“NANNY MIKE’ BLOOMBERG STEPS UP HIS ATTACK…

Ya know, I’ve just never really understood those people who, solely because they are fortunate enough to live in this country, have been able to accumulate significant wealth, and who then decide to use that great wealth essentially as a weapon ‘against’ their own country. Is it that they somehow, because of their wealth, feel morally superior to those of us who do not possess such wealth? Now while the list of such individuals would be far too long to include here, the one that I wish to point out here is, yet again, ‘Nanny Mike’ Bloomberg, Mayor of New York City, who seems to be determined to do whatever it takes in his effort to protect us from ourselves.

It was back in 2006 that ‘Nanny Mike’ and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, two flaming progressive zealots, founded a little group called, Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG). At the group’s most recent gathering, ‘Nanny Mike’ announced its new $12 million television ad campaign, the purpose of which is to push senators in key states to back gun control efforts, including comprehensive background checks. ‘Nanny Mike’ announced the ad buy Saturday, just days after Senate Democrats touted stronger background checks while acknowledging insufficient support to restore a ban on assault-style weapons to federal gun control legislation.

"These ads bring the voices of Americans — who overwhelmingly support comprehensive and enforceable background checks — into the discussion to move senators to immediately take action to prevent gun violence," or so ‘Nanny Mike’ said in a statement issued by this group of corrupt malcontents. The false premise being presented in these ads, is that Americans actually "overwhelmingly support" what he describes as "comprehensive and enforceable" gun laws. But what this really is, is nothing more than a ruse, a propaganda campaign, of sorts, the purpose of which is to even further undermine our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms!

The two ads posted on the MAIG's website are ironically entitled, "Responsible" and "Family," ironic because liberals are neither responsible, nor family oriented. Anyway the ads show a gun owner holding a rifle while sitting on the back of a pickup truck. In one ad, the man says he'll defend the Second Amendment but adds "with rights come responsibilities." The ad then urges viewers to tell Congress to support background checks. In the other ad, the man, a hunter, says, "background checks have nothing to do with taking guns away from anyone." The man then says closing loopholes will somehow stop criminals and the mentally ill from obtaining weapons.

The Senate is now scheduled to debate federal gun control legislation next month. On March 28, ‘Nanny Mike’s’ little group, here, plans for more than 100 events nationwide in support of passing gun control legislation that includes background checks. Mayors Against Illegal Guns and other gun-control advocates frequently cite a mid-1990s study that suggests about 40 percent of U.S. gun transfers were conducted by private sellers not subject to federal background checks. Based on 2011 FBI data, the group estimates 6.6 million firearms transfers are made without a background check for the receiver. But as has been pointed out, and numerous times, that 40 percent number is completely bogus!

A spokesman for ‘Nanny Mike’ could not, or would not, immediately say if the $12 million was coming from Bloomberg or the mayor's political action committee, Independence USA. But figure the odds. I think it’s pretty fair to assume where the money is coming from. The New York Times, which first reported the ad campaign Saturday night, said ‘Nanny Mike’ was bankrolling the ad buy. Andrew Arulanandam a spokesman for the National Rifle Association (NRA) blasted Bloomberg and the new ads, saying NRA members and supporters would be calling senators directly and urging them to vote against proposed gun control legislation.

"What Michael Bloomberg is trying to do is ... intimidate senators into not listening to constituents and instead pledge their allegiance to him and his money," said Mr. Arulanandam. It’s common knowledge that ‘Nanny Mike’ has long been a supporter of efforts to curb gun violence, even stooping to actually sending New York City undercover investigators into other states to conduct straw purchases from dealers. And just last month, Bloomberg's PAC poured more than $2 million into ads supporting Illinois state Rep. Robin Kelly, who won a special primary and ran partly on a platform of supporting tougher gun restrictions.

These new ads will be airing in the 13 states that MAIG believes are divided on gun control and will therefore have the potential for the greatest impact: Arkansas, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, New Hampshire, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio and Pennsylvania. So folks in those states who support our Second Amendment are going to need to be prepared to do all that they can to counter this effort. They need to do all they can to make sure that this $12 Million expenditure by ‘Nanny Mike’ turns out to be nothing more than a huge waste of money. We simply cannot allow these, these fascists, to win.

‘NANNY MIKE’ BLOOMBERG ISSUES A WARNING, OF SORTS…

I think most of us are pretty well aware of the fact that, slowly but surely, we are losing more and more of our right to privacy. And I’m also pretty sure that we do not need the likes of Mike "The Nanny" Bloomberg to tell us that efforts are now underway that will allow the government to snoop on us more and more. But be that as it may, recently the good mayor of "The Big Apple," took it upon himself to give to those of us who he deems as being the little people, an advanced warning, of sorts. A warning that our right to privacy is very quickly expiring. It came during a recent appearance on the John Gambling radio show when Mike, and quite proudly so, made the declaration that in about five years, "there’ll be cameras every place." The purpose of which, I can only assume, is so that he and his fellow elites will be better able to keep an eye on we, the unwashed masses.

Furthermore, when he was asked about the implications of domestic drones, Mike said "you can’t keep the tides from coming in." He went on to add, "We’re going to have more visibility and less privacy. I just don’t see how you could stop that." Anyone who has been to New York knows that the NYPD already has hundreds of cameras set up at various spots all around the city. However, Mikey went on to say that there’s no reason law enforcement can’t use drones up in the sky for surveillance as well. "It’s scary, but what’s the difference if a drone is up in the air or on a building," he remarked. If find the fact that he can speak of such things in such a matter-of-fact way, more than just a little disconcerting. It tells me that he views improving the government’s ability to snoop on the public as being much more important than the ability of the public to prevent such snooping.

What does the NYC mayor say to people who argue against turning government into "big brother?" Well, as to be expected, and in his typical snarky fashion, he said, "Get used to it." Going on to say "When there’s a murder, a shooting, a robbery of something the first thing the police do is go to every single building in the neighborhood and say let’s see your security camera." And still he went on, "We should have red light cameras everyplace, why not?" And on, "If you break the law, why not do it? And we should not use our police officers for that. Our police officers have too much to do. They put their lives in danger all the time. … It isn’t gonna result in any fewer police officers being employed. It’ll just make them more valuable because they can work on more important stuff, like bringing crime down or preventing crime to begin with."

So, my friends, take a good long, hard look at the monster that we ourselves have created courtesy of our eagerness to continue to elected these believers in the all knowing, all seeing and all powerful government. Zealots whose only interest is in the creating of ever more inventive, and efficient, ways of making them even more capable of controlling us. They profess to be solely interested in improving public safety and our wellbeing, but, really, nothing could be further from the truth. It’s all nothing more than a sick sort or political charade. And be it out of ignorance, gullibility or pure naiveté, we’ve been more than willing to go along with them at the expense of more and more of our own freedom. Their intent is to intrude ever further into the private lives of the American people and it doesn’t take much imagination to realize that their motives are far from being honorable.

OBAMA GOES OVER LIKE A FART IN CHURCH…(OR, A TURD IN A PUNCH BOWL)

After all of the applause resulting from Barry’s address to students in Jerusalem, some Members of Knesset are now coming forward and offering up a few of their rather harsh criticisms. One lawmaker went so far as to actually call Barry’s speech "offensive to Netanyahu," with another saying it contained "filth." Now I suppose one could justifiably argue that that should really not come as much of a surprise, considering that in his speech, Barry encouraged the Israeli students to push their political leaders to "take risks" for peace. This, even though the Israeli public went to the polls only two months ago to democratically elect their leaders. But hey!

Barry said, "And let me say this as a politician — I can promise you this, political leaders will never take risks if the people do not push them to take some risks. You must create the change that you want to see. (Applause.) Ordinary people can accomplish extraordinary things." And then he added this little jewel: "That’s where peace begins — not just in the plans of leaders, but in the hearts of people." So instead of demonstrating any real leadership abilities, he chooses to, instead, go into another country, an ally no less, and attempt to circumvent that country's government by attempting to incite, really, a specific segment of that country's population. Rather low rent, don't you think?

Member of Knesset Miri Regev, a member of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud-Beiteinu party, was quite specific in her criticism, going so far as to call Barry's speech "offensive to Netanyahu." "I was surprised by his words about a Palestinian state, that he didn’t mention the word ‘Jerusalem’ and that he said, ‘Leaders must bring peace,’ as if Netanyahu doesn’t want peace," she said. Regev slammed Barry’s decision to sideline the Knesset in favor of a speech to more left-wing students. She said Barry should not have "gone over their heads." But let's face it, that Barry's standard operating procedure, his modus operandi.

Ms. Regev did go on to say, "I thought Obama arrived with a greater understanding of the diplomatic process between us and the Palestinians, but I see that he hasn’t changed his stances, not about settlement construction and not about two states for two nations, and decided that the young people must influence their leaders to put public pressure on the government so it will implement [Obama’s] agenda." I think her frst mistake was not to understand why Barry made this trip in the first place, and her second was to assume that Barry possesses any actual understanding of the complexities involved in dealing with an issue that goes all the way to 1948.

Moshe Feiglin, a hawkish Likud lawmaker, said Barry’s speech contained "a lot of filth in the middle." Though he praised Barry for acknowledging the connection of the Jewish people to the land of Israel, he suggested Barry’s call for peace was naïve, saying this: "When Obama talked about forcing us to make peace, all I could think about was baby Adele, who was injured by stone-throwing near Ariel last week." Barry may be many things, but naïve is not one of them. What he is, is vindictive and quite untrustworthy. What naïve is to believe anything that he says. If there was a politically expedient way he could cut Israel loose, he would.

Now I'm pretty sure that this is something that I really don't need to mention, but those left-wing politicians who were in attendance made it known that they enthusiastically supported Barry’s address. And that, quite rankly, is something that should have been expected, after all, those are his kinda folks. For example, Justice Minister Tzipi Livni of the Hatnua party went so far as to call Barry's speech, "important and inspiring." She added, "It is our job to implement our Zionist vision as is reflected in his eloquent words for the young people of Israel – those who were in the Convention Center and those at home." Ah, to be a brain-dead leftist, life would be so simple.

YOU CAN FILE THIS ONE UNDER…"IMAGINE THAT!"...

Barry "Almighty's" very first official trip/photo-op to Israel since being elected 'Dear Beloved Leader', comes during at time of much change in the Middle East. Too bad for him though that most of the change isn't necessarily for the better. That much talked about Arab Spring, has pretty much been a bust, first raising hopes of freedom and dignity, then veering off down a much darker path toward Islamist authoritarian rule. In Syria, tens of thousands of innocent people have died in what is a worsening civil war that has recently seen its first use of chemical weapons by a murdering despot desperate to remain in power. And Iran continues its steady march toward obtaining a nuclear weapons, ignoring international condemnation, what little of it there really has been. And Barry's rather one sided effort to seek peace between Palestinians and Israelis is now essentially in tatters.

So I guess it shouldn't come as too big of a surprise that the White House has, of late, been quite busy lowering expectations for Barry's sideshow trip to Israel all. As Barry will announce no new peace plan, no grand design or no major foreign policy initiative. His advisers are now resorting to calling the trip a "listening tour" and we all know how good Barry is at actually listening to anything other than the sound of his own voice. That is what you call a state visit when you have little, or nothing, as is the case here, to say. He who views himself as being a great and wondrous orator, has gone over with a resounding thud. But despite downgrading the trip, many still see Barry's arrival as being something of a sequel to his 2009 visit to Cairo, where he announced a "new beginning" with the Muslim world. However, four short years later, but as I recall, that was kind of a dud too.

And now, at least according to a recent survey by the Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project, confidence in Barry among those in Muslim countries dropped from 33% to 24% in his first term. Approval of Barry's policies declined even further, from 34% to 15%. And support for the United States in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Pakistan is lower today than it was in 2008, the final year of George W. Bush's administration. In his famed Cairo speech, you will remember, Barry, while apologizing for America, pledged a relationship between America and Muslims around the world "based on mutual interest and mutual respect." But in 2013, interests are diverging, and respect is in very short supply. But then, that's what happens when you project weakness and not strength. Barry is very conciliatory in his rhetoric and that only makes him appear to be weak,

Of all the strained relationships in the Middle East, the partnership with Israel is the most important and, potentially, the most easily repaired. That is, if Barry had a genuine interest in actually doing so. Barry has never been what you could call popular in the country, and with regard to some of the things he has been heard to say, it would appear that that bothers him very little. A poll released just last week showed that he had a scant 10% approval rating in Israel, with an additional 32% saying that while they may respect him, they certainly don't like him. And his attempting to make some gestures in an effort to heal the breach, such as visiting the grave site of Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern Zionism, are viewed by manny as being nothing more than the actions of an opportunist and something that are purely symbolic in nature.

But if Israelis don't like Barry, I think it safe to say that the Palestinians like him even less. With Washington's perceived failure to take a harder line with Israel over the final status of Jerusalem, and U.S. opposition to President Mahmoud Abbas' successful campaign for higher Palestinian status in the United Nations, have engendered a deep sense of frustration. Passions spilled over in Bethlehem this week, when young Palestinians defaced a billboard with Barry's image and burned pictures of him in the streets. Barry's symbolic nods to Israel's history are likely to raise Palestinian ire even further. Still, I think it safe to say, judging by his many previous comments, that Barry's heart lies much more with the Palestinians than with the Israelis, and I think if he felt he could cut Israel loose he would do so in a heartbeat. Deep down inside of Barry, beats the heart of a Muslim sympathizer.

YUP, FOR SHORE…REPUBLICANS ARE OUR LAST LINE OF DEFENSE. FRAID NOT!!!

Providing a bit more proof that they are not quite the last line of defense that they perceive themselves to be, the House Republican leadership, on Thursday, again violated the pledge that they made to the nation back in 2010. You know, the one that said if they regained control of the House of Representatives they would put "all pieces of legislation" online for at least 72 hours before bringing them up for a vote. This time around, it was on Wednesday at 4:29 p.m that the Senate passed a 574-page continuing resolution that will fund the federal government for the rest of fiscal year 2013. This 574-page continuing resolution differed substantially from the 269-page version of the same continuing resolution that the House had passed back on March 6. Nonetheless, our less than stellar House Republican leadership brought the Senate language up for a vote in the House at 10:54 a.m. on Thursday, or only 18 hours and 15 minutes after it passed the Senate.

The Hill published a piece at 10:01 p.m. on Wednesday reporting that the House Rules Committee had released the text of the Senate-version of the CR that the Senate had approved five and a half hours earlier. "The House Rules Committee late Wednesday released the text of the Senate-passed bill that keeps the government funded for the rest of fiscal year 2013," said The Hill. "The bill is the Senate-amended H.R. 933." Remember now, this was back on Sept. 23, 2010, when House Republican leaders were busy reaching out to Tea Party folks in hopes of winning back control of Congress in that year’s midterm elections, even releasing a document they called "A Pledge to America." In it they said, "We will govern differently than past Congresses of both parties." They also promised, "We will require that every bill contain a citation of Constitutional authority. We will give all Representatives and citizens at least three days to read the bill before a vote."

At the event the Republican leaders staged for release of "A Pledge to America," Rep. Jason Chaffetz stood with then-House Minority Leader John Boehner, then-Minority Whip Eric Cantor and then-Deputy Minority Whip Kevin McCarthy and explained that this language meant the Republicans were promising to the nation that they would post all pieces of legislation online for "at least 72 hours." Chaffetz announced, "We are taking a pledge today to do a number of things." He went on to say, "It starts with all pieces of legislation be available online for 72 hours--at least 72 hours--so that the public has a chance to review the legislation and so that members of Congress can actually read the bill." McCarthy, who is now the House Republican Whip, went on national television twice and reiterated, rather strenuously, that the Republicans were pledging to America to post legislation online for 72 hours before voting on it.

And it was on Sept. 23, 2010 that McCarthy told Fox News he would love to debate Democrats about the provisions in the pledge the Republicans had released that very day. "Do they disagree that a bill should be put online for 72 hours and actually read before it’s voted on?" McCarthy asked. And it was again, on Oct. 10, 2010, that McCarthy told CNN, "When you look at the Pledge to America that the Republicans have laid out, there is a cultural change in there." He went on to say, "There is something that opens up the floor that hasn't been done for quite some time, where bills won't be written in the back of the room, where the bills have to be laid out for 72 hours, where bills actually have an open rule, where people can bring amendments up on the floor, which any freshman congressman that's sitting there today has never even seen that happen under the rule of Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats."

After the Republicans did win back control of the House in the 2010 election, Speaker-to-be John Boehner even went so far as to release an op-ed on Nov. 12, 2010, in it he highlighted his and his party’s pledge to post bills online for 72 hours before voting on them. "We will make it easier to cut spending, require bills to be published publicly for 72 hours before Congress votes, and end the practice of using 'comprehensive' bills to lump together issues that have nothing to do with each other," wrote Boehner. Back on March 6, when the House Republican leaders called a vote on their version of the CR, they also broke their "Pledge to America" to post bills online for at least 72 hours. It was reported at the time that the text of that 269-page version of the bill was posted at 2:21 p.m. on Monday, March 4 and voted on at 2:03 p.m. on Wednesday, March 6. Only 27 House Republicans voted against it the Senate version of the CR.

Ok, so back to Boehner's silly claim that we are now supposed to somehow consider Republicans in the House as being our last line of defense. Sorry, but I'm just not seeing it. And frankly, I'm not seeing all that much difference between him and Pelosi. And I'll tell ya, if people don’t see all that much of a difference between the parties where's the incentive for them to vote Republican? It would be nice if we could take Boehner and our leadership team at their word, but sadly, such was not the case. Then as now they do nothing more than to tell us what they think we wanted to hear, and there's no intention of ever following through. So why should we view them as being anymore trustworthy than Barry "Almighty?" At this point in the game our leadership team in the House has a bit of a credibility problem. And sadly I see very little evidence that they are least bit concerned about it, since they seem to be taking no action, whatsoever, in an attempt to alter that perception.

MORE ON THE HOUSE REPUBLICANS BEING OUR LAST LINE OF DEFENSE...

As I mentioned in a previous post, it was during a recent gathering of donors that Speaker John Boehner was heard to say that the House Republicans were essentially the country's last line of defense against what Barry is trying to get accomplished. So in what is an effort to provide a little proof that nothing could be further from the truth, I would like to draw attention to the fact that the Republican-controlled House is preparing to vote today, and may have already done so, on the Senate-approved continuing resolution to fund the government for the rest of this fiscal year and that it would give Barry "Almighty" the discretion to slightly DECREASE the number of Border Patrol agents. And this would be on top of their going along with the funding of Obamacare.

Their decision to go along with this would make 2013 the second year in a row that the administration has DECREASED the size of the Border Patrol, and that's according to official data released by the Border Patrol itself. In fiscal 2011, according to the Border Patrol, there were 21,444 Border Patrol agents. Of these, 232 were deployed along U.S. coastlines, 2,237 were deployed along the U.S.-Canada border, and 18,506 were deployed along the U.S.-Mexico border. In fiscal 2012, again, according to the Border Patrol, the total number of Border Patrol agents decreased by 50 to 21,394. Of these, 224 were deployed on U.S. coastlines, 2,206 were deployed on the U.S.-Canada border and 18,516 were deployed on the U.S.-Mexico border.

The continuing resolution (CR) that passed the Senate on Wednesday and that the Republican leadership will rush to the House floor on Thursday, only requires the administration to maintain at least 21,370 Border Patrol agents, another 20 less than the government fielded last year, and 70 less than it fielded two years ago. To keep the government funded another CR only needs to be enacted by March 27, six days from now, when the current CR expires. The section of the new Senate passed CR, that the House takes up today, that governs spending on Customs and Border Protection says: "Provided further, That the Border Patrol shall maintain an active duty presence of not less than 21,370 full-time equivalent agents protecting the borders of the United States in the fiscal year."

In a January 29 speech calling for "comprehensive immigration reform" that would give illegal aliens a "pathway to citizenship," Barry "Almighty" boasted that his administration had put more Border Patrol agents on the southern border than at any previous time. "First, we strengthened security at the borders so we could stem the tide of illegal immigrants," Barry lied. "We put more boots on the ground, on the southern border than at any time in our history." And a page on the White House website dedicated to Border Security actually made the claim that Barry has "doubled" the number of Border Patrol agents. "President Obama has doubled the number of Border Patrol agents and today border security is stronger than it has ever been," says the page. "But there is more work to do."

However, according to the official Border Patrol data, Barry did not double the number of Border Patrol agents. There were 20,119 Border Patrol agents in fiscal year 2009, which started on Oct. 1, 2008 before Obama was elected president. Of those 20,119 Border Patrol agents on duty in fiscal 2009, 223 were on the coastlines, 1,887 were on the Canadian border, and 17,408 were on the Mexican border. In the four fiscal years from 2009 through 2012, the overall number of Border Patrol agents did not double. It went from 20,119 to 21,394—an increase of 1,275, or 6.3 percent. From 2009 through 2012, the number of Border Patrol agents specifically deployed to the U.S. Mexico border went from 17,408 to 18,516—an increase of 1,108 or 6.4 percent.

Up through fiscal 2010, which ended on Sept. 30, 2010, the Border Patrol used a metric called "border miles under operational control" to measure its performance. A border mile under operational control, according to the Government Accountability Office, was one in which the government "had the capability to detect, respond to, and interdict cross-border illegal activity." Less than a month ago, on Feb. 26, GAO Director of Homeland Security and Justice Issues Rebecca Gambler told the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on the Border in written testimony that when the administration stopped using border miles under operations control to measure the Border Patrol’s performance, 56 percent of the U.S.—Mexico border was not under control.

That means the U.S. government did not have the ability to detect and interdict illegal border crossers along more than half of the U.S.-Mexico border. "At the end of fiscal year 2010, DHS reported achieving varying levels of operational control of 873 (44 percent) of the nearly 2,000 southwest border miles," Gambler testified. So, what do you think, are the House Republicans really acting as our last line of defense? There's an old saying that I think is applicable regarding our current situation. It's the one that says, "With friends like you, who needs enemies?" And that's how I feel whenever I hear Boehner make the idiotic claim that were it not for him and the House Republicans things could be, and would be, so very much worse. It's a crock!

BOEHNER OUR LAST LINE OF DEFENSE? NOW THAT'S SCARY!!

I'm not sure what it is that John Boehner might be smokin, snortin or shootin up, but whatever it is, it must certainly be some pretty potent stuff. My reason for suggesting such a thing in the first place is the fact that Boehner was recently heard telling donors at a fundraising event that Barry’s second term was "supposed to be the president’s honeymoon, and our nightmare." Boehner then added, "Instead, he’s been the one on the ropes." However, I would beg to differ with the Speaker on that point. "This isn’t the way the talking heads said it was supposed to be," Boehner said at the National Republican Congressional Committee’s large March fundraiser at the National Building Museum, or so Politico reports.

In what was nothing more than and exercise in blowing smoke, Boehner said the president is hampered because House Republicans are balancing the budget, while Barry has no such plans to do so. Boehner told the gathering that the House Republican Conference is the "last line of defense" against what he believes will be a left-leaning agenda from Barry "Almighty" if Democrats take the House in 2014, according to a source who was in the room. And what I thought was particularly humorous was when he said, "I don’t know what these next few months will bring, but I do know one thing," adding, "We are the minority here in Washington…we are the last line of defense." Now is that a ballsy statement, or what?

And then, I guess, in an effort to blow his own horn, and trying to make the case that at least it's better than having the Democrats in charge, he said, "The president, his goal is to retake the House for Democrats and make Nancy Pelosi Speaker again." He went a little further by saying, "He’s got a whole laundry list of policies – like a 'cap and trade' national energy tax – that he knows he can only get with a Democratic House. (Oregon Congressman) Greg Walden is working hard on a plan to put a stop to all this. But we need your help." While it all sounds pretty good, I just don't have enough confidence that Boehner has the requisite spine to actually carry through with any of what he says. Recent history would indicate that he's just not up to the challenge.

And I'm very curious to know what it is, exactly, that has old John so convinced that Barry is "on the ropes" as he says he is. What does he offer up as being proof of his assessment of things. Is it the fact that the Republicans have decided to keep funding Obamacare? Sorry but they're out of excuses on the topic. But you have to give old John credit, he sure does talk a good line. But, I'll tell ya what folks, if the Republicans in the House are truly our last line of defense, then, my friends, we're very likely to be in much more trouble than we thought. Don't get me wrong, there are a few stars on our side, but far too few to make a difference. Boehner has gone to great pains to pretty much marginalize all those folks.

What needs to placed in the works, and right now, is a search to be put underway the purpose of which is to locate a genuinely conservative candidate capable of going up against Boehner in a primary. Because I think we all know, or should know by now, that Boehner is not a conservative, even though he tries to play one every time he goes on television. Boehner long ago outlived what little usefulness he might have once had. Personally, I'd argue that if anyone is on the ropes, it's our Republican majority in the House. Our leadership team of Boehner, Cantor and McCarthy, for lack of a better term, SUCKS! I think we can all agree on that. They all seem to be far more interested in their own 'careers', than actually saving the country.

WHEN YOU DON'T LIKE THE OUTCOME, CHUCK SCHUMER SAYS CHANGE HOW THE GAME IS PLAYED...

Well folks I think it pretty safe to say that we now have a rouge political party whose members apparently feel that they are entitled to run roughshod over those of us for whom they are supposed to be working. It seems that they get just a little bit more out of control with each passing day, and every time they run up against rules that should prevent them from moving forward, they take it upon themselves to simply alter those rules. And it matters to them very little whether their altering of said rules is constitutional or not, because you see they have very little use for our Constitution. It's very much a fact that the majority of those who proudly identify themselves as being Democrats, despise the Constitution. They view it more as being an impediment than anything else.

The latest example of this corrosive rhetoric comes to us from one of the more rabid ideologues, "Little Chuckie" Schumer, Democrat douche bag from New York. You see, 'Little Chuckie' was heard to say, very recently, that the Democrats will "fill up the DC circuit one way or another," even it means changing the rules in the Senate to get nominees confirmed.. It was while at some March 10 dinner event that "Little Chuckie" took it upon himself to criticize Republicans for rejecting Barry "Almighty’s" nomination for judge in the 10th circuit, which currently has four vacancies. You see, Democrats like 'Little Chuckie" here are of the opinion that they alone have the right to reject any judge that doesn't meet their criteria, but that same ability is not one to be enjoyed by the opposition.

Talking about the Republicans, "Little Chuckie' said, "They just rejected on specious grounds a fine New Yorker named Caitlin Halligan for the second time." Droning on he went on to say, "Our strategy will be to nominate four more people for each of those vacancies [on the 10th Circuit Court]. And if they filibuster all of them, it will give those of us that want to change the rules and not allow 60 votes to dominate the Senate but require a talking-filibuster to prevail. So we will fill up the DC circuit one way or another." Earlier this month, Barry's nomination of Caitlin Halligan to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit failed to garner the 60 votes needed to overcome opposition and get a vote. So if you don't like the way the games is being played, simply change the rules. That’s the typical Democrat modus operandi.

Just briefly here, the reason that many opposed Ms. Halligan’s nomination to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit was because of what they say is her history of legal activism; most specifically, they say that as the solicitor general of New York State, she worked to advance the "dubious legal theory," in the words of Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, that gun manufacturers could be held legally responsible for criminal acts committed with their guns. "In short, Ms. Halligan’s record of advocacy and her activist view of the judiciary lead me to conclude that she would bring that activism to the court," Mr. McConnell said on the Senate floor. "Because of her record of activism, giving Ms. Halligan a lifetime appointment on the D.C. Circuit is a bridge too far."

In January of this year, 'Dingy Harry' Reid, slime-bag Democrat from Nevada, made a move to do away with the requirement of 60 votes to overcome minority opposition and force a talking-filibuster. The move would have required senators to hold the floor and debate in order to prevent votes on matters they oppose. However, the maneuver to force a talking-filibuster was removed in the filibuster reform deal struck by Reid and Sen. Mitch McConnell. "Little Chuckie" told the audience at the Central Brooklyn Independent Democrats dinner why he felt the need to have Halligan seated as a judge: "We have a federal court system and the second most important court in that system is the D.C. Court of Appeals because it controls all kinds of government decisions."

Making all manner of screwy accusations that the court is nothing more than a bunch of right-wing extremists, Chuckie said, "There are now four vacancies on the court and it’s dominated by the hard right." Blathering on he added, "Here’s what they have done in the last year: they have overturned the EPA’s ability to regulate existing coal plants which send their pollution here and kill the Adirondack mountains. They have rendered the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) impotent by saying that the SEC can’t pass rulings unless they do what is called a cost-benefit analysis, which ties any rulings to go after our financial institutions in knots." What's been done is nothing more than an attempt to force Barry to abide by limitations placed on his office by the Constitution.

And still Chuckie went on, saying, "And third, they have ruled that recess appointments couldn’t be taken into account," said Schumer. "Why did they do that? They did that because the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) which has finally begun to swing the pendulum a little bit back so that workers and unions could actually organize people as opposed to the rulings under the Bush administration --which for eight years -- but now they are going to render those decisions moot. So we have to fill the 10th DC circuit." In talking about the NLRB Chuckie conveniently leaves out the fact that it's Liberal majority insist on operating well outside of what has always been considered as being it normally accepted confines. Chuckie's being more than just a bit hypocritical.

You know, it's really a pretty sad state of affairs when elected officials feel the need to game the system when they're not achieving the results they want. These days it seems to be much more important that guys like Chuckie be permitted to freely move forward with their highly toxic agenda than to ensure that that remain within the confines of our Constitution. This drive to "fundamentally transform" our country seems to have been allowed to get entirely out of control and when even the slightest amount of interference is encountered, slime like Chuckie are quick to cry foul. As we have seen, especially over the course of the last 4 years, the Democrat Party has been infected with a form of liberal dementia. They're desperate to pull out all the stops in their effort to destroy our country.

Nothing should be permitted to stand in their way, for their cause is the more righteous one. They alone know what's best for us, they alone are capable be being able to rescue us from ourselves. And if you're gullible enough to believe any of that nonsense that you're part of the problem, not part of the solution. No one party should be able to dictate how our government is to operate, the only result will be abuse. Currently the liberals/progressives/socialists/Democrats have control of the Executive and Legislative branches of our government. And many would argue that they also now control the Judiciary as well. And far too many Americans seem to be oblivious to the peril that this 'perfect storm', of sorts, puts us in. These are perilous time my friends, we are hanging by a thread.

THE ONCE BRIGHT LIGHT OF FREEDOM IS SLOWLY BECOMING A FLICKER...

As time goes on it seems that more and more of my fellow Americans have become quite content to wrap themselves up in what is nothing more than the warm, fuzzy, blanket of blissful ignorance. They move through their lives as if all is well and right with the world, choosing to ignore completely the fact that with each passing day our nation is being forced ever closer to a cataclysmic event, the magnitude of which will rattle the futures of their great, great grand children. Future generations who may never know what it feels like to live in true freedom, or free from the ever watchful eye of an all knowing, all seeing government, a government that sees itself as the sole purveyor of certain rights.

Far too many Americans seem to be of the opinion that's is just better to just go along and to not rock the boat. They seem confident in their assumption that things will work themselves out if we just give it enough time. But I hate to be the bearer of bad news here, because those of us who have been waiting for things to fix themselves have, essentially, been nothing short of derelict in our duties. We were supposed to be the guardians. And now our laziness may well have an impact on generations going far into the future, quite possibly a future of darkness and here in the same land where once the light of freedom burned so brightly that it could be seen from anywhere on the globe.

We who make up this present generation were handed something really quite special by those who made up of those called "the greatest generation" and, sadly, we have not been very good stewards. We put ourselves above everything else, including the safeguarding or our freedom. In short we squandered it, we were unwilling to display the same level of courage so that we too could then hand over to those who follow us a nation that was even stronger and more free than the one that was handed to us. But instead what will be left for us to hand over is a country that is a mere shadow if its former self. One that is much weaker and one where freedom has now been placed on life support.

I’ve always tried to think of myself as being a ‘glass is half full’ kind a guy. Although, I must admit it was a much easier task in my younger days. And with us having been stupid enough to elect Barry to four more years, it’s now come to be damn near impossible. Because I guess I’ve finally allowed myself to come to the realization that yes, I am pretty significantly outnumbered by those who unwilling to take a stand against those trying to ‘fundamentally transform’ my country. I have yet to be able to figure out, exactly why said transformation is now required, but it matters not, because so many more seem to think that it is something that’s required. So, here we are on our downward spiral.

DEMOCRATS ARE DETERMINED IN THEIR EFFORT TO BRING ABOUT THE FINANCIAL COLLAPSE OF AMERICA...

I think it pretty safe to say that most reasonably intelligent folks realize that the Democrats posses no real interest in cutting any amount from our current, and impossible to maintain, level of spending. That would be because it's all part of their master plan to essentially force our country over the fiscal cliff, once and for all. So it is then, that we continue to see Democrats in the House claiming that there is simply no way that we can possibly cut even a measly $44 Billion of spending, while at the same time introducing what they describe as being a budget plan, just yesterday, that includes $1.2 Trillion in new taxes and $200 Billion more in supposed stimulus spending, or twice the stimulus spending that the Democrats in the Senate proposed last week.

Meanwhile, House Republicans have put forth their own budget plan for 2014, one that would cut tax rates and spending by $5.7 Trillion compared to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) baseline, or, at least, so The Hill is reporting. In talking about his budget, Rep. Chris Van Hollen, one of those Democrats who proudly represent the People's Republic of Maryland, "We focus immediately on accelerating the economic recovery, on growing jobs rather than shrinking jobs." Also according to Van Hollen, the House Democratic budget would end tax breaks for individuals and corporations, raising $1.2 Trillion in revenue over ten years. It also includes, at least according to The Hill, higher guaranteed transportation spending,

According to this crook Van Hollen, the Democrat budget proposal also included more spending cuts than tax increases, if the $1.5 Trillion in cuts approved by the last Congress are included. He also noted that his budget, like that of Senate Democrats, ends nine years of automatic cuts through the sequester that took effect on March 1, again all of which is being reported by The Hill. And again we hear from Democrats about how their plan "saves jobs" when this imbecile, Van Hollen, made the 'impossible to prove' claim that the changes would save 750,000 jobs in 2013 alone, unlike the House Republican budget, which cuts $4.6 Trillion in spending along with the sequester cuts over a decade. Spending is the problem. Spending needs to be CUT!

It didn’t take the House Republicans very long to start pointing out a number of very significant holes in Van Hollen’s silly little budget plan. "The House Democrats’ plan imposes over $1 Trillion of taxes on families," William Allison, the House Budget Committee spokesman, told The Hill.. He went on to say, "It increases spending by $476 Billion. It allows the safety net to unravel and jeopardizes the retirement security of America’s seniors." Adding, "By clinging to the status quo, the House Democrats have doubled down on Obamacare-style cuts to Medicare and even greater tax increases on families," Allison said. "We need a responsible balanced budget, so we can promote a healthier economy and help create jobs.

Allison said, and I am very much in agreement with him on this, "It is disappointing to see House Democrats take such an unserious approach to budgeting." That's only because the Democrats are in NO way serious about creating a budget that works toward solving the fiscal problems that they are primarily responsible for creating in the first place. Come on, how can anyone look at what they are proposing, from John Conyers idiotic, "The Cancel the Sequester Act of 2013," to this silly budget from Van Hollen, and perceive them as being genuinely concerned about our budgetary mess? They have a vested interest in bringing about a complete financial and economic collapse in this country, and they are working feverishly toward that end.

ANOTHER REASON BOEHNER HAS TO 'GO!'...

To say that John Boehner has been little more than a disappointment as Speaker of the House is something that I think, most would agree, is an understatement. The grand hopes we all had after the election or 2010 just never materialized. Political capital was wasted because of poor leadership. And the list of reasons for why we can no longer afford to trust Boehner has grown to be a rather lengthy one. And over this past weekend that same list became longer by one. You see, it was during an interview that Boehner said that he "absolutely" trusts Barry "Almighty", not that they don't have their differences.

In his recent appearance on ABC's "This Week," Boehner said that he and Barry have a good relationship and that they're "open with each other ... honest with each other." But the Ohio lawmaker says they're trying to bridge some big differences. And as bizarre as this may sound, the one issue that they seem to agree on is the fact that the U.S. doesn't have an immediate crisis in terms of debt. I guess I'm a little curious to know just what it might take for Boehner to finally come to the realization that our current debt crisis is just that, a crisis. I'm not sure how it can be viewed as anything else.

I feel quite comfortable in saying that more than a few conservatives have come out and criticized Barry for his saying just last week that our country doesn't really have an immediate debt crisis. And Boehner apparently agrees with him on that point, saying that a debt crisis does loom in the years ahead because entitlement programs are not sustainable if they aren't changed. He says balancing the budget will help the economy. I guess I just don't understand how it is that someone can look our nearly $17 Trillion in debt, and NOT view it as being a crisis RIGHT NOW!.

And another thing that puzzles me is how anyone, who I assume has at least half a brain, can bring himself to trust someone who is a pathological liar. Barry has proven, more times that I care to count, that he will lie about anything. So just how is that Boehner can bring himself to trust someone who has lied to him, repeatedly. Either Boehner is simply not as smart as I give him credit for, or he's one of the most gullible people on the planet. Either way it's pretty obvious that he's now become much more of a hindrance than a help to the cause. We need more responsible leadership.

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, SEQUESTER IS LIKE A TSUNAMI?

You know, there seems to be, among Democrats at least, an odd competition, of sorts going on. A competition of who it is, exactly, that can come up with the most bizarre analogy regarding Barry’s ‘sequester’ and our supposedly non-existent spending problem. The latest player entered the contest just last Thursday when we heard from the brilliant Sheila Jackson Lee. Ms. Jackson Lee saw fit to compare the series of automatic federal budget cuts, that took effect on March 1, to the Japanese tsunami of 2011 that killed more than 15,000 people and left millions more without power and water, while sparking a nuclear reactor meltdown. Yup, in presenting her bizarre little analogy, the esteemed Ms. Jackson Lee said, "And for those whose memories fade, I want you to be reminded of the tsunami." And then she went on to say, "For it does not give notice and it is tragic and reckless for those who say ‘You know what, the sequester has started and I feel pretty good’ because you have not been hit by the tsunami." Again let’s not forget, this is Barry’s sequester.

She also went on to "warn" that this supposed "tsunami" of effects from the cuts, known as The Sequester, could come at any time – even at a time when Congress is not in session. "It may come at a moment -- when we are away on work recess, or when the speaker has sent us home and we’re not here working. And all of a sudden a great percentage of America will be walking around without benefits, without childcare, without teachers in our schools, and we’ll ask the question ‘What happened?’" she said. "It was the tsunami of the sequester," she added. Jackson Lee appeared at a Capitol Hill news conference in support of the "Cancel the Sequester Act of 2013," introduced on 6 March by her Democrat House colleague, and fellow loon, Rep. John Conyers. Let’s face it, who but a liberal Democrat could conceive of such a cockamamie idea as "The Cancel the Sequester Act of 2013?" How is it that they, the Democrats, feel they should be taken seriously when discussing our current budgetary when make such nutty proposals as this?

So now we have a number of liberal Democrats that are urging the House Republican leaders to join with them in an effort to simply eliminate the provision in the Budget Control Act of 2011 that authorizes $44 Billion in across-the-board cuts to take effect each year for the next ten years, amounting to about $1.2 Trillion in total cuts after one decade. The Sequester, that is, Barry’s sequester, which took effect on March 1 came about as a result of the failure by both Congress and the White House to negotiate a deal for alternative cuts, accounts for about 1.2 percent, or $44 Billion, of this year’s overall federal budget, a paltry sum, really, in the big scheme of things. The automatic across-the-board "cuts," however, only slow the rate of growth of federal spending, rather than reduce the amount of funding that is already available. For the past four years, the federal budget deficit has not fallen below $1 trillion. And the Democrats can look at that and come to the conclusion that in no way can we, or should we, cut spending by even $44 Billion?

At the time of this idiotic gibberish, recently spewed by Ms. Jackson-Lee, our nation’s debt stood at a staggering $16,700,634,854,470.52. Now if this silly "Cancel the Sequester Act of 2013" proves anything, it’s that Democrats are not the least bit interested in cutting spending, only in raising taxes. And that, as anybody with a brain can readily recognize, in a recipe for disaster. Which I contend, is exactly what Jackson Lee and her fellow Democrats are trying to bring about, a financial and economic disaster. Where was she, in making her idiotic analogy when Barry first dreamed up this whole notion of the sequester? I really don’t really recall her raising any kind of objections at the time because she recognized it as what it was. A tactic dreamt by Barry to put pressure on the Republicans, so Democrats, all Democrats, were only too happy to sign on at the time. Now, apparently thinking that we’ve forgotten that it was all Barry’s idea, they think that can now say the Republicans came up with it, and it must now somehow be averted. Nope, ain’t happenin’.

WHAT WE HAVE HERE, IS A FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE...

Yup, the number of politicians who continue to make the claim that there is no such thing as a spending problem just seem to keep crawling out of the woodwork. And they all seem to belong to the same political party, the party that’s been behind a majority of the spending. The latest senile old fart to make the claim, adding his name to a list that already includes such luminaries as Steny "Gasbag" Hoyer, Tom "Better Red than Dead" Harkin and Nancy "Stretch" Pelosi, is none other than John "The Crook" Conyers, the ranking member, and I do mean RANK, of the House Judiciary Committee. This guy is as corrupt as he is stupid!

It was on Thursday that this moron actually made the statement that our nation’s current debt of $16 Trillion is "not endangering" the country, adding that "some debt is not a bad idea" and that he and other congressional Democrats "don’t think there’s a problem." Ok, so maybe "some debt" may not a bad idea, but what we have here is not just "some debt" we have a lot of debt. Debt that equals roughly $56,000 for every man, woman and child in this country. Is that just "some debt"? Apparently that's what this dope Conyers and his fellow Democrats seem to think. In fact they seem quite comfortable with adding to that amount.

This jerk-off Conyers and other liberal Democrats spoke at a Capitol Hill press conference about their supposed initiative to compel Congress to cancel the across-the-board budget cuts (sequester) of $1.2 trillion over 10 years, which are actually really nothing more than reductions in the rate of increase in federal spending and amount to $44 billion for this year. These sequestration reductions, as anyone who has been paying attention would know, were triggered by the Budget Control Act of 201, and despite what's been said by the Democrats, were the grand idea that had as it's source the Barry White House, not the Republicans in Congress.

On Thursday Conyers was asked, "Republicans say if we don’t make cuts to reduce the deficit soon that sequester cuts will actually be small compared with cuts we would need to make if we continue on this track [of spending]. Meanwhile, Leader Pelosi has said she doesn’t think that we have a spending problem and the White House has recently said that we shouldn’t balance the budget just for the sake of balancing the budget. That said, by canceling sequester would we then be manufacturing a larger crisis in the future and, if so, how would you justify those more severe cuts to the American people?"

Conyers, in demonstrating all the intelligence of your average, garden variety housefly, said, "Let me let you understand, first of all, that the debt is not endangering us a bit -- not at all. Our economists say we’re in debt but it’s not endangering everything. As a matter of fact, there are economists that say some debt is not a bad idea at all." He then went on to say, "So all those ideas about the ceiling falling, the walls caving in because of that, you can sleep more comfortably in your bed at night when you realize that we don’t think there’s a problem." So because Johnny and all of his friends say there's no need to worry, we shouldn't. Well gee, I feel better already. How about you?

Demonstrating what is very plainly a lack of seriousness on the part of Democrats about the need to cut spending, it was back on March 6 Conyers introduced what he called "Cancel the Sequester Act of 2013," in an effort to reverse sequester cuts, which amount to 1.2 percent ($44 billion) of the federal budget this year, and started to go into effect on Mar. 1. But, pretty much at the same time tax rates are still being described as being too low, with a current proposal flying around that would raise taxes further by another $1 Trillion. That's just NUTS!

Look, the federal budget deficit for the last four fiscal years has not fallen below $1 trillion. The total national debt currently stands at $16,700,634,854,470.52. It was $10.6 trillion when Barack Hussein Obama became president in January 2009. How can any responsible individual look at that amount and not think that maybe, just maybe, things have gotten a little outta hand here? Also, how is it that those who have it within their power to at least slow things down a bit, remain content to simply look the other way and justify their irresponsible behavior with all manner of lame excuses. And I'm tired of excuses, we're going over the cliff here!

Because at the same time, over on the other side of the political aisle, we have our rather gutless Speaker of the House, John "Boner" Boehner who has now said he would not include language to defund Obamacare in the continuing resolution bill when it returns to the House, stating, "our goal" is "not to shut down the government." Why not? So what's the alternative, there, John? To keep on spending like we have a limitless amount of money? This is insane. If Boehner hasn't got the stomach to do what we all know needs to be done, then we need to get him the Hell outta there! He' of no use to us.

It's all pretty simple, really, under the Constitution, the Executive Branch cannot spend any money from the Treasury unless it is appropriated by a law passed by Congress. The government is now spending money under a CR that expires on March 27. For the government to spend money after that date, Congress needs to pass a new CR appropriating the money. If that CR prohibits the administration from spending money to implement Obamacare, Barry "Almighty" cannot spend money implementing the disaster that is Obamacare.

Were the House to pass a CR prohibiting funding of Obamacare the only way the president or Democrat-controlled Senate could get money to implement Obamacare would be to refuse to pass the CR and thus shut down government funding for everything else until the Republican House relented and agreed to fund Obamacare. If the House refused to fund Obamacare, it could not be implemented. So I'm just not getting what the problem is here. It would seem to be a no brainer, and yet our stellar leadership just can't bring themselves to do what we all know is needed!

During his weekly press conference on Capitol Hill on Thursday, Boehner was asked if he agreed with Sen. Ted Cruz's suggestion that the Republican House should put language in the CR defunding Obamacare when the Senate version of the CR comes back to the House. "We have voted many times over the last 2 years that we've been in the majority to defund Obamacare, to repeal Obamacare, and we will do so again here in the House in the coming months." Boehner said. "Our goal here is to cut spending." Adding, "It’s not to shut down the government."

He went on, "I believe that trying to put Obamacare on this vehicle risks shutting down the government," Boehner said. Adding again, "That’s not what our goal is. Our goal here is to reduce spending." So instead of seizing the opportunity, our gutless wonder, here, takes a pass. He essentially simply follow the lead of Barry "Almighty" in deciding to just vote 'present'. He's presented with a prime opportunity to do that which he claims he WANTS to do, and instead does absolutely nothing. How Boehner-like.

And you know, I guess what really pisses me off is the fact that House Republicans have symbolically voted to repeal Obamacare over 30 times in legislation that did not need to pass. And yet, every time they have enacted legislation that must-pass to keep the government funded, they have declined to include the necessary language that would, in effect, repeal all or any part of Obamacare or that would withhold funding for all or any part of Obamacare. Which makes them as useless to us as the Democrats. If they are not going to follow through, then maybe it's time for some new blood.

So I guess what I'm getting at here is that between the Democrats who continue to claim that no spending problem exists, and the Republicans refusing to do anything about the spending problem that they all seem to agree does exist, we, the American people, are stuck in the middle and once again get screwed. So somehow we're going to have to figure out how to take matters into our own hands if we are to have any hope of salvaging what's left of our country. If we are not going to be able to convince Boehner, Cantor and McCarthy to do the right thing, then they'll just need to be replaced.

And since I'm pretty sure none of them will go willingly, we'll then be forced into the position of having to find suitable replacement candidates for their respective districts as well as finding those already in the House and who possess the necessary 'balls' to lead , and who are actually willing to do so. This is all likely to be very time consuming, but if our current 'leaders' are going to refuse to do what so obviously needs to be done, the only other option that we have is to work to replace them. They need to be shown that either they listen to us, or they will be made to face the consequences.

Look, the days of letting these guys go off to Washington and play at being someone important and to do pretty much whatever they want to do, are over. We've been way too lax in our supervision when it comes to members of Congress. They now seem to be under the impression that are free to do whatever they can garner enough votes to do. They seem to have forgotten that little aspect of our arrangement that says they work for US. We simply can no longer afford their foolishness, and either they're going to start listening to us or they're going to have to be made to lose their cushy little 'jobs' as well as their titles. WE run things, and we need to start doing a much better job!

THE EROSION OF AMERICAN LEADERSHIP, COURTESY OF OBAMA...

Here's something that I'm sure will not come as much of a surprise at least to those who care about such things, because they've most likely been paying attention. But, apparently, the last year of Barry’s first term saw a continuation of the slow decline in worldwide approval of U.S. leadership that has seemed to plague his administration. And that, my friends, is according to a new Gallup poll. Across the 130 countries surveyed, the median U.S. approval rating in 2012 stood at 41 percent, and that's down from 46 percent in 2011, 47 percent in 2010 and 49 percent in 2009. Quite an accomplishment by someone who was supposed to be the guy that was going to make America respected again. That doesn't seem to have gone too well, even with the kick off apology tour.

Overall, U.S. approval ratings between 2011 and 2012 dropped in 70 countries, climbed in 42 with the rest showing pretty much no change. And in those few cases where a country was not surveyed in 2011, no comparison was possible. When asked, "Do you approve or disapprove of the job performance of the leadership of the United States?" most of the countries producing the highest disapproval scores were, big surprise, in the Middle East and South Asia. "This shift suggests that the president and the new secretary of state may not find global audiences as receptive to the U.S. agenda as they have in the past," commented Gallup pollster Julie Ray. "In fact, they may even find even once-warm audiences increasingly critical."

Some of the biggest year-on-year falls were recorded in Zambia, where approval dropped by 24 points to 59 percent; Kenya, with approval down by 15 points to 68 percent; and Pakistan, which accounted for a drop of 14 points, to just 12 percent – making Pakistan, jointly with Iran, the country where approval of U.S. leadership was the lowest tracked anywhere last year. Some of the biggest year-on-year increases were measured in Chad (up 19 points to 81 percent), Bangladesh (up 14 to 37 percent), Thailand (up 12 to 56 percent) and Mexico (up 11 to 37 percent). And the natural result of all this is that because America is less respected, the world as a whole become much less stable and therefore much less safe. Not that that matters to Barry.

In 2012 we saw U.S. approval ratings sink to 30 percent or lower in 32 countries across the globe. Of those, 13 were Islamic countries, including Egypt at 17 percent, Iraq at 22 percent and Turkey at 26 percent. Among non-Islamic states in the 30 percent-or-lower category were Russia, at 13 percent – third from the bottom, just above Pakistan and Iran – Argentina (19), Greece (24) and India (26). Regional trends showed approval ratings were highest overall in sub-Saharan Africa, although North Africa was largely negative – with the notable exception of Libya, where approval stood at 54 percent. I would have thought it would be a little lower in Libya, the site where the first U.S. ambassador was murder in 30 years. But go figure.

In the Americas, approval ratings declined in nine countries and rose in nine countries. Argentina’s 19 percent approval placed it at the bottom of the list, below Nicaragua (28 percent) and Venezuela (31 percent). At the other end, Haiti accounted for both the highest positive rating, 79 percent, and the biggest year-on-year increase, 12 points. In Europe, approval ratings dropped in 25 countries and rose in 11. The median across the continent was 36 percent – down from 42 percent in 2011, and from 47 percent in 2009. The survey found majority approval of U.S. leadership in only six countries in Europe – Kosovo (87 percent), Albania (80), Britain (69), Ireland (67), Netherlands (60) and Italy (51). Not much of a rousing endorsement, that's for sure.

Russia in 2012 replaced Serbia as the European country with the lowest opinion of U.S. leadership, while double-digit losses were recorded in Belgium (-19 points), Croatia (-15), Hungary (-15), Macedonia (-10) and Austria (-10). Ray said the European trend suggested that "the U.S. was likely shouldering some of the blame for the ongoing financial crisis in Europe." In Asia, approval ratings dropped in 18 countries and rose in 15. Among the highest were the Philippines (64 percent), Cambodia (62), New Zealand (56), Thailand (56) and Australia (55), while the bottom five were Iran and Pakistan (both 12), Sri Lanka (14), the Palestinian territories (15) and Yemen (18). This is but another consequence of a presidency that we may well never begin to recover from.

Because as American influence continues to be viewed by fewer and fewer countries as being a reliable source for good, the further the entire world will continue to decline toward what will eventually become a point of no return, crossing into a period of darkness from which it might well be impossible to escape. Like it or not, the world NEEDS a strong America, and not just militarily, but economically and financially as well. And right now Barry has us extremely weak, both economically and financially, and he is working to further weaken our military. He came into office on a mission which was to take America down a notch or two, and he as succeeded in doing just that. But how can anyone say that the world is a better place as a result? These are dangerous times, my friends, and if America is going to refuse to lead, then somebody else will gladly step up.

DEMOCRATS PRESS THEIR POINT THAT WE DON'T HAVE A SPENDING PROBLEM...

In what I can only assume is another attempt by a Democrat to prove the point that we don't have a spending problem, but a "paying for" or "misallocation of wealth" problem, we had Patty Murray, the Democrat chair of the Senate Budget Committee, releasing something that was referred to as being a budget yesterday. Year after year, in this proposed budget, spending jumps, and rather dramatically so. Just as a for instance, from this year's budget to next year's proposed budget, spending would increase by $162 Billion. This year, the federal government will spend $3.599 Trillion; under Murray's budget, the federal government would be on track to spend even more. I think most of us are able to recognize the fact that what's being proposed here is nothing short of a fiscal impossibility.

Over the next decade, under Murray's proposed budget spending would increase by a staggering 62 percent. The above chart from the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee details the increase in spending over the next decade. As the chart shows, the budget would increase a bit each year, under the Democratic plan. "Murray’s budget spends $2.2 trillion more in 2023 (the last year of the budget window) than the 2013 levels – a 62% increase (significantly outpacing inflation)," says a staff member on the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee. In an interview that aired yesterday, even Barry made the point saying, "[W]e don’t have an immediate crisis in terms of debt. In fact, for the next ten years, it’s gonna be in a sustainable place." Oh really? Sustainable?

Whenever I hear about something like this the first thing that pops into my head is that these people truly are trying to force a complete financial and economic meltdown in this country. I mean how else can you possibly explain what it is that they're doing or attempting to do? Normally to present such a idiotic proposal and actually identify it as being a budget would be considered as being nothing short of insane. So I'm now beginning to wonder if there are enough people who are able to recognize that what is now actually underway here is an attempt by the Democrat Party to destroy this country. They used to be a bit more covert about their intentions, but in the era of 'Barack Hussein Obama' they've come out into the open, and today almost brag about their desire to bring America down.

People are going to have to come to the realization that the government does nothing to actually make money. It provides no goods nor services from which it makes money. All of the money the government 'acquires' comes to it courtesy of taxes and fees, or money that it essentially steals from the governed. So when Democrats talk about spending more, it's not like they sell more of a product or provide more of a service from which they can bring in more money. What it does is to increase the amount it steals from those who are still fortunate enough to have a job. And the more money it takes for itself, the less people will have to spend on those things that genuinely stimulate the economy to grow and become stronger. It's a pretty basic principle and yet far too many folks just don't get it.

And I'm sorry if I have to be the one to break the bad news here, but there ain't no such thing as 'free money.' But because of the great brainwashing that has now been taking place for decades, people seem to have come to the conclusion that such a thing actually exists. For too many of those in this country have either forgotten what it once meant to be 'American' or never had that concept instilled in them in the first place. We have, over time, become a nation of parasites, where nearly 50 percent of us see no reason why we should contribute the least amount to keeping this experiment in freedom called America afloat. Now, I'm a firm believer that we are all products of the decisions we make throughout our lives, good or bad. And we have no right to expect others to pay for bad choices.

And yet, a growing number of people today have allowed themselves to be convinced that they are somehow society's victims, that their misfortune is to be blamed on those who happened to make decisions that proved to be a little better. And somehow, or so the logic seems to go, those who made life's better choices are painted as having taken advantage of those who made not so good choices, and as such are in need of being punished by being made to hand over more of their hard earned money to those who are essentially only victims of themselves. Everything has just gotten so turned around. I barely even recognize my country anymore, and frankly, it makes me more than a little sad. But here we are. And I'm wondering just how bad things will have to get before folks get it

DEMOCRATS PLAY FAST AND LOOSE WITH THE NUMBERS…AGAIN...

Have you ever noticed the fascination that Democrats seem to have with numbers? Whether real or fictitious, usually fictitious, Democrats use numbers as both a basis for their bizarre arguments and as means of garnering support for them. And no matter what they may be talking about, you can often find yourself listening to two or more Democrats talking about the same issue but hear each of them quote different numbers supposedly related to the very same topic of discussion. And yet rarely, if ever, are Democrats ever exposed, and rarer still are they ever confronted and required to provide the least amount of proof to back up any of the numbers that they continue to throw out for general consumption. And the same goes for all of the faulty numbers currently flying around that, again according to Democrats, demand that some sort of action be taken on curbing gun violence.

I think it very safe to say that most of the numbers that the Democrats claim provide absolute proof that their side is right on this gun issue, a significant percentage of them long ago passed their 'Sell By' date. And perhaps none is used more prominently than the claim that somehow fully 40 percent of gun sales still take place without any background checks. This little jewel has been misquoted by just about everybody these days and has been cited as being gospel by all manner of public figures and gun-control nuts, including Barry "Almighty" himself. But the truth of the matter is that it's nearly a 20 year-old statistic that, when it was conjured up, was not much more than an educated guess. So rather than do any actual research, once again Democrats latch onto a number that they think strengthens their argument and they run with it. It matters very little whether it’s accurate.

Look, even those who are strong on gun-rights freely admit that criminals are able to get their hands on guns, and do so primarily from the off-the-books market. But no one, NO ONE, knows how many guns skirt the criminal-check system by taking place at gun shows, in private transactions or otherwise outside the regulated channels. Public policy research is scarce on the subject. And what we have to realize here, is that just because Democrats can spew numbers, even with a certain air of confidence, that does not make the numbers that they are "quoting" in any way correct or reliable. Democrats lie and Democrats distort and yet they are never called on it by our stellar state-controlled media clowns. Democrats are absolutely salivating over what they see as being a prime opportunity that would allow them to rip guns from the hands of law-abiding citizen.

For example:

BARRY "ALMIGHTY", on Jan. 16: "It’s time for Congress to require a universal background check for anyone trying to buy a gun. The law already requires licensed gun dealers to run background checks, and over the last 14 years that’s kept 1.5 million of the wrong people from getting their hands on a gun. But it’s hard to enforce that law when as many as 40 percent of all gun purchases are conducted without a background check. That’s not safe. That’s not smart. It’s not fair to responsible gun buyers or sellers."

MAYORS AGAINST ILLEGAL GUNS, a coalition favoring tighter gun controls, on Tuesday: "Around 40 percent of U.S. gun transfers are conducted by unlicensed `private sellers’ who are not required to conduct a federal check, and who often do business at gun shows and on the Internet."

NEW YORK MAYOR MICHAEL BLOOMBERG, on Dec. 17: "Congress should pass the Fix Gun Checks Act, which would close the `private sale loophole’ that allows more than 40 percent of gun sales to go through without a background check."

REP. DAVID CICILLINE, D-R.I., on Jan. 26: "More than 40 percent of sales nationally are made without background checks."

VICE PRESIDENT 'SLOW JOE' BIDEN, on Jan. 17: "Because of the lack of the ability of federal agencies to be able to even keep records, we can’t say with absolute certainty what I’m about to say is correct. But the consensus is about 40 percent of the people who buy guns today do so outside the … background check system."

And now in doing my own little rendition of Joe Friday, I would like to take this opportunity to present what are actually the facts, and just the facts as they relate to at at least this particular number:

First off, and frankly I’m amazed that I’m even saying this, old 'Slow Joe' Biden stands pretty much alone here in acknowledging that he may just be saying something that isn’t quite right. However, everyone else who has proceeded to throw the number around has provided no such disclaimer when doing so, they simply spewed the number out as if it is an accurate reflection of how things are in 2013. But there is less than meets the eye here in that claims that gun sales made without background checks comprise "more than," "as many as," "nearly" or "about" 40 percent of all gun sales are actually rooted in a poll looking broadly at gun ownership in America. Sponsored by the Justice Department through a grant to the Police Foundation, the poll’s principal relevance today is as a snapshot of the way things were when it was taken. Which was back in 1994, nearly 20 years ago.

This specific bit of research reported on the nature of gun acquisitions made in 1993 and 1994, and asked people who had obtained guns 'back then' where the guns had come from and whether they thought the source was a federally licensed dealer. Although the survey interviewed more than 2,500 people, just 251 had acquired guns during that specific timeframe, which is a too small sampling from anybody would be able to make any sort of a general conclusion. In all, 64 percent of those respondents reported acquiring a gun from a source they thought to be a licensed dealer, suggesting that 36 percent of gun acquisitions were in the secondary and unregulated market. But the study’s researchers found considerable ambiguity and some apparent contradictions in the responses. So essentially not much in the way of useful information was gained.

So with a clear picture being somewhat elusive, it was then estimated that 30 percent to 40 percent of the acquisitions were off the books and would not have been subjected to any background check. Hence we have what essentially nothing more than a SWAG, or a Scientific Wild Ass Guess, that has now been turned into a number spouted as gospel. And it just ain't so. More than 17 percent of guns acquired in 1993 and 1994 came from a family member, according to this same poll – a source of weapons that would remain largely unregulated in pending Senate legislation calling for expanded checks. Discounting family acquisitions, the percentage of gun transactions eluding background checks – whatever that figure actually is – would be considerably less. But still the Democrats insist upon throw around a number that is completely meaningless.

The statement made by that illustrious little gaggle known as the coalition of mayors took it upon itself to follow a Senate Judiciary Committee vote along partisan lines Tuesday to expand background checks. In contending that 40 percent of gun transfers are conducted by private sellers, often "at gun shows and on the Internet," the mayors used what they knew was essentially bogus information and presented it as being an accurate representation of what's occurring today. In other words, they knowingly lied. They cited the same old study that everyone else has, one that was done back in 1994. So in failing to be able to come up with any information that was actually current and that would support their desire to squash the Second Amendment, they, instead, used information from roughly 20 years ago. It's just more propaganda.

OBAMA, “DEBT CRISIS? WE AIN’T GOT NO DEBT CRISIS!”

This has got to be the best example yet of someone either living in full-fledged denial, or committed to telling the American people that which he knows to be false. Barry "Almighty" during an interview with, that faux journalist and political retread from the days of 'Slick Willie' Clinton, George "Stefy" Stephanopoulos released Wednesday said that the U.S. doesn’t have a debt crisis, continuing the idiotic Democrat mantra. I know, I know, what we have here is a "paying for problem" or a "misallocation of wealth", anything but a debt problem. So even though we're being spent into the poor house at a record pace, we don't seem to have any kind of a spending problem. Sure we don't!

Barry's patently dishonest remarks were made in response to "Stefy" asking him about his ongoing negotiations with Republicans over entitlement reform. To which Barry responded by saying that the GOP doesn’t know what the White House has in mind. "But even the ones who’ve seen your plans say they need to see more," said little "Stefy." Barry answered by saying, "Well– I understand. Which is why, at some point, I think I take myself out of this. Right now, what I’m trying to do is create an atmosphere where Democrats and Republicans can go ahead, get together, and try to get something done," the president said, per an early transcript of the interview.

And then trying to make it sound like he's already made substantial spending cuts, Barry lied saying, "And, you know — I think what’s important to recognize is that — we’ve already cut– $2.5– $2.7 trillion out of the deficit. If the sequester stays in, you’ve got over $3.5 trillion of deficit reduction already," he added. What the Hell is he smoking? Or, drinking for that matter. He has not cut one dime from what is a very bloated federal 'budget' of his making. During his watch we've amassed nearly $17 Trillion dollars of debt or $56,000 for every man, woman and child in this country. And he can look at the American people and say that, nope, no spending problem here!

And then in bringing back memories of hearing 'Slick Willie" attempting to redefine the word 'is,' we seem to have Barry trying his best to redefine exactly what a "debt crisis" is and is not: Barry said, "And, so, we don’t have an immediate crisis in terms of debt. In fact, for the next ten years, it’s gonna be in a sustainable place. The question is, can we do it smarter, can we do it better? And — you know, what I’m saying to them is I am prepared to do some tough stuff. Neither side’s gonna get 100 percent. That’s what the American people are looking for. That’s what’s going to be good for jobs. That’s what’s gonna be good for growth." So, just what tough stuff is he prepared to do, exactly?

Then he goes on to say, "But ultimately, it may be that– the differences are just– too wide. It may be that ideologically, if their position is, "We can’t do any revenue," or, "We can only do revenue if we gut Medicare or gut Social Security or gut Medicaid," if that’s the position, then we’re probably not gonna be able to get a deal." And, he went on, "That won’t — that won’t create a crisis. It just means that we will have missed an opportunity. I think that opportunity is there and I’m gonna — make sure that they know that I’m prepared to — work with them. But ultimately, it may be better if some Democratic and Republican Senators work together."

You know for someone who is constantly being heralded as one of great political leaders of our time, Barry really hasn't led on squat since he was first elected. Here again he's proposing some idiotic gang of whomevers over in Congress should get together and knock something out, instead of maybe contributing a little elbow grease to the process himself. Other that his much talked about "Charm offense" he's done nothing. And apparently since we don't have a spending problem there's no real need to cut spending, only to raise taxes. But we just did that! Raising taxes cannot be seen as being the only cure-all here, as much as Democrats would like it to be. We are spending too much!!

THE WHOLE BOGUS OBAMA 'CHARM OFFENSIVE'...

Remember way back when, when Barry told us all that his would be the most transparent administration in history? Well speaking of transparent, I think most of us have been able to recognize what’s going on regarding Barry latest attempt at what’s been called a "charm offensive". Except for, of course, those 12 GOP boobs that took him up on his silly little dinner invite. From the get-go there have been any number of characters there on his team who were busy describing the schmooze assault as a bunch of nonsense as well as a silly waste of Barry's valuable time. You know, time that he could be spending on the golf course or on another exotic vacation somewhere. And after having been underway for roughly two weeks, there may now be a few cracks developing in what as has been the rich air of charm emanating from White House.

First to pretty much lose any and all semblance of, at least appearing to possess, a sunny disposition was Spokesmoron Jay Carney. Carney had been doing his best, or as best as could be expected, in his effort to appear to be the occasionally charming spokesman for our kinder and gentler president, going so far as to begin his daily media briefing this past Monday with a big smile, a rather uncharacteristic sunny disposition and even a bit of percussion right there at the lectern. He even greeted those assembled with a hearty, "Happy Monday!" Wearing what could arguably be described as a festive yellow tie and assuming a rather relaxed pose, he went on, "Good afternoon. Thanks for being here for your White House briefing. Spring is here early." It was almost enough to ask, "Who are you and what have you done with Jay?"

But it didn’t take long before the storm clouds began to gather and our trusty Spokesmoron was back into his customary wintry mood. The first questioner, I guess the one that started things to go chilly was the Associated Press’s Jim Kuhnhenn. He asked Carney to square Barry "Almighty’s" supposed "charm offensive" with his decision to speak this week to the highly partisan Organizing for Action group. Our suddenly-not-so-sunny Spokesmoron set to work in an effort to correct the obviously confused Kuhnhenn by saying, "I think you’re misrepresenting the group." Next came NPR’s Mara Liasson who asked a question about Barry’s yet-to-be-released budget. "Mara, the way you phrase that question, you know, makes me think that you’re still working on a typewriter or something," Carney told the 57-year-old Liasson.

But the disposition that had a first, at least, appeared to be so sunny, continued its slide into the abyss as Carney further then informed ABC News’s Ann Compton that she had a mistaken understanding of the president’s meetings this week with lawmakers. And when CBS’s Bill Plante pressed him on when Barry would release a budget, which by the way was supposed to have been done last month, Carney struck a rather aggressive pose by leaning forward a bit and with all signs of the previous sunny disposition having, by then, completely dissipated. "I challenge virtually every premise of your question," he told Plante. "I don’t know what your question is here," he said when Plante tried to ask it in a different way. Carney's such a jerk, I swear. This entire administration is made up of folks who are complete assholes!

And in proving that he was not quite done with his chastising of Plante, our stellar, intrepid Spokesmoron asked the 75-year-old newsman, when he persisted in inquiring about the tardiness of the budget, "Bill, how long have you been covering Washington?" Carney then took another shot, asking, "Has there ever been a presidential budget that was enacted, word for word, into law?" NBC’s Chuck Todd broke in, telling Carney that a president never waits until after the House and the Senate introduce budgets to introduce his own. "Well, I disagree with that," Carney snapped. Well if this is their attempt at a charm offensive, which is how so many have chosen to describe it, I'd hate see the version of their asshole offensive. Oh wait a minute, silly me, we already have, for the last four years!

This whole nonsensical farce began last week, when Barry put on a bit of show by take a dozen Republican senators out to the Jefferson Hotel for a meal of blue crab risotto, lobster Thermidor, sea bass and the like. Then he followed that up by inviting House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan to the White House for some more sea bass, accompanied by vegetable soup. And this week we’re told that we can expect Barry "Almighty" to pay three visits to Capitol Hill, something that ordinarily would take him several months, if not longer. At the same time, White House reporters say they’ve noticed a softening in Barry advisers’ tone since Bob Woodward’s public spat with White House official Gene Sperling. The phone calls and e-mails from the president’s aides have become less confrontational and less vulgar. Vulgar? Really?

While this charm offensive of Barry's may be a welcome development, let's not forget that it's nothing more than a tactic. There’s nothing genuine about it. And Republicans who have been the targets of Barry’s ire need to be very wary of not getting sucked by all the false sincerity or supposed warm feelings. The meals and the House (and Senate) calls don’t necessarily mean things will change for the better in the capital, nor should they. While Barry may have had a nice lunch with Ryan last week, it didn't seem to cause Carney, on Monday, to decide against blasting Ryan’s Medicare proposal. Which he essentially did by saying, "This debate was had over the previous year and a half, and I think the American people were categorically opposed to the approach that says that we should voucherize Medicare."

'Spokesmoron' Carney also vigorously defended Barry’s decision to speak to Organizing for Action, a group of former Barry staffers and donors using his reelection campaign’s infrastructure to pressure Republicans to support his agenda. "I’m wondering whether there’s potentially a mixed message there," the AP’s Kuhnhenn said to Carney, "because last week, OFA sent out an e-mail calling Republicans obstructionists, blaming them for the sequester, saying if only they had voted for closing tax loopholes, the public wouldn’t be in this jam." Carney smiled, and proceeded to lie, saying, "Republicans made a choice," he said. "The sequester is here, it’s being implemented as a result of the choice made on Capitol Hill by Republicans," he added. Let’s not forget the sequester was all Barry's doing!

And I suppose the final sign that the supposed charm offense may be crumbling under the stress of its own weight came when Carney argued that Barry’s agenda "is inherently bipartisan" and that it was up to Republicans to sign on. "There’s nothing partisan about deficit reduction," he said. "There’s nothing partisan about comprehensive immigration reform. . . . I would argue that there’s nothing partisan about common-sense solutions to reduce gun violence in America." Well, I guess that sums things up pretty well. Don't ya think? So I guess what's expected at this juncture, at least if the Republicans want to keep this little charm offense going, is for them to just keep their mouths shut and to simply sign onto everything that Barry wants. And then, all will be well and right with the World.