President Barack Obama and  the Democrat-controlled Senate are considering sweeping legislation that will provide new benefits for many Americans.

 The “AMERICANS WITH NO ABILITIES ACT” is being hailed as a major achievement goal by advocates of the millions of Americans who lack any real skills or ambitions.

 "Roughly 50% of Americans do not possess  the competence and drive necessary to carve out a meaningful role for themselves in society," said California Senator Barbara Boxer. “We can no longer stand by and allow people of inability (POI) to be ridiculed and passed over. With this legislation, employers will no longer be able to grant special favors to a small group of workers, simply because they have some idea of what they are doing.”

In a Capitol Hill press conference, Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pointed to the success of the U.S. Postal Service, which has a long-standing policy of providing opportunity without regard to performance. Approximately 74 percent of postal employees lack any job skills, making this agency the single largest U.S. employer of Persons with No Abilities.

Private-sector industries with good records of non-discrimination against the inept include retail sales (72%), the airline industry (68%), and home-improvement warehouse stores (65%). At the state government level, the Department of Motor Vehicles also has an excellent record of hiring Persons with No Abilities (63%).

 Under the Americans with No Abilities Act, more than 25 million mid-level positions will be created, with important-sounding titles but little real responsibility, thus providing an illusory sense of purpose and performance.

Mandatory non-performance-based raises and promotions will be given to guarantee upward mobility for even the most unremarkable employees. The legislation provides substantial tax breaks to corporations that promote a significant number of Persons of Inability (POI) into middle-management positions, and give a tax credit to small and medium-sized businesses that agree to hire one clueless worker for every two talented hires.
 
 Finally, the Americans With No Abilities Act contains tough new  measures to make it more difficult to discriminate against the non-abled, banning, for example, discriminatory interview questions such as, “Do you have any experience that relates to this job?”

"As a non-abled person, I can't be expected to keep up with people who have something going for them,” said Mary Lou Gertz, who lost her position as a lug-nut twister at the GM plant in Flint, Michigan, due to her inability to remember righty tighty, lefty loosey. “This new law should be real good for people like me. I’ll finally have job security.” With the passage of this bill, Gertz and millions of other untalented citizens will finally see a light at the end of the tunnel.

Said Democrat Senator  Dick Durbin: "As a senator with no abilities, I believe the  same privileges that elected officials enjoy ought to be extended to  every American with no abilities. It is our duty as lawmakers to  provide  each and every American citizen, regardless of his or her inadequacy,  with some sort of space to take up in this great nation and a good  salary for doing so."

-------------------------------------

Thanks to my cousin - a Milwaukee Policeman who wishes to remain anonymous - for providing this hilarious spoof...although given what is going on in Washington D.C. these days with the little man-child still in charge, legislation such as this may not be a farfetched as it first appears.    After all, Americans are repeatedly being told we need to "level the playing field" (aka:  tax, tax, tax) and "spread the wealth" (aka:  tax, tax, tax)... This legislation, as silly as it is, could be something that Obama and the Dems might consider!  Stranger things have been known to happen...

====================================
You know you live in a Country run by idiots if...

Using the "N" word is considered "hate speech" but

writing and singing songs about raping women and

killing cops is considered "art".

------------------------

Thanks to several people who sent me the post above.

  It clearly is making its rounds on the 'net.  However, if

it were up to me, I'd substitute the word "idiots" with

"liberals" (or "socialists"). Just sayin'...

Another baby died while "co-sleeping" during the early hours of January 7th in Milwaukee .  According to news reports, the six day old infant was sleeping on a couch with his mother.  Mom, who had been drinking vodka since noon and taken a painkiller before "falling asleep" rolled over and smothered the infant.  Supposedly "dad" even woke mom up once during the evening to feed the little boy, but "mom" didn't remember that...

Sad, disgusting, and totally preventable.

Already the first "co-sleeping" incident for 2013 in the area.  How many more will happen?  Are we headed towards another year of double-digit infant deaths due to "co-sleeping" like last year?  Sure looks that way - especially after the limp-wristed response from the bury-my-head-in-the-sand Mayor of Milwaukee, Tom Barrett.

Barrett was on a WTMJ AM620 afternoon news show, discussing this recent incident.  The host gave Barrett several opportunities to address this issue by going the legal route - make "co-sleeping" that results in death a "criminal act" - punishable by jail time.  Use the threat of jail time to establish the "fear of prosecution"  - something that may cause some individuals not to risk co-sleeping for fear of being sent to the slammer.  When asked (twice) about the possibility of "criminalizing" the co-sleeping act which results in death, Barrett said that he is focused on "keeping at it" - by educating people on the dangers of co-sleeping.   Barrett said the message "has to be delivered over and over..."  We have to "keep advertising" on the dangers "just like McDonalds or Coke does."  We have to tell people that they should not sleep with their infants if they are "overtired," "on medication," or (I love this one) have used a "substance that impairs their alertness."  (Think that translates into "drunk" and/or "stoned?"  Mr. Mayor? How come you can't call it what it is?)   Barrett eventually deflected the "criminalization" questions away from himself, saying the "fear of prosecution" avenue may be better served by the Milwaukee District Attorney.

We should not continue to sugar-coat these horrific deaths as "accidents."  When parents drive drunk with their children in the car - they can be arrested for drunken driving AND child endangerment.  What is the difference when a parent uses their body as a weapon when drunk and/or stoned and smothers their child when passed out?  (Even if a parent is NOT drunk or stoned, they do not know what they do when they sleep and the infant they are sleeping with is always at risk of being smothered or crushed.)  Isn't that "child endangerment?" 

We must stop allowing this type of behavior - resulting in infant deaths - to keep happening.  All the education, free cribs, and advertising in the world will do nothing to stop many of these individuals who are ill-equipped to be a "parent" in the first place.   What is needed is the threat of jail or prison based upon the conditions surrounding infant co-sleeping deaths.  Start sending people to the slammer for their negligent and irresponsible behavior for "co-sleeping" and others in the community  MAY take notice.

How many weeks...or days... before the next "co-sleeping" death?

As many of us know, President Obama is threatening to spit on the Constitution yet again and go after the 2nd Amendment with a vengeance.  The recent Sandy Hook school shootings, while horrific and shocking, have been reduced to nothing more than an excuse to be gleefully used by Obama and his leftie co-horts to go after guns.  The liberals and socialists have for years wanted to do away with the people's right "to bear arms."    Obama actually stated at a press conference today (1/14/13) that  "executive action was within his authority," regarding gun control.  He went even further by suggestion that he was"confident that there are some steps we can take that don't require legislation and are within (his) authority as president..."  Whoa.  That sounds very un-presidential, and more in line with a dictatorship.  Isn't it a wee bit unsettling?  It should be.

And by trotting out Gabrielle Giffords and other victims of gun violence, Obama and his cronies are trying to tug at the emotional heartstrings of people in order to convince the masses that we need to do away with guns.  After all, guns KILL!!!  Never mind actual logic and the fact that most of the school and mall shootings of recent and past years are actually very few and far between - AND (most importantly) committed by people who have severe mental issues.  And contrary to the liberal way of thinking, guns do NOT kill people.  People kill people.  This is the typical Obama slight-of-hand.  Take the focus off the real goal - taking away guns - by playing on peoples emotions.  After all, Obama & Co. must never let a good crisis go to waste...

Back to what is at stake.  The 2nd Amendment, put in place in the Bill of Rights, was designed to protect individuals from a tyrannical government.  Period.  The 2nd Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms - to protect themselves should those in leadership roles ever decide to venture down a dark path towards allowing a despot to have absolute power over all their subjects ("We the People").  We NEED the 2nd Amendment more than ever, as Obama seeks to destroy the freedoms and foundation upon which America was founded more than 200 years ago.  How fast the country has fallen under Obama.  How fast the very principles of politics, principles, and purpose that our forefathers put in place have been dismantled by "The One."  How shocking that we - as Americans - would actually be afraid of what the "Commander-In-Chief" wants to do going forward...

However, I have one positive observation to report.  Since Obama and his followers have gone on yet another anti-gun tirade, gun sales everywhere have skyrocketed.  (Very close to home, a recent gun show (The "Bob and Rocco" Gun Show at the Waukesha Expo this past weekend)  saw waiting lines to get in BEFORE the doors even opened, as well as much higher prices on guns and ammo, AND people willing to pay!!!  Supply and demand - capitalism at its finest!)  Never before have Americans been going out and buying guns and ammo like there is no tomorrow (although with Obama as prez, what tomorrow holds is a scary thought...).  Gun shows across the country have experienced the same scenario as Waukesha - long lines of people waiting outside before their doors even open.  People willing to buy, buy, buy and pay, pay, pay.  Gun makers cannot keep up with demand.  Gun sellers  and gun manufacturers are making a killing (no pun intended).  Guess this all points to the usual unintended consequences of liberal "feel good" intentions.  Obama wants to take away our guns.  By expressing the sentiment that he may do whatever is in his power to do so (i.e. bypassing Congress and legislation - like a tyrant), people reacted.  They reacted with fright, logic, and anger.  People are speaking with their wallets when it comes to obtaining guns and ammunition - and Obama himself has been the biggest helper in stimulating the gun economy.  Ironic, isn't it?

Thankfully, Americans have shown that they will NOT sit quietly by and watch America be destroyed.  And if Americans give up their guns, the government wins.  We WOULD be helpless.  People throughout the nation are acting - to protect themselves AND the future of the country.   

Obama, in spite of his hatred of the 2nd amendment,  is sure turning out to be one mighty fine gun salesman!!!  

Americans should applaud the NRA for:

1) Having the backbone to stand up to the Dear Leader (unlike many Republican and Conservative politicians)

2)  Pointing out the glaring hypocrisy of the left.  The "do as we say not as we do" crowd."

3)  Pointing out  that children DO deserve to be safe in schools. 

4) All of the 23 (yes, you read that correctly) Executive Orders that Obama issued today in regards to gun control (oops, forgot the new moniker is now "gun violence") not one of them would have done ANYTHING to prevent Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, or other mass shootings.  Plain and simple.  All Obama is doing is targeting law-abiding citizens and their right to bear arms.  (And Rush Limbaugh made an excellent point on his conservative talk radio show earlier - Obama wants more and more in-depth background checks and information on Americans - mainly on people who wish to buy and/or sell guns and/or visit a health care provider as to their mental state).  When will we Americans get a background check on President Obama?  Obama has YET to be properly vetted.  What's up with that?)

5)  The elitism of Obama and Co. is on full display (and the NRA commercial sure is "on target.").  For some reason, Obama and his fellow socialists seem to believe they know best and the government can solve all of societies problems.  Here's a news flash:  Obama and Co.  have no clue what is best for the American individual, and the government cannot solve every problem that pops up.  (In fact, I'd venture to argue that the Obama government of today is the leader in creating problems (Obamacare anyone?).

6)  Not caring if Obama and other lefties criticize and attack them for this commercial.  (Already the liberal media is in a tizzy over this ad...)

Thank you, NRA - for having the guts to do what too many of our elected officials of today are afraid of.  We need more people to stand up and speak out for America - and not let Obama destroy our country before our very eyes.

Embarrassing.

If Republicans behaved the way Barack and Michelle Obama and Joe Biden act, the media would be ripping them to shreds.  However, since it IS Obama who is president, the arrogant, casual attitudes towards the highest office in the nation are AOK!

First off, from the "Encore" section of the Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel (1/18/13): 

"President Barack Obama is preparing for all the musicians set to perform at his inauguration festivities by releasing an official playlist.  He released the 16-track playlist, which also includes music by some of his favorite artists, through the digital music service Spotify on Thursday.  The list includes jams by Stevie Wonder, Beyonce, Usher, and fun.  They all will perform at different inaugural events, which start Saturday in Washington.  Obama's list also includes John Legend's "Ordinary People, " "Firework," by Katy Perry, James Taylor's "Your Smiling Face," and the "Glee" take on Lady Gaga's "The Edge of Glory."

Wow.  I bet many American's were breathlessly awaiting the "playlist" from The One.  Especially those millions who have been unemployed for years or have just lost their jobs due to Obamacare coming down the pike.  Doesn't Obama have anything presidential to do?  Like address the dire fiscal straits America is facing?  How about curbing reckless spending?  Or - how about producing an actual BUDGET for the first time since becoming president four years ago???  Nah.  That would be too much like real work...    Now we can breathlessly await Obama's NCAA picks...

Another blurb from the 1/20/13 Journal/Sentinel:

"...on Friday she (Michelle Obama) continued her Twitter banter with Ellen DeGeneres over who can do more push-ups..."

Are these people for real?  Do we have a pair of narcissistic me-me-me folks in the White House, who just love the perks of being Mr. and Mrs. Prez - spending to their hearts desire - seeing the world on the taxpayer dime - throwing lavish parties while more and more Americans are relying on food stamps - and schmoozing with the Hollywood elites and rock stars?  (Are the Kardashian's invited to the inauguration?  They should be.)  By all accounts, the most vapid, wealthiest, and shallow of the shallow are rubbing elbows in the White House and at the upcoming coronation, with  the Obama's leading the pack.

 Not to be outdone, Vice President Joe Biden stated during his recent swearing-in as VP for the second term:

“I’m proud to be president of the United States.” 

Hmmmm.  Yet another flub by Joe "we be gaffes" Biden?  or a possible leaking of future plans to run for President (a frightening thought) should Barack Obama not alter the Constitution to give himself another four years after 2016.  The media would have had a field day with this quote if Dick Cheney had uttered such a thing.  With Joe Biden, it's just "Biden being Biden."  A VP clown.

Then we get this from the AP.  A photo of the presidential limo.  Below the picture comes the blurb:

"President Barack Obama's ride has a new license plate."

Ride???  Oh my goodness.  If Obama wasn't the president, do you think any reporter worth their integrity would have called the presidential limousine a "ride?"  How low we as a nation have sunk.  How un-presidential. 

Let's not forget that Michelle Obama HAS A NEW HAIRDO!!!  Oh my gosh!  Stop the presses!

Low information voters are alive and well - and being fed garbage disguised as news from the while the country tanks.

Fist-bumps all around.

This ad is so wrong on so many levels.

A "cool and sexy" tribute to the right to murder unborn children... 

How low we have sunk as a society.  I am shocked.  Here's a YouTube quote that sums up this ad and what is celebrates:

"So... abject selfishness, and wanton immorality without consequence, even unto willingness to commit infant murder is sexually attractive to a large portion of our sick society...??? God, maybe we're NOT worth saving as a nation." 

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, after laying low for months supposedly suffering from a wide range of various illnesses, finally had to sit down in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and answer questions about the terrorist attack on 9/11/12 in Benghazi.

The attack killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens.  (As most of us know, the Obama Administration did its best to hide the fact that this event WAS a terrorist attack.  At stake was the presidential election, so Obama & Co. went in to spin mode - blaming the attack on a YouTube video.  For weeks.  After all, with Obama "taking out Bin Laden" and spiking the football constantly gloating about it, saying terrorists were on the run and in retreat mode, we couldn't let the word get out that this was not true.  Terrorists attacked the embassy.  Terrorists killed four Americans in the process.  Terrorists are back with a vengeance.  In fact, Obama's weak policies on fighting the "war on terror" (oops!  I mean "Overseas Contingency Operation") seem to have allowed terrorism to go unchecked.)

Anyhow, during the course of questioning, it was clear that the Democrats on the panel had been given their marching orders on what to say and ask.  For all intensive purposes, the Democrats could have been at a dinner honoring Hillary and the job she has been doing as Secretary of State (will someone please inform us exactly WHAT Clinton has done while Secretary of State that is so wonderful?).   Listen to the Dems fawn all over Hillary ad nauseum:

Of course, once they got done heaping praises on Clinton, the Dems proceeded to lob softball questions her way that did little to address the seriousness of the debacle that occurred in Benghazi.  At least a few Republicans didn't allow her to skate away and avoid answering the many questions still out there regarding Benghazi.  Senator Ron Johnson - who did Wisconsin proud - actually had the nerve to ask Clinton WHY did the administration lie to the American people for weeks, blaming the attack on a YouTube video when they knew all along it was a terrorist attack.  

Clinton's response:  "What difference at this point does it make?"  Incredible. 

I wish Senator Johnson would have shot back, saying that it does make a difference whether or not the American people are told the truth or told lies.  Obviously, the Obama Administration doesn't care about the truth.  They just want this whole issue to go away.  To this end, the media has been complicit  - refusing to delve deep into Benghazi:  the lies, the deaths, and the cover-up - especially before a presidential election.  WHY?  Because if the truth HAD been allowed to come out - the truth that terrorists attacked Benghazi AND the attack was planned AND Americans in the embassy had been asking for more security months before the attack - Obama may not have won re-election. 

Clinton's public responses to the Senate panel were too little too late.  All this hearing did was enable Hillary Clinton to wiggle out of a bad situation, setting herself up for a presidential run in 2016.  The Democrats on the panel were there to help her, not get to the bottom of what happened.  They could care less about allowing the truth to be told.  Clinton and the Dems realize that  Hillary needs to wash her hands of her own incompetence and blame.  (It is rather ironic how she takes "full responsibility" yet doesn't.  How Clintonian.)

What we are left with is a frustrating exercise in avoiding the truth.  Clinton refused to answer many basic questions.  Clinton got mad when the questions got tough.  Clinton cried. 

In the end, Clinton has been made out to be a hero by the media and Dems, while the Republicans are - as usual - being made out to be the "bad guys" for simply asking questions and expecting honest answers.

Sad.  But this IS the world of Obama.  Welcome to it.

The only thing that Republicans and conservatives can do when Hillary Clinton throws her hat in the ring to run for president in 2016 is to remind everyone about her words regarding four dead American in Benghazi:

"What difference at this point does it make?" 

Mark Steyn recently addressed the "What difference at this point does it make?" comment by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton concerning the Benghazi debacle.   Steyn, who hails from Canada, is a conservative and has written five books (one of them, "America Alone:  The End of the World As We Know It," is a New York Times bestseller), as well as numerous columns which appear in various publications.  Steyn also fills in occasionally as a radio talk show host for Rush Limbaugh.

Here is the link to Steyn's column:

THE OBAMA SIMULACRUM:  This administration sneers at reality and its consequences - by Mark Steyn

A few excerpts from  Steyn:

1) In reference to Beyonce lip-syncing the National Anthem and Obama's inauguration:

- Whether Beyoncé was lip-syncing to the band or the band were lip-syncing to Beyoncé is like one of those red pill/ blue pill choices from The Matrix. Was President Obama lip-syncing to the Founders, rooting his inaugural address in the earliest expressions of American identity? (“The patriots of 1776 . . . gave to us a republic, a government of, and by, and for the people, entrusting each generation to keep safe our founding creed.”) Or maybe the Founders were lip-syncing to him as he appropriated the vision of the first generation of Americans and yoked it (“preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action”) to a statist pitch they would have found utterly repugnant."

2)  Clinton's "what difference does it make" remark:

- A couple of days later, it fell to the 45th president-in-waiting to encapsulate the ethos of the age in one deft sound bite: What difference does it make? Hillary Clinton’s instantly famous riposte at the Benghazi hearings is such a perfect distillation that it surely deserves to be the national motto of the United States. They should put it on Paul Krugman’s trillion-dollar coin, and in the presidential oath:

“Do you solemnly swear to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States?”

“Sure. What difference, at this point, does it make?”

Well, it’s the difference between cool and reality — and, as Hillary’s confident reply appeared to suggest, and the delirious media reception of it confirmed, reality comes a poor second in the Obama era. The presumption of conservatives has always been that one day cold, dull reality would pierce the klieg-light sheen of Obama’s glamour. Indeed, that was the premise of Mitt Romney’s reductive presidential campaign. But, just as Beyoncé will always be way cooler than some no-name operatic soprano or a male voice choir, so Obama will always be cooler than a bunch of squaresville yawneroos boring on about jobs and debt and entitlement reform. Hillary’s cocksure sneer to Senator Johnson of Wisconsin made it explicit. At a basic level, the “difference” is the difference between truth and falsity, but the subtext took it a stage further: No matter what actually happened that night in Benghazi, you poor sad loser Republicans will never succeed in imposing that reality and its consequences on this administration."

3)  As for Hillary "taking responsibility" for Benghazi, Steyn points out the absurdity of such a claim:

- "So Hillary lip-synced far more than Beyoncé, and was adored for it. “As I have said many times, I take responsibility,” she said. In Washington, the bold declarative oft-stated acceptance of responsibility is the classic substitute for responsibility: rhetorically “taking responsibility,” preferably “many times,” absolves one from the need to take actual responsibility even once."

4)  Steyn points out the irony in which Obama and Clinton refer to "Chris" (Ambassador Stevens) over and over as if he were a close personal friend.  A close personal friend whose e-mails for help and more security at the Embassy went unanswered by Clinton & Co...

-  "Nor was the late Christopher Stevens any old ambassador, but rather Secretary Clinton’s close personal friend “Chris.” It was all “Chris” this, “Chris” that when Secretary Clinton and President Obama delivered their maudlin eulogies over the flag-draped coffin of their “friend.” Gosh, you’d think if they were on such intimate terms, “Chris” might have had Hillary’s e-mail address, but apparently not. He was just one of 1.43 million close personal friends cabling the State Department every hour of the day.

Four Americans are dead, but not a single person involved in the attack and the murders has been held to account. Hey, what difference does it make? Lip-syncing the national anthem beats singing it. Peddling a fictitious narrative over the coffin of your “friend” is more real than being an incompetent boss to your most vulnerable employees. And mouthing warmed-over clichés about vowing to “bring to justice” those responsible is way easier than actually bringing anyone to justice."

In closing, Steyn sums up the Benghazi mess AND the new reality we live in - a reality created by Obama and Co.  A reality that has nothing to do with the truth.  The truth no longer matters.  What does matter is what Obama wants people to believe.  

- "Obama is the ultimate reality show, and real reality can’t compete. Stalin famously scoffed, “How many divisions has the Pope?” Secretary Clinton was more audacious: How many divisions has reality? Not enough."

(Please be sure to click on the link to Steyn's column and read it in its entirety.)