Friday, January 30, 2015


Yet another indictor has now recently come to light that would show that Barry’s success at being able to “fundamentally transform” this nation, just as he promised he that would, continues pretty much unabated.  And while I hear a lot of talk about efforts to rein Barry in, I see precious little activity coming from those who comprise our new Republican majority in Congress.  That indicator to which I refer is the fact that over 20 percent, 21.7, of US children, an estimated 16 million youths, are now on food stamps.  That number has almost doubled since the ‘Great Recession’ began in 2007.  In 2007, 12.7 percent of children under 18 received food stamps, by 2014, that number had jumped to 21.7, an increase of 70.9 percent.

More than one in five of the country’s 73.7 million children now receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, better known as food stamps.  Now keep in mind that before the economic downturn of December 2007, it was only one in eight kids, or roughly 9 million, who were on food stamps.  And it has been the ‘economic’ polices that have been put in place by Barry over the course of the last six years, that are primarily to blame for the nearly doubling that number.  Because from day one he set out with a purpose, determined to get as many people as possible dependent upon government.  And, really, what better place for Barry and the Democrats to start than with the ‘children?’  

The US child poverty rate, or the percent of children living in households with incomes below 50 percent of the national median income, is 23.1 percent.  And it’s a sad thing to have to say, but according to a 2013 UNICEF report, it’s only Romania that ranks higher, at 23.6 percent.  There are 14.7 million poor children, of which 6.5 million can be considered as being extremely poor.  As a way of putting those 14.7 million poor children into perspective, that number exceeds the population of 12 US states combined: Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming and they also exceed the combined populations of Sweden and Costa Rica.

And it’s that nearly 6.5 million extremely poor children, or those living at less than half the poverty level, that actually exceed the combined populations of Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming. That number also exceeds the populations of Denmark or Finland.  The lost productivity and extra health and crime costs stemming from child poverty add up to roughly 500 Billion dollars a year, or 3.8 percent of the US gross domestic product.  Food stamps are one of those costs.  The program began in the mid-1990s, designed as a temporary safety net for single adults without children.  Now it includes married couples, couples with children, and single parents.

Never before in our history have we had as many Americans, as we have today, who are dependent upon government in one form or another.  Food stamps is but one area where we have seen a substantial growth in those things are routinely referred to as being government ‘benefits’.  But if we can be honest in our discussions of such things, there is really very little that’s actually beneficial from being dependent upon government.  Because with dependence almost always comes the intrusion of government into one’s life, because with those ‘benefits’ come a certain amount of strings being attached.  No actual good ever comes, either for the individual or for society at large, from increasing the dependency of citizens on the government.

Wednesday, January 28, 2015


Now you can call me old fashioned if you wish, or tell me that I am not allowed to even comment on such things because I’m a man and am therefore not allowed to have an opinion on the matter.  That said, it’s to my way of thinking that from the moment of conception, there is no doubt than an unborn child is a human being.  And as such, it is guaranteed the very same rights that I, and you, enjoy.  And yet, there are those who claim that that ‘child’ is not really a child until it has been able to successfully navigate its way into the world.  And there are also those, including our president, who have argued that even at that point the child has not had time to earn its right to exist and may yet be allowed to fall prey to the abortionist’s blade.

From the moment of conception what we are really talking about here is not only the life of the woman, we are also talking about that life that lies within her.  And for some rather twisted and perverted reason, whether it involves liberal politicians, those who march under the feminist banner, or those who see themselves as somehow being the champions of women’s rights, particularly their “reproductive rights” the fact that what we’re talking a life within a life, is something that those who favor abortion really never speak of.  Because to do so would risk tainting the entire argument regarding abortion on demand.  And you’ll notice that those who favor partial birth abortion rarely like to talk about just how gruesome the procedure is.

Which brings us to Rep. Xavier Becerra, Democrat from California and chairman of the House Democrat Caucus.  Becerra was recently asked the yes-no question of whether an unborn child 20 weeks into pregnancy is a human being, he was, of course, unable, or unwilling, to provide what could be called a direct answer.  It was this past Tuesday that the congressman was asked: “Do you think an unborn child 20 weeks into pregnancy is a human being?”  He responded by saying, “You know my wife’s an OB/GYN, and I know having watched as we raise our three daughters, there is no one who knows more about what’s in the best interest of a child than the mother--and I say that as a very proud father and I have total faith when my wife makes a decision.  She does it in the best interest of her family and her kids and obviously me as well.”

He then went on to say, “So when a woman has to make a decision, I have full faith in what that woman will do because my sense is that, over the millennia, women have had to deal with these issues far more than men,” said Becerra. “And so, when someone says to me that you’re going to put at risk a woman’s health to make a political, social point, it’s just not--I don’t believe we should be legislating what a woman should do. We got to believe that our mothers and our sisters and our daughters know better than a politician in Washington, D.C.”  To me, when a woman has put herself into a position where she may become pregnant, what ‘right’ does she then have to ‘decide’ to end that life which she so obviously played a role in creating?

There was then a follow up question where Becerra was asked, “But that question aside, just simply, if a child 20 weeks into pregnancy is a human being or not?”  Becerra responded, “I think I’ve given you the answer that a woman’s going to make a decision on what to do with her body. I think she knows far better than I do, especially if she’s pregnant and if she’s going to have a baby.”  He went on to say, “I don’t think we should be legislating what a woman must do especially when it might harm her health, that to me seems to be a tragic result of politicians trying to get in the way of the privacy of an individual, an American.”  These people talk so casually about ending the life of a baby, as if it’s nothing more than a lifeless mass of goo.

And then he went on say to something that I thought was rather odd, when he said, “To me--not that most men have a great track record on some of these things when it comes to rearing kids--but I have, as I said, the confidence that most women make the right decision when it comes to what happens with the future of our country.”  I guess I’m not making the connection here that he’s trying so hard to make.  Because what exactly does bringing about the death of an innocent baby, who is in no way responsible for its arrival into this world, have to do with the future of our country?  I just don’t understand how one thing has anything to do with the other, but then, rarely do I understand the liberal perspective on things such as this.  

The Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which was under debate on the floor of the House of Representatives last week, would have prohibited the abortion of babies 20 weeks or later into gestation unless they were conceived in rape or incest, or if the life of the mother was at risk.  The bill says that the rape exception would only allow terminating the life of an unborn child at 20 weeks or later into pregnancy if the rape was reported to law enforcement.  The Republican House leadership had initially intended to hold a vote on the bill last week on the anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, Jan. 22, but delayed it after a debate arose over the reporting requirements in the rape exception.

So, as I said earlier, you can call me old fashioned, or worse, but I’m a firm believer in the fact that from the moment of conception, what has been created, and is therefore from the outset, a bona fide human being.  And to speak of it as being an inconvenience that can be simply gotten rid of without so much as an afterthought seems to me to be more than a bit callous and borders on being immoral.  I agree that it may justified in the case of rape or incest, but that’s where my support for abortion comes to a screeching halt.  You know, when we are young we’re taught that life is sacred, and yet, once we become adults it seems to become less so.  There is nothing in the Constitution that grants the right of one to end the life of another.

Tuesday, January 27, 2015


So I ask you, just how much progressive-type insanity can people be made to tolerate before they finally say enough is enough and choose to pull up stakes and go in search for that place where Democrats, and the insane policies those living under Democrat rule they are made to live with, have not yet been able to ruin?  But make no mistake, those remaining places undamaged by Democrats, are becoming fewer and fewer in number.  But it would seem that some of those places long viewed as being the bastions of left-wing lunacy seem to have suffered recent exodus, of sorts.

For example, New York State, and much of the Northeast as a whole, led the nation in domestic net “outmigration” during the period from July 1, 2013 to July 1, 2014, at least according to newly released data from the Census Bureau.  And it was during that very same period that Texas, and the South, led the nation in domestic net “in-migration.”  And I think we all know why that might be.  And as someone who lives here in the South, I’m more than a little concerned that many of those moving here from such places as New York, might be bringing their nutty ideas with them.

Domestic net outmigration is the number of residents who move out of a state or region to another part of the country minus the number of residents who move in from another part of the country.  It does not include international migration, or people who move into a state or region from outside the United States, or from a state or region to outside the United States.  A state or region has domestic net in-migration when the number of people moving in from another part of the country exceeds the number moving out.

From July 1, 2013 to July 1, 2014, 30 states had a domestic net outmigration and 20 states plus the District of Columbia had a domestic net in-migration.  It was New York State that led in outmigration as a net of 153,921 people moved from the state to elsewhere in the country.  Meanwhile, Texas led in in-migration as a net of 154,467 moved into the state from elsewhere in the country.  Illinois had the second highest domestic outmigration, with a net of 94,956 leaving the state and Florida had the second highest domestic in-migration with 138,546 moving into that state.

The Northeast region which includes Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania, saw a net domestic outmigration of 286,696 from July 1, 2013 to 2104.  The Midwest Region, which includes Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota, also had a net domestic outmigration.  From July 1, 2013 to July 1, 2014 it saw a net movement of 182,057 people leave for other parts of the country.

Meanwhile, the West, which includes Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, Montana, Utah, Nevada, Wyoming, Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington, had a net domestic in-migration of 103,464.  That number might have been considerable higher were it not for the fact that California actually had the fourth highest net domestic outmigration (32,090) of all 50 states.  And joining California we have New Mexico (14,154), Alaska (10,137), Hawaii (5,141) and Utah (1,235) as western states that ended up with a net domestic outmigration.

The South, which oddly enough, is said to also include such locales as the state of Delaware and Washington D.C., also includes Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas.  And together these states had a net domestic in-migration of 365,289.  But had it not been for the only two states in this entire region that had a net domestic outmigration, Arkansas (3,890) and West Virginia (2,749), that number would have been higher.

As the Census Bureau data shows, climate does not necessarily predict movements in the domestic population. Not all Sunbelt states had a net inflow of domestic migrants, and not all cold northeastern and Midwestern states had a net outflow. California and Hawaii had significant outflows of domestic migrants. North Dakota and Idaho had significant inflows. It is also true that a state might not necessarily have negative total net migration just because it has a negative net domestic migration. International in-migration can compensate for people lost to domestic outmigration.

Here the Top Ten States for Net Domestic In-migration:
1-Texas (154,467)
2-Florida (138,546)
3-Arizona (41,975)
4-Colorado (40,318)
5-South Carolina (38,614)
6-North Carolina (36,257)
7-Washington (28,063)
8-Tennessee (24,511)
9-Nevada (23,623)
10-Oregon (22,670)

Here to the Top Ten States for net Domestic Out-migration:
1-New York (-153,921)
2-Illinois (-94,956)
3-New Jersey (-55,469)
4-California (-32,090)
5-Pennsylvania (-31,448)
6-Michigan (-28,679)
7-Connecticut (-26,216)
8-Virginia (-20,400)
9-Ohio (-18,243)
10-Massachusetts (-16,354)

While it cannot be said that all the states which experienced a net outmigration were ‘Blue’ states and those experiencing a net in-migration were all ‘Red’ states, I don’t think we can totally discount the effects that the liberal/progressive agenda might have had on the respective outcomes.  Because when it comes to such things escalating taxes of nearly every sort, from property taxes to gasoline taxes and the increasing cost of simply putting tags on your car, people will look for cheaper places to live.  Especially when they are trying to raise a family and to provide for them.   

Monday, January 26, 2015


Making comments reminiscent of those made by Barry back during our last presidential campaign, we now have one of Congress’ resident dingbats, the senior senator from Massachusetts Lizzy Warren, out there touting the need for increased spending in public medical research while at a Families USA Health Action Conference at the Hyatt hotel in Washington, D.C., on Thursday.  She was telling drug companies you “did not do it alone” and “we built those medical innovations together.”

This liberal loon went on to say, “We celebrate the accomplishments of our pharmaceutical industry because these blockbuster drugs let people live longer, healthier lives.”  And she added, “But we are also mindful that these drug companies did not do it alone.  Many drugs have generated billion-dollar profits and are used by millions of consumers that don’t just appear overnight.”  She said. “Rarely do they appear as a result of a single giant company’s individual genius.

And then came the clincher, the point in her rant where she sounded nearly exactly as Barry sounded when he made his idiotic claim that those who had worked hard to build successful businesses hadn’t done so all by themselves.  Nope, by golly, the government made sure it was there to help every step of the way.  Because that’s when she said, “Drug companies make great contributions, but so do taxpayers,” Warren said. “In other words, we built those medical innovations together.”

Also in her remarks, the esteemed Ms. Warren touted the achievements of the public sector in medical research, especially the accomplishments of the National Institute for Health (NIH).  She said, “NIH supportive research has built the foundation of many of our blockbuster drugs.”  And she would go on to say, “Consider this. Nearly all of the important innovative vaccines of the past quarter century can be traced to public sector research.”  To make such a statement is simply wishful thinking on her part.

Warren unveiled new legislation at the conference called the Medical Innovation Act, which would substantially increase federal funding for the NIH by requiring blockbuster drug companies to pay a portion of their profits when they break the law and enter into settling agreements with the government.  If we would rather work to stifle important medical discoveries then the quickest way to do that would be to follow Ms. Warren’s advice and force more government involvement into the process. 

This hardcore leftwing lunatic went on to say, "It’s like a swear jar: Whenever a huge drug company that is generating enormous profits as a result of federal research investments gets caught breaking the law, and wants off the hook, it has to put some money in the jar to help fund the next generation of medical research."  I think we would readily acknowledge that everything the government touches, turns to shit!  And do we really want those who produce life-saving drugs turned to shit?


It would seem that those of us who claim that there exists, today, a very obvious bias in our state-controlled media that clearly favors the left in this country, and who have always been told it’s just our imagination, may have finally achieved some level of vindication.  And imagine my surprise when it was brought to my attention that that apparent vindication was to come from none other than Barry ‘O’ himself.  Frankly, I would never have thought it possible to hear such an acknowledgement.  

And so it was then, that just a little over a week ago we had Barry experiencing something that I’m not quite sure was simply an innocent slip of the tongue, one of those rare candid moments where he inadvertently says something that is factually correct, or nothing more than a bit of typical sarcasm.  But whatever it was, it was on his recent trip to Boise State that Barry revealed to those in attendance that it is his belief that the television media in the United States is dominated by liberals.

Barry said, as was recorded by C-SPAN and also officially transcribed by the White House, “I mean, we have an entire industry that’s designed to sort us out.” And then he went on to say, “Our media is all segmented now so that instead of just watching three stations, we got 600. And everything is market-segmented, and you got the conservative station and the liberal stations. So everybody is only listening to what they already agree with.”  Personally, I watch those who I feel are telling the truth.

What Barry didn’t say was whether or not there were any unbiased stations.  And while he may consider Fox News as being his arch nemesis, and for no other reason than because it chooses to present both sides of an issue or argument, doing so does not mean they are biased to the right.  I think what really ticks him off is that without Fox News, he would likely be getting away with so much more under what would be the less than watchful eye of an essentially disinterested state-controlled media.

It was Barry, himself who once said in an interview with The New Republic, “One of the biggest factors is going to be how the media shapes debates.”  He went on to say, “If a Republican member of Congress is not punished on Fox News or by Rush Limbaugh for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest, then you’ll see more of them doing it.”  He ignores the fact that anytime Democrats actually do compromise with Republicans they’re accused of kowtowing by the left’s media nuts!

So I would say that, if anything, what we have in this country today is a media that has so obviously lost its way.  Because, instead of acting as the watchdog of the government, which was to be its original role, backed up by a constitutional amendment, the modern day state-controlled media has morphed into something that bears little resemblance to that watchdog, appearing more as an entity whose purpose is to brutally attack anyone who dares to challenge the progressive agenda.

Sunday, January 25, 2015


We’ve been hearing the phrases, “Black Lives Matter” and “I Can’t Breathe” quite a bit over the course of the past few months.  But apparently the context in which these phrases are to be used is a rather limited one.  You see, they seem to be reserved for those who, and solely because of their own actions, happen to find themselves on the wrong end of the law and who, for whatever the reason, just can’t bring themselves to do that which they are told to do by the police.

Now you would think that whenever you hear people chanting such things it would be because they view all black lives as being important, but apparently that is simply not the case.  It would seem that there is a more calculated purpose behind their use.  Because while these phrases seem to be applicable when applied to black felons, they are not at all applicable when referencing the millions of black babies who have met their untimely demise at the hands of your friendly neighborhood abortionist. 

And as proof of my claim I would like to point out that, according to data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), for every black murder victim in 2011 there were 19 black babies killed by abortion.  And it’s only because 2011 is the latest year for which such data is available that we don’t know what the numbers may be for those years since.  But I think we can safely assume that there is has been little change other than the number of abortions has most likely increased.

The CDC’s Abortion Surveillance Report for 2011 shows that 117,293 black babies were aborted that year in the 32 states and the District of Columbia that report abortion numbers to the CDC.  Now keep in mind that the Supreme Court ruled on Roe v. Wade back in 1973, so if we can assume that even close to the number of black babies aborted in 2011 were aborted in each of the 38 years since, that would be nearly 4.5 Million babies.  So do black lives really matter?

The FBI’s Uniform Crime Report for 2011, shows that 6,329 blacks were murder victims that year.  In other words, for every black American killed by homicide in 2011, there were 19, or 18.5, blacks killed by abortion, and that’s just in those jurisdictions that report their abortion data.  In an effort to make this easy enough for even liberals to understand, the 117,293 aborted babies is 1,753% higher than the 6,329 black murder victims.  Which proves that those claiming that black lives matter are nothing more than the worst kind of frauds.

Saturday, January 24, 2015


I know I said I would have nothing more to say about Barry’s idiotic State of the Union Address, but it would seem that I just can’t help myself.  Because try as I might I simply could not get past how it was that during his ‘Statist’ of the Union address, Barry referenced the "growing" U.S. economy at least three times, but "recovery" only once.  Specifically, he claimed that "thanks to a ‘growing’ economy, the ‘recovery’ is touching more and more lives."  For him to put forth the argument that a recovery is underway was pure politics?  And I would argue that no such recovery is underway because the economy is not growing, at least not in any meaningful way.

The recovery of which Barry spoke, and begrudgingly acknowledged is still in progress 5-1/2 long years after we were told the recession was to have ended, would seem to have a great deal more "touching" to do.  Because it was on January 12, that the National Association of Counties (NAcO) released a detailed study which most of those in the state-controlled media ignored, but which would have been front-page news in a Republican administration. The NACo report showed that only 65 of the nation's 3,069 counties have recovered from the recession. That's bad enough, but even with that ugly statistic, the results involved are much worse than they appear.

Because the 2014 County Economic Tracker shows that only a mere 65 counties of the nation’s 3,069 have met or surpassed prerecession levels in four measured, and very important, categories: jobs, unemployment rate, economic output and home prices.  And as it just so happens, there are some very interesting extenuating circumstances in that these ‘recovered’ counties are largely located in energy-rich areas and have very small populations.  You see, of those 65 recovered counties, 24 are in Texas and 16 are in North Dakota. The others are generally in the middle of the country, including nine in Minnesota and eight in Kansas.

Not one of the recovered counties has more than 500,000 residents.  Far more important, a detailed look at 2013 Census data using the bureau's interactive tool indicates that none of the recovered counties has more than 200,000 residents.  Also, as seen in the chart at the very top of this piece, 34 of the counties, or over half, have populations of under 10,000.  The 65 fully-recovered counties represent just over 2 percent of all U.S. counties, but their total population of under 1.4 million is less than one-half of one percent of the nation's total. This means that 99.56 percent of Americans live in counties which have not come back to where they were in 2007. 

And yet, Barry “Almighty” and his many acolytes in the state-controlled media continue to crow about how well the economy is going.  It’s simply unreal.  We’ve all seen how the numbers have been, and continue to be, manipulated in order to present a false picture of where our country is when it comes to our economy and our continuing employment problem.  For instance, something Barry never talks about is how we have over 90 million people who are no longer in workforce.  The American workforce is the smallest that it has been since the late 70s, while at the same time we have more Americans than ever before dependent upon government.

We are constantly being told that we are in the midst of some great, albeit a slow moving, economic recovery.  Yet over the course of his presidency, there is not one thing, not one, that Barry and his Democrats have done that had the specific purpose of making our economy stronger or getting people back to work.  Because to do such a thing would run completely counter to the political/economic philosophy possessed by their party.  Because, you see, the goal of the Democrats has always been to create an environment that has its net result, increasing the number of unemployed and to then entice them into becoming increasingly dependent upon government.  

Friday, January 23, 2015


As many of you are probably aware, or at least should be, Democrats have long possessed the notion that a fetus is not actually a human being until after it has been able to successfully navigate it’s exit from it’s mother’s womb, with, of course, no shortage of assistance from his or her mother.  And even then, there seems to be some level of doubt among them that even within minutes of making that previously mentioned exit, he or she does not yet fit the definition of being a living, breathing human life, and is therefore eligible to be terminated.

Which brings me, of course, to none other than Steny Hoyer, Democrat from the People’s Republic of Maryland and the principle character in this continuing series which I refer to as, ‘The Gasbag Chronicles.’  You see, it was old Steny that was recently asked whether an unborn child at 20 weeks after conception is actually a human being.  Steny, as to be expected, couldn’t quite bring himself to directly answer the yes-no question, choosing instead to say that “this is not a real issue.”  I guess I’m just not understanding the liberal logic here.

Hoyer was asked the question at a press event that followed Barry “Almighty’s” idiotic State of the Union at the Capitol on Tuesday evening.  He was asked, “Do you believe that an unborn child is a human being at 20 weeks after conception?”  To which he responded, “Look, what I bel--first of all, a very, very few number of abortions are done after 20 weeks. And then, almost exclusively for health reasons of the mother. So I think this is not a real issue.”  Who but a left-wing-nut-of-a-Democrat would think the life of a human fetus is not a real issue?

And it was then that old Steny went on to say, “However, having said that, I have long supported the ability of a mom--or the prospective mom--and her doctor, and her family to make what is a very difficult decision. And I don’t think that there are any women who at 20 weeks are looking for an elective abortion."  Hoyer was asked the question again via email through Hoyer’s congressional press office on Wednesday and there was also an attempt to get an answer through Hoyer’s office on Thursday. The office was unable to answer this relatively simple question.

And it was also just this week that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released what they referred to as being a “cost estimate” on the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would prohibit abortions in the 20th week or later in pregnancy, except in cases of rape, incest or when the mother’s life is at risk.  The CBO estimate calculated that the bill would prevent about 2,500 babies per year from being aborted—out of the 10,000 per year that CBO estimates are aborted each year in the 20th week of pregnancy or later.

It was in this “cost estimate” that CBO said, “Based on data compiled by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), CBO estimates that, each year, about 10,000 abortions take place 20 weeks or more after fertilization.  Now according to the most recent abortion surveillance report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), there were 7,325 babies aborted at or after 21 weeks gestation during 2011 in the 37 states and the District of Columbia that report abortions by gestational age to the CDC.

The CDC reported that another 9,709 babies were aborted in those 37 states and the District of Columbia at 18 through 20 weeks after conception.  The thirteen states that did not report abortions by gestational age included California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.  It is not known how many babies were aborted in those states at 21 weeks or later into pregnancy.  I think in the very liberal of these states we can assume the number could be quite high.

So there you have it.  Who among us would have ever thought that this nation would one day get to the point where we would have a political party willing to enthusiastically support the excuse that a fetus, whether after one week or 9 months, is not a human being in order to justify the killing of hundreds of thousands of babies under the guise of protecting what they refer to as being a woman’s reproductive right.  Is that not one the sickest most and twisted things you’ve ever heard?  And it’s people like old Steny Hoyer who are members of that political party, the Democrat Party.   

Thursday, January 22, 2015


If my little cubicle here at my current place of employment can be considered as being a little slice of the country at large, well then my friends, I fear that the end of this once great nation may be much closer than any of us would like to think.  Because it would seem that a good many of those that I find myself surrounded with on a daily basis were, to put it mildly, quite pleased with they heard uttered by ‘their’ president on Tuesday night.  I say ‘their’ president because I refuse to recognize this anti-American douche bag as my president.  And while I generally keep my thoughts to myself, out of fear of being accused of creating a hostile work environment, I found it quite alarming at just how many of my coworkers appear to be not much smarter than your very average light bulb.

While I have long known that the majority of those with whom I work are, politically speaking, more than just a little to the left, I guess I really had no idea just how far out there many of them really are.  And these are people with kids to whom it seems to matter very little the extent of the damage that Barry has done, and continues to do, to this country.  I find that anyone, right, left or in the center, who can be so na├»ve regarding what’s taking place right under their nose, to be more than a little frightening.  I let it slip the other day when talking to one of them how it was that I wished I could ‘live’ where they do because not knowing, or caring, about how our country is being destroyed must be much easier on one than actually knowing and caring about what’s taking place.

And while I wish I could be more optimistic about what the future may hold, I simply cannot ignore that sense of impending doom I have that seems, from time to time, to be somewhat overwhelming.  And I fear that if we are truly foolish enough to nominate either Romney or Bush as our 2016 candidate, we should not then be all that surprised when the result turns out to be the same as it did in 1996, 2008 and again in 2012.  Because if we end up with a president Hitlery Clinton, or worse, who will take the baton from Barry “Almighty”, we will then have no one to blame but ourselves.  Romney and Bush support such things as ‘climate change’, Common Core and amnesty, all of which makes them essentially the same as their Democrat rivals and, as such, underserving of becoming our next president.

These are very perilous times, my friends, and we seem to have a great many in this country who fail, either by choice or through a dangerous level of ignorance, to recognize the perilousness of our present situation.  The truth is, if we wish to survive then we must do all that is necessary in our effort to maintain some level of control over our destiny.  We can ill afford to nominate someone who, as Ted Cruz so eloquently put it, is from the “mushy middle.”  Romney has made two attempts and I simply do not view him as being someone worthy of a third.  He has said, “I want to be president,” but running for president should be about far more than just wanting the job.  And Bush has made comments that should be causing us all to call into question his supposed conservative credentials.

In the coming months leading up the next election, which, trust me will be here sooner than most of us would probably like, there will likely be a lot said about how Republican candidate A causes more uneasiness among Democrats than Republican candidate B, or that Republican candidate C is the only true conservative in the race.  We must be wary of what we hear from the numerous talking heads and focus on forming our own opinions when it comes to who it is that we think would be the best candidate to vote for.  We must always question the motives of those who appear desperate in their efforts to steer us toward one candidate over another.  We must pay attention, stay informed and then vote accordingly.

Wednesday, January 21, 2015


The steady stream of pure falsehoods, blatant misrepresentations and outright lies spewed by Barry last night under the guise of a State of the Union Address made any amount of time spent watching it, essentially nothing more than a complete waste.  And while there were any number of statements made on any number of issues, I guess the one statement made that, at least to me, proves just how much of a waste of time it really was, was when Barry chose to point out the dangers that we continue to face from, yup you guessed it, ‘climate change.”  That monumental hoax perpetrated by the left that has absolutely no basis in any actual scientific fact.

So once again we were told that the greatest threat now facing mankind today is not radical Muslim terrorism, not an unsecured border, not an ever-growing federal debt that now exceeds $18 trillion, and not even the fact that we now have 109 million Americans who live in households that are on some manner federal welfare program. No, my friends, these are not the greatest threats facing us today, in fact, to listen to Barry, they’re not even in the running.  According to Barry, as he declared in his State of the Union Address on Tuesday night, "No challenge--no challenge--poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change."  So there you have it!

Although Barry referred to it as "climate change" and not "global warming," he immediately followed his declaration that this is the greatest threat to future generations by stating that fourteen of the hottest fifteen years "on record" have occurred since 2000.  This was one of the many instances during his speech where Barry strayed a considerable distance from the truth.  And despite the fact that a majority of scientists disagree with him, he said, "2014 was the planet’s warmest year on record."  Adding, "Now, one year doesn’t make a trend, but this does: 14 of the 15 warmest years on record have all fallen in the first 15 years of this century."

Barry claimed that while he himself is not a scientist, he say know a lot of really good ones.  But good according to whom?  And once again he referred to those who he identified as being our "best scientists" who say that human beings are "changing the climate" and that "we" need to "act forcefully" in response to this.  Democrats love to try to bolster their claims by saying the vast majority, or 97 percent, of those identifies as ‘climate scientists agree that humans are to blame for our changing climate.  But this number is very clearly bogus as there are a great many scientists who now disagree with the cockamamie theory of man-made ‘climate change.’    

Barry said, "I’ve heard some folks try to dodge the evidence by saying they’re not scientists; that we don’t have enough information to act," said Obama. "Well, I’m not a scientist, either.  But, you know what, I know a lot of really good scientists at NASA, and NOAA, and at our major universities. The best scientists in the world are all telling us that our activities are changing the climate, and if we do not act forcefully, we’ll continue to see rising oceans, longer, hotter heat waves, dangerous droughts and floods, and massive disruptions that can trigger greater migration, conflict, and hunger around the globe."

And than as if to add some level of credibility to his idiotic claim, Barry said that even the U.S. military is saying that "climate change" is causing immediate risks to our national security--although he did not explain exactly what this meant or how the "Pentagon" had arrived at this conclusion.  He said, "The Pentagon says that climate change poses immediate risks to our national security." He went on to say, "We should act like it."  But let’s not forget that today’s Pentagon is headed up by those who are essentially nothing more than yes-men who have been assigned their posts by Barry himself.  So anything that they might say about ‘climate change’, should be taken with a fairly large grain of salt.

Barry then, as is usually the case with this guy, boasted about those things that he has done to counter these vague, yet "immediate risks."  And in sounding oh so proud of himself, he said, "That’s why, over the past six years, we’ve done more than ever before to combat climate change, from the way we produce energy, to the way we use it."  And he went on to say, "That’s why we’ve set aside more public lands and waters than any administration in history," he said. "And that’s why I will not let this Congress endanger the health of our children by turning back the clock on our efforts. I am determined to make sure American leadership drives international action." 

Actually, all that Barry has really accomplished in his effort to save the planet, is to drive up the cost of energy.  I’m not sure about anyone else, but I’ve seen my utility bill triple since this asshole first came into office.  He made it very clear even before being elected president that he was against fossil fuels and that it was his intent to bankrupt those who made it their living working to produce fossil fuels.  And while he tries very hard to take credit for our current falling gas prices, he’s really had absolutely nothing to do with it.  Because prices haven’t fallen because of anything he has done, they’ve been falling in spite of everything that he has done.

Barry even cited his work, on the ‘climate change‘ issue, with the Communist government of Red China, referencing a deal struck that I’m quite sure still has the Red Chinese laughing at us.  He said, "In Beijing, we made an historic announcement: the United States will double the pace at which we cut carbon pollution, and China committed, for the first time, to limiting their emissions."  And then he went on to proudly declare, "And because the world’s two largest economies came together, other nations are now stepping up, and offering hope that, this year, the world will finally reach an agreement to protect the one planet we’ve got."

If global "climate change" caused by human action is indeed the greatest threat facing future generations and must therefore be stopped, as Barry argues, it will necessarily take a global authority with the power to stop human beings from engaging in the actions that cause "climate change" to avert that threat.  But there is nowhere near the proof needed to make such a case or justify the cost.  Over the past few years we have seen, repeatedly, how the data has been manipulated and computer models have been rigged all in an effort to alter the outcome.  It’s all nothing more than a hoax perpetrated by those who wish to bring an end to capitalism.    

Tuesday, January 20, 2015


Look, I am a firm believer in the fact that if after two tries you still haven’t managed to get yourself elected as president, then you probably should take that as being some sort of a sign and move on.  But if you still possess the drive to have an impact on getting the country headed in the direction that you would like to see it to go, then I would recommend that what you do is to find a candidate that agrees with your positions on the important issues and support them however it is that you see fit.

Which brings me, of course, to Mitt Romney who, or so rumor has it, is contemplating a third run for the White House.  Back in 2012 I was not one of those who stayed home, I did my duty and went to the polls and I voted for Romney.  That being said, today I could not bring myself to do so again.  And I say unequivocally that in a primary setting, I most definitely WOULD NOT be voting for him.  Because I think there are much better candidates out there and we need some fresh blood.

One of the reasons that I would find it impossible to vote for Romney again has to do with what I would consider an obvious disqualified for another Romney candidacy.  A disqualifier that comes in the form of a 2006 video that was posted on YouTube, that has then-Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts praising one Jonathan Gruber for devoting "hours and hours" to help to develop Romneycare--the mandatory health-insurance program that Romney signed into law in that state.

Now let’s not forget that Barry “Almighty” would later point to Romneycare as being the model for his much beloved Obamacare.  And also let’s not forget that it was Mr. Gruber who also played, as it turns out, a pretty important part in the development of Obamacare, and was himself, not that long ago, the focus of controversy for statements he has made about it.  At a signing ceremony in 2006, Romney thanked Gruber and others for the role they played in developing his health-care plan.

In the video we see Romney standing in front of a banner that reads, “Making History in Healthcare”, and he says, “There were contributors from outside government as you know.”  He goes on to to say, “Jonathan Gruber at MIT devoted hours and hours to an essential econometric model.”  Now I’m sure that by now we all know about the rather infamous Mr. Gruber and his idiotic comments regarding the American voter.  Once again we see how Romney is more like Barry than all that different.  

Several videos surfaced last year showing Gruber speaking about how Obamacare was pitched and eventually ‘passed’ by Congress, in part because of “the stupidity of the American voter.”  And by the way, for those of you who may know, because I certainly didn’t, an “econometric model”, at least according to the Library of Economics and Liberty website, is used by economists as a forecasting tool.  It’s all part of the mumbo-jumbo that brought us first RomneyCare and then Obamacare.

Saul Hymans, emeritus professor of economics and statistics and director of the Research Seminar in Quantitative Economics at the University of Michigan explains things by saying, “In the simplest terms, econometricians measure past relationships among such variables as consumer spending, household income, tax rates, interest rates, employment, and the like, and then try to forecast how changes in some variables will affect the future course of others.”

Now the bottom line here becomes one where Hitlery Clinton, or whomever, the 2016 Democrat candidate for president is, would now have what equates to some very juicy  ammunition for a whole slew of campaign ads that you can rest assured these videos  would be the center point of.  And you can take to bank the fact that they would be plated as nauseam and trumpeted endlessly by those in the state-controlled media.  And there would be no effective way to counter them.


As Barry “Almighty” prepares to do the one thing at which he excels, that being to very enthusiastically blow his own horn, during tonight’s ‘State of the Union’ address, I thought it might worth it for us to take a look at some of the numbers that, while they paint a far more accurate picture regarding the current state of our union, I doubt very much that Barry will be spending any amount of time talking them:  

$18.1 Trillion: Total Debt Under Barry As Of January 14, 2014. (U.S. Treasury Department, Accessed 1/14/15)

$10.6 Trillion:  Total Debt When Barry Became President On January 20, 2009. (U.S. Treasury Department, Accessed 1/9/15)

$7.5 Trillion:  Amount Added To The National Debt Despite Barry's 2010 State Of The Union Declaration That He Would Not Leave "A Mountain Of Debt." (U.S. Treasury Department, Accessed 1/14/15; Barry “Almighty”, Remarks On The State Of The Union, Washington, D.C., 1/27/10)

$4 Trillion:  Amount Of Debt That Barry Once Called "Irresponsible" And "Unpatriotic." (Sen. Barry Obummer, Remarks At A Campaign Event, Fargo, ND, 7/3/08)

$1.8 Trillion:  Cost Of ObamaCare's Coverage Provisions Through 2024. (CBO, 4/14/14)

$1.3 Trillion: Total Student Debt Held By Americans. (Federal Reserve Board Of Governors, Accessed 1/14/15)

$869.3 Billion: Total Taxes In ObamaCare. (JCT, 6/15/12; CBO, 4/14/14)

$95 Billion:  Cost Of New Regulations Added Since Barry Became President. (American Action Forum, 1/6/15)

$60 Billion:  Cost Of Barry's Community College Tuition Plan Over Ten Years. ( TheAssociated Press , 1/9/15)

$3.4 Billion:  Average Amount Of Debt Added Daily Since Barry Became President. (U.S. Treasury Department, Accessed 1/14/15)

$3.4 Billion:  How Much The Construction Of The Keystone Pipeline Would Contribute To GDP According To A State Department Review. (United States Department Of State, 1/14)

46.5 Million:  Average Number Of Americans Receiving Food Stamps In FY 2014. (Department Of Agriculture, Accessed 1/14/15)

13 Million:  Average Number Of Americans Who Have Joined The Food Stamp Program Since FY 2009. (Department Of Agriculture, Accessed 1/14/15)

7 Million:  Number Of Americans Who Will No Longer Have Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance Due To ObamaCare. (Congressional Budget Office, 4/14/14)

5.5 Million:  Americans Who Have Fallen Into Poverty Since Barry Became President. (U.S. Census Bureau, Accessed 1/14/15)

2.3 Million:  Americans Who Are Only Marginally Attached To The Labor Force. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, Accessed 1/14/15)

401,000: Construction Jobs Lost Since Barry Became President. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, Accessed 1/14/15)

321,000:  Manufacturing Jobs Lost Since Barry Became President. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, Accessed 1/14/15)

273,000:  Number Of People Who Left The Labor Force Between November And December Of 2014. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, Accessed 1/14/15)

$56,492:  Current Debt Per Capita Under Barry. (U.S. Census Bureau, Accessed 1/14/15; U.S. Treasury Department, Accessed 1/14/15)

42,100:  Number Of Jobs The Construction Of The Keystone Pipeline Would Support Over Two Years According To A State Department Review. (United States Department Of State, 1/14)

$21,724:  Increase In Debt Per Capita For Americans Since Barry Took Office. (U.S. Census Bureau, Accessed 1/14/15; U.S. Treasury Department, Accessed 1/14/15)

$4,154:  Increase In Family Health Care Premiums Under Barry. (The Kaiser Family Foundation, 9/10/14)

$2,484:  Decline In Median Household Income Since Barry Became President. (U.S. Census Bureau, Accessed 1/14/15)

1978:  The Last Time The Labor Force Participation Rate Was At Its Current level.(BLS, 1/24/14)

677:  Individuals Who Have Been Through Barry's Revolving Door. (Center For Responsive Politics, Accessed 1/12/15)

215:  Rounds Of Golf Barry Has Played Since He Has Taken Office. (Mark Knoller, Twitter Feed, 12/31/14; Mark Knoller, Twitter Feed, 1/4/15)

174:  Number Of Days Barry Has Spent All Or Part On Vacation. (CBS News, 12/22/14; Mark Knoller, Twitter Feed, 1/4/15)

100%:  Total Debt As A Percentage Of GDP Under Barry. (OMB, Accessed 1/14/15)

65.7%:  Labor Force Participation Rate When Barry Became President. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, Accessed 1/14/15)

62.7%:  Labor Force Participation Rate In December. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, Accessed 1/14/15)

65:  Number Of Fundraisers Barry Attended In 2014. (Mark Knoller, Twitter Feed, 12/2/14)

32.8:  Average Number Of Weeks Someone Will Be Unemployed. (BLS, 1/14/15)

14.5%:  Poverty Rate In 2013. (U.S. Census, Accessed 1/23/14)

13.2%:  Poverty Rate Before Barry Became President. (U.S. Census, Accessed 1/23/14)

6:  Veto Threats Issued By Barry In The New Year. (The White House Website, Accessed 1/19/15; ABC News, 1/16/15)

0:  Attempts To Actually Work With Congress

For those who will say that Barry has accomplished very little over the course of his presidency, I would argue that just the opposite is true.  He has accomplished a great deal, and it should be painfully obvious that those who refuse to admit that the country is not far worse off for having had him as our president, are far more interested in seeing his political agenda completed than in the survival of our country. 

When Barry was first elected he spoke a great deal about how this country was in desperate need for what he referred to as being a “fundamental transformation.”  And I would argue that if the numbers above tell us anything, it’s that Barry has managed to be very successful in turning that very warped endeavor of his into a reality.  But there will be little mention of any of that tonight. 

Monday, January 19, 2015


I’m sure it will come as a surprise to virtually no one that Michael Moore, that rather infamous leftwing lard-ass, is no fan of the new movie, "American Sniper."  And it’s according to this over-weight reject from a fat farm that men such as Chris Kyle are not to be regarded as heroes, because, says Moore, they are essentially nothing more than cowards.  Now keep in mind here that such an opinion comes from the same guy who looks upon Castro as his hero and who was also a big fan of Hugo Chavez.

It was over this past weekend that Moore took to Twitter to vent.  And it was in so doing that he proceeded to, as only he can, take a number of what were a number of rather sophomoric potshots at the acclaim now being heaped upon the Clint Eastwood film, "American Sniper," starring Bradley Cooper.  The movie is based on the true story of Navy SEAL Chris Kyle, a Special Forces sharpshooter, who was credited with 160 confirmed kills, which was reported to be the most in U.S. military history.

Over the year Moore has received some degree of notoriety for making rabid left-wing films.  He tweeted to the over 1.7 million imbeciles who follow him: "My uncle killed by sniper in WW2. We were taught snipers were cowards. Will shoot u in the back. Snipers aren't heroes. And invaders r worse."  This is another example where those on the left reveal just how much it is that they hate this country and loath our military.  So slander those who defend this country is the lowest of lows.   

Eastwood's movie has won both popular and critical acclaim and has been nominated for six Oscars.  And while the liberal New York Times was perhaps a little less blunt than Moore, it still could not quite bring itself to heap any level of actual praise on either the movie or the man that it was about.  They did manage to give the film a generally sympathetic review, albeit with one odd caveat, placing it in the context of "Eastwood's commitment to the themes of vengeance and justice in a fallen world."

The truth of matter is that Kyle's actions are believed to have saved the lives of hundreds of U.S. service members. Service members’ whose lives, I’m quite sure, that Moore would have preferred not to have been saved.  The film is broadly based on Kyle's bestselling 2012 autobiography, which is also the story of the trauma he suffered as a result of the war in Iraq.  In February 2013, Kyle was murdered by Eddie Ray Routh, a soldier suffering from post-traumatic stress whom Kyle had befriended.

As many you are most likely very aware, Moore has made millions on his rather unique approach to cinematography.  His movies are essentially nothing more than pure unadulterated leftwing drivel that equates to mindless propaganda.  One of his movies, Fahrenheit 9/11, was released in 2004 and portrayed the George W. Bush administration as having manipulated the aftermath of the 9/11 Islamist attacks on the U.S. to further its greed-driven agenda for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Other examples of Moore's cinematographic prowess are his Oscar-winning 2002 documentary, "Bowling For Columbine," which was his blatantly deceptive depiction regarding gun violence in America and also served as being part of his ongoing campaign against firearms.  In 2007 another one of his films, Sicko, presented viewers with his rather twisted perception of healthcare here in America.  And then in 2009 he released another movie, this one was titled, Capitalism: A Love Story.

Moore is a big Obama supporter, so it was no surprise the ‘Capitalism’ had as its subject the late-2000s financial crisis and the U.S. economy during the transition between the incoming Barry ‘O’ and the outgoing ‘W’. Addressing a press conference at its release, Moore said, "Democracy is not a spectator sport, it's a participatory event. If we don't participate in it, it ceases to be a democracy. So Obama will rise or fall based not so much on what he does but on what we do to support him.”

In watching any of the movies that Moore had made, it becomes pretty obvious, pretty quickly that he rarely worries about getting the facts right.  His record for accuracy is far from what one might be referred to as being stellar. His documentary, "Fahrenheit 9/11," contained over 50 instances, both within the movie itself and in representations made about it during the films promotion, that bore absolutely no resemblance to the facts as they related to the subject matter of his film.   

But look, I feel pretty confident in say that we can expect much more harsh criticism to be thrown at Eastwood’s film as the negative leftist reaction to sure to continue to ramp up. The popularity of "American Sniper" is sure to send more of them over the edge in the coming weeks and days. And I’m sure that before too long we can also expect to be subjected to passive-aggressive versions of such sentiments to make their way into state-controlled media reports.  So be prepared.