Saturday, November 29, 2014
I must admit that upon hearing that there was a recent poll conducted which seemed to indicate that a majority of Americans now believe things are going well here in these United States, I was more than a little confused. Because to be honest with you, I’m one of those who happens to believe things are actually going pretty shitty. But it was shortly after first hearing the news that I looked into it a bit deeper and then things kind of starting falling into place. Because as I came to find out this poll that seems to paint such a rosy picture was conducted jointly by a couple shady leftwing outfits, the Communist News Network (CNN) and a left of center ‘research’ organization, ORC International.
It was according to this CNN/ORC International poll, which was conducted Nov. 21-23 and was said to involve 1,045 adults, that 52 percent of those people polled said things are going well, including 8 percent who said they were going very well. This compares to the 48 percent who said things are going badly, including 33 percent who said things are going pretty badly, and 15 percent who said things are going very badly. The results mark the most positive assessment of the state of the country since the poll began asking the question in January 2007. I’d be very interested to know the racial makeup of these 1,045 people. Were there any whites included? Hey, just sayin’.
Anyway, the results of this poll were also said to show that there has been a steady increase in optimism over the past few months, with the percentage of people saying things are going "very well" more than doubling. At the beginning of September, 44 percent of people said things are going well. It was CNN that said, "[The poll] marks consistent improvement in the mood of the nation over the past few months, despite a series of national security crises and continued gridlock in Washington." I like to think of myself as being a reasonably intelligent and well-informed individual, and I can’t help but wonder if the people in this poll are looking at the same country that I am.
Also, supposedly, we’re expected to believe that this poll found sentiments regarding the economy have also improved over the last year. Two years ago, just 19 percent of people said the economy is starting to recover from the problems it had been facing. Today the figure is 32 percent. And the number of people who think the economy is still in a downturn has dropped from 39 percent two years ago to 26 percent in the current poll. A plurality, or 41 percent, say the economy has stabilized. So what is it that’s happened for these people to see improvement? CNN noted, "But the mood isn't consistently positive in the new CNN/ORC poll, it suggests both a gender and geographic divide."
Strangely enough, it’s said that men, specifically, are more positive about the state of the nation and the economy than are most women. Fifty-five percent of men have a positive view about how well things are going with America compared to 48 percent of women. Thirty-six percent of men believe the economy is recovering compared to just 28 percent of women. Meanwhile, according to CNN, people in the Northeast and Midwest expressed more optimism about the economy than those in the South and West, mirroring the actual differences in the conditions of the economy regionally. I see myself as being just an average guy, and I don’t see any kind of a ‘recovery’ underway.
So what, if anything, are we to make of this poll that seems to be attempting, just like Barry spends a great deal of his time doing, to convince us that things really are getting better? Especially at a time when most of us, in our hearts, fully recognize that at best things are barely creeping ahead, and at worst, they’re slowly slipping backward. How many of us know someone today that has been put out of work specifically because of the policies put in place by out piss-poor excuse of a president? Personally I’m of the opinion that this poll is nothing more than a bit of pure propaganda the purpose of which I’m not quite sure? Are they trying to somehow show support for Hitlery Clinton?
Friday, November 28, 2014
I can’t seem to recall, from any point in my lifetime, having ever met, or heard speak, anyone who is quite so in love with himself, as well as with the sound of his own voice, as is our current, and quite disastrous, president. And apparently he is of the opinion, the results of our recent election notwithstanding, that most Americans are also in love with both him and the sound of his voice. But, and I mean no disrespect here to the office to which he was ‘elected’, I’m here to tell you that there are a great many of us out here beyond the ‘beltway’ who are not quite as enamored with him, nor with the sound of his voice, as he seems to think we are.
What prompts this little declaration of mine is a recent speech Barry delivered in Chicago, just this past Tuesday, to explain his unilateral action on immigration. It was during this speech that, leaving aside passages in which he quoted a Chicago pub owner and a letter from a citizen from Georgia, our ‘Dear Beloved Leader’, Barry "Almighty" used the first person singular—including the pronouns "I" and "me" and the adjective "my"— a grand total of 91 times. And yet, as hard as it might be to believe, anyone who might be thinking that that must be some sort of a record, even for Barry, would be sadly mistaken, because it was really nowhere near.
Because as often as Barry used "I," "me" and "my" in his Chicago speech earlier this week, it was no match for the speech that he delivered in Austin, Texas, back on July 10 of this year. It was during that speech that Barry would use the first person singular 199 times. But in all fairness to Barry, in that Texas speech he did not focus specifically on immigration policy. In that speech, Barry explained his intention to act unilaterally wherever, and whenever, he could. And it was then that Barry said, "It is lonely, me just doing stuff." Then adding, "I don’t have to run for office again, so I can just let her rip." Let her rip? How presidential!
So it was then on this past Tuesday, in Chicago, that Barry was once again heard to say, "This isn’t amnesty, or legalization, or even a pathway to citizenship--because that's not something I can do." Also, in an attempt to be fair here, the number of times he resorted to the first person singular was significantly expanded by his decision to engage a group of hecklers there in the crowd. Hecklers who apparently did not believe Barry had gone far enough in his unilateral actions on immigration. Barry told the hecklers, "I understand", at according to the White House transcript and video posted by C-SPAN
In addressing those hecklers, Barry said, "Here, can I just say this?" And he went on to say, "All right, I've listened to you. I heard you. I heard you. I heard you. All right? Now, I've been respectful. I let you holler. So let me--all right? Nobody is removing you. I've heard you. But you’ve got to listen to me, too." Barry then proceeded to boast to the hecklers, saying, "But what you're not paying attention to is the fact that I just took action to change the law." Barry would later mention, "Some have said it was a mistake for me to act. But then others remind me why I had to." What does he mean when he says he had to?
Barry said, "The day I sign a comprehensive immigration bill into law, then the actions I take will no longer be necessary." And then of course he went on to declare, "But in the meantime, I'm going to do what I can to make this system work better." Actually, if his intent actually was to make the system work better, all he would really need to do would be to enforce the many laws that already on the books. But nope, he won’t do that! Because if he were to actually do that, well then he wouldn’t be able to run around telling anyone, and everyone, who will listen to him about how the system is so very badly broken.
Barry’s speech, according to the White House transcript, was approximately 4,200 words and lasted 33 minutes. That means that on average Barry "Almighty" used the first person singular every 46 words—or every 22 seconds. Barry and his cohorts enjoy taking every opportunity possible to compare him to President Abraham Lincoln. But it might be worth noting that Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address, the speech in which he presented his understanding of the moral significance of the Civil War, was only 696 words long. And in that speech, Lincoln used the first person singular, only once, a far cry from Barry’s need to always focus on himself.
Frankly I’m now in a place where, after the last six years of being made to listen to this guy, just the mere sound of his voice makes me physically ill. Whenever he appears on television, I find myself having to turn the channel or leave the room, otherwise I’m running to the bathroom. And I’m not quite sure it’s because of his smug, arrogant tone or his childish, rather incessant, need to constantly focus only on himself. He’s not nearly as smart as he seems to think he is, on that I think most of us will agree. And yet, Barry seems to think rather highly of himself, capable of convincing us that only he can provide solutions to our many problems, whether real or imagined.
But as Barry has demonstrated time and again, and since first entering the Oval Office, he has neither the ability nor the necessary skill set to actually solve any of the problems we are made to face, no matter how insignificant, or complex, those problems may be. What he truly seems to excel at is first the creating, and then the making worse, of all kinds of problems, many of which never existed before his appearance onto the political scene. And yet he endeavors to convince us all that absolutely nothing is his fault, and that the fault lies with others who stand by and refuse to act. He claims that all he’s seeking to do is to make things ‘better’. But it’s all a lie.
Thursday, November 27, 2014
Facts, or so they say, are pesky things. And as is often the case they are simply ignored if they don’t support the argument that one is trying to advance, or the violence that one is trying to incite. And it’s in Ferguson that we see both of these positions coming into play and with some pretty horrible results. The facts simply do not support the argument behind why it was that the grand jury failed to indict the officer. As well, the facts also do not provide any justification for the continuing violence.
Any yet according to the many protesters who erupted in violence, and those who have been very busy encouraging them, after a grand jury declined to indict Officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., this was clearly a case of a white policeman shooting an unarmed black teenager with his hands in the air in a community said to be plagued by racial tension. But again, that’s not what the facts actually indicate. The facts quickly became, essentially, irrelevant.
And yet it’s the narrative that has been, and continues to be, promoted by many in the state-controlled media as well as many outside of the media and in government. But the actual facts about the case tell a very different story. But as we all know those interested in doing nothing more than inciting violence and advancing their own agenda are interested very little in the facts. But be that as it may, here are a few facts that seem to have been left out of the story for what, you will quickly see, were very obvious reasons.
1. Surveillance video showed that shortly before the confrontation, 18-year-old Brown stole cigarillos from a convenience store and shoved a clerk who tried to stop him.
2. The autopsy report showed that Brown had marijuana in his system when he died.
3. Officer Wilson, driving to the call of a medical emergency, first encountered Brown walking in the middle of a street and told Brown and his friend to walk on the sidewalk. Brown responded with an expletive.
4. Wilson chose to confront Brown only after he saw the cigarillos in his hand and recalled the radio report of a robbery at the convenience store.
5. Wilson said when he tried to open his car door, Brown slammed it back shut, then punched Wilson in the face.
6. Fearing another punch could knock him out, Wilson drew his gun, he told the grand jury, and Brown grabbed the gun, saying "you are too much of a pussy to shoot me."
7. An African-American witness confirmed that Brown and Wilson appeared to be "arm-wrestling" by the car.
8. Another witness saw Brown leaning through the car's window and said "some sort of confrontation was taking place."
9. After Wilson fired a shot that struck Brown's hand, Brown fled and Wilson gave chase. Brown suddenly stopped. An unidentified witness told the grand jury that 6-foot-4, 292-pound Brown charged at Wilson with his head down. Wilson said Brown put his hand under the waistband of his pants as he continued toward Wilson. That's when Wilson fired.
10. A witness testified that Brown never raised his hands.
11. Gunpowder found on the wound on Brown's hand indicated his hand was close to the gun when it fired. According to a report, the hand wound showed foreign matter "consistent with products that are discharged from the barrel of a firearm."
12. Judy Melinek, a forensic pathologist who reviewed the autopsy for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, said the gunpowder "supports the fact that this guy is reaching for the gun, if he has particulate matter in the wound."
13. Wilson said Brown was physically uncontrollable and "for lack of a better word, crazy." He said that during the confrontation, he was thinking: "He's gonna kill me. How do I survive?" Legal experts say police officers typically have wide latitude to use deadly force when they feel their safety is threatened.
So there you have it, you can make up your own mind. But keep in mind that these are only a few of the actual facts that were never presented by the media. Because had such things been pointed out, it would have to have been admitted that race played no role in the altercation that took place between the white cop and the black thug. The facts would have dramatically altered what it was that those in the state-controlled media were so desperate to present as being the reality of the situation. Thus, we never heard them.
Wednesday, November 26, 2014
You know, there’s an old adage that says, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." And it’s something than came to mind when I recently heard about the church that Michael Brown’s family was known to attend, being torched by vandals. I thought of it as being an example of turnabout being fair play. And to be honest, upon hearing the news I felt very little sympathy. It’s just that I have a rather difficult time respecting the property of those who feel completely justified in calling for the destruction of property owned by others, for any reason. But when the destruction is perpetrated for the reason that it has been in Ferguson, for me such behavior is deserving of nothing more than the strongest form of condemnation.
As it turns out, the church attended by Michael Brown’s father and his family was one of a dozen or so buildings burned to the ground during Monday night’s protests in the wake of a grand jury’s decision not to indict Officer Darren Wilson. While the majority of the buildings destroyed on Monday were in downtown Ferguson, the Flood Christian Church is located about three miles away from the protests in a remote section of Country Club Hills. Pastor Carlton Lee, who has been one of the more vocal advocates for the Browns since their son was shot in August, would rather believe that those responsible for the destruction were white supremacists rather than the black protesters who are the ones we’ve all seen burning down everything else.
The rather paranoid Rev. Lee told NBC News he believes that his church was targeted because he has repeatedly called for the arrest of Officer Wilson. Lee, who has participated in numerous rallies and press conferences with Michael Brown Sr. also claims to have received more than 70 death threats. He said, "I'm very vocal in regards to the Michael Brown case." This boob went on to say, "The police called me and told me the church was on fire." And he added, "I was in complete disbelief. I didn't think anyone would set a church on fire." I can’t help but wonder just how ignorant must this guy must be not to recognize the fact that there is nothing that those with whom he has chosen to associate with would NOT destroy out of vengeance.
He said, "I feel like one of my children has died. I put my blood, my sweat, my tears into this church, getting this church built from the ground up." And he went on to say, "To see that it was taken down in a few minutes is really heartbreaking." Rev. Lee said Michael Brown Sr. was 'just devastated again' about the extensive damage. But the good reverend seems not to be bothered in the least by the ‘devastation’ suffered by those who have been forced to watch as their businesses went up in flames even though they had absolutely nothing to do with the decision arrived at by the Ferguson grand jury. To the reverend such violence is seen as being perfectly acceptable and is to be expected due to the racial injustice that has been perpetrated here.
And when it comes to who it was, exactly, that might have committed this act, who is it that the good reverend suspects? Was it the gangs of marauding blacks who were determined to destroy everything in their path? Nope, instead he suspects that his church was targeted by white supremacists who wanted to punish him for his support of the Brown family. Really? Now has anyone seen or heard anything about gangs of white supremacists roaming the streets of Ferguson? And if there were don’t you think that CNN, or MSNBC or any of the major networks would have been shouting about them from the rooftops? So I’m thinking what we have here is less a man of God and more just another racist in a crowd of what seems to be very many!
Pastor Lee said that he had known the Brown family for several years after officiating at their wedding. He said he remembered Michael Jr. as a ‘big jokester.’ His recollection of the 300 pound, six foot four inch teen varies considerably from the thug that we’ve all seen on the convenience store video. You see in talking about Brown, the reverend recalls, ‘He was a fun loving guy to be around.’ And this supposed man of God is another of those who puts race above even such things as faith. He has demonstrated very little that would seem to indicate that he actually practices what he preaches. He’s able to somehow justify the property of others being destroyed but seems dumfounded that someone burned down his church.
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
It’s not very often that you’ll have the opportunity to hear something that can be said to resemble a little honesty coming from a Democrat, especially old Chuckie Schumer. Which begs the question, what might this slimy old f*ck be up to? Because it would now seem that, at least according to old Chuckie, the Democrats might have made a mistake by ‘passing’ Barry’s health-care law back in 2010 instead of, maybe, focusing more directly on helping the middle class. Gee, no shit. Ya think?
It was in a speech recently given in Washington that old Chuckie was heard to say, "Unfortunately, Democrats blew the opportunity the American people gave them" in electing Obama and a Democratic Congress in 2008 amid a recession. Chuckie went on to say, "We took their mandate and put all our focus on the wrong problem -- health care reform." Actually what they did was to see an opportunity to go after something they’ve wanted since the days of FDR, and they went for it.
Now fast-forward a few years and suddenly we have old Chuckie saying that the Democrats should have addressed issues aiding the middle class to build confidence among voters before turning to revamping the health-care system. He said he opposed the timing of the health-care vote but was overruled by other party members. Funny thing, but that’s not quite how I remember things going down. I seem to remember old Chuckie as being rather instrumental in getting Obamacare shoved through Congress.
Chuckie said, "The plight of uninsured Americans and the hardships created by unfair insurance company practices certainly needed to be addressed." And he went on to say, "But it wasn’t the change we were hired to make" in the 2008 election. Chuckie’s comments represent a rather unusual public intra-party critique of the way Barry’s signature legislative achievement was enacted. He spoke at the National Press Club to analyze the results of this month’s election, in which Republicans took control of the Senate and increased their majority in the House.
Democrats’ pro-government posture "has the natural high political ground" when the middle class is frustrated as voters were before this month’s congressional election, Chuckie said. At the same time, he claimed, Republicans were encouraging distrust toward government. But he cautioned, "That doesn’t mean we always win." Then old Chuckie added, "When we don’t present a coherent, believable pro-government plan and message -- when we allow government to mess up -- we can easily lose."
Chuckie stated that in order to win in 2016, "Democrats must embrace government, not run away from it." He said, voter discontent will continue until one of the political parties convinces middle-class Americans that it has an agenda for helping them. But let’s be real, by the time the next election rolls around, we will have suffered through eight long years of watching our government getting bigger and more intrusive. And it should be painfully clear by that time, to just about anyone with a brain, that bigger government is not better government.
What is this country coming to in this age of ‘Obama’? He of whom it was said would be a post racial president, the one person capable of healing old wounds and of bringing an end to all racial strife in this country, seems only to have had the alternate effect, and succeeding only in making things considerably worse. Never before in recent history has distrust between the races been at such a high point. And nothing would seem to make that more apparent than the fact that a white policeman, guilty of nothing more than protecting his own life, is now being accused of killing a teen for no other reason than because that teen was black.
So because that which was described by those in the media, the race baiters and some politicians, and even before a grand jury was convened, as being the ‘incorrect’ verdict was the one arrived at, we had a mob of hoodlums essentially permitted, as the local police and fire department simply stood by, to loot and burn down a dozen or so privately owned businesses in retaliation. And why was that? To avert potential loss of life or even ‘more’ violence? Such behavior is simply inexcusable and should not have been tolerated. Those who lost their businesses should sue those in charge of protecting them for dereliction of duty.
So, as we all now know a grand jury declined to indict white police officer Darren Wilson in the death of a 300 pound black thug by the name of Michael Brown. Brown, the much talked about saint of an individual was the unarmed, black ‘teen’ whose fatal shooting sparked weeks of sometimes-violent protests and inflamed deep racial tensions between many blacks and police. Moments after the announcement crowds began pouring into Ferguson streets to protest the decision. Some taunted police, broke windows and vandalized cars. Within a few hours, several large buildings were set ablaze, and frequent gunfire was heard.
Prosecuting Attorney Bob McCulloch said the jury of nine whites and three blacks met on 25 separate days over three months, hearing more than 70 hours of testimony from about 60 witnesses. As McCulloch read his statement, Michael Brown's mother, Lesley McSpadden, sat atop a vehicle listening to a broadcast of the announcement. When she heard the decision, the theatrics began as she burst into tears and began screaming before being whisked away by supporters. The crowd with her erupted in anger, converging on the barricade where police in riot gear were standing. They pushed down the barricade and began pelting police with objects.
Brown's family released a statement saying they were "profoundly disappointed" in the decision but asked that the public "channel your frustration in ways that will make a positive change. We need to work together to fix the system that allowed this to happen." Where their disappointment should be focused is directly upon themselves or, at the very least, on the parents of this teen. Where were they as he was growing up? Obviously they spent precious little time teaching him right from wrong. They had to have known that the direction in which he was headed did not bode well for him living a long productive life. And yet they did nothing.
And then we have our supposed post-racial president who appealed for calm and understanding, pleading with both protesters and police to show some restraint. And it was with a touch of irony that Barry said, "We are a nation built on the rule of law, so we need to accept that this decision was the grand jury's to make." He went on to say that it was understandable that some Americans would be "deeply disappointed — even angered," but echoed Brown's parents in calling for any protests to be peaceful. Barry worked to constantly insert himself in this continuing drama and for no other reason than to make sure tensions remained high.
Monday night's violence resembled the initial unrest during the days that immediately followed Brown's death, when business windows were smashed and police vehicles damaged. But the destruction soon widened, with several large fires burning out of control and reports of frequent gunfire. And as if events taking place in Ferguson were instead in some third world banana republic, at least 10 St. Louis-bound flights were diverted to other airports because of concern about gunfire being aimed into the sky over Ferguson. Only law-enforcement aircraft were permitted to fly through the area, the Federal Aviation Administration said.
And as to be expected the Justice Department of Eric "The Racist" Holder is now busy conducting a separate investigation into possible civil rights violations that could result in federal charges, but investigators would need to satisfy a rigorous standard of proof in order to mount a prosecution. The department has also launched a broad probe into the Ferguson Police Department, looking for patterns of discrimination. But regardless of the outcome of those investigations, in looking to make every dime they can off the death of their son, Brown's family could also file a wrongful-death lawsuit against Wilson.
Just one last thing. There was talk from the family after the verdict about how we all need to work together to fix the system that allowed this to happen. But what was it, exactly, that occurred that is in need of being repaired? How might this story have played out had the cop been black in this case? Or had the cop been black and the now dead teen been white? I think we all know the answer to that. It would have been considered a non-story, one barely worth mentioning on any of our far too many ‘news’ shows. Just like the dozens of murders that take place everyday where blacks busy themselves killing other blacks. It’s a non-story.
Monday, November 24, 2014
You know, there are time in life when the truth becomes something that must be faced, whether one likes it or not. And that doesn’t mean that you simply abandon it or can chose to ignore it completely. Unfortunately we don’t have the luxury, even though many try, of creating a much more palatable version of the ‘truth’ because it might better illustrate the narrative that one might be working hard to advance. Unless of course, you happen to be a Democrat, then that’s exactly what you do because you know the media isn’t going to call you on it.
I bring this up because it was Rudolph Giuliani who recently pointed out that the media now so focused on the Ferguson, Missouri grand jury should maybe pay a bit more attention on why it s white police officers are in black neighborhoods to start with. It was while on "Meet the Press" this past Sunday that Giuliana said, "I find it very disappointing that you're not discussing the fact that 93 percent of blacks in America are killed by other blacks." But then I’m sure we’ll all agree that black on black crime doesn’t garner the same type of headlines.
The case of white police officers killing blacks are the exception rather that the rule, he said. Giuliani then added, and rather empathetically, "We are talking about the significant exception." But that statement didn’t seem to go over to well with supposed author and Georgetown ‘professor’, Michael Eric Dyson. Dyson, you see, said Giuliani was drawing a "false equivalency," saying that most blacks who kill other blacks go to jail and they are not sworn by the state to uphold the law. I think the professor draws the "false equivalency" here.
Giuliani said 70 percent to 75 percent of crime in New York City takes place in predominantly black areas, and that's why there is a large police presence in those places. And then he rightfully went on to say, "The white police officers wouldn't be there if you weren't killing each other." That remark seemed to set off Mr. Dyson who responded by saying, "Look at this! This is the defensive mechanism of white supremacy at work in your mind, sir!" Again, by making such a statement Dyson only makes himself appear less credible on the issue at hand.
This rather heated debate was sparked by a discussion of the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, Missouri that took place last August. The unarmed, 300 pound, teen was killed by white police officer Darren Wilson, sparking weeks of protests, some of which turned violent. And of course the myth that has been perpetrated ever since by the likes of this moron Dyson, as well as people like Sharpton and even our president, is that the ONLY reason this black thug is now dead is because he had the misfortune of being black and confronted by a racist white cop.
Giuliani says people pushing for an indictment from the grand jury probing the Michael Brown killing in Ferguson, Missouri are perverting the criminal justice system. He said, "This grand jury is under incredible pressure … to indict. I feel sorry for these people because they know if they walk out of that grand jury room and have not indicted they may have created a massive riot in their city and maybe throughout the United States." I find myself wondering of some members of this grand jury might actually view indicting an innocent cop as being the lesser of two evils?
The former mayor added, "To me, that kind of pressure is completely inconsistent with the American criminal justice system. And the people who are putting on that pressure should be ashamed of themselves." And he’s absolutely correct. These thugs are threatening violence if the grand jury doesn’t come to the ‘correct’ conclusion to indict this white policeman for doing nothing more than defending himself. And then you have the race baiters like Sharpton and Jackson throwing gas on the fire, and our joke of a president acting far less than presidential.
Fear of more unrest has led Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon to declare a state-of-emergency pre-emptively. Nixon, a Democrat, has faced criticism for that move, but Giuliani said he understood, since he found himself in similar situations as mayor of America's largest city. "I would have had a state of emergency, but I would have kept it quiet," Giuliani said. He said he would have had police on alert and placed them where they wouldn't be seen by the public so they would be ready at a moment's notice to stop any kind of violence.
The bottom line here is that racists like this boob Dyson care very little about the truth or about justice, for that matter. And I believe that they too know that this thug likely got exactly what he deserved, but they see his death as something that should exploited to the fullest in some sick and twisted effort to further divide the American people along racial lines. Once again we see the black community being played for saps, as they, once again, have allowed themselves to be convinced that they will somehow come out better for it in the end. But that never happens.
There was nothing racist about what Giuliani said. NOTHING! All he was stating was what most people with a brain are able to recognize as being a fact. But somehow racist boobs like this Dyson character are incapable, or unwilling, of being able to do that. And only because they thing that there’s more to be gained, politically by doing so. Sadly things are likely to get worse before they get better, and when the worst does happen I’m sure well see Michael Dyson, Al Sharpton and even Barack Obama all patting themselves on the back.
Friday, November 21, 2014
So it’s finally official, Barry "Almighty", ‘The One" for whom we had all been waiting, has now declared as if he were ‘King’ that he will defer deportations and open the chance of better jobs for some 5 million of those who are in this country illegally, thus bringing to an end months of build-up and initiating a showdown with congressional Republicans. Barry, in a speech from the White House I couldn’t bring myself to watch, defended himself against Republican criticism that his use of executive authority to halt deportations for some immigrants based on their family ties to the U.S. amounts to amnesty for people who broke the law to come to the country.
And in using what has become his typically arrogant tone, Barry declared, "To those members of Congress who question my authority to make our immigration system work better, or question the wisdom of me acting where Congress has failed, I have one answer: Pass a bill." But who is he to make demands on Congress that its members pass only bills that are to his liking? While Barry’s actions are bound to upset both immigration advocates who wanted more and Republican lawmakers who wanted less, they will likely also come to impact the 2016 presidential campaign since they are intended to influence the political loyalties of Hispanics.
The biggest category of people affected, or about 4.1 million, are those who’ve been in the country for more than five years and have children who are U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents. After passing a background check and paying fees, they would get relief from deportation for three years and be able to obtain work permits. Barry is expanding a program that allows people who entered the U.S. illegally as minors by moving the cutoff date by which one must have arrived to be eligible to Jan. 1, 2010, from June 15, 2007. These so-called DREAMers have been vocal in making demands that Barry allow even more people to stay in the U.S.
Barry didn’t place an upper age limit on qualifying, provided, of course, that the applicants entered the U.S. as children. But how is it, exactly, that one is able to verify that with any degree of accuracy. But then, knowing Barry as we all do, that’s most likely what’s intended. And efen with that, the White House estimates that roughly 270,000 people will qualify for that provision. But we’ve seen how accurate their ‘estimates’ are in the past from everything to Obamacare to our supposed economic recovery, how much confidence can we really have in any of their numbers. They do nothing more than to make them up as they go along.
Barry claimed that the deferred deportations don’t apply to anyone who recently entered the country illegally or those who may do so in the future. He said, "It does not grant citizenship, or the right to stay here permanently, or offer the same benefits that citizens receive, only Congress can do that." And he went on to say, "All we’re saying is we’re not going to deport you." While Barry decided he doesn’t have the legal authority to include their parents in today’s actions, as many as half of the parents might still qualify under other provisions of the policy, according to an administration official who, of course, asked for anonymity.
Anticipating opposition, especially from House Republicans, Barry coupled the deferred deportations with a ‘promise’ to deport undocumented immigrants who have been convicted of serious crimes in the U.S. and to keep more resources devoted to border security. But let’s face it, Barry isn’t exactly someone who can be trusted. We were told that the Homeland Security Department will focus on apprehensions on the southern border with Mexico and on gang members, potential terrorists and criminals for deportation. But if you believe any of that then I’ve got some prime oceanfront property I can sell you in Arizona.
Barry claims that his action, besides providing and increased amount of accountability, is a commonsense, middle ground approach. Barry said, "If you meet the criteria, you can come out of the shadows and get right with the law. If you’re a criminal, you’ll be deported. If you plan to enter the U.S. illegally, your chances of getting caught and sent back just went up." What a bunch of political bullshit! What really taking place here bears very little resemble to what Barry describes as being his "commonsense, middle ground approach." And he’s hoping he can convince enough people that his plan is that which he presents it as being.
The administration attempts to justify Barry’s policy changes on both humanitarian and economic grounds. And it was earlier the same day at the White House, as he awarded medals for science and technology developments, that Barry said, "Part of staying competitive in a global economy is making sure that we have an immigration system that doesn’t send away talent, but attracts it." He added, "We want them to initiate new discoveries and start businesses right here in the United States. So that’s what I’ll be talking about a little bit tonight." But Barry action does little to accomplish that supposed goal.
Republicans remain split on how to block Barry’s immigration actions. House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell say they don’t want a repeat of the October 2013 shutdown. And because the immigration programs are funded through fees rather than congressional appropriations, they would keep running if the government shut down, an administration official said. Senator Jeff Sessions, an Alabama Republican in line to become Budget Committee chairman, said in an e-mailed statement today that "there is no question that Congress has the power to block this expenditure and no doubt that it can be done."
Barry can try to justify this action in any manner he may choose, but as I have said before what we are witnessing here is one of those very rare occasions where we see Barry actually exhibiting some level of transparency. Despite the fact that he does his best to convince us all otherwise, what he truly seeks to accomplish by his action is to create millions of new of Democrat voters just in time for the 2016 presidential election. Hence the reason he refused to wait for the next Congress and the reason that the Republicans must prevent this action from going forward, government shut or not! The time for just talking is over, Republicans must act, and they must act boldly!
After having spent the last 6 years, more than that really, listening to this guy’s endless stream of political bullshit, there was just no way on ‘God’s Green Earth’ that I was going to be able to listen to how it is that he plans, yet again to violate the very Constitution which he swore to preserve, protect and defend, and how he feels quite justified in doing so. So rather than listen to Barry outline how he will go about doing that which he himself has said more than 20 times he does not have the power to do, I have decided that I will rely on those whose job it is to listen to such drivel and form my opinion based on that.
And after hearing what it is that Barry intends upon doing it would seem to me that it’s his "own words" that would serve as being "the best possible weapon" to be used in the effort to combat Barry’s sweeping, and blatantly unconstitutional, executive orders to shield from deportation nearly 5 million of those who insist upon remaining in this country illegally. The voters must be constantly reminded of the over two dozen incidents in which we all heard Barry himself declare that he lacked the legal authority to rescind the deportation of those in this country illegally. And yet even with all that he felt confident enough in the stupidity of the American people to do it.
And it was Mr. John Fund of the ‘American Spectator’ who made that point very clear in a recent interview on the topic. He said, "His own legal advisers and the president in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 said over and over again he does not have the power to do this. He does not have the power to rewrite the basis on which people would be allowed to stay in this country, which is far beyond prosecutorial discretion." To which he added, "And suddenly in 2014, after five or six years of saying he didn't have the power, he suddenly has the power. How believable is that?" With two years remaining, Barry simply no longer cares if we believe him or not.
But Mr. Fund also made it very clear that the Republicans are going to need to tread rather cautiously when it comes to deciding how best to respond to Barry’s actions. He said, "We have to take a deep breath and not take automatically the bait that Barack Obama has put out." And he went on to say, "Remember, part of the reason Barack Obama is doing this is he wants Republicans to hyperventilate, he wants Republicans to overreact, he wants Republicans to say ugly things that Hispanic Americans will take offense to." And I agree, but while we must be cautious, Republicans must demonstrate their resolve in a very meaningful way.
Mr. Fund charged that the White House has turned a deaf ear to reason — and is only concerned about political expediency. And with that I wholeheartedly agree. He said, "I talked to somebody who had a meeting with the top adviser at the White House just last week and they asked them, 'You know the courts are probably going to throw this out, and even if they don't throw it out, the next president, if it's a Republican, can rescind it on Jan. 20, 2017.' Mr. Fund related, "And the White House adviser's response was, 'We don't care.'" And it’s that statement right there that should make it very apparent the true purpose behind this act.
"It is a mistake to view this as a policy measure," he said. "This is a political measure. This is a political measure to try to pander to 5 million people who they potentially think will become new citizens soon and they will supposedly have all kinds of gratitude to Obama for taking them out of the shadows, and it's a political move in that he's trying to get the Republicans to overreact, to distract attention from other issues." Fund said the bottom line is "we have to oppose Obama." He said, "Of course we have to pursue this in the court, but the court timeline is much different than the political timeline. It doesn't yield results or satisfaction as quickly as we would like."
So I think we can safely say that the ‘immigration’ ball has been firmly planted in the court of our illustrious Republicans. And I suppose if we were living in a perfect world we would have seen our Republican leaders taking to television immediately after Barry’s declaration, much like after a ‘State of the Union’, to outline exactly why it is that they are so opposed to Barry’s plan and to present, at least in some brief form, a plan of their own. But, sadly, we do not reside in a prefect world. What seemed to be much higher on their list of priorities was the getting out of town for the Thanksgiving holiday. Not a very good sign of things to come, I’m afraid.
Thursday, November 20, 2014
Courtesy of his soon to be announced executive action granting amnesty to roughly 5 million of those who choose to be in this country illegally, Barry "Almighty’ will forever cement his place in history as being a truly lawless president and one who repeatedly demonstrated a reckless disregard for our Constitution. And the action that Barry is about to take is itself nothing short of illegal, as he has said himself more than 20 times, and yet he insists upon doing it.
As we move closer to Barry’s scheduled announcement we continue to hear, from conservative and liberal pundits alike, that despite the blatant illegality of what Barry is about to do, there is very little if anything that the Republicans can do to prevent him from doing what he’s decided to do. They put forward the claim that if anything the Republicans do that in any way results in a shutdown of the government, there will be Hell to pay when the next election comes around.
But can anyone point out for me any of the lasting consequences that the Republican Party were made to face that can be traced back to the last government shutdown? Granted, there were some short-lived issues stirred up by the media and the Democrats, but they seem to have pretty quickly dissipated long before the 2014 election rolled around. And I seem to remember that there were many making the argument that the government never ‘really’ shut down even then.
Republicans were handed control of Congress with one specific objective in mind. And that was to stop Barry "Almighty" from taking further action in his continuing effort to "fundamentally transform’ our country. So as this assault of Barry’s progresses ‘our’ members of Congress must be actively encouraged to take the appropriate action, and they must understand that failure to do so places in jeopardy their ability to ever become more than the minority party.
And ‘The People’ are going to have to come to grips with the fact that stopping Barry is not going to be easy or pretty, and it’s very liable to get more than just a bit messy. The Republicans do have options, but if they do not feel that the people are behind them in carrying them out, then they are less likely to take the risk in implementing them. Desperate times do call for desperate measures, and never before in our history have things been so dire and all because of a single man.
And let’s be honest here, Barry’s not really fooling anyone here. This is one of those rare instances where he’s pretty transparent. We all know that what he’s about to do has nothing whatsoever to do with reuniting families, or bringing people out of the shadows. Barry’s motivation is purely political, and his mission is to ‘create’ what he is fairly sure will turn out to be 5 million new Democrat voters. The adverse effect this it is sure to have on the country is really of very little interest, or concern, to him.
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
What may provide another bit of proof to us, as if we really needed any, that Barry has been far more successful, than many of us would like to admit, in carrying out what he referred to as a much needed "fundamental transformation" of this country, is the fact that Americans now believe they are less free now than they were when Barry "Almighty" first took office. That according to a new study, that has their rating of personal freedom ranking below citizens of 20 other countries.
According to research by the Legatum Institute in London, which looked at prosperity in every nation in the world, citizens in countries including France, Uruguay, and Costa Rica now rate their personal freedom higher than we here in America do. Specifically, since 2009, there has been a 17 percent decline in the score given by Americans to personal freedom, dropping the country's ranking on the notion to 21st place from ninth place. So here we have another nasty side effect of Barry’s presidency.
The U.S. also recorded a 22 percent drop in the combined civil liberty and free choice element of the index. And it was in a recent interview with a major newspaper that Legatum Institute spokeswoman Cristina Odone said, "This is not a good report for Obama." But let’s be real, shall we, just how many really think that Barry "Almighty" will lose all that much sleep over any of this. After all, hasn’t this essentially been his objective since day one of his becoming presidency?
The organization's Prosperity Index aims to measure a range of subjective prosperity indicators that gross domestic product measurements do not include, such as entrepreneurship, opportunity, education and social capital. The freedom scores were derived from 2013 polling data that surveyed citizens' satisfaction with their nation's handling of civil liberties, freedom of choice, tolerance of ethnic minorities, and tolerance of immigrants.
The study is also distinct from others in that it measures people's perceptions, instead of tracking government policies, to arrive at freedom scores, which most likely provides are far more accurate picture. Definitions of personal freedom, however, vary between countries, making it difficult to quantify direct comparisons. But having said that, Americans felt less free in 2013 after four more years of Barry's reign. And Barry will be forever known as the president who made Americans feel less free than the French.
Tuesday, November 18, 2014
For quite some time now, even before Barry "Almighty’ first burst onto the scene it was rapidly becoming very apparent that the Democrat Party was lurching increasingly farther to the left. Some might even argue to the radical left. And it would seem that the growing list of those wishing to be the Democrat presidential candidate come 2016 only serves to reinforce that notion. Because the more they come, beginning with Hitlery Clinton, the further to the left they seem to get. Which I’m quite sure, comes as being not much of a surprise to anyone.
And so it has been over the course of the last year or so that the list of names of those vying to be Barry’s successor has continued to grow. Besides Hitlery Clinton, some of the other names that have been mentioned include, Andy ‘The Crook’ Cuomo, Elizabeth ‘The Squaw’ Warren, Marty ‘The Socialist’ O’Malley and even that of our current vice president, old ‘Slow Joe’ Biden. But now, apparently, we can add yet another name from the far left fringe to that list, and it would be none other than the communist mayor of ‘The Big Apple’, Bill de Deblasio.
So just where is it that this latest little tidbit of inside information might have come from? Well, I suppose from what many would probably consider to be a very unlikely source, New York state Republican Party Chairman Ed Cox. Yes, Mr. Cox is the one who has now made what, I suppose, many would consider a rather outlandish prediction that it will be New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio who will be the Democrat nominee for president in 2016 – and not Hitlery Clinton. Such information may come as a shock to those clamoring for the old girl.
So you may ask, how is it that Mr. Cox comes to feel so confident about making such a rather unexpected claim? Apparently he cites his inside information as having been gained from someone described as being a powerful Democrat lobbyist. Cox recently told both friends and GOP operatives that the mayor’s attempt to portray himself as the leader of the "urban progressive centers of the nation’’ is all part of his strategy towards making a White House run in 2016, at least that how it was reported in the New York Post.
Mr. Cox, whose father-in-law, as you may or may not recall, was President Richard Nixon, told a recent gathering, "It’s like Barack Obama – he was a brand-new freshman senator, and he ran for president and won. I think de Blasio is going to do it.’’ Cox also noted that de Blasio has a very cozy relationship with "the racially divisive" Al Sharpton, who has a widespread political network, as being the proof that the mayor has national ambitions. Cox also pointed out that Sharpton is back and forth to the White House and serves as an emissary for de Blasio.
Mr. Cox insinuated that de Blasio was also laying the necessary groundwork for a possible presidential run with a controversial column he wrote for The Huffington Post last week, in which he blamed the Democrat thrashing in the midterms on the failure of candidates not being progressive enough. Now being progressive enough? What exactly might he mean by not being "progressive enough?" Does he mean that not enough government ‘benefits’ were promised or that Democrats should have been advocating for a $30 per hour minimum wage?
De Blasio wrote, "This year, too many Democratic candidates lost sight of those core principles – opting instead to clip their progressive wings in deference to a conventional wisdom that says bold ideas aren’t politically practical.’’ But the ideas to which this communist boob refers are anything but bold. What they are, are simply the same old and very tired ideas that have never worked wherever they’ve been tried. And these ‘bold ideas’ accomplish nothing more than to bring about complete poverty and abject misery for all those forced go live under them.
Logically speaking, if, when we come to 2016, the American people truly are wanting to continue down the path toward socialism that this country now appears to be on, and they are determined to make the vision of America, now possessed by those on the left a reality, then the only logical next step would be for them to elect any individual who proudly wears the Democrat moniker. And out of the current list of choices the only candidates that would make any sense in achieving that endeavor would be de Blasio, Warren or perhaps O’Malley.
But if instead, and if using the 2014 election as our gauge, the American people have finally had their fill of this failed venture into socialism, and would rather chart for this country a different path, perhaps one toward more familiar territory, then there will be little chance that ANY Democrat will be successful in taking the baton from Barry. But it’s far too early to determine how things are likely to go, and I’m thinking that much will depend on how it is that the Republicans handle themselves over the course of the next 24 months.
Monday, November 17, 2014
It would appear that we are once again going down that very familiar path where the most important quality possessed by yet another of Barry’s appointees is a blind adherence to the same failed, freedom smothering, leftist ideology. She of whom I speak is none other than Loretta Lynch, the political hack whose name was most recently placed into nomination for attorney general to replace the outgoing hack, Eric Holder.
Ms. Lynch has quite the history of not only supporting and fighting for leftist causes, but also for having donated to leftist candidates. Because it’s according to OpenSecrets.gov that we see how it was between 2004 and 2008 that Lynch contributed over $10,000 to Democrat candidates, which, as it just so happened, also include donations to Barry’s presidential campaign. So might this nomination be something in the way of payback?
Barry said at the time he place her name in nomination that, "It’s pretty hard to be more qualified for this job than Loretta." But that would depend on how is it that one might define, ‘qualified.’ He then went on to say, "Loretta has spent her life fighting for fair and equal justice that is the foundation of our democracy. I can think of no better public servant to be our next Attorney General." What she has been fighting for is certainly not fair and equal justice.
Barry’s opportunity to appoint the esteemed Ms. Lynch to a position allowing her to wield a certain amount of power in his behalf came back on May 3, 2010 when he appointed her the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York. And it was according to the Department of Justice (DOJ) that, "Before returning to the office as United States Attorney in 2010, Ms. Lynch was a partner in the New York office of Hogan & Hartson L.L.P."
And it was during her tenure at Hogan & Hartson L.L.P. that Lynch donated $14,800 to Democrat candidates with $4,600 of that amount going to Barry’s campaign. In addition to Barry, Lynch donated $4,200 to Democrat Chris Owens who campaigned for Congress during the 2005-2006 federal election cycle, and she also volunteered for Barry’s campaign and organized an effort called "Brooklyn for Barack."
Lynch also donated $1,000 to Chris Owens’ father, former Rep. Major Owens (D-N.Y.), another politician who endorsed Barry for president. In addition to these donations, Lynch also contributed Democrat Senate candidates - $1,000 to Jim Neal, $2,000 to Steve Novick, $1,000 to Tom Strickland and $1,000 to Ron Kirk. So what we have here is someone who very clearly demonstrates that which Barry goes looking for when looking to fill positions.
So once again what we have here is someone whom we’re expected to believe will be impartial in enforcing the nation’s laws, but who in reality is just another hack politician who if confirmed will simply do the bidding of her boss, assisting him in any what she can to move his leftist agenda ‘forward.’ Which as we have seen on more than one occasion is, next to race, the primary qualifier for one to be appointed by Barry in the first place.
As the second open enrollment period for Obamacare officially kicks off, it’s at the same time that we have a new survey which would seem to indicate that the number of Americans who actually approve of the healthcare law has now hit upon that which is an all new low. Now whether or not that has anything to do with our ongoing ‘Gruber-gate’, and the accusations of voters being pretty stupid, that has yet to be determined.
This recent Gallup survey reveals that only 37 percent of respondents now support Barry’s signature domestic policy, which Republicans, set to control both houses of Congress, are hoping to repeal or, to at least, replace. And that figure is one percent less than in January when just 38 percent said they approved of the law at a time when the country was still reeling from the multitude of glitches on the federal Obamacare website, HealhCare.gov.
It’s in the new poll that a majority of Americans, or 56 percent, said they disapproved of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), aka Obamacare, which is one percent higher than the previous number in that category. And I suppose it should come as no surprise that Gallup said that the results were split along party lines, with Democrats supporting Obamacare at a much higher percentage than Republicans, 74 percent to just 8 percent.
Also according to Gallup, the approval number for independents, who have never really got behind Obamacare, fell 6 points in a month to 33 percent. Although the research showed that a majority of nonwhites still approved of the law, the number fell by 6 points to 56 percent – the first time nonwhite approval did not exceed 60 percent. Furthermore, only 29 percent of whites now approve of the law.
Gallups, Justin McCarthy said, "Americans have never been overly positive toward the ACA, at best showing a roughly equal division between approval and disapproval early on in the law's implementation." He went on to say, "The percentage of Americans who approve of the law represents a new numerical low, which could indicate a loss of faith in the law amid the aftermath of the 2014 midterms." Gee, ya think?
And apparently he felt it necessary to add, "Although the ACA, also called Obamacare, was not as dominant an issue in this year's congressional elections as it was in 2010, the issue was part of Republicans' campaign efforts to oppose the president's agenda overall. In doing that, many of the party's candidates were successful." While there may be some truth to what he says, there was, in more than a few races, a definite focus on Obamacare.
Now you would think that the information put forth by this latest survey might serve to provide to our newly elected Republican congressional majority with some level of motivation and to also serve as encouraging them to grow at least a little backbone. Backbone sufficient enough to encourage them to at least attempt to remove, once and for all, this costly burden placed on the backs of the American people by the Democrats. We’ll just have to wait and see.
Saturday, November 15, 2014
At a Politic365 event at the National Press Club, it was an enterprising reporter who asked Rep. Wilson, "Does the Constitution give President Obama the authority to unilaterally convert.." Wilson interrupted saying, "the Constitution?" But the undeterred report continued, "convert illegal aliens into legal residents in the United States?" Wilson responded, "You’re going have to ask the president that. That’s a question for the president -- not for me."
The reporter continued, "Do you think that putting them [illegal aliens] on a path to citizenship would help the unemployed in America?" Wilson, who’s about as bright as that other imbecile from here in Florida, Corrine Brown, said, "You have to ask the people who research that, I’m not researching that right now." So we have a member of Congress who would first need to do some ‘research’ on what powers the president is granted by the Constitution?
Barry has said, on any number of occasions, that he fully intends to take unilateral action to give illegal aliens a path to be legal, if Congress does not act. Yet according to Article 1, Section 8 of the U. S. Constitution, it’s Congress that has that power, not the Executive branch. It’s the Constitution that states, and very clearly so, that, "Congress shall have the power… to establish a uniform rule of naturalization."
"Executive amnesty is a sham," said Richard Kelsey, an assistant dean at George Mason Law School. "It is both an improper extension of executive power and crime." He said, "Neither the Constitution nor any federal law permits the president to grant amnesty to illegal aliens. Moreover, the president has no legal authority to direct his administrative state to defer, suspend or stop deportations." Hence the reason behind his being referred to as a ‘lawless’ president."
While Barry does have the authority to issue executive orders, Congress has the power of the purse, meaning the House must decide whether, or not, to fund any of Barry’s very clearly unconstitutional actions, including any form of immigration amnesty, Obamacare, or even Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider. Barry views the presidency differently than most other men, he views it only as a tool and as a means to an end.
The question is, will our Republican Congress have the political courage to do what is necessary to reign in this president? Because as much as these guys like to sound like they’re willing to stand up to him, who can remember the last time they did so? Our Republic has been moved into a very precarious position where it can be said to hanging by a thread, and what we need is for our newly elected majority to exhibit a little backbone and save what’s left of the country.
Well, it would seem that Barry "Almighty" has been able to make great strides in his dogged determination to "fundamentally transform" America over the course of the last 6 years. And we seem to have now gotten to the point that has me wondering, even after gaining control of Congress and are lucky enough to win the White House in 2016, if we will ever be able to reverse any of, or very much of, what Barry has been able to set into motion.
And one of the issues that serves to point that out is the topic of my discussion here. The fact is that we now have nearly four in 10 Americans, or 92 million, who are no longer in the labor force. And the reason why is because they have simply given up and don’t really want to work. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the largest group of people not in the labor force are those who don’t want a job, a rather remarkable statement on the nation’s work ethic.
The federal job counter said that 85.9 million adults last month didn’t want a job, or 93 percent of all adults not in the labor force. A Pew Research Center analysis out just today dug a bit deeper to find out exactly who those people might be. And come to find out it’s many of our younger Americans who seem far less interested, today, in landing a job than previous generations, possibly discouraged by the lack of good-paying jobs.
Pew said that 39 percent of 16- to 24-year-olds don’t want to work, and that number is up from 29 percent back in 2000. And it’s courtesy of this analysis that we find out that it’s women who especially don’t want a job, although men have similar feelings. This Pew analysis said, "Women are more likely than men to say they don’t want a job, although the gap has been narrowing — especially since the Great Recession."
And it went on to say, "Last month, 28.5 percent of men said they didn’t want a job, up from 23.9 percent in October 2000 and 25.2 percent in October 2008. For women, the share saying they didn’t want a job hovered around 38 percent throughout the 2000s but began creeping up in 2010, reaching 40.2 percent last month." Should we be surprised by this? After all, how many times have we heard from Democrats that people shouldn’t have to work if they don’t ‘want’ to?
Friday, November 14, 2014
Well it would seem that the federal government, in its infinite wisdom, is picking up in this new fiscal year exactly where it left off in the old one, by working to increase our already massive national debt. We begin FY-2015 by setting yet another new record for inflation-adjusted tax revenue, while at the same time running a deficit of $121.7 Billion, or an amount that equates to $1050.78 for every household here in these United States.
Now stop and think about this for a second, for each and every $1.00 that the Treasury brought in during the month of October the federal government turned right around and spent $1.57. Now what do you think would happen to you, and very short order, if that was the way that you chose to operate your own household budget. Especially since you do not enjoy the same luxury that Barry does, that of being able to print and endless supply of your own money.
So essentially what we have here is the continuation of what has become a very disturbing little trend here going all the way back to when it was that our current president was first election. Granted, the government has always, or nearly always, had the nasty habit of spending more than it has taken in, but never to the extent that has taken place during the presidency of one Barry "Almighty". And we’re still stuck with this guy for another two years.
During FY-2014, which ended on Sept. 30, the federal government took in the record amount of $3,020,809,000,000 in revenue but still ran a deficit of $483,336,000,000. In October, the first month of fiscal year 2015, total federal revenues were $212,719,000,000, according to data released by the Treasury. But federal spending was 334,432,000,000 for the month, which created a deficit of $121,713,000,000.
There are, today, 115,831,000 households in the United States. The federal government’s $121,713,000,000 deficit for the month equals $1,050.78 per each of those households. In constant 2014 dollars, the $212,719,000,000 in tax receipts the federal Treasury raked in during October is the most revenue ever for that month of the year. The next closest year was 2001. That October, the Treasury took in $211,234,700,000 in constant 2014 dollars.
The biggest source of federal tax revenue during the month of October came in the form of the individual income tax. During the month, taxpayers forked over an economy-stifling amount of $106,661,000,000 in these taxes to the Treasury. But that’s not all, taxpayers were also made to hand over another $73,581,000,000 in the form of payroll taxes covering the cost of Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment insurance.
Now while it would be welcome news to hear that our freshly minted Republican congressional majority plans to take the necessary measures to get things under control, I’d be considered as being pretty naïve if I were say that I actually believed they will grab the bull by the horns and reel in our out of control Executive Branch. Our ‘leaders’ have already said they’ll do nothing that might result in a government shut down, so what else is really left?
These are perilous times that we now find ourselves in. And as they say, dangerous times call for dangerous measures. And in this case we’re talking about measures that could prove ‘politically’ dangerous. And because they’re ‘politically’ dangerous, the chances that they will be undertaken are pretty remote. So therefore we will likely continue on our present course while, at the same time, being inundated by all manner of rhetoric until the end finally comes.
Thursday, November 13, 2014
It should come as no surprise to anyone that the sleazy little group over at the White House is vehemently denouncing comments made by key Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber regarding how it was that a complete lack of transparency combined with the overwhelming stupidity of voters proved instrumental in the passage of Obamacare. Instead this group of thugs seem to be busily pointing their collective finger at the Republicans because, apparently, we’re supposed to believe that this boob Gruber is nothing but a pawn of those seeking the repeal of this disaster.
And it was White House Spokesmoron Josh Earnest, himself, who said during a press briefing in Burma, "The fact of the matter is, the process associated with the writing and passing and implementing of the Affordable Care Act has been extraordinarily transparent." And when asked about Gruber’s claim that Obamacare wouldn’t have passed if the administration was more transparent and voters more intelligent, this imbecile actually responded by saying, "I disagree vigorously with that assessment." Well of course he does, what else should we expact?
And then this moron proceeded to take things a step further when he made the idiotic claim that, "It is Republicans who have been less than forthright and transparent about what their proposed changes to the Affordable Care Act would do in terms of the choices that are available to middle class families." Earnest said the president "is proud of the transparent process that was undertaken to pass that bill into law." Knowing Barry "Almighty" as we all do, I’m quite sure that he is very proud of the process that was utilized in the passage of this debacle.
The response from the White House came as a third video of Gruber criticizing the intelligence of American voters surfaced. Gruber said in remarks from 2012, "We just tax the insurance companies, they pass on higher prices that offsets the tax break we get, it ends up being the same thing. It’s a very clever, you know, basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter." And yet, to hear Earnest talk, you’d think that Gruber was under the employ of the Republicans in their effort to repeal Barry’s signature accomplishment.
Gruber has been causing headaches for the White House as conservatives have had a field day that began comments the MIT professor made in 2013. Gruber said at the time, according to one of the video that has recently come to light, "Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter, or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass." Those of us who were paying attention back during the scam that was the passage of this thing, remember seeing very little actual transparency.
And it was in yet another video clip of a separate event, while talking about tax credits in the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, that he said, "American voters are too stupid to understand the difference." And of course Gruber apologized for the comments earlier this week during an appearance, saying on MSNBC’s "Ronan Farrow Daily": "I was speaking off the cuff, and I was basically speaking inappropriately, and I regret having made those comments." What I’m sure that this asshole regrets, is getting caught on tape saying what he said.
And as Trey Gowdy so eloquently put it during a recent appearance on Fox News, when it comes to the comments made repeatedly by Gruber, it becomes increasingly difficult to separate the irony from the arrogance. He said, "I can’t get past the irony to even get to the arrogance," he said, remarking that the "most transparent administration" had to use deception to get its legislation passed. Gowdy slammed Gruber for insulting the intelligence of the very same people who managed to put Barry "Almighty" into office not once, but twice.
And he said of Obamacare, "We were sold a false bill of goods … and they’re laughing all the way to the bank." Gowdy had a warning for Americans: keep this in mind the next time anyone tries to sell you a comprehensive piece of legislation. "Comprehensive is Latin for ‘there’s lots of bad stuff in here,’" he said. And Gowdy had a message for his fellow citizens: fool me once, shame on you, ever fool me again, shame on us. And we would be wise to take his warning to heart, because while we may have control of Congress, we still stuck with Barry for 2 years.
Wednesday, November 12, 2014
I freely admit that I have never, ever, been a fan of John Boehner, and I have felt going all the way back to 2010 that we would be doing ourselves a huge favor if we were to come up with a different Speaker. Someone like a Trey Gowdy, for instance. Because whenever listening to Boehner you never really know out of which side of his mouth he is speaking.
For instance, it was in his very first post-election press conference that Boehner was heard to say, "My job is to listen to the American people. The American people have made it clear, they're not for Obamacare. Ask all those Democrats who lost their elections Tuesday night." Sorry, but claiming to be listening to the American people and acting like it, are two very different things.
Because in listening to what he said during that same press conference, I think there may be some doubt that he’s really listening. He said, "So, the House, I'm sure, at some point next year, we'll move to repeal Obamacare because it should be repealed and it should be replaced with common sense reforms that respect the doctor/patient relationship."
Now it’s time to put your thinking caps on and let’s try to decipher what it was that Boehner was REALLY saying. Was he saying that: He intends for the House to terminate implementation of Obamacare at some point in the next year, or was he actually saying that he intends for the House to ensure Obamacare is implemented next year? Which is it?
And Boehner also said, "You've all heard me say, starting two years ago yesterday, that our immigration system is broken and needs to be fixed. But I've made clear to the president that if he acts unilaterally on his own, outside of his authority, he will poison the well and there will be no chance for immigration reform moving in this Congress. It's as simple as that."
So everyone put those thinking caps back on one more time and tell me what you think that Boehner might really have been telling us. Was he saying that: He intends for the House to stop Barry "Almighty" from unilaterally and unconstitutionally granting amnesty to illegal aliens, OR that he intends for the House to permit Barry to do so. Again, which is it?
Boehner also said, "I believe that we need to ... address the debt that's hurting our economy and imprisoning the future of our kids and grandkids." So again, did he mean that he intends for the House to significantly cut spending in its next long-term funding bill, OR did he mean that he intends for the House to approve a new long-term funding bill that includes all of the spending that Barry wants?
Back on Sept. 18, the House Republican leaders ‘pushed’ through a short-term continuing resolution to fund the government until Dec. 11. What this CR did was to punt all substantive issues until after the election. It fully funded Obamacare, including the regulation that requires individual Christians to buy coverage for abortion-inducing drugs even if that violates their religious faith.
As well, it fully funded Planned Parenthood, the nation's leading abortion provider. And it did absolutely nothing to stop Barry from using money from the Treasury to implement an unconstitutional unilateral amnesty granting legal status to illegal aliens. They say actions speak louder than words, and Boehners actions do not lead one to believe that Boehner is listenings.
By agreeing to a CR that expires on Dec. 11 rather than Jan. 11, the House Republican leaders not only ensured that they would not need to fight with Barry over any significant issues before the election, they also made it possible to prevent incoming Republican majorities in both houses from having any substantive say over major policy issues until at least next September.
Prior to the election, Politico published a story based on an interview with House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy. Politico reported that McCarthy "would like to use the lame-duck session to pass a long-term government-funding bill, so Washington can begin focusing on big-picture legislating, instead of just trying to keep government's doors open."
In plain English what is intended here is for the Republican leaders to cut a spending deal with Barry and out-going Senate Majority Leader ‘Dingy Harry’ Reid in December before the new Republican majorities in the House and Senate are sworn in. Such a deal would run through Sept. 30 of next year and would be like the deal Republican leaders cut with Barry and Reid this past September.
Because it would then permit Barry to spend money doing everything he truly finds important. And it would allow the new Republican Congress to hold a string of symbolic votes next year on stand-alone pieces of legislation that Obama can afford to veto without shutting down the whole government or even part of it. Barry will get substance. Republicans will get symbols.
Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama is calling for a different strategy. He wants to actually prevent Barry from unilaterally granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. "He must be stopped," Sessions wrote in a commentary for Politico this week. And I agree. Our leaders cannot be timid in taking whatever measures necessary to stop Barry, it’s why they were elected!
Barry's amnesty, Sessions said, "cannot be implemented if Congress simply includes routine language on any government funding bill prohibiting the expenditure of funds for this unlawful purpose. This is the same way we prevented the president from closing Guantanamo Bay. Such application of congressional power is ordinary, unexceptional, and used thousands of times.
"Congress has the power of the purse," said Sessions. "The president cannot spend a dime unless Congress appropriates it." The ONLY way Barry can carry out a unilateral amnesty, implement Obamacare, or attack religious liberty is if Boehner's House once again gives him the money to do it.
Over the course of the next two years we are going to have to keep a very close eye on not only Mr. Boehner, but every single Republican member of Congress. A little micro-management of these folks is not only required, by very necessary. We simply can no longer afford to accept at face value anything that they tell us. They work for us, we must not allow them to forget that!
Something I’m quite sure is nothing more than a short term problem, since we voters are such a stupid lot, is the fact that the favorability factor for the Democrat Party seems to have now hit what’s being referred to as a record low as things now go from bad to worse for the party that suffered a pretty significant midterm defeat. A defeat that we will not know the full extent of until early next month. At least so says a newly released Gallup poll.
According to the Gallup poll released just today, apparently only 36 percent of those taking part in this poll had a favorable view of the Democrat Party, and that’s a 6-percentage-point drop from before the midterms. Also noted is the fact that with the GOP now possessing a 42 percent favorability, it is the first time since 2011 that the GOP has had a higher rating than the Democrats. I’m just not sure if this is something what will last all that long.
It was also noted that the favorability rating for Democrats is the party’s lowest since Gallup began asking the question back in 1992. Now it would be nice to think that the reason behind this new low is the fact that the American people are finally beginning to wise-up and see through what it is that the Democrats are really up to. But I think that’s far too much to hope for. Most likely what we are seeing here is nothing more than a short-lived moment of political clarity.
The polling firm said in a statement, "After the 2012 election, many political analysts focused on the GOP’s ‘image problem’." And it went on to say, "Now, it is the Democrats who appear to have the more battered image. Their favorability rating has never been lower, and they are reeling from defeats that cost them control of the U.S. Senate and strengthened the Republican House majority to levels likely not seen in 90 years."
But Gallup continued, saying, "On the other hand, the American public does not admire Republicans more, their numerous election victories notwithstanding." Adding, "Neither party can say it is making significant progress in improving its image among the U.S. population, but undoubtedly the 2014 elections augmented the GOP’s ability to shape the agenda in Washington and in state capitals across the country."
As for myself I have my own reasons for despising the Democrat Party. Only one of which is its deep-seated hatred of America. It’s also because of the fact that Democrats have no qualms whatsoever when it comes to the taking more of the money that I work so very hard for, thus preventing me from being able to spend it on those things that I want. Instead, I’m forced to hand more and more of my money to the government so that Democrats’ can then purchase votes.
And I guess what worries me the most about this news is the fact that it may serve to many in the Republican Party as motivation, of a sort, to act, or to not act, in a way that, in the hope of being able to increase their favorability over the course of the next 24 months as we head into 2016. And therefore it could come to have what would be an adverse impact on their willingness to do those things that we all know need to be done and that we elected them to do.
Tuesday, November 11, 2014
So here we are now with the election finally behind us. And I wonder how many of you out there are, like me, hoping for the best, but at the same time fearing the worst. The truth is I simply could not stay home on Election Day, just as I couldn’t bring myself to vote for a Democrat. So I did the only thing that would allow me to get any sleep at night, I voted straight Republican. While doing so, I must admit, there was a little voice in my head warning me.
And then, I think, it was just yesterday that I was reading somewhere that Paul Ryan vowed that he had enough Republican support to get immigration reform done. And I couldn’t help but wonder what it was that he might have meant by "enough Republicans". Did he mean that there are now enough Republicans willing to stand with ALL of the Democrats so that amnesty could be pushed through Congress in much the same manner that Obamacare was?
Since the morning after the night before I’ve been hearing all manner of grandiose plans coming from those who will comprise our newly minted Senate majority as well as our expanded majority in the House. Some of which have been more than a bit disconcerting, and much of which I can’t help but wonder if it is nothing more than just a lot of talk. We will be required to keep a very close eye on those whom we just elected, they are not to be trusted.
ben•e•fi•ci•ar•y/noun - a person who derives advantage from something, especially a trust, will, or life insurance policy.
par·a·site/noun - parasite; plural noun: parasites - an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense/derogatory - a person who habitually relies on or exploits others and gives nothing in return.
The government today has a rather peculiar way of identifying those who have come to depend more and more upon government. These people are not called dependents, as that might be construed in such a as to be perceived as being demeaning in some way, so they are instead referred to as, ‘beneficiaries’. As in, say, those ‘beneficiaries’ who are on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, receiving food stamps. The number of these ‘beneficiaries’ has now topped 46,000,000 for 36 straight months, at least according to new data released by the Department of Agriculture (USDA), the agency responsible for administering the program.
In the period of time from September 2011 through August 2014, the latest month for which data is available, the number of persons participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) has exceeded 46 Million. In August 2014, again according to USDA, there were 46,484,828 so-called ‘beneficiaries’ of the SNAP program. That number was down slightly, or 2,060 ‘beneficiaries’, from the 46,486,888 who were receiving food stamps in July. However, at the same time, the number of households getting food stamps increased from 22,716,152,000 in July to 22,729,389 in August.
Given that there were 115,048,000 households in the country as of August, at least according to the Census Bureau, 22,729,389 of households on food stamps equaled 19.75 percent of all households in the nation. Households on food stamps in July got an average of $253.69 in August 2014, and in that month alone program benefits cost taxpayers $5,766,107,973. The 46,484,828 people getting food stamps in the United States in August continued to outnumber the entire populations of such countries as Poland, with it’s population of 38,346,279, Argentina with 43,024,374 citizens and Ukraine with 22,291,413. Pretty impressive!
Personally I have my own nomenclature for those who absolutely no problem with living off the rest of us. You see, I have a rather difficult time understanding how it is that someone can be said to benefit from being dependent upon, even in a small way, on the government. I view these people as being little more than parasites. Once upon a time, far from being seen as being a benefit, being dependent upon the government to any degree, was seen as being nothing short of an embarrassment, but not today in the ‘Era of Barry.’ Because being a parasite today has become something akin to being a badge of honor.