WE APPEAR TO BE LISTENING TO THE WRONG “STATE-CONTROLLED” MEDIA…

 

 

For the second time in as many months, it would seem that we the American people would be doing ourselves an immense favor if more of us spent a little more time reading what’s being reported in, of all places, Pravda, the official press of that former "evil empire," the USSR. Remember back in November when the Russian news outlet surprised everyone when it published a scathing opinion column labeling our ‘Dear Beloved Leader,’ Barry "Almighty." a "Communist without question promoting the Communist Manifesto without calling it so?" Well, it appears to have done it again, this time weighing on in the gun control debate currently gripping the United States. The advice provided should be taken seriously.

In an opinion piece that is meant, I assume, as a warning and is written by Mr. Stanislav Mishin, titled "Americans, never give up your guns," the writer begins quite simply: "These days, there are few few things to admire about the socialist, bankrupt and culturally degenerating USA, but at least so far, one thing remains: the right to bare arms and use deadly force to defend one’s self and possessions." This is far from the first time Mr. Mishin has rocked the boat, having written in 2009 about American capitalism being "gone with a whimper." And like this most recent article centered around gun control, it was originally published on the author’s personal blog before then being picked up by Pravda.

By and large, Mr. Mishin uses Russian history as a warning for what could occur in a worst-case scenario:
"One of the first things [the Soviets] did was to disarm the population. From that point, mass repression, mass arrests, mass deportations, mass murder, mass starvation were all a safe game for the powers that were. The worst they had to fear was a pitchfork in the guts or a knife in the back or the occasional hunting rifle. Not much [to worry about] for soldiers." Mishin also reminds that retired military officers and other armed citizens were initially promised that if they stayed out of the way, they would be left alone. When they objected, many citizens were asked to "register their weapons" and were then "promptly shot."

The article continues to examine the continuing denial of the "basic right" to self-defense roughly two decades after the fall of the Soviet Union: "While President Putin pushes through reforms, the local authorities, especially in our vast hinterland, do not feel they need to act like they work for the people. They do as they please, a tyrannical class who knows they have absolutely nothing to fear from a relatively unarmed population. This in turn breeds not respect but absolute contempt and often enough, criminal abuse.

For those of us fighting for our traditional rights, the US 2nd Amendment is a rare light in an ever darkening room. Governments will use the excuse of trying to protect the people from maniacs and crime, but in reality, it is the bureaucrats protecting their power and position. In all cases where guns are banned, gun crime continues and often increases. As for maniacs, be it nuts with cars (NYC, Chapel Hill NC), swords (Japan), knives (China) or home made bombs (everywhere), insane people strike…

The excuse that people will start shooting each other is also plain and silly. So it is our politicians saying that our society is full of incapable adolescents who can never be trusted? Then, please explain how we can trust them or the police, who themselves grew up and came from the same culture? No it is about power and a total power over the people…Do not be fooled by a belief that progressives, leftists hate guns. Oh, no, they do not. What they hate is guns in the hands of those who are not marching in lock step of their ideology." [Emphasis added]

The article concludes with one final warning to Americans: "…do not fall for the false promises and do not extinguish the light that is left to allow humanity a measure of self respect." Mr. Mishin makes a great deal of sense, much more than do any in this country now clamoring for stricter gun control. So I suppose the question remains, will we smart enough to follow this very excellent advise provided to us by someone who has essentially lived it? Or, will we again be foolish enough to fall for the idiotic propaganda being foisted upon us by power-hungry politicians assisted in their effort by our corrupt state-controlled media? As it stands right now I’d say it’s not looking too good for the Second Amendment, with rumors already flying about that congressional Republicans are already set to cave on this very important issue.



YET ANOTHER PRIME INDICATOR THAT MAKES PLAIN THE VERY SAD STATE OF OUR COUNTRY...

 

 

As if we needed anymore proof that our country has now become twisted beyond all repair, we have it just the same, and it comes to us in the form of a new USA Today/Gallup poll. You see, according to this poll, both the most admired women as well as the most admired man, together, are probably two of the most corrupt politicians in the history of our republic. And they are both, without a doubt, the most skillful liars ever to hold their respective positions. They are, if you haven’t already been able to figure it out, Secretary of State Hitlery Clinton and our "Lord and Savior," Barack Hussein Obama. Come on, these two slimy characters are responsible for doing more damage to this country than anyone else currently alive.

And strangely enough, this is actually the eleventh year in a row that Hitlery has received the honor and the fifth year in a row for Barry. Following Hitlery is a rather odd assortment of contenders including: Michelle "Let Them Eat Cake" Obama, Oprah "The Racist" Winfrey, Condoleezza Rice, Sarah Palin, Pakistani schoolgirl Malala Yousafzai, Queen Elizabeth, Margaret Thatcher, Burmese opposition politician Aung San Suu Kyi and Kate Middleton. After Barry comes: Nelson Mandela, Mitt Romney, Billy Graham, George W. Bush, and Pope Benedict, 'BJ' Clinton, the Dalai Lama, and in a three-way tie George H.W. Bush, Ron Paul and John McCain. So we actually have 'BJ the Rapist' as being more admired than the Dalai Lama? Now that’s pretty sad.

And in sounding quite pleased with themselves, I guess, somebody over there at the poll actually said, Hitlery's first-place finish "further solidifies her position as the most often named most admired woman in Gallup's history — a total of 17 times going back to her first year as first lady in 1993." Sorry, but I find myself feeling kinda sorry for women, as well as finding it being more than just a little bizarre, that Hitlery Clinton is the best that they can do when looking for someone to admire. Old Hitlery missed being most admired in 1995 and 1996 when she finished second to Mother Teresa, and in 2001, when she came in after Laura Bush. Imagine the shame of it, being beat out by Laura Bush. Boy, I bet that pissed her off!

So on the all time list, after Hitlery, Eleanor Roosevelt, who Hitlery has been known to channel every now and gain, comes in second place with most first-place finishes , a mere 13, for most admired woman. She is followed by Thatcher, Jacqueline Kennedy, and Mother Teresa. On this year’s men’s list, there were no winners from the world of business, while last year the group included Warren Buffett, Donald Trump, and Bill Gates. Why should that really come as a surprise to anyone? Especially after you've had the guy who has been the most admired for five years running, blaming absolutely everything that he can on those sleazy characters who operate businesses. After all, everything is their fault and nothing is Barry's fault.



OUR LIAR-IN-CHIEF, THE LIES JUST KEEP ON COMIN'...

We witnessed yet another example of what passes for hard-hitting journalism these days, when in appearing on NBCs "Meet the Press" this past Sunday, Barry "Almighty" let loose with the biggest whopper that's he's told since getting re-elected. But much bigger ones were told during the campaign and during his first term. This most recent one, however, involved his claim to have actually cut spending by more than $1 Trillion in 2011. Funny thing though, the White House Office of Management and Budget says that federal spending actually increased by $147 Billion from fiscal 2010 to fiscal 2011. And yet he never seems to be challenged by any of those in our illustrious state-controlled media, on what they must know are nothing more than blatant and purposeful lies.

And as to be expected, the very limp-wristed David Gregory, who, I guess, fancies himself as being some sort of a journalist, asked Barry, "Well, you talk about dysfunction in Washington. You signed this legislation setting up the fiscal cliff 17 months ago. How accountable are you for the fact that Washington can't get anything done and that we are at this deadline again?" Barry responded with his standard bullshit: "Well, I have to tell you, David, if you look at my track record over the last two years, I cut spending by over a trillion dollars in 2011" He continued, "I campaigned on the promise of being willing to reduce the deficit in a serious way, in a balanced approach of spending cuts and tax increases on the wealthy while keeping middle class taxes low."

But our Liar-In-Chief was far from being done. He went on to say, "I put forward a very specific proposal to do that." And then, in getting really carried away with himself, he said, "I negotiated with Speaker Boehner in good faith and moved more than halfway in order to achieve a grand bargain. I offered over a trillion dollars in additional spending cuts so that we would have two dollars of spending cuts for every one dollar of increased revenue. I think anybody objectively who's looked at this would say that, you know, we have put forward not only a sensible deal but one that has the support of the majority of the American people, including close to half of Republicans." The lies just never end with this guy! He is without a doubt the most prolific liar to ever hold his office.

According to the White House Office of Management and Budget, federal spending was not only not cut by $1 Trillion in 2011, spending increased. The fact is that in fiscal 2010, federal spending was $3,456,213,000,000. In fiscal 2011, federal spending was $3,603,213,000,000. For Liberals, that would be an 'increase' of $147 Billion. While Barry did not cut federal spending by $1 trillion in 2011, he did increase the debt by more than $1 Trillion in that fiscal year. In fiscal 2011, according to the White House Office of Management and Budget, the federal deficit was $1,299,595,000,000. That was up from a deficit of $1,293,489,000,000 in fiscal 2010. So as hard as I might try, I just don’t see what Barry is talking about.

So the lies are allowed to continue and Barry is simply permitted, by those who are supposed to be the watchdogs of our democracy, to get away with telling them. We have an impotent 'news' media today, one that refuses to do their job out of fear that something they might say would make Barry look bad. These days they see themselves a being nothing more than his cheering section and as such it's simply not appropriate for them to offer any sort of critique. They have essentially reduced themselves to being nothing more than the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party, and therefore, can no linger be trusted to provide to us information that is either accurate or truthful. In short, they're simply not worth listening to anymore.

HAS THE TIME NOW COME TO BAN ALL TRAVEL BY BUS?

With the recent accident which resulted in the needless death of nine innocent people, with at least another 26 innocents being seriously injured, this past Sunday, when a chartered bus headed to Canada from Las Vegas skidded off an icy mountain highway in northeastern Oregon, has the time finally come to ban all travel by bus? I mean after all, if these people had not been on this bus they would still all be with us today. These nine needless deaths could have all been prevented if there had been no bus for them to charter.

According to the Oregon State Police a preliminary investigation showed that the charter bus, carrying about 40 people through the Blue Mountains en route to Vancouver, British Columbia, "lost control on the snow/ice covered westbound lanes of Interstate 84" near Pendleton. The bus crashed through a guardrail alongside the road and went down an embankment of around 200 feet. Crews trained in rope rescue were needed to bring victims back up to the highway, police said.

State Police spokesman Lt. Gregg Hastings said nine people had been confirmed killed in the crash. "We are continuing to try and confirm the total number of passengers and number of injured persons transported to area hospital or secondary locations due to severity of injuries." the state police said in a written statement. The bus driver survived the crash but investigators said he had not yet been interviewed because of the severity of his injuries. If it's proven he was at fault here, how is he any different than someone with a gun?

St. Anthony Hospital in Pendleton initially received 26 of the injured, spokesman Larry Blanc said. Five of those patients were stabilized and transported to a secondary hospital for further treatment. "About 10:30 this morning we got the call and declared a Code D, which means we bring in extra staff and supplies," he said, adding that D stands for "disaster." He said, "There are various types of injuries. Some of the injured were able to walk in on their own." He added, "We are taking a lot of CT scans and assessing the injuries

Blanc said that of the 21 patients who remained at St. Anthony, some had been treated and released and were being provided food and shelter by the Red Cross. Some of them were children, he said. Brycie Jones, spokeswoman for Oregon Health and Science University said that hospital had received four patients from the bus crash. Jones said she could not disclose their identities or condition and it was not immediately clear if the patients had come from another hospital.

Authorities identified the charter company as Mi Joo Tour & Travel, based in Vancouver, British Columbia and said the bus was headed there as part of a round-trip from Las Vegas, Nevada. Representatives for Mi Joo could not be reached for comment on Sunday evening. Police said the names of the dead and wounded would not be released until next of kin were notified, which could take several days because many were believed to be from out of the country.

So now with over 1000 people dying every single year in bus related accidents, where are all the cries to end all travel by bus? Is it not to be considered as an unnecessary risk that's in desperate need of further oversight, additional restrictions, by the government, perhaps even to the point where it is a mode of travel no longer to be permitted? I mean, after all, how can we, as a civilized nation, continue to allow people to travel by what apparently has become such an extremely dangerous mode of travel?

THE EXTREMES TO WHICH DEMOCRATS WILL GO TO AVOID TESTIFYING

HOLLYWOOD LIBERALS, JUST A BUNCH OF HYPOCRITES...

AGAIN OUR SOCIALIST PRESIDENT CLAIMS TO BE A CENTRIST...OH, AND BY THE WAY, HE AIN'T NO LINCOLN!!!



 

 

And another hard hitting interview by that faux journalist, David 'The Perpetual Ass-Kisser' Gregory.

OBAMA INSISTS UPON USING DEAD CHILDREN AS A MEANS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH HIS POLITICAL AGENDA...

If he cares so much, then why are prosecutions of gun crimes down 40 percent since this douche bag became president?  How about he start enforcing the gun laws already on the books?  Why do we need MORE gun laws?  The "assault weapons" ban to which he refers was allowed to expire because it was ineffective!  He's such a pathetic liar.  To him incident at Newtown is nothing but another 'crisis' literally begging to be taken advantage of! 

MSNBC..KINDA WEIRD SOMEONE NAMED 'KRYSTAL BALL' IS THE ONE MAKING SENSE...

SO WHO’S 'REALLY' RAKING IN THE MOST MONEY FROM THE SALE OF GASOLINE?

Before you answer, I want you to think about something. The top 10 states with the highest state taxes on a gallon of gasoline also happen to all be blue states, that is they are all states that went for Barry "Almighty" in 2012, with the exception of two states that were blue in the 2008 election but then turned red this year. According to data analyzed by the Tax Foundation and provided by the American Petroleum Institute, the title of having the highest taxes (cents per gallon) on gasoline goes to New York. There the total state-level gas taxes equals 49 cents.

Coming in, in second place, which is actually a tie, are California and Connecticut, there the total gas-per-gallon taxes equals 48.6 cents. North Carolina comes in at number six on the list, with taxes of 39.2 cents – the Tar Heel state went red in 2012 for Republican challenger Mitt Romney but was blue in 2008 when Barry was elected to his first term. Indiana was the other blue-to-red exception, and has a gas tax of 38.9 cents. Florida rounds out the top ten list. There the gas tax equals 35 cents on every gallon.

The top 10 states with the highest gas taxes are listed below:
New York 49 cents
California 48.6 cents
Connecticut 48.6
Hawaii 47.1 cents
Michigan 39.4 cents
N. Carolina 39.2 cents
Illinois 38.9 cents
Indiana 38.9
Washington 37.5 cents
Florida 35 cents

So why does gas cost so much, and who is making the most money? Now you can blame high gas prices on rich oil company executives or greedy gas station owners if that makes you feel better, but that’s not actually the case. The truth is that governments rake in a much larger ‘profit’ at the pump than anyone, and sadly there appears to be no relief in sight. The fact is the price of a gallon of gas is based on the combination of four costs: that of crude oil, of refining gas, of distribution and marketing, and, of course, taxes.

Crude oil costs make up about 76% of the cost of gasoline, and that’s according to U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Thus $2.66 of a $3.50 gallon of gasoline is set before the oil is even refined. Global markets, reacting to supply and demand, are what actually determine the cost of crude oil. Just like any other commodity, from gold to corn, a shortage in supply or an increase in demand leads to a rise in prices. And with Barry pretty much refusing to allow any new drilling in this country, we continue to be at the mercy of foreign suppliers.

Refining oil is the next step in the process—and the next expense for drivers. Gasoline is extracted from crude oil and additives, including lubricants and detergents to reduce engine deposits, are added. As of January 2012, the EIA found that refining was responsible for 6% of the cost of gasoline. Also worth keeping in mind here, is the fact that we have not been allowed to build a new refinery here in this country for over 30 years, we’ve been prevented from doing so by the same politicians who prevent us from drilling.

Distribution and marketing, the part of the process most apparent to consumers, constitutes another 6% of gas prices. That portion of the cost includes the shipping and transportation of the gasoline, a markup to cover retailers' expenses, and any advertising created to appeal to customers. I can only assume that many folks, when accusing, or in nodding in agreement as Barry talks about greedy oil companies, must think this all happens by magic, totally free from any investment of capital being needed. Those folks are, morons!

The remaining 12%, or roughly 50 cents per gallon today, goes directly to federal, state and local governments in an array of sales and excise taxes. The federal gas tax is 18.4 cents on every gallon of gasoline sold in America. State gas-tax, as pointed out earlier, rates vary from a low of eight cents per gallon in Alaska to a jarring 49 cents per gallon in New York. Other states where it's steep to fill up include California and Connecticut—each with 48.6-cent-per-gallon gas taxes—and Hawaii, at 47.1 cents per gallon.

Some local governments have even gotten in on the act. In California, local sales and excise taxes on gasoline average 3.1%, according to the Los Angeles Times. That works out to about 12 cents in local taxes for each gallon of gas, based on the state's current average of $3.80 per gallon. Skokie, Ill., a suburb north of Chicago, levies a gas tax of three cents per gallon. You'll pay an extra nickel per gallon at gas stations in Eugene, Ore. In Florida, Brevard County expects to siphon more than $15 million from motorists this year, according to the newspaper Florida Today.

Put this all together, and government makes far more from gas sales than all of the oil companies put together. Exxon, for example, made only seven cents per gallon of gasoline in 2011. That's a drop in the bucket compared to the nearly 50 cents per gallon that federal, state and local governments rake in on an average gallon of gas pumped in the U.S. For some families struggling to make ends meet, paying 50 cents per gallon in taxes may be the difference between driving to work and putting dinner on the table.

So the next time you feel the urge to, or Barry tries to convince you to, blame those evil, greedy oil companies, speculators or service stations for high gas prices, remember that no one makes more money off of gasoline than government. So what that means is, we have a government that does not spend one dime in bringing the product to market that is the very same entity that makes the most money off of the sale of that product. How insane is that? And what give any government, whether local, state or federal, the right to do so?

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA...A CON MAN'S CON MAN...

SHERIFF JOE ARPAIO COMES UP WITH THE PERFECT SOLUTION...

SO, I GUESS WE’RE NOT BROKE ENOUGH, NOR HAVE WE WASTED QUITE ENOUGH MONEY…

So, the guy that has been described as being our "Lord and Savior," ah, that would be Barack Hussein Obama, is requesting $60.4 Billion in disaster relief for the victims of Hurricane Sandy. OK, we’re broke, but I suppose, these people do need some kind of help. And also, if you’re opposed to disaster relief funding, then that means you’re nothing but a meany-pot who actually wants disaster victims to continue to suffer as much as possible. And also, spend-crazy Democrats thoroughly enjoy taking every opportunity they can to point out that conservative representatives in Congress would only vote against such legislation because they’re cold and heartless individuals. Because this is generally what liberals and big government Republicans think of those who are not in favor of the federal government giving handouts to storm victims.

But look, we know that we’re not cold and heartless. And it’s been shown time and time again that conservatives are actually much more generous with their own money than are tightwad liberals. Liberals prefer spending other people’s money, and as much of it as they can. They do so by having more and more of that ‘other people’s’ money ‘taken’ through higher and higher taxes to fund more and more government programs that succeed in only making people poorer and much more dependent on government. Conservatives give more of the their own money, money that they themselves have worked very hard for, away to charitable organizations that actually do help people in need. Which only goes to prove the fact that the people are much better custodians of ‘their’ money than is the government.

It’s unconstitutional for the government to extract money through taxes and then give that money to other people or businesses no matter how good the government’s intentions are. But as we have continued to be a witness to, when has that little fact ever stopped corrupt politicians from doing just that. And it’s one of the main reasons I absolutely cringe every time I hear some Democrat talking about the need for putting together some form of ‘relief’ package for some group of people somewhere because of some ‘catastrophe’ or another. And it never fails that these "relief" bills always include massive amounts of money that is to be spent on none-relief-related issues because those corrupt politicians use them as excuses to stuff a bunch of money for pork projects that buy off their constituents. The NY Post reported:

"The pork-barrel feast includes more than $8 million to buy cars and equipment for the Homeland Security and Justice departments. It also includes a whopping $150 Million for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to dole out to fisheries in Alaska and $2 Million for the Smithsonian Institution to repair museum roofs in DC. An eye-popping $13 Billion would go to "mitigation" projects to prepare for future storms. Other big-ticket items in the bill include $207 Million for the VA Manhattan Medical Center; $41 Million to fix up eight military bases along the storm’s path, including Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; $4 million for repairs at Kennedy Space Center in Florida; $3.3 Million for the Plum Island Animal Disease Center and $1.1 Million to repair national cemeteries."

Some of these things don’t have anything to do with helping Sandy victims, yet somehow they all managed to be part of a Sandy relief package. I mean, come one, how is giving $150 Million to fisheries in Alaska supposed to help someone in New York who lost his home? Or, how is spending money to fix up ‘Club’ Gitmo going to help a business in New York whose building got destroyed by the hurricane? Or spending millions to help repair damages at the space center in Florida? This is why conservatives are opposed to this kind of legislation. Would it end up helping some people and businesses in New York? Perhaps, but at what expense to the taxpayer? But now, it’s little more than a mini-bailout for politicians’ buddies. And if you’re opposed to it, that means you want children to suffer and to be homeless. You meany-pot you!

MOST, TODAY, HAVE A FAVORABLE VIEW OF NRA...

Well imagine that. After all of the slanderous and scurrilous attacks over the course of just the last couple of weeks, who would have thunk such a thing was possible? Who would thought that when asked the question, "What is your overall opinion of the National Rifle Association?", the answer would have been what it was from anybody. Because, you see, when at least Fifty-four percent of Americans were asked that very question, they responded by saying that they have a favorable opinion of the NRA, while it was just 38 percent, most likely all Democrats, who said that they have an unfavorable opinion. At least what we finding out according to a USA Today/Gallup Poll conducted Dec. 19-22. The public's opinion of the NRA has fluctuated over the years since Gallup first began measuring it back in 1993, from a low of 42 percent favorable in 1995 to a high of 60 percent favorable in 2005.

Other interesting poll findings:
-- 21% of Americans have a very favorable opinion of the NRA, and 18% have a very unfavorable opinion.
-- 83% of Republicans have a favorable opinion of the NRA, compared with only 36% of Democrats. Among Independents, favorability was 54%.
-- 71% of Americans with a gun in the household hold a favorable opinion of the NRA, while 40% of non-gun-owning households also have a favorable opinion of the NRA.

So apparently all of the effort expended by the Democrats, and with their many minions in the state-controlled media acting in concert with them, has all been for naught. If you've been watching any of the news of late, you've been able to witness first hand how the accusations being made have pretty run the gamut, with it being painfully obvious that none have had any basis in any actual fact. In fact, they have been so far removed from being anywhere near reality as to make them absolutely laughable and earning nothing but ridicule for the imbeciles making the ludicrous charges. But has I have mentioned here before, Democrats, as well as those in state-controlled media, have never allowed the facts to stand in their way of capitalizing on what is seen as a political opportunity or to get in the way of a 'good' story. Neither has anything ever convinced them to pass on making one attempt after another to rewrite our Constitution.

AL 'BULL HORN' SHARPTON ADDS TO THE NOISE CREATED BY THOSE FAVORING GUN CONTROL…

Well, it would seem that everybody's favorite faux preacher, Al 'Bull horn' Sharpton, has stumbled across yet another way to get is ugly mug plastered all over my television, to the point where I don't even watch the news anymore. It seems that he's now made a threat, just last Saturday, to take the fight to the National Rifle Association (NRA). Old 'Bull Horn' said he will be organizing a protest against the NRA and gun manufacturers that will kick off with a rally at the group’s Washington headquarters next month.

Recently, looking like someone in dire need of a sandwich, Sharpton, bellowing in a way that has become the trademark for this self-professed ‘civil rights’ leader, said, "We need to get a real movement against those who get rich off the perpetuation of killing." He went on to say, "The only purpose of assault weapons is for war," Sharpton continued. "You don’t hunt with assault weapons. Nobody shoots down prey with so many bullets you couldn’t eat the prey." Where does he come up with this stuff?

Old 'Bull horn' mocked the claim by NRA head Wayne LaPierre that the best way to prevent classroom shootings like the massacre in Newtown, Conn., is to post an armed guard at every school in America. "It was one of the most asinine statements I’ve heard in a long time," Sharpton said at the Harlem headquarters of the National Action Network. Maybe he should have first checked with Barry before making that comment, since the school where Barry sends his kid doesn't have just one armed guard, it has 11.

'Bull Horn' urged Congress to pass meaningful gun control legislation, ripping its inaction after the mass shooting at Virginia Tech or the one in Tucson that gravely wounded then-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, Democrat, and killed six others. "They shot one of their legislators in Tucson and they still didn’t put a new bill on the table," he said. Hey Al, you freakin moron, ever heard of that little thing called the Constitution? I know you probably don't read much, but you really should look it up!

In the immediate aftermath of the Connecticut shooting, the 4 million-member organization pledged "meaningful contributions" to combat gun violence — but LaPierre did not give an inch. He said the NRA would not accept any responsibility for the epidemic of mass shootings, instead he blamed madmen who grew up on a steady diet of violent video games and movies. LaPierre ridiculed idiotic politicians for creating gun-free zones around schools and said the nation’s children could only be protected by more firearms.

And he made an excellent point saying, "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." And he's right. Because the one thing you never buffoons like Sharpton, or any liberal, talking about is the number of lives that are saved every single day because someone had a gun. Those lives would have been forever lost to us had there not been someone on the scene who was packing. Sure, Sharpton can go around shooting his big fat mouth off, but how many bodyguards does he have around him who are all carrying guns?

JESSE JACKSON AT HIS INARTICULATE AND EVASIVE BEST...

FACTS SURE ARE FUNNY THINGS, AND MOST OFTEN GO IGNORED BY DEMOCRATS...



The debate on gun control is once again gaining momentum thanks to sleazy Democrats. Case in point is that on Thursday, one of those sleazy Democrats, Senator Diane Feinstein, outlined her plans to introduce sweeping legislation that goes so far as to include fingerprinting and registration of all those who currently own so-called semi-automatic "assault" weapons. It's funny, funny strange, not funny ha-ha, thought that it's always those who are in favor of a total ban on all types of firearms who most often point to countries like England and Australia to assist them in making their point. These, of course, are countries where firearms are banned or virtually impossible to possess. A look into the statistics might offer some clarity, though, about how safe such a move actually makes a country.

Let’s start right here at home. From 2009 to 2011, homicides overall declined slightly according to a 2011 Centers for Disease Control (CDC) report, with a corresponding drop in homicides by firearms. In fact, the report says homicide is not among the top 15 leading causes of death in America. (As recently as 2009, the CDC reported that homicide was in the top 15 at #15.) Instead: 1) Accidents (unintentional deaths) were #5 and Suicide (intentional harm) has held solid as the 10th leading cause of death for several years. 2) The stats from 2009 show that homicides totaled 16,799, with 11,493 of those attributed to guns. 3) During that same year, motor vehicle deaths were nearly triple that of gun-related deaths — 34,485 vs. 11,493. 4) Death from accidental falls totaled 24,792, almost double the firearms homicide total.

The stats for gun deaths have actually shown some pretty significant declines in the past two decades. Looking at the graph at the top of this post, I think that it's worth noting that deaths caused by "other guns" has been relatively flat since 1985. The assault weapons ban, you may, or may not, recall was in place from 1994-2004. After which it was allowed to expire after having little or no impact. And what about the argument most often made by the gun control nuts on the Left quoting the success of oppressive gun laws in countries like Australia and England? A recent opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal by Joyce Lee Malcolm shows that argument to be hollow: "After a school massacre, the U.K. banned handguns in 1998. A decade later, handgun crime has doubled."

Ms. Malcom’s article also details what happened after Australia banned many guns following a 1996 mass murder of 35 people by a madman armed with assault rifles. The country tightened registration laws, banned assault rifles, pump-action shotguns, and also forced a buy back of more than 600,000 guns. What effect did this have on crime? Well, "A 2003 study published by the Brookings Institution, found homicides "continued a modest decline" since 1997. They concluded that the impact of the National Firearms Agreement was "relatively small," with the daily rate of firearms homicides declining 3.2%." But during that very same period of time, right here in 'gun crazy' America, deaths attributed to firearms dropped by nearly ten times that of the decline seen in Australia.

Also, restricting or confiscating handguns seems to have had almost no effect on homicides in Australia and the stats also show that the law had no real effect on suicides. "Suicides with firearms went down but suicides by other means went up," Malcom notes. And what about the oft-cited British gun laws? Have they done the job? Restrictive gun laws have been around for almost 100 years in England, and Malcolm reports that getting a permit requires proving to police that you have a "good reason" for needing a gun. And apparently self defense is not considered to be a good reason in England. Following a 1987 shooting in the British town of Hungerford, the Brits enacted stricter controls. And in 1998, a near-total ban on gun ownership followed another mass shooting. Were these moves a success?

Well, within a decade of the handgun ban and the confiscation of handguns from registered owners, crime with handguns had doubled and those statistics come to us according to British government crime reports. Gun crime, not a serious problem in the past, has now become one. Armed street gangs have some British police carrying guns for the very first time. Now there is little doubt that the Senate will soon put forth new legislation regarding gun ownership, especially as it relates to so-called 'assault' weapons, for which the definition remains more than just a little murky. However, those making the argument that banning guns has worked in places like Australia and England might be advised to check those pesky little things called facts or, they may end up risk looking rather foolish if they happen to encounter someone armed with those facts.

But having said that, I think most of us realize that Democrats care very little about facts, or about looking foolish. What's most important to them is that they be able to move forward with their leftist agenda. Just like their quest to allow the government to seize control of our healthcare, there is now a drive to rob us of us our ability to defend ourselves. To defend ourselves not only against some unwanted intruder, but from a tyrannical government. These politicians, these pathetic DEMOCRATS, are doing nothing more than to use the death of children as their method of choice in trying to convince us that we must now all turn in our guns. Personally, if I was a parent of one of those victims from Newtown, I'd be pissed if a bunch of slimy politicians were using the death of my child to rob from the American people one of their God given rights!

TIME TO CUT OURSELVES LOOSE FROM THE UNITED NATIONS…

 

 

In one of its last actions of the year, that completely dysfunctional group of thugs, dictators and despots of every stripe to which liberals fondly refer to as the United Nations General Assembly, on Christmas Eve agreed to extend for another three years the formula that has we the U.S. taxpayers contributing more than one-fifth of the world body’s regular operating budget. No member-state called for a recorded vote, and the resolution confirming the contributions that each country will make for the 2013-2015 period was summarily adopted. The assembly also approved a two-year U.N. budget of $5.4 Billion. The U.N. is one the most, if not THE most, corrupt organizations on the entire planet. It long ago arrived at the point where it had outlived it's usefulness, if it ever was useful in the first place.

 

 

The U.S. has accounted for 22 percent of the total regular budget every year since 2000, and will now continue to do so for the next three years. The U.S. representative for U.N. management and reform, Joseph Torsella, expressed satisfaction that the U.S. contribution had not been raised above that level. "The United States is very pleased to have maintained the critical 22 percent ceiling for U.S. contributions to the U.N. regular budget, protecting U.S. taxpayers from the additional bills – estimated to be at least $300 million annually in both the regular and peacekeeping budgets – that would have resulted from an increase in the U.S. ceiling level," he said. Well this imbecile may be pleased, but here's one taxpayer who isn't, not by a long shot! We're just pouring money down yet another hole.

 

 

Two months ago, when the General Assembly’s budget committee was meeting on the issue, Torsella noted that since the last time the budget contribution formula was reviewed, "developing countries have continued their impressive economic growth." He said, "Countries whose economies have grown should welcome the opportunity to become a larger stakeholder in the work of the organization." Torsella also reminded that meeting that since the creation of the U.N., a fundamental principle that has governed the budget contribution process has been "the avoidance of overreliance upon any one contributor." What constitutes "overreliance" is not defined, however. Between them the U.S. and Japan contribute one-third of the total budget – and roughly the same as the next seven countries combined.

 

 

The 193 U.N. member-states’ contributions are assessed according to their relative "capacity to pay," based on population size and gross national income (converted to U.S. dollars at market exchange rates). The ceiling is 22 percent while the bottom level is 0.001 percent, which over the next three years will apply to more than 30 of the world’s poorest countries. Whether a country contributes less than $25,000 a year towards the budget or more than $500 million – as the U.S. does – it has the same voting privileges in the General Assembly. Moreover, as Heritage Foundation scholar Brett Schaefer has pointed out, countries that together pay less than 1.3 percent of the total are able, under U.N. voting rules, to pass the budget over the objections of countries that contribute a combined 98 percent.

 

 

According to the resolution adopted on Monday, the biggest contributors after the U.S. for the 2013-2015 period are Japan (10.83 percent), Germany (7.14 percent), France (5.59 percent), Britain (5.18 percent) and China (5.15 percent). The next tier includes Italy (4.45 percent), Canada (2.98 percent), Spain (2.97 percent), Brazil (2.93 percent), Russia (2.44 percent) and Australia (2.07 percent). No other country pays as much as two percent, and most pay below one percent. Some developing countries have seen relatively significant increases in their assessments: China, the world’s second-largest economy, will pay 5.15 percent, up from 3.12 last time; the Russian contribution has risen to 2.44 percent from 1.60 percent; Brazil’s 2.93 percent is an increase from 1.61.

 

 

China’s year-on-year GDP growth rate last year was 9.2 percent, Russia’s was 4.3 percent and Brazil’s 2.7 percent, according to CIA World Factbook data. India’s increase in U.N. contributions is more modest – from 0.53 to 0.66 percent – while Japan, Canada and European countries including Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Spain will contribute a smaller percentage over the next three years than they have over the past three. Before 2000, the U.S. contributed 25 percent of the U.N. regular budget, but it was reduced to 22 percent in line with legislation passed by the U.S. Congress in 1999. The U.S. still pays 25 percent of the separate peacekeeping budget. This little pipedream here has now become simply nothing more than a bad investment. We essentially get zero return for our money.

 

 

Look, I'm not saying that having some sort of world body isn't a good idea, I'm simply saying that the one we currently have is a very bad idea. Free countries are most definitely now in the minority, while those countries that are essentially nothing more than dictatorships, of one form or another, now make up a very substantial majority of the members nations. The deck has essentially become very much stacked against us, so why not now cut our losses and respectfully request that the group we would leave behind, while they are still free to refer to themselves as the 'United Nations,' must, and in a timely manner, relocate their headquarters to another locale. One that is outside of the United States. We shouldn't be unreasonable in our request, they should be provided 6 months to leave and we will also provide them with one half of what would have been our financial contribution for 2013. But they must GO!

MATT DAMON...ACTOR, MORON, STOOGE, AND HYPOCRITE…ALL ROLLED INTO ONE...

What is it with some people that makes them think that just because they have a certain knack for acting, or singing, or even for the telling of stupid jokes, that they are somehow to be considered as being smarter than those of us who weren't born possessing the same little knack that they were? Now take Matt Damon, for instance. This stupid little, holier than though, shit, like most other Hollywood liberal-types, thinks that he's got all the answers. And remember when this little dweeb, rather infamously I suppose, said back in 2011 that he wouldn’t mind if President Barack Obama, whom of course Damon had supported in 2008, was a one-term president because he’d rather have a "one-term president with some balls who actually got stuff done." But, little Matt still did his part to give Barry a second term, admitting that he still voted for him in November.

"I assume there will be some Supreme Court appointments in this next term; that alone was reason to vote for him," Damon told Playboy magazine in its January 2013 issue. "I don’t think I said anything a lot of people weren’t thinking. It’s easier now more than ever in my life to feel the fix is in, the game is rigged and no matter how hard you work to change things, it just doesn’t matter." Damon was also asked for his thoughts on Clint Eastwood’s performance at the Republican National Convention. First of all, to ask this moron about his thoughts on anything would seem like a complete waste of time. Who cares? I mean, cone on, here we have a guy who wasn't bright enough to find any other kind of work that to 'act.' And if he were to live in any other country he would be lucky to be selling newspapers at some intersection. And yet, we're supposed to be interested in his thoughts. Nope, don't think so!

But, be that as it may, he responded to the idiotic question saying, "I heard the backlash, but I never saw the whole thing because I just didn’t want to see my friend … you know. Look, his knowledge of filmmaking is so vast and deep that he can wing it beautifully on the set. What he did at the RNC was an unrehearsed bit he decided to do at the last minute. You can’t go onstage and do 12 minutes of stand-up completely unrehearsed. But I agree with what Bill Maher said — Clint killed it at the convention for 12 minutes, and the audience loved him. I wouldn’t do that unless I spent a month rehearsing." So he agreed with that other schlep, Maher, in accessing Clint's performance, no big surprise there. But if I remember things correctly, Maher's comments were tinged with just a hint of sarcasm. And if I'm my wrong, my apologies go out to Mr. Maher.

Damon’s latest trip to the big screen, and one I doubt very much is one that I'll be wasting the necessary $10 to see, is entitled, "Promised Land." You see, I go, when I go, to the movies, I go to be entertained, not lectured to. But anyway, in the film, at least from what I've read, Damon plays a salesperson trying to persuade homeowners to sell their natural gas drilling rights, which means that their land will ultimately be "fracked," a term used to describe a process by which gas is released through drilling and pressurized fluid. The issue of fracking has become a political hot potato lately, in part because of the 2010 Oscar-nominated documentary, "Gasland" (and subsequent counter-movies, including "Truthland" and "FrackNation"). In May, Al "Global Warming is Real" Gore put his support behind Vermont’s effort to ban fracking, citing environmental concerns. Good old Al, making himself rich off bogus climate change, what a deal!

While it should be painfully obvious to just about anyone familiar with Damon, and the bizarre mentality that has seized control in Hollywood, Damon still felt it necessary to explain what politics, if any, are behind "Promised Land." He said, "We went to the studio saying, ‘Who f—king wants to go see an anti-fracking movie?’ and were all in agreement. When we were working on the script, it was about wind farms, but we changed it to fracking — a good issue because the stakes are so high. That sh*t is real. They’re debating about letting it happen in New York now. To us, the movie was really about American identity. We loved the characters because they felt like real people making the kinds of compromises you have to just to live your life." What a bunch of idealistic drivel that has no connection to the real world! But it is the standard fare that we get from most of those who reside out there in the land of the fruits the nuts and the flakes.

Damon said he isn’t so naive to think that any politician would ever move to make serious action against fracking. Naïve doesn't even come close to describing this mental midget. Whoops, sorry, make that mental little person, we must be politically correct after all. Anyway he droned on, "We’re at a point where politicians don’t really get any benefit from engaging with long-term issues. Instead, it’s all about the next election cycle. Those guys in the House don’t do anything now but run for office. So unless they can find some little thing that zips them up a couple of points in the polls, they’re not interested. There’s a consensus among scientists, though, that we face serious long-term issues. They’re saying that unless we engage with those issues, we’re genuinely f*cked. The way it looks, we’re going to wait until one of those big issues smacks us." Is he serious? Yup, I'm afraid he is!

Man, is this guy a genius or what? I'd say, or what! Look, guys like this clown are a dime a dozen. They all seem to be operating under the rather misguided notion that they, and just because of their celebrity status, are someone worthy of being listened to. But, really, in the big scheme of things very few of these celebrities now trying to dictate to us how to live out our lives even ever made it out of high school. Yet they still feel that they are, somehow, entitled to being considered as superior to those of us who did. Now I'm sure little Matt is constantly surrounded by like-minded folks, but that doesn't make what he says, or his idiotic opinions on important issues, anymore relevant that what someone outside of his little sphere of bizarreness may think or say about any particular issue. Now little Matt may take himself pretty seriously, but that's no reason for the rest of to.

RICK SANTELLI ON THE "FISCAL CLIFF"...HE MAKES A LOT OF SENSE...

OBAMA...JUST WORDS...

COME ON, JUST HOW STUPID DOES THIS DOPE, HOYER, THINK WE ARE?

DEMOCRATS SIMPLY UNWILLING TO AVERT THE "FISCAL CLIFF"...

So, despite repeated assurances from U.S. lawmakers that they would do everything in their power to avert the so-called year-end "fiscal cliff," congressional officials said Thursday they knew of no significant strides toward a compromise and no negotiations have been set. In fact, it appears that 'Dingy' Harry Reid, Democrat, has given up on all attempts to find a solution, saying Thursday that a lack of progress in bipartisan negotiations will most likely put the country over the "cliff." That's hilarious, hearing 'Dingy' talking about being bipartisan. You'll not find a more partisan political hack anywhere on the entire planet than 'Dingy' Harry Reid! Or, a bigger asshole except, for maybe, Chuckie Schumer.

So in what is nothing more than yet another attempt at passing the buck, like these slime bag Democrats always do, Reid simply says it’s now up to congressional Republicans to come up with a plan that both houses would pass and Barry "Almighty" would then sign. Right, like either Reid or that corrupt piece dog squeeze in the Oval Office would ever go along with anything that puts forth the amount of spending cuts that we actually need in order to avoid taking the big plunge. The only thing the Democrats are willing to do is to raise the taxes of those who actually put people to work. But if we actually got more people working and being somewhat self-sufficient they wouldn't need the government, now would they?

So in now deciding to move things a little further into the proverbial gutter, Reid has now seen fit to lie through his teeth, actually going so far as to accuse Boehner of running a "dictatorship" by "not allowing the vast majority of the House of Representatives to get what they want." Says who? "They’ve done nothing," old 'Dingy' said of the GOP-controlled House. "The speaker has just a few days left to change his mind," Reid said, but added: "I don’t know time wise how it will happen." Let's face it, the only 'dictators' that we current have in Washington all, coincidently, happen to have a (D) after their names. From Barry on down, the mentality on the Democrat side has been one where they see no need for any cuts in spending.

After conferring on a conference call Wednesday, the House Republican leadership said they remain ready for talks, but gave no hint they intend to call lawmakers back into session unless the Senate first passes legislation. "The lines of communication remain open, and we will continue to work with our colleagues to avert the largest tax hike in American history, and to address the underlying problem, which is spending," the leadership said in a statement. And as has been before many times and in many ways, what will cause us to go over the cliff, if in fact we do, is not that we have a lack of revenue, it will because Democrats refuse to curb, by even the slightest amount, the level of our mind-numbing spending.

The Senate is due in session Thursday, although the immediate agenda includes legislation setting the rules for government surveillance of suspected spies and terrorists abroad, including Americans, as well as a pork filled measure disguised as a measure that supposed to be providing $60 Billion for victims of Superstorm Sandy. Also something liable to get much discussion is Dianne Feinstein's recent proposal designed to capitalize on the Newtown tragedy and her desire to come up with some form of gun control. Because, as we all know, gun control is much more important of an issue than is avoiding the fiscal cliff. That is the issue that has now, apparently, become the most important priority of the Democrat controlled Senate.

Meanwhile, Barry decided to cut short his portion of the family vacation to Hawaii, flying back to the White House overnight and arriving early on Thursday. He left the Queen and kids behind to finish soaking up the $4 Million that this little 'vacation' taken at the taxpayer’s expense. And so after weeks of what have been described as negotiations, but were actually attempt to be Republicans into submission, Barry again urged lawmakers to agree on a plan that calls for raising taxes on the "wealthiest Americans." Barry said at the White House, "Everybody’s got to give a little bit in a sensible way." I guess what he means is that everybody but the Democrats, because I don’t see them willing to actually give on anything.

The House has no plans to convene, following last week’s rebellion in which conservatives torpedoed Speaker Boehner’s legislation to prevent scheduled tax increases on most, while letting them take effect on million-dollar wage earners. "How we get there, God only knows," the Ohio Republican said of efforts to protect the economy — and taxpayers — from the tax increases and spending cuts. "We have a spending problem. We have to address it, And we’re not going to address it by kicking the can down the road," the speaker said at a news conference late last week when he was asked about setting a vote on a plan that Democrats find acceptable. But that won't happen because the Democrats want us to go over the cliff.

'DINGY' HARRY REID AT HIS ABSOLUTE DINGY-EST...

AND THE BLAME GAME INTENSIFIES...

As Barry "Almighty" was cutting short his family's Christmas vacation in order to 'resume' discussions as to how to avoid the "fiscal cliff" of automatic year-end tax hikes and spending cuts, his staff of morons over at the White House, on Wednesday, were busy calling on congressional Republicans to not stand in the way of a resolution in the U.S. Congress. So, I guess, now refusing to kick the can down the road and allowing this mess to worsen into something that future generations will be forced to contend with, is being defined as standing in the way? So, if I have this right, unless Republicans simply, and once again, roll over, they're the ones to be portrayed as being at fault for plunging us over a cliff of the Democrats’ making.

"What we need is for the Senate Minority Leader not to block a vote and for Boehner to allow a vote," said, as near as I can figure, some faceless White House official to ABC News. This moron went on to claim, "The hits from our economy are not coming from outside factors they’re coming from Congressional stupidity." Barry supposedly is now seeking a stripped down deal to prevent tax rates from rising on all but the wealthiest Americans and to stop steep across-the-board spending cuts. The White House, in what was described as being a compromise by Barry, last week proposed a broader package that would have let tax rates stay low for those making up to $400,000. Said to be a compromise, I supposed, because Barry's previous threshold had been $250,000.

House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner was duly unimpressed with Barry’s offer and sought, unsuccessfully, to push his own proposal through Congress, but members of his own Republican Party balked at rate hikes of any kind. Talks broke down after that with Barry and lawmakers leaving town for the holiday. The focus will now shift to the Senate for a deal, where Barry "Almighty" will rely on an ally, Senate Majority Leader 'Dingy Harry' Reid, to work out a bill that the top Senate Republican, Kentucky's Mitch McConnell can agree to. The House must also pass the measure. According to the same buffoon of a White House official said that a broader effort to trim the nation's massive budget deficit will simply have to wait.

Congressional stubbornness risks again damaging the fragile economy, just as the nation's near-default in 2011 - the result of a stalemate over raising the national borrowing limit - dealt a nascent economic recovery a setback, this same administration official went on to say. "If you think about the possibility of Congress failing to act to avert the fiscal cliff, combined with the abomination of what occurred in the summer of 2011, hits to our economy aren't coming from external factors, they're coming from congressional stupidity," the official bellowed. Well that's quite a mouthful. The problem is, though, that it's all nothing but a bunch of political bullshit! Democrats don't want to incur ANY spending cuts, and spending is the root cause for the fiscal cliff.

Look, this White House moron whoever he, or she, is, is nothing but a complete and utter fraud in trying to blame anything on the Republicans. Boehner already caved on taxes once, but it wasn't enough for Barry and his team of political miscreants. If this jerk wants to go around shooting his, or her, mouth off that's one thing, but the fact that they insist on blaming just one side makes it pretty clear, and pretty quickly, that he, or she, is doing nothing more than talking our his, or her, ass as they attempt to score some cheap political points. Republicans were permitted to keep control of the House for one reason, and they must not allow themselves to be bullied into caving by a bunch of brain-dead White House malcontents.

ONE MAN'S VACATION IS ANOTHER MAN'S...

BARRY STRESSING OVER THE 'FISCAL CLIFF'

Our "Lord and Savior," Barack Obama, just-completed his portion of what has been described as being a 'family vacation', heading home after five days or roughly 120 hours. This little respite of his, having taken place in that little known part of Asia, known as Hawaii, was the vacation many guys can only dream about. But I think Barry differs from most in that, because while there was a rather intense focus on recreation alone or with the guys, there was a relatively light schedule of actual family-oriented events.

Barry played golf three out of the five days he was on Oahu, engaging in marathon sessions of up to six hours for a total of about 17 hours our on the course. He spent another three or four hours 'toning' up in the gym. No doubt he views all of this relaxation as his way of dealing with the rigors of his office, but it also makes quite clear his lack of any deep concern regarding the consequences to be faced by everyday folks should we actually make the plunge over that much talked about fiscal cliff.

Anyway, by contrast, our 'Dear Beloved Leader' spent about two hours on the beach with Queen Michelle and the kids, and another couple of hours hiking with them. While this weird little family unit certainly got some quality time in while at their rather exclusive vacation home, most of the fun stuff was to be had by the head dude and his assorted posse. On both Monday and Wednesday, the family barely got to see Barry until sometime after 3:00 pm, when he had finished his workouts and rounds of golf.

Wednesday’s little golf outing was Barry's 19th of 2012 and the 111th of his presidency and it featured longtime pals Bobby Titcomb, Mike Ramos, and Greg Orme, the same posse that was with him when he was out on the course on Monday. But alas, our 'Fearless Leader' returned back to the 'grind' late this morning, back in Washington where his new 'pal' will be Speaker John Boehner, whom Barry hopes to bully and threaten into coming around to his way of averting the fiscal cliff, by simply raising taxes.

AND THE CLIFF EDGES CLOSER…OR WE EDGE CLOSER TO IT…EITHER WAY...

Well here's a little something that shouldn't come as a very big surprise to anyone with a brain and who has been paying even the least amount of attention to what's been going on here, unless of course you're Barry "Almighty" or nearly any congressional Democrat. The Social Security program ran a $47.8 Billion deficit in fiscal 2012 as the program brought in $725.429 Billion in while paying out $773.247 for benefits and overhead expenses. And that ain't just me saying who's pointing that out, that's coming straight from the official data published by Social Security Administration.

The Social Security Administration also released some rather interesting new data which revealed that the number of supposed workers now collecting disability benefits has managed to hit the pretty remarkable record of 8,827,795 in December, and that's up from 8,805,353 in November. The overall number of Social Security program beneficiaries—including retired workers, dependent family members and survivors and disabled workers and their dependent family members—also hit a record in December, climbing from 56,658,978 in November to 56,758,185 in December.

In 2011, and according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there was an average of 112.556 million full-time workers in the United States, of whom 17.806 million worked full-time for local, state or federal government. That left an average of only 94.750 million full-time private sector workers in the rest of the country. For all of you dim-witted liberals what that equates to is that now for every 1.67 Americans who worked full-time in the private sector in 2011, there is now 1 person collecting benefits from the Social Security administration. Now how does that make sense to anybody but a unionized government worker?

Despite its fiscal 2012 "net cash flow" deficit, as Social Security Administration (SSA) describes it, the agency was able to book an on-paper "increase" of $64.580 Billion in the Social Security Trust Funds. That, SSA says, is because the U.S. Treasury "paid" the trust funds $112.398 in "interest" in fiscal 2012 on the historical surpluses in Social Security taxes that the Treasury siphoned off to cover other spending by the federal government. As of the end of calendar year 2011, according to SSA, the Social Security Trust Fund equaled approximately $2.678 Trillion.

The last time the Social Security program actually ran a "net cash flow" surplus was in fiscal 2009. In that year, Social Security’s revenues exceeded its benefit and overhead payments by $19.358 billion. You might also remember that that was year one of the Barry "Almighty" presidency. Because what followed in fiscal 2010 is that Social Security ran a $36.8 Billion DEFICIT; and, in fiscal 2011, it ran a $47.975 Billion DEFICIT. Anybody other than me see the nasty little trend developing here? I mean, come on folks, this ain't rocket science or brain surgery. It's simple economics.

For those who don't know, there are two Social Security Trust Funds: the Old Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Disability Insurance Trust Fund. The OASI Trust Fund covers benefits to retired workers and their families and deceased workers families. The DI Trust fund covers benefits to disabled workers and their families. The trust funds are required 'by law' to hand over all surplus revenues to the Treasury and the Treasury then provides "special issue" non-marketable bonds, which are essentially nothing more than electronic IOUs, to the trust funds in return for the cash.

These so-called "IOUs" then become part of the national debt. When the Treasury pays "interest" that increases the value of the Social Security Trust Funds it does so by increasing the number of IOUs it owes the trust funds. When the Social Security program runs a net cash flow deficit, as it has in the last three fiscal years, the Treasury needs to borrow cash from the "public" to keep the program funded. As of Dec. 21, the federal government’s debt was $16.336 Trillion. If this all sounds pretty insane, that's only because it is. But it's our own fault because this is what we've allowed those in Washington to get away with for decades.

SAM DONALDSON ISSUES WARNING TO TEA PARTY FOLKS...

WELL, AIN'T THAT MIGHTY 'WHITE' OF OBAMA?

So while, at least up to this point, Barry "Almighty" has been busy performing his best, and rather personal, rendition of Nero fiddling while Rome burns, he has apparently now decided to cut his taxpayer funded Christmas vacation short and head home. His doing so allows him to, at least, appear to be interested in averting that much talked about headlong plunge over the 'fiscal cliff.' So with a yearend deadline now just around the corner and with us being no closer to reaching any sort of a meaningful 'deal' that would prevent us from going over, Barry is now said to be heading back to Washington. Big freakin deal!

According to those stellar folks in the White House, Barry is expected to arrive back in Washington early Thursday. Of course, Queen Michelle and the couple's two daughters will remain in Hawaii until Jan. 6. In the past, Barry's end-of-the-year holiday in his 'native' state have stretched well into the new year. The first family left Washington last Friday night. Congress is expected to return to Washington on Thursday. Let's be honest here, what, if anything, can we expect to take place with them in town that wouldn't have with them all being out of town? Especially when all the Democrats want is higher taxes.

Without some sort of action by Barry and Congress, automatic budget cuts and tax increases are set to begin in January, which many economists say 'could' send the country back into recession. Back into a recession? So far, Barry and congressional Republicans have been unable to reach agreement on any alternatives. Lawmakers have expressed little but pessimism for the prospect of an agreement coming before Jan. 1. On Sunday, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, (RINO), said she expects any action in the waning days of the year to be "a patch because in four days we can't solve everything." Can't or won't?

With Barry essentially laughing off Speaker John Boehner's plan to allow tax rates to rise on million-dollar-plus incomes, lawmakers are becoming increasingly worried that no deal can be reached. They are already preparing their arguments about who will be to blame if the new year comes without an agreement. Personally I see that as being a no brainer, it's the moron in the Oval Office. Barry already has scaled back his ambitions for a sweeping budget bargain. Before leaving the capital on Friday, he called for a limited measure that extends Bush-era tax cuts for most people and staves off federal spending cuts.

Barry and family were spending the holiday at a rented home near Honolulu. On Christmas Day, hoping for a nice little photo op, no doubt, they took time out of their very busy schedule to put in an appearance with members of the military in order to express thanks for their service. While at the Marine Corps Base Hawaii's Anderson Hall, Barry actually said, "One of my favorite things is always coming to base on Christmas Day just to meet you and say 'thank you.'" He went on to say that being commander in chief was his greatest honor as president. What a load of crap, he hates the military!

Look, anything that Barry does is meant to do one thing and one thing only. And that is to do nothing more than to create the false impression that he genuinely does not want us to go over the cliff. How many really believe that he cares one iota if he'll be blamed when things get worse? He couldn't care less, he wants things to get worse, he's on a mission here to wreak as much havoc as he possibly can. His goal to lay waste to the economic system that provides the most opportunity that then allows the most people to become the most prosperous. And hence not need government. He wants people to need government.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF WHY GUNS ‘ARE NOT’ THE PROBLEM…

 

 

So in this country while the Democrats, and many in our state-controlled media, are busy making the idiotic claim that only if we had stricter gun control laws, such tragedies as the recent shooting in Newtown would never happen, we have had another incident which proves the point that that just ain’t so. Because, in what is yet another example of the creativity of someone who is determined to create a body count point, we have another case in China where a man angered by a court ruling in the murder of his daughter, rammed a car loaded with a gas tank and firecrackers into a group of middle schoolers. This most recent ‘attack’ injured 13 in that country's latest attack on students. The man succeeded in running down 23 students at Fengning No. 1 Middle School in northern China's Hebei province on Monday, the official Xinhua News Agency said Tuesday, citing local police.

 

 

The Xinhua News Agency said that the man, identified as 48-year-old Yin Tiejun, later lit a bottle of diesel in an attempt to set his car on fire. Police put out the fire and found the gas tank and firecrackers in the trunk of the car, but Xinhua said Yin told police in an interrogation later that the materials were not meant for an attack. Yin has been detained on charges of endangering public safety, Xinhua also noted. Xinhua went on to describe Yin as having been upset for years that a court did not sentence to death all four assailants involved in the murder of his daughter three years ago. The report did not give further details of the murder but did say that the children hurt in Monday's car crash were not tied to the case. Xinhua also said the man did not act as if he was under the influence of either alcohol or drugs. Students were hospitalized with injuries that included skull fractures and crushed feet, Xinhua said.

 

 

The local Fengning county government confirmed the incident in a written statement. Eyewitnesses present said the accident occurred when students were leaving school for noon break and that the car accelerated and knocked down students, many of whom were on bikes. Now I’m sure most remember how it was on December 14 that a Chinese man took a kitchen knife and went on a stabbing spree that left 23 students wounded in an elementary school in Henan province. My point here is that China, where folks can’t own guns, there have been more than a half-dozen such school attacks in less than three years, though the death tolls have been low, largely because knives have been the most-used weapon. But as Democrats in this country are quite fond of saying whenever attempting to justify their calls for stricter gun control, even one death that could have been prevented is too many.



OBAMA AND OTHER ELITES MAKE SURE ‘THEIR’ KIDS ARE SAFE…

As the talk continues about the ‘need’ for stricter gun control laws, we now have yet another example of something that, while being good for Barry, apparently isn’t good for the rest of us. You see some rather interesting news that has come to light in the wake of what is the latest push for gun control being pursued by Barry and his posse of fellow gun control nuts in Congress. It seems that our "Lord and Savior," Barack Obama sends his own kids to a school where armed guards are used. And yet, that opportunity is something denied to most of us regular folks.

And strangely enough, as part of its standard operating procedure, this particular little school, Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC, actually has 11 fulltime security officers and is currently seeking to hire a new police officer as we speak here. Now I suppose, if you’re one of those liberal gun control fanatics, you could attempt to simply dismiss this by saying, "Of course they have armed guards -- they get Secret Service protection." But if you do that, then I’m afraid you've missed the larger point.

That larger point being, of course, that this is essentially standard operating procedure for this particular school, period. And this is also the reason that people like NBC's David Gregory send their kids to Sidwell, they know their kids will be protected from the carnage that befell kids at government schools where armed guards aren't used and aren't even allowed. Yup, that would be the same David Gregory who ridiculed Wayne LaPierre for even suggesting the placing of armed policemen in schools.

So now we have our pathetic president, as well as an army of hypocrites in our state-controlled media and in Hollywood, very busy advocating more stricter gun control laws while at the same time trying to prevent the parents of other school children from doing what he, and others who send their kids to these private schools, have clearly done for their own kids. Their children sit under the protection that guns afford, while the children of regular Americans remained exposed and perhaps sacrificed at the altar of the liberal agenda.