DEMOCRATS IGNORE THE FACTS BECAUSE IT'S ALL ABOUT THE AGENDA...

 

 

Chicago ended 2012 with what was a grand total of 513 homicides which equates to a 15 percent increase from the 448 homicides that took place there in 'The Windy City," during 2011, and that's based on data from the Medical Examiner's Office and the police. Actually the police department announced that Chicago ended 2012 with 506 homicides, but unlike the police department, certain outside groups looking into the data organize homicides based on the date the incident occurred, not the date the victim died. Also those same groups included fatal shootings where charges may not have been brought against the shooter because the shooting was an accident or in self-defense.

 

 

Also, when compiling the data, neither the police nor outside interested parties count in their totals, fatal shootings by police officers and DUI incidents that result in homicide charges. This past December ended with 25 homicides; 37 homicides were logged in December 2011, at least according to available data. Three homicides have been recorded thus far this month. Forty homicides were recorded in January 2012. Also, there were 192 shootings in Chicago throughout the month of November 2012, and that was a 49 percent increase from a year earlier, again according to police records obtained by the Chicago Tribune. Police records also reveal that shootings increased more than 11 percent in the first 11 months of 2012 compared with a year earlier.

 

 

So, even though his city has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, apparently Chicago Mayor Rahm 'Dead Fish' Emanuel views what is a very obvious trend in his city, as being reason enough to attempt to initiate additional plans to restrict gun ownership even further by banning individuals with a violent misdemeanor conviction from getting a gun permit for five years. But Rahm is not the only Illinois Democrat determined to ignore the facts that stricter guns laws simply don't work. Democrats in Illinois state house also busy demonstrating that they have their heads buried in the sand as they attempt to move forward to increase restrictions on a statewide level.

So remaining completely oblivious to the mountains of evidence that proves beyond the shadow of a doubt the fact that stricter gun laws simply don't work, those brilliant Illinois Senate Democrats have now recently decided to advance legislation the purpose of which, we are told, is to restrict semiautomatic weapons and high-capacity magazines, pressing forward with new gun control measures in the waning days of the session over the objections of firearms groups. A Senate committee approved two bills, one dealing with the weapons and the other with magazines but it's being reported by some sources that Democrat supporters could face a tough sell in the full Senate.

 

 

National Rifle Association (NRA) lobbyist Todd Vandermyde told lawmakers the bill would restrict about 75 percent of handguns and 50 percent of long guns in circulation today. He also said it would treat law-abiding gun owners like criminals, and is in conflict with Second Amendment rights upheld by the courts. "I've never seen a piece of legislation that tramples on so many court decisions," Vandermyde said. What Mr. Vandermyde seems to not quite understand is the fact that Democrats care very little about what the courts may say when it comes to moving forward with their gun control agenda. The other bill, introduced by Democrat state Sen. Dan Kotowski, would limit ammunition magazines to 10 or fewer rounds.

 

 

Those pushing for enhanced restrictions say stricter rules are needed in the wake of a string of high-profile mass shootings -- most recently the deadly school shooting in Newtown, Conn. Democrat Gov. Pat Quinn had been trying earlier this year to pass new legislation in the wake of the Colorado movie theater shooting, but lawmakers are taking another crack at it. Kotowski sponsored legislation in 2007 that would have prohibited assault weapons and .50-caliber rifles. His bill made it through a Senate committee but died on the floor. Another Democrat state lawmaker, Antonio Munoz, introduced the ban on all assault weapons "designed for war." Quinn has repeatedly tried to get stricter laws on the books but has fallen short.

 

 

Gun manufactures in Illinois have already threatened to leave the area if laws limiting guns are put in place. ArmaLite owner Mark Westrom told FoxNews.com that he’s been fielding offers from at least two others states to move his operation if gun control laws in Illinois are pushed through. So Democrats prove once again that they view the advancing of their political agenda, of which stricter gun control is a definitely a part, as being what’s most important to them, regardless of the potential loss of jobs that may result. Any job loss is viewed as being nothing more than an acceptable level of collateral damage as they try to move forward in their quest to further restrict gun ownership. As with all things Democrat, it’s all about the politics.



***FLASH*** MORE PEOPLE MURDERED EVERY YEAR WITH HAMMERS AND CLUBS THAT WITH RIFLES...

               MORE DANGEROUS THAN AN ASSAULT RIFLE?

 

 

 



According to the FBI's own annual crime statistics, the number of murders committed annually with hammers and clubs far outnumbers the number of murders committed with a rifle. So I'm curious, where are all the demands that we place tighter restrictions on hammers and clubs? Why aren't Democrats talking about that? I mean, don't you think that that's an interesting question, particularly amid the Democrats' current, and feverish, push to ban many different rifles, ostensibly to keep us all safe?

Now who would have thunk it that with all of this craziness coming from Democrats, that the real problem we might need to concern ourselves with is the restricting hammers and clubs. And so, having said that, might it not t least appear that the zeal of Sens. like Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) might be more than a bit misdirected. For in looking at the FBI numbers from 2005 to 2011, the number of murders by hammers and clubs consistently exceeds the number of murders committed with a rifle.

Think about it: In 2005, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 445, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 605. And in 2006, the number of murders committed with a rifle actually decreased to 438, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs climbed to 618. And so the list goes, with the actual numbers changing somewhat from year to year, yet the fact that more people are killed with blunt objects each year remains constant.

For example, in 2011, there were 323 murders committed with a rifle but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs. The FBI makes is clear that some of the "murder by rifle" numbers could be adjusted up slightly, but still, when you take into account murders with non-categorized types of guns, it doesn't change the fact that their annual reports consistently show more lives are taken each year with these blunt objects than are taken with Feinstein's dreaded rifle, assault or otherwise.

Oh, and here's another rather interesting little fact: According to the FBI, nearly twice as many people are killed by hands and fists each year than are killed by murderers who use rifles. And I can't help but wonder if there are any numbers that might tell us just how many times a rifle might have been used as a club? Look, all this goes to prove that this supposed outrage over the need for more gun restrictions we see coming from Democrats is more about politics than it is out of any concern for loss of life.
　
　
　



BARNEY "THE QUEEN" FRANK, A LEGEND IN HIS OWN SMALL MIND...

LATEST POSTER BOY FOR THE CRIMINALLY IGNORANT, DONALD KAUL…

Well, it’s finally happening, the lunatics are now literally flowing out of the woodwork. And the prefect example of that comes to us in the form of what has been laughingly described as being an opinion column in the Des Moines Register which was actually published on Dec. 29. The author, some flaming anti-gun zealot by the name of Donald Kaul, must have thought that by writing this little piece, and in such a rather uncensored manner, demonstrating his outright disdain for the Second Amendment and anyone who values their right to keep and bear arms, he might be able to convince others to come around to his rather bizarre way of thinking. And in what was nothing more that a full-blown psychotic rant disguised as a newspaper column, this very obviously deranged individual calls for a full repeal of the Second Amendment, advocates for extreme violence to be used against Republican leaders "until they see the light on gun control" and even goes so far as to declare the National Rifle Association a terrorist organization. Wow, and how do you spell deranged? Ah, that would be - D-O-N-A-L-D K-A-U-L.

I guess what we are intended to assume here as being what it might have been that finally drove him over the edge, and to the point where he felt compelled to write this diatribe entitled "Kaul: Nation needs a new agenda on guns," was, at least in part, the tragic shooting in Newtown, Conn. where shooter Adam Lanza opened fire at Sandy Hook Elementary School, killing 20 children and six adults. And I also guess we’re to believe that it was this tragedy that spurred this obviously demented psychopath into action and causing him to write, "I would tie Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, our esteemed Republican leaders, to the back of a Chevy pickup truck and drag them around a parking lot until they saw the light on gun control." Why a Chevy, I wonder? Anyway, he went on to say, "And if that didn’t work, I’d adopt radical measures." And another point that makes very clear this nut's questionable mental state is the fact that he would also like to make it illegal to even be a member of the NRA, similar to the way it was illegal to join the Communist party in the past. Yup, I think we can safely say this guy has gone round the bend!

He went on to say: "Here, then, is my ‘madder-than-hell-and-I’m-not-going-to-take-it-anymore’ program for ending gun violence in America:

Repeal the Second Amendment, the part about guns anyway. It’s badly written, confusing and more trouble than it’s worth. It offers an absolute right to gun ownership, but it puts it in the context of the need for a "well-regulated militia." We don’t make our militia bring their own guns to battles. And surely the Founders couldn’t have envisioned weapons like those used in the Newtown shooting when they guaranteed gun rights. Owning a gun should be a privilege, not a right.

Declare the NRA a terrorist organization and make membership illegal. Hey! We did it to the Communist Party, and the NRA has led to the deaths of more of us than American Commies ever did. (I would also raze the organization’s headquarters, clear the rubble and salt the earth, but that’s optional.) Make ownership of unlicensed assault rifles a felony. If some people refused to give up their guns, that ‘prying the guns from their cold, dead hands’ thing works for me."

For a guy who seems to possess a rather high opinion of himself, like most liberals that you run into, the irony here, which is obvious to everyone reading in his imbecilic tirade, is apparently completely lost on him. Because while at the same time he is seemingly promoting a more peaceful and enlightened society, he also seems to advocating the tying of Republican leaders, and other who may not agree with his rather skewed way of looking at thing, to the back of pick-up trucks and dragging them around until they may finally come around and agree with his point of view. Kaul berates gun owners while also saying it’s alright to pry "the guns from their cold, dead hands." Now in response to Mr. Kaul's column, Tim Graham, director of media analysis at the Media Research Center, wrote: "Publishing death threats is bad enough, but doing so in the name of promoting a more peaceful, compassionate society is beyond sick." I think it safe to say that that's putting it rather mildly. It should be obvious to just about anybody that this Kaul character should be residing in a rubber room somewhere!

GUNS ARE WELCOME SIGN...

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?

JUST ANOTHER PURE PROPAGANDA FLICK FROM 'TEAM OBAMA'...

THE CONSUMMATE LIAR

WILL BOEHNER CONTINUE AS SPEAKER? CAN HE CONTINUE AS SPEAKER?

So the question on the lips of many the morning after the night before when the Republican wilted before Barry "almighty," and once again did nothing more than what they were told to do. And according to American Majority Action (AMA) spokesman Ron Meyer, enough House Republicans have now banded together in an effort to unseat House Speaker John Boehner from his position--they just need a leader to take up the mantle. At least that's what he reportedly told Breitbart News late Tuesday night. I gotta tell you, that would be something that, personally, I would be very much in favor of! There has got to be somebody out there that can do a better job.

"At least 20 House Republican members have gotten together, discussed this and want to unseat Speaker Boehner--and are willing to do what it takes to do it," Meyer said. "That’s more than enough to get the job done, but the one problem these guys face is they need a leader to coalesce behind." Meyer said the conservatives have considered House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) to take the helm after Boehner is knocked out. His opposition from the right to the Senate fiscal cliff deal that Vice President Joe Biden cut with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is a sign Cantor may try for the job. I'm not sure about Cantor, personally I'd like someone with closer ties to the Tea Party.

AMA is hardly the only conservative entity aware of the rekindled effort currently afoot to unseat Boehner. Another conservative with inside knowledge of the effort also told Breitbart News that the movement has "new focus and juice," and if enough members go to Boehner telling him they won’t support his re-election, that Americans should "watch for him to resign gracefully." And to that I would gladly say good riddance! This guy has done nothing but cave time after time, and look where it has gotten us. You'd think that for the good of the country he'd just go ahead and just bow out now while he could so under his own terms. Hey, he's had a good run for himself, now it's time for him to go.

I've never really been a big fan of Boehner's, but then I don't really care all that much for McConnell, our supposed 'leader' over in the Senate, either. Both guys have been around way too long and have always struck me as being much more concerned with their political careers than with doing what needed to be done regarding the survival of the country. Just once I wish we'd have some congressional leadership that would be comprised of folks who actually possess a spine and who were actually more interested in the economic wellbeing of our country than in their next election. But perhaps it is just not to be. Maybe a politician is a politician is a politician regardless of party affiliation.

Look, it's pretty much common knowledge that Democrats have always hated this country, demonstrated repeated by the fact that they have spent their every waking moment trying to come up ever more efficient ways of destroying it. Maybe I've been a bit naïve all my life, but I've always liked to think that those who call themselves Republicans cared just a bit more about what it is that this country has always stood for. Maybe this most recent debacle, which was said to be the best we could hope for as a way of dealing with the "fiscal cliff," was just what I needed to snap myself out of, what has been, a life long stupor. What we need today is another Reagan, but unfortunately for the country, we seem to be fresh out!

THE TRULY BIZARRE CAST OF CHARACTERS BEHIND "DJANGO UNCHAINED"...

OBAMA AND CONGRESS TELL US ALL TO, "BEND OVER AND SPREAD 'EM"...

Despite all of the hoopla about us being able to avoid the so-called 'fiscal cliff', don't think for a second that you're taxes won't be going UP this year! And by a lot! Even if you're below that magic threshold of $400,000, you'll see less in your paycheck in the coming months. Because even though we may not have taken that big plunge over 'fiscal cliff', for now, the only thing that was accomplished is the delaying of the inevitable. And for those of you naïve enough to think that just because the debate is subsiding and may now be asking if that means higher taxes for middle class Americans are a thing of the past, the answer to that is — not exactly. Because while the tax package that Congress passed New Year’s Day will protect 99 percent of Americans from an 'income tax' increase, most will still end up paying more in federal taxes in 2013 and beyond.

But how can that be, you ask? Well, it's pretty simply really. Because, you see, the legislation did absolutely nothing to prevent what was the 'temporary' reduction in the Social Security payroll tax from expiring. Remember how, way back in 2012, that 2-percentage-point cut in the payroll tax was worth about $1,000 to a worker making $50,000 a year? Well that now no longer is in effect. And now the Tax Policy Center, an outfit described as being a nonpartisan Washington research group, estimates that 77 percent of all American households will now face higher federal taxes in 2013 under the little agreement that was negotiated between Barry and Senate Republicans. And I hate to be the bearer of bad news here, but while high-income families will feel the biggest tax increases, many middle- and low-income families will end up paying higher taxes too.

And we keep hearing about how things could have been oh so much worse, that the tax increases could be a lot higher. A huge package of tax cuts first enacted under President George W. Bush was scheduled to expire Tuesday as part of the "fiscal cliff." The Bush-era tax cuts lowered taxes for families at every income level, reduced investment taxes and the estate tax, and enhanced a number of tax credits, including a $1,000-per-child credit. The package passed Tuesday by the Senate and House extends most the Bush-era tax cuts for individuals making less than $400,000 and married couples making less than $450,000. Barry continued to make the idiotic claim that the deal "protects 98 percent of Americans and 97 percent of small business owners from a middle-class tax hike. While neither Democrats nor Republicans got everything they wanted, this agreement is the right thing to do for our country."

While the income threshold covers more than 99 percent of all households, exceeding Barry’s claim, according to the Tax Policy Center, the increase in payroll taxes will hit nearly every single wage earner. Social Security is financed by a 12.4 percent tax on wages up to $113,700, with employers paying half and workers stuck paying the other half. Barry and Congress reduced the share that was to be paid by workers from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent for 2011 and 2012, saving a typical family about $1,000 a year, but that is no longer in effect. And while Barry pushed hard to enact the payroll tax cut for 2011 and then to extend it through 2012, it was never fully embraced by either party, and this time around, there was general a general consensus to simply let it expire. So expect to see a little less in your paycheck every week.

The new tax package would increase the income tax rate from 35 percent to 39.6 percent on income above $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for married couples. Investment taxes would increase for people who fall in the new top tax bracket. High-income families will also pay higher taxes this year as part of Obama’s 2010 health care law. As part of that law, a new 3.8 percent tax is being imposed on investment income for individuals making more than $200,000 a year and couples making more than $250,000.  Together, the new tax package and Barry’s health care law will produce significant tax increases for many high-income families. For 2013, households making between $500,000 and $1 million would get an average tax increase of $14,812, according to the Tax Policy Center analysis. Households making more than $1 million would get an average tax increase of $170,341

But look, this is only the tip of a much bigger 'tax' iceberg. Rumor has it that Barry fully intends to mount another assault come the spring, in the form of yet another request for higher income taxes. The general feeling among most Democrats is that Americans, all Americans are severely under taxed. Now I'm not sure if Democrats view those who are currently paying no income tax as being in that category, but most definitely those of us that are currently paying taxes, do. So if you're one of those who are now pretty satisfied that those evil rich are finally being made to pay what is a little closer to their fair share, I wouldn't be too happy about that fact. Because it's gonna be sooner rather than later that you too are going to be forking over more cash to the government. It won't be long before Barry's gonna be telling you to bend over and spread 'em, and to take it like a man. And that it'll only hurt a little bit.

AH YES, TIS GOOD TO BE KING!

So while those of us considered to be the unwashed masses will now be forced to cough up a little more of our hard earned money this coming year, to the tune of an average of an additional $1,600, we can take comfort in the fact that Barry will be able to continue his holiday vacation. Because in a move that only Barry could conceive, after agreeing Tuesday night to sign an emergency deficit reduction bill that does absolutely nothing to rein in spending, promptly jets off to Hawaii to resume his much needed vacation which result in an additional cost of more than $3 million to we the taxpayers. By the way, that price tag is in addition to more than $4 million that's already being spent on the Barry "Almighty’ & family holiday vacation in Hawaii, bringing the total cost of the little family excursion to well over $7 million. Yup, it's good to be king.

The added cost of Barry's rather self-indulgent, and one could argue an abuse of resources, was incurred simply because by the time that Barry "Almighty" and the clan returns from Hawaii – whenever the hell that is – our "Dear Beloved Leader" and he who has been described to us as being our "Lord and Savior," Barack Hussein Obama, will have used Air Force One to travel to Honolulu and back twice. Barry decided to return from Hawaii just after Christmas in order for him to complete 'negotiations,' the purpose of which were to avoid that much talked about "fiscal cliff," talks that result in nothing more that a 'f*#k job' for taxpayers that was passed by Congress just last night. Barry stonewalled the making of any significant spending cuts throughout these supposed 'negotiations', and therefore the final legislation relies almost solely on new taxes to 'reduce' the deficit.

Air Force One costs about $180,000 per hour to operate. Based on an estimated 18 hours roundtrip flying time between Washington and Honolulu, the travel cost alone for Barry’s decision to return to Hawaii amounts to roughly $3.24 million. And that doesn’t include the price tag for the massive security operation required or the cost of the cargo plane that follows Air Force One around. Now Barry could have saved taxpayers millions by returning from Hawaii with the family after Christmas and resuming their vacation at any one of the many ritzy resorts, that wold both satisfy his rather expensive tastes and are located just outside of Washington. If the beach is a must, even a trip to Florida would have been far less expensive. Or they could have simply stayed at the White House or Camp David, each a luxurious government-run installation, billing taxpayers a relative pittance. But why on earth would he, or the queen, want to do that?

LET THERE BE NO DOUBT, AL SHARPTON IS ONE OF PLANET EARTH'S BIGGEST MORONS....

WHY THE HOUSE GOP MAY BE BALKING AT THE SENATE’S FISCAL CLIFF BILL…

They say a picture is worth 1,000 words, but in this case it might be worth much more. Like maybe 1 Trillion words. The above graphic should provide to you the full impact regarding the difference between the annual tax increase from the Senate-approved Fiscal Cliff bill ($62 Billion) and the actual 2011 U.S. Budget Deficit ($1.089 TRILLION).

LIKE ALL DEMOCRATS, HOYER IS OBSCENELY DISHONEST...

THE CIRCUS THAT IS THE KARDASIANS…

 

Ok, I’m confused, just what the hell is it that so many in this country find to be so captivating about the televised freak show that is the Kardasian clan? I mean, really, have you ever seen such a dysfunction group of flakes in you entire life? However, if the show does possess any social redeeming qualities, it’s that it can come in handy as a teaching aid when trying to teach our kids the importance of a strong moral character and what you can open yourself up to when you do not. It can allow parents to provide an actual example of what can happen if you insist upon using bad judgement. And it makes the point, quite clearly, that just because someone may possess wealth it doesn’t necessarily mean that they also possess any class.

And so it is now, I guess, that Kim Kardashian and that wonderfully upstanding young man, Kanye West, are expecting child together. You know, after taking the time to let that information soak in a little bit, I’ve come to the conclusion that some people simply should not be allowed to reproduce, ever! Can you possibly imagine how this kid is going to come into this world? He, or she, is already so screwed up, and then to be surrounded by the caliber of people that he, or she, will undoubtedly be surrounded by, the poor kid will have absolutely no hope of ever growing up to be what most of us would consider as being normal. But I think the chances of that are pretty remote.

"It's true," the 32-year-old reality TV star said in a statement on her site Monday. "Kanye and I are expecting a baby. We feel so blessed and lucky and wish that in addition to both of our families, his mom and my dad could be here to celebrate this special time with us." Kardashian's father, Robert Kardashian, who was, as you may or may not remember, part of the OJ Simpson ‘dream team’ as well as having been mentioned as a accomplice in the murder Simpson’s wife and Ron Brown, died in 2003. West's mother, Donda West, died in 2007. Kardashian went on to add in her little blog post that she was "looking forward to great new beginnings in 2013 and to starting a family." Well ain’t that nice. I’m sure her many ‘fans’ are very happy for her.

The 35-year-old foul-mouthed rapper, and well-known batterer of women, revealed to a crowd of more than 5,000 in song form at a concert Sunday that his girlfriend is pregnant. Kardashian was in the crowd at Revel Resort's Ovation Hall with her mother, Kris Jenner, and West's mentor and best friend, Jay-Z. The news instantly went viral online, with thousands posting and commenting on the expecting couple. Obviously, there are thousands out there among us, apparently having no life of their own, who choose to live vicariously through the lives of pathetic misfits like these two. But, I suppose, you’ve got to give them a certain amount of credit, because where else but in American could they be doing what they do, and make obscene amounts of money doing it.

And as expected most of the Kardashian clan tweeted about the news, including Kim's sisters. Kourtney Kardashian wrote: "Another angel to welcome to our family. Overwhelmed with excitement!" West told concert goers to congratulate his "baby mom" and that this was the "most amazing thing." Those said to represent both West and Kardashian didn't immediately respond to emails about the pregnancy. The rapper and reality TV star went public with their relationship in March. In what was yet another little trip into the realm of ridiculousness was when Kardashian married NBA player Kris Humphries in August 2011. Their divorce isn’t yet finalized. The 72-day marriage came about after the two were engaged after dating for 6 months.

Shows like this idiotic "Keeping up with Kardashians" paint a very clear picture of just how far into the sewer our country has now managed to get itself. And I would caution that any of those who watch, or allow younger family members to watch, this little menagerie or any of the many other shows like it, are doing nothing more than to actually encourage the current inundation of this type of drivel to increase. Kids have a hard enough time growing up as it is, and being exposed to this toxic type of sewage serves to do nothing more than to make the already difficult process of growing up, all the more complicated. Because like or not people like these people are, to a certain extent, role models, albeit very bad ones, but role models nonetheless.

WATCH AS THE UNFUNNY KATHY GRIFFIN TAKES CNN TO AN ALL NEW LOW...

THE GOVERNMENT WORMS ITS WAY A LITTLE FURTHER INTO OUR HOMES…

So, moving on from dictating to us what size of toilet we are permitted to have in our homes today, the f#*king government has now moved on in taking it upon itself to tell us what kind of light bulbs we are permitted to use in order to light our homes. And so it is then, that the standard 100-watt light bulb has now gone the way of the dodo bird, and its lower-wattage cousins will soon follow. As of today U.S. bulb makers are no longer permitted, by our illustrious government, to manufacture the 100-watt bulb, part of what is a multiyear push to boost the efficiency of the nation's lighting. Boost the efficiency of the nation’s lighting? That’s the excuse they’re using? You gotta be kidding me!

Anyway, for consumers, the law makes the purchase of light bulbs less of a choice of convenience and more like an investment choice, with a need to balance higher up-front costs against what is described as longer-term electricity savings. Some of these, what are called, "high-efficiency" bulbs cost more than $20 each and are, we’re told, designed to last more than 20 years. "The light bulb is moving from a 60-cent commodity that you throw into your grocery cart to an investment just like a refrigerator or major appliance," said Terry McGowan, director of engineering for the American Lighting Association, some industry trade group. "It costs more money and you expect it to do more, and if you move, you might even take it with you."

So now I’m have to treat my light bulbs as if they were just another appliance? That nuts! We’re told that the old-style bulbs will be on shelves for some time, but lower-wattage incandescent bulbs will be phased out over the course of the next two years. This idiotic law allows stores to sell their remaining stocks of these ‘banned’ bulbs and replacement bulbs using halogen and other technologies are already on store shelves. The incandescent bulb, with its tungsten filament, was a breakthrough in lighting 100 years ago, a vast improvement over the 19th-century designs of Thomas Edison and others. Its shortcoming, we’re told, is that only 10 percent of the energy is converted to light, with the rest lost as heat. So freakin what?

Lighting industry officials say that bulb makers have supported the federally mandated switch to energy-efficient, ‘higher cost’ designs, and I can see why. They are so onboard with it that they have already halted production of ‘banned’ bulbs. And, they say, Congress' recent action to bar enforcement of the law by the U.S. Energy Department won't turn back the clock. "The law doesn't change, and we're still complying," said Anne Guertin, a spokeswoman for Osram Sylvania, which retooled its incandescent bulb plant in Pennsylvania to manufacture halogen bulbs that meet federal standards. The law's ban on standard 75-watt bulbs takes effect today and a year later for standard 40- and 60-watt bulbs.

Thousands of specialty bulbs, including 100-watt incandescents designed to stand up to rough treatment, are exempt from the manufacturing ban. Although, I’m not sure how on defines ‘rough treatment,’ when describing a light bulb. Other so-called exempted bulbs include three-way bulbs and flame-shaped lamps for chandeliers. But for consumers, a trip to the store for bulbs is likely to be more confusing and costly because of the array of new, longer-lasting options. Confusing because of new federally mandated labels offer guidance on lumens, or light output, and long-term cost savings on electricity. Consumers looking to replace a 100-watt bulb, for example, would look for a bulb with 1,600 lumens.

Choices will vary, from a compact fluorescent (CFL) bulb, which uses up to 75 percent less energy. A second option looks like a traditional bulb but has a halogen core that supposedly uses 23 percent less energy. Another emerging contender is the light-emitting diode, or LED, bulb that fits into a standard socket. They are energy efficient and long lasting, but cost more than $20 each. LEDs don't offer an equivalent to the 100-watt standard bulb, but one is being developed, said McGowan of the lighting association. The method of choice here for those trying to essentially modify our behavior is to make the claim that we consumers will save nearly $6 Billion annually on electricity costs by 2015. So what, so Barry can raise our taxes?

Some Republicans, and rightly so, have opposed the law as a restriction on freedom of choice.  And it was in an omnibus spending bill that avoided a federal government shutdown last month, Republicans inserted a provision barring the use of federal funds to enforce and implement the bulb law for nine months. Though it has caused confusion, that measure may have little effect. The 2007 law still took effect Saturday and manufacturers are still obligated to comply, according to the Energy Department. "The realistic view in the lighting industry is that everything is going to go as normal," McGowan said. "The plans are made. The shelves are stocked. The products are ready."

So, what’s the next step for our government that seems to get a little more out of control with each passing day? Let’s see. I’m almost afraid to even consider the possibilities. More and more of our personal choices are being assumed by the government, with the process having accelerated considerably over the coarse of the last four years. And far to many Americans do not seem the least bit concerned that they are having less and less say in how they are able to live out their lives. Or, for that matter, how their children will be permitted to live their lives. The American dream is dying, actually it’s not just dying, it’s, essentially, being purposely destroyed by those in our very own government.

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!