OBAMA’S NEW AG, JUST ANOTHER POLITICAL HACK???

It would appear that we are once again going down that very familiar path where the most important quality possessed by yet another of Barry’s appointees is a blind adherence to the same failed, freedom smothering, leftist ideology. She of whom I speak is none other than Loretta Lynch, the political hack whose name was most recently placed into nomination for attorney general to replace the outgoing hack, Eric Holder.

Ms. Lynch has quite the history of not only supporting and fighting for leftist causes, but also for having donated to leftist candidates. Because it’s according to OpenSecrets.gov that we see how it was between 2004 and 2008 that Lynch contributed over $10,000 to Democrat candidates, which, as it just so happened, also include donations to Barry’s presidential campaign. So might this nomination be something in the way of payback?

Barry said at the time he place her name in nomination that, "It’s pretty hard to be more qualified for this job than Loretta." But that would depend on how is it that one might define, ‘qualified.’ He then went on to say, "Loretta has spent her life fighting for fair and equal justice that is the foundation of our democracy. I can think of no better public servant to be our next Attorney General." What she has been fighting for is certainly not fair and equal justice.

Barry’s opportunity to appoint the esteemed Ms. Lynch to a position allowing her to wield a certain amount of power in his behalf came back on May 3, 2010 when he appointed her the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York. And it was according to the Department of Justice (DOJ) that, "Before returning to the office as United States Attorney in 2010, Ms. Lynch was a partner in the New York office of Hogan & Hartson L.L.P."

And it was during her tenure at Hogan & Hartson L.L.P. that Lynch donated $14,800 to Democrat candidates with $4,600 of that amount going to Barry’s campaign. In addition to Barry, Lynch donated $4,200 to Democrat Chris Owens who campaigned for Congress during the 2005-2006 federal election cycle, and she also volunteered for Barry’s campaign and organized an effort called "Brooklyn for Barack."

Lynch also donated $1,000 to Chris Owens’ father, former Rep. Major Owens (D-N.Y.), another politician who endorsed Barry for president. In addition to these donations, Lynch also contributed Democrat Senate candidates - $1,000 to Jim Neal, $2,000 to Steve Novick, $1,000 to Tom Strickland and $1,000 to Ron Kirk. So what we have here is someone who very clearly demonstrates that which Barry goes looking for when looking to fill positions.

So once again what we have here is someone whom we’re expected to believe will be impartial in enforcing the nation’s laws, but who in reality is just another hack politician who if confirmed will simply do the bidding of her boss, assisting him in any what she can to move his leftist agenda ‘forward.’ Which as we have seen on more than one occasion is, next to race, the primary qualifier for one to be appointed by Barry in the first place.

OPINION OF OBAMACARE SINKS EVEN LOWER…

As the second open enrollment period for Obamacare officially kicks off, it’s at the same time that we have a new survey which would seem to indicate that the number of Americans who actually approve of the healthcare law has now hit upon that which is an all new low. Now whether or not that has anything to do with our ongoing ‘Gruber-gate’, and the accusations of voters being pretty stupid, that has yet to be determined.

This recent Gallup survey reveals that only 37 percent of respondents now support Barry’s signature domestic policy, which Republicans, set to control both houses of Congress, are hoping to repeal or, to at least, replace. And that figure is one percent less than in January when just 38 percent said they approved of the law at a time when the country was still reeling from the multitude of glitches on the federal Obamacare website, HealhCare.gov.

It’s in the new poll that a majority of Americans, or 56 percent, said they disapproved of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), aka Obamacare, which is one percent higher than the previous number in that category. And I suppose it should come as no surprise that Gallup said that the results were split along party lines, with Democrats supporting Obamacare at a much higher percentage than Republicans, 74 percent to just 8 percent.

Also according to Gallup, the approval number for independents, who have never really got behind Obamacare, fell 6 points in a month to 33 percent. Although the research showed that a majority of nonwhites still approved of the law, the number fell by 6 points to 56 percent – the first time nonwhite approval did not exceed 60 percent. Furthermore, only 29 percent of whites now approve of the law.

Gallups, Justin McCarthy said, "Americans have never been overly positive toward the ACA, at best showing a roughly equal division between approval and disapproval early on in the law's implementation." He went on to say, "The percentage of Americans who approve of the law represents a new numerical low, which could indicate a loss of faith in the law amid the aftermath of the 2014 midterms." Gee, ya think?

And apparently he felt it necessary to add, "Although the ACA, also called Obamacare, was not as dominant an issue in this year's congressional elections as it was in 2010, the issue was part of Republicans' campaign efforts to oppose the president's agenda overall. In doing that, many of the party's candidates were successful." While there may be some truth to what he says, there was, in more than a few races, a definite focus on Obamacare.

Now you would think that the information put forth by this latest survey might serve to provide to our newly elected Republican congressional majority with some level of motivation and to also serve as encouraging them to grow at least a little backbone. Backbone sufficient enough to encourage them to at least attempt to remove, once and for all, this costly burden placed on the backs of the American people by the Democrats. We’ll just have to wait and see.

THE SEEKING OF POLITICAL POWER AT ALL COSTS…

Yup, down here in Florida we like to make sure that we’re sending only the best and brightest off to Washington to represent us. If only that were true. Recently it was one of our resident morons, Rep. Frederica Wilson who was asked whether the Constitution grants Barry "Almighty" the authority to unilaterally convert illegal aliens into legal residents. This reject from a nut farm didn’t really answer the question, but said, "ask the president."

At a Politic365 event at the National Press Club, it was an enterprising reporter who asked Rep. Wilson, "Does the Constitution give President Obama the authority to unilaterally convert.." Wilson interrupted saying, "the Constitution?" But the undeterred report continued, "convert illegal aliens into legal residents in the United States?" Wilson responded, "You’re going have to ask the president that. That’s a question for the president -- not for me."

The reporter continued, "Do you think that putting them [illegal aliens] on a path to citizenship would help the unemployed in America?" Wilson, who’s about as bright as that other imbecile from here in Florida, Corrine Brown, said, "You have to ask the people who research that, I’m not researching that right now." So we have a member of Congress who would first need to do some ‘research’ on what powers the president is granted by the Constitution?

Barry has said, on any number of occasions, that he fully intends to take unilateral action to give illegal aliens a path to be legal, if Congress does not act. Yet according to Article 1, Section 8 of the U. S. Constitution, it’s Congress that has that power, not the Executive branch. It’s the Constitution that states, and very clearly so, that, "Congress shall have the power… to establish a uniform rule of naturalization."

"Executive amnesty is a sham," said Richard Kelsey, an assistant dean at George Mason Law School. "It is both an improper extension of executive power and crime." He said, "Neither the Constitution nor any federal law permits the president to grant amnesty to illegal aliens. Moreover, the president has no legal authority to direct his administrative state to defer, suspend or stop deportations." Hence the reason behind his being referred to as a ‘lawless’ president."

While Barry does have the authority to issue executive orders, Congress has the power of the purse, meaning the House must decide whether, or not, to fund any of Barry’s very clearly unconstitutional actions, including any form of immigration amnesty, Obamacare, or even Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider. Barry views the presidency differently than most other men, he views it only as a tool and as a means to an end.

The question is, will our Republican Congress have the political courage to do what is necessary to reign in this president? Because as much as these guys like to sound like they’re willing to stand up to him, who can remember the last time they did so? Our Republic has been moved into a very precarious position where it can be said to hanging by a thread, and what we need is for our newly elected majority to exhibit a little backbone and save what’s left of the country.

ME WORK? NO, I’D RATHER NOT …

Well, it would seem that Barry "Almighty" has been able to make great strides in his dogged determination to "fundamentally transform" America over the course of the last 6 years. And we seem to have now gotten to the point that has me wondering, even after gaining control of Congress and are lucky enough to win the White House in 2016, if we will ever be able to reverse any of, or very much of, what Barry has been able to set into motion.

And one of the issues that serves to point that out is the topic of my discussion here. The fact is that we now have nearly four in 10 Americans, or 92 million, who are no longer in the labor force. And the reason why is because they have simply given up and don’t really want to work. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the largest group of people not in the labor force are those who don’t want a job, a rather remarkable statement on the nation’s work ethic.

The federal job counter said that 85.9 million adults last month didn’t want a job, or 93 percent of all adults not in the labor force. A Pew Research Center analysis out just today dug a bit deeper to find out exactly who those people might be. And come to find out it’s many of our younger Americans who seem far less interested, today, in landing a job than previous generations, possibly discouraged by the lack of good-paying jobs.

Pew said that 39 percent of 16- to 24-year-olds don’t want to work, and that number is up from 29 percent back in 2000. And it’s courtesy of this analysis that we find out that it’s women who especially don’t want a job, although men have similar feelings. This Pew analysis said, "Women are more likely than men to say they don’t want a job, although the gap has been narrowing — especially since the Great Recession."

And it went on to say, "Last month, 28.5 percent of men said they didn’t want a job, up from 23.9 percent in October 2000 and 25.2 percent in October 2008. For women, the share saying they didn’t want a job hovered around 38 percent throughout the 2000s but began creeping up in 2010, reaching 40.2 percent last month." Should we be surprised by this? After all, how many times have we heard from Democrats that people shouldn’t have to work if they don’t ‘want’ to?

WE’RE DROWNING IN A SEA OF DEBT…

Well it would seem that the federal government, in its infinite wisdom, is picking up in this new fiscal year exactly where it left off in the old one, by working to increase our already massive national debt. We begin FY-2015 by setting yet another new record for inflation-adjusted tax revenue, while at the same time running a deficit of $121.7 Billion, or an amount that equates to $1050.78 for every household here in these United States.

Now stop and think about this for a second, for each and every $1.00 that the Treasury brought in during the month of October the federal government turned right around and spent $1.57. Now what do you think would happen to you, and very short order, if that was the way that you chose to operate your own household budget. Especially since you do not enjoy the same luxury that Barry does, that of being able to print and endless supply of your own money.

So essentially what we have here is the continuation of what has become a very disturbing little trend here going all the way back to when it was that our current president was first election. Granted, the government has always, or nearly always, had the nasty habit of spending more than it has taken in, but never to the extent that has taken place during the presidency of one Barry "Almighty". And we’re still stuck with this guy for another two years.

During FY-2014, which ended on Sept. 30, the federal government took in the record amount of $3,020,809,000,000 in revenue but still ran a deficit of $483,336,000,000. In October, the first month of fiscal year 2015, total federal revenues were $212,719,000,000, according to data released by the Treasury. But federal spending was 334,432,000,000 for the month, which created a deficit of $121,713,000,000.

There are, today, 115,831,000 households in the United States. The federal government’s $121,713,000,000 deficit for the month equals $1,050.78 per each of those households. In constant 2014 dollars, the $212,719,000,000 in tax receipts the federal Treasury raked in during October is the most revenue ever for that month of the year. The next closest year was 2001. That October, the Treasury took in $211,234,700,000 in constant 2014 dollars.

The biggest source of federal tax revenue during the month of October came in the form of the individual income tax. During the month, taxpayers forked over an economy-stifling amount of $106,661,000,000 in these taxes to the Treasury. But that’s not all, taxpayers were also made to hand over another $73,581,000,000 in the form of payroll taxes covering the cost of Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment insurance.

Now while it would be welcome news to hear that our freshly minted Republican congressional majority plans to take the necessary measures to get things under control, I’d be considered as being pretty naïve if I were say that I actually believed they will grab the bull by the horns and reel in our out of control Executive Branch. Our ‘leaders’ have already said they’ll do nothing that might result in a government shut down, so what else is really left?

These are perilous times that we now find ourselves in. And as they say, dangerous times call for dangerous measures. And in this case we’re talking about measures that could prove ‘politically’ dangerous. And because they’re ‘politically’ dangerous, the chances that they will be undertaken are pretty remote. So therefore we will likely continue on our present course while, at the same time, being inundated by all manner of rhetoric until the end finally comes.

GRUBER…A PAWN OF THE GOP???

 

 

It should come as no surprise to anyone that the sleazy little group over at the White House is vehemently denouncing comments made by key Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber regarding how it was that a complete lack of transparency combined with the overwhelming stupidity of voters proved instrumental in the passage of Obamacare. Instead this group of thugs seem to be busily pointing their collective finger at the Republicans because, apparently, we’re supposed to believe that this boob Gruber is nothing but a pawn of those seeking the repeal of this disaster.

And it was White House Spokesmoron Josh Earnest, himself, who said during a press briefing in Burma, "The fact of the matter is, the process associated with the writing and passing and implementing of the Affordable Care Act has been extraordinarily transparent." And when asked about Gruber’s claim that Obamacare wouldn’t have passed if the administration was more transparent and voters more intelligent, this imbecile actually responded by saying, "I disagree vigorously with that assessment." Well of course he does, what else should we expact?

And then this moron proceeded to take things a step further when he made the idiotic claim that, "It is Republicans who have been less than forthright and transparent about what their proposed changes to the Affordable Care Act would do in terms of the choices that are available to middle class families." Earnest said the president "is proud of the transparent process that was undertaken to pass that bill into law." Knowing Barry "Almighty" as we all do, I’m quite sure that he is very proud of the process that was utilized in the passage of this debacle.

The response from the White House came as a third video of Gruber criticizing the intelligence of American voters surfaced. Gruber said in remarks from 2012, "We just tax the insurance companies, they pass on higher prices that offsets the tax break we get, it ends up being the same thing. It’s a very clever, you know, basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter." And yet, to hear Earnest talk, you’d think that Gruber was under the employ of the Republicans in their effort to repeal Barry’s signature accomplishment.

Gruber has been causing headaches for the White House as conservatives have had a field day that began comments the MIT professor made in 2013. Gruber said at the time, according to one of the video that has recently come to light, "Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter, or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass." Those of us who were paying attention back during the scam that was the passage of this thing, remember seeing very little actual transparency.

And it was in yet another video clip of a separate event, while talking about tax credits in the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, that he said, "American voters are too stupid to understand the difference." And of course Gruber apologized for the comments earlier this week during an appearance, saying on MSNBC’s "Ronan Farrow Daily": "I was speaking off the cuff, and I was basically speaking inappropriately, and I regret having made those comments." What I’m sure that this asshole regrets, is getting caught on tape saying what he said.

And as Trey Gowdy so eloquently put it during a recent appearance on Fox News, when it comes to the comments made repeatedly by Gruber, it becomes increasingly difficult to separate the irony from the arrogance. He said, "I can’t get past the irony to even get to the arrogance," he said, remarking that the "most transparent administration" had to use deception to get its legislation passed. Gowdy slammed Gruber for insulting the intelligence of the very same people who managed to put Barry "Almighty" into office not once, but twice.

And he said of Obamacare, "We were sold a false bill of goods … and they’re laughing all the way to the bank." Gowdy had a warning for Americans: keep this in mind the next time anyone tries to sell you a comprehensive piece of legislation. "Comprehensive is Latin for ‘there’s lots of bad stuff in here,’" he said. And Gowdy had a message for his fellow citizens: fool me once, shame on you, ever fool me again, shame on us. And we would be wise to take his warning to heart, because while we may have control of Congress, we still stuck with Barry for 2 years.

BOEHNER IS JUST PLAIN USELESS…

I freely admit that I have never, ever, been a fan of John Boehner, and I have felt going all the way back to 2010 that we would be doing ourselves a huge favor if we were to come up with a different Speaker. Someone like a Trey Gowdy, for instance. Because whenever listening to Boehner you never really know out of which side of his mouth he is speaking.

For instance, it was in his very first post-election press conference that Boehner was heard to say, "My job is to listen to the American people. The American people have made it clear, they're not for Obamacare. Ask all those Democrats who lost their elections Tuesday night." Sorry, but claiming to be listening to the American people and acting like it, are two very different things.

Because in listening to what he said during that same press conference, I think there may be some doubt that he’s really listening. He said, "So, the House, I'm sure, at some point next year, we'll move to repeal Obamacare because it should be repealed and it should be replaced with common sense reforms that respect the doctor/patient relationship."

Now it’s time to put your thinking caps on and let’s try to decipher what it was that Boehner was REALLY saying. Was he saying that: He intends for the House to terminate implementation of Obamacare at some point in the next year, or was he actually saying that he intends for the House to ensure Obamacare is implemented next year? Which is it?

And Boehner also said, "You've all heard me say, starting two years ago yesterday, that our immigration system is broken and needs to be fixed. But I've made clear to the president that if he acts unilaterally on his own, outside of his authority, he will poison the well and there will be no chance for immigration reform moving in this Congress. It's as simple as that."

So everyone put those thinking caps back on one more time and tell me what you think that Boehner might really have been telling us. Was he saying that: He intends for the House to stop Barry "Almighty" from unilaterally and unconstitutionally granting amnesty to illegal aliens, OR that he intends for the House to permit Barry to do so. Again, which is it?

Boehner also said, "I believe that we need to ... address the debt that's hurting our economy and imprisoning the future of our kids and grandkids." So again, did he mean that he intends for the House to significantly cut spending in its next long-term funding bill, OR did he mean that he intends for the House to approve a new long-term funding bill that includes all of the spending that Barry wants?

Back on Sept. 18, the House Republican leaders ‘pushed’ through a short-term continuing resolution to fund the government until Dec. 11. What this CR did was to punt all substantive issues until after the election. It fully funded Obamacare, including the regulation that requires individual Christians to buy coverage for abortion-inducing drugs even if that violates their religious faith.

As well, it fully funded Planned Parenthood, the nation's leading abortion provider. And it did absolutely nothing to stop Barry from using money from the Treasury to implement an unconstitutional unilateral amnesty granting legal status to illegal aliens. They say actions speak louder than words, and Boehners actions do not lead one to believe that Boehner is listenings.

By agreeing to a CR that expires on Dec. 11 rather than Jan. 11, the House Republican leaders not only ensured that they would not need to fight with Barry over any significant issues before the election, they also made it possible to prevent incoming Republican majorities in both houses from having any substantive say over major policy issues until at least next September.

Prior to the election, Politico published a story based on an interview with House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy. Politico reported that McCarthy "would like to use the lame-duck session to pass a long-term government-funding bill, so Washington can begin focusing on big-picture legislating, instead of just trying to keep government's doors open."

In plain English what is intended here is for the Republican leaders to cut a spending deal with Barry and out-going Senate Majority Leader ‘Dingy Harry’ Reid in December before the new Republican majorities in the House and Senate are sworn in. Such a deal would run through Sept. 30 of next year and would be like the deal Republican leaders cut with Barry and Reid this past September.

Because it would then permit Barry to spend money doing everything he truly finds important. And it would allow the new Republican Congress to hold a string of symbolic votes next year on stand-alone pieces of legislation that Obama can afford to veto without shutting down the whole government or even part of it. Barry will get substance. Republicans will get symbols.

Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama is calling for a different strategy. He wants to actually prevent Barry from unilaterally granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. "He must be stopped," Sessions wrote in a commentary for Politico this week. And I agree. Our leaders cannot be timid in taking whatever measures necessary to stop Barry, it’s why they were elected!

Barry's amnesty, Sessions said, "cannot be implemented if Congress simply includes routine language on any government funding bill prohibiting the expenditure of funds for this unlawful purpose. This is the same way we prevented the president from closing Guantanamo Bay. Such application of congressional power is ordinary, unexceptional, and used thousands of times.

"Congress has the power of the purse," said Sessions. "The president cannot spend a dime unless Congress appropriates it." The ONLY way Barry can carry out a unilateral amnesty, implement Obamacare, or attack religious liberty is if Boehner's House once again gives him the money to do it.

Over the course of the next two years we are going to have to keep a very close eye on not only Mr. Boehner, but every single Republican member of Congress. A little micro-management of these folks is not only required, by very necessary. We simply can no longer afford to accept at face value anything that they tell us. They work for us, we must not allow them to forget that!

DEMOCRATS SEEM TO BE ON THE SHIT-LIST OF MANY AMERICANS…

Something I’m quite sure is nothing more than a short term problem, since we voters are such a stupid lot, is the fact that the favorability factor for the Democrat Party seems to have now hit what’s being referred to as a record low as things now go from bad to worse for the party that suffered a pretty significant midterm defeat. A defeat that we will not know the full extent of until early next month. At least so says a newly released Gallup poll.

According to the Gallup poll released just today, apparently only 36 percent of those taking part in this poll had a favorable view of the Democrat Party, and that’s a 6-percentage-point drop from before the midterms. Also noted is the fact that with the GOP now possessing a 42 percent favorability, it is the first time since 2011 that the GOP has had a higher rating than the Democrats. I’m just not sure if this is something what will last all that long.

It was also noted that the favorability rating for Democrats is the party’s lowest since Gallup began asking the question back in 1992. Now it would be nice to think that the reason behind this new low is the fact that the American people are finally beginning to wise-up and see through what it is that the Democrats are really up to. But I think that’s far too much to hope for. Most likely what we are seeing here is nothing more than a short-lived moment of political clarity.

The polling firm said in a statement, "After the 2012 election, many political analysts focused on the GOP’s ‘image problem’." And it went on to say, "Now, it is the Democrats who appear to have the more battered image. Their favorability rating has never been lower, and they are reeling from defeats that cost them control of the U.S. Senate and strengthened the Republican House majority to levels likely not seen in 90 years."

But Gallup continued, saying, "On the other hand, the American public does not admire Republicans more, their numerous election victories notwithstanding." Adding, "Neither party can say it is making significant progress in improving its image among the U.S. population, but undoubtedly the 2014 elections augmented the GOP’s ability to shape the agenda in Washington and in state capitals across the country."

As for myself I have my own reasons for despising the Democrat Party. Only one of which is its deep-seated hatred of America. It’s also because of the fact that Democrats have no qualms whatsoever when it comes to the taking more of the money that I work so very hard for, thus preventing me from being able to spend it on those things that I want. Instead, I’m forced to hand more and more of my money to the government so that Democrats’ can then purchase votes.

And I guess what worries me the most about this news is the fact that it may serve to many in the Republican Party as motivation, of a sort, to act, or to not act, in a way that, in the hope of being able to increase their favorability over the course of the next 24 months as we head into 2016. And therefore it could come to have what would be an adverse impact on their willingness to do those things that we all know need to be done and that we elected them to do.

KEEPIN’ MY FINGERS CROSSED…

So here we are now with the election finally behind us. And I wonder how many of you out there are, like me, hoping for the best, but at the same time fearing the worst. The truth is I simply could not stay home on Election Day, just as I couldn’t bring myself to vote for a Democrat. So I did the only thing that would allow me to get any sleep at night, I voted straight Republican. While doing so, I must admit, there was a little voice in my head warning me.

And then, I think, it was just yesterday that I was reading somewhere that Paul Ryan vowed that he had enough Republican support to get immigration reform done. And I couldn’t help but wonder what it was that he might have meant by "enough Republicans". Did he mean that there are now enough Republicans willing to stand with ALL of the Democrats so that amnesty could be pushed through Congress in much the same manner that Obamacare was?

Since the morning after the night before I’ve been hearing all manner of grandiose plans coming from those who will comprise our newly minted Senate majority as well as our expanded majority in the House. Some of which have been more than a bit disconcerting, and much of which I can’t help but wonder if it is nothing more than just a lot of talk. We will be required to keep a very close eye on those whom we just elected, they are not to be trusted.

ONE MAN’S BENEFICIARY IS ANOTHER MAN’S PARASITE…

ben•e•fi•ci•ar•y/noun - a person who derives advantage from something, especially a trust, will, or life insurance policy.

par·a·site/noun - parasite; plural noun: parasites - an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense/derogatory - a person who habitually relies on or exploits others and gives nothing in return.

The government today has a rather peculiar way of identifying those who have come to depend more and more upon government. These people are not called dependents, as that might be construed in such a as to be perceived as being demeaning in some way, so they are instead referred to as, ‘beneficiaries’. As in, say, those ‘beneficiaries’ who are on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, receiving food stamps. The number of these ‘beneficiaries’ has now topped 46,000,000 for 36 straight months, at least according to new data released by the Department of Agriculture (USDA), the agency responsible for administering the program.

In the period of time from September 2011 through August 2014, the latest month for which data is available, the number of persons participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) has exceeded 46 Million. In August 2014, again according to USDA, there were 46,484,828 so-called ‘beneficiaries’ of the SNAP program. That number was down slightly, or 2,060 ‘beneficiaries’, from the 46,486,888 who were receiving food stamps in July. However, at the same time, the number of households getting food stamps increased from 22,716,152,000 in July to 22,729,389 in August.

Given that there were 115,048,000 households in the country as of August, at least according to the Census Bureau, 22,729,389 of households on food stamps equaled 19.75 percent of all households in the nation. Households on food stamps in July got an average of $253.69 in August 2014, and in that month alone program benefits cost taxpayers $5,766,107,973. The 46,484,828 people getting food stamps in the United States in August continued to outnumber the entire populations of such countries as Poland, with it’s population of 38,346,279, Argentina with 43,024,374 citizens and Ukraine with 22,291,413. Pretty impressive!

Personally I have my own nomenclature for those who absolutely no problem with living off the rest of us. You see, I have a rather difficult time understanding how it is that someone can be said to benefit from being dependent upon, even in a small way, on the government. I view these people as being little more than parasites. Once upon a time, far from being seen as being a benefit, being dependent upon the government to any degree, was seen as being nothing short of an embarrassment, but not today in the ‘Era of Barry.’ Because being a parasite today has become something akin to being a badge of honor.

HOW OBAMA ‘COMPROMISES’…

Once again we are being provided with further proof of Barry’s rather peculiar definition of ‘compromise.’ A definition that makes it quite clear that ‘compromise’ is always left for the other guy with no other option than to agree with Barry’s ‘my-way-or-the-highway’ mentality. Because Barry, for whenever reason, sees immigration reform as being something in need of being urgently addressed, something that simply cannot wait until the new Congress is sworn in resulting in him losing his amnesty favoring Senate majority. Barry has made it very clear that he intends to issue an order easing the threat against deportation for immigrants in the country illegally.

And plans to act despite any warnings from Republican leaders that he would be poisoning the well with a newly elected GOP-controlled Congress. Barry told CBS' "Face the Nation" that even if he goes ahead, there still would be room for Congress to pass immigration legislation. He claims that if Congress does act, it would take the place of whatever he puts into place by his own authority Barry is expected to issue an order before the end of the year because he says the issue simply cannot wait until early next year. It's a step that incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner both warned against in postelection news conferences.

What’s Barry is attempting do here is just all so transparent. The action that Barry claims is now so urgently needed on immigration reform boils down to, like everything else with this guy, the politics of the issue. It’s not that he is motivated out of any actual concern for the families who have become separated because someone has made the conscious decision to break our laws. What he is motivated by is that he sees an opportunity where he may be able to avoid, by the creating millions of new Democrat voters, the type of shellacking that his party experienced this past Election Day, as well as back in 2010. So he needs to act quickly, before the new Congress is sworn in.

So the question that remains is whether or not the Republican controlled Congress, which comes into being next January, will have the guts to use every tool at its disposal to limit, or to prevent, that which Barry has made very clear that he fully intends to do. Barry seems to cares no more for the laws of our country than do those who remain in this country illegally. Republicans must find the courage to hit Barry in the one vital spot that he has, funding. If Barry is not provided with the necessary funding, then the amount of damage he will be able to do to this country, for his remaining two years in office, can be limited. The question that remains, is do the Republicans have the necessary resolve?

THERE’S JUST NEVER ANY GOOD NEWS ABOUT OBAMACARE…

Does anyone ever remember hearing even one piece of honest-to-goodness good news that can, in any way, be tied to Obamacare? This thing has been nothing but a unmitigated disaster from its very inception. And now, apparently, Barry’s administration, just today, has now dramatically cut expectations for 2015 Obamacare enrollment, saying that between 9 million and 9.9 million people will enroll in private health plans, compared with a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) forecast of 13 million.

From the creation of this thing to the disastrous rollout to its continued implementation, this thing has only proceeded to get worse. And now, in a reports published by ‘Team Barry’, released just before the start of 2015 open enrollment on Saturday, we see that the official count of 2014 enrollment has been reduced to 7.1 million people as of Oct. 15, from 7.3 million in August. The change resulted in part from 112,000 people losing coverage because of unresolved application issues involving their citizenship or immigration status.

The CBO, which has been a leading enrollment forecaster for Obamacare up to now, predicted that the private insurance marketplaces set up by the Affordable Care Act, aka "Obamacare," would reach 25 million paying customers by 2017. But I think that we can now safely assume, and with some degree of certainty, that that isn’t likely to happen. There has never been much truth to any of the numbers that we have continually heard being thrown around when it comes to what this train wreck was supposed to do.

But Monday's first-of-its-kind prediction by ‘Team Barry’ assumes that the marketplaces could take two years longer to fully mature, partly as a result of a slower than anticipated shift to Obamacare coverage by people who now obtain benefits from employers or through private plans sold outside the marketplaces. Officials also said that 120,000 U.S. households will also come to face higher coverage costs, including the potential loss of federal subsidies, because of unresolved 2014 application issues involving income levels.

This debacle provides the very best example yet of just how it is that the government should never be entrusted with the handling of something as important to every single American as how it is that they procure their healthcare. There are very few things that the government is capable of doing and doing well. It used to be able to be said that the military was the one thing that the government could do very well. But under the ‘leadership’ of Barry, even that has become a not much more than just a second rate operation.

And ya know, let’s not forget what was that true motivation behind the Democrats working so hard to breath life into this government created disaster in the first place. Because try as they might to convince us that their intentions were so honorable, in point of fact they were anything but. So we shouldn’t allow ourselves be fooled. There was but one motivating factor for the creation of this boondoggle, and it had nothing to do with concern for the uninsured. It was, and remains, all about how better to control the American people.

NANCY PELOSI AND THAT RIVER IN EGYPT…

According to Nancy Pelosi who, come January, will see the size of her flock there in the House shrink by a factor of 12, and maybe more, the Democrats didn't lose Tuesday's midterm elections because voters don't like the Democrat Party's message, on the contrary, they lost because Democrat voters simply stayed away from the polls.

Apparently it was during what was a rather lengthy phone call just a couple days after the election that Nancy told her caucus members, "Next year has to be the year to expand the universe of people who vote. I'm concerned that eligible voters did not vote in the election this year." But why is it that she thinks that stayed home?

Nancy said, "We have the magic and the resources to have massive voter registration over the country — not just places that might benefit the Democrats." And she then went on to say, "I don't care if they vote for a Republican, just so [long as] they vote, get in the game, are counted, and people will pay attention to what their concerns are."

If Nancy was being honest with herself, as well as with those in her caucus, she wouldn’t have been focused on excuses and would have recognized the fact that House Democrats would likely have had difficulty taking back the chamber even if more voters had turned out, as several factors were working against them. But it’s just easier to make excuses.

Barry's popularity ratings have been dropping all year, and many Americans are frustrated by the economy and concerned over the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, the Ebola outbreak, and the thousands of immigrants who crossed the nation's southern border earlier this year. Many Republicans connected House races to Barry, and many Democrats are blaming Barry as a result.

"We lost all over because people weren't motivated to come out to vote," New York Democrat Rep. Jerrold Nadler said during the call. He added, "And the whole campaign — not just the campaign, but the whole zeitgeist for years — has been the president who has the bully pulpit refusing to attack the Republicans, refusing to differentiate, refusing to defend his own policies."

Connecticut Democrat Rep. Rosa DeLauro also complained that Republicans made their races a national, rather than local, issue. She complained, "We had base voters who were disappointed in the president and who did not come out. ... But what happened in the House was not a result of a House strategy."

Pelosi still believes, however, that Democrats can one day take back the House, even though current district maps won't be redrawn until 2020 and the next Congress to be affected won't take office until at least 2023. She says she remains concerned about the damage, as she frames it, that Republicans will do over the next eight years.

She said, "I don't know any children that can wait that long for us to do the job for them, any families that can withstand, not only this past few years, but eight years projected." And she went on to say, "We can make the change in the voting environment in the year 2015. It's our responsibility." I believe the ‘children’ will be far better served with the Democrats being in the minority for as long as we can keep them there.

SOME OBAMACARE TRIVIA…

So, riddle me this: How many senators who voted ‘For’ Obamacare, now no longer find themselves in the U.S. Senate?

Back on Dec. 24, 2009, when the Democrat-controlled Senate sanctioned Barry’s seizure of our healthcare system, it did so with what was then a filibuster-proof 60-vote majority. At the time they were all quite proud of themselves, while at the same time being completely unaware of what it was that they had unleashed. And what that was, as many of you may remember, was a massive backlash that propelled Republicans to control of the House the very next year.

But the House members were not the only one made to contend with the consequences of what had been a purely political act, committed over the very loud objection by a majority of the American people who were, for the most part, satisfied with the quality of their healthcare. Because over on the Senate side, going into Tuesday’s elections, 25 senators who voted for Obamacare were already out or not going be part of the new Senate being sworn in in January.

To be sure, it wouldn’t be fair to attribute all of the turnover in the Senate to Obamacare. Many senators voted for Obamacare and lost re-election battles in which they were hit hard for their support for the law, and other Democrats were forced to retire because they had no hope of getting re-elected after having added their support to the law. But in some cases, such as John Kerry-Heinz leaving his seat to become secretary of state, or Robert Byrd, who finally died, Obamacare had nothing to do with it.

Additionally, some outgoing pro-Obamacare votes were replaced by new Democrat senators who obviously supported the healthcare takeover. That having been said, as of this writing, 15 Senators who voted for Obamacare either failed to win reelection or declined to run for reelection and had their seats turned over to Republicans. That number is likely to grow once the results are in from the Senate runoff in Louisiana, which Mary Landrieu is expected to lose.

The following is a breakdown of senators who have voted for Obamacare who will not be part of the next Senate.

Lost and replaced by a Republican:
Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska -- lost to Dan Sullivan, R
Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark. -- lost to Rep. Tom Cotton, R-Ark.
Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo. -- lost to Rep. Cory Gardner, R- Colo.
Sen. Kay Hagan, D-N.C. -- lost to Thom Tillis, R
Russ Feingold, D-Wis.
Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark.
Arlen Specter, D-Penn

Left the Senate and was replaced by a Republican:
Jay Rockefeller, D-W.V.
Max Baucus, D-Mont.
Tim Johnson, D-S.D.
Tom Harkin, D-Iowa
Ben Nelson, D-Neb.
Byron Dorgan, D-N.D.
Evan Bayh, D-Ind.
Roland Burris, D-Ill.

Left the Senate and was replaced by a Democrat:
Jim Webb, D-Va.
Joe Lieberman, I-Conn.
Herb Kohl, D-Wis.
Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii
Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M.
Chris Dodd, D-Conn.
Paul Kirk, D-Mass. (appointed to replace Ted Kennedy -- seat later held by Republican Scott Brown)
John Kerry-Heinz, D-Mass.
Ted Kauffman, D-Del.
Kent Conrad, D-N.D.
Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich.

Died in office:
Robert (KKK) Byrd, D-W.V
Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii
Frank Lautenberg, D- N.J

Vulnerable pro-Obamacare Democrats still at risk in 2014:
Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La.

Even though I do think the Democrats can be said to have paid a pretty substantial political price for their having shoved Obamacare through Congress, essentially in the dark of night, they still got what they wanted and we’re still stuck with it. And what the Republicans must be made to understand is that they will likely be made to face the very same fate if, over the course of the next two years, they don’t do EVERYTHING within their newfound power to repeal it.

MARY GIVEN THE OLD HEAVE-HO???

It would appear that since it has now become official that the Democrats have lost their highly coveted majority in the Senate there seems to be little interest in whether or not Mary Landrieu is victorious in her bid for re-election. But then isn’t this how Democrats usually operate? If you’re no good to the party then you’re simply cut loose. So word now comes that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) has, or soon will, cancel all of its advertising reservations for Landrieu ahead of the December runoff there in Louisiana.

The committee decided to cancel all broadcast buys planned to run from Monday through Dec. 6 in all five of the state’s major media markets. That was equal to about $1.6 million worth of time. The DSCC is also now in the process of canceling an additional $275,000 in cable placements, that according to buyer sources. Meanwhile, the National Republican Senatorial Committee ((NRSC) has, by contrast, reserved a total $2.3 million of broadcast ad time over the course of the next month.

DSCC spokesmoron, Justin Barasky, said, "Mary Landrieu is a proven runoff winner, and we support her 100 percent." But, I guess, just not enough to pay for any ads. Barasky went on to say, "We are going to make ongoing determinations on how best to invest in the race. We made the initial reservation when there were concerns that the rates would skyrocket, but they have stabilized, giving us more flexibility to make week-to-week decisions." Just a polite way to say that old Mary is going to be left to fend for herself.

In Tuesday’s election Landrieu finished with 42 percent, or just 16,000 more votes and 1 percentage point ahead of her Republican opponent Bill Cassidy. Her showing came despite the that we had a Tea Party candidate, Rob Maness, in the race who received 14 percent. This provided even more proof, as if we needed any, that voting for these third party candidates creates more problems than it solves. Because in going over the number we find that had this guy not been in the race, Cassidy would have won easily instead of heading to a run off.

Republicans still have $7.2 million in broadcast reservations for the next four weeks in the Bayou State. Cassidy has reserved $1.3 million; Ending Spending and its Super PAC, $1.6 million; the National Rifle Association, $1.1 million; and Freedom Partners, $822,000. The only outside Democrat group with broadcast reservations for the runoff right now is the Humane Society Legislative Fund, which reserved just $101,000 for the final two weeks of the runoff. So Mary may be at a bit of a disadvantage here.

And in the meantime Cassidy is behaving much like a front-runner. On Tuesday night, Landrieu challenged him to six debates. But on Thursday he countered by saying he would agree to only one, on the Monday before the Saturday runoff. And then in an effort to get Barry’s name in stories about his refusal to debate more, Cassidy added his own challenge. In a press release he challenged, "For every time Senator Landrieu barnstorms the state with Barack Obama, I will participate in another debate."

In a two-way race, with lower turnout and the GOP base consolidating behind Cassidy, Landrieu starts as the decided underdog. And also Landrieu now lost what has been a centerpiece of her reelection bid, because even if she is able to pull of a win in the runoff, when the GOP takes control of the Senate in January she’ll no longer be chairwoman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. All that she‘ll be just one more member of the minority party. Not much glamour there.

But on the other hand, it does become a bit more difficult for the Republicans to nationalize this race because the fate of ‘Dingy Harry’ Reid as majority leader has been settle with him being replaced come January by, presumably, Mitch McConnell. Landrieu needs to disqualify Cassidy in the eyes of voters who don’t want to vote for her and she has already begun slinging the mud. On Wednesday, she accused him of opposing veterans and storm relief after Hurricane Isaac and she has attacked him for opposing equal pay legislation and voting to cut Pell Grants.

Landrieu spokesmoron, Fabien Levy, said, "While the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee recalibrates, our campaign for Louisiana’s future still has a lot of juice, a lot of heart, and, most importantly, a strong and positive record to run on." He added, "Our campaign has never been about money or the party, but fighting for the people of Louisiana and delivering for them time and time again, despite the gridlock in Washington. We have the passion and energy necessary for victory on December 6, and are confident we will have the necessary resources from Louisiana voters to win."

Look, as far as I’m concerned, this race is still important, if for no other reason than to use it as an opportunity to send this supporter-of-Obama-97-percent-of-the-time loser back to wherever it is that she came from. The people of Louisiana deserve far better than this race-baiting bitch! Remember now that it was in her desire to win the election outright, this past Tuesday, she essentially accused  every white person in the state she wishes to represent of being a racist. As far as I’m concerned, that disqualifies her from holding public office.

THE ANSWER TO THE DEMOCRATS’ PROBLEMS???

Stung by this week’s pretty impressive defeat at the polls, Democrats on Capitol Hill have begun looking to their leaders to find a new direction to take in the next Congress. The party suffered a long and painful night Tuesday as what was a Republican wave, despite what Juan Williams would have us all believe, swept away its control of the Senate and carried Republicans to their largest majority in the House in almost a century.

But it’s really not all that difficult to come up with the answer to the Democrats’ current dilemma. You see the answer is a relatively simple one, although I’m not so sure I want to let the cat outta the bag. The answer, you see, would be for them to move a little more closer to the center and away from the extreme left which is where the modern day Democrat Party has come to call home. I mean, this ain’t rocket science, by any stretch.

I firmly believe that if the Democrats were only to become a little less hostile toward the very country that they wish to govern, their electoral fortunes might actually improve, and likely by quite a bit. But as long as they exude a level hatred for this country rarely seen in anyone but our most hostile of enemies, most patriotic Americans will simply chose someone else when at the ballot box. Democrats, you see, are their own worst enemy.

Fortunately for the rest of us, most Democrats either don’t view that as being the problem, or they simply refuse to except it. Instead, Democrat leaders have blamed the results on what’s been described as being a perfect storm of circumstances that somehow conspired to make this a historically tough election cycle. It can’t be their desire to kill off small businesses, their conspiring against fossil fuels or their desire to set the American people fighting with each other.

Meanwhile rank-and-file members, cite another factor, that being what they refer to as the timidity shown by Democrat leaders when it comes to confronting the Republicans. The agitated lawmakers have stopped short of calling for a new crop of leaders, so far, but they do want to see the party take a new, more aggressive tack in the next Congress and beyond. But is that what’s really needed? I doubt it, but if that’s their plan. Let ‘em go for it!

Rep. Raúl Grijalva, head of something called the Congressional Progressive Caucus, summed things up by saying, "We spent six years dancing in the middle and not providing an assertive contrast to the Republicans, and we’re paying the price for it." He went on to say, "There has to be an attitude change and a strategy change. I don’t know if that necessarily involves leadership." And then added, "We’re always playing on the defensive."

Tuesday’s election results seemed to catch even the most pessimistic Democrats by surprise. In the Senate, Democrats lost at least seven seats, with three others hanging in limbo Wednesday evening. In the House, Democrats fared better, relatively speaking. While they lost at least 13 seats — with several others still too close to call — that’s roughly half the average number (29) historically lost by the president’s party in a sixth-year midterm.

Still, House Democratic leaders had hoped to keep their losses in the single digits, and the GOP gains are on track to give the Republicans their largest numbers advantage since 1929. One former House Democrat said, Wednesday, that those blaming party leaders for Tuesday’s election results "misunderstand" the real reason behind the Democrats’ tough outing. This Democrat said, "We did as badly as we did yesterday because of where we had to run."

Thomas Mann, congressional expert at the nonpartisan Brookings Institution, said there’s "no gain" for the Democrats in replacing Reid and Pelosi just as the focus is shifting to the newly empowered Republicans. Still, a Democratic strategist said Wednesday that the window on the current crop of party leaders might be nearing a close, especially in the House, where a younger group of up-and-coming lawmakers is itching to get onto the leadership ladder.

But look, as much as Democrats enjoy calling those of us on the right, ‘extreme’, a majority of the American electorate, I think we can safely say, apparently view things a bit differently. Watch any ‘news’ show where you have someone from the right debating someone from the left and it’s within the first 10 seconds it becomes readily apparent which one is the more extreme, even radical, and it’s not the person representing the right.

Frankly I think we have little to fear when it comes to the Democrats’ being able to figure things out for themselves. What should be of more concern to those of us who call ourselves ‘conservative’ is making sure we are able to keep those on our side from wilting under the pressure. The task that lies ahead is not going to be an easy one, we cannot afford to have those on our side to go wobbly. And keeping our side on track will likely be a 24/7 job.

LET’S NOT GET TOO FAR AHEAD OF OURSELVES, SHALL WE…

Don’t get me wrong, I’m plenty happy that the Republicans took control of the Senate and padded their numbers in the House, but I’m hearing some trash-talking that would seem to indicate that we may be letting things go to our head, at least a little bit. And what I mean by that is that I recently heard where Rep. Greg Walden of Oregon, the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, proclaimed Wednesday that Republicans may have built a "hundred-year majority" in the House. What he said was, "We're back to a majority as big as any of us have seen in our lifetimes. It may be a hundred-year majority."

Sounds to me like he may need a little cold water thrown in his face in order to bring back down to Earth. Because there is nothing that points to this as being anything other than a temporary thing that could all come to an end in just two very short years. Granted, House Republicans have swelled their majority to at least 243 and are on track for more pickups that would give them the biggest House majority since the Truman administration more than sixty years ago. But as they say, there are few things in life that are permanent, and that’s especially so when we’re talking politics. I’d hate to see that put to the test.

Republicans could very well end up with as many as 249 seats, which would be the largest House Republican majority since 1930. That's well past their early goal of netting 11 seats for a 245 seat majority in the next Congress. Walden’s language seemed to echo GOP strategist Karl Rove’s dream from ten years ago of building a "permanent" Republican majority in Washington. And in trying to perhaps throttle things back a bit. Daniel Scarpinato, a spokesman for the NRCC, said Walden was merely putting Tuesday’s resounding victory into historical context, not predicting decades of House GOP rule.

Scarpinato went on to say, "His reference to a ‘hundred-year majority’ was that it’s been nearly 100 years since we’ve seen a majority this size." And he made sure to add, "[He] wasn’t suggesting in any way that the majority is safe for 100 years." Personally, I think Walden was a little too quick to open his mouth without thinking. People hear that kind of gibberish and form their own opinion about what he ‘meant’ to say without the benefit of Mr. Scarpinato’s interpretation. It’s idiotic comments like these that make things more difficult than they really need to be. Somebody needs to grab Walden by the short-hairs and tell him to shut up!

Anyway, Walden and other GOP leaders exulted at a press conference at Republican National Committee headquarters after the election and much grandiose plans were discussed. Walden said, "Our party will ultimately be measured by how we govern and that’s what Americans have elected us to do and we’re eager to get to that work." And on that I will most definitely agree with Mr. Walden. But if our Republican majority does little more than to settle for half-measures and providing lip service, this accomplishment of which they now seem to be so proud will come to a premature, as well as a very ugly, end.

Look, this little ego trip that so many now seem to be on, could very easily come back to bite us all in the ass, and such comments could easily have a very adverse effect before the new Congress even gets started. Because unless these folks demonstrate that they are serious about taking care of the ‘people’s’ business, they could very well be in for the same type of ass-kicking in 2016 that the Democrats got this time around. Priority one needs to be the getting rid of Obamacare. If they’re unwilling to do that, this majority that we now have is pretty much worthless. And what we’re already hearing from some of these guys is far from encouraging.

SO NOW WHAT LIES AHEAD???

So here we are on what could very well be, if we are lucky, the verge of what can hopefully be considered as being the next step in our journey to take our country back. Let’s hope that we are able to make it farther along than we were able to after taking that first step back in 2010. And of course if we are able to achieve significant forward movement, then the final step in the process of rescuing our country will be the presidential election in 2016.

But at this particular moment in time there is a great amount of uncertainty in what lies ahead. While it is very welcome news that the Republicans were able to gain complete control of Congress last night, we the people would be nothing but foolhardy if we were to simply allow these same folks to go to Washington without being closely unsupervised. They must be made aware of the fact that our trust cannot be assumed, it must be earned.

Now while it would be nice if we could simply assume that all of these folks could be allowed to run on autopilot, as it were, but to do so would be quite naïve. While I mean no disrespect to our newly elected, and re-elected, leaders, these people will bear watching to make certain that when they finally do arrive there in Washington they are there to conduct only the people’s business, and that promises that were made turn into promises that are kept.

The Republicans have been presented with what is nothing short of a golden opportunity. The voters have shown that they are willing to take a risk on the Republicans. And now we must hope that those who we have elected, and re-elected, will be up to the challenge that lies ahead. And those who have now been entrusted with the task of getting this country back on an even keel must also realize that no second chance will be forthcoming.

And one word of warning involves the lame duck session that now lies in wait because it just might prove itself to be little more than the equivalent of a political minefield. Because we do not know just how much destruction the Democrats will attempt to inflict as many of them now are made to head toward the door. And since our re-enforcements will not yet have arrived, will our current forces possess sufficient courage to fend off any potential Democrat assault?

JUAN WILLIAMS, “NOPE, NO WAVE HERE!”

As a political analyst, Juan Williams would, I think, make a far better used car salesman. In watching last night as the returns began rolling in it became fairly obvious, fairly quickly, to everyone in the room but Williams, that what we had underway was something other than what had been indicated by most of the polls. It was, in fact, going to be far more of a ‘wave election’ than had been previously thought.

And yet as the night went on Juan could be seen bending himself into a pretzel in an effort to try to portray the evening’s events as being nothing more than a mass anti-incumbent election. But what Juan failed to take notice of was the fact that the incumbents getting tossed out were all Democrats. And still he claimed that what we were all witnessing had nothing whatsoever to do with Democrat policies.

Williams spent most of the night determined in his efforts to downplay the notion that this was in any way a ‘wave election.’ And he was later made to pay a price in the Twittersphere for his idiotic comment on Fox News that the midterm election results had not produced a Republican wave, "not even close to a wave." And for at least part of Tuesday night, Williams' remark was trending No. 2 on Twitter.

While some in the Twittersphere reacted good-naturedly others showed no tolerance for any suggestion that the GOP's capture of the Senate and its expanded control of the House to post-World War II levels represented anything but a realignment of politics in Washington. The "no Republican wave" had been Williams' position since October and he wasn’t about to change his mind, no matter what.

He said on Fox News that, given the large number of seats Democrats had to defend, losing eight or nine did not indicate a wave, more like "an anti-incumbent moment." He had earlier rejected the wave idea on the grounds that Republicans are hardly more liked than his buddy, Barry. "The problem for the Republicans in Congress is that they have even worse approval ratings that the president." Evidently that was not the case, at least on Tuesday.

Williams, as most probably know, is the ultimate Barry apologist and a real diehard progressive. And as such Williams just couldn’t bring himself to admit that it was because of both his hero, Barry, and the leftist policies that have been shoved down the throats of the American people by his Democrat Party, that the Democrats was made to suffer a beat down on Election Day.

But lest we get too carried away with ourselves for having kicked some serious Democrat ass last night, we need to keep in mind that we have only two very short years to prove to the voters that our team is the better team when it comes to getting things turned around. But if our only desire is to play politics in the hope of greasing our skids for 2016, then chances are our majority in the Senate will be short lived.

YES FOLKS, OBAMA IS A RACIST…

Finally someone has come along with enough guts to call our president exactly what he is, a racist. Oh, there have been others who have said as much, only to then very quickly turn around and offer up some sort of an idiotic apology claiming that they had been taken out of context and really meant to claim no such thing. What is it about Barry that people can’t bring themselves to identify him as what he so very obviously is?

Anyway, this time around we have Ben Stein who has now chosen to step out front and make the point by saying that Barry "Almighty" and his administration have repeatedly tried to make the elections all about race, creating the specter of animus where none exists. Barry, this man who was sold to us all as being someone who would be a uniter but he has turned out to be nothing more than a divider, and most obviously along racial lines.

Stein told Fox News anchor Shannon Bream on Sunday's "America’s News HQ" show, "What the White House is trying to do is racialize all politics and especially trying to tell the African-American voters that the GOP is against letting them have a chance at a good life in this economy, and that’s just a complete lie." And you know, I find quite sad that so many blacks are willing to go along with Barry. I’m curious as to what might motivate them.

Stein went on to say, "The Republicans are every bit as much in favor of African-Americans having a good life, I'd say more in favor than the Democrats." History can be a wonderful thing, because if you look back during the tenure of nearly any Republican president what you’re likely to find is that black home ownership as well as black small business ownership were both higher than under any Democrat, even a black one.

Stein argued that the GOP has been thoroughly demonized by the Democrats, yet it is the Democrats who've presided over a stagnant economy that's consistently seen record levels of unemployment and citizens on food stamps. He said, "It is all a way to racialize voting in this country. This president is the most racist president there has ever been in America. He is purposely trying to use race to divide Americans."

As expected several media outlets were quick to point out that many of our early presidents actually owned slaves, so, or so they claim, it's unlikely that Barry could actually be called the "most racist president" when compared to them. But at the same time very few, if any, of those very same media outlets chose to disagree with Stein's assessment that the White House has repeatedly tried to racialize the elections.

What we have seen time after time us how Barry has demonstrated just how much more important political power is to him than is the uniting of the American people. And instead of acting presidential, Barry has chosen to behave more like the sleazy Chicago-style thug politician that we know him to be. Barry obviously has no qualms about using his own people if there is some political benefit to be gained by doing so. And yet it’s the opposition accused of being racist.

WHAT MOTIVATES ONE TO BE A DEMOCRAT???

Ya know, there’s something that I have never been able to figure out, no matter how hard I try. And it’s something that has been becoming increasingly more difficult to understand for some time now. And that which has me so perplexed is that for the life of me I don’t understand why it is that an otherwise reasonably intelligent American would ever choose to become a willing member of the Democrat Party. It just goes against everything that makes one an American.

How is it that a political party whose main players are ‘Dingy Harry’ Reid, Nancy ‘Old Stretch’ Pelosi, ‘Slow Joe’ Biden and especially our disaster of a president, Barry "Almighty", is not essentially abhorred for promoting an ideology that claims to be based on such things as individual rights and self-respect, but practices something else entirely. Because what the Democrat Party is really all about is the pushing of an "it takes a village" mentality.

And can someone, anyone, please explain to me why it is that anyone could ever bring themselves to support a party whose constituency is not encouraged to achieve any level of independence and where achieving any level of success is viewed as being a bad thing. Democrats believe they know what is best for us. The party’s only claim to fame is the expansion of the social welfare state that has trapped millions into a life of dependency.

The Democrat Party thrives on accusing others of racism, of class warfare and of being divisive. And it very neatly packages these accusations in warm and fuzzy sound bites well researched by highly paid focus groups and high-dollar PR firms. Pity the poor souls who allow themselves to fall for the snake oil sales pitches delivered by the very politicians primarily responsible for financing virtually every negative social issue that now effects this country.

And something that you’re sure not to find in any of today’s history books, is the fact that the Republican Party was created during the Civil War for the specific purpose of opposing the very same slavery that was so coveted by Democrats. And something else glossed over is how ‘The Ku Klux Klan’ was a product of southern Democrats and designed to terrify freed black slaves and to intimidate Republicans from defending those with their new found freedom.

And you can claim that was a long time ago and that it has nothing whatsoever to do with today’s Democrat Party. But, sadly, the truth is very different. Because throughout the 50’s as well as the early 60’s, the Democrats blocked civil rights legislation until Lyndon Johnson was able to forge "the Great Society" disaster. Johnson vowed that passage of this national welfare program would "have those n*gg*rs voting Democrat for the next 200 years".

But rather than focusing on new neighborhood schools and putting into place incentives for small business development which would have provided vocations, earning power and a sense of accomplishment, "projects" were built in the inner cities to house mainly black families. Welfare programs created and still in use today financially rewarded irresponsible childbearing in single parent homes. The net result of LBJ’s creation, was the decimation of the black family.

And with the greater number of kids, the more the taxpayer was forced to pony up. Eventually, drugs and crime infiltrated those projects and millions of inner city lives were, and continue to be, devastated. And proof of that is the fact that in 1960, less than 30% of black children were born into a one-parent household. Today, that number exceeds 70% and makes painfully clear how Johnson’s "great society" shamefully destroyed so many American black families.

Yet, just as Johnson predicted, this constituency is the Democrat’s most loyal supporter; a vote bartered and guaranteed by continued government financing of the welfare state. This despite the fact that "The War on Poverty" was lost long ago, its victims continue to provide millions of Democrat votes. Trillions upon trillions of dollars have been spent with virtually nothing to show for any of it. Other than, of course, a minority community left laying in ruin.

Remember how, in referencing the Republicans during the 2012 presidential campaign, ‘SlowJoe Biden exclaimed "they wanna put ya’ll back in chains". Accusing Republicans of such is tantamount to the old "pot calling the kettle black" cliché’ for it is the Democrat Party that still practices modern day technical enslavement just to guarantee a vote. What dreadful disrespect and ill treatment of those who support in droves that political party.

During a substantial portion of the last 50 years, whenever we have handed complete control of our government, as we did during the first two years of Barry’s presidency, we have come to pay a very steep price for having done so. And not only in monetary terms. As a country we have made ourselves weaker morally, socially, financially and even internationally. And for no other reason than because we chose to believe those in the Democrat Party.

Being a Democrat requires that one to be anti-American. Because to be a good Democrat, it’s a prerequisite that one hate their country. And what is it that could have make someone take such a position? And it also means to take a stand against all that the Founding Fathers laid out for us. We in this country have been blessed with something very rarely found in all of human history, freedom. And for some bizarre reason we seem to be in quite a hurry to give it all up.

TALKING ABOUT THE ELECTION, WHILE NOT TALKING ABOUT IT…

In coming up with a topic for this post, I wanted to discuss something other than tomorrow’s election, while at the same time wanting to stress just how important this election really is. So I struck upon the topic of ‘climate change’. And since it is something that nearly all Democrats support, more for political reasons than out of any genuine concern for the planet, and most Republicans oppose, how policies meant to deal with it are created can be said to be directly related to the outcome of this election. And that’s one more reason to vote against Barry by defeating congressional Democrats.

Adding some sense of urgency in putting a stop to all of this ‘climate change’ nonsense was something that happened just yesterday. For the first time ever, the U.N-backed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says the use of fossil fuels – coal, oil and gas – will need to be "phased out almost entirely" by the end of the century. The IPCC’s latest report warns of "severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems," if action is not taken to reduce emissions of carbon and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) globally – with a target of zero by 2100.

The IPCC declares "with greater certainty" than four other major assessments released since 1990, that human actions – "emissions of greenhouse gases and other anthropogenic drivers" – are chiefly responsible for global warming measured since the middle of the 20th century. This cockamamie report states, "In recent decades, changes in climate have caused impacts on natural and human systems on all continents and across the oceans." And it should come as no surprise that John Kerry-Heinz embraced its findings, warning that the planet cannot afford skepticism or complacency.

And it was on the very same day that we also heard from John Coleman, a founder of the Weather Channel, who appeared on CNN Sunday to reiterate his stance that "climate change is not happening." Describing himself as a "skeptic," not a denier – "that is a word meant to put me down" – the veteran weather forecaster told CNN’s "Reliable Sources" that the news network was promoting an inaccurate view on the issue. He said, "CNN has taken a very strong position on global warming, that it is a consensus." He added, "Well, there is no consensus in science. Science isn’t a vote, science is about facts."

He went on to say, "And if you get down to the hard, cold facts, there’s no question about it: Climate change is not happening, there is no significant, man-made global warming now, there hasn’t been any in the past, and there’s no reason to expect any in the future. There’s a whole lot of baloney." Coleman said climate change has become part of the Democratic Party platform, adding that he regretted that the issue has become "political instead of scientific." He declared, "But the science is on my side." And he is absolutely right! Science is on his side, and it’s only politics that’s on the side of those pushing this nonsense.

Challenged on the assertion that "97 percent of climate scientists" are in agreement on the issue, Coleman charged that the figure was "manipulated." Since the government only funds scientists who put out results "supporting the global warming hypothesis," he claimed, "they don’t have any choice." He went on to say, "If you’re going to get the money, you’ve got to support their position. Therefore 97 percent of the scientific reports published support global warming. Why? Because those are the ones the government pays for and that’s where the money is." He’s right!

Weather Channel CEO David Kenny also appeared on the show, and distanced himself from Coleman’s views. He said, "We’re grateful that he got it [the channel] started 32 years ago, but he hasn’t been with us in 31 years, so he’s not really speaking for the Weather Channel in any way today." Kenny went on to say, "Our position is really clear, it’s scientifically-based and we’ve been unwavering on it for quite some time now." Last week the Weather Channel reissued a 2007 statement giving its position on climate change. A statement that proves it’s more interest in politics than the environment.

It was this idiotic statement from 2007 that said, "More than a century’s worth of detailed climate observations shows a sharp increase in both carbon dioxide and temperature." It went on to say, "These observations, together with computer model simulations and historical climate reconstructions from ice cores, ocean sediments and tree rings all provide strong evidence that the majority of the warming over the past century is a result of human activities. This is also the conclusion drawn, nearly unanimously, by climate scientists." This is essentially nothing more than another bit of propaganda.

What we have here is a continuing, and very focused, propaganda campaign the sole purpose of which is to convince those of us who are accused of being "Flat Earthers". Let’s not forget that many of those who are, today, sounding the global warming alarm bells, are many of the very same ones who, back in the 70’s, were telling us that by this time we’d be experiencing what was then described as being the next ice age. But when that didn’t pan out for them, it was first ‘global warming’, then ‘climate change’ and now ‘climate disruption’ that became the new battle cry of the left.

DEMOCRATS ASSAIL GOP WITH CLAIMS OF RACISM…

There are those who say we could be on the verge of what some are saying will be an election of historic consequence, but, personally, I’m reserving judgement until such time as all of the dust can be said to have safely settled. Many of the elections remain considered as being too close to call, and whenever such a scenario exists, we should always assume that boxes of ballots for whatever Democrat candidate needed, will suddenly materialize in the trunk of someone’s car.

And as we have continued to see, the Democrats, in their effort to maintain control of the Senate, have been very busy trying to ‘properly motivate’ black voters by taking race-baiting to what has been a whole new level. From claiming that black churches are going to explode, slavery is going to be revived or how there will be a repeat of Ferguson in black communities all across the country, there seems to be absolutely nothing that Democrats will not say.

But there is something different this year, and something much more prevalent than in campaigns of the past. There’s been a growing number of black voices that would seem to indicate that at least some small segment of the black community is finally beginning to recognize the fact that they have tied their fortunes to a horse that is essentially only leading them in circles. Some are now finally able to see the Democrat Party for what it really is.

Perhaps most frightening to the Democrats is the fact that if those in the black community are ever able to figure out how it is that they have been, and continue to be, lied to by the Democrat Party, Democrats would never again win even an election for dog catcher. But that day still remains a very long way away. For now, blacks remain susceptible to the propaganda they are constantly being fed, not only by Democrats but by many of those in their very own community.

I think most reasonably intelligent people are able to recognize that the Democrats have been very successful in their effort to construct for themselves that which can only be described as a fictional account of what is said to be the history of their party. But it’s less a history than it is a smokescreen, a smokescreen that can be made to quickly dissipate with only the slightest amount of effort. And yet, for whatever reason, most blacks simply choose to believe the lies.

And so as the election inches ever closer the question that remains, and that I’m sure is on nearly everyone’s mind, especially for the Democrats, is whether or not the requisite number of blacks will have been ‘properly motivated’ by what has been a near endless stream of all manner of racist and disgusting accusations put forward by the Democrats as they so desperately try to maintain their control of the Senate. Well, there’s nothing to do but to wait and see.