PROOF THAT 'DINGY HARRY' REID LIVES IN AN ALTERNATE UNIVERSE...

THE LIBERAL FOOLISHNESS BEHIND CREATING MORE GUN LAWS...

This past Wednesday there was a rather pointless little Senate hearing, as most Senate hearings are, that took place, the lofty intent of which, I guess, was to, both, talk about ways of ending gun violence in the United States and to berate, Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association (NRA). Neither of which, I might add, was accomplished. In pointing out the idiocy of proposing more gun laws, Mr. LaPierre pointed out that until the federal government finally starts doing its job by enforcing existing laws, any actual solution would remain pretty far down the road. He made his point by citing a 2010 report that stated, "Out of more than 76,000 firearms purchases denied by the federal instant check system, only 62 were referred for prosecution, and only 44 were actually prosecuted." I find myself agreeing with Mr. LaPierre on his point.


Mr. LaPierre was a witness at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing the purpose of which, like I said, was supposed to be to discuss gun violence in the wake of the December attack at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.. An event that the Democrats, including Barry "Almighty," seem to now see as being their prime opportunity to institute some manner of gun control. While they may continue to make the claim that it's all about keeping our children safe, nothing could be further from the truth. Because what it's really all about is the using of a terrible tragedy to do nothing more than to further a political agenda. An agenda that seeks to completely disarm the American people. And let's face it, if these pathetic political hacks really cared about the children, they would start asking the important questions regarding this president's conscious decision to forgo enforcement of thousands of current gun laws.


"We joined the nation in sorrow over the tragedy that occurred in Newtown, Connecticut," LaPierre said. "There is nothing more precious than our children." He went on to say, "We have no more sacred duty than to protect our children and keep them safe," LaPierre said. The way to do that, LaPierre argued, is armed security guards in the nation’s schools. And it only makes sense. I mean, after all, is Congress designated a 'gun free' zone? Hell no! Or how about the White House, is that a 'gun free' zone? Nope! But yet our schools are. Only imbecilic liberals would come up with such an idiotic plan. Or maybe there's something more sinister at wok here. Maybe it was their intent all along to use our kids as nothing more than bait, so to speak, hoping that the temptation of a 'gun free' school zone would be just too tempting a target for any well armed nut to pass up. Thus providing Democrats the opportunity to do exactly what they’re now doing.


"It’s time to throw an immediate blanket of security around our children," LaPierre said. "About a third of our schools have armed security already – because it works." "And that number is growing," LaPierre said. "Right now, state officials, local authorities and school districts in all 50 states are considering their own plans to protect children in their schools." And that’s the way it should be. The decision about how best to protect our children should be left up to the individual states. And if those in blue states, like New York, are so enamored with having their schools identified as 'gun free' zones and therefore made easier for nuts to attack, then let them. But I think it's safe to say that those in red states might have a different philosophy about such things. After all, if armed guards are good enough for the school that Barry's kids attend, then they should be good enough for the schools where everybody else's kids go too.


Idiotic Democrats on this stupid committee, however, seem to see things a bit differently than do normal people. To them the only solution to what they describe as being a "growing problem" is the proposing of legislation that would ban "assault weapons," limit capacity of ammunition magazines, and impose universal background checks. But I'm just not making the connection between such things and making our schools safer. "Americans are looking to us for solutions and for action," Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the committee, said in his prepared opening remarks. "This committee is a focal point for that process," Leahy said. Addind, "I have introduced a measure to provide law enforcement agencies with stronger tools against illegal gun trafficking." Gun trafficking? Ok, I'm confused here, how the Hell is that even related to keeping our kids safer? You see, that's just how nonsensical the entire liberal approach is to this problem.


Someone really needs to tell this senile old dope, Leahy, that his stupid little committee is really little more than an unfunny joke! Granted I'm sure every Democrat present was salivating over their chance to go after LaPierre. "Little Dick" Durbin certainly took his shot. But it would seem to me that Durbin should be a little more concerned with what's going on back in his own state and the 40 or 50 folks who get murdered in Chicago every month. Stricter gun laws sure are working out pretty well there. But nope, I guess his aim is to turn the rest of the country into the same type shooting gallery that the "Windy City" has become. Now there's a pretty impressive aspiration. Ya know, it's like I've said before, this is all just a ploy, because if Barry was really serious about keeping our kids safe he'd be enforcing the laws already on the books, but he's not! Might somebody want to ask him why that is, exactly?

MORE IDIOTIC NONSENSE FROM THAT IDIOT FEINSTEIN...

NOW, ABOUT THAT CLAIM OF TURNING TEXAS BLUE...

You may, or may not, remember, because it wasn't something that would make a lasting impression, how a couple of weeks back that San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro, the guy the Democrats kinda see as being their version of Marco Rubio, and his brother, Rep. Joaquin Castro, made the point that they see a lot of blue sky in Texas’ future. Very blue, politically speaking. The twin brothers went so far as to actually predict on "Face the Nation," that Republicans will come to lose their iron grip on Texas and that within two presidential election cycles, the currently "red" state will shift from a GOP stronghold to being dominated by Democrats.


These two, supposed prominent, Texas Democrats also said that Barry "Almighty" and Congress should tackle the economy, education, immigration reform and gun laws this year. Well Barry certainly is attacking the gun laws issue, and recently wasted $1.6 Million of the taxpayer's money to go make a speech ion immigration in Las Vegas. "It’s changing. It’s going to become a "purple state" then a "blue state" because of the demographics, because of the population from folks coming from outside Texas," Julian Castro said. Joaquin Castro agreed, but added that "it’s going to take a lot of work from Democrats to lay the infrastructure for change, we are very busy working on that now."


But if these two clowns are serious about trying to turn Texas purple and then blue, they might want to take a gander at a just-released poll of Lone Star State voters that found 67 percent of Republican respondents actually support the impeachment of Barry "Almighty." Now I suppose you could argue that that's to be expected, what might be of greater concern, at least for liberals is the fact that the poll was conducted by the left-leaning Public Policy Polling (PPP). And in the crosstabs, PPP broke this down by party affiliation with Democrats opposed 83 percent to 12 percent, Republicans in favor 67 percent to 18 percent, and Independents opposed 54 percent to 32 percent.


Now I do think it somewhat amazing, actually, that even 12 percent of Democrats seem to support Barry's impeachment. Also quite interesting was the racial breakdown concerning this issue with Whites supporting impeachment 48 percent to 41 percent, Blacks opposed 80 percent to 15 percent, and Hispanics opposed 58 percent to 30 percent. Again, it's strikes me as being quite amazing that 15 percent of Blacks would support his impeachment. It was also fascinating to see the breakdown by age as people older than 65 supported impeachment 46 percent to 38 percent, folks 46 to 65 opposed 46 percent to 42 percent, and people 18 to 45 opposed 66 percent to 27 percent.


So I guess if you live in Texas, the older you are, the more likely you want Barry impeached. Something else to consider is that 56 percent of respondents were women with 44 percent men. As women were far more likely to oppose impeachment (53 percent to 36 percent) than men (46 percent to 41 percent), a more equal sampling of the sexes would have found a greater percentage of Texans supporting impeachment. So I'm not saying that the bold claim made by the Castro boys can't actually come about, I am saying that they may be underestimating the amount of that it might take them to actually achieve some level of success. Texans are a unique breed, and have a tendency, regardless of race or gender, to march to the beat of their own drum. God love 'em.

OBAMA SAID TO HAVE STRONG RECORD ON SECOND AMENDMENT...

 

 

Even though Barry recently signed 23 executive orders regarding additional and more restrictive gun control and is now pushing hard for Congress to pass more gun-restriction measures, according to Spokesmoron, Jay Carney, we're still supposed to trust Barry because he has a "strong record on Second Amendment rights." What we actually have here is nothing more than yet another attempt by this hoodlum adminstration to rewrite history, and in particular, when it comes to Barry and the Second amendment. Because upon closer examination, Barry's supposed strong record on the Second Amendment is one that has him seeking out ways to undermine it while at the same time claiming to support it.

 

On Wednesday, a reporter asked he who is everybody's favorite dipshit, Carney, "What is the president doing to convince members of his own party in the Senate that are against the measure [to re-ban assault weapons]?" Carney responded in his typical bullshit fashion, saying that the president has been an advocate for the Second Amendment. "Well, he’s had conversations with various lawmakers on this issue," Carney said, "including those who have a strong record of support for Second Amendment rights, and I would note that the president has a strong record of support for Second Amendment rights." Oh really? I'd like some examples, please.

 

Carney droned on, "The point he’s making, and I think that the point that a lot of people have been making, including lawmakers, have been making in the wake of Newtown is that we can do certain things that still protect those Second Amendment rights and that address this problem and address it in a broader way than just through gun control legislation, although that’s an important piece of it." Adding finally that, "And that’s why we saw the president move quickly with the vice president’s assistance and leadership to put forward that package of proposals." Ok, it was enough of a stretch to say that Barry supports the Second Amendment, but to say Biden has provided leadership on the issue is just flat out dishonest. .

 

On Jan. 16, as you all will most likely remember, Barry signed into effect 23 separate 'executive orders' having to do with gun control. They included having the Justice Department review categories of individuals prohibited from possessing firearms; directing the Justice Department to issue a report designed to promote "smart" gun technologies; directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to research the cause of gun violence; and requiring federal law enforcement agencies to request the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to trace all guns seized in criminal investigations. I am curouls about something though, are these the same clowns who were responsible for tracking the weapons involved in "Fast and Furious?"

 

And speaking about Barry's suppposed strong record on the Second Amendment, before becoming president, Barry did have a voting record while in the U.S. Senate and Illinois state legislature that makes quite plain his desire for stricter gun control . It was in March 2003, that Obama voted in the Illinois state Senate to ban semiautomatic rifles. Now Barry did vote for legislation in the state Senate in 2004 to allow retired police officers to carry concealed weapons, The Chicago Tribune reported on April 27, 2004, but he was also running for the U.S. Senate at the time. The article also reported that critics charged that Barry with only seeking the favor of the Fraternal Order of Police at a time when he was running for statewide office. No, not Barry! Barry wouldn't so obviously pander, would he?

 

Barry explained in the 2004 Tribune article, "I didn't find that [vote] surprising. I mean, I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry. This was a narrow exception in an exceptional circumstance where a retired police officer might find himself vulnerable as a consequence of the work he had previously done--and had been trained extensively in the proper use of firearms." Then in July 2005, as a U.S. senator, Obama voted against a bill that would have prohibited lawsuits against gun manufacturers that would potentially hold the companies liable for violence committed by the guns. I suppose he was hoping that by allowing trial lawyers to go after gun manufactures, they wold eventually be driven out of business,

 

And then it was back during the Democratic presidential primary of 2008 that Barry said, "There is an individual right to bear arms. But it’s subject to common-sense regulation, just like most of our rights are subject to common-sense regulations," the Chicago Tribune reported on Feb. 16, 2008. In April 2009, just a few short months after becoming president, Barry said during a joint press conference with Mexican President Felipe Calderon, "I continue to believe that we can respect and honor the Second Amendment right in our Constitution, the rights of sportsmen and hunters and homeowners that want to keep their families safe, to lawfully bear arms, while dealing with assault weapons that, as we know here in Mexico, are used to fuel violence."

 

Fast forward to a short time after the Tucson, Ariz. shooting in early 2011, where we had The Arizona Daily Star publish a commentary by Barry that called for gun reforms. "First, we should begin by enforcing laws that are already on the books," it stated. "Second, we should in fact reward the states that provide the best data - and therefore do the most to protect our citizens. Third, we should make the system faster and nimbler." After the Aurora, Colo. movie theater shooting in July 2012, Barry said, "I believe the majority of gun owners would agree that we should do everything possible to prevent criminals and fugitives from purchasing weapons. We should check someone’s criminal record before they can check out a gun seller."

 

And it was during the debate at Hofstra University, that Barry made one of his strongest pronouncements in favor of tighter gun control since becoming president. "What I’m trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally," Barry said. "Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced, but part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence -- because, frankly, in my hometown of Chicago there’s an awful lot of violence, and they’re not using AK-47s, they’re using cheap handguns." So yes, Barry does have a strong record regarding the Second Amendment. Unfortunately, it's one that would seem to indicate that he's not much in favor of it. And as we have recently seen, he's not opposed to using dead children in order to accomplish his goals.



GUN CONTROL FROM AN IMMIGRANT'S POINT OF VIEW...

PRO-GUN MOM - 1...SLIMY DEMOCRAT - 0...

OBAMA SAYS, "HEY, WAIT A MINUTE. IT'S NOT MY FAULT!"

 

 

In what has to be one of the lamest attempts yet made by this pathetic White House to blame just about everybody but the one guy who's pretty much solely responsible, it was on Wednesday that Spokesmoron, Jay "Dim Bulb" Carney set to work laying the blame for a ‘surprise’ economic contraction squarely at the feet of congressional Republicans, saying economic threats during the "fiscal cliff" negotiations had prevented important defense spending. You know, I've now gotten to the point, where nothing this little piece of shit says, anymore, surprises me. This lying little creep continued, saying, "Our economy is facing a major headwinds, and that's Republicans in Congress." Again with the "headwinds" nonsense.

 

The Commerce Department projected Wednesday that the nation's gross domestic product, or GDP, shrank by 0.1 percent in the fourth quarter of 2012. I’m curious, that with all of the supposed experts Barry has at his disposal, why are things like this always a ‘surprise?’ And somehow, I guess we're supposed to see Barry as having played no role in that. Everybody's favorite dipwad, Carney, said that was partially attributable to the threat of sequestration, which would implement across-the-board spending cuts if a long-term deficit deal is not reached. "This is political brinkmanship that results in one primary victim. That's American taxpayers and the American middle class," Carney said, acknowledging the GDP projection was bad news.

 

"I don't think anytime you see a reduction in economic growth that it's good news," he went on to say. Well, I'm not sure how true that statement is either. Because from what I've been reading there seems to be plenty of those on Jay's side of the political aisle who actually view this ‘shrinkage’ as being a good thing. Although, not being a liberal, I can't exactly understand why. So either Jay's just trying to blow some smoke or he doesn’t agree with folks in his own party. And, personally, I'd be interested in knowing which it is. Carney said economic observers were "rightly appalled" by the threat of sequestration or default to drive a debt deal, and charged that Republicans were harming the economy to the benefit of the wealthiest Americans.

 

"It can't be we'll let sequester kick in because we insist tax loopholes remain in place for corporate jet-owners," Carney said. Brendan Buck, a spokesman for Speaker John Boehner’s office, responded by proceeding to point the finger of blame for the still-looming sequester right back at the White House. "These arbitrary, automatic cuts were a creation and demand of the White House in 2011," said Buck. "Twice the House has passed legislation to replace them with common sense cuts and reforms. If there was any uncertainty late last year about the sequester, it was because the Democratic-controlled Senate, per usual, never lifted a finger to pass a plan to replace it." And he’s right, and he also makes Carney look like to lying sack of shit that he is.

 

Republicans have long argued that dire threats are what’s necessary in order to force slimy Democrats into agreeing on some sort of entitlement reforms as well as on spending cuts. Neither of which Democrats will do on their own. The Republican National Committee (RNC) on Wednesday circulated a document labeling Obama "President -0.1%" and argued the GDP numbers were evidence that Barry's stimulus plan had not worked. It has not only not worked, what it has done is to make things nearly insurmountably worse. The unexpected dip was the first time the economy actually shrank since the 2009 economic depression, and came as a surprise to economists, who had projected modest growth. How does it come as a surprise?

 

In a statement posted Wednesday morning, Alan Krueger, chairman of the White House's Council of Economic Advisers, said that reduced government spending from the sequester and economic uncertainty stemming from the fiscal-cliff negotiations was likely to blame. Krueger also said Hurricane Sandy likely disrupted significant economic activity. "Although GDP is the broadest measure of economic activity, other indicators of economic performance suggest that the economy continued to recover in the fourth quarter, despite the impact of Hurricane Sandy and uncertainty surrounding fiscal issues," Krueger said. So now this cadre of misfits over there at the White House are even blaming a storm? How idiotic is that?

 

Krueger and other economic advisers pointed to a boost in personal income, disposable income and worker-hours to argue that the economy was likely outperforming the initial estimate and would be revised upward. Right, like that’s going to happen. When was that last time any of you can remember, at least since Barry assumed office, that anything having to do with the economy has ever been revised UPWARD? "Moreover, as the administration stresses with each economic report, indicators of economic performance can be volatile and are subject to substantial revision," Krueger said. "The average absolute revision from the 'advance' estimate of real GDP growth to the most current data is 1.3 percentage points."

 

The decline also drew new questions about the decision to delay, rather than eliminate, sequestration in the fiscal cliff deal struck earlier this month. But despite that delay, defense spending was cut to its lowest level in 40 years — evidence that uncertainty over an eventual deal was preventing spending on new projects. With the sequester delayed just two months, that drag threatens to bleed into a second consecutive fiscal quarter. Carney said Republicans who were willing to proceed with the sequester were doing so "for apparently nakedly political reasons," noting the program had been designed to be so onerous that it would compel Congress to act. Carney is such a freakin hypocrite, blame rests squarely on the Democrats for their stubborn refusal to make spending cuts.

 

While the White House has maintained that it wants to avoid the sequester, such claims ring just a little more than hollow. One clue, proved by Carney himself, was when he was asked on Monday whether Barry was planning any specific meetings or events to address the topic, Carney said he did not have "any specifics" to provide. "We believe that the right course of action is to take steps to make sure that sequester doesn’t happen because it’s bad for the economy and bad overall for the effort to reduce our deficits in a reasonable way," Carney said Monday. So you tell me, do you think that Barry wants to avoid the sequester? This is just one man's opinion, but I think he'd be happy to have to have happen. For him things are right on course.



WHAT MORE PROOF DO WE NEED THAT STRICTER GUN LAWS JUST DON'T WORK…

 

 

These days with loudmouthed liberals everywhere you look literally screaming about the need for stricter gun laws, we have at the same time the third most populous city in these United States serving as the perfect example of why those stricter guns laws do absolutely nothing to reduce the level of gun violence. You see, with a couple days still left in this month, there have already been over 40 homicides in the city of Chicago. And should this pace continue, the city will equal, and quite possibly even surpass, last year's total of 506 murders. A point that we can use to illustrate just how alarming Chicago's homicide rate is, New York City has twice the population, yet only three recorded homicides. That's pretty scary, especially if you happen to live in Chicago. A violent weekend has given Chicago its highest January murder total since 2002, when 45 people were killed. And considering that the month isn't over yet, that figure could be eclipsed. Authorities attribute the city's growing homicide rate to gang violence and the availability of guns. Wait, how's that possible? I thought stricter gun laws would prevent all this. Isn't that what Barry keeps telling us? Wasn’t that the same claim made by that moron, Cuomo, in New York when he recently signed new gun laws into effect in New York?

 

The Chicago Police Department reports that it has already seized 574 guns so far this month, and 124 in the last week. According to Deputy Commissioner Al Wysingers, that's over three times the amount recovered in Los Angeles and New York. At a press conference a day after meeting with Barry "Almighty" in the White House along with police chiefs from Newtown, Conn., and Aurora, Colo. — sites of horrible gun related tragedies last year — Chicago police Superintendent Garry McCarthy expressed concern and regret for the wave of gun violence as January draws to a close. Seven people were killed last Saturday alone. "It's disappointing," said McCarthy, who defended what he referred to as being his crime prevention strategies while noting that he had sat down with some of the "brightest minds" in the country for four hours in Washington and heard little advice beyond what he's already been doing. "You don't throw out everything you're doing because you had a bad couple of days," McCarthy told reporters. "And unfortunately today's (Tuesday) a bad day, too." By Tuesday evening, three people had been slain, all in broad daylight. So tell me again how it is that more restrictive gun laws to anything to make anyone safer.

 

So with two days still left in the month, this marked the second consecutive January in which Chicago has hit the rather troublesome milestone of at least 40 homicides, despite the fact that it has some of the stricter gun laws in the entire country. The 40 homicides last January represented a jump of 43 percent from the 28 homicides suffered in January 2011. While Chicago never quite recovered over the remainder of that year from what was even a sharper jump in violence over the first quarter of 2012, homicides fell or were flat in the year's last four months. Crime experts caution that it's way too early to suggest the disappointing January numbers mean that violence in Chicago will continue at a similar pace throughout this year. But Arthur Lurigio, a criminologist, said the January numbers sure aren't very encouraging. "It certainly bodes ill for this year's projected homicide figures because it appears to be a continuation of the violent trends observed through many months of 2012," says Lurigio, a professor at Loyola University Chicago. The city's homicide woes continue to draw unwanted attention for both this idiot McCarthy and his corrupt boss, Mayor Rahm "Dead Fish" Emanuel.


Through Monday, Chicago's West Side Harrison District leads the city in homicides with seven, three on Saturday alone, followed by the South Side's Englewood District with five. While it is clearly too early to draw any conclusions, those numbers could be unsettling for police officials because throughout 2012, 'Dead Fish" and McCarthy had touted those two districts as success stories after they flooded "conflict zones" in both with additional officers a year ago. University of Chicago criminologist Jens Ludwig said one plausible explanation for the January homicide numbers could be the budget problems confronting cities throughout the country. Emanuel's budget for 2013 calls for the hiring of an additional 500 police officers, but the police union contends that that number falls far short of the void created by cops retiring. Ludwig suggested big cities such as Chicago could use help from the federal government. "Cities can't run budget deficits when economic conditions turn down, which means that usually cities have to scale back police spending at the very time you'd want them to, if anything, increase the number of police on the streets," Ludwig said. "Only the federal government can help solve this with their ability to run budget deficits during economic downturns."

 

Right! Now there's a freakin brilliant solution that only a liberal could come up with. Let's just have the federal government, which is broke, start bailing out the cities that are also broke. Now I suppose in the world of Barack Hussein Obama that makes all the sense in the world! But let me ask you something, why is it that every time some scummy city, and I'm not just talking about Chicago here, it could apply to any scummy city, that the first place cuts are ALWAYS made, are to the police and fire departments. How about all of those over paid political hacks being the first ones to take a hit every once and a while? How much is old "Dead Fish" Emanuel raking in on an annual basis. After all, I'm sure that during his time in Washington he was able to acquire and to then set aside a tidy little sum of cash! And the same goes for the federal government. It's always the troops in the field who are first made to deal with no pay raises, or shortages of gear while those involved in creating the situation that results in such craziness continue to take home their big fat salaries. The first ones who must be made to feel the pain are those who muck everything up. Why should they be allowed to escape unscathed the effects of the polices that they themselves create and/or put into place?



THE NRA GOES TO CONGRESS

COME ON, ONCE A LIAR ALWAYS A LIAR…FOREVER...

 

 

The day I believe anything that this lying bitch tells me it'll be, as they say, a very cold day in Hell! After years of being lied to by this women how can anyone take seriously anything that she says, especially when it comes to whether or not she's running for president? I mean what is it that she hasn't lied about? For crying out loud, she was lying just last week before separate congressional committees! And now our outgoing Secretary of State, Hitlery Clinton, on Tuesday is said to have cast doubt on speculation she might run for the White House in 2016.

 

In an interview taped for that highly credible source of useful information, National Public Radio (NPR), Hitlery was asked what questions she needs to answer for herself as she decides whether to run for president. "I'm not even posing those questions. I am really looking forward to stepping off the fast track that I've been on. I've been out of politics as Secretary of State. I don't see myself getting back into politics," she said, according to an excerpt of the interview. Whether this is her last word on the subject is unknown, but figure the odds. But personally, I couldn't care less.

 

I'm still baffled about how it s that so many people, mainly women and brain dead Democrats who, apparently view lying as being no big deal, continue to view her as being some kind of a 'role model?' And because of that we're supposed to believe that she will be made to face strong pressure from her fellow Democrats to join the field of other possible contenders. So Hitlery will step down this week, following Senate confirmation Tuesday of John Kerry-Heinz as her successor. God help us, because we’re sure going to be needing it. One inept boob replaced by yet another.

 

Those close to Hitlery are eager for her to announce a 2016 run, so much so that a group has already formed a new super PAC and registered with the Federal Election Commission on Friday, called "Ready for Hillary." In 2008, you'll remember, like any of us could forget, that she lost to Barry "Almighty" in a bitter Democratic primary campaign to be the party nominee for the White House. Both of these dishonest characters are hardcore progressives so it's difficult to say whether or not the country would be in the same, or possibly worse, shape had Hitlery won.

 

Hitlery, who's now 65, or only a little over 9 in dog years, as to be expected, being one to always make sure to leave all her options open, did not categorically rule out another presidential run, and in a separate NBC interview she said that she was healthy enough to wage a campaign. Lucky freakin us! "I have no doubt that I am healthy enough and my stamina is great enough and I'll be fully recovered to do whatever I choose to do," Hitlery told "Andrea Mitchell Reports" in an interview that aired on Tuesday. It's pretty easy to recover from something that never happened!

 

Hitlery, you'll remember, was hospitalized in December after doctors supposedly found a blood clot stemming from a concussion that she had previously suffered. But I think most of us were pretty much able to see through all that silliness and were able to recognize it as being exactly what is was. After watching her last week I think it's easy to see that the bogus hospital stay was nothing more than another lie the purpose of which was to afford her sufficient time to get coached up for exactly what we all saw last week, a charade disguised as testimony before Congress.

 

We were told that she intends to do more public speaking and writing, and work alongside her husband, impeached president "Slick Willie" Clinton, and daughter Chelsea on "mutual foundation interests." At least that's the story she put forward in the NPR interview. "I want to be involved in philanthropy, advocacy, working on issues — like women and girls — that I care deeply about," Hitlery said. Look, there's only one thing that Hitlery has any interest in, and that's Hitlery. And in that regard she's just like the old 'Slickmeister.'



'COLON' POWELL HAS ZERO CREDIBILITY ON JUST ABOUT EVERY ISSUE...

FILE THIS ONE UNDER..DON'T QUITE KNOW WHAT TO MAKE OF IT...

 

 

Apparently, actor and long time left wing nut, Timmy Robbins has come out, so to speak, and opened up publicly about why he actually contributed money to some conservatives going all the way back to 2006. Candidates that included such folks as Tea Party favorite Michele Bachmann and J.D. Hayworth. I've never been that big a fan of Robbins, I find it rather difficult to pay to watch someone who, I still think, hates his country. It was last week, in an interview that Timmy said, "I don’t vilify all Republicans, I don’t believe all Republicans are evil, I believe there are lots of good people who just believe differently." He was interviewed by liberal comedian Marc Maron, and his comments were reported by The Washington Times.


Robbins and his former leftist nutjob partner/side kick, the aging rather badly Susan Sarandon, were always among of Hollywood's most devoted liberals and committed activists. No cause was too nutty to earn their support. You could always expect to find these two somewhere out front when it came to just about any kind of protest against our country, or any cause seen to be important to by those of the leftist political persuasion. Robbins opposed the Gulf War, backed Ralph Nader’s 2000 campaign for president and routinely satirized the right. But in 2006 he contributed to 10 Republicans, at least according to Federal Election Commission records. And while he never denied that fact, he never really discussed them either. Bur as part of the LATalks Live series last week, he did, discuss it that is, not deny it.


"One thing I will say is that I’m really SICK of divisiveness," Robbins said. "I’ve been all over this country and was really vilified during the [Iraq] War for having the stupid assumption that maybe we should find the weapons of mass destruction before starting a war. … Basically, places like Fox [News Channel] said I can’t go anywhere because people are so pissed off at me for being against the war. When in fact, the opposite was true. Robbins talked about the divisions within the GOP but also among Democrats. Kinda sounding like the Timmy that I'm used to hearing he said, "As crazy and twisted as some of the more radical Republicans are, and the more they take over the party, I say ‘Go ahead.’ " He went on to say, "Because those Republicans who want what we want, to better the nation, will come over to where we are. It’s very difficult for someone with pride to come over to your side if you vilify them."

 

I gotta be honest with you though, I just don't think Timmy wants the same thing for this country that I do. And I wouldn't trust any Republican, that went over to 'his' side. He added: "The sooner we realize we have something in common, that we can talk to these people and have a laugh, the sooner we’ll be able to make a change," he said. "What we have now is a divisiveness with different sides represented by different [TV] networks at each other’s throats. And what do we get? High ratings and a divided public. A divided public means that we won’t be united behind simple issues like ‘We want clean air’ or ‘We want clean water.’ As long as you’re keeping those people divided, they’re not going to get enough force and power to change things. So I’m always looking for common ground."

 

Look, speaking as a conservative, it's very difficult for me to find any common ground, as Timmy suggests we should do, with people who are willing to, say, wreck the economy in an effort to solve a problem, like global warming, that just doesn't exist. At least as being something caused by man. It's all a scam designed to make some people very rich, while at the same time driving energy costs through the roof. And it's hard for me to find any common ground with those who essentially want to rob from those who work hard every single day, only to turn over what's been stolen to people who refuse to work and who want to do nothing more than to make babies that can't afford, or who would rather sit around all day watching television, because, by golly, they deserve it.

 

The problem lies in the fact that the values that we used to possess as a people, as Americans, and that we were proud to possess, have now, after years of being undermined and ridiculed by liberals, or progressives, or Democrats, or whatever you choose to call them, simply been made to turn to dust. And what we are now seeing today, as being what America has become, is nothing more than the natural result of that. As they say culture matters, and it's been liberal/progressive polices that have done nothing more than to rain down all manner of ruin on our country, and Barry seeks to be the one to drive that final nail into our coffin. And something still tells me, Timmy would be only to glad to help. The fact that he may have mellowed, or given money to 'conservatives' does little to change my opinion of him.



ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF WHAT'S LAUGHINGLY REFERRED TO AS 'JOURNALISM' OVER AT MSNBC...

DEMOCRAT SENATOR CLAIMS OUT OF CONTROL SPENDING A MYTH CREATED BY...FOX NEWS!!

DEMCORATS ADMIT TO PINNING THEIR HOPES ON OBAMA'S WILLINGNESS TO IGNORE THE CONSTITUTION...

 

Further proof, as if we needed any, that the Democrat plan, at least as it now stands, is to execute an end run around the Constitution was provided to us by Democrat Senator Sherrod Brown, saying that he believes Barry "Almighty," in his second term, will drive the progressive agenda forward with a more ‘aggressive’ use of executive power. "We’re going to see a president of the United States use his executive powers as much as he’s allowed to under federal law and under the Constitution, in a more aggressive way than last time," Brown said in an interview with one of MSNBC’s resident dingbats, Rachel Mad-Cow. Brown added, "You’re going to see the president use the executive powers that are within his constitutional legal authority. I think much of the progressive agenda is going to be driven that way."

 

Barry, who as you may recall, recently issued an incredible 23 executive orders on gun control, indicated to The New Republic that congressional legislation is a preferred method of operation, not because of the constitutional separation of powers but because a congressionally passed statute was stronger than an executive order. "I continue to believe that whenever we can codify something through legislation, it is on firmer ground," Barry said. Adding, "It's not going to be reversed by a future president. It is something that will be long lasting and sturdier and more stable." Barry later said, "What I do see is that there are certain issues where a judicious use of executive power can move the argument forward or solve problems that are of immediate-enough import that we can't afford not to do it."

 

Barry’s willingness to use executive power in his continuing drive to circumvent the Constitution has been of concern to some members of Congress. However, those on the left seem to have very little problem with Barry executing policies that they claim are well within his purview to do. But those who are actually familiar with the constraints placed upon the executive by our Constitution take exception to that assessment. During Barry’s first term, the administration decided not to enforce immigration laws against illegal aliens under the age of 30 who were in the United States before they were 16; issued waivers to the work requirement in the welfare reform law; and made recess appointments, recently cited as being unconstitutional, when the Senate was not actually in recess.

 

Barry cited lifting the ban on open homosexuals in the military as an example of ensuring Congress played a role. "So a great example of that is the work we did on ‘don't ask, don't tell,’" he told The New Republic."There were advocates in the LGBT community who were furious at me, saying, ‘Why don't you just sign with a pen ordering the Pentagon to do this?’" He went on, "And my argument was that we could build a coalition to get this done, that having the Pentagon on our side and having them work through that process so that they felt confident they could continue to carry out their missions effectively would make it last and make it work for the brave men and women, gays and lesbians, who were serving not just now but in the future." Yup by golly, we really 'need' to allow those gays and lesbians into the military.

 

Barry went on to say, "And the proof of the pudding here is that not only did we get the law passed, but it's caused almost no controversy." Easy for him to say! He added, "It's been almost thoroughly embraced, whereas had I just moved ahead with an executive order, there would have been a huge blowback that might have set back the cause for a long time." The cause? What a douche bag! I thank my lucky stars every single day that I retired before this asshole became commander-in-chief, and the military became even more of a test bed for such 'social engineering' than it was during 'Slick Willie's" day. "But what I do see is that there are certain issues where a judicious use of executive power can move the argument forward or solve problems that are of immediate-enough import that we can't afford not to do it," Barry said.

 

So Barry claims his is a judicious use of executive power? Somehow that's not how I remember then Senator Barry describing George Bush's use of executive orders. In fact I think he had just the opposite opinion back then. He droned on saying, "And today, just to take an example, the notion that we wouldn't be collecting information on gun violence just to understand how it happens, why it happens, what might reduce it—that makes no sense," Barry said. "We shouldn't require legislation for the CDC to be able to gather information about one of the leading causes of death in the United States of America." One of the leading causes of death? This guy is such a pathetic liar. Apparently he believes that if he can make things sound bad enough there will be fewer accusations to be dealt with regarding his blatant abuse of power.



ALAN GRAYSON, MENTAL MIDGET…

 

 

What is it about Florida that makes it have such an effect on people that they feel nearly compelled to elect members to our congressional delegation, some of the most idiotic folks you’d find anywhere on the entire planet? And I’m sure you all know who I’m talking about. Character like Corrine Brown, Alcee Hastings, Frederica Wilson, Debbie Schultz and Bill Nelson, just to name a few. A group in which you'd be pretty hard pressed to find a single brain cell roaming around anywhere. And now joining this group of misfits we now have, in making his triumphant return to the House, none other than that flaming loon, Alan "The Republicans Want Everybody To Die" Grayson. This genius put his miniscule intellect on full display when he made an appearance on Current TV’s "Viewpoint" back on January 17. It was then that he again launched into attacking Republicans, this time over their alleged inability to get anything done, and said "these are people who want to kick you when you're down."

 

During the interview Grayson again demonstrated his ability of going way over the top whenever criticizing House Republicans, this time taking issue with what he saw as being the inordinate length of time that it took to provide federal assistance to those affected by Hurricane Sandy. But, again, as usually with this clown, he left out a few facts. You see what this stupid oaf failed to mention, naturally, was the fact that the original bill to which he makes reference, contained very little of what could be described as actual aid that would have been directed toward the storm's victims. His fellow Democrats had gone well out of their way to fill it up with so much pork barrel spending feeling, I guess, that they would be able to shame the Republicans into passing it anyway. And they didn't. He went on to say, "The Republicans just don’t want to do anything for anybody. There’s a mean streak too that you only see, only recognize when you’re really close up. These are people who want to kick you when you're down." What a moron!

 

In continuing to shoot off his big fat pie hole, our esteemed Mr. Grayson then went on to express that in his cockeyed opinion, the Republicans will "bow to the NRA pressure" and not pass new gun control measures. Grayson was asked by the show’s host John Fugelsang, "Doesn’t that mean if they go ahead and block or filibuster an assault weapons ban, or regulations on magazine size, when the next massacre happens, does the House GOP then own it?" Grayson responded in typical ignorant fashion, which has kind of become his trademark, saying, "It just doesn’t matter to them." Every time I see this guy, I can’t help but wonder how it is that anyone with even half a brain could ever take seriously anything Grayson says. He very rarely ever makes any sense, and like the majority of Democrats everywhere, he never bothers to check to see if there is any truth to what it is that he says. He just spews the party line, and plows ahead. He has zero credibility but that never really seems to bother him all that much.

 

And then, feeling I guess as if he was on a roll, this doof really started laying on the bullshit. He continued by saying, "Look, we live in a country where almost 25 million people can’t find full time work and the president and the Democratic Party have been desperately trying to do something about this for the past four years and for the past two years the Republicans have blocked every effort. The president’s job program never even came to a vote in the House of Representatives -- it’s farcical. They don’t want to help people, they don’t care. The only way to solve this problem is to simply put them out of power." Actually what’s farcical is the fact that this shit is actually a member of Congress. And I guess in viewing things from his rather twisted perspective, of course that's the answer. I'd like to ask this piece of human excrement just what it is that the Democrat have put forward in the last four years that was specifically designed to do anything other than to bring our entire economy crashing down around us?

 

The bottom line here is that this guy continues to serve as being living proof of that the old adage that says it's always better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you’re a moron than to open your mouth, as this guy repeatedly does, and prove it. Grayson currently represents Florida’s 9^th District, which I can only assume must be a district that's located in one of the shallower gene pools located here in Florida, especially if he was the best candidate that they could come up with when looking for someone to represent them in Congress. But he, like some of those who join him in the Florida congressional delegation, serve as nothing but an embarrassment to the rest of us. Ya know, the fact that an idiot like Grayson could actually find enough people willing to vote for him says a lot, I suppose, about the sad state of our country. He previously represented Florida’s 8^th District for one term before being defeated by Daniel Webster, a Republican, in 2010. Obviously those folks were intelligent enough to see the error of their ways.



A CRACKPOT PROFESSOR ADVOCATES SCRAPPING OUR CONSTITUTION...

PARENT OF NEWTOWN VICTIM MAKES AN EXCELLENT POINT...

APPARENTLY WHAT'S GOOD FOR MIKEY BLOOMBERG ISN'T WHAT'S GOOD FOR THE REST OF US...

'CALYPSO LOUIE' FARRAKHAN SAYS THE CONSTITUTION HAS BECOME "OUTDATED"...

Always someone who can be counted on as being the voice of reason and sanity, we now have Nation of Islam leader, 'Calypso Louie' Farrakhan, choosing to ridicule, in what's being described as the third installment of his 52-week sermon series, the "volatile" American right to own weapons. It was on this past Sunday as Louie continued with his "The Time and What Must Be Done" sermon series that he presented his rather insane theory that Americans because of he fact that they are increasingly angry at the government, are also now simultaneously preparing themselves for war. Louie went on to say that the Second Amendment has little relevance in modern society, stating that the constitutional right to bear arms is outdated. Demonstrating that he possesses zero knowledge in this area, he said, "See, the right to bear arms was given at a time when there was no regulated militia to protect America," he said. "But now you have police well-armed, you have state troopers well-armed, you have the National Guard and you have federal troops."


Because such a description of what lies behind the creation of the Second Amendment, makes it very obvious, very quickly, that Louie is completely lacking when it comes to our Constitution. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is the section of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. And it purpose has nothing to do with providing to the American people away of defending themselves against one another. It was designed as being that last line of defense for the people against a tyrannical government. Louis said that one reason Americans are buying weapons is their anger at the government. "Look at the American peoples’ thoughts about Congress. What is the percentage of the American people that feel that the U.S. Congress is doing a good job? Eleven percent," said Louie. "Then 89 percent of the American people are angry, disaffected, dissatisfied with their government — and you’re selling them weapons of war and the militias are multiplying."


Louie caused a bit if a controversy with a sermon earlier this month when he labeled Americans as being a "savage" and violent populace that was predicted in the Bible. "This nation has been built on violence," Louie said in the Jan. 13 sermon. "Uncivilized, uncultivated, brutal, wild…and that’s why the prophet gave America one of those names as a beast — both of the book of Daniel and in the book of Revelations." You know, this is another guy who takes great pleasure in presenting to people, people who for whatever bizarre reason look up to this kook, his own cockeyed view of what this country is. And he's another who paints it not as the force for good that it has been throughout its relatively brief existence, historically speaking. He, and those like him, prefer to describe this country as being nothing more than a source of all manner of unspeakable evil and one that deserves to be punished. It's pretty sad that knocking down one's own country is the only means that losers like Louis have for building themselves up.


Have you ever stopped to consider just how much better race relations would be in this country were it not for such sleazy characters like old 'Calypso Louie' out there spewing all manner of what equates to nothing more than some of the most toxic hate imaginable? And something else that has always struck me as being more than just a little odd, is the fact that most, if not all, of those who work 24/7 in their effort to stir up as much conflict as possible between the races are nearly always supposed men of God. Whether it’s Louie or Al 'Bull Horn' Sharpton, or Jesse ' The Extortionist' Jackson or Jeremiah "God Damn America" Wright, all have their names preceded by a title that tells the world that their chosen profession is one of spreading the word of God. But that's not what they do. It's like they're taking part in some cruel masquerade or something. Because how can an individual, any individual, so literally consumed, as these men obviously are, by such a level intense hatred, actually profess to preach the word of God, any God?

WHAT’S A PRESIDENT TO DO WHEN HE POSSESSES NO LEADERSHIP ABILITY WHATSOEVER?

 

Well, in trying to find a satisfactory answer to that question, we really need to look no further than at the tactics constantly employed by our current disaster of a president, Barack Hussein Obama. His would be a case study in determining how someone who possesses zero capabilities as a leader approaches nearly any problem. You see, the standard operating procedure always employed by this pathetic wannabe dictator is to do nothing more than to blame everything on the opposition whether their guilty or not. And that's especially true when it comes to our debt situation and, more recent still, his attempt to squash our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. You see, Barry is now out there suggesting, to anyone who will listen, that it's the House Republicans, on the issue of gun control, that appear neither willing to work with him nor to listen to the American public on the issue. Maybe that's because the House Republicans and a 'majority' of the American people, unlike Barry, still believe that the Constitution states, quite clearly, it is our God given right to own a gun. But, I digress...

 

In an interview that Barry recent provided to 'The New Republic' he makes the idiotic claim, "The House Republican majority is made up mostly of members who are in sharply gerrymandered districts that are very safely Republican and may not feel compelled to pay attention to broad-based public opinion, because what they're really concerned about is the opinions of their specific Republican constituencies." First of all, I think it more than just a bit hypocritical, and more than a little dishonest, of him to accuse anyone of gerrymandering congressional districts when the Republicans have done nothing differently that what Democrats have always done. That’s politics! But that's the way this lying douche bag operates, and has always operated, yet is never challenged on it. Barry might do himself a favor if he were to spend a little more time working on those supposedly on his side of the gun issue. After all, over in the Democrat controlled Senate, the votes aren’t there to move in his direction and in which he demands that we must.

 

Our stellar president and, for some, the ‘man’ who they describe as being their "Lord and Savior," has had all manner of praise heaped upon him regarding his masterful, and even unique, leadership skills. But sadly, he is completely lacking in that regard. And as is usually the case whenever discussing this fraud, truth is always proven to be much stranger than fiction. Because in truth, Barry is nothing more than a crybaby, who, at drop of a hat, seeks out others to be blamed, those who don't seem to share in his cockeyed vision of our country that he claims is in urgent need of being "fundamentally transformed." Someone else must always be blamed as being the reason for his lack of being able to accomplish that which he says must be accomplished if we are to able to, in his words, move "Forward." Barry complained, "I can't get enough votes out of the House of Representatives to actually get something passed. … I think there is still shock on the part of some in the party that I won re-election." It is not the job of those in the House to roll over as he commands, their job is to stop us from sliding further left.

 

He said that moving forward on the topic means understanding that the realities of guns in urban areas are very different from the realities of guns in rural areas. He said it's understandable that people are protective of their family traditions when it comes to hunting so "gun-control advocates also need to do "a little more listening than they do sometimes" in the debate. Barry also said one of the biggest factors in the gun-control debate will be how it is shaped by the media. "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 said. "I think John Boehner genuinely wanted to get a deal done, but it was hard to do in part because his caucus is more conservative probably than most Republican leaders are, and partly because he is vulnerable to attack for compromising Republican principles and working with Obama." So Barry's approach would seem to consist of nothing more than to take aim at the messengers who refuse to kowtow, in this case that’s Fox News and Talk Radio.

 

And in what I see as being nothing more than idiotic was the attempt by Barry to somehow portray the rabid nutjobs that make up 99 percent of the state-controlled media as somehow being the only sane ones regarding the ongoing discussions about gun control. He tried to make the argument that "the more left-leaning media outlets recognize that compromise is not a dirty word." Well duh, that's because those scumbags define 'compromise' in the same way that Barry does. That is, as being a complete capitulation by Republicans, which happens far too freaking often as it is. He even went on to add that Democrat Party leaders, including 'Dingy Harry' Reid and old 'Stretch' Nancy Pelosi, are "willing to buck the more absolutist-wing elements in our party to try to get stuff done." Oh really? Since when? When was the last time you can remember either of these two clowns actually going out of their way to "buck" the nuts in the leftwing media? Come on, I may have been born at night, but it wasn't last night! Some of us, granted none that may have voted for Barry, still do pay attention.

 

It's pretty common knowledge that Barry's White House has had a rather long and somewhat troubled history with conservative and/or right-leaning media, pretty much since first taking office. The rancor on both sides is generally equivalent with it being a bit more justified on the part of Fox. Certainly, an equal amount of rancor was loosed this weekend from both sides, when Barry, in yet another example of the pot calling the kettle black, took it upon himself to criticize Republicans for being overly beholden to Fox News and radio host Rush Limbaugh. And on this particular occasion one prominent Fox host apparently decided that she had had enough and decided to fire back accusing Barry of thin-skinned dishonesty. And this response, I must admit, came from one that I would have normally seen as being an unlikely source for such an outburst, as she is normally one willing to go pretty soft on Barry, having come from CNN before arriving at Fox News. She has always struck me as being far more comfortable on the left and has also never struck me as being particularly bright and a horrible interview.

 

First, there was Barry’s comment itself, which he made in an interview with the liberal magazine The New Republic': "Well, look, I’ve always believed that there are a bunch of Republicans of goodwill who would rather get something done than suffer through the sort of nasty atmosphere that prevails in Washington right now. It’s not a fun time to be a member of Congress. And I think if you talk privately to Democrats and Republicans, particularly those who have been around for a while, they long for the days when they could socialize and introduce bipartisan legislation and feel productive. So I don’t think the issue is whether or not there are people of goodwill in either party that want to get something done. I think what we really have to do is change some of the incentive structures so that people feel liberated to pursue some common ground. One of the biggest factors is going to be how the media shapes debates. 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."

 

 

So from whom was it, that the mention of Fox by name prompted an angry response? Well it was from none other than Fox host Greta van Susteren, one of those over at Fox of whom I’ve never been that big of a fan. She fired back on her blog with the following criticism: "Apparently President Obama wants his usual media pass and Fox challenges his policies – which happens to be the media’s job.[...] And do you know what else? Brace yourself for this one! Some Democrats have told me that they want to come on Fox to discuss issues but they get heat from their Leadership for appearing on Fox. Does President Obama know that? So which Party is intimidating its members? And to say Senator Harry Reid is willing to compromise is just wrong. He has not allowed a budget to get to the Senate Floor for years to even begin a discussion. The budget process is where all compromise begins and ends and ended it before it even got started." Well, I can't argue with that. This is one of those rare occasions where Greta hits the nail very squarely on the head!

 

Look, this is not the first little dustup that we've heard about between someone in Barry's administration, or Barry himself, and Fox News. Back in 2009, White House spokesman Anita "Mao Is My Favorite Political Philosopher" Dunn, called Fox "opinion journalism masquerading as news," only to be blasted by the network’s hosts repeatedly, and scathingly memorialized by Fox News contributor Andrea Tantaros when she (Dunn) left the White House. I think it tells a lot about Barry, as well as those who 'work' for him, that in this day and age when the majority of 'news' providers, those who used to be referred to as being mainstream, and who are now nothing more than wholly owned subsidiaries of the Democrat Party, he seeks to attack the one source that many of us have come to rely on for the truth. Kinda makes you wonder what he's afraid of? That more of us might come to realize just how frequently he lies to us? In Barry's universe, anyone who takes a position contrary to what he deems as being important, is treated as nothing less than an enemy of the state.



THE NRA DARES TO OPPOSE DIANNE FEINSTEIN, SO SHE SLANDERS THE GROUP!

This blatantly corrupt politician describes the NRA in terms that you could very well use to describe her and just about all of her fellow Democrats.  She'd like us all to feel the same way about the NRA as she does, but there just one thing wrong with that premise.  It's the fact that it's her and her fellow Democrats who are the ones trying to shred the Constitution, not the NRA.

WE MUST PUT A STOP TO THIS ATTEMPT BY DEMOCRATS TO GUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT...

THE SHEER VOLUME OF LIES THAT HAVE BEEN TOLD BY THESE TWO SOULESS CREEPS WOULD FILL AN ENCYCLOPEDIA...

ON THE CONTRARY FOLKS, OBAMA IS OBSESSED WITH WHIPING OUT THE MIDDLE CLASS...

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE 'RIGHT' TO DEFEND ONESELF IS LOST??

IT'S A BIRD, IT'S A PLANE, NO...IT'S 'SUPER CORY'...

Enough of this guy, already. He must be getting ready to run for higher office.

MSNBC...WHO WATCHES THIS STUFF???

Of all the idiotic drivel, and endless pabulum that I have ever heard spewed from the morons who comprise the 'on air' personalities over at MSNBC, this load of crap takes the cake. At least for now, I suppose. Because before long there will be yet another that comes along who will say something even more incredibly stupid, and most likely in pretty short order. But then, who knows, with the IQ of its average viewer being what it is, maybe this kind of stuff actually passes as being some pretty worthwhile information. 

SO, HOW STUPID DOES ONE HAVE TO BE TO HAVE VOTED FOR OBAMA? JUST WATCH...

JOHN KERRY-HEINZ MAKES IT PLAIN HE HAS NO BUSINESS BEING SECRETARY OF STATE...

WHAT'S THE REAL REASON BEHIND THE DRIVE BY DEMOCRATS TO TAKE OUR GUNS?

 

What has to be the most, or at least one of the most, unnerving aspects of Herr Feinstein's recently revealed gun control bill is the fact that it would seem that not everyone will be required to abide by it. If the proposed legislation actually becomes law, God forbid, certain "government officials" and others will be made exempt. "Mrs. Feinstein's measure would exempt more than 2,200 types of hunting and sporting rifles; guns manually operated by bolt, pump, lever or slide action; and weapons used by government officials, law enforcement and retired law enforcement personnel," or so the Washington Times reports. I don't suppose Herr Feinstein could perhaps be a little more specific about who it is that those "government officials" might be. After all, "government officials" could mean absolutely 'anyone' operating under the auspices of the federal government. Might the fact that she's so vague, actually be by design? I'm just sayin!

 

Because at this point I'm just not one of those willing to put all that much faith, or trust, in what Herr Feinstein or any of her fellow Democrats have been telling me. There's just something unsettling about the fact that these "government officials," left undefined either on purpose or perhaps not, would be allowed access to certain types of weapons and I'm not, within reason of course. The whole notion makes me more than just a little queasy. What kind of "government officials" is it, exactly, that Herr Feinstein is making reference to? Call me paranoid if you want, but there is a point that has already been made, and quite clearly, in this ongoing discussion on guns. And it’s one that should be taken seriously despite what the Democrats say. The fact is, tyranny is no less of a threat today than it was when those words that comprise the Second Amendment we first put to paper. We the people were meant to be freedom's last line of defense. Might that be what’s has Herr Feinstein so determined to take our guns?

 

Let's face it, who in their right mind, which would naturally exclude any of the brain dead morons who voted for Barry, not once but twice, as well as the majority of those stalwart members of the state controlled media, still trusts anyone in our government anymore? At least to the point where those advocating the fact that unspecified "government officials" should be permitted access to weapons that Herr Feinstein has, herself, defined as having only one purpose. Sorry, but when the storm troopers come banging on my door at the behest of those of the same political persuasion as Herr Feinstein, I want to be able to defend me and mine! And don’t think even for a second here that the sole rationale behind this whole cockamamie attempt to take our guns has to do with anything other than the making sure that only one side here is armed. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with preventing another Columbine, Aurora or Newtown. Even though that's what Herr Feinstein would like you to believe.

 

What we really have here is yet another perceived crisis, as defined by the Democrats, that is in urgent need of being addressed. Also, it serves as being a rather convenient distraction away from our current fiscal problems brought about by Barry and the Democrats. So by causing a stir about supposed out of control gun violence, Herr Feinstein and her cadre of Socialists, once again have come up with what they see as being the solution to a problem that simply, despite how much they may wish that it did, does not exist! They figure, I guess, if they talk about it enough, people will finally start to actually be persuaded to join the ranks of those currently screaming for more gun control. But something that should make you question this entire premise for stricter gun laws, is to look at who it is that's shouting the loudest about taking guns from law abiding citizens. That will tell you all you need to know when trying to determine for yourself who's right.



JOHN KERRY-HEINZ...OUR NEXT SECRETARY OF STATE...PRETTY SAD THIS IS THE BEST WE CAN DO...

DEMOCRATS DECLARE WAR ON THE RIGHT OF LAW ABIDING CITIZENS TO OWN A GUN...

So we now have yet another example in what has become, over the course of the last several years, a very disturbing and, I think it fair to say, very dangerous trend. A trend where we continue to see Democrats demonstrate, and with increasing regularity, a willingness, even an eagerness, to flagrantly disregard, or to apply their own interpretation to, what the Constitution actually says. And, to put it quite simply, this sordid behavior by our politicians must not be allowed to go unchallenged, nor should it be tolerated. The desires of the people, those whom these corrupt politicians are supposed to be working for, seem to matter very little these days. Our 'leaders', it can be safely said, are now officially out of control as they work to get us even further under the thumb of an increasingly oppressive government. They persist in claiming jurisdiction over aspects of our lives that they simply do not possess. They have no right to do what it is they are attempting to do here in essentially making one of our God given rights null and void and for no other reason than because they don’t like it. Also, and something I’m sure they see as a fringe benefit, if they succeed, it would make the road to tyranny all that much smoother.


So they now see this as being their moment to strike while the iron is hot, because, as in the words of Democrat, Ed Rendell, "the good thing about Newtown is that it was so horrific." So as it still remains, at least, fresh enough in everyone's memory, we have yet another attempt being made by the Democrats to essentially make the Second Amendment more to their liking by making less of a right and more a grouping of pretty words that, if the Democrats are allowed to have their way, will come to mean absolutely nothing. Of course this most recent attempt that I reference here, comes to us in the form of Dianne Feinstein's proposed ‘gun control’ legislation. The purpose of which, or so she says, is to ban assault weapons and the intent, she says, "is to dry up the supply of these weapons over time." If it was simply about 'assault weapons, that would be bad enough, but this blatantly unconstitutional action goes well beyond that, because it would actually ban the manufacture of 158 named firearms including certain handguns and shotguns. This is so obviously unconstitutional, but, as we all remember, we have recently been down this same road before. Those in government seem to have forgotten their role in things.


We have allowed those in positions of power to stray more than just a little too far from what their purpose, again as laid out by our Constitution, actually is. They insist upon creating new and ever more creative avenues into areas that the government has no business delving into. And by our being so willing to allow ourselves to be bribed into allowing these people to encroach further and further into our private lives they have now begun operating as if we don’t even exist. And Democrats like Ms. Feinstein, here, is the perfect living example of just how dangerous that can be. In speaking of her brilliant little piece of legislation on Thursday, she made the claim, "We have tried to recognize legal hunting rights, we have tried to recognize legal defense rights, we have tried to recognize the right of a citizen to legally possess a weapon." This pathetic hypocrite went on to say, "No weapon is taken from any one, the purpose is to dry up the supply of these weapons over time. Therefore there is no sunset on this bill." Does she really expect any of us to genuinely trust her and her fellow Democrats? They have tried to recognize nothing more than what they see as being the need to disarm those who essentially form that last line of defense against tyranny.


Feinstein’s proposal aims to achieve several goals: 1) Ban the sale, transfer, importation or manufacturing of 158 named firearms, including certain rifles, handguns and shotguns that accept detachable magazines and have one military characteristic. 2) Ban semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds. 3) Create a one-characteristic test to determine what constitutes an assault weapon. Eliminating easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test. Banning firearms with "thumbhole stocks" and "bullet buttons." And finally, 4 ) Ban semiautomatic ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Feinstein’s bill would grandfather in weapons legally owned on the day of enactment and exempts over 900 specific weapons used for sporting purposes. However, the legislation requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, which includes a background check of owner and any transferee, type and serial number of the firearm and positive identification, including photograph and fingerprints.


And it's we the people who are seen, by the pompous elitists like Feinstein, as being not responsible enough or capable enough to live out our lives with their interference. We're perceived as being just not being bright enough to recognize what's in our own best interest. So we need those in power to watch over us, to protect us and to keep us safe. They feel that because they see themselves as the privileged class, and as such they are entitled to operate well outside of the confines that have been set up by our Constitution regarding their particular branch of the federal government. And the really scary part of this whole scenario, is the fact that we can no longer rely on the Supreme Court to reliably come down on the side of freedom and the Constitution. We now have a sufficient number of individuals on the court who place a greater importance on furthering a political agenda than they do in defending the Constitution. And if that fact doesn't terrify you, you're either dead or a Democrat. A point that was recently, and quite correctly, made by a veteran in Chicago in his effort to defend the Second Amendment, is that tyranny is no less of a threat today that it was when those words granting the people the right to keep and bear arms, were first conceived.