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

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

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

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

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

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, SEQUESTER IS LIKE A TSUNAMI?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For example:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE WHOLE BOGUS OBAMA 'CHARM OFFENSIVE'...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GUN CONTROL...ANOTHER DEMOCRAT CAN'T TAKE THE HEAT...

ELEANOR NORTON SAYS THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS…SHRINKING?

You know, I'm getting more and more tired of being thought of as if I'm stupid. And what really ticks me off is who it is that's thinking of me in that way. More often than not its scumbag Democrats who, were it not for the growing number of Americans who would rather have things 'given' to them than to be expected to work for them, would not be in their current, and very lofty, positions. Granted, most politicians are less than trustworthy by very nature of they're being in public office, regardless of party affiliation. But it always seems to be a quality, or character flaw, that's much more pervasive amongst those who reside on the left. And I have my own theory about that, it's because if they are to ever have any hope of being able to advance their socialist/progressive agenda, dishonesty, deceit and a certain amount of corruption will always be required.

What has me bringing all of this up in the first place, is the fact that recently one of the Democrat Party's sleazier-than-most characters said something that, without a doubt, actually proves the point better than I ever could that she's has to be one of the dumbest examples of life that walks around on two legs. Del. Eleanor Norton (D-District of Columbia), actually claimed that private sector jobs are not showing much growth because the federal government is shrinking. Something as screwy as this could only originate in the twisted mind of a Democrat. What she actually said was, "What is shrinking is not the private sector – it’s hard for them to grow because the public sector, both the state sector and the federal government is shrinking and they are having to grow it all by themselves and that is why we don’t have much growth." Democrat-speak, don't you just love it?

She was discussing her cockamamie economic theory amongst what I can only assume must have been a crowd of like-minded thinkers, during last Friday’s House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee hearing on "The Impact of Sequestration on Women and Families." In a way, I think it kind of echoed the sentiment of what Barry was heard to say, not all that long ago, that the private sector was doing just fine, but it was the public sector that was in need of having more attention paid to it. This is how Democrats think, it's all about the 'government'. Obviously the demented Ms. Eleanor must assume that we're all just going to go along with her nutty idea and that we're not paying the least bit of attention to what her and her fellow socialists are really up to. Now, granted, maybe not enough of us are as informed as we should be, but quite a few of us are.

Now in an attempt to provide just a little information that, hopefully, will make clear the fact that Ms. Norton's idiotic premise is a complete and utter fallacy, it has been previously reported, by a number of sources, that according to the U.S. Treasury and the Census Bureau, inflation-adjusted federal spending per person increased by $822.90 between 2008 and 2012. In constant 2012 dollars, the federal government spent $3,176,376,470,000 in 2008 and $3,538,446,000,000 in 2012. Now I may not be as brilliant as old dingbat Eleanor, here, but to my way of thinking when it comes to describing what's been taking place, as far as the actual size of our government in concerned, the word "shrinking" never really comes to mind. Now maybe in whatever alternate universe Eleanor spends most of her time, the government may be shrinking, but certainly nowhere else.

GUN CONTROL...WHAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE REALLY UP TO...

'SPOKESMORON' CARNEY GETS A BIT TESTY...

THIS IS WHAT AN ASSHOLE LOOKS LIKE

***FLASH*** OBAMA ACHIEVES YET ANOTHER IMPRESSIVE RECORD...

Without a doubt, Barry "Almighty", will go down in history as a president who achieved for himself a rather substantial number of some rather remarkable 'records'. At least remarkable in the sense that he was able to achieve them here in the United States and not somewhere in Europe or in the Third World. However, very few, if any, of them have been in anyway something that was actually good for America. For instance, we got word of Barry's latest achievement only last Friday when the United States Department of Agriculture quietly released new statistics related to the food stamps program. What the numbers reveal is that in 2012, the food stamps program was the biggest it's ever been, with an average of 46,609,072 people on the program every month of last year. In fact, there were 47,791,996 people on the program in the month of December 2012.

The federal government also says that in a given month in 2012, the number of households on food stamps was 22,329,713. The state with the highest average number of participants per month in 2012 was Texas, with an astonishing 4,038,440 folks drawing from the program. The second highest is California, with 3,964,221, and then Florida, at 3,353,064. Washington, D.C., with an estimated population of 617,996, had an average of 141,147 participants. Meaning, nearly one quarter of the population is on food stamps. And all of this is according to the numbers provided by the federal government. The participation rate in Texas, which has an estimated population of 26,059,203, 15.5 percent. The state with the lowest number of participants in the program was Wyoming, with 34,347 out an estimated population of 576,412.

Over the weekend we heard Sen. Jeff Sessions, top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, say that Barry's administration is encouraging growth in the food stamps program as a way to stimulate the economy. "Amazingly, the federal government says that the more people we have on food stamps, the more it grows the economy. The Department of Agriculture proudly declares: ‘Each $5 in new [food stamp] benefits generates almost twice that amount in economic activity for the community.’ Our government is running food stamp promotions at foreign embassies. One worker was given an award for overcoming ‘mountain pride’ and getting more people to sign up. So this is what we in America have now been reduced to? Whatever happened to that unique American spirit where pride, self-respect and the desire to be independent was actually valued.

Sessions also pointed out that cities like Baltimore, which he said have been "governed by liberal policies for decades," see particularly high numbers of participation in the program. "Despite this fountain of federal funds, 1 in 3 children still live in poverty in our nation’s capital. Two in three children live in single parent homes. In nearby Baltimore--another city governed by liberal policies for decades--1 in 3 residents are on food stamps and in 1 in 3 youth live in poverty. Americans are committed to helping our sisters and brothers who are struggling, but we are seeing the damaging human consequences of our broken welfare state," said Sessions. "We spend a trillion dollars each year on federal poverty programs. That’s more than the budget for Social Security or Defense. But poverty seems only to increase. Something is wrong. Compassion demands that we change."

Of course none of what Sen. Sessions said will do anything more than to fall on deaf ears. That's what always happens there in Washington. We have more of those ignoring the alarm bells than we have listening to them. And really, what does Barry care about how desperate things will be for Americans once he's left office and making substantial amounts of money for doing nothing more than giving a speech. It'll be our children and our children's children who will be made to be responsible for at least trying to deal with the consequences of all of Barry's rather unique set of records accomplished. It's difficult to argue against the fact that America will appear markedly after Barry leaves office compared to what it looked like when he first strutted into the Oval Office. And sadly we have far more 'leaders' far more interested in themselves than in saving the country.

CHARLIE CRIST PONDERS A RETURN TO FLORIDA'S GOVERNOR'S MANSION...

So I guess the question that seems to be on nearly everyone's mind these days is whether or not former Florida governor Charlie Crist will venture back into the political game. Personally, I'd like nothing more to do with him. But hey, that's just me. Crist, as I'm sure you'll all remember, seemed to come to the conclusion that political fortunes may improved for him if he were to, so to speak, come clean about his really being the Democrat that we always knew he was, on the inside. "Well I’m thinking about it, there’s no question about that," said Crist who added he hasn’t made the big decision yet. Personally, I'm not that big of a fan of Crist's.

Crist, as you may or may not remembers, served as Florida's Republican governor back in 2007. He decided not to seek re-election to that office, instead setting his sights a little higher, the U. S. Senate and competed in the 2010 election, claiming to be the only conservative in the race. But I guess he forgot to tell that to Marco Rubio, who now sits in Washington will Crist ponders a return to the governor's mansion. Crist's announced in 2009 that he would not run for re-election and would instead run for the Senate. This time around, if he does choose to run, it would be as a Democrat running against current Republican governor, Rick Scott.

Although there is apparently no specific timetable for when Crist might a make his final decision, the window, as they say, is said to still be very wide open. "I haven’t reached any conclusion, I’m just taking the opportunity to listen to my fellow Floridians and give it serious thought," said Crist in Fort Myers on Saturday. So what would be Crist’s focus if he does choose to join the race? Well in response to just such a question, Crist responded, "Things that I think are important to all of our fellow Floridians: education, the environment, ethics; I mean these are things that aren’t new." With all that's going on in Washington, I think the last thing we need here in Florida is Charlie Crist!

Personally, I find the fact that Crist talks about ethics as being one of the main concerns of his fellow Floridians, particularly humorous. Because back when he was running for the Senate he used pretty much every smear tactic in the book in his going after Rubio, luckily, none of which worked. Crist went on to also say, "Talking about how we can help our economy move forward, fortunately we’re starting to see that in a small degree and I just hope it continues." Crist said that his decision would also be based on the mood of the people and how they feel. Somehow, I'm just not buying the whole "it's up to the people" thing coming from Charlie.

These days I guess Charlie's keeping himself busy by working for one of Florida's, too many to count, slip and fall lawyers, specifically, the firm of Morgan and Morgan. "I’ve enjoyed being in the private sector, working with Morgan & Morgan is a lot of fun and helping people that way," said Crist. "So time will tell, we’ll see." Right, he claims he's having lots of fun "helping people" as he does his best to continue to drive up the costs of both auto and health insurance courtesy of perpetuating all manner of frivolous lawsuits. What a guy! A Democrat, especially one that used to be a Republican, is not what Florida needs at this particular moment in time.

SOMETIMES, I TRULY DO WONDER ABOUT THOSE ON OUR SIDE!

GIVE ME A BREAK! It never ceases to amaze me just how flipping gullible our Republican members of the Senate continue to be. I'm getting so freaking tired of these guys' willingness to keep taking it in the a** I just want to scream! The most recent example of this namby-pamby mentality came from Tom Coburn who went on NBC's "Meet the Press," yesterday and actually said that Barry "Almighty" "is moving in the right direction" by meeting with Republicans in search of bipartisan solutions to the nation's problems: "I'm proud of him for doing it, but it shouldn't be news." Hey Tom, he's playing you like an old Stradivarius! Wake up and smell the BULLSHIT!

You see, old Tom, here, was one of those 12 morons who saw fit to wine and dine with Barry at some swanky, high-dollar, restaurant only last Wednesday. He went on to say, "I think he gets it, and I think he's genuinely reaching out." Me thinks old Tom might have had a touch too much wine, or something! Because then he said, "I think the president is tremendously sincere. I don't think this is just a political change in tactic. I think he actually would like to solve the problems of the country, and it would be to his benefit and, certainly, to every American's benefit if he did that." Come on, really? Man, these guys are dead, they just don't know it yet!

Old Tom also said during this same interview, that if Barry were to quit poking his finger in Republicans' eyes and start building relationships with them, "I think he's got a great chance to accomplish a big deal." Blah, blah, blah. Barry only wants to "build relationships" with Republicans just long enough to convince them to bend over so he can put it to them again. I just don't get it! It's absolutely infuriating! Look, even a complete imbecile should be able to fully recognize the fact that Berry derives a great deal of pleasure from poking his finger in Republicans' eyes by essentially blaming everything that has gone wrong in the last 4 years, on them.

Coburn also told NBC's David 'The Douche Bag' Gregory that the problem in Washington isn't disagreement, it's too much agreement: "So, look, the real problem, David, is Washington is dysfunctional, but it's dysfunctional in a dysfunctional way. Members of Congress and the administration agree on too much: We agree on spending money we don't have; we agree on not oversighting the programs that should be oversighted. We agree on continuing to spend money on programs that don't work or are ineffective." Frankly I'm nit sure what old Tom is trying to say here. If everyone's agreeing on the same crap, who are we supposed to count on to oppose any of it?

As for last week's meeting with Barry, Coburn said he learned that the president is going to start explaining to the American people about entitlement reform: "I mean, we all know you put in $1 for Medicare and get out $3.30. We understand that. But nobody has ever talked to the American public about that, and nobody has led on that issue as far as our president wanting to change it." Right Tom, if you believe any of that I've got some prime ocean view property in Arizona I could let you have really, really cheap. I'll even throw in the Grand Canyon cause you're a nice guy. The only thing Barry is going to be saying about entitlements is that the Republicans want to take them away!

And then over on ABC’s "This Week," with George "Stefy" Stephanopoulos, we Sen. Ron Johnson say he thinks "most Republicans are more than willing to work with this president." Ok, maybe that's true, but the only thing that Barry wants to do to them is to knife them in the back. And yet, that thought never really seem to enter their little pea brains! He also said that the Republican senators' dinner meeting with Obama last week was honest, frank and complete. "President Obama opened it up, really prioritizing the problems. Certainly, made the point that it's health care, it's Medicare." I'm embarrassed for these guys. Barry seems to have them eating out of his hand.

Johnson added, "The point I made to him is, you know, Mr. President, you are in a unique position to be able to make sure the American people understand that. We're not going to be able to solve these very difficult problems unless we start laying the groundwork and preparing the American people for the solutions." Johnson said he got a call from Barry's chief of staff over the weekend to discuss "what we need to do" to move forward: "So you know, I'll certainly give the president the benefit of the doubt." Sorry, but to give Barry the benefit of the doubt on anything is a mistake that could, very well, prove to be fatal, politically speaking. It's an unnecessary risk.

And then we had some airhead from Bloomberg News, somebody by the name of Julianna Goldman, who also made an appearance with old "Stefy". She attempted to make it quite plain that, at least in her esteemed opinion, in order to achieve what Washington calls a "grand bargain" on deficit reduction, Republicans are going to have to accept higher taxes and Democrats are going to have to accept entitlement reforms. Somebody really needs to sit down and explain to this bimbo that the Republicans have already accepted higher taxes, what's needed now are 'REAL', and substantial, spending cuts and entitlement reforms!

I'll tell you what I'd like to see. And that's for the Republicans to start playing this game the same way Barry and the Democrats play it. Because that's the only way ANYTHING is going to get done. Granted it may be a little painful for a while, but what the Hell is the alternative? This whole entire thing is nothing more than an exercise in complete insanity. I simply cannot believe that these guys are willing to allow themselves to get sucked in yet again, over a meal that was most likely passed on to the taxpayers to cover. What's underway here is nothing more than one monumental snow job, and once again our guys seem to be only too willing to fall for it.

Look, what needs to take place here is that those on our side need to explain to Barry, one more time, what needs to be done and make it clear that they are willing to do whatever is necessary within that framework to get the economy moving again. They also need to make it quite clear that he's had his chance for the last four years and has succeeded in doing nothing more than to make matters much, much worse. And in presenting their own ideas they must also make it clear to the American people that as much as they might wish it were so, America is not a socialist country so therefore socialist attempts to fix it aren't going to work. Oh, and by the way, they’ve never worked ANYWHERE!

CHRIS WALLACE BELONGS OVER ON MSNBC, NOT ON FOX NEWS...

Wallace is as nutty as his old man was. Less a journalist and more a propagandist. Just another clown who has a rather high opinion of himself, but who's really dumb as a brick

OBAMA CONTINUES TO CALL ON REPUBLICANS TO END 'HIS' SEQUESTER...

OUR ‘FIRST LADY’, IS NOT…

I’ve been racking my brains lately trying to come up with a worse example of a ‘First Lady’ than the one we’re currently saddled with, and I can’t. There may be one, but I keep coming up empty, at least during my lifetime. The most recent example of just how bad this empty-headed sister with the big ass is, was when she said, that she can "imagine" an America where businesses promote the "healthiest options" so children will be "begging and pleading" for fruits and vegetables. She went on to add that, yes, "it is possible to create" such a world.

Our sorry excuse for a ‘First Lady,’ who I think, views herself more as being a Queen, while attending the Partnership for a Healthier America Summit on Friday at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., said, "I mean, just think for a minute what this country could look like." She went on, "Imagine walking into any grocery store in America and finding the healthiest options clearly marked and centrally placed so that you know within seconds what’s good for your family when you walk in that store."

Our ‘First Lady’ said, "Imagine opening up a menu in any restaurant and knowing exactly what items will give your family the most nutrition for your hard-earned dollar." Then she actually said, "Imagine our kids begging and pleading, throwing tantrums to get you to buy more fruits, vegetables and whole grains." She exclaimed, "Yes, this is possible." Adding finally that, "It is possible to create this world!" Oh yes, that’s my view of what America should be. Children "begging and pleading" for fruit. That’s just plain NUTTY!

‘The Queen’ went on to praise corporations like Walmart, Disney and Darden Restaurants for marketing healthier foods to children. She also touted the launch of "Let’s Move Active Schools," a $70 million initiative "to promote physical activity and bring physical education back to our schools." Well, gee, ain’t that just swell. Where would we be if we didn’t have this wonderful lady, who ‘obviously’ only wants the best for us, looking out for our children? Like that’s not something we’re capable of doing without her interference?

So like I said, try as I might, I just could not come up with an example of a worse ‘First Lady’ than ‘Meeshell My-Bell’ Obama. She as mush of a fraud as her husband is. They’re all about using people and I don’t appreciate her attempting to using children, our children, as her little method of gaining for herself some time in the spotlight. I mean, just how shallow must a person be to use children as way to boost one’s ego? We know her husband is not above using children as well, he has done so in his effort to convince us that we need to ban guns.

Just as a side note here, since we are talking about the needs of our kids, how about schools actually perform the function for which they were designed, to TEACH our kids. It was recently reported that nearly 80 percent of students who graduate from New York City Public Schools can’t read well enough to attend community college. And New York City is far from being the only example of the piss-poor product currently being turned out by over government run public school system. Might it be a better use of Mee-shell’s time if she were to focus on that?

THE QUESTION REMAINS, JUST HOW STUPID ARE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?

Nancy Pelosi said today that the government must cut spending, and then, using her own rather peculiar brand of logic, went on to explain that: "Tax cuts are spending." Now who other than a Democrat could come with such a blatantly dishonest premise. So far we've had one Democrat claim that we don't have a spending problem, we have a "paying for" problem, another Democrat say, no, what we really have is a "misallocation of wealth" problem, and now Pelosi saying, well, yes we do have a spending problem, but since tax cuts as actually a form of spending we need to get rid of those as a way to cut spending. Who's stupid enough to believe that nonsense?

"Our whole budget is what $3.5 trillion," Pelosi said at a Capitol Hill press conference. "So, when we talk about reducing spending, we certainly must, and we certainly have--$1.6 trillion in the previous Congress, $1.2 of it in the Budget Control Act." She then went on to say, "But spending is also related to tax cuts." To Pelosi's way of thinking, tax cuts are spending. They're called tax expenditures. Subsidies for big oil, subsidies to send jobs overseas, breaks to send jobs overseas, breaks for corporate jets. Democrats call them tax expenditures. Spending money on tax breaks. "And that’s the spending that we must curtail as well," Pelosi said.

One little factoid that Pelosi, as well as many other Democrats, really never make any mention of, is the fact that back in fiscal year 2006, the last full fiscal year before Pelosi became House Speaker, the federal government spent $2.65 Trillion, according to the U.S. Treasury. In fiscal 2011, the last fiscal year that started when Pelosi was Speaker, the federal government spent $3.59 Trillion. Thus, from fiscal 2006 to fiscal 2011, annual federal spending increased by whopping $940 Billion—or 35 percent. We are now living so far beyond our means that for anyone to deny that what we have is, in fact, a spending problem is to deny reality.

Pelosi also brought up how it is that she perceives Barry's treatment of the opposition. She actually said that he has "tried so hard to listen, to accommodate, to be respectful of" the Republicans in Congress. I guess what she bases her idiotic perception on is the tact that Barry invites 12 RINOs to dinner on Wednesday night and met with House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan over lunch on Thursday in was what described as an attempt to reach out to Republicans on Capitol Hill. So, will our guys prove that they can be bought for the price of a meal? I'd like to think not, but with this crowd one never really knows for sure.

So it was then that during her weekly press conference Pelosi was asked if the reason Congress and the White House have failed to reach a "grand bargain" was due to Barry’s "not reaching out" to rank-and-file Republicans. To which she responded, "This president has been so respectful, given so much time to the Republicans and their views to the point that at one time in one of our meetings I said to the president, ‘Mr. President, I’m busy, and I don’t have any more time for this,’" Pelosi said. "‘You have to be the busiest person in the world. If and when they come up with a new idea why don’t we just call you back into the room?’" Pa-lease...

Pelosi went on, making absolutely no sense, but did her absolute best to portray Barry as doing all he could to work with those stubborn Republicans. She said, "Because he has tried so hard to listen, to accommodate, to be respectful of their points of view." And she continued, "No, I do not think this is why we didn’t reach a grand bargain." Then taking aim on the Republicans, she added, "I think we didn’t reach a grand bargain because the Speaker of the House [John Boehner] walked away from an agreement that he and the president had arrived at probably because he couldn’t see it to his own caucus," Pelosi said. "And I don’t care what anybody else says about that.

Putting all of these silly little meal events aside, and contrary to all of this rosy bullsh!t from Pelosi about how Barry's being so "respectful" of the opposition, he's really done nothing more than to hold several campaign-style rallies insisting that dealing with the sequester include raising taxes on the wealthy despite securing a rate increase on Americans earning $400,000 or more earlier this year. He held one face-to-face meeting with congressional leaders on the sequester, which lasted for seven minutes on the day it took effect. Barry has continued to spew his typical incendiary rhetoric accusing Republicans of just about everything.

Barry likes to claim that the GOP is choosing to protect the wealthy over "our kids’ schools." Barry said, "Are Republicans in Congress really willing to let these cuts fall on our kids’ schools and mental health care just to protect tax loopholes for corporate jet owners?" This is an example of our trash-talking president before the cuts took effect. And there was more of this garbage when he said, "Are they really willing to slash military health care and the border patrol just because they refuse to eliminate tax breaks for big oil companies?" Is this what Nancy means when she said that Barry "tried so hard to listen, to accommodate, to be respectful of" the Republicans?

LEFTISTS TROOP OFF TO BID A FINAL FAREWELL TO CHAVEZ...

Amongst those who be being heading south to Venezuela to bid a final farewell to dictator Hugo Chavez, there will also be a group of some very sad American leftists. One member of that little delegation will be none other that one of America's foremost faux preachers, Jesse 'The Extortionist' Jackson. Not sure if he's be taking his son, disgraced former Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. along, but Sr. confirmed his attendance via Twitter. He reportedly arrived Thursday night in Venezuela and will lead a delegation organized by his little scam organization referred to as the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition. I'm sure old Hugo will be looking up from Hell and waving.

Jackson told Fox News he knew the Venezuelan president "in a direct and personal way" and says he is "deeply saddened by his passing." Chavez presented Jackson with the Liberator's Award in 2005. On Friday morning, Jackson took to Facebook and posted the following: "I extend my deepest condolences to his family and along with people around the globe, am deeply saddened by his passing. During this sad and difficult moment in the lives of all those affected by this unfortunate news, we most always remember that God is our refuge and strength. I join the people of Venezuela, especially the family and friends of President Chavez, in mourning this global leader."

We can use this little gathering as a way of gauging the number of despots, dictators and tyrants that we actually have in this world because, really, who else would attend such an event the sole purpose of which is to honor a character as vile as Chavez? It has been reported that there will be more than 30 heads of various governments who are currently scheduled to attend the funeral, all, I'm quite sure, socialist or communist in their style of governance. Of course there will also be among those in attendance at least one member of Congress, U.S. Rep. Gregory Meeks from New York, a Democrat of course, and former Rep. William Delahunt from Massachusetts.

Personally I was quite surprised to hear that Barry wasn't planning on attending. I thought for sure that he'd be wanting to take advantage of an opportunity that would have allowed him hobnob with some of his fellow socialists, maybe even compare stories. I mean, he's not running for reelection again, so what's he got to lose? He might even have picked up a few pointers. And he could have taken the opportunity to brag a bit about the fact that he's now able to send drones across America to pick off potential 'terrorists' even if they happen to be U.S. citizens. But, I guess, he thought he would just mourn in private. After all, I'm sure he feels like he's lost a kindred spirit, of sorts.