"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." ― George Orwell
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
LET'S NOT FORGET THAT SEQUESTRATION WAS ALL OBAMA'S IDEA…PART I
Barry "Almighty" has said repeatedly that his top priority, that which he refers to as being the "north star" of his second-term, is to do "everything we can to grow the economy and create good, middle-class jobs." And, apparently, his primary means og doing that is to steal even more tax money from 'wealthy' Americans, on top of the higher tax rates that Congress went along with just a few months ago. When speaking at the White House earlier this week Barry pretty much lied through those pearly whites of his when he said that the Republicans have a choice: "Do you want to see a bunch of first responders lose their jobs because you want to protect some special interest tax loophole?"
Barry insisted that Democrats have proposed what he called a "balanced plan" to avoid the sequester, that is the across-the-board spending cuts that will take effect on March 1 unless Congress agrees on a different way to reduce the deficit. "I know that Republicans have proposed some ideas, too," Barry said. "I have to say, though -- so far, at least -- the ideas that Republicans have proposed ask nothing of the wealthiest Americans or the biggest corporations. So the burden is all on first responders, or seniors, or middle class families." Barry said Republicans have expressed a preference for huge, his word, budget cuts to take effect rather than close a single tax loophole for the wealthiest Americans.
And of course Barry went on, "Well, that's not balanced. That would be like Democrats saying we have to close our deficits without any spending cuts whatsoever -- it's all taxes. That's not the position Democrats have taken, it's certainly not the position I've taken." Ah, that’s not exactly true. He added, "So now Republicans in Congress face a simple choice: Are they willing to compromise to protect vital investments in education and health care and national security and all the jobs that depend on them, or would they rather put hundreds of thousands of jobs and our economy at risk just to protect a few special interest tax loopholes that benefit only the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations? That's the choice." No, Barry, that NOT the choice.
And far from being done spewing what was nothing more than his standard propaganda, he said, "Do you want to see a bunch of first responders lose their jobs because you want to protect some special interest tax loophole?" Then he asked, "Are you willing to have teachers laid off, or kids not have access to head start, or deeper cuts in student loan programs, just because you want to protect special interest tax loopholes that the vast majority of Americans don't benefit from?" Then Barry made what was, I suppose was something he intended to be a threat, saying that he will not sign a plan that harms the middle class. This coming from the same who has spent nearly his entire president trying to drive the middle class right out of existence!
However, the Republicans, needless to say, don't quite see things the same way. They say Barry already got his tax increases. Rep. Paul Ryan, appearing on ABC's "This Week," made the point that it was Barry who came up with the sequester idea in the first place, and it is the House Republicans who have twice passed legislation replacing it with what Ryan called "smarter cuts." "The Senate hasn't passed a bill to replace the sequester," Ryan told ABC. "The President gave a speech showing that he'd like to replace it, but he hasn't put any details out there. So that is why I conclude, I believe it's going to take place. But take a step back. We are here because the President back in the last session of Congress refused to cut spending in anyplace, and therefore we wound up with the sequester."
We've continue to be told that unless Congress acts soon, automatic spending cuts totaling $85 billion will happen between March 1 and the end of the fiscal year in September. The actual amount of the cuts is actually ONLY $44 billion, but no matter the amount, over half of the cuts will come in defense and the rest in non-defense discretionary spending. Barry and his fellow Democrats say any alternative to the sequester MUST include MORE tax revenue, but Ryan and his fellow Republicans say Barry needant come knocking asking for higher taxes, because he already got his tax increases last year, when Congress passed a bill raising tax rates on families making $450,000 or more (and individuals making $400,000-plus).
Rep. Ryan said, and correctly so, that closing tax loopholes, as Democrats now want to do, would only fuel more spending. He said Republicans advocate closing loopholes as part of overall tax reform, not to create more 'stimulus' spending. The Budget Control Act of 2011, signed into law by Barry on August 2, 2011, required across-the-board spending cuts of $1.2 trillion over the next ten years if Congress could not agree on alternative ways to limit spending and reduce the nation's debt. The sequester was scheduled to happen back on Jan. 1, but the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 -- which raised tax rates for wealthy individuals -- moved the date to March 1, 2013, giving Congress more time to come up with a plan. No spending cuts were even discussed at that time.
So now Barry, and I've heard the same bullsh!t coming from Steny Hoyer, is now out there telling anyone too stupid to know better that the whole notion of the sequestration was all a Republican idea. And that is nothing more than a flat out lie. One more, by the way, on a very long list of many that this president has now told. He's proven time and again that he'll lie about absolutely anything! Having come up with the idea of sequestration in the first place, it is not something that he should now be allowed to away run from or to try to blame on others. This little jewel of an idea was all his, and now he's in full propaganda mode and trying to do all he can to make it appear otherwise. Enough of the American people are going to have to come to their sense here, we simply cannot go on spending like this.
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
JUST WHEN YOU THINK YOU'VE HEARD EVERYTHING...
Every once and a while I'll hear something or read something that leaves me scratching my head. Something that makes the point much better than I could ever hope to, that we here in America have finally lost our freakin minds. The most recent example of that something that captured my attention comes to us, of course, by way of one of our so-called institutions of ‘higher learning.’ To be specific, from the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs and its Department of Public Safety. Apparently the odd assortment of individuals responsible for this department have now updated an online statement advising female students to consider a variety of rather unusual actions if they are ever find themselves being attacked. These 'unusual actions' which they now recommend include, vomiting, urinating and to claim that they are menstruating.
And what may be nothing more than a coincidence, I’m sure, this supposed 'advisory' was updated this past Monday evening, just hours after the Colorado state House of Representatives, which is controlled by Democrats, passed a package of gun control bills. Bills that include one that would actually make it illegal for people with concealed weapons permits to carry guns on the campuses of public universities. However, the bills still must go on to the state Senate and then to the governor for signature. Some of the other more interesting pieces of advice that are now offered in this updated ‘advisory' are ones, I suppose, that many would find familiar, from running away without looking back to "yelling, hitting or biting" your attacker. Seriously folks, only some liberal could come up with such idiotic nonsense.
But there were two suggestions that, I think it fair to say, can be described as being a little unorthodox to say the least, and that are already causing quite the stir on social media. And they are: "Tell your attacker that you have a disease or are menstruating," and/or "Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone." These, ah, rather less-conventional methods for fighting off a would-be rapist are apparently now a standard part of ‘Rape Aggression Defense Systems,’ an actual class that the school's public safety department promotes as a means for female students to boost their self-defense skills. Come on ladies, is this really what you want to be as your primary means of self-defense, puking or peeing? Talk about embarrassing. Imagine being force to shout, "Stop, or I'll pee on you!"
What I do find as being more than just a little curious though, is the fact that the site providing these useful little pointers to the women on campus, was updated at 6:30 p.m. Monday which suggests that the move may have been motivated by the Colorado House's passage on Monday of HB 1226. That’s the specific bill which would effectively ban all people, including concealed-weapons permit holders, from carrying guns on the campuses of the state's public universities. The House passed the bill on Monday by a vote of 34-31, but not before it became the center of a major controversy when Democrat state Rep. Joe Salazar made comments during Friday's debate arguing that students should not have access to guns to protect themselves from being raped. I don't think I'd be allowing my daughter to attend any school in Colorado.
"It’s why we have call boxes, it’s why we have safe zones, it’s why we have the whistles," Salazar said, according to KDVR News. This moron went on to say, "Because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at. And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop -- pop around at somebody." The comments drew the ire of a number of conservative pundits, as well as several Republican Colorado lawmakers who were offended by the insinuation that would-be rape victims should rely on rape whistles and safe zones rather than arm themselves against potential attackers. Yup ladies, just run into one of those 'safe zones!'
Salazar did eventually apologize, sort of, for anything that he might have said that anyone may have taken offense to, but he didn't back down from his basic premise that guns are not needed to protect women from attacks on the campuses of Colorado's public universities. "I’m sorry if I offended anyone. That was absolutely not my intention," Salazar said. Adding, "We were having a public policy debate on whether or not guns makes people safer on campus. I don’t believe they do. That was the point I was trying to make. If anyone thinks I’m not sensitive to the dangers women face, they’re wrong. I am a husband and father of two beautiful girls, and I’ve spent the last decade defending women’s rights as a civil rights attorney. Again, I’m deeply sorry if I offended anyone with my comments." What a Democrat dope!
"Updated message from February 18, 2013 at 6:30pm from the Department of Public Safety:
The ten points of information below were used in a context supplemented with additional information during the in-class training covered in the Rape Aggression Defense (RAD) class. The R.A.D. class is offered free of charge as a public service to women who are part of the greater UCCS community. Rape Aggression Defense Systems (RAD Systems) is a hands-on, women only self defense and risk reduction education program designed to teach women realistic ways to defend and protect oneself from sexual and abductive assaults. RAD is an international organization of certified law enforcement instructors. For more information regarding the RAD class, classes scheduled for the spring semester, or any other crime prevention programs, please visit the following pages:
What To Do If You Are Attacked:
These tips are designed to help you protect yourself on campus, in town, at your home, or while you travel. These are preventative tips and are designed to instruct you in crime prevention tactics.
1. Be realistic about your ability to protect yourself.
2. Your instinct may be to scream, go ahead! It may startle your attacker and give you an opportunity to run away.
3. Kick off your shoes if you have time and can't run in them.
4. Don't take time to look back; just get away.
5. If your life is in danger, passive resistance may be your best defense.
6. Tell your attacker that you have a disease or are menstruating.
7. Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone.
8. Yelling, hitting or biting may give you a chance to escape, do it!
9. Understand that some actions on your part might lead to more harm.
10. Remember, every emergency situation is different. Only you can decide which action is most appropriate."
With it being Democrats who came up with these idiotic, and potentially dangerous bills, I can only assume that this is what women must actually want. Because, after all, as we all know, most women have the rather peculiar tendency of voting for Democrats, and on a pretty regular basis. Therefore I can also only assume that most women, if they were to ever find themselves being attacked, would much rather have as being their last resort the ability to simply puke or pee on their would be attacker. That, and again I can only assume, must be highly preferable to being able to pull out a gun and proceeding to then blow the guy's b@lls off! Is that right ladies? Would you really rather it be a full bladder instead of a full clip that's your last line of defense in just such a situation? Is this really what we as Americans have now been reduced to? A bunch of puking and peeing wussies?
YOU CAN FILE THIS ONE UNDER…GRASPING AT STRAWS…
Liberal/progressives continue to believe that you can someone legislate behavior. And to certain degree, I suppose you can, just not good behavior. After all millions have now become conditioned to mooch off those of us who work. But as much as they would like us all to believe that guns, and the right to own one, is the problem here, it's not. Unless, of course, you happen to be a Democrat who sees the Second Amendment as being a potential impediment to you're wanting to completely disarm the American people and thus remove that last line of defense against tyranny. Then I suppose it's a problem. For those of us who still believe in our Constitution, and who do not trust those in government, it's no problem at all.
Monday, February 18, 2013
JESSE JACKSON JR. PLACED ON “TIGHT MEDICAL SUPERVISION”…
GAS PRICES...EVERYTHING SEEMS TO BE GOING ACCORDING TO OBAMA'S PLAN…
WHO'S STILL THE BIGGEST JERK IN HOLLYWOOD? SURVEY SAYS…
Sunday, February 17, 2013
GAS BAG STENY HOYER..A LYING SACK OF SH!T...
Depsite what Hoyer would have everyone believe, sequestration was Barry's idea. A tactic, if you will, designed to force Republicans into accepting a tax increase. So once again we have a corrupt Democrat lying to the American people in his attempt to pin on the oppostion that which was conceived and then implemented by his own party. There is a special place in Hell reserved for scum like Hoyer.
EMANUEL CALLS FOR STIFFER GUN LAWS, BUT JAILS ARE ALREADY FULL…
We’ve been hearing a lot lately about how Chicago's mayor and his imbecilic police chief have both been decrying the need for tougher gun laws, even sighting the need for mandatory minimum sentences for those who choose to commit gun violations. I guess they assume that adding even more punishment in a city possessing some of the toughest gun laws in the country will somehow cure what is a much bigger problem. Although, of late, we’ve heard the police chief of that fair city busy denying the fact that Chicago’s gun laws are as tough as has been reported. He says that those making such statements are using the rhetoric of gun advocates.
But be that as it may, it would seem that they would have other problems to rectify before seeking to put even more folks in jail. You see, both county and state lockups are already operating at full capacity. This past week, Mayor Rahm "Dead Fish" Emanuel called for even tougher gun laws and Police Superintendent Gary McCarthy says "gun offenders have to do significant jail time." However, Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart said he doesn't have enough jail cells to hold inmates, and there is not enough room in the state prison system either. So what is it exactly that Emanuel and McCarthy might have in mind here?
For sometime now the state of Illinois, arguably the most corrupt state in our union, has been busy instituting what must have been thought of as being a brilliant cost saving plan. This state, which been under the firm control of Democrats for some time, as actually been closing prisons in an effort to save money and reduce the $9 Billion it owes in unpaid bills. The natural result is that now the remaining prisons and jails are full with the no vacancy sign having now been turned on. "We are at capacity right now" Dart said. "The state prison system is beyond capacity. You talk to them right now, they haven't had a population like this in decades."
The Cook County jail is the largest in the country, but it's so crowded now that some inmates are living in a former cafeteria, and others are sleeping on the facility hospital's floor. "This should be a building that we should have empty right now at this time of the year," Dart said. "There should be no one in it. But because of our population explosion, this is full." If mandatory minimum sentences are passed for gun violations, the prison population would swell, but Dart says there is no place for the swell of inmates to go. And I doubt very much that we’d see Democrats develop the urge to start building anymore prisons.
"We can't have this irrational type of notion that there's magic jail cells all over the place that are all sitting there empty, " said Dart. "It's as if all of a sudden we just raise penalties and these people get shipped off to the moon or something." Sounds to me like the only sane one here would be Sheriff Dart. He’s definitely the only one making any sense, here. So if we assume that no prison’s are likely to be re-opened, or news ones will be built, because of cost, what’s the likely alternative to be? How many of those considered to be "not dangerous," or as having "paid their debt to society" will simply be put back on the street? Just askin.
Saturday, February 16, 2013
THE CONGRESSIONAL ‘SAFE CLIMATE CAUCUS’…
As silly or as stupid as this may sound, there is actually now in Congress a group of House Democrats who, and quite proudly so, refer to themselves as, the Safe Climate Caucus. This group of rather sophomoric crusaders held a press conference the other day, the specific purpose of which, if you can believe it, was to warn us all that if Congress fails to address global warming, the country could face some pretty dire consequences. And just what might these dire consequences be? Well, according to these loons they would consist of such horrendous, life altering things as detrimental effects to California wines and an even an end to Vermont skiing. Oh no, no more skiing in Vermont? One of these clowns even went to far as to express her deep concern that global warming could even destroy the entire People’s Republic of Maryland. "If we do nothing about what is happening, it will destroy our economy, it will destroy our state, and it will have a broad impact not just here in this country but around the world," so claimed Maryland Democrat, Donna Edwards at a press conference on Capitol Hill on Friday.
And it was another member of this rather unique little group, Jared Huffman, who said he fears that global warming could damage the ancient forests and vineyards in his California district. "Climate change is going to impact my coastal district not just in terms of coastal communities and infrastructure but also the health of our oceans and coastal fisheries," Huffman said. He went on to decry, "It will impact the great ancient forests in my district [and] it will even threaten to impact the world-class quality of the wine produced in Sonoma and Mendocino counties." And then we had Earl Blumenauer, yet another Democrat, who hails from that bastion of leftist lunacy, the great state of Oregon. He’s the one who’s appeared to be so concerned that there could come an end to skiing in Vermont and that that state’s famous maple trees could also actually be threatened by global warming. In introducing Peter Welch, a Democrat from Vermont, Blumenauer said Welch "comes from the state of Vermont that climate change is going to have – there will no longer be skiing and even the maple trees will be threatened." Come on folks, are any of us really buying any of this silliness?
Because, I guess, of the rather dramatic claims, presented by this odd assortment of nuts, Edwards apparently felt compelled to insist that neither she nor her colleagues are alarmists. What she actually said was, "The fact is that those of us who are here are not alarmists, we are not eco-hystericals, we’re not socialists." No, of course not, what could possible make anyone think that? She went on to say, "We care about our climate and we want to do something about it." I am a little curious about something though, why is it that she even felt the need to say that she, and her fellow caucus members, are not alarmists, eco-hystericals or Socialists? I would argue that what she and her fellow ‘caucus’ members truly care about, is furthering the anti-capitalism/anti-American agenda of Barry "Almighty" and today’s Democrat Party. The entire cockamamie theory of manmade global warming has been discredited and disproved more times than I care to count. Yet those on the left, like these clowns, seem to feel that if they only persist in sounding the alarm about bogus global warming long enough, they will be able to convince enough people that it is occurring and that drastic action, by the government, is required.
Those on the left continually tout the number of scientists who support the premise that there is in fact a warming of the globe underway and that the primary culprit in bringing it about, is man. And we’re all just supposed except their premise as fact and to support them in their desire to do whatever is necessary with no argument, no complaints, or we’re called names such as flat-earthers. But upon further investigation one finds, and pretty quickly, there are just as many, if not more, folks in the scientific community who either question whether global warming is actually occurring, or if it is happening, on why it is happening. So while there are those who may agree that global warming is taking place, they tend to say that it’s more cyclical in nature than anything being caused by man. But you very rarely hear about those people. And there’s very simple reason for that. It’s because anything they would have to say can’t then be used by Democrats, or any number of other concerned parties, to advance a political agenda that has as it primary objective the destruction of our free-market economy and the weakening of our country. Which is exactly why the whole silliness of climate change, or global warming, was concocted by the left in the first place.
Friday, February 15, 2013
JUST NOT FEELIN AMERICAN IDOL ANYMORE…
PELOSI SPEAKS OF THE ‘DIGNITY OF LAWMAKERS’ JOBS’…
Her rather arrogant comments were made in the context of the looming sequester, which would force across-the-board cuts affecting most federal offices, including Congress. With lawmakers nowhere near a deal to avert those cuts, federal agencies are bracing for ways to absorb them with minimum damage to programs and personnel. Pelosi, whose husband is a wealthy real-estate developer, was quick to note that a cut in her own pay would be far less significant than that for both staffers and less wealthy members of Congress. "It's a hard question to ask me because most of my colleagues are the breadwinners in their families," she said. "A pay cut to me doesn't mean as much." Sorry, but I find more than a little hard to believe that we have members of Congress who are living paycheck to paycheck.
Pelosi also emphasized that Congress should do everything it can to preclude such decisions by preventing the sequester cuts from taking effect at all. "A sequester should be out of the question," she said. Still, with the clock ticking down to March 1 – and with both chambers of Congress out of town next week – the chances of reaching a deal are growing slimmer. With that in mind, some lawmakers say they're hoping for the best but preparing for the worst. "We are, in fact, obviously contemplating a sequester," Rep. Steny Hoyer said this week. "Obviously we are going to take a cut, like everybody else, and we will have to accommodate that." Look, this whole sequester thing was little Barry's ploy, and now it's the Democrats who are whining the loudest about it going into effect! Boo-freakin-hoo!!!
And yet, hardly any of these overpaid servants of the people, especially on the Democrat side, ever have the slightest reservations about cost saving at the expense of those in the military or our veterans. The see it as being completely acceptable to propose cutting the pay of our service members or reducing the benefits currently received by our veterans. These are the folks who are now defending our country, and those who have done so in the past. Too many of these men and women put their lives on the line every single day. And yet I'm somehow supposed to be all concerned about whether or not overpaid members of Congress will be able to make it until their next paycheck? Really? What hardships to these people ever experience? They should be made to hold real jobs and serve for free!
APPARENTLY, ONE MAN'S SPENDING PROBLEM IS ANOTHER MAN'S "PAYING FOR" PROBLEM AND IS YET ANOTHER MAN'S "MISALLOCATION OF WEALTH" PROBLEM...
Thursday, February 14, 2013
OUR HARD WORKING PRESIDENT, OFF ON ANOTHER VACATION…
JOHN KERRY-HEINZ…THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO LITTLE...
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
MEANWHILE, JANET SAYS THAT OUR BORDERS HAVE NEVER BEEN STRONGER…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


