IT’S GOING TO TAKE A UNITED FRONT TO SAVE THE COUNTRY…

AND THE ENEMY IS BARRY "ALMIGHTY"

Apparently Barry "Almighty" told House Democrats, just this past Friday, that the health care law they passed, and without a single Republican vote in 2010, will prove itself…five or ten years from now. But prove itself to whom, exactly? Certainly not to those whom it was actually intended to help. The ones to gain the most from Obamacare are the Democrats, allowing them better control of we the people. I know we were told, repeatedly, that the purpose behind this debacle was to lower cost, and to make it possible for those who had been unable to get insurance, to gain access to ‘affordable’ insurance. But obviously, such claims have been proven to be nothing more than lies added to what has become a rather long and impressive list of lies about the supposed ‘benefits’ to be provided by this train wreck.

But anyway, sounding ever the optimist, Barry told those Democrats assembled, "And I just want to say, thank you for all of you hanging in there tough on an issue that I think 10 years from now, five years from now, we're going to look back and say this was a monumental achievement that could not have happened had it not been for this caucus." However, House Democrats face midterm elections, not in five or ten years, but this November, and many are said to be rather nervous about the botched rollout of Barry's signature health care law. And as has been reported, as recently as February 5, the latest Gallup poll still makes it very clear that a majority of Americans, 51 percent, still oppose the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, and only 41 percent approve of the health care law.

At the same time, 19 percent of the American people said that the law is hurting their family and, in the long run, 37 percent said Obamacare will make their health care situation "worse." Personally speaking, it has already had an adverse effect on my insurance. In his remarks to House Democrats on Friday, Barry thanked the caucus for showing "the kind of courage and unity and discipline that has made me very, very proud." He was talking not only about the passage of Obamacare, but about the Republicans' inability, because of Democrat obstructionism, to attach conditions to legislation raising the federal borrowing limit. Barry is determined to engineer a complete economic and financial implosion and, apparently, congressional Democrats are only too happy to assist him in that endeavor.

Barry said, "And I was just talking to Nancy (Pelosi) before I came out here. The fact that we are no longer going to see, I believe, anybody try to hold our government hostage and threaten the full faith and credit of the United States of America in order to extract policy concessions, the fact that we were able to pass a clean debt limit, is just one example of why when you guys are unified, you guys stick together, this country is better off. And I could not be more thankful and more appreciative and prouder of what you're doing." But the country is in no way, as Barry says, "better off." In fact, EVERYWHERE you look the country is worse off, and a lot worse off. For instance, real unemployment is not 6.6 percent, it’s actually well into double digits. And more people than ever before have now been forced to rely on government assistance.

I would argue that the American people really have no one to blame but themselves. Because every time congressional Republicans make an attempt to curb that which the Democrats are inflicting upon our country, the people seem to rise up against them. The Republicans, and not the Democrats, always get blamed for any repercussions. So, unfortunately, many Republicans now seem a bit gun shy when it comes to doing that which we all know needs to be done. They are, after all, politicians. The people have been more than mere bystanders as this insanity has been allowed to continue. They have, in a way, been active players. I’m just saying that it may make a difference if we were to make it known that we would stand behind our members of Congress were they to take the drastic action that we all know must be taken.

I can hear the grumbling already, how dare I blame the American people? I would argue that, while I am no big fan of either Mitch McConnell or John Boehner, someone who I have a great respect for once said, "You don’t go to war with the army you wish you had, you go to war with the army that you have." And, like it or not, these two guys are essentially the ‘leaders’ of the army that we have. Just for the sake of argument, what do you suppose would happen if these two were to engineer a political maneuver that resulted in another ‘government shutdown’ but this time around all of the polls were to actually show that a majority of Americans fully supported their action? Who do you think might be the first to cave in such a scenario? We all have to act as if we are all on the same team.

What it all comes down to is a matter of trust. We need to be able to trust those whom we elect and they need to be able to trust us not to be fair weather supporters. We are now over $17 Trillion in debt, and since Boehner has been Speaker it has increased by nearly $3 Trillion, which is unacceptable. Maybe I’m not making much sense here, but it just seems to me that we have to present a united front if we hope to meet with any amount of success in attacking those who are now trying to destroy our country. Granted, those unwilling to stand with us must be replaced if at all possible. Those in Congress must possess the necessary courage to stand against this president, and those of us out here in the heartland must possess the courage to stand with them, and the faith that they will see things through no matter what.

‘SLOW JOE’ BIDEN SAYS EVERYTHING IS THE REPUBLICANS FAULT…

For those of you who may still possess some level of doubt when it come to the fact that ‘Slow Joe’ Biden is probably one to the dumbest creatures capable of walking on two legs, as well as being someone who, in all likelihood, is the most ill-equipped person, in the entire history of our nation, to ever hold the office of vice president, I’m about to offer up what should be the clincher. You see, it was during a very recent speech the ‘Slow Joe’ gave before the House Democratic Caucus Issues Conference in Cambridge, Md, that our dimwitted vice president told his fellow Democrats, who were assembled before him, that they should be optimistic about the state of our nation, "in spite of who’s president." And while I can only guess at what ‘Slow Joe’ was trying to convey here, rumor has it that he was trying to impress upon those gathered why it is that he feels so positive about America and the upcoming mid-term elections.

‘Slow Joe’ said, "It always surprises me when we don’t have the degree of optimism that we should about the state of the nation." And then he said, "And in spite of who’s president, in spite of who’s in the Congress, the American people are so much stronger, so much more resilient, so much more capable, that even the ridiculous policies of our friends on the right cannot keep them from moving forward." Yup, according to ‘Slow Joe’, it the policies that have been put place by those on the right that the American people must be made to overcome in order to succeed. Not the job killing policies of those like Joe, or the thousands of new regulations that are pumped out everyday by our socialist president. It kind makes you wonder just what it might be that Joe spends what must be most of his time either smokin, snortin, or shootin’ up, because I’m not sure how else he could arrive at such a conclusion.

And it was later in the same address that Joe then proceeded to discuss why he feels just so darn positive about Democrats chances in the upcoming elections. "I can’t imagine our prospects being viewed by the press and everyone else as being a whole hell of a lot brighter by the time we turn in September then now," Biden said. "The American people are where we are. Let’s go out and make every single effort not just to defend, but to aggressively push, aggressively push our agenda." It’s the Democrat agenda, albeit with some help from McConnell and Boehner, that has put this country into its current fiscal mess. It’s an agenda that has resulted in 100 Million Americans now being on some sort of government assistance, nearly 50 Million Americans now on food stamps, and with the nation’s workforce at the smallest it has been since the days of Jimmy Carter. And it goes on and on. Is this an agenda that needs to be pushed, or stopped?

And then old ‘Slow Joe’ proceeded to launch into what has become pretty standard fare for those on his side of the aisle. Nothing is to be seen as being the fault of Democrats, it’s the other guys who are to blame. Yup, old Joe set out on a little endeavor to paint the Republicans as being the reason why everything is a disaster, when the true culprit is the team on which Joe himself is a member. ‘Slow Joe’ said, "There isn't a Republican Party. I wish there were. I wish there was a Republican Party. I wish there was one person you could sit across the table from, make a deal, make a compromise, and know when you got up from that table it was done. That's what political parties - that's what Nancy's able to do. That's what the president's able to commit to." But it’s not the Republicans who are the ones who cannot be trusted once everyone has got up from the table. And it’s not the Republicans who refuse to ‘compromise’.

And in droning on about the Republicans, Joe pointed to what he referred to as addition proof to justify his claim that there is today no Republican Party. And in so doing what he did was to point to the number of ‘Republican’ responses to Barry's State of the Union address. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, the highest ranking woman in the Republican Party delivered the official GOP response. Reps. Rand Paul and Mike Lee, considered favorites of the Tea Party, also responded to Barry's speech, and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the first Cuban-American elected to Congress, gave a Spanish translation of Rodgers' speech. "All you had to do was look at the response to the State of the Union. What were there three or four?" Joe asked. I suppose, and really hate to admit it, this might be one area where I could agree with Joe, because one well-articulated response to Barry’s dreadful speech might have been better.

Then Joe went on to say, "No, I'm not being facetious, and so I think we should just get a little focused here. Let's get a little focused about-- instead of focusing on the few things that we do have problems with, focus on all that we have going for us going into this election, and talk about them. You are doing it. I know." I agree, let’s all talk about Obamacare, or about how, over the course of the last 6 years, all that the Democrats have managed to do is to put into place policies the net result of which has been the stifling job growth while, at the same time, getting more and more people hooked on government. Or about how we’ve managed to accumulate more debt in just the last six years than we did under all of the presidents from George Washington to ‘Slick Willie’ Clinton combined. But I doubt these are things that Joe has mind when he says that Democrats need to focus on those things going for them.

DEMOCRAT THEORY ABOUT HIKING MINIMUM WAGE IS FULL OF HOLES…

Contrary to what seems to be the never-ending claims being made by the Barry "Almighty" White House, and the near endless stream idiotic Democrat propaganda on the subject, there have been numerous independent studies that have shown, and continue to do show, that an increase in the minimum wage would have little or no effect on those said to be living in poverty. And what the data does, in fact, suggest is that there is a detrimental effect on overall employment. According to the Southern Economic Journal, among the 28 states that increased their minimum wages from 2003 through 2007, doing so had no impact on poverty. When touting the merits of raising the minimum wage, Barry made the claim on Wednesday that some 600 economists agreed in a letter to Congress that a wage hike would not harm employment.

Well, knowing Barry as I think we all do, I’m quite sure that that number is much closer to 10 or 15 supposed economists than it is to 600. And if they, in any way, resemble the likes of Paul Krugman, then they’re far from being bona fide economists in the first place. And a 2007 study by the University of California, Irvine assessed studies for the last two decades regarding the impact of a minimum wage increase on employment. This study stated, "A sizable majority of the studies surveyed in this monograph give a relatively consistent (although not always statistically significant) indication of negative employment effects of minimum wages. In addition, among the papers we view as providing the most credible evidence, almost all point to negative employment effects, both for the United States as well as for many other countries."

Barry and his fellow socialist Democrats who we now see clamoring for the minimum wage to go from $7.25 per hour to $10.10 per hour, have continued to make the claim that there would be absolutely no impact of any kind on employment. But as is usually the case whenever dealing with these folks, because of their willingness to distort the facts, and to outright lie in the effort to get what they want, one must look past the rhetoric. Michael Saltsman, research director at the Employment Policies Institute has said in speaking of raising the minimum wage, "It’s a shell game." Mr. Saltsman goes on to say, "Over 20 years, 85 percent of the best studies show job loss after the minimum wage goes up. There may be a couple of scientists who still think the world is flat. That doesn’t mean it’s a consensus."

And even when attempting to make its best economic case for a wage increase, some of the White House numbers seem less than impressive. Because according to the White House Council of Economic Advisers, if the minimum wage were increased for $10.10 for the entire country, just 26.3 percent of those helped would be parents. And again it’s Mr. Saltsman who states, "The big change will be for people living at home with their parents." And he adds, "This would possibly help teenagers and young adults in college. Primarily, the people put forward on this, single mothers or single fathers, make up just 10 percent." Married people with children make up 16.3 percent of the people who would benefit from the proposed minimum wage hike, according to the White House numbers, while 10 percent of single parents would benefit from the wage increase.

And so it was on Wednesday that Barry used that pen of his to sign an executive order raising the minimum wage to $10.10 for all federally funded employees of federal contractors. Barry said the measure is to lead by example in a push to get Congress to approve a wage hike for the entire country. So this is how Barry defines leading by example? No I don’t think so. Before signing the executive order, Barry chose to take the opportunity to spew more nonsensical drivel saying the minimum wage in real purchasing power is 20 percent lower today than under the Reagan administration, and with no inflation adjustment, workers are getting a $200 pay cut each year. "Raising the minimum wage is good for business, it’s good for workers and it’s good for the economy," Barry said. "If you work full-time, you should not live in poverty."

Look, you’d have to pretty naïve not to be able to recognize the fact that this entire minimum wage nonsense is about nothing more than politics. Because when we’re talking about the minimum wage, we’re not talking about what a cluster-f*ck Obamacare is, nor are we talking about any of the many scandals involving the current recipient of the Oval Office. The Democrats are fully aware that hiking the minimum accomplishes nothing more than to weaken an already weak jobs market. But that’s exactly what they’re trying to accomplish here. What better way to ‘force’ people onto the government dole than to further reduce their chances of being able to find a job? The nation’s workforce is already at the lowest point it’s been in the last 35 years, but apparently it’s still not low enough for Barry and the Democrats.

WHAT HAVE WE ALLOWED AMERICA TO BECOME IN THIS ERA OF OBAMA???

Will we ever reach a point in this country where Americans, of every political persuasion finally, and after taking a really good look at what’s now occurring in this country, will be able to band together and simply say, "No more!" I only ask because it seems that every time I turn on the news, these days, I hear yet another news story that seems to indicate that we, as nation, have succeeded in taking yet another step in the direction that has us becoming what is nothing more than a third rate dictatorship. The most recent bit of news involves how several incumbent Democratic senators who, because they now find themselves in tough elections, are actually urging the Internal Revenue Service to, essentially, assist them in their effort to gain re-election by being more ‘aggressive’ in how they ‘go after’ nonprofit groups whose only ‘crime’ is that they are conservative.

According to the publication, ‘The Hill’, one of those conservative groups that is now being targeted is the group Americans for Prosperity (AFP), which is funded by billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch. It’s this group that has thus far spent nearly $30 million on campaign ads to defeat Democrats in November. Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas, considered to be one of the most vulnerable Democrats up for re-election, told the publication, "That whole 501©(3), 501©(4) [issue], those are IRS numbers. It is inherently an internal revenue matter." This pathetic hypocrite then went on to say, "There are two things you don't want in political money, in the fundraising world and expenditure world. You don't want secret money, and you don't want unlimited money, and that's what we have now." But his concern seems to be aimed primarily in only one direction, to the right.

But Pryor is far from being the only crybaby. Another sniveling Democrat is Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, who could very well end up facing a strong challenge from former Republican senator, Scott Brown. This whiny-assed little bitch was asked if she thought that the IRS should play a more ‘active role’ in policing these groups, to which she enthusiastically replied, "Absolutely." She then went on to quickly add, "Both on the left and the right." Adding, "As taxpayers, we should not be providing a write-off to groups to do political activity, and that’s exactly what we’re doing." Now while she may claim to be concerned about groups both on the left and the right, what causes her the most angst, I’m quite sure, are those particular groups are aligned with those candidates who are on the right. As with most Democrats, Ms. Shaheen, has no problem with how any group on the left spends their money, or how much.

And then we have Sen. Mark Begich of Alaska, yet another Democrat who faces a tough race this time around, and has also busied himself whining like a baby because he’s now been on the receiving end of some ads that point out the fact, to the voters of his state, how he’s been a rather big supporter of such things as, Obamacare. It was this crybaby who told the same publication, "If they're claiming the tax relief, the tax benefit to be a nonprofit for social relief or social justice, then that's what they should be doing. If it's to give them cover so they can do political activity, that's abusing the tax code." Of course, he too is ONLY concerned with those groups who are located on the right and who busy point out his position on a myriad of issues. Positions, on many issues, that run counter to his constituents. So, like his fellow liberal hypocrites, he’s far less concerned with those groups to be found to be on the left.

And in getting back to AFP, the group has already launched campaigns specifically targeting both Pryor and Shaheen as well as Sen. Kay Hagan of North Carolina and Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana. The Koch group's spending far exceeds the $7.6 million-plus spent so far by all Senate Democratic groups combined in the competitive races, or so reports Politico, which claims to be citing media trackers. And it could actually go on to break all previous records. In 2008, when Hagan won her first race against incumbent GOP Sen. Elizabeth Dole, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee poured a total $12 million into the contest in an effort to help her campaign, and that was the most of any outside group in the past dozen years, according to Politico. So you see, as long as money is pouring into them, from groups on the left, there’s no reason for concern.

And then of course we have that perennial asshole Chuckie Schumer, scumbag Democrat from New York, and the Senate Democrats’ chief political strategist, who recently called for the IRS to work toward curbing political spending by outside groups during a major speech on how to blunt the impact of conservative donors such as the Koch brothers. It was in his remarks delivered at the Soros front group, Center for American Progress Action Fund that this turd declared, "The Tea Party elites gained extraordinary influence by being able to funnel millions of dollars into campaigns with ads that distort the truth and attack government." He added, "There are many things that can be done administratively by the IRS and other government agencies, we must redouble those efforts immediately." Chuckie’s claims ring pretty hollow, because it’s quite obvious who’s guilty of distorting the truth, here.

Look, the bottom line here should be apparent to all. If the behavior of these Democrats has shown us anything it’s, as is usually the case, that they are rather selective when it come to their supposed outrage about who it is, exactly, that’s spending the most money. Everything is just all hunky-dory as long as it’s only the unions, and other left-leaning groups, who are the ones doing all the pouring of massive amounts of cash into the campaigns of Democrats. But let those folks on the right try to do the very same thing, why then these Democrats squeal like the stuck pigs that they are. Because, you see, in order for things to be fair, the field must always be tilted in favor of the Democrats. We on the right are not to be permitted to spend our money as we wish just as we have absolutely no right to expect that people should be made to identify themselves when showing up to vote. It’s freakin’ insane!

YOU TOO COULD BE ELIGIBLE TO WIN A TRIP TO MEET OBAMA…

Well it would appear that in an effort to scam more people into signing up for Obamacare, what’s considered by some as being a prize worth winning, is now being offered as an incentive. Because now, if you can believe it, what one group is now offering up as a way of getting supporters of the law to get busy signing up more victims of Obamacare, is an all expense paid trip to meet none other than the guy who this thing is named after, Barry "Almighty" himself. Yup, we now have an advocacy group tied to Barry attempting to entice volunteers to get out there and drum up last-minute enrollment in Obamacare by offering a free trip for two winners to Washington to meet ‘The Big "O".

It seems that Jimmy Messina, who’s none other than Barry’s campaign manager in 2012, sent out a recent email to what was called millions of supporters, the purpose of which was to urge more people to volunteer to, as he says, spread the word about all of the benefits available under the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare. Recipients of this email were directed to an online link to sign up for the six-week sign-up campaign conducted by Organizing for Action (OFA), the leftist little group that’s simply a spinoff of Barry’s re-election team. "Millions more need to get covered before this year’s final deadline on March 31st — you probably know a few folks yourself," the website states.

To boost enrollment in Obamacare, OFA is dangling the offer to volunteers of free airfare to Washington and a free hotel stay, a package reportedly worth about $1,400, to meet Barry backstage at the group’s national organizing summit on Feb. 25. Two winners will be chosen at random, the group said, and will be able to bring guests with them on the trip, although I’m not sure who covers the cost of the guests. Obamacare requires most Americans to sign up for health insurance coverage by March 31 or face a penalty. As of Jan. 24, the government claimed that more than 3 million people had enrolled for private health insurance through the ACA exchanges.

The administration set a goal of 7 million enrollees, although now they claim they never did any such thing, by the end of March. The enrollment push comes just days after a report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) raised new criticisms about Obamacare, saying the program would create a disincentive for some Americans to work full time because its subsidies decrease as a worker’s income rises. Former Barry adviser David Plouffe said that over the next six weeks, OFA "will be working hard to make sure that Americans have the facts they need to get covered before the enrollment deadline just weeks away." Sure they will.

All of this very likely stems from the fact that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced that enrollment in the Obamacare private exchanges increased by 1,146,071 in January which was down from the 1,788,000 enrollees that HHS claimed had signed up in December. That would seem to suggest a drop-off of approximately 500,000, or 29 percent. Yet I think it fair to say that this underestimates the true extent of enrollment drop offs. The HHS reporting period for December was four weeks, beginning on 12/1 and ending on 12/28. The reporting period for January was five weeks, beginning on 12/29 and ending on 2/1.

It should be pretty obvious by now, and to even the most casual of observers, that the administration will not reach the original CBO estimate of 7 million enrollees by the deadline at the end of March. The real question is, how far short will they fall? If February’s enrollment rate matches that of January, the Administration will be able to claim 916,000 more enrollees in the current reporting period, for a grand total of about 4.2 million. That is 60% of the initial CBO estimate with a month to go before the end of open enrollment. On the other hand, it is hard to tell whether matching the pace set in January is reasonable for February. Personally I believe very little of what I hear.

But one thing is for sure, the total enrollment of 3.3 million reported by HHS is most likely more than a bit of an overestimate. At this point, industry insiders estimate that about 20% of people whom HHS claims are enrollees have not paid their premiums. Meanwhile, hard data from a handful of states suggests that the number of non-payees may be larger. If the insiders are right, then the real level of enrollment right now is just 2.6 million, which puts the administration at just 38 percent of the original target with two-thirds of the enrollment period now finished. I’m sure if we’ll ever truly know how many folks have signed up for this disaster.

So anyway, with this new added ‘incentive’ to go out there and shake the tree in an effort to find more people to hoodwink into signing up for Obamacare, I’m quite sure the lies, that we already know have been told, to prospective enrollees, will only escalate both in number and in the level to which benefits get exaggerated. Obamacare is really a good deal for no one except the Democrats who, now that they are well on their way to being able to control what healthcare you are able to get and ant what cost, are, as we have seen, completely unwilling to do anything to actually fix it. While at the same time they’re running away from it as fast as they can in what is the lead up to November’s elections.

RAY NAGIN…HEADIN’ OFF TO THE ‘BIG HOUSE’

Well it would appear that former New Orleans Mayor Ray "Chocolate City" Nagin has been convicted on charges of some typically unsavory behavior. You see, apparently he accepted bribes, free trips and other gratuities from contractors in exchange for helping them secure millions of dollars in city work while he was in office, including right after Hurricane Katrina. Oh no, tell me it isn’t so. Another corrupt, big city Democrat mayor. And he’s black to boot. So this is obviously nothing more than some racist smear, right? Well maybe not, since the federal jury found Ray guilty of 20 of the 21 counts against him.

Before the verdict, old Ray said to those gathered outside the New Orleans courtroom: "I've been at peace with this for a long time. I'm good." Well I certainly feel better. The Democrat, who left office in 2010 after eight years, was indicted in January 2013 on charges that he accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes and truckloads, literally, of free granite for his family business in exchange for promoting the interests of local businessman Frank Fradella. He also was charged with accepting thousands of dollars in in payoffs from another businessman, Rodney Williams, for his help in securing city contracts.

The charges against Ray included one overarching conspiracy count along with six counts of bribery, nine counts of wire fraud, one count of money laundering conspiracy and four counts of filing false tax returns. He was acquitted of one of the bribery counts. Each charge carries a sentence from 3 to 20 years, but how long he might serve was unclear and will depend on a pre-sentence investigation and various sentencing guidelines. No sentencing date was set. Prosecutors say he took hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of bribes including money, free travel and granite for Stone Age LLC, a family granite business.

They allege the corruption spanned the time before and after Hurricane Katrina struck in August 2005. The charges resulted from a City Hall corruption investigation that had resulted in several convictions or guilty pleas by former Nagin associates by the time trial started on Jan. 27. Fradella and Williams, both awaiting sentencing for their roles in separate bribery schemes alleged in the case, each testified that they bribed Nagin. Ray's former technology chief, Greg Meffert, who also is awaiting sentencing after a plea deal, told jurors he helped another businessman, Mark St. Pierre, bribe Nagin with lavish vacation trips.

Maybe old Ray should see if he can’t get in contact with Eric Holder or, better yet, Barry "Almighty himself. I mean using the current set standards established by the current administration, I’m pretty sure that they could come with something that would point to this whole thing as being all about nothing but race. Poor old Ray, just another victim of what is a racist judicial system. I can hear them all now saying that if Ray was a white guy all this would just be swept under the nearest rug. But because he’s black, well, enough said. Obviously Ray, here, was another one of those folks who thought the rules simply didn’t apply to him.

ANOTHER ACT OF PURE POLITICAL COWARDICE BY OUR HOUSE GOP LEADERSHIP…

I guess this is the manner in which our stellar ‘leadership team’ chooses to lead by example? If so, I’m thinking that Boehner needs to go out and get himself a new white flag, because the one he has now must be pretty wore out. As Speaker, Boehner has been an unmitigated disaster, and has demonstrated time and again that he is simply in way over his head. He’s become somewhat of an embarrassment. We did not provide the Republicans with their current House majority, and therefore Boehner his Speakership, so that they could then turn around and assist Barry in spending another $3 Trillion over that very same period of time.

And the other members of the Republican leadership team, Cantor and McCarthy, are no better than Boehner when it comes to standing up for the country. Sadly who we seem to have in charge over there in the House are "The Three Stooges" who continually have their assess handed to them by the Democrats. And it’s getting more than just a little frustrating. And I’m worried that these boobs are starting to believe the drivel now heard coming from the likes of Karl Rove and that other sleazy little shit, Dick Morris, that they now have things so wrapped up regarding the next election that it’d be almost impossible to screw it up.

But our leadership seems to be going above and beyond in their desire to put that little theory to the test. It seems to me that our side is quite determined to demonstrate to the American people that they are completely oblivious to peril that our country has been placed in by Barry and his devoted followers, and are simply not interested in solving the country’s fiscal problems. I’m afraid that what they’re doing here is to do nothing more than to put the cart before the horse by using this November’s elections as a gauge for their agenda. And that’s something that could very well prove to be fatal to their congressional aspirations.

And so without further ado, here are the 28 Republican turncoats in the House of Representatives who voted on Tuesday to INCREASE the debt ceiling:

House Speaker John Boehner, Ohio.
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Va.
House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, Calif.

Chairman of House Ways and Means Committee, Dave Camp, Mich.
Chairman of House Oversight Committee, Darrell Issa, Calif.
Chairman of House Appropriations Committee, Hal Rogers, Ky.
Chairman of House Armed Services Committee, Buck McKeon, Calif.
Chairman of House Foreign Affairs Committee Ed Royce, Calif.
Chairman of House Natural Resources Committee Doc Hastings, Wash.

Rep. Ken Calvert, Calif.
Rep. Howard Coble, N.C.
Rep. Chris Collins, N.Y.
Rep. Charlie Dent, Pa.
Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick, Pa.
Rep. Michael Grimm, N.Y.
Rep. Richard Hanna, N.Y.
Rep. Peter King, N.Y.
Rep. Frank LoBiondo, N.J.
Rep. Pat Meehan, Pa.
Rep. Gary Miller, Calif.
Rep. Devin Nunes, Calif.
Rep. Dave Reichert, Wash.
Rep. Peter Roskam, Ill.
Rep. Jon Runyan, N.J.
Rep. John Shimkus, Ill.
Rep. Chris Smith, N.J.
Rep. David Valadao, Calif.
Rep. Frank Wolf, Va.

These are the names of those who should now be placed at the top of everyone’s list when considering those who must, at the very least, be made to face a primary challenge from a worthy conservative opponent. And even if we are unable to get rid of them, courtesy of this primary process, I think it’s important that they be made to feel some level of heat as a consequence for a decision that was obviously based far more on politics than on any concern for the welfare of our country. This type of behavior cannot be allowed to go unchallenged and without being responded to in some very forceful manner.

Now having said that, make no mistake here, I am not, in any way, advocating that we should simply cut all these people loose. We, the voters, also need to act in a responsible manner. So if they are victorious in their primary contest, we should then support them in the general election that follows. To do otherwise, I think, would be rather reckless on our part, and in the end accomplish nothing more than our choosing to bite our nose to spite our face. It makes no sense. As well, I am by no means calling for the formation of a third party, that would prove to be nothing more than an act of pure electoral suicide.

WHAT MUST IT BE LIKE TO BE A DEMOCRAT?

I know I’ve wondered aloud about this before, but I guess I’m still rather curious about how much farther down the tubes things are going to have to get before enough Americans finally come to the realization that this whole progressive game plan of Barry and the Democrats, with a few Republicans mixed in, just ain’t working and folks begin taking to the streets. Now I fully recognize the fact that there will always be a certain segment of the population who will never come to possess any desire to move past the liberal nanny state. And as such, those of us who work and pay taxes will continue to be forced into covering the costs that these parasites accrue, courtesy of higher and higher taxes.

And precious little has been done to limit the size of that segment, in fact over the course of the last 6 years government has been actively encouraging its growth to the point where it will soon overwhelm the ability of those of us who work, and pay taxes, to cover its cost. A point that we are now at or, at the very least, very near. But dare I say that that is the intent of those who call themselves Democrats and many, as well, who identify themselves as Republicans. If ever there was a time for ‘change’ being sorely needed, that time is now. You’d have to be a complete moron not to be able to recognize the fact that liberal/ progressive polices have been nothing but an abject failure.

Which, I suppose, brings me to the real topic of this little rant. These days it would seem that Democrats, nearly as a whole, have chosen to emulate their leader as they busy themselves with trying to bring about the demise of America. And so it should come as no surprise that in speaking with reporters from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel last month, perennial Democrat Dingbat, Gwen Moore, said she was "so relieved when [Obama] won," and that she would gladly give Barry "Almighty" an ‘A’ in his second term if he would do nothing more than "just occupy the spot." Ah yes, spoken like a true Democrat. You don’t have to actually ‘DO’ anything, just hold down the chair. How pathetic is that.

When asked by a reporter to give a progress report on Barry’s second term so far and to grade him, Moore, at first simply declined to do so, saying, "I'm not going to give Obama a grade. I’m glad he’s there. A Grade compared to what? Compared to Mitt Romney being there?" I’ve never been able to understand the mentality of folks like Moore. She’s black and yet those to whom she seeks to inflict the most harm are also black. It just doesn’t make any sense to me. But what makes even less sense is how blacks tolerate people like her. Anyway, she then proceeded to compare, using her own uniquely twisted form of logic, Barry’s second term to what would have happened if Romney had won.

"No, no, he's getting an ‘A’ then. He's getting an ‘A’ compared to—I was so relieved when he won. Just occupy the spot. If he did that, that would be an ‘A,’ versus what I would be expecting if we were to have Mitt Romney in there now. Right now, we’d be dismantling the Affordable Care Act. We’d be breaching protections under the Social Security Act. We’d be undoing environmental protections, and on and on and on." So I guess, if I’m understanding this loon correctly, whereas if we had a President Romney we’d at least be trying to get this country back onto the right track, with another four years of Barry "Almighty" we’ll only get the country that much further into the ditch.

When asked if there was anything Obama could do better, Moore said, "There are things he could do better ... he’s no LBJ." However, Moore said that comparison was unfair because LBJ had 68 Democrat senators and a majority in the House. And in speaking of Barr, she went on to say, "This man is working under the worst possible situation. And I think that another thing he’s been threatening to do is to be able to use his executive authority, and to do more executive orders, and I think that he’s going to start doing some of that." Right, so it’s just fine with this hypocrite if Barry starts acting more like a dictator, we’re still far better off than we would be if Ronney has been elected.

This dingbat makes the point that LBJ had the luxury of having substantial majorities in both Houses of Congress. But let’s look at what Barry did when he was afforded the very same luxury. Did he focus on jobs? Nope! Did focus on the economy other than, of course, shoving through a bogus ‘stimulus bill’, or seizing control of two automakers? Nope! Instead what he spent nearly two years trying to accomplish, and finally did accomplish through some shady political trickery, was the seizing control of how the American people are able to attain their healthcare. And we’re still seeing how well that hasn’t worked as Barry sets about rewriting the legislation on almost a daily basis.

So, does Barry deserve an ‘A’ as Ms. Moore says, for just occupying the spot? No, I don’t think so. And would we be better off with a President Romney that we have been with Barry? Well, the world will never know, but if I had to hazard a guess, I’d say we’d be a lot better off than we are right now. But as they say, you can’t cry over spilled milk, Barry won and now we have to work on figuring out some way to survive, keeping our fingers crossed along the way that it’s not Hitlery Clinton who comes next. The country simply wouldn’t survive that. So like I said, enough people are going to be required to come to their senses if we are to have any hope of turning things around.

SOMETHING DEFFINITELY SMELLS MIGHTY FISHY AROUND HERE…

I don’t know about any of you, but I don’t trust old Chuckie Schumer any further that I can throw his raggedy-old-ass. And my reason for making such a declaration, at least for this time around, is because old Chuckie, who we all know was the one of the primary authors of the Senate immigration bill passed some time back, may have now succeeded in helping the Republicans kill his own bill. Now why, do you suppose, old Chuckie would wanna to something like that?

Once again it was while appearing on 'Meet the Press', just this past Sunday, that we heard old Chuckie say that Republicans "don't trust the president to enforce the law, particularly the enforcement parts." So, he explained, "There's a simple solution. Let’s enact the law this year, but simply not let it actually start ‘til 2017 after President Obama’s term is over. But you could actually have the law start in 2017 without doing much violence to it." And what sense, exactly, does that make? That would be, none.

Chuckie went onto say, "You'd simply move the date back from December, 31 2011 to December 31, 2013, as to when the deadline for people who could get either legalization or citizenship [is], so we could go after the new people who come in later. And it would solve the problem. … You don't trust Obama? Enact the law now, put it into effect in 2017." So if I’m understanding correctly, what used to be urgent, isn’t, as even old Chuckie now appears to be willing to have no legislation go into effect until 2017.

In other words, here we have the guy who is, arguably, the main sponsor of the Senate immigration bill, and the very same guy who has previously made the point, repeatedly, that immigration reform is so urgently important, now acknowledging that in fact there really is no urgency, whatsoever, for acting on things now. So if nothing needs to go into effect until 2017, then, I would argue, the Republicans have an even simpler solution than Chuckie’s. Just do nothing. Don't enact any legislation until 2017.

After all, why should Republicans pass any kind of a law now that wouldn’t take effect for three years? Especially if the 2014 elections turnout as predicted and before the Republicans have an opportunity where they could very well win the presidency in 2016. If both things occur, they'll then have the opportunity to enact immigration legislation based on conservative principles. So it's better to wait until 2017, which, strangely enough, is exactly how long old Chuckie says implementation can be put of anyway.

And look, in what would be the worst case scenario we would have the Democrats winning the presidency in 2016, God forbid, the result of which would be a GOP likely left reeling, and rather badly, from being made to suffer a third consecutive presidential defeat. And at that point that the new Democrat president, whoever he or she may be, would be able to pretty much work his, or her, will on immigration, and would likely be able to get the current legislation passed to take effect immediately.

So, apparently, either old Chuckie no longer has a case of the urgents when it comes to acting on immigration now, or the slimy shit is up to something that I’m not quite able to figure out. What might Democrats stand to gain from allowing the Republicans to use what Chuckie has now said as a way of backing up their own position that there’s simply no urgency for immigration legislation at this time. While I no idea, I know it can’t be good for the country. All I know for sure, is that my country is being made to go down the tubes, and I blame scum like Chuckie.

ACCORDING TO DEMOCRATS IT’S OK NOT TO WANT TO WORK…

Is it just me, or does the drivel that we continue to hear from Democrats getting just a bit more insane everyday? It just seems that ever since the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released it’s report that said millions of Americans will choose to simply drop out of the workforce in the coming years in order to take advantage of Obamacare subsidies, we have heard just about every screwy justification imaginable for just such an occurrence, from just about every Democrat, for how that should be seen as a good thing. We’ve heard it called everything from a new "option" for Americans that allows them to decide whether or not they choose to work, to Obamacare being a good thing because Americans already work more than anyone else does.

So of course I think we all knew that it would only be a matter of time before we were to hear from none other than Chuckie Schumer who, as we all know, is another one of those people who are always quite determined what it comes to sticking his two cents into any discussion, even if those two cent are never asked for. Anyway, Chuckie suggested on Sunday that freedom means not working if you don't want to. It was while on ‘Meet the Press’, that senile old Chuckie offered up his own nutty interpretation of that report ‘really’ said, saying, "Bottom line is very simple," adding, "What CBO said is that many American workers would have freedom. Now that's a good word, freedom to do things that they couldn't do."

And, of course as is usually the case, Chuckie went on to elaborate, saying "The single mom who's raising three kids, has to keep a job because of health care, can now spend some time raising those kids. That's a family value. The student, 27 years old, wants to finish school quickly so he can get a great job, can't because he needs health care, is now free." Ok, this has now gotten way beyond being anything that can simply be called crazy. And I gotta tell ya, if this is kind of lunacy that a majority of those who identify themselves as being the American people are willing to go along with, well then my friends, America as a ‘free’ and prosperous nation truly is toast and they’ll be no saving her. EVER!

And in behaving as if he has maybe spent just a bit too much time in what can only be described as being his own personal little ‘Twilight Zone, this idiot Chuckie went on to argue that when people such as the single mom and the student leave their jobs in the years ahead, other people will take those jobs. And if there's full employment and there's no one to take the jobs, "it will raise wages," he said. "So this is a net plus." Does this guy even listen to what comes out of his mouth? I man what kind of political nonsense is this? And Americans still want to elect retards who spew this kind of nonsense? It’s no wonder that the country is in the shape that it is! Come on people, we need to snap out of whatever trance we’re in here.

Sen. Rob Portman, a Republcian, appeared with Chuckie on "Meet the Press," and said that he's "worried about the American worker." Portman went on to say, "We've got in our country right now a 35-year low in terms of labor participation. We don't have as many people in the workforce as we had during the recession and yet, you have Democrats almost giddy about the fact that, oh boy, now we're going to have fewer people in the workforce. That doesn't help the workers. It doesn't help in terms of fighting poverty." He added, "So, look, and CBO was very clear. They said this is going to result in fewer people wanting to work. What they didn't say, which is going to make this even worse, many employers are not hiring people because of Obamacare."

All of this stems from the fact that in its recent report, the CBO stated that Obamacare's subsidies will "reduce incentives to work." That's because as incomes rise, Obamacare's subsidies will decline "thus making work less attractive" for people on the lower end of the wage scale. "As a result, some people will choose not to work or will work less -- thus substituting other activities for work," the report said. But critics say Obamacare's subsidies will put a greater burden on workers whose taxes support those who choose not to work. Americans for Prosperity noted, "Fewer people in the workforce means fewer people paying taxes." Adding, "Combine that with Obamacare’s subsidies, and you’re looking at more federal spending paid for by less federal tax revenue. "

So here we have yet another example of what Barry referred to back in 2008 as the "fundamental transformation’ of America. Another thing that the Democrats can now be said to have achieved, courtesy of Obamacare, is the making of work into what is essentially nothing more than a dirty four letter word. I mean how un-American is it to not want to work? It used to be that folks were looked a bit down on for doing nothing more than living off the government. But it would now seem that in this age of Barry "Almighty" things have gotten all turned around. Today, it’s those of us to work for a living who are the ones seen as being too stupid for taking ‘advantage’ of the many government ‘benefits’ that exist. Things are so upside down.

MORE CONCOCTED JOBS NUMBERS…

You know, whenever I hear Barry, or any of his many leftist minions in politics and out, talk about how he has somehow created anywhere from 2 million to 6 million ‘new’ jobs, I’m never sure if want to laugh and just get pissed off. Because as hard as many of these same people try to convince us all of the fact that our unemployment rate continuing to go down is good news, it’s really all nothing more than one big lie. And the reason that I say that is because today there are 1,154,000 fewer people in the workforce than there were six years ago, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Now let’s see, what was it that happened six years ago? Oh wait a minute, that’s right, that’s when the parasite class of our society chose to elect a devout socialist in the person of Barry "Almighty", the first time.

Back in January 2008, and again according to the BLS, there were 146,378,000 Americans who were employed. And now, in fast-forwarding to January 2014, we find that there are 145,224,000 Americans who are employed, and that would be, for all of you liberals out there, a difference of 1,154,000 fewer people working. Something else to also consider here is the fact that 91,455,000 Americans 16 or older did not participate in the nation’s labor force in January, meaning that they neither held a job nor could they be bothered by actively seeking one. That's a 353,000 decline from December, but 172,000 more than November. The national labor force participation rate, or the share of Americans who had a job or were actively looking for one, ticked up to 63 percent in January, from 62.8 percent in December.

In January, according to BLS, the nation’s civilian non-institutional population, consisting of all people 16 or older who were not in the military, a nursing home or other institution, reached 246,915,000. Of those, 155,460,000 participated in the labor force by either holding a job or by actively seeking one. The 155,460,000 who participated in the labor force equaled only 63.0 percent of the 246,915,000 civilian non-institutional population. The other 91,455,000 Americans, for whatever reason, did not participate in the labor force. They neither had a job nor were actively trying to find one. And if you listen to Barry, one of the many so-called 'benefits' of Obamacare is that it will allow Americans a greater degree of flexibility when it comes to deciding whether or not they will choose to work. Huh?

And much has been made about the unemployment rate continuing to go down. But this group currently in charge uses a rather interesting methodology in arriving at what that number actually is. And frankly, it’s now gotten to the point where there is very little reason to believe what we’re being told is the actually percentage of unemployed Americans. Because of the 155,460,000 who do still choose to participate in the labor force, 145,224,000 had a job, and 10,236,000 did not have a job but we’re told they were actively seeking one, making them the nation’s unemployed. The 10,236,000 job seekers were 6.6 percent of the 155,460,000 actively participating in the labor force during the month. Thus, the number then used as being an accurate reflection of the nation’s unemployment is 6.6 percent.

Now imagine, for a second, if all those people who have since decided to leave the workforce, or even half of them, were still in the workforce today, what would our unemployment rate be then? More than likely it would be more than twice as high as the very bogus number that’s being reported today. This is just one more area, on what has become a very long list of many, where the current administration, from the top down, has zero credibility. They just make things up and then busy themselves trying to convince us to believe that that which is so obviously fiction is fact. And while that may still work with some of Barry’s more ardent defenders as well as what remains to be the majority of Democrats, many are now beginning to figure out that Barry simply is not someone who can be trusted.

WELL FRIENDS…IT AIN’T LOOKING PRETTY…

If you’re like me, those of you with teenagers or young 20-somethings, you know you don’t need some government report to tell you that there’s no jobs out there for your kids. And ya know, at what point does the government’s continued spewing of these numbers become absolutely meaningless? Just today we were told that the teen unemployment rate went up in January to 20.7%, from what was 20.2% in December. That figure is more than three times the number now being touted as the national unemployment rate of 6.6%, a number actually derived courtesy of some very creative math. And but the way, it’s a number that has far more to do with the number of people deciding to leaving the workforce that it has anything to do, even remotely, with more people actually finding a job.

The teen unemployment rate (seasonally adjusted) has been in the 20s range (high and low) since October 2008, which makes it something else that Barry can claim he inherited from Bush. But just two years later, in October 2010, it hit a high of 27.3%. Meanwhile, the black teen unemployment rate spiked to 38% in this past January. The dramatic increase represented almost a 10% increase over December's 35.5% unemployment rate. And like I said, overall the teen unemployment rate was 21%, a modest increase from December. This increase in teen unemployment comes as Barry and his Democrat cohorts have made a minimum wage hike the central plank of their economic agenda. Something that, while it may make for good political rhetoric, would only make the teen job situation worse.

Only 2% of hourly workers in the US earn the minimum wage, but the overwhelming majority of teen workers begin work earning the minimum wage. While minimum wage hikes don't lead to many job losses in the overall economy, they can have a huge effect among teen workers. The minimum wage, after all, is simply a starting wage. It’s worth noting that several states did increase their minimum wage at the start of this year. A number of states even index their minimum wage to inflation, resulting in annual increases in the starting wage. More than two-thirds of minimum wage earners receive a raise within the first 12 months on the job. But you can't earn a raise if you don't have the job in the first place. It’s all just another Democrat ploy that accomplishes absolutely nothing.

The bottom line here is that if these pathetically dishonest Democrats are somehow successful in their endeavor to raise the minimum wage, a significant number of those starting jobs will simply cease to exist. In which case rising teen unemployment may become yet another one of those things considered as being a new Barry-inspired ‘normal’. Because like everything that has occurred since this guy first took office, everything he touches almost immediately turns to shit. And yet the younger set, especially the blacks, of our population think he’s doing just a bang up job. And something else that makes no sense to me, is the fact that so many people think that by electing Hitlery Clinton somehow things will get better. But she’s just as much of a socialist as Barry is, maybe even more so.

We’ve lost our way folks, and I’m very afraid that it may already be too late to do a damn thing about it. But I know one thing for sure, that if we really are stupid enough to elect Hitlery "Bitch of Benghazi" Clinton we might as well not even bother wasting our time trying to fix things. Because it’s going to be all for naught! Oh well, it has been a fun ride, but I suppose it was going to have to come to an end sooner or later. Democrats have been spent decades trying to get us to this spot, and sadly we’ve had precious few on our side who possessed enough courage to stand up to them. And now I’m afraid we’ve relinquished so much there’s precious little hope of ever being able to return our country to the principles that made her great, or to even salvage what little of her there is left.

LATEST EDITION OF THE “GASBAG CHRONICLES WITH STENY HOYER”…

In his search to somehow gain at least a little applause for himself during his snoozer of a State of the Union address, Barry once again saw fit to resort to that which he has done so many times before, the taking advantage of someone in the military, and all the while claiming that it was nothing more than a harmless gesture the purpose of which was to honor the sacrifice of Army Ranger Cory Remsburg. Sergeant Remsburg bravely fought for our country through 10, yes 10, tours of duty. So while the speech, because of Barry’s exploitation of this soldier and his wounds, was able to end on somewhat on a high note, old gasbag Steny Hoyer, scumbag Democrat from the People’s Republic of Merryland, made sure that that high note would be very short lived. Because that’s what Democrats do.

You see, Hoyer, in doing what was nothing more than to fire yet another shot in the Democrat Party’s continuing war on women, unleashed a rather nasty attack on Cathy McMorris Rodgers, the Republican who delivered the GOP response to Barry’s idiotic State of the Union. Choosing to ignore her stature in the GOP and her intellectual acumen, Hoyer instead reduced her solely to her gender, calling her a "transparent" choice to give the state of the union and claiming she was chosen simply because the GOP wanted to have a "a woman give their response." Personally, and I guess I could be wrong, I say that that's about the most sexist thing anyone could say. Imagine, if you will, the outcry that would have been heard round the world if a Republican had uttered such a thing about some liberal female.

According to Hoyer, Cathy McMorris Rodgers is "pleasant," and "gives a good appearance," but she is also well-educated (she has an MBA from her state's leading university), respected for her knowledge and judgment (she is Conference Chair of the House GOP) and a serious legislator whose achievements are widely recognized. So it’s quite remarkable to me that in an era when women have accomplished so much that Hoyer would actually stoop so low as to denigrate a working mother who is a role-model for millions of American women - and men, as well. But hey, I doubt many are really all that surprised because, after all, Democrats have long made it very clear that women serve one useful purpose and one purpose only, hence their effort to champion both abortion and unlimited, as well as free, contraceptives.

I long ago gave up trying to figure out how it is, exactly, that the Democrat Party continues to be permitted to get away with making the nonsensical, and obviously false, claim that it somehow speaks for "all women." And it’s really quite sad that a majority of our single women today can be so easily fooled, conned into believing that it’s the Democrat who have their best interests at heart. Commonsense seems to be in dangerously low supply. But, I digress. Hoyer's idiotic comments regarding a respected leader of the opposing party are among the most demeaning I've ever heard from the Hill. Perhaps his lengthy tenure in Washington has left him thinking morons like Nancy Pelosi, Debbie Wizzerman Schultz, Sheila Jackson Lee and Corrine Brown are mainstream. To the rest of the country, they definitely are not.

So what’s really up here, is it that Hoyer is simply out of touch with the electorate? If that is in fact the case, there would be a very easy remedy for just such an issue. Because here in the modern computer age, it would take very little effort on the part of Hoyer or any members of his, I’m sure very sizable, staff to spend but a few minutes online to educate themselves on where it is that most Americans stand on such things as the issue of government funding of abortion. The Democrat Party has long claimed the mantle of the civil rights leader Martin Luther King. But Hoyer, by judging Rep. McMorris Rodgers on her gender rather than her accomplishments, clearly chose to ignore King's dream. But, sadly, as we all know this is the type of drivel that has now become standard fare for hypocritical Democrats like old gasbag Hoyer.

WELL NOW, THAT’S MIGHTY ‘WHITE’ OF HIM…

Well we have at least one Democrat source, someone I can only assume must be someone who, as they say, is in the know, who has acknowledged that, in an apparent nod to his poll numbers, Barry has told Senate Democrats that he's willing to stay away from election battles where his presence would be, shall we say, less than helpful. Well, that’s mighty ‘white’ of him, don’t you think? It seems that Barry's comments came when he and ex-president ‘Slick Willie’ Clinton attended the Senate Democrats' issues conference at Nationals Park on Wednesday.

Sources who were at the gathering said Barry assured Democrats that maintaining control of the Senate is his top priority this year. Another source told someone from the Communist News Network (CNN), "I don't remember him (Obama) saying he wouldn't be offended if he wasn't invited (to help campaign), but he certainly acknowledged how low his numbers are in certain states." That same source said that Barry also noted "they are bad in some states overall," and "that certain people would need him to help in certain parts of those states."

According to a CNN/ORC International poll conducted last weekend, Barry's approval rating stands at 45%, with his disapproval coming in at 50%. Those numbers are slightly better than two months ago, when his approval ratings ran at or near all-time lows. But even at that, it's still far below where it stood a year ago, at his second inaugural, when his approval rating stood in the low to mid 50s in most polling. Let’s face it, anyone who can look at what’s taking place in this country and still thinks that Barry’s doing a good job is pretty seriously brain damaged.

But with a number of vulnerable Democratic senators up for re-election this year, sources at Wednesday's little Democrat get together said that Barry vowed to do all that he could to support Democrat candidates. The Democrats currently hold a 55-45 majority in the 100-member chamber, but 21 Democrat-controlled seats are up this year as opposed to only 15 Republican seats. Making matters just a bit worse for the Democrats is the consensus view that the overwhelming majority of vulnerable seats, this year, are currently held by Democrats.

A number of Democrat senators facing tough re-elections this year seem to be anything but excited about having Barry join them out on the campaign trail. Sen. Mark Begich, a Democrat from red-state Alaska, who faces a challenging bid for a second term in the Senate, told CNN last week that "I'm not really interested in campaigning" with Barry if he were to come to Alaska. And it was a similar story from Sen. Mark Udall. The Colorado Democrat is also up for re-election, although, as of right now, his seat isn't one considered to be that vulnerable.

So all in all, for a guy who more often than not thinks of absolutely no one other than himself, this seems to be a very unlikely position for us to find him in. Now I think we can all safely agree on the point that Barry has a very high opinion of himself, and actually believes himself to be some great orator, when in fact he’s just a good reader. And in being the narcissist that he is, he seems to also think that his awe inspiring presence is sufficient to convince those of us who are but mere mortals into doing things even though we know they are not in our best interest.

But these days Barry seems to be shunned by many of those who have been some of the most enthusiastic supporters of his plan to bring about an end to America, at least as it has been known since first coming into existence. But I guess I can see why he wants to remain quietly on the sidelines. Because if he does lose the Senate then he has very little hope of being able to complete his agenda that has as it’s ultimate goal the creation of the United Socialist States of America (USSA). So he’ll sit idly by and bite his tongue as he watches and hopes for the best.

BOEHNER IS UNDESERVING OF SPEAKERSHIP…

I think it’s probably pretty obvious to those who may stop by here from time to time to peruse these pages that I have never really been a big fan of John Boehner. Since having been provided with control of the House after the election of 2010, he’s done nothing but to squander one opportunity after another, and has assisted Barry in increasing the debt by over $3 Trillion. And while having done precious little to derail Obamacare, he is now seeking to help Barry to put yet another feather in his cap, while assisting in the demise of his own party, by stubbornly pushing forward with immigration ’reform’.

And now comes word from Rep. Raul Labrador, of Idaho, who has said that House Speaker John Boehner should lose his leadership post if continues with his push for immigration reform this year. Well I can’t say that I can disagree with that assessment of things. Mr. Labrador said in a recent interview with the Capitol Hill news organization, "I think it should cost him his speakership." Mr. Labrador also refused to rule out running to replace Mr. Boehner — even if the Ohio Republican put the brakes on immigration bills. While I’m not all that familiar with Mr. Labrador, I’m sure he would be an improvement.

And in another interview, this one with CQ Roll Call, Mr. Labrador also said, "There is a hunger in the conference for bold, visionary leaders, and this is not just conservatives — you talk to more middle-of-the-road members of the conference, they’re kind of frustrated with the direction of this leadership, and they’re looking for ways to change that." Well if there is one thing you can say about Boehner, it’s that he is neither bold nor is he what anyone might refer to as being a visionary. He is nothing more than an establishment Republican, a RINO, who cares about nothing more than maintaining the status quo.

The fact that House GOP leaders unveiled their broad immigration principles last week gave hope to advocates and to Barry that the first changes in the nation's laws in three decades might happen in the coming months. Immigration legislation is one of the top priorities for Barry's second term. But several of the conservatives were adamant that the House do nothing on the issue this year, a midterm election year when the GOP is angling to gain six seats in the Senate and seize majority control. Democrats currently have a 55-45 advantage but are defending more seats, including ones in Republican-leaning states.

And then Boehner said on Tuesday that he is not sure whether he will pursue immigration bills this year, and yet that was just days after House leaders outlined their ‘principles’ at an annual GOP retreat that included border security and legalization for most illegal immigrants. The plan also included a specific new pathway for younger illegal immigrants. So, we can’t really believe much of what he says. And if you can’t trust your ‘leaders’ to tell you the truth, what good are they? And at this point in time I don’t trust Boehner any more than I trust Barry. I’m just so damn tired of being lied to.

BOEHNER SEEMS TO BE TRYING TO RUN ROUGHSHOD OVER IMMIGRATION…

Well, it would seem that while Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, on Tuesday, was telling reporters that immigration is just wasn’t going to be in the cards this year, Speaker John ‘Boner’ Boehner seems to have other ideas about it, demonstrating that he isn't quite ready to let the dream die. And this despite the fact that the editors from National Review, Weekly Standard, and numerous other top conservative pundits have urged the Ohio Republican to just let it go for now. But ever since the GOP retreat last week, Boehner has just kept marching along to the beat of his own immigration drummer.

And it all just kinda makes me wonder just whose side it is that old ‘Boner’ is really on. Because it was at a press conference Tuesday morning, in response to a question from Breitbart News, that Boehner said, "Clearly, the draft principles we outlined, members seemed to be supportive of them," adding, "no decisions have been made" on whether to move forward. But then we also had one GOP member, identified as being one ‘in the know’, who said, "I wouldn't be surprised" if immigration legislation came to the House floor as early as this spring. Come on people, this is all just so simple and is being made far too complicated.

So in what I assume was an effort to build his case for moving forward, Boner's office has released several documents touting these GOP ‘principles’, some of which include some almost cartoonish defenses of a proposal. These so-called "principles" would "eliminate the ability for any administration to arbitrarily decide which laws to enforce," a Q&A posted on Boner's website says. Despite his efforts, immigration is still likely to be a tough slog, no matter what ‘Boner’ may want. The push back from conservatives has caused significant tremors of doubt within ‘Boner's’ leadership team.

GOP Whip Kevin McCarthy, who has made it clear that, on a personal level, he strongly supports moving forward on the issue, is feeling some heat back home. The California Republican represents a highly conservative district where there’s a lot of anti-amnesty sentiment. And then we have Majority Leader Eric Cantor who has put major effort into a GOP version of the DREAM Act, which grants amnesty to the children of illegal immigrants. But he is also keeping an eye to his right in the event ‘Boner’ retires at the end of this Congress, leaving the seat open for Cantor to claim.

And then, or course, we have yet another amnesty favoring RINO in Paul Ryan, who confirmed on Tuesday that he has met ‘secretly’ with top Democrat Chuckie Schumer on immigration but, or course, dismissed the importance of the session, which he claimed occurred last year. After first raising some serious doubts about whether immigration could come to the floor this year in a Sunday television interview, Ryan was far more optimistic in his remarks to reporters Tuesday. "It wasn't really bad," Ryan said about the immigration showdown at the GOP retreat held in Cambridge, MD. "The substance of our document people really appreciated. It's just, like I said, the lawlessness of the White House makes us lose confidence that the President will enforce the laws," Ryan said.

What took place in the meeting has emerged as a point of debate among Republicans. GOP sources who participated in the meeting, both those who support moving on the issue and those who don't, said in the hours afterwards that about 80 percent of the lawmakers who spoke were against bringing a bill forward this year. Rep. Jeff Denham, from California and is someone who favors moving forward, said, "I would say that's ridiculous." The issue is complicated because some of the lawmakers who spoke in favor of the substance of the principles were not in favor of moving forward on legislation.

Still, conservative heavyweights like Reps. Tom Price and Jeb Hensarling came out strongly against moving forward, and the result of the meeting seemed to change Ryan's tone in the days afterward. One conservative lawmaker who said the meeting was deeply lopsided against bringing forward legislation in 2014 warned ‘Boner’, saying, "I think he is out for a walk with nobody tagging along." said Rep. Tom Cotton, a freshman member running for Senate in Arkansas said, "At this point I don't anticipate legislation will come to the floor." All I got to say is, from his lips to God’s ears.

‘Gang of Eight’ member Lindsey Graham, who just happens to be up for re-election this fall, said, "80 percent of Americans, if not 90, want to secure the border. So, lets say that for some reason the Obama administration backed away from what Congress mandated – fellow Democrats would get killed." He went on to say, "He's not running again, other people are. This scenario that he could just unilaterally back away from border enforcement and politically that not be damning to the Democratic party… the reason I know that we could move forward with securing the border is the Democratic party would get killed if they didn't."

Marco Rubio, who many, like myself, view as having stabbed his supporters in the back by joining up with the ‘Gang of Eight’, was a bit more pessimistic. Asked if the House should move forward in 2014, Rubio said, "That's not my role to give them advice on. They're working on what is a very difficult issue. The resistance they're running into is a lack of confidence that this president and the federal government will enforce the security measures no matter what they're written as." To me it seems as such an obvious no-brainer that we, the Republican Party, should make no moves on immigration until AFTER the next election.

THE CONGRESSIONAL FULL EMPLOYMENT CAUCUS???

Sheila Jackson Lee, who has to be one of the dumbest people not only in the House of Representatives but on the entire planet, says that the newly launched Congressional Full Employment Caucus will "give President Obama a number of executive orders that he can sign." Jackson Lee made the statement while gathered with Democrats on January 29th to announce the establishment of something called the Full Employment Caucus. Well if there’s one thing you can say about the Democrats, they’re very good at coming up with these nutty little ad hoc groups that in the end will serve no useful purpose what-so-freakin-ever.

Now in announcing the formation of this idiotic little group, the esteem Ms. Jackson Lee said, "We will be answering the call of all of America because people need work and we’re not doing right by them by creating work," Jackson Lee said. "I believe this caucus will put us on the right path and we’ll give President Obama a number of executive orders that he can sign with pride and strength." And this bonehead then went on to say, "In fact, I think that should be our number one agenda. Let’s write up these executive orders, draft them of course - and ask the president to stand with us on full employment."

This Congressional Full Employment Caucus was launched just last week by yet another mentally bankrupt-clown-of-a-Democrat, none other than John Conyers. He also happens to be one of those brilliant folks who has proudly proclaimed that there is absolutely no reason that we, the voting public, should ever expect those who pass legislation to actually know what’s in it. This brain-dead creep’s website says: "The Congressional Full Employment Caucus will serve as a platform and working group for Members dedicated to identifying solutions to our current unemployment crisis and advocating for legislative action."

Executive orders issued by a president have the full force of law and do not have to receive approval by the legislative branch of government. During his State of The Union address last week, Barry made quite clear that he’s willing to use executive actions in his continuing effort to sidestep Congress. In addition to Conyers and Lee, members of the caucus include; Frederica Wilson, Charles Rangel, Maxine Waters, Barbara Lee, Sheila Jackson Lee, José Serrano, and Mike Quigley. Except for the fact that they’re all Democrats and Quigley is white guy, anyone seeing a common denominator here?

THEY CAN RUN, BUT WE MUST NOT ALLOW DEMOCRATS TO HIDE…

I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall today when Barry went about the supposed soliciting of advice from his party's senators. Because I’d be willing to bet that during this little get together there were some Democrat voices that may have come through a lot louder than others. I’m talking about the voices of those nearly two dozen senators who are facing re-election this year. With control of the Senate potentially at stake here, many of those Democrats are now running like scalded dogs running like scalded dogs as they seek any way possible to distance themselves from Barry who has become pretty unpopular in some of their home states.

And since publicly announcing what his goals are for the coming year in his State of the Union address last week, Barry has become much more clandestine in how he goes about getting together with congressional Democrats. Apparently, a day after having hosted House Democrats in the East Room, Barry will be traveling to the baseball stadium where the Washington Nationals play to meet up with Senate Democrats who will be holding what’s described as being an annual private summit. Democrats seem to be taking some pretty unusual steps to make sure that no one is actually seen with Barry.

So with prospects for capturing the House this year, and return Pelosi to Speaker, having been reduced to the point where they are now pretty much nonexistent, Democrats have re-intensified their focus on at least being able to maintain their control of the Senate. But their rather tenuous majority will be toppled in November if they lose more than five seats out of 21 they will be working to defend. Although Barry has had to somewhat rein in his hopes for an ambitious second-term, due to Republican control of the House, his final years in office would be even more constrained should Democrats actually lose the Senate.

And in what appears to be an effort to assist those Democrats, who face tough races this year in conservative-leaning states that voted against Barry in 2012, in their effort to hoodwink the voters, the White House and Democrat leadership have given wide latitude to those who have publicized their disagreements with Barry. But it’s that same criticism that also serves as a reminder that Barry's ability to aid fellow Democrats this year may be rather limited. After all, it’s rather difficult to remain credible when, on one hand your claiming to oppose Barry, while on the other you’re seen trooping around the campaign trail together.

We’re told that this little brain-storming session between Barry and Democrat senators today will be focused not on the election but rather on his legislative agenda, including an unemployment insurance extension, a minimum wage hike and an expansion of the earned income tax credit. Spokesmoron Carney said, "It's part of an overall approach, running up to and in the wake of the State of the Union address, where the president is meeting with Democrats who share his priorities and vision when it comes to taking action to strengthen the middle class and to provide ladders of opportunity into the middle class."

Still, having said that, the White House has taken some steps to show that it is keenly attuned to the midterm dynamic that looms over every decision lawmakers will make this year. On Monday, Barry brought ‘Dingy Harry’ Reid, his campaign chairman and the head of the Senate Democrats' campaign committee to the White House to talk ‘strategy’ for 2014. And barely a week ago, Barry resurrected the White House political office that he disbanded in 2011, tasking top adviser David Simas with overseeing a team that will look out for the ‘needs’ of Democrat candidates. So I’m quite sure that work has already begun on the cooking up of some rather unsavory stuff.

The problem for some Democrats is "Obamacare" because it poses the clearest threat as Republicans vow to use the unpopular law to club over the head Democrats who voted for it. For other Democrats, niche issues like energy that acutely affect their states may play an outsize role in their campaigns. Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana was one of five Democrats who joined Republicans on Tuesday at a rare bipartisan news conference to call on Barry to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry oil on its way from Canada to the Texas Gulf Coast. But let’s not be fooled, because I’m quite sure that if she should gain re-election she will once again become a staunch opponent of building the pipeline.

Look, it’s all pretty simple. The bottom line here is that if we, the American people, are stupid enough to allow ourselves to be convinced that there exists some supposed rift between these Democrats and Barry, then we deserve whatever we get. Because when these people are out on the campaign trail telling us all about how much they disagree with Barry, we will need to see that for what it is. Which is nothing more than one huge crock of shit. Because once they get re-elected, if they get re-elected, you can bet your bottom dollar that the day after the election they’ll once again be one big happy socialist family. They’ll once again be arm in arm with the very same guy who they told us was someone that they vehemently disagreed with.

THE OBAMACARE TRAIN COMES A BIT FURTHER OFF THE TRACKS…

Well, just like old Nancy told us all back in 2010, you know that we’d have to first pass this thing in order to then find out what all was in it, it would now seem that the more we find out about what’s in it, the worse things seem to get. Who would of thought, right? Because now, at least according to the latest estimates Tuesday from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Obamacare will push the equivalent of roughly 2 million more workers out of the labor market by 2017 as employees decide either to work fewer hours or to simply drop out altogether. Gee, like we shouldn’t have seen that coming.

That number is a pretty significant jump in the nonpartisan budget agency’s initial projection and it suggests the healthcare law’s incentives are driving businesses and people to choose government-sponsored benefits rather than work. "CBO estimates that the ACA will reduce the total number of hours worked, on net, by about 1.5 to 2 percent during the period from 2017 to 2024, almost entirely because workers will choose to supply less labor — given the new taxes and other incentives they will face and the financial benefits some will receive," CBO analysts wrote in their new economic outlook. Well that’s certainly not too promising!

That conclusion, with it coming from one of the more respected analytical institutions in the country, is likely to further rock the political landscape for Democrats, many of whom are fleeing this same law that they themselves brought into being and just as the 2014 midterm elections approach. But are they not now simply reaping that which was sown. I mean seriously, what did they really think was going to happen as they sat in their smoke filled room contemplating then creating the monstrosity? And it may well be what’s responsible for them not only losing control of the Senate, but also for having their numbers reduced in the House.

I’m sure no one is surprised by the fact that both the White House and Democrat leaders have consistently dismissed any and all suggestions that the healthcare law is in any way responsible for reducing full-time employment. "I would say broadly that if you look at the economic data, the suggestion that the ACA is reducing full-time employment is belied by the facts," White House spokesmoron Jay Carney spewed to reporters back in July. The ease with which so many of these people can lie to us should be more than a little disconcerting to all of us. And it should also be something that they are not allowed to get away with!

In 2011, the CBO had estimated the law would cause a reduction of only 800,000 full-time equivalent workers. Those figures largely represented Americans who would choose not to work rather than those who would lose their jobs or have their work weeks reduced because of the law. In all, the rolling impact of the law will lead to 2 million fewer workers in 2017, 2.3 million fewer in 2021, and 2.5 million fewer through 2024, at least according to the CBO. And as The Wall Street Journal reported, this number represents a 1.5 to 2 percent reduction in the number of hours worked.

Just since Barry first came into office the nation’s workforce has already been reduced by over 10 million workers. A fact that makes our current unemployment rate just that much more of a joke. And here we are talking about reducing the workforce even further while at the same time we’re also beginning to talk more and more about granting amnesty to some 11 million people here illegally. People talk about Obamacare being in a death spiral, I would argue that if thing is allowed to proceed on its present course, the country death spiral our country is already in, will only be increased. This insanity has got to be brought to a stop!

Look, at the end of the day this entire Obamacare thing has been nothing other than an unmitigated disaster right from the git-go. And unless you’re a Democrat suffering from some grand delusion, it shows absolutely no sign of ever becoming anything other than the train wreck that many have already referred to it as being. And yet we’re made to put up with it. And why is that, exactly? Because for decades the Democrats have been seeking a way that would allow the government to better control we the people. And what better way is there to do that than to control access to our healthcare. And they’ll not let it go easily.