THE QUESTION REMAINS, JUST HOW STUPID ARE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?

Nancy Pelosi said today that the government must cut spending, and then, using her own rather peculiar brand of logic, went on to explain that: "Tax cuts are spending." Now who other than a Democrat could come with such a blatantly dishonest premise. So far we've had one Democrat claim that we don't have a spending problem, we have a "paying for" problem, another Democrat say, no, what we really have is a "misallocation of wealth" problem, and now Pelosi saying, well, yes we do have a spending problem, but since tax cuts as actually a form of spending we need to get rid of those as a way to cut spending. Who's stupid enough to believe that nonsense?

"Our whole budget is what $3.5 trillion," Pelosi said at a Capitol Hill press conference. "So, when we talk about reducing spending, we certainly must, and we certainly have--$1.6 trillion in the previous Congress, $1.2 of it in the Budget Control Act." She then went on to say, "But spending is also related to tax cuts." To Pelosi's way of thinking, tax cuts are spending. They're called tax expenditures. Subsidies for big oil, subsidies to send jobs overseas, breaks to send jobs overseas, breaks for corporate jets. Democrats call them tax expenditures. Spending money on tax breaks. "And that’s the spending that we must curtail as well," Pelosi said.

One little factoid that Pelosi, as well as many other Democrats, really never make any mention of, is the fact that back in fiscal year 2006, the last full fiscal year before Pelosi became House Speaker, the federal government spent $2.65 Trillion, according to the U.S. Treasury. In fiscal 2011, the last fiscal year that started when Pelosi was Speaker, the federal government spent $3.59 Trillion. Thus, from fiscal 2006 to fiscal 2011, annual federal spending increased by whopping $940 Billion—or 35 percent. We are now living so far beyond our means that for anyone to deny that what we have is, in fact, a spending problem is to deny reality.

Pelosi also brought up how it is that she perceives Barry's treatment of the opposition. She actually said that he has "tried so hard to listen, to accommodate, to be respectful of" the Republicans in Congress. I guess what she bases her idiotic perception on is the tact that Barry invites 12 RINOs to dinner on Wednesday night and met with House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan over lunch on Thursday in was what described as an attempt to reach out to Republicans on Capitol Hill. So, will our guys prove that they can be bought for the price of a meal? I'd like to think not, but with this crowd one never really knows for sure.

So it was then that during her weekly press conference Pelosi was asked if the reason Congress and the White House have failed to reach a "grand bargain" was due to Barry’s "not reaching out" to rank-and-file Republicans. To which she responded, "This president has been so respectful, given so much time to the Republicans and their views to the point that at one time in one of our meetings I said to the president, ‘Mr. President, I’m busy, and I don’t have any more time for this,’" Pelosi said. "‘You have to be the busiest person in the world. If and when they come up with a new idea why don’t we just call you back into the room?’" Pa-lease...

Pelosi went on, making absolutely no sense, but did her absolute best to portray Barry as doing all he could to work with those stubborn Republicans. She said, "Because he has tried so hard to listen, to accommodate, to be respectful of their points of view." And she continued, "No, I do not think this is why we didn’t reach a grand bargain." Then taking aim on the Republicans, she added, "I think we didn’t reach a grand bargain because the Speaker of the House [John Boehner] walked away from an agreement that he and the president had arrived at probably because he couldn’t see it to his own caucus," Pelosi said. "And I don’t care what anybody else says about that.

Putting all of these silly little meal events aside, and contrary to all of this rosy bullsh!t from Pelosi about how Barry's being so "respectful" of the opposition, he's really done nothing more than to hold several campaign-style rallies insisting that dealing with the sequester include raising taxes on the wealthy despite securing a rate increase on Americans earning $400,000 or more earlier this year. He held one face-to-face meeting with congressional leaders on the sequester, which lasted for seven minutes on the day it took effect. Barry has continued to spew his typical incendiary rhetoric accusing Republicans of just about everything.

Barry likes to claim that the GOP is choosing to protect the wealthy over "our kids’ schools." Barry said, "Are Republicans in Congress really willing to let these cuts fall on our kids’ schools and mental health care just to protect tax loopholes for corporate jet owners?" This is an example of our trash-talking president before the cuts took effect. And there was more of this garbage when he said, "Are they really willing to slash military health care and the border patrol just because they refuse to eliminate tax breaks for big oil companies?" Is this what Nancy means when she said that Barry "tried so hard to listen, to accommodate, to be respectful of" the Republicans?

LEFTISTS TROOP OFF TO BID A FINAL FAREWELL TO CHAVEZ...

Amongst those who be being heading south to Venezuela to bid a final farewell to dictator Hugo Chavez, there will also be a group of some very sad American leftists. One member of that little delegation will be none other that one of America's foremost faux preachers, Jesse 'The Extortionist' Jackson. Not sure if he's be taking his son, disgraced former Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. along, but Sr. confirmed his attendance via Twitter. He reportedly arrived Thursday night in Venezuela and will lead a delegation organized by his little scam organization referred to as the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition. I'm sure old Hugo will be looking up from Hell and waving.

Jackson told Fox News he knew the Venezuelan president "in a direct and personal way" and says he is "deeply saddened by his passing." Chavez presented Jackson with the Liberator's Award in 2005. On Friday morning, Jackson took to Facebook and posted the following: "I extend my deepest condolences to his family and along with people around the globe, am deeply saddened by his passing. During this sad and difficult moment in the lives of all those affected by this unfortunate news, we most always remember that God is our refuge and strength. I join the people of Venezuela, especially the family and friends of President Chavez, in mourning this global leader."

We can use this little gathering as a way of gauging the number of despots, dictators and tyrants that we actually have in this world because, really, who else would attend such an event the sole purpose of which is to honor a character as vile as Chavez? It has been reported that there will be more than 30 heads of various governments who are currently scheduled to attend the funeral, all, I'm quite sure, socialist or communist in their style of governance. Of course there will also be among those in attendance at least one member of Congress, U.S. Rep. Gregory Meeks from New York, a Democrat of course, and former Rep. William Delahunt from Massachusetts.

Personally I was quite surprised to hear that Barry wasn't planning on attending. I thought for sure that he'd be wanting to take advantage of an opportunity that would have allowed him hobnob with some of his fellow socialists, maybe even compare stories. I mean, he's not running for reelection again, so what's he got to lose? He might even have picked up a few pointers. And he could have taken the opportunity to brag a bit about the fact that he's now able to send drones across America to pick off potential 'terrorists' even if they happen to be U.S. citizens. But, I guess, he thought he would just mourn in private. After all, I'm sure he feels like he's lost a kindred spirit, of sorts.

IT'S LEGAL TO HUNT HUMANS? WHO KNEW?

If it were, as the brilliant senator from California claims, legal to hunt humans, her head would have been on someones wall a long time ago.  Lucky for her it's not.

OBAMA SETS YET ANOTHER NEW RECORD...

 

 

 

Ya know, the records just keep stacking up for Barry "Almighty." The latest of which was achieved just this past February when the number of Americans designated as "not in the labor force" hit yet another all time record, having reached 89,304,000. That number is up from 89,008,000 in January, and it's according to the Department of Labor. This means that the number of Americans not in the labor force increased 296,000 between January and February.

 

 

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) labels people who are unemployed and no longer looking for work as "not in the labor force," including people who have retired on schedule, taken early retirement, or, as is usually the under Barry, simply given up looking for work. The increase marks the second month in a row, after rising in January from 88.8 Million in December. Those not in the labor force had declined in December from 88.9 Million in November.

We're told that the nation's unemployment rate decreased to 7.7 percent in February, which is being reported as down from 7.9 percent in January. But I think most of us are able to recognize these numbers are nothing more than pure fiction. Overall unemployment "has shown little movement, on net, since September 2012," the Labor Department said. Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 236,000 in February, at least according to this report.

 

 

But to put things into a little better perspective here, when Barry first took office the number was at 80.5 Million people. So what we now have is nearly 10 Million fewer people in the work force than we had when Barry first diddy-bopped his cool self into the Oval Office just a little over 4 years ago. That’s absolute mindboggling! So it seems more than a little ludicrous to go around claiming that our unemployment rate is anywhere near what the administration claims that it is!



DRONES…IT ALL COMES DOWN TO THE QUESTION OF TRUST...

I'm only speaking for myself here, when I say that the man we now have as our president is not someone who should be trusted to have at his fingertips the ability to direct that a drone be used on ‘anyone’ currently on U.S. soil. Not nobody, not no how! He has demonstrated more times than I care to count that he is quite adept at lying, and willing to do so repeatedly, and about absolutely anything. So when a day after Sen. Rand Paul’s 13-hour filibuster, we hear from White House Spokesmoron Jay Carney assert, "The president has not and would not use drone strikes against American citizens on American soil," it means nothing. And his adding, "whether the lethal force in question is a drone strike or a gun shot, the law and the Constitution apply in the same way," did nothing to convince me. Because of Barry's obviously contempt for our Constitution.

A reporter asked Carney, "Does the president have an opinion on whether or not he has the constitutional authority to use drones against American citizens on U.S. soil, and under which circumstances?" To which our favorite Spokesmoron sarcastically responded, "I’m going to read directly from the attorney general’s letter today." Carney went on to say, "He has sent a letter responding to this question. It was transmitted to Sen. Paul within the last half hour or so. From the letter: ‘Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil? The answer is no.’ That is a letter that is signed by the attorney general sent to Sen. Paul and his office." Sorry, there Jay, but I don't trust Eric "I'm A Racist" Holder any more than I trust Barry. To do that is simply insane!

Drone strikes have struck terrorists abroad, including a U.S.-born terrorist fighting for the Taliban. And in what I'm not sure was an effort to convince himself or others, Carney stated that Barry is limited by the Constitution, and that regardless of new technology, it does not change what he can do under the law. "The president has not and would not use drone strikes against American citizens on American soil," Carney said. "On the broader question, the legal authority that exists to use lethal force are bound and constrained by the laws and the Constitution. The issue here isn’t the technology. The method doesn’t change the law." Who's he trying to kid? Barry doesn't see himself as being limited by anything, least of all our Constitution! This rabid egomaniac sees himself as being far above the petty laws that he sees as being only meant for the little people.

But Carney continued with his silly charade saying, "The president swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and is bound by the law, whether the lethal force in question is a drone strike or a gun shot, the law and the Constitution apply in the same way." Ok, so let me see it I have this right. Carney expects us to trust Barry for no other reason than because he swore an oath to uphold the Constitution? Would that be the same Constitution that he has been working to shred ever since becoming president? Barry has made it abundantly clear that he does not see himself being bound by any laws. Carney added, "That’s why I think there has been a great deal of confusion about the technology here. Technology is irrelevant to what the law and the Constitution say, and the president is bound by the Constitution, bound by the laws and is sworn to uphold them"

Look the bottom line here is that I simply don't trust our lying turd of a president any farther than I could ever hope to throw him. And, quite frankly, there is nothing that Spokesmoron Carey, or anyone else for that matter, could ever say that would convince me to do so. Because if there ever was a guy who should not have anywhere near this kind of authority, it's our current Lying-Thug-in-Chief, Barack Hussein Obama. And I do not trust anybody who has any connection, no matter how remote, with Barry "Almighty." He's a liar who has surrounded himself with other skillful liars. Nothing that he, nor any of surrogates, says can be trusted. They are able to look you dead in the eye, and lie. They have no conscience and they have no soul. It's just that simple. So we're just supposed to cheerfully hand to Barry, with our blessing, the ability to use these drone on Americans? Is that not just ABSOLUTELY nuts?

AWKWARD...

WHEN RINO'S ATTACK...

I'm sure most everyone is at least somewhat familiar with Sen.Rand Paul's recent old fashioned 13-hour filibuster. But apparently Sen. Rand Paul’s lesson in filibuster wasn’t all that well received by some of his Senate colleagues. Almost exactly 24 hours after Mr. Paul began his information-seeking filibuster against John O. Brennan, everybody's two favorite RINOs, John McCain and Lindsey Graham, took to the Senate floor to denounce his demands and say he was doing a "disservice" to the debate on drones. Sorry, but when it comes to doing any kind of a disservice, these guys are the champs.

"The country needs more senators who care about liberty, but if Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids in their college dorms. He needs to know what he’s talking about," said McCain, our loser of a presidential nominee from back in 2008. Oddly enough McCain apparently views himself as being one of those who care about liberty. But the sad fact of the matter is all that the only thing McCain really cares about is, McCain. He's done more to damage liberty than just about anyone else on our side of the aisle.

Strangely though, it was the Democrats who praised Mr. Paul for his using Senate rules properly in launching his filibuster, while McCain actually described it as being nothing more than an abuse of rules that could actually hurt the GOP in the long run. "What we saw yesterday is going to give ammunition to those who say the rules of the Senate are being abused," was how McCain chose to frame things. He described Sen. Paul's efforts as being at best absurd, and at worst simply, "not helpful." Imagine that, McCain accusing someone of being "not helpful." Now is that ironic, or what?

Mr. Paul said he was filibustering in order to get some form of statement from our current administration to affirm that it won’t kill non-combatant Americans in the U.S. — and his effort was joined by more than a dozen other senators who said they, too, supported his effort to get answers. And in providing us all an indication that he must be nearly as naive as he is stupid, Graham actually said asking whether the president has the power to kill Americans here at home is a ludicrous question. "I do not believe that question deserves an answer," Mr. Graham said. It most certainly does, especially by THIS president!

McCain, proud member of any number of various "gangs" that have occasionally sprung up and that are usually specifically designed to undermine his own party, also said "I don’t think that what happened yesterday is helpful to the American people." He made his idiotic comments after reading aloud a Wall Street Journal editorial that characterized Sen. Paul’s concerns as "ridiculous." "To allege that … our government would drop a drone hellfire missile on Jane Fonda," he continued, "that brings the conversation from a serious discussion about U.S. policy to the realm of the ridiculous." Right, ridiculous!

You know, I sure am glad that McCain possesses such a high level of trust when it comes to things that he thinks Barry "Almighty" will or won't do. But let's face it, Barry is, without a doubt, the most corrupt president in U.S. history. And, personally, there is not one thing that I would put past our current chief executive, and that includes using drones to kill innocent American citizens. And the fact that McCain claims that to think such a thing could actually happen, is ridiculous, doesn't do anything allay any of my fears that such a thing COULD happen. Look who we're talking about here!

Graham agreed with McCain, saying, "This idea that we’re going to use a drone to attack a citizen in a cafe in America is ridiculous." Later, while speaking on the Senate floor, Graham continued his criticism of Sen. Paul. "I don’t remember any of my GOP colleagues coming here to say Bush would kill Americans with a drone," said Graham. "The chance of you being killed by a drone because you went to a Tea Party rally … is zero." So now this dope is comparing Barry to Bush? Actually, if I remember correctly, there were, and mat still be, those in Congress who claim that Bush was behind 9/11.

Speaking to reporters, Mr. Graham said he defends Mr. Paul’s right to ask questions and seek answers, but said the filibuster has actually pushed him to now support Mr. Brennan. Mr. Graham said he had been inclined to oppose the nomination because he’d found Brennan to be qualified for the job but also "arrogant, kind of a bit shifty." He said he wasn’t going to filibuster him but would have voted against him on final passage, but now he’ll vote for him. "I am going to vote for Brennan now because it’s become a referendum on the drone program," he said. Typical Graham logic!

Graham, a South Carolina Republican, is up for re-election next year and hopefully will face a primary challenge in the deeply conservative state. He also took the time to fire back against anyone who would question his decision to meet with Barry "Almighty," saying, "If I can’t go have dinner with the president of the United States to talk about the problems that face our nation, I shouldn’t be running." He added, "If you want to elect me and for me to promise you I’ll never talk to any Democrats or to the president about solving our problems, you’re voting for the wrong guy."

Look, there's no question that he's the wrong guy. His preferring to hobnob with Barry at a swanky, high-dollar restaurant instead of remaining in the trenches with Sen. Paul, makes that painfully obvious. Both McCain and Graham are pretty piss-poor excuses for conservatives, but of course the only time they ever refer to themselves as such is around election time. Because conservative they are NOT. Because if they were truly concerned about where this country is now headed, the very last place either of them would have been is at the same table as Barry. Where they would have been, and should have been, is standing shoulder to shoulder with Sen. Paul.

AGAIN BOEHNER AND CO. STAB US IN THE BACK...

So, we have now had the he Republican-controlled House of Representatives vote 267-151 this past Wednesday to approve a $982-Billion continuing resolution (CR) that besides funding the federal government through the rest of fiscal 2013, will also fully fund the implementation of Obamacare during that same period. So in what has become a rather disturbing trend we, the American people, once again, essentially, get stabbed in the back. Boehner, who I've never really trusted, is now, most definitely, no longer of any use to those of us trying to save our country. Cantor, who I at one time thought was maybe someone who could be counted on, has repeatedly demonstrated that he he is most definitely not on the right side of the important issues. And I've seen nothing from Kevin McCarthy that would instill and amount of confidence in him either.

And so it was then that these leaders of ours in the House, yet again, turned aside any and all requests from groups of conservative members to include language in the bill that would have withheld funding for implementation of all of Obamacare, or, alternatively, that would have withheld funding for the Obamacare regulation that requires health-plans to provide cost-free coverage for sterilizations, contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs. On Tuesday, the Republican-controlled Rules Committee rejected a request by Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R.-Okla.) to allow the full House to simply vote on an amendment to the CR sponsored by Bridenstine, Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R.-Kans.) and Rep. Ron DeSantis (R.-Fla.) that would have stripped funding from implementation of Obamacare. But it was all to no avail. The 'leadership' had already made up its mind.

You see, last week, Bridenstine and Huelskamp sent a letter to Speaker John Boehner and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor asking them to include such language in the CR, and yet the CR produced by the our less than stellar leadership did not include that proposed language. So Bridenstine then asked the Rules Committee on Wednesday--when it approved the rule that would govern House floor proceeding on the CR--to allow a vote on his amendment. The Rules Committee, however, simply rejected Bridenstine's request and refused to allow the rank and file members of the House to even vote on the proposition of defunding Obamacare. So it would seem that Boehner and Company appear to now be more inclined to do what they see as being in their own best interest rather than what's in the best interest of the American people

Because in a similar situation we had14 Republican House members, led by Rep. Diane Black (R.-Tenn.) and Rep. John Fleming (R.-La.), write Boehner and Cantor last week asking them to include language in the CR that would reverse the sterilization-contraception-abortifacient regulation in order to protect the free exercise of religion, which is guaranteed by the First Amendment. The Republican leaders chose not to include any language in their CR that would reverse this regulation--even though Boehner himself had declared in a House floor speech on Feb. 8, 2012 that the regulation was a violation of the constitutional right to freedom of religion and that Congress would not let it stand. Boehner's getting to be as skilled a lair as is Barry, I guess. It would appear that we have no one on our side who is actually willing to lead. So we're left with Boehner.

The Roman Catholic bishops of the United States have unanimously declared that the sterilization-contraception-abortifacient regulation--whose enforcement will now be carried out with funds approved by the Republican-controlled House--is an "unjust and illegal mandate" that violates the "personal civil rights" of individual Americans. Also this CR does not restrict funding for Planned Parenthood. Of the 151 members of the House who voted against this CR, only 14 were Republicans. They included: Justin Amash (Mich.), Jim Bridenstine (Okla.), Broun (Ga.), Ron DeSantis (Fla.), Scott DesJarlais (Tenn.), John J. Duncan Jr. (Tenn.), Phil Gingrey (Ga.), Louie Gohmert (Tex.), Jack Kingston (Ga.), Tom McClintock (Calif.). Thomas Massie (Ky.), Bill Posey (Fla.), Matt Salmon (Ariz.), and Steve Stockman (Tex.).

And also, I guess when Republicans vowed back in 2010, as part of their "A Pledge to America," to post bills online for at least 72 hours before bringing them up for a vote, they didn't really mean it. Because our back-stabbing Republican leaders in the House brought this CR up for a vote a little less than 48 hours after posting it. So to say that the time has now come for the removal of all three of these pathetic phonies has come, I think, would be an understatement. They are doing the country no good in their present positions and therefore need to be replaced with those who are genuinely concerned about the survival of our Republic. We will never be in a position of averting what Barry has in store for us as long as we have "The Three Stooges" at the helm in the House. Either they're with us or they're against us, and if they're against us they must be replaced.

ODDLY ENOUGH, MANY WILL ACTUALLY MISS OLD HUGO...

I suppose that it should come as no surprise that when the news of Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez’ recent demise reached the outside world this past Tuesday, it prompted a wave of remorse from leftists all across the globe. All manner of useful idiot from international socialists, to Hollywood icons, and even to those in the U.S. state-controlled media joined with certain world leaders in saying their good-byes to Hugo. And our friends in the Islamic Republic of Iran even went so far as to declare a national day of mourning for the passing of a despot whose name, in the words of the country’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, "is a reminder of cleanliness and kindness, bravery…dedication and tireless efforts to serve the people, especially the poor and those scarred by colonialism and imperialism." Oh, yeah!

Another member of the not so unique despotic clique of which Chavez was a prominent member, a top leader of the Fatah movement in Palestine, which has received Billions of dollars from the United States in foreign assistance, said of Chavez, "Palestine says goodbye to a loyal friend who passionately defended our right to freedom and self determination…His contribution to the cause of dignity had no borders and reached the hearts and minds of the Arab world." Chavez is well-remembered for calling former President George W. Bush the devil during a United Nations speech back in 2006. I think we can say that Bush got the last laugh in this particular instance, because not even that wonderful Cuba healthcare system, touted by Michael Moore as being an example for America to emulate, could manage to save old Hugo.

And, of course, not to be outdone, we had all manner of Hollywood loom vying to see who come up with the most heartfelt eulogy for the murdering thug. Sean Penn said in a statement: "…the people of the United States lost a friend it never knew it had. And poor people around the world lost a champion. I lost a friend I was blessed to have. My thoughts are with the family of President Chavez and the people of Venezuela." Oliver Stone threw in his two cents by saying,, "I mourn a great hero to the majority of his people and those who struggle throughout the world for a place…Hated by the entrenched classes, Hugo Chavez will live forever in history. My friend, rest finally in a peace long earned." Other like Roseanne Barr and rapper M.I.A. tweeted something along the lines of "R.I.P." Ah yes, the asylum that is Hollywood!

While Barry "Almighty’s" ‘official’ response stopped just short of praising the dictator/thug, I’m sure that Barry will miss his friend Chavez, the one foreign leader that, I'm sure, Barry wishes he could better emulate. But one New York Democrat, Jose Serrano, did heap a significant amount of praise on Chavez, actually referring to him as someone who was "committed to empowering the powerless." Noting that he did not always agree with his "methods," former President Jimmy ‘The Douche Bag’ Carter added in the same vein: "President Chávez will be remembered for his bold assertion of autonomy and independence…We hope that as Venezuelans mourn the passing of President Chávez and recall his positive legacies — especially the gains made for the poor and vulnerable — the political leaders will move the country forward…"

Last but not least, not wanting to be left out of this silly eulogy contest, numerous condolences were sent out from participating members of our state-controlled media. From The Associated Press we had a rather fawning obit that began by saying, "President Hugo Chavez was a fighter." Then, Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post sounded off, calling Chavez, "quick," "popular," and funny. Larry King, of CNN fame, described Chavez as being "effusive," "huggable," and "larger than life." The Atlantic wrote, presumably while weeping openly, "Passionate and charismatic, Chávez slipped comfortably into the role of romantic Latin American revolutionary, championing the poor against an unfeeling local oligarchy and its imperial paymasters. Today millions of Venezuelans will weep tears of genuine anguish at his passing." And many, I would guess, are quietly celebrating.

Foreign Policy magazine actually ran an op-ed in which it referred to Chavez as, "another heroic martyr in the vein of Guevara or Chile’s Salvador Allende," stating that Chavez might even reach "Bolivarian proportions." Ordinarily this might have been a rather odd choice of characters to describe as being in any way heroic, but for this specific publication, I suppose, it's to be expected. Then over on Bloomberg TV the obituary for Hugo sounded as if it might have been written by Chavez’s press agent: "He rode a wave of revolution into power, and over 14 years would transform his country’s place on the world stage …. It was oil revenues that allowed Chavez to pour money into food and education programs in Venezuela." Ah yes, Hugo was a humanitarian right up to the bitter end, loved even by those that he put into prison. Sure!

So there you have it. Leftists everywhere have lost someone who they viewed as being one of their heroes, and one they insist upon portraying as being a true man of the people. However, reality paints a much different, even a much more sinister, picture of the man, Hugo Chavez. He did nothing more than the Devil's bidding while here on this Earth, and cheerfully so. And because of that he deserves nothing more than to spend an eternity tending to the fires of Hell. And he deserved to die a manner that, I hope, brought as much pain to him as he took pleasure in inflicting upon others while he was alive. I always find it rather difficult to understand how it is that anyone who has been blessed to live in freedom can actually bring themselves to idolize a dictator who could, so easily, deny freedom to citizens of his own country.

TAKING THAT ALL IMPORTANT FIRST STEP...

AT WHAT POINT DOES LIBERAL IGNORANCE BECOME DANGEROUS???

Appearing on Fox News last night, we had someone who, while described as being a Democrat Strategist, was either remarkably naïve or, quite simply, demented. Obviously someone who was released from her padded cell a little early, Zerlina Maxwell actually tried to argue that preventing rape is really as simple as "telling men not to rape women." The focus of her argument, and the basis for her insane remarks, was that women should not be able to use guns as a means of self-defense. And in so doing she seemed to be willing to take her ignorance into uncharted territory. I simply don't understand these liberal women who seem to be perfectly content with allowing themselves to be used for nothing more than to further a political agenda.

Host Sean Hannity began by slamming the "ignorant politicians" in Colorado for trying to remove a woman’s right to use a firearm to defend herself against an attacker via recent gun control legislation. "I don’t think that we should be telling women anything," Maxwell said. "I think we should be telling men not to rape women and start the conversation there." To which Hannity said, "Criminals are not going to listen to that." But not to be deterred, Maxwell replied, "You are talking about it as if there is some faceless, nameless criminal, when a lot of times it is someone that you know and trust." Is that not some of the most ridiculous logic you've ever heard in your life? It makes no sense.

Hannity pointed out that "evil exists in the world" and women need to know that these situations unfortunately occur. "We can prevent rape by telling men not to commit it," Maxwell said, again repeating the same bizarre claim. Instead, Maxwell, who oddly enough is a rape survivor herself, said she wants women to "not be in this situation." She added that if you "train" men not to be rapists, we can prevent rape. And then she made the same idiotic comment that I've heard so many times I want to scream. She actually said, "If firearms were the answer, then the military would be the safest place for women and it’s not." Any doubts about just how stupid she might be, were wiped out by her making that statement.

I have a daughter and if she were to want to carry a gun I'd go out and buy it for her. And I'd teach her how to use it against anyone who would wish to do her harm. And frankly to hear such utter nonsense coming from a black woman, seems to me, to be all the more crazy. Personally if my daughter were ever to find herself in the position of being raped by some black dude I have no trouble whatsoever with her shooting the guy's balls off. And I'd expect her to do just that! I guess Ms. Maxwell would rather become nothing more than just another statistic. Women need an equalizer to use against those who choose to prey on them. And a Glock 9mm neatly tucked away in the purse fills that need quite nicely.

Remember all of that talk during the last presidential campaign about how it was that the Republicans had declared war on women? And how many women, do you suppose, fell for that nonsense and how many just might end up losing their right to defend themselves because of their gullibility and who they chose to vote for? These women actually voted for those who have not only declared war on women, but who also seem to view women as being nothing more than necessary collateral damage needed if they are to finally be able to erase the Second Amendment once and for all. And mind-numbed little robots like this bimbo, Maxwell, appear to be only too happy to do their part in the Democrat's ongoing propaganda campaign.

THE "SEQUESTER" PLOT THICKENS...

In what was nothing if not a crystal clear of example of just how Barry "Almighty" views this 'sequester' idea of his, there was a recently issued, and rather stern, denial of an appeal for flexibility in lessening the sequester’s effects. A response to an email this week appeared to direct officials in Washington, that because it already had promised that cuts would be devastating, to follow through on those threats. No leeway will be permitted nor tolerated. In an email sent Monday by Charles Brown, an official with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), yes I guess we have one of those, office in Raleigh, N.C., Mr. Brown asked "if there was any latitude" in how to spread the sequester cuts across the region to lessen the impacts on fish inspections. Needless to say, the response was rather terse to say the least.

The response was short, to the point, and rather heavy-handed to say the least, which prompted Mr. Brown to say that he was discouraged by officials in Washington, who gave him this reply: "We have gone on record with a notification to Congress and whoever else that ‘APHIS would eliminate assistance to producers in 24 states in managing wildlife damage to the aquaculture industry, unless they provide funding to cover the costs.’ So it is our opinion that however you manage that reduction, you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be." So it would appear to be fairly obvious that all of those who have said, repeatedly, that this is not about partisan politics have pretty much been lying. And that lying, it would seem, goes all the way to the top. The very top, to our Liar-in Chief, Barack Hussein Obama!

To which Rep. Tim Griffin, a Republican from Arkansas responded to this little email by saying, "This email confirms what many Americans have suspected: The Obama administration is doing everything they can to make sure their worst predictions come true and to maximize the pain of the Sequester cuts for political gain." Mr. Brown the official who sent the email and who is the eastern regional director for wildlife services at APHIS, didn’t immediately return a call Tuesday afternoon seeking comment. He's probably been told to shut the Hell up! Anyway APHIS is an agency within the Agriculture Department, and on Tuesday department Secretary Tom Vilsack was challenged on the email at a House committee hearing by Rep. Kristi Noem, who said she hoped the department wouldn’t tie agencies’ hands.

And as is usually the case whenever dealing with anyone from this most corrupt of administrations, Mr. Vilsack, mostly likely lying through his teeth, said he hadn’t seen the email, he did go one to say that agencies are supposed to be trying to find ways to manage the impact of the cuts. "If we have flexibility, we’re going to try to use it to make sure we use sequester in the most equitable and least disruptive way," the secretary testified. "There are some circumstances, and we’ve talked a lot about the meat inspection, where we do not have that flexibility because there are so few accounts. The administration earlier had warned that supplies of beef, pork and poultry could drop this year because slaughterhouse inspectors will have to be furloughed, and under federal law meat can’t be processed without inspectors present.

As everybody should know, after all we've heard about it enough, $44 Billion in sequesters began last Friday and if you'll notice the word did not come to an end as foretold by Barry "Almighty." But even amid the cuts, that repeatedly descibed as being so dire, it that this silly APHIS agency is still hiring new employees as well as interns. Since Sunday the agency has posted 24 help-wanted ads including 22 student internships, one ad seeking a clerk in a New York office, and one ad was seeking, you're not gonna believe this, three "insect production workers" to grow bollworms in Phoenix. And Barry expected us to believe that there isn't $44 Billion that can be cut without civilization, as we know it, coming to and end. What a lying piece of sh!t this guy is. Are we just too stupid to see what's going on here?

FOR $500K, YOU TOO CAN HAVE A MEETING WITH OBAMA...

REMEMBER WHEN...

WHAT'S HAPPENING TO AMERICA?

What is it that's happened to America? That a guy like Henry Waxman, winner of every Phantom of the Opera lookalike contest he’s ever entered, can be the top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and from his lofty position say something as insanely stupid as America does not need "dirty oil." Why is he not being dragged home by his constituents and taken out behind the woodshed for a good ass whoppin, politically speaking of course. This clown, in talking about the Keyston XL pipeline, said we just don't need the oil that would be imported through the pipeline from Canada, that same pipeline, by the way, which finally received long-awaited favorable environmental review from the U.S. government.

Speaking as the true 'climate change' zealot that he is, he said, "We don’t need this dirty oil. To stop climate change and the destructive storms, droughts, floods, and wildfires that we are already experiencing, we should be investing in clean energy, not building a pipeline that will speed the exploitation of Canada’s highly polluting tar sands." Waxman was none too pleased with the recent analysis of the project by the government. In its draft environmental review released Friday, the State Department said the construction of the pipeline through much of the Midwest would not have a meaningful impact on climate change. Gee, ya think? How exactly could it have an imapct on something that doesn't even exist in the first place?

In other words, State concluded that building the Keystone XL pipeline would not have any real effect on global warming because even if the U.S. blocked the importation of Canadian oil, that oil would find buyers elsewhere. It also found that even if the pipeline is blocked, the oil would find a different route to Gulf Coast refineries as global oil market conditions changed. The report comes after years of governmental delays for the project, proposed by the Canadian firm TransCanada and rejected by Barry "Almighty" back in 2011. The company reapplied for a State Department permit in 2012. A federal permit is required because the project crosses state and international boundaries.

The bottom line here is that the more we, the American people, demonstrate a willingness to tolerate such intolerable behavior as that most recently demonstrated by Waxman, the more we can expect our political leaders to perceive us all as being simply too stupid to see what's really going on. For whatever reason we seem to have forgotten who it is that's in charge here. And it most certainly IS Not clowns like Waxman. And yet we continue to find ourselves on the receiving end of some of the most idiotic policies imaginable. Things that simply don't make sense unless you look at them from the perspective of those who share in Waxman's vision. There is now a serious effort underway to destroy our country, and yet people just don't seem to care.

JAMES CARVILLE…WE AIN'T GOT NO SPENDIN PROBLEM...

So, you may ask, just how much of a nutty ideologue is James Carville? Well, far from mellowing in his old age, apparently, if his recent comments are any indication, Jimmy remains a pretty damn nutty one. And, as is no surpise, he's another one of those loony progressives who seem to think that we can simply go on spending like there’s no tomorrow. The Democrat campaign consultant and one-time advisor to ‘Slick Willie’ Clinton, went so far as to actually ask on Friday, in referencing the Republicans in Congress, "Why do they want to cut anything? The debt is going down." Earth to James, Earth to James, come in, James. The debt is going down? What numbers is he looking at? I mean it sounds to me like maybe old Jimmy he's been spending a bit too much time hanging out with his buiddy, and fellow loon, Paul Krugman. Because Krugman spews the same drivel.

Putting on quite the demonstration of the malignant form insanity that has so compleely permiated those on the left, to ask such a ridiulous question pretty much at the same time our national debt is ontrack to reach $17 Trillion, was a little odd. An amount which, by the way, reflects an increase of more than $6 Trillion just since Barry "Almighty" took office in 2009. So it just seemed to be a rather bizarre comment to make, even for a screwball liberal like Carville. During an interview by Sean Hannity on Fox News, Carville spoke as if he were living in some weird alternate universe, as he said there’s no need to cut spending. No need to cut spending? Really? Spoken like a true Democrat. Why it is, exactly, that he think we were forced to suffer the embarrassment of our credit rating being downgraded for the very first time in our history? SPENDING! We have a spending problem, and if it is not addressed, we're toast.

Obviously one of those who holds the opinion that all we need to do is to keep printing more and more money, this moron asked, "Why do they want to cut anything?" He then went on to make the insane statement, "The debt is going down. We can't have a long run problem. The health care cost numbers are looking good. Right now, we have to keep to the extent to have a recovery and keep it going. The best private forecasts, macroeconomic advisors, says it's going to take a half percent off of GDP. We don't half a percent to give right now, Sean." Ok, and why is it that we don’t have it right now? Might that be because of Barry’s reckless spending the likes of which we’ve never seen before? Sean should have asked him to name one policy, just one, that Barry has aggressively worked to put into place that had even the slightest purpose of stimulating the economy or encouraging job growth.

Proving once again that he’s obviously been out in the sun too long with that bald head of his, Carville actually claims that the economy is recovering and actually denies that even with our $16 Trillion debt, everything is just hunky-doory and we’re not robbing from our kids to pay for anything. He does nothing more than to spew the party line and sounds like a broken record as he repeats ad nauseam how all of the numbers are looking so good, right now. Even if he was right about the numbers, which he most assuredly is not, to assume that we can go on spending at current levels is nothing short of pure madness. And regardless of what this buffoon may say, the future of our children is truly at stake here. Guys like this senile clown like to refer to supply-side economic as "voodoo economics." Obamanomics is the equivalent of fairytale economics. Only there ain't no happy ending.

TAX REVENUES HIT NEW HIGH, AND STILL OBAMA SAYS SOME ARE NOT PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE...

Ok, so the news is now on the street that federal revenue will return to its pre-recession levels in 2013, according to projections from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), and actually set a record for the most money that our bloated government has ever managed to take in. And when you stop and consider the fact that nearly half of our citizens no longer pay any income tax, the amount mentioned appears to be all the more…impressive? In its latest Budget and Economic Update, the CBO forecasts that federal revenue will top $2.7 Trillion in 2013, slightly higher than the $2.6 Trillion the government collected in 2007, when the last recession 'officially' began. And while government revenues had fallen by nearly $500 Billion during the recession to $2.1 Trillion in 2009, they have been steadily growing since June 2009, with the CBO now projecting that they will slightly eclipse their pre-recession peak.

In fact, the $2.7 Trillion in revenue will be the most money the federal government has ever collected in history. So, at a time when our government will be taking in what is described as being a record amount of money, why is it that we need more? According to those who keep track of such things, the government has never collected more than the $2.6 Trillion it collected in 2007, meaning that if CBO’s projection is correct, it will set a new record for revenue collection in 2013. So at a time when we're collecting more in taxes than has ever been collected before, how is it that we have Barry, and the Democrats, demanding that we need to collect even more? Barry continues to say that we need a balanced approach to deficit reduction, one that must include more federal revenue in the form of "tax reform." But in light of these numbers, his claim seems to ring a little hollow. It would seem to me that now would be the time to cut spending.

"Now, I think this balanced mix of spending cuts and tax reform is the best way to finish the job of deficit reduction," Barry said in a speech as recently as February 5. Republicans on the other hand quickly counter that additional tax revenue is not necessary, citing the tax increases on wealthier Americans they agreed to as part of the January deal to make permanent most of the Bush tax cuts. Instead, they argue, the focus should now turn to making sizable, and real, cuts to our ballooning federal spending rather than raising further tax revenues. "Democrats say we should replace the president’s ‘sequester’ with revenue increases, or delay it. Republicans say we should replace [it] with responsible reforms that will help put us on a path to balance the budget in 10 years," House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said at a news conference on Wednesday. Not often I find myself agreeing with Boehner, but I do here.

So the bottom line here is that at a time when the government coffers should be literally busting out at the seams, they are, instead, quite empty, with everything having been spent and then some. And still the Democrats, led by our 'Dear Beloved Leader,' say the rich simply are not paying their "fair share!" Oh really? Then I'm curious to know exactly what their fair share might be. The hypocrisy that we now see on display here and coming from both Barry and the congressional Democrats, should convince many that not only is their argument false, their stewardship of the people's money has been nothing short of abysmal. But I suppose that matters very little to those who don't pay taxes, which is what Barry and the Democrats are, most likely, banking on as they continue to demand that the evil rich be made to pay even more. Every time I think about how prosperous this nation could be were it not for Barry, I just get so pissed!

ARE STRICTER GUN LAWS A RETURN TO THE DAYS OF JIM CROW?

Well, both are the handiwork of the same political party, the Democrats.

OK, SO WHO’S PAYING THEIR "FAIR SHARE" AND WHO’S NOT?

 

 

I don't think there is anything that proves the point any better that we're now being forced to deal with a president who is nothing short of a devout socialist, and a fanatic when it comes to the redistribution of wealth, than his view on taxes and who it is that should be paying them. He's pretty much admitted, on any number of occasions, that he cares very little about the impact raising taxes may ultimately have on the economy. Because what it's actually about, as Barry has been so fond of saying, is creating the perception of fairness. But there is really nothing fair about the way that Barry insists upon robbing from those who work so that he can then turn right around give to those who refuse to work.

 

 

And, quite honestly, I've heard all of this "fair share" crap from Barry until I just want to puke! And he always seems to focus in on those us who pay more than our fair share, implying that what we pay is, somehow, simply not enough. And at the same time he seems to think it's perfectly fair, and quite acceptable, that nearly half of the people in this country are able to get away with paying absolutely nothing. And it's also these folks who, while they are permitted to pay nothing in income tax, continue to be on the receiving end of some pretty impressive 'refunds.' Personally I think the time has come to abolish that little thing referred to as the 'Earned Income Tax Credit.' It’s definitely outlived its purpose.

 

 

So looking forward to the coming year, just how is it that households at different income levels will pay their "fair share" of federal income, payroll, corporate and estate taxes? Like I said, despite Democrat claims that those at the top aren’t paying their "fair share," the Tax Policy Center reports that the often-maligned "1%" will have an average income of $1.4 million, and pay $514,144 in taxes. By themselves they will be footing over 30 percent of the total bill. Not fair enough for Barry? Meanwhile the top 20 percent of Americans will pay nearly 72 percent of the federal tax burden. And this too is not considered by Barry as being sufficient enough to be considered as being their fair share.

Here’s how the Associated Press breaks it down…

—

Bottom 20 percentAverage income: $10,552.

Average tax bill: -$284.

Average tax rate: -2.7 percent.

Share of federal tax burden: -0.4 percent.

–

Middle 20 percentAverage income: $46,562.

Average tax bill: $6,436.

Average tax rate: 13.8 percent.

Share of federal tax burden: 8.6 percent.

—

Top 20 percentAverage income: $204,490.

Average tax bill: $55,533.

Average tax rate: 27.2 percent.

Share of federal tax burden: 71.8 percent.

—

Top 1 percentAverage income: $1.4 million.

Average tax bill: $514,144.

Average tax rate: 35.5 percent.

Share of federal tax burden: 30.2 percent.

—

Then we come to the average family who is in the bottom 20 percent of households. These folks pay absolutely no federal taxes and that, according to the Democrats, is as it should be. For zero is their fair share. Weird, huh. Instead, many families in this group find themselves on the receiving end of some rather substantial payments from the federal government by claiming more in credits than they owe in taxes, giving them a negative tax rate. The Associated Press reports that the income, payroll, corporate and estate tax bills for the wealthy are among the highest since 1979. "Federal taxes for middle- and low-income households will stay well below their averages for the same period," they add.

 

Personally, I'm of the opinion that with our country now on the verge of complete financial collapse refunds going to those who have paid nothing just don’t make sense. I mean isn't it enough that they're not made to pay income taxes in the first place? Do they need to continue getting these bogus 'refunds' as well? What makes these people entitled to any amount of a refund? Refund means to give back, especially money; return or repay. How is it then that someone can pay nothing and yet still have money given back to them? Nothing about this is in anyway fair. I'm all for 'everybody' paying their fair share, and I mean 'everybody'. And these 'refunds' should be based on what you've paid in and nothing else!



THREE MEN WHO LEFT THEIR MARK...

WHITE HOUSE DRONE TWISTS HIMSELF INTO A PRETZEL OVER THE SEQUESTER....

THE CONSEQUENCES OF "GUN CONTROL"...

JAMES CLYBURN…HYPOCRITE, LIAR, RACIST…ALL ROLLED INTO ONE…

You know, I’ve always considered Jim Clyburn, Democrat from South Carolina, to be one of the most racist members of Congress. And his most recent comments in which he described Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has little regard for a piece of landmark civil rights legislation because he’s "white and proud" only serve to confirm that opinion. Personally, I thought that was a bit too much even for him. It was on Friday that this senile old bigot told the Huffinton Post Friday he was "absolutely shocked" to hear the conservative justice describe to a key section of the Voting Rights Act as a "perpetuation of racial entitlement" earlier this week. The court heard arguments about the provision that requires the federal government to sign off on voting system changes in certain states that have a history of discrimination.

"I’m not easily surprised by anything, but that took me to a place I haven’t been in a long time," Clyburn, the third-ranking Democrat in the House, told the Huffington Post. "What Justice Scalia said, to me, was, ‘The 15th Amendment of the Constitution ain’t got no concerns for me because I’m white and proud.’" I’d like to take just a second here to explain exactly how it is that he became the third-ranking Democrat in the House in the first place. That would be, of course, because he’s black. You see, when the Democrats lost control of the House in 2010, there weren’t enough members who thought Clyburn was bright enough to hold a ‘real’ leadership position, so old Jimmy was about to pull the race card. So a ‘compromise,’ of sorts, was reached and the position he now holds as the third-ranking Democrat, was essentially created out of whole cloth.

Anyway, South Carolina and Texas have both been blocked from implementing new voter identification laws because they fall under the Voting Rights Act. Commenting on that, Clyburn said, "When you have in 2012…states making changes to their laws that you can look on their face and see that these changes will make it harder for minorities to have their votes affect the results that they intend, you say that we don’t need [the Voting Rights Act] anymore? Is this some kind of entitlement?" Adding, "Well, the Constitution of the U.S. is an entitlement for everybody." He said the law "had a positive impact on the voting rights of people traditionally denied the right to vote. To ignore that, to me, is beyond the pale. It means you went to the bench with an agenda." He said, "Playing around with the Voting Rights Act is playing with fire."

I always find it a bit disingenuous whenever Democrats start talking about anything related to our Constitution. And this attack on Scalia is just more of the typical brand of scorched-earth partisan attacks constantly employed by sleazy Democrats. I think we all realize that there’s nothing that matters to Democrats more than the acquiring, and maintaining for themselves, as much political power as possible. And in that quest there is absolutely nothing that they will not say or do. And this ignorant old hypocrite is a fine one to talk about anyone going to the bench with an agenda. The two faux justices appointed by Barry were sent to the court, not to uphold the Constitution, but to assist him in moving forward with his agenda to destroy America. And for Clyburn to place Justice Scalia in the same category as a Kagan and a Sotomayor should earn for him nothing but contempt from every American who believes in the Constitution.

STRICTER GUN LAWS MAY 'SOUND' LIKE A GOOD IDEA, BUT...

AND THE LIES CONTINUE...

What Barry really means when he says, "Congress must compromise," is the unconditionally surrender by the Republicans.  They must drop all of their demands for the making if any meaningful spending cuts.  That's really the only form of 'compromise' that Barry sees as being acceptable.  Those are his terms, and he expects the Republicans to accept them.

SEAN HANNITY EXPOSES THE 'REAL' KEITH ELLISON...

OBAMA FEELS THE NEED TO SAY THAT HE'S NOT THE DICTATOR WE ALL KNOW HE LONGS TO BE...

OBAMA CONTINUES TO BLAME REPUBLICANS FOR SEQUESTER THAT WAS HIS IDEA....

'DINGY HARRY' REID TELLS MEDIA THAT THEY ARE OBLIGATED TO LIE…

'Dingy Harry' Reid said, Thursday, that those considered to be players in the state-controlled media actually have an "obligation" to lie to the American people. Well, he may not have said it exactly that way, but what he said is that they should be reporting that the Republicans are "unwilling to do what the American people want done" on looming automatic, across-the-board budget cuts. What 'Dingy' is obviously counting on here is the fact that the American people are simply too stupid to know what they want. With Democrats, including Barry, lying to them on what as become now pretty much of a daily basis, combined with the fact that the state-controlled media has been lying to them for years, maybe even decades, I suppose you can't blame the people for being a bit confused.

During some silly news conference on Capitol Hill held on the eve of implementation of the cuts, known on Capitol Hill, and just about everywhere else, as "The Sequester," a reporter asked old 'Dingy,' "Can you understand the frustration of the American people that you’re blaming the Republicans, the Republicans are blaming you and nobody is talking until the day that these cuts kick in?" To which 'Dingy' replied, "You know I read an editorial today, and I don’t know whether it was the Times or the Post, where the op-ed writer said, ‘You know, let’s call it the way it is. The Republicans aren’t willing to deal with the Democrats.'" So if I've got this right, it would now seem to be 'Dingy's' opinion that the media must now become even more of a propaganda machine than it already is.

The doddering old boob went on to say, "So all this stuff -- Democrats aren’t doing anything, Republicans aren’t doing anything --I believe that you guys have an obligation to report it the way it is." Going on to say, "This isn’t something that happened yesterday, we’ve been fighting this for a couple years," Reid added. "They’re unwilling to do what the American people want done. And it’s as simple as that." Prior to his comments, Reid proposed dealing with sequestration in a "balanced" way by closing tax loop holes on the wealthy and asking "millionaires to pay a little bit more." And then in taking a parting shot he said, "I really believe the American people deserve better than what the Republicans in this building believe is the right thing." What a freakin crock!

Ya know, it should be pretty easy for any rational human being, which naturally excludes just about every Democrat, to see that the reductions we're talking about amount to only 1.2 percent of the budget, or $44 Billion in spending for 2013. Now when considered by itself that does sound like a rather huge sum, but when placed in the context of a $3.6 Trillion dollar budget and a nearly $17 Trillion debt, it's a mere drop in the fiscal bucket. So while the people may be having a tough time sorting everything out, no thanks to the Democrats and their media allies, they're going to have to figure out a way to do so. Now they can believe that we don't have a spending problem and that all we need to do is to further tax the so-called 'wealthy', or they can put their grownup pants on, and realize that where Barry has us headed is not a good place.

THE SCREECHING FROM DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS IS REALLY GETTING RATHER TIRESOME…

I gotta tell ya, I'm really getting tired of all of these screeching Democrats in Congress every time the subject of the sequester, or our spending problem, that they say isn't really a spending problem, or how the simple cure-all to all of our problems is to do nothing more than to raise taxes, comes up. If only we would raise taxes then ALL of our problems would simply go away and all would be right in the World. And this idiotic notion that it takes nothing more than to choose to disagree with Barry for one to be called a racist is nothing short of ludicrous. But that is what the Democrat Party has been reduced to, a bunch of screaming banshees. Everyday another wack job Democrat steps up to the microphone to decry these 'horrific spending cuts.

There seems to have been a rather dramatic increase in the intensity of their hysterics regarding their claims that civilization, as we have come to know it, will somehow meet an untimely end should the $44 Billion in spending cuts be allowed to take place. One of those crackpots who seems to be leading this pack of crazies is Donna Edwards, another Democrat who calls the People’s Republic of Maryland home, and who has been quite busy, of late, making some pretty wild, as well as unsubstantiated, claims. According to this dingbat, if the Barry-conceived sequester is allowed to become a reality it will mean that women who are victims of domestic violence will be "forced to stay in their homes with their abuser" at the "hands of the GOP."

The automatic across-the-board cuts, known as that much talked about sequester, are set to take effect on Friday, which would be today. It amounts to a 1.2% reduction in increased federal spending in 2013, or about $44 Billion out of $3.6 Trillion. Somehow this bonehead Edwards, calls the cuts a "Republicans failure," and said they are "taking a sledge hammer" to the nation’s domestic violence shelters and programs. "The harm is real," Edwards screeched. Someone possessing a little commonsense, and some brains, really needs to sit down with this moron and explain to her that what has brought us to this particular spot is the failure of her party to make the spending cuts that everybody knows need to be made!

But in doing what corrupt Democrats always do, the esteemed Ms. Edwards does nothing more than to pull bogus numbers out of what is essentially thin air and then expect us to take them as fact. Because according to this goof, "230,000 victims will be calling crisis hotlines and those calls will go unanswered. 230,000 calls to crisis hotlines around the country." She went on to say, "So can you imagine that in the middle of the night a woman is being battered, she has her two children, she wants to get to safety, she places a phone call to a hotline and that line goes unanswered." This would be funny if it wasn't so absurd. The only thing she accomplishes by such idiotic rhetoric is to make herself look like even more of a dope than she actually may be.

But, I guess, determined to make her point, she went on to say, "That’s what sequestration means to victims of domestic violence." Droning on she said, "So I think that this is shameful, we all do." Adding, "We also know that it can be stopped. And so here we are on a Thursday, set to go home for the weekend—first of all in America, working America doesn’t go home for the weekend on a Thursday. There’s time for us to stop this. The Republicans hold the gavel." I swear, have you ever heard anything more incoherent that the ranting of this obviously deranged kook? Ya know, if this loon is the absolute best that the folks of her district could come up with to represent them, they must be a pretty squirrelly bunch of people. Cause this bitch is flat out stupid!

And as she continued in her effort to put the entire weight of our budgetary mess upon the Republicans, she went on, "The Republicans have the ability to stop sequestration and the devastation to millions of women and children who are victims of domestic violence across this country." And on, "And it is really very shameful that they are going to go home this weekend without doing that." And on, "And so for the women who are forced to stay in their homes with their abuser because there’s no place to go, because shelters have been cut, because hotlines go unanswered, that is on the hands of the GOP here in the House of Representatives." I gotta tell you, whatever facility it is that Ms. Edwards escaped from most certainly has a rubber room laying empty.

Choosing to ignore completely the fact that taxes were already raised, and with no spending cuts made, Edwards went on to say that the solution to the sequester is to balance the "spending cuts with revenue." Edwards said $20 million in cuts will be made from programs funded by the Violence Against Women Act, as a result of the sequester. According to the Justice Department, however, the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) operated on a budget of $412.5 million during fiscal year 2012, and has requested the same amount of funding for this fiscal year. The sequester would amount to a 4.5 percent cut to OVW. I'll tell you what has me pissed, it’s the fact that OVW has the outrageous budget of over $400 Million. That's absolutely insane!!!

I can't help but wonder where this crazy bitch was back when Barry first came up with the his sequester idea, and so many of her Democrat 'colleagues' thought it was such a shit hot idea. I don't recall hearing her saying anything then about how it might be a bad idea. Although I must admit I don't spend very much time trying to keep up with whatever it is that every mentally challenged member of Congress might be complaining about at any given time. But I do find it extremely hard to believe that somewhere in a massive $3.6 Trillion budget that there isn't AT LEAST, $44 Billion in waste. So when folks like Ms. Edwards here go off the deep end, as she has so hysterically done, they only succeed in further reducing what little credibility they may still possess.