JUST WHO DOES OBAMA THINK HE IS, CHAVEZ? WE SHOULD BE SO LUCKY!

Ok folks, I think it quite safe to say that we are now living in what can be called some dangerous times. And if we hadn't already begun the trip before now, we are, most definitely, now headed down that very slippery slope that has the potential of ending very badly for all freedom loving Americans. Our president now seems possess a rather high opinion of himself, to the point where he views himself as being someone who is less an elected official, and more an individual possessing special powers that other lack. Powers that he sees as making him uniquely qualified to ‘lead.’ Now they say the road to tyranny is paved with good intentions. But we need to be very wary of what Barry has in mind here, because there is nothing it what he wishes to do that is based in good intentions.

It was just earlier today that we heard old 'Slow Joe' Biden tell reporters at the White House, "there are executive orders, executive action that can be taken" on gun control. 'Slow Joe' revealed that Barry "Almighty" has at his discretion the using of various executive orders to deal with guns. Biden was gathering with members of a task force to address gun violence Wednesday when he said, "I want it clear to the American public that on behalf of the president we are reaching out to all – all parties, on whatever side of this debate you fall. But the president is going to act. " Well, while the president is entitled to act, he still must remain within the confines of the Constitution, and can act only on those things normally considered to under the purview of his office.

So with 'Slow Joe' saying that, "The president is going to act," in giving some comments to the press before a meeting with victims of gun violence, he makes it sound as if the president is permitted to somehow act unilaterally on this issue, which he most certainly is not. 'Slow Joe' went on to claim that, "There are executives orders, there's executive action that can be taken. We haven't decided what that is yet. But we're compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required." Right we have a racist president being added by a racist Attorney General determining what can be done to violate our Constitution and how they can then manage to get away with doing so.

'Slow Joe' did his best to describe this as being a moral issue and that "it's critically important that we act." That's a load of bullshit and Biden knows it. It is all nothing more than incendiary rhetoric the specific purpose of which is to get people worked up to the point where it will then be made all the easier for these truly despicable characters to prevent law abiding citizen from owning guns and therefore continue their effort to further shred our Constitution. As everyone should know by now, 'Slow Joe' was appointed by Barry to head up this cockamamie task force the purpose of which, or so we've been told, is to explore the issue of preventing what they claim to be is a growing gun tragedies. What this is though, is yet another manufactured crisis by Democrats that must not be allowed to go to waste, by Democrats.

‘Slow Joe’ also talked about there now being the need for taking responsible action. "As the president said, if you're actions result in only saving one life, they're worth taking. But I'm convinced we can affect the well-being of millions of Americans and take thousands of people out of harm's way if we act responsibly." Well using that idiotic logic, which is typical for this senile old fart, why not ban cars that kill over forty thousand people every year, or ban swimming because over four thousand people drown each year, After all, if we can prevent just one person from dying needlessly because they went swimming, isn't it worth it? This whole scheme is just all so transparent. These scumbags are positively salivating over what they see as being their best chance in a log time to ban guns.

And I'll tell something right now. Any Democrat, anywhere, who goes along with this very obvious assault on our Constitution, will be revealing themselves to be nothing more than a subversive, and as such not deserving of the position that has been entrusted to them to work in the service of the people. And any attempt by Barry to steal from law-abiding American citizens, that which that same Constitution clearly states is a God given right, must be met with a sufficient level of uprising the likes of which has never before been seen in this country, at least by white folks. Barry may see himself as being another Chavez, or Castro, but he's not and we must do whatever is necessary to remind him of that fact. We are not his subjects!

GUN CONTROL...JUST THE 'FACTS' MA'AM...

ANOTHER REASON TO BE GLAD YOU DON’T LIVE IN NEW YORK…

THE EYES OF A MADMAN

 

For those of you who do not live in the Empire State, you should consider yourself as being very fortunate that you don't. And now there’s yet one more reason, as if anymore were needed, to be thankful for that fact. That reason of which I speak comes to us in the form of some information that there are now negotiations being conducted by Andy Cuomo, that stellar governor of New York and, God forbid, a potential presidential candidate in 2016, that could result in a deal to give New York state some of the toughest gun control laws in the country Cuomo, at least according to those faceless sources supposedly in the know, on Tuesday, is hoping to announce the plan Wednesday during his State of the State speech in Albany. It’s also said that Andy hopes to jump-start the 2013 legislative session with a big deal that could dramatically alter gun control laws across his state.

 

 

Other sources that are said to be in "high places," have also said that Andy has been involved in some rather intense negotiations with both Assembly and Senate leaders for a package of gun control laws that, according to these same sources, would be a dramatic response to what Democrats everywhere described as a rabid increase of gun violence that they love to portray as besetting the nation. And as always they reference to the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown Conn. "It’s a very divisive topic," Andy said on Wednesday. "There’s a lot of energy on both sides. Some people are vehemently against’ some people think we’re out of our minds for not passing it." Sources say that the governor and lawmakers are negotiating furiously in the hope that Andy can announce a deal during his speech Wednesday. So something that we're supposed to believe has as it's purpose the making of people safer, theoretically, is really all about politics.

 

 

More of these sources, that shall go unnamed, have said that Andy’s little package is expected to include: 1) New restrictions on supposed assault style weapons, 2) Stiffer penalties for using a gun to commit a crime and 3) New limits on the number of bullets in a gun magazine. "Gun control is highly political, politically contentious situation. It is polarizing," Andy said. Well of course it's polarizing, you freaking moron. People see corrupt, power-hungry Democrats, like little Andy here, trying to rob from them yet another of their God given rights as defined by our Constitution. Andy is nothing more than another Democrat seeking to strike while the iron is hot. He sees this as being a prime opportunity and it matters not if any of what he is trying to do has any basis in fact. As with everything else, whenever dealing with scum like Cuomo, the numbers have been manipulated to give the impression that so-called gun violence is out of control in this country. And that’s just NOT the case!

 

 

Exhibiting what, apparently, is the low level of intelligence possessed by some residents of the Empire State, a mother recently interviewed regarding Cuomo's ongoing negotiations said, "There’s just too many incidents that are happening that you think could be avoided if there were stronger regulations about it." Adding when asked if her children’s safety is her motivation, "Absolutely, I mean you can’t even send them to school now. Now my kids have police in front of their school. I mean you wonder how far it’s going to go." Another local resident said, "I think it’s necessary with everything that’s happening." Going on to say, "With the recent things that have been going on it does make you think that things to be happening, so you have to be extra cautious." Such idiotic comments reveal the severe lack of knowledge regarding the fact that Barry, and maybe even Cuomo, simply refuse to enforce many of the gun laws already on the books. They might want to ask, why that is.

 

 

Andy’s move comes around the same time as his fellow Democrat loon, Mayor Michael "Mr. Mom" Bloomberg’s, Mayors Against Gun Violence released a new, and blatantly dishonest, commercial to push for federal action. It features Roxanna Green, the mother of Christina Taylor-Green, who was killed two years ago Tuesday in the Tucson, Ariz.. "How many more children must die before Washington does something to end our gun violence problem?" Roxanna Green asks during the ad. Designed, I guess, to tug on our heart strings and to make more willing to cough up our guns, this idiotic ad does nothing more but to reveal the self-serving motives behind the current push to gut the Second Amendment. What she ought to be doing, if she genuinely cared about the issue, is asking Barry "Almighty," and any number of other Democrats, why it is, exactly, that enforcement of many guns laws already in place is actually down 40 percent since Barry first strutted his cool self into the Oval Office.

 

 

Now being a former resident of New York, having spent the first 25 years of y life there, I feel quite comfortable in offering up a critique of a state that has been pretty much screwed up for as long as I can remember. I remember my dad saying that things would have been much better if only there had been some way to separate New York City from the rest of the state. Anyway, these days, and for any number of reasons, I’m glad I no longer live there, although all of my immediate family still does. So while this rabid insanity we see being exhibited by Andy Cuomo will not effect me directly, it could ultimately come to impact my life indirectly. Because all of this furor and hysteria now being whipped up by sleazy political opportunists, of which Andy is most definitely one, has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with ‘protecting’ people from supposed madmen with guns. It has everything to do with power. The acquisition of raw political power over the people, and if successful, will ultimately place many more lives in danger.

 

 

Look, the bottom line here is that this douche bag, Cuomo, is eager to take advantage of what slimes like him view as being just another crisis to be exploited. Quite frankly, the only reason that he even is able to find himself in his present position is because piece-of-shit daddy was, and may still be for all I know, a big shot in the Democrat Party. In all honesty he couldn't legislate his way out of a wet paper bag, and has absolutely no business running the State of New York. And this is not the fist time that he's tried to disarm the people. Back when he was ‘Slick Willie’ Clinton's HUD Secretary, he wanted to prohibit some of the poorest and most vulnerable among us, those trapped by poverty in 'Gub'mint Projects' with some of the worst scum the "Progressives" have spawned, from owning guns to protect themselves. See, according to the Democrats, if you feed from the trough, you are made to give up your "Natural Rights." There is simply no choice to be made, or that would be permitted for that matter.



PELOSI AT HER DELUSIONAL BEST...

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?

IN SPEAKING ABOUT CONGRESS, OBAMA SAYS, “WELL GEE, NOBODY HELD A GUN TO THEIR HEAD!”

 

White House Spokesmoron, Jay 'Dim Bulb' Carney, placed the blame for the $16.4 trillion national debt squarely on Congress, as he again asserted that Barry "Almighty" will not negotiate on raising the debt ceiling. And what I found it to be quite amazing was that Spokesmoron Jay Carney could actually say to reporters on Monday, and with a straight face no less, that "Nobody forced Congress to rack up the bills that it incurred." He then went on to say, "And it is an abdication of responsibility to say we’re going to let the country default and cause global economic calamity simply because we’re not getting what we want in terms of our ideological agenda." Let's not lose sight of the fact that this is after we have seen the national debt increase by $5 Trillion since Barry "Almighty" took office in 2009. Let's face it, when during the first two years of his fist term, congressional leadership consisted of 'Dingy' Harry Reid and 'Stretch' Pelosi, how much 'forcing' would have been required?

 

Barry "Almighty" and House Republicans had a showdown in 2011 over raising the limit on the amount of money the government can borrow, that would be the "debt ceiling," when Republicans sought to reduce federal spending before borrowing more money. That battle resulted in what was described as being a ‘compromise’ that consisted of the forming of a super committee from members of Congress to put together a debt reduction proposal or face automatic tax hikes and spending cuts (sequestration) by 2013, that much talked about so-called fiscal cliff. On Jan. 1, Congress passed, and Barry "Almighty" signed, a negotiated deal to postpone the spending cuts and raise taxes only on incomes higher than $400,000. Although the payroll tax (for Security Security) rate is going up for all workers from 4.2 percent to 6.2 percent. Congress must reach a deal on the debt ceiling by either February or March. And at this point the Democrats want to do nothing more than to raise taxes even further.

 

Carney actually described Barry as being "willing to compromise in order to achieve policies that advance our economic growth and help the economy create jobs and bring down our deficit in a responsible and balanced way." Really? Carney also said of Barry, "He will continue to do that. We have as a result of the fiscal cliff, two more months to deal with the so-called sequester and that’s something the president will obviously be addressing." Adding, "What he will not do, as he has made clear, is negotiate with Congress over Congress’ sole responsibility to pay the bills that Congress has already incurred." But the real clincher came when he said, "Nobody forced Congress to rack up the bills that it incurred." Going on to say, "And it is an abdication of responsibility to say we’re going to let the country default and cause global economic calamity simply because we’re not getting what we want in terms of our ideological agenda. The president is not going to participate in that."

 

Such purely political drivel is just so disingenuous, as well as being patently dishonest. Does he, or his lying boss, really think that we're all that freaking stupid? Granted, those who comprise his core constituencies most likely are that stupid, but come on folks, it's time for the rest of us to snap out of whatever stupor we're in! The sad truth of it that as much as Barry would like us all to think that he, somehow, has had nothing whatsoever to do with our worsening debt problem, he actually had everything to do with it. And the fact that he's now trying to blame it all on Congress comes across as being more than just a little sleazy and definitely not behavior one normally expects from a president. But as we have learned over the course of the last four years, Barry is no ordinary president. He sees himself as being much smarter than the rest of us mere mortals, as we are only deserving of being lectured to. Our president is a liar and a political opportunist. And he takes personal responsibility for absolutely nothing! EVER!

 

So, I guess, Barry should simply be allowed to borrow and then spend what he's borrowed like a there's no tomorrow with, of course, the assistance of congressional Democrats, and with the specific intent of creating just the scenario that he has? And meanwhile the rest of us are now supposed to willingly allow the raping of the U.S. taxpayer in order to prevent our country from being able to pay the bills that have essentially been intentionally run up by those same Democrats? That's just insane! So those of us who have been totally against this record level of spending that has essentially been underway, unabated, for four years, are now just supposed to happily pony up even more of our hard earned money to cover the bills that were created totally against our wishes? How the fuck nutty is that? Screw 'em. Shut the government down, shut it all down, somehow we need to bring this insanity to a screeching halt, and if that's the only way, so be it!. And either the Republicans will decide to put their big boy pants on and do what's so obviously needed, or they can get the Hell outta Dodge.



DEMOCRATS ASK, “WHAT’S ALL THE FUSS ABOUT? IT’S ONLY MONEY!”

 

Ah, what it must be like to live in that socialist little paradise known as Massachusetts. Because it is there that the esteemed governor of that commonwealth, yet another corrupt Democrat by the name of Deval Patrick, has been quite busy of late, doing his best to distract attention away from, lie about and downplay the Department of Transitional Assistance admission that it seems to be having some degree of difficulty in trying to locate 19,000 people who have either been receiving welfare benefits or have applied for them. The governor's theory for this ongoing dilemma is that the number represents a "broader class of people than those who are actually on the rolls today." Huh? Spoken like a true Democrat, which of course, he is.

 

 

During a recent news conference, the brilliant Gov. Patrick kept referring to the number of people whose addresses could not be located as just "four percent" of the mailings, as if such a percentage was small enough to be considered as being purely insignificant. This was discovered after nearly half a million letters were sent out to settle a lawsuit filed against Massachusetts last year in part by the liberal think tank, "Demos." A liberal think tank? Talk about your oxymoron. Anyway, The Department of Transitional Assistance (DTA) says 19,000 letters came back, marked "Return to Sender," hence the 4 percent that Patrick uses, repeatedly. The Department of Transitional Assistance? Only a liberal could dream up a department with that name.

 

 

Fox 25's Political Reporter Sharman Sacchetti asked the Gov. Patrick about it.
Sacchetti: Why should taxpayers have any confidence that the state can effectively oversee this system when we apparently can't even locate 19-thousand people?

Governor: Voting information was sent to a very broad group of people, not all of whom are actual recipients of benefits today. They were sent as a result of a settlement in a lawsuit, anyone who had any interaction with the welfare system in the last year. Not all of those people are still on the rolls. Many if not most people receive their benefits electronically not by mail, but for the four percent of mailings that were returned, you bet your life we're going to scrub through them and make sure the information we have is up to date.

Sacchetti: But the four percent, 19-thousand people, is enough to fill the Boston Garden...

Governor: It's a lot of people, it's a lot of people, not all of whom do you or I know are actually on the welfare list today.

Sacchetti: But isn't that the point, we just don't know?

Governor: No, the point is that under the settlement, we had to send mailings to a broader class of people than those who are actually on the rolls today. So there is information we should pay attention to today from the return of those mailings but it may not actually be indicative of a problem, but we'll know that when we do the scrubbing.

Sacchetti: Should people continue to have confidence in this?

Governor: Yes.

 

Man, wouldn’t this clown, Patrick, make an excellent used car salesman? Ah, no offense to used car salesmen everywhere. Apparently this group, "Demos," filed suit against Massachusetts because the DTA was not giving welfare recipients the opportunity to register to vote. That suit was filed on behalf of a Lowell woman who said she was never offered an opportunity to register to vote. As part of the settlement, the state agreed to mail out 478,000 letters to welfare recipients, at a cost of $276,000 to the taxpayers. And by sheer coincidence, the daughter of, now Senator, Elizabeth Warren, Amelia Tyagi, is chairwoman of the Board of the advocacy group. During the senate campaign, then Senator Scott Brown criticized the state, arguing the mass mailing was a plan to push more Democrat voters to the polls. And he was probably right.

 

 

Meanwhile right next door in yet another little bastion of liberal lunacy, that being the great state of New York, headed up by yet another Democrat, Andrew Cuomo, those on the dole are apparently doing so while watching the pole. Pole dancers, that is. You see, the poor, deserving welfare recipients there are able to take out cash at bars, liquor stores, X-rated video shops, hookah parlors and even strip clubs where they then, presumably, spent their taxpayer money on lap dances rather than on diapers. A database of some 200 million Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) records from January 2011 to July 2012 showed welfare recipients using their EBT cards to make dozens of cash withdrawals at ATMs inside Hank’s Saloon in Brooklyn; the Blue Door Video porn shop in the East Village; The Anchor, a sleek SoHo lounge; the Patriot Saloon in TriBeCa; and Drinks Galore, a liquor distributor in The Bronx. My, my.

 

 

The state Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA), now there's another interesting name for a government agency, which is responsible for overseeing the "cash assistance program," even lists some of these welfare-ready ATMs on its Web site. One EBT machine is stationed inside Club Eleven, a rather infamous Hunts Point jiggle joint known as much for its violent history as its girls in pink thongs. Cops have been cracking down on that particular little Bronx club since 2009 and shut it down temporarily in 2010. In July, five men were stabbed and two others shot outside after bouncers broke up a 4 a.m. brawl with pepper spray. Club Heat, appears to be another favorite haunt for those collecting taxpayer dollars. That's also a strip club located in the Bronx that dispenses EBT cash, that is also no stranger to violence.

 

 

Critics blasted the government for turning a blind eye to welfare’s sleazy money. "This is morally scandalous," said Michael Tanner, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. "I have nothing against strip clubs, but that’s not what benefits are for. I don’t blame [recipients]. If you are poor, it’s a crummy life and you want to have a drink or see a naked woman. I blame the people who are in charge of this." Welfare recipients receive food stamps and cash assistance under the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. Yet another cockamamie program that's obviously full of waste. Both benefits are accessed through an EBT card, but only cash assistance, meant for housing, utilities and household necessities, can be accessed at ATMs. Ok, so how is a machine supposed to be able to recognize where the money that is being removed from it, will be spent?

 

 

A single-person household could receive a maximum $200 in monthly food stamps plus $158 in cash assistance. A family of four could get as much as $668 in food stamps and $433 in cash. The food-stamp program prohibits the purchase of booze, tobacco and lottery tickets with an EBT card. But with the cash-assistance program, users can blow money on such things as strippers or a six-pack of their favorite brew and to tap welfare dollars from liquor stores, casinos and adult-oriented establishments. And apparently there are dozens of such places as pubs, nightclubs and tobacco shops where welfare dough was dispensed, and presumably spent. The Boiler Room, which is described as being a gay dive bar in the East Village, had $120 and $60 transactions a minute apart on Jan. 17, 2011. The bar is around the corner from a Bank of America that takes EBT cards. Hmmm!

 

 

Legislative efforts that have been attempted in order to crack down on 'sinful' spending have fallen short. State Sen. Tom Libous (R-Binghamton) passed a bill in his chamber in June that would outlaw welfare withdrawals at gambling dens, strip clubs and other venues of vice, but, big surprise, the measure is gathering dust in the Democratic-controlled Assembly. Libous is looking for a new Assembly sponsor to carry the bill in that house in the upcoming legislative session, after past sponsor George Latimer (D-Rye) was elected to the state Senate. With only one of the city’s Assembly members, Nicole Malliotakis (R-B’klyn./SI), as a co-sponsor, the bill faces an uphill battle. The Assembly typically doesn’t support welfare reform, because its more liberal members think the measures "hurt the poor," Libous said. If the bill remains stalled, the state stands to lose $120 Million in federal welfare funding.

 

 

Supposedly, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act, that Barry signed last February, requires that states actually prohibit sinful welfare spending by 2014. If they don’t, they’ll forfeit federal cash. "The people who are stealing from the program are the ones I want to go after," Libous said. "Not someone who lost his job or a single mom who has to feed her kids. That’s what this program is supposed to be for." A spokesman with the US Department of Health and Human Services said states make their own rules on EBT cards. Some states already limit where EBT cards can withdraw money. A rep from OTDA, New York’s welfare office, said the state does not choose or regulate which ‘retailers’ get ATMs that handle EBTs. Instead, ‘retailers’ decide whether to use an ATM that accepts welfare cards. Funny, when I think of retailers, I think of WalMart, Target or stores like that, titty bars and porno shops don't immediately come to mind. Buy hey, what do I know?



'DINGY HARRY' PROVES BETTER THAN I EVER COULD, THE FACT THAT HE WASN'T BORN, TWO BUZZARDS BUMPED ASS AND HE FELL OUT...

SO, YOU THINK YOU’RE BEING TAXED ENOUGH YET?

 

Well I can definitely tell you who thinks that you're not being taxed enough, in fact nowhere near enough. At least not yet! So the next time you find yourself thinking, gee, I wonder of the Democrats are done raising taxes on the American people, consider the following. When that question was posed to Nancy ‘Too Much Botox’ Pelosi, the supposed 'leader' of the House Democrats, the answer was a very emphatic, "No!" And her Democrat compatriot Chris Van Hollen, who hails from ‘The Socialist Republic of Maryland’ seems to agree with her. He says, "We can raise more revenue." God, and then we have 'Little Dick' Durban, from Illinois, who also seems to think that Washington can continue to squeeze a little more from taxpayers, saying "there are still deductions, credits, special treatments under the tax code which ought to be looked at very carefully."

 

 

Each of these Democrats recently took similar questions about additional tax hikes on different Sunday talk shows. Being interviewed by that pathetically senile old fart, Bob Schieffer, host of CBS's "Face the Nation," it was Pelosi who was asked if the "revenue side" of the fiscal cliff is now finished. Oh, and for those of you who may be unaware, revenue is essentially Democrat-speak that when translated means higher taxes. Her idiotic, yet simplistic response, which should come as no surprise, was to say, "No, no, it is not." She went on to blather, "I mean, the president had said originally he wanted $1.6 trillion in revenue. He took it down to $1.2 as a compromise. In this legislation (fiscal cliff) we had $620 billion, very significant, high-end tax -- changing the high-end tax rate to 39.6 percent. But that is not enough on the revenue side." Compromise?

 

 

Next old Bob asked 'Old Stretch' Pelosi, "Are you talking about more taxes?" Without a moment’s hesitation, Pelosi responded, "We're talking about looking at the tax code, putting everything on the table from the standpoint of closing loopholes, and we know that we can do that, special subsidies for big oil, for example, $38 billion right there." To which the senile one asked, "But again, not to take things in isolation, just to say, OK, well, how much more revenue can we get as we go forward?" Would Democrats eliminate tax deductions, Schieffer asked Pelosi. Pelosi answered, "My idea of tax reform is to have a comprehensive view." She went on to say, "We've talked about tax simplification and fairness as something that we should be engaged in all along -- long before these fights came along. And now we have a chance to do that with I'd say a heightened awareness by the public on why we need to do certain things."

 

 

But as always whenever talking about raising taxes even further so that she and her gang of corrupt stooges can then continue on their vote-buying binge, Old Stretch was far from finished. She added, "So let's, you know, put on the table what it is that we can, in order to increase revenue. We've changed the rate, the high-end tax rate, (to) 39.6 percent, a very important step. And again, there's much more that we can do by just subjecting it to the scrutiny of what is bringing in revenue, what is creating growth. And we don't want to hurt that if there's some tax provisions that create growth. We want to support that." Pelosi ruled out higher taxes on the middle class. But for people in higher income brackets, higher taxes are "not off the table," she said. "But not in terms of tax rates but in terms of other considerations." Again she said, "We have to take a balanced approach."

 

 

And then over on "Fox New Sunday," we had Rep. Chris Van Hollen who was also asked about the Republican position, expressed by Mitch McConnell, that there will be no more tax hikes. And his typically idiotic answer was to say, "Well, if Mitch McConnell is going to draw the line in the sand, it's going to be a recipe for more gridlock." This imbecilic dolt went on to say, "We have to take a balanced approach to long-term deficit reduction, meaning additional (spending) cuts." Van Hollen noted that as part of the fiscal cliff deal, "We raised $730 billion in revenue from very high income individuals. As we go forward, we need to adopt the same framework as the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission, meaning a combination of cuts and revenue." During the presidential campaign, even the Republican candidates were talking about closing tax "loopholes" that benefit wealthy Americans, Van Hollen noted: "Guess what. They are still there," Van Hollen said. "So, through tax reform, we can raise more revenue matched by additional cuts to address the sequester issue and long-term deficit." Adding, 'These loopholes...'

 

 

And on CNN's "State of the Union with Candy Crowley," we had 'Little Dick' Durbin who also indicated that he's quite willing to keep raising taxes: "There's money to be saved in tax reform," ‘Little Dick’ said. "I can tell you that there are still deductions, credits, special treatments under the tax code which ought to be looked at very carefully. We forgo about $1.2 trillion a year in the tax code, money that otherwise would go to the government, and when you look closely, some of those things are near and dear to us individually and to the economy, the mortgage interest deduction, charitable deductions, deductions for state and local taxes, but beyond that, trust me, there are plenty of things within that tax code, these loopholes where people can park their money in some island offshore and not pay taxes, these are things that need to be closed. We can do that and use the money to reduce the deficit." Trust him? Is he actually serious??

 

 

Crowley then asked 'Little Dick', "So there are other taxes that you believe that you can, however you want to put them, raise, retrieve, whatever, from the wealthy?" "Absolutely," he replied. Saying, "And I'll also tell you that I think we need to open our minds to our tax revenue. You know, we've had conversations about an infrastructure fund that will really start America building again, for the highways and airports and locks and dams and things like that...I believe we should have energy taxes that really fund infrastructure investment." ‘Little Dick’ said higher gas taxes should be considered in the future. And he alluded to higher taxes on electricity to expand the nation's power grid. So apparently, there really isn't much that 'Little Dick' is not in favor of slapping a higher tax on. What a guy!

 

 

So I’m a little curious here. At what point is enough, enough? And at the end of the day are we to be left with anything? Will we at least be left with enough that will allow us to still buy food, or enough gas to get to and from work so that we can pay the higher taxes that this pond scum want us all to pay? Or will we be able to keep enough so that maybe we can put our kids through college? Or, are we simply going to be expected to hand over everything to a government which will then determine just how much food we are allowed to buy, or how much gas we will be permitted to use before we must rely on public transportation to get to and from our place of employment? And a government who will decide ‘for’ us if we can send our children to college? Of course, minorities won’t have to worry about that, since higher education will be determined to a right for them. It’s not a very pretty sight, what the Democrats have in mind for us.



FIRST HAND LOOK AT THE CALIBER OF SLIME WE TRUST TO 'TEACH' OUR KIDS...

PATRIOT - 1, CNN BIMBO - 0

OK, SO JUST HOW WUSSIFIED HAVE WE BECOME IN THIS COUNTRY?

INTERESTING DATA NOT BEING MENTIONED ANYWHERE IN THE CURRENT DEBATE ON GUN CONTROL...

TED CRUZ...ONE OF THE FEW BRIGHT LIGHTS IN THE SENATE...

‘DICTATOR OBAMA’ NOW DETERMINED, AND MORE THAN EVER, TO TAKE YOUR GUN…

 

 Ok folks, our ‘Dear Beloved Leader,’ Barry "Almighty" has become more determined than ever in his efforts to capitalize on recent events and to move "forward" with his desire to disarm the American public. Apparently he is now considering what’s being described as an end run around the National Rifle Association (NRA) that he must feel would give him the best chance at winning approval for what would be sweeping new gun control measures. Measures that may include such things as universal background checks for people who purchase firearms in the U.S. and tougher penalties for anyone carrying guns near schools or giving them to minors, at least according to a published report.

Citing multiple sources that are supposedly privy to ongoing White House discussions, the Washington ‘Com’Post on Saturday also reported that officials want to put into place a method of tracking the movement and sale of weapons using a national database. Right, that worked well in the case of "fast and furious." They also plan to seek tougher mental health checks on gun purchasers under various proposals being considered by a working group led ‘Creepy Joe’ Biden, whose apparently a closet letch. The ‘Creepy Joe’ group is expected to submit a package of recommendations to Barry later this month, according to the Post. Now ‘Creepy Joe’ has been an anti-gun nut for years, so it doesn’t take much imagination to come up with items that might be part of that "package."

The paper also said that administration officials may try to enlist the support of Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest retailer, and various other gun sellers in the case of measures that would ‘benefit’ their businesses. And the Post also said that New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, alias ‘The Nanny,’ may emerge as a powerful surrogate with respect to gun control for Barry "Almighty." A powerful surrogate? You gotta be kidding me! This dweeb? Who the hell listens to this moron, except other morons of course? I mean, seriously folks, what kind of credibility does Bloomberg have, on any topic. Remember now, this is the same imbecile who said that police departments should go on strike until people started giving up the guns. Now there’s some rational thought.

And yet again in demonstrating his sleazy willingness to exploit the death 20 first graders, continuing to describe it as being the worst day of his presidency, Barry pledged last week to put his "full weight" behind legislation aimed at preventing gun violence. I’m sure what’s going on here is the fact that he views this as being yet another ’crisis’ that simply must not be allowed to go to waste. It simply holds to much promise in acquiring some level of stricter gun control. Especially when he has a tragedy, the death of 20 kids, that he feels he can successfully exploit while it still remains fresh in everyone’s mind. He feels has a better chance of being able to shove his attempt to restrict gun ownership down our throats by striking now, while the iron is hot.

Barry has continued to voice skepticism about the NRA’s proposal to put armed guards in schools following the Dec. 14 in Newtown, Conn. The comments were made in an interview that aired last Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press." That even though the school that his own children attend, as well as the children of the goof who interviewed him on Meet the Press, David "Kiss Ass" Gregory, has in its employ 11 armed security guards and is now looking for a 12^th. Evidently, Barry fails to see the hypocrisy here that is all too obvious to many of the rest of us. And to those who say these guards are only there because the ‘president’s’ kids go there, sorry, but those guards were employed by this school long before Barry decided to send his kids there. But still, Barry doesn’t view this as being at least part of the answer.

Barry has vowed to rally the American people around an agenda to limit gun violence, adding that he still supports increased background checks and bans on assault weapons and high-capacity bullet magazines. He left no doubt it will be one of his top priorities next year.  Barry said, "It is not enough for us to say, `This is too hard so we're not going to try.'" He went on to say, "I think there are a vast majority of responsible gun owners out there who recognize that we can't have a situation in which somebody with severe psychological problems is able to get the kind of high capacity weapons that this individual in Newtown obtained and gun down our kids," he added. "And, yes, it's going to be hard." Again with the kids, always using the kids.

Barry added that he's ready to meet with Republicans and Democrats, anyone with a stake in the issue. Actually, what’s he’s ready to do is to take advantage the schoolhouse shootings, coming as families prepared for the holidays, while it remains the forefront of public attention and to berate and ridicule anyone who chooses to disagree with him. And as mentioned earlier Barry has shown himself to be not the least bit shy in his efforts to do whatever he feels he can get away with. The tragedy which increased the calls for greater gun controls primarily from Liberals created what Barry now views as being his window of opportunity. But the NRA is strongly resisting those efforts, arguing instead that schools should have armed guards for protection which may not have prevented this tragedy, would, most definitely reduced the loss of life.

Barry "Almighty," of course, remains quite unimpressed by the NRA proposal. "I am skeptical that the only answer is putting more guns in schools," he said. "And I think the vast majority of the American people are skeptical that that somehow is going to solve our problem." It may not solve the problem but it will most certainly create a safer environment for our kids, especially when nuts realize that schools are no longer "gun free" zone free for them to use as a shooting gallery. Suppose just one of those teachers in Newton would have had a gun? Can anyone disagree that the outcome would have been very much different? And if stationing someone in schools with a gun isn’t the answer, how about the school where his kids go, remove from their employment anyone on the premises who is there for the specific purpose of protecting the children? This guy is such a pathetic fraud, and is dishonest to the extreme.

Barry said he intends to press the issue with the public. "The question then becomes whether we are actually shook up enough by what happened here that it does not just become another one of these routine episodes where it gets a lot of attention for a couple of weeks and then it drifts away," Barry said. "It certainly won't feel like that to me. This is something that — you know, that was the worst day of my presidency. And it's not something that I want to see repeated." Barry continues to hope that enough people are "shook up" to the point where they convinced to take their eye off the ball just long enough, and by doing so provide to him just what he’s looking for, the opportunity to rob from us one more of our rights as a ‘free people.’

The bottom line here is that next to socialized medicine, which sadly has now become a reality in this country, the second item on the list of longstanding Democrat wet-dreams, is the complete and total disarming of the American populace. Think about it, our last line of defense again tyranny forever removed. Does anyone really see that as being a good idea? If we were to allow that to happen we would then be at the complete mercy of a cadre of blatantly dishonest and thoroughly corrupt politicians. Not only that, but we would be exposed to president who has demonstrated on any number of occasions that he views himself as being above the law and as being able to ignore the constraints placed on his office by our Constitution. We must look at the bigger picture. Yes what occurred in Newtown was a tragedy, but tragedies happen every single day.

And as much as Barry would like us to believe that had tighter gun control laws only been in place, this most recent horrible tragedy would have never happened, it just ain’t so. This nut would have come up with another way to accomplish that which was his goal. As I have mentioned before here, gun crime prosecutions are down over 40 percent since Barry assumed office. And have you ever wondered why that might be? Might it be that he sees it as a way to increase the odds, so to speak, for tragedies like Newtown to occur, so that he could then turn around and use them to further the agenda of the left, one designed to rob from us our constitutional right to ‘keep and bear’ arms? Call me a conspiracy nut if you want, but after seeing this guy in action for the last 4 years, is it really outside the realm of possibility?   



DEMOCRATS STILL NOT DONE RAISING TAXES, NOT BY A LONG SHOT

EXCELLENT VIDEO ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT...

NO DOUBT..ISLAM, THE MOST DANGEROULS 'RELIGION' IN THE WORLD...

 



THAT HAG, JOY-LESS BEHAR, SAYS BETTER TO WORK FOR AL JAZEERA THAN GLENN BECK...

NEWPAPER'S STUNT SHOULD ENCOURAGE FOLKS TO GO OUT AND BUY A GUN...

Might this stunt by this newsaper maybe actually backfire on it?  I mean if I lived in this county and my name didn't appear on their little map, indicating to crooks that I don't have a gun, the first thing that I'm going to do is to go buy one.  After all, I am not going to allow the morons who run this idiotic little newpaper to place my life, and the lives of my family, at risk just because they want to prove some point!

OBAMA...MORE UNADULTERATED BULLSH!T...

DEMOCRATS AND RADICAL ISLAMISTS…A COMMON AGENDA…

Is it just me or does there seem to have been, and for quite some time now, an alliance of sorts between those who identify themselves as being Democrats and the radical Islamists who are so determined to destroy our country? Why is it that the progressive left or the Democrats in our society, almost always side with Muslims against American ideas and laws and, in particular, against Christian beliefs and practices? It is a curiosity, to say the least. You would think that Islamists and Democrats would have nothing in common and would actually be diametrically opposed to one another. But the two belief systems actually have much more in common than you might think. Democrats and Muslims both despise most of what patriotic, religious Americans cherish and revere. This makes them common enemies of the American enterprise: comrades in arms, so to speak.

Where there is conflict between the Islamic and the Democrat’s leftist ideologies, the Muslims always prevail. Democrats will never confront the Islamists, out of fear that to do so would weaken their ally, or that it could produce a backlash so violent and devastating that the beneficial alliance would be destroyed forever. Still, it is rather amazing to watch as Democrats continue to defend and even support their Muslim allies in light of the latter's historical and continuing offenses against the most hallowed tenets of liberalism: hanging homosexuals; stoning adulterers; maiming criminals; abusing and raping women and children; beheading and crucifying non-believers; killing, dismembering, and having sex with the corpses of women; invading embassies and torturing and killing Americans and raping the body of the ambassador.

But instead of getting tough with the Islamists for the horrors the commit on a regular basis and in the name of their supposed God, Barry "Almighty" and his fellow Democrats provide all manner of protective cover for them. The horrific crimes and depredations committed by radical Islamists are endless, yet Democrats manage to "tolerate" them, even make excuses for their absolutely disgusting behavior. You would think that those who constantly profess to be the sole proprietors of any moral mantle, would not be able to tolerate such a level of pure evil. But such is the mentality of those who proudly called themselves Democrats. Democrats cope with these contradictions by denying that they exist or by convincing themselves that Islamic practices are justified and the result of cultural differences, poverty, Zionism, or something that either George Bush or the United States must have done to cause their uncivilized acts of violence.

And the more you take the time to actually compare the beliefs of these radical Islamists and the American Democrat Party, the more similarities you will find. In fact what you will find is a frightening number of similarities between these two groups. Enough to cause you to wonder just who it is, exactly, that we should now be in fear of the most. Because I would argue at this point it would be difficult to determine who represents the bigger threat to our country. Below is a compilation of statements. Your job will be to see if you are able to distinguish which of them more closely resembles something that describes what it means to be a Muslim or to be a Democrat. Now it may sound easy, but it just might be more difficult than it sounds. There’s no grade given afterward, just consider it as being an eye-opening experience.

You decide:
- You have many ideas and beliefs, and you insist that other people conform to them.
- You believe that lying to obtain your objectives is completely acceptable.
- You enjoy mass demonstrations, chanting, and rioting.
- You get a particular kick out of burning the American flag.
- You have a belief system filled with contradictions, and you regard that as normal.
- You hate Ronald Reagan.
- You discriminate against everyone who does not believe as you do.
- You think it is obligatory to be offensive toward those who disagree with you.
- You believe that you have the right to take from others.
- You enjoy destroying the religious symbols of others.
- Your meeting places are actually enemy outposts from which you plan the overthrow of the free world.
- You believe you should be able to have sex with anyone you can physically subdue.
- You absolutely do not believe in freedom of speech.
- You believe that violence is integral to the pursuit of your worthy goals.
- You view freedom as an unacceptable proposition.
- Your prophets have long been shown to be false.
- You believe in using government police or military force to impose your beliefs on others.
- You hate all religions except your own.
- You believe that pedophilia is proper and moral.
- You believe that morality is defined by the rules of the cult you follow.
- You often engage in mob violence.
- You think that books and publications you don't approve of should not be available to others.
- You believe that freedom of the press is a terrible idea.
- You hate Christianity and Judaism.
- You engage in blasphemy on a daily basis.
- Your ultimate goal is that everyone else in the world submit to what you believe.
- You believe that bullying is an acceptable tactic.
- You do not believe in religious freedom.
- You are a racist.
- You believe that women are sex objects.
- You believe that men are sex objects.
- You believe that incest is relative.
- You abuse Western ideals of religious freedom and tolerance and use them as wedge opportunities to overthrow the society you live in.
- You have your own set of laws.
- You believe that the enemy of your enemy is your friend.
- You believe that Christianity must be destroyed at all costs.
- You believe that America is the Great Satan.
- You believe that people who don't believe as you do should be killed or subjugated.
- You believe that the USA has too much power and must be brought down.
- You do not recognize the divinity of Jesus Christ.
- You do not believe in the Founding Fathers, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, freedom and liberty, or anything American.
- You believe that the ends justifies the means.
- You believe that you must win at any cost.

So, how did you do? Were you able to decide, Islamist or Democrat? In the end, was there really that much of a difference in any of what these two totalitarian ideologies espouse or in what they want to achieve? Don't both of them pose what any rational person would see as being a clear and present danger to us, and to America? Why do Democrats think they are any better than Islamists? Whatever they believe, it is up to those of us who love freedom and liberty to be the ones to deal with them, both of them. We must be able to recognize Democrats for what they are, those working on the inside in concert with their Islamist allies who are very busy working on the outside. The are members of the same anti-America team, both are determined in their effort to destroy the country that many of us still love. And they think that by working together they can succeed.

IT WOULD SEEM THAT MASSACHUSETTS HAS DONE IT AGAIN...

The state has the uncanny knack of being able to send to Congress the least capable and most incompetent people it can find.  I can only assume that the gene pool must be extremely shallow if this moron, and now newest Senator from the state, was really the best they could find. 

SCOTT MCGRATH...A HURRICANE SANDY VICTIM WHO'S FED UP WITH OBAMA...GIVE A LISTEN....

OBAMA SAVED MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF JOBS? REALLY?

YUP, WE'RE SURE MOVING "FORWARD" ALL RIGHT!

 

 

Well the government's version of the unemployment numbers for December are in. And what we're being told is that those numbers supposedly showed that while the general unemployment rate remained flat at 7.8 percent, unemployment for women and African-Americans rose despite an economy that supposedly created 155,000 jobs. Unemployment for women rose to 7.3 percent in December and that's up from 7.0 percent while the rate for African-Americans rose sharply to 14.0 percent, up from 13.2 percent in November. I find it more than just a bit ironic, and cheerfully so, that two of Barry's core constituencies, who I'm quite sure bought the many, and various, excuses he provided during the last campaign about why the economy is doing so poorly, are the ones now taking it in the shorts employment-wise.

 

Unemployment among African Americans has remained high throughout the sluggish economic 'recovery' of the past several years, despite the steady decline in overall unemployment in the economy generally. But it didn't prevent blacks from dutifully marching off to the polls this past November, nearly en masse, to vote for their black president. The number of employed African Americans actually fell in December, a month that typically sees a spike in job creation as employers add temporary positions to handle the holiday shopping season. The number of employed African Americans fell from nearly 16 million to 15.8 million in December. By contrast, the unemployment rate for Whites, while being nowhere near accurate, remained nearly a full point below the national average at 6.9 percent in December.

 

But as bad as the unemployment situation is for the country as a whole, the dismal jobs situation here in America is even worse for young adults, which, I think, can be viewed as another core group who, I feel pretty certain, voted for Barry. These same folks are suffering an unemployment rate 30 percent higher than the national average of 7.8 announced today by Washington. And according to something called the Generation Opportunity, a national, and supposedly non-partisan, organization advocating for Millennials ages 18-29, for that specific age group the unemployment rate is at 11.5 percent and a shocking 22.1 percent for younger black Americans. These numbers were announced its Millennial Jobs Report for December 2012. The data is non-seasonally adjusted (NSA) and is specific to 18-29 year olds.

 

So, besides being 22.1 percent (NSA) for 18-29 year old African-Americans for December 2012, the unemployment rate for 18-29 year old Hispanics for December 2012 is 12.2 percent (NSA); and the unemployment rate for 18-29 year old women for December 2012 is 10.4 percent (NSA). And then you throw in the declining labor force participation rate which has created an additional 1.7 million young adults that are not even counted as "unemployed" by the U.S. Department of Labor. They're not counted because they are not in the labor force, meaning that those young people have given up looking for work due to the lack of jobs. If the labor force participation rate were factored into the 18-29 unemployment calculations, the actual Millennial unemployment rate would rise to 16.3 percent (NSA).

 

And again, I feel pretty confident in saying that the majority of those who comprise each of these various little groups, and now currently find themselves unemployed, voted for Barry "Almighty" the last time around. Therefore, if they are truly interested in finding out who it is that's to blame for they're currently being without a job they need look no further than the nearest mirror. It's kinda like that old saying, "What goes around, comes around." The ones who I truly do feel sorry for are the ones like my daughter who didn't vote for that ass, but yet has been made essentially a casualty of his socialist policies that he has been putting into place since day one. Policies which, because of a successful re-election, we will now be forced to contend with for at least the next four years, if not longer.



NANCY PELOSI…DUMB AS DIRT OR STUCK ON STUPID...

 

Good old Nancy Pelosi, the rather demented leader of the House Democrats. You know, they say even a broken clock is right twice a day and that even a blind squirrel will find an acorn every now again, such is also the case, apparently, with Ms. Pelosi. And the only reason I say that is because in a recent interview, one that took place on Thursday with National Public Radio, Nancy said that many Republicans do not "believe in government." And I could not agree with her more. But while that assessment of hers is correct up to a point, a more accurate statement would have been for her to say that what we do not believe in is government that's grown too big, too intrusive and way too expensive. But she's not going to say that!

 

 

In her interview with NPR’s Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep, Pelosi said, "There are many members in the Republican caucus who do not believe in government." And in sounding like the pathetic dingbat that she is, she added, "And bless their hearts, they act upon their beliefs. And then she launched off out into la-la land saying, "So day to day, we vote here on issues that eliminate government initiatives for clean air, clean water, food safety, public safety, public education, public transportation, public housing, public health, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security." Right, we Republicans WANT dirty air, dirty water and we see absolutely no need for any government involvement, whatsoever, in the internal workings of our country..

 

 

She droned on saying, "They don't believe in a public role," Pelosi said. "And if you don't believe in a public role, then why do you even have to have taxes to pay for it? ... They're anti-government ideologues, and that's what the speaker has to deal with." No, what we are, are anti-big government. All of us that she describes as being anti-government ideologues recognize the fact that there is need for a certain level of government involvement, but where we disagree with the big-government ideologues like Pelosi is the level of that involvement that should be tolerated and where that involvement should be permitted to take place. One place where government has absolutely no place is in American access their healthcare.

 

 

I think it has become pretty common knowledge, at least among we anti-government Republicans to which Pelosi refers, that everything in which the government chooses to insert or involve itself, the result is, more often than not, completely opposite of what was intended, and we're always very much worse off. Our public education system is a disaster, public housing, no matter where you look, has deteriorated into slums and Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are either broke or will be soon. I've never been able to understand the confidence that so many, other than folks like Pelosi, have in the government's abilities or possess the belief that it is, somehow, more capable than private institutions to provide those services to the public that are actually necessary.

 

 

Pelosi did offer praise for the "Grand Old Party," which she said has made "enormous contributions to the success of our country," but that the party has changed to be one that wants to destroy government. She said, "While we may argue about the size of government, the Republican Party has not been a party that says, 'I want to destroy government." She made the statement that Republicans should "take back your party." to which I would respond by saying, "We're trying!" And then is making it plain that the Botox truly has eaten away at her brain, she said, "The country needs more than one-party dominance, as much as I believe the Democratic Party is the party for the middle class. ... We need to have a marketplace of ideas." Pelosi, talking about, 'ideas,' RIGHT!



MATT DAMON, A LIAR? OH NO, SAY IT AIN'T SO!!!

 

Fracking fans have a new target, that mental midget, and well-known moron, none other that Matt Damon. "Promised Land," the new Gus Van Sant film about the controversial technique that acquires natural gas through drilling and pressurized fluid, stars, and was written by, this dweeb, Damon, and costar John Krasinski. This idiotic work of pure unadulterated fiction opens nationally today. Enter, Phelim McAleer. Mr. McAleer is launching what is essentially a one-man campaign to call Damon out about the film. McAleer directed the documentary FrackNation, along with his wife Ann McElhinney, and the film paints a more sympathetic portrayal of fracking and aims to dispel some of the misinformation that McAleer and McElhinney believe have dominated the debate over the procedure’s environmental and health impact.

 

"This is classic propaganda," McAleer told POLITICO. "It’s political from the beginning to the very end." And that, according to McAleer, represents a large part of his problem with "Promised Land." Movieline.com attended on a panel discussion about "Promised Land" featuring Damon and reported that Damon said the movie wasn’t political. "I don’t want to call Matt Damon a liar but he’s a liar, really," McAleer said. "It’s a deeply political movie and it’s deeply disingenuous for Matt Damon to say otherwise. … Matt Damon isn’t telling the truth." McAleer’s criticism of the film and Damon’s politics seems to center primarily around the suggestion that fracking can contaminate local water supplies to the point of making them flammable, a point made most prominently in the 2010 documentary, "Gasland."

 

But while it may not be exactly reassuring, perhaps, McAleer says "the water has always been on fire" going as far back as the 17th century. "This stuff can get into the water supply naturally," McAleer said. "In America hundreds of years ago, native Americans named three different locations ‘Burning Springs.’ Quite simply, this is because of the naturally occurring gases, like methane, that are found beneath the earth’s surface and that can rise to the surface with water. This pre-dates fracking and, in fact, there is no evidence that suggests that fracking has led to an increase in this phenomenon." Beginning this week, McAleer will go up with a billboard in New York that shoots down "Promised Land." The ad states, "Matt Damon: the water has been on fire since 1669." Look, I think we can all agree that Hollywood types like Damon care very little about facts.

 

McAleer has been hoping for sometime to have an opportunity where he could engage Damon, mano a mono, so to speak, on the topic but has thus far been unsuccessful in contacting the film’s production company. That should come as no surprise to anyone, after all, Damon's nothing more than one of those idiotic, 'do as I say not as I do' Hollywood liberals who feel that can get away with saying just about anything they want, without ever having to back any of it up. Somehow, because they're 'movie stars' they're supposed to be on a higher plain than those of us who are part of the lowly, unwashed masses who simply expected to shell out more and more of our hard earned money for a night at the movies. Movies that are no longer made to be a source of entertainment, but more as a method to deliver, what is essentially, nothing more than propaganda.



I LIKE SENATOR TIM SCOTT ALREADY...

DEMOCRATS NOW PULLING OUT ALL THE STOPS...COMPARING GUN OWNERS TO PERVERTS...