TIME FOR OUR GOP 'LEADERS' TO COME UP WITH ANOTHER PLAN...

Apparently, the latest tactic now to be employed by the chairman of the Republican National Committee in his effort to advance the latest plan, the purpose of which we are told, is to "expand" the GOP, is to urge religious conservatives to blindly follow in the direction of those in charge of the party. What we heard from Reince Priebus, as recently as this past Saturday, was him asking, "that we come together and that we pray for the future of this country." His request/plea came during the final day of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, a conference that brought several Republicans leaders together with evangelical activists. Priebus went on to say, "I'm a Christian. I'm a believer. God lives in my heart. And I'm for changing minds, not changing values." Fine words all, but sadly, really nothing much more that.

Religious conservatives have always been very skeptical, and with good reason, of establishment Republicans in Washington and the RNC's plan for growth. A plan that calls for the need to be much more tolerant regarding attitudes on immigration and social issues such as abortion and gay marriage. Party leadership has arrived at the decision that there is now a need for the party to rebuild itself after the 2012 election season but seems unsure on how to do it and thinks it has a plan to do just that. "When it comes to social issues, the party must in fact and deed be inclusive and welcoming," according to an RNC report commissioned by Priebus after the election and released in March. "If we are not, we will limit our ability to attract young people and others, including many women, who agree with us on some but not all issues."

While Priebus did not mention any of those recommendations in his remarks, he did repeat calls for significant changes to the Republican presidential nominating process, particularly, fewer debates and a shorter primary season. The RNC's call for tolerance was not a very popular one during the three-day meeting of social conservative leaders, which attracted several politicians considering 2016 presidential bids. The conference's final speaker, former vice presidential nominee and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, rejected calls for an immigration overhaul that includes a path to citizenship for those immigrants in the country illegally. She’s right, and regardless of the claims being made, it would do absolutely nothing in accomplishing the goal of expansion that Priebus claims to want to advance.

Palin, who is rejoining Fox News Channel as an analyst less than half a year after they decided to part ways, also offered a warning to "the good old boys" in the GOP leadership who are calling for conservative activists to tone down their ‘aggressive’ rhetoric. "You do not marginalize, you don't discredit and dismiss, every day average hard-working Americans - those who are part of that grass-roots tea party movement," she said. "Just let them tell us to sit down and shut up," Palin said later, "which I refuse to do." Again, she is absolutely right! And I think it’s more than just a little arrogant of Mr. Priebus to think that we’ll be willing to do nothing more than to sit on the sidelines and blindly follow our party ‘leadership’ down the path that ends in nothing more than the political suicide of our party.

What Mr. Priebus is suggesting here is not a solution to the problem that he professes to be interested in solving. Since when did surrender ever provide any sort of a path to victory? Such things as this ‘Gang of Eight’ immigration plan that now seems to be gaining steam would prove to be nothing short of an absolute disaster for the GOP. If Priebus wishes to demonstrate his abilities as a leader, maybe he should begin to busy himself explaining things to those who are unsure about what the Republican Party stands for. Such things as the benefits of living in a free society where there in minimal government interference. And about the benefits of capitalism and free enterprise that affords everyone the opportunity to become successful and self-reliant. And he could be talking about the importance of family!

But nope, apparently Mr. Preibus would rather head in another direction altogether by welcoming in, and with open arms, those who support gay marriage, illegal immigrants and virtually unlimited abortions. Excuse me? But how is becoming more like the Democrat Party going to entice more people to affiliate with the Republican Party? What the focus needs to be on is demonstrating how those things that we support, things like ‘legal’ immigration, a free market economy, low taxes, keeping government intrusion in our lives to a minimum, a strong national defense and the benefits of living in a constitutional republic, benefit everyone. We need to point out that the majority of the problems that we face today can be traced directly back to the Democrat Party.

OBAMA WASTES $100 MILLION ON…ANOTHER VACATION?

Well it would seem that the Barry "Almighty" clan is once again preparing to depart on what will be yet another, on a long list of many, multi-million dollar vacation trip. Ah yes, it must be nice to have others pay for your frequent, and quite extravagant, excursions to all manner of exotic locations. This most recent hard-earned respite has the first couple headed for the Dark Continent, which according to White House deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes, is a trip that will gain for Barry, and therefore the U.S., "great bang for the buck." The trip is scheduled to take place later this month. So I guess if I'm understanding this boob, correctly, Barry and family, by choosing to take this little vacation in their homeland, they are choosing to make the necessary sacrifice of vacationing in a spot where Barry can...what, exactly? I’m confused.

Look, I’m sorry, but this is just stupid. Despite the claims being made by this Rhodes character, this 8 day trip is really nothing more than yet another high dollar family holiday for Barry and family that the taxpayers, as always, will have no choice but to cover the cost of, which this time, according to the Washington Post, could be as much as $100 million. According to the Post, "Obama’s trip could cost the federal government $60 million to $100 million based on the costs of similar African trips in recent years, according to one person familiar with the journey who was not authorized to speak for attribution. The Secret Service planning document, which was provided to The Post by a person who is concerned about the amount of resources necessary for the trip, does not specify costs." Who, exactly, does this guy think he is?

But despite the high cost involved here, Rhodes enthusiastically goes out on a limb here defending Barry's upcoming trip to Africa by actually making the claim that the U.S. would cede leadership there if Barry didn't go. Ok, look, I may have been born at night, but it most certainly wasn't last night. I mean, just how gullible does this dope, Rhodes, think we all are? The position of this country would somehow be diminished if Barry wasn’t to vacation in Africa? Really? I'm curious to know in what part of Africa is the United State currently even able to exert any level of influence or leadership that would be made to suffer if Barry were not to take his family on a vacation there? I'm trying to think of someplace, but I keep coming up empty. I think it's safe to say that it’s all just another piss-poor attempt to justify what is a massive waste of taxpayer money.

MARY LANDRIEU, JUST ANOTHER LIBERAL BOOB...

Ya know, I'm thinking that a rather extensive crash course on American geography might be in order for members of the Democrat Party. Now you would think that something like that wouldn't be necessary, but first we had Barry "Almighty" who seems to think that there are either 57 or 58 states and that, somehow, Hawaii is part of Asia, and now we have the a senator from Louisiana who thinks that South Dakota borders Canada. At least that's the claim that was made while attempting to attack an amendment to the "Gang of Eight" immigration bill that would actually require a fence to be built along Mexico’s border with the U.S. before proceeding with legalization.

And that brilliant claim was made by, none other than, Democrat Mary Landrieu, who the folks in Louisiana, in their infinite wisdom, decided to elect as one of their senators. Landrieu was trying her best to undermine an amendment Sen. John Thune (R-SD) offered. And in doing so, she tried to argue Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was far more qualified to talk about border issues than Thune because McCain represents Arizona. "A smart fence, which is what Senator McCain and I want to build--since he’s from Arizona, I think he knows more about this than the Senator from South Dakota who only has a border with Canada and that is quite different," Landrieu said.

Now for any of you other liberals out there who happen to be as 'confused' as Ms. Landrieu, South Dakota does not share a border with Canada. It does, however, share borders with North Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, Minnesota, Nebraska and Iowa. Our esteemed dipshit, Ms. Landrieu, went on to argue that the 700-mile border double-fence that Congress passed into law a few years ago is a "dumb fence." She said she would be "voting against" Thune’s amendment requiring the implementation of current law because she thinks the fence is "dumb." Landrieu must be spending a great deal of time these days with her fellow moron from over there in the House, Sheila Jackson Lee

Anyway, Landrieu went on to say, "So I would be voting against Senator Thune’s amendment because I’m not going to waste taxpayer money on a dumb fence, and that’s what his amendment would be." Adding, "We need to build a smart fence and a fence is not just a physical structure which could be built out of a variety of different materials with or without barbed wire on the top." After she was done putting on her little demonstration of stupidity, Thune came back to the floor to note that the Louisiana Democrat actually had voted for the "dumb fence" a few years ago. "I would say in response to my colleague from Louisiana that we all voted for this," Thune said.

Thune went on to explain, "I mean this is not--she described it as a dumb fence. I guess I didn’t realize it was a dumb fence. I thought it was a commitment we made to the American people to get serious about securing the border." He then went on to say, "There are other ways—I would certainly concede—other ways in which we can combine manpower, technology, infrastructure along the border to make it more secure. Afterward, Landrieu trotted back to the floor to respond to Thune: "You are correct, I voted for the dumb fence once, I’m not going to do it again because I learned my mistake." Right, as if this moron is capable of learning anything.

So here again we have yet another Democrat whom, while you think would be someone smarter than a fifth grader, but is actually dumb as a freakin brick. And these are the people that we continue to put in charge of running our country? Come on people, we have got to do better than this. Is it any wonder we're so far in the crapper that we may never be able to successfully navigate our way out of this mess? As long as we're content to elect boneheads like this bimbo Landrieu, I don’t think that we should be expecting things to get much better anytime soon. Because, I'll gotta tell ya, until there are enough of us who actually 'want' things to get better, there won't be much hope that they will.

AS SPEAKER, BOEHNER GETS WORSE EVERY SINGLE DAY...

Word has it is that there may be a mutiny, of sorts, now a-brewing on the GOP side of the House where seventy House Republicans are now said to be planning what has been termed a politically risky showdown with Speaker John Boehner. And it's all in an attempt to try to force additional debate on an immigration bill that they say will mean amnesty for illegal immigrants and therefore have dire consequences for the country. Now you would think that something like this wouldn't be necessary, and the fact that it is makes all the more obvious the fact that as Speaker of the House, Boehner SUCKS! Let's face it, he has essentially pissed away the mandate that the GOP received in 2010.

What these 70 members who are now said to be banding together are attempting to do is to petition for a special Republican conference meeting on the bill in question. The action being taken here is said to be the "highly unusual" move of actually going head-to-head with the speaker, at least that's how it's described by Reps. Michele Bachmann, Steve King and Louie Gohmert, who are serving as spokespersons for the group. Bachmann, King and Gohmert stated in a recent interview that the group is invoking the Hastert Rule: requiring support from a majority of the majority to bring a bill forward. Look, I'm for whatever measures that need to be employed here.

The petition is expected to go to our stellar House leadership on Friday, but it’s still possible that some of the more gutless signatories may choose to remove their names rather than risk facing any potential political risk. And it has also been noted that Boehner could head off the challenge by striking some sort of a deal. Going against leadership in such a way could have some harsh political consequences for the signatories, including retaliation such as permanently getting passed over for chairmanship positions. Ok, so what! What's more important here, a shot at some chairmanship or the future of our country? Seems like pretty much of a no brainer to me!

And it should come as no big surprise here that a Boehner spokesman did not immediately return a request for comment. Boehner is said to be on a tight schedule for getting immigration reform passed in the House, going for far as to predict this week that Congress could finalize a bill for Barry "Almighty’s" signature by the end of the year. Any major challenge could ignite push back from we the American public that could force lawmakers to scrap the bill, as happened in the 2007 immigration effort. This is yet another example of Boehner continuing to forget who it is that he works for. Ah, John, that would be, "We the People!"

Bachmann said more than half of the Republicans in the House were elected after 2007, and have no concept of how strongly the public opposed it. It was in a recent interview that Bachmann predicted that if the immigration bill becomes law, "the whole political system will change." She went on to say, "This is President Obama’s number one political agenda item because he knows we will never again have a Republican president, ever, if amnesty goes into effect. We will perpetually have a progressive, liberal president, probably a Democrat, and we will probably see the House of Representatives go into Democrat hands and the Senate will stay in Democrat hands."

And she is exactly correct in her assessment of how things will pay out if immigration legislation, in its current form is passed by Congress. Which makes me wonder all the more on why it is that Boehner is in such a freakin hurry and seems to be so Hell-bent on being Barry's bitch. Bachmann also said that if it passes, the bill will create a permanent progressive class. "That’s what’s at risk right now. It may sound melodramatic, I don’t mean it that way, but this is that big and that important," Bachmann said. It would seem to me that our House leadership seems to be quite determined, for whatever reason, in its effort to sabotage their own party regarding the winning of future elections.

The bottom line here is that our entire leadership team in the House needs to be replaced. But the sad thing is, is that it may already be too late. These guys are an absolute disaster on so many different levels and on so many different issues. And the fact that I'm even hearing Paul Ryan talking positively about the very obviously flawed immigration legislation current being discussed, causes me to call into question his motives as well. Those of us interested in saving our country seem to be rapidly running out of allies and a frightening pace. Except for these 70, at least as right now, determined souls, there seem to be very few others. It's not looking too good for the home team.

WHAT IS THE FUTURE OF AMERICA?

First let me preface what I am about to discuss here by saying that none of what follows is based on race, it's only based on the facts. So those of you who may be in a rush to label me a racist, while it may make you feel better in your effort to justify you're shooting of the messenger, it will do little to alter those facts. Let me also start by saying that as of last year, more white people died in the U.S. than were born, a surprising slump coming more than a decade before the census predicts that the ranks of white Americans will drop with every passing year. And while that may come as welcome news to some, the reality of it is that it does not bode well for the long-term survival of this country. Which, I suppose, also comes as good news to some.

Now the reason I mention the fact that the white population is shrinking and the minority population is growing is the fact this is likely to have an adverse effect on the continuing viability of our republic. And the reason I can make this claim is a relatively simple one. Because whether you're talking about Detroit, Newark, Philly or nearly any big city or predominantly minority neighborhood, you’re looking at an area that is most likely nearly always decrepit, filled with crime, crooked leaders, drugs, murder, mayhem, poverty, disease, etc. As soon as the minority population exceeds the nonminority one, the downward spiral begins and seems to pick up speed as the nonminority population shrinks. That's simply a fact.

Now I'm sure many of us, at one time or another, have driven past some form of government housing, or some apartment complex that's heavily subsidized by our tax money, and couldn't help but notice the graffiti covered walls, the broken windows, the drug addicts in the stairwells or the randomly patrolling hookers. Or maybe we've driven through our old neighborhoods that were once thriving enclaves of working class families and much to our shock and disappointment are now nothing more than a collection of crack houses, burned our shells of what used to be the homes of our friends and yards now filled with two or more cars in various stages of disrepair. At the same time we can't help but notice the significant lack of white faces.

For a group that is supposed to be so religious, minorities possess what is a rather significant level of some pretty intense hatred which they have no problem directing at those who are not like them. And you would think that if there supposed faith was genuine, the black family would be in much better shape and promiscuity would not be at near epidemic proportions. But as it is, nearly 70 percent of black babies are born without the benefit of their parents being married. So it should come as no surprise that wherever black people cumulate, they seem to be completely unable to build a workable and sustainable society. And their preferred method of expressing nearly any and all grievances is nearly always to riot.

So as the white population continues to shrink I think that we can come to expect to see pretty much the same outcome for our country as we saw in those old neighborhoods of ours that were discussed earlier. Because I think it safe to say that as those who work to create the businesses that in turn create the majority of the jobs produced in this country die off without being replaced, the odds of our country morphing into what will become nothing more than one huge slum will only continue to increase, and rather dramatically. And the fact that we have politicians, in both parties, who are more than willing to pander to what is already a growing minority community, will only serve to speed up that process until what was once a very prosperous nation, simply implodes.

Let's face it, such things as patriotism and love of country are both commodities that are in pretty short supply in any minority community. The main focus today, as it has been for decades, is on how much one can obtain with the least amount of effort being required in return. The America that I see today bears very little resemblance to the America of my youth and I can only imagine what things will look like when my daughter reaches my age. My friends the future of our country, at least from the perspective of 2013, does not look all that promising. I wish it were different but it would seem that there are fewer and fewer of us who are genuinely concerned, and far too many of our politicians seem to be determined to expedite the decay.

WE 'OWE' ILLEGALS A PATHWAY TO CITIZENSHIP? SINCE WHEN?

It would seem to be the opinion of our 'Dear Beloved Leader', Barry "Almighty", that America somehow "owes" it to certain illegal aliens to pass legislation the specific purpose of which is to provide to them a "pathway to citizenship." Excuse me, we "owe" it to them? Well what Barry actually said, while standing there in the East Room of the White House, was, "We owe it to America to do better." And then he added, "We owe it to the Dreamers to do better." Now I'm little confused here. How is it, exactly, that we here in America should be told that we owe anything to these same people who can't even do something as simple as bring themselves to abide by our laws?

And, of course, Barry made sure to point out several young people who were there in the audience. Barry and his fellow supporters of immigration reform legislation have, for quite some time now, officially labeled those people who were brought into the United States illegally by their parents as "dreamers." Democrats previously went so far as to support the rather innocuously sounding "DREAM Act" that would have allowed illegals who attend college or enlist in the military to get on the pathway to citizenship. Sorry, but the fact that you are here illegally, regardless of how it is that you got here, "entitles" one to nothing more than a free one way ticket back to one's home of origin.

During his speech Barry made an attempt to portray the immigration legislation now being discussed in Congress as being something other than the amnesty that we all know it to be, making the statement that the pathway in the proposal before the Senate is "arduous." "You've got to pass background checks," Barry said. "You've got to learn English. You've got to pay taxes and a penalty, and then you've got to go to the back of the line behind everybody who’s done things the right way and have tried to come here legally. So this won’t be a quick process. It will take at least 13 years before the vast majority of these individuals are able to even apply for citizenship. So this is no cakewalk." Boohoo.

And in demonstrating the rather cockeyed way that he insists upon looking at the issue of illegal immigration, Barry said the pathway remains needed in order for enforcement procedures to work effectively. "That’s why, for immigration reform to work, it must be clear from the outset that there is a pathway to citizenship," Barry said. "If we’re asking everybody to play by the same rules, you got to give people a sense of certainty that they go through all these sacrifices, do all this, that there’s at the end of the horizon, the opportunity – not the guarantee, but the opportunity – to be part of this American family." But this is not about creating opportunities, it's about amnesty, plain and simple.

This entire cockamamie 'Gang of Eight" immigration plan is nothing short of a fiasco. And there have been many, much better than I at explaining all of its faults, who have continued to do so. And as I have mentioned many times before the fact that my senator, Marco Rubio, has willingly played a hand in creating this horrible legislation is more than a little distressing as well as being quite disappointing. Nothing should be on the table until our borders have been firmly secured and we have more than just the word of Janet Napolitano to verify that that has, in fact, been accomplished. Then, and only then, should there be any dialogue taking place relating to any sort of a pathway to citizenship.

AL 'BULL HORN' SHARPTON SAYS, "IT'S BUSH'S FAULT!"...

Everybody's favorite faux reverend, as well as that very robust Barry "Almighty" apologist, Al 'Bull Horn' Sharpton said Monday that Barry is not to blame for the National Security Agency's (NSA) secret surveillance program, but that, of course, former President George W. Bush is, because laws allowing it were enacted under his administration. Ok, so the mere fact that the law was enacted under Bush negates the fact that Barry took it upon himself to essentially misuse them and makes the fact that he did Bush's fault. Only a moron like Sharpton could come up with screwy logic like that.

Old 'Bull Horn' told the dozen or so viewers of his MSNBC ratings juggernaut, PoliticsNation, that "These are laws put into effect under President Bush. There are plenty of Democrats who are upset about this too. I do not agree with the Patriot Act, but you can’t blame President Obama for it." I tell ya, if brains were dynamite this blubbering boob couldn't blow his nose. You have to wonder where he comes up with some of this stuff. I mean he lets fly with all manner of pure bullshit that has absolutely no basis in fact, I guess, in the hopes that people will simply believe him. And some do.

But it was back in 2009, however, that 'Bull Horn's' good buddy Barry actually extended three provisions of the Patriot Act, allowing roving wiretaps, which would allow monitoring of an individual instead of a specific number; seizure of financial, medical, library and other records of suspected terrorists; and monitoring someone suspected of engaging in terrorism who may not be linked to a specific terrorist group, the Washington Times reported on Sept. 16, 2009. And now we have some dweeb who recently leaked details of the NSA’s secret program collecting data on phone calls and Internet activity of Americans.

Old 'Bull Horn' showed a clip of Glenn Beck who warned, "If we don’t stop this right now," the U.S. would be remembered "as the most evil nation in the history of the world." Beck was heard to say in the clip, "We will dwarf what Germany did. There wouldn’t be a Jew alive on the planet today if Hitler had this technology. Not a Jew alive on the planet. Not one." 'Bull Horn' then proceeded to ask some guy by the name of Joe Madison, who is supposedly some radio personality and civil rights activist, to comment about Beck’s comparison of the NSA surveillance program to Nazi Germany.

'Bull Horn' said, "Now Joe, the talkers are comparing this to Nazi Germany. I mean where was this talk pre-Obama? I agree [that] now we need to look at this, and I was yelling about it, and you were when Bush was in when this started." To which the esteemed Mr. Madison cheerfully responded, "And you’re absolutely right, and what one should do – and especially those of us in the media – is we ought to go back and get Rush Limbaugh, get Glenn Beck, who is very active with the other network, and play their tapes and how they defended the Bush administration when the two of us and others were saying this was an overreach on the part of the government..

Now look, these two leftist clones can pretend all that they want that during the Bush presidency similar abuses took place, but that's just not the case. And just because they say so, doesn't make it true. And it's more than stretch to try to make the claim that simply because the law came into existence under Bush, Bush is now to be considered as being at fault for the many abuses that have been, and continue to be, committed by Barry. That’s simply nutty, but it does reveal the lengths to which these psychopaths will go in their effort to defend Barry. That's how this mob works.

THE MALIGNANT STUPIDITY OF 'SLOW JOE' BIDEN...

At a recent high-dollar fundraiser this past Tuesday, in Washington, D.C., old 'Slow Joe' Biden issued what was, I guess, supposed to be a warning, of sorts, about Republican to those of his fellow Democrats who were in attendance. Spewing the level of incoherent drivel that 'Slow Joe' is known for, he told the assembled donors, "It’s a pretty simple proposition: The United States of America, and the state of Massachusetts, does not need another Republican in the Senate." Now to a certain extent I would agree with old Joe, because what we REALLY need is a conservative.

But wait, 'Slow Joe' was far from being done babbling on as only he can do. He went on to claim, "I’m being straight about this. This is not your father’s Republican Party. It really is a fundamentally different party. There’s never been as much distance, at least since I’ve been alive, distance between where the mainstream of the Republican congressional party is and the Democratic Party is. It’s a chasm. It’s a gigantic chasm." Well I suppose there is some truth to what old 'Slow Joe' says because I don't think that the mainstream of the Democrat Party has never been as far to the left as it is today.

In particular, 'Slow Joe' shared his rather peculiar brand of distrust of two young Republican senators in particular, and two of my favorites, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul. He said, "I’m not talking about the character or even the quality of the minds of the people I’m going to mention. But the last thing in the world we need now is someone who will go down to the United States Senate and support Ted Cruz, support the new senator from Kentucky -- or the old senator from Kentucky." Gee, as much as I hate to disagree with old 'Slow Joe', what we really need is an army of folks just like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul.

And then came this little jewel from 'Slow Joe' when he said, "Think about this. ... Have you ever seen a time when two freshman senators are able to cower the bulk of the Republican Party in the Senate? That is not hyperbole." He added, "On the gun issue, I don’t care what your position is -- I called 17 senators out, 9 of whom were Republicans. ... Not one of offered an explanation on the merits of why they couldn’t vote for the background check. But almost to a person, they said, ‘I don’t want to take on Ted Cruz. I don’t want to take on Rand Paul. They’ll be in my district.’ What a crock of Biden BS.

And then, he said this, "I actually said, ‘Are you kidding? These are two freshman,’" And he went on to say, "This is a different, party folks. They’re not bad guys, and they’re both very bright guys. And I’m not questioning their motive." No, of course he's not. Look, let's be real about this, are we naïve enough to think that either party has remained the party of our fathers? But having said that, it is the Democrat Party, in their quest for ever more political power, that seems to have now set out on mission the purpose of which is to bring about the complete economic and financial collapse of our country.

Look, had my dad been a Democrat, which thank God he was not, I think that I can safely say, and with some level of confidence, that today's Democrat Party, the one that elected scumbags like Barry "Almighty" and old 'Slow Joe' is not the Democrat Party that he could have, in any way, felt comfortable affiliating with. And while the Democrat Party of 'Scoop’ Jackson and Sam Nunn was something that he might have found himself in agreement with on some issues, this socialist gang of thieves that today refer to themselves as being Democrats, would have, most certainly, been totally foreign to him.

THE POLITICS OF BETRAYAL…

BIRDS OF A FEATHER?

When it comes to Chris Christie, I ask myself each and every day, how could I have so stupid to have allowed myself to have been so badly fooled by this guy. I mean, even after his rather lackluster convention speech I still had myself talked into believing that he was for real, and that he was just what my party needed. But it wasn't too long after that that the real Chris Christie slowly started to bob to the surface. And to say that I was disappointed is a bit of an understatement. And I have to admit that I was more than a little embarrassed at having been so easily fooled. It was a lot like how I feel now after having fallen for all that I heard from Marco Rubio which first caused me to want to support and then vote for him. But that's a topic for another time.

Anyway, back to Christie, who, apparently, it now seems has more than a few New Jersey Democrats now willing to line up to declare their support the rotund one from New Jersey. Christie recently landed the endorsement of one of the state's most prominent Democrat Party members as recently as this past Monday and is expected to receive another on Tuesday, at least according to the Huffington Post. State Sen. Brian Stack, who also is the mayor of Union City, made his formal endorsement of Christie on Monday, citing the governor's willingness to work across the aisle and his help on local issues as the reason he chose him over Democrat candidate Barbara Buono.

According to the Newark Star Ledger, Essex County Executive Joe DiVincenzo will also endorse Christie on Tuesday, which will then bring the total number of prominent Democrat endorsements of the Republican governor to a rather impressive, 16. "I'm proud of the work we have accomplished together and I'm honored to call Governor Christie a friend," Stack said in a press release issued by Christie's campaign. "There is no one better suited to continue that work for Union City, for this district, and for New Jersey altogether, which is why I am proudly endorsing him for reelection today." Well, ain't that quite the ringing endorsement coming from a Democrat.

Ya know, I guess I just don't get what it is about being in politics that seems to have this effect on people. Is it that they become so intoxicated with the attention they're paid, or with their newfound power? Or is it simply the fact that they have a title? Or maybe I'm just being way too naïve in my choosing to think that I can actually believe what I'm being told by people that I thought I could trust, failing to realize that they're only telling me what I want to hear in order to gain my support. Support that, once it has resulted in my choosing to vote for them, is no longer needed. And while I am not in a position to vote for Christie, he is far from being the only example of someone who possesses this mentality.

SURROUNDED BY IGNORANCE...

One of my stellar co-workers was recently heard to say that he really loves Canada, and how much he feels at home there. I felt like telling him to go ahead and go then. I'm sure it will come as no surprise to hear that he's also a young fella who not only voted for Barry "Almighty" back in 2008, but chose to act in the same illogical manner in 2012 by voting for Barry again. Now this guy is far from being the only truly committed follower of our Dear Beloved Leader in my workplace, as I find myself literally surrounded by those who, while they could state why they were going to be voting for Barry, were intent upon doing so just the same. I happened to make a comment about Barry one day and was told by one of my other stellar co-workers not to say anything bad about 'her' president. While there was more I wanted to say, it was a work environment after all, so I simply bit my tongue.

Most, if not all, of those with whom I work know where I stand when it comes to politics and the issues. So I'm either ignored or the subject of Barry, and/or politics, rarely comes up in conversation. And I suppose in a work situation it's not really appropriate anyway. But there are times when I simply can't help myself, and I'll let fly with a fact or two about this thug that so many seem to be so enthralled with. But my comments usually do nothing more than to go in one ear and out the other, since anyone who could support such an individual as Barry has got to have absolutely nothing between his, or her, ears. These mind-numbed little robots, who seem to be only too happy to believe whatever it is that they are told by their hero, and seem to be so easily convinced into ignoring all that is going on right before their very eyes. They happily view the world through what are some very special rose colored glasses.

And most of these folks are what I would call reasonably intelligent people. They would have to be in order to do the jobs that they do. And yet, most of them insist upon wearing what can only be described as blinders when it comes to their ability to recognize not only the trouble that our country is now presently in, economically, financially, socially as well as morally, but also when considering the trouble that lies ahead in the future that their children will be inhabiting. The massive amounts of money that's being spent cannot go on and is going to be required to be paid back by someone. And that someone will be our children and their children after them. These people sit around talking about how it is that their kids are going off to college and about the great job they'll be getting after graduation all as if it's a done deal. And granted, it may work out that way for some, but not many.

And if you try to point out to them that things cannot keep going as they are, and have been for at least the last four years, and that their kids are likely to progress no further than moving back into their old room upon completion of college, they look at you as if you just stepped off of a flying saucer. What I fear is going to be required to take place here before these people finally get it, is that everything is just going to have to collapse. They're going to have to lose everything before they finally come to realize everything that they had. And while I may not have all that much sympathy for them being in a situation they essentially created for themselves, there is going to be some collateral damage created. And that, my friends, is likely to be many of the rest of who, while we may have seen it all coming, were unable to properly and sufficiently prepare for the magnitude of what's coming.

And what I wish I could impress upon these people is the fact that once they lose everything, they shouldn't be making plans based on they're ever getting anything back. But, like I said, it's not just going to be them that loses everything. We're all going to be made to suffer, because unless you're extremely wealthy there's no real way to prepare for what's very likely headed our way. Oh sure, you can store enough food and ammo to last you a few months, or maybe even a year or two. But what's coming is going to be something that is likely to last a generation, if not longer. And how, exactly, do you prepare for that? Sadly, this coming event is something of our own making, and it is something that could have very easily been averted. But instead we chose to cast aside what we knew was right in favor of empty promises of change. My friends, we are reaping what we sow.

OBAMA SAYS DEMOCRATS NOT INTERESTED IN TAXING 'ALL' BUSINESSES OUT OF EXISTENCE...

According to Barry "Almighty", Democrats "don't want to tax all businesses out of business." So I guess that they just want to tax some out of business? Barry made his rather idiotic statement while attending yet another fundraiser, this one for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign in Palo Alto, Ca. Idiotic because Democrats do continue their assault on businesses. It's what they live for. Barry went on to say, "I know that there are a few Republicans here in the audience." He then added, "If you talk to us, it turns out we're pretty common-sense folks." Commonsense folks, huh. He's kidding, right? I don't believe that I've ever met a commonsense Democrat.

But I guess what could be termed as the real laugher came when he said, "We don't think government can do everything." Well actually, they do. Barry went on to explain, "We don't think that top-down solutions are the right way to go. We believe in the free market. We believe in a light touch when it comes to regulations." A light touch when it comes to regulations? What the Hell is he smokin? Is that why in just Barry's first term alone there were nearly $70 Billion in new regulatory costs generated by this guy who says that he's favor of a "light touch" by the government? Come on people, are we really that stupid? At what point are we going to stop buying this leftist drivel?

That's when he made the absolutely unbelievable statement, "We don't want to tax all businesses out of business." But he added the caveat, "But we do think that there's a role to play for government." Barry made his idiotic remarks while at a private residence during, what else but, yet another fundraising tour last week in preparation for the 2014 midterm elections. Apparently he 's convinced that such rhetoric is what will bring in the most money. But again, his actions are far different than his words. Because what he and his fellow Democrats truly think is that government has much more than just a role to play. They want government to be in charge of all businesses.

Anyone who takes the time to stay informed will remember the fact that Barry has been known to make similar statements in the past. When speaking about implementing a cap and trade system, when running for president in 2008, Barry said he would bankrupt coal power plants. The coal industry "would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted-down caps that are being placed, imposed every year," he said. He then went on to say, "So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."

And then I'm sure we all remember that bit of brilliance that we heard come from Barry during the 2012 election campaign, you know the one that earned for him more than just a little criticism. You know, where he said, "If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen." Now I think we can all agree that while Barry is far from being capable of creating and then building a business without significant assistance, be it from the government or elsewhere, there are millions of people in this country who can and do build businesses every single day and who do so, more often than not, in spite of the obstacles that government only places in their way.

COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF'S CORRUPTION KEPT FROM THE TROOPS...

Hardly a day goes by that I’m not more thankful than the day before, for the fact that I was able to retire from the military before Barry "Almighty" was elected. I would have hated to have been forced to contend with him as my Commander-in-Chief. A job that he has neither an interest in nor the aptitude for. Now I'm sure we are all quite familiar with how it is that Barry has described the outrage over the federal government’s decision to monitor citizens’ phone activity is nothing more that "hype." But wouldn't you think that Barry might want to share his opinion with the U.S. Air Force, which has now actually resorted to ordering members of the service not to look at news stories about it?

Apparently the powers that be have even gone so far as to issue an unclassified NOTAM (Notice to Airmen) that warns airmen not to look at news stories related to the data-mining scandal. The notice applies to users of the Air Force NIPRNET (Non-classified Internet Protocol Router Network), which is the only way that many troops stationed overseas and on bases in the U.S. are able to access the Internet. The last line of the executive summary states: "Users are not to use AF NIPRNET systems to access the Verizon phone records collection and other related news stories because the action could constitute a Classified Message Incident."

Cindy McGee, the mother of an airman stationed in the UAE, recently spoke with an online news service about the issue. "The fact that our government is attempting to censor our service members from the truth of what is happening here at home is truly frightening and disheartening," said McGee. Her son received the same notice. McGee continued, "I am outraged that our government is attempting to censor the information from our military that every citizen in this country is potentially being targeted by our government in a massive overreach of their constitutional powers by unconstitutional surveillance of all Americans and storage of that data."

This really shouldn't come as a big surprise to anyone. I mean let's face, this is how this political thug operates. He's got what is essentially a captive audience in our service members and can therefore treat them like mushrooms by feeding them shit and keeping them in the dark. You know "Slick Willie", if I remember correctly, was pretty much worthless as a commander-in-chief, and Jimmy "Peanut Brain" Carter was even worse. And having had the misfortune of serving under both of them was quite enough. But this guy Barry "Almighty", he's in class all by himself. And I can't imagine what it must be like to have his picture looking down at you all day long.

DEMOCRATS, STILL TELLING LIES ABOUT OBAMACARE...

Old Nancy Pelosi, or she who has had a bit too much Botox, must think that we're all as stupid as is your average, everyday, brain dead, run of the mill Democrat. But, sadly for her, such is not the case. We conservatives, as a general rule, are not that stupid, that's why we don't vote for buffoons like her. Anyway, taking part in a press conference on Thursday over on Capitol Hill, this moron admitted that, yes, health insurance premiums will go up under Obamacare and for the very simple reason that people who did not buy insurance before, and thus had no premium, will now be 'forced' to buy insurance.

She also went so far as to attempt to convince people that they should be "optimistic" about what they can expect to gain from Obamacare. "You just see," she said. "I mean be optimistic about it. It is a very, very exciting enterprise." Exciting enterprise? For whom exactly will it be exciting? Pelosi also told reporters that she never promised that every single American would see their premiums go down, and assured people that they can always apply for a government subsidy. Old Nancy would just love that. Come on down, sign up, the government is here to help you. Just sign over your soul.

When asked about premiums going up under Obamacare, Old Botox said, "Well, some of the people don’t have health insurance, and they certainly will have their premiums go up." She then went on to say, "But for anyone that that is a challenge, there are subsidies in the exchanges." She then said, "It’s also about what you get for the money," Pelosi added. Whoa, hold on a minute there, Hoss! What you get for your money? REALLY? She is kidding, right? I guess all that Botox must have gone straight to that pea brain of hers and done far more damage than even I thought.

But far from being done in doing her best to describe this windfall of benefits that will be bestowed on Americans because of this great and wondrous thing called Obamacare, Old Botox went on to say, "In other words, people will be getting no lifetime or annual limits on their coverage, no discrimination because of a preexisting medical condition. It has a whole array of quality that is in the legislation." Then she added, "But if you don’t have health insurance, and you don’t qualify for a subsidy, and you’re mandated to have health insurance, yes, you will have an increase."

And in what I thought contained a tiny bit of arrogance, she said, "I don’t remember saying that everybody in the country would have a lower premium, because everybody in the country doesn’t have health insurance," Pelosi continued. "So how could it be lower? But the fact is, the value of what you get for the cost that you pay is a reduction in cost to you." And she stuck to her tire old claim that under Obamacare young people could pursue careers as writers or photographers, because she said, "But for everybody it is going to be, again, a liberation, a freedom."

Then she said something that really didn't make a whole lot of sense, which is typical for her. She said, "Some of the examples that we heard would be somebody who thought she was invincible getting diagnosed with breast cancer and now telling us she’s going to spend the next 20 years, monthly payments on her credit card, to pay off her medical bills at the time" Then added, "Would a person like that, hopefully not diagnosed yet, paying something in and end up being better off? I think so." In closing she said. "I mean, be optimistic about it. It is a very, very exciting enterprise."

In an effort throw a little cold water onto all that Nancy rather falsely claimed, I refer to a report released last month by the House Energy and Commerce Committee which warned that health insurance premiums will grow 'an average' of 100 percent under Obamacare, and that some will soar more than 400 percent. The findings were based on internal documents provided by 17 health insurance companies, including Aetna, Blue Cross Blue Shield and Kaiser Foundation. And in Pelosi’s California, individual-market premiums could rise by as much as 146 percent, according to another report.

So, remember how it was back in 2010 when this monstrosity known as, an oxymoron of sorts, "the Affordable Care Act" was passed over the very loud objections of the American people? And remember also, if you can, how it was that Barry "Almighty" promised as far back as 2008 that his health care plan would "bring down premiums by $2,500 for the typical family." Ah yes, "Hope and Change" turned out to be something quite different than what most people were expecting, I think. And in spite of all the lies told about what a great thing it is, a majority of Americans still do not agree.

LET'S NOT PUT THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE, SHALL WE?

I'm not one for wishful thinking, and I find it more than a little unnerving, even a little scary, every time I hear those considered as being ‘in the know’ tell me I’ve nothing to worry about come election time. Or that by simply talking about how the American people will suddenly choose to do what's right for the country, will somehow cause them to actually do it. All of this may very well be nothing more than putting the electoral cart before the horse. Which brings me to the point of my post. Recently best-selling author and veteran journalist Jonathan Alter said in a recent interview that 2014 will be a "big year for Republicans" as Americans go to the polls to vote in congressional elections.

Republicans "have a good chance of winning back the Senate," says Alter, author of the new book "The Center Holds: Obama and His Enemies." He says, "They almost certainly will hold the House. It's very, very tough in a midterm election for the president to gain seats in the sixth year of his presidency. Bill Clinton, because of the backlash against impeachment, was the only one in the whole 20th century who managed to do that. Franklin Roosevelt didn’t do it. None of them did it." But let's not forget here, we do no live in the America of 'BJ' Clinton's time, and it most definitely it is not the America of FDR's time. We're now living in what is rapidly becoming Barry’s America.

But Alter went on to say, "Also, Republicans vote more in midterm elections than Democrats do. And the Democratic base that elected and re-elected Obama, a lot of them aren’t going to vote. So 2014, no matter how the economy is doing, will be a big year for Republicans. If it's a bad economy, it could be a very big year for Republicans." I wish I could share his confidence, I really do. But frankly this all sounds just way too familiar. I feel like I'm back listening to the Karl Rove and Dick Morris cheering section as we headed into last year's presidential election. These days I don't bother listening to either one of these guys, what credibility they may have once had, is gone.

Asked who in the GOP could defeat Hitlery Clinton in a White House race in 2016, Alter said, "Anybody who's nominated by a major party has a very good chance of being elected president. You immediately have 45 percent just by being nominated." He went on to say, "So there's a number of Republicans who would have a very good chance of beating Hillary Clinton. Anyone who says that she's a shoo-in hasn’t been covering American politics as long as I have." Again, that all sounds pretty good right now, but we happen to be three years out from the next presidential election. So, essentially, none of that don't mean squat at this point in time. Way too many things can happen.

As for who should get the Republican nomination, Alter observes: "I'd like to see Chris Christie run because he's a very interesting character. I like the more brainy, more untethered candidates. I'd like to see John Kasich run; Jeb Bush, a very smart guy." This was where he really lost me. While I admit that I was once a Christie fan, but that bloom has definitely fallen off the rose. And, personally, I'm just not that sure about Kasich. And haven't we really had enough of the Bush's? How about a conservative? Alter then went on to say, "Maybe it's the bias of somebody who writes books, but I like politicians who are also thinkers. You want some of that in the presidency."

Alter also brought up a personal favorite of mine, Ted Cruz. He said, "I'm very open to a lot of other people. Somebody who's very, very smart, off the charts smart, is Ted Cruz, but I wouldn’t favor him running because I don’t think he has enough experience yet." Like I said, I like Cruz, and I'd vote for him over any of the other characters that Alter mentions. But something that was brought to my attention, that I didn't know, is the fact that Cruz was born in Canada, which pretty much eliminates him. Even though we have yet to find out, with any degree of certainty, where it was that our current president was born.

So I guess the bottom line here is, let's not be in any big hurry to think we've already got things wrapped up as far as the next election goes. Because we most certainly do not. Our leadership in both houses of Congress is less than stellar and has demonstrated, on any number of occasions, the rather peculiar ability of being able to step on…themselves. And like I said, if the last election taught us anything, its that we should be none too quick to believe these supposed political experts especially when it comes to our chances of achieving electoral success. Because if we're just willing to pay attention and to work at staying informed, we shouldn't need to rely on anyone but ourselves.

DO WE HAVE A CRACK TEAM OF JOURNALISTS, OR WHAT?

Ah, that would be, or what. Because we really no longer have very many journalists in this country who actually take their craft seriously. The majority of those who used to be referred to as being journalists, are now essentially nothing more than cheerleaders for the most corrupt president in our nation's history. A guy who makes Richard Nixon look like a choirboy. None other than Barack Hussein Obama.

It would seem that every time we turn around there is yet another scandal that has something to do with Barry "Almighty" beginning to mushroom. But one thing is for sure, whatever that scandal is, you can bet your bottom dollar that the state-controlled media in this country will be playing catch up and not carrying the glory of breaking a story about another major White House scandal.

I mean let’s just look at the facts, shall we? Over the past few weeks, four major scandals have broken that involve, to some degree, the administration of Barry "Almighty", and it's a very sad, and even frightening I suppose, truth that our pathetic, American, lapdog state-controlled media is not responsible for breaking even a single one. They're far too busy laying down all manner of cover for their man in the Oval Office.

I mean, you can go down the entire list. First there's the scandal involving Verizon handing over all kinds of information to the NSA. Was it our media that brought that little story to light. Nope, that was the Brits over there at The Guardian. Ok, but how about the IRS mess, that had to be our guys, right? Nope again! The IRS broke their own scandal with a planted question.

Well then how about the Justice Department's seizure of Associated Press phone records? That was our guys! Wrong again, Homie. And this'll kill ya, believe it or not, even the Associated Press didn’t break that story. Just like in the of the IRS, we only found out because the Justice Department outted itself in a letter notifying the AP of what it had done. Anyone seeing a pattern here yet?

And then of course we have the scandal involving the mishandling of the attacks that occurred in Benghazi that resulted in the death of four Americans including our ambassador. With a couple of rare exceptions (Jake Tapper, Sharyl Attkisson) the media has spent the last 8 months attacking those seeking the truth (Congress, Fox News) instead of seeking the truth themselves.

If we were left to depend solely on our state-controlled media, we would know nothing about Libya. All of the media's energy was collectively poured into ensuring that the truth never be discovered. In three of the four scandals, had our media been a little less interested in protecting Power and more interested in holding Power accountable, these huge, career-making stories were right there for the taking.

Our media of today is not only biased, it's gone way beyond simply being biased. It's become what is nothing more than the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party. And although there are plenty of remaining table scraps to make meals out of, the media is rapidly losing interest in the IRS, Libya, and AP scandals, and but for only one reason, they are absolutely terrified of where any one of them might lead.

During the Bush years, it was the New York Times, Washington Post and Sy Hersh breaking story after story after story about the White House. And yes, some of that reporting was, in fact, overreach, but at least Power knew it was being watched; our democracy was safe because an overzealous media is what you call a luxury problem. Today, it is the complete opposite and the result is an administration run amok.

THE IRS SCANDAL... THE PLOT THICKENS…

Team Obama's continuing narrative that the targeting of conservatives by the IRS was strictly the work of "low-level" agents in Cincinnati, took yet another significant hit on Thursday. You see it was then that the Wall Street Journal released a new report citing viewed transcripts of interviews with those agents in which they name names of those in Washington who oversaw the action.

First we have Ms. Elizabeth Hofacre, who is apparently one of those shifty, "low-level" Cincinnati agents portrayed as being the culprits in all of this. Ms. Hofacre, according to transcripts of the interviews between two Cincinnati IRS agents and congressional investigators, said, "I was essentially a front person, because I had no autonomy or no authority to act on [applications] without Carter Hull’s influence or input."

According to the Journal, the infamous Mr. Hull is an IRS lawyer in Washington, and is someone who "closely oversaw her work and suggested some of the questions asked applicants." And apparently Ms. Hofacre takes exception to be a scapegoat, and is none too happy about her having been thrown under what is essentially the Barry bus. "I was furious," she told interviewers. "It looked like Lois Lerner was putting it on us."

"All I remember saying and thinking is, ‘This is ridiculous,’" Hofacre said. "Because at the same time, you are getting calls from irate taxpayers. And I see their point. Even if a decision isn’t favorable, they deserve some kind of treatment and they deserve, you know, timeliness, and…these applications and their responses were just being sent up there [to Washington] and I am not sure what was happening."

So I now find myself wondering just how much more of this the American people are going to be willing to take before they finally decide that enough is enough. We cannot allow ourselves to become nothing more that sheep, because that story just does not end well. We must have the courage to stand up to what is nothing more than a rabid abuse of political power, and do so no matter what the consequences.

OBAMACARE CONTINUES TO FLOUNDER...

While the Democrats apparently hoped that as time went by, Obamacare would kind of grow on people, with more coming to see it as a useful benefit, it hasn't quite turned out that way. Oh, make no mistake it has grown on people, but it's more like a severe case of athlete’s foot. So still, three years after was literally shoved down our throats, only 37 percent of Americans think Obamacare is a "good idea." And the gap between supporters and skeptics of Barry's signature healthcare program has reached yet another new high. Or so a recent poll has found.

So, at least according to a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC survey of 1,000 adults, 49 percent say Obamacare is a "bad idea," with 43 percent actually saying that they "strongly" hold that view. The 12-point gap in how Obamacare is viewed is the largest since the hilariously titled Affordable Care Act was signed into law back in March 2010. The poll, conducted from May 30 to June 2, also found that a much larger percentage of people surveyed think they will be worse off than better off under the new plan by a margin of 38 percent to 19 percent.

And apparently skepticism continues to run pretty high even among those who, or so it's claimed, stand to gain the most. We're told that would be those people who are uninsured and those who buy their own insurance. For those who purchase coverage for themselves, the new law establishes government-sponsored state insurance exchanges to help bring down healthcare costs. But just four months before enrollment begins, 48 percent of respondents eligible for the program believe they will be worse off, compared with 13 percent who say they will be better off.

And among those who currently lack coverage, more indicate they will be worse off than better off by a margin of 29 percent to 22 percent. Still, supporters of Obamacare have convinced themselves that perceptions will begin to shift once the program gets underway. Ron Pollack, head of stupid little group called, Families USA, an advocacy group that backs the new law, told The Wall Street Journal "People are going to find that this is helpful to them, and that is going to transform the survey data in the future." He added, "We are going to have a totally different conversation."

Well just like Nancy said, we needed to first pass what was this seizure of our healthcare in order to find out what was in it. And it may have taken three years but people are now finding out what's in it, and a growing number of people don't like what they see. And, granted, like this dope Pollack says, some people may, in the end, come around to supporting this thing, but I don't think it'll be all that many. Oh, I suppose, many in the parasite class will, but it's those people who most likely make up that 13 percent who claim that they will be better off under this monstrosity.

OBAMA PROVES TO BE QUITE A BOON TO GUN MAKERS...

A statistic that I suppose I can't really blame on Barry as being the reason for it being so high, it is one that he has had something to do with why it's so high. The statistic to which I refer is the number of background checks for gun purchases that have been completed since Barry first took office. You see, that grand total now stands at a most impressive 73,441,399. So you can see that Barry has set the bar pretty high when it comes to the level of gun sales completed during one presidency.

Back in 2009 when this train wreck of a presidency first got underway, the FBI conducted 14,033,824 background checks. Now to be fair to Barry what we first have to do is to subtract those checks that were completed in the month of January because, of course, he didn’t actually assume office until the end of the month. When we do that we come up with a total of 12,819,939. The FBI conducted 14,409,616 background checks in 2010, 16,454,951 in 2011, and 19,592,303 in 2012.

Next we add to that the first five months of 2013 (2,495,440, 2,309,393, 2,209,407, 1,714,433 and 1,435,917 respectively) and that gives us a grand total of background checks thus far completed under our "Lord and Savior", Barack Hussein Obama that comes to that very impressive figure of 73,441,399. Since December 2012, when the gun sale surge hit its peak, background checks for gun purchases have begun to slowly decline a little each month.

With the exception of California, New Jersey and Utah, background checks for gun purchases decreased in every state from April to May. New Jersey - a state that awaits Governor Christie's decision on a number of new gun bills - saw its largest number of background checks in a single month since the FBI began tracking data in 1998. A total of 12,656 background checks were completed in the Garden State, up 41 percent from the previous month's 8,977 checks.

A little side note here is the fact that that total number of 73,441,399 background checks completed thus far during Barry "Almighty's" presidency, actually accounts for just a little less than half, or 43 percent, of the total number of 170,639,292 checks that have been completed since 1998. And when you stop and think about it, that's quite an accomplishment, but it's also a bit ironic. I mean here you have a guy who couldn't be more anti-gun, but who’s been solely responsible for what is a huge number of guns being purchased.

THE 'KEYSTONE COPS' APPROACH SEEMS SET TO CONTINUE...

Well it would seem that when it comes to our 'Dear Beloved Leader', old habits die pretty hard. Because apparently when Barry goes looking for a replacement for a position as important as his national security advisor, he has a very unique, and somewhat bizarre, skill set in mind. Because since it now appears that Tom "Here Are The Names Of Seal Team 6" Donilon is resigning and Barry has now made it official, having replaced this hapless boob with yet another boob, Susan "Benghazi Attack Resulted From A Video" Rice, of whom I think it can safely be said, hasn't the brains of an ice cube.

Rice as you know has been operating, and not very well, in the capacity of our Ambassador to the United Nations. And without beating a dead horse here, I'm pretty sure most will remember her as having been rather harshly criticized by Republicans for her initial accounting of the attacks on a U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya, which were later proved to be false. Attacks that resulted in the death of four Americans. And this Donilon character is the pathetic creep who ratted out 'Seal Team 6'. Hence Barry's replacing one boob with another boob.

Rice, as those of you who were paying attention at the time may remember, was the face of the administration as she made the rounds to five Sunday 'news' shows after the Benghazi attack, claiming that it was all triggered by protests over an anti-Islam film that appeared on You Tube. Many lawmakers said at the time this explanation was least inaccurate and at most nothing more than a blatant lie. The administration would later acknowledge there were no protests on the ground in Benghazi, though they have not officially ruled out that protests elsewhere may have played a role.

Barry had, you may also remember, considered nominating Rice to replace Hitlery Clinton as his second-term secretary of state, but she would later withdraw her name amid the GOP criticism, using the excuse that she didn't want her confirmation fight to be a distraction for the White House. Naturally, her new post as national security adviser does not require Senate confirmation. The imbecile Donilon is expected to stay on the job until early July, after Barry wraps up two overseas trips and a summit later this week with the Communist Chinese President, Xi Jinping.

It would seem that by his having decided to promote the incompetent Rice, Barry is much more concerned about doubling down on the Republicans than he is about being genuinely concerned with appointing someone who is truly qualified to hold the job of his national security advisor. But then, such behavior from someone who is nothing more than a common punk, shouldn't come as being much of a surprise to anyone. If we've learned anything from watching this guy it's that this is how he operates. Actual experience, or even intelligence, is never seen as being a job requirement.

RUBIO IS NOT DOING HIMSELF ANY FAVORS...

It may actually turn out that before this whole immigration thing is over that Marco Rubio, through no fault of his own and with the help of some of his fellow senators, may just end up dodging a rather sizable electoral bullet. At least as far as his 2016 presidential aspirations are concerned. You see, at the present time, Rubio, a fella whom I voted for, doesn’t believe the Gang of Eight immigration bill, which he authored, has enough votes to break a possible filibuster on the Senate floor. When asked on "Fox and Friends" Tuesday whether the bill has 60 "yes" votes, Rubio replied: "No, and I think even the Democrats would concede that."

"There’s a few reasons for it, but one of the things we’ve learned over the last few weeks through the open process that happened through the committee process and all the public input that we’ve gotten is how little confidence people have that the federal government will enforce the law," Rubio continued. You know, as much as I hate to admit this, Rubio seems to be more than just a little naïve. But regardless, the full Senate will now begin considering the legislation, which passed the Judiciary Committee last month on a 13-5 vote with the help of three Republicans, Lindsey Graham, Jeff Flake and Orrin Hatch, starting next week.

Rubio, considered critical to the success or failure of immigration reform, is mulling a measure that would put Congress, rather than the Department of Homeland Security, in charge of drafting the border control strategy that is tied to the pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants in the United States. Personally I don't know what would be gained by such a measure, as it would really be nothing more than a matter of semantics. How, exactly, is Congress to be considered, by the American people, as being more trustworthy than the Department of Homeland Security? No offense here, to the good senator here, but that's just plain nuts! And he should know better.

But according to Rubio, "We don’t want to be back here in two years, in five years, 10 years dealing with another 5 or 10 million illegal immigrants." And he added, "And so that’s the key. And people don’t trust the Department of Homeland Security to do this job or to come up with a plan that will do the job." Look, something that I think he should be quite aware of is the fact that what people don't trust, at least people with a brain, is the government as a whole. We've been lied to and screwed over too many times to believe what anyone in government tells us. We're constantly being told nothing more than what it is they think we want to hear.

Rubio's fellow Gang member and a Democrat from New Jersey, Robert "I Like Underage Hookers" Menendez, has also said that the bill’s backers did not yet have 60 votes in its favor, but he was optimistic that they would get there. And 'Dingy Harry' Reid is apparently quite confident he has 60 votes to clear the bill. "Dingy' went so far as to say recently on a Nevada television show that at most he’ll only lose two or three of his fellow Democrats. But with four of the bill’s sponsors being Republicans, Reid also made the claim that it would be "pretty easy" to pick off enough GOP votes to be able to reach the necessary 60-vote threshold.

But now that old Frank Lautenberg has finally departed this world and moved on to that fiery repository for corrupt old liberals where he will no doubt get to spend an eternity hobnobbing with the likes of Teddy Kennedy, there are 54 Democrat votes in the Senate. Which means that six Republicans will now have to be willing to join with all of the Democrats in order to get this thing passed and moved onto the House. Which I suppose, taking into consideration some of those we have on our side, is not that far outside the realm of possibility. But I’ll tell ya, Rubio would be doing himself a huge favor if he were to remove this potential albatross from around his neck.

CHALK UP ANOTHER ONE FOR OBAMA...

Chalk up yet another very significant accomplishment for Barry "Almighty" with it being made known that the Social Security program now faces $9.6 Trillion in unfunded liabilities over the next 75 years, which is up $1 Trillion from last year’s projection of $8.6 Trillion. That's according to the latest report from Social Security’s board of trustees. For those of you unfamiliar with what this means, the unfunded liability is the amount that has been promised in benefits to people now alive that will not be funded by the tax revenue the system is expected to take in to pay for those benefits.

The report entitled, The 2013 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds, provides the latest data through the end of 2012. The official title for Social Security is the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program, and consists of retired workers, their families, and survivors of deceased workers who get monthly benefits under the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance program and disabled workers and their families who get monthly benefits under the Disability Insurance program.

According to the report, "Through the end of 2087, the combined funds [OASI and DI] have a present-value unfunded obligation of $9.6 trillion." And that is "$1.0 Trillion more than the measured level of $8.6 Trillion a year ago," states the report, in reference to the data available for 2011. And in an effort to try to put that $9.6 Trillion shortfall into it's proper perspective, think about this, that amount would equal approximately $83,894 for every household in America, the number of which is based on the Census Bureau's latest estimate that there are now 114,430,000 households in this country.

But wait, hold on to your hats, because, my fellow taxpayers, it gets even worse. Because by, "[e]xtending the horizon beyond 75 years increases the measured unfunded obligation," according to the report. "Through the infinite horizon, the unfunded obligations, or shortfall, equals $23.1 trillion in present value, which represents 4.0 percent of future taxable payroll or 1.4 percent of future GDP." That $23.1 Trillion shortfall projection is up from the $20.5 Trillion projected shortfall in the 2012 report. Numbers this high, especially when talking about money, are difficult to comprehend.

And here's something that may make the amount of money that's be talked about a little easier to picture. You see, according to the World Bank, the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the United States in 2011 was $15094.0 Billion, which represented about 24.35 percent of the world economy. "Projected long-range costs for both Medicare and Social Security are not sustainable with currently scheduled financing and will require legislative action to avoid disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers," the report also reads.

So you can see that the size of the hole that we've managed to dig for ourselves, and are in fact determined to keep frantically digging even deeper, becomes all the more apparent, and pretty quickly, when going over these mindboggling numbers. And how anybody, regardless of their political affiliation, can think that this is anywhere near being a good idea, just does not make any sense. And yet we all go blissfully about our business, totally oblivious to what it is that's, quite literally, not only hanging over our heads, but the heads of our children and our children's children. It's a freakin nightmare!

FOR THE BOY SCOUTS, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WILL COME WITH A PRICE...

Apparently the Boy Scouts of America’s decision to begin allowing openly-gay young men to participate in the organization is already beginning to create some, what can only be described as, major membership problems. And I can't say I'm all that I'm the least bit surprised. Because I gotta tell you, if I had a son, I would not be allowing him participate in this organization any longer. And while those in support of the new-found policy remain frustrated that gay leaders are still not permitted to take part, others who oppose the amendment believe that the group is abandoning its Christian heritage. And among the denominations that may decide to cut off support for the Scouts is the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC).

Church leaders, at least according to CNN, are planning to urge the religious order’s 45,000 congregations and 16 million members to officially begin the process of cutting all ties with the Boy Scouts. And considering that 4,000 units are currently sponsored by the SBC, this would be a very substantial loss for the organization and one that would impact 100,000 young men who participate through this denomination. This month, the SBC plans to vote on a non-binding resolution at a convention in Houston. The effort will take place on June 11 or 12. And the provision, according to many insiders, has a very good chance of passing. So the price to be paid by the Boy Scout for no other reason than trying to be politically correct, could be a steep one.

The SBC has emphasized that even if a resolution is voted upon, that it will still remain up to local affiliates to make decisions about how they will, or will not, support scouting. That said, if the assumptions are correct, the mere non-binding proclamation would have a major impact on the SBC and the Boy Scouts — and it would surely change the relationship between the two parties. Pastor Tim Reed of First Baptist Church is among those who believe the Scouts should have never changed their rules. "God’s word explicitly says homosexuality is a choice, a sin," Reed, who decided to cut his church’s ties with the Scouts, told a CNN affiliate. "It’s not a hate thing here. It’s a moral stance we must take as a Southern Baptist church."

The bottom line here is that this was such an idiotic decision in the first place, and the repercussions from it should come as a surprise to no one who took part in the making of it . It's foolish to be placing young boys at risk so needlessly. And I wish I could believe that this was only about allowing gays to be scouts, but there is something much more sinister at work here, and I'm disappointed that the scouts don't see that. And while many may view it as an inclusive step, many others, like the SBC, fear that it runs counter to the values and morals embedded in the Christian faith. It is likely that many groups will flock to alternative organizations or start their own organizations similar to the Scouts, but with a more faith-based message.

E-LIE-JAH CUMMINGS PUTTING RACE BEFORE COUNTRY…AGAIN...

The top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, who also just happens to be a member of that bizarre little brain trust fondly referred to as the Congressional Black Caucus, and one of the stalwart defenders of our most corrupt president, E-lie-jah Cummings, in what was essentially nothing more than an attempt in his part to provide a little cover to Barry "Almighty", recently went so far as to reject suggestions from Chairman Darrell Issa that orders for IRS workers to target conservative groups came directly from superiors in the Washington, D.C. office.

It was yesterday that the brilliant Mr. Cummings released a statement that read in part, "So far, no witnesses who have appeared before the Committee have identified any IRS official in Washington DC who directed employees in Cincinnati to use ‘tea party’ or similar terms to screen applicants for extra scrutiny." The statement went on to say, "Chairman Issa’s reckless statements today are inconsistent with the findings of the Inspector General, who spent more than a year conducting his investigation." Reckless? Really?

Cummings made his unique little assessment of the present situation shortly after Mr. Issa went on CNN’s "State of the Union" and said that interviews with IRS workers from the Cincinnati office have shown that "they were being directly ordered from Washington." Issa added, "This is a problem that was coordinated, in all likelihood, right out of Washington headquarters. We have subpoenaed documents that would support that." Apparently E-lie-jah is of the opinion that such evidence is far from being conclusive as far as providing any indication of how far up this goes.

Both the House Oversight and Ways and Means panels are interviewing employees from the Cincinnati office, which reviewed groups seeking tax exempt status. The IRS has since provided an apology after disclosing last month that workers used what was described as being a higher scrutiny for conservative groups. I would that that’s putting it rather mildly. GOP lawmakers are seeking to learn when it was that top officials in both the Treasury and the White House first learned about the political targeting and what steps, if any, were taken to stop it.

But of course old E-lie-jah was quick to take the opportunity to describe Issa’s comments as being unhelpful. Maybe just a little too quick. He said, "Rather than lobbing unsubstantiated conclusions on national television for political reasons, we need to work in a bipartisan way to follow the facts where they lead and ensure that the IG’s recommendations are fully implemented," said Cummings. "We must have a sincere effort to uncover the truth so that we can restore the public’s trust in the IRS."

I just find it typically hypocritical, even more than usual, on the part of E-lie-jah to accuse Issa of doing exactly that which the Democrats did on more occasions than I care to count back when Bush was president. Granted two wrongs don't make a right, but I think it fair to say that at least as of this point in time, it doesn't appear that Issa is even close to being wrong. Whereas morons like E-lie-jah have a long and storied history of shooting from the hip if they think there is even the slightest possibility of being able to score some cheap political points.

Look, it's painfully obvious what old E-lie-jah is up to here. The last thing that E-lie-jah wants to see happen is to have the truth actually be uncovered. Especially if there is any chance at all that that truth may lead us straight back to Barry. Old E-lie-jah has finally got himself a bro in the White House and you can bet your bottom dollar that he's not about to let anybody, especially some white guy, get away with making statements, regardless of the fact that they're true, that his bro may, in fact, be implicated in what appears to be a growing scandal.