THE FATE OF THE GOP REMAINS UNCERTAIN…

In 2008, Barry “Almighty” rode into the White House on what was then a wave of Democrat votes, and there were many at the time who believed it was the beginning of what would be a permanent Democrat majority.  I even seem to recall hearing from many on the left that with the election of Barry “Almighty” we would see the Republican Party being left wandering out in the far reaches of the political wilderness for what would likely be, the next 20 years.  But something odd, and totally unexpected, happened on the way into the wilderness.

Because, instead of becoming the permanent majority party for years, or perhaps decades, to come, the Democrat Party has become what has been described as, decimated as all across the country 85 of 98 state legislatures have become more Republican since 2010.  And Democrats and other liberals were so sure that the Republican Party had become a doomed party upon the ascension of Barry that many had thought that the popular liberal book, “The Emerging Democratic Majority,” had been validated.  But, apparently, such was not the case.  At least not yet.

Because while Democrats were busy slapping themselves on the back and congratulating themselves, something very odd began to take place.  Democrats out in the states, even very blue states, began to lose election after election. It has gotten so bad that even hardcore Democrat imbecile Dona Brazile recently complained that she and her party “have absolutely been devastated.”  Politico’s Jeff Grenfield agreed, saying, “no president in modern times has presided over so disastrous a stretch for his party, at almost every level of politics.”

And it was a recent article in the Washington Post which found that Democrats have “taken a drubbing” in the states.  The Post found that “the ratio of Republicans to Democrats has tilted to the right in nearly every Senate and nearly every legislature” since Barry was first elected.  “According to the NCSL data,” the Post article notes, “there were 4,082 Democrats in state senates and state houses in 2009. In 2015, there were 3,163–a decrease of 22.5 percent.”  This massive loss, the article notes, is another reason the Democrat’s bench is so weak all over the country.

But make no mistake, even with all that having been said, the fact that the demise of the Republican Party has been avoided, at least for now, it has had little to do with anything the party might have actually done.  Because the survival of the party beyond 2017 still remains very much in doubt.  We have a majority in Congress who insists upon doing nothing more than to kowtow to a president who should have long ago been impeached, and a cadre of presidential candidates who has yet to make the case that it would be nothing short of disaster if we were elect another Democrat. 

OBAMA ISSUES MARCHING ORDERS TO BOEHNER AND MCCONNELL…

So apparently, our ‘Dear Beloved Leader’, Barack Hussein Obama has now taken it upon himself to issue what he considers to his marching orders to the Republicans in Congress, warning them against threatening a government shutdown after returning from their break in September.  At which point they will have a month to pass a new federal budget.  And I am quite sure, knowing our ‘Republicans in Congress’ as I do, they will most assuredly be only to happy to do exactly as they are told.  Because it matters not that we are neck deep in debt, only that Barry be allowed to spend.

It was just this past Thursday that, while in New Orleans to commemorate the 10th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, Barry was heard to say, “Let’s not introduce unrelated partisan issues.”  And our ‘Fearless Leader’ went on to say, “Nobody gets to hold the American economy hostage over their own ideological demands.”  Apparently he most certainly was not talking about himself or any of his fellow Democrats because they have most certainly taken the position of holding the economy, and the country, hostage on any number of occasions over their ideological demands.

Now for those unaware, the new fiscal year begins on Oct. 1.  And if Congress doesn’t pass a budget, which I don’t think has been done at any time during Barry’s entire presidency, then it must pass a continuing resolution, or a temporary measure in order to keep the government fully funded and operating.  Earlier this week, it was Ted Cruz, a presidential candidate, who said he would push for any continuing resolution to defund Planned Parenthood. Other Republicans have opposed removing the sequester cuts that would require a boost in federal spending.

It was during Barry’s little speech there in New Orleans that he talked about how the economy has recovered. “It’s why we need to do everything we can in government to make sure our progress keeps growing,” Obama said. “That requires Congress to protect our momentum, not kill it. Congress is about to come back from a six-week recess.”  It is only by Barry’s definition that the economy can be said to have ‘recovered’. For Barry to continue to put forth the idiotic claim that there has been an economic recovery of any kind is absolutely ludicrous and patently dishonest.

Barry said, “I want everybody to understand that Congress has about a month to pass a budget that helps our economy grow.” He added, “Otherwise we risk shutting down the government and services we all count on for the second time in two years. That would not be responsible. It does not have to happen. Congress needs to fund America in a way that invests in our growth, in our security. Not in a way that cuts us off at the knees by locking in mindless austerity or short cited sequester cuts for our economy and our military.”  This kind of rhetoric is nothing less than reckless!  

Barry went on to issue a veto threat saying, “I’ve said I would veto a budget like that.” He went on to say, “I think most Americans agree, we’ve got to invest in rather than cut things like military readiness, infrastructure, schools, public health, the research and development that keeps our companies on the cutting edge. That’s what great nations do.”  What about ‘great nations’ that continue to spend more than they take in, racking up a $19 Trillion debt.  Are they simply supposed to keep spending record amounts even though they are essentially broke?  How responsible is that?

I think we can all come to agree that our Republican majority in Congress has proven to be nothing more than an unmitigated disaster and a complete disappointment and shows no sign of becoming anything different in the near future. Republicans are going to have a very important decisions to make over the course of the next few months if they are to have any hope of maintaining their current majorities beyond 2017.  They can either do as Barry says, or they can do as we the people demand!  You would think that the decision would be a relatively simple one.  And yet…

OBAMA, STILL WORKING TO TAKE OUR GUNS…

Well it would seem that we now have yet another bit of proof, albeit unneeded, that Barry “Almighty” is really nothing more than a lying sack of shit determined in his efforts to subvert our Constitution.  And it is in that effort that he will say absolutely anything if he feels it will increase his odds of being able to take guns out of the hands of law abiding Americans. It came when he recently made the claim that gun-related killings here in the U.S. actually outpace those deaths caused by terrorism.

And you would think that after having been forced to put up with this guy’s bullshit for nearly seven years we would be able to pretty easily recognize this tendency of his to exaggerate, distort, or to even outright lie about such statistics, especially if he happens to think that they can be made to ‘appear’ to support his leftist position on any one of his favorite topics allowing him to move forward on anti-America agenda.  Topics ranging from climate change to gun control.   

And so it was then that in a recent interview we heard Barry “Almighty” telling a Philadelphia television reporter on Wednesday that gun-related violence in America has come to far outpace the number deaths caused by terrorism.  WPVI-TV's Monica Malpass interviewed Barry in the White House and asked him about the shooting deaths Wednesday morning of WDBJ-TV reporter Alison Parker and cameraman Adam Ward.  And of course he was only too quick to blame the gun and not the shooter.

Now in some strange case you have yet heard about this tragedy, these two were shot on live television by disgruntled former reporter Vester Flanagan, who, as it happens, was both gay and black.  Barry said, "It breaks my heart every time you read about or hear about these kinds of incidents."  He went on to say, "What we know is that the number of people who die from gun-related incidents around this country dwarfs any deaths that happen through terrorism."  A good reporter would have challenged him.

Because, you see, the facts tell are far different story than what Barry would have us all believe.  According to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, about 32,000 people in the United States die by gunshot wound. About 60 percent of those are by suicide, 3 percent are accidental shootings, and 34 percent (or about 11,000) are homicides.  Meanwhile, worldwide terrorism deaths shot up to almost 33,000 in 2014 after years of decline.  So you can see Barry’s claim is so patently dishonest.

And then, of course, we have none other than Democrat presidential ‘front runner’ Hitlery Clinton who’s never been one to let such a tragedy go to waste. Hitlery, on Wednesday, went out of her way to use the incident to call for tougher gun laws.  I’m sure you’ll remember when, back in 2012, her old good friend Ed Rendell made the rather disgusting comments regarding the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting tragedy, saying “the good thing about it was that it was so horrific.”

I’m sure we are all aware, or at least we should be, of the rabid fanaticism of those on the left when it comes to finally being able to strip from law abiding Americans their constitutionally guaranteed right to own a gun.  And it’s extremely important that we remain able to recognize the fact that they will leave no lie untold nor any tragedy ignored in their effort to accomplish that end.  We simply cannot afford to believe anything that they might say.  The risk to our freedoms is too great! 

DEMOCRATS BLINDED BY THEIR HATRED OF AMERICA…

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, there is little doubt that Democrats, and especially our disaster of a president, loath America.  And if you’re stupid enough to vote for Democrats, then guess what?  You’re doing nothing more than to vote ‘for’ those who are working to bring about the death of your own country.  And how insane is that?  Democrats have a well-publicized history of acting against that which is in the best interest of America.  And let’s face it, those of us who are old enough will remember the many exploits of Democrats during the Vietnam War.  And things have only proceeded to get worse since then. 

And really very little has changed since then as is evidenced by the most recent example of just how determined the Democrats remain in their effort to bring about the end of America, that being of course Barry “Almighty’s” highly questionable Iran nuclear deal.  A deal which, apparently, a growing number of Democrat senators are now coming to support. To the point where just five more Democrats are needed to sustain Barry’s promised veto of a resolution the purpose of which is to disapprove the agreement.  Democrats seem all too eager to assist Barry’s in aiding his Muslim brothers and at the expense of keeping the American people safe.

With the recent announcements of support for Barry’s deal with Iran, aka the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), by Democrats Patty Murray and Debbie Stabenow, the number of its Democrat supporters in the Senate now stands at 29.  And assuming that all Republicans, which is never good with respect to our cadre of congressional RINOs, vote to disapprove the deal when the resolution comes to the floor sometime in mid-September, the support of 13 Democrats would be needed to override that promised presidential veto.  Now what do you think is the likelihood that there will be 13 Democrat willing to stand with America and against Barry?

Only two Democrats thus far, Chuckie Schumer and Robert Menendez, had announced their opposition to the deal as of late yesterday.  Eleven of the still supposedly undeclared 15 would have to join them to reach the needed target of 13.  But let’s face it, these two guys are confident that there will be more than enough Democrats who come out in favor of the ‘deal’.  And I think it’s more than a little naïve to expect there to be enough Democrats who would be willing to override Barry’s veto.  It’s simply not going to happen.  Democrats simply won’t be able to bring themselves to stand with what has become majority of Americans.  It’s just not in their DNA.

And as it has done every time there has been a member of Congress who has come out in support of the JCPOA, the Barry Obummer administration celebrated Murray’s and Stabenow’s decisions. “Another YES for @TheIranDeal,” tweeted that well-known bimbo Marie Harf, strategic communications adviser to Secretary of State John Kerry-Heinz, after each senator made their stance public. Harf provided links to their statements explaining their reasons, and @TheIranDeal, an administration-controlled Twitter account, also highlighted the announcements.  But the last time I checked there are still more Americans who oppose it, than support it.

And it was in their statements that Murray and Stabenow both acknowledged concerns with parts of the agreement but said after close review and consultations they ultimately decided it was worthy of support.  Murray said it was “not a perfect deal, and there are several elements I would like to be stronger,” but concluded that she was “convinced that moving forward with this deal is the best chance we have at a strong diplomatic solution …”  So I guess what’s all important to this pansy-assed imbecile is that we have any sort of a “diplomatic solution” no matter how seriously flawed it might be.  Liberal lunacy is now there for all to see.

And it was Stabenow who also described the deal as “not perfect,” but went on to say, “I have determined that the imminent threat of Iran having a nuclear weapon outweighs any flaws I see in the international agreement.”  Well I’m not sure about you, but that certainly makes ME feel better.  But ya know, I’d be more than just a little curious to know just what it is that she thinks makes her anywhere near qualified to make such a determination?  Is it simply because there were enough brain-dead Democrats in her state who were willing to vote for her?  Because if that’s the case then that’s no qualification.

And that which should come as a surprise to no one familiar with the hostility these Democrats have toward America, is the fact that apparently we now have news that would seem it indicate that at least some Senate Democrats are not content to merely uphold Barry’s veto of a resolution disapproving the Iran deal.  Because according to The Associated Press we now know that those Democrats who support this deal are currently talking about working to get enough votes, 41, to kill the disapproval resolution outright in the Senate, preventing the need for a presidential veto.  Such an attempt should come as a surprise to no one really. 

Bob Corker, well-known RINO from Tennessee and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is the primary architect of this resolution.  And it was on Tuesday that he called the plan to kill it, stunning.  "I find that stunning that the leader, the Democrat leader, is proposing that," Corker told The Associated Press in a phone interview, referring to ‘Dingy Harry’ Reid.  Corker said, "All but one senator voted in favor of having the right to vote on the final deal, so then to turn right around and filibuster it to me is very inconsistent, and I think would be confusing to the people they represent."

Corker told the AP, "I don't think there's any question but the lobbying effort by the administration certainly has generated results, and I have no idea what the final vote is going to be but certainly they've picked up some support on the Democratic side."  Fifteen Senate Democrats have yet to make known whether they will support this horrendous deal, or if they will put the country above politics and oppose it.  And those Democrats are: Michael Bennet, Richard Blumenthal, Cory Booker, Maria Cantwell, Ben Cardin, Thomas Carper, Robert Casey, Christopher Coons, Heidi Heitkamp, Joe Manchin, Jeff Merkley, Barbara Mikulski, Gary Peters, Mark Warner, and Ron Wyden.

Ya know, I often wonder what it is that might be going through someone’s mind at that specific moment in time when they make that consciously decision to vote for a Democrat, any Democrat.  Do they even realize, or understand, what it really is that they’re voting for?  That being, of course, the bringing about of the demise of their own country, the same country which they will be leaving to their children.  And if they were made to understand that, would such an understanding be sufficient for them to change their vote?  Or, is voting Democrat so ingrained in these people that they simply can’t help themselves.  Are they addicted to voting Democrat?

ARROGANCE, THY NAME IS OBAMA…

For a man who held so much promise is there now a more arrogant, self-centered or narcissist piece of shit to be found anywhere on the entire planet than our president?  It just never seems to end with guy.  As his time in office winds down it would now seem that Barry “Almighty” feels compelled to put people on notice. He wants to make sure they are all aware that he’s now back from another vacation and feeling "refreshed, renewed, recharged" and, he says, more than "a little feisty."  And he has made it quite clear what he means by feisty.

And so it was that while at yet another Democrat fundraiser, this one in ‘Dingy Harry’ Reid country, just last night, Barry “Almighty”, our ‘Dear Beloved Leader’, declared himself ready for the challenges he will likely face this fall in dealing with a Republican Congress that disagrees with him on the budget, energy policy, education and much more.  Personally, from what I‘ve seen from our Republicans in Congress I’m thinking that he may be intentionally overstating his case for political purposes.  Because our Republicans have presented Barry with very few challenges.

Barry said that as he'd ridden to the fundraiser with his old friend ‘Dingy Harry’ Reid, and it was during this ride that they'd done some reminiscing and spent some time "figuring out how we are going to deal with the crazies in terms of managing some problems."  Now of course he didn't bother to go into detail in identifying exactly who the two of them had defined as "crazies."  But I’m sure we can assume about whom he was speaking because it’s likely to be anyone who dares to disagree with his Socialist approach to how he thinks this country should operate.

But Barry did speak, and at great length, about what he views as being his differences with the Republican Congress.  And in his hypocritical tone, he lamented that "too often, our political debates are not about what's best for the country but what's best for the next election."  If the country is to remain a strong world leader, he said, it needs "not just a president who, after a few gray hairs, seems to know what he's doing, but we also need a Congress that functions."  But the truth is America ceased being a world leader the day this ass was sworn in as president.

I thought it rather humorous how it was that Barry seemed to imply that he’s a president who knows what he’s doing.  But we ALL know what Barry is really doing, and that would be his best to dismantle the very foundations of this country, brick by brick.  Barry also looked beyond the immediate challenges to simpler times down the road.  He said that since neither he nor ‘Dingy Harry’ is seeking re-election next year, the two off them had talked about "riding off into the sunset together."  Too bad it won’t be riding off right over a cliff!

It was earlier on Monday that Barry spoke at a green energy conference where he accused fossil fuel interests and other critics of his energy policies of trying to restrict consumers from accessing solar, wind and other renewable sources in order to protect the status quo.  Barry whined, "That's not the American way."  He added, "This is about the past versus the future. America believes in the future."  Actually, what is not the American way is Barry’s idiotic idea is that we should ignore the fact that we have 500 years worth of coal while focusing on far more costly ‘green energy.’

Barry also questioned the ideological consistency of those who champion free-market solutions, except when the free market is pointing to the wisdom of renewable energy.  But as we’ve seen, even with massive subsidizing by the taxpayer, Barry’s ‘renewable energy’ sources remain not practical.  And he singled out billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, who are major donors to Republican political candidates while leaving completely out of the conversation the likes of George Soros, Tom Steyer, and Mike Bloomberg to name just a few lefty billionaires.

Barry went on to say, "It's one thing if you're consistent in being free market."  And he added, "It's another thing when you're free market until it's solar that's working and people want to buy and suddenly you're not for it anymore. That's a problem."  Barry said the economics are now such that "solar isn't just for the green crowd any more, it's for the green-eyeshade crowd too."  Barry has never been a big supporter of our free market system and to blame it for the continued failure of his ‘green energy’ boondoggles is simply to deny reality.

While Barry has shown time and again that he very much likes to throw stones at congressional Republicans, I must confess that I’ve seen very little from our newly minted Republican majority in Congress that would seem to indicate that Barry has very much to worry about when it comes to running into any significant opposition.  Our limp-wristed leadership have demonstrated, nearly from day one, that they are more than willing to go along with pretty much anything that he may want.  This despite the many campaign promises that were made to the contrary.

To say that I hate this man whom we have had the misfortune to have as our president for nearly seven years would most definitely be an understatement.  And before anyone accuses me of basing my hatred on his color, let me tell ya somethin’.  He came into office a man on a mission, and that mission was to destroy America by any means possible.  The fact that this man was able to get elected and then reelected proves beyond the shadow of any doubt that there are now many who reside in this country who are in favor of his objective.   

The bottom line here is that I have now gotten to the point where I have literally no respect for any person who chooses to willingly support Barry in his effort to complete his mission of dismantling this the greatest exercise in human freedom in all of history.  The fact is that being a Democrat is synonymous with hating America.  And I’ve never been able to figure out what stirs in someone such a loathing for country that guarantees its citizens a life spent living in freedom.  It’s as if the prefer to be told how they must live their lives by an all-powerful government. 

A FATE FAR WORSE THAN A HITLERY CLINTON PRESIDENCY…

Just when I thought things couldn’t possibly get any worse than Hitlery, along comes rumors of a potential 2016 Democrat ticket consisting of ‘Slow Joe’ Biden and Elizabeth ‘Pocahontas’ Warren.  I guess this has now become what many Democrats deem as being a palatable ‘Plan B’ should Hiterly Clinton end up going down in flames because of what has become her rather impressive list of scandals.  While it’s hard to imagine a worse scenario than having to endure another Clinton presidency, the possibility of a Biden-Warren ticket is even more frightening.

But be that as it may, that hasn’t stopped political pundits of nearly every stripe from being all abuzz regarding the prospects of a ‘Slow Joe’ Biden-Elizabeth ‘Pocahantas’ Warren 2016 ticket in the wake of an unannounced meeting that took place between the two on Saturday.  This would be the ultimate in the world of ‘Dumb and Dumber’ presidential politics.  And ya know what’s really sad is that there a good many ‘Americans’ would be only too happy to vote for these two clowns and for no other reason than to keep their taxpayer funded freebies coming.

Apparently, ‘Slow Joe’, now 72, has told friends that if he does run for president, he will serve only one term, making an early announcement of his vice-presidential running-mate a strong possibility.  But let’s face it, even a one term Biden presidency would be more than sufficient to complete the remaining ‘fundamental transformation’ of America begun by Barry.  And also, if elected, ‘Slow Joe’ would be the oldest incoming president.  And the scary thing about ‘Slow Joe’ is that in his particular case, older doesn’t mean wiser.  It simply means demented.

So it was then on that this past Saturday ‘Slow Joe’ left his home in Delaware to meet up with, leftwing kook, ‘Pocahontas’ Warren at his official residence at the Naval Observatory.  We’re told that these two leftwing loons got together for a couple hours to discuss policy issues over lunch, but speculation now seems to be growing about whether old ‘Slow Joe’ might actually be looking to tap ‘Pocahontas’, who is, hysterically speaking, her state's senior Senator, as his running mate for next year's election.  God help us if these two were actually to get elected.

And I’m quite sure that it goes without saying that many of those in our leftist state-controlled media, as well as any number of hardcore leftist Democrat activists, would like nothing more than to see ‘Pocahontas’ somewhere on the ballot — as does at least one ‘Slow Joe’ confidant according to The Boston Globe.  It was longtime ‘Slow Joe’ Biden adviser Larry Rasky that told the newspaper, "I think that would be a great ticket."  Great for whom exactly?  I can only assume he must be referencing the millions of parasites who are encouraged to live off the rest of us.

And then we had "Meet the Press" moderator Chuck Todd, who opened his show wondering whether ‘Slow Joe’ might be "sending a not-so-subtle message of perhaps what his dream ticket could look like."  And it was USA Today Washington Bureau Chief Susan Page who would later say on the same show during a ‘roundtable discussion’: "On behalf of political reporters everywhere, and not for ideological and partisan reasons, I would like to ask Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren to run as a ticket.  I think that would be fantastic to cover. I'm 100 percent in favor."

And later it was over on the Communist New Network's, (CNN), "State of the Union," that GOP hopeful Ben Carson was asked if a ‘Slow Joe’-Pocahontas ticket would cause him any concern.  To which Carson responded to guest host Jim Acosta by saying, "No, it doesn't."  And Mr. Carson then went on to say, "You know, I am happy with whatever they come up with, because I think that this election will be an excellent opportunity for the American people to make a clear choice. I don't think it is going to be muddied."  There will be “clear choice” only if we’re mindful who we nominate.

Washington Post blogger Chris Cillizza found the Biden-Warren summit "SUPER intriguing."  And Daily Beast columnist and MSNBC contributor Jonathan Alter thinks that, at the very least, the subject came up.  Alter later clarified: "I'm not speculating that Biden offered VP much less that Warren accepted. Only saying that my bet is the subject came up."  Josh Alcorn of Draft Biden 2016 declined to speculate when asked about it on "Fox News Sunday."  Alcorn, a former adviser to Biden's recently deceased son, Beau, said, "You'll have to let the vice president talk about that."

And it was ‘journalist’ and author Carl Bernstein who told CNN's "New Day" on Friday that he's heard such talk.  And in speaking about ‘Slow Joe’ Biden’s possible plan, it was Bernstein who said that he wants to "serve for four years, unite Washington."  He went on to say, "I think there's a conversation going on to that effect among his aides and friends."  Unite Washington?  What kind of liberal tripe is that?  Let’s face it, there is already very little difference between our two parties.  Bernstein’s even a bigger dumbass than his ‘Watergate’ buddy, Woodward.

According to Ruth Marcus of The Washington Post ‘Slow Joe’ Biden clearly would like to be president, but is letting things play out with Hitlery Clinton's troubles re her private email server.  At least that’s what she said on "Face the Nation."  Marcus went on to say, "Joe Biden has wanted to be president and has been running for president since Hillary Clinton was first lady of Arkansas." Biden ran unsuccessfully in 1988 and again in 2008.  So while many on the left don’t seem quite ready to cast Hitlery over the side, they do seem be getting might close to doing just that.

But let’s be honest here for a minute, can we.  The plain truth is that this country would never be able to survive even a one term ‘Slow Joe’ administration.  As a nation we are now, quite literally, hanging by a thread, and virtually on every single front.  This little experimentation in socialism that has been taking place over the course of the last 7 years has proven to be nothing more than extremely toxic to what had up until that time been commonly referred to as ‘the American way of life.’  Because it has been nothing more than a sleigh ride to Hell.

ARE WE NOW WITNESSING ‘TRUMP DERANGEMENT DISORDER’???

Is it just me or do I seem to recall that it wasn’t all that long ago, politically speaking, when we were hearing many on the right taking a certain amount of joy in accusing many on the left of being afflicted with what they referred as a psychological disorder they called Bush Derangement Syndrome.  This affliction was described as follows: the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency -- nay -- the very existence of George W. Bush.   And apparently it’s contagious since these days I would argue that it’s now many on the right who have come down with what sounds like a very similar type of psychological disorder.

And it’s this new disorder that could, at least as far as I’m concerned, very easily be identified as, Trump Derangement Syndrome.  Symptoms of this latest condition seem to include, but are not be limited to: the coming completely unhinged over Donald Trump as well as those who support him, and seem to cause anti-Trump journalists, as well as those pundits and political strategists who reside on the Right, to exhibit some of the most rank and disgustingly juvenile reactions.  It’s really quite amazing and should call into question how it is that these individuals should be viewed as conservatives when acting so much like liberals.

Now it’s one thing for some liberal rag like the Washington Post to run pictures of Trump grimacing under the headline, “Trump Runs for the Spite House,” etc., but the intensity, and the absolute crudity, coming from of those who are the supposed voices of brand-name conservatism is nowhere to be exceeded.  And frankly I find it as being nothing short of appalling that those whom I once viewed as being serious journalists may in fact more closely resemble the intellectual lightweights that reside on the left.  Let’s just call them ‘CINO’ Conservatives.  Because like RINOs, most of these ‘journalists’ are simply ‘Conservative In Name Only’.

Cindy Simpson, writing in the ‘American Thinker’, collected a recent sample of the visceral, and even pornographically-themed, hostility toward Trump and his supporters which has now erupted amid the punditry on the Right.  While I’m assuming there’s an attempt by some to be witty, what generally comes out is the equivalent of graffiti. Simpson sees the trend as off-putting not only to Trump supporters but also to those seeking a “Big Tent”.  After reading through Simpson’s collection one finds that disgusting examples abound. After all, who in their right mind would want to get inside a shrinking tent with these smut-talking men?

And it’s in reading Simpson’s piece one is struck by how often it is that the arguments and conversations all too often begin with name-calling — Trump supporters are, in the (maybe humorous?) tweet of a leading NR writer/author, “mouth breathing anti-Semites and white nationalists” (Jonah Goldberg). Another NR correspondent writes in a column that Trump supporters are “engaged in the political version of masturbation: sterile, fruitless self-indulgence” (Kevin Williamson). Tweeted approval from a Commentary editor ping-pongs back: “Man. This piece. @KevinNR grabs Trump supporters by the… well, you know” (Noah Rothman).

And so, welcome to the metaphorical gutter of anti-Trump/supporter debate and journalism, where “vomit” and “rape-lovers” also pass as terms of political repartee (Commentary editor John Podhoretz). Seriously?  And then there was this headline of an essay by David Harsanyi at The Federalist: “Trump’s Immigration Plan Is Hardcore Porn for Nativists”.  I can only assume that many on our side have now taken up with hanging out with those more skilled practitioners of ‘journalistic malpractice who typically operate within the confines of the liberal gutter.  This is not the kind of language that we have come to expect from those supposedly on our side.

I’m thinking that far too many on our side are losing, or may have already lost, sight of the real objective here.  And that is, of course, to prevent Hitlery, or any other Democrat, from winning the keys to the White House.  And I can only come to the conclusion that those now busying themselves by going after Trump and his supporters would be much more comfortable if it were someone the likes of a Jeb Bush or perhaps a Christie, both sure losers in a general election, were to win the nomination.  Ya know, I’ve always thought that those on the right were a bit more adult in their behavior than those on the left.  But apparently I was wrong.  Dead wrong!

ON THE SUBJECT OF DONALD TRUMP…

Let me be clear, I consider myself a social conservative, a fiscal conservative, pro-life and I favor a strong national defense.  So why is it that at this point in the campaign I feel quite comfortable in supporting Donald Trump instead of any of the other ‘Republican’ candidates who make up his competition in running for GOP nomination?  Well, I suppose the easy answer would be to say that I am, very simply, fed up with those in the party who while they like to refer to themselves as conservatives during the campaign, once elected tend to behave just the opposite, as I see them walking arm in arm with the likes of ‘Dingy Harry’ Reid.  Since gaining control of Congress the Republicans have been little more than a complete disappointment.

And yet, something I find as being quite insulting is how it has been over the last few weeks, really since he first declared himself a candidate, that we’ve seen all manner of Establishment Republican consultant and pundit publicly fretting about whether Donald Trump will irreparably damage the Republican brand.  But seriously folks, I don’t see how Trump could do anymore to ‘damage the brand’ than has already been done by the likes of John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, our supposed leaders in the House and Senate.  And while Trump has been referred to as being somewhat of a joke, I would argue that it is John Boehner and Mitch McConnell who have been, and continue to be, the real jokes here.  Only they’re just not funny.

And when do you suppose that those very same folks will finally begin to start worrying about the damage that Mitch McConnell, John Boehner and the rest of the GOP Establishment has already done to tarnish the Party’s brand?  The evidence is everywhere, all one has to do is to open your eyes.  Wasn’t it recently that McConnell shut down all efforts to defund Planned Parenthood, fight sanctuary cities, kill Obamacare and stop Iran from getting nukes because they might get in the way of pushing corporate welfare?  At this point, Boehner and McConnell might as well just wear the logos of the corporations and wealthy donors that sponsor them because they’ve turned their backs on conservatives and the country to cater to them.

My advice to all concerned would be that we shouldn’t be worried about Donald Trump, the ones we should really be worried about are the guys we were already stupid enough to elect.  They’re the ones who keep stabbing us in the back.  They are the ones laughing at us for actually trusting that what they were telling was the truth.  Any while I am sure there are many who will choose to disagree, I would argue that Trump may actually be good for the Republican Party where guys like Boehner and McConnell are the ones we need to be keeping a very close eye on regarding the amount of damage that they have already done and are continuing to do to our party.  I have gotten to the point where I’m willing to risk supporting someone like Trump.

Because Trump is knocking the GOP Establishment back on its heels. Yes, Trump did go over the line with his “I like people who weren’t captured” remark about McCain, but when all was said and done, it was the Maverick who got pancaked.  Not only did McCain end up getting major blowback for calling Trump supporters “crazies,” he also made an enemy of a billionaire who’ll be willing to pour millions into a campaign to take him out in a primary. And in adding insult to injury, Trump is now polling better with veterans than McCain. Trump has also smashed Lindsey Graham, slapped Karl Rove and ceaselessly attacked Jeb Bush. If Trump does nothing else other than stop Jeb Bush our nominee, we should build a larger than life statue of him.

And after Reince Priebus at the RNC started to interfere in the presidential primary by attacking Trump with there even being rumblings that Trump should actually be left out of the debates, we started hearing that the Donald might choose to run as a third party.  After that, Reince Priebus suddenly remembered what his job was again and started calling on everyone to be civil.   On top of all that, many people believe that Trump’s surge in the polls is a direct result of how unhappy many conservatives have become with the Republican Party. That should be a wake-up call for the GOP. In fact, if it isn’t, then the next one will probably come after we start bleeding seats on Election Day once we don’t have Obama to kick around anymore.

It’s true that Trump is sucking up all the oxygen. And he is dominating the coverage of the 2016 presidential election. While it means that candidates like Bobby Jindal and Mike Huckabee will have trouble getting enough coverage to gain steam, there is a huge plus to the “all Trump, all the time” coverage that most people have missed. In the 2008 and 2012 elections, the state-controlled media and the establishment picked the candidates they liked best and then they systematically destroyed anybody else who started to get any traction.  This time around, Trump is acting like a missile defense shield for the rest of the field and may actually help us break the liberal media/squishy Republican stranglehold on picking our nominee.

Trump is also forcing the other candidates to up their game. If candidates use nothing but “safe” boilerplate jargon to ensure that they don’t offend anyone and act as if we have a thousand years to fix the problems we have in this country, that’s fine, but no one’s ever going to hear their name with Donald Trump in the race.   Because of that, the GOP candidates have been forced to do more to get their names out there.  Ted Cruz called out Mitch McConnell for lying to Republicans on the Senate floor. Rand Paul took a chainsaw to the tax code. Bobby Jindal is threatening to arrest the Westboro Baptist Church wackos if they protest the funerals of mass shooting victims. Mike Huckabee pointed out that Barry’s Iran deal very well may lead to a Holocaust.

Now you may choose to disagree, but to my way of thinking these are all very good things.  We need candidates who can communicate, who show some fire and who have a sense of urgency about addressing the problems that are confronting America. Trump is helping to bring that out in the rest of the field. The failed Republican leadership in Congress has made it abundantly clear that it doesn’t care about anything other than slavishly serving the interests of a few thousand ultra-wealthy donors and corporations. Meanwhile, Trump is talking about securing the border, looking out for veterans, fixing the lousy trade deals we make in this country, getting our hostages out of Iran and stopping the massive crime wave that has been created by taking in so many illegal immigrants.

Now, even those who hate Trump’s guts are talking about sanctuary cities because he turned it into an issue. Quite frankly, neither party is looking out for the best interests of the American people on illegal immigration; so it’s quite refreshing to see the Republican field being forced to address it. It shouldn’t have taken Trump to get a real conversation going, but it has. He's teaching Republicans they don't have to surrender: No politician should want to needlessly offend people, but on the other hand, it’s impossible to accomplish anything without making some people angry. Unfortunately, most Republicans don’t seem to understand this and have allowed cowering to become their standard operating procedure.

In fact, the GOP has become such a group of timid, knock-kneed, namby-pamby pushovers and wimps that Republicans don’t do much of anything other than just sit of their behinds and beg the Democrats not to beat them too badly. Trump is showing Republicans that it’s possible to do something different. Yes, you don’t have to apologize just because the state-controlled media demands that you do so. Yes, you can hit back even harder when you’re attacked. Yes, you can stick it to the press when it treats you unfairly. In all fairness, other Republicans have done this as well, but Trump has made it the centerpiece of his campaign and it has taken him all the way to first place when NO ONE expected him to rise that high.

The Republican Party is called the “Stupid Party” and for good reason. Simply watch McConnell and Boehner and you’ll see why.  But even Republicans can learn a lot from the way Donald Trump has brawled his way to the top of the heap. Even if it doesn’t last, no one will forget that Republicans voters love a fighter.  A big reason that Trump has been able to maintain his position in the polls is the fact that there is a great deal of frustration on the part of conservatives when it comes to the Republican Party.  And it is that frustration together with the sense of being abandoned by our elected leaders that has driven many, rightly or wrongly, to support Mr. Trump.  And if he should win the nomination I’m willing to risk voting for him.  

CREDIBILITY BECOMING A RARE COMMODITY…

Is it just me or does it seem that as the more crucial that elections become, the fewer places we have to turn in our attempt to gain for ourselves some level of useful information so that we can then make an educated decision when it comes to casting our vote?  Let’s face it, there is simply not enough time in a day to personally conduct the type of research that is both necessary and that would effectively cut out the middleman, aka anyone in the state-controlled media, in our effort to cast and intelligent vote.  And it only seems to be getting worse.

Because sadly, it’s these days that it seems there are fewer and fewer of those who can actually be trusted.  Everyone now seems to have their own agenda. And now another of those who has seen his credibility shrivel over the years is Fox News focus group guru, Frank Luntz.  Now I will admit that when Frank first appeared on the scene I was quite impressed with his schtick.  But all that I’ve seen taking place since that time is a rather impressive increase in the size of the man’s ego.  An affliction that now seems to have infected many over at Fox News.

Why I even bring this up is the fact that it has now been 12 days since the first Republican presidential debate was broadcast on the Fox News Channel.  It was immediately following that event on the network’s ‘The Kelly File’, that pollster Frank Luntz conducted a focus group on location there in Cleveland, the site of the debate.  According to the participants of this particular focus group, real estate mogul Donald Trump, the frontrunner of the race, fared pretty poorly, but they gave a mixed response as to who was the strongest in the debate.

Many of the respondents taking part in Frank little group gave favorable reactions to Mike Huckabee, Ted Cruz, former Johns Hopkins neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson as well as to Marco Rubio.  Luntz even went so far as to highlight Huckabee as having received the most favorable reaction of the debate based on his real-time dial response from the focus group during the live event. “Bad news for Donald Trump. Great news for Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee,” Luntz said in assessing the reactions of his focus group panel to the August 6 debate.

However, it would appear that those respondents of Frank’s turned out not to be a very accurate indicator of how the public seems to be reacting to the Republican field nearly two weeks after the debate.  Because, you see, according to an average of a bucket of post-debate polls calculated by Real Clear Politics, Trump, at 22 percent, still holds a commanding double-digit lead in the very crowded field over Jeb Bush, at 10.7 percent.  So I’d be curious to know how it is that old Frank might explain that?  How is it that his group could have been so out of touch?

Because of those that performed well in Luntz’s focus group, only Carson remains in the top tier coming in at 9.7 percent.  Meanwhile, Rubio and Cruz are in the middle of the pack, at 7.3 percent each respectively, and Huckabee, seemingly a favorite of Frank’s, has seen a 2.5 percent drop in polling since the debate.  So I’m kind of wondering what criteria it was that Frank might have used in putting his little focus group together.  And was he, perhaps, trying to skew the out toward a certain candidate or certain candidates?  Just sayin’.

For whatever reason Luntz has been particularly critical of Trump from the very beginning of his presidential campaign.  According to a report from Hadas Gold and Ken Vogel in Tuesday’s Politico, Luntz has been outspoken about Trump’s candidacy, deeming it, and the insurgent candidacy of Democrat hopeful Bernie Sanders, a self-professed Socialist, to be a “big ‘f—- you’ to the elites in America,” but prefacing it as not being helpful to finding solutions to the country’s difficulties.  Seem to me that Frank is as out of touch as was his little focus group.   

On a broader note, I’m not quite sure, exactly, what it is that is currently underway over there at Fox News.  But one thing I do know for certain, and it is that these days I’m watching a lot less of the network than I used to, primarily because with each night it becomes all the more obvious that their success has gone straight to their head.  And the success that they have now seems to have bred a certain level of arrogance that, I think, tends to turn people off.  And it is an emotion that old Frank himself seems to have fallen victim to.  

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND WHAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT ‘REALLY’ SAYS…

I’m amazed how it is that so many of today’s so-called “Constitutional Experts”, be they presidential candidates or TV talking heads seem to be anything but. Especially as far as our illegal immigration problem goes.  Because while parts of Donald Trump’s immigration plan may raise serious constitutional questions, the part that has now launched a media firestorm—ending birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens— most certainly does not.  The Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment does not confer citizenship on the children of foreigners, whether legal or illegal.  So this is yet another area of our Constitution where those on the left, and a good many of those on the right, read only what they ‘want’ to read.

Now I freely admit that I’m about as far removed, as anyone can possibly get, from being an expert on the Constitution.  As must be a goodly number of our media commentators who have continued to get this issue so completely, and so thoroughly dead wrong.  And I was somewhat surprise to hear that even Fox News’s Judge Andrew Napolitano, whom I have always held in rather high regard because of what I thought was his apparent knowledge regarding our Constitution, has now said that the Fourteenth Amendment is “very clear,” and its Citizenship Clause commands that any child born in America is automatically an American citizen.  On the contrary, not only is that’s not the law, it never has been the law.  Come on, Judge!

Under current immigration law—found at 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a)—a baby born on American soil to a (1) foreign ambassador, (2) head of state, or (3) foreign military prisoner is not an American citizen. This is from the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 (INA), as it has been amended over the years. So after all these years is this federal law unconstitutional?  No, it is not!  The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states as follows: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”  Today’s debate can be said to turn on the six words, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

As those familiar with history are no doubt well aware, the Thirteenth Amendment—which ended slavery—barely passed Congress because of the large number of Democrats who supported slavery, and it was only through the political genius and resolve of ‘Republican’ President Abraham Lincoln that the proposed amendment passed Congress in 1865.  In 1866, Congress passed a Civil Rights Act to guarantee black Americans their constitutional rights as citizens, claiming that the Constitution’s Thirteenth Amendment gave Congress the power to pass such laws. But many voted against the Civil Rights Act because they thought it exceeded Congress’s powers, and even many of its supporters doubted its legality.

It was the Civil Rights Act that included a definition for national citizenship the purpose of which to guarantee that former slaves would forever be free of the infamous Dred Scott decision which declared black people were not American citizens. That provision read, “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”  However, nowhere does it say that anyone who is able to sneak across our border, and then able remain undetected in this country for any number of years automatically becomes a citizen of this nation.  Now that may be how some of our politicians read it, but that doesn’t make it so.

That was the original meaning of the jurisdiction language in the Fourteenth Amendment. A person who is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States is a person who is “not subject to any foreign power”—that is, a person who was entirely native to the United States, not the citizen or subject of any foreign government. The same members of Congress who voted for the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865 then voted to define citizenship for freed slaves in a federal law in 1866, then voted again months later in 1866—using only slightly different language—to put that definition of citizenship in the Constitution, language that was ultimately ratified by the states in 1868 as the Fourteenth Amendment.

And it was then in 1884 that the Supreme Court in Elk v. Wilkins noted that the language of the Civil Rights Act was condensed and rephrased in the Fourteenth Amendment and that courts can therefore look to the Civil Rights Act to understand better the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.  The Court reasoned that if a person is a foreign citizen, then their children are likewise not constitutionally under the jurisdiction of the United States, and therefore are not entitled to citizenship.  In fact, the Court specifically then added that this rule is why the children of foreign ambassadors are not American citizens.  That is why Congress can specify that the children of foreign diplomats and foreign soldiers are not Americans by birth.

The very simple fact is that these individuals are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Congress’s INA does not grant them citizenship; federal law never has.  Which then begs the question, why is a child born on American soil to foreign parents an American citizen by birth?  Because the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause is a floor, not a ceiling.  Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution, Congress has absolute power to make laws for immigration and for granting citizenship to foreigners.  Congress’s current INA is far more generous than the Constitution requires.  Congress could expand it to grant citizenship to every human being on earth, or narrow it to its constitutional minimum.

The position of many in our state-controlled media demonstrates quite clearly that they lack any serious knowledge regarding what our Constitution actually says about immigration, or anything else for that matter.  As well, that seem to be quite ignorant of what most of us see as being very clearly spelled out in our immigration laws.  This despite the fact that some of the greatest legal minds in this country have discussed this issue nearly ad nauseam. It’s just that no one has ever put any of them on camera to explain it.  Scholars including Dr. John Eastman of Chapman University, and even Attorney General Edwin Meese—the godfather of constitutional conservatism in the law—reject the myth of birthright citizenship.

Nor is rejection of birthright citizenship something this is limited to only we conservatives.  For instance, it was Judge Richard Posner—a prolific scholar who, despite being appointed by Ronald Reagan, is a liberal judicial activist—who wrote in 2003 in Ofoji v. Ashcroft:  We should not be encouraging foreigners to come to the United States solely to enable them to confer U.S. citizenship on their future children. But the way to stop that abuse of hospitality is to remove the incentive by changing the rule on citizenship.  A constitutional amendment may be required to change the rule whereby birth in this country automatically confers U.S. citizenship, but somehow I seriously doubt it.  I would have to agree.

The purpose of the rule was to grant citizenship to the recently freed slaves, and the exception for children of foreign diplomats and heads of state shows that Congress did not read the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment literally, and literally is how it is read today even by those who should know better. Congress would not be flouting the Constitution if it amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to put an end to the nonsense.  It is another question as to whether Congress could strip citizenship from the children of illegals who already have it.  If Congress could do that, then it could also strip citizenship from the many millions of foreigners who came to the United States legally and went through the lawful process to become Americans.

Trump, if elected, could rescind Barry “Almighty’s” executive amnesty, but that executive order did not grant anyone citizenship, and it would be a steep uphill climb in court to try to take someone’s citizenship away.  And if the children already here are American citizens, then they could never be deported.  Some other parts of Trump’s plan face even longer odds.  The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Bill of Rights applies to all “persons,” not just citizens.  And the courts have always held that due process requires any foreigner to be given a “meaningful hearing” in court before being deported, and that would most certainly have an impact on the pace of deportations.

Now I’m not going to do is sit here and make the claim that Donald Trump’s position on immigration hasn’t changed, and pretty drastically so, from his previous positions, just like his past support for socialized healthcare and abortion.  After all, he has not yet explained why he changed his position on immigration, hence the reason that more than a few voters still do not trust that he sincerely holds to his current campaign positions.  But that being said, none of that changes the legality of his immigration proposal.  While parts of it may face legal challenges, the fact is that denying citizenship to the children of illegal aliens is fully consistent with the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment.

LANNY DAVIS…A BUTT-LICKER WITHOUT EQUAL…

So, it would seem that perennial Clinton ‘butt-lick’, Lanny Davis, has once again gotten his panties in a twist, feeling compelled again to come rushing to the defense of Hitlery.  Lanny became what can only be described as completely unhinged last week after columnist Windsor Mann wrote that Democrat presidential frontrunner Hitlery Clinton has a personality deficit disorder.  Come on, it’s not as if Hitlery hasn’t been accused of being “likable enough” before.  But somehow Windsor’s words got under Lanny’s skin and he reasoned that Windsor has an “irrelevance” problem.

For those out there who may not be familiar with the esteemed Mr. Davis, he is the former White House Special Counsel to ex-president ‘Slick Willie’ Clinton.  I’m sure you remember ‘Slick Willie’, one of only two U.S. presidents to ever be impeached.  Anyway, old Lanny first met Hitlery back in the late sixties while at Yale Law School.  He supported her presidential candidacy in 2008 and has often appeared on TV as a campaign surrogate.  It was Mann’s op-ed column in USA Today that ran with the rather harsh headline: “Hillary Clinton’s personality deficit disorder.”

Here’s just a snippet of what Mr. Mann wrote: “Because her recent past is uninspiring, Clinton is now showcasing her distant past — the era before anyone had heard of her. …Needless to say, if the best part of your political career occurred before your political career, there may be a problem with your political career. Such is the case with Clinton’s. …. If Clinton’s personality is her chief asset, she’s in trouble. To a lot of people, she comes across as neither affable nor interesting nor honest.”  To me none of what Mr. Mann wrote seems to be right on the mark.  But not so for Lanny.

In his effort to defend Hitlery, Lanny puts forward the claim that Mr. Mann is the one with issues.  He said so in a response that ran in USA Today a day after the column published.  Per Mr. Davis:  “Could it be that Mr. Mann actually believes his brand of written bile actually convinces anyone who cares about solving the great problems facing this country?” Davis began his psychoanalysis. “Can he be that blind to his own irrelevance? Or are his personal attacks on Secretary Clinton precisely because he is aware of the latter, and that frustrates him?”

And Lanny went on to say that he was “disappointed” in USA Today for presuming that Hitlery is the frontrunner. He sees this as insulting to the other Democrat presidential hopefuls. He finds this kind of “biased reporting” really “irresponsible” since it “robs the other candidates of their legitimacy.”  But isn’t Hitlery still the one being referred to as the Democrat ‘frontrunner’ by just about everyone in the state-controlled media?  And why not?  Isn’t she leading all of her rivals, both declared and undeclared by double-digits?  So what’s Lanny really talking about here?

I guess we could try to explain Lanny’s rather idiotic behavior by saying this his little rant must have been written after a couple cocktails at dinner.  But he does have a rather long history of exhibiting this level of butt-licking when it comes to the Clintons.  Fuming about a journalist’s ‘irrelevance’ when he’s writing in the biggest newspaper in the country?  Really?  Perhaps ‘Team Hitlery’ is getting a bit worried about Hitlery’s irrelevance now that Bernie is ahead of her by 7 points in New Hampshire.  Lanny’s reaction might actually stem more from panic than from alcohol.

SCUMBAG DEMOCRATS PLAY POLITICS WITH BAD IRAN DEAL…

Barry’s hopes of preserving his cherished nuclear ‘deal’ between Iran and world powers is said to have been dealt a setback this past Thursday when Chuckie Schumer, one of the top Democrats in the Senate said, after deep study, careful thought and considerable soul-searching, he simply could not bring himself to support the agreement.  But I think we all knew this was coming.   After all, Chuckie’s up for re-election next year even though he’s a shoe in, he was most likely been given permission to vote against it so as to have something to brag about next year.  But his action does not mean that Barry’s ‘deal’ is in any real danger of being killed.

Chuckie's supposed opposition, announced in a lengthy statement, could, however unlikely, pave the way for more of Barry's fellow Democrats to come out against the nuclear pact announced on July 1 between the United States, five other world powers and Iran.  Chuckie is said to be among the most influential Jewish lawmakers in the United States.  He was the first Senate Democrat to announce his opposition to the agreement.  But 12 more Democrats would be needed to successfully override Barry’s threatened veto, which means another 11 Democrats can still safely vote against it.  So we should look for that to happen and not be surprised when it does.

Another supposedly ‘influential’ Jewish lawmaker is Rep. Eliot Engel who happens to be the top Democrat on the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee and also said on Thursday that he too would oppose Barry’s nuclear pact.  Mr. Engel would also be one of those Democrats for whom there is likely an ulterior motive for coming out against this very bad deal.  You see, he too is up for re-election and has therefore likely been given permission to vote against this deal for purely political purposes.  Granted, he too may be a sure bet to win re-election but why take any unnecessary chances while at the same time being able to claim to be a defender of Israel.

Barry has been engaged in his own lobbying effort, including a combative speech on Wednesday in which he said abandoning the agreement would open up the prospect of war.  And in making quite clear his preference for operating out of the gutter, Barry attempted to shore up his increasingly unpopular “deal” with Iran which many say hands them nuclear weapons “on a silver platter.”  Barry gave what was billed as a “major” policy speech on the accord that Americans now have come to oppose by a 2-to-1 margin.  But all that matters very little to our ‘Dear Beloved Leader,’ Barry “Almighty”.  It’s all about him and his supposed legacy, or lack of. 

It was in that speech that we saw an obviously desperate Barry make some despicable comments, going so far as to compare the terror-sponsoring Iranian Mullahs to Republicans.  It was in reference to anti-American sentiments that Barry said, “I recognize the resorting to force may be tempting in the face of rhetoric and behavior that emanates from some parts of Iran.”  And added, “It is offensive. It is incendiary. We do take it seriously. But superpowers should not act impulsively in response to taunts.”  And he went on to say, “Just because Iranian hardliners chant ‘Death to America’ does not mean that’s what all Iranians believe.” 

And then in what has become typical behavior for this our least presidential of all American presidents, Barry proceeded to sink to what I think would be an all new low, even for him.  Because Barry would then say, “In fact, it’s those those hardliners who are most comfortable with the status quo. It’s those hardliners chanting ‘Death to America’ who have been most opposed to the deal. They are making a common cause with the Republican caucus.”  Really?  I mean, what is it that he was hoping to accomplish by making such a polarizing, arrogant and more than a little reckless statement?  Was he trying to bully those who oppose his deal into supporting it?

And then, of course, we have our imbecilic secretary of state, John Kerry-Heinz, the genius who ‘negotiated’, and I use that term very loosely, the deal on the U.S. side.  Kerry-Heinz said during a news conference on a visit to, of all places, the Vietnamese capital Hanoi that he respected Chuckie and Engel but added that "rejection is not a policy for the future."  Kerry-Heinz said, "It does not offer any alternative and many people in arms control and others have actually pointed that out. While I completely respect everybody's individual right to make a choice, I obviously disagree with the choice made."  What a buffoon this guy is.  It’s amazing.

Chuckie did his best to convince us that he was not influenced by party or politics and had not been pressured, like any of us would view that as being anything other than a bunch of political bullshit.  He said, "Advocates on both sides have strong cases for their point of view that cannot simply be dismissed. This has made evaluating the agreement a difficult and deliberate endeavor, and after deep study, careful thought and considerable soul-searching, I have decided I must oppose the agreement and will vote yes on a motion of disapproval."   Frankly I was surprised that he was actually able to get through his entire spiel and all with a straight face.

Barry has promised, no make that threatened, a veto if the resolution is passed by the House and Senate.  Now in order for the Republicans to shove that threat right up Barry’s ass, they would need at least 13 Democrats in the Senate and 44 in the House to join them in voting against Barry.  The have to be able to muster a two-thirds majority in both chambers needed in order to override a Barry veto.  So, while Thursday's announcements can, in a sense, be described as being a blow, albeit a minor one, to Barry, opponents of this deal still face a pretty steep uphill battle to enact a disapproval resolution.

Chuckie said lawmakers would have to come to their own conclusions but he would try to persuade other senators to vote against the Iran deal. Now that may be true, but Chuckie has a history of being a little less than honest.  Keep in mind that Chuckie is currently the number three Democrat in the Senate and is in line to succeed ‘Dingy Harry’ Reid as the party's leader in the chamber when ‘Dingy’ finally retires in early 2017.  Meanwhile, a congressional aide said Engel would vote for a resolution of disapproval and also vote to override a Barry veto if the resolution passed Congress.  However, Engel did not say he would lobby against the deal among other lawmakers.

Chuckie said he opposed the nuclear deal because he believed Iran would not change and that the deal would let it eliminate sanctions while retaining "nuclear and non-nuclear power."  He said, "Better to keep U.S. sanctions in place, strengthen them, enforce secondary sanctions on other nations, and pursue the hard-trodden path of diplomacy once more, difficult as it may be."  The White House had no immediate comment on Chuckie's announcement.  MoveOn.org said its 8 million members would organize a "donor strike" to withhold campaign contributions from "any Democratic candidate who succeeds in undermining the president's diplomacy with Iran."

Look, we will likely hear a lot more noise from what will likely be a growing number of Democrats regarding their displeasure with this ‘deal’, but that’s all it’s likely to be, noise.  It will only be for show as there is simply no way that there will be 13 Democrats willing to sign on to any veto override.  That being, of course, because the Democrat Party, Chuckie included, possesses a level of hatred for this country that runs so deep they could never choose sides against Barry and his Muslim brothers.  The very same Muslims who share with the Democrats that same intense hatred of America.  And by siding with Barry they are choosing to stand against this country.