‘GABBY GIFFORDS’, ONCE A PROGRESSIVE, ALWAYS A PROGRESSIVE…

Proving yet again, that for Democrats, what remains of paramount concern is being able to move forward with the progressive agenda, we now have former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords coming out in support of universal background checks. While I do have a certain amount of sympathy for her regarding the injury that she suffered, at the same time I also feel a great deal of contempt for her because of her apparent willingness to ‘use’ that injury as part of the current propaganda campaign designed to counter those claims that stricter gun laws will not increase public safety. Ms. Giffords blasted what she calls "misinformation" and "scare tactics" that she said are being used to derail universal background checks, and implored lawmakers to act now to pass stricter gun control measures. In an op-ed published Sunday in the New York Daily News that just dripped with political rhetoric, the former Arizona congresswoman, shot in January 2011, repeated her call for tougher laws for gun buyers.

"[L]ately I’m not feeling too patient toward senators and representatives who are listening to the misinformation that’s out there about universal background checks instead of to their constituents, and saying they may not support common sense solutions to ending gun violence," Giffords wrote in her op-ed. Doing nothing more than regurgitating her party’s talking-points, Ms. Giffords claimed that an overwhelming majority of Americans support universal background checks. Giffords said she "can’t remember a time when this many Americans spoke with such a united voice in favor of anything." Adding, "And yet, some leaders are suggesting they might not listen to our voices." She wrote, "They repeat old scare tactics, like that there will be a gun registry that could take our guns away from us. My husband Mark and I are gun owners, and we know that’s not true. The Bull Moose Society said clearly that universal background checks ‘do not and will not create a registry.’"

Giffords also mentioned her husband’s, former astronaut Mark Kelly, stunt last month regarding the purchase of an AR-15 and how he underwent a 5-minute background check. "I remember waiting a lot longer than that for the subway to take me to my office when I lived in New York City!" she wrote. She went on to say, "And then we have a second system for those who don’t want to take a background check. Those people, criminals, or people suffering from mental illness, like the young man who shot me, can buy as many guns as they want on the Internet or at a gun show, no questions asked." Kelly was trying to be a smartass in making the purchase of an AR-15 in order to highlight the ease of buying a gun. But the sale was ultimately rejected because of Kelly’s statements that the purchase was "for reasons other then for his personal use." Thus ‘Mr. Smartass’ ended up looking like ‘Mr. Dumbass.’ If these characters are so convinced that they have the solution, why the need to resort to trickery in an attempt to convince others?

And just for good measure, Giffords threw in how she is still working to recover from the critical injuries she sustained in the Tucson shooting. She wrote, "I had to learn to walk again. I had to learn to write and use my iPad with my left hand. I’m still working on regaining my speech; I work every day to get more words back." She added, "Determination guides me every day. And we need to be determined too. Determined to pass background checks legislation — to make it harder for criminals and the dangerously mentally ill to get deadly weapons in the first place." She said passing further background check legislation will show "that we are as strong and resilient and determined as our Founding Fathers hoped we would be" and that the U.S. is "a safer country with strong and honored Second Amendment rights." Adding, "The will of the American people is clear, but our patience is wearing thin. Congress must not fail us. Congress must pass background checks now — to put us on the road to a safer country," Giffords wrote.

But this is the way Democrats operate today. Nothing is more important than making sure that the progressive agenda is allowed to move forward. Every tactic is to be used, every lie that can be told, must be told. And Democrats always seem to think that if they sprinkle their propaganda with a few mentions of the ‘Founding Fathers’ more folks will be inclined to go along with their attempts to rob from us that which our Constitution guarantees. And the fact that Ms. Giffords is so willing to use her injury to assist her political party achieve its goal, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that she cares less about our country than she does about assisting those who wish to further undermine our Constitution. And I’d love to hear how it was that Ms. Giffords arrived at the conclusion that her injury somehow entitles her to be an advocate for restricting that which our Constitution states is the right of every American citizen. I’m sorry for her injury, but it does not earn for her anything other than offers of support and well wishes.

FOR THOSE WHO SAID IT COULDN’T HAPPEN HERE…

Apparently Barry "Almighty’s" latest attempt at what’s laughably referred to as a budget, which we’re told is to be released next week, will limit how much wealthy individuals can keep in IRAs and other retirement accounts. And we’re also told that this proposal would somehow ‘save’ a paltry $9 Billion over a decade. This information comes to us by way of some senior administration official, who also made the claim that such a move would bring more fairness to our tax code. Now before too many folks start jumping on this little bandwagon, I think it’s important to keep in mind here just how it is that this corrupt group of thugs operates. This is always how the set their schemes in motion, by using these so-called "wealthy individuals" for the purpose of getting everybody onboard. But how long does anyone think before it won’t just the IRAs of those "wealthy individuals" that are effected? Soon it’s also the IRAs of average working class Americans that will be effectively getting raided by Democrats as they seek to acquire more "revenue" that can be used to cover the cost of paying off their constituents.

This supposed senior administration official implied that it is inherently unfair that wealthy taxpayers should be able to "accumulate many millions of dollars in these accounts, substantially more than is needed to fund reasonable levels of retirement saving." Ok, says who? Barry "Almighty"? So it’s the government that should now to be the determining body when it comes dictating exactly what constitutes "reasonable levels of retirement saving?" Anyway under Barry’s plan, a taxpayer’s tax-preferred retirement account, like an IRA, could not finance more than $205,000 per year of retirement, or right around $3 million this year. Mitt Romney, Barry’s 2012 opponent, is always used as the case study regarding anything to do with "wealthy individuals, and it’s no different now as Barry’s team presents this latest attempt at a shakedown. Hence it is said that Romney had an IRA several to many times that amount, leading to questions, by Democrats, about how the former Massachusetts governor was able to put away so much money in that sort of a retirement account. It’s all more of the same class-warfare crap!

Barry’s ‘budget’ is expected to hit the street next Wednesday, and it, no doubt, will be very long on ‘revenue-raising’ proposals and quite short on proposing any real spending cuts. And it comes at a time when Democrats and Republicans continue to spar over whether more tax increases are needed to reduce deficits. Personally, that should be a non-issue. The Democrats got their tax increases back in the beginning of the year, and once again there were no cuts in spending even discussed. From this point on the focus needs to be on substantial cuts in spending and serious entitlement reform on not merely cuts in the growth of the rate of spending. This attack on private retirement accounts is something that has been bandied by about Democrats ever since Barry first came into office. There has been a continued desire to impose rules and regulations that would effectively abolish the private retirement saving and investment markets. And to believe the rhetoric that this, somehow, only will effect those "wealthy individuals," is to allow yourself to be duped by a man who’s nothing but a pathetic liar.

YET ANOTHER VERY IMPRESSIVE MILESTONE ACHIEVED BY OBAMA...

 

 

 

Ah yes, it's official, another major milestone has now been achieved toward the accomplishing of that which our stellar president, Barack Hussein Obama, has said is necessary, that being, of course, the "fundamental transformation" of America. You see, according to some newly released data from the Social Security Administration we now know that the number of American workers collecting federal disability payments has climbed to yet another new record, 8,853,614. That was accomplished in March, and is up from 8,840,427 in February. Slowly but surely we are allowing ourselves to be made into what is really nothing more than a nation of pathetic freeloaders.

 

 

Another way of presenting the magnitude of what is actually occurring here, and one that I assume will put it into terms simple enough for even the dumbest of liberals to understand, is to point out that what that means is that there are now more than 3 times as many Americans collecting disability payments than there are people living in the city of Chicago, which according to the Census Bureau has a population of 2,707,120. Now I don't know about anybody else, but that all seems just a bit incomprehensible. I mean, is this what it now mean to be an American? To be a leech, a parasite, someone who is perfectly comfortable with sponging off of their fellow citizens?

 

 

Another obvious indicator of the continuing downward spiral in which we currently find ourselves is the fact that March was the 194^th consecutive month where we saw the number of American workers collecting federal disability payments increase. The last time the number of Americans collecting disability actually decreased was more than 16 year ago, in January 1997. That month the number of workers taking disability dropped by a whopping 249 people, from 4,385,623 in December 1996 to 4,385,374 in January 1997. And as the overall number of Americans collecting disability has increased, the ratio of full-time workers to disability beneficiaries has decreased.

 

 

Look, back in December 1968, we had 1,295,428 Americans who were collecting disability and, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), we also had 65,630,000 Americans who worked full-time. Thus, there were about 51 Americans working full-time for every person that was collecting disability, at that time. Now fast forward to January 1997, again that being the last time the number of disability beneficiaries had declined, and we were up to 4,385,374 Americans who were collecting disability with 104,900,000 Americans working full-time. Thus, we were then down to about 24 Americans working full-time for each person collecting disability.

 

 

Then we move onto March 2013 and a 8,853,614 Americans who are now collecting disability, with 115,841,000 Americans working fulltime, and that equates to only 13 Americans working full-time for each person collecting disability. Now come on, it doesn't take a genius to look at these numbers and to recognize the fact that what we have here is a rather disturbing little trend. And it should also be painfully obvious to just about anyone with a brain, that if things continue on their present course things are going to end very badly. For EVERYBODY! And oddly enough, it is the very policies that have served to accelerate this downward spiral that a majority of Americans voted for in 2012.

 

 

So in March we saw what was the biggest monthly increase in people dropping out of the labor force since January 2012, when the BLS did its census recast of the labor numbers. The number of people who left the labor force, in the month of March, soared by a staggering 663,000 taking the total number of Americans who are no longer even looking for work to a record of 90 Million. And even worse, the labor force participation rate plunged from an already abysmal 63.5% to an even worse 63.3%. And that's the lowest since 1979! You know, back when Jimmy Carter was in charge. Then we had Reagan to turn things around, this time we have nothing but four more years of the same.

 

 

So I guess it can now be safely said that Barry has met with a considerable amount success when it comes to his little endeavor of "fundamentally transforming" America from what was once a very prosperous nation and into what is essentially the equivalent of a third rate European-like nation. And along the way it seems to have become the new American way to, instead of being proudly independent and self-sufficient, sit back and collect disability and other various forms of welfare and entitlement checks rather than to work. Especially since it now seems that such a practice seems to pay just as well as working. Yup, this whole "fundamental transformation" thing is a pretty nasty business.



"HANOI JANE" GOES ON OPRAH...

Well in what I'm not quite sure was some part of weird quest for redemption or some deal with Oprah to gain some much needed viewers for her struggling network, the esteemed Ms. Jane "Better Red Than Dead" Fonda made a recent appearance on Oprah’s foundering network, OWN. During the interview, Fonda said, "I made one unforgivable mistake when I was in North Vietnam, and I will go to my grave with this." The actress/activist/traitor, as many of you old enough to remember may remember, made a rather infamous trip to North Vietnam in 1972 in which she was photographed singing with North Vietnamese military members as she sat on an anti-aircraft gun. (See photo above) She's a fraud, that's all there is to it!

She was criticized then, as has continued to be pretty much ever since, and she claims that she understands all of the anger that has been directed at her over the years. And so I guess we're all just to somehow let bygones be bygones and take her at her word when she says that she knew immediately that she had made a mistake. She also claims to have apologized repeatedly, both privately and publicly on numerous occasions ever since. But isn't that they way it always is with these leftist celebrities? They feel entitled to go out and shoot their big fat mouths off, then when ordinary folks, maybe, start spending a little less of their hard earned money on such things as going to movies or buying music, these entertainment types say they're oh so sorry.

Maintaining that she had no intention of creating any controversy, Fonda told Oprah that the event happened on the last day of her visit. And in what is, most likely, little more than an attempt at trying to garner some sympathy for herself, she said she was tired and didn’t even want to attend this photo op. For any of those who saw the pictures, I don't know about you, but old Jane didn't look all that tired to me. Nope, it looked like she was really getting into it and having a pretty good time! Sounding more like she was trying to make excuses more than expressing any genuine remorse, she said, "I don't know if I was set up or not," she said. "I was an adult. I take responsibility for my actions." The soldiers sang a song and Fonda joined in.

She said as everyone was laughing and singing and carrying on, she was led to the gun site, where she sat down. "And I was laughing and clapping, and there were pictures taken." As she walked away, Fonda claims to have suddenly realized that the pictures would be seen in the United States, and they would not look good. Gee, ya think? Fonda said, "There were no planes, the gun was not operable. It didn’t matter. This is an image that belied everything that I was." Come on, I may have been born at night, but it sure as heck wasn't last night. So, the photo "belied" everything that she was? Sorry, but I don't buy that for a second. I seem to recall things about that time just a bit differently than does Ms. Fonda.

After all, it was this little visit that visit earned for Fonda the rather dubious little moniker of "Hanoi Jane," particularly among U.S. veterans, who were outraged by photos of the young actress. And it was something that, if I remember correctly, at the time she was quite proud of. So I'm not really buying this current claim that she made a mistake. And ya, what she says may be true, I don't know. And she also claims to have met with a group of Vietnam veterans in a church basement in Connecticut back in 1988 while she was making a movie there. She said that while not everyone at the meeting became "fond of Fonda," there was healing. Sorry, but anyone who actually believes that she possess any remorse for her actions is a moron!

"What I learned," she said, "we have to listen to each other, even when we don’t agree, even when we think we hate each other. We have to listen to each other’s narratives, not interrupt defensively or with hostility, but really try to open our hearts and listen with empathy." Look, while I think there's a lot of truth in what she says, I question whether it is something she genuinely believes, because it's not generally how liberals approach things. You either agree with them, or you're accused of being some sort of an extremist. I still view her as being nothing more than an America hating liberal and I have no intention of seeing any movie that she appears in. And I contend that she's still proud of what she did those so many years ago.

OBAMA SAYS, "COME ON FOLKS, YOU CAN TRUST ME."

Doing that for which he is essentially best known, that being the ratcheting up of toxic rhetoric in an attempt to increase pressure on Congress to do his bidding, which, in this case, would be the limiting of access by law abiding citizens to guns, our piss-poor excuse for a president, Barry "Almighty," said on Wednesday that recent steps by Colorado to tighten its gun laws show "there doesn’t have to be a conflict" between keeping citizens safe and protecting Second Amendment rights to gun ownership. Barry said, "I believe there doesn’t have to be a conflict in reconciling these realities." It was during this little stopover in Denver, while on his way to some fundraisers in California, that he stepped up his call for background checks for all gun purchases and renewed his demand that Congress at least vote on banning 'assault' weapons and limiting access to large-capacity ammunition magazines.

It was also during this little speech that Barry, in what was a display of what has become his typical arrogance, he dismissed gun owners’ concerns that gun control legislation could be a stepping stone to gun confiscation in the U.S., saying "I am constrained by a system our founders put in place." Come on, just who does this most corrupt of presidents in my life time really think he's kidding. He's ignored those "constraints" placed on him by the Constitution more times that I care to count. Barry treats the Constitution as if it doesn't even exist. I don't trust this slimy f*ck as far as I can throw him. I guess he must just think that we're either not paying attention to what he's been doing, or, that we simply believe everything we hear, or read, in the state-controlled media. But personally, I have been paying attention and I believe nothing that comes from our 'mainstream' media complex.

And he remains quite determined to use the bodies of dead children in his effort to convince us that we should, somehow, trust him. Barry noted that more than 100 days have passed since the shooting rampage that killed 20 first-graders and six adults at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., and reignited the national debate over access to guns. "Every day that we wait to do something about it, even more of our fellow citizens are stolen from our lives by a bullet from a gun. Now the good news is Colorado has already chosen to do something about it," he said. Keep in mind here that this is the same tragedy for which Democrat Ed Rendell was so thankful for the fact that it was so horrific. Is that not the sickest thing you've ever heard? And now again we have Barry using those dead kids in his attempt to score some cheap political points. There's a special place in Hell for Barry, and for Rendell as well.

And apparently now sensing that that he may be in danger of losing congressional momentum on the issue, Barry went to Colorado, which has a deep-rooted hunting tradition and where gun ownership is a cherished right, to use its example and public pressure to prod Congress to act. Colorado suffered two of the worst mass shootings in U.S. history, at Columbine high school in 1999 and at a movie theater in Aurora last year. It recently expanded background checks for gun purchases and placed restrictions on ammunition magazines. Prospects for passage of similar measures by Congress appear bleak, largely because of concerns by conservative Republicans and moderate Democrats who come down more on the side of gun rights. But it's important to keep in mind that the Colorado of today is a far different place, politically speaking, than the Colorado of just five or ten years ago.

Let's face it, next to having the government seize control of our healthcare, that next thing that Democrats have long been salivating over is successfully 'acquire' the ability to completely disarm the American people. And now with the healthcare issue safely in the 'W' column, it's time to move on to the seizing of our guns. So I'm quite sure that we can now count on being subjected to the same level of outright lies that we heard about Obamacare, about how this is really all about nothing more than increasing public safety. And that my friends, is nothing more than crock. And it is my sincerest hope that bad guys everywhere will soon begin a migration, of sorts, to those states who insist upon disarming their citizens. Because, that will then make me and my family all the safer, in addition to, of course, the fact that we are still able to keep our home safer with the assistance of Smith & Wesson.

WELL, IT'S QUITE THE TANGLED WEB OBAMA SEEKS TO WEAVE...

Just like he did back during his attempt to convince us all that his healthcare reform would be a boon to this country since it would be lowering healthcare cost for everyone while at the same time guaranteeing coverage for all, Barry continues to use the same manner of deception as he pushes for ever more restrictive gun control legislation. And the centerpiece of his attempt to deceive the American people seems to be a statistic, the validity of which, many continue to call into question as he continues to using it as a basis for hi demand for near-universal background checks. Using bogus data to claim that this is somehow a cure-all to 'gun violence,' is disingenuous to say the least.

During several speeches, Barry has persisted in throwing around, as fact, the statistic that 40 percent of all gun purchases ‘today’ are made without a background check. And as has been previously pointed out here, back when that number was first arrived at it was, at best, nothing more than what's fondly referred to by many as being nothing but a scientific-wild-ass-guess (SWAG). And yet Barry persists in presenting it as somehow being a fact. And ya know, the fact that he knows it’s a SWAG, make’s his constantly repeating it, all the more dishonest, providing even more proof that you really can’t believe much of anything that he says. It's all rather disturbing.

Look, as has been stated before by any number of people, this 40 percent number is nearly two decades old and comes from a poll with a relatively tiny sample size. And now gun rights groups like the National Rifle Association (NRA), as well as The Washington Post’s "Fact Checker," are calling out Barry for his continuing to use this obviously bogus stat, saying his numbers on background checks might need a bit of a background check of their own. But let's face it, as he did with Obamacare, Barry will use any 'fact', real or concocted, if he feels that in so doing it will make it easier for him to accomplish that which he seeks to accomplish. Squashing the Second Amendment!

Barry's rather questionable trend of not quite being able to tell the truth, and on a regular basis, is further evidenced by a speech that he gave just last week during which he asked the question, "Why wouldn’t we want to make it more difficult for a dangerous person to get his or her hand on a gun? Why wouldn’t we want to close the loophole that allows as many as 40 percent of all gun purchases to take place without a background check? Why wouldn’t we do that?" And again, he KNEW what he was saying was a lie when he said it! And yet, he continues to use it, and with some conviction, as somehow being proof to back up his claims, and to bolster his effort to hoodwink the American people.

This static, which has now become so frequently bandied about and as somehow being an accurate gauge of what's portrayed as a bigger problem than it is, was actually pulled from a 16 year-old study done by the National Institute of Justice. In this study, researchers actually 'estimated' that roughly 40 percent of all firearm sales took place through people other than licensed gun dealers. The conclusion was based on data from even an older survey of 2,568 households that was conducted 1994. And out of those 2,568 households, only 251 people even bothered to answer the question about where they got their guns. But that all seems to matter very little to Barry.

And in an effort to take things even a step further, PolitiFact actually tracked down one of the co-authors of the study, Duke University professor Philip Cook, and asked him if he thought the 40 percent estimate is accurate. "The answer is I have no idea," Cook is reported to have told PolitiFact. "This survey was done almost 20 years ago." The National Rifle Association has repeatedly questioned the 40 percent claim and says it’s a misrepresentation by gun control advocates to trump up support for universal background checks. To call it merely a misrepresentation of the facts is to be quite generous, to say the least. What it is, is an outright LIE!

Another problem with the study has to do with the sample size, which like I said is a mere 251 people, which is infinitesimal in terms of sampling, with the data acquired being open to interpretation. "With this sample size, the 95 percent confidence interval will be plus or minus six percentage points," The Washington Post fact-checker wrote on Tuesday. "Moreover, when asked whether the respondent brought from a licensed firearms dealer, the possible answers included ‘probably was/think so’ and ‘probably not,’ leaving open the possibility the purchaser was mistaken." So essentially, this 40 percent number that Barry touts on a regular basis, is completely meaningless.

Regarding this nearly 20 year old survey, when all of the "yes" and "probably was" answers were added together, only 35.7 percent of those asked said they did not receive a gun from a licensed firearms dealer. If you round the number up, it becomes 40 percent, however, because the sample size is so small, rounding the number down to 30 percent would also be just as accurate, the paper noted. But for Barry, the quoting of 30 percent compared to 40 percent just doesn't possess the same impact. I mean, from Barry's point of view, one third compared to nearly one half, well that just doesn't make it sound like there's really that much of a problem.

And I'm sure none us are surprised to hear that the administration has yet to respond to questions surrounding the number and why they continue to use it so prominently to promote their gun control measures. But to be fair, Barry isn't the only one who's used the 40 percent figure to make a point. Many other Democrats out stumping for the cause, are also guilty of spreading this falsehood. And if you'll remember, it was in their effort to sway public opinion regarding all the supposed benefits of Obamacare, that made it quite clear that there is no lie that will be left untold if it is seen as, in any way, assisting them to accomplish that which they want so badly. To disarm the American people.

On Jan. 24, Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand stated the importance of background checks during a television interview. "The background checks bill is vitally important. It’s going to basically say you can’t buy guns without getting a background check. Today, about 40 percent of guns are purchased without a background check." Seven months earlier, 'Nanny Mike' Bloomberg used the same statistic to go after the National Rifle Association following the Colorado movie theatre massacre. "There’s a loophole where you can sell guns without a background check," he said last year, on July 22. "Forty percent of guns are sold that way." And he, too, knowingly repeats this lie!

Barry continues to perpetuate this charade of his by using all manner of stats and studies and polls, as he tries to make the case that the Senate is considering common-sense proposals that most Americans support. Which it is NOT! In fact nothing could be further from the truth. Amid resistance from some lawmakers, Barry is ramping up his campaign for the legislation. He plans to visit Denver today, and then in a pathetic attempt to milk, to the fullest extent possible, the deadly mass shooting that occurred in Newtown Conn, he'll stop, next Monday, in Hartford, Conn.. So this slime ball will continue to use dead children as a way to score cheap political points. DISGUSTING!

MORE BOOBS AND BUTTS TO START APPEARING ON A TELEVISION NEAR YOU…

Very soon in the not too distant future the only option that you may have regarding the possessing of any parental control over what your kids will be able to watch on your television will be to…unplug it. That is if the Barry controlled Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has its way. You see this unique group recently announced that it is now looking to relax certain rules that currently prohibit broadcasters from airing indecent material. A public notice posted on the regulatory agency's website Monday said the FCC is launching a review which may end up scrapping the ban on expletives and certain displays of nudity on television. And this would be regardless of the number of public complaints that may result from the action. The notice asked for public comment on its plan.

And it should come as no surprise to anybody that the main culprit behind this assault on decency is none other than Barry’s handpicked, but soon to be retiring, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski. Yup it's this clown who’s behind this move to bring more smut into living rooms all across America. He kicked off this review after the Supreme Court overturned two indecency fines just last year. The agency says it wants to ensure that "indecency policies and their enforcement are fully consistent with vital First Amendment principles." Funny thing, have you ever noticed that the only time these progressive pukes are ever actually in favor of the First Amendment is when they can somehow use it to expedite the moral decay of our already troubled society? Otherwise they're totally against it!

At stake is whether the commission should waive the ban on isolated expletives and non-sexual nudity, focusing instead on enforcing the most extreme cases such as deliberate and repetitive use of expletives. Non-sexual nudity? No doubt, any changes to be made are intended to trigger a new attitude of permissiveness toward swearing and full frontal nudity on television. Remember in 2002, washed up hag of a singer, Cher, used the F-word during the Billboard Music Awards, while reality TV star Nicole Richie used two different expletives on the same show in 2003. But then such sophomoric theatrics are always to be expected from these supposed celebrities. It's how they garner a little press for themselves and why I stopped watching award shows a log time ago.

Also everybody's favorite holier than thou, out to save the world, rock and roller, U2 singer Bono, was also guilty of dropping the F-bomb during a Golden Globes acceptance speech. And in 2004 Janet Jackson's infamous "wardrobe malfunction" gave a shot of nudity during the Super Bowl. Meanwhile, brief glimpses of nudity on mainstream television programs could also be overlooked. In recent years, the Supreme Court has come down against FCC fines on these high profile cases, but that hasn't stemmed the tide of public outrage against offensive displays on television. During the Super Bowl halftime show last year, supposed entertainer, M.I.A. flipped off millions of viewers during a performance of Madonna’s single, "Give Me All Your Luvin’."

"We have certainly come a long way since Gone With The Wind was almost scrapped because Clark Gable said the word Damn," a parent said after the incident. The FCC said it has reduced the backlog of indecency complaints by 70 percent, down by more than 1 million, since last September by eliminating complaints that were beyond the statute of limitations or were "too stale to pursue." So what criteria, exactly, is used in determining whether inappropriate behavior is too stale to pursue? So in this age of dwindling network ratings at the same time ratings for 'adult themed' cable shows are on the rise, I'm sure it'll only be a matter of time before we're flooded with all manner of gratuitous nudity for no other reason than as a means of gaining higher ratings. It's inevitable.

Look, I'm no prude, far from it as a matter of fact. But as an adult, if I don't feel like viewing something that I consider to be inappropriate, I can turn the channel. Children, on the other hand, don't possess the same level of maturity, and most likely would not turn the channel without some intervention by a parent or other adult. Ya know, there's enough going in our society today that robs from our kids the innocence of childhood and prevents them from just being able to be kids. More nudity and inappropriate language on television will only make matters worse. To show you just how far things have gotten, George Carlin once had a standup routine centered around the seven words that you couldn't, then, say on television. These days, it seems that they can all be said on television.

AND THE CAMPAIGNING CONTINUES…

And so it would seem that for our stellar president, Barry "Almighty," the campaign season never quite comes to end. Here we have a man who is apparently forever stuck in campaign mode, and who cares less about being president than he does campaigning for the job. So with the 2012 election barely over, Barry is once again hitting the campaign trail. This week we'll find him heading out to four California fundraisers on Wednesday and Thursday to begin the effort of raising money for the supposed purpose of helping Democrats keep control of the Senate and to successfully seize control of the House.

Now being just a little old blogger and far from being any kind of a real political expert, it would seem to me that this way-early fundraising blitz suggests that, maybe, just maybe, Barry is a bit more focused on efforts to capture the House for Democrats than, and for whatever reason, maybe the White House would like to admit. But I tell ya, if such a nightmare scenario were to actually take place it would then allow Barry to be even more successful at ramming all manner of socialist legislation, in much the same way as Obamacare was, through Congress after the 2014 elections.

According to the thugs in the White House, on Wednesday Barry will be attending two fundraisers for the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), which, as most of you probably know, is the political arm of House Democrats. According to Politico the fundraisers will each be on San Francisco’s "Billionaires’ Row," at the homes of Gordon Getty, who cheerfully contributed $35,800 to Barry's reelection last year, and that of another billionaire Democrat fundraiser, and very vocal opponent of the Keystone XL pipeline, the clean-energy advocate/zealot, Tom Steyer.

After over-nighting in San Francisco, Barry moves on Thursday to Atherton, California for two more fundraisers, this time to raise money for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) which according to Debbie Wizzerman Schultz, is broke. These too will be big-money affairs at private residences. The DNC will be focused in 2014 on winning the House and preserving the Senate for Democrats. And I think it pretty safe to assume that in their effort to do so, the Democrats, including Barry, will leave no stone unturned as they continue their quest for ever larger amounts of cash.

Barry has frequently, and justifiably so I might add, been slammed as being nothing more than our "Campaigner-in-Chief." That he is fundraising so early is a sure sign that the next year and half until Election Day will find policy matters and the conduct of the presidency frequently interrupted by more and more fundraising trips, just as happened during the final year of Barry’s first term. After all, it's not about actually governing, it's all about greasing the skids in order to increase the odds of success in dragging our country even further to the left. That is priority number one!!

THE POLITICS INVOLVED IN DEMANDING ONE PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE...

I have heard it said by some that those on the progressive left need to be ready with some new 'ideas' in case the day should ever come when the GOP gets on, what they describe laughably as being, the "right side of history." To those who are concerned I would only suggest that there's no real need to worry as progressives already have such a plan. And I think most of us are aware that that plan is to increase the number of those not required to pay any income tax from 47 percent to 50.1 percent, and to do so with the help of those newly created voters previously identified as illegal aliens, and then to proceed with the milking of the remaining 49.9 percent for all that they are worth. Sound about right? So the attempt here is rig the game so Democrats have a much easier path to victory

And while I'm on the subject of income taxes in this era of fairness that we currently find ourselves, I'd like to put into perspective the blatant 'unfairness' of our federal income tax system as it presently exists. It's quite simple, really, and I will attempt to make my example simple enough so that even your basic liberal/progressive/socialist will be able to understand it. Although, I'm quite sure the logic in my argument will completely escape them and they will stubbornly attempt to point out the insanity in what I'm attempting to point out here. And I feel reasonably confident that I'll be accused of being selfish, or even racist, or that I do not sufficiently care about my fellow man, because that's what liberals/progressives always do. But having said that, everyone needs to be contributing something!

Anyway, here goes. Let's say a man, just an example, goes to the movie theater and buys a ticket for $10. However, the next man in line has to pony up $40 for a ticket to see the same movie. And the next man is forced to pay $80. Does that sound 'fair?' And then a person steps up to the ticket booth and the cashier actually gives them $10 to go in an see the movie. How about that, is that 'fair?' How can such a system make any sense to anyone but a progressive? But unfortunately that's exactly how our income tax system works. Close to half of all wage earners, or that previously mentioned 47 percent, pay zero federal income tax, with many of them actually receiving income tax credits. Which, I suppose, is a good gig if you can get it. But being a good gig, doesn't make it fair!

Now this is not only unfair to those of us who pay taxes, but in a sense, and your basic progressive will probably have a difficult time grasping this, it's also unfair to them. Those not provided with the opportunity to chip in to keep this little thing called America afloat can be perceived by some, but not all, as being a little demeaning. But Barry is determined in his efforts to increase to highest number possible those not required to pay income tax while taking great pleasure in continuing to describe those which he describes as being rich as not paying their fair share. So as bizarre as it may sound, 0 percent is considered fair for some while 50 percent is not fair for others. Such is the arrangement that we currently find ourselves faced with when it comes to the paying of income taxes.

BOB JOHNSON…NOTHING BUT POINTLESS WHINING…

On this past Tuesday Black Entertainment Television (BET) founder Bob Johnson said something that I wholeheartedly agree with. He said that the nation would "never tolerate white unemployment at 14 or 15 percent." He went on, "No one would ever stay in office at 14 or 15 percent unemployment in this nation, but we’ve had that double unemployment for over 50 years." Now having said that, Reagan, the evil conservative, inherited a black unemployment rate of over 21 percent, when he left office it sat at 11. "The national average is 7.7 percent, and African-American unemployment is 13.8 percent. To be honest, it’s probably greater than that when you count the number of African-Americans who have simply given up on finding employment," said Johnson, who is also founder and chairman of The RLJ Companies.

First of all, anyone who seriously thinks that the 7.7 percent number being thrown around by Barry is an accurate reflection of our current employment situation in this country, is nothing but a complete moron. And I would also argue that a more accurate percentage of black unemployment would be a number somewhere well over 20 percent. But be that as it may, to hear these complaints coming from someone who most certainly voted for the one man most responsible for so many blacks being unemployed strikes as being more than just a little disingenuous. And if blacks as a whole are so pissed off about being without a job, why did THEY vote in huge numbers for the guy who has essentially put them out of work? Obviously, their priorities don’t include being able to find a job to support themselves.

Johnson is just another fraud who seems to take great pains to make excuses while ignoring the obvious. He said the challenge was to figure out why the unemployment rate for blacks has been so high, "and if that doesn’t change, somebody’s going to have to pay, 34 million African-Americans are not going to leave this country, millions of African-Americans who don’t have jobs." Well gee, I would think that would be a simple thing to figure that out, especially for a smart guy like Johnson. The reason millions of blacks don’t have jobs is because there aren’t any jobs. And what exactly has our first black president done in an effort to stimulate job growth. That would be, ABSOLUTELY NOTHIN! There are 10 Million fewer people in the workforce today than there were on January 20, 2009. Let’s see, what happened on that day, Mr. Johnson?

According to a poll Johnson commissioned, which was conducted by Zogby, 50 percent of African-Americans blame the "failure of the education system for minorities/African-Americans" for high unemployment among blacks. Also, 48 percent say the "lack of corporate commitment to hiring minorities/African-Americans" is to blame for unemployment in the black community. Twenty-five percent of respondents actually blame the lack of government policies for the high rate of black unemployment. Eighteen percent don’t blame anyone or anything, and twelve percent aren’t sure. Well as far as faulting the education system, who’s in charge of that? Ah, well that would be the same folks that blacks vote for, the Democrats. So as far as I’m concerned if blacks are looking for someone to blame they can look in the nearest mirror!

Johnson went on, "We can’t be competitive if we don’t put all our people on the field to work, and African-Americans can’t be consumers if they don’t have jobs. They can’t buy houses, and the reason the wealth gap is so high, we don’t [have] home ownership. We don’t have savings. We don’t have investments, and part of that is because we don’t have capital." He added, "So a white household can buy a home. Now it’s even more difficult to buy a home. There’s talk about taking the home deduction away as part of a chance to balance the budget, so all of these things, as I said, however the solution comes out, it’s going to impact us." he said. The net worth of median white households is $118,000 and stands in stark contrast with the net worth of median black households at only $11,800, Johnson said, again citing the Pew Research Center.

In 2009, the median net worth of white households was $113,149, while the median net worth of black households was $5,677, according to a July 26, 2011 report released by the Pew Research Center entitled, "Wealth Gaps Rise to Record Highs Between Whites, Blacks, Hispanics Twenty-to-One." Ok, so from where I’m standing that should the best indicator of all that points out the difference between willing to work versus willing to do nothing more than to live off of other who are willing to work. Ya know, and this is something that Mr. Johnson should know, you only get out of life what you put into it. If all you put into it is $5,677 worth of effort, guess what? So really, if you’re looking for a shoulder to cry on, you’re gonna have to look elsewhere!

And Mr. Johnson either ignores completely, or simply wishes not to discuss it, that the ability to ‘change’ things rests in the hands of blacks themselves. They have played a very significant role in where it is that they find themselves today. They have insisted upon perpetuating the most destructive force to ever hit the black community, the Democrat Party. And now the have the nerve to complain about what it is that they’ve created? Over the course of the last 4 or 5 years there has been much talk about ‘change’, but very little has taken place, at least any positive ‘change’. So if blacks, including Mr. Johnson, are truly interested in ‘change’ then they know what the must do. But I seriously doubt that they have the necessary courage to do what’s needed. And look before someone decides to go off the deep end and start accusing me of being racist, again, what have I said that isn’t true. Our fate, no matter what our color, rests in our own hands.

BIG-MONEY DONORS ON THE LEFT GETTING INVOLVED IN THE GUN DEBATE…

Well I suppose it was just a matter of time before those who furnish the large amounts of cash to Democrat candidates began inserting themselves into what has become the continuing debate on the need for more stringent gun control. And with more than a few red state Democrat Senators waffling on their level of support for Barry’s rather dictatorial gun proposals, at least two top Democratic donors are now stepping forward and applying a bit of pressure by vowing to withhold any and all future financial contributions from any Democrat who doesn't play ball and get fully onboard with supporting the centerpiece of Barry’s plan. That being, of course, expanded background checks. So now that the threats have now been officially issued, I suppose we wait and see what the impact will be.

And with things being what they are, it really shouldn't come as any great surprise that these two very vocal money men, a dynamic duo of the world of leftist donors, reside in two of our most liberal states. Kenneth Lerer is a New York businessman and is chairman of Buzzfeed.com and David Bohnett is a technology entrepreneur and philanthropist based in Los Angeles. Both are major financial supporters of Democrat candidates, and have each given more than a few very substantial contributions over the years. They are both key players in the world of Democrat fundraising and wield considerable influence among other donors and fundraisers. Neither intend to give another dime to any Senate Democrat who does not fully support expanded background checks. And that, it seems, is the name of that tune.

But going beyond that, both also intend on taking things to the next level, so to speak, and plan on suggesting to many, if not all, of their fellow high-dollar donors that they should do the same. The move seem to reinforce what's seen as the rising importance of gun control as a major issue in Democrat politics, as well as the rising level of frustration in some Liberal circles with those elected officials who remain a little gun shy, no pun intended, in their continuing to regard gun politics as somehow being a third rail, at the very moment that many on the left think presents them with the best opportunity in a long time to accomplish that which they have long sought, the gutting of the Second Amendment. And they seem to think that Barry's gun proposals enjoy near universal public support.

Lerer has also said that he would be intensifying his contributions to Democrat Senate candidates in the next few years, excluding, of course, any that don’t take a strong position on gun control. "We intend to get very active in Senatorial campaigns during the next cycle and the one after," he said. Bohnett, too, has made it clear that he will not be giving any more money to Democrats who he perceives as lacking the necessary resolve on guns. "If they don’t do the right thing on background checks, donors like David won’t be able to support them," said Michael Fleming, some guy who 'advises' Bohnett. "You look at what some senators from rather conservative states have done when it comes to supporting marriage equality — they ‘re willing to take a tough stand. We would expect nothing less on the gun issue."

And something else that should come as surprise, rumor has it that 'Nanny Mike' Bloomberg’s little pro-gun-control group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG), has also been 'informally' reaching out to a few top Democrat contributors and encouraging them to evaluate candidates on the basis of their support, or lack of, for strong gun legislation before providing any cash. And a third major fundraiser, Grace Tsau-Wu of Chicago, who was on Barry’s national finance committee in 2012, also has said that she won’t help any candidates who are weak on guns get connected with her network of donors. "It’s hard for me to personally fundraise or get involved in the campaigns of any Democrats who don’t support background checks and aren’t behind the president on the issue of guns," she said.

So this is what we're now going to be up against here folks. We’re going to see a growing number of rabid leftists loaded with cash that they are not afraid to use in an effort to bribe, threaten or just plain buy off as many Democrats as possible in their effort to make it easier for the government to steal our guns. So you see, in the end it really matters very little what 'We the people' may think, or what our Constitution may actually say, it's what the guys with the big bucks want that will ultimately prove to be what's of most interest to our slimy politicians. And I’ll tell ya, if we don't get busy this whole thing is liable to get away from us, and there'll likely be very little time for us to play catch-up. These people smell blood in the water and it's going to take everything that we have to successfully beat them back.

HYPOCRISY AND THE BLACK COMMUNITY...

Further proof of the hypocrisy that seems to run pretty deep in the black community comes to us now in the form of a new poll which was recently commissioned by Black Entertainment Television (BET) founder Bob Johnson and conducted by Zogby. What the poll shows us that 55 percent of African-American adults do not agree with the LGBT community’s claim that gay rights are the same as civil rights for blacks. And yet the folks that blacks continue to insist upon voting for do not agree with them on this issue. Democrats view the 'struggle' of gays to be the equal of the civil rights struggle experienced by blacks. But the holding of such an opinion seems to have very little impact when it comes to voting patterns of those in the black community. They continue to be very firmly entrenched in their commitment to voting for Democrat candidates, no matter what.

"There weren’t any real surprises. On the issue of gay rights, African-Americans are far more conservative on that issue than I think the general population, so that wasn’t a surprise," Johnson, who is also founder and chairman of The RLJ Companies, said Tuesday at the National Press Club when asked what findings surprised him most. "We had another question that we … didn’t put in the speech: Did African-Americans believe that gay rights are the same as equal rights for African-Americans, and surprisingly they shared the view that gays can make the argument that their rights are tantamount to African-Americans, equal with civil rights," Johnson, who is also founder and chairman of The RLJ Companies, said Tuesday at the National Press Club when asked what findings surprised him most. But his claim isn't actually supported by the poll's results.

Johnson’s remark on gay rights seems to contradict the section of his own poll on equal rights for gays, which actually found that in fact, 55 percent of those surveyed said no when asked, "Do you believe that equal rights for gays are the same as equal rights for African Americans." In contrast, only 28 percent said yes. That’s almost two to one who said that equal rights for the gay community is no the same as equal rights for blacks. However, respondents were basically split on the issue of gay marriage. When asked, "Do you believe marriage should be restricted to between a man and a woman or do you believe that persons of the same sex should be allowed to marry and receive similar benefits as heterosexual couples," 42 percent said marriage should be between a man and woman, while 40 percent said same-sex couples should be allowed to marry with benefits.

Respondents were also asked: "Do you believe ministers who oppose homosexuality, including the rights of gays and lesbians to marry are right, wrong, or no opinion." A majority of respondents (35 percent) had no opinion, but 34 percent said ministers were right to oppose homosexuality and gay marriage, and 31 percent said ministers were wrong. While the gap has most definitely narrowed over time, the majority opinion would seem to be the complete opposite of the position held by the Democrat Party, the party that remains the favorite of the vast majority of blacks. Hence my rationale for accusing the black community of hypocrisy. I'm not sure how else to say it. If you are voting for candidates who do not support your values or your positions on issues that are important to you, what else can you call it but being a hypocrite? Seems pretty cut and dried to me.

And I'm constantly hearing about how it is that the Republican Party needs to do more to entice minorities to join its ranks. How it needs to be a 'big tent' party. But I disagree. Blacks continue to place their need for a government check above all else, and until THEY decide to vote for those who actually support their views on such things education, the family, and gay marriage, there is nothing that we can do as Republicans that will convince them to come over to our side. It should be quite obvious to even the dimmest of bulbs that the Democrat Party has been the most destructive entity to ever hit the black community. And yet, blacks remain blindly obedient to the party. They have essentially enslaved themselves to a party that seeks only to prevent them from improving their lives. All we can do, as Republicans, is to present blacks with a viable option, the rest is up to them.

I'M SENSING A TOUCH OF IRONY HERE…

I'm sure pretty much everybody as heard about how the Democrats who are in charge of such places as New York, both State and City, as well as Chicago, continue to make the claim that if only we had stricter gun laws, we could finally rid ourselves of senseless gun violence. Well, a funny thing. Because as it urns out the very districts that contain Chicago, Los Angeles and New York City happen to be ranked dead last, no pun intended, in terms of federal gun law enforcement in 2012. And that would be according to a new report from someplace called the Syracuse University's Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), which tracks federal data. Plus we also know that since Barry "Almighty" first stepped foot in the Oval Office, prosecution of gun crimes on the federal level is down more than 40 percent from that of his predecessor.

Federal gun crimes include illegal possession of a firearm in a school zone, illegal sale of a firearm to a juvenile, felon, or drug addict, and illegal transport of a firearm across state lines. In Chicago, where there were over 500 gun related homicides last year, the majority of gun charges last year were for firearms violations. The districts of Eastern New York, Central California, and Northern Illinois ranked 88th, 89th and 90th, respectively, out of 90 districts, in prosecutions of federal weapons crimes per capita last year, but it wasn't always this way. All three districts fell lower on the list than they had been in years past. In 2010, for example, Chicago was 78th in federal weapons prosecutions. These cities also have some of the nation's most restrictive gun laws, and at the same time some of the most active mayors in championing stricter gun control.

And another funny thing is that New York Mayor Michael "Nanny Mike" Bloomberg, Chicago Mayor Rahm "Dead Fish" Emanuel and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa are all proud members of the national Mayors Against Illegal Guns campaign. Washington D.C., which also has tough gun laws, was in the lower half of the list in 2012, coming in at 78th. In 2011, D.C. prosecuted a higher number of gun crimes, coming in at number 49. National Rifle Association (NRA) chief Wayne LaPierre first pointed to the report on 'Meet the Press', when he essentially demanded to know why it is that the national press corps wasn't asking the White House or state attorneys general to explain their obvious lax federal enforcement of gun laws. But of course, no one's interested in doing that, least of all any of our faux journalists employed anywhere in our state-controlled media.

And apparently Mr. LaPierre's comments didn't sit all that well with many gun control zealots, in particular the nutty little group that calls itself, Moms Demand Action For Gun Sense In America. "It's like, 'don't look at us, look at gun enforcement'," said the group's screwball founder, Shannon Watts. "But the NRA works to block gun prosecutions all the time." I think that the esteemed Ms. Watts has been drinking just a bit too much of her own Kool-Aid. But that's the way these gun control nuts do, they think they can get away with spewing all manner of untruths because no one in the media is going to call them on it. Of course we need to look at enforcement, or the lack of it, as being at the very least a significant contributing factor to what's going on in these cities. What sense does it make to create more laws if the ones currently on the books aren't even being enforced? DUH!

And let's face it, who's surprised by the fact that requests for comment from the U.S. Attorney's offices in both New York and California were not immediately returned. But, and this would be really funny if it weren't so tragic, the U.S. attorney's office in the Northern District of Illinois maintains that federal weapons law enforcement is among the top priorities of their office. "We have a number of different methods of attacking gangs, guns, drugs and violent crime," says spokesmoron Randall Sanborn, who notes that many gun arrests are reviewed to determine whether the arrest should stay with the county or be brought to the federal level. "We look at which court the defendant is likely to get a substantially greater sentence... More cases that used to be brought federally are now staying in state courts because [they are] now able to get a sentence equally great or greater," he says.

The TRAC report notes that many more gun arrests happen at the state and local level than happen at the federal level, and that it's difficult to assess how many prosecutions happen overall. While the districts that ranked lowest last year for federal gun crime prosecutions all contained major cities, the districts at the top of the list for its enforcement were almost exclusively rural. The districts of Southern Alaska, Kansas and Western Tennessee ranked first, second and third in prosecutions of federal weapons laws per capita last year. Oddly enough, Susan Long, a statistician and co-director of TRAC, said the data revealed a stronger federal enforcement presence in rural areas than urban ones. That struck me as being rather odd. Could it be because that's where folks are perceived as having a tendency to cling to their guns or religion? No, I'm sure it's all just a coincidence, right?

THE WUSSIFICATION OF AMERICA CONTINUES...

Well my friends, slowly but surely we seem to be quite willing to allow liberals in this country to continue on their mission of slowly but surely turning us into what is nothing more than a nation of pussies, a bunch of pansies who are too afraid to fight back! The most recent example comes to us from yet another bastion of liberal lunacy, New Hampshire. In the little community of Windham it has now been made official, the playing of that venerable game of dodgeball is to be no longer permitted. Yup! Can you believe it? With each passing day I am to recognize my country a little less.

So sadly the classic gym class game that has been a rite of passage, of sorts, since even before I first played the game, dodgeball has finally met its match in the form of four limp-wristed wimps on the Windham School board, which at a recent meeting voted 4-1 to end dodgeball and other of what it termed as "human target" activities, games with names like bombardment and slaughter. Most likely, these folks are probably the very same wimps who regularly got their asses beat as kids playing the game and saw this as being their opportunity for a little payback. Better late than never I suppose.

The school district told, what I guess is a local television station, WBZ-TV that a handful of parents had complained about bullying, that their kids were actually targeted during dodgeball. Then, of course, the district studied the issue, with a special committee then making the recommendation that the games be ended. Look, I played the game as a kid, and I remember getting walloped on more than one occasion. But I didn't go home crying to mommy and daddy. I made sure to get the ball and to try to wallop the kid that had nailed me. It's called part of growing up!

Stephanie Wimmer, the school board’s vice chair, told WBZ-TV the board is always "looking at our curriculum" for changes. Right, change. We must always be looking for ways to change things. However, change is not always for the better, as we have seen, repeatedly over the course of the last four years. Hey, here's a novel idea. How about schools go back to actually teaching our kids the three 'R's', and let the kids be kids, now there's a concept. Life isn't easy, nor is it fair. And I think we do our kids a huge disservice by doing what was done in Windham.

Comments on the ban varied. One parent, and obviously a liberal loon, Michelle Alllard, said, "There’s a lot of organized games that they could be playing that don’t entail trying to physically hurt the other person, so I have no problem with them banning it." Gina Lanouette, another Windham parent, says the bullying aspect is a sign of the times. "You can see how most kids would enjoy it but you can see how some children are targeted more than others," said Lanouette. Which makes me wonder, was the playing of the game mandatory? Let kids who don't want to play, sit out.

Windham’s Superintendent, Dr. Henry LaBranche, told WBZ-TV the school district is trying to teach students to respect one another, and the games "create conditions inconsistent with that message". What a bunch of idiotic pabulum. I'd like to challenge this goof to a good game of dodgeball. Of course in my day we called it "Battle Ball." Imagine the outcry from wimps like 'Dr.' LaBranche over that? All this is just another example of how this country is nothing more than a meer shadow of its former self. People used to be proud to call themselves 'Americans,' now I'm almost embarrassed.

Frankly, I suppose I shouldn't be all that surprised that something like this would happen in the northeast, one of those areas of the country where wimps seem to rule supreme. But I just get so tired of this 'minority rule' system that we seem to have going on here. Just because "a handful of parents" complain that their little Johnny, or maybe Sally, was being singled out as being perhaps an easy target, nobody gets to play what really is a rather harmless game. Why must we always punish everybody because of a "handful" of liberal crybabies? It's nothin but ridiculous!

ARE YOU ON IT?

If not, why not? Together this man and his corrupt political party are systematically destroying our country. They must be stopped. We must stand up to them. If not us, who? If not now, when?

DEMOCRATS BUSY FORMULATING A PLAN TO GO AFTER SHERIFFS...

Supporters of the 380 sheriffs, in 15 states, who have, at least so far, vowed to defy new state and federal gun control laws, claim that legislation is now starting to pop up all around the country, the specific purpose of which would be to allow the firing of any state elected or appointed law enforcement official who decides not to obey federal orders. The first example of such legislation has emerged in Texas. It has been proposed by some bonehead Democrat by the name of Yvonne Davis, and if it becomes law would allow the removing of any sheriff or law enforcement officer who refuses to enforce state or federal laws.

What's more, this legislation would all the removing of any elected or appointed law enforcement officer for simply stating or signing any document stating that they will not obey federal orders. A gun lobbyist is spreading the word and has been telling certain folks, "Beware because once something like this is introduced in one state, it will be followed very quickly in several other states." Democrats, as everyone should be well aware of by now, are a rather devious and dishonest bunch, and anytime they think that they might be able to get away with something, they will most certainly give it the old progressive Democrat try.

There are as we speak select media outlets that have been charting the growing group of sheriffs who are making it known that they oppose new gun control initiatives. They argue that citizens should be allowed by buy any type of weapon they want that will allow them to properly defend themselves and their families. They also claim that there is no way to tell the difference between old rifle and pistol magazines and the new ones that Barry "Almighty" wants to ban. But apparently, being the brain dead Democrat that she is, that matters very little to the likes of Ms. Davis. According to here, these Constitution supporting sheriffs need to just shut up and do what they're told!

This is the standard operating procedure for scumbag Democrats like Ms. Davis. They dream up some cockamamie regulations that are blatantly unconstitutional, claiming all manner of good intentions and drone on about how their plan will drastically improve public safety. And when people then begin to shoot holes, no pun intended, in their little scheme, they come up with creative ways to try to force compliance, one way or another. Now while these latest legislative attempts don't actually require firing any of these sheriffs for not enforcing laws they view as being unlawful, they do make it possible. But it's still nothing more than an act of pure intimidation.

WHAT’S HAPPENDED TO AMERICA?

I’m sure that there are, today, people in this world who look at America and all that it stands for, or at least what it used to stand for before Barry came onto the scene, and wonder what is it, exactly, that we Americans can possibly be thinking. Many of these people live in such places as Eastern Europe, Russia, China and Southeast Asia, and experience every day, or have experienced in the past, what it's like to live under an oppressive system of government. Millions of people yearning to live in freedom are watching us here in America as we continue to hand over, and quite willingly, more and more of our individual freedoms to what is nothing more than a cadre of corrupt bureaucrats. And I’m sure they must be wondering, why is it that we insist upon becoming more and more like them? Why do we seem so enamored with our government?

And, quite frankly, I don't really have any kind of an answer for them. Other than to say, freedom for many in this country appears to have become something that's simply too difficult to have to deal with. More and more people in this country apparently NEED someone to be telling them what to do and how to live their lives. It’s just easier that way, I guess. That way when something goes horribly wrong, they always have someone other than themselves to blame. However, when trying to explain it to those who have never been fortunate enough to live in freedom, that argument, most likely, makes very little sense. Because to them, what could possibly be more important than being able to live in freedom? Those qualities once viewed as being so uniquely American, and that set us apart from the rest of the world, have simply ceased to exist.

Sadly freedom over the entire course of human history has been, I think it safe to say, a very rare commodity. So you would think individuals blessed to live in a nation founded on freedom, would jealously guard that freedom against those who would try to take it from us. And yet, we here in America a seem to take our freedom somewhat for granted and seem quite eager to simply relinquish, completely, what few freedoms we actually have left. These days to be an American means something far different than it did as recently as just a decade or so ago. Where it once meant to be ruggedly independent, it has come to mean completely the opposite today. Where we were once proud to be able to stand on our own two feet, wanting nothing from our government, now too many us seem to think we just can't get by without government assistance.

And too many of us fail to realize, or to understand, that the more dependent one becomes on the government, the more say that same government will have in how one goes about living one’s life. Because it then has the power to dictate how you are to live you life and failure to obey those dictates, risks losing those services that one has become so dependent on the government to deliver. So now many around the world now look at us scratching their heads, wondering what it is that we can be thinking? They know first hand the hazards involved whenever the government has total control over the population. And yet we seem determined to be willing to ignore the evidence right before our eyes that which is always the result from providing government with too much power. Abject misery and universal poverty is always the natural result.

JOHN CONYERS…LIAR, HYPOCRITE, BOOB…

If you’re one who’s fond of listening to morons then, I suppose you won’t be surprised to hear that John "Cancel the Sequester" Conyers, recently declared that there ‘really’ is only one major political party. Back on March 12 during some sort of an event, while discussing the need to focus on job creation, old, dim bulb, John told the Detroit branch of the NAACP, "the Republican party is fading out of sight almost, so there is really only one major political party of any significance." He went on to add, "Actually without being biased, the Republican party is fading out of sight almost, so there is really only one major political party of any significance."

He continued in his brilliant assessment of things saying, "And what we got to do is not just say – ‘we’re in it’, but how do we make it better, " Conyers continued. "How do we really make it mean something to so many people that say – ‘well, that’s okay Peters you're in the business, you’re a politician, that’s what you do.’ But how do we make it as real as we can for ordinary people that are up against the biggest issue in our country today – jobs." He added, "That’s number one – and I try to, I’m always extremely polite when I go into the White House, but that’s what I try to get to our beloved president."

Now, in a way, I suppose you could say that this senile old dope has a point, in the sense that there does not seem to be all that much of a difference between our two political parties. And that’s the fault of our obviously defective leadership. And that is something that needs to be remedied, and soon. We need to not only stand for those things that put us in stark contrast to Conyers and his crowd, but we need to be able to properly articulate the advantages of our positions over those advocated by the borderline communists that seem to make up the majority of our opposition. The fault lies not in our message, but in our rather lackluster delivery.

And ya know, on the topic of job creation, what is it, exactly, that Conyers and his fellow Democrats have done over the course of the last four years that has actually, and in any way, encourage job growth in the private economy? NOTHING! On the contrary, they have been at war with the very ones capable of creating those jobs. And for this sorry sack of shit, Conyers, to claim that it is suddenly now the number one priority is nothing but one more attempt to deceive the American people! That’s what scum like Conyers practice, out and out deception, and a significant portion of our population believes them, sadly to their own detriment.

We now have over 10 Million fewer people in the work force than we did four years ago and real unemployment is very firmly in double-digit territory, with minorities suffering the most. And that, my friends, is because of, not in spite of, the policies enacted by he who Conyers describes as being "our beloved president," and enthusiastically supported by Conyers and his fellow congressional Democrats. All the more reason for those on our side to spend more time pointing out just what has actually resulted from those policies and what needs to be done if we are genuinely interested in getting more people back to work.

ALAN GRAYSON…WHAT IS IT WITH FLORIDA AND LOONY DEMOCRATS?

I’m sure most everyone is familiar with Alan "The Loud Mouthed Douche Bag" Grayson, yet another elected Democrat from here in Florida who possess an IQ somewhere in the single digits. Alan has now joined the chorus of those coming out and calling for an end of sequestration. Actually, Grayson has actually demanded the end of sequestration. The basis for such a demand, according to this dolt, is that it would lead to a "work until you die" society. "It will cause pain," Grayson said Thursday after delivering a petition to House Speaker John Boehner’s office. "It will cause economic dislocation and then, the wailing will begin. The wailing will begin."

This petition that Grayson is said to have delivered to Boehner’s office supposedly contained some 300,000 names that had been gathered by an online effort from liberal groups, the Other 98%, MoveOn.org and Social Security Works. Of course, as is usually the case whenever dealing with such highly reputable liberal organizations such as these, it’s always difficult to determine exactly how many of those names actually belong to living, breathing human beings and not to folks who have been long dead or to someone’s family pet. I think if we’ve learned anything over the years, it’s that we can never take as face value what these folks say.

"Then they’ll say OK instead of the sequester that is causing all this pain, let’s cut Social Security, let’s cut Medicare, then let’s cut Medicaid," Grayson blathered. "This is the first step down a slippery slope towards you work until you die. That’s why this has to be fought so vigorously. Washington does not normally see 300,000 speak as one." Again, if we’re really talking about 300,000 real people. But, I would venture to guess that upon closer inspection of this petition we’ll be lucking to find a third of the names, if that, belong to real people. History tells us the liberal group can get rather, how shall I say, creative when collecting ‘names.’

I think by this time there are very few people left who don’t know that sequestration was the automatic 2.3 percent reduction in the growth of federal spending that took effect on March 1 as a result of Congress and Barry "Almighty" being unable to reach a deal. But depending on wgo you may get your ‘news’ from, you may not know that the sequester was concocted by Barry as a result of the 2011 debt ceiling negotiations and was meant primarily to box Republicans into the position of having to agree to tax hikes. Like I said, if you listen to the mainstream media it was something forced upon Barry and the Democrats by those crafty Republicans.

And one more little item regarding this moron Grayson is that he’s also a co-sponsor of that brilliant piece of legislation entitled, "Cancel the Sequester Act." And in the endeavor he joins some other Democrat luminaries, John Conyers, Sheila Jackson Lee, and fellow loon from right here in Florida, Frederica Wilson. Quite the brain trust, don’t you agree? Not a brain cell between ‘em. As I’ve mentioned before, I don’t recall hearing any of these geniuses complaining about it when Barry brought the whole thing up. And don’t you think it more than a little lame to claim that we can’t cut a measly $44 Billion from the $3.5 Trillion being spent?

DOESN’T THAT JUST SEND A COLD CHILL DOWN YOUR SPINE?

Speaking like the true progressive/liberal/fascist that we all know him to be, New York City Mayor ‘Nanny Mike’ Bloomberg actually said on Sunday that, in his humble opinion, sometimes the government does know what’s best. And he actually recommended that on such occasions, Americans should simply cede their rights. "I do think there are certain times we should infringe on your freedom," ‘Nanny Mike’ said, during an appearance on NBC. He made the statement during discussion of his soda ban, recently shot down by the courts, and insistence that his fight to control sugary drink portion sizes in the city would go forth.

"We think the judge was just clearly wrong on this," he said, on NBC. "Our Department of Health has the legal ability to do this. … [They’re] not banning anything." ‘Nanny Mike’s’ remaining months in office have included a firestorm of regulations and policy pushes on wide range of issues. Aside from the soda size ban and a well-publicized call for tighter gun control, another contentious policy he pushed: Nudging hospitals to lock up baby formula to force mothers to breast-feed newborns. You’ll also recall his latest idea to keep all tobacco products out of sight. Meanwhile 80 percent of New York City high school graduates can’t even read.

I’m curious about something though, just who is it that makes up those brilliant individuals in government who are supposed to know better than I, how to run my life? Let’s face it, I think we’re all very much aware of the average level of intelligence of your typical government employee, and it’s these folks that we’re supposed to trust as knowing what’s best? Most of them are individuals who are either too stupid to get a job in the private sector, were hired because of some sort of racial or gender quota, or because they knew someone who got them the job. Sorry but that just doesn’t instill much confidence. And I’m not about to cede anything to morons like that!