Sunday, August 31, 2014
According to many of those on the left, Barry, when it comes to the rapidly deteriorating condition of the world in general, is simply being cool in the face of adversity. Or at least that’s how the 40 percent, or so, who claim to approve of the job he is doing, see things. Now personally, that’s just not how I see it. Big surprise there, right? These imbeciles bolster their pathetic argument by saying because he doesn't bluster and he doesn't strut, Barry’s demonstrating coolness by not panicking, even though he, himself, admits that it does sometimes feel as if the world is falling apart. But then, that would only be because IT IS falling apart and Barry has played a very pivotal role in allowing such a thing.
But Barry's supposed cool-in-a-crisis style and disdain for the impulsive use of military force is fueling criticism of his leadership, if you can call it that, as crises stagger the Middle East and Ukraine. It was as recently as this past Friday that our supposed commander-in-chief told a gathering of his followers, "If you watch the nightly news, it feels like the world is falling apart." Our boob-in-chief went on to say, "I can see why a lot of folks are troubled," while counseling that the US military, standing tall amid jihadist violence and geopolitical threats, had never been mightier. Now would that be the very same military that he has been working so hard to so thoroughly gut since coming into office?
Barry went on to say, "The world has always been messy -- we're just noticing it now in part because of social media." Granted, the world has always been a rather volatile place, but prior to Barry there had always been the presence of the United States acting as a stabilizing force. But with the arrival of Barry onto the scene that has become less and less the case. And I guess I’m unable to understand what role social media has played in making us more aware of just how ‘messy’ Barry has now allowed things to become? And yet with world crises bursting out all around him and political opponents apoplectic, Barry has yet to formulate any sort of response, and refuses to act on anyone's timetable but his own.
His crisis management style has been described by some as being methodical, but I tend to see it more as being haphazard at best, or perhaps shooting in the blind. Long Situation Room seminars and skepticism that US force can remake a tumultuous world, has sustained him through nearly six tough White House years. With Islamic State radicals dug into a caliphate in Iraq and Syria, and Russian President Vladimir Putin's shadow ever lengthening over Ukraine, Barry simply shrugs off a whirl of hostile news cycles and political attacks on his leadership, or his lack of any leadership ability whatsoever. Let’s face it, Barry is about as far removed from being any sort of a leader as one can possibly get.
But even Barry’s allies may be forgiven for wondering, after another trying week, whether the president’s approach is becoming a political liability, as his once high foreign policy ratings ebb. A rare burst of honesty on Syria put the president in a new fix, and raised the stakes for his trip to the NATO summit and Estonia beginning Tuesday. In trying to quell the warlike mood in Washington, Barry told reporters who, I can only assume, expected to hear that US attacks on IS in Syria were imminent, that, "We don't have a strategy yet." Such a statement should cause one to question the seriousness with which Berry takes this new terrorist organization. Barry’s team did try to tell us all what he ‘meant’, but we KNEW what he meant.
The damaging soundbite sparked a Washington firestorm, as it appeared to validate Republican attacks on Barry that he is disengaged and oblivious to rising threats, is not up to facing down the world's hard men like Vladimir Putin. And in one of those rare occasions where I can agree with RINO senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, they warned in a New York Times article Saturday headlined "stop dithering" that Barry's failure to act quickly against IS in Syria was "startling" and "dangerous." Potential 2016 Republican presidential hopeful Rick Perry said Barry's remarks revealed a president always one step behind the next crisis, and accused him of "dithering and debating" over what to do about IS.
Aides did their best to backtrack protesting that what Barry was talking about was an operational plan for military action in Syria, not the wider battle against a group US jets are already bombing in Iraq. While it infuriates his enemies, Barry's simplistic approach is a reflection of his own ideological driven personality, his post-Iraq war era and the historical lens through which he increasingly peers as his presidency enters its twilight. His rather drawn out decision-making and habit of testing, which some refer to as dithering, of every scenario that could follow military action is familiar, Barry agonized for months before doubling down with an Afghan troop surge in his first term. He is incapable of making a decision.
And what is it that his defenders chose reply with? Well, what else but, Osama bin Laden, recalling the long-planned and daring raid into Pakistan, that took place three years ago, which killed the Al-Qaeda chief and helped Barry win reelection. But I think we can all agree that Barry took far more credit for that event than he in any way deserved. And as we know he had a contingency plan in place for blaming all those involved were it to go badly. White House spokesmoron Josh Earnest used the excuse that Barry wary of being sucked into Syria's civil war, refuses to simply launch an impulsive attack to appease Washington, seeking vengeance after the IS murder of US journalist James Foley.
And then Earnest actually said, "There are some who probably would make the case that it's OK to not have a formulated, comprehensive strategy." Adding that, "That is not what the president believes is a smart approach." Look, I’m no politician, but I am a reasonably intelligent individual and someone who spent 24 years in the military. So I’m curious, who besides some America hating, left wing ideologue would ever say that it’s OK to operate in the absence of a well thought out, formulated and comprehensive strategy? Am I the only one who views such a comment as being anything other than borderline insane? But having said that it what one typically expects from Democrats.
Brian Katulis, of the Center for American Progress, another one of the many George Soros funded front groups, which is also very cozy with Barry and his administration, said Barry may be more in tune with his war-weary nation, than his critics. This moron said, "I think a lot of the criticism comes from the chattering classes — amongst the foreign policy elite and in the media." And he went on to say, "I think your ordinary American is very much where the president is, in his cautious look before you leap stance." Well I’ll tell you one thing, this ‘ordinary America’ sure as shit isn’t where Barry is when it comes to dealing with these murdering terrorists.
Barry has made clear he believes history assigned him the role of getting troops home from foreign wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and of transitioning his nation from the permanent war footing it adopted following the September 11 attacks in 2001. Critics argue though, that Barry sees the world not as it is, but as he wishes to see it. It would seem that Barry tends to operate under the misguided premise that if you ignore things long enough they will simply take care of themselves. It’s either that or it simply matters very little to him how things take care of themselves. Because over the course of the last five years there has not been one instance where matters simply took care of themselves, peacefully.
Friday, August 29, 2014
I think that we can all safely agree that Jimmy Carter, at least before Barack Hussein Obama came along, was at once considered to be the worst president that this country ever managed to elect. And, I think we can also agree that he has always had a soft spot not only in his heart, but also in his head, for any terrorist group that might come along. And it was terrorism expert Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld who seemed to support that notion when, on Thursday, she proceeded to slam Carter for his planned speech at a fundraiser for a terrorism group linked to Hamas. She said that, "Mr. Carter has never met an Islamic terrorist that he didn’t like." And I certainly can’t disagree with her assessment of a man whose hatred of America rivals that of our current president as well as that of the presumed Democrat frontrunner for 2016, Hitlery Clinton. As you know Democrats have long refused to refer to the ‘war on terror, as just that, a war, choosing instead to refer to as an "Overseas Contingency Operation."
Dr. Ehrenfeld is the director of the American Center for Democracy. It was in a recent interview that she told "America's Forum" host J.D. Hayworth, "Mr. Carter started his involvement with, as far as I know, with several nefarious characters even before he was elected president, when he was governor, and his peanut business was in trouble." Dr. Ehrenfeld said of the former Democrat president, "It goes back to the days even before BCCI, the Libyans, the Saudis, had bailed his business out. So from then, he and his family had been living on Saudi largesse and others." She went on to add that, "The older he's gotten, the more supportive he has become of … others who are really not supporting anything that is written in the American Constitution." She went on to say, "He was a big champion of Hamas — and, apparently, he has been known, actually, to be very anti-Semitic." Adding finally, "So, combined with that, he's having a ball." As a former president, Carter is nothing but a complete disgrace.
Carter, 89, who has long supported Hamas in its struggle with Israel, will speak this weekend at an event in Detroit sponsored by the ‘Islamic Society of North America’ (ISNA). The group has been implicated by the Justice Department in a scheme to funnel $12 Million to the terrorist group, Hamas. Other speakers at the event at Cobo Hall are unindicted co-conspirators Jamal Badawi, who was named in 2007 in the Holy Land Foundation Trial, and Siraj Wahhaj, who is listed for his involvement in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. News of Carter's participation in the event was first reported by Breitbart News. His presence could violate federal laws that make it a crime for any U.S. citizen to provide material support to any group designated as a foreign terrorist organization. In fact it was that flaming liberal, Alan Dershowitz who said that Carter's actions, in raising funds for the ISNA, place him "very close, if not across the line," of criminal behavior.
Dr. Ehrenfeld, for those who may not know it, is the author of "Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed and How to Stop It," and it was in her interview that she attacked reports saying that the Islamic State is making most of its money from the seized Iraqi oil fields. ISIS is only making about "$25,000 to $30,000 a day" from the fields, Ehrenfeld said. Most of its money comes from blackmail. She said, "There is a myth about, oh, they're taking over the oil fields . . . that's where the main money is coming from. It's not." She then went on to say, "That's nothing. So that's not it. You have oil fields, but you cannot operate them. You cannot produce anything. You don't get much money from that." She said, "They are blackmailing everybody." And she added, "Everybody has to pay them extra taxes." So it is then that those who refuse to bow down to this murdering cult that seems to specialize in the killing of women and children, are considered to be ‘Infidels."
Dr. Ehrenfeld compared IS, formerly known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), to a "mafia" or a "gang" saying that "everybody who has a business, everybody who grows anything, everybody has to give them money." The way to eradicate ISIS, Ehrenfeld said, was to "physically kill these evil people. No other way about it. She went on to say, "They have to be eliminated. You have to use force against it. If you will not kill them, they will kill us." And she then declared, "These are evil people." Dr. Ehrenfeld said that the media has fueled the growth of ISIS thorough its coverage, "through the Internet, through YouTube, through television interviews with these people." She said, "I guess if Hitler would have lived today, he would be interviewed, too, and we would hear his side of the story." And she said, "This is completely outrageous because we are giving PR to our enemies." She said news organizations must not "show any interviews with any of them to justify what they are doing. Because by showing this, we give them propaganda."
The bottom line here is that I don’t think that it’s going too far to say that the vast majority of Democrats in this country today, look upon this ‘new’ terrorist group, ISIS, as being an ally in their continuing effort to destroy this country. How else can you explain the tepid response thus far to the violence it has committed or the declaration from Barry himself that he has no strategy for dealing with this murdering group of Islamo-Nazis? And if the American people are ok with what their seeing from our president, then when these terrorists, who are most likely already in this country, begin their reign of terror here on our own soil, they will have no one to blame but themselves. After all, these days I think you’d be very hard pressed to find a Democrat anywhere who possess any amount of love for this country and they will partner up with anyone in their effort to destroy it. So what’s it going to take to convince people that every single one of these Muslim terrorists must be eliminated, obliterated and eradicated.
Thursday, August 28, 2014
Well, as was expected Republican-turned-Independent-turned-Democrat Charlie Crist, everyone’s favorite sleazy opportunist, handily defeated his opponent, Nan Rich 74-26 in Florida's Democrat primary this past Tuesday. Out of the nearly 4.6 million registered Democrats here in the state of Florida, it was only 838,000 who saw this race as being important enough to show up to cast their ballots. Which, I suppose, may also be as an indication of how they truly feel about Crist.
Meanwhile over on the Republican side, the numbers there were a bit better, having more than 925,000, out of the 4.1 million registered Florida Republicans, who showed up to cast ballots for their favorite candidates. So I think we can safely see here that neither candidate is stirring much in the way of excitement within their respective parties. Or perhaps a majority of the people simply don’t see the significance of a primary election, leaving the rest of to select for them who it is that they will have to vote for come the general election.
At any rate, what we have in Charlie Crist is a pretty pathetic guy who has a rather long history of changing his position on this or that issue, especially if he thinks that doing so will provide to him some level of political benefit. And in so doing he has managed to completely reinvent his political views. With Crist, as is demonstrated by the man himself, there is no discernible substantive there, there. But that would seem to have mattered very little to most of the Democrats who turned out to vote for him this past Tuesday.
Crist has always proven himself to be very fluid when defining his position on any issue. On Obamacare, Crist said in 2010: "The Obama health-care bill was too big, too expensive, and expanded the role of government far too much. Had I been in the United States Senate at that time, I would have voted against the bill because of unacceptable provisions like the cuts to the Medicare Advantage program. Obamacare was off the charts, was wrong. It taxed too much, has mandates that are probably unconstitutional, and it’s not the way to go."
Pretty definitive sounding, right? Well, what a difference a few years will make, because here is what Crist says now about the very same Obamacare that he once saw as being too big and too expensive: "[Obamacare] is the right thing to do. Our country needed to do it. I’m glad he did it. I’m glad we have it, and it’ll continue to improve, I believe [in it]. . . .I won’t shy away from it. I think it’s the right thing to do. And I feel that in my heart." So which is it, Charlie? I think that’s a very fair question.
And these days Crist’s also seems to have what can be described as a rather warm place in his heart for voter fraud. But it wasn’t always so. Because you see, back in 2008, Charlie signed the "No Match, No Vote" law, which requires a would-be voter’s driver’s-license number or the last four digits of his Social Security number to match listings in the state database before he can cast a ballot. But today he sees thing a bit differently. Because now he finds that these sorts of efforts "make a mockery of the democracy we put on display every Election Day."
Now if Charlie can’t be consistent on such things as Obamacare and voter fraud, what are the chances that he has been consistent on something like gay marriage? Well, as it turns out absolutely none. In previous campaigns he pledged to "support a constitutional amendment that honors traditional marriage as an institution." In 2010, he said civil unions are "fine, but I support marriage between a man and a woman." However, now Crist, the Democrat, seems to a big supporter of same-sex marriage. Imagine that!
And it was in 2010 that Charlie vetoed a bill that would have required most women to pay for an ultrasound before seeking an abortion. But in 2006, he had pledged to sign a bill that only permitted abortions to save the life of the mother. And it was also in 2010 that Crist sought a special session of the state legislature to permanently ban oil drilling in state waters. But back in 2008 he had called for ending the federal ban on offshore drilling. So forgive me if I seem more than a bit confused here.
So the question is, or at least it should be, who is the real Charlie Crist? That’s really a pretty easy one. Charlie is a cynical, dishonest opportunist, a man with no principles and no core values who will say absolutely anything to advance his political career. And while the political practices of nearly all politicians can be said to be pretty far removed from anything that can be called ‘saintly’, they are a world apart from Crist’s. As Crist has said on any number occasions, it wasn’t he who changed, it was the Republican Party that changed.
But as Democrats made perfectly clear earlier this week on Election Day, they have absolutely no trouble with nominating someone like this transparent phony for public office. After all, it’s what Democrats do, why should they treat Charlie any differently? And in looking back at 2010 it’s pretty clear that the Republicans had a very different opinion of this guy. Hence the need for him to make the change to the Democrat Party. Crist has always been a pretty much down-the-line liberal attempting to pass himself off as something of a born-again conservative.
So when it comes down to most Democrats, I think we can all agree here that voting for someone the likes of Charlie Crist has never proven to be very much of a problem. Actually I think Democrats tend to prefer guys like him. For one reason, those who make up the core constituencies of their party are those who see no real need to work, so therefore they tend to vote for those politicians who are least likely to require that they do so. So it’s going to be left up to rest of us to make sure that this scumbag is not able to worm his way back into office.
Wednesday, August 27, 2014
The situation to which I refer is one where we now have a Maryland Congressman who says that subpoenas are now being issued in a federal investigation into Maryland’s rather screwed up Obamacare exchange. He said that he believes there was fraud in the system that cost taxpayers millions but hasn’t worked right from the start. Now anyone who has been paying attention has, I’m sure, heard about what a nightmare this thing was from day one. It’s part of trend that we have seen in many of these state exchanges.
Congressman Andy Harris has said there appears to be evidence of fraud. Oddly enough he’s Maryland’s lone Republican in Congress and has continued to be a very vocal opponent of Obamacare. But this investigation, if it’s happening, is being conducted by what is supposed to be a non-political government agency. Maryland’s health exchange, the connection to Obamacare here, never has worked as easily as promised. Much like the exchanges in both Washington State and Oregon, it crashed and was filled with technical problems.
The exchange is now supposedly being revamped but Harris says there’s a growing federal investigation into the millions of taxpayer dollars that have already been wasted on the website. He says the Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General is issuing subpoenas for fraud. He said, "There were invoices literally for hundreds of dollars an hour in charges with no reason for the invoices, no specific work done and these were approved by the executive director."
A representative of the Inspector’s Office supposedly said in a recent interview that he couldn’t confirm that any investigation was taking place. The office is non-political, independent, and looks into waste and abuse of taxpayer dollars. Some unnamed official also said, "Every year, we investigate, prosecute and conduct hundreds of companies who misuse our seal taxpayer dollars. As a result of our work, we recover billions." Well, I’m not sure how much of that I’m willing to buy, but it would be nice if it were true.
In published reports, a spokesman for the Maryland Health Exchange denied Harris’ claim that subpoenas had been issued. Earlier, the governor and lieutenant governor both welcomed an investigation. It’s unclear who is being targeted in any possible investigation, whether the subpoenas are for government workers or contractors. The health exchange and fixes to it are expected to cost taxpayers more than $260 million. When you add up all of the money that has been spent on these exchanges it absolutely mindboggling.
Mr. Harris said, "It’s in a new phase now, a phase which could ultimately result in criminal charges." Actually, it’s everyone who played a hand in the passing of this thing, from Barry on down, that should now be facing criminal charges of one form or another. They sought out to destroy the best health system in the world, and for what? So the government would then be able to dictate to all but the very rich, how it is that they would be able to seek out healthcare. Once again this was all about nothing more than control.
Apparently fewer blacks say they and whites get along well today than felt that way back in 2009, at least according to a new Pew Research Center/USA Today poll. But who might they think is to blame for that? I suppose that after years of being on the receiving end of near endless incendiary rhetoric from the likes Jesse Jackson and Barry’s current go-to-guy on all matters having to do with race, Al Sharpton, blacks would says it’s because of us racist white folks. But I would beg to differ on that point. Because over the course of at least the last five years I would say there has been a rapid, and somewhat violent, intensifying of black racism toward whites.
But back to this poll, at least for a minute. Supposedly it was from 2007 to 2009, that the number of black respondents who said blacks and whites get along "very well" or "pretty well" increased seven percentage points, to 76 percent. But it’s been since 2009, that the share of black respondents who had a positive view of race relations has now dropped twelve points, to 64 percent. But it’s not just blacks who have seen things deteriorate. Because white respondents who thought blacks and whites got along well increased three percentage points from 2007 to 2009, but decreased five percentage points from 2009 to 2014.
And we’re told that this poll also found that 70 percent of black respondents thought police did a poor job of treating racial and ethnic groups equally, while just 25 percent of whites say they do a bad job. And there may actually be some truth to that. But, again, who is it that can be said to be to blame for that? Many blacks, both male and female, derive their jollies courtesy of intimidation. And that type of behavior is simply not conducive to creating the type of relationship that one generally tries to foster with the police. And sadly even those who do not exhibit such bad behavior are seen as being guilty by association. Because the cops don’t know.
And of course, as is usually the case, it’s Democrats who were more critical of police performance than were Republicans, but Pew found that much of the discrepancy could be attributed to the views of black Democrats. Again, no real surprise there. As I have said before, blacks, more often than not, are their own worst enemy. They walk around with their underwear hanging out and exhibiting all manner of rather thuggish behavior and then still they have the nerve to complain when they find themselves being singled out by the police. They insist upon attracting attention to themselves and then complain, quite loudly, when they get it.
The bottom line here is that when it comes to racism in this country blacks simply refuse to take any responsibility whatsoever for the role that they continue to play regarding the level of racism that does still exist in this country. And whether they like it or not, that role is a rather significant one. What kind of impression of blacks as a whole is it that is left with most reasonable people after having watched on their televisions hordes of rampaging blacks as they were recently seen behaving on the streets of Ferguson? And more often than not these are lasting impressions that can prove to be very difficult to change in any meaningful way.
Tuesday, August 26, 2014
Well, well, well, what do we have here other than, of course, an example that would seem to very clearly point out that the mass rioting in Ferguson, over the shooting of another black punk was essentially nothing more than another excuse to riot. What I’m referring to here is the fact that we now have two cases that on the surface would appear nearly identical. In one case we have Michael Brown who was black, and Dillon Taylor, who was not. Two young, unarmed men with sketchy criminal pasts, both shot to death by police officers, and just two days apart.
But while the world knows of the highly publicized situation involving the 18-year-old, nearly 300 pound, Brown, whose Aug. 9 death in Ferguson, Missouri touched off violence, protests, looting and an angry national debate, very few people outside of Utah have ever even heard of the 20-year-old Mr. Taylor. And by the way, does anyone recall seeing anywhere on the news how it was that mobs of rampaging whites burned and looted Salt Lake City where Dillon Taylor was shot by a black police officer? I mean, I certainly don’t recall hearing anything about it.
According to critics there’s a reason for the obvious discrepancy in media coverage and it all comes down to nothing more than the race of these two young men. You see Brown was, as everyone should know by now unless they’ve been residing under a rock somewhere, black and the officer who shot him was, of course, a racist white cop. But Mr. Taylor wasn’t black. He, like George Zimmerman, has been described as being a white Hispanic, and the officer who shot him on Aug. 11 outside a 7-Eleven in South Salt Lake was not white, nor Hispanic.
It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that what we have here is an example of a double standard that we have seen play out any number of times before. And these events are now, and rightly so, fueling resentment and talk of double standards not only on conservative talk radio but also throughout social media sites, where the website Twitchy compiled a list of Twitter comments asking why Brown’s death has been front-page news for weeks while Mr. Taylor’s was a footnote at best. In fact I stumbled across it pretty much entirely by accident.
Critics of this disparity in coverage and level of outrage claim that it is actually the Brown case that is the outlier stating that statistics indicate that black-on-black crime is far more common than the case of a white-on-black crime. For homicide, for instance, the FBI in 2012 found that of the 2,648 black murder victims, some 2,412 were killed by fellow blacks and only 193 by whites. And yet if you listen to the race hucksters, you’d think that open season has been declared by whites as they go about picking off stray blacks wherever they may find them.
Al ‘Bull Horn’ Sharpton, in speaking at Monday’s funeral service for Brown, attacked local policing methods in the case and the militarization of local police forces, but also noted that American blacks also must learn from Ferguson. Sharpton said, "Some of us act like the definition of blackness is how low you can go." He went on to say, "Blackness has never been about being a gangster or thug. … Blackness was, no matter how low we were pushed down, we rose up anyhow." What he talking about? Being black has always been about being a thug!
The obvious difference between Missouri and Utah was that Mr. Taylor’s death didn’t result in whites taking to the streets, breaking widows and looting stores in search of a new pair od sneakers or a big screen TV. While there were peaceful protests a week ago outside the Salt Lake City police headquarters covered by local media, there were no outbreaks of looting or violence as happened nightly on the streets of Ferguson. Thus we have what is yet another obvious different between the civilized and an uncivilized response.
Communist News Network, aka CNN, host Jake Tapper acknowledged the disparity in coverage of the Brown and Mr. Taylor cases in the mainstream media, noting that the press often undercovers such topics as inner-city violence and the high rates of black-on-black crime. But Tapper said Monday that media "critics fail to see" that the greater context of a story such as the Brown shooting, including the reaction it sparked in the St. Louis, in the black community nationwide, and with local authorities and from Barry’s administration.
As with the Brown case, what provoked police to shoot Mr. Taylor is currently under investigation. Officers were responding to a report of a man "waving a gun around" when they confronted Mr. Taylor, his brother and his cousin leaving the 7-Eleven. "South Salt Lake Police Sgt. Darin Sweeten said three officers gave Taylor verbal commands to reveal his hands, but Taylor failed to comply and was ‘visibly upset,’" said an Aug. 19 report in the Deseret [Utah] News. "Taylor was subsequently shot and died at the scene."
Salt Lake Police Chief Chris Burbank said at an Aug. 19 press conference that the officer, whom he described as "not a white officer," was wearing a body camera. He said the video would be released after the investigation into the shooting had been completed. "The officer did not set out to use deadly force," said Mr. Burbank on the press conference video. "We have an unfortunate incident where Dillon Taylor lost his life. But I cannot stress enough that this is not Ferguson." Well of course not, because the victim was ‘white’ and the shooter, black.
Since when should it seen as being in any way appropriate, or even acceptable, for the leader of some third world country to come into this country and to dictate to us, the United States, how it is that we MUST go about the allowing of immigrants to enter our country. Who does such a person think he is that he is somehow entitled to make such demands, especially when his own country has far stricter laws for doing so than does this country? And especially when it is his country that has been holding an American citizen whose only crime was that he got lost, in his prison for the last 5 months!
And in sounding very much like your basic card-carrying member of our very own Democrat Party it was Mexico's president, Enrique Pena Nieto, who recently spoke about what he referred to as the need for U.S. immigration reform. Nieto was in this country on a two-day visit to immigrant-friendly California. And what he said sounded eerily familiar to the continuing rhetoric that we have been hearing, ad nauseam, from our own president as well as many members of his party. Nieto made the same idiotic claim that those who reject diversity and inclusion will ultimately be proven wrong.
It was in a speech given just yesterday that we heard this leftist imbecile say, "We want to be a factor of cohesion, not division, with full respect for the sovereignty of the United States." He then went on to say, "This, at the end, is about — and only about — a matter of justice for those who contribute so much to the development of the American society." Nieto was of course welcomed with open arms by none other than Jerry "Moon Beam" Brown, who played up his own immigration credentials in a speech that highlighted the close cultural and historical ties they share across borders.
Old ‘Moon Beam’ very proudly declared, "It wasn't very long ago that the governor of California was outlawing driver's licenses for people who were undocumented from Mexico." He added, "That's not the law anymore." Brown signed a bill into law just last year that will enable immigrants to get driver's licenses next year. He said he got the message after a visit to a Monterey artichoke field where the workers yelled "licencia, licencia." I think we are all able to see through what was ‘Moon Beam’s’ very obvious political motivation for doing so. He’s not nearly as clever as he thinks himself to be.
You it was in 1994 that the people of California voted in sufficient numbers to ensure the passage of Proposition 187 which sought to ban immigrants who are in the country illegally from access to social services including health care and education. But as is usually the case the will of the people was later overturned by some activist judge who likely put politics above all else. Especially since Hispanics have now become a political force to be reckoned with in California. They now make up the largest of any racial or ethnic group in the state, though their voter registration numbers still lag behind whites.
On Tuesday, ‘Moon Beam’ will host a luncheon in the Mexican president's honor in the state capital, Sacramento. Nieto will then address the Legislature at the state Capitol. ‘Moon Beam’ invited Nieto to California after visiting Mexico last month and signing several nonbinding agreements on trade, education and environmental cooperation. The two politicians, Mayor Eric Garcetti and community leaders addressed hundreds of enthusiastic Mexican and Mexican-American leaders at the Millennium Biltmore Hotel in Los Angeles. One wonders how many were actually here legally.
Nieto took it upon himself to criticize what he called those unethical governors who had cracked down on immigrants, though he didn't name any specifically. "There are still states that have not evolved so much as California, that still skimp on recognition and, even worse, the rights of immigrants," he said. "Those who still believe and bet for the exclusion and discrimination or the rejection of diversity ... I only have one thing to say: the future, and a very near future, will demonstrate your ethical mistake. Time will show we're right." If I didn’t know better I’d swear I was listening to ‘Dingy Harry’ Reid.
What follows here is but a brief excerpt from what is current Mexican Immigration Law. It would greatly behoove America to follow Mexico’s example when it comes to how they address those who wish to enter our country.
• Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:
– Foreigners are admitted into Mexico "according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress." (Article 32)
– Immigration officials must "ensure" that "immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance" and for their dependents. (Article 34)
– Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets "the equilibrium of the national demographics," when foreigners are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when "they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy." (Article 37)
– The Secretary of Governance may "suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest." (Article 38)
• Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:
– Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)
– A National Population Registry keeps track of "every single individual who comprises the population of the country," and verifies each individual’s identity. (Articles 85 and 86)
– A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).
• Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:
– Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)
– Foreigners who sign government documents "with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses" are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)
• Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:
– Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)
– Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)
– Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico — such as working without a permit — can also be imprisoned.
• Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says:
– "A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally." (Article 123)
– Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)
– Foreigners who "attempt against national sovereignty or security" will be deported. (Article 126)
• Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law:
– A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)
– Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)
Monday, August 25, 2014
Why is it that those billionaires who support the Democrats, and their leftwing efforts to destroy this country, that are not deserving of the same level of condemnation that is now being heaped upon the Koch Brothers? The only reason I ask is that as a few of the Democrats’ billionaire snakes, aka George Soros, Tom Steyer and Mike Bloomberg now begin to crawl out from under their respective rocks, and to much fanfare, it’s at the same time that the Koch Brothers continue to be vilified by the Democrats, and called nearly every name in the book.
You know, and let’s not forget here, that it’s this guy Steyer who just so happens to be the main money man behind the stalling of the Keystone XL pipeline, and therefore the thousands of jobs that go along with it. And it’s Bloomberg who has declared war on the Second Amendment. And do I really need to remind anyone of Soros’ rather long and sinister list of priorities? So I find it rather odd that with these scumbags on being on their side Democrats continue to feel justified in their never-ending critique of those on our side. It just doesn’t make much sense.
I suppose one could say that it’s from somewhere deep within the darkest regions of the Democrat mind that one could find the rather twisted rationale on which they base their notion that it’s the only the left that is worthy of billionaire support. Even though the very same causes which they so fervently support only serve to further diminish what few freedoms we the American people still have. And yet we’re told that it is those issues supported by such villains of the right as the Koch Brothers that represent the greatest threats to our freedoms.
So I can only guess that it must really piss off the Democrats that thus far the Brothers Koch have attained a certain level of success in being able to point out what it is that those on the left are truly up to. And they’ve proven that they don’t mind spending their own money in their effort to do so, having already spent roughly $290 million in their effort to help conservative causes and candidates. The fact is, despite the never-ending claims made by Democrats, the left has the luxury of having far more wealthy patrons than do we here on the right. .
But the smear campaign against the Kochs continues. Because along with any number of the left of center publications, such as Politico, who very enthusiastically go about the reporting on the brothers' involvement in any number of conservative issues, we have, at the same time, the Democrats using images of private jets and other symbols of wealth to energize their party. As if we’re to somehow believe that the billionaires who support leftist causes fly around using only commercial airlines and use nothing but public transportation as they travel about.
Charles and David Koch earned their wealth from their father who ran Koch Industries, a Kansas-based company that makes everything from toilet paper to jet fuel, with each being worth somewhere in the neighborhood of $41 billion. As Democrats continue to denounce their influence in political ads, the brothers are spending plenty in races, using their own campaigns to attack issues like Common Core standards in public education, as well as vulnerable candidates who have supported Obamacare. They support the conservative cause.
I’ve never understood those who, because of the many opportunities that come with living in freedom, have attained a certain level of wealth and then seek to make it more difficult for others to attain that same level of success. And what tells us much more about them, as men, than does their ability to simply make money, is what they choose to with that money. Freedom is a very fragile commodity, and it requires safeguarding. But men like a Soros, Steyer or Bloomberg favor those things that threaten our freedom, hence the reason they support Democrats.
|POSSIBLY OUR FUTURE PRESIDENT?|
And yet we seem to have a group that cheerfully identifies itself as ‘The Ready for Warren’ super PAC consisting of those who are very enthusiastic about wanting Warren to run for president. But ‘Loony Liz’ swears she’s not seeking the White House and does not want the PAC to raise money on hopes that she is. But hey, we’ve heard folks on both sides of the aisle declare that they weren’t running for any specific office, only to find out later, that they were.
And according to the Communist News Network, aka CNN, Warren’s attorney, Marc Elias, wrote in a letter to the Federal Election Commission, "Senator Warren has publicly announced that she is not running for president in 2016." This letter went on to say, "The senator has not, and does not, explicitly or implicitly, authorize, endorse, or otherwise approve of the organization's formation or activities." Sounds pretty definite to me, but you never know.
Supposed old ‘Loony Liz’ has requested that instead of raising money for her, she'd rather that the Ready For Warren super PAC concentrate its attention, as well as its fundraising, on "maintaining Democratic control of the U.S. Senate and not confuse donors about a non-existent run for president." But despite Warren's disavowal of the super PAC, Erica Sagrans, the PAC’s manager, said the senator's supporters aren't backing down.
"I don't think there's anything new in this letter, and we're continuing with our campaign to draft Elizabeth Warren to run for president in 2016 because we believe she's the best person for the job," Sagrans said in a statement, demonstrating that the group is every bit as loony as favorite their candidate seems to be. She added, "We've all been clear since we launched our campaign that Senator Warren isn't associated with our group, and we aren't associated with the senator."
But this bimbo did agree with ‘Loony Liz’ about the need to focus the group's energies on maintaining the Democrats' control of the Senate. The super PAC's name is based off the name of another super PAC, Ready for Hillary, which is organizing for Hitlery Clinton's potential presidential campaign. Unlike Warren, however, Hitlery Clinton has not disavowed her namesake super PAC. Hitlery’s ego may be a bit larger than that of old ‘Loony Liz’.
Now look, I realize that your average American voter is far from being someone who can accurately be described as being informed. And most are without a clue when it comes to understanding how it is that our system of government is designed to work. And whenever asked about our Constitution usually all that is given in the way of a response is a rather quizzical look that would indicate that they have no idea what you’re talking about.
So I suppose it shouldn’t come as being all that much of surprise that we now have a such a group as ‘The Ready For Warren’ super PAC. And it’s even less of a surprise that it’s in Warren’s home state of Massachusetts. The bottom line here is that those of us who still possess a desire to get this country turned around before we all go over the edge must come together to the point where we outnumber those who cheerfully align themselves with such nutty groups.
Friday, August 22, 2014
It is courtesy of the same New York Times/CBS Poll that I quoted in an earlier post that we also now find out that there are 10 percent of Americans who actually believe that race relations in this country have somehow been made to improve since Barry "Almighty" was first elected. According to this poll it is17 percent of blacks and 8 percent of whites who now believe race relations have improved under Barry.
Now I gotta tell ya, I’d be very curious to find out exactly what it could possibly be that would lead anyone to the conclusion that race relations have been made to do anything but to deteriorate under Barry. Because, quite frankly, I see things as having gotten nothing but worse. Blacks have always possessed this overwhelming sense of entitlement, and that has only gotten worse with the election of Barry.
And it was also in this poll that 35 percent of Americans said they believe that race relations have gotten worse in this era of Barry "Almighty", including 40 percent of whites and 21 percent of blacks. Fifty-two percent of Americans polled said that race relations have stayed about the same. And am I the only one that views it as being rather telling that it’s the whites who view things, racially speaking, as having gotten worse?
And why do you suppose that might be? Don’t you think that it would be ones who feel as if they are the ones who view themselves as being the targets of the racism that would also be the same ones most likely to think that race relations have gotten worse and not better? I’ve been told that blacks can’t be racists because, per their definition of racism, it’s simply impossible. However, I would beg to differ!
Personally, I’m of the opinion that since the election of Barry, far from becoming more united, this country has become much more divided and especially along racial lines. And Barry has done nothing but to exacerbate things, and for no other reason than because he see it as being politically advantageous for him and the Democrats. So he fuels the fire of victimhood and blacks seem only too happy to go along with that cockamamie premise.
That blacks continue to claim to society’s victims for no other reason than because they’re black, to me as a white guy, is extremely aggravating. Because if blacks are victims of anything it would be of their own stupidity. Because it is they, and they alone, who are the ones that decided long ago that to become wards of the state was far more important than becoming self-sufficient, responsible members of society. There’s a lot less effort involved than with the latter.
And you know I hate to be so blunt here, but blacks are the ones who would much rather spend time listening to the likes of Al ‘Bull Horn’ Sharpton and Jesse ‘The Extortionist’ Jackson than listening to people like Allen West, Tim Scott, Mia Love or Ben Carson to name only a few. Sharpton doesn’t give a squat about them, if he did he would be speaking out about black on black crime, but he doesn’t because that doesn’t suit his needs.
I have very little sympathy for people, white or black, who consistently blame others for the misfortune that they have brought upon themselves. And if we’re being honest here, blacks have made it very clear, and on more than one occasion, that they are their own worst enemy. And there have been times when I simply did not understand the logic behind their actions. They choose to live the way they do. It’s not, as a white guy, my fault.
And if blacks truly possessed a desire to improve their lives, as well as the lives of their children, then the choice they would have to make is really a relatively simply one. Because they would need to do nothing more than to simply turn their back on the one political party that has always sought out new ways to control them. First it was through slavery and then it was by way of encouraging their addiction to government. The end result is essentially the same.
What will come as a surprise to no one, I’m quite sure, is the fact that opinions on the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, Missouri, would seem to be strongly divided along racial lines. But as the latest New York Times/CBS poll also shows, most people feel race relations in their own communities are good. However, says The New York Times, there is a rising feeling among whites that race relations are troubled. And I would agree with that assessment, even though it comes from the Times. Because the majority of what racism there is that remains in this country is directed at whites from what seems to be a growing number of blacks.
This particular poll also shows that while most whites are reserving judgment over whether police officer Darren Wilson was justified in shooting the unarmed teenager, most black respondents said the incident was unjustified. Ok, so riddle me this. How would these very same blacks have answered the question if it had been some big, burly, and white, skinhead teen who had confronted a black cop, and the black cop was then forced to shoot the white guy/kid? Would they also think that that incident was unjustified as well? Somehow, I don’t think so! I’m sure in that case, any shooting would have been seen as being completely justified.
So after what was a nationwide telephone poll of 1,025 adults, conducted on Aug. 19 and 20, we also find that there are differences in how blacks and whites see the protests and violence in Ferguson since the shooting. Just 15 percent of the white respondents said the mostly black protesters' actions were right, compared to 38 percent of black respondents. I’m sorry, but there is nothing that would justify the uncivilized behavior that I’ve seen taking place nearly every night by groups of rampaging blacks. And I doubt very much that had it been a white kid shot by a black cop that you would now be seeing whites behaving in the same manner.
The public also seems to be divided over the police response to the protests, which have continued both peacefully and violently since the shooting on August 9. Because blacks were almost twice as likely as whites to blame the police. The poll also reveals that blacks think police are more likely to use deadly force against a black suspect than a white one, but most whites believe race does not make a difference in the officer's decision. Let’s face it, whenever in the situation of having to deal with blacks it’s far more often than not that more force, not less, is generally required. And that is more the fault of the blacks involved than the police.
Forty-five percent of the black respondents said a police officer had racially discriminated against them, but almost none of the white people in the poll said they had faced that issue. The poll further showed that while 60 percent of blacks say police departments should reflect a community's racial population, white respondents were evenly divided. In Ferguson, about two-thirds of the St. Louis suburb's 21,000 residents are black. Its police department has just three black officers out of a force of 53. So what are we to take away from that? That even those not qualified should still be hired just so the numbers look good? That’s stupid!
Blacks and whites were also divided over whether a local investigation into the shooting will be handled fairly. About six out of 10 blacks said they do not think the investigation will be fair, but an equal number of whites had faith that it will. Let’s face it, you’ll not find a group anywhere that is more paranoid than the black community, with most of their problems being self-inflicted. That is, it’s their own fault they are scrutinized a little more closely by law enforcement. Respondents from both races, though, by a two-thirds response, said military-style equipment should be reserved for the National Guard and the military itself and not used by police departments.
Finally, I can’t help but wonder how this poll might have turned out if we didn’t have the likes of Al "Bull Horn" Sharpton, Jesse "The Extortionist" Jackson, and even Barry "Amighty" out there continuing to throw racial firebombs every chance they get. And for no other reason than to further enflame the situation so that they can then reap some sort of benefit from it. Let’s face it, Sharpton couldn’t care less about the fact that this black kid got shot. For all I know, deep down he may even believe the cop was justified. But that’s irrelevant because all this is to Sharpton is a vehicle by which he can elevate his stature within the black community.
Thursday, August 21, 2014
Even though America is, I think it safe to say, pretty much on its last leg, I can’t help but wonder if there are, any longer, enough remaining Americans who have any interest, whatsoever, in electing anyone who might want to do anything but to further destroy their country, or to expedite the destruction currently underway. And one of the reasons that I say that is because we now have a recent Quinnipiac University poll that makes clear, at least in New York, voters would pick congenital liar Hitlery Clinton or even Andy Cuomo, despite the fact that he’s hip deep in a corruption scandal, above all potential Republican candidates in a 2016 race.
It was Maurice Carroll, assistant poll director, who said in a statement that Hitlery apparently has the largest leads of 20 points or more. Meanwhile, the poll showed Andy ‘The Crook’ Cuomo would have leads of 10 to 24 percentage points. Their largest leads are over Chris Christie, the poll of 1,034 state voters taken between Aug. 14-17 reveals. Hitlery holds a commanding lead of 54 percent to 34 percent over Christie, and Andy leads him by 47 percent to 37 percent. I suppose to use Christie is not really an accurate way to gauge things how things could possibly turn out in 2016. After all, at this point few on the right would vote for him.
In some of the other matchups, Hitlery is said to hold a 60 percent to 29 percent lead over Jeb Bush and a 61 percent to 30 percent over Rand Paul. Andy leads Bush by 53 percent to 30 percent and Paul by 55 percent to 31 percent. The poll only compared Christie and Andy with three of the potential Republican candidates, and did not ask about other possible contenders such as Ted Cruz, Rick Perry or any of the other possible choices. But even at that it does offer us a glimpse of just how disinterested the electorate seems to have become in ensuring that this country, and freedom in general, survives for future generations.
And oddly enough it’s among women that the anti-woman Hitlery's margins in the poll went from 33 percentage points over Christie to 41 percentage points over Paul, and independent voters put her margin rating at 7 points over Christie to 26 points over Bush. Meanwhile, Andy's leads among women went from 16 points over Christie to 32 points over Paul. However, Christie comes out ahead of Andy with independent voters, by 41 percent to 35 percent, and Andy is ahead of Bush by 44 percent to 32 percent and Paul by 43 percent to 35 percent. Women, in a way, are a lot like blacks, neither has any desire to choose the best candidate.
But I must admit that after having spent the first 25 years of my life in ‘The Empire State’, this doesn’t come as much of a surprise. And having said that, I do realize that what we are talking about here is a poll that was rather limited in its scope. But what I worry about is that the warped way of thinking that this poll reveals, can very quickly turn into something akin to a very malignant form of the deadliest cancer. A cancer which can very quickly spread well beyond the borders of its host, in this case New York, with the help of a state-controlled media that behaves with much the same characteristics as your basic cancer causing carcinogen.
I’ve always thought it more than a bit bizarre how it is that so many Americans can actually bring themselves to believe the Democrats’ continuing claim that it is they, and they alone, who are the protectors of the little people. Because it is only they who are capable of truly feeling our pain. Because the stark reality of things is that it’s the Democrats who are the perpetual abusers of the little people. At least those of us little people who are still required to pay taxes. But, I guess, as long as people continue to accept that fraudulent claim as fact, it matters very little whether or not it’s actually true.
And it is one of those self-professed defenders of the little who sees himself as being entitled to, and on what is a fairly regular basis, abuse the many privileges that have been bestowed upon him by those who have put him into office. And he routinely demonstrates his disdain for those of whom he claims to be a proud defender by, quite literally, demanding that they be made to cover the cost of his rather expensive excesses, which he apparently views as being one of the perks of his high office. He seems to be of the opinion that he shouldn’t have to spend his money on anything. And who is it to whom I refer?
He is none other than that millionaire senator from West Virginia, Jay Rockefeller. Now as you might, or might not, be aware this fella comes from one of America's wealthiest families and he just so happens to represent a state only 60 miles from the District of Columbia. And yet he seems to find it necessary to travel home exclusively by way of private plane at $4,400 per trip. And does he cover the cost himself? Nope, what he does is to send the bill to we the taxpayers. I mean after all, why should an important guy like himself be forced to pay for not wanting to fly on the same plane with us common folk?
And why is it that he travels by way of a charter flight? Are there no commercial flights going his way that he could take advantage of? Well actually, there are as many as six commercial flights every single day between D.C. and Charleston, W.Va., the very city that old Jay regularly flies into and out of. And the cost of a round-trip ticket for the one-hour commercial flight? Hold onto your hats, because it’s a staggering $206. Jay's aversion to traveling as most other Americans do may be somewhat ironic, as he’s chairman of the Senate committee with jurisdiction over transportation issues.
Personally, I think when one is able to spend other people’s money one has a tendency to think that one is above those who are furnishing the money. So anyway, the travel costs this arrogant SOB billed to we the taxpayers over the just the past three years were greater than all but 11 senators, including those from Alaska, Washington state, Montana and other far-flung locales. And the esteemed Mr. Rockefeller left the confines of his plush Capitol Hill trappings to visit with his constituents fewer than 11 times per year, even though his home state is only an hour away.
What that means is that Jay goes home less often than nearly every other member of Congress, and yet his total travel costs are among the highest. But apparently such things matter very little to the people of West Virginia as they have seen fit to send this douche-bag back to Washington nonstop ever since he was first elected back in 1985. And before that, this useless f*ck was the governor of that state. So essentially this guy, besides being very wealthy, has never had to work a day in his life. Now that’s a pretty good gig if you can get it!
All together Jay's 32 trips in just the past three years have cost the taxpayers a hefty $141,408 for his chartered aircraft. And yet somehow 40 members of his staff were able to travel back and forth, and pretty regularly, for less than half that price, combined. However, what the records don't seem to indicate is whether those staffers drove or flew. And there was one trip earlier this from Feb. 28 to March 1, for example, "airfare for Sen. Rockefeller Washington DC to Charleston and return" cost $9,657. Nearly 10 grand for just two days? Really?
This guy also owns a palatial mansion worth an estimated $18 million and built on one of the largest housing tracts in the District, 16 acres cordoned off by razor wire and nearly surrounded by parkland in one of the city’s most desirable neighborhoods, Crestwood, near Rock Creek Park. Meanwhile, the state he represents is one of the poorest in the country, with per capita annual income of $22,000. He has an estimated net worth of more than $100 million, making him the nation's third-richest senator after fellow Democrats Mark Warner and Richard Blumenthal.
Rockefeller's Senate office charters his flights with a Virginia company that rents four-seat aircraft for $1,850 an hour, seven-seaters for $2,200 an hour, and 12-seaters for $4,000 an hour, plus fuel and other charges. On April 21, 2012, for example, the senator billed taxpayers $5,980 for a same-day trip from Washington to Charleston and back, presumably paying for the plane to wait while he did business in the state rather than risk having to spend a night there. He billed taxpayers $10,654 for a two-day trip on Sept. 5-6, 2013. For 12 of Rockefeller's 32 trips over the past three years, the charter flights alone cost taxpayers more than $7,000.
But old Jay is far from being the only guy that expects the taxpayer to cover his extravagant lifestyle. For example his fellow Democrat Chuckie Schumer of New York has been criticized for spending nearly $1 million on taxpayer-funded charter flights over the last three years, but Schumer left Washington four times as often as Rockefeller did and made several stops across the Empire State during most of the trips. Each time Schumer left Washington, his multistop journeys cost taxpayers an average of $7,941.
It was far more common for Rockefeller to make a simple round-trip from Washington to Charleston and back. The flight alone cost taxpayers an average of $4,419. He collected a separate per diem for each day of his trips and also billed for "incidentals" incurred, like the $12.75. Only Chuckie and one other senator, and yes another Democrat, Tim Johnson from South Dakota, spent more per trip. Meanwhile most senators spent less than $950 on travel per trip. Only four members of the Senate traveled home less frequently, each of them members from states far from Washington.
When asked why it is that the senator insists upon traveling on private planes; why he didn’t foot the bill for that preference out of his own pocket; and why he didn’t set foot in the state he represents more often, the senator’s spokesmoron chose not to respond. Which from my point of view essentially says it all. But I guess my real question here is how it is that people can continue to believe that these Democrats are, as they claim, the only ones capable of feeling the pain of those folks struggling to live paycheck to paycheck while still expected to assisted these politicians in living the life to which they have become so accustomed.
Wednesday, August 20, 2014
Well folks, it’s official, we have now gotten to the point where fully one third of our nation’s population is now on welfare. You see, as of the fourth quarter of 2012, according to data released Tuesday by the Census Bureau, 109,631,000 Americans lived in households that received benefits from one or more federally funded "means-tested programs", aka welfare. Now if that doesn’t define the ‘welfare state’, then I’m not sure what else would!
So while the Census Bureau has not yet reported on how many of our fellow Americans were on welfare in 2013 or, for that matter, even the first two quarters of 2014, we do know that 109,631,000 living in households taking federal welfare benefits as of the end of 2012. And that is a number that equaled 35.4 percent of all 309,467,000 people living in the United States at that time. I don’t know about you, but I never thought I’d see the day.
And when those receiving benefits from non-means-tested federal programs, such as Social Security, Medicare, unemployment and veterans benefits, were added to those taking welfare benefits, it turned out that 153,323,000 people were getting federal benefits of some type at the end of 2012. And even if you subtract the 3,297,000 who were receiving veterans' benefits from the total, that still leaves us with 150,026,000 people receiving non-veterans' benefits.
The 153,323,000 total benefit-takers at the end of 2012, said the Census Bureau, equaled 49.5 percent of the entire population. The 150,026,000 taking benefits other than veterans' benefits equaled about 48.5 percent of the entire population. And when America, in it’s infinite wisdom, chose to re-elect Barry "Almighty" in 2012, we had not yet reached that point where more than half the country was taking benefits from the federal government.
It is a reasonable bet, however, that with the implementation of Obamacare, with its provisions expanding Medicaid and providing health-insurance subsidies to people earning up to 400 percent of poverty, that while we have not yet surpassed that point, we will before long. So I’d kinda like to know what the breakdown was of what we the taxpayers ‘gave’ to those 109,631,000, that 35.4 percent of the nation, who were receiving benefits at the end of 2012.
Well to begin with, 82,679,000 of the welfare-takers lived in households where people were on Medicaid, said the Census Bureau. 51,471,000 were in households on food stamps. 22,526,000 were in the Women, Infants and Children program. 20,355,000 were in household on Supplemental Security Income. 13,267,000 lived in public housing or got housing subsidies. 5,442,000 got Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. 4,517,000 received other forms of federal cash assistance.
How do you better put into perspective that number of 109,631,000 people taking welfare, or the 150,026,000 getting some type of federal benefit other than veterans' benefits? Well, one way is to take a look at CIA World Factbook, according to which there are 142,470,272 people in Russia. So, the 150,026,000 people getting non-veterans federal benefits in the United States at the end of 2012 actually outnumbered all of the people in Russia.
Using that same source of information, there are 63,742,977 who people live in the United Kingdom and 44,291,413 who live in the Ukraine. So, the combined 108,034,390 people who live in these two nations is still about 1,596,610 less than the 109,631,000 collecting welfare in the United States. Now I don’t know about you, but I still have a difficult time wrapping my head around that we actually have that many people seeming to be content to live off the rest of us.
It may be even more telling, however, to compare the 109,631,000 Americans taking federal welfare benefits at the end of 2012 to Americans categorized by other characteristics. In 2012, according to the Census Bureau, there were 103,087,000 full-time year-round workers in the United States (including 16,606,000 full-time year-round government workers). Thus, the welfare-takers actually outnumbered full-time year-round workers by 6,544,000.
In the fourth quarter of 2008, when Barry "Almighty" was elected, there were 96,197,000 people living in households taking benefits from one or more federal welfare programs. After just four years of his working to "fundamentally transform" this country, by the fourth quarter of 2012, that number had grown by 13,434,000. Those 13,434,000 additional people on welfare outnumbered the 12,882,135 people estimated to live in Barry's home state of Illinois in 2013.
And yet Barry has demonstrated time and again that he is far from done when it comes to just how much more damage that he wants to do. There is much talk about his dismal approval rating, but it really matters very little because, barring something totally unforeseen, we’re stuck with him for the duration. And he has proven that he has no intention of allowing his low approval rating to get in the way of what it is that he wants to do. Which, I’m afraid, does not bode well for the country.
That genius, Juan Williams, is at it yet again. Because it’s according to this boob that Michael Brown's death ought to encourage both blacks and whites to think again about the causes of racial mistrust. This sage advice comes to us courtesy of Williams’ recent little piece in The Wall Street Journal. Williams is nothing but a pathetic fraud. He claims to care about the problem that blacks are made to face every single day, and yet refuses to admit what it is that’s the primary cause of those problems.
And of course, as to be expected from someone like this guy, he comes at this most recent incident from the direction that should come as no surprise to anyone. Because he writes, "If we are to stop angry clashes between police and poor black men, it is time to admit that thuggish behavior creates legitimate fear in every community." But let’s face it, blacks enjoy the intimidation factor. And perhaps if this poor black man hadn’t seen fit to go after the cop, he would not be dead today. But, that was his choice.
Williams goes on to say, "Close to half of black men drop out of high school. High unemployment and high rates of out-of-wedlock birth leave too many of them without guidance. Given this reality, the violent behavior of young black men and the police response have become a window on racial fears." And yet every time I see this moron on TV, he refutes the argument that it’s the same liberal policies he holds so dear that have decimated the black family. Which as we all know is the root cause for nearly every problem faced by the black community today.
It’s also according to Williams that black ‘leaders’, and I use the term loosely, make "troubling excuses" for criminal behavior. He cited how Bill Cosby has repeatedly called on civil rights leaders to speak out against loutish conduct by young black men. Brown can be seen in a police-released video violently menacing a convenience store clerk in Ferguson, Missouri, before stealing a box of cigars. And if you approach this incident responsibly, most eyewitness accounts back up the cops version of events. Which has Brown going after the cop.
Williams wrote, "More than 90 percent of the young black men killed by gunfire today are not killed by police but by other black men." Sadly the leading cause of death for black men ages 15 to 34 is murder. And at the same time he makes the claim, "too many poor black people fear white police as a threatening group that is not protecting them so much as intimidating, punishing and jailing them." Ok, so whose fault is that, really? And like I said, we all know that blacks get a certain thrill out of intimidating people, so might what we have here be another sad case of ‘what goes around, comes around.’
A recurrent racial theme is that a "thin blue line" of police protects law abiding society from dangerous elements. And according to Williams, the release of the convenience store video was intended for no other reason than to play to the fears of the white community by demonstrating that the dead teen "was no gentle giant but a threatening presence." Williams claims to support peaceful protests in Ferguson, and that would be fine if that’s what was actually taking place in Ferguson. But it’s not!! At least not the way I define ‘peaceful protest’.
Williams said protesters should move on to America's big cites. He wrote, "There they should hold protests against the forces feeding the racial fear of young black men among white people, black people and everyone else – the drug dealers, the gang bangers, the corrupt unions defending bad schools, and the musicians and actors who glorify criminal behavior among black men." What really needs to happen is for blacks to shun the race baiters. Because as long as blacks continue to listen to guys like Sharpton and Jackson, not much will change.
Look, like I’ve said before, if I’m a cop and I’ve got some big black dude coming after me and who tries going for my gun I’m not going to bother asking how old he is. And even if he’s unarmed, guess what? It’s not going to end well for one of us, and it ain’t gonna be me! Because at that point, my life has become infinitely more important than his. He’s the one who made the conscious decision to place his life in jeopardy, and I will not hesitate for a second to prove to him just how unwise that decision of his was.
Tuesday, August 19, 2014
John Lewis, that racist Democrat from Georgia, said in an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday, that watching news footage of the protests in Ferguson, Mo., reminded him of "Baghdad or some other war-torn zone." Well let’s be honest here, shall we? The mentality exhibited by many of those on the streets of Baghdad varies very little from that which we’ve on the nightly news, night after night, by those on the streets of Ferguson. And those are John’s people. And yet instead of calling for restraint John, just like Al "Bull Horn" Sharpton, does nothing but to throw more gas on the fire.
Far from demonstrating that he is in anyway a responsible member of Congress, Lewis went on to say, "When I was watching the film footage coming out of Ferguson, it looked like it was in Baghdad or some other war-torn zone. Ferguson is a part of the United States of America. It's not China. It's not Russia. It's not the Congo. It's America. People have a right to protest. People have a right to engage in peaceful, nonviolent action. And the press have a right to cover what is going on." So am I to understand that this imbecilic boob is of the opinion that what’s taking place in Freguson are people engaging in peaceful and nonviolent action?
And as has been previously reported, there was a news crew that supposedly captured footage of police releasing tear gas and firing rubber bullets in the direction of an Al Jazeera America news crews last week. And it was Barry who said at a press conference while vacationing, again, at Martha's Vineyard, "And here in the United States of America, police should not be bullying or arresting journalists who are just trying to do their jobs and report to the American people on what they see on the ground." But is that what many of those in the media are really doing here? Or, are they simply fanning the flames making the job of the police that much more difficult?
Lewis called it "shameful" that the police force in Ferguson, a predominantly African American city, has only three black officers. What the Hell difference does that make? Personally, I don’t see how that would have, in any way, changed what the outcome has become? And then this moron went on to say, "We have to get police officers, locally elected officials to respect the dignity and the words of every human being. It's a shame and a disgrace that in a city that is almost 70% African American to have only three African American police officers. Ferguson is not in the American South."
And he continued, saying, "But we're doing much better in the small towns and cities in Georgia and Alabama and Mississippi. This is shameful. This is a disgrace. We must teach people the way of peace, the way of love, the way of nonviolence. But we cannot have peace and order without justice." And in proving that he must be on some kind of drugs, Lewis said the mayor of Ferguson and local officials have a "moral obligation and responsibility to literally apologize to the community." So let me see if I understand this. Those doing all the looting and the firebombing are deserving of some sort of apology? Really?
Lewis said, "And the city mothers or city fathers should come together in a fashion, reach out to the African American community and say, 'We're going to work together for the common good.' And say, 'We all live in this city together and we've got to learn to live together as brothers and sisters' as Dr. King would say, 'Or we're going to perish as fools.'" Don’t you just love it when racist old fools like Lewis start throwing around Martin Luther King? Somehow I think if Dr. King was to see how these people have been behaving, he’d be pretty disappointed. No actually what more likely he’d be is pretty PISSED OFF!
Guys like this doddering old racist, and even Barry himself, are really no different than the race-baiting charlatans out there. The prime example of which would be that dynamic duo of faux preachers, Al "Bull Horn" Sharpton and Jesse "The Extortionist" Jackson. They have a vested interest in making sure that things are only made to escalate. By fanning the flames of racism and hatred these guys seek to somehow make themselves relevant. And at the end of the day as long as blacks are stupid enough to buy what these assholes, and the many assholes just like them, are selling, not much in their lives will ever improve.
Now that, my friends, is the $17.6 Trillion question, wouldn’t you say? And it would seem that after having now watched this guy in action for the last 5+ years, it would seem to me that the only logical answer is, "yes, but." Because I suppose a lot would depend upon what your definition of "destroy" actually is. After all, destruction can mean one thing to one person and yet mean something completely different to someone else. So, therein lies our dilemma when it comes to what Barry is really trying to do.
The problem is that what we really have here is a misunderstanding of concepts. The fact is, following his straight down the line, left-wing, anti-American, radical ideology, it’s quite clear that Barry does want to destroy America, as it is now, and, essentially, always has been. But in his own warped way of viewing things, he is not trying to destroy America simply because he wants utter destruction and devastation to be the only outcome. No, the end result he seeks, I would argue, goes beyond that.
You see, mere destruction isn't his end goal as those of us on the right now fear. Driven by a devotion to his rabid left-wing ideology, he thinks that it’s only after America’s fall will he and his left-wing comrades then be able to set about building a new and improved America. Where real Americans see destruction and the end of everything, the leftists see a re-birth to a better and, in their eyes, more moral America. He and his left-wing friends see America as a Phoenix rising from the ashes of the bad old days.
But herein lies the problem. Where we conservatives see only the end, liberals see the end and then a brand new beginning. Certainly the liberals are completely wrong in their contention that what they are doing will bring about some glorious re-birth that will then allow the creation of that ever elusive socialist utopia. But the truth is that they certainly don't think they are ending America on a permanent basis, nor is it their intention to. Liberals are not in the game to be "evil." They think what they are doing is right and their cause, just.
Liberals operate under the rather misguided notion that America is arrogant and needs to be taken down a notch or two or even three. Liberals think that American history is filled with nothing but evil and any attacks on America are therefore richly deserved. Liberals also think that America was founded by a bunch of evil, selfish, hateful and racist old white guys who were only interested in their own power and didn’t want to empower others. So, liberals want the founder’s memory eviscerated.
And what should be fairly obvious to all is the fact that Liberals think our capitalist system needs to be eliminated, to go the way of the dinosaur. In short, liberals value nothing about America except its tradition of self-actuation, liberty, and its freedom to re-make itself and they want to use that capacity to erase everything that makes America, America. Once that is accomplished their plan is to then begin building an America that is much more to their own liking using the very freedoms they used to lay her low.
Such is the aim of groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Moveon.org, along with number of the various George Soros funded front groups like the Center for American Progress or Media Matters, as well as any number of other such left-wing extremist organizations. Even CAIR has now gotten in the act of attempting to use America's freedoms as their primary weapon against her. So as we can plainly see the destruction of America seems to make for some very interesting bed-fellows.
But again, and as bizarre as it may sound to many of us, the fact is that these ridiculously naïve, or incredibly stupid, actually liberals think that they are doing a good thing. The only problem is that they are utterly and completely…wrong. If this country treads the left-wing path, America has no chance to emerge as a winner. It will be laid low just like the left wants, but it will not rise again. The left's prescriptions will lead to our becoming nothing but a third world nation. And yet there is no doubt they really imagine they are doing good.
Oddly enough there are those who, for whatever the reason, are actually of the opinion that Barry and Democrats’ only error was that they simply tried too many things at once and that is the reason so many Americans are rising up against them. Apparently it was just an accident of scope, nothing but an act of overreach that frightened the voters. And while many see the Democrats and Barry as your average, everyday American pols, there are many of us who view them as implementing a radical, destroy-America agenda.
What liberals are either unable to understand, or simply refuse to believe, is the fact that conservatives are not wholly anti-government. What we continue to be all about is having the right amount of government, government when and where it is most needed. Government does serve a useful purpose, but over the years, in large part because of the power-hungry Democrats, it has now ventured far into areas where it has absolutely no business being. And we the people have essentially sat back and allowed that to happen.
The fact is that liberals have used government to destroy America. Liberals have used the courts to destroy religion as well as to breakdown the entire concept of family. Liberals have used the schools to preach against American history. Liberals have used government to weaken economies and create a culture of dependence. Conservatives have not used government to do anything of the kind. In fact, even in the bad old days it was Democrats that tried to use government as a weapon against those that it wanted to keep down.
And this is the culture from which Barry, as well as a majority of those who are proud members of the Democrat Party, can be said to have sprung. They see government and our freedoms as being the perfect weapon of choice with which they use in their continuing effort to destroy all that once was, in order to then remake America into what they wish it to be. And what this is, is an America that is radically different from what it has always been and what it was meant to be. They seek to forever alter the America so many of us love.
Now under normal circumstances one wouldn’t think that politicians would want be out to destroy the country they were elected to lead, that ordinary pols would want to make sure they win the next election. But there is nothing normal about what can be said to be going on here. Leftists like Barry think they have this one small window of opportunity to make radical and long-lasting changes to this nation, and move their ideological plan ‘forward’. Remember how they voted in Obamacare when the great majority disliked the policies? Remember how Democrats said we’d learn to like Obamacare anyway?
What this tells me, and trust me I’m no genius, is that the Democrats don’t really care if they lose elections, at least in the short term. That’s because they have a much bigger prize in mind, and that prize is nothing less than America herself. And priority number one for these people is the obliteration of the old so that is can then be replaced by their new "improved" version of America. That is their actual goal, not anything as mundane as winning elections. They have a grand plan here, that goes far beyond just a simple election.
But make no mistake here, Barry very much does want to destroy America. And that Barry thinks his left-wing ideas will later bring about a rebirth is meaningless when reviewing the consequences of his "cure" for what he thinks ails America. And it is a cure that will most assuredly kill the patient. And death, in this particular instance, will be nothing but a long and very painful process with literally millions of Americans being subjected to all manner of abject misery. And if this is the life most American prefer for themselves and their children, then there will be no preventing it from becoming a reality.
Monday, August 18, 2014
According to former Atlanta Mayor, and the guy who Jimmy Carter’s abysmal ambassador to the United Nations, Andrew Young, the Ferguson, Missouri, Police Department needs to dial down its heavy paramilitary presence and look to do more community policing. Is he, like, joking or something? Has he been watching what these blacks have been doing in the name of yet another black thug shot by the police? Does he really think that more "community policing’ would have actually prevented such animalistic behavior? Somehow I doubt it!
In the wake of the Aug. 9 fatal shooting of Michael Brown, a black teen who, if you’ve seen the video of him robbing a local convenience store, was a rather sizable individual, the community has since erupted into what is essentially nothing more than a series of mindless violent protests. Blacks have seen this as an opportunity to do that which they do best. Destroy whatever they feel like and do a little looting. And personally I think that the police have been quite restrained in how that have chosen to respond, using little more than tear gas on protesters.
The officer who is now accused of committing this supposed heinous crime was, of course, white. And as is usually that case that’s all that was necessary for blacks, and not only those in the community of Ferguson, but all across the country, to go on what is seen as being a typical behavior for such people. That is of course to use such an event as nothing more than the opportunity to take part in what is nothing more than the equivalent of a shopping spree for blacks. A bro can always use a new pair of kicks or a new flat screen for the crib.
Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon has since ordered the National Guard to Ferguson in an attempt to get a handle on the continuing unrest. Young told radio host J.D. Hayworth that "approaching a crowd with all of that military gear, the presence of tanks, that’s really not for local problems," he said. "The police have to be a part of the community." That may sound pretty good in theory, but it seldom ever works especially in the community. How exactly would he chose to have cops approach such a mob?
Young claimed that he didn’t blame the police, but did suggest that law enforcement try to be more "actively involved" there and engage in more community policing. "It’s a matter of respect and in domestic politics and in law enforcement, even the most hostile environments have to be met with respect for the citizenry," he said. "I used to say to my policemen, these are the people who pay your salary." Yup, and their the same people who create the environment in their neighbors where cop are made to be fear of the lives. And why is that?
Somebody really should remind this old boob that respect is a two way street. Because I don’t see the tossing of a Molotov cocktail at the police as being an act of respect , by anyone’s definition. And how is it being respectful to chant for the death of a cop? Young said the situation in Ferguson is deteriorating, and that Nixon’s decision to send in the National Guard, as well as Eric ‘The Racist’ Holder’s order for a third autopsy, done by the federal government, "probably will help because it will back down both groups.
New York City’s former Chief Medical Examiner, Dr. Michael Baden, performed a private autopsy at the request of Brown’s family. The results showed six shots, four in the arm, and two in the head. According to CNN, a less than reliable source, witnesses said that Brown was unarmed and on his knees with his hands up when the police officer shot him. Authorities say Brown attacked the officer in his car and tried to take his gun. Sorry, but as of right now I tend to side with the authorities and not with CNN or The New York Times.
And, you know, I’ll say this again only because I think it bears repeating. This black ‘teen’ was a pretty big fella, and if I’m average sized cop up against someone of his size, and if I even think he might be going for my gun, then I’m going to have only one response. And the end result is going to that there is going to be another dead black. And once again, just as with Trayvon Martin, we were told what a great ‘kid’ this guy was, and how he was a model citizen. Well let me tell ya something, model citizens don’t rob convenience stores.