GUNS…THE LIES AND DISTORTIONS BY THE LEFT CONTINUE…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DEMOCRAT ED RENDELL SAYS THE 'GOOD THING' ABOUT NEWTOWN IS THAT IT WAS SO HORRIFIC...

This pathetic piece of dog squeeze, Rendell, either accidentally or on purpose, gives us all a glimpse behind the curtain regarding how it is that, for the Democrats, this whole 'need' for increased gun control is actually all about nothing more than politics.  It has absolutey nothing to to with creating a positive effect on public safety, or striving to reduce gun violence in any meaningful way or even lessing the chance of what occurred in Newtown of ever happening again.  It's about politics, nothing more and nothing less.  And it's about robbing from the American people one of their most fundemental rights guaranteed to them under our Constitution.  Guys like Rendell were hoping something like this would fall into their collective lap.  And now they are determined to work it just as hard as they can in an effort to convince the mental midgets among us that, for our own good, guns shold belong only in the hands of the government.

MICHAEL 'NANNY MIKE' BLOOMBERG STRIKES AGAIN...

 

 

Apparently now, according to he who saw fit to ban those dangerously big, surgery soft drinks from his city, 'Nanny Mike' seems to have now set his sights on yet another of what he sees as being a menace to the citizens of his fair city. 'Nanny Mike' is now on another mission, the purpose of which, apparently, is to once again seek out a method by which he can further ‘protect’ us from ourselves by using what some might describe as being rather unconventional tactics, to say the least. You see, what 'Nanny Mike' is now focused in on like a laser beam are some of the most common and most powerful prescription painkillers currently available on the market. Apparently, 'Nanny Mike' intends to justify his peculiar new policy by stating that the purpose of this new policy of his is to limit supplies of prescription painkillers in the city’s Emergency Rooms as a way to combat what he described as being a growing addiction problem in the region. 'Nanny Mike' states that is in an effort to crack down on what he called a citywide and national epidemic of prescription drug abuse. Look, I'm not a liberal, for which I thank my lucky stars each and every day, but this nutty idea just doesn't make much sense. And quite frankly, it shouldn't for anything one with even half a brain. I mean, to start with Emergency Rooms? Um, sorry but I'm just not getting that.

 

 

Under his new cockamamie policy, most public hospital patients will no longer be able to get more than three days’ worth of narcotic painkillers like Vicodin and Percocet. Long-acting painkillers, including OxyContin, a familiar remedy for chronic backache and arthritis, as well as Fentanyl patches and methadone, will not be dispensed at all. And lost, stolen or destroyed prescriptions will not be refilled. On his weekly radio show with John Gambling, ‘Nanny Mike’ said, "The city hospitals we control, so…we’re going to do it and we’re urging all of the other hospitals to do it, voluntary guidelines. Somebody said, oh, somebody wrote, ‘Oh then maybe there won’t be enough painkillers for the poor who use the emergency rooms as their primary care doctor.’" Mike added, "Number one, there’s no evidence of that. Number two, supposing it is really true so you didn’t get enough painkillers and you did have to suffer a little bit. The other side of the coin is people are dying and there’s nothing perfect….There’s nothing that you can possibly do where somebody isn’t going to suffer and it’s always the same group [claiming], ‘Everybody is heartless.’ Come on, this is a very big problem." Is this not the typical kind of crap we always here from flaming liberal assholes like Mike. I'm sure he wouldn't mind suffering a little, right? After all, it would be for a good cause.

 

 

But critics, of which there appears to be a growing number, said that poor and uninsured patients frequently look to Emergency Rooms to perform the function of their primary source of medical care. These restrictions, they claim, could deprive doctors in the public hospital system, whose mission it is to treat these patients, of the necessary flexibility that they need to properly respond to patients. "Here is my problem with legislative medicine," said Dr. Alex Rosenau, president-elect of the American College of Emergency Physicians and senior vice chairman of emergency medicine at Lehigh Valley Health Network in Eastern Pennsylvania. "It prevents me from being a professional and using my judgment." While someone could fake a toothache to get painkillers, he said, another patient might have legitimate pain and not be able to get an appointment at a dental clinic for days. Or, he said, a patient with a hand injury may need more than three days of pain relief until the swelling goes down and an operation could be scheduled. But 'Nanny Mike,' like every other liberal on the entire planet, doesn't really give a squat about that. In fact, I think it safe to say that old 'Nanny Mike' couldn't care less! To liberals, like 'Nanny Mike's" way of thinking, doctors simply have no business practicing medicine, that should be left up entirely to the government!

 

 

Dr. Rosenau said that the college of emergency physicians had not developed an official position on the prescribing of painkillers in Emergency Rooms and that he appreciated 'Nanny Mike's' activism in the face of a serious public health problem. But, he said, it’s pain clinics in states like Florida and California, states where prescription drug abuse is rampant, as well as the household medicine cabinet, that are probably a more common source of unneeded painkillers than are the Emergency Rooms which 'Nanny Mike' has now targeted. City health officials have made the claim that these new ‘guidelines’ would not apply to patients who need prescriptions for cancer pain or palliative care, and drugs would still be available outside the Emergency Room. They said that in this era of patient-satisfaction surveys, doctors were often afraid to make patients unhappy by refusing drugs when they are requested, and the rules would give those doctors some support when they suspected that a patient might be faking pain to get drugs. "There will be no chance that the patients who need pain relief will not get pain relief," said Dr. Ross Wilson, senior vice president and chief medical officer of the Health and Hospitals Corporation, which runs the city’s public hospitals. Then I would very much like to ask this moron, 'DR.' Rosee Wilson, what the hell's the point of this new policy?

 

 

Similar rules are said to have also been adopted in Washington State as well as in Utah. Dr. Thomas A. Farley, the city’s health commissioner, said opioid painkillers were not all that different from those highly addictive and more taboo street drugs like heroin. He called them "heroin in pill form." But what he doesn't say is whether or not those rules adopted in both Washington and Utah have made any kind of an appreciable difference in the problem that they were supposed to aid in addressing. More than two million prescriptions for opioid painkillers are written in New York City each year, the equivalent of a quarter of the city’s population, Dr. Farley said, and about 40,000, or like 5 tenths of one percent, New Yorkers are already dependent on painkillers and need treatment. Painkillers were involved in 173 accidental overdose deaths in New York City in 2010. I hate to sound cold here, but 173 people out of a population of over 8 million just doesn't seem to be that big of a deal to me. I mean let’s put things into perspective here, shall we? That truly does fit the definition of being and infinitesimal amount, in the big scheme of things. Dr. Farley also said that while the city lacked the regulatory authority to ‘impose’ the new guidelines on its 50 or so private hospitals, several private hospitals have said they would adopt them voluntarily.

 

 

In the same radio interview, ‘Nanny Mike’ stressed the initiative’s simple rationale is to prevent extra pills from piling up in the cabinets of New Yorkers who no longer need them, where they can pose a health risk if they’re abused. "We talk about drugs, heroin and crack and marijuana, this is one of the big outbursts–and it’s a lot worse around the country than it is here. It’s kids and adults getting painkillers and using them for entertainment purposes, or whatever field of purposes, as opposed to what they are designed for," he explained. "If you break a leg, you’re going to be in pain, nothing wrong with getting something that reduces the pain. But if you get 20 days worth of pills and you only need them 3 days, there’s 17 days sitting there. Invariably some of the kids are going to find them, or you’re going to take them and get you addicted." 'Nanny Mike’ also tried to argue the point that the number of pain pills currently being prescribed had even contributed to an uptick in violent crimes outside of pharmacies from robbers looking to steal the drugs. "You see there’s a lot more hold-ups of pharmacies, people getting held up as they walk out of pharmacies," he explained. "What are they all about? They’re not trying to steal your shaving cream or toothpaste at the point of a gun. They want these drugs."

 

 

Look, the bottom line here is that this idea of ‘Nanny Mike’s’ is about as stupid as they came. To choose Emergency Rooms as being your primary place to implement a policy makes it all the more obvious that it is based more on politics than on any genuine concern for his fellow citizens. Rather than take any actions that would actually have a real impact on what he claims to be trying to accomplish, ‘Nanny Mike’ chooses to take what is the easy way out. And when all is said and done, no significant impact will have been made on the numbers of these drugs making it to the street. Meanwhile those folks who have come to depend on Emergency Room physicians will be made to bear the brunt of those unintended consequences that always result from liberal policies put into place by do-gooder liberals like ‘Nanny Mike.’ After all, what do you think the chances are that ‘Nanny Mike’ will ever having to worry about being without any of these medications, should he ever find himself in the position of actually needing them. And, really, when was the last time you think ‘Nanny Mike’ might have even shown up in the Emergency Room? I’d be willing to be that ‘Nanny Mike’ has never even seen the inside of an Emergency Room, any Emergency Room, unless he was there in some official capacity.



AND NOW COMES WORD OF YET ANOTHER BIT OF HYPOCRISY BY OBAMA...

 

It just never seems to end with this guy. Here we have yet another exmple his blatant hypocrisy, and this one really ticks me off. Because while this worthless 'piece of dog squeeze of a president', that we're now saddled with for yet another four years, is expending every effort to disarm we the American people, at the same time he also signs a bill that will provide to him round the clock 'armed protection' that will last for the rest of his freakin life. Now would it be crass of me, or even slightly disrespectful, to hope that it's a rather short life? Probably, but I'm gonna do it anyway. So here's to hoping he leaves this world, under purely natural circumstances, the day after he leaves office. I'd say before that, but just the thought of having 'Slow Joe' as president is too scary to even contemplate. It just that it never seems to end with this guy. This, what's good for me, isn't what's good for you, mentality of his is maddening.

 

So despite his now very aggressive gun control agenda that could possibly threaten to disarm the American people, Barry "Almighty" has seen fit to sign a bill that would afford him 24/7 armed Secret Service protection for life. According to Yahoo News, "The legislation, crafted by Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, rolls back a mid-1990s law that imposed a 10-year limit on Secret Service protection for former presidents. Bush would have been the first former commander in chief affected." And, you know, I think what really pisses me off about this new bill, which I guess is a re-instatement of a 1965 law, is that it will now cost American taxpayers additional Millions of dollars by requiring presidents to be protected for life as well as their children up to age 16. So even after this jerk is long gone, I'm still gonna be get stuck covering his bills.

 

I mean the irony here is too hard to miss, even if you happen to a brain dead liberal. Here we have Barry "Almighty" seeking to surround himself with several armed men at a time and for the rest of his life, while simultaneously working to disarm we the American people hopefully through some form of strict gun control legislation or, if unable to succeed by that route, by then attempting to enforce it unconstitutionally by way of executive decree. It's quite typical behavior for Barry, and should come as no surprise. After all this is how this thug operates and it also represents the height of his hypocrisy. But let's face it, like I said this is not the first time that Barry has lauded the notion of responsible Americans using firearms to protect himself and his family while concurrently eviscerating that very same right for the American people. So, yes we have been down this same road before with Barry.

 

If we look back we'll see that it was during an ABC Nightline interview broadcast on December 26, and recorded before the Sandy Hook shooting, that Barry said one of the benefits of his re-election was the ability "to have men with guns around at all times," in order to protect his daughters. In addition, the school attended by Barry's daughters in Washington D.C. has no less than 11 armed security guards on duty at all times, yet the idea of arming teachers and school officials to prevent further tragedies has been dismissed by gun control nuts who want school campuses to remain "gun free zones" where victims are disarmed and shooters are free to carry out their rampage unimpeded. The continuing hypocrisy of gun control advocates who feverishly work to create victim disarmament yet surround themselves with armed men remains rampant among perceived as being our political and social elite.

 

As was reported as recently as last month, despite in the same year calling for "Mr. and Mrs. America" to "turn in" their guns California Senator Dianne Feinstein, author of a draconian bill set to be introduced later this month that would treat gun owners like sex offenders, admitted to carrying a concealed weapon for her own protection after she was threatened by a terrorist group. Other prominent gun control advocates such as Mayor Michael ‘Nanny’ Bloomberg have also aggressively pushed to disarm Americans while themselves employing armed bodyguards at all times. Michael Moore, another vehement proponent for gun control, also has armed bodyguards, one of whom was arrested for carrying an unlicensed weapon at in New York’s JFK airport back in 2005. But what can you expect, he's just another big, fat dumbass liberal who sees himself as being better than the rest us.

 

There was a White House petition created at the end of last month that calls for making the White House and all federal buildings gun free zones. "If the government believes gun free zones are a solution for citizens, the same standard should apply to government servants and employees," states the petition, which currently has over 12,000 signatures. Obviously, these government types view themselves as being a bit more important than the rest of us. Which they, and I hate to be the one to tell them, most definitely are not. If you ask me the only place that should be a totally gun free zone is any government building regardless of it housing local, state or federal government employees. What gives them the right, or makes them more deserving than our kids, to now be able to spend their day in a place that has them protected. Don't our kids deserve to be kept at least as 'safe' as do these overpaid servants of the people?



CAN'T QUITE FIGURE OUT IF MORGAN IS SIMPLY SEEKING RATINGS, OR IF HE'S REALLY THIS NUTS...

A WARNING FROM PRAVDA TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE...

Americans never give up your guns

28.12.2012

By Stanislav Mishin

 

These days, there are few things to admire about the socialist, bankrupt and culturally degenerating USA, but at least so far, one thing remains: the right to bear arms and use deadly force to defend one's self and possessions.

 

This will probably come as a total shock to most of my Western readers, but at one point, Russia was one of the most heavily armed societies on earth. This was, of course, when we were free under the Tsar. Weapons, from swords and spears to pistols, rifles and shotguns were everywhere, common items. People carried them concealed, they carried them holstered. Fighting knives were a prominent part of many traditional attires and those little tubes criss crossing on the costumes of Cossacks and various Caucasian peoples? Well those are bullet holders for rifles.

 

Various armies, such as the Poles, during the Смута (Times of Troubles), or Napoleon, or the Germans even as the Tsarist state collapsed under the weight of WW1 and Wall Street monies, found that holding Russian lands was much much harder than taking them and taking was no easy walk in the park but a blood bath all its own. In holding, one faced an extremely well armed and aggressive population Hell bent on exterminating or driving out the aggressor.

 

This well armed population was what allowed the various White factions to rise up, no matter how disorganized politically and militarily they were in 1918 and wage a savage civil war against the Reds. It should be noted that many of these armies were armed peasants, villagers, farmers and merchants, protecting their own. If it had not been for Washington's clandestine support of and for the Reds, history would have gone quite differently.

 

Moscow fell, for example, not from a lack of weapons to defend it, but from the lying guile of the Reds. Ten thousand Reds took Moscow and were opposed only by some few hundreds of officer cadets and their instructors. Even then the battle was fierce and losses high. However, in the city alone, at that time, lived over 30,000 military officers (both active and retired), all with their own issued weapons and ammunition, plus tens of thousands of other citizens who were armed. The Soviets promised to leave them all alone if they did not intervene. They did not and for that were asked afterwards to come register themselves and their weapons: where they were promptly shot.

 

Of course being savages, murderers and liars does not mean being stupid and the Reds learned from their Civil War experience. One of the first things they 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 for soldiers.

 

To this day, with the Soviet Union now dead 21 years, with a whole generation born and raised to adulthood without the SU, we are still denied our basic and traditional rights to self defense. Why? We are told that everyone would just start shooting each other and crime would be everywhere....but criminals are still armed and still murdering and too often, especially in the far regions, those criminals wear the uniforms of the police. The fact that everyone would start shooting is also laughable when statistics are examined.

 

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 are 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. They throw acid (Pakistan, UK), they throw fire bombs (France), they attack. What is worse, is, that the best way to stop a maniac is not psychology or jail or "talking to them", it is a bullet in the head, that is why they are a maniac, because they are incapable of living in reality or stopping themselves.

 

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. There is a lot of desire to bad mouth the Tsar, particularly by the Communists, who claim he was a tyrant, and yet under him we were armed and under the progressives disarmed. 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. They hate guns in the hands of those who think for themselves and do not obey without question. They hate guns in those whom they have slated for a barrel to the back of the ear.

 

So, do not fall for the false promises and do not extinguish the light that is left to allow humanity a measure of self respect.

 

Stanislav Mishin

ARE THERE ENOUGH AMERICAN'S LEFT WHO EVEN CARE ANYMORE?

There are three things that created and then sustained our country for more than two centuries: patriotism, faith, and love of liberty. Things that, apparently, not too many people seem to care all that much about these days. We've always been a people who honored patriotism by showing respect for the flag, pledging allegiance to it, and honoring those who died in its defense. We have always held that we are a nation under God, and that God endowed upon us our sacred civil rights, and that government serves to secure those rights, acting only with permission from the people and according to our Constitution. We have promoted the cherished idea of liberty and justice for all by vowing to protect and defend the Constitution which provides for a system of government designed to limit government so as to protect and promote liberty.

But somehow, in this age of Barry "Almighty" something's changed, things now seem to have gone all haywire. We have always, I think, expected our president to lead by example. Granted, there have been times, in that respect, when we have been let down, which brings me to Barry. Because I can't help but wonder if Barry genuinely respects the flag, promotes patriotism, honors our Veterans, supports the Constitution, or demonstrates any level of respect for our faith traditions. Personally, I just don't think that he does. What we have here, today, is a president who disrespects the flag. During the campaign five years ago he refused to wear a flag pin on his lapel saying such pins had become a substitute for "true patriotism." He was also found ignoring protocol and not placing his hand over his heart during the national anthem, a salute all patriots recognize as honoring the flag and our Veterans. .

Furthermore, can you honestly say this man honors our military when he insists upon using those who serve their country as nothing more than his own personal little test bed for his favorite social issues or proceeds to send them into harm’s way with no clear mission, making them abide by rules of engagement that make no sense, and when he apologizes to our enemies all across the globe? Or when he refuses to allow Marines to properly guard our embassies, even denying them ammunition while on guard duty? Also, recall in an unguarded moment back during the 2008 campaign, unaware he was being recorded as he spoke during a private fundraising effort, he said this about average Americans in the Midwest: "And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

So can you blame me, especially after watching him get re-elected, if I sometimes find myself wondering just how far some Americans are willing to go in their continuing effort to shove their heads as far into the sand as they can and pretend that the policies that Barry continues to put into place are actually designed to bring the American economy back into prosperity. I wonder if some people even really care about the offenses that we have now committed against the generations that will follow us, and what kind of future they will have, burdened with the debt that we will have left to them to take care of. I can't help but ponder why people are still gullible enough to actually blame the disastrous state of our economy on George W. Bush, especially after four full years of what can only be described as being Barry's very purposeful attempts to bring about a complete and total economic collapse.

And it remains a mystery to me why is it that the American public can still believe or respect anything 'Dingy" Harry or Nancy 'The Botox Queen' Pelosi have to say about anything especially after both have been rather obvious about putting their petty political interests ahead of the country. Or, is that they know these folks are lying but they simply don't care. They are perfectly content to go along with absolutely anything as long as they continue to get their so-called 'benefits' check in the mail, and on time. The cost of which, by the way, is being covered by those of us who still believe that we are responsible for how we are able to live our lives, not the government. How long will it take America to recognize the folly of ignoring the vast oil reserves that lie beneath us right here at home while billions upon billions of dollars are sent overseas to those who support the very ones who are trying to kill us?

And the lunacy just never seems to end and yet many Americans just seem to go along blissfully ignoring the obvious and living out their lives fat, dumb and happy. Meanwhile, I find myself wondering how long will it take before more of my fellow 'Americans' finally grasp the fact that that which they view through their rose colored glasses is pretty far from how things really are. We have in Barry, a president that insists upon taking the "reform" out of welfare reform, and whose policies have lead us to place now where more of those once in the workforce are now applying for disability instead of for jobs. How much longer will Americans support a state-controlled media that does not represent their values, morals, ideals or even their tastes? Will we continue to allow an educational system that is based more on indoctrination than on learning, and that turns out 'graduates' who while they can repeat the lyrics to the latest disgusting RAP hit, couldn't name their members of Congress if their lives depended on it?

And now sadly, I sometimes fear that America may have now gone beyond that point of which there can be no return, that we've developed a national "play now, pay later" mentality, and that too many people have simply decided that living off the government is just easier, and is definitely better than working for a living. And many seem quite comfortable in viewing morals as something that should change with the times and if it feels good, then by golly, you should be able to do it. And as I look around I also fear that the pride once taken by nearly all of Americans in having a good work ethic has been, and in continuing to be, conditioned right out of us, and that far too many people are starting to look at the federal government for all their needs and all their guidance, swallowing whole whatever the propaganda du jour happens to be. It's all pretty depressing. But that's the way things appear today. All that many Americans want to do these days is to hold out their hand and wait for politicians to put something in it.

IMBECILIC MSNBC HOST SAYS CLARENCE THOMAS NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF BLACKS...

 

 

Well, in a sense, I suppose you could say that this moron is absolutely right.  After all Justice Thomas is intelligent, well written, articulate, polite and a conservative.  Rare qualities indeed whenever talking about blacks in this country.  Maybe we should ax Ms. Perry who she would say is a better respresentative.  Maybe she'd say dat it would be someone mo like Al Shapton that makes fo a betta representive of blacks.  Ya kno what I'm sayin?  

EX-PRESIDENT, 'SLICK WILLIE' CLINTON, WEIGHS IN ON GUN CONTROL...

 

 

Ok, so I ask you, what freedom loving American really gives a flying fart about anything that this guy may think not only about gun control, but about anything.  He's a black spot on the history of this country and is someone who absolutely loves the sound of his own voice.

WELL DRESS ME UP AND CALL ME SALLY...

I gotta tell ya this is definitely something that I never saw coming, nor would I have ever thought that it would have even been possible. But, as they say truth is stranger than fiction, and so it is then that we have a rapist who has now been named as being "Father of the Year." So even though we're less than two weeks into 2013, the National Father's Day Council has already bestowed the title of 2013 Father of the Year upon none other than ex-president, and well-known serial rapist, 'Slick Willie' Clinton. Imagine that! Admittedly the award does seem to be a bit of a head scratcher because the Chappaqua resident's only 'known' child, Chelsea, is a married 32-year-old woman who hasn't lived at home since she moved away to college in 1997. Which would have been just a few months before most Americans first heard the name Monica Lewinsky. You remember her right? And how about "BJ's" other 'victims, Juanita Broaddrick, Jennifer Flowers and Paula Jones to name just a few others.

Still, I suppose, even those with grown children can be considered as being doting dads. However in Clinton's case he's probably doing nothing more that to use his daughter, Chelsea, as a means of trolling for likely candidates who might be willing to take part in some his rather perverted, how shall I say, preferences. After all, how many can say that they've gotten on their knees in front of an ex-president? Anyway 'Slick' did call the walking of Chelsea down the aisle during her wedding in Rhinebeck as being the "most important job" he has ever had, although that job was back in 2010. During his years in office, 'Slick' also had two four-legged babies: There was Socks the cat, who was given away to a staff member and then later euthanized, and Buddy the dog, who died after being hit by a car in 2002. However, knowing the rather lewd escapades of the ex-president as we all do, the poor dog probably just couldn't take the embarrassment any longer of being Clinton's dog and simply committed suicide.

In a 2001 interview on the cable news network named after him, the Clinton News Network (CNN), the 'Slickmeister' admitted he had a hard time raising the pets. "I did better with the Palestinians and the Israelis than I have done with Socks and Buddy," is what he told CNN. The awarding council, a not-for-profit group that first gave the award out to Douglas MacArthur in 1942, states on its (super official-sounding) website momanddadday.com that the award is given to "contemporary lifestyle leaders" who have shown dedication to family, charity and civility. Charity and civility, they're joking, right? "With the profound generosity, leadership and tireless dedication to both his public office and many philanthropic organizations, President Clinton exemplifies the attributes that we celebrate through the Father of the Year award," Dan Orwig, chairman of the National Father's Day Committee, said in a release. Come on, they can't really be serious, can they? Really?

In announcing 'Slick' as being the recipient of the 2013 award, Dan Orwig, chairman of the National Father's Day Committee, put it like this, "With the profound generosity, leadership and tireless dedication to both his public office and many philanthropic organizations, President Clinton exemplifies the attributes that we celebrate through the Father of the Year award." Supposedly the ex-president is being honored for his work through the William J. Clinton Foundation "to improve global health, promote healthier childhoods and protect the environment" and for bringing "global leaders together to work on the most pressing issues," at least according to the committee's statement. Well gee, that kind of puts everyone who hasn't got their own 'Foundation' or a couple hundred million bucks at a pretty severe disadvantage, don't you think? And realistically speaking, what has 'Slick' or his silly 'Foundation' really accomplished other than to make him rich?

But quite honestly, when looking back at who this organization as picked as being past "Father of the Year" recipients this list is a rather strange one, and one that includes many that I'm sure old 'Slick' will be quite comfortable in amongst. The list includes New York City Mayor Michael "Mr. Mom" Bloomberg, New York Governors Andrew 'Anti-Gun Nut' Cuomo, and his rabid progressive dad, Mario. Also included on this rather bizarre list is Bing Crosby, whose eldest son wrote a tell-all book chronicling his father's physical and mental abuse. Being what I consider a pretty good dad, what we have here is a list that if I were ever be selected to be added to, I would, and very politely, decline. I just wouldn't feel comfortable even being mentioned as being a member of this rather unique cadre of very sleazy characters. But I don't think I'll ever have to worry about that, because judging by the other recipients, there's no way that I possess the 'qualities' that this group seems to be looking for. Whew!

BEN STEIN POSES AN INTERESTING QUESTION...

HAVE I TOLD YOU LATELY THAT I THINK THIS GUY IS A MORON?

 

 

I mean, seriously folks, how many times can you say the word f#*k before it just isn't funny anymore?

MIGHT THIS BE WHY THERE'S NO ONE WATCHING CNN?

CHARLES BLOW-HARD ON CNN...WHAT A DOPE!

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?