JUST WHEN YOU THINK YOU'VE HEARD EVERYTHING...

Every once and a while I'll hear something or read something that leaves me scratching my head. Something that makes the point much better than I could ever hope to, that we here in America have finally lost our freakin minds. The most recent example of that something that captured my attention comes to us, of course, by way of one of our so-called institutions of ‘higher learning.’ To be specific, from the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs and its Department of Public Safety. Apparently the odd assortment of individuals responsible for this department have now updated an online statement advising female students to consider a variety of rather unusual actions if they are ever find themselves being attacked. These 'unusual actions' which they now recommend include, vomiting, urinating and to claim that they are menstruating.

And what may be nothing more than a coincidence, I’m sure, this supposed 'advisory' was updated this past Monday evening, just hours after the Colorado state House of Representatives, which is controlled by Democrats, passed a package of gun control bills. Bills that include one that would actually make it illegal for people with concealed weapons permits to carry guns on the campuses of public universities. However, the bills still must go on to the state Senate and then to the governor for signature. Some of the other more interesting pieces of advice that are now offered in this updated ‘advisory' are ones, I suppose, that many would find familiar, from running away without looking back to "yelling, hitting or biting" your attacker. Seriously folks, only some liberal could come up with such idiotic nonsense.

But there were two suggestions that, I think it fair to say, can be described as being a little unorthodox to say the least, and that are already causing quite the stir on social media. And they are: "Tell your attacker that you have a disease or are menstruating," and/or "Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone." These, ah, rather less-conventional methods for fighting off a would-be rapist are apparently now a standard part of ‘Rape Aggression Defense Systems,’ an actual class that the school's public safety department promotes as a means for female students to boost their self-defense skills. Come on ladies, is this really what you want to be as your primary means of self-defense, puking or peeing? Talk about embarrassing. Imagine being force to shout, "Stop, or I'll pee on you!"

What I do find as being more than just a little curious though, is the fact that the site providing these useful little pointers to the women on campus, was updated at 6:30 p.m. Monday which suggests that the move may have been motivated by the Colorado House's passage on Monday of HB 1226. That’s the specific bill which would effectively ban all people, including concealed-weapons permit holders, from carrying guns on the campuses of the state's public universities. The House passed the bill on Monday by a vote of 34-31, but not before it became the center of a major controversy when Democrat state Rep. Joe Salazar made comments during Friday's debate arguing that students should not have access to guns to protect themselves from being raped. I don't think I'd be allowing my daughter to attend any school in Colorado.

"It’s why we have call boxes, it’s why we have safe zones, it’s why we have the whistles," Salazar said, according to KDVR News. This moron went on to say, "Because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at. And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop -- pop around at somebody." The comments drew the ire of a number of conservative pundits, as well as several Republican Colorado lawmakers who were offended by the insinuation that would-be rape victims should rely on rape whistles and safe zones rather than arm themselves against potential attackers. Yup ladies, just run into one of those 'safe zones!'

Salazar did eventually apologize, sort of, for anything that he might have said that anyone may have taken offense to, but he didn't back down from his basic premise that guns are not needed to protect women from attacks on the campuses of Colorado's public universities. "I’m sorry if I offended anyone. That was absolutely not my intention," Salazar said. Adding, "We were having a public policy debate on whether or not guns makes people safer on campus. I don’t believe they do. That was the point I was trying to make. If anyone thinks I’m not sensitive to the dangers women face, they’re wrong. I am a husband and father of two beautiful girls, and I’ve spent the last decade defending women’s rights as a civil rights attorney. Again, I’m deeply sorry if I offended anyone with my comments." What a Democrat dope!

"Updated message from February 18, 2013 at 6:30pm from the Department of Public Safety:

The ten points of information below were used in a context supplemented with additional information during the in-class training covered in the Rape Aggression Defense (RAD) class. The R.A.D. class is offered free of charge as a public service to women who are part of the greater UCCS community. Rape Aggression Defense Systems (RAD Systems) is a hands-on, women only self defense and risk reduction education program designed to teach women realistic ways to defend and protect oneself from sexual and abductive assaults. RAD is an international organization of certified law enforcement instructors. For more information regarding the RAD class, classes scheduled for the spring semester, or any other crime prevention programs, please visit the following pages:

What To Do If You Are Attacked:

These tips are designed to help you protect yourself on campus, in town, at your home, or while you travel. These are preventative tips and are designed to instruct you in crime prevention tactics.

1. Be realistic about your ability to protect yourself.
2. Your instinct may be to scream, go ahead! It may startle your attacker and give you an opportunity to run away.
3. Kick off your shoes if you have time and can't run in them.
4. Don't take time to look back; just get away.
5. If your life is in danger, passive resistance may be your best defense.
6. Tell your attacker that you have a disease or are menstruating.
7. Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone.
8. Yelling, hitting or biting may give you a chance to escape, do it!
9. Understand that some actions on your part might lead to more harm.
10. Remember, every emergency situation is different. Only you can decide which action is most appropriate."

With it being Democrats who came up with these idiotic, and potentially dangerous bills, I can only assume that this is what women must actually want. Because, after all, as we all know, most women have the rather peculiar tendency of voting for Democrats, and on a pretty regular basis. Therefore I can also only assume that most women, if they were to ever find themselves being attacked, would much rather have as being their last resort the ability to simply puke or pee on their would be attacker. That, and again I can only assume, must be highly preferable to being able to pull out a gun and proceeding to then blow the guy's b@lls off! Is that right ladies? Would you really rather it be a full bladder instead of a full clip that's your last line of defense in just such a situation? Is this really what we as Americans have now been reduced to? A bunch of puking and peeing wussies?

IN SPEAKING ABOUT THE SEQUESTER, OBAMA IN FULL PROPAGANDA MODE...

WHAT DO OBAMA'S OWN EXPERTS THINK ABOUT NEW GUN LAWS?

YOU CAN FILE THIS ONE UNDER…GRASPING AT STRAWS…

 

 

‘Slow Joe’ Biden’s Chief of Staff is some moron by the name of Bruce Reed. Recently, in advocating for stricter gun control, Reed said, "If you’re a gang member in Chicago you can go to a gun store in the suburbs and have a friend or a girlfriend buy a gun from a gun store." You sure can see why this bonehead is 'Slow Joe’s' Chief of Staff, can’t ya? Anyway this clone, Reed, was discussing gun laws during what was an online White House event titled "Open for Questions: The State of the Union and Reducing Gun Violence." Personally, I would argue that whenever we hear slugs like this guy say they want to "reduce gun violence" they are really using 'code words' for what they really want to do, which is to ban guns altogether.

 

One of participants of this little group-gaggle commented, "If gun control worked, Chicago would not have had 500 murders last year. Time to target gangs - not guns." In his idiotic response, Reed said, "With respect to Chicago, you know Chicago’s an example--Chicago the city has strong laws but it’s surrounded by suburbs and a state that have much looser laws. So, if you’re a gang member in Chicago you can go to a gun store in the suburbs--have a friend or a girlfriend buy a gun from a gun store." Did the boy have his dancin shoes on, or what? Personally I'd say this little twerp was doing nothing more than grabbing at straws, desperate to somehow justify his idiotic premise regarding a need for stricter gun laws.

 

Goofs like this guy give the phrase, 'lying political hack' a whole new meaning. And apparently being one of those guys who has a tendency to exaggerate, to say the least, he went on to promote his silly little premise saying, "Maybe that person is legally able to buy a gun." Reed continued, "They can turn around and sell it to you and then you go back into the city of Chicago and wreak all kinds of mayhem with that gun. So guns are the kind of problem that if the national system has a bunch of holes--if the national background check system is just swiss cheese than criminals will find their way into it." Again with this notion of a national background check. This guy is such a pathetic fraud, and a pretty good liar to boot.

And despite Chicago’s brilliant Police Superintendent's claim to the contrary, his city's does possess some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. Laws that have prevented gun dealers from opening up shops anywhere within city limits. A recent study on guns seized by Chicago police showed that guns used in crimes come in from other areas. Over 29% were bought in Cook County Ill., the region that includes Chicago. The remaining guns came from other areas of Illinois and surrounding states. And that, folks, is exactly why stricter guns laws will never, ever work. But flaming liberals either continue to refuse to understand, or choose to simply ignore, that fact, as they continue with their quest to completely disarm us.

 

Liberal/progressives continue to believe that you can someone legislate behavior. And to certain degree, I suppose you can, just not good behavior. After all millions have now become conditioned to mooch off those of us who work. But as much as they would like us all to believe that guns, and the right to own one, is the problem here, it's not. Unless, of course, you happen to be a Democrat who sees the Second Amendment as being a potential impediment to you're wanting to completely disarm the American people and thus remove that last line of defense against tyranny. Then I suppose it's a problem. For those of us who still believe in our Constitution, and who do not trust those in government, it's no problem at all.





JESSE JACKSON JR. PLACED ON “TIGHT MEDICAL SUPERVISION”…

 

 

Just what is it about wimpy, limp-wristed Democrats, that every time one of them gets caught with a hand in the cookie jar, they need to be placed on some kind of suicide watch out of fear that they might take their own life. Personally, I’m of the opinion that we should just let them, although I seriously doubt they’d actually have the guts to go through with it. Because I think what they’re really after is nothing more than a little sympathy. Which brings to the point of this little rant. It seems that Jesse "The Extortionist" Jackson Sr. says that his ex-congressman son is now under "tight medical supervision" after being charged with misusing campaign funds.

 

Attempting to perpetuate the myth which I assume he hopes will salvage Junior’s opportunity to again run for public office once the completes his period of incarceration, J.J. the Sr. said in a statement to the Chicago Tribine, "He is struggling with the highs and lows of his bipolar disorder." The younger Jackson was formally charged Friday with misusing $750,000 in campaign funds. Federal documents show Jackson bought memorabilia that once belonged to Michael Jackson, Bruce Lee, Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X. He is also charged with using the funds to buy children's furniture and a gold-plated men's Rolex watch.

 

Jackson resigned from Congress in November, after serving for 17 years in a Chicago-based district. He was supposedly on medical leave for several months last year, during which time he was actually re-elected by those find upstanding folks in his district. Go figure. And at some point during this little example of ridiculous political theater, it was revealed, more likely probably leaked, that he even sought treatment from the Mayo Clinic for his bipolar disorder. Several news reports now indicate Jackson is negotiating a plea deal with the U.S. Justice Department. Jackson faces a maximum penalty of up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

 

Demonstrating that corruption must run in the family, in a separate criminal complaint, federal prosecutors have now charged Sandi Jackson, the ex-congressman's wife, with filing false tax returns. She faces a maximum penalty of three years in prison and a $100,000 fine. Jackson Sr. told the Chicago newspaper that he hopes his son's apology, issued Friday when the charges were revealed, will be well received. "This is a storm; within time, storms pass over," he said. At least, I suppose that’s what everybody hoping for. Because like I said that which Junior is being charged with rarely enough to keep any good Democrat down for long.

 

More often than not, such charges as those that Junior now faces are simply seen as resume enhancers. So when Junior decides to run for office once he’s released from prison, he’ll probably be a shoe in for re-re-election. And it doesn’t hurt that he’s black. Because first and foremost, as we have seen time and again, it’s been proven that blacks will vote for blacks no matter what. That’s their primary criteria for deciding who they’re going to vote for unless of course you happen to be Allen West or Mia Love. Which never really made any sense to me. I just chalked it up to being a black thing. So I am more than sure we haven’t seen the last of Junior.



'CALYPSO LOUIE' SUFFERS FROM AN EXTREME CASE OF PARANOIA...

GAS PRICES...EVERYTHING SEEMS TO BE GOING ACCORDING TO OBAMA'S PLAN…

 

 

We've all heard about what Barry calls his "all of the above approach" to energy policy, but we just haven't seen much in the way of positive results from it. And as much as I hate to sound like a broken record, since Barry first entered the Oval Office the price of gas has done nothing but go up. The average price of a gallon of gas has increased 96 percent since Barry "Almighty" first took office in 2009, and that's would be according to figures from the Energy Information Agency (EIA). According to EIA data, the average price of a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline in the United States was $1.838 on Jan. 19, 2009--the day before Barry took office. As of Monday, Feb. 11, 2013, the per-gallon price had risen to an average of $3.611--an increase of 96 percent. The $3.677 is not the highest gas prices have been under President Obama. That record was reached the week of May 9, 2011 when they averaged $3.965 per gallon.

 

Now gas prices did decline a bit during the recession but they have steadily climbed back to near their pre-recession peak under Barry, despite his push for greater fuel-efficient cars and trucks and near relentless pursuit of expanded clean energy, wasting literally Billions of dollars along the way. Gas prices have never been this high in early February at any time in American history, also according to EIA. Even in 2008 when gas prices reached all-time highs. Consumers can therefore plan on taking another huge hit in the wallet this year, being force to pay out even more to fill up. Because with the two percent Social Security tax hike which began the new year, gas prices are now soaring ever closer to $4 a gallon and have jumped 51 cents a gallon just since Dec. 20. And when you add both of these to rising food prices we can expect so see not money left over to spend on buying those things that might actually stimulate the economy.

 

According to the Oil Price Information Service, the national average for a gallon of unleaded was $3.21.9 on Dec. 20, 2012. Today, less to two months later, that price in $3.73. While there has been a steady increase, prices shot up almost 9 cents just over this past weekend. This President's Day also marked something that we've never witnessed before that being a full month of rising gas prices every single business day, following a very small early year drop in price. February 2013 saw record high gas prices for the time of year according to news reports. CNBC noted the national average was the highest ever for this time of year on Feb. 1. As of Feb. 11, The Los Angeles Times reported that the national average that day ($3.587) was also a record, "7.8 cents higher than the record for Feb. 11, set last year." Today's price is now 17.6 cents higher than it was in 2012.

 

As is usually the case, it took the state-controlled media some time to take notice of the fact that gas prices are going up. One of "Good Morning America's" resident morons, Josh Elliot, recently observed that "we have just learned that gas prices have skyrocketed." Just learned? Does this moron not put gas in his car? And those higher pump prices hurt consumers, who are already paying more for gas than they have in decades. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) reported recently that the average household spent more on gas last year, as a percentage of income, than it had in 30 years. The Hill's Ben Geman wrote on Feb. 4, "the average household spent $2,912 for gasoline in 2012, which makes up almost 4 percent of pre-tax income, tying 2008 for the highest percentage in roughly 30 years." The media actually forecast falling prices in 2012, during the heated presidential election. Many of those predictions failed.

 

Look, the bottom line here is I think we all know what's behind the fact that we have high gas prices. It's because Barry wants us to have high gas prices. I mean, it's just that simple. He's made that quite plain on any number of occasions. There's really no other way to explain it. It's all part of Barry's continuing war on fossil fuels and forcing us to accept his cockamamie 'green-energy' nonsense. Gas prices have been at sustained highs throughout most of Barry's time in office. And yet, we hear very little complaining coming from those who made themselves quite busy in blaming the high prices at the time, on George "Big Oil" Bush. And the prices then were nowhere near what we have today. One could arguably say that the silence coming from Democrats is deafening. And what is it, exactly, that Barry can point to his having done to keep gas prices from going through the roof. Nothing, he's pretty much taken a hands-off approach.

 

Ok, I know, there are any number of various factors that essentially determine the price we pay for a gallon of gas, and I'll be the first one to admit that. But I also think that Barry has done none of those things that he could have done in an effort to make sure that they remain as low as possible. Especially if his claims about trying to stimulate our sluggish economy are to be, in any way, believed. But he has shown absolutely no interest, whatsoever, in doing anything of the kind, in fact, everything that he has chosen to do has resulted in just the opposite taking place. The Heritage Foundation noted just last August that "after three years of adding regulatory hurdles and blocking exploratory access and development, President Obama's policies are helping keep prices higher than necessary." Hence, my saying that when it comes to higher gas prices, everything seems to going according to Barry's little plan.



OBAMA'S FORMER "GREEN CZAR" CALLS KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE A "CARBON BOMB"...

WHO'S STILL THE BIGGEST JERK IN HOLLYWOOD? SURVEY SAYS…

 

 

It was nearly a year an a half ago when I first posed what I thought was a pretty simple question. I asked, "Who's the biggest jerk in Hollywood? Since that time the list of potential candidates would appear to have now increased substantially with many now overtly vying for the title. But still my nominee for who's the biggest jerk remains, as it was then, Alec Baldwin. It was back in 2011 that I first suggested that the winner of that dubious title should be Baldwin. That was shortly after he took it upon himself to launch into one of his trademark Twitter binges, this one in particular had to do with Michelle Malkin's being referred to as a "chink." His latest episode of rather bizarre behavior occurred when It seems that Baldwin was approached by a Post reporter while out walking his dogs outside his East 10th Street residence at around 10:50 a.m. Sunday morning. He was asked to comment on a lawsuit against his wife, Hilaria, involving her work as a yoga instructor. The supposed 'star' of the rather idiotic TV show, "30 Rock," then proceeded to grab the reporter, Tara Palmeri, by her arm. According to Palmeri, who happened to record the confrontation, Baldwin told her "I want you to choke to death." Palmeri told police, for whom she played her audiotape of the conversation. Baldwin was also caught in a photograph during a verbal spat with Ms. Palmeri.

 

Baldwin also 'allegedly' called a black Post photographer a racial epithet, a "crackhead’’ and a "drug dealer’’ during the same confrontation that pretty escalated to the point where it prompted police to intervene. Baldwin then called G.N. Miller, a decorated retired detective with the NYPD’s Organized Crime Control Bureau and who is now a staff photographer for The Post, a "coon, a drug dealer,’’ Miller’s police statement said. Boy, you have to admit, Baldwin is one classy guy. NOT!! Anyway at some point, Miller showed Baldwin his ID to prove that he’s a retired NYPD cop, which Baldwin dismissed as simply being a "fake." And as is always whenever dealing with these imbecilic entertainment types, it was only minutes later, that Baldwin was ranting about the entire episode on Twitter. He Tweeted, "Thank u 2 NYPD officers who came to my home 2day so that I could file a formal complaint against NY Post "photographer’’ who assaulted me.’’ In another post, Baldwin referred to Miller, for unknown reasons, as "Ralston," writing, "Moments after I tweet about the Post, Ralston, the ex-crackhead ‘photographer’ shows up at my door w 1 of Murdoch’s nieces in tow." He added, "Ralston claims he’s ex NYPD!! That can’t be!!! Ex NYPD don’t become crackhead, ex jailhouse paparazzi!" Baldwin eventually removed most of his juvenile posts.

 

Miller also said the that Baldwin bumped him in the chest during their little encounter, although Baldwin told cops that the photographer had "pushed into him,’’ and according to Baldwin’s complaint he "asked [Miller] to keep his distance.’’ But Miller said Baldwin was the one getting "too aggressive,’’ so he showed him his retired-cop ID. Baldwin called the ID a "fake’’ and added Miller was a "crackhead" and a "drug dealer" who "just got out of jail," Miller said. And if you can believe it, which I can, Baldwin even went so far as to actually some rather "disparaging remarks’’ about Miller’s mother. But Baldwin wasn't done even then, because as oblivious pedestrians walked by, Baldwin told Miller to "suck my d--k." But Baldwin, determined to put on a demonstration that should leave doubt in no one's mind regarding just how big of a jerk he is, also walked up to random people — including some hapless dad pushing his kid in a stroller — and told them Miller was an ex-con and drug dealer, Miller said. "He was saying some serious racist stuff," Miller said. "He said some choice words about my mother, and he was telling people in the street that I’m a drug dealer. "He could have said a lot of other stuff. But he used all of the stereotypes associated with black people." Miller worked for the NYPD for nearly 15 years, spending most of his time in narcotics.

 

Baldwin’s spokesman, some dweeb by the name of Matthew Hiltzik, called Miller’s accusations "completely false.’’ And Baldwin, again through Hiltzik, denied making any racist remarks, adding, "That’s one of the most outrageous things I’ve heard in my life.’’ But let's face it, Baldwin does have quite a history of making rather inappropriate comments, shall we say, to photographers. Last June, the day before his wedding, Baldwin shouted to a black photographer on the street, "You gotta back up there Rodney." Needless to say the photographer’s name wasn’t Rodney. I think it fair to say that with each one of these outbursts provides a bit more proof that Baldwin is, in fact, a certifiable loon in desperate need of a rubber room in one of the finer psychiatric facilities that we have in this country. But because he's one of our enlightened entertainment types, he'll likely be able to avoid the level of treatment that he is so desperately in need of. He's nothing more than a psychotic bully and yet there are still companies who wish to use him in their commercials. Personally I wouldn't purchase any product from any company who would think it appropriate to have Baldwin as their spokesperson in their commercials. Obviously he's a racist, but because his roots are on the left it apparently is no big deal. Such behavior simply to be expected from this caliber of people.



AIN'T THAT THE TRUTH...



JOHN MCCAIN ASKS DAVID GREGORY IF HE EVEN CARES THAT FOUR AMERICANS DIED...

GAS BAG STENY HOYER PROVES ONCE AGAIN THAT HE'S A LYING SACK OF SH!T....

Depsite what Hoyer would have everyone believe, sequestration was Barry's idea. A tactic, if you will, designed to force Republicans into accepting a tax increase. So once again we have a corrupt Democrat lying to the American people in his attempt to pin on the oppostion that which was conceived and then implemented by his own party. There is a special place in Hell reserved for scum like Hoyer.

EMANUEL CALLS FOR STIFFER GUN LAWS, BUT JAILS ARE ALREADY FULL…

We’ve been hearing a lot lately about how Chicago's mayor and his imbecilic police chief have both been decrying the need for tougher gun laws, even sighting the need for mandatory minimum sentences for those who choose to commit gun violations. I guess they assume that adding even more punishment in a city possessing some of the toughest gun laws in the country will somehow cure what is a much bigger problem. Although, of late, we’ve heard the police chief of that fair city busy denying the fact that Chicago’s gun laws are as tough as has been reported. He says that those making such statements are using the rhetoric of gun advocates.


But be that as it may, it would seem that they would have other problems to rectify before seeking to put even more folks in jail. You see, both county and state lockups are already operating at full capacity. This past week, Mayor Rahm "Dead Fish" Emanuel called for even tougher gun laws and Police Superintendent Gary McCarthy says "gun offenders have to do significant jail time." However, Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart said he doesn't have enough jail cells to hold inmates, and there is not enough room in the state prison system either. So what is it exactly that Emanuel and McCarthy might have in mind here?


For sometime now the state of Illinois, arguably the most corrupt state in our union, has been busy instituting what must have been thought of as being a brilliant cost saving plan. This state, which been under the firm control of Democrats for some time, as actually been closing prisons in an effort to save money and reduce the $9 Billion it owes in unpaid bills. The natural result is that now the remaining prisons and jails are full with the no vacancy sign having now been turned on. "We are at capacity right now" Dart said. "The state prison system is beyond capacity. You talk to them right now, they haven't had a population like this in decades."


The Cook County jail is the largest in the country, but it's so crowded now that some inmates are living in a former cafeteria, and others are sleeping on the facility hospital's floor. "This should be a building that we should have empty right now at this time of the year," Dart said. "There should be no one in it. But because of our population explosion, this is full." If mandatory minimum sentences are passed for gun violations, the prison population would swell, but Dart says there is no place for the swell of inmates to go. And I doubt very much that we’d see Democrats develop the urge to start building anymore prisons.


"We can't have this irrational type of notion that there's magic jail cells all over the place that are all sitting there empty, " said Dart. "It's as if all of a sudden we just raise penalties and these people get shipped off to the moon or something." Sounds to me like the only sane one here would be Sheriff Dart. He’s definitely the only one making any sense, here. So if we assume that no prison’s are likely to be re-opened, or news ones will be built, because of cost, what’s the likely alternative to be? How many of those considered to be "not dangerous," or as having "paid their debt to society" will simply be put back on the street? Just askin.

REMEMBER WHEN OBAMA ACTUALLY MADE THIS SILLY CLAIM?

THE CONGRESSIONAL ‘SAFE CLIMATE CAUCUS’…

As silly or as stupid as this may sound, there is actually now in Congress a group of House Democrats who, and quite proudly so, refer to themselves as, the Safe Climate Caucus. This group of rather sophomoric crusaders held a press conference the other day, the specific purpose of which, if you can believe it, was to warn us all that if Congress fails to address global warming, the country could face some pretty dire consequences. And just what might these dire consequences be? Well, according to these loons they would consist of such horrendous, life altering things as detrimental effects to California wines and an even an end to Vermont skiing. Oh no, no more skiing in Vermont? One of these clowns even went to far as to express her deep concern that global warming could even destroy the entire People’s Republic of Maryland. "If we do nothing about what is happening, it will destroy our economy, it will destroy our state, and it will have a broad impact not just here in this country but around the world," so claimed Maryland Democrat, Donna Edwards at a press conference on Capitol Hill on Friday.


And it was another member of this rather unique little group, Jared Huffman, who said he fears that global warming could damage the ancient forests and vineyards in his California district. "Climate change is going to impact my coastal district not just in terms of coastal communities and infrastructure but also the health of our oceans and coastal fisheries," Huffman said. He went on to decry, "It will impact the great ancient forests in my district [and] it will even threaten to impact the world-class quality of the wine produced in Sonoma and Mendocino counties." And then we had Earl Blumenauer, yet another Democrat, who hails from that bastion of leftist lunacy, the great state of Oregon. He’s the one who’s appeared to be so concerned that there could come an end to skiing in Vermont and that that state’s famous maple trees could also actually be threatened by global warming. In introducing Peter Welch, a Democrat from Vermont, Blumenauer said Welch "comes from the state of Vermont that climate change is going to have – there will no longer be skiing and even the maple trees will be threatened." Come on folks, are any of us really buying any of this silliness?


Because, I guess, of the rather dramatic claims, presented by this odd assortment of nuts, Edwards apparently felt compelled to insist that neither she nor her colleagues are alarmists. What she actually said was, "The fact is that those of us who are here are not alarmists, we are not eco-hystericals, we’re not socialists." No, of course not, what could possible make anyone think that? She went on to say, "We care about our climate and we want to do something about it." I am a little curious about something though, why is it that she even felt the need to say that she, and her fellow caucus members, are not alarmists, eco-hystericals or Socialists? I would argue that what she and her fellow ‘caucus’ members truly care about, is furthering the anti-capitalism/anti-American agenda of Barry "Almighty" and today’s Democrat Party. The entire cockamamie theory of manmade global warming has been discredited and disproved more times than I care to count. Yet those on the left, like these clowns, seem to feel that if they only persist in sounding the alarm about bogus global warming long enough, they will be able to convince enough people that it is occurring and that drastic action, by the government, is required.


Those on the left continually tout the number of scientists who support the premise that there is in fact a warming of the globe underway and that the primary culprit in bringing it about, is man. And we’re all just supposed except their premise as fact and to support them in their desire to do whatever is necessary with no argument, no complaints, or we’re called names such as flat-earthers. But upon further investigation one finds, and pretty quickly, there are just as many, if not more, folks in the scientific community who either question whether global warming is actually occurring, or if it is happening, on why it is happening. So while there are those who may agree that global warming is taking place, they tend to say that it’s more cyclical in nature than anything being caused by man. But you very rarely hear about those people. And there’s very simple reason for that. It’s because anything they would have to say can’t then be used by Democrats, or any number of other concerned parties, to advance a political agenda that has as it primary objective the destruction of our free-market economy and the weakening of our country. Which is exactly why the whole silliness of climate change, or global warming, was concocted by the left in the first place.

OBAMA SAYS, AFTER ALL, HE'S NOT "EMPEROR"...

USDA "CULTURAL TRANSFORMATION" TRAINING...

PELOSI SPEAKS OF THE ‘DIGNITY OF LAWMAKERS’ JOBS’…

 

 

Our somewhat less than stellar, House Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that she opposes any cut in congressional pay. She says her opposition to it is because, now get this and remember it's Pelosi who's saying it, it would diminish the dignity of lawmakers' jobs. No, Nancy, what actually diminishes the dignity lawmakers' jobs, is the fact that we have dishonest and corrupt people like you to doing those jobs. People who seem far more interested in doing what's best for themselves and nor what's best for the country. "I don't think we should do it; I think we should respect the work we do," Pelosi told reporters in the Capitol. "I think it's necessary for us to have the dignity of the job that we have rewarded." Me thinks old Nancy has quite the big head!

 

Her rather arrogant comments were made in the context of the looming sequester, which would force across-the-board cuts affecting most federal offices, including Congress. With lawmakers nowhere near a deal to avert those cuts, federal agencies are bracing for ways to absorb them with minimum damage to programs and personnel. Pelosi, whose husband is a wealthy real-estate developer, was quick to note that a cut in her own pay would be far less significant than that for both staffers and less wealthy members of Congress. "It's a hard question to ask me because most of my colleagues are the breadwinners in their families," she said. "A pay cut to me doesn't mean as much." Sorry, but I find more than a little hard to believe that we have members of Congress who are living paycheck to paycheck.

 

Pelosi also emphasized that Congress should do everything it can to preclude such decisions by preventing the sequester cuts from taking effect at all. "A sequester should be out of the question," she said. Still, with the clock ticking down to March 1 – and with both chambers of Congress out of town next week – the chances of reaching a deal are growing slimmer. With that in mind, some lawmakers say they're hoping for the best but preparing for the worst. "We are, in fact, obviously contemplating a sequester," Rep. Steny Hoyer said this week. "Obviously we are going to take a cut, like everybody else, and we will have to accommodate that." Look, this whole sequester thing was little Barry's ploy, and now it's the Democrats who are whining the loudest about it going into effect! Boo-freakin-hoo!!!

And yet, hardly any of these overpaid servants of the people, especially on the Democrat side, ever have the slightest reservations about cost saving at the expense of those in the military or our veterans. The see it as being completely acceptable to propose cutting the pay of our service members or reducing the benefits currently received by our veterans. These are the folks who are now defending our country, and those who have done so in the past. Too many of these men and women put their lives on the line every single day. And yet I'm somehow supposed to be all concerned about whether or not overpaid members of Congress will be able to make it until their next paycheck? Really? What hardships to these people ever experience? They should be made to hold real jobs and serve for free!



APPARENTLY, ONE MAN'S SPENDING PROBLEM IS ANOTHER MAN'S "PAYING FOR" PROBLEM AND IS YET ANOTHER MAN'S "MISALLOCATION OF WEALTH" PROBLEM...

 

 

The more time that goes by, the more Democrats twist themselves into pretzels in their continuing effort to get ever more creative as they search for an alternative label for our current spending problem. These days the Democrats just can't seem to bring themselves to say that we have a spending problem, probably because they're the ones who are doing most of the spending. First when had that perennial gas bag from the People's Republic of Maryland, Steny Hoyer, say that what we have is a "paying for problem" and now we that blithering idiot from Iowa, none other than Tom "Better Red Than Dead" Harkin, who just yesterday said that the U.S. government does not have a spending problem, what America suffers from is "a misallocation of wealth." A misallocation of wealth? Now is that progressive/liberal/Democrat lingo or what? And I'm curious about how it is, exactly that this "misallocation of wealth" played any part in creating what has now become our massive $16 Trillion debt. I'm just not making the connection here, Tom.

 

Harkin, apparently quite eager I guess to tell us how he views things, said, "I look at it this way." He made his rather asinine assessment during a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on the Budget Control Act of 2011. It was that little legislative nightmare, by the way, that included the automatic spending cuts now being referred to as being "sequestration". And apparently never getting tire of the sound of his voice, this doddering old dolt went on to say, "We’re the richest nation in the history of the world. That kind of begs the question doesn’t it? If we’re so rich, why are we so broke?" Ok, whoever thinks that makes sense, raise your hand! Come on Tom, really? I've got a better question for ya? What do you suppose would happen if a group of patently corrupt politicians were to completely set aside, for their own political purposes, purposes that ran completely contrary to why it was that they were sent to Congress, were to choose to focus on creating new and very costly, ways of expanding the size and scope of our government?

 

Tom, in what I assume was an attempt to portray himself as being pretty darn clever, then asked what I'm sure he meant to be nothing more that a rhetorical question, "Is it a spending problem?" Because he was pretty quick to respond before anybody else had the chance to jump in to say 'YES!' He went then went on to describe things as he sees them saying, "No, it’s because we have a misallocation of capital, a misallocation of wealth." He went to say, "All of this wealth that’s been built up by hard-working Americans has been accumulated into fewer and fewer and fewer hands all the time." Is this not just abut the most perverse way of looking at our current "spending problem", as well as how it is that we managed to get ourselves over $16 Trillion in debt? Come folks, is this really how people out in Iowa think? I suppose the one good thing is, is that this idiot is running for reelection. Hopefully next time around Iowans can to better, but I'm certainly not going to holding my breath.

 

Sequestration, which seems to have nearly taken on a life of its own, is really nothing more than a set of automatic spending cuts that target defense and non-defense spending. Originally proposed as part of the Budget Control Act by Barry "Almighty", the cuts were designed as an attempt to force Republicans into raising taxes by holding defense spending hostage. Republicans have said they are now prepared to allow the sequester cuts to go through, emphasizing that if Barry wants to avoid them, all he needs to do is to propose a specific plan with real cuts in spending and not coupled with more tax increases. John Boehner said at a recent news conference, "We’re weeks away from the president’s sequester and the president laid out no plan to eliminate the sequester and the harmful cuts that will come as a result of it." I'd feel much better about the Republicans being able to stick to their guns if there wasn't such a history of them going squishy at the last minute. And I'm sure that's what Barry is counting on happening this time as well.

 

The amount of spending cuts in 2013, $44 Billion, or the equivalent of approximately 4.5 days worth of federal spending. On average, the government spends approximately $9.7 Billion per day in 2013, meaning it would take approximately 4.5 days to spend the $44 Billion that would be cut by the sequester, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). This idiot, Harkin, who sits on the Appropriations Committee, spewed what has become the typical pabulum heard from congressional Democrats as he criticized a U.S. tax code that he said benefits wealthy people and then proceeded to warn of cuts in federal spending that allegedly will hurt children, the elderly, the homeless, the disabled and even the middle class. This is all nothing more than a ploy by Democrats like Harkin, to apply pressure Republicans in the hopes of forcing them to cave, once again, on their objection to increasing taxes. Because Democrats have no intention of making any meaningful spending cuts unless it's to further gut our military.

 

"I tell you we’ve got to get back to a better, rationale system of revenues and spending in this country and back to our obligations," Harkin blathered on. Even with sequester, and he knows this, our obligations will be met. Anyway, he then said, "I just feel very strongly, that it’s not just appropriations that’s causing this problem. Adding finally that, "It’s the lack of the revenue that we should be taking in to meet our obligations as a country." But Susan Collins, one of the RINO girls from Maine, who said she supports tax increases for the wealthy and opposes letting sequestration commence, took issue with Harkin’s views on federal spending. "It’s very difficult to follow the eloquence of my colleague from Iowa," Collins said. Now the fact that she chose to describe Harkin's idiotic rambling as being eloquent should tell you all you need to know about Ms. Collins. But she went on to say, "The fact is, however, I believe we do have a spending problem and the $16.4 Trillion dollar debt is ample evidence of that." Well' it's hard to disagree with logic like that.

 

So this little hearing included three less than stellar members of Barry’s prize winning cabinet: Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet "Our Borders Have Never Been Stronger" Napolitano, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan and Education Secretary Arne Duncan, as well as OMB federal comptroller Danny Werfel and Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter. All of these folks were singing from the same sheet of music as they testified about the apparent destructive affect $44 Billion in sequestration this year would have on the federal government, ranging from the reduction of U.S. border security, loss of low-income housing, and a larger student-to-teacher ratio in public schools. This amount is such a pittance, in the big scheme of things, is difficult to take any of what these people say seriously. And $44 Billion is nowhere near the amount that NEEDS to be slashed from our current level of insane spending. But it does make quite clear the fact that Barry is not serious about making any amount of spending cuts, no matter how 'trivial.'



ONLY IN SOMEPLACE LIKE CALIFORNIA WOULD YOU HEAR SOMTHING AS STUPID AS THIS FROM A COP...