‘THE VIEW’, THE BIGGEST WASTE OF TIME ON TELEVISION…

As I have asked on a number of previous occasions, just how ignorant, as a human being, must one be to waste even one second of the precious time that we have all been granted on this Earth by watching that rather disgusting cadre of brainless twits that together form that which is called, ‘The View.’  And it was one of the supposed ‘Co-hosts,’ Joy(less) Behar, of this bizarre daily ‘talk’ show who recently defended 2020 Democrat presidential hopeful Michael ‘Nanny Mike’ Bloomberg’s record on race relations over the objections of one her fellow goofball ‘Co-hosts,’ Sunny Hostin.

Joy(less) said, “Here’s my point, the stop and frisk thing I think will be counteracted by some of the following. When he was mayor, not that—listen…I’m not shilling for Mayor Bloomberg yet, but I think there’s another side to the story.”

‘Co-host’ Meghan McCain said, “You kind of are. You like him.”

Joy(less) said, “I like him, fine, I do. I like Biden too. I like all of them. I told you I’ll vote for any of them. I’ll vote for Peewee Herman, I told you. But let’s talk about this. He created an office to tackle poverty when he was mayor. He greatly expanded city contracts with businesses owned by minorities and women. He created the young men’s initiative to help black and Latino men stay on track for success, and he reduced incarceration by 40% and juvenile confinement by more than 60%. That is the balance to the stop and frisk that the black community is looking at. You know, as Sunny says every day, no one can win the primary without the black vote.

And then it was ‘Co-host’ Hostin said, “I think his record, though, Joy, is problematic. I really do. Not only does he have the stop and frisk issue, but he has also the redlining thing … he made it racial. He did.”

Joy(less) said, “Why are you so strict on Democrats and lenient on Republicans who have the most racist policies and the most racist track record? Why? Every single one who’s running probably has— this is a racist country, right?

‘Co-host’ Hostin said, “Yeah.”

Joy(less) said, “Every single one of them has something in their background that doesn’t look good for race.

I would argue that thanks to those involved in both the production of and the dissemination of ‘fake news’ that not nearly enough scrutiny is ever paid to those in the Democrat Party.  Democrats have the luxury of never having to be held accountable for anything they say or do, and it has been that way for decades.  They have continued to shred our Constitution, they work to divide our country in every way imaginable, they continually lie to the public via their media operatives disguised as ‘journalists’ and then blame it all on Republicans and the Trump administration.

And as is ALWAYS the case with these left wing loons, old Joy(less) never brings up the FACT that it was her beloved Democrat Party that: supported slavery, to the point where they went to war to preserve it, created the Ku Klux Klan after losing that same war, created Jim Crow laws, was responsible for segregation in public accommodations, including schools, restrooms, lunch counters, buses, and trains, and even in the military. And it was the Democrat Party that stood nearly united against the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and of 1964 as well as Voting Rights Act of 1965.

It’s the Democrats who bring up race with every other breath because they want the divisiveness and hatred to continue, because they NEED it too.  They’re interested in what people have to say once every two or four years, and then only until the votes are cast, counted, found and then recounted.  And then they ignore the voters until the next election cycle. In the 1960's Democrats didn't repent for their evil ways, all they did was to adjust their tactics. They want everybody, but them, to be poor and dependent on the government to greatest extent possible for all of life’s necessities.

What a joke! And just who is it, may I ask, that’s been so closely scrutinizing the Democrats?  The ‘fake new’ industry that is really nothing more than a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Democrat Party?  Of course not.  They’ve been far too busy focused on President Trump who has essentially been under a microscope since he came down the escalator and announced he was planning to run for president.  But let a little dirt on one of more of the Democrats float to the surface, after having being submerged for years, then it’s the Democrats who are said to be facing too much scrutiny!

And I can’t help but wonder if there are women who watch ‘The View’ because they actually agree, politically, with the nutty things that are said, or if they watch it simply as entertainment, tuning in to simply see what sort of idiotic, imbecilic statement will next be uttered by any one of this odd assortment of loons.  Because it’s far more often than not that their brains seldom seem to be engaged before opening their mouths.  As such it’s a very rare event indeed that you ever hear about something that any one of bimbos has said that makes even a lick of sense.

As with most Americans, I’m sick of how those on the left continue to view everything, and I do mean everything, through the prism of race.  And I’m tired of their incessant demands for ‘free’ stuff and special treatment based solely on skin color.  The training wheels need to come off.  There have been enough handouts paid for by those who work hard for the money they earn.  It’s long past time for people to grow up and to take a little responsibility for themselves.  We are all products of the decisions we make, one’s penchant for making shitty decisions is not my fault!

A finally a little food for thought:

If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one. If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat. If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation. A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels. Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church. A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. (Unless it's a foreign religion, of course!)
If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it. A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.

LIBERALS, LIKE A SWARM OF LOCUST…

As liberals flee the respective messes that they themselves helped to create, the net result has been that three Democrat-leaning states have hemorrhaged hundreds of thousands of people in 2016 and 2017 because crime and high taxes had residents seeking greener pastures elsewhere.  And it’s these locusts set loose upon our nation that upon arrival at their chosen destination soon set about turning those red states they settle in, blue.  These liberals never learn. They destroy their liberal Blue states and then move on to various Red states and proceed to destroy them.

The exodus of residents was most pronounced in New York, which saw about 190,000 people leave the state between July 1, 2016 and July 1, 2017, that according to the U.S. Census Bureau data released just last week.  New York’s domestic out-migration during that time period was about the same as it was in the same time 2015 and 2016. Since 2010, the state’s outflow of just over 1 million residents has exceeded that of every other state, both in absolute terms and as a share of population, according to some ‘free-market’ think tank that calls itself the Empire Center.

And yet despite the massive domestic out-migration flow, New York’s net population actually grew slightly, largely due to high levels of international immigration and a so-called “natural increase” — that being the difference between births and deaths in a given year.  New York’s net migration was about minus 60,000 residents, but the state had 73,000 more births than deaths, resulting in a net population growth of about 13,000.  A onetime New York resident myself, it was upon retirement from the military that there was simply no way I was going back to New York. 

Illinois, on the other hand, has not been so fortunate. Long-beset by twin budget and pension crises and the erosion of its tax base, Illinois lost so many residents that it dropped from the fifth to the sixth-most populous state in 2017.  Just under 115,000 Illinois residents decamped for other states between July 2016 and July 2017.  Since 2010, the Land of Lincoln has lost about 650,000 residents to other states on net, equal to the combined population of the state’s four largest cities other than Chicago, and that would be according to the Illinois Policy Institute.

Illinois’ domestic out-migration problem has become a nightmare for lawmakers, who must find a way to solve the worst pension crisis in the nation as the state’s tax base continues to shrink year after year.  Illinois’ Democrat-dominated legislature has only made a bad situation worse with numerous tax hikes, causing even more people to leave and throwing the state into a demographic death spiral spiral. Illinois experienced a net loss of about 33,000 residents in 2016, the fourth consecutive year of population decline.  And yet leaders refuse to do anything to stop the bleeding. 

And it was Orphe Divounguy, someone billed as the ‘chief economist’ with the Illinois Policy Institute, who said, “As people leave the state, they take their pocketbooks with them. That means there are fewer Illinoisans to pay the bills.” He went on to say, “It’s worrying because if you have a declining population and a declining labor force, you will for sure have a further slowdown of economic activity going into 2018.”  I’d like to ask this supposed ‘chief economist’ on what, or who, it is that he places the blame?  His reply would likely be nothing but more liberal drivel. 

And it was, of course, California that was the third deep blue state to experience significant domestic out-migration between July 2016 and July 2017, and it couldn’t blame the outflow on retirees searching for a more agreeable climate.  About 138,000 residents left the state during that time period, second only to New York.  However, because California was the top receiving state for international migrants, its net migration was actually 27,000.  Add to that number a “natural increase” of 214,000 people, and California’s population grew by about just over 240,000.

Going forward, one factor that could worsen domestic out-migration from New York, California and Illinois is the newly-enacted tax reform bill, which caps state and local tax (SALT) deductions at $10,000.  The limit on SALT deduction is poised to hit taxpayers harder in those states than it will in just about any other.  According to the Tax Foundation, New York, Illinois and California had three of the five highest tax rates expressed as a percentage of per capita income, with residents paying 12.7 percent, 11 percent and 11 percent, respectively. 

Another analogy that would seem to fit whenever discussing Liberalism is that it has come to resemble the very worst form of cancer.  Because it metastasizes out from an initial or primary site to different or secondary sites within the host's body. Liberalism can also be defined as being the persistence of human beings failing to achieve a certain result, and then once again making the same attempt in another location, expecting there to be a different outcome.  And it’s those who support this failed ideology that now represents the greatest threat we face.

Ultimately it’s these three states that represent the Blue that so many lefties are very proud of, and that is, in reality, responsible for running up all manner of social spending on the backs of those who choose to remain behind.  They hate where they live, so they move to someplace new, infect it with what is their toxic ideology, and demand that the new host change to make it more like the place they just left. They are an infestation of the worst kind.  And while we may welcome them in we must also work to prevent them from turning us into what it was they left behind. 

SHAME ON YOU FOR YOUR WHITE PRIVILEGE…

I cannot say enough how much I appreciate that those on left, whether they identify as Liberals, Progressives, Democrats, Socialist or even Communists would take the time to come up with a helpful ‘list’ that all of us white folks can use to determine just how truly despicable we all are.  Now of course I’m not serious and this list, called "10 Ways You Can Actively Reject Your White Privilege," is really pretty humorous.  But while a certain amount of humor can be derived from reading it, it was at the same time that I couldn’t help but wonder what sort of person, or group of people, would take the time to compile such a list.  This list is what follows:

1.  Take up minimal space during anti-racism dialogues and protests.

2.  Stop contributing to gentrification and calling it “urban development.”

3.  Listen when people call you on your microaggressions.

4.  Never invite people of color to the table for the sake of claiming diversity.

5.  Refrain from using your non-white friends as your “urban dictionary.”

6.  Stop lifting up non-confrontational people of color as examples of what POC activism should be.

7.  Call your friends, family and co-workers out on racism – even if a POC isn’t in the room.

8.  Understand that all anti-racism work doesn’t look the same and advocate accordingly.

9.  Realize that all discussions about race aren’t for you. And be okay with it.

10. Recognize that you’re still racist.  No matter what.

While there's much to laugh about regarding this rather idiotic little list, let's take the time to make note of a few of the items mentioned.  First, how absolutely ridiculous to tell white people not to physically take up too much space at an anti-racism rally.  Isn't that fat-shaming overweight white people by telling them they simply aren't wanted as allies in this ongoing fight?  Also, it’s number that 4 advises us NOT to invite people of color to the table just for the sake of being "diverse".  But does that same sentiment extend to such things as racial quotas in hiring and university admissions policies?  And if not, why not? 

And as we move further down this little set of guidelines for us privileged white folks, it’s when we get to number 5 that things become equally amusing, because it would seem that you're damned if you do and damned if you don't ask a "person of color" what something confusing means.  God forbid you try to explain it yourself and end up being accused of "whitesplaining."  But the best one, obviously, is the last.  If you're a racist no matter what you do or say, then why go to all the effort?  I mean, if there is absolutely nothing I can do to alter the fact that I am racist, then I might as well choose to live with it, not stress about it and maybe even enjoy it.  Right?

Now in an effort to make my own little contribution to the ongoing discussion of white privilege, let me offer up my own personal list which can then be taken however anyone may choose to take it:

1.  Be proud of being white.

2.  Don't apologize for being white.

3.  Talk to whoever you want whenever you want.

4.  Go where you want. If someone doesn't like it, too bad.

5.  Don't use urban slang, it just makes you sound like an uneducated moron.

6.  Continue being proud of being white.

7.  Don't worry about whitesplaining, that's just a nonsense word made up by imbeciles.

8.  Microaggressions are a myth created by the lazy and the excuses makers.

9.  Live the best life you can.

10. Lists like this are racist. Non-whites are racist. And they are crybabies. It's not your problem, it's theirs.

And in an effort to get MY list up to 20, I offer up the following items for your consideration as well:

11.  Remind everyone that without white people none of the things they enjoy would be possible: phones, TV, cars, medicine, science, etc., etc.

12.  Become a "regular" dictionary so that your non-white friends have the opportunity to not sound like a moron from the ghetto

13.  Don't go to any anti-racism dialogue or protest events. Heck they are already fat enough and take up too much space themselves.

14.  Look at someone who says you committed a "microaggression" like a moron...because they are.

15.  Diversity as a goal is stupid, so take the list above’s advice.

16.  Let the ghetto remain the ghetto, stay in the suburbs and build your real estate projects where they will not get looted the next time the non-whites are upset.

17.  If your friends or family say something that may be racist, just continue the conversation. Because really...isn't everything racist these days anyway.

18.  Continue not giving a flip about conversations on racism, because it is about them not you.

19.  Realize that anti-racism work is useless and is targeted at a non-issue in society.  Again, it is about them, not you.

20.  Just live your life, be as nice as you can so that you are not hurting others.  And if you do that....it will be about them and not you.

And just out of my own curiosity what percentage of blackness is it, exactly, that permits one to identify as being ‘black’.  As a for instance, Barry “Almighty”, while being 50 percent white is still referred to as being a black man, yet someone like Clarence Thomas, Ben Carson, Tim Scott or Allen West, all of whom are 100 percent black, they are still routinely referred to as either not being black men, or as not being black ‘enough’.  So please excuse my confusion.  We all must know what percentage is required that in turn certifies ones right to refer to oneself as being, ‘black’.  Is there some sort of a test or law that will help us poor white folk?

But to tell you the truth I’m getting more than a little tired of all this idiotic nonsense.  So I have decided to, instead, embrace all of my ‘isms’ and ‘ists’ as well as all my ‘phobias’ and endeavor to turn micro aggressions into macro aggressions.  It is time to push back and push back as hard as I possibly can.  It’s time to start calling all this exactly what it is, pure unmitigated crap.  In the past Americans built on what came before them.  We took the mediocre and we made it better.  We took the good and made it great.  And what we made great we shared with the world.  The leftwing has to tear down everything, and it never builds anything up.

And, as far as I’m concerned, there seems to be very little reason to actually celebrate diversity, at least as it is defined by the left, because it’s rather skewed to say the least.  Because, you see, the left’s definition of diverse is rather one sided in that doesn’t include conservatism or capitalism or right wing politics.  So I say it again, I am tired of the left's nonsense and therefore I shall enthusiastically embrace my white privilege, I shall practice macro aggressions at every opportunity.  And when they call me some ‘ist’ or ‘phobe’ I shall accept it with a great sense of compliment because they really have no idea what it means. 

Personally, it’s to my way of thinking that this whole privilege-by-race-thing is completely ass-backwards.  Because from where I’m standing it’s the blacks who have most, if not all, of the privilege.  They’re the ones who get everything handed to them for ‘free’ with folks like me, an old white guy, being left to pick up the tab for all their freebies.  And all the while being left to cover all of my own expenses.  And does my daughter have white privilege because she needs higher test scores to get into college, or needs to take out more loans than do her black counterparts?   I’ve always said that when I come back I’m coming back black.

IT’S NOT JUST THE DEMOCRATS THAT PEOPLE DON’T TRUST…

It was on NBC’s “Meet The Press,” this past Sunday, during a ‘discussion’ on the current presidential election that leftwing loon Michael Moore said, “I don’t think people do trust the Democrats.”  Now speaking as conservative Republican, and as someone who knows a few folks who vote Democrat, I’ve never thought that those who reliably vote for Democrats do so based on trust.  Usually the ‘only’ reason that many of them even vote for Democrats in the first place is because they feel they’re far more likely to end up receiving lots of ‘free’ stuff than they would be if they were to vote for Republicans.  Because with sleaze bag Democrats, that’s really all they care about.  And besides, it’s Republicans who usually talk about creating jobs and it’s the Democrats who generally are of the opinion that no one should have to work who doesn’t want to.  For Democrats, work is nothing but a dirty four letter word.       

Getting back to “Meet The Press” it was host Chuck Todd who said, “Clearly, Democrats let them down, right? I mean, is that the issue here, and she’s just another Democrat, and they don’t trust them anymore?”  To which Moore responded, “I don’t think people do trust the Democrats. How else could a socialist win 22 states?  I mean, in my state of Michigan, Bernie Sanders won.  If Hillary Clinton and the Democrats had a difficult time with him, that should have been the red flag to everybody, that there is a mood out there where people are upset at the Democrats and the Republicans. What has to happen here, though, like with the Brexit vote in England, is that people where I’m from have to understand that why they may not like Hillary that much or she may be a bitter pill to swallow or whatever, you better take your medicine because the opposite is going to be much, much worse.”

Moore asks how it is that a socialist cold win in 22 states?  Has this fat turd not been paying the least bit of attention?  Because in comparing the Democrat Party from as recently as the 1990s to the Democrat Party of 2016 the only thing that they have in common is their name.  Democrats are very fond of saying that if Ronald Reagan were running in 2016 he would not be seen as a suitable candidate to today’s Republican Party.  But much the same thing can be said of John Kennedy.  Kennedy would never be seen as a suitable candidate for today’s Democrat Party.  He would be viewed as being much too far to the right?  Today’s Democrats ARE Socialists.  And it’s upon closer inspection of Hitlery’s choice for VP, Tim Kaine, that it’s in very short order that one would find he has some very close ties with questionable individuals who are some pretty hardcore leftists.  And Hitlery is as much of a socialist as is Sanders.  

But trust is from being an issue only for the left.  Because many of us who vote for Republicans have pretty much come to the end of our rope after having been lied to, and very purposely so, in 2009, 2011 and again in 2013.  There were many promises in all three of those election years about how if we voted for Republicans they would do all within their power to curb an out of control Barry.  But after each one of those elections it became very clear, very quickly, that those who had made all those promises actually intended to keep very few, if any.  And in so doing what they did was to essentially lay the groundwork for the current Donald Trump insurgency.  Even George W.  Bush, who had both houses of Congress for 2 years, continued the illegal Sanctuary Cities, as well as his father’s absurd prohibition against firearms on American military installations, both of which resulted in scores of senseless murders. 

Look, when it comes to trusting our politicians, regardless of political party, we do so at our own risk.  And it will likely be only after we realize that there is only one political party in America that we will then choose to focus on getting rid of our corrupt politicians.  And to be honest, there is no time like the present to move forward with the process by sending Hitlery Clinton back to New York.  The governed, regardless of party affiliation, expect results from their government.  You can make excuses about intent all day long, but if it doesn't put food on the table, those intentions are worthless.  Well-intentioned bungling that causes widespread misery is just the same to us as malicious intent. We need jobs that can provide a decent standard of living, not excuses, and not a torrent of ten dollar words they learned in their Ivy League schools to hide the fact that they're not capable of getting results.

The bottom line here is that we all must move beyond identifying ourselves as being merely Republican or Democrat and focus, to the greatest extent possible, on simply being Americans if we are to have any hope of regaining control of what’s left of our country.  We need to ignore all that we have been told, and are still being told, by the many elites in this country whether it’s those from our entertainment industry, those in corporate America or especially those who have been in Washington for their entire adult lives.  We need to question the motives of those who wish to rule over us, as well as their many accomplices, and in one loud and very clear voice.  Our ‘leaders’, and their allies, must be made to understand that this is ‘our’ country and our ‘leaders’ work for us and it is we who pay their rather exorbitant salaries.  Americans must unite as one against what is a growing threat to our freedoms. 

SO, JUST HOW STUPID ARE LIBERALS, REALLY???

WHAT IT 'REALLY' MEANS TO BE...PRO-CHOICE...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BOB JOHNSON…NOTHING BUT POINTLESS WHINING…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THREE MEN WHO LEFT THEIR MARK...

GUNS…THE LIES AND DISTORTIONS BY THE LEFT CONTINUE…

Ed "The Moron" Schultz, one of the many resident loudmouths you can find over there on MSNBC, on any giving day or night, made a rather bold claim on his radio show this past Thursday. Frankly, I didn’t even know the fat slob had a radio show. By his making this claim, he proved that ignorant scumbags like himself rarely bother with ever doing even the slightest amount of research before going out and shooting their big mouths off, as well as demonstrating the fact that they care very little if what they’re saying is anywhere near being true. You see, while arguing against having armed personnel in schools, his claim was that the U.S. has "never had a civilian stop a shooting. During his radio show, Schultz said a gunman might even view it as a "challenge" if there were armed employees at school.

Here’s what he said: "Would it be a deterrent if, you know, say perpetrators know that there’s guns in the schools? How do we know they wouldn’t view that as a challenge? I mean, we got a goofy world out there. I’m just not convinced that packing a small firearm is the best defense or certainly not the best defense." And, I guess, after not having gone far enough in his determination to prove, to any of those who might have been listening, that he’s complete imbecile, he continued, "You know, you want to make the best defense? Make the school a damn fortress. I mean, you could do that, I mean but, is that reasonable? Is that the right thing to do? Is it necessary? […] haven’t we had enough school shootings where this is necessary? We’ve never had a civilian stop a shooting."

His claim can very easily debunked. So easily in fact, that had old Ed spent less than five minutes doing a little research he would have known what he was saying was a lie. Which kinda begs the question, I think, did he purposely go on the air and lie? Look, judging by what a powerhouse ratings juggernaut MSNBC is, I think most of us have come to realize that it is a network manned by individuals who possess very little interest in telling the truth. And I find the fact that those employed by the network as on-air ‘personalities’ often refer to themselves as being journalists, pretty hilarious. But you see, it’s the truth that actually gets in the way of these people. They’re primary goal here is to add confusion to public argument, which now happens to be about guns, by spreading all manner of absolutely false information.

Numerous actual news outlets have reported extensively on all manner of situations where law-abiding gun owners have exercised their Second Amendment right to neutralize a threat. In December, 2012, Jesus Manuel Garcia opened fire at a movie theater in San Antonio, shooting and wounding an innocent 49-year-old man. An off-duty sergeant then fired four shots with her firearm, wounding the gunman and preventing any further injuries. In this case, the female who stopped the shooting was trained by law enforcement. On Dec. 11, 2012, a man shot and killed two people in a mall in Clackamas, Ore. before taking his own life. Nick Meli, a concealed carry holder, told KGW NewsChannel 8 that the last shot he fired after seeing his concealed handgun was "used on himself."

Mother Jones also released a report, and we know how concerned about the truth they are, last month claiming that out of 62 mass shootings over the past 30 years, "not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun." But The Weekly Standard’s Mark Hemingway debunked this biased line of thinking. He writes: "There are a couple of major problems here with arguing that armed civilians don’t stop mass shootings. One is that when armed civilians are present, they often stop mass shootings before they can become mass shootings. One of the criteria Mother Jones used to define mass shootings is that ‘the shooter took the lives of at least four people.’" The Weekly Standard provides a list of just some of the examples where armed civilians, some off-duty cops, were able to neutralize a lawless shooter.

Here’s just a partial list just to give you some sense or truth:
– Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (I’m excluding the shooters’ deaths in these examples.)
– Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.
– Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates — as well as the "trained campus supervisor"; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.
– Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman’s head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.
–Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.

And Human Events as yet another example: In Colorado Springs in 2007, Matthew Murray killed four people at a church. He was then shot several times by Jeanne Assam, a church member, volunteer security guard, and former police officer (she had been dismissed by a police department 10 years before, and to my knowledge hadn’t worked as a police officer since). Murray, knocked down and badly wounded, killed himself; it is again not clear whether he would have killed more people had he not been wounded, but my guess is that he would have.

Mr. Hemingway concludes by adding, "These are just a few examples of mass shootings being prevented. I’m sure there are many more that meet this criteria. But, as you can see, in every incident, the would-be shooters were stopped short of killing four people because an armed civilian — or in some cases, an off-duty cop — was present."

Newsbusters’ Jack Coleman quotes from John R. Lott Jr.’s "More Guns, Less Crime" book, in which Lott uses an example from across the globe to make the same point. "Three terrorists who attempted to machine-gun the throng (at a crowded venue in Jerusalem) managed to kill only one victim before being shot by handgun-carrying Israelis. Presented to the press the next day, the surviving terrorist complained that his group had not realized that Israeli civilians were armed. The terrorists had planned to machine-gun a succession of crowd spots, thinking that they would be able to escape before the police or army could arrive to deal with them." Coleman goes on to write, "It would be more accurate of Schultz to say we haven’t had a ‘civilian’ stop a shooting — in a ‘gun-free zone.’ That’s because law-abiding citizens, seeing a sign outside a movie theater or shopping mall or elementary school informing them that the site is a ‘gun-free zone,’ won’t enter the property if they are armed. Criminals, especially those intent on murder, do the opposite."

So I’ll pose the question to all of you, are clowns like Schultz correct, or can armed civilians prevent mass shootings? Personally I think the answer is pretty clear. And while many seem more determined than ever, especially those in the left wing, state-controlled media and the Democrat Party, we must not allow ourselves to fall into the trap that they have set for us. To allow ourselves to be convinced into willingly giving up our guns out of some false hope that somehow by doing so we can prevent bad people from doing bad things is the worst thing that we could possible do. Because if we become a "gun free" nation we all become targets. And instead of decreasing the odds for another Newtown, we will have succeeded in only making matter far worse. It will have been made much easier for those who wish to kill.

MSNBC: OBAMA OPPOSED NOT BECAUSE HE'S A SOCIALIST, BUT BECAUSE OF..."NEGROPHOBIA"...

With flippin morons like these folks, it always comes down to race.  It has to, because it's all they have.  If you oppose Barry, you're a racist.  If you blame the deficit on Barry, you're a racist.  If you accuse him of rabid, wasteful spending, you're racist.  If you refuse to hand over to him everything that he wants, guess what, you're a racist.  Is this not some of the most idiotic drivel you have ever heard in your life?

HANNITY GUEST DEMONSTRATES TYPICAL LIBERlAL DEBATE STYLE...

I was kinda waiting for this moron to start stomping his feet and and to start yelling that if Hannity didn't stop talking he'd hold his breath until he turned blue. Man just how infantile can a grown black man act?

SAM DONALDSON ISSUES WARNING TO TEA PARTY FOLKS...