AN ACT OF SELF-PRESERVATION IS NOT AN ACT OF RACISM…

If you choose to believe the professional race hucksters like Al ‘Bull Horn’ Sharpton, Jesse ‘The Extortionist’ Jackson, or ‘Calypso Louie’ Farrakan, then I guess you can also be persuaded to believe that one man’s act of self-preservation is nothing more than a blatant act of very obvious racism. And so it would seem then that no white person, nor even a White-Hispanic for that matter, can ever be permitted to defend themselves when attacked by someone who is black without immediately being referred to as being a racist.

Now I’m not going to try to make the claim here that racism does not continue to exist here in America. After all, racism, in one form or another, exists everywhere on the planet, so what is it that would make America immune? But the truth is, at least here in America, that black on white racism is far more prevalent than white on black racism. It’s simply a fact that there are far more black racists than there are white racists despite the fact that blacks insist upon portraying themselves as being the victim in any black on white altercation.

Now that’s not to say that I don’t look at black ‘differently’ than I look at most whites, because I do. But having said that, I tend to look at blacks in much the same way that I look at those whites who take some level of pleasure in behaving in a way that intimidates others in their general vicinity. You see, blacks seem to take some perverse pleasure in doing all that they can to intimidate people, especially, white people. They enjoy their gangsta persona, in fact they work to cultivate it. And yet they refuse to see that it comes with a price.

For instance, if I’m driving down the road and I happen to see a young black male whose car is broken down on the side of the road. It’s unlikely that I’ll stop to help. And I freely admit that the reason for my not stopping is because he’s black. But the reason the basis for my unwillingness to stop is not specifically related to the color of his skin, per se, but with the behavior that can be said to be directly associated with his skin color. But also, if I were to see a white male with his head shaved and covered in tattoos I’m not likely to stop for him either.

So what many blacks claim are so quick to call racism, really isn’t racism at all. It’s simply a natural reaction, or a reflex that has essentially been created and then nurtured by blacks themselves. And it doesn’t help matters when they can be seen on television, night after night, behaving in what can be said to be a most bizarre and inappropriate manner. You see, where most whites look at blacks with suspicion because of specific kinds of behavior exhibited by blacks, most blacks look at whites out through the lens of pure hatred based solely on skin color.

Blacks continue to murder blacks, by the hundreds, and it’s worth nary a word on any of the nightly news programs. And it does nothing to reduce the level of apprehension or uneasiness one feels whenever alone and in close quarters with any black male whose background one is unfamiliar with. Jesse Jackson has himself made such an admission, once saying, "There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps... then turn around and see somebody white and feel relieved."

OUR MILITARY, A SHIP WITHOUT A RUDDER…

I thank God every single day that the majority of my time spent in the military was spent with someone at the helm who knew what it was to be a leader. Most of my time was spent serving under men whose last name was Reagan or Bush. Out of the 24 years I spent in the Navy I had the misfortune of serving under Jimmy Carter for 1 year and ‘Slick Willie’ Clinton for 8, and it was under these two pathetic imbeciles that leadership was simply nonexistent. So, needless to say, it was during those 9 years that morale was at its lowest, and pay was at its tightest.

And now after 6 years of being forced to contend with he who is without a doubt the most ill-equipped commander in chief in the history of this nation, it comes as no surprise to find out that morale in our armed services is now at an all time low. And I believe that I read somewhere, that pay and benefits are also being reduced for those who serve. The disdain that Democrats have long felt toward those who serve in the military has always been significant, but with this current president of ours it has been taken to new heights. I think we can all agree that he hates the military.

And while for some of our war-weary troops the end of an era of war in Iraq and Afghanistan is seen as being good news, for other service members, it's seen as little more than a total morale killer. You see, for many of them, particularly the young grunts and others in combat arms specialties, it's the realization that they may never go into battle for their country and their comrades. Many of these folks who make the decision to join, do so because of the wars this country is involved in.

But with Barry rapidly reducing the size of our force involved it what has become known as our "Overseas Contingency Operation", many have been force into retraining of one kind or another in the hope of being able to survive as the services are being rapidly downsized. The wars against America's enemies gave troops a noble purpose. Their training had focus, their sacrifices were appreciated by a largely grateful nation. That gratitude was reflected from the White House to the citizen in the street, all of whom heaped praise upon military members for their service.

There was a time when Congress lavished generous pay increases and expanded benefits on them while spending deeply to provide the gear and weapons they needed. Recruiters raced to grow the size of the services, and society vowed to never again undervalue the one percent of the country who willingly stepped forward to keep them safe. But it would appear that was then, because now it all seems quite different. Today, that gratitude seems to be dwindling. Those who join the military are said to do so because they can’t do anything else. What an insult!

And to add insult to injury, it courtesy of Barry’s failed leadership and his continuing effort to reduce America’s leadership role in the world, that the services have been made to weather several years of significant cuts in funding and tens of thousands of troops have been unceremoniously given the boot. Many still in uniform and seeking to retire from the military fear the same fate, as those cuts are not yet complete. I was fortunate to retire when I did, because it’s no longer worth it to make the military a career,

A Military Times survey of 2,300 active-duty troops found morale indicators on the decline in nearly every aspect of military life. Troops report significantly lower overall job satisfaction, diminished respect for their superiors, and a declining interest in re-enlistment now compared to just five years ago. Troops feel underpaid, under-equipped and under-appreciated, the survey data show. Our all-volunteer military is entering an era fraught with uncertainty and a growing sense that the force has been left adrift.

One trend to emerge from a recent Military Times survey is "that the mission mattered more to the military than to the civilian," said Peter Feaver, a political science professor at Duke University who studies the military. "For the civilian world, it might have been easier to psychologically move on and say, 'Well, we are cutting our losses.' But the military feels very differently. Those losses have names and faces attached to [them]." But when our commander-in-chief fails to put a name and a face to those losses, why should anyone else?

The priority for liberals has never been to maintain a strong defense of this nation. What has always been far more important to these scumbags is to make sure that we maintain the ability to cover the cost of those who the Democrats actively encourage to latch themselves onto the fat government teat. And we have been doing just that at an ever-increasing rate during the last 6 years, while sacrificing our ability to defend ourselves against what has become a rapidly growing list of enemies, also thanks to our commander-in-chief. It’s crazy!

DOES ANYONE REALLY PAY ATTENTION TO THESE JOBS NUMBERS???

Something you never hear about is how the labor force participation rate remained at what is a 36-year low of 62.8 percent in November, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). As I have mentioned before, the participation rate is the percentage of the civilian noninstitutional population who participated in the labor force by either having a job during the month or actively looking for one. And as it has also been pointed out before, that number matches the lowest percentage since March 1978 when, as you may recall, it was Jimmy Carter who occupied the Oval Office.

In November, according to BLS, the nation’s civilian noninstitutional population stood at 248,844,000. Of those, 156,397,000 Americans participated in the labor force by either holding a job or by actively looking for one. Those 156,397,000 who participated in the labor force made up 62.8 percent of the 248,844,000 civilian noninsttutional population, which matches the 62.8 percent rate in April, May, June, August and October of 2014 as well as the participation rate in March of 1978. The participation rate hit its lowest level of 62.7 percent in September 2014.

The other 92,447,000 people did not participate in the labor force, which means they did not have a job and were not actively trying to find one. When Barry "Almighty" first took office on that fateful day back in January 2009, there were 80,529,000 Americans who were not participating in the labor force, which means that since that day, nearly 12 Million, or 11,918,000, Americans have left the workforce. Of the 156,397,000 who did participate in the labor force, 147,287,000 had a job, and 9,110,000 did not have a job but were actively seeking one, making them the nation’s unemployed.

The 9,110,000 job seekers were 5.8 percent of the 156,397,000 Americans actively participating in the labor force during the month of November. Thus, the unemployment rate was 5.8 percent, the same as it was in October. And yet we’re supposed to ignore completely the government math involved in Friday’s turbocharged jobs headline. Numbers that came thanks primarily to seasonal adjustments and the rather shady math techniques employed there at the BLS. We’re supposed to believe that U.S. job growth managed to hit 321,000 even as the unemployment rate held steady at 5.8 percent.

These numbers, are, of course, not much more than a work of pure fiction. And the intent here is to present them in such a way, and with the hope, as generate, within the American people, if not a sense of unbridled optimism then at least a perception that the job market continues to mend and is on a pretty steady trajectory higher. It’s really all just smoke and mirrors, the specific purpose of which is to create the perception of a sound economy, where none exists. However, the household survey, which is an actual head count, makes clear that these numbers don’t paint a very accurate picture.

Here are a few figures to consider: That big headline number of 321,000 translated into just 4,000 more working Americans. There were, at the same time, another 115,000 on the unemployment line. That disparity can be explained through an expanding labor force, which grew 119,000, though the participation rate among that group remained at 62.8 percent, which is just off the year's worst level and around a 36-year low. But wait, there's more: The jobs that were created skewed heavily toward lower quality. Full-time jobs declined by 150,000, while part-time positions increased by 77,000.

And yet there were still other points not to like in this report. For instance: There were 110,000 fewer married men at work, while married women saw their ranks shrink by 59,000. So as you can pretty plainly see, the more you take the time to look beyond what it is that you’re being told, the more you find out how everything you’re being told is a lie. The numbers have now been manipulated to the point where they have become totally useless, except, perhaps, as a way for Barry, and is many minions in the state-controlled media, to convince the American people the economy is getting stronger.

HOUSE MEMBERS CLAIM TO HAVE READ 1648 PAGE BILL…

Let me start by saying that I very much doubt that Sheila Jackson Lee, that Democrat genius from Texas, is incapable of reading anything written much beyond the third grade level. So when she stated yesterday morning that she was "still reading" the bipartisan $585 Billion, 1,648-page National Defense Authorization bill I wasn’t the least bit surprised. Because the way I figure it, this moron will be about half way through it come this time next year.

So it was then that the House Republican leadership posted the bill online at 10:32 pm Tuesday night and was set for a floor vote yesterday, when it would go on to be passed 300-119. Before the vote Jackson Lee said, "I have the bill in my office and I am not prepared to vote on a bill that I am still reading, and so I’ll be on the floor raising the point of putting this bill on the floor without the opportunity for a full discussion on the questions of war and peace."

Some enterprising young reporter asked the stellar representative from Texas, "So you’re planning to read all of it before you vote on it?" To wish Jackson Lee responded, "If I have that finished, I’ll make a determination whether the Republicans have adequately provided members a time on the floor to debate it and a time on the floor to know the complete contents of the bill." So can we assume she had it finished before the big vote yesterday?

So why is it that this piece of legislation had to be over 1,600-pages long anyway? Because while this bill is supposed to include thing related to defense appropriations it is also said to contain several, shall we say, non-defense provisions. For instance it also includes the creation of new national parks and the establishment of a commission to develop a plan for, get this, a National Museum of Women’s History. Women’s History? Really?

Look, don’t get me wrong, I’m not naïve enough to think that this moron, Jackson Lee, is the ‘only’ House member out there busy making noisy claims that they ‘knew’ what was in the entire bill, when we all know, for a fact, that not one of them did. It’s just easy to pick on Jackson Lee because she’s just so damn stupid. And while many of us were likely born at night, it wasn’t last night, so we’re more than able to see right through these idiotic claims.

REPUBLICANS APPEAR POISED TO BEGIN THEIR JOURNEY INTO OBLIVION…

***RINO ALERT***RINO ALERT***RINO ALERT***

And so it would seem that even before the next Congress officially gets off the ground, many in the Republican Party seem to possess a rather misguided interpretation of the results that came out of this most recent midterm election. And it would also appear that those very same results have now already gone straight to the heads of many of our Republican congressional leaders. And I’m afraid these folks may be dangerously misreading what it is that the American people were really saying in last month’s midterm election.

Many of these supposed leaders seem to already be getting more than a little cocky. One perfect example of this cockiness is how we’re now being told that as early as next year the Republican Party will begin working to implement what’s being called a comprehensive immigration reform package. And it is also being said that ‘they’ are ready to accept that millions of undocumented immigrants in the country should not be deported. Such a declaration comes by way of House Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions.

This despite the fact that we continue to have poll after poll which makes very clear the point that a majority of the America people do not favor a plan that essentially amounts to nothing more than amnesty. Now Mr. Sessions, and his colleagues, may proceed in this direction if they wish, but I’m here to tell you that they do so at their own peril. Because such action not only jeopardizes the Republicans’ ability to maintain their majorities beyond 2016, but also diminishes, significantly, their chances of winning the White House in that same year.

So it was then, according ABC News, that Sessions’ comments came even as the House voted to block Barry's executive action on immigration, which would grant temporary amnesty to as many as 5 Million illegal immigrants. At a hearing this past Thursday on Barry’s executive actions on immigration, Sessions is reported to have said, "There is no one in responsible Republican leadership, elected officials, who has said we should deport 13 or 11 million people." He then went on to say, "That is not what this effort is about."

We’re told that Sessions fiercely opposes Barry's executive action, believing it to be an overreach of power. However, he has emphasized that there is a need to enact reform that will take into account that undocumented immigrants are already integrated into American society. He said, "To have a well-understood agreement about what the law should be and how we should as communities, and farm communities, and tech communities create circumstances where we can have people be in this country and work." Spoken like a true RINO.

And then, in sounding remarkably like Barry himself, it was Sessions who said, "And where not one person is quote 'thrown out or deported.' Where we do keep families together, but we do so under a rule of law of understanding." This is not why the Republicans were handed control of Congress, but it ‘is’ why their control of Congress is likely to be rather short lived. Sessions said that he and Virginia Republican Bob Goodlatte, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, would be working on a reform bill next year.

And it was during the hearing that Sessions made it very clear just whose side he is on when he even called on that little rat-bastard, and Illinois Democrat, Luis Gutierrez to work with him in what Sessions went on to call a bipartisan effort. Again it was according to ABC that Sessions said, in speaking to Gutierrez, "I'd ask you to come back to the table … and work on this and I think you will find reasonableness will abound." Gutierrez, however, expressed doubt about the intentions of Republicans.

Gutierrez said, "Every time we have another vote to deport all 11 million immigrants and their families someone on the Republican side says, 'Oh, Luis. Just wait. The day when Republicans seriously address immigration, visas, border security and legal status is coming someday soon.' But it never seems to come." He added, "It is always a higher priority to send a symbolic but meaningless message to the base that they are 'getting tough' rather than a serious message to the American people that they are getting serious about the immigration issue."

So the bottom line here, as far as I’m concerned, is that if the Republicans insist upon moving forward with their attempt to create millions of new Democrat voters then they had best understand something. They must understand that they will most assuredly be met with some stiff opposition and if they choose to ignore us that come 2016 they will be in for what will be a very rude awakening. And so they must realize that their current majority status may last but a mere 24 months. And if they are content with that, then so be it.

OBAMA, BUSY FANNING THE FLAMES…

Barry must think we’re all pretty stupid, or that maybe we just haven’t been paying attention. Or maybe, and what is more likely to be the case, he simply no longer cares whether we believe anything he says, or not. Because in his remarks made just today on the non-indictment of the New York police officer who allegedly choked Eric Garner to death during what a routine arrest supervised by a black female police sergeant, Barry actually made the claim that he does not involve himself in such controversies. Actually what he said was, "My tradition is not to remark on cases where there may still be an investigation." Since when?

Now while I may not have the best memory, I certainly can remember things well enough to be able to recognize Barry’s silly claim as being nothing more than an outright lie. Because it’s quite the opposite that’s true: from a supposed professor by the name of Gates to a petty thief by the name of Trayvon Martin to a common thug by the name of Michael Brown, Barry has always chosen to weigh in and on the wrong side. But being the narcissist that we all know him to be, he’s always felt compelled to insert himself into the conversation because he just ‘knew’ everyone wanted to hear what he thought about things.

And most recently, what came across as being more than a little bizarre was the fact that Barry chose to upstage New York City Mayor, ‘Communist Bill’ de Blasio. While the news networks awaited the mayor's press conference scheduled for 4:45 p.m., eastern, it was our old buddy Barry who chose to break in with his own remarks at about 4:43 p.m., interrupting his own pre-scheduled address to a gathering of Native American leaders at the White House in order to offer his take on the grand jury decision before local officials had had their chance to react. Once again Barry saw an opportunity, and he took it.

Let’s face it, where was any particular urgency for Barry to speak out on the topic? In contrast, I would argue, it was far more important to hear the mayor speak, especially given the possibility of violence on the streets of New York. With activists threatening to attack the Christmas tree lighting at the Rockefeller Center Wednesday evening, and demonstrators massing in Times Square, the mayor's message of non-violent protest was urgent. Yet Barry "Almighty" insisted on upstaging de Blasio. Granted, when he did speak, de Blasio seemed to go on for what seemed to be forever, and actually saying next to nothing, but it’s a matter of principle.

Barry's goal was to connect a local controversy to "the larger issues that we've been talking about now for the last week, the last month, the last year, and, sadly, for decades--and that is the concern on the part of too many minority communities that law enforcement is not working with them and dealing with them in a fair way." And it just a little over an hour later, on MSNBC that Sharpton announced a Dec. 13 march in Washington along the very same lines. However, it’s not clear, based on the available evidence, that there is much of a connection between the Garner case and earlier controversies. But evidence seems to matter very little.

Because for one thing, while Garner at least appears to be a bit more sympathetic victim than either Martin or Brown: he chose not to obey the officers, and had he done so he would, in all likely, still be alive. That being said, he did not chose to use violence in any way. Furthermore, there is no evidence of racism in any of these cases--though Barry along with his bro, and professional race hustler, Al ‘Bull Horn’ Sharpton, and any number of others who we know to be in the business of race pimping, have been quite busy implying that race is the one and only common denominator that ties all of these events together.

The measures that Barry is proposing, and that folks like Sharpton are essentially demanding, involve more intrusion by the federal government, not less. Their primary concern is not abuse of power, but imposing collective guilt for what de Blasio, in his (delayed) remarks, called "centuries of racism." And, already, the media's leftists are grinding the political axe, with Communist News Network’s (CNN), Jeffrey Toobin blaming the grand jury decision on the fact that Staten Island is more conservative than the rest of the city--never mind that there was no evidence of the multi-racial jury's political affiliations.

Barry wants the debate to be about race and politics, not about law or policing. It is a useful distraction from the lame-duck Barry "Almighty" presidency's continued failures. It is also a debate calculated to divide Americans anew. In 2009, after Barry accused a Cambridge policeman of acting "stupidly" in arresting Professor Gates, the result was a "beer summit" that involved both officer and arrestee. By now, Barry is no longer even bothering with gestures of reconciliation. He pointedly excluded any members of the Ferguson law enforcement community from his White House meetings on the issue this week.

And what’s worse, deep down, Barry knows, as do the rest of those doing their best to perpetuate this racist premise. He just can’t quite bring himself to say that America's police actually target black people on purpose, so he refers instead to ‘perceptions’ in minority communities. He seems desperate to be seen by those communities as an effective leader, instead of as the disappointment that he has so obviously come to be. So he fans the flames, regardless of the damage, seizing the spotlight as power slips from his grasp. Far from being ‘The One’ who we all had been waiting for, he is ‘The One’ who we should have avoided.

ANOTHER EPISODE OF THE ‘GASBAG CHRONICLES’, STARRING STENY HOYER…

In this the latest episode of the "Gasbag Chronicles" we find our socialist hero, the Constitutionally-challenged Steny Hoyer, busily doing his best to describe where it is in our Constitution that says Barry, our dictator-wannabe, has the authority to essentially rewrite, or to create out of whole cloth, new immigration policies regarding those in our country illegally.

It was at a press briefing on Tuesday that old Steny Hoyer actually made the claim that Barry does have "broad authority" to take unilateral action on immigration but was unwilling to directly answer the question of where it is, specifically, that our Constitution actually authorizes our ‘Dear Beloved Leader’ to unilaterally decide not to enforce current immigration laws.

Hoyer was asked: "The Constitution requires that the president ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed.’ Where specifically in the Constitution does it give the president the power not to enforce immigration laws against 5 million violators of that law?" And of course Hoyer could not point to any specific provision of the Constitution, because there is none.

What he did say was that Barry has authority because "presidents have broad authority to deal with implementation" of immigration law. In attempting to back up his claim Hoyer said that which many others of his ilk have also said in trying to claim the Barry has done nothing different than what several Republican presidents, and a Democrat, have done before him.

But as with the other, Hoyer neglected to mention the very critical fact that the Republicans to which many Democrats refer, were not acting unilaterally, as Barry has proceeded to do. What they did was to sign into law legislation that had originated in Congress. But I think that most willing to look beyond the politics recognize that that is not what Barry has done here.

Hoyer said, "Well, your question is: Do I think the president has the authority to do what he did, and the answer to that is, yes I do. I believe the legal precedents are pretty clear under President Bush and under President Reagan and President Clinton, both President Bush’s actions have been taken. Presidents have broad authority to deal with the implementation of the immigration statute and I think what the president has done falls within his authority to do so, and I know there’s a hearing in the House today about that."

Hoyer went on to say, "Congress has a responsibility to act." And added, "When you have the speaker, former majority leader, the present majority leader, and almost everybody that I hear talking about it, saying that the system is broken, we have a responsibility to fix it." But the truth here, regardless of who it is that’s making these claims, is that the system is not broken!

Hoyer blathered on, "And we have that opportunity," said Hoyer. "So whether the president has--I believe he has the authority--but the Congress clearly has the authority to set the law. And if we pass the law, if we pass a law, that will be dispositive of the issue. The problem is we haven’t done that and the president has acted because he believes it’s in the best interest of the country to do so and to focus, which I think he’s absolutely right about, to focus resources on border security."

"And when they talk about border security, the border is much, much more secure than it was 10 years ago by every calculation," said Hoyer. "And then also focus on getting those who’ve committed crimes in America out of this country, who are not authorized to be here, out of this country. That’s what he’s doing, I think he’s right."

Barry announced on November 20 an executive order that said, "if you’ve been in America for more than five years; if you have children who are American citizens or legal residents; if you register, pass a criminal background check, and you’re willing to pay your fair share of taxes--you’ll be able to apply to stay in this country temporarily without fear of deportation."

This policy reportedly will effect up to five million illegal aliens and yet in July, it was the very same Steny Hoyer who said, at the time, in an interview, that Barry "can’t legalize" illegal aliens. He then went on to say that the president "can implement the laws as he believes they should be implemented." In other words he can pick and chose which laws to enforce? Really?

It was then that Hoyer said, "What the president can in fact do, however, is implement the laws as he believes they should be implemented." And then went on to say, "And there have been a lot of scholars--and I’m not going to go through the quotes now--who have said the president clearly has broad authority to decide how he’s going to implement the law."

What the Democrats are very clearly trying to do here, between this action of Barry’s that is clearly unconstitutional and the disgusting behavior that was recently display by those in the Congressional Black (Bonehead) Caucus with their "hands up, don’t shoot’ drivel, is to work to cobble together what they hope will be an impregnable voting block for years to come.

And what seems to matter very little, if at all, to folks like Hoyer is the actual state, whether fiscally, morally or economically, of our country. The primary goal of Democrats is to come up with a way that provides to them the ability to rig the political game by skewing our electoral process in such a way that will virtually guarantee to them endless electoral victories.

CHARLES BARKLEY MAKIN’ A LITTLE SENSE…

I’ll admit I’ve never been a big fan of Charles Barkley. I thought he said some pretty idiotic things about Romney back during the 2012 presidential campaign that I thought were pretty uncalled for. And I’m pretty confident that he voted for the guy that has now so screwed up this country that we may never be able to get it straightened out. And for no other reason than because that very same guy is black. So imagine my surprise when I heard that he had actually come out on the side of the police officer.

It was during an interview on the Communist News Network (CNN) that Barkley made the point that race is never discussed in the United States until "something bad happens." And he went on to say that he finds it "ridiculous" when people believe white police officers set out to shoot African-Americans. He told CNN’s Brooke Baldwin, "We never discuss race in this country until something bad happens," and even then, "everybody wants to protect their own tribe, whether they are right or wrong."

The controversial star, who is now a basketball analyst for Turner Sports, has come under fire in recent days after calling protesters who have destroyed businesses in Ferguson "scumbags" and complaining that some successful African-Americans like himself are degraded by the community for not being "black enough." Barkley also agrees with a Missouri grand jury's decision not to indict white former Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of the 18-year-old, 300 pound thug, Michael Brown.

Barkley has had his own issues with the police, but told Baldwin that many communities complain about racial profiling after they call for police to clean up their neighborhood, and said there is "a reason" for racial profiling. Barkley said, "We as black people, we have a lot of crooks." He went on to say, "We can't just wait until something like (the Michael Brown shooting) happens. We have to look at ourselves in the mirror." He added, "There is a reason that they racially profile us in the way they do. Sometimes it is wrong, and sometimes it is right."

While Barkley criticized rioters who caused destruction in Ferguson, he said he agrees with peaceful protests, such as the other demonstrations being waged in Ferguson or such as the ones by NFL players who held up their hands in the "don't shoot" pose that has been used after the Brown death. But personally, I disagree with what these football players did, because this dead thug never once had his hands up. And to try to create the perception that he did is to do nothing more than to perpetuate what is nothing more than a lie.

Barkley said, "Anybody who walks out peacefully, who protests peacefully, that's what this country was built on." And then went on to say, "But to be burning peoples' property, burning police cars, looting peoples' stores, that is 100 percent ridiculous." But where is the need to protest in any fashion? This cop was doing nothing more than trying to prevent this 300 pound thug from killing him. What, exactly, is there that’s deserving of a protest, the fact that the white cop survived and the black thug, so intent upon killing him, didn’t?

Barkley did seem to contradict himself a bit because while he decried the rioting in Ferguson's streets, it was at the same time that he said that he does not think Brown's stepfather, Louis Head, should face charges of inciting a riot, after being captured on video yelling "burn this bitch down" after the grand jury made its decision. Focusing on such issues confuses the situation, Barkley told Baldwin, as "there's so much noise going on you never get to the crux of the issue that you need to be discussing." I disagree! The guy belongs in prison!

INCREDIBLE AMOUNT OF DEATH TAKES PLACE IN THE BLACK COMMUNITY EVERYDAY, AND YET THERE’S NO OUTRAGE…

Now here’s a bit of news that doesn’t seem to be getting a lot of coverage, and I think we can all guess why.  You see, it was in that great socialist bastion of New York City that 77.56% of all abortions performed in 2011 were performed on Black and Hispanic babies.  That revelation comes to us by way of data collected by Barry’s very own Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).  And, sadly, it seems to matter no more to this country’s black ‘leaders’ than does the fact that over 90% of all murders committed in the black community are committed by other blacks.

But in getting back to the topic of abortion, it’s according to something called The Abortion Surveillance report published by the CDC, for which the latest abortion numbers are for 2011, that there were 76,251 abortions performed in New York City that year.  And from that total, 9,550 abortions were of white babies, which is 12.5% of the total; 35,188 babies were black, or 46.1% of total; 23,959 were Hispanic, or 31.4%; and then there were another 7,554  “other” abortions, 9.9%, which includes Asians and Native Americans, as well as those babies not reported by race.

So as you can very plainly see, abortions of black and Hispanic babies combined for a total of 59,147, which is 77.56% of the total abortions performed in NYC.  Another interesting fact is that blacks, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, make up 25.5% of the population of New York City, and Hispanics comprise 28.6% of the NYC population. And yet despite those population percentages, blacks make up 46.1% of the abortions, and Hispanics, 31.4%.  While whites comprise 44% of the NYC population, they made up 12.5% of total abortions in that city.  And no one bats an eye.

And in a effort to put that somewhat in perspective, that total for one city, 76,251 babies killed, surpasses the number of abortions for every single state reporting their abortion numbers, at least according to the CDC.  No other state reporting its abortion numbers surpassed 76,251 babies killed.  However, combine the NYC abortion numbers with the New York state number and any you end up with a grand total of 103,339, which is still higher than any other state reporting, based on the CDC data.  It took a state the size of Texas to even come in in second place with a total number of 71,658 abortions.

I’ve always been more than a little curious when it comes to why it is that minorities, and especially blacks, insist upon voting for the very same political party that seems so determined in its efforts to kill off as many of them as possible while, at the same time, working just as hard to ensure that those who are ‘allowed’ to survive become permanently dependent upon government.  It’s just never made all that much sense to me.   I keep waiting for the day when they will chose to stand on their own two feet rather than to be satisfied with whatever it is that those for whom they vote decide what it is that they deserve.   But that day never comes.

DEMOCRATS: FILE THIS ONE UNDER…SICK AND TWISTED…

I think most will agree that they have, at least, suspected for a very long time that the Democrat Party nearly as a whole, puts a very high premium on political power.  Both on obtaining it and doing all that they can, no matter how perverse of unethical, to maintain it. This overwhelming need for power is more important to them than even is the survival of our country which, it seems, they are only too glad to sacrifice if, in the end, it is they who will be able to control whatever is left of it once the dust settles.  And some recent actions by some should effectively remove all doubt that what I say is true.

Because what we’re witnessing today, all in the name of racial injustice, can, I think, be described as an all new low for Democrats.  We have in Congress today a rather perverted collection of individuals who are, in all likelihood, some of the most despicable people to ever hold their high office.  They are a group who truly hate this country and all that it stands for.  And what might it be, you ask, that makes them so?  Well for one thing, it’s their unquenchable thirst for political power, a desire that is so consuming, and so overpowering, that there is literally nothing that they will not do to satisfy it.

And it was just last night that several of these individuals of very questionable character took to the House floor to take advantage of, and to exploit, rather than to work to heal, a situation that has been made into something that it was not.  Their “Hands up, don’t shoot,” gesture was said to protest the police shooting, albeit in self-defense, in Ferguson, Missouri, of the black thug by the name of Michael Brown.  First we had Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, Democrat of New York, who said as he took to the floor, “Hands up, don’t shoot. It’s a rallying cry of people all across America who are fed up with police violence.”

This racist piece of human excrement went on to declare, “In community, after community, after community, fed up with police violence in Ferguson, in Brooklyn, in Cleveland, in Oakland, in cities and counties and rural communities all across America.”  Jeffries added that people are fed up with injustice, a broken criminal justice system and “continuing to see young, unarmed African-American men killed as a result of a gunshot fired by a law enforcement officer.”  But why is it that it’s the justice system that’s considered to be broken simply because we have black youths who have never been taught how to behave in a civilized manner?

Jeffries went on to say, “Now this is a problem that Congress can’t run away from and the [Congressional Black Caucus] stands here today to make sure that Congress runs toward the problem.”  He then added, “That we come up with constructive solutions to breaking this cycle, this epidemic, this scourge of police violence all across America.”  Now the sad truth is that is these so-called black ‘leaders’ were genuinely concerned about the fate of young black men, they would challenge our black president whose policies have resulted in double-digit black unemployment and allowed those in horrendous inner city schools to remain trapped there.

But it’s unlikely that we’ll be seeing anything like that taking place, because these demented individuals support those very same policies, policies that only serve to keep blacks in bondage to the government.  Individuals with names that I’m quite sure most are very familiar with.  Joining Jeffries’ gang of miscreants included such notable racists as Yvette Clarke, another Democrat from New York, Sheila Jackson Lee, from Texas and Al Green, also from Texas, who actually went on praise the handful of St. Louis Rams’ players for also making the “hands up” gesture as they entered the field for their game on Sunday.

The pathetic loser, Green, was heard to say from the House floor, “This has become the new symbol, a new statement, a statement wherein people around the country now, are calling to the attention of those who don’t quite understand that this is a movement that will not dissipate, it will not evaporate. It is a movement that is going to continue.”  But what does it say about the character of these supposed ‘leaders’ who can, and so casually, take the name of a black thug who was himself responsible for his own death, and use it as a rallying cry for a ‘movement’ the direct result of which is that ‘movement’ becomes based on nothing more than a lie?

MICHAEL BROWN, NOT QUITE AS INNOCENT AS THEY'D LIKE US TO BELIEVE...

And what we have here is the ‘ADULT’ police record of that "unarmed black teen" as well as being a candidate for sainthood, Michael Brown:

Burglary – First Degree (Felony - 11/02/2013)
Armed Criminal Action (Felony – 11/02/2013)
Assault 1st Degree – Serious Physical Injury (11/02/2013)
Armed Criminal Action (Felony – 11/02/2013)
Also a member of the Vice Lords gang.

And also something that I feel is worth mentioning, which is always left out of nearly every discussion related to the deceased Mr. Brown, is the fact that he was a rather sizable individual standing at 6 foot 3 inches and weighing in at 300 pounds. And I’d be curious to know what else would be found out about this man of supposed sterling character if his juvenile record were ever to be unsealed? And what if, for instance, Brown was said to have a second degree murder charge on his juvenile arrest record, which rumor has it actually exists? And yet…

We’re told that Michael Brown's family will "pursue all the legal avenues," including legislation named after their son. This information comes to us by way of attorney Benjamin Crump during his appearance on CBS's "Face the Nation" this past Sunday. Crump said the proposed "Michael Brown law" would require all police officers to wear video cameras that record every move that they make. If I was Mr. Crump, and my sole interest was to show how it is that cops routinely use excessive force when dealing with individuals such as Brown, I’d want to be careful.

That might prove to be one of those things that might need to come with the disclaimer of, "Be careful what you wish for." Because I’ve got a sneaking suspicion that had Officer Wilson been wearing such a devise, not only would this case never have gone to a grand jury, but the continuing attempts, by everyone from Al ‘Bull Horn’ Sharpton to Barry ‘Almighty’ to portray this kid as a victim of racism, would have quickly been shown to be the sick joke that we all know it was. This ‘kid’ was a thug. And if there was a racist present, it was him.

Anyway, it according to Crump that: "The family will pursue all the legal avenues, potential civil wrongful death lawsuit, as well as look at pushing forward with proposed legislation for (a) Michael Brown law -- working with the National Bar Association, NAACP, National Action Network, and others to have it where it is required that every police officer in every American city is required to have video body cameras, so it will be transparent; we won't see this play out over and over again, whether it's in New York or Louisiana or Texas."

Crump also called for changes in the legal system saying, "We see young people of color, especially young black and brown boys, being killed at the hands of the people to protect and serve them, and they are never held accountable, largely due to this process, this grand jury process that needs to be indicted. It's broken. It continues to yield the same results over and over again where they kill our children and they are never held accountable." Crump added, "We have to change that entire process to have a special prosecutor appointed."

But let’s be real here for a second, can we? Who is it that’s really so busy killing black children? Let’s see. Might that be other members of the black community? And yet we never have any mention of the many blacks killed by other blacks. The number of black on black murders dwarfs, and by over 90 percent, the number of incidents where we have white cops shooting these black thugs. But the 90 percent goes unreported because it doesn’t serve to advance the racist narrative that those on the left are so desperate to portray as being the reality.

The racist dolt, Crump complained that Officer Darren Wilson was never cross-examined during the grand jury proceeding, which was intended to help prosecutors decide if they have enough evidence to bring a case to trial. Crump said, "And so it further builds the mistrust that many in the African- American communities all across America have with this process and the local law enforcement and court officials." The grand jury proceedings are secret to protect witnesses and reputations, and with good reason.

According to this moron, ‘if’ the grand jury had indicted Officer Wilson, there is little doubt that the case would have gone to trial. Crump claims that that would have been preferable, even if a trial resulted in Officer Wilson's acquittal: "People can accept that more...when you have...trial by jury, where it's all transparent, where all the evidence and the witnesses are cross-examined and vetted." But the evidence that was presented is now out there for all to see, but one has to want see it, and boobs like this Crump guy, or Sharpton, obviously don’t.

He said, "People think that is fair. People think that is impartial. But when you have this secret grand jury proceeding, where there is only one lawyer in the room and that lawyer is a local prosecutor who has a symbiotic relationship with the local police department and the local police officer and has no relationship or no regard for this young person of color, and then you see the results all the time coming out where there's exonerated, they're cleared, it's swept under the rug, and we're told to just go on and get over it, where we can't continue just to go ahead and get over it, because these are our children that are being killed." What a bunch of gibberish!

"The statistics are alarming," Crump continued. "Young black men between ages of 15 and 19 are said to be likely to be killed by the police 21 percent more than anybody else. And they are stopped three times by police more than anybody else." While I’m no hurry to support the numbers that this guys throws around, if blacks are more likely to get stopped by police, they have only themselves to blame. Black males rather enjoy their thuggish persona, so therefore they’re going to have to be willing to accept the consequences that go along with it.

In sounding more than just a little ridiculous, this clown, Crump went on to say, "We have to get police officers who are not cold as ice like the shooter of Michael Brown, but police officers who care about trying to have a relationship with the community, not seeing the citizens of low-income communities or minority communities as demons, as criminals, but as citizens that we all have to be together, in that we're all in the same boat and we have a vested interest." In looking at images of Officer Wilson I don’t see someone who is "cold as ice."

While Crump complained that Wilson was "cold as ice," police described Brown as being a thug. Which is easier to justify, calling Wilson "cold as ice," or calling Brown a thug? After all, Brown had just committed a strong-arm robbery at a nearby convenience store, a crime captured on videotape, and he was walking in the middle of the street when Officer Wilson first encountered him and his companion. Wilson testified, and black witnesses corroborated, that Brown trapped him in his cruiser, hit him multiple times, and grabbed for his gun.

Let’s face it, this asshole, Benjamin Crump, is really no different than the race hustlers Al ‘Bull Horn’ Sharpton, Jesse ‘The Extortionist’ Jackson or ‘Calypso Louie’ Farrakhan. They would rather keep the focus on the nonexistent problem of racist cops, than on the real problem of blacks killing blacks at a rather alarming rate or astronomical black unemployment or about the millions of blacks who are literally trapped in horrendous inner city schools. But we can’t talk about such inner city problems because it’s the Democrat Party that controls those cities.

AMERICA IS GETTING BETTER? REALLY? WHO KNEW???

I must admit that upon hearing that there was a recent poll conducted which seemed to indicate that a majority of Americans now believe things are going well here in these United States, I was more than a little confused. Because to be honest with you, I’m one of those who happens to believe things are actually going pretty shitty. But it was shortly after first hearing the news that I looked into it a bit deeper and then things kind of starting falling into place. Because as I came to find out this poll that seems to paint such a rosy picture was conducted jointly by a couple shady leftwing outfits, the Communist News Network (CNN) and a left of center ‘research’ organization, ORC International.

It was according to this CNN/ORC International poll, which was conducted Nov. 21-23 and was said to involve 1,045 adults, that 52 percent of those people polled said things are going well, including 8 percent who said they were going very well. This compares to the 48 percent who said things are going badly, including 33 percent who said things are going pretty badly, and 15 percent who said things are going very badly. The results mark the most positive assessment of the state of the country since the poll began asking the question in January 2007. I’d be very interested to know the racial makeup of these 1,045 people. Were there any whites included? Hey, just sayin’.

Anyway, the results of this poll were also said to show that there has been a steady increase in optimism over the past few months, with the percentage of people saying things are going "very well" more than doubling. At the beginning of September, 44 percent of people said things are going well. It was CNN that said, "[The poll] marks consistent improvement in the mood of the nation over the past few months, despite a series of national security crises and continued gridlock in Washington." I like to think of myself as being a reasonably intelligent and well-informed individual, and I can’t help but wonder if the people in this poll are looking at the same country that I am.

Also, supposedly, we’re expected to believe that this poll found sentiments regarding the economy have also improved over the last year. Two years ago, just 19 percent of people said the economy is starting to recover from the problems it had been facing. Today the figure is 32 percent. And the number of people who think the economy is still in a downturn has dropped from 39 percent two years ago to 26 percent in the current poll. A plurality, or 41 percent, say the economy has stabilized. So what is it that’s happened for these people to see improvement? CNN noted, "But the mood isn't consistently positive in the new CNN/ORC poll, it suggests both a gender and geographic divide."

Strangely enough, it’s said that men, specifically, are more positive about the state of the nation and the economy than are most women. Fifty-five percent of men have a positive view about how well things are going with America compared to 48 percent of women. Thirty-six percent of men believe the economy is recovering compared to just 28 percent of women. Meanwhile, according to CNN, people in the Northeast and Midwest expressed more optimism about the economy than those in the South and West, mirroring the actual differences in the conditions of the economy regionally. I see myself as being just an average guy, and I don’t see any kind of a ‘recovery’ underway.

So what, if anything, are we to make of this poll that seems to be attempting, just like Barry spends a great deal of his time doing, to convince us that things really are getting better? Especially at a time when most of us, in our hearts, fully recognize that at best things are barely creeping ahead, and at worst, they’re slowly slipping backward. How many of us know someone today that has been put out of work specifically because of the policies put in place by out piss-poor excuse of a president? Personally I’m of the opinion that this poll is nothing more than a bit of pure propaganda the purpose of which I’m not quite sure? Are they trying to somehow show support for Hitlery Clinton?

OBAMA, THE DANGEROUSLY ARROGANT NARCISSIST…

I can’t seem to recall, from any point in my lifetime, having ever met, or heard speak, anyone who is quite so in love with himself, as well as with the sound of his own voice, as is our current, and quite disastrous, president. And apparently he is of the opinion, the results of our recent election notwithstanding, that most Americans are also in love with both him and the sound of his voice. But, and I mean no disrespect here to the office to which he was ‘elected’, I’m here to tell you that there are a great many of us out here beyond the ‘beltway’ who are not quite as enamored with him, nor with the sound of his voice, as he seems to think we are.

What prompts this little declaration of mine is a recent speech Barry delivered in Chicago, just this past Tuesday, to explain his unilateral action on immigration. It was during this speech that, leaving aside passages in which he quoted a Chicago pub owner and a letter from a citizen from Georgia, our ‘Dear Beloved Leader’, Barry "Almighty" used the first person singular—including the pronouns "I" and "me" and the adjective "my"— a grand total of 91 times. And yet, as hard as it might be to believe, anyone who might be thinking that that must be some sort of a record, even for Barry, would be sadly mistaken, because it was really nowhere near.

Because as often as Barry used "I," "me" and "my" in his Chicago speech earlier this week, it was no match for the speech that he delivered in Austin, Texas, back on July 10 of this year. It was during that speech that Barry would use the first person singular 199 times. But in all fairness to Barry, in that Texas speech he did not focus specifically on immigration policy. In that speech, Barry explained his intention to act unilaterally wherever, and whenever, he could. And it was then that Barry said, "It is lonely, me just doing stuff." Then adding, "I don’t have to run for office again, so I can just let her rip." Let her rip? How presidential!

So it was then on this past Tuesday, in Chicago, that Barry was once again heard to say, "This isn’t amnesty, or legalization, or even a pathway to citizenship--because that's not something I can do." Also, in an attempt to be fair here, the number of times he resorted to the first person singular was significantly expanded by his decision to engage a group of hecklers there in the crowd. Hecklers who apparently did not believe Barry had gone far enough in his unilateral actions on immigration. Barry told the hecklers, "I understand", at according to the White House transcript and video posted by C-SPAN

In addressing those hecklers, Barry said, "Here, can I just say this?" And he went on to say, "All right, I've listened to you. I heard you. I heard you. I heard you. All right? Now, I've been respectful. I let you holler. So let me--all right? Nobody is removing you. I've heard you. But you’ve got to listen to me, too." Barry then proceeded to boast to the hecklers, saying, "But what you're not paying attention to is the fact that I just took action to change the law." Barry would later mention, "Some have said it was a mistake for me to act. But then others remind me why I had to." What does he mean when he says he had to?

Barry said, "The day I sign a comprehensive immigration bill into law, then the actions I take will no longer be necessary." And then of course he went on to declare, "But in the meantime, I'm going to do what I can to make this system work better." Actually, if his intent actually was to make the system work better, all he would really need to do would be to enforce the many laws that already on the books. But nope, he won’t do that! Because if he were to actually do that, well then he wouldn’t be able to run around telling anyone, and everyone, who will listen to him about how the system is so very badly broken.

Barry’s speech, according to the White House transcript, was approximately 4,200 words and lasted 33 minutes. That means that on average Barry "Almighty" used the first person singular every 46 words—or every 22 seconds. Barry and his cohorts enjoy taking every opportunity possible to compare him to President Abraham Lincoln. But it might be worth noting that Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address, the speech in which he presented his understanding of the moral significance of the Civil War, was only 696 words long. And in that speech, Lincoln used the first person singular, only once, a far cry from Barry’s need to always focus on himself.

Frankly I’m now in a place where, after the last six years of being made to listen to this guy, just the mere sound of his voice makes me physically ill. Whenever he appears on television, I find myself having to turn the channel or leave the room, otherwise I’m running to the bathroom. And I’m not quite sure it’s because of his smug, arrogant tone or his childish, rather incessant, need to constantly focus only on himself. He’s not nearly as smart as he seems to think he is, on that I think most of us will agree. And yet, Barry seems to think rather highly of himself, capable of convincing us that only he can provide solutions to our many problems, whether real or imagined.

But as Barry has demonstrated time and again, and since first entering the Oval Office, he has neither the ability nor the necessary skill set to actually solve any of the problems we are made to face, no matter how insignificant, or complex, those problems may be. What he truly seems to excel at is first the creating, and then the making worse, of all kinds of problems, many of which never existed before his appearance onto the political scene. And yet he endeavors to convince us all that absolutely nothing is his fault, and that the fault lies with others who stand by and refuse to act. He claims that all he’s seeking to do is to make things ‘better’. But it’s all a lie.

FERGUSION: THE FACTS, MA’AM, JUST THE FACTS…

Facts, or so they say, are pesky things. And as is often the case they are simply ignored if they don’t support the argument that one is trying to advance, or the violence that one is trying to incite. And it’s in Ferguson that we see both of these positions coming into play and with some pretty horrible results. The facts simply do not support the argument behind why it was that the grand jury failed to indict the officer. As well, the facts also do not provide any justification for the continuing violence.

Any yet according to the many protesters who erupted in violence, and those who have been very busy encouraging them, after a grand jury declined to indict Officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., this was clearly a case of a white policeman shooting an unarmed black teenager with his hands in the air in a community said to be plagued by racial tension. But again, that’s not what the facts actually indicate. The facts quickly became, essentially, irrelevant.

And yet it’s the narrative that has been, and continues to be, promoted by many in the state-controlled media as well as many outside of the media and in government. But the actual facts about the case tell a very different story. But as we all know those interested in doing nothing more than inciting violence and advancing their own agenda are interested very little in the facts. But be that as it may, here are a few facts that seem to have been left out of the story for what, you will quickly see, were very obvious reasons.

1. Surveillance video showed that shortly before the confrontation, 18-year-old Brown stole cigarillos from a convenience store and shoved a clerk who tried to stop him.

2. The autopsy report showed that Brown had marijuana in his system when he died.

3. Officer Wilson, driving to the call of a medical emergency, first encountered Brown walking in the middle of a street and told Brown and his friend to walk on the sidewalk. Brown responded with an expletive.

4. Wilson chose to confront Brown only after he saw the cigarillos in his hand and recalled the radio report of a robbery at the convenience store.

5. Wilson said when he tried to open his car door, Brown slammed it back shut, then punched Wilson in the face.

6. Fearing another punch could knock him out, Wilson drew his gun, he told the grand jury, and Brown grabbed the gun, saying "you are too much of a pussy to shoot me."

7. An African-American witness confirmed that Brown and Wilson appeared to be "arm-wrestling" by the car.

8. Another witness saw Brown leaning through the car's window and said "some sort of confrontation was taking place."

9. After Wilson fired a shot that struck Brown's hand, Brown fled and Wilson gave chase. Brown suddenly stopped. An unidentified witness told the grand jury that 6-foot-4, 292-pound Brown charged at Wilson with his head down. Wilson said Brown put his hand under the waistband of his pants as he continued toward Wilson. That's when Wilson fired.

10. A witness testified that Brown never raised his hands.

11. Gunpowder found on the wound on Brown's hand indicated his hand was close to the gun when it fired. According to a report, the hand wound showed foreign matter "consistent with products that are discharged from the barrel of a firearm."

12. Judy Melinek, a forensic pathologist who reviewed the autopsy for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, said the gunpowder "supports the fact that this guy is reaching for the gun, if he has particulate matter in the wound."

13. Wilson said Brown was physically uncontrollable and "for lack of a better word, crazy." He said that during the confrontation, he was thinking: "He's gonna kill me. How do I survive?" Legal experts say police officers typically have wide latitude to use deadly force when they feel their safety is threatened.

So there you have it, you can make up your own mind. But keep in mind that these are only a few of the actual facts that were never presented by the media. Because had such things been pointed out, it would have to have been admitted that race played no role in the altercation that took place between the white cop and the black thug. The facts would have dramatically altered what it was that those in the state-controlled media were so desperate to present as being the reality of the situation. Thus, we never heard them.

FERGUSON, DOING UNTO OTHERS…

You know, there’s an old adage that says, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." And it’s something than came to mind when I recently heard about the church that Michael Brown’s family was known to attend, being torched by vandals. I thought of it as being an example of turnabout being fair play. And to be honest, upon hearing the news I felt very little sympathy. It’s just that I have a rather difficult time respecting the property of those who feel completely justified in calling for the destruction of property owned by others, for any reason. But when the destruction is perpetrated for the reason that it has been in Ferguson, for me such behavior is deserving of nothing more than the strongest form of condemnation.

As it turns out, the church attended by Michael Brown’s father and his family was one of a dozen or so buildings burned to the ground during Monday night’s protests in the wake of a grand jury’s decision not to indict Officer Darren Wilson. While the majority of the buildings destroyed on Monday were in downtown Ferguson, the Flood Christian Church is located about three miles away from the protests in a remote section of Country Club Hills. Pastor Carlton Lee, who has been one of the more vocal advocates for the Browns since their son was shot in August, would rather believe that those responsible for the destruction were white supremacists rather than the black protesters who are the ones we’ve all seen burning down everything else.

The rather paranoid Rev. Lee told NBC News he believes that his church was targeted because he has repeatedly called for the arrest of Officer Wilson. Lee, who has participated in numerous rallies and press conferences with Michael Brown Sr. also claims to have received more than 70 death threats. He said, "I'm very vocal in regards to the Michael Brown case." This boob went on to say, "The police called me and told me the church was on fire." And he added, "I was in complete disbelief. I didn't think anyone would set a church on fire." I can’t help but wonder just how ignorant must this guy must be not to recognize the fact that there is nothing that those with whom he has chosen to associate with would NOT destroy out of vengeance.

He said, "I feel like one of my children has died. I put my blood, my sweat, my tears into this church, getting this church built from the ground up." And he went on to say, "To see that it was taken down in a few minutes is really heartbreaking." Rev. Lee said Michael Brown Sr. was 'just devastated again' about the extensive damage. But the good reverend seems not to be bothered in the least by the ‘devastation’ suffered by those who have been forced to watch as their businesses went up in flames even though they had absolutely nothing to do with the decision arrived at by the Ferguson grand jury. To the reverend such violence is seen as being perfectly acceptable and is to be expected due to the racial injustice that has been perpetrated here.

And when it comes to who it was, exactly, that might have committed this act, who is it that the good reverend suspects? Was it the gangs of marauding blacks who were determined to destroy everything in their path? Nope, instead he suspects that his church was targeted by white supremacists who wanted to punish him for his support of the Brown family. Really? Now has anyone seen or heard anything about gangs of white supremacists roaming the streets of Ferguson? And if there were don’t you think that CNN, or MSNBC or any of the major networks would have been shouting about them from the rooftops? So I’m thinking what we have here is less a man of God and more just another racist in a crowd of what seems to be very many!

Pastor Lee said that he had known the Brown family for several years after officiating at their wedding. He said he remembered Michael Jr. as a ‘big jokester.’ His recollection of the 300 pound, six foot four inch teen varies considerably from the thug that we’ve all seen on the convenience store video. You see in talking about Brown, the reverend recalls, ‘He was a fun loving guy to be around.’ And this supposed man of God is another of those who puts race above even such things as faith. He has demonstrated very little that would seem to indicate that he actually practices what he preaches. He’s able to somehow justify the property of others being destroyed but seems dumfounded that someone burned down his church.

CHUCKIE SCHUMER, “DEMOCRATS MUST EMBRACE GOVERNMENT!”…

It’s not very often that you’ll have the opportunity to hear something that can be said to resemble a little honesty coming from a Democrat, especially old Chuckie Schumer. Which begs the question, what might this slimy old f*ck be up to? Because it would now seem that, at least according to old Chuckie, the Democrats might have made a mistake by ‘passing’ Barry’s health-care law back in 2010 instead of, maybe, focusing more directly on helping the middle class. Gee, no shit. Ya think?

It was in a speech recently given in Washington that old Chuckie was heard to say, "Unfortunately, Democrats blew the opportunity the American people gave them" in electing Obama and a Democratic Congress in 2008 amid a recession. Chuckie went on to say, "We took their mandate and put all our focus on the wrong problem -- health care reform." Actually what they did was to see an opportunity to go after something they’ve wanted since the days of FDR, and they went for it.

Now fast-forward a few years and suddenly we have old Chuckie saying that the Democrats should have addressed issues aiding the middle class to build confidence among voters before turning to revamping the health-care system. He said he opposed the timing of the health-care vote but was overruled by other party members. Funny thing, but that’s not quite how I remember things going down. I seem to remember old Chuckie as being rather instrumental in getting Obamacare shoved through Congress.

Chuckie said, "The plight of uninsured Americans and the hardships created by unfair insurance company practices certainly needed to be addressed." And he went on to say, "But it wasn’t the change we were hired to make" in the 2008 election. Chuckie’s comments represent a rather unusual public intra-party critique of the way Barry’s signature legislative achievement was enacted. He spoke at the National Press Club to analyze the results of this month’s election, in which Republicans took control of the Senate and increased their majority in the House.

Democrats’ pro-government posture "has the natural high political ground" when the middle class is frustrated as voters were before this month’s congressional election, Chuckie said. At the same time, he claimed, Republicans were encouraging distrust toward government. But he cautioned, "That doesn’t mean we always win." Then old Chuckie added, "When we don’t present a coherent, believable pro-government plan and message -- when we allow government to mess up -- we can easily lose."

Chuckie stated that in order to win in 2016, "Democrats must embrace government, not run away from it." He said, voter discontent will continue until one of the political parties convinces middle-class Americans that it has an agenda for helping them. But let’s be real, by the time the next election rolls around, we will have suffered through eight long years of watching our government getting bigger and more intrusive. And it should be painfully clear by that time, to just about anyone with a brain, that bigger government is not better government.

FERGUSON…OBAMA’S AMERICA???

What is this country coming to in this age of ‘Obama’? He of whom it was said would be a post racial president, the one person capable of healing old wounds and of bringing an end to all racial strife in this country, seems only to have had the alternate effect, and succeeding only in making things considerably worse. Never before in recent history has distrust between the races been at such a high point. And nothing would seem to make that more apparent than the fact that a white policeman, guilty of nothing more than protecting his own life, is now being accused of killing a teen for no other reason than because that teen was black.

So because that which was described by those in the media, the race baiters and some politicians, and even before a grand jury was convened, as being the ‘incorrect’ verdict was the one arrived at, we had a mob of hoodlums essentially permitted, as the local police and fire department simply stood by, to loot and burn down a dozen or so privately owned businesses in retaliation. And why was that? To avert potential loss of life or even ‘more’ violence? Such behavior is simply inexcusable and should not have been tolerated. Those who lost their businesses should sue those in charge of protecting them for dereliction of duty.

So, as we all now know a grand jury declined to indict white police officer Darren Wilson in the death of a 300 pound black thug by the name of Michael Brown. Brown, the much talked about saint of an individual was the unarmed, black ‘teen’ whose fatal shooting sparked weeks of sometimes-violent protests and inflamed deep racial tensions between many blacks and police. Moments after the announcement crowds began pouring into Ferguson streets to protest the decision. Some taunted police, broke windows and vandalized cars. Within a few hours, several large buildings were set ablaze, and frequent gunfire was heard.

Prosecuting Attorney Bob McCulloch said the jury of nine whites and three blacks met on 25 separate days over three months, hearing more than 70 hours of testimony from about 60 witnesses. As McCulloch read his statement, Michael Brown's mother, Lesley McSpadden, sat atop a vehicle listening to a broadcast of the announcement. When she heard the decision, the theatrics began as she burst into tears and began screaming before being whisked away by supporters. The crowd with her erupted in anger, converging on the barricade where police in riot gear were standing. They pushed down the barricade and began pelting police with objects.

Brown's family released a statement saying they were "profoundly disappointed" in the decision but asked that the public "channel your frustration in ways that will make a positive change. We need to work together to fix the system that allowed this to happen." Where their disappointment should be focused is directly upon themselves or, at the very least, on the parents of this teen. Where were they as he was growing up? Obviously they spent precious little time teaching him right from wrong. They had to have known that the direction in which he was headed did not bode well for him living a long productive life. And yet they did nothing.

And then we have our supposed post-racial president who appealed for calm and understanding, pleading with both protesters and police to show some restraint. And it was with a touch of irony that Barry said, "We are a nation built on the rule of law, so we need to accept that this decision was the grand jury's to make." He went on to say that it was understandable that some Americans would be "deeply disappointed — even angered," but echoed Brown's parents in calling for any protests to be peaceful. Barry worked to constantly insert himself in this continuing drama and for no other reason than to make sure tensions remained high.

Monday night's violence resembled the initial unrest during the days that immediately followed Brown's death, when business windows were smashed and police vehicles damaged. But the destruction soon widened, with several large fires burning out of control and reports of frequent gunfire. And as if events taking place in Ferguson were instead in some third world banana republic, at least 10 St. Louis-bound flights were diverted to other airports because of concern about gunfire being aimed into the sky over Ferguson. Only law-enforcement aircraft were permitted to fly through the area, the Federal Aviation Administration said.

And as to be expected the Justice Department of Eric "The Racist" Holder is now busy conducting a separate investigation into possible civil rights violations that could result in federal charges, but investigators would need to satisfy a rigorous standard of proof in order to mount a prosecution. The department has also launched a broad probe into the Ferguson Police Department, looking for patterns of discrimination. But regardless of the outcome of those investigations, in looking to make every dime they can off the death of their son, Brown's family could also file a wrongful-death lawsuit against Wilson.

Just one last thing. There was talk from the family after the verdict about how we all need to work together to fix the system that allowed this to happen. But what was it, exactly, that occurred that is in need of being repaired? How might this story have played out had the cop been black in this case? Or had the cop been black and the now dead teen been white? I think we all know the answer to that. It would have been considered a non-story, one barely worth mentioning on any of our far too many ‘news’ shows. Just like the dozens of murders that take place everyday where blacks busy themselves killing other blacks. It’s a non-story.

THE TRUTH? AS USUAL, BLACKS CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!

You know, there are time in life when the truth becomes something that must be faced, whether one likes it or not. And that doesn’t mean that you simply abandon it or can chose to ignore it completely. Unfortunately we don’t have the luxury, even though many try, of creating a much more palatable version of the ‘truth’ because it might better illustrate the narrative that one might be working hard to advance. Unless of course, you happen to be a Democrat, then that’s exactly what you do because you know the media isn’t going to call you on it.

I bring this up because it was Rudolph Giuliani who recently pointed out that the media now so focused on the Ferguson, Missouri grand jury should maybe pay a bit more attention on why it s white police officers are in black neighborhoods to start with. It was while on "Meet the Press" this past Sunday that Giuliana said, "I find it very disappointing that you're not discussing the fact that 93 percent of blacks in America are killed by other blacks." But then I’m sure we’ll all agree that black on black crime doesn’t garner the same type of headlines.

The case of white police officers killing blacks are the exception rather that the rule, he said. Giuliani then added, and rather empathetically, "We are talking about the significant exception." But that statement didn’t seem to go over to well with supposed author and Georgetown ‘professor’, Michael Eric Dyson. Dyson, you see, said Giuliani was drawing a "false equivalency," saying that most blacks who kill other blacks go to jail and they are not sworn by the state to uphold the law. I think the professor draws the "false equivalency" here.

Giuliani said 70 percent to 75 percent of crime in New York City takes place in predominantly black areas, and that's why there is a large police presence in those places. And then he rightfully went on to say, "The white police officers wouldn't be there if you weren't killing each other." That remark seemed to set off Mr. Dyson who responded by saying, "Look at this! This is the defensive mechanism of white supremacy at work in your mind, sir!" Again, by making such a statement Dyson only makes himself appear less credible on the issue at hand.

This rather heated debate was sparked by a discussion of the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, Missouri that took place last August. The unarmed, 300 pound, teen was killed by white police officer Darren Wilson, sparking weeks of protests, some of which turned violent. And of course the myth that has been perpetrated ever since by the likes of this moron Dyson, as well as people like Sharpton and even our president, is that the ONLY reason this black thug is now dead is because he had the misfortune of being black and confronted by a racist white cop.

Giuliani says people pushing for an indictment from the grand jury probing the Michael Brown killing in Ferguson, Missouri are perverting the criminal justice system. He said, "This grand jury is under incredible pressure … to indict. I feel sorry for these people because they know if they walk out of that grand jury room and have not indicted they may have created a massive riot in their city and maybe throughout the United States." I find myself wondering of some members of this grand jury might actually view indicting an innocent cop as being the lesser of two evils?

The former mayor added, "To me, that kind of pressure is completely inconsistent with the American criminal justice system. And the people who are putting on that pressure should be ashamed of themselves." And he’s absolutely correct. These thugs are threatening violence if the grand jury doesn’t come to the ‘correct’ conclusion to indict this white policeman for doing nothing more than defending himself. And then you have the race baiters like Sharpton and Jackson throwing gas on the fire, and our joke of a president acting far less than presidential.

Fear of more unrest has led Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon to declare a state-of-emergency pre-emptively. Nixon, a Democrat, has faced criticism for that move, but Giuliani said he understood, since he found himself in similar situations as mayor of America's largest city. "I would have had a state of emergency, but I would have kept it quiet," Giuliani said. He said he would have had police on alert and placed them where they wouldn't be seen by the public so they would be ready at a moment's notice to stop any kind of violence.

The bottom line here is that racists like this boob Dyson care very little about the truth or about justice, for that matter. And I believe that they too know that this thug likely got exactly what he deserved, but they see his death as something that should exploited to the fullest in some sick and twisted effort to further divide the American people along racial lines. Once again we see the black community being played for saps, as they, once again, have allowed themselves to be convinced that they will somehow come out better for it in the end. But that never happens.

There was nothing racist about what Giuliani said. NOTHING! All he was stating was what most people with a brain are able to recognize as being a fact. But somehow racist boobs like this Dyson character are incapable, or unwilling, of being able to do that. And only because they thing that there’s more to be gained, politically by doing so. Sadly things are likely to get worse before they get better, and when the worst does happen I’m sure well see Michael Dyson, Al Sharpton and even Barack Obama all patting themselves on the back.

OBAMA DECLARES, “SO LET IT BE WRITTEN, SO LET IT BE DONE”…

So it’s finally official, Barry "Almighty", ‘The One" for whom we had all been waiting, has now declared as if he were ‘King’ that he will defer deportations and open the chance of better jobs for some 5 million of those who are in this country illegally, thus bringing to an end months of build-up and initiating a showdown with congressional Republicans. Barry, in a speech from the White House I couldn’t bring myself to watch, defended himself against Republican criticism that his use of executive authority to halt deportations for some immigrants based on their family ties to the U.S. amounts to amnesty for people who broke the law to come to the country.

And in using what has become his typically arrogant tone, Barry declared, "To those members of Congress who question my authority to make our immigration system work better, or question the wisdom of me acting where Congress has failed, I have one answer: Pass a bill." But who is he to make demands on Congress that its members pass only bills that are to his liking? While Barry’s actions are bound to upset both immigration advocates who wanted more and Republican lawmakers who wanted less, they will likely also come to impact the 2016 presidential campaign since they are intended to influence the political loyalties of Hispanics.

The biggest category of people affected, or about 4.1 million, are those who’ve been in the country for more than five years and have children who are U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents. After passing a background check and paying fees, they would get relief from deportation for three years and be able to obtain work permits. Barry is expanding a program that allows people who entered the U.S. illegally as minors by moving the cutoff date by which one must have arrived to be eligible to Jan. 1, 2010, from June 15, 2007. These so-called DREAMers have been vocal in making demands that Barry allow even more people to stay in the U.S.

Barry didn’t place an upper age limit on qualifying, provided, of course, that the applicants entered the U.S. as children. But how is it, exactly, that one is able to verify that with any degree of accuracy. But then, knowing Barry as we all do, that’s most likely what’s intended. And efen with that, the White House estimates that roughly 270,000 people will qualify for that provision. But we’ve seen how accurate their ‘estimates’ are in the past from everything to Obamacare to our supposed economic recovery, how much confidence can we really have in any of their numbers. They do nothing more than to make them up as they go along.

Barry claimed that the deferred deportations don’t apply to anyone who recently entered the country illegally or those who may do so in the future. He said, "It does not grant citizenship, or the right to stay here permanently, or offer the same benefits that citizens receive, only Congress can do that." And he went on to say, "All we’re saying is we’re not going to deport you." While Barry decided he doesn’t have the legal authority to include their parents in today’s actions, as many as half of the parents might still qualify under other provisions of the policy, according to an administration official who, of course, asked for anonymity.

Anticipating opposition, especially from House Republicans, Barry coupled the deferred deportations with a ‘promise’ to deport undocumented immigrants who have been convicted of serious crimes in the U.S. and to keep more resources devoted to border security. But let’s face it, Barry isn’t exactly someone who can be trusted. We were told that the Homeland Security Department will focus on apprehensions on the southern border with Mexico and on gang members, potential terrorists and criminals for deportation. But if you believe any of that then I’ve got some prime oceanfront property I can sell you in Arizona.

Barry claims that his action, besides providing and increased amount of accountability, is a commonsense, middle ground approach. Barry said, "If you meet the criteria, you can come out of the shadows and get right with the law. If you’re a criminal, you’ll be deported. If you plan to enter the U.S. illegally, your chances of getting caught and sent back just went up." What a bunch of political bullshit! What really taking place here bears very little resemble to what Barry describes as being his "commonsense, middle ground approach." And he’s hoping he can convince enough people that his plan is that which he presents it as being.

The administration attempts to justify Barry’s policy changes on both humanitarian and economic grounds. And it was earlier the same day at the White House, as he awarded medals for science and technology developments, that Barry said, "Part of staying competitive in a global economy is making sure that we have an immigration system that doesn’t send away talent, but attracts it." He added, "We want them to initiate new discoveries and start businesses right here in the United States. So that’s what I’ll be talking about a little bit tonight." But Barry action does little to accomplish that supposed goal.

Republicans remain split on how to block Barry’s immigration actions. House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell say they don’t want a repeat of the October 2013 shutdown. And because the immigration programs are funded through fees rather than congressional appropriations, they would keep running if the government shut down, an administration official said. Senator Jeff Sessions, an Alabama Republican in line to become Budget Committee chairman, said in an e-mailed statement today that "there is no question that Congress has the power to block this expenditure and no doubt that it can be done."

Barry can try to justify this action in any manner he may choose, but as I have said before what we are witnessing here is one of those very rare occasions where we see Barry actually exhibiting some level of transparency. Despite the fact that he does his best to convince us all otherwise, what he truly seeks to accomplish by his action is to create millions of new of Democrat voters just in time for the 2016 presidential election. Hence the reason he refused to wait for the next Congress and the reason that the Republicans must prevent this action from going forward, government shut or not! The time for just talking is over, Republicans must act, and they must act boldly!