MAXINE WATERS, THE PERFECT EXAMPLE OF ALL THAT’S WRONG IN WASHINGTON…

Since nearly the very second that Donald Trump was declared to be the winner of our last presidential contest, Maxine Waters, Democrat, has been in what can only be defined as being a constant attack mode and began calling for his impeachment after being in office for less than a week.  She hides behind her harsh criticism of the president by calling it “patriotic.”  But when the ridicule comes her way, she doesn’t take it too well.  Ridicule of the type she recently received after going to the House floor and declaring, “We fight against this president and we point out how dangerous he is. We're fighting for democracy. We're fighting for America.” 

But the racist old bitty didn’t stop there.  Nope, she was on a roll by then and she was going to work it for as much as she could.  Because Waters went on to say, “We're saying to those who say they're patriotic, but they turn a blind eye to the destruction he is about to cause to this country.”  And then added, “You are not nearly as patriotic as we are."  All I can say is that she must define ‘patriotism’ much differently than I do.  Because, quite frankly, after having been on this planet now for nearly 65 years I can’t say that I’ve ever actually encountered many genuinely patriotic Democrats, white or black.  Most Democrats hate this country.

So anyway, a clip of her rather imbecilic pronouncement from the House floor was recently played on Fox & Friends with Bill O’Reilly as a guest and he was asked to comment on her antics.  And he apparently started somewhat of a firestorm with his comments regarding Waters.  O’Reilly joked, saying, "I didn't hear a word she said. I was looking at the James Brown wig."  And it was then that resident airhead and Co-host Ainsley Earnhardt pushed back a bit, admonishing O’Reilly for attacking Waters’ appearance.  O’Reilly responded saying, “I didn’t say she wasn’t attractive.”  And then added, “I love James Brown, but it’s the same hair.”

But because everything is considered to be as offensive these days and jokes are no longer permitted, nor tolerated, O’Reilly has since faced the ire of liberals everywhere.  And as someone who professes to be a ‘tough guy’, O’Reilly demonstrated very little spine, as he quickly cowed to the political correctness and issued an apology.  He said, "As I have said many times, I respect Congresswoman Maxine Waters for being sincere in her beliefs. I said that again today on Fox & Friends calling her 'old school.' Unfortunately, I also made a jest about her hair which was dumb. I apologize."  Personally, sometimes you just gotta call a spade, a spade.

But, as to be expected, Waters was not about to accept his apology, and, of course was quick to inject race into the discussion.  She Tweeted:  I am a strong black woman. I cannot be intimidated, and I'm not going anywhere.”  No, what she is is a pathetic racist.  She appeared later on MSNBC with Chris Hayes to thank Hitlery for standing up for black women.  And guess what else she did?  Ridiculed “right wingers” as “dishonorable people” and questioned O’Reilly’s credibility with a promise to “stick to the issues” — that is, right after she gets through slinging mud.  If anyone can be said to be lacking credibility it’s this boob, Waters.

Personally I don’t have a problem with criticizing her or any other scumbag Democrat.  What’s she gonna do about it?  She gonna get her ghetto minions to whoop me upside 'da haid?   This hateful, ignorant, parasitic, racist, commie bitch of a scumbag has been haunting the halls of Congress for far too long.  She's an embarrassment to this country.  In a better and more just world, she'd be the madam at some rural Alabama black cathouse.  Fortunately, she's 78 years old, so we can only hope that in the not too distant future the good Lord will see fit to lock her heart up like a rusty chainsaw and then escort her to the gates of Hell.

And by the way, isn't Maxine's phony Caucasian hair style an example of cultural appropriation?  If she's such a proud and strong black woman, shouldn't she just go with the Angela Davis-style ‘Brillo Pad’ afro look?  Apparently not.  I’ve always thought it a bit curious that the blacks who tend to hold the most disdain for whites tend to spend a bigly amount of their time, effort, and money, trying to look white.  Why do you suppose that is?  I mean, why would you want to try to look like those who you profess to hate.  Because if we’re being honest here, the fact is that Blacks are some of most racist, hateful people you will ever meet.

As a side note here is my nomination for ‘Quote of the Year’: "In the midst of a national financial catastrophe, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) used her position as a senior member of Congress and member of the House Financial Services Committee to prevail upon Treasury officials to meet with OneUnited Bank. She never disclosed that her husband held stock in the bank. This outrageous conduct has led Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) to include the congresswoman as one of the Most Corrupt Members of Congress."  Now I’m criticizing the esteemed Ms. Waters, I’m simply repeating FACTUAL, and not fake, news.

I proudly served this great nation for 24 years in the U.S. Navy contributing to securing the freedoms for the American people.  I cannot, for the life of me, understand how such a horrible, moronic, anti-American, racist individual like Maxine Waters ever managed to get elected into public office.  Was it because there was no one else wanted the job?  She is a compete embarrassment and one of the most ignorant politicians I think I have ever heard.  Very shameful that someone like her is elected into a leadership position and is supposed to serve as a representative of the people.  Her district must be comprised of some very racist individuals.

And can someone, anyone, please explain something to me.  Why is it that all of these progressive leftists who want O'Reilly fired for his albeit rather silly and quite unfunny remarks had absolutely no problem when liberals like Bill Maher had some rather choice, as well as very disgusting, words for Sarah Palin?  Oh silly me, that’s right, when comments are made about conservatives, no matter how vile, despicable or hateful, and we’re told they need to be taken in the spirit in which they are given.  After all, liberals will ask, where’s your sense of humor?  To the progressive left, such remarks are considered offensive only when being directed at them.

Waters is one of those liberal Democrats, of which there are very many, who got to the top by riding the big city machine and never faced another challenge in an election.  Lucky for her she never had to demonstrate any signs of intellect, only a loyalty to the party line.  She hardly ever suffered any criticism because, of course, any criticism against her would be considered racist.  In her constant drumbeat of impeachment of Trump, she has yet to give a single solid reason why, other than she has somehow determined that he is not fit for office.  Her long tenure in Congress proves that the democratic process has some serious flaws.

LEFT GOES TO PANIC CONDITION ‘1 ALPHA’ AS PRESIDENT TRUMP REDUCES ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS…

Well it wasn’t long after President Donald Trump signed an executive order to eliminate climate-related environmental regulations burdening the U.S. energy industry that we had liberals literally crawling out of the woodwork and declaring, with their contrived sense of urgency, the end of life as we know it.  And it was the rotund one, Michael Moore, who took it upon himself to Tweet, “The extinction of human life on Earth,” has begun, as he then went on to make the claim that historians will soon look back on this day and blame Trump’s executive orders for their demise.  Moore, the imbecilic lard-ass, also noted on his Facebook page, that, “Historians in the near future will mark today, March 28, 2017, as the day the extinction of human life on earth began, thanks 2 Donald Trump.” 

Moore isn't exactly known for his measured, reasoned and well thought out political commentary, but he may have reached new heights of hyperbole in his reaction to President Trump's rollback of former community agitator Barack Hussein Obama’s energy ‘plan’.  It was reported that President Trump signed an executive order into law Tuesday "to begin rolling back Obama’s Clean Power Plan. The plan included many regulations affecting domestic energy production.  The executive order 'will suspend, rescind or flag for review more than a half-dozen measures in an effort to boost domestic energy production in the form of fossil fuels.'”  That prompted the  documentary propagandist to take to social media to express his displeasure in what has become his typically apocalyptic, fear-mongering style.

Now Moore didn't exactly make clear just how it is that there might still be any historians left wandering around to document this Trump inspired extinction of all human life on Earth, or, for that matter, who will be around to read any of it, but then, Twitter allows one only 140 characters per tweet, so let’s assume he simply didn’t leave himself enough space to explain.  However, there is still time for Moore to save large pockets of humanity -- say, Syrian refugees -- from extinction by turning his nine homes into well-stocked emergency shelters.  Come on Mike, do it for the future of humanity.  But Moore is far from being the only one who owns multiple homes that could very easily be used as shelters for these incoming refugees.  After all, it would be for a good cause, rescuing humanity from the evil Donald Trump. 

Moore said, “This is a defining moment in the history of mankind. By signing these executive orders today, Trump is declaring an act of war on the planet and its inhabitants.”  He continued by saying, “The one silver lining here is that Trump can’t kill the planet; the planet wants to live and has a long history of wiping out any real or perceived threats.”  And he also warned that the planet was “paying attention” — and would itself dispose of a species “hell-bent on destroying Earth.”  In a statement Tuesday after signing the executive order, Trump said his administration was “putting an end to the war on coal.”  The president was joined at the signing by EPA administrator Scott Pruitt, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke and Vice President Mike Pence.

The truth is that these kooky leftwing ‘Chicken Littles’ are the very same hypocrites who drive around in their big fancy cars made of steel (produced using coal) and that use lots of gas, produced from fossil fuels, on the way from their big fancy home(s) built with wood, steel and petroleum products, or to the airport via highways made with the help of petroleum products, to fly on petroleum product-fueled planes built with materials produced with the help of petroleum products.  Because they don't have a job that involves mining coal, drilling for oil and gas, or shipping those products via truck, boat, rail or pipeline, they want all such jobs ended and those workers and families to be put on government dependent welfare.  It’s just us little people who need to bear the brunt of all their environmental lunacy.

So, unless Moore and his many fellow environmentalist-wacko-friends want to start walking to work, living in caves, and want to give up all of the many modern conveniences that they have all become addicted to, including the internet and cell phones, stop using electricity or natural gas for heat and don't travel anywhere, they are absolute and total hypocrites!  But they’re not the ones who would be forced into going without the modern conveniences that we have all grown accustomed to, because they are the special people. The ones that will be required to live the equivalent of what would be a stone-age existence are we the little people, the insignificant ones of whom it has been determined make little of no contributions to the betterment of their fellow man.  You know, like knowing how to act and to sing.

Look, the United States is one of the few countries on the planet that actually has environmental controls.  China has the most polluted city in the entire world, they are the biggest offender when it comes to pollution by far.  Any gains, environmentally speaking, made by the U.S. in one year is essentially wiped out by China in 3 hours.  So what’s the point?  They can't grow much because of damaged soil, they control the water supply to the villages, plus they have a dam project that's so big it's actually changing the rotation of the earth.  They are buying up places in different countries to grow their crops, even here in the U.S., which should not be allowed.  They are buying up our farmland, and real estate, this needs to stop or they will own far too much farmland in the U.S., which is not a good thing.

Everyone is in favor of renewable energy!  And these ‘climate change’ loons live in a fantasy world where they think it already seems to exist.  And they love to rant about how those on the right ignore the facts.  But it’s those on the left who simply ignore any facts that don’t support their insane theory.  For instance, it would take 32-million windmills and a solar farm the size of Wyoming just to provide what were America's electrical needs back in 2012.  Lefties don't understand that the uncertainty of weather patterns plus 4380 hours of darkness each year dictates a generation redundancy of around 200% just to make sure that you have enough power generation at any one time.  And forget about any new dams, or bay/inlet capture to generate hydro power!  Because no way would ‘Mother Earth’ ever stand for that.

You know, I don’t think I’d know what to do if the America-hating kooks who reside out in the nether-regions of the left were to ever come up with a cause the soul-purpose of which wasn’t the complete destruction of my country and the stifling of the most productive and successful economic system the world has ever known.  If they weren’t focusing all of their energy on tearing things down and were instead determined to build things up in an effort to make things better for everyone.  But nope, they are simply unable to harness their destructive inclinations and by so doing make something that would otherwise be relatively easy into something considerably more difficult.  And I just don’t get their rationale for not only doing do, but for being so committed to bringing about the destruction of their own country.

And they never seem to run out of ways for doing just that. You know, and the scary thing is that they keep getting more inventive in their plots and seem to have very little trouble in convincing people of the righteousness of their arguments no matter how bizarre or outlandish they may sound.  Here we are blessed to live in the greatest country on the planet and the fact that we have people of a particular political persuasion so determined in their efforts to destroy it, and who would be so very pleased with themselves if they were to be able to succeed, is truly quite disheartening.  While I remain focused on trying to make sure my daughter has a better life than I did, those on the left seem just as determined to make sure she has no life at all.  And that’s one reason I voted for Trump and why I hope he succeeds.

CHUCKIE SCHUMER COMES UNHINGED…

I’m really starting to worry about old Chuckie Schumer (66).  I’m thinking he just might be headed for a stroke.  And wouldn’t that be a shame? NOT!  Apparently Chuckie is still having a rather difficult time dealing with the fact that Hitlery lost the election that was almost 5 months ago.  Come on Chuckie, you just gotta move on, man!  And perhaps Chuckie should remember the old adage not to discuss politics or religion at mealtimes.  And especially not in fancy restaurants.  Because Chuckie, who has been pretty vocal in Washington about his dislike of President Trump, has apparently begun taking his beef with Trump on the road and well outside of is considered as being the usual political arena.

You see, it’s been reported that Chuckie instigated a bit of a ruckus at a swanky Manhattan restaurant just this past Sunday evening.  Chuckie allegedly ‘caused a scene’ at smart Upper East Side Manhattan restaurant, Sette Mezzo, when he began “yelling” at a prominent Trump supporter that the president is “a liar.”  Several witnesses said that prior to so badly losing his cool, Chuckie had been dining quietly with ‘friends’.  But then he encountered Joseph A. Califano Jr., secretary of health, education and welfare under Jimmy Carter, as well as domestic policy adviser to Lyndon Johnson, and his wife, Hilary.  Chuckie essentially became unhinged upon hearing the news that Hilary had actually voted for Trump.

And it was shortly after Chuckie’s little run in with the couple that things proceeded to go downhill.  Chuckie apparently let his hatred of Trump get the better of him, as he became ‘incensed’ upon hearing that Hilary had voted against Hitlery and for Donald Trump in last year's election, even though her husband, Joseph, has a rather decorated history with Chuckie's own party.  One of those who witnessed the encounter said, “They are a highly respected couple, and Schumer made a scene, yelling, ‘She voted for Trump!’ The Califanos left the restaurant, but Schumer followed them outside.”  And according to other witnesses Chuckie continued berating the couple on the sidewalk, saying: “How could you vote for Trump? He’s a liar!”

Afterward it was in speaking to one of the local newspapers that Mrs. Califano said, “Sen. Schumer was really rude... He’s our senator, and I don’t really like him.”  She went on to say, “Yes, I voted for Trump. Schumer joined us outside and he told me Trump was a liar.  I should have told him that Hillary Clinton was a liar, but I was so surprised I didn’t say anything.”  You have to wonder how, exactly, it was that Chuckie thought such rude behavior was in any way acceptable.  And what does such boorish behavior accomplish other than to demonstrate the emptiness of your position when the only way you have of ‘defending’ it is through hostility to those who may disagree with you.  Did Chuckie feel his behavior was somehow justified?

Now of course, and as to be expected, Chuckie's team was quick to deny the reports that anything even remotely resembling an ugly incident took place, saying instead: '[He] and his wife ate at the café on Sunday, engaging in unremarkable conversation with patrons who approached their table.  'There were no heated exchanges with ‎anyone.'  A spokesman for Chuckie attempted to play down the encounter, remarking, “[He] and his wife ate at the café on Sunday, engaging in unremarkable conversation with patrons who approached their table. There were no heated exchanges with ‎anyone.”  But anyone who is the least bit familiar with Chuckie’s antics wasn’t surprised to hear that he became somewhat unraveled.

Look, we all know Chuckie’s preference in the most recent presidential contest was the PROVEN congenital sociopathic liar over Trump.  After all, Chuckie is the perfect Democrat.  He: 1) does nothing, 2) complains about everything, 3) makes "hyper-partisanship" the Democrat norm, and 4) is so ill mannered he cannot be invited to dinner with real people.  I’m worried age, he is just a few months shy of 67, may finally be catching up with Chuckie and it must be frightening to know that Trump was elected by the will of the people under the Constitution and that Trump refers to him as a "lightweight."  And, also, that socialism was defeated again, this time inside the USA.  But Chuckie will continue to strike out, because that’s all he has left.

Repeating the same action over and over but expecting a different outcome each time is the definition of insanity, but so too is it a statement that can be used whenever referring to the actions of liberals.  They keep repeating, over and over, the same actions that got Trump elected, thinking each time that it will bring him down.  But in truth, it only makes him stronger, only deepens his supporters resolve and strengthens their support.  Yet they still don’t recognize this failure.  Their reaction to each failure is to double down, that is INSANE behavior.  But what do I know, I’m just an angry old conservative white guy who isn’t college educated, who voted for Trump and who happens to be very much in favor of ‘Making America Great Again’. 

After all, Chuckie has to be nearly beside himself, because there was considerable effort on the part of everyone involved to get Hitlery elected.  But the fake poIIs didn't work, the fake news didn't work, giving debate questions to Hitlery didn't work, the recount didn't work, pus//sy gate didn't work, pee-pee gate didn't work, street riots didn't work, Chuckie’s own tears didn't work, witches praying to the DeviI didn't work, angry Alec Baldwin didn't work, smearing Melania didn't work, smearing Barron didn't work and trying to bankrupt Ivanka didn't work.  And now Vlad Putin doesn't seem to be working either. The Democrats now seem to be getting pretty desperate as evidenced by Chuckie’s most recent rather bizarre restaurant behavior.

As with most establishment politicians, Chuckie exemplifies exactly what is wrong with American politics today. While there may be room for interpretation of what Trump has communicated, there is zero evidence of any wrongdoing on his part or that of any member of his administration despite the rampant smear campaign by establishment politicians on both sides of the aisle, the state-controlled media or anyone else.  Loyalty, especially blind loyalty, to the party and not to the people who voted for these idiots to represent them has effectively corrupted our system of governance.  Exactly why so many voted for Trump in the first place, to drain the swamp of these cretins and restore a government of-for and by the people.

Chuckie, like so many others of his leftist ilk, lacks class and has shown his utter disdain for anyone who voted for the candidate of their choice with this sorry display of willful and self-righteous display of arrogance.  But then that is a common trait among liberals who while hyping their tolerance for "diversity" fail to tolerate anyone whose disagreement or vote does not conform to their demands or expectations.  The only offense committed by Mrs. Califano, which then resulted in the ridiculous outburst by Chuckie, was that she chose to vote for someone other than who Chuckie thought she should have.  Mrs. Califano is apparently a Democrat and therefore, in the eyes of Chuckie, has no other option than to vote Democrat.

CHUCKIE SCHUMER, TRYING TO MAKE THE DEMOCRATS MATTER???

Apparently before we’re going to be seeing anything meaningful take place in our newly Republican controlled Congress, for the next two years, there are at least two things are going to need to take place: 1) Mitch McConnell is going to need to grow a pair, and 2) Someone is going to need to tell old Chuckie Schumer that, no matter how much he might wish it so, he’s not in charge of anything other than his little cadre of leftwing loons there in the Senate.  And, obviously, it would also be extremely helpful if Paul ‘RINO’ Ryan would either start taking the job of Speaker a bit more seriously, or come to the conclusion that he’s in too far over his head and he should resign from his current position as Speaker. 

Look, something that old Chuckie, and the rest of the Democrats have yet come to grips with is the fact that they did not win the presidency, the House nor the Senate last year.  And yet Democrats seem willing to work with Republicans on such issues as health care, tax reform and infrastructure only as long as Republicans go along with everything Democrats want.  Where’s all the talk about compromise that we heard when the Republicans were in the minority?  And it was appearing on ABC’s “This Week,” that Senate Minority Leader Chuckie Schumer said, “We Democrats, provided our Republican colleagues drop replace and stop undermining the ACA, are willing to work with our Republican friends…” 

Host George ‘Stephy’ Stephanopoulos, that well-known wannabe journalist and former Clinton stooge, interrupted Schumer and asked, “Right now you're going to make a proposal?”  To which Chuckie responded, “As long as they say no more repeal.”  Chuckie went on to say, “That's a loser. Seventeen percent of Americans liked Trumpcare.  That's it. They didn't want it.  And stop undermining ACA.  And we'll work with them.”  He said, “We have ideas, they have ideas, to try to improve Obamacare.  We never said it was perfect. We always said we'd work with them to improve it. We just said repeal was off the table.”  I think even Chuckie knows that Obamacare is beyond just trying to just ‘fix’ it!

And then it was once again that Chuckie turned to getting personal, which is something these days which is something he is simply unable to resist.  And it was in so doing that Chuckie said it wasn’t “presidential” of President Trump to say he would “destroy” Obamacare (a system that is already imploding all on its own).  Chuckie said, “That's petulance.”  Chuckie added, “Being petulant, not a president. It's not going to work.”   So I have to wonder, was Chuckie not paying any attention for the last eight years during which time we had a president who personified the classic definition of being petulant?  I would appear that Chuckie is rather selective in how he chooses to go about the placing of such a label? 

Chuckie said, “The job of the president is to make Americans' lives better. And if he, out of anger or vengeance or whatever, starts undermining ACA, it's going backfire on him because he's the president and the American people know he's in charge and they want him to make things better.”  Schumer said Republicans who continue to insist on repealing Obamacare will “get nowhere.”  He said, “So they ought to get rid of repeal. Drop it. It's been a flop for them because of the substance of repeal. And work with us to improve it.”  So Chuckie says it’s the job of the president to make Americans’ lives better?  I thought that a rather odd thing for him to say since after eight years of Barry the American people are worse off in every measurable way.

Chuckie also said the Republican tax cut plan will “get nowhere” if the Republicans repeat the same ‘mistakes’ they made with Obamacare.  Chuckie said, “If you analyze, George, what went wrong with ACA, the president exhibited two traits that are not very helpful. And if he repeats them in tax reform, they'll get nowhere.”  And he went on to say, “The first is basic lack of competence. You cannot run the presidency like you run a real estate deal. You can't tweet your way through pit.  You can't threaten and intimidate and say I'll walk away. It's more complicated.”  And yet, isn’t what Chuckie really saying here is that if he doesn’t get his way he’ll walk away?  So as is usually the case, Chuckie makes little sense.

And Chuckie went on to say, “But even more to the point, the president campaigned as a populist against the Democratic and Republican establishments. But he's been captured by the hard right wealthy special interests. That's who loved his proposal on the Trumpcare, because it gave huge tax cuts to the rich.”  Chuckie then went on to make the threat that, “If they do the same thing on tax reform, and the overwhelming majority of the cuts go to the very wealthy, the special interests, corporate America, and the middle class and poor people are left out, they'll lose again.”  Look, Chuckie seem to be getting a bit carried away, and McConnell must be the one to nip it in the bud!

Asked if the Democrats will fight Trump on tax reform, Chuckie declared they won’t but with a bit of a caveat.  It would be contingent upon President Trump’s willingness to do what the Democrats want.  He said, "If he aims a proposal aimed at the middle class and the poor people, doesn't give breaks to the rich -- they're doing great, God bless them, I'm glad they're doing great; they don't need another tax break -- we could work with them.”  Chuckie went on to say, “But I don't think they're headed in that direction, and they're going repeat the same mistake they made on Trumpcare with tax reform.”  Chuckie must think that we put the Republicans in charge so that they could then do what the Democrats want?  

And then Chuckie was asked if Democrats could work with Republicans on an infrastructure bill, Chuckie said maybe, but again, only if Republicans do it the Democrats’ way.  Chuckie said, “Again, it's a question of values.”  I always get a laugh whenever I hear some sleazy Democrat talking about ‘values’, because the Democrat Party essentially has no values.  But, be that as it may, Chuckie went on to say, “Infrastructure's something we Democrats have put in a proposal. It has the support of our entire caucus, $1 Trillion of infrastructure, which creates about 15 million new, good-paying jobs. So we like it.”  But then, Democrats have never had much of a problem with spending money that we don’t have!

Chuckie said, “But here's where the president seems to be headed again -- special interests. Wealthy special interests. Let's do it by tax breaks. The tax breaks he's proposing, 82 cents on the dollar, goes to the financiers. That's one problem. So you're not getting bang for the buck.”  And he then added, “Two, in the places where those tax breaks will work, you're getting huge tolls. The American people don't want tolls on every highway. And third, it building nothing in rural America and large parts of exurban America because they just can't pay those tolls. So if they want to actually spend some money…we'll talk to them for sure.”  You know, I think the more Chuckie opens his mouth, the more unhinged he sounds.

Chuckie said Trump ran as a populist but “the minute he got into office,” he moved “so far to the hard right that it’s virtually impossible for us to work with him.”  He said, “If he changes, he could have a different presidency. But he's going to have to tell the Freedom Caucus and the hard right special wealthy interests who are dominating his presidency -- but he didn't campaign for them, he campaigned on the opposite -- he's going to have to tell them he can't work with them and we'll certainly look at his proposals.”  I think you’d have a rather difficult time claiming that Trump is as far to the right as Chuckie is to the left.  However, Trump will need to remember who it was that brung him to the dance.

Now as one who was slow to get onboard the ‘Trump Train’, I do have my own little piece of advice to President Trump.  This will be the first serious test for his supporters, including myself. If he caves to the "Our way or the highway" demands of Chuckie, who is leading the entire opposing party to obstruct and demonize the president and his loyal supporters, then the awesome God-assisted election win will have been all for nothing.  And I also hope Paul “RINO’ Ryan will come to realize that he must step aside so that a true conservative and more principled Republican can take over the House leadership job.  Ryan's bait-and-switch bill was a disgrace and needs to be filed in the circular file and rewritten from page one.

And just one last question.  Why is it that it must always be our side that must do all the ‘compromising?’  And it’s in this particular instance that ‘compromise’ equates to be being forced to abandon your position entirely and agree to everything that the Democrats want or be labeled as obstructionists.  So it would seem that going forward we have two options: ‘Option A’ would be to get our shit together, tell Chuckie to go f*ck himself and then do whatever is necessary to get something done for the American people.  ‘Option B’ would be to fold like a cheap suit, and then allow Chuckie to rule the day with the American people ending up even worse off than they were after eight years of Barry.  That we simply cannot allow!

THE MOST SUCCESSFUL HATE GROUP ON THE PLANET IS…THE DEMOCRAT PARTY…

If there is one certainty in this uncertain world it’s that the Democrat Party has become the world’s most successful hate group.  It attracts poor people who hate rich people, black people who hate white people, gay people who hate straight people, feminists who hate men, environmentalists who hate the internal combustion engine, and a lot of bratty college kids who apparently hate their parents.  However, the real secret of the party’s success is that it attracts the support of journalists who hate Republicans and, to an even greater degree, conservatives, and who therefore work tirelessly to convince the rest of us that we should vote for Democrats.

And why is it, do you suppose, that so many Democrats choose to riot, destroy property, beat people unmercifully when they disagree with them, burn our beloved flag, attack our police and military personnel, and use hateful, incendiary language (such as “racist”) almost as a reflex when speaking to or about anyone who might choose to disagree with their blatantly leftwing fanaticism.  And it’s the most hateful language imaginable that almost always seems to be reserved for Republicans and, especially, for our new president.  Now I’m not saying that all Democrats do these things.  But it’s certainly most of them who do.

I always have to laugh whenever I hear someone make mention of moderate Democrats.  And I find any conversation containing the term ‘conservative Democrat’ as nothing less than hysterical.  Because I would argue that neither exist here in the 21st century, and to be honest with you I’m not sure when that particular breed of politician went extinct.  And those who refuse to speak out against the rioters and haters remind me of those who claim that “not all Moslems are violent.”  While that may be true why don’t “moderate” Moslems have the courage to speak out against the ones who make it appear as if the entire religion is a hateful and violent cult?

Democrats should take note of this and realize that it’s more and more Americans who are beginning to view their party as violent, as hateful, and as divisive.  They need to remove the many unpatriotic, un-American politicians from their party.  And they need to speak out strongly against those members who are destroying their party by encouraging its rather ugly public image.  But oddly enough it’s just the opposite that seems to be taking place.  I don’t suppose we should be surprised, because such old habits are very hard to break.  The Democrat Party has been practicing hate for a very long time, practically since it came into being.  The party is consumed by hate.

And one would have to be completely blind not to see how it is that the Democrat Party seems to be in a full scale free fall, and it has been since 2010. And after losing the 2016 Presidential election, the Senate and the House of Representatives as well as a significant number of State Houses and Governors races, I think it’s safe to say that the party, quite literally, has nowhere to go but up.  After one black female Florida Mayor apologized for calling a police officer a ‘pig’ and members of the Congressional Black Caucus chose to repeatedly hang a picture in the Capital building depicting cops as ‘pigs’, it’s hard to believe that the party can go all that much lower. 

Today’s Democrat Party spends an exorbitant amount of time preaching against “hate” and “the politics and policies of hate” and yet it practices nothing but a most vile brand of hatred imaginable that has seemingly become the central theme of all that the party touches.  What the Democrats don’t realize is that they have so perfected the repeating of “hate, hate, hate” that their own message is what has done them in.  Since 2008 the Democrat Party has been absolutely obliterated at the polls.  Democrats have lost the White House, Senate, and House. They now control just 13 state legislatures and Republicans now sleep in 33 governor’s mansions.

Yet even after the election of Donald Trump, Democrats continue to dutifully stick to the playbook of calling everyone (but themselves) “filled with hate.” They are name-calling the very people they want to vote for them! How’s that a good strategy? Hitlery spent the majority of her losing campaign speaking about, running ads about, giving campaign speeches about, and focusing during debates on “Donald Trump and the Republican’s hateful rhetoric.” What Hitlery and the Democrats cannot seem to figure out is that they are insulting massive portions of the American electorate by confusing commonsense with hate and a rejection of their own sick ideology. 

While the vast majority of Americans are able to differentiate between the two (commonsense and hate). Today’s Democrats seemingly cannot.  I mean, who was it that Hitlery choose to share the stage with at the 2016 Democrat National Convention?  The mothers of people (most of whom were criminals) killed by cops, thus continuing the “guilty until proven innocent” narrative many Democrats have branded, and continue to brand, cops with.  This was not a populist move. This was Hitlery and the Democrats pandering to a tiny, tiny fraction of the electorate, the I-hate-cops crowd, of whom there’s nowhere near enough to win an election.

Americans have seen the effects of massive refugee flows into the nations of Europe from the Middle East and the problems it’s causing there. Commonsense tells us that bringing tens if not hundreds of thousands of these refugees into our nation without knowing exactly who they are carries with it serious risks to national security.  To Hitlery and the Democrats this level of commonsense makes one an Islamophobe and means you are filled with hate toward Moslems!  Because to Democrats the allowing into our country of thousands of un-vetted refugees from the most dangerous region of the entire planet poses no risk whatsoever.  Who thinks like this?

So too is having a secure southern border in our best national security interests. We all know there are people entering our country, many by just walking across the border, who are involved in various criminal activities, drug-trafficking, gang-bangers, rapists, etc.  Again it’s just commonsense for a nation to have strict control over its own borders.  And yet to Hitlery and the Democrats this level of commonsense means you hate all brown people!  Really?  So those in favor of having some level of control over who it is that we allow into our country is to somehow, if you believe the Democrats, be considered being the bad guys?  How does that make any sense at all?

Democrats believe most Americans are in favor of gay marriage but they fail to recognize that the ONLY reason that it’s now the law of the land is all thanks to five people (Justices Kennedy, Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan), not hundreds of millions of people voting in favor of it. To this day the majority of Americans believe marriage ought to be between one man and one woman. No poll has ever shown anything else. But if you are such a person, in the eyes of Democrats, it means nothing less than you’re a homophobe!  Because to Democrats, there can be no other explanation.  You beliefs matter not, to oppose it must means you must hate gays.  

Other examples abound. The majority of Americans are white. Also, the vast and overwhelming majority of Americans are not haters, bigots, racists, Islamaphobes, xenophobes, homophobes, or cop-haters. Telling them that they are does not exactly endear you to them.  Democrats don’t seem to understand that calling someone “a racist” or “a xenophobe”, who is not a racist or a xenophobe doesn’t drive them toward you, it drives them away. Through their constant name-calling of the American people, Democrats have driven all but their most hyper-loyal, hyper-left base and Black Lives Matter members of the world, farther away from the party.

Prior to the election, Hitlery made headlines by insulting tens of millions of Americans by saying, “…you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the 'basket of deplorables'. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it." She then managed to pour lemon juice in that cut by adding that not only are those voters “deplorable” they’re “irredeemable”, and not a part of America.  And for all their talk about ‘ending hate”, it’s the Democrat base who are the ones out looting, burning, shooting, and being out-of-control hooligans. And the majority of Americans, regardless of party affiliation, don’t want to have anything to do with it.

Democrats had better come to grips with their dilemma and work to sort this out. Because labeling voters, calling them names and placing your blatant disdain for them right out front for all to see is not the way to convince anyone to your side of any issue to the point where you could once again begin to win elections.  Democrats, you have done this to yourselves. You are both the purveyors and the victims of your own “politics of hate.”  And yet there seems to be no indication that the Democrats intend on changing course in any meaningful way.  And for proof of that you need look no further than the hate filled duo now in charge of the Democrat National Committee. 

SUSAN RICE CARRIES ON THE LONG TRADITION OF DEMOCRAT HYPOCRISY…

Remember Barry “Almighty’s” National Security Adviser Susan Rice?  And yes that would be the very same Susan Rice who repeatedly lied to the American public about the September 2012 attack on the Benghazi consulate and how it was supposedly direct the result of some YouTube video.  And yes, that was also the same national security adviser who would later reclassify her “lie” as “in some respects, not to be a hundred percent correct.”  Well no shit!  Now I’m pretty sure that you’d be hard-pressed to find anyone in our state-controlled media, either then or now, who would not chose to defend Ms. Rice regarding her making such an obviously false claim.  And I’m quite sure that had she been a Republican demands for her to be fired would have been front page news and broadcast nonstop on nearly every network.

Now as we fast forward a few short years, ironically we now have that very same Susan Rice who has now seen fit to advise President Trump not to lie because it could put America’s security at risk.  But I guess the same couldn’t be said at the time when she lied five times about what it was that brought about an attack that resulted in the death of four American including our ambassador.  Anyway, it was in an op-ed for The Washington Post that Rice took it upon herself to complain that Trump’s “false statements” about wiretapping represent a “disturbing pattern of behavior that poses real and potentially profound dangers to U.S. national security."  You can’t make this stuff up.  So the woman used by Barry and Hitlery to spread false information on a terrorist attack is now warning President Trump about putting out false information? 

Rice wrote, "When the American people question the commander in chief's statements, his ability to harness public support to confront a national crisis is undermined.”  And she went on to say, “The foundation of the United States' unrivaled global leadership rests only in part on our military might. It is also grounded in the perception that the United States is steady, rational and fact-based.”  She said, "To lead effectively, the United States must maintain respect and trust. So, when a White House deliberately dissembles and serially contorts the facts, its actions pose a serious risk to America's global leadership, among friends and adversaries alike.”  And then she, “The United States' words matter."  So are we to assume that back in 2012 words didn’t matter so much, at least as long as your boss was up for re-election?

It was in those now-infamous interviews, Rice, who then served as ambassador to the UN, said that the attacks were spontaneous and not pre-planned. She also asserted, even though she knew it was a lie, that the catalyst for the attacks was a YouTube video criticizing the Islamic prophet, Muhammad.  She was lying when she said, “Based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present, is in fact it began spontaneously in Benghazi, as a reaction to what had transpired hours earlier in Cairo, where of course as you know there was a violent protest outside of our embassy, sparked by this hateful video.”  And she continued the lie when she added, “We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or pre-planned”

But it was in the months that followed it became clear, despite the best efforts of the state-controlled media to keep things under wraps, that members of Barry’s team, including Hitlery’s State Department, knew immediately after the attacks occurred that they were pre-planned and that the video played no role in what transpired.  But by then the election was over, Barry had been safely re-elected, and as far as Democrats were concerned it was old news in no need of being investigated.  And those in our state-controlled media were quick to side with the Democrats, and to make the claim that any investigation into finding out what happened was nothing more than a witch hunt.  After all, all is fair in politics, right?  As long as the right team wins!  And of course, the ‘right’ team would be the Democrats.  

Actually, when it comes down to being between President Trump and Susan Rice, there’s only one proven liar between them at this point.  And I’ll give you three guesses as to which one is the liar and the first two don't count.  And on another note, I know I am likely stating the obvious here but I think we all know exactly what nearly any politician, at any level of government, with a "D" after their name is, a liar!  But, we also need to be willing to accept the fact that a huge chunk of the Republicans are just as big a part of the "swamp" as the Democrats are.  Pay close attention.  They have been exposing themselves with their words as well as their actions, and this faux attempt at repealing Obamacare is just the most recent example of that.  They lie to get votes and then when safely in office it’s back to business as usual. 

Regarding Trump’s comments about which Rice felt compelled to comment about, as it turns out they were much closer to being true than were the comments Rice repeated nearly ad nauseam about the deadly Benghazi attack.  In fact Trump has been deemed to be 99.5% correct.  It was earlier this week that O'Reilly, on Fox, asked Peter King: "Would I be wrong in saying that the Obama Administration Surveilled the Trump transition team."  To which King responded by saying, "I would say from all I know you are at least 99 and a half percent accurate and probably 100 percent."  So there it is.  King is a member of the House Permanent select Committee on Intelligence.  Now who is it that thinks our old buddy Barry is the least bit worried about going to prison?  And anyway, he has a get out of jail free card, he’s black.

Democrats, like Rice, inhabit an alternate universe, where everything is the opposite of what it is in the real world. What are lies to us is "the truth" to them', when one of them tells a lie the rest just unquestioningly back them, party before country. Always!  I wish I could find their Koo-aid and guzzle some because it would be a hell of a lot easier getting through this life if I were a flaming idiot like the rest of them.  This is a prime example of the Democrat Party. It’s perfectly acceptable for them to behave unethically or to even break the law, but nobody else can do that.  I am so tired of these two faced people who speak to us as if we’re too stupid to recognize what’s really going on.  I guess I keep waiting for that day when those we send to Washington will come to recognize why it is that we really send them there.

It was a Time Magazine column back in 2014 that said, "National Security Adviser Susan Rice said Sunday she had no regrets about statements she made in 2012 on the attacks at the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, saying her talking points were reflective of what she knew at the time and were not intended to mislead the American public."  So in 2014, she lied about the lie. Because her comments were most definitely intended to mislead because of the proximity of the attack to the 2012 election.  Everyone in the loop knew that story was bogus before she even hit the weekend news shows.  But because she’s a Democrat and telling the truth might have come to have an adverse effect on the re-election bid of Barry “Almighty”, so once again the ends seem to justify the means. 

But look, let’s just cut to the chase here, shall we.  Because the bottom line here is that Rice is a Democrat, so what else could we possibly expect from her?  Lying is part of what it means to be a modern day Democrat, for them it’s become a way of life.  And while Republicans tend to eat their own on almost every issue, Democrats are always in lock step no matter what the issue, no matter the damage their lies may have on the American people.  In a way I guess I may prefer the fact that Republicans tend to eat their own as a way of getting the issues out into the public and in debate to the way the Democrats tend to operate which, more often than not, involves lying to the people (you can keep your doctor) and how it is that all Democrats remain in lock step in their effort to advance their progressive/anti-America agenda.

In the repeal of Obamacare, I see Republicans debating what is and isn't good for the people, but during the original Obamacare ‘debate’ I didn't see any Democrats discussing what was or wasn't good for the American people.  I prefer debate over a 60 seat majority in the Senate to pass whatever they want.  While I would like nothing more than to see the Republicans gain a 60 seat majority in the Senate in 2018, I very much doubt that will come to pass.  Thus far into our new president’s first term our congressional Republicans continue to demonstrate their ineptness.  Our current leadership team continues to make clear that they are in way over their head.  They whined about being unable to get things accomplished because they had no power, but what happens when you give the power?  Absolutely NOTHING! 

HITLERY CLINTON, IF AT FIRST YOU DON’T SUCCEED…

Just when you think it’s over, apparently, it is anything but.  And just when you wished it was over, it’s like a bad penny that Hitlery just keeps showing up.  And to be perfectly honest, what does it say about the state of a political party when the best it is that they will again have to offer, in what will be essentially 4 years from now, a very tired looking, and even more corrupt, 73 year old white woman as their candidate to be president?  I mean, really?  But then, having said that, when you stop to consider who else is currently being touted as potential candidates, old Hitlery might actually have a chance.  I mean look at who’s being mentioned; Elizabeth Warren, Andy Cuomo, perhaps Bernie Sanders and even Marty O’Malley?  But if a 69 year old Hitlery couldn’t properly inspire voters, how will a 73 year old version of the same model be able to?  But as long as Hitlery's the biggest name out there, damaged goods or no, she's gonna have people continuing to spread rumors of her return.

So it was then that in speaking to Greta Van Susteren, formerly of the Communist News Network (CNN) and of FOX News, on her new MSNBC program “For the Record with Greta”, that Robby Mook, Hitlery’s former campaign manager who did such a masterful job of, quite possibly, yanking defeat from the jaws of victory, wouldn’t deny that Hitlery might attempt yet another run for the presidency against Donald Trump in 2020.  Guess she intends to test that “three strikes and you’re out” rule.  The possibility of this inevitability occurred on St. Patrick’s Day in Scranton, Pennsylvania, when Hitlery made an appearance and joked, “I am ready to come out of the woods.”  A reference to the photos captured just two days after her election loss of her walking in the woods near her Chappaqua, New York, home.  Too bad she managed to find her way out.  I would have much preferred to have her out there wandering around for the rest of her life.

It was at this gathering that Hitlery would go on to say, “I am rethinking my strategy.”  And add, “The walk in the woods stuff didn’t work as well.”  Well no shit, maybe a better time to have ‘rethought’ her strategy would have before she implemented her ‘there’s-no-way-I-can-possibly-lose’ strategy.  And perhaps next time, if there is a next time, she’ll actually have a strategy, unless, of course, she’s been placed into the home by then.  Democrats might want to reconsider running a couple of 70+ year olds in 2020, now that Bernie is also making a lot of noise about running again, since it doesn’t really do all that much to inspire voters, especially younger voters.  What sort of free stuff will they be promising then that wasn’t already promised this time around?  It just all seems so very bizarre to me.  Personally if I was her age and had her money I’d set up a homestead on some nice quite Caribbean island and live out my days in peace and quiet with my grandkids.  

And in what I guess was an attempt to go a bit deeper on the subject, Van Susteren probed Mook to speak for his former boss.  She asked, “What are the odds of her running again?”  Mook responded with a laugh saying, “I’m going to let her answer for that.”  But being ever the hardnosed journalist (NOT), Greta persisted asking, “Do you want to guess?”  Mook said, “I think what happens right now, we’ve got to get to the bottom of what happened in 2016, then we can start worrying about the next cycle.”  And he went on to say, “But we’ve got to make sure that this cannot happen again in two years or four years to anybody else.”  Mook accused Russia of interfering with the election saying, “Putin did not want her to become president.”  And too, there were all those folks in middle-America who just didn’t want her to be the next president either.  So, there is always that.  These guys have simply run out of excuses for Hitlery’s loss.  And yet…

I thought it funny when Mook said, "we’ve got to get to the bottom of what happened in 2016, then we can start worrying about the next cycle.” I’m guessing we can interpret that to mean: "We need to figure out what where we went wrong, what we left out of our repertoire of dirty tricks to steal the election."  Getting to the bottom of what happened is easy.  Hitlery ran a horrible campaign!  That and the fact that the American people had had enough of the regressive, PC, socialist, liberal lunacy for eight years, and said they didn't want another four years of white guilt shaming, being told we make too much money and we didn't build that, pandering to racist blacks and Moslems and illegal aliens, higher taxes and adding another $10 Trillion to our deficit, getting screwed over by "tweeking" Obamacare, and in general the anti-American sentiment from our own politicians.  And that Democrats refuse to acknowledge that says far more about them than it does about Trump.

Ya know, this goes to show you just how utterly batsh!t-wackadoodle-crazy the Democrats truly are.  They just can't bring themselves to accept the fact that not everyone, least of all the great many of the American people who still do love this country, buys into their leftist ideology and policies, and it seems to leave them at somewhat of a loss as to where they need to go from here.  All of these poor little snowflakes cried to Trump, "I can't believe you may not accept the election results!"  Really?  And yet, here we are five months after the fact and you’d be hard-pressed to find a Democrat anywhere who accepts that Hitlery actually lost the election.  And if there truly is a God then there should be little or no chance that the deviant treasonous criminal that is Hitlery will ever be the president of these United States.  Perhaps she needs to look into one of the many countries she took money from and see if they are looking for someone like her to be their leader.

And finally all I can say is, when it comes to the prospects of yet another Hitlery candidacy, is, “Yes Hitlery, PLEASE run again.  Pretty please!”  Because in a way she’s the ideal candidate because she supports forcing her twisted progressive ideology upon our society.  And yet while she may remain the best the Democrats have to offer, the American people made clear, yet again, that she is not their choice for president.  And still she doesn’t seem to be able to take a hint.  And apparently even getting smacked upside the head with an electoral 2x4 didn't get through to her.  You know, it’s just not that hard to figure out why Hitlery lost.  Which has me wondering if the Democrats really are so stupid as to be unable to figure it out.  I mean it really had nothing to do with any involvement by the Russians, and I would also argue that it had very little to do with WikiLeaks.  The truth is, she was a horrible candidate who ran an even worse campaign.  Frankly I think anyone could have beaten her.  

THE LEFT’S UNIQUE APPROACH TO THE CONFIRMATION PROCESS…

So, just how far to the left are those who reside in what can easily be referred to as the ‘Socialist Republic of Vermont’?  To justify using that moniker one need look no further than to who it is that they have been sending to Congress for the last few decades.  You could very easily refer to the congressional delegation from that state as being “The Three Stooges” of leftwing politics.  Because besides ‘Leaky’ Leahy (76) in the Senate, you also have Bernie ‘The Socialist’ Sanders (75) and over in the House you have Peter Welch.  Now the average age of this little cadre of leftists is 73, with Welch being the youngest at 69.  Now you cannot tell me that these three represent the best and brightest that Vermont might have to offer.  But then again, maybe they are.  After all, it’s Howard Dean who was once their governor.

But be that as it may, my purpose here is not to rant about the loons from any one state.  I choose, instead, to focus primarily on Patrick Leahy, aka ‘Leaky’ Leahy, and how it is that the Senate Democrats approach the confirmation process, especially for a nominee who does not come from the far-off-leftwing-kook-fringe.  Or for a nominee who does not view the Constitution as they do, as a living, breathing document, but as it was intended by the men who actually wrote it.  Two Democrats told Judge Neil Gorsuch at his confirmation hearing yesterday, during what were described as being “opening remarks”, that it’s not a good thing for a Supreme Court justice to interpret the Constitution based on the Founders’ original intent.  I’m quite sure the spirit of old Teddy Kennedy was in the room somewhere.

It was old ‘Leaky” who said, “In contrast to past nominees like John Roberts, whose judicial philosophy was not clearly articulated when he appeared before this committee, Judge Gorsuch appears to have a comprehensive originalist philosophy, the approach taken by jurors such as Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, former Judge Bork.”  And he went on to say, “While it has gained some popularity within conservative circles, originalism, I believe, remains outside the mainstream of moderate constitutional jurisprudence.”  And, he added, “It has been 25 years since an originalist has been nominated to the Supreme Court. Given what we've seen from Justice Scalia, and Justice Thomas and Judge Gorsuch on record, I worry that it goes beyond being a philosophy and it becomes an agenda.”  Seriously?

The late Justice Antonin Scalia once defined originalism this way:  "The Constitution that I interpret and apply is not living but dead, or as I prefer to call it, enduring. It means today not what current society, much less the court, thinks it ought to mean, but what it meant when it was adopted."  But it was at Monday’s hearing that ‘Leaky’ urged Gorsuch to answer all questions asked of him at the hearing “as clearly as possible.”  He said, “It's important to understand -- determine whether you understand the court has a profound impact on small businesses and workers, on law enforcement and victims, on families and children across America.”  And then went on to say, “It is not contrary to the duties and obligations of a Supreme Court justice to consider the effects of their rulings.”

Leahy actually said that the confirmation hearing will help the Senate decide if Gorsuch is “committed to the fundamental rights of all Americans".  He asked, “Will you allow the government to include our Americans’ personal privacy and freedom? Will you elevate the rights of corporations over those of real people? And will you rubberstamp a president whose administration has asserted that executive power is not subject to judicial review?”  Actually, from the Democrat perspective, at least when it is a conservative nominee involved, the confirmation process provides an opportunity for the many allies of the left in our state-controlled media as well as various leftist organizations like moveon.org, to come up with ways to attempt to destroy those nominees who possesses a non-leftist view of the Constitution.

Dianne Feinstein, (83), also expressed concern regarding “originalist” philosophy.  She said, “Judge Gorsuch has also stated that he believes judges should look to the original, public meaning of the Constitution when they decide what a provision of the Constitution means. This is personal, but I find this originalist, judicial philosophy to be really troubling."  She added, "In essence, it means that judges and courts should evaluate our constitutional rights and privileges as they were understood in 1789.”  She said, “However, to do so would not only ignore the intent of the framers, but the Constitution would be a framework on which to build. But it severely limits the genius of what our Constitution upholds. I firmly believe the American Constitution is a living document, intended to evolve as our country evolves.”

And it was at the beginning of the ‘hearing’ that Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, warned Gorsuch that he would get questions that would, undoubtedly, cause him to scratch his head.  He said, “We'll hear that when you rule for one party and against another in a case, it means you must be for the winner and against the loser. Senators will cite some opinions of yours and then we'll hear that you're for the big guy and against the little guy. You will scratch your head when you hear this, because it's as if you judges write the laws instead of us senators.”  And he went on to say, “But if Congress passes a bad law, as a judge, you are not allowed to just pretend that we passed a good law. The oath you take demands that you follow the law, even if you dislike the result.”

Sen. Grassley said, “So if you hear that you're for some business or against some plaintiff, don't worry. We've heard all of that stuff before. It's an old claim from an even older playbook. You and I and the American people know whose responsibility it is to correct a law that produces a result that you dislike, it's the men and women sitting here with me.  And closed by saying, “Good judges understand this. They know it isn't their job to fix the law. In a democracy, that right belongs to the people. It's for this reason that Justice Scalia said this, quote, ‘If you're going to be a good and faithful judge, you have to resign yourself to the fact that you are not always going to like the conclusion you reach. If you like them all the time, you're probably doing something wrong.”

What we have here is nothing more than a very clear admission by the Democrats that they do not follow the Constitution, nor do they possess any desire to.  Out of their own mouths they admit they will manipulate the Constitution however, and whenever, necessary in order to advance their leftwing, anti-America agenda.  They view it being more like a set of guidelines etched in ‘Jell-O’ than the actual set of rules that has propelled this young nation into a position of power, wealth and prosperity, and a country whose liberties allow for the poorest to gain great wealth, which these Democrats seem so intent upon destroying.  Human nature has not changed, the evil our Founders fought still exists, but now they call themselves the Democrat Party. They are the people our Founders warned us about. 

Democrats are type of individuals that our Founders attempted to hold at bay with our original Constitution, it is no wonder the liberal Democrats of today want to destroy it.  Pay close attention to the content of questions asked of Judge Gorsuch. The left will clearly expose their preference for rewriting or creating law by judicial fiat rather than by sound legislation or constitutional amendment.  That is why they have worked so hard to pack all the federal courts. It is known as election insurance. What they can't get through Congress they will finagle through the courts.  Just look at the rulings from those activist judges to President Trump's temporary ban on some Moslem countries who support terrorism.  They operated well outside of their jurisdictions, to say nothing about the constitutionality of their rulings.

Let’s be clear, Trump was elected by originalists, so WE'LL be deciding the policy, thank you very much.  Oh the arrogance of these jerks, it just never seems to end.  It likely goes without saying that I strongly disagree with the position taken and the statements made by old ‘Leaky’ and Feinstein that the Constitution should not be interpreted as the Founders intended.  Because as far as I’m concerned that’s EXACTLY how it should be interpreted, as the Founders intended.  Furthermore, "Advice and Consent" does not mean that either you see things our way or you don't get confirmed.  It means, let's make sure the President didn't nominate someone completely and bizarrely unqualified, as Barry was allowed to do, with unqualified meaning far more than you simply see things differently than we do.

So it’s various shades of gray that has become the prominent theme of America's very corrupt, and blatantly dishonest, Democrat Party. The law is nothing more than what you want it to be, when you want it to be.  Geez, what a bunch of loons.  And it’s those on the left who define “evolves”, “as being able to make up the rules as one goes along in order to make it better fit the agenda at the time, then change them when it goes against you.”  Democrats refuse to accept the premise that the ‘intent’ of the Founders that was true for the Constitution at the time of its drafting, is just as true today.  That’s the true genius of the document that is our Constitution.  The principles hold up through time.  Not that you can bend it and twist it to be whatever your whims tell you that it should be on any given day. 

Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito as well as Judge Robert Bork were and are all very great men, and great jurists.  The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and should not be openly interpreted to be changed every day based on some leftist whim.  The original intent, and original words and original understanding are still very much valid, much to the chagrin of those on the left.  Constitutionalists are what we need on the courts, not those who would rule based on their "emotions" or their "desires" or their political views, only on what the Constitution states and the laws passed under and within the authority of the Constitution.  This is simply proof the Democrats are unconstitutional and guilty of sedition and subversion.  And sadly, many who call themselves Republicans are as well.