of make you wonder, or at least it should, what it was that could have possibly been discussed that Barry might want to have kept from the press.

Christi Parsons, Los Angeles Times/Chicago Tribune White House correspondent, who recently took over as president of the association said in a recent interview, "We think these fundraisers ought to be open to at least some scrutiny, because the president's participation in them is fundamentally public in nature." No shit, ya think? And yet no one’s really doing any really serious complaining about what continues to take place.

She added that denying access to Barry was of "special concern as these events and the donors they attract become more influential in the political process." Well ya know, if that’s a genuine concern of hers then why are those in the state-controlled media not making a much bigger stink about. Most likely that would be because they still don’t really want to say anything that might attract the wrong kind of attention to their man.

Details about who Barry recently met, how much they donate and what Barry said to them have been kept secret. And that in itself should be setting off alarm bells all over the place. At a Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee fundraiser Wednesday afternoon in Silicon Valley, reporters were ushered out just as Barry began taking questions from contributors. Which is more than a little disconcerting.

Responding to complaints we had White House deputy spokesmoron Eric Schultz, who said, "I would only ask that you judge us by our record and the record of our predecessors. Without a doubt, I think we've done more to achieve the president's commitment to transparency than any previous administration." That this ass can still make the claim that Barry is so transparent, and still not be significantly challenged on the issue, is simply ludicrous.

Fred Wertheimer of Democracy 21, which wants to "eliminate the undue influence of big money in American politics," said Barry "talked a big game when he was running for office in 2008 about fixing this system. And he hasn't done anything about it – and continues to stay silent at a time when the system is a disaster for the American people." But this group has a rather odd idea about how the system should be ‘fixed.’

Just little word about Democracy 21. While this is another one of those groups that like to describe itself as being a "nonpartisan" group, it really is anything but. It makes the claim that it seeks to "eliminate the undue influence of big money in American politics and to ensure the integrity and fairness of government decisions and elections." But the group does have an ulterior motive that’s not covered in their mission statement.

Because in practice, the organization has restricted citizen participation in the political process by limiting the ways in which constituents can give money to the party or candidate of their choice. Democracy 21 has also helped the network of George Soros-led Shadow Party groups gain immense influence within the Democratic Party. Yup, another group that can be traced back to that left wing nut, Soros.

But anyway, the bottom line here is that all of these folks who like to call themselves ‘reporters’ and who are now complaining about the lack of transparency, really have no one to blame but themselves. They’ve let this gang of thugs get away with so much shit and for so long, that now there’s simply no going back. They are the ones who created this monster, and they are really the only ones who now will be able to slay the monster. The question is, will they even make the attempt?

Wednesday, July 23, 2014


It seems that in nearly every city from California to New York which suffers from the misfortune of having a Democrat at the helm has now expressed some level of willingness to accept some number of unaccompanied minors, who have come here illegally, at their federally funded facilities. Apparently all appear to be more than willing to set up their own little sanctuary cities and at taxpayer expense. However, the offer to shelter these migrant minors, most of whom come from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador, comes in the face of considerable opposition in Arizona, California, Michigan, Maryland and elsewhere.

So we’re told that just since October, some 57,000 children have now flooded into the US. Federal officials have been hard pressed to find housing for the youngsters after they have been screened. They remain in one of about 100 Department of Health and Human Services shelters until alternative solutions can be found. Once they arrive at a facility and have a sponsor, the federal government will cover their food, clothing, and medical needs through its system of grantees. In other words, we the taxpayers are being made to pick up the tab, and we’re told to be happy about it. Well, I’m not happy about it, not even a little bit.

And then we have that monumental dim bulb from Massachusetts, the Democrat governor of that hosed up state, Deval Patrick. This boob recently declared that the military bases in his state were now available to be used as shelters, which, I’m sure, our service members are none too pleased, especially those unfortunate enough to live on base. Then we have New York City, Syracuse, Los Angeles, and Dallas also among the many municipalities willing to pitch-in. Stephanie Miner, the Democrat mayor of Syracuse is working with the feds to place the children in vacant buildings on the grounds of the Sisters of St. Francis convent.

And then I guess in what was some sort of an attempt to provide some rationale for the assistance now so willingly being offered by some to those coming into this country illegally, we have some political scientist, a guy by the name of Louis DeSipio of the University of California. It’s his theory that the politicians so willing to help these illegals tend to be more moderate to liberal Democrats who are also located in communities that have considerable immigrant populations. "They are also giving the president some coverage by saying, 'We don't want these kids crossing but we will be responsible to the ones who are here.'" What’s up with that?

I am so sick of these bleeding heart liberals siphoning off my hard-earned money only to turn around and give to someone who doesn’t even belong here! And then in what is some pretty stark contrast we have the Republican governors of Alabama, Kansas, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Utah, and Wisconsin who took it upon themselves to write a little letter to Barry to say they are alarmed by reports that illegals placed with families have been skipping their immigration hearings. "We are concerned that there will be significant numbers who will end up using the public schools, social services and health systems largely funded by the states."

I read somewhere last week that for 8 Million bucks we could send every one of these recent arrivals right back to where it was that they came from. Why should we welcome them in with open arms so that they can put further stress on a system that is already way overstressed. To whom does that make any sense except to imbecilic Democrats who are trying to do nothing more than to bring the entire system down around us! Anyone who actually thinks that the Democrats give a lick about these kids, are dumb as dirt. All these kids are, are tools to be used in the Democrat effort to expedite the collapse of our public welfare system.


Well by now I’m sure we should all be aware that that rabid anti-gun nut and flaming socialist, Marty O’Malley, has dreams of becoming president. And it was recently that Marty got some news that I’m not sure whether he saw as being good news or bad. You see, firearms stalwart Beretta U.S.A. announced that it is moving all its manufacturing from the People’s Republic of Maryland to a brand new $45 million production plant in Gallatin, Tennessee. And the reason behind the move? That would be the any number of newly created restrictions which left the gunmaker no alternative but to pack it all up and move.

In a statement released on Tuesday, the company said it had won a skirmish with Maryland lawmakers, but lost the war over the state's Firearm Safety Act of 2013. Beretta general manager Jeff Cooper said, "The version of the statute that passed the Maryland Senate would have prohibited Beretta U.S.A. from being able to manufacture, store or even import into the State products that we sell to customers throughout the United States and around the world." Now stop and think about that. What the politicians of this state did was to effectively drive this company, and its 300 jobs elsewhere. I had no idea that Maryland has a surplus of jobs.

Mr. Cooper went on to say, "While we were able in the Maryland House of Delegates to reverse some of those obstructive provisions, the possibility that such restrictions might be reinstated in the future leaves us very worried about the wisdom of maintaining a firearm manufacturing factory in the state." Cooper said the Gallatin, Tenn., facility is set to open in mid-2015, and will hire some 300 workers. And that would, of course, be Tennessee workers, not Maryland workers. Did Marty and the gang actually think that this company would never leave, under any circumstances? If so, that was pretty arrogant, and stupid!

Mr. Cooper also said, "While we had originally planned to use the Tennessee facility for new equipment and for production of new product lines only, we have decided that it is more prudent from the point of view of our future welfare to move the Maryland production lines in their entirety to the new Tennessee facility," Cooper said. The Tennessean reported Tuesday said the company's shocker means hiring will be accelerated in Gallatin. And I’m quite sure those folks are more than happy to take full advantage of the stupidity of those folks in Maryland who literally chased this company into their waiting arms.

James Fenton of the Gallatin Economic Development Agency told the newspaper the decision was "a huge endorsement for the city of Gallatin." He also told the paper, "They haven't even broken ground yet, but they've already decided to accelerate their timeline." He also went on to say, "They obviously feel confident that they will be able to find their workforce and this will be a very good place for them." Let’s face it, most anyplace would be better for their business than remaining in Maryland. I’d be curious to know what businesses there are that would see it as being advantageous to remain in such a place.

Production of the U.S. Armed Forces M9 9mm pistol will continue at the Maryland facility until current orders from the Armed Forces have been filled, the company said. Beretta will also keep office, administrative and executive support functions at the Accokeek, Md. facility. It also has a distribution facility in Virginia. Cooper said the company will work out with employees whose jobs are affected by the move if they want to move to Tennessee. If not, the company will discuss "a long-term strategy for remaining with the company while our production in Maryland continues." Personally, I’d be looking to move as soon as I could.

Beretta officials had tried to warn that such a move would hurt Maryland. I can only assume that Marty figured he could just simply call their bluff. Perhaps he assumed they could not afford to move or wouldn’t terminate their employees. But business is business and this is just another indicator of how socialists like Marty are so absolutely clueless when it comes to knowing how to run a business. I guess that’s why they all go to work in government, they really can’t do anything else. I mean, where else can you fuck up on a daily basis and still not lose your job? And it’s because of people like Marty that this country is in the shape that it is.

Jeffrey Reh, general counsel at Beretta, said in February, 2013 that the gunmaker employed 400 Maryland residents, and from 1997 to 2014, kicked in an estimated $31 million in state taxes and invested $73 million in the company's infrastructure. But I’m quite sure Marty will have no trouble in making up for that lost revenue, he’ll just tax everyone else that much more. After all, that’s how these scumbags operate. I have a feeling that Marty won’t be happy until he chases every business out of his little communist enclave. And the funny thing is that this guy actually thinks he’s presidential material. Is that not a very funny joke?

In his heart of hearts I have no doubt that Marty is probably glad to see this company, which I’m just as sure that he most likely views as being some sort of merchant of death, leave his state and take its 300 jobs with it. And besides, this will give Marty the opportunity to increase the size of his little welfare state by 300. Unless, of course, some of these workers move with the company to Tennessee. And who wouldn’t much rather live in Tennessee than in the People’s Republic of Maryland? That seems like kind of a no-brainer to me. But then I’m not a flaming socialist, I believe in working for a living.

Tuesday, July 22, 2014


Well, it would seem that we may have hit yet another bump along the way regarding the government’s desire to seize, outright, control of how we are able to obtain our healthcare. And at the same time it appears that the entire Obamacare fiasco, just became even more of a mess. That’s because, just today, we had a federal court strike down those health insurance subsidies for people in the 36 states that did not set up their own Obamacare exchanges. Uh-O!

And it was in pretty short order that we heard from several of those who oppose the law. One of those was Ted Cruz who said the ruling "is a repudiation of Obamacare and all the lawlessness that has come with it." Cruz tweeted his comments shortly after a three-judge panel in Washington, D.C. issued its ruling. While the ruling is a "significant victory for the American people & rule of law...we must not rest," Cruz added. And on that he is correct.

The case, filed in May 2013, challenged the legality of the Obamacare subsidies for people enrolled in exchanges set up by the federal government. In its ruling, the federal appeals court panel found that "a federal Exchange is not an 'Exchange established by the State,' and section 36B (of the IRS code) does not authorize the IRS to provide tax credits for insurance purchased on federal Exchanges." Gee, that sounds pretty cut and dried, even to me.

As noted by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), which coordinated the lawsuit: "The Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, authorizes subsidies for qualifying individuals in states that created their own healthcare exchanges. But in the spring of 2012, without authorization from Congress, again, the IRS expanded those subsidies to states that refused to set up their own exchanges, instead letting the federal government do it for them."

CEI said, when it announced the lawsuit, "Under the Act, businesses in these nonparticipating states should be free of the employer mandate, and the scope of the individual mandate should be reduced as well. But because of the IRS rule, both mandates will be greatly enlarged in scope, depriving states of the power to protect their residents." That sounds like yet another example of overreach by an administration that seems a bit more out of control with each passing day.

CEI quoted Michael Carvin as saying, "The IRS rule we are challenging is at war with the Act’s plain language and completely rewrites the deal that Congress made with the states on running these insurance exchanges." Mr. Carvin represents the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Look, we all know how this law was first cobbled together and then passed, by Democrats, in the dark of night. And this ruling serves to once again point out that just how badly flawed the law really is.

What Tuesday's 2-1 ruling does is that it invalidates the IRS regulation that allowed subsidies in all 50 states. If the ruling is upheld, the decision could mean premium increases for more than half of the 8 million Americans in 36 states who purchased taxpayer-subsidized insurance under the law. Now as we have witnessed a lot lately, the IRS seems to believe it can operate above the law and able to do pretty much whatever it wishes. This court said no.

"Agencies are bound by the laws enacted by Congress," Sam Kazman, general counsel of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), said when the lawsuit was filed. "Obamacare is already an incredibly massive program. For the IRS to expand it even more, without congressional authorization and in a manner aimed at undercutting state choice, is flagrantly illegal." But in this era of Barry, this is how we now expect our government to operate.

Of course it goes without saying that Barry & Co. can most certainly be expected to ask for a ruling from the full appeals court, and the case may likely end up before the U.S. Supreme Court. These folks are not about to give up quietly on that which they have so desperately been seeking for themselves and for so long. Make no mistake, what this is truly all about is nothing more than control. And that would be control of the American people by their government.

And that’s really the most tragic thing here. Because the best healthcare system in the world has now been destroyed and for no other reason than because the Democrats wanted to turn into a reality their decades old wet dream of controlling how it is that the American people are able to obtain their healthcare. Because when you control how a person is able to obtain their healthcare, you then have an ability to actually ‘control’ a great deal more than that. And therein lies the prize.


I think that I am fairly safe in saying that there has never much doubt about the level of disdain that ‘Dingy Harry’ and the Democrats, in general, have for the American people. We are here but to serve as we are told. And that point was once again made all the more clear when old ‘Dingy Harry’ was asked just a day ago, during something called a "clean energy" conference call, if the Democrats will move a carbon tax bill after the midterm election.

His response was short, sweet and one that could actually be considered as being pretty typical for old ‘Dingy Harry.’ He simply said, "I sure hope so." The reporter then asked what would change after the midterm to put carbon tax legislation back on the table. ‘Dingy’ replied, "Well, I think what's happening in the world." He went on to say, "I mean we have -- as we speak, we have wildfires raging in five or six different states in the west. I mean raging."

‘Dingy’ went on to say, "I heard in a briefing I had this morning, a big fire in Washington is zero percent contained -- zero. You can see the fires burning in the west from satellites miles above the sky. It's -- so there are lots of reasons why we need to take another look at this." You know, these losers like ‘Dingy Harry’ will leave no stone unturned as they continue to go about trying to convince us that every natural disaster that comes along has ‘climate change’ as it’s source.

And then we have yet another imbecile, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, who is also one of the many Democrats now pushing very hard for a carbon tax, which would raise the price of energy for everyone, and pretty substantially too. And for what, exactly? Because of this bogus ‘climate change’ bullshit that doesn’t exist? Well, that’ll be the excuse they use, but most of us really do know what’s going on here. The question is, what, if anything, are we going to do about it?

In a speech on the Senate floor last month, Whitehouse spewed the standard Democrat mantra that the federal tax code should be used to address climate change: "I believe carbon-driven climate change hurts our economy, damages our infrastructure, and harms public health," Whitehouse said on June 25. And this boob went on to say, "Yet those costs are not factored into the cost of fossil fuels. That means the cost of the pollution has been borne by the public.

But I gotta tell ya, the real laugher came when this bonehead actually said, and with a straight face no less, "I believe we should adopt a carbon fee to correct this market failure and return all its revenue to the American people..." Just who the Hell does his lying sack of shit think he’s really fooling with such idiotic drivel? Do these Democrats really think that we’re ALL as stupid as those whom they count among their primary constituents? Because we’re NOT!

Hopefully a carbon tax bill won't advance unless Democrats retake the House and retain control of the Senate in November. Of course though, if there is one thing that is certain in politics, it’s that nothing is certain. But it was with the goal of getting the Democrats back in control of Congress that Barry has headed west, just today, to raise mo’ money for his party. Apparently it matters very little to him that the world seems to be ablaze. But hey, after all he does have John Kerry-Heinz.

Barry’s three-day fundraising trip to the West Coast includes events in Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles -- "less than four months ahead of midterm elections that could change Washington's balance of power," or so The Associated Press put it. The AP folks sound a little pessimistic regarding ‘Dingy’s’ chances of keeping his current position. Well not to worry, McConnell will likely prove to be a complete disaster and as such his tenure will likely be brief.

Monday, July 21, 2014


I think we’ve all seen what happens to those who dare to even attempt actions that run counter to the wishes of our current Dictator-in-Chief. We’ve seen it play out on any number occasions and particularly when Republican governors are involved. And if that area of opposition just happens to be in any way related to the area of illegal immigration, or the demand that our current immigration laws be enforced, well then, the resulting intimidation that the offender is then made to be deal with, becomes all the more severe. Barry seems to be of the opinion that even though he is unwilling to enforce the nation’s immigration laws, that doesn’t mean that these governors should presume that they can.

So because he has essentially been left with so few alternative in his attempt to stem the tide of those now flowing illegally over our southern border, it seems that Texas Gov. Rick Perry has decided to move forward with one of the only options he seems to think that he has left. And for doing so he is now being met with some pretty vocal opposition regarding his efforts. The opposition comes from one of Barry’s many operatives who is also very much in favor of an open border. In this particular instance it is some state senator, a Democrat of course, from south Texas out to score some Barry points by leaking Perry's planned Monday announcement that he's sending 1,000 Texas National Guard troops to the border.

This revelation comes to us by way of one State Sen. Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa, who we’re told represents Texas’ 20th District comprised of the Corpus Christi – McAllen area of Texas. Hinojosa revealed that Gov. Perry was deploying the troops in an attempt to prevent drug smuggling and human trafficking in the region, according to the local paper, The Monitor. The troops, who will arrive gradually over the next month, will support troopers from the Texas Department of Public Safety who are being overwhelmed by the thousands of undocumented immigrants pouring across the Rio Grande every month. I guess I’m unsure what this boob was hoping to gain from his little revelation.

And in what has become typical Democrat fashion in this era of Barry, we have this imbecile being heard to say, "My position is that we do not need to militarize the border. All these politicians coming down to border, they don't care about solving the problem, they just want to make a political point." He added, cartels "are taking advantage of the situation. But our local law enforcement from the sheriff's offices of the different counties to the different police departments are taking care of the situation." Where has this guy been? I mean, someone really should tell this liberal douche, that the border has ‘already’ become militarized and it has been done by those on the other side!

And of course this imbecile went on to say, "This is a civil matter, not a military matter. What we need is more resources to hire more deputies, hire more Border Patrol. These are young people, just families coming across. They're not armed. They're not carrying weapons." However, he did finally admit that local officials have appealed for additional law enforcement and more aid to feed and clothe the surge of juvenile illegal immigrants, mostly from Central America, that have been spewing across the Rio Grande. This invasion that is now underway requires extraordinary measures to control and to limit. Because the folks that are now being left to do the job, are now simply being outnumbered.

According to state memo obtained by one of the news organizations reporting on what is now taking place, denied that the guards were being deployed as "a militarization of the border." It made it clear that the DPS and the National Guard are working to keep drug smugglers and human traffickers from using major highways. "Smuggling has supposedly, according to DPS, moved West on the border with an increase in Jim Hogg County," the memo states. "DPS especially wants to apply the Guard in the rural areas to patrol." And that seems like something even a scummy Democrat like Hinojosa would say is a good idea. But I guess this guy must be in favor of illegal drugs as much as he’s in favor of illegal immigrants.

The National Guard deployment will cost $12 million a month, which will bring the total pricetag of troopers on the border to $5 million per week, The Monitor said. "It is not clear where the money will come from in the budget," the memo said, although Perry's office says the funding will come from "non-critical" areas, such as healthcare or transportation. In Iowa over the weekend, Perry told a small meeting that if Barry "Almighty" ignored his request to send 1,000 National Guard troops to the border, he would make the order himself. He said, "We've sent the message that if we don't get the satisfaction that the federal government's going to move and move quickly, then the state of Texas will, in fact, fill that void."


At roughly the same time that our illustrious secretary of state, John Kerry-Heinz, went on television, over the weekend, and was saying how it is that the American people can be justifiably proud of their president and the manner in which he chooses to conduct this nation’s foreign policy, a new poll recently came out that would at least seem to indicate that such a thing may not quite be the case. You see, the American people don’t seem to favor the ‘Keystone Cops’ approach to foreign policy now being employed.

According to a newly released Politico poll which was conducted July 3-13 and of 834 likely voters in some of the more competitive House and Senate Races, it was found that just 17 percent of those taking part thought the United States should do more to challenge Russian aggression in Ukraine and 34 percent said the U.S. should be less involved. It might be worth mentioning, however that the poll was conducted before the Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was shot down, though I’m not sure it wold make much of a difference

Meanwhile, the poll also pointed out that 44 percent of likely voters support less involvement in Iraq's civil war, compared to just 19 percent who said they favor more involvement, and there were 23 percent who said that they agree with the current level of engagement. Just over half of respondents, or 51 percent, think the situation in Iraq affects U.S. national security "a little" or "not at all," while 42 percent said it affects American national security "a lot." In this argument I think I’m in the same camp as those 42 percent.

The poll also found that the public now trusts Republicans more than they do the Democrats at least on foreign policy issues at 39 percent compared to 32 percent, respectively, while 28 percent said they were unsure which party to trust. "In the big picture, two-thirds of respondents agreed with the statement that U.S. military actions should be 'limited to direct threats to our national security.' While I so agree with that general consensus, I also think it would be rather naive to think that there could never be an exception.

Politico added that while voters appear to have strong opinions on foreign policy and national security, it is unclear to what degree their opinions on those issues will impact their voting decisions in the 2014 elections. Specifically, 89 percent of respondents said that foreign policy would be an important factor in deciding their vote, but just 11 percent named foreign affairs or national security as the issue that would matter most. So here we would seem to have yet another example that points out how electorate seems a bit conflicted.

I would just like to point out one thing here. Americans must realize that by choosing to isolate themselves from the rest of the world they still expose themselves to certain dangers. Because like everything else in this world, such action very often comes with what can be some very nasty, and quite troublesome, unintended consequences. There are going to be those instances where involvement by this country is not only going to be expected, but is required. And it is in those instances that we must be able to trust those making the decisions how and when to do so.

Personally, the primary issue that I have with how this administration attends to the business of the foreign policy of this nation is that they have now put this country into such a position of weakness, to the point where no one any longer listens to us. The main players here, Barry and Mr. Kerry-Heinz, have now, and very effectively so, reduced themselves to being nothing more than the laughing stocks of the world. When either of these guys walks in the room, any chance of a serious discussion being held goes out the window.

And that may all sound pretty funny to some, but when our ‘leaders’ are being laughed, that simply means that America is being laughed as well. And things to not bode well for a world where the United Stated of America is nothing more than a punchline for some idiotic joke. The world is now in a very chaotic place, and whether we like it or not the ONLY thing that is likely to prevent it from totally coming apart at the seams will be some strong American leadership, and right now that is sorely lacking to the point of being nonexistent.

Sunday, July 20, 2014


So why is it that the Democrats are so much against capitalism and so much in favor of other economic systems such as socialism or even communism? Might it be that capitalism offers so many more benefits when compared to those other economic systems? That it makes it far more likely that citizens will ‘require’ less from their government where it is that a capitalist system is in place. And we all know that Democrats are not in favor of anything that makes it possible for people to become less dependent upon government. And what follows is a few of the reasons why:

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.

So there you have it. Frankly, it’s all pretty cut and dried, really. Democrats are all about the collective, remember now, to them "it takes a village." They constantly preach about what they claim are the many examples of the supposed unfairness and inequality of the one system that, really, is the most fair. Because under no other system is one presented with the number of opportunities to succeed or is such financial and personal reward likely, much less even possible. The only thing required for one to become a success is a willingness to work, and work hard. Which is another reason Democrats favor socialism.

Saturday, July 19, 2014


I may be wrong but it does seem that with each passing day the rhetoric that we continue to hear from Democrats and, to be honest, some ‘Establishment’ Republicans becomes a bit more intense as well as even more outrageous as it becomes a little less based on any actual fact. And the latest example of this comes from Rep. Chris Van Hollen who hails from the People’s Republic of Maryland. Mr. Van Hollen has made it quite clear on any number of occasions that he is a true man of the left. And he once again made that painfully clear when asked a question regarding ‘comprehensive immigration reform.’

You see, it was when he was recently asked whether legalizing illegal immigrants would help unemployed Americans that Mr. Van Hollen chose to respond by pointing to testimony from the director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Testimony that Van Hollen said indicated enactment of the Senate immigration bill, which would also provide illegal aliens with a "path to citizenship', would "reduce the deficit and increase long-term economic growth." Now I’ve heard that said any number of times before, and every time I do it makes no sense to me than it did the time before. It’s political nonsense, pure and simple.

Anyway, the question as asked went like this, "Do you think that allowing illegal aliens to stay in the United States and putting them on a path to citizenship will help unemployed Americans?"  To which Van Hollen responded by saying, "I think what we need to do is pass comprehensive immigration reform, and I just came from a hearing with the non-partisan director of the Congressional Budget Office, who testified that if you passed the Senate bipartisan bill, you will reduce the deficit and increase long-term economic growth in the United States." Now he may say it like he believes it, but he knows it’s a lie.

Van Hollen was asked the question at some circus-like event called the "Witness Wednesdays: Voices of the Unemployed", held on Capitol Hill. The same question was also put to Rep. Dan Kildee, a Democrat, who objected that the question implied "that we want to encourage illegal immigration." Kildee said, "I think we need to have an immigration policy that is welcoming and open. If we're talking about specifically the children who are fleeing their countries because of the risk that they're facing, I think it's a false dichotomy. I think we can be a welcoming nation and also support the people who live here and are struggling."

And when the question was repeated, this idiot Kildee replied by saying, "Which illegal aliens are you speaking of? The question implies that we want to encourage illegal immigration, and we should not do that. But what we should have is immigration policy that fits the needs of the current, of the 21st century." He also said, "So I don’t believe that the question before Congress is whether or not we should allow illegal aliens here, but whether we should deal with the fact that there are 11 million people in this country that are undocumented, and that they are here and should have a pathway to legitimacy." Pure insanity!

Kildee said, "They’ve been contributing to the economy, and I think it’s a false choice to say that in order to take care of the people who are unemployed, we can no longer be a nation that is welcoming to immigration." Kildee is also cosponsoring a bill that would extend unemployment benefits. "Since this vital lifeline lapsed, millions of families have struggled to put food on the table, keep a roof over their head and pay their bills," he said in a statement. So this guy wants to extend unemployment benefits to those who remain unemployed and at the same time create more of those could, at least potentially, be eligible to receive those same benefits?

Look the fact of the matter is that according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as of June, there are 9.5 million unemployed Americans. So I ask you, what possible sense does it make, to anyone, to undertake what it is that’s being advocated by the likes of Mr. Van Hollen and his Democrat colleagues. Shouldn’t we be questioning, just a bit more, why it is that they appear to be so desperate in their efforts to provide amnesty to the 11-20 Million people now in this country illegally? Many of us have members of our own families who are still looking for jobs, why should we make that task anymore difficult for them?

I think many of us are able to recognize, and pretty easily so, what it is that the Democrats are busily up to here. And it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with reducing the deficit or creating long term economic growth. After all, the Democrats have been pretty transparent on the issue, as their rhetoric resembles very little that which is their true motivation on the issue. Because the fact of the matter is that the Democrats are on the hunt, so to speak, with it all coming down to politics. They see the granting of amnesty to those millions here illegally as a way of creating millions of newly registered Democrat voters. It’s just that simple.