.
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
ELEANOR NORTON SAYS THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS…SHRINKING?
You know, I'm getting more and more tired of being thought of as if I'm stupid. And what really ticks me off is who it is that's thinking of me in that way. More often than not its scumbag Democrats who, were it not for the growing number of Americans who would rather have things 'given' to them than to be expected to work for them, would not be in their current, and very lofty, positions. Granted, most politicians are less than trustworthy by very nature of they're being in public office, regardless of party affiliation. But it always seems to be a quality, or character flaw, that's much more pervasive amongst those who reside on the left. And I have my own theory about that, it's because if they are to ever have any hope of being able to advance their socialist/progressive agenda, dishonesty, deceit and a certain amount of corruption will always be required.
What has me bringing all of this up in the first place, is the fact that recently one of the Democrat Party's sleazier-than-most characters said something that, without a doubt, actually proves the point better than I ever could that she's has to be one of the dumbest examples of life that walks around on two legs. Del. Eleanor Norton (D-District of Columbia), actually claimed that private sector jobs are not showing much growth because the federal government is shrinking. Something as screwy as this could only originate in the twisted mind of a Democrat. What she actually said was, "What is shrinking is not the private sector – it’s hard for them to grow because the public sector, both the state sector and the federal government is shrinking and they are having to grow it all by themselves and that is why we don’t have much growth." Democrat-speak, don't you just love it?
She was discussing her cockamamie economic theory amongst what I can only assume must have been a crowd of like-minded thinkers, during last Friday’s House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee hearing on "The Impact of Sequestration on Women and Families." In a way, I think it kind of echoed the sentiment of what Barry was heard to say, not all that long ago, that the private sector was doing just fine, but it was the public sector that was in need of having more attention paid to it. This is how Democrats think, it's all about the 'government'. Obviously the demented Ms. Eleanor must assume that we're all just going to go along with her nutty idea and that we're not paying the least bit of attention to what her and her fellow socialists are really up to. Now, granted, maybe not enough of us are as informed as we should be, but quite a few of us are.
Now in an attempt to provide just a little information that, hopefully, will make clear the fact that Ms. Norton's idiotic premise is a complete and utter fallacy, it has been previously reported, by a number of sources, that according to the U.S. Treasury and the Census Bureau, inflation-adjusted federal spending per person increased by $822.90 between 2008 and 2012. In constant 2012 dollars, the federal government spent $3,176,376,470,000 in 2008 and $3,538,446,000,000 in 2012. Now I may not be as brilliant as old dingbat Eleanor, here, but to my way of thinking when it comes to describing what's been taking place, as far as the actual size of our government in concerned, the word "shrinking" never really comes to mind. Now maybe in whatever alternate universe Eleanor spends most of her time, the government may be shrinking, but certainly nowhere else.
Monday, March 11, 2013
***FLASH*** OBAMA ACHIEVES YET ANOTHER IMPRESSIVE RECORD...
Without a doubt, Barry "Almighty", will go down in history as a president who achieved for himself a rather substantial number of some rather remarkable 'records'. At least remarkable in the sense that he was able to achieve them here in the United States and not somewhere in Europe or in the Third World. However, very few, if any, of them have been in anyway something that was actually good for America. For instance, we got word of Barry's latest achievement only last Friday when the United States Department of Agriculture quietly released new statistics related to the food stamps program. What the numbers reveal is that in 2012, the food stamps program was the biggest it's ever been, with an average of 46,609,072 people on the program every month of last year. In fact, there were 47,791,996 people on the program in the month of December 2012.
The federal government also says that in a given month in 2012, the number of households on food stamps was 22,329,713. The state with the highest average number of participants per month in 2012 was Texas, with an astonishing 4,038,440 folks drawing from the program. The second highest is California, with 3,964,221, and then Florida, at 3,353,064. Washington, D.C., with an estimated population of 617,996, had an average of 141,147 participants. Meaning, nearly one quarter of the population is on food stamps. And all of this is according to the numbers provided by the federal government. The participation rate in Texas, which has an estimated population of 26,059,203, 15.5 percent. The state with the lowest number of participants in the program was Wyoming, with 34,347 out an estimated population of 576,412.
Over the weekend we heard Sen. Jeff Sessions, top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, say that Barry's administration is encouraging growth in the food stamps program as a way to stimulate the economy. "Amazingly, the federal government says that the more people we have on food stamps, the more it grows the economy. The Department of Agriculture proudly declares: ‘Each $5 in new [food stamp] benefits generates almost twice that amount in economic activity for the community.’ Our government is running food stamp promotions at foreign embassies. One worker was given an award for overcoming ‘mountain pride’ and getting more people to sign up. So this is what we in America have now been reduced to? Whatever happened to that unique American spirit where pride, self-respect and the desire to be independent was actually valued.
Sessions also pointed out that cities like Baltimore, which he said have been "governed by liberal policies for decades," see particularly high numbers of participation in the program. "Despite this fountain of federal funds, 1 in 3 children still live in poverty in our nation’s capital. Two in three children live in single parent homes. In nearby Baltimore--another city governed by liberal policies for decades--1 in 3 residents are on food stamps and in 1 in 3 youth live in poverty. Americans are committed to helping our sisters and brothers who are struggling, but we are seeing the damaging human consequences of our broken welfare state," said Sessions. "We spend a trillion dollars each year on federal poverty programs. That’s more than the budget for Social Security or Defense. But poverty seems only to increase. Something is wrong. Compassion demands that we change."
Of course none of what Sen. Sessions said will do anything more than to fall on deaf ears. That's what always happens there in Washington. We have more of those ignoring the alarm bells than we have listening to them. And really, what does Barry care about how desperate things will be for Americans once he's left office and making substantial amounts of money for doing nothing more than giving a speech. It'll be our children and our children's children who will be made to be responsible for at least trying to deal with the consequences of all of Barry's rather unique set of records accomplished. It's difficult to argue against the fact that America will appear markedly after Barry leaves office compared to what it looked like when he first strutted into the Oval Office. And sadly we have far more 'leaders' far more interested in themselves than in saving the country.
CHARLIE CRIST PONDERS A RETURN TO FLORIDA'S GOVERNOR'S MANSION...
So I guess the question that seems to be on nearly everyone's mind these days is whether or not former Florida governor Charlie Crist will venture back into the political game. Personally, I'd like nothing more to do with him. But hey, that's just me. Crist, as I'm sure you'll all remember, seemed to come to the conclusion that political fortunes may improved for him if he were to, so to speak, come clean about his really being the Democrat that we always knew he was, on the inside. "Well I’m thinking about it, there’s no question about that," said Crist who added he hasn’t made the big decision yet. Personally, I'm not that big of a fan of Crist's.
Crist, as you may or may not remembers, served as Florida's Republican governor back in 2007. He decided not to seek re-election to that office, instead setting his sights a little higher, the U. S. Senate and competed in the 2010 election, claiming to be the only conservative in the race. But I guess he forgot to tell that to Marco Rubio, who now sits in Washington will Crist ponders a return to the governor's mansion. Crist's announced in 2009 that he would not run for re-election and would instead run for the Senate. This time around, if he does choose to run, it would be as a Democrat running against current Republican governor, Rick Scott.
Although there is apparently no specific timetable for when Crist might a make his final decision, the window, as they say, is said to still be very wide open. "I haven’t reached any conclusion, I’m just taking the opportunity to listen to my fellow Floridians and give it serious thought," said Crist in Fort Myers on Saturday. So what would be Crist’s focus if he does choose to join the race? Well in response to just such a question, Crist responded, "Things that I think are important to all of our fellow Floridians: education, the environment, ethics; I mean these are things that aren’t new." With all that's going on in Washington, I think the last thing we need here in Florida is Charlie Crist!
Personally, I find the fact that Crist talks about ethics as being one of the main concerns of his fellow Floridians, particularly humorous. Because back when he was running for the Senate he used pretty much every smear tactic in the book in his going after Rubio, luckily, none of which worked. Crist went on to also say, "Talking about how we can help our economy move forward, fortunately we’re starting to see that in a small degree and I just hope it continues." Crist said that his decision would also be based on the mood of the people and how they feel. Somehow, I'm just not buying the whole "it's up to the people" thing coming from Charlie.
These days I guess Charlie's keeping himself busy by working for one of Florida's, too many to count, slip and fall lawyers, specifically, the firm of Morgan and Morgan. "I’ve enjoyed being in the private sector, working with Morgan & Morgan is a lot of fun and helping people that way," said Crist. "So time will tell, we’ll see." Right, he claims he's having lots of fun "helping people" as he does his best to continue to drive up the costs of both auto and health insurance courtesy of perpetuating all manner of frivolous lawsuits. What a guy! A Democrat, especially one that used to be a Republican, is not what Florida needs at this particular moment in time.
SOMETIMES, I TRULY DO WONDER ABOUT THOSE ON OUR SIDE!
GIVE ME A BREAK! It never ceases to amaze me just how flipping gullible our Republican members of the Senate continue to be. I'm getting so freaking tired of these guys' willingness to keep taking it in the a** I just want to scream! The most recent example of this namby-pamby mentality came from Tom Coburn who went on NBC's "Meet the Press," yesterday and actually said that Barry "Almighty" "is moving in the right direction" by meeting with Republicans in search of bipartisan solutions to the nation's problems: "I'm proud of him for doing it, but it shouldn't be news." Hey Tom, he's playing you like an old Stradivarius! Wake up and smell the BULLSHIT!
You see, old Tom, here, was one of those 12 morons who saw fit to wine and dine with Barry at some swanky, high-dollar, restaurant only last Wednesday. He went on to say, "I think he gets it, and I think he's genuinely reaching out." Me thinks old Tom might have had a touch too much wine, or something! Because then he said, "I think the president is tremendously sincere. I don't think this is just a political change in tactic. I think he actually would like to solve the problems of the country, and it would be to his benefit and, certainly, to every American's benefit if he did that." Come on, really? Man, these guys are dead, they just don't know it yet!
Old Tom also said during this same interview, that if Barry were to quit poking his finger in Republicans' eyes and start building relationships with them, "I think he's got a great chance to accomplish a big deal." Blah, blah, blah. Barry only wants to "build relationships" with Republicans just long enough to convince them to bend over so he can put it to them again. I just don't get it! It's absolutely infuriating! Look, even a complete imbecile should be able to fully recognize the fact that Berry derives a great deal of pleasure from poking his finger in Republicans' eyes by essentially blaming everything that has gone wrong in the last 4 years, on them.
Coburn also told NBC's David 'The Douche Bag' Gregory that the problem in Washington isn't disagreement, it's too much agreement: "So, look, the real problem, David, is Washington is dysfunctional, but it's dysfunctional in a dysfunctional way. Members of Congress and the administration agree on too much: We agree on spending money we don't have; we agree on not oversighting the programs that should be oversighted. We agree on continuing to spend money on programs that don't work or are ineffective." Frankly I'm nit sure what old Tom is trying to say here. If everyone's agreeing on the same crap, who are we supposed to count on to oppose any of it?
As for last week's meeting with Barry, Coburn said he learned that the president is going to start explaining to the American people about entitlement reform: "I mean, we all know you put in $1 for Medicare and get out $3.30. We understand that. But nobody has ever talked to the American public about that, and nobody has led on that issue as far as our president wanting to change it." Right Tom, if you believe any of that I've got some prime ocean view property in Arizona I could let you have really, really cheap. I'll even throw in the Grand Canyon cause you're a nice guy. The only thing Barry is going to be saying about entitlements is that the Republicans want to take them away!
And then over on ABC’s "This Week," with George "Stefy" Stephanopoulos, we Sen. Ron Johnson say he thinks "most Republicans are more than willing to work with this president." Ok, maybe that's true, but the only thing that Barry wants to do to them is to knife them in the back. And yet, that thought never really seem to enter their little pea brains! He also said that the Republican senators' dinner meeting with Obama last week was honest, frank and complete. "President Obama opened it up, really prioritizing the problems. Certainly, made the point that it's health care, it's Medicare." I'm embarrassed for these guys. Barry seems to have them eating out of his hand.
Johnson added, "The point I made to him is, you know, Mr. President, you are in a unique position to be able to make sure the American people understand that. We're not going to be able to solve these very difficult problems unless we start laying the groundwork and preparing the American people for the solutions." Johnson said he got a call from Barry's chief of staff over the weekend to discuss "what we need to do" to move forward: "So you know, I'll certainly give the president the benefit of the doubt." Sorry, but to give Barry the benefit of the doubt on anything is a mistake that could, very well, prove to be fatal, politically speaking. It's an unnecessary risk.
And then we had some airhead from Bloomberg News, somebody by the name of Julianna Goldman, who also made an appearance with old "Stefy". She attempted to make it quite plain that, at least in her esteemed opinion, in order to achieve what Washington calls a "grand bargain" on deficit reduction, Republicans are going to have to accept higher taxes and Democrats are going to have to accept entitlement reforms. Somebody really needs to sit down and explain to this bimbo that the Republicans have already accepted higher taxes, what's needed now are 'REAL', and substantial, spending cuts and entitlement reforms!
I'll tell you what I'd like to see. And that's for the Republicans to start playing this game the same way Barry and the Democrats play it. Because that's the only way ANYTHING is going to get done. Granted it may be a little painful for a while, but what the Hell is the alternative? This whole entire thing is nothing more than an exercise in complete insanity. I simply cannot believe that these guys are willing to allow themselves to get sucked in yet again, over a meal that was most likely passed on to the taxpayers to cover. What's underway here is nothing more than one monumental snow job, and once again our guys seem to be only too willing to fall for it.
Look, what needs to take place here is that those on our side need to explain to Barry, one more time, what needs to be done and make it clear that they are willing to do whatever is necessary within that framework to get the economy moving again. They also need to make it quite clear that he's had his chance for the last four years and has succeeded in doing nothing more than to make matters much, much worse. And in presenting their own ideas they must also make it clear to the American people that as much as they might wish it were so, America is not a socialist country so therefore socialist attempts to fix it aren't going to work. Oh, and by the way, they’ve never worked ANYWHERE!
CHRIS WALLACE BELONGS OVER ON MSNBC, NOT ON FOX NEWS...
Wallace is as nutty as his old man was. Less a journalist and more a propagandist. Just another clown who has a rather high opinion of himself, but who's really dumb as a brick
Saturday, March 9, 2013
OUR ‘FIRST LADY’, IS NOT…
I’ve been racking my brains lately trying to come up with a worse example of a ‘First Lady’ than the one we’re currently saddled with, and I can’t. There may be one, but I keep coming up empty, at least during my lifetime. The most recent example of just how bad this empty-headed sister with the big ass is, was when she said, that she can "imagine" an America where businesses promote the "healthiest options" so children will be "begging and pleading" for fruits and vegetables. She went on to add that, yes, "it is possible to create" such a world.
Our sorry excuse for a ‘First Lady,’ who I think, views herself more as being a Queen, while attending the Partnership for a Healthier America Summit on Friday at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., said, "I mean, just think for a minute what this country could look like." She went on, "Imagine walking into any grocery store in America and finding the healthiest options clearly marked and centrally placed so that you know within seconds what’s good for your family when you walk in that store."
Our ‘First Lady’ said, "Imagine opening up a menu in any restaurant and knowing exactly what items will give your family the most nutrition for your hard-earned dollar." Then she actually said, "Imagine our kids begging and pleading, throwing tantrums to get you to buy more fruits, vegetables and whole grains." She exclaimed, "Yes, this is possible." Adding finally that, "It is possible to create this world!" Oh yes, that’s my view of what America should be. Children "begging and pleading" for fruit. That’s just plain NUTTY!
‘The Queen’ went on to praise corporations like Walmart, Disney and Darden Restaurants for marketing healthier foods to children. She also touted the launch of "Let’s Move Active Schools," a $70 million initiative "to promote physical activity and bring physical education back to our schools." Well, gee, ain’t that just swell. Where would we be if we didn’t have this wonderful lady, who ‘obviously’ only wants the best for us, looking out for our children? Like that’s not something we’re capable of doing without her interference?
So like I said, try as I might, I just could not come up with an example of a worse ‘First Lady’ than ‘Meeshell My-Bell’ Obama. She as mush of a fraud as her husband is. They’re all about using people and I don’t appreciate her attempting to using children, our children, as her little method of gaining for herself some time in the spotlight. I mean, just how shallow must a person be to use children as way to boost one’s ego? We know her husband is not above using children as well, he has done so in his effort to convince us that we need to ban guns.
Just as a side note here, since we are talking about the needs of our kids, how about schools actually perform the function for which they were designed, to TEACH our kids. It was recently reported that nearly 80 percent of students who graduate from New York City Public Schools can’t read well enough to attend community college. And New York City is far from being the only example of the piss-poor product currently being turned out by over government run public school system. Might it be a better use of Mee-shell’s time if she were to focus on that?
Friday, March 8, 2013
THE QUESTION REMAINS, JUST HOW STUPID ARE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?
Nancy Pelosi said today that the government must cut spending, and then, using her own rather peculiar brand of logic, went on to explain that: "Tax cuts are spending." Now who other than a Democrat could come with such a blatantly dishonest premise. So far we've had one Democrat claim that we don't have a spending problem, we have a "paying for" problem, another Democrat say, no, what we really have is a "misallocation of wealth" problem, and now Pelosi saying, well, yes we do have a spending problem, but since tax cuts as actually a form of spending we need to get rid of those as a way to cut spending. Who's stupid enough to believe that nonsense?
"Our whole budget is what $3.5 trillion," Pelosi said at a Capitol Hill press conference. "So, when we talk about reducing spending, we certainly must, and we certainly have--$1.6 trillion in the previous Congress, $1.2 of it in the Budget Control Act." She then went on to say, "But spending is also related to tax cuts." To Pelosi's way of thinking, tax cuts are spending. They're called tax expenditures. Subsidies for big oil, subsidies to send jobs overseas, breaks to send jobs overseas, breaks for corporate jets. Democrats call them tax expenditures. Spending money on tax breaks. "And that’s the spending that we must curtail as well," Pelosi said.
One little factoid that Pelosi, as well as many other Democrats, really never make any mention of, is the fact that back in fiscal year 2006, the last full fiscal year before Pelosi became House Speaker, the federal government spent $2.65 Trillion, according to the U.S. Treasury. In fiscal 2011, the last fiscal year that started when Pelosi was Speaker, the federal government spent $3.59 Trillion. Thus, from fiscal 2006 to fiscal 2011, annual federal spending increased by whopping $940 Billion—or 35 percent. We are now living so far beyond our means that for anyone to deny that what we have is, in fact, a spending problem is to deny reality.
Pelosi also brought up how it is that she perceives Barry's treatment of the opposition. She actually said that he has "tried so hard to listen, to accommodate, to be respectful of" the Republicans in Congress. I guess what she bases her idiotic perception on is the tact that Barry invites 12 RINOs to dinner on Wednesday night and met with House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan over lunch on Thursday in was what described as an attempt to reach out to Republicans on Capitol Hill. So, will our guys prove that they can be bought for the price of a meal? I'd like to think not, but with this crowd one never really knows for sure.
So it was then that during her weekly press conference Pelosi was asked if the reason Congress and the White House have failed to reach a "grand bargain" was due to Barry’s "not reaching out" to rank-and-file Republicans. To which she responded, "This president has been so respectful, given so much time to the Republicans and their views to the point that at one time in one of our meetings I said to the president, ‘Mr. President, I’m busy, and I don’t have any more time for this,’" Pelosi said. "‘You have to be the busiest person in the world. If and when they come up with a new idea why don’t we just call you back into the room?’" Pa-lease...
Pelosi went on, making absolutely no sense, but did her absolute best to portray Barry as doing all he could to work with those stubborn Republicans. She said, "Because he has tried so hard to listen, to accommodate, to be respectful of their points of view." And she continued, "No, I do not think this is why we didn’t reach a grand bargain." Then taking aim on the Republicans, she added, "I think we didn’t reach a grand bargain because the Speaker of the House [John Boehner] walked away from an agreement that he and the president had arrived at probably because he couldn’t see it to his own caucus," Pelosi said. "And I don’t care what anybody else says about that.
Putting all of these silly little meal events aside, and contrary to all of this rosy bullsh!t from Pelosi about how Barry's being so "respectful" of the opposition, he's really done nothing more than to hold several campaign-style rallies insisting that dealing with the sequester include raising taxes on the wealthy despite securing a rate increase on Americans earning $400,000 or more earlier this year. He held one face-to-face meeting with congressional leaders on the sequester, which lasted for seven minutes on the day it took effect. Barry has continued to spew his typical incendiary rhetoric accusing Republicans of just about everything.
Barry likes to claim that the GOP is choosing to protect the wealthy over "our kids’ schools." Barry said, "Are Republicans in Congress really willing to let these cuts fall on our kids’ schools and mental health care just to protect tax loopholes for corporate jet owners?" This is an example of our trash-talking president before the cuts took effect. And there was more of this garbage when he said, "Are they really willing to slash military health care and the border patrol just because they refuse to eliminate tax breaks for big oil companies?" Is this what Nancy means when she said that Barry "tried so hard to listen, to accommodate, to be respectful of" the Republicans?
LEFTISTS TROOP OFF TO BID A FINAL FAREWELL TO CHAVEZ...
Amongst those who be being heading south to Venezuela to bid a final farewell to dictator Hugo Chavez, there will also be a group of some very sad American leftists. One member of that little delegation will be none other that one of America's foremost faux preachers, Jesse 'The Extortionist' Jackson. Not sure if he's be taking his son, disgraced former Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. along, but Sr. confirmed his attendance via Twitter. He reportedly arrived Thursday night in Venezuela and will lead a delegation organized by his little scam organization referred to as the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition. I'm sure old Hugo will be looking up from Hell and waving.
Jackson told Fox News he knew the Venezuelan president "in a direct and personal way" and says he is "deeply saddened by his passing." Chavez presented Jackson with the Liberator's Award in 2005. On Friday morning, Jackson took to Facebook and posted the following: "I extend my deepest condolences to his family and along with people around the globe, am deeply saddened by his passing. During this sad and difficult moment in the lives of all those affected by this unfortunate news, we most always remember that God is our refuge and strength. I join the people of Venezuela, especially the family and friends of President Chavez, in mourning this global leader."
We can use this little gathering as a way of gauging the number of despots, dictators and tyrants that we actually have in this world because, really, who else would attend such an event the sole purpose of which is to honor a character as vile as Chavez? It has been reported that there will be more than 30 heads of various governments who are currently scheduled to attend the funeral, all, I'm quite sure, socialist or communist in their style of governance. Of course there will also be among those in attendance at least one member of Congress, U.S. Rep. Gregory Meeks from New York, a Democrat of course, and former Rep. William Delahunt from Massachusetts.
Personally I was quite surprised to hear that Barry wasn't planning on attending. I thought for sure that he'd be wanting to take advantage of an opportunity that would have allowed him hobnob with some of his fellow socialists, maybe even compare stories. I mean, he's not running for reelection again, so what's he got to lose? He might even have picked up a few pointers. And he could have taken the opportunity to brag a bit about the fact that he's now able to send drones across America to pick off potential 'terrorists' even if they happen to be U.S. citizens. But, I guess, he thought he would just mourn in private. After all, I'm sure he feels like he's lost a kindred spirit, of sorts.
IT'S LEGAL TO HUNT HUMANS? WHO KNEW?
If it were, as the brilliant senator from California claims, legal to hunt
humans, her head would have been on someones wall a long time ago. Lucky for
her it's not.
OBAMA SETS YET ANOTHER NEW RECORD...
Ya know, the records just keep stacking up for Barry "Almighty." The latest of which was achieved just this past February when the number of Americans designated as "not in the labor force" hit yet another all time record, having reached 89,304,000. That number is up from 89,008,000 in January, and it's according to the Department of Labor. This means that the number of Americans not in the labor force increased 296,000 between January and February.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) labels people who are unemployed and no longer looking for work as "not in the labor force," including people who have retired on schedule, taken early retirement, or, as is usually the under Barry, simply given up looking for work. The increase marks the second month in a row, after rising in January from 88.8 Million in December. Those not in the labor force had declined in December from 88.9 Million in November.
We're told that the nation's unemployment rate decreased to 7.7 percent in February, which is being reported as down from 7.9 percent in January. But I think most of us are able to recognize these numbers are nothing more than pure fiction. Overall unemployment "has shown little movement, on net, since September 2012," the Labor Department said. Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 236,000 in February, at least according to this report.
But to put things into a little better perspective here, when Barry first took office the number was at 80.5 Million people. So what we now have is nearly 10 Million fewer people in the work force than we had when Barry first diddy-bopped his cool self into the Oval Office just a little over 4 years ago. That’s absolute mindboggling! So it seems more than a little ludicrous to go around claiming that our unemployment rate is anywhere near what the administration claims that it is!
DRONES...IT ALL COMES DOWN TO THE QUESTION OF TRUST...
I'm only speaking for myself here, when I say that the man we now have as our president is not someone who should be trusted to have at his fingertips the ability to direct that a drone be used on ‘anyone’ currently on U.S. soil. Not nobody, not no how! He has demonstrated more times than I care to count that he is quite adept at lying, and willing to do so repeatedly, and about absolutely anything. So when a day after Sen. Rand Paul’s 13-hour filibuster, we hear from White House Spokesmoron Jay Carney assert, "The president has not and would not use drone strikes against American citizens on American soil," it means nothing. And his adding, "whether the lethal force in question is a drone strike or a gun shot, the law and the Constitution apply in the same way," did nothing to convince me. Because of Barry's obviously contempt for our Constitution.
A reporter asked Carney, "Does the president have an opinion on whether or not he has the constitutional authority to use drones against American citizens on U.S. soil, and under which circumstances?" To which our favorite Spokesmoron sarcastically responded, "I’m going to read directly from the attorney general’s letter today." Carney went on to say, "He has sent a letter responding to this question. It was transmitted to Sen. Paul within the last half hour or so. From the letter: ‘Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil? The answer is no.’ That is a letter that is signed by the attorney general sent to Sen. Paul and his office." Sorry, there Jay, but I don't trust Eric "I'm A Racist" Holder any more than I trust Barry. To do that is simply insane!
Drone strikes have struck terrorists abroad, including a U.S.-born terrorist fighting for the Taliban. And in what I'm not sure was an effort to convince himself or others, Carney stated that Barry is limited by the Constitution, and that regardless of new technology, it does not change what he can do under the law. "The president has not and would not use drone strikes against American citizens on American soil," Carney said. "On the broader question, the legal authority that exists to use lethal force are bound and constrained by the laws and the Constitution. The issue here isn’t the technology. The method doesn’t change the law." Who's he trying to kid? Barry doesn't see himself as being limited by anything, least of all our Constitution! This rabid egomaniac sees himself as being far above the petty laws that he sees as being only meant for the little people.
But Carney continued with his silly charade saying, "The president swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and is bound by the law, whether the lethal force in question is a drone strike or a gun shot, the law and the Constitution apply in the same way." Ok, so let me see it I have this right. Carney expects us to trust Barry for no other reason than because he swore an oath to uphold the Constitution? Would that be the same Constitution that he has been working to shred ever since becoming president? Barry has made it abundantly clear that he does not see himself being bound by any laws. Carney added, "That’s why I think there has been a great deal of confusion about the technology here. Technology is irrelevant to what the law and the Constitution say, and the president is bound by the Constitution, bound by the laws and is sworn to uphold them"
Look the bottom line here is that I simply don't trust our lying turd of a president any farther than I could ever hope to throw him. And, quite frankly, there is nothing that Spokesmoron Carey, or anyone else for that matter, could ever say that would convince me to do so. Because if there ever was a guy who should not have anywhere near this kind of authority, it's our current Lying-Thug-in-Chief, Barack Hussein Obama. And I do not trust anybody who has any connection, no matter how remote, with Barry "Almighty." He's a liar who has surrounded himself with other skillful liars. Nothing that he, nor any of surrogates, says can be trusted. They are able to look you dead in the eye, and lie. They have no conscience and they have no soul. It's just that simple. So we're just supposed to cheerfully hand to Barry, with our blessing, the ability to use these drone on Americans? Is that not just ABSOLUTELY nuts?
Thursday, March 7, 2013
WHEN RINO'S ATTACK...
I'm sure most everyone is at least somewhat familiar with Sen.Rand Paul's recent old fashioned 13-hour filibuster. But apparently Sen. Rand Paul’s lesson in filibuster wasn’t all that well received by some of his Senate colleagues. Almost exactly 24 hours after Mr. Paul began his information-seeking filibuster against John O. Brennan, everybody's two favorite RINOs, John McCain and Lindsey Graham, took to the Senate floor to denounce his demands and say he was doing a "disservice" to the debate on drones. Sorry, but when it comes to doing any kind of a disservice, these guys are the champs.
"The country needs more senators who care about liberty, but if Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids in their college dorms. He needs to know what he’s talking about," said McCain, our loser of a presidential nominee from back in 2008. Oddly enough McCain apparently views himself as being one of those who care about liberty. But the sad fact of the matter is all that the only thing McCain really cares about is, McCain. He's done more to damage liberty than just about anyone else on our side of the aisle.
Strangely though, it was the Democrats who praised Mr. Paul for his using Senate rules properly in launching his filibuster, while McCain actually described it as being nothing more than an abuse of rules that could actually hurt the GOP in the long run. "What we saw yesterday is going to give ammunition to those who say the rules of the Senate are being abused," was how McCain chose to frame things. He described Sen. Paul's efforts as being at best absurd, and at worst simply, "not helpful." Imagine that, McCain accusing someone of being "not helpful." Now is that ironic, or what?
Mr. Paul said he was filibustering in order to get some form of statement from our current administration to affirm that it won’t kill non-combatant Americans in the U.S. — and his effort was joined by more than a dozen other senators who said they, too, supported his effort to get answers. And in providing us all an indication that he must be nearly as naive as he is stupid, Graham actually said asking whether the president has the power to kill Americans here at home is a ludicrous question. "I do not believe that question deserves an answer," Mr. Graham said. It most certainly does, especially by THIS president!
McCain, proud member of any number of various "gangs" that have occasionally sprung up and that are usually specifically designed to undermine his own party, also said "I don’t think that what happened yesterday is helpful to the American people." He made his idiotic comments after reading aloud a Wall Street Journal editorial that characterized Sen. Paul’s concerns as "ridiculous." "To allege that … our government would drop a drone hellfire missile on Jane Fonda," he continued, "that brings the conversation from a serious discussion about U.S. policy to the realm of the ridiculous." Right, ridiculous!
You know, I sure am glad that McCain possesses such a high level of trust when it comes to things that he thinks Barry "Almighty" will or won't do. But let's face it, Barry is, without a doubt, the most corrupt president in U.S. history. And, personally, there is not one thing that I would put past our current chief executive, and that includes using drones to kill innocent American citizens. And the fact that McCain claims that to think such a thing could actually happen, is ridiculous, doesn't do anything allay any of my fears that such a thing COULD happen. Look who we're talking about here!
Graham agreed with McCain, saying, "This idea that we’re going to use a drone to attack a citizen in a cafe in America is ridiculous." Later, while speaking on the Senate floor, Graham continued his criticism of Sen. Paul. "I don’t remember any of my GOP colleagues coming here to say Bush would kill Americans with a drone," said Graham. "The chance of you being killed by a drone because you went to a Tea Party rally … is zero." So now this dope is comparing Barry to Bush? Actually, if I remember correctly, there were, and mat still be, those in Congress who claim that Bush was behind 9/11.
Speaking to reporters, Mr. Graham said he defends Mr. Paul’s right to ask questions and seek answers, but said the filibuster has actually pushed him to now support Mr. Brennan. Mr. Graham said he had been inclined to oppose the nomination because he’d found Brennan to be qualified for the job but also "arrogant, kind of a bit shifty." He said he wasn’t going to filibuster him but would have voted against him on final passage, but now he’ll vote for him. "I am going to vote for Brennan now because it’s become a referendum on the drone program," he said. Typical Graham logic!
Graham, a South Carolina Republican, is up for re-election next year and hopefully will face a primary challenge in the deeply conservative state. He also took the time to fire back against anyone who would question his decision to meet with Barry "Almighty," saying, "If I can’t go have dinner with the president of the United States to talk about the problems that face our nation, I shouldn’t be running." He added, "If you want to elect me and for me to promise you I’ll never talk to any Democrats or to the president about solving our problems, you’re voting for the wrong guy."
Look, there's no question that he's the wrong guy. His preferring to hobnob with Barry at a swanky, high-dollar restaurant instead of remaining in the trenches with Sen. Paul, makes that painfully obvious. Both McCain and Graham are pretty piss-poor excuses for conservatives, but of course the only time they ever refer to themselves as such is around election time. Because conservative they are NOT. Because if they were truly concerned about where this country is now headed, the very last place either of them would have been is at the same table as Barry. Where they would have been, and should have been, is standing shoulder to shoulder with Sen. Paul.
AGAIN BOEHNER AND CO. STAB US IN THE BACK...
So, we have now had the he Republican-controlled House of Representatives vote 267-151 this past Wednesday to approve a $982-Billion continuing resolution (CR) that besides funding the federal government through the rest of fiscal 2013, will also fully fund the implementation of Obamacare during that same period. So in what has become a rather disturbing trend we, the American people, once again, essentially, get stabbed in the back. Boehner, who I've never really trusted, is now, most definitely, no longer of any use to those of us trying to save our country. Cantor, who I at one time thought was maybe someone who could be counted on, has repeatedly demonstrated that he he is most definitely not on the right side of the important issues. And I've seen nothing from Kevin McCarthy that would instill and amount of confidence in him either.
And so it was then that these leaders of ours in the House, yet again, turned aside any and all requests from groups of conservative members to include language in the bill that would have withheld funding for implementation of all of Obamacare, or, alternatively, that would have withheld funding for the Obamacare regulation that requires health-plans to provide cost-free coverage for sterilizations, contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs. On Tuesday, the Republican-controlled Rules Committee rejected a request by Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R.-Okla.) to allow the full House to simply vote on an amendment to the CR sponsored by Bridenstine, Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R.-Kans.) and Rep. Ron DeSantis (R.-Fla.) that would have stripped funding from implementation of Obamacare. But it was all to no avail. The 'leadership' had already made up its mind.
You see, last week, Bridenstine and Huelskamp sent a letter to Speaker John Boehner and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor asking them to include such language in the CR, and yet the CR produced by the our less than stellar leadership did not include that proposed language. So Bridenstine then asked the Rules Committee on Wednesday--when it approved the rule that would govern House floor proceeding on the CR--to allow a vote on his amendment. The Rules Committee, however, simply rejected Bridenstine's request and refused to allow the rank and file members of the House to even vote on the proposition of defunding Obamacare. So it would seem that Boehner and Company appear to now be more inclined to do what they see as being in their own best interest rather than what's in the best interest of the American people
Because in a similar situation we had14 Republican House members, led by Rep. Diane Black (R.-Tenn.) and Rep. John Fleming (R.-La.), write Boehner and Cantor last week asking them to include language in the CR that would reverse the sterilization-contraception-abortifacient regulation in order to protect the free exercise of religion, which is guaranteed by the First Amendment. The Republican leaders chose not to include any language in their CR that would reverse this regulation--even though Boehner himself had declared in a House floor speech on Feb. 8, 2012 that the regulation was a violation of the constitutional right to freedom of religion and that Congress would not let it stand. Boehner's getting to be as skilled a lair as is Barry, I guess. It would appear that we have no one on our side who is actually willing to lead. So we're left with Boehner.
The Roman Catholic bishops of the United States have unanimously declared that the sterilization-contraception-abortifacient regulation--whose enforcement will now be carried out with funds approved by the Republican-controlled House--is an "unjust and illegal mandate" that violates the "personal civil rights" of individual Americans. Also this CR does not restrict funding for Planned Parenthood. Of the 151 members of the House who voted against this CR, only 14 were Republicans. They included: Justin Amash (Mich.), Jim Bridenstine (Okla.), Broun (Ga.), Ron DeSantis (Fla.), Scott DesJarlais (Tenn.), John J. Duncan Jr. (Tenn.), Phil Gingrey (Ga.), Louie Gohmert (Tex.), Jack Kingston (Ga.), Tom McClintock (Calif.). Thomas Massie (Ky.), Bill Posey (Fla.), Matt Salmon (Ariz.), and Steve Stockman (Tex.).
And also, I guess when Republicans vowed back in 2010, as part of their "A Pledge to America," to post bills online for at least 72 hours before bringing them up for a vote, they didn't really mean it. Because our back-stabbing Republican leaders in the House brought this CR up for a vote a little less than 48 hours after posting it. So to say that the time has now come for the removal of all three of these pathetic phonies has come, I think, would be an understatement. They are doing the country no good in their present positions and therefore need to be replaced with those who are genuinely concerned about the survival of our Republic. We will never be in a position of averting what Barry has in store for us as long as we have "The Three Stooges" at the helm in the House. Either they're with us or they're against us, and if they're against us they must be replaced.
Wednesday, March 6, 2013
ODDLY ENOUGH, MANY WILL ACTUALLY MISS OLD HUGO...
I suppose that it should come as no surprise that when the news of Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez’ recent demise reached the outside world this past Tuesday, it prompted a wave of remorse from leftists all across the globe. All manner of useful idiot from international socialists, to Hollywood icons, and even to those in the U.S. state-controlled media joined with certain world leaders in saying their good-byes to Hugo. And our friends in the Islamic Republic of Iran even went so far as to declare a national day of mourning for the passing of a despot whose name, in the words of the country’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, "is a reminder of cleanliness and kindness, bravery…dedication and tireless efforts to serve the people, especially the poor and those scarred by colonialism and imperialism." Oh, yeah!
Another member of the not so unique despotic clique of which Chavez was a prominent member, a top leader of the Fatah movement in Palestine, which has received Billions of dollars from the United States in foreign assistance, said of Chavez, "Palestine says goodbye to a loyal friend who passionately defended our right to freedom and self determination…His contribution to the cause of dignity had no borders and reached the hearts and minds of the Arab world." Chavez is well-remembered for calling former President George W. Bush the devil during a United Nations speech back in 2006. I think we can say that Bush got the last laugh in this particular instance, because not even that wonderful Cuba healthcare system, touted by Michael Moore as being an example for America to emulate, could manage to save old Hugo.
And, of course, not to be outdone, we had all manner of Hollywood loom vying to see who come up with the most heartfelt eulogy for the murdering thug. Sean Penn said in a statement: "…the people of the United States lost a friend it never knew it had. And poor people around the world lost a champion. I lost a friend I was blessed to have. My thoughts are with the family of President Chavez and the people of Venezuela." Oliver Stone threw in his two cents by saying,, "I mourn a great hero to the majority of his people and those who struggle throughout the world for a place…Hated by the entrenched classes, Hugo Chavez will live forever in history. My friend, rest finally in a peace long earned." Other like Roseanne Barr and rapper M.I.A. tweeted something along the lines of "R.I.P." Ah yes, the asylum that is Hollywood!
While Barry "Almighty’s" ‘official’ response stopped just short of praising the dictator/thug, I’m sure that Barry will miss his friend Chavez, the one foreign leader that, I'm sure, Barry wishes he could better emulate. But one New York Democrat, Jose Serrano, did heap a significant amount of praise on Chavez, actually referring to him as someone who was "committed to empowering the powerless." Noting that he did not always agree with his "methods," former President Jimmy ‘The Douche Bag’ Carter added in the same vein: "President Chávez will be remembered for his bold assertion of autonomy and independence…We hope that as Venezuelans mourn the passing of President Chávez and recall his positive legacies — especially the gains made for the poor and vulnerable — the political leaders will move the country forward…"
Last but not least, not wanting to be left out of this silly eulogy contest, numerous condolences were sent out from participating members of our state-controlled media. From The Associated Press we had a rather fawning obit that began by saying, "President Hugo Chavez was a fighter." Then, Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post sounded off, calling Chavez, "quick," "popular," and funny. Larry King, of CNN fame, described Chavez as being "effusive," "huggable," and "larger than life." The Atlantic wrote, presumably while weeping openly, "Passionate and charismatic, Chávez slipped comfortably into the role of romantic Latin American revolutionary, championing the poor against an unfeeling local oligarchy and its imperial paymasters. Today millions of Venezuelans will weep tears of genuine anguish at his passing." And many, I would guess, are quietly celebrating.
Foreign Policy magazine actually ran an op-ed in which it referred to Chavez as, "another heroic martyr in the vein of Guevara or Chile’s Salvador Allende," stating that Chavez might even reach "Bolivarian proportions." Ordinarily this might have been a rather odd choice of characters to describe as being in any way heroic, but for this specific publication, I suppose, it's to be expected. Then over on Bloomberg TV the obituary for Hugo sounded as if it might have been written by Chavez’s press agent: "He rode a wave of revolution into power, and over 14 years would transform his country’s place on the world stage …. It was oil revenues that allowed Chavez to pour money into food and education programs in Venezuela." Ah yes, Hugo was a humanitarian right up to the bitter end, loved even by those that he put into prison. Sure!
So there you have it. Leftists everywhere have lost someone who they viewed as being one of their heroes, and one they insist upon portraying as being a true man of the people. However, reality paints a much different, even a much more sinister, picture of the man, Hugo Chavez. He did nothing more than the Devil's bidding while here on this Earth, and cheerfully so. And because of that he deserves nothing more than to spend an eternity tending to the fires of Hell. And he deserved to die a manner that, I hope, brought as much pain to him as he took pleasure in inflicting upon others while he was alive. I always find it rather difficult to understand how it is that anyone who has been blessed to live in freedom can actually bring themselves to idolize a dictator who could, so easily, deny freedom to citizens of his own country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)