“HENNY PENNY” MUST HAVE BEEN A DEMOCRAT…

THE SKY IS FALLING

A recent survey points out something that I’m fairly certain that many of us already knew, that the Democrat Party is home to some of the most ignorant and gullible people that you’ll find anywhere on the planet. And apparently that would be the very same planet that many of them, and in rather impressive numbers, fear is somehow being affected by non-existent "climate change."

You see, the survey to which I refer found that a substantial majority of Democrats actually believe that the threat to them posed by climate change is far greater than the threat posed by either al Qaeda or the Islamic State (ISIS) in Iraq and Syria. Is that not one of the stupidist things you’ve ever heard in your life. And these are the same people with whom the fate of country may now rest

The Pew Research Center/USA Today survey, conducted between Aug. 20 and 24, shows that 68 percent of Democrats said global climate change is a "major threat" to the U.S. while 67 percent chose al Qaida and 65 percent chose ISIS as a major threat to the country. Now is this an intelligent group of folks or what? That makes all the obviousl why this country is so screwed up!

Things looked a bit more realistic over on the Republican side. It was there that 80 percent said al Qaida was the major threat and 78 percent chose ISIS, while only 25 percent said they thought that global climate change was a major threat. Among Independents, 69 percent chose al Qaeda as the major threat, 63 percent chose ISIS, but still 44 percent agreed that climate change was a threat.

What follows are the top major concerns for:

Democrats: global climate change (68%), extremist groups like al Qaeda (67%), ISIS (65%), North Korea's nuclear program (58%), Iran's nuclear program (56%) the rapid spread of infectious diseases from country to country (55%), growing tensions between Russia and its neighbors (54%), the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (44%), and China's emergence as a world power (43%).

Republicans: the greatest percentage chose al Qaeda as being the top threat (80%), followed by ISIS (78%), Iran's nuclear program (74%), North Korea's nuclear program (63%), China's emergence as a world power (60%) the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (60%), Russian tensions (54%), rapid spread of infectious disease (49%) and climate change (25%).

Independents: (69%) chose al Qaeda as a "major threat to the U.S.," followed by ISIS (63%), Iran's nuclear program (54%) North Korea's nuclear program (54%), growing tensions between Russia and its neighbors (52%), spread of infectious disease (50%), China's emergence (46%), Israeli-Palestinian conflict (45%), and global climate change (44%).

So perhaps we have now struck upon the reason why it is that ‘climate change’ continues to remain a topic of conversation. And far from being taken seriously, those who continue to claim that the sky is falling should be ridiculed at every opportunity. They claim that we non-believers are nothing more than modern day flat-earthers, but it’s they who are nothing more than modern day "Chicken Littles."

JOHN KERRY-HEINZ…THE MAN HAS ALL THE BRAIN POWER OF A TURNIP…

While he may not be able to do very much about the current state of the Middle East, or Putin’s recent troubling tendency to invade his neighbors, John Kerry-Heinz does, by golly, know a ‘real threat’ when he sees one. That threat is, of course, the threat that we all supposedly face from …"climate change," or what some now refer to as "global climate disruption." Both are what used to be known by the nomenclature of "global warming."

According to our useless boob of a secretary of state, "climate change" may now be "the most serious challenge we face on the planet." Kerry-Heinz argued just this past Monday that people don’t need to accept his or Al Gore’s or even the U.N.’s word on the matter all they really need to do is to just "listen to Mother Nature, who is screaming at us about it." If Mother Nature ‘is’ screaming, she’s screaming at idiots like Kerry-Heinz!

Anyway, it was in addressing some meeting in New York opening what is being described as a week of U.N. climate-related events, that Kerry-Heinz spewed more of his typical nonsense as it relates to his favorite topic. And in so doing he claimed that there was still time to prevent the worst impacts of climate change, "but it is absolutely imperative that we decide to move and to act now." Nothing that he says actually makes any sense.

Kerry-Heinz said, "You don’t have to take my word for it. You don’t have to Al Gore’s word for it." And he went on to say, "You don’t have to take the IPCC’s word and the Framework Convention – all those people who are sounding the alarm bells. You can just wake up pretty much any day and listen to Mother Nature, who is screaming at us about it." And you gotta know that he knows nothing of what he says is even remotely true.

Kerry-Heinz was once again heard doing his very best to sound the alarm, this time by actually comparing ‘climate change’ to such things as terrorism, poverty and the spread of non-conventional weapons and said it could be argued that climate change was the most serious issue of all. But you do have to give him some amount of credit, I guess, because he was able to get through his entire speech with a straight face.

He said, "When you think about terrorism, which we think about a lot today; poverty, which is linked obviously to the levels of terror that we see in the world today; and, of course, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction – all of these are challenges that don’t know any borders." He added, "You can make a powerful argument that it may be, in fact, the most serious challenge we face on the planet because it’s about the planet itself.

And then he went on to tell what was nothing more than an outright lie in what I guess was an effort to prove his idiotic case. He said, "And today, more than 97 percent of all the peer-reviewed studies ever made confirm that." And that is simply not true! Kerry-Heinz expressed frustration at congressional opposition to the administration’s climate initiatives, saying "Common sense is not particularly common right now."

You may recall that Kerry-Heinz championed the global warming cause during his almost three decade-long Senate career and has made the issue a top priority as secretary of state. He said, "I’ve also set a directive to every single one of our 275 missions, embassies, consulates, that the chiefs of mission are to put this issue on the front burner in all of our interventions with our – with the host countries, wherever they may be."

I am curious about something however. Hasn’t anyone ever wondered, even a little bit, about why it’s only nutjobs like Kerry-Heinz on the left, of even left of center, who are out there busily making some of the most outlandish claims about what is supposed the next great apocalypse? And the ONLY supposed science that supports any of the claims from within their own ranks! None of the claims hold water.

And let’s all not forget another thing. Let’s not forget that it was according to many of these very same people, or associates of theirs, who were quite busy proclaiming back in the 70’s warning us all that by this time we’d now be in the middle of another ice age. Look around you, are you surrounded by a glacier? How stupid must one be in order to go along with any of this malarkey. It’s all nothing more than politically motivated bullshit.

A GATHERING OF LUNATICS…

AN ENVIRONMENTALIST WACKO AND HIS YACHT

Fresh off his designation as the U.N.’s "Messenger of Peace", whatever the Hell that is, everybody’s favorite Hollywood douche bag, Leo De-Cap-Rio, recently picked up another award, this past Sunday, and it was one for his supposed hard work and dedication toward addressing a problem that, as of yet, hasn’t even been proven to exist. That problem is, of course, the issue of climate change. The award to which I refer is the supposedly ‘prestigious’ ‘Slick Willie’ Clinton Global Citizen Award. How tough can it be to win award for working to prevent that which doesn’t even exist?

De-Cap is someone who, or so we’re supposed to believe, has focused his philanthropic efforts on protecting and preserving good old planet Earth. And to prove to all in attendance that he was worthy of his award, he urged those in attendance at Sunday night's little gala to work to address what he referred to as being "a real and terrifying crisis." In accepting this rather meaningless award, De-Cap went on to say, "Climate change is compromising the very livability of our planet." I’m curious though, on what exactly does this boob base this nutty claim of his? I mean it can’t be on any actual science.

De-Cap said, "less than three percent of all philanthropic giving goes toward protecting and preserving our environment," a statistic he called "ridiculous," with even less going toward protecting the world's oceans. He urged the audience of global leaders and philanthropists "to put environmental issues at the forefront of the human agenda." He added, "Together we can find ways to scale up funding and create intelligent partnerships. By protecting our oceans and our wild lands we allow species to recover, local communities to thrive and ultimately maintain a stable climate for all life on Earth."

Earlier in the day Leo participated in something called the People's Climate Change march. He said, "the world is now at a turning point, and climate change is the defining issue of our time.… The task before us to protect this planet will require the largest movement in human history. It will have to cross all cultural, religious and political boundaries. But the good news is the solutions are ready, and with leaders like the ones in this room who do not shrink in the face of crisis. They can rise, they can inspire and they can contribute. And that truly is the best hope of planet Earth."

Joining De-Cap at this gathering of some of the most bizarre people on the planet were, of course, several other Hollywood loons. This list of leftwing luminaries included presenter Eva Longoria, who honored the subjects of her upcoming documentary, ‘Food Chains’; the host Seth Meyers; music director Randy Jackson; performers Aloe Blacc, Jason Mraz and The Roots; Brian Grazer; Sting and Trudie Styler; and Idris Elba. And of course ex-president ‘BJ’ Clinton was in attendance joined by his ‘wife’, and presidential wanna be, Hitlery along with product of this bizarre little union, daughter Chelsea.

It was later on in the ceremony, that we had another Hollywood loser, actress/activist Eva Longoria, who presented one of the leadership in civil society awards to Greg Asbed and Lucas Benitez, co-founders of the Coalition of Immokalee Workers, an organization that works to end the exploitation of farm workers and the group that is the focus of her upcoming documentary Food Chains, set to be released on Nov. 21. Yup, I’m sure that’ll be packing in the crowds. NOT! She, like so many others in her ‘profession’ is obviously another one of those who’s a legend in her own mind.

These ‘do as I say and not as I do’ Hollywood liberals actually see themselves as being someone who the rest of us should be listening to. They travel around in their big limousines and fly around in their private jets and still feel that they are able to lecture the rest of us about where it is that we keep our thermostats, or about the kinds of cars that we like to drive or about how fossil fuels are evil. And though they see themselves as being just so much smarter than the rest of us, it’s very few of these geniuses who were able to successfully navigate any grade beyond the 6th grade. Most possess an IQ lower than their shoe size.

And something that I have always had a very difficult time trying to figure out is, why is it that they so hate the very country that made it possible for them to become so wealthy, by doing something so insignificant as ‘acting’. I mean let’s be honest, it’s not like acting requires the same intelligence as, say, being a brain surgeon. They’re really quite pathetic. They have no background in science and thus are simply incapable of determining whether or not they’re being lied to. But it matters very little to them, because all they’re really in search of is a cause. And it matters not whether it’s based on something real, or imagined.

And what REALLY pisses me off is how hypocritical little creeps like De-Cap-Rio get to live the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed while it’s only the rest of us, we the little people, who MUST keep our thermostats at 68 and drive around in Smart Cars. Otherwise, or so we are told, we’re causing the planet to be doomed. Let’s face it, if the climate is changing, which I very much doubt, why is it that it’s just we the little people who are causing that change to take place? That’s why this is all just so much bullshit. What’s behind it, again ‘IF’ it is taking place at all, is Mother Nature herself. The Earth warms and cools in a natural cycle.

JUAN WILLIAMS TOUTS A DEMOCRAT OCTOBER SURPRISE IS COMING…

Once again we have that faux journalist, and perennial Obama apologist, Juan Williams, doing his best to defend his pal. This time we find him busily warning those in the Republican Party that they shouldn’t be too confident about their chances of taking control of the Senate. He claims that they can expect there to be some political bombshells going off in the weeks leading up to this November’s midterms caused by what he referred to as being "the ISIS effect."

Writing in The Hill, old Juan confidently claims that the Democrats are now gaining steam ahead of the November elections as voters now appear to be rallying around Barry due to his recent, yet less than stellar, handling of (ISIS) terror threat. So am I actually to assume, judging by what Juan is saying, that most Americans actually do agree with Barry’s assessment of the situation when he says that the group that calls itself the ‘Islamic State’ has nothing to do with Islam?

And in what I guess must be Juan’s attempt to add support for his rather questionable claims, is the fact that he takes the time to point out that a Fox News poll from last week now shows that terrorism is just as important to people as is the economy, at least when it comes to how they will vote. According to this poll, 41 percent of Americans say that they are both "extremely important" to their decisions. I’m just not quite sure how that translates into support for Barry.

Juan also noted that it is pollster Dana Blanton who has referred to this surge in public opinion, "the ISIS effect," saying that Barry’s approval numbers have been climbing since he announced plans to "degrade and ultimately destroy" ISIS with U.S. air power. If that is in fact the case, it says much more about the ignorance of the American people than it does about anything that Barry has actually done. Because most experts see Barry’s strategy as being doomed to fail.

Previously, the beheadings of two American journalists and Barry’s rather idiotic admission that he lacked having any sort of a strategy to deal with the Islamic terror group had hurt his ratings. But Juan, ever the enthusiastic Barry "Almighty" cheerleader, and someone who is very obviously a registered Democrat, pointed out that because of Barry’s brilliant leadership, the polls have been "shifting in the president’s favor." I’ve seen precious little actual leadership.

Williams wrote that a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll reported 62 percent of voters supported Barry’s decision to take action against ISIS with airstrikes in Iraq and Syria. Pew polling last week even found support for Barry’s plan is coming from both sides of the political aisle and a Rasmussen poll similarly found 66 percent of likely U.S. voters support Barry’s plan. But many of these folks will likely be forced to admit that Barry’s effort is half-hearted at best.

And though many Republicans have attacked Barry for not putting boots on the ground in the Middle East conflict, most polls would seem to show that many Americans back Barry’s decision not to send combat troops back to the region to fight the Islamic extremists. But like it or not, there is going to be only one way to take care if this problem in any meaningful way, and it’s going to require a lot more than a few air strikes. Americans must come to realize that.

Juan said, "The president’s leadership role during this fight has the potential to pump up his public approval and that will benefit several Democrats locked in close Senate races," adding that Republicans ‘could’ face an "October Surprise" with polls showing a major turnaround for embattled Democrats. ‘Could’ doesn’t mean will, despite Juan’s best efforts to make it appear as if it is a certainty. And I’m sure we haven’t heard the last from this pathetic fraud.

Juan wrote, "An upswing in the president’s approval rating as the nation gets in line behind the commander-in-chief could tip the outcome of a political fight now based on voter turnout and last minute advertising." Williams concluded by saying, "To be clear, Republicans remain a slight favorite to win enough seats to claim the majority of the U.S. Senate. But the twists and turns of war have the capacity to create one legendary October political surprise."

If the American people prove themselves ignorant enough to be played in the manner laid out by Juan, then there is, quite literally, no hope for this once proud nation. Barry’s response to those who he has said have nothing whatsoever to do with Islam, is half-baked at best. Instead of taking the advice of those who know how to fight these extremists, Barry has, like always, chosen instead to base his decisions entirely on politics. That’s not leadership, by anyone’s definition!

DEMOCRATS DOING THEIR BEST TO HOODWINK US…

So let me see if I have this right. Democrats think that by removing any mention of Barry from their many campaign speeches, or seeking ways to otherwise distance themselves from their president, whose approval rating is now somewhere in the basement, they will somehow be able to sufficiently convince enough voters of, what exactly? That they have not been, and continue to be, simply a rubberstamp for every leftwing policy that he comes up with? Or that they don’t support his position on such things as Obamacare, the economy, and taxes? But who knows, this strategy of theirs may yet work.

But I do seem to remember back when Barry first took office in 2009 how it was that congressional Democrats were quite euphoric. We were told that what we were witnessing was the beginning of 20 years, if not more, of solid Democrat rule. With control of the House, Senate and the White House, and high public approval for their new party standard bearer, Democrats eagerly embraced Barry and all the long-awaited policy initiatives he’d surely help them to bring about. To say that they squandered it all, is a statement that, I think, even many Demcrats would likely agree with.

And how it was back then in that first month when congressional Democrats went out of their way to mention Barry during their floor speeches, to the point where they spoke of him 200, or so, more times than did the Republicans. In the next year and a half, the parties referred to the president at similar rates, sometimes with the Republicans having more to say, other times the Democrats. One can reasonably assume, I suppose, that when the Democrats speak of the president publicly it’s in a far more favorable way and when Republicans do it’s, well, not quite as glowing, shall we say.

But as they say, there is no honor among thieves, or in this case, Democrats. Because as the positive public opinion of Barry began to head toward the deck, and I’m doing my best to remain polite here, after his first year in office, the spread between how often Republicans and the Democrats invoked Barry grew noticeably wider. Put simply, the Democrats weren’t mentioning Barry by name nearly as often as were the Republicans. And suddenly that solid 20 years of Democrat rule was starting to look not quite so solid. But as is so often the case, Democrats figured they could fool us.

The gap is particularly notable over the course of the last year according to a group called the Sunlight Foundation, which measures how often any given word is spoken against all words in floor speeches and debates collected by the Congressional Record. Last fall, at the height of the government shutdown and the Obamacare rollout, Republicans were predictably discussing Barry more. But, as we can see, the trend has continued. Much has been written during this election cycle about the Democrats’ efforts to distancing themselves from Barry ahead of the midterm elections.

Some Democratic candidates in tough races regularly emphasize their differences with the president. And Barry is persona non grata on the campaign trail (unless it’s inside those private high-dollar fundraiser dinners). If the number of times they bring him up in front of the C-SPAN cameras is a measure, the Democrats detachment from the president is even evident on Capitol Hill – where every spoken word is recorded forever, so it’s especially crucial to choose them carefully. After all, no one wants to furnish ammunition for any campaign ads that may be run against them.

As my dear departed grandmother used to tell me, "You can’t take back the spoken word." And I’m reminded of the fact that it was also quite often that she could be heard to say, "If you can’t say anything nice about somebody, don’t say anything at all." So perhaps what’s really going on here is that the Democrats simply don’t have anything nice to say about Barry. But, for sure, we must never allow ourselves to be convinced into believing that even though they may not be talking about Barry all that much in public, they are, and very much so, supporting him in private.

BEWARE OF THE DEMOCRATS…PLEASE!!!

I find it difficult to believe how any responsible adult would actually want to allow the Democrats to continue holding any amount of power when it comes to our government. And yet, there seems to be a growing number of people who do, as indicated by the fact that as the November midterms creep ever closer it’s with nearly each passing day that the odds favoring ‘Dingy Harry’ Reid being able to hold onto his job seem to improve. Now granted, part of that can be blamed on the Republican Party, if for no other reason than not enough people now think that there will be much of a difference no matter who it is that controls the Senate. But there would be a difference, and a big one: Judges. ‘Dingy Harry’ has so skewed the confirmation process that for the first time in more than 10 years Democrats hold a rather sizeable majority of Appellate Court seats. If you don’t see that as being frightening, then you’re simply crazy.

That Democrat can no longer, if they ever could be, trusted with holding the reins of power was made all the painfully clear by those who attended something called the Americans United rally "Hands Off Social Security & Medicare" at the Capitol on Thursday. It was at this gathering of leftwing kooks that Nancy Pelosi proceeded to blame Republicans for the economic recession of 2007-09, saying their "lack of regulation and supervision took our country to the brink, and so when President Obama won the election, he took us out of that brink." And it was this reject from a psycho ward went on to say, "I know you've heard from many members of the House and Senate about the importance of the three pillars of security for America’s seniors: about Social Security, about Medicare and about Medicaid." Adding, "And I’m here to add my support to strengthening, not weakening those pillars. But I want to just take a different tack for a moment."

And as if that idiotic claim were not bizarre enough, she went on to recount the day that the Federal Reserve Chairman, and another incompetent boob, Ben Bernanke, supposedly came to her office to discuss how financial institutions were in jeopardy and there was a meltdown in the economy. According to this fairytale of hers, Pelosi said, "And I said to the chairman of the Fed, Mr. Bernanke, what do you think about what the Secretary had to say? And he said, ‘If we do not act immediately we will not have an economy by Monday.’ Thank you to the Republicans and their economic policies to undermine our economy." She said, "If we’re concerned that they’re not there supporting Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid, we should also be concerned that they are not supporting the middle class. Their lack of regulation and supervision took our country to the brink, and so when President Obama won the election, he took us out of that brink."

The last recession ‘officially’ lasted from December 2007 to June 2009, ending, or so we have been repeatedly told, 5 months after Barry "Almighty" was sworn in as president in January 2009. Pelosi said, "But people are still starved, they’re still uncertain." And then she went on to claim, "We still have to make the fight all the time that people who do not share our values of security for our seniors and the three pillars upholding it, still want to return to the failed policies of the Bush administration of no regulation and no supervision that took us to that place." Now I’m quite sure those there within the crowd we quite receptive, but let’s face it, the combined IQ of this entire crowd was, most likely, somewhere down in the single digits. Democrats like Pelosi have no values, no morals and are completely indifferent to the struggles our seniors are forced to contend with. This was all nothing but more typical Democrat election-year rhetoric!

And joining Pelosi at what was nothing more than the equivalent of the freak shows that line any carnival midway, was her fellow dingbat, and squaw wannabe, Elizabeth Warren who is actually, hysterically speaking, the senior Democrat senator, from that haven for leftwing kooks in the northeast, Massachusetts. This complete moron also spoke at the rally and she said, "America is on the leading edge of a retirement crisis. Families are squeezed. The last thing we need to be talking about is cutting Social Security – last thing." She stressed twice during her speech that the first premise of Social Security is that it’s about "dignity." And old Liz went on to say, "Social Security is not charity." And she went on to say, "Social Security is what people worked a lifetime for. Social Security is what keeps people independent. Social Security is about eating. Social Security is about dignity and that’s why we’re here to protect it today."

And she was far from being done as she too made sure to talk about the supposed values of those in attendance. She said, "But when it comes right down to it, this is about values." And then went on to say, "This is about who this country works for. This is about what we do together. And I want to start with this first premise: and that is Social Security is about the dignity of human beings. You work a lifetime, you’re entitled to retire with dignity. And that means a strong Social Security system and strong Medicare." The ‘Dingbat from the Bay State’ went on to say, "People built Social Security through their working years, we built it together, we made promises to ourselves and to each other." And she finally added, "And if Republicans want to break those promises, then we’re here to say we will fight you every inch of the way." What a pathetic crock of shit! Nothing but pure election year propaganda!

And of course there were several other leftwing kooks in attendance, those who lent their support to this very obviously bizarre and politically motivated event. Other leftwing kook in attendance icluded: Rep. Bruce Braley (D-Iowa), Rep. Paul Tonko (D-New York), Rep. Dina Titus (R-Nev.), Rep. Jan ‘Devoted Socialist’ Schakowski (R-New York), Rep. Keith ‘Muslim Sympathizer’ Ellison (D-Minn.), and Rep. Joe ‘Ear Wax Eater’ Garcia (D-Fla.). So I guess the only point that I’m trying to make here is that there is so much riding on this year’s election. and we should give this type of rhetoric no more attention than what it deserves. Which, if we’re being honest, is none. These people, and I mean every single one of them, hate this country as it was originally conceived. And there is absolutely nothing they will not say in their effort to maintain, or to possibly increase, the level of political power that they now possess.

And don’t get me wrong, the Republican Party is not perfect, far from it! But having said that, the Democrat Party grows more determined every single day in its effort to bring about the death of this country. The values they advocate are not the values that the rest us must subscribe to, instead they must be shunned. And we must not allow ourselves to believe those Democrats who, because they now find themselves in a close election, seek to distance themselves from the most corrupt president in our history. Because the one thing that you most certainly can take to the bank is, that if they victorious in their quest for re-election, they will all be doing a group hug with he whom they are now trying so hard to disavow. So don’t be fooled! Don’t fall for the ploy! Think about your kids and what you may have to tell them someday when they finally realize, and they will, all of the freedoms that the government will have taken away from them.

DO WOMEN SEE DEMOCRATS AS LOSING SOME OF THEIR LUSTER???

Well supposedly, if recent polls are anywhere near being correct it would seem to appear that Democrats may be beginning to lose some of their appeal at least for some women and oddly enough it’s global unrest that’s being blamed as part of the reason. In a recent New York Times/CBS News poll, and a Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey, a shift in the traditional edge Democrats have over Republicans among women was noted.

In the Times/CBS News poll, for example, asked the question: "If the 2014 election for United States House of Representatives seats were being held today, would you vote for the Republican candidate or the Democratic candidate in your district?" And in answering women picked Democrats over Republicans by just one point, 43 percent to 42 percent. I would have thought women might have been too busy using their free birth control to answer.

And then it was in the Journal/NBC News survey that when women were asked if they wanted the midterm elections to produce a Democrat - or GOP-led Congress, it was 47 percent of them who chose Democrats while 40 percent said they actually preferred a Republican majority. And this is quite significant when you consider it was just a month earlier that women favored a Democrat controlled Congress by 51-37 percent.

American Thinker reported that, "Perhaps what we are seeing here is the awakening of the under-appreciated 'Wal-Mart mom' Jacksonians." Adding, "But when things seem to be going reasonably well, their Jacksonianism lies dormant, and they can appear to be non-interventionists. It is only when threats pile up and the world begins to seem less safe that Americans reveal their true foreign policy colors."

It also noted that many Americans, including, apparently, many women, favor the use of force abroad to protect U.S. interests. And it was also the American Thinker that reported, "Though Obama’s "war on women" rhetoric has served him well to date, it may be losing its pull among women now concerned about, well, actual wars." One Democrat pollster said as much to the Journal after its survey found the shrinking appeal of the party with women voters.

I don’t know, when it comes to voting, or to selecting for whom to vote, women tend to have a rather strange methodology. And as I have said before, where blacks focus primarily on race, women tend to focus on gender. Because any female candidate, as long as their liberal, is better than any male, or conservative, candidate. But I’m constantly amazed at the ease with which women with children can vote for those who are busy destroying the future of those children.

So I think that’s it’s still way too early to say with any level of confidence that women are beginning to see the light as far as their continued willingness to vote for Democrats is concerned. And for them to continue to do so is proof that they are committed to living in denial and there is no way to convince them of the error of their ways. The are robbing from their children the ability to live the American dream and are instead dooming them to a life of poverty.

‘SLICK WILLIE’ CLINTON…DOING WHAT HE DOES BEST…

According to ‘Slick Willie’ Clinton, one of the only two U.S. presidents to ever be impeached, and the only one ever to be accused of rape, power is more diffuse in a technologically advanced world, and that means ‘inclusiveness’ is the only way to battle the world's problems. Now don’t that just make everyone feel all warm and fuzzy?

It was during his appearance over there on Jon Leibowitz’s idiotic little program, ‘The Daily Show’, that ‘The Slickmeister’ claimed that even though the world seems to be disintegrating all around us, there is actually more good news than bad. Oh ya, there’s all kinds of good news out there. I was just telling my wife that the other day.

And what might some of this "good news" come in the form of? Well, Slick says that the explosion of information technology is helpful to fishermen in Indonesia, who now can use cellphones to determine the price of fish. Of course the drawback is that the Islamic State (ISIS) terrorist group can use that same technology to draw in new recruits.

‘Slick said he believes Barry’s plan to defeat ISIS has a chance to succeed because the Iraqi government finally includes Sunnis who represent the tribal leaders needed to help defeat ISIS. Slick demonstrated the knack Democrats have for rewriting history when he said, "We can't win a land war in Iraq. We proved that." Well no, not exactly.

Democrats like old Slick, here, have never been willing to admit that the Iraq war was essentially won. It was Barry who lost it. And this moron went on to say, "But they can, and we can help them win it. … If the democracy model is going to work it has to be inclusive." So apparently, Slick’s assessment of the situation is no better than Barry’s.

Still, he said, we have to accept that we can't win every battle and that we are likely only about halfway through what may well be a 50-year struggle to define the terms of our interdependence. Now I realize I’m not as sophisticated as is old Slick, but what the Hell is he even talking about? That statement is just so much pure and unadulterated drivel.

Slick then went on to say, "But we do know this: We are interdependent." And then he added the clincher saying, "That is, all the borders of the world look more like nets than walls. … We've got to realize inclusion works, and unilateralism doesn't." What a completely ‘progressive’ way to look at things. More "New World Order’ drivel that makes no sense.

THE LEVEL OF AMERICAN IGNORANCE NEVER SURPRISES ME…

I am embarrassed to admit this but I was completely unaware that yesterday was national Constitution Day, or the day that marked the 227th anniversary of the signing of our Constitution. But at least I can safely count myself as being among the 36 percent of Americans who can actually name the three branches of government that our Constitution created. So while I freely admit that I was unaware of the significance of yesterday, thankfully I’m not forced to suffer the embarrassment of being too stupid to name the three branches of my government.

And it’s also according to a new survey from the Annenberg Public Policy Center that it would seems that a rather significant percentage of Americans are long overdue for some sort of a civics refresher course. Because it’s only 38 percent of Americans that know the Republican Party controls the U.S. House of Representatives, while 17 percent think Democrats are still in charge. The number of people who knew Republicans were in charge has dropped 17 percent since the last time Annenberg asked, back in 2011, right after Republicans reclaimed control.

And it would be an identical number, 38 percent, who are actually aware that it’s the Democrats who run the Senate, while 20 percent actually believe that it’s the Republicans who control the upper chamber. Only 27 percent know it takes a two-thirds majority of the House and Senate to override a presidential veto. Annenberg released the survey in partnership with the Civics Renewal Network, a group of 25 nonpartisan organizations including the Library of Congress, the Newseum and the National Archives that offers free civics education resources.

Other groups, like the Civics Education Initiative, are pushing to include more civics education in high schools, requiring students to pass the same citizenship test that immigrants do when they come to the U.S. That group will introduce legislation in seven states that would require passage of the citizenship test before graduating. They cited Annenberg’s 2011 survey, which found just 15 percent of Americans could correctly identify the chief justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, while 27 percent knew Randy Jackson was a judge on American Idol.

And it was only 13 percent who knew that the Constitution was signed in 1787. And that would be the very same Constitution which are told that, as a ’senior lecturer’, Barry was assigned the responsibility of instructing those under his charge of the benefits and the meaning behind this most perfect document ever created by man. And is the same Constitution which he and his fellow Democrats feel no responsibility whatsoever to abide by. So is it any wonder that the country is in such bad shape. We must change course, and very soon! Time is running out!

DEMOCRATS BEND OVER BACKWARDS TO PROTECT THEIR NEW ALLY, ISIS…

BENNIE 'THE BOOB'

Ok, so I’m confused! These scumbag Democrats keep providing us with more and more justification to completely strip from them all political power, and yet the Americans people don’t seem to be listening. I mean first we had that corrupt, and completely dishonest, imbecile, Luis Gutierrez, Democrat from Illinois, appearing on Sean Hannity’s show, just two days ago, proudly declaring that if he were to vote to secure the border before voting for immigration reform, aka amnesty, he would be derelict in his duty to protect America. Huh?

And then it was just yesterday that we had that halfwit boob, Bennie Thompson, Democrat from Mississippi, say at the House Homeland Security Committee hearing on Wednesday that the threat posed to the homeland by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (ISIL) has nothing whatsoever to do with religion or culture. Ok, so we have this murdering horde that refers to itself as the Islamic State, and this moron makes the claim that is has nothing to do with religion or culture. Really?

Thompson said, "Violent extremism has no race, ethnicity, religion or culture, and there is no single profile or pathway for individuals who come to embrace violent extremism." While I suppose, in a sense, that comment may make some sort of sense, in a weird sort of way, there’s no denying the fact that those who profess to be practitioners of Islam, which I would argue is much less a religion than it is simply a violent cult, exhibit a level of very violent and extremist behavior that should be considered as being difficult to ignore, even by Democrats. And yet.

One of the witnesses at this hearing where this moron, Thompson, made his idiotic comments was Matthew Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, said religious ideology was a motivating factor for ISIS or ISIL. It was in his prepared remarks that Olsen said, "ISIL’s goal is to solidify and expand its control of territory and govern by implementing its violent interpretation of sharia law." He added, "The group aspires to overthrow governments in the region, govern all the territory that the early Muslim caliphs controlled, and expand."

Democrats like Thompson remain quite determined in their efforts to defend those who are proud members of what is, as I have said before, nothing more than a evil cult founded on the purest forms of both violence and hate. And I really do have to laugh whenever I hear anyone referring to it as being a "religion of peace," because it is no such thing. And until we are able to get past the foolish political correctness that is essentially killing us and to call it what it really is, then those who act on its behalf will continue to have the upper hand.

WHO TRUSTS THE MEDIA ANYMORE???

Well, to be honest with you, I’m not quite sure what to make of this latest Gallup survey regarding Americans and their trust, or lack of trust, of that which has come to be not so fondly referred to as our ‘state-controlled media.’ Because they still seem to spend a considerable amount of time not only listening to but, dare I say, believing much of what they are told by those whom they claim not to trust. Personally, if I don’t trust someone then I tend not to listen to what it is that they are saying because I automatically assume they’re lying to me.

Anyway, according to the most recent survey on the topic of ‘trust in the media’ we find that when it comes judging the news that we listen to as being presented "fully, accurately, and fairly," it was a combined 60% of respondents who said they had "not very much" trust and "none at all" in what they were hearing. But at the same time there 40% of Americans who also said that they had, combined, a "fair amount" and "great deal" of trust and confidence in newspapers, TV, and radio to report the news accurately and fairly.

And in what sort of reminded me of the story involving those three bears and a little girl, 44% of those who took part in this survey said that our state-controlled news media is "too liberal" while only 19% said it was "too conservative," and 34% said that it was all "just about right." Frankly, it’s my opinion that one has got to pretty naïve to view that which was once referred to as being our "mainstream media" as being today anything other than the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party. The job of the media today is not to inform, it is to persuade by means necessary.

This particular survey was conducted Sept. 4-7 and was said to consist of 1,017 adults, age 18 and older in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Gallup asked, "In general, how much trust and confidence do you have in the mass media -- such as newspapers, T.V. and radio -- when it comes to reporting the news fully, accurately, and fairly -- a great deal, a fair amount, not very much, or none at all?" The breakdown is as follows: 24% said None at All, 36% said Not Very Much, 10% said a Great Deal and 30% said a Fair Amount.

According to the pollsters, "After registering slightly higher trust last year, Americans' confidence in the media's ability to report ‘the news fully, accurately, and fairly’ has returned to its previous all-time low of 40%." They went on to say, "Americans' trust in mass media has generally been edging downward from higher levels in the late 1990s and the early 2000s." They also reported that 54% of Democrats have a "great deal/fair amount" of trust in the media and only 27% of Republicans do. That little fact right there should tell you all you need to know.

CHRIS CHRISTIE..STICK A FORK IN HIM, HE’S DONE!!!

I must admit that there was once a time that I was a pretty big fan of the rotund governor of New Jersey. I even went out of my to make sure I was able to tune in to watch his speech given at the 2012 Republican Convention, that now seems so long ago. But, as they say, times change, and with them opinions that were once held. Because back then I would have thought that Christie would have been smart enough to realize just how important the last election was, and yet he failed to come through when he could have made difference.

And Christie, the current head of the Republican Governor’s Association, as well as the guy touted by many in the state-controlled media as being a GOP front-runner for 2016, has demonstrated once again that he’s not a much of a team player and in do doing may have done irreparable damage to his chances for a 2016 presidential bid. What was that Christie did? Well, he recently went well out of his way to publicly praise Democrat, New York Gov. Andy Cuomo instead of coming out and supporting Andy’s GOP challenger.

And Christie proceeded to take things a step further by refusing to commit to any fundraising events on behalf of Andy's GOP challenger, Westchester County Executive Rob Astorino. In what I guess an attempt to justify his behavior, Christie said, "The job of myself and Gov. Cuomo, as we see it, is to lead and make sure that the appropriate amount of intensity is being brought to the task of protecting our region." I hate to have to correct the governor, but neither of these two, but Cuomo maybe more so than Christie, are what I would call leaders

Christie went on to say, "I thank the governor for, like this and many other issues, our partnership over the last number of years in making sure that we're doing our jobs for the people of this very interconnected region in a way that's going to keep us safe." These comments have raised plenty of eyebrows among those whose job it is to comment on such things. And it has been said that his positioning could hurt his chances if he makes a bid for the White House in 2016. Duh, ya think? I’m officially done with this guy.

Rick Shaftan, who is, I guess, a Republican strategist of some type, said, "How could that not turn Republicans off for both Astorino's campaign and for Christie?" He went on to suggest that the George Washington Bridge scandal has put Christie in a position where he can't campaign against Cuomo, as the governors share control of the agency which operates the bridge. Christie is now damaged goods, and if he thinks that many of out here will vote for him, should he try running for president, he’s more of an imbecile than even I thought he was.

Monmouth University pollster Patrick Murray, however, suggested that Christie's appearances with Cuomo and other leading Democrats earlier in the day Monday could have some upsides for his presidential chances. It was Murray who said, "Assuming he runs for president, he's got to win a Republican nomination process, but at the same time he has to position himself for a general election. He carefully chooses those issues on which he's willing to appear at a bipartisan venue." No offense to Mr. Murray, but I think he’s nuts.

And let’s not forget that it was earlier this summer that Christie angered the party faithful by declaring that the RGA does not "invest" in campaigns that are seen as "lost causes." Last month former New York Gov. George Pataki also expressed anger at Christie's refusal to support Astorino. Christie has since tried to mend fences, publicly declaring last week that Astorino was "the best candidate to lead the state forward." but it was a rather limp-wristed attempt besides being way too little and way too late.

Look, if this pathetic loser decides to throw his hat into the presidential ring as 2016 edges ever closer, we would be very wise if we were to convince him very early on that he has very little chance of becoming our candidate. We need to dump him fast and focus on those conservative candidates who more closely exemplify the values that we all hold dear. We simply cannot afford to waste our time on someone like Christie, and we should learn from our past mistakes of Dole, McCain and Romney. We MUST be smarter this time around.

A DEMOCRAT VICTORY IN NOVEMBER = DEATH OF AMERICA AS WE KNOW IT…

I recently read somewhere that the Democrats are now favored, by 51 to 49 percent, to maintain their control of the Senate, good news, I’m quite sure, to the many parasitic morons that we now have spread all across this country. A country that is very rapidly becoming the nanny state by which all other nanny states will soon be measured. That would, of course, be because, for whatever the reason, more and more of our fellow Americans have now become quite comfortable with being taken care of their government.

And also, or so it would seem, a growing number of Americans don’t seem to bothered all that much by the fact that they continue to earn less while at the same time be faced with each trip to the gas station or the grocery costing more than the last trip. And as it was recently pointed out by the Census Bureau in its annual report on "Income and Poverty in the United States, " real median household income as stagnated for two years after declining for two. Thanks in part to insane Democrat policies having to do with the economy.

And it’s according to this same report that, "Median household income was $51,939 in 2013, not statistically different in real terms from the 2012 median of $51,759." The report goes on to make the point that, "This is the second consecutive year that the annual change was not statistically significant, following two consecutive years of annual declines in median household income." So for those who have been paying attention, does such information really come as being much of a surprise?

So in telling us something that we should, from our own personal experiences, already know, American households are poorer now than they were when the 21st century began. According to the Census, "Median household income was $51,939 in 2013, not statistically different from the 2012 median in real terms, 8.0 percent lower than the 2007 (the year before the most recent recession) median ($56,436), and 8.7 percent lower than the median household income peak ($56,895) that occurred in 1999."

The same basic pattern holds for real average (as opposed to median) household income. Real average household income peaked at $77,287 (in constant 2013 dollars) back in 2000. For all you liberals out there, that was the last year of the 20th century. It dropped to $74,569 by 2004, and then climbed back up to $76,912 in 2006. But by 2013, it had dropped rather precipitously to $72,641, a real decline of 6.4 percent from the peak of 2000.

The real median income for households headed by high school dropouts peaked in 2000 at $30,699. In 2013, it was $25,672, a drop of 16.4 percent from the 20th-century peak. The real median income for households headed by high school graduates who did not attend college, peaked in 1999 at $49,802. In 2013, it was $40,701, a drop of 18.3 percent from the 20th-century peak. The real median income of households headed by Americans who have earned at least a bachelor's degree peaked in 1999 at $97,470. In 2013, it was $86,411, a drop of 11.3 percent from its 20th-century peak.

The real median income for married couple families peaked in 2007 at $81,552. By 2013, it had dropped to $76,339, a decline of 6.4 percent. In households headed by a male with no spouse present, real median income peaked in 1999 at $52,201. In 2013, it was $44,475, a decline of 14.8 percent. In households headed by a female with no spouse present, real median income in 2000 at $34,786. In 2013, it was $31,408, a decline of 9.7 percent.

At the beginning of the 20th century, America was still a pioneering nation. People were responsible for their own and their family's material well-being, and, I might add, very proud to be so. There was no Medicaid, no food stamps, no federal housing projects and no school lunch program, in other words it was before many of the liberal/progressive/Democrat policies were brought into being. In the 20th century, our government built these things ‘for’ us, and the pioneering spirit of the nation began to erode.

By the fourth quarter of 2012, according to the Census Bureau, 109,631,000 Americans were living in households that received benefits from one or more means-tested federally funded program. That was 35.4 percent of the national population. That was before Obamacare began full implementation this year, with its expansion of Medicaid and its premium subsidies for people who buy government-mandated government-approved health insurance plans on government-run exchanges.

It shouldn’t take a genius to figure out that if our welfare state continues to grow and expand, household incomes will continue to shrink. The questions that Americans now face, and the ones that each and every one of us should ask ourselves as we troop off to the polls this November are: Do we want to take care of, and control our own lives, or do we have government do it for us? And just how much more money are we going to need to fork over to the government before we say, enough is enough.

And, you know, just as a side note here, another reason for which I’m being told that there has been a sudden surge for the Democrats, regarding this November’s elections, is that many are said to have achieved some level of success in being able to distance themselves from Barry "Almighty." And how stupid are those people who would actually fall for such an idiotic ploy in the first place? Because while they may be trying to distance themselves before the election, they will be joined at the hip with Barry after the election.

‘THE SLICKMEISTER’ IS BUT THE LATEST DEMOCRAT TO ATTACK ISRAEL…

Just as I don’t understand the fixation that most Democrats have when it comes to their outright hostility toward Israel, neither do I understand how it is that many Jews in this country can bring themselves to support those very same Democrats. Now I can understand it coming from Barry, because in his heart I think we all realize that he is essentially a Muslim, and therefore an enemy of Israel. But now it would appear that one of the only two U.S. presidents to ever be impeached and the only one, at least as far as I know, ever known to be a rapist, and one who was never really known for being much of a leader, has now taken it upon himself to criticize the Israeli government's handling of peace negotiations with the so-called, Palestinians.

Sounding much like that other presidential loser, Jimmy Carter, it was ‘Slick Willie’ Clinton who was recently heard joining with the chorus of many others within his party and actually agreeing with a suggestion that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is "not the guy" to achieve lasting peace in the Middle East. ‘Slick Willie’ made his ignorant comments while speaking in a conversation at a Democrat fundraiser in Iowa this past weekend. He said, "If we don't force him to make peace, we will not have peace." So how arrogant of a statement is that? What ‘right’ do we have to force Mr. Netanyahu to do anything that he feels places his country in jeopardy and is not in the best interest of his people? Suppose if the shoe was on the other foot?

The exchange was recorded by C-SPAN and covered by the Israeli newspaper, Haaretz. ‘Slick’s’ comments actually stood in direct contrast to what we had heard from his wife, that disaster of a secretary of State, Hitlery Clinton, who has been, at least in public, rather supportive of Netanyahu's handling of the conflict in Gaza, in keeping with but a few other Democrats. The newspaper said, "Whether Bill Clinton's comments reflect the private thinking of these other leading Democrats is impossible to tell." Adding, "But they also serve as a reminder that should Hillary Clinton run for president, the presence of a vocal and very opinionated spouse on the campaign trail creates added opportunity for embarrassment and even inadvertent policy shifts."

Here’s my attempt at a rather brief historical refresher. First of all, there has never been the country of Palestine. So therefore calling these people Palestinians is simply incorrect. In the second century, Emperor Hadrian crushed a new Jewish rebellion with many Jews being banished while others were made slaves of the Romans. A small number of Jews did stay in the land and remained there right up through the twentieth century. However, the name of the land at this time was changed because Hadrian wanted to destroy Jewish identity. He renamed the land "Syria-Palestinian." Palestine was a Latin version of the word Philistine, an ancient enemy of the Jews who were now extinct as a people. Hadrian was deliberately insulting the Jews.

So therefore, as I said, there has never been a country called Palestine. This was a nickname for the Holy Land under the Romans. The people who today call themselves Palestinians are Arabs and the fact is that they referred to themselves as Arabs for, quite literally, centuries until they were dubbed "Palestinians" as a publicity ploy by the terrorist and founder of the PLO, Yassir Arafat. And the truth is that Arafat himself did not use the title "Palestinian" until after the year 1964. Those who have ever since referred to themselves as ‘Palestinians’ have no rightful claim to any of the lands. And freedom loving people everywhere must stand shoulder to shoulder with the Jewish people to repel those who wish to steal that which does not belong to them.

So as we can once again very plainly see, the recurring tendency of Democrats to either ignore history completely or their attempt to rewrite it whenever it doesn’t suit their needs or justify their actions, once again becomes apparent. And while much has been made of the Palestinian exodus of 1948, what hear very little about is how the Palestinians have been made to suffer far more traumatic, and more recent, ordeals at the hands of their Arab brothers. Because as early as the mid-1950s, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Libya all chose to expel striking Palestinian workers. And in 1970, Jordan expelled some 20,000 Palestinians and demolished their camps and in 1994-95, Libya expelled tens of thousands of Palestinian residents in response to the Oslo process.

And it was after the 2003 Iraq war that some 21,000 Palestinians essentially fled the country in response to what was a systematic terror and persecution campaign. And then it was as recently as 2007 that Beirut effectively displaced 31,400 Palestinian refugees when the Lebanese army destroyed the Nahr el Bared refugee camp during fighting between the militant Fatal al-Islam group and the Lebanese army. But the largest forced displacement of Palestinians from any Arab state took place in 1991 when Kuwait expelled most of its Palestinian residents in retaliation for the Palestine Liberation Organization's (PLO) endorsement of Iraq's brutal occupation of the emirate (August 1990-February 1991).

And it mattered very little that this population, most of which had resided in Kuwait for decades, was not at all supportive of the PLO's reckless move. From March to September 1991, about 200,000 Palestinians were expelled from the emirate in a systematic campaign of terror, violence, and economic pressure while another 200,000 who fled during the Iraqi occupation were denied the ability to return. By September 1991, Kuwait's Palestinian community had dwindled to around 20,000. And yet even after all of this it is still Israel that is painted as being the villain in this continuing struggle. Democrats like ‘Slick Willie’ would have us believe that Israel is solely responsible for the plight of the ‘Palestinian’ people.

The true fact of the matter is that absolutely none of this, not one iota, not a smidgen, has anything to do with the reacquiring for the ‘Palestinian’ people their homeland. Because as I said earlier, this particular piece of real-estate where so much blood has now been shed over the years, was never their homeland to begin with. What is truly underway here is nothing more than an all out, no holds barred attempt to once again banish the Jewish people from what is, and really always has been, ‘their’ homeland from the time of Moses. And it absolutely sickens me that we have those in this country, who belong to primarily one of our political parties, who are completely willing to assist those who seek to drive the Israeli people from their home.

HITLERY CLINTON, LIKE THE PROVERBIAL BAD PENNY…

It would seem to be our lot in life that we must be made to continually suffer the ordeal of having to constantly put up with this woman and her perverted ‘rapist’ of a husband, and impeached ex-president, ‘Slick Willie’. And so it was then that on just this past Sunday Hitlery Clinton, in making her first appearance in Iowa since back in 2008, said, in sounding much like Jack Nicholson in ‘The Shining’, "Hello, Iowa, I'm back!"

Hitlery made her appearance at the annual steak fry/fundraiser sponsored by that communist senator Tom Harkin, who’s finally retiring from the Senate after spending nearly 30 years doing as much damage to this country as he possibly could. And as previously mentioned she had ‘The ‘Slickmeister’ in tow. Both Clintons where supposedly there to rally the crowd of more than 6,000 Democrat ‘activists’ regarding November's midterm and state elections.

But I’m sure what was on the minds of most in attendance was Hitlery’s possible run for the White House in 2016. And she did little to dampen the speculation when she said, "I've got a few things on my mind these days. First, and most importantly, Bill and I are on constant grandchild watch. I'm calling Chelsea every 5 minutes to make sure things are going all right." Then, she said, "There's that other thing. It is true I am thinking about it."

She told those assembled, "I'm here first and foremost for Tom, for Ruth (Harkin), and for the great candidates that you have a chance to elect." Adding, "In just 50 days Iowans have a choice to make, a choice and a chance. A choice between the guardians of gridlock and the champions of shared opportunity and shared prosperity." She urged voters to elect those who would "carry on Tom Harkin's legacy of fighting for families." Harkin’s legacy is not one of "fighting for families!"

As you may recall it was Barry who defeated Hitlery in the state's leadoff presidential caucuses back in January 2008. In fact Hiterly would come in in third place behind Barry and John ‘The Hair’ Edwards. It was said of those in attendance at Sunday's little get-together, that together they form what is the backbone of Iowa's presidential campaigns every four years. Hence the true reason for Hitlery’s appearance at this progressive backyard gala.

Hitlery, if not the last person we need as our next president, is most definitely in the top tier of those whom we should never elect! And if the last 5 years have shown us anything, it’s that progressive policies, whether dealing with the economy, immigration or even national defense, simply don’t work. Look around you, does anyone think things are better today than they were in 2008. And make no mistake, Hiterly is every bit the progressive that Barry is.

DEMOCRATS HIT ANOTHER POTENTIAL SPEED-BUMP ON THE WAY TO THE MIDTERMS…

In referencing the very same Politico poll that was used earlier to point out the fact that Americans in those pesky ‘battleground states’ seem to be none too thrilled when it comes to Barry’s handling of the economy, we also find that it’s a majority of voters in those very same states who also seem to be not very big fans of his approach to immigration reform. So who is it that might actually be shocked by this little bit of news?

So in providing what may prove to be yet another potential complication for the Democrats as the November midterm elections rapidly approach, and with control of the Senate hanging precariously in the balance, we find out that its nearly two-thirds of likely voters in those battleground states who now disapprove of Barry method of dealing with the issue of immigration. It seems that they don’t take kindly to his threats

The results of this poll come on the heels of Barry 's apparent, and quite recent, about-face, or what some might call his flip-flop, regarding his threat to use executive action in his effort to allow millions of immigrants who are in this country illegally, to remain here without fear of being deported. Barry has also been accused of playing politics, announcing that he will now wait until after the elections before taking any action.

Barry’s obviously politically motivated decision drew the ire of more than a few supposed immigration-reform ‘advocates.’ One in particular was Frank Cherry, executive director of America's Voice. Cherry told Fox News that "we are bitterly disappointed in the president. The president and Senate Democrats have chosen politics over people." And this guy is somehow surprised by this? What kind of advocate must he be anyway?

So anyway, according to the Politico poll, 64 percent of voters in the most competitive House and Senate races disapprove of how Barry is handling immigration. More voters trust Republicans than Democrats on the issue, including 26 percent of independents. It was 18 percent of those who take great pride in calling themselves ‘Independents’ who said that they have more trust in the Democrats to handle immigration reform.

And I’m quite sure that it comes as no surprise to find out that a majority, or 48 percent, of Hispanic voters continue to side with Democrats on the issue of immigration, while just 27 percent said they had more trust in the GOP. This despite the fact that nearly half of all Hispanic voters disapprove of the way Barry has handled immigration reform. So the issue has become sort of a political football with red state Democrats.

North Carolina Sen. Kay Hagan, a Democrat, has spoken out against executive action on immigration reform. Hagan is embroiled in a tight race with her Republican challenger, Thom Tillis. Hagan said, "I don't think it should be by executive action." Adding, "I made the comment weeks and weeks ago that this is a congressional decision. I've supported the immigration reform bill and … I think the House needs to take that legislation up."

And that would be ditto for Maine Sen. Angus King, an Independent who caucuses with Democrats. King has said, "Significant executive action would undermine support for comprehensive reform and actually perhaps could set the cause back." And he went on to say, "It's not about the midterms. It's about whether this is a good policy decision, and I don't think it is." He really expects us to believe that the midterms have nothing to do with it?

Remember now, it really matters very little, if at all, what these Democrats say before the election, because it’s all essentially etched in jell-o. And what I mean by that is that after, and I mean immediately after, the election, if they were to win, anything that they might have said before the election would all simply be forgotten. Because with victory would come their very enthusiastic support for the same executive action they claimed to oppose before the election.

WILL THE ECONOMY HAVE AN IMPACT ON NOVEMBER’S ELECTIONS???

It is according to another new survey, this one put out by Politico, that a feeling of gloom and doom surrounding the economy still persists in the United Sates. That despite the many rumors of continuing signs of some supposed economic recovery now being underway. While I may not be an expert on the economy, I am someone who is forced to deal with the effects, on a daily basis, brought about by those policies that Barry has put into place. And I dare say that there are very few, if any, actual indicators that any sort of recovery is currently ongoing.

I mean let’s face it. The jobs numbers that are being reported at the end of each month have now become nothing much more of a complete work of fiction than an accurate portrayal of our employment situation. And it’s a fact that we now have nearly as many people on some sort of government program, i.e., food stamps, disability, extended unemployment or welfare, as we now have working to cover the costs of all of those program. And in the span of Barry’s presidency we have had 10 Million workers who have now left the workforce. Recovery?

So this new Politico poll, supposedly involving 917 ‘likely’ voters, points out that at least in those states said to be ‘battleground states’, we have a majority of likely voters who blame, and rightly so, Barry "Almighty" for the nation’s financial woes. We see that 57 percent of them said that they either "strongly" or "somewhat" disapprove of his ‘leadership’ on the issue. The poll showed that only 15 percent "strongly approve" of Barry’s handling of the economy, while 27 percent said they somewhat approve.

And it also courtesy of this poll that we see that only 23 percent of potential voters in those states identified as being ‘competitive’, again regarding November’s midterm elections, believe that their financial situation has improved, compared to the 30 percent who say that it has actually gotten worse. And it’s the frustration and anger over the current state of the country’s economy that I think we can say has played at least a part in the fact that 36 percent of voters in the poll now say that the GOP is better suited to handle the economy.

And yet, as bizarre as it may sound, that figure was matched by the same percentage of those people who actually believe that it’s the Democrats who are better positioned to continue handling the country’s economy. Some 28 percent of respondents were undecided on which party should be running the economy. Now how ignorant, or completely misinformed, must one be in order to think that those in the Democrat Party are the least bit concerned about the economy or actually want it to improve in the first place?

And then, to add insult to injury, this poll also pointed out the fact that we now have a majority of Americans, 61 percent, say they do not have enough savings to deal with a sudden loss of the job. And we also has 62 percent of Americans who said that the rising cost of basic household items like gas and groceries has now put a significant strain on their finances. And I think we can also make the case for now saying that the rising cost of both of those particular items are a direct result of policies that have been put into place by Barry & Co..

Although Politico made the claim that the economy has marginally improved in recent months, the political news website said that unemployment still remains above 6 percent and that in August the country added just 142,000 jobs. But like I said earlier, there is very little doubt that the unemployment figures we hear about have been, and continue to be, manipulated to the point where they are now essentially meaningless. They in no way provide any sort of an accurate picture of our current employment situation.

So when all is said and done I find it all a bit confusing that while a significant number of people blame Barry for our rather dismal performing economy, they can, and in almost the very same breath, say they enthusiastic supporters of Hitlery Clinton, who is essentially cut from the very same cloth as Barry himself. She supports many of the same policies, and both are nothing more than rabid progressives. And as such neither possess any interest in ensuring that our economy is strong, because with a strong economy, fewer people require government ‘assistance’.

TAVIS SMILEY, ANOTHER WHO CONTINUES TO BETRAY THE BLACK COMMUNITY IN THE NAME OF RACISM AND POLITICS…

Talk-show host, and perennial racist loudmouth, Tavis Smiley is yet another one of those blacks who, while claiming to be some ardent defender of the black community, are in reality doing little more than to sell out blacks in this country. In seeking to come up with any rationale for what continues to befall the black community, it was in his best idiotic sounding rhetoric that Smiley once again continued his criticism of Barry "Almighty", saying that "black people lost ground in every single leading economic category during the Obama years." I’d like to remind Mr. Smiley that blacks really have no one to blame but themselves. They are the ones who chose, or allowed themselves to be convinced, to vote for Barry nearly en masse. Now perhaps if blacks were to vote a little closer to what we’ve been told are their true positions on such issues as education, jobs and even gay marriage instead of on their ability to obtain a government check of ever-increasing amounts, they might come out a little farther ahead.

It was in a recent interview with ‘The Huffington Post," that Smiley said, "We’ve been at the back of the bus." With him going on to say, "Every other constituency has spoken their truth and made demands of this president." And then, in referring to the White House's recent announcement that Barry would announce his executive actions on immigration after the November elections, this moron said, "Right now, the Hispanic community, for obvious reasons, is livid with him for pushing back once again something he should’ve done, I think, a long time ago." And he added, "But the data is going to indicate — I said this before and I’m not happy about this. I don’t celebrate this." He continued by saying, "I don’t say it as a way of demonizing the president or casting an aspersion on him, but the data is going to indicate that black people lost ground in every single leading economic category during the Obama years." So Smiley seems quite confident in denying any of this is actually Barry’s fault.

Smiley, 50, hosts a late-night talk show on, where else but, taxpayer supported PBS. He has been a Barry critic throughout his term, along with author and Union Theological Seminary ‘professor’ Cornel West. Shortly after Barry's re-election in 2012, Chicago Public Media canceled their program, "Smiley & West," citing concerns about fairness and balance. And apparently Mr. Smiley has also written a new book about the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and made the same claim in January about the lack of black progress under ‘his’ black president, saying "on that regard, the president ought to be held responsible." In his Huffington Post interview, Smiley said that he still respects Barry despite his attacks. And Smiley demonstrated that simply having a black president seems to trump even the continuing plight of blacks when he said, "As Cornel West and I said many years ago, I respect the president." Adding, "I will protect the president against white supremacist attacks or anything else he’s unfairly targeted for.

And then Smiley said something that very clearly makes the point that he’s little more than a complete fraud. He said, "So you’re respecting, you’re protecting, but you’re correcting when he’s wrong." And he concluded things by saying, "Not because he’s Barack Obama, but because he’s the president." Somehow I just can’t bring myself to believe that Smiley would be as generous if we were to have a white guy in the Oval Office, and worse yet a conservative Republican. If that were in fact the case I seriously doubt that Smiley would be as forgiving. In that situation we would be hearing only about how the white man was continuing to keep the black man down. But the odd reality of things is that it’s the very ones who Smiley himself votes for that are the ones so determined to keep the black man down and essentially enslaved to the government. So until Smiley, and those like him, can finally be honest with those in the black community very little will change other than that things will get much, much worse for all.

OBAMA ‘IS’ THE FOOD STAMP PRESIDENT…

The reason that Barack Hussein Obama has been referred to as being the "food stamp president" should be fairly obvious to all. And while some, such as the devoted Barry apologist, Juan Williams, have expressed their outrage at such claims, it does not alter the fact that the label very much fits. And to back that claim, it was in the month of June, of this year, that there were now 46,496,145 recipients of the food stamp program. And in an effort to help better visualize just how big of a number that is, that would be enough people to fill the Yankee Stadium 925 times.

The Yankee Stadium is equipped to hold 50,291 faithful fans, meaning that the 46,496,145 people who were recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) this past June, could fill the stadium 925 times. And its that number of recipients which was actually up from the previous month of May by an additional 270,999, when there were 46,225,146 individuals participating in the program. So it then, and in using the same example, that in the span of one short month we had an increase of roughly the equivalent of 5 Yankee Stadiums.

Similarly, the number of households participating in the SNAP program has increased as well from the 22,590,393 participating in May of this years up to the 22,713,934 participating in June, an increase of 123,541 households. Participation in the SNAP program peaked for individuals in December of 2012, when there were 47,792,056 persons participating. Since this peak, participation for individuals has declined by 1,295,911 individuals. In October 2010, there were 43,201,052 recipients of SNAP benefits. That number has now increased by 3,295,093 persons.

The convincing of more and more citizens to see the ‘wisdom’ of becoming dependent upon government is one of the integral pieces of the progressive, and therefore the Democrat, master plan. And in that regard Barry has been quite successful. But this is but one small piece, because with Barry having come onto the scene, we now have nearly one third of our population dependent upon government to at least some degree. And when combined with the effects of Obamacare, never before in our history has our government held so much control over us.

AMERICA, WHERE NOTHING CAN GO WRONG…GO WRONG…GO WRONG…

While those with whom I am surrounded on a daily basis at my place of employment probably don’t realize it, they have come to serve a useful purpose. That purpose is that they serve as being my very own personal, and quite unique, cadre of ‘lab rats’ which I use to assess many of things that I hear about every day in the news. And it’s amazing just how clueless most of these people are when it comes to what’s going on not only in their country, but the world.

And what I have been able to discover is despite the fact that a rather significant number of them seem to pride themselves on being quite well informed, in reality most, if not all, of them are anything but. Whether it’s on the subject of Obamacare, the economy, unemployment, the growing number of scandals that surrounds Barry "Almighty", or even how we should go about combating terrorism, they are all pretty much oblivious to all that’s going on around them.

Most of them are members of one minority group or another, and as the only white guy in the immediate area I am officially outnumbered. And, quite frankly, that should tell you all that you need to know right there. And, as I’m sure many of you might have already guess, I’m quite sure most of them are Democrats. And as I listen it’s many of things that I hear many of them complaining about that were brought about by the very ones that they voted for.

And yet when you try to point that inconvenient truth out them, very tactfully of course, they simply look at you like they have no idea what on Earth you’re talking about. It’s really quite amazing. And what I find it as being pretty funny is how a few them claim they are independents, saying that they are fed up with both parties and therefore don’t belong to either. But whenever you listen to them talking about certain issues, it’s very clear they are Democrats.

Now keep in mind most, but certainly not all, of these folks are fairly well educated, so I can’t really say that they’re simply too stupid to know any better. So might they be the product of their environment when growing up or a college education? But either way, many do have children and yet seem to be bothered very little by the fact that they have become the willing accomplices in the burying of those children under what has become a mountain of debt.

What I can’t seem to impress upon them is the fact that we simply can no longer go on this way. Personally I am very worried about the current state of not only my country, but the world as well. And I fear that we may have now moved well beyond the point of no return. We seem more proof of that every single day and yet people continue to move through life as if we can just keep on going the way we are. But to do so is nothing short of delusional.

And for whatever the reason, and nearly to a person, they either choose to ignore, or simply cannot comprehend, the fact that the Democrat Party in this country has but one mission. And that mission to bring about the complete collapse of this country, and it’s taking place right in front of their eyes. I fail to understand how anyone can look at what’s going on and deny that that is what they are trying to do. I mean even a crazy person will run from a burning theater.

These people choose to ignore completely the fact that the day will come when we, as a nation, will required to pay back all that we have borrowed. Commonsense should tell you that! Use your own household budget as an example. When have you ever been able to borrow money without having to pay it back? And they seem not to care that while they may escape the likely repercussions, it’s unlikely that their children will be as fortunate. And I wonder if any of them will ever wake up.

RIDDLE ME THIS, WHEN IS A ‘WAR’ NOT A ‘WAR’???

With the arrival of Barry onto the scene back in 2009, it was in fairly short order that there was a change in nomenclature regarding how we were to refer to the "War on Terror". Because word quickly went out that it was now to be called an "Overseas Contingency Operation." Apparently very little has changed, because according to John Kerry-Heinz our battle with the group ISIS is not to be referred to as a ‘war’ but instead as a "counter-terrorism operation."

Here are but a few of the questions put to Kerry-Heinz on Thursday along with his various and, quite frankly, rather idiotic responses:

"Will this be another presidency defined by a war in Iraq?" NBC asked Kerry-Heinz:

Kerry-Heinz responded by saying, "No. No. I’m convinced it will not be." And then he went onto say, "Iraq has its own government now. Iraqis are making these decisions. Iraq does not want American combat troops on the ground. Iraq wants to win back its future."

Kerry-Heinz then proceeded to drone on as only he can, saying, "And I believe what we are engaged in is not a full-fledged war like we were before; it’s a heightened level of counter-terrorism operation, and it will have its own pace, its own dynamic, but it’s counter-terrorism, and it is happening -- not because the Iraq experiment failed -- but because ISIL came about and invaded Iraq and the military dropped the ball and obviously there were expectations of them standing up that didn’t hold up."

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

And then he was asked by CBS, "Is the U.S. at war with ISIS?":

And he answered saying, "Well, we’re engaged in a major counter-terrorism operation -- and it’s going to be a long-term counter-terrorism operation. I think 'war' is the wrong terminology and analogy, but the fact is that we are engaged in a very significant global effort to curb terrorist activity, and it’s unfortunately too prevalent in certain parts of the world, and in certain cases represents a direct threat to the United States and to our interests in those regions. So we’re going to have to, obviously, be super focused on that.

"But I don’t think people need to get into war fever on this. I think they have to view it as a heightened level of counter-terrorist activity. It’s – have a slightly higher level of activity, but it’s not dissimilar to what we’ve been doing the last few years with al-Qaida in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and in Yemen and elsewhere."

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

And then it was CNN who piped up and told Kerry-Heinz, "Is the United States at war with ISIS? It sure sounds from the President’s speech that we are."

And Kerry-Heinz said, "I think that’s the wrong terminology." And he went on to say, "What we are doing is engaging in a very significant counter-terrorism operation, and it’s going to go on for some period of time. If somebody wants to think about it as being at war with ISIL, they can do so.

Adding finally, "But the fact is it’s a major counter-terrorism operation that will have many different moving parts, many different things that one doesn’t think of normally in context of war. But it’s an effort to destroy them ultimately through that counter-terrorism approach."

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

Kerry-Heinz was asked by ABC, "The president stayed away from saying that we’re at war with ISIS. Is the U.S. at war with ISIS?"

"No," Kerry-Heinz said. "Look, we’re engaged in a counter-terrorism operation of a significant order. And counter-terrorism operations can take a long time, they go on. I think 'war' is the wrong reference term with respect to that, but obviously it involves kinetic military action. It has its dangers, and – but it’s critical to the security of the United States and in this case to global security because of the reach of ISIS.

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

State Department spokesmoron Marie Harf and Barry adviser Anita Dunn have also used the phrase "counter-terrorism operation" to describe the bombing of hostile targets in Iraq and Syria. So I guess by not using the term ‘war’ means that one is not actually involved in a ‘war’? But then, can it even be called a war when only one of the combatants actually views it as such? And how can you ever expect to win a war when you can’t even bring yourself to identify it as being a war?