OBAMA OFFERS REPUBLICANS SOME ADVICE…

Does anyone other than myself see it as being the least bit peculiar that we have what seems to be an overabundance of Democrats who are more than willing to offer up all manner of what they apparently see as being some heartfelt political advice?  Is it because they have our best interest at heart, or, perhaps, might there be an ulterior motive of some sort?  I just don’t get it.  Previous advice handed out has had to do with the fact that unless Republicans pass some sort of ‘comprehensive’ immigration reform they will risk being relegated to minority status for the next 20 years and succeed in preventing themselves from winning the White House for just as long.

Now it would seem we have some additional advice, presumably just as well intentioned, coming from none other than Barry “Almighty”.  You see, it’s according to Barry that because white voters are abandoning the Democrat Party because they feel left out, the GOP should react by wooing Latino voters.  Barry offered his advice during an interview with National Public Radio.  And while I wish I could be confident that our stellar leadership in the Republican Party would get together and tell Barry to take his advice and stick it where the sun don’t shine, I doubt very much that our collection of spineless are actually capable of doing such a thing.

Anyway, Barry said, “There’s a burden on Democrats to need to make very clear to a broad swath of [white] working-class and middle-class voters that we are, in fact, fighting for them. And there’s also an obligation on the part of the Republican Party to make sure that they are broadening their coalition to reach out to the new face of America.”  Barry’s comments would seem to align him with many members of the GOP’s establishment wing, the very same ones who we continue to hear arguing the idiotic point that a high-immigration policy would kill two birds with one stone, aiding businesses while helping to win ballot-box support from low-income Latino immigrants.

That’s the sort of policy that is endorsed by the GOP’s many business allies, who want the GOP-led Congress to get busy and pass immigration laws in 2015.  However, that is also the view currently opposed by the GOP’s more populist wing, whose leaders argue that a low-immigration policy would spur 2016 support for the Republican Party from lower-income white, Latino and black swing voters in critical Midwest states. The leaders in this group include Sen. Jeff Sessions as well as likely 2016 candidate, former Sen. Rick Santorum, and they generally oppose Barry “Almighty’s” Nov. 20 decision to award work permits to five million unauthorized migrants.

The fact is that today we have fewer U.S.-born Americans who have jobs than were employed in November 2007, that despite the fact that we have undergone a working-age population growth of 11 million.  Almost one in every two jobs added since 2009 have gone to foreign-born workers.  Low-income white voters have shifted, and rather significantly so, to the GOP since the 1990s.  That shift was highlighted by the November election, where GOP candidates won 60 percent of white voters, giving the GOP a majority in the Senate. The GOP also won them 36 percent of the Latino vote and 50 percent of the Asian vote.

When asked about that loss, Barry simply chose to blame Democrat messaging.  He said, “There’s sometimes a gap in perceptions that we have to bridge,” while claiming centralized Obamacare health-care system should be welcomed by lower-income voters.  He went on to say, Kentucky “is one of the best states in using the Affordable Care Act to insure huge numbers of working-class white voters. It’s just they don’t call it Obamacare; they call it something else.”  However, Barry also acknowledged that his policies haven’t done much to help lower-income white voters gain jobs or reverse the slide in wages that has been underway since 2001.  Really? 

Barry said, “I do think that right now there are a lot of white working-class voters who haven’t seen enough progress economically in their own lives.”  He went on to say, “They hear about an immigration debate or they hear about, you know, debate surrounding Ferguson, and they think, ‘I’m being left out. Nobody seems to be thinking about how tough it is for me right now,’ or, ‘I’ve been downscaled, I’ve lost my job.’”  And he added, “I think there’s a legitimate sense of loss, particularly among men, who have seen manufacturing diminish; construction has been in the tank.”  Both of which are a direct result of liberal Democrat policies.

However, again according to Barry, the GOP should instead focus its attention on Latinos, not on lower-income voters. He said, “We [Democrats] have got to speak to those concerns. Now, the flip side is, you know, nobody would be happier than me to see the Republican Party try to broaden its coalition. Immigration reform, by the way, was a great opportunity for the Republican Party to do so.”  Ok, so who among us, other than perhaps Boehner, McConnell of Priebus, is actually stupid enough to believe any of what Barry says or that he only has our best interest at heart?  These naïve boobs will believe just about anything Barry tells them.  

Barry also offered tacit backing for the GOP’s business-backed establishment wing, the same wing of the party that so many of us oppose and not so fondly refer to as being RINOs, which strongly supports greater inflow of foreign workers. The wing includes former President George Bush, who minimized enforcement of immigration laws, and changed mortgage rules to help win political support from lower-income immigrants.  Barry said, “George Bush — I disagreed with a lot of issues, but he was absolutely right in his position on promoting comprehensive immigration reform, reaching out to the Latino community, and, as a consequence, did pretty well.”

Multiple polls would seem to indicate that American voters want immigration policy to aid Americans, not illegal immigrants.  For example, a September poll by Paragon Insights showed that large slices of the Democrat coalition would be “much more likely” to vote for a GOP candidate who says that “the first goal of immigration policy needs to be getting unemployed Americans back to work — not importing more low-wage workers to replace them.”  Such a sentiment would seem to flying the face of the advice being offered by Barry to the Republican Party.  But our leadership has demonstrated time and again that what the people think and want is unimportant.

Thirty-eight percent of African-Americans, 39 percent of Democrat women, 36 percent of Latinos and roughly 47 percent of Midwesterners said they would be much more likely to support a GOP candidate who favors the employment of Americans.  Gee, what a freakin’ concept, and yet many of those in our newly minted Republican majority in Congress seem unable to grasp what’s right in front of them.  Instead of listening to the people, our supposed party leadership choose to listen to the Democrats offering up this kind of idiotic advice.  If Republican wish to maintain their majorities beyond 2016 they need to decide to whom it is they’re going to listen. 

‘SELMA’…MORE REVISIONIST HISTORY FROM HOLLYWOOD???

And so here we have another one of those movies which I have no intention of spending any of my hard-earned money on.  For me, the sole purpose for going to the movies, on those rare occasions when I can be convinced to do such a thing, is to be entertained. It’s not to be lectured to, or to be taught some sort of lesson that the maker of the movie thinks I should be taught.  And it’s not to be subjected to some twisted Hollywood version of past events such as this one.

The movie to which I refer is “Selma”.  This supposed widely acclaimed example cinematography which, or so we are told, is about the 1965 Civil Rights movement.  But it seems that there are those who are not fans of movie is, those who were present at the time these events actually took place.  It seems that Hollywood’s version of this time in our history disappointed at least one moviegoer, none other than a leading historian of president Lyndon Johnson.

And just who it that was less than impressed with this latest attempt of revisionist history?  Well, none other than the director of the LBJ Presidential Library in Austin, which hosted a major civil rights summit earlier this year and that was headlined by four U.S. presidents, who apparently thinks that the film which opened on Christmas Day incorrectly portrays Johnson as being somewhat of an obstructionist to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. 

As I mentioned earlier, "Selma" is supposedly based on the 1965 marches from the Alabama cities of Selma to Montgomery that were led by Dr. King.  It was during a time that marchers were calling for voting rights.  As is usually the case, it’s always a good idea to take movies such as this with a grain of salt, realizing that there is little historical fact contained.  Sadly though, there those who take such movies as being an accurate portrayal of events as they occurred.

It is in this particular instance that we have LBJ Library Director Mark Updegrove who has now made the claim that the film unfairly casts Johnson as a sort of composite character who represents many of the obstacles blacks faced in getting civil rights laws passed. What history shows, at least according to Mr. Updegrove, is that Johnson and King had a partnership.  He said Johnson and King did have disagreements, but not like the film suggests.

Updegrove called the portrayal unfortunate given the current racial climate following the deaths of two unarmed black men at the hands of police.  He said, "When racial tension is so high, it does no good to suggest that the president of the U.S. himself stood in the way of progress a half-century ago. It flies in the face of history."  Actually, what actually flies in the face of history may just be the claims made by Mr. Updegrove that Johnson was anything but a racist.

A spokes’moron’ for Paramount Pictures, the studio that released the film, did not immediately return messages for comment Wednesday.  "Selma" has apparently been nominated for four Golden Globe awards, including best picture for a drama and best director.  But with the entertainment industry being what it is, and pretty deeply rooted in political correctness, that most likely has much more to do with it subject matter than it does with anything else.

Back in April, it was Updegrove and the LBJ Library that commemorated the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act with a summit that included appearances by four of the five living U.S. presidents. And it was Barry “Almighty” that closed out the event with a speech that lauded Johnson's congressional deal-making and push for greater racial equality.  But for a commemoration to take place in such a venue has since seemed a bit ironic to me.

While there are those who may take exception to the way the movie portrays Johnson, what history does show us is that, like the majority of those in his party, the Democrat Party, then as now, he was a pretty devout racist.  And what seems to have been long forgotten is the fact that had it not been for a sizable majority of congressional Republicans, the Civil Rights Act, that today’s Democrats very loudly take credit for, would never have been passed.

FICTION ALWAYS MAKES FOR A MUCH BETTER ‘NEWS STORY’…

Far too many of those in both politics, as well as the state-controlled media, seem to take a perverse pleasure, and spend a great deal of their time, exaggerating the supposed fear that we’re told blacks have of the police.  Exaggerations that have now so poisoned the environment that the likelihood of having any truly productive discussions about relations between blacks and the police has been significantly reduced.  You know, like that oft quoted ‘fact’ than a black male is killed by the police every 28 hours, or roughly 312 every single year.  I’m not sure about anyone else, but what I believe we have here is nothing more than the throwing around of numbers that, while they may provide a ‘good’ sound bite, have very little basis in fact.

We have boobs in the state-controlled media like the perpetual Barry apologist, Chuck Todd, telling his gaggle of viewers of his “Meet the Press” that, “Black men between the ages of 15 and 19 are 21 times as likely as whites to be killed by a police officer.”  And then we have Harvard Law Professor Charles Ogletree who echoed Todd saying, “The data is clear, that black boys are being killed by white police officers around the country.” The claim was repeated frequently on other shows.  But those numbers aren’t entirely accurate, and they are far from the whole truth.  There’s no denying that accidental deaths at the hands of police do occur, like the killing of 12-year-old Tamir Rice, who was playing with a toy gun in a public park, and are horrible tragedies.

Nor is there any denying that blacks feel discriminated against. According to a 2013 Pew Research Center survey, 70% of blacks believed that the police treated whites better than blacks. By contrast, only 37% of whites agreed. And Barry “Almighty” has taken it upon himself to emphasize how blacks’ distrust of police is “rooted in realities” and how the anger to the verdict was “an understandable reaction.”  I would argue that this sense of discrimination that black are said to feel has essentially been created, as well as perpetuated, by blacks themselves.  Because the fact is that both of these men who are said to be at the center of these protests would be alive today if they had only done one thing.  All they had to do was what the police told them to do.  And they ‘chose’ not to!

Those who busy themselves trying to justify the actions of these black rioters, try to do so by either cherry picking the data, or simply making things up.  In the case of Todd and Ogletree, they relied on an analysis of FBI data by ProPublica and Slate. Slate’s headline read, “Black Teens Vastly More Likely to Be Killed by Police Than Whites Even After Adjusting for Crime Rates.”  If their claim is right, if police do unjustly shoot blacks at vastly higher rates, it is a serious indictment of the police. But, fortunately, these allegations are false.  One allegation is that 15-to-19-year-old black males die at the hands of the police 21 times as often as do white males of the same age. Another claim is that blacks commit violent crimes no more than two to three times as often as whites do.

But the original 21-fold claim is based on worse than unreliable data. ProPublica acknowledges that the data on justifiable police killings are “terribly incomplete. . . . Vast numbers of the country’s 17,000 police departments don’t file fatal police shooting reports at all.”  But they don't make it clear that literally only a couple hundred police departments report these numbers.  Even worse, the very few police departments that do report are predominately urban areas, which tend to have much higher concentrations of blacks. So this would have the rather natural effect of skewing the numbers to over-represent black deaths.  So despite the fact that the data is obviously flawed hasn’t stopped from being quoted as supposed fact.

If you’re going to accurately compare, which very few on the other side seem interested in doing, the rates at which police kill black and white male teenagers, you have to compare teenage crime rates. You can’t simply compare crime rates among the entire black and white populations. The rate that these teenagers commit murder, not including rape and other less serious crimes, also provides a somewhat better measure of the perceived threat that they might pose to police.  Among blacks, teenage crime is much more prevalent. Based on the most recent available FBI crime numbers, black male teenagers were 9 times more likely to commit murder than were their white counterparts.   That’s right, 9 times, and the gap in these urban areas is undoubtedly even larger.

The fact is that after adjusting for murder rates, black male teenagers are still killed by the police 2.3 times as often as whites. This is a considerable difference than the numbers being thrown around by the likes of Todd, but again, over-representation of urban areas in the data set could be a big part of the explanation.  Screaming “racism!” may attract a wider TV audience. But uncritically spreading bad information is nothing more than downright dangerous.  As I have pointed out before, it’s the thug mentality that many blacks possess, together with their willingness in allowing themselves to be so easily manipulated by the likes of Al Sharpton, that forms the foundation of their current relationship with the police.  And only they can alter that relationship.

FILE THIS ONE UNDER: NOW AIN’T THAT A SHAME…

Under normal circumstances I’d to think that I would feel somewhat sympathetic when it came to someone’s claim that they had received death threats.  But in the case of faux reverend and self proclaimed ‘civil rights’ activist, Al ‘Bull Horn’ Sharpton, I have very little trouble making an exception.  According t old Al, race baiter extraordinaire, he’s received death threats from people who seem to be blaming him and New York Mayor Bill de Blasio for the weekend killing of two police officers.

It was during a press conference Sunday that Sharpton played a voice mail warning supposedly left on his cellphone.  The person on the voice mail was heard to say, "Hey, n*****, stop killing innocent people. I'm going to get you."  Personally, I happen to be of the opinion that most likely the person on the other end of the call is either an employee of Sharpton’s or someone else trying to provide what has come to be some much needed cover for Al’s involvement in the death of two cops.

Sharpton said, "We are now under intense threat by those who are misguided and those who are trying to blame everyone from civil rights leaders to the mayor rather than deal with an ugly spirit that all of us need to fight."  ‘Bull Horn’ revealed the threat while calling for peaceful protests in the fight for justice following the chokehold death of Eric Garner at the hands of an arresting police officer.  To believe that Sharpton is calling for “peaceful protests” one must be a moron or black, or both.

It was while standing there at the podium in the Harlem headquarters of his bogus civil rights organization, called the National Action Network, that old “Bull Horn’ told what was essentially nothing more than one of his more blatant lies, when he said, "This is a pursuit of justice to make the system work fairly for everyone."  And this piss poor excuse for a human being went on to say, "This is not about taking things into our own hands. That doesn’t solve the problem of police misconduct."

It was during this little production we saw ‘Bull Horn,’ standing next to Eric Garner's widow and mother, who also both denounced the shooting deaths Saturday of the two NYPD officers.  And it was Garner’s mother who was there to assist Al in his little endeavor to dodge a bullet he rightly deserves when it comes to the death of these two officers.  She said, "We are for peace and anyone who's standing with us, we want you to not use Eric Garner's name for violence because we are not about that."

And it was Garner’s widow, Esaw Garner, who also recognized the role that she was also there to play, who said, "Please protest in a nonviolent way. My husband was not a violent man so we don't want violence attached to his name."  But seriously folks, had it not been for ‘Bull Horn’ who has been ‘preaching’ nothing but violence going all the back to the day a police officer, in defending his own life, shot and killed black thug Michael Brown, these two NYPD officers would still be alive today.

The gunman, Ismaaiyl Brinsley, had talked about planning to kill cops on his Instagram account in the hours leading up to his ambush of the two officers, Rafael Ramos, 40, and Wenjian Liu, 32.  Brinsley shot them as they sat in their marked patrol car parked in the Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood of Brooklyn. He later killed himself.  His Instagram post included three hashtags: ShootThePolice, RIPErivGarner [misspelling was his] and RIP MikeBrown, the Daily News reported.

Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani has attributed, and rightly so, the killing to months of propaganda about how the police are the enemy of the black community.  Giuliani said Sunday on Fox and Friends, referring to a young police officer who was murdered while on duty, "What happened [Saturday] was an assassination, which we haven't had since 1988 with Officer [Edward] Byrne."  Mayor Giuliani went on to say, "We have not had an assassination murder like this in a long, long time."

NYPD union chief Pat Lynch blamed de Blasio for the murders, saying he had "blood on his hands."  But he also called for a peaceful solution to the protests surrounding Garner’s controversial death during his arrest.  He said, "To blame the mayor and others is not what we need."  Adding, "The blame game will only lead to further venom and further division."  But I disagree, because after having watched de ‘Blameo’ over the period time since Garner’s death, no one deserves MORE blame than both he and Sharpton!

FRICTION DEVELOPING BETWEEN DEMOCRATS???

Now you’d think it would be pretty much of a real no-brainer for them, but in their attempt to figure out how best to recover from the mauling they took in the midterm elections last month, Democrats seem more divided that ever over what sort of economic message they should be concentrating on ahead of the presidential election in 2016. So what would seem to be the obvious choice to the rest of us, seems to go ignored by what is, apparently, a significant number of Democrats. But then our world isn’t ruled by leftwing politics.

So anyway, it should come as being no great surprise, that the more ‘liberal’ members, or those who so very proudly identify themselves as progressives, of the Democrat Party are seen rallying behind the senior Senator, believe it or not, from Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren, and her emphasis on income equality. Meanwhile it’s the more moderate Democrats who, like Bigfoot, I doubt really even exist, dismiss her message, believing that it will only result in more pain at the voting booths. But a moderate Democrat is about as rare as a moderate Muslim.

So instead of falling in behind Warren, it’s these supposed moderates who are calling for policies that will lead to more economic growth and who are hoping that presumed presidential frontrunner Hitlery Clinton will end up getting behind their cause. Delaware’s Democrat Gov. Jack Markell asks, "In a world where there are more self-described conservatives than there are self-described liberals, is having a campaign that only tries to win by appealing to your base the right strategy?" To which he responds, "I would argue it’s not."

Markell has made the point that the next Democrat nominee must reach independents as well as "some Republicans," while adding, "In my mind, an agenda around [economic] growth is the most likely message to do that." But that is very obviously at odds with Warren who, in recent weeks, has become a catalyst, of sorts, for progressives in the party as she pushes her position that the country should be curtailing corporate power and curbing the amount of wealth controlled by the nation’s richest individuals.

To that end, she won a great many admirers in the party last week and served to enhance her populist hero status when her anti-Wall Street faction nearly derailed the bipartisan $1.1 Trillion spending bill in the House. She also highlighted her position as the leading liberal in Congress when she led the opposition to the White House’s choice of banker Antonio Weiss for a leading post at the Treasury Department, which she claimed could result in Wall Street wielding undue influence on financial policy.

Although Warren maintained earlier this week that she’s "not running" for the White House, there are many progressives within her party who hope she changes her mind. Meanwhile, Hitlery is fully expected to announce in the coming months that she will be a contender in 2016. The only real question that hangs over her head is whether she’ll support a populist policy of income equality or the more moderate stance of economic growth. Those in the know say that the former first lady has always favored the second course.

Writing for the Wall Street Journal, Peter Nicholas said, "While all Democrats say they want to foster a growing economy, the two wings of the party are at odds over which points should be most central to their message." He said that the liberals and moderates in the party have "largely minimized differences and kept a united front" for the past six years while facing increasing Republican attacks Barry’s policies. He said, "But the uneasy alliance has become strained after the midterm elections, in which the party suffered deep losses."

I think there are, in this country, a great number of people, at both ends of the political spectrum, who doubt the seriousness of the Democrat Party when it comes to doing what many of us see as being necessary for getting the economy to actually grow. And while you’re always going have the malcontents whining about not making $15 an hour while working in the fast-food industry, the rest of us out here in the real world recognize how that is, simply put, quite ludicrous. But those are the morons who will flock to left-wing kooks like Warren.

FOOL ME TWICE AND IT’S MY OWN DAMN FAULT!!!

The esteemed Mr. Karl Rove wrote in a recent little piece in the Wall Street Journal that the 114th Congress could demonstrate that bipartisanship is still possible by building on Democrat support for legislation ranging from repairing some of the damage caused by Obamacare to providing greater access to charter schools. Look, I’m only going to go over this one more time, so Mr. Rove, if you could please pay attention. Republicans were NOT elected to be bipartisan, what they were elected to do was to prevent, to the greatest extent possible, Barry "Almighty" from doing any more damage to this country.

The veteran Republican strategist, fondly referred to by many, for some bizarre reason, as ‘The Architect’, argues that while some may ridicule the notion that the new Republican-controlled Congress can work in a bipartisan manner, the fact is that many of the bills passed by the outgoing GOP-led House had Democrat support. The measures never became law because of the maneuverings of Senate Democrat leader, ‘Dingy Harry’ Reid. So I’m assuming that Rove’s claim is based on the fact that with ‘Dingy’ no longer be in charge of the Senate things are likely to flow much smoother. For now let’s say that I’m keeping my expectations rather low.

Rove makes it very clear where it is that he stands by first acknowledging that the populist wings of both parties were fuming about passage of the unwieldy omnibus budget bill, and then he proceeds to write that now that spending is mostly set well into next year, the decks are cleared for Congress to return to what he calls, regular order. But the argument being put forward by many, including myself, is that the spending bill should have progressed no further than the end of next February. This farce of a deal that was passed, and that Rove seems to think was such a great thing, was really nothing more than a very nice Christmas gift for Barry.

Roves also makes the rather idiotic claim that both House Speaker John Boehner and incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell are now be committed to operating Congress "in regular order – that is, to have legislation travel the long, often complicated, and deliberative path through which the Constitution intended." Well, gee, that certainly makes me feel better, how about you? But like I’ve said, there is but one reason why I, and many others, chose to vote for Republicans and it had absolutely nothing to do with our desire to make sure that Congress would come to operate "in regular order."

Rove points out that in the 113th Congress, the House passed numerous bills with varying degrees of Democrat support. They included bills to expand access to charter schools, limit junk lawsuits over patents, expand energy exports and block taxes on the Internet. The incoming Congress will tackle assorted measures that present opportunities for bipartisanship, from the Keystone XL pipeline and corporate tax reform to ‘tweaking’ Obamacare, especially in how it defines full-time work. For me, priority number one should be the utilizing of the ‘power of the purse’ to the maximum extent possible to stop every aspect of Barry’s agenda!

Rove claims that it’s both parties that want to get Capitol Hill on track, but I’ve seen little that would indicate to me that Democrats desire anything of the sort. And yet, according to Rove, "Democrats have also grown weary of being treated as bystanders by the Obama administration. So if Republicans play their cards right, the next two years could see conservative solutions pass with large bipartisan majorities." He goes on to say, "This would constitute hope and change not because of Mr. Obama, but despite him." Democrats are not interested in conservative solutions, and it bothers them very little to be bystanders, as long as the agenda is advanced.

The bottom line here is that I’ve stopped listening to both Mr. Rove and that other know-nothing boob, Dick Morris, ever since the claims they so confidently made regarding the 2012 election turned out to be so completely and utterly wrong. In fact they could not have been MORE wrong! They now have zero credibility and should no longer be listened to by anybody, it’s just that simple. The next two years are going to be absolutely crucial if we are to have any hope in winning the White House. And if the Republicans are foolish enough to follow the advice of Rove they will put at risk everything, including their newly acquired control of Congress.

WE CANNOT AFFORD ANOTHER BUSH…

I’m one of those who happens to be of the opinion that we are indeed fortunate enough to make it out alive after 8 years of Barry "Almighty" the very last thing that we need to do is to elect another Bush or Clinton to assume the reins of power. Having said that, it would appear that Jeb Bush recently took another step closer to announcing his bid for the presidency come 2016. But I think Jeb may have more than a few obstacles in front of him, as far as conservatives are concerned, not the least of which is his last name. But there are also his stances on a number of policy issues, most notably immigration and Common Core, to name just a couple, that could prove problematic for more than a few conservative primary voters. Personally, he is far from being my first choice.

But it’s at the same time that, as the husband of a Mexican-American woman and a vocal proponent of comprehensive immigration reform, Bush is touted as being a candidate that could have mass appeal among Hispanic voters who have not traditionally backed the GOP. Bush, as you may remember, once described illegal immigration as "an act of love," has said he does not believe that his stance on the issue would be a political liability. Recently Bush was heard on a local Florida TV station saying, "You gotta protect the borders, enforce the law, be respectful of the rule of law, and at the same time, be able to encourage young, aspirational people to come to our country. It's a win-win." He went on to say, "I have no problems advancing that idea."

While other potential GOP presidential candidates have adopted a much harsher tone on the issue of illegal immigration, and how best to address, that may resonate more with the conservative base, the general feeling is that the ultimate GOP nominee, whoever that may be, will need to court Hispanics in a general election. According to those who get paid for offering their opinion on such matters, it is said that while some single-issue voters will never vote for Jeb because he doesn't espouse the 'round them up and deport them all' position, it is a critical mass of voters who will look at the complete package of positions, experience and accomplishments. As far as I’m concerned, his position on immigration is but one chink in his political armor.

Because it is Bush's moderate position on other campaign issues that are also likely to draw criticism from conservatives. His continuing support of Common Core, for instance, has also been a bone of contention among those who oppose the involvement of the federal government in education. He could also be criticized for his positions on taxes and spending, as well as Obamacare. But according to Noah Wall, grassroots director at FreedomWorks, "It's definitely much more than Common Core." Mr. Wall went on to say, "The whole idea that Jeb Bush will just walk away with this really doesn't take into account the need for the Republican Party to nominate a solid conservative." And I could not agree more with his assessment if the situation.

Conservative activists have challenged Bush over a position he took back in 2011, when he refused to rule out tax increases in exchange for deeper spending cuts. Others are critical of his opposition to the strategy of defunding Obamacare. He said he would repeal the law and replace it with a better alternative. It was in a fundraising email Tuesday, Shaun McCutcheon, chairman of the Conservative Action Fund, called him "another establishment, compromising Republican." Mr. McCutcheon wrote, "Will you support a nominee who supports amnesty for illegal immigrants, the Washington takeover of our educational system (known as Common Core), and is already talking about raising taxes?" I agree with most, if not all, of what Mr. McCutcheon says.

And as it just so happens, it was one day after Bush all but announced a bid for the presidency in 2016 that a new poll has found that a majority of Americans say they couldn't support him. According to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll conducted Dec. 10-14 of 1,000 adults, 57 percent of voters say they couldn't support him, compared to just 31 percent who said they could see themselves backing Bush in 2016. Other potential GOP candidates also do not fare well. Sixty percent of those surveyed said they could not support 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney, while 53 percent said they couldn't vote for New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. Anyone seeing a common thread running through all these candidates? I’ll give you a hint, they’re all RINOs!

No surprise that Hitlery Clinton emerged from the poll as the Democrat frontrunner, with 50 percent of voters saying they could see themselves voting for her, compared to 48 percent who oppose her. "Despite these numbers, which could certainly change as the presidential field becomes clearer, Clinton is far from a lock on the presidency," NBC News said. NBC News noted that 71 percent of voters said they want the next president to take a different approach than Barry "Almighty", yet Clinton is strongly tied to the administration, having served in it. Meanwhile, 40 percent of voters in the poll said they prefer a Republican to be the next president, compared to 38 percent who do not. Which means it is all the more imperative that we nominate the very best candidate possible.

ANDY CUOMO LAYING THE GROUNDWORK FOR 2016???

In what I’m fairly sure is little more than an act designed specifically to increase his appeal among the radical-leftwing- environmentalist-wacko-fringe crowd of his party as he prepares for 2016, New York’s Andy Cuomo said on Wednesday that he will ban hydraulic fracturing in his state after a long-awaited report concluded that the gas-drilling method poses some supposed health risks. Health risks that, I can only assume, must be unique to the Empire State.

Apparently it’s some leftist boob by the name of Joseph Martens, whose position is Andy’s Environmental Commissioner, said at a cabinet meeting that he will issue an order sometime early next year banning fracking, which has been under a moratorium there in there New York state since 2008. Once that happens, New York will join that other bastion of leftwing loonyism, Vermont, as being the only two states to completely prohibit fracking.

Martens made the comments after the state's Health Commissioner, Howard Zucker, said there is not enough scientific information to conclude that fracking, which involves pumping water, sand and chemicals into a well to extract oil or gas, is safe. It was Zucker who said, "The potential risks are too great, in fact not even fully known, and relying on the limited data presently available would be negligent on my part." It would seem that any excuse will do.

The oil and gas industry immediately slammed Andy for what was so obviously nothing more than a purely political decision. Karen Moreau, the executive director of the New York State Petroleum Council, called it a reckless move that would deprive the state of thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue. Obviously the governor views such things as jobs and increased revenue, except from higher taxes, of course, as being detrimental to his state.

And I’m sure it goes without saying that environmentalist wacko groups were quick to hail Andy as being a national leader on the issue. One such environmental cheerleader of Andy’s, and someone who appears very eager to declare Andy as being some sort of hero is an attorney for a group that calls itself Earthjustice. Deborah Goldberg, said, "We hope that this determined leadership Governor Cuomo has displayed will give courage to elected leaders throughout the country and world."

Andy, answering questions from journalists, said the decision on whether to allow this kind of drilling in New York was ultimately up to Martens. The ruling ends what has been a heated debate in New York over the benefits and pitfalls of fracking. Many in the state saw gas drilling as a key economic resource while others argued it was too dangerous. New York sits atop a part of the Marcellus shale, one of the largest gas deposits in the United States.

And yet Andy refuses to take full advantage of such a gift provided to his state by Mother Nature. A gift that could provide jobs to many of those without one, as well as one that could provide much in the way of increased revenue to his state. Instead, acting in what has become typical fashion for liberal Democrats, he prefers to leave a valuable resource in the ground leaving it completely untapped. Don’t think for a minute that what’s motivating Andy is his deep concern for the health of New Yorkers.

Because what we have here in Andy Cuomo, is yet another leftwing Democrat who seems to be far more interested in advancing the leftwing agenda than doing anything that he can to create more jobs and to bring in more revenue that might even allow him to lower taxes. But sadly such things just are simply not in your typical Democrat’s DNA. Democrats ‘need’ people unemployed making them more susceptible for becoming dependent on government.

AMERICANS NEED TO WAKE UP!!!

Why is it always the malcontents in this country that we see protesting in the streets over some perceived offense or nonexistent grievance that has no basis in fact? Why is it never those who are forced to tolerate an increasing number of actual injustices perpetrated by an increasingly oppressive government determined to rob them of the rights guaranteed to them by their founding documents? I simply don’t understand how it is that so many Americans can so willingly ignore that which is taking place right before their eyes. Whether they truly are oblivious to it all, are suffering from some form of terminal naivete or are simply living in denial, the extreme level of apathy now being exhibited by what has become an increasing number of people is truly frightening.

And why is it that it’s only racist assholes like Al ‘Bull Horn’ Sharpton, Jesse ‘The Extortionist’ Jackson and ‘Calypso Louie’ Farrakhan who are afforded the luxury of, and are able to get away with, pointing out what they see as being the injustices of government as if they alone possess the purest of motives? Meanwhile, our country is being destroyed from the inside, and far too many of us are content to do nothing more than to simply watch from the sidelines. But soon, very soon, we’re going to be called upon to do more than simply sit on our hands. Because while the supposed grievances of the racebaiters are based on what is nothing more than a web of the most toxic of lies, those of us who love this country and wish to preserve it for those who will come after us possess the true and righteous cause.

So while our country is being made to crumble all around us, the time when we will be forced into making the most important decision of our life is rapidly approaching. That time when we will look into the faces of our children and be struck by the realization that if things are allowed to continue on their present course the country that we are likely to leave behind for them will bear very little resemblance to the country left behind for us. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating for the overthrow of the government, but I do think that it is becoming more imperative each and every day this presidency continues, that we come up with something that will get our point across and will leave no doubt in anyone’s mind the level of displeasure that we now possess regarding what it is that those whom we elected are up to.

For whatever the reason, up to now far too many of us have been far too willing to simply accept, with very little argument, what it is that our politicians, including our president, continue to force upon us. And I gotta tell ya, if I hear that idiotic little phrase, "it is, what it is", one more time I’m going to fucking go off on whoever it is that has the misfortune to utter it. It’s gotten to the point where I’m beginning to wonder what it’s actually going take to wake people up. I mean, what more is it that Barry is going to have to do before enough people are able to recognize just what the Hell it is that’s taking place here? And the Republicans have already made it crystal clear, even before assuming control of the Senate, that they have little interest in keeping the many promises made in the run up to November’s elections.

Let’s face it, I think we can all agree that the Democrat Party, as a whole, is on a mission is to destroy this country, by any means available. And yet despite all of the promises that we heard from Republicans, in their effort to convince the voters that they were being heard, most of them, even before being sworn in, have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted. We need no further proof of that than how it was that they shoved through Congress the recent spending bill. When the Republicans can feel comfortable in perpetrating something like this recent (CR)omnibus bus bill, before they have even assumed full control of the Congress, especially after having made all manner of campaign promises about stopping Barry, then something must be considered as being seriously, seriously wrong. Something that cannot be allowed to continue!

TURMOIL ON THE LEFT?

There seems to be much discussion, of late, regarding what internal struggles there are that may be taking place within the Republican Party.  But it would seem to me that maybe some of those Democrats who appear so eager to point out the internal strife taking place within the GOP, should maybe be paying a little more attention to what it is that’s going on within their own ranks.

Because according to some news reports there are at least two factions within the Democrat Party who seem to be having a rather difficult time reconciling their differences in the weeks that have followed November's rather one-sided midterm elections.  Apparently both sides seem to be struggling to control the identity, as well as the direction, of the party heading into the 2016 presidential election.

The divide began widening after the vast majority Democrat candidates were pretty soundly trounced in the midterms, but it seems that things didn’t end there.  Things seemed to have come to a full head in last week's vote for the $1.1 Trillion spending bill, where we had Barry pushing for the bill and a House faction led by California Dingbat Nancy Pelosi taking a rare stance against their party's leader.  

According to William Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and policy adviser to ex-president ‘Slick Willie’ Clinton, stated that the battle has been coming for a while.  It was apparently in a recent interview that this guy said, "It is a conflict that was looking for an occasion."  And he went on to say, "The election provided the occasion."  So it would seem that we have a little conflict going on with both parties.

On one side are the moderate Democrats, if there are such a thing these days. It’s these folks who are said be best personified through presumptive presidential frontrunner Hitlery Clinton.  On the other, the more leftist side of the party, we have Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who the left is pushing to challenge Hitlery for the 2016 nomination despite Warren's protests that she is not seeking the higher office.

The spending bill was opposed by many Democrats because it rolled back the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory law while adding a provision to allow rich donors to give more money to national political parties. Jim Manley, a former aide to ‘Dingy Harry’ Reid, said, "What we saw over the last couple of days is an example of a debate that is probably going to go on for a while in the party,"

In the Senate, Warren fought hard against the bill, saying that Wall Street insiders are getting "key position after key position" and complaining about the "cronyism we have seen in the executive branch."   Her opposition drew some comparison with that of Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, who was against the bill because it failed to defund Barry's immigration actions, although some Democratic leaders denied the comparison.

Some Democrats say the fight is about shaping the party's future.  It was Rep. John Sarbanes, from the People’s Republic of Maryland, that said, "I think the overarching narrative that is most powerful right now is that everyday citizens are being left out — almost locked out — of their own democracy, when you look at Washington, when you look at the influence that special interests have.”

So at the end of that day I think we can all safely agree that both parties are experiencing a certain amount of conflict.  And much will depend upon who it is that comes out on top.  The American people, both Republican and Democrat, must work to keep themselves informed because there are going to be many claims made in the coming months, all of which will require verification and that will most certainly need to be questioned.

CHUCKIE SCHUMER SPEWS MORE DRIVEL…

I dare say that, these days, there are very few conservatives who would take any political advice from Democrats, and especially from slimy pieces of human excrement like old Chuckie Schumer.  But that hasn’t stopped old Chuckie from continuing to operate under the rather misguided perception of his that there are those of us on the right who, secretly, really do care about what he thinks about things.  One of his favorite claims in the recent past is how it is that if the Republicans fail to tackle immigration ‘reform’ they will prevent themselves from winning the White House for decades.  But I beg to differ.

But it is his latest foray into the arena of offering up political advice that I wish to focus on here as it stems from the recent passage of the latest spending bill.  You see, it’s according to old Chuckie that the Senate's recent fight over passage of the nation's new $1.1 Trillion spending bill, or that which was once referred to as being a budget, exposed what he referred to as being an significant rift between differing factions of the Republican Party and showed the "huge differences" in the party as it heads to taking over its majority role in just a few weeks, much to Chuckie’s disappointment.

But be that as it may, it was during his recent appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union” with, that soon to be retiring heifer who has spent more time up Barry’s ass than even Juan Williams, Candy Crowly, that old Chuckie said, "The big news today was the open fight between [incoming Senate Majority Leader] Mitch McConnell and [Texas Sen.] Ted Cruz."  He then went on to say, "On the floor of the Senate, we saw the soul of the Republican Party being debated."  But I would argue what we saw taking place was an example Sen. Cruz doing what he was elected to do, nothing more and nothing less!

Chuckie chose to describe events as there being on one side, Sen. Cruz who was "pushing his so-called Constitutional point of order, which risks shutting down the government."  Chuckie continued his description of events saying, "Five feet away from him was Mitch McConnell imploring senators to vote the other way and the vote was, unfortunately, 50/50 on the Republican side."  To Chuckie’s way of thinking, and apparently to McConnell’s as well, the worst thing that could possibly happen would be to have the government shutdown, as if such a thing were to happen the world would come to an end.

Chuckie said that makes him worry "a great deal."  He believes half the Republican senators are still willing to risk another government shutdown.  While I understand Chuckie’s concern, I continue to have a difficult time trying to understand why it is that so many Republicans seem to be in agreement with him.  It wasn’t all that long ago, politically speaking, when last the government shut down occurred, and what were the consequences Republicans were made to pay in this last election?  Nine pickups in the Senate and a House majority the size if which hasn’t been seen since the days of Calvin Coolidge.

Democrats like old Chuckie spend a great deal of time trying to convince those of us outside the beltway that a shutdown is always a bad thing, while at the same time they hope that we won’t take notice of the fact that the last supposed government shutdown had very little impact on the daily lives of a vast majority of the American people. Yet Chuckie claimed, "the chasm in the Republican Party is huge," and will become worse as the race for the 2016 nomination gets closer, because there will be presidential candidates in the Senate "pulling things to the right."

Chuckie also made mention of the fact that he is concerned about the Tea Party's influence, because "when they're in the majority, the Tea Party will feel its oats. We want to work with Republicans to help the middle class but I'm worried the tea party will pull them much too far over."  It’s here that Chuckie is little more than just blowing smoke.  Because if we’ve learned anything over the course of the last six years, it’s that the Democrats have very little, if any, interest in working with anybody, and it would be nice if McConnell in the Senate and Boehner in the House would finally realize that.

Chuckie did mention, almost in passing, that there are some differences among Democrats, but he claimed they are "small compared to the huge chasm of Republicans."  He mentioned that Nancy Pelosi fought against the new budget bill, disagreeing with Barry.  He said, "I think that what happened in the House, I thought Nancy Pelosi handled it extremely well."  Chuckie went on to say, "She knew the government couldn't be shut down. But she also knew that she had to show that Democrats are needed, and so she provided a veto proof, a veto-sustainable group to say no."

In looking ahead to 2016, Chuckie said he hasn't dared to ask presumptive nominee Hillary Clinton if she's running, but he thinks that she is.  "I'll bet she'll be a great candidate, I'll bet she'll win by a large majority and Democrats can help the middle class whose incomes have been declining in 15 years, in a united way.”  First off, his claim that Hitlery is a uniter is almost as hilarious as claiming that Barry has brought us all together.  If Americans were actually untied, a Democrat could never win.  Democrats win by dividing us, by doing all that they can to set us fighting with one another

Where I agree with Chuckie, and I can’t even believe I’m saying that, is that there will be a battle for control of the Republican Party much like what took place in the Democrat Party with the socialists gaining control.  If in the Republican Party it’s the McConnell/ Boehner wing of the party that is victorious, well then, those of us fighting to get our country back will be left with but one alternative.  And as much as I have never been in favor of such a thing, we will be forced to strike out with an effort to bring about a third party.  And it is that that Chuckie and his fellow Democrats are really hoping for.

THE TIME HAS COME FOR BOEHNER TO GO!!!

Let me be perfectly blunt here, if I may. John Boehner has been an unmitigated disaster as Speaker of the House. The conduct that we have continued to see from Boehner, going all the way back to 2011 when he first became Speaker, has been less than impressive, and the time has now come to do something about it. The convening of the next Congress, come January, will bring with it an opportunity to rid ourselves of Boehner, and we should take full advantage of that opportunity.

And what irritates me to no end about this guy is the fact that the federal debt has now been allowed to increase by a staggering $3.8 Trillion in the brief 3.8 years that have passed since Boehner cut his first spending deal with Senate Democrats and Barry "Almighty". That works out to $32,938.38 for every household in the United States, including those taking federal welfare benefits, and $42,783.20 for every full-time year-round private-sector worker in the United States.

In fact, the $42,783.20 that the federal government has borrowed per full-time year-round private-sector worker since Boehner cut his first federal spending deal exceeds the $41,916 that according to the Census Bureau was the median annual earnings of full-time year-round private-sector wage and salary workers in 2013. He is no more qualified to have his job than is Barry "Almighty" qualified to have his! For such a thing to have taken place on Boehner’s watch is unconscionable!

Boehner became speaker in January 2011, after the Republicans, thanks to the Tea Party, won a majority of the House of Representatives in the midterm elections of 2010. And I suppose we should have learned something from that election, since none of the promises we were made then were kept either. At that time, the government was operating under a continuing resolution that expired on March 4, 2011. Before that CR expired, Boehner cut a spending deal to fund the government after it expired.

Ever since March 4, 2011, all federal spending has been authorized by laws passed by the Republican-controlled House that Boehner leads. At the close of business on March 4, 2011, the federal debt was $14,182,627,184,881.03, according to the Treasury. At the close of business on Dec. 9, 2014, it was $17,997,912,502,715.74. From March 11, 2011 through Dec. 9, 2014, the debt increased $3,815,285,317,834.71. And as I said, 1,376 days—or 3.8 years—transpired between March 4, 2011 and Dec. 11, 2014.

The $3.8 Trillion in new debt that the federal government has accumulated under the spending deals approved by a Republican-controlled House of Representatives over the past 3.8 years equals $2,772,736,422.84 in new debt per day. It also equals $32,938.38 in new debt for each of the 115,831,000 households the Census Bureau says were in the United States as of September, and $42,783.29 for each of the 89,177,000 full-time year-round private-sector workers that the Census Bureau says were in the United States in 2013.

Ok, so it’s too late to correct this most recent example of Boehner’s ‘leadership’, but the point must be made, in the strongest way possible, that if Boehner is allowed to remain as Speaker, it will be we the voters, not the big time donors, who will no longer support the party. Even if it means that we will be forced to endure, at least potentially, decades of Democrat Party rule. We must hold to account the architect of this vote last night, and we must make it known that our line in the sand is the removal of John Boehner as Speaker of the House. Cross it at your peril!

BOEHNER DELIVERS ANOTHER KNIFE INTO THE BACK OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE…

With this past November’s election I think most would agree that what the American people provided to the Republican Party was a bona fide mandate. They made it very clear that they were more than just little displeased with the direction that Barry is taking this country, and they wanted a stop put to it. But how is it that the House Republicans have demonstrated that, yes, they heard the concerns of the people and intend to act on them? Apparently by choosing to fund everything that Barry wanted, and not until next February, but for all of next year.

And ya know, I chose to go to the polls last November, and to vote straight Republcian, because I was willing to give Boehner, in the House, and McConnell, in the Senate, a chance, even though I’ve lost count of the number of times that they have both disappointed me in the past. But I gotta tell ya, in seeing the video of Boehner being so proud of his ‘accomplishment’ of once again screwing over the American people, that was pretty much the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. And our majority leader, Kevin McCarthy, is no better.

But despite the growing displeasure, from myself and a growing number of others, with Boehner’s inability to actually lead, the general consensus is that come January he will once again be elected Speaker. And when that in fact does happen, then, my friends, those of us who still love our country are going to have to come up with our own plan of action regarding how it is that we are going to respond to what many of us will view as being a most egregious act of blatant betrayal. And we can ill afford to accept such an act lying down.

And as I mentioned earlier, it’s not only the House Republicans with whom I am less than thrilled. Because it’s over in the Senate that the Mitch McConnell we’re now hearing from ‘after’ the election, bears very little resemblance, if any, to the Mitch McConnell we all heard ‘before’ the election. But unfortunately we’re not in the position of being able to do much if anything about it, at least anything of substance, for another two years. And I can only assume that the thinking is that by then we will have all forgotten all about this blatant act of betrayal.

And if these Republican ‘leaders’ are actually foolish enough to think that we who call ourselves conservatives will soon forget what has been perpetrated against us, and so soon after the election the result of which was the handing over to them the complete control of Congress, then I’m here to tell you they are very sadly mistaken. All they had to do in order to prove that they were serious about stopping Barry’s anti-America agenda was to create a spending bill that covered things until next February, but they just could not bring themselves to do it.

So it is with somewhat of a heavy heart that I’ve now come to the realization that the only option we may have left is that, come 2016, by which time, admittedly, it may very well be too late, those of us who love this country must devise a way of engineering a purge, of sorts, of our pathetic excuse for Republican leadership. While I have never been one to advocate the staying home on Election Day, after this fiasco last night, I’m not sure how else we can make our point. And if the result is a Congress dominated by Democrats, so be it, after all, what’s the difference?

I’m just so tired of the endless stream of excuses that I keep hearing from those on our side who think of themselves as leaders. Making excuses is just not what ‘leaders’ do! They Lead! Just once I wish those on our side would play the game a little more like the way the Democrats do. I’d like to see them be a bit more cutthroat and a little less whiny. And I’d like to see them a little less worried about their careers and a little more concerned about whether or not this country is going to survive. But I fear that is little more than wishful thinking on my part.

These days I find myself stuck somewhere between being totally exasperated and being frustrated beyond belief. It seems that I can’t even count on those that I vote for. My representative, Ander Crenshaw voted for this recent ‘budget’ and my Republican Senator, Marco Rubio, was part of the ‘Gang of Eight’s’ immigration fiasco. I held my nose when last voting for Crenshaw, and have regretted doing so practically since the very moment that I did it. I thought maybe, just maybe, this time was going to be different. I apologize for being naïve.

Maintaining Boehner as Speaker will, in all likelihood, prove quite detrimental to our election chances come 2016, but that won’t prevent him from being re-elected. Let’s be honest, many of those who voted for Republicans this past November did so as a means of protesting against Barry, and his policies. They voted for GOP candidates because they were told the Republicans were going to work to rein in Barry. Now many are feeling they were simply lied to, and rightly so. So where is the incentive for them, or anyone else, to ever vote for Republicans again?

NOW WHY DIDN’T ‘I’ THINK OF THAT???

Former Health and Human Services Secretary, the brilliant Kathleen Sebelius, has come up with what she sees as being the perfect solution for what seems to be the continuing problems plaguing Obamacare. Her very simply solution? According to this imbecilic reject from government, all of the problems would disappear if we were to simply come up with a new name. Apparently she has already recommended to the White House that to change the image of Obamacare, simply give it a new name. Now why the Hell didn’t I think of that. But such an idiotic suggestion begs the question, just how stupid does this bitch think we are?

It was at the "Lessons from Leaders" event thrown by the political news website, Politico, that Sebelius said, "Obamacare, no question, has a very bad brand that has been driven intentionally by a lot of misinformation and a lot of paid advertising." She went on to say, "I think we may need to call it something, in the future, different, but it is working. Not only are people getting coverage, [but also] the largest drop in uninsured rates in this country, the lowest healthcare cost growth in this country ever recorded." Adding, "So it’s actually doing what it’s supposed to do and creating a competitive market for people who had no choice."

If you can believe it, Sebelius told the audience that the problems facing Obamacare have much more do with its commonly used name than they have anything to do with the actual product. Now as you may recall, the actual name of Barry "Almighty’s" signature healthcare reform legislation is the Affordable Care Act. But as many of us have been forced to find out the hard way, it is far from being "affordable." And since this abomination was first shoved through Congress and laid on Barry desk, it has been assigned the nomenclature of Obamacare, because it was, and continues to be, Barry’s pet project.

Now as is usually the case with Barry, our ‘Dear Beloved Leader’, he is never to be blamed for anything perceived as having gone wrong. Therefore it was the hapless Sebelius who was eventually forced to resign, primarily because a sacrificial scapegoat was needed to provide cover for Barry because of the rather badly botched roll out of Obamacare. So she was thrown under the bus a mere seven months after the bungled rollout of HealthCare.gov, which was billed as being the federal marketplace for millions of American seeking healthcare insurance. And yet she faithfully remains an advocate for this disaster of a law.

THE “FUNDAMENTAL TRANSFORMATION” REMAINS RIGHT ON TRACK…

Apparently the drive to get even more Americans attached, in any way possible, to the government teat continues pretty much unabated as the number of ‘beneficiaries’, oh how I love that word, it sounds so, so progressive, who receive compensation in the form of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), otherwise known as food stamps, has once again topped 46,000,000, and for 37th consecutive month.

In September of this year, which is the latest data that we have from the Department of Agriculture, (USDA), the government agency in charge of the program, there were 46,459,998 Americans who received assistance from the SNAP program. The number of ‘beneficiaries’ has exceeded 46 million since September 2011, a total of 37 months, or more than three years. And all thanks to Barry’s destructive economic policies.

Oddly enough it was in September that the number of ‘beneficiaries’ was actually down, albeit by the rather unimpressive total of 16,412, from the 46,476,410 beneficiaries there were in August. However, it was during that same time frame, the number of families receiving SNAP benefits actually increased from 22,724,624 in August to 22,750,019 in September, an increase of 25,395. And it’s all by design, Barry’s design.

Households on food stamps in the month of September got an average of $252.69 during the month, and the program benefits cost those of us who still pay taxes, nearly $6 Million, or $5,748,809,023 to be exact. In 1969, the average participation in the SNAP program stood at 2,878,000. In 2014, average participation grew to 46,536,000 showing an increase of 1516.96 percent. While Barry cannot be blamed for that entire amount, a significant amount of that growth has in fact occurred on his watch.

AL ‘BULL HORN’ SHARPTON, A PREACHER OF HATE…

So it is that nearly everybody’s favorite faux ‘reverend’, and that professional race huckster, Al ‘Bull horn’ Sharpton has long been praised by any number of prominent figures in politics, as well as in the state-controlled media, as being some sort of a civil rights icon. And as bizarre as it may sound, it has even been reported that Al has now become Barry "Almighty’s" official "go-to black leader." Which, if anything, makes very clear what Barry’s true position is when it comes to the matter of race relations in this country. And it ain’t pretty.

Not one to ever be found very far from the nearest television camera or microphone, Old ‘Bull Horn’, has recently been seen in many of the media reports, leading any number of ‘protests’ against grand jury decisions exonerating white policemen in the deaths of unarmed black in Ferguson, Missouri, and Staten Island, New York. Never shy about exploiting the tragedy experienced by others, Sharpton seized upon the death of these two men for his own benefit. Their deaths were seen by Sharpton as being nothing more than an opportunity to plaster his ugly mug on televisions all across the nation.

But still there are many in the so-called ‘mainstream media’ who have continued to work very hard in their efforts to downplay, as best they can, the many negatives surrounding this fraudulent man of God. They have left no stone unturned as they have gone about the portraying of this man as being quite different from the rabble-rouser and inciter of racial hatred that we all know him to be. As a preacher, he preaches nothing but hate. So since we can no longer rely on our media to do its job, here are but a few of the highlights of his stellar career as a rait-baiter:

1. When Sharpton sought involvement in the funeral of Akai Gurley, an African-American shot dead in November by a rookie police officer in the darkened stairwell of a housing project in Brooklyn, New York, Gurley's family told him to stay away. Sharpton held a news conference condemning the cop and promised to deliver a eulogy at the wake. But Gurley's aunt, who was speaking for his mother, told TMZ: "Al Sharpton came in, put his name on the situation, but has not even made one single call to the parents of Akai," adding that all Sharpton sees "is money and political gain and he is turning the tragedy into a circus."

2. Sharpton has more than $4.5 million in current state and federal tax liens against him and his businesses. His National Action Network has repeatedly failed to pay travel agencies, hotels and landlords, records show.

3. Sharpton has allegedly sought to keep his nonprofit afloat with money that was supposed to go to payroll taxes, although he contends that the payroll tax shortfall was not intentional.

4. The ‘reverend’ accused an upstate New York prosecutor, Steven Pagones, of being part of a group of white men who raped teenager Tawana Brawley in 1987. A grand jury found "overwhelming evidence" that the rape allegation had been fabricated. Pagones sued Sharpton for defamation and won a judgment of $65,000. Sharpton reportedly paid the judgment with money raised by his supporters.

5. Sharpton has frequently sparked controversy with his strident language. During a rally in Brooklyn, he called white people "crackers."

6. After a car in a Hasidic rabbi's motorcade killed a 7-year-old black boy in Brooklyn in 1991, Sharpton referred to the Hasidic Jews as "diamond merchants" and said "if the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house." Shortly afterward, an innocent Hasidic Jewish student visiting the area from Australia was set upon by a mob and stabbed to death.

7. In 1995, an African-American Pentecostal church in Harlem, New York, asked a Jewish tenant of one of its properties, Freddie's Fashion Mart, to evict a black-run record store that was subletting part of the property. Sharpton showed up outside Freddie's vowing to a crowd: "We will not stand by and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business." Two weeks before Christmas that year, Freddie's was attacked by a man in the crowd who shot several customers and then set fire to the building with a flammable liquid, killing seven employees. Sharpton subsequently apologized for his "white interloper" remark, but vehemently denied responsibility for the violence.

8. Speaking at a college in 1994, Sharpton referred to gay men as "homos."

9. When Mitt Romney, a Mormon, was running for president in 2007, Sharpton said: "As for the Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyway."

10. In 1990, Sharpton was acquitted of felony charges that he stole $250,000 from his youth group.

11. In 1993, he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor for failing to file a state income tax return.

12. State law bars nonprofits from making loans to officers, but Sharpton admitted that his National Action Network had once loaned him money to cover his daughters' tuition.

13. Sharpton was jailed for 90 days in 2001 on trespassing charges stemming from his protest against U.S. military target practice exercises in Puerto Rico.

14. Sharpton worked as a government informant. In 2002, HBO aired a 19-year-old FBI videotape of an undercover sting operation showing Sharpton with an FBI agent posing as a Latin American businessman and a reputed Columbo crime family captain. Sharpton said in 1988 that he informed for the government in order to stem the flow of crack cocaine into black neighborhoods, although The Smoking Gun alleged that he was paid to be an informant.

15. In December 2005, Sharpton agreed to repay $100,000 in public funds he received for his 2004 presidential campaign, because he had exceeded federal limits on personal expenditures for his campaign.

16. In 2005, Sharpton appeared in three TV commercials for LoanMax, an automobile title loan firm that reportedly charged fees that were the equivalent of 300 percent APR loans.

What I find as being more than a little curious, I guess, is the fact that most blacks, while being very well aware of Sharpton’s rather shady past, seem to be bothered very little by his past ‘indiscretions.’ They don’t seem to be the least bit concerned that Sharpton’s only desire is to use them in his continuing effort to promote himself. Which leads me to wonder if this little arrangement here isn’t seen as being somehow mutually beneficial to all parties concerned. That in their own rather perverted way, blacks seem to be using Sharpton in much the same manner that he is using them.

I mean why else would this continuing exploitation, by Sharpton, Jackson and any number of others, of the black community be tolerated as it so obviously has been, and continues to be, by those who are so clearly being exploited? Obviously blacks see themselves as having something to gain from this arrangement that they have with Sharpton. Sharpton as been a major player in creating, and then cultivating, the sense of entitlement that is now rampant in the black community, the net result of which as been that the black family has been decimated. Sharpton is not a leader, he is just the opposite.

AN ACT OF SELF-PRESERVATION IS NOT AN ACT OF RACISM…

If you choose to believe the professional race hucksters like Al ‘Bull Horn’ Sharpton, Jesse ‘The Extortionist’ Jackson, or ‘Calypso Louie’ Farrakan, then I guess you can also be persuaded to believe that one man’s act of self-preservation is nothing more than a blatant act of very obvious racism. And so it would seem then that no white person, nor even a White-Hispanic for that matter, can ever be permitted to defend themselves when attacked by someone who is black without immediately being referred to as being a racist.

Now I’m not going to try to make the claim here that racism does not continue to exist here in America. After all, racism, in one form or another, exists everywhere on the planet, so what is it that would make America immune? But the truth is, at least here in America, that black on white racism is far more prevalent than white on black racism. It’s simply a fact that there are far more black racists than there are white racists despite the fact that blacks insist upon portraying themselves as being the victim in any black on white altercation.

Now that’s not to say that I don’t look at black ‘differently’ than I look at most whites, because I do. But having said that, I tend to look at blacks in much the same way that I look at those whites who take some level of pleasure in behaving in a way that intimidates others in their general vicinity. You see, blacks seem to take some perverse pleasure in doing all that they can to intimidate people, especially, white people. They enjoy their gangsta persona, in fact they work to cultivate it. And yet they refuse to see that it comes with a price.

For instance, if I’m driving down the road and I happen to see a young black male whose car is broken down on the side of the road. It’s unlikely that I’ll stop to help. And I freely admit that the reason for my not stopping is because he’s black. But the reason the basis for my unwillingness to stop is not specifically related to the color of his skin, per se, but with the behavior that can be said to be directly associated with his skin color. But also, if I were to see a white male with his head shaved and covered in tattoos I’m not likely to stop for him either.

So what many blacks claim are so quick to call racism, really isn’t racism at all. It’s simply a natural reaction, or a reflex that has essentially been created and then nurtured by blacks themselves. And it doesn’t help matters when they can be seen on television, night after night, behaving in what can be said to be a most bizarre and inappropriate manner. You see, where most whites look at blacks with suspicion because of specific kinds of behavior exhibited by blacks, most blacks look at whites out through the lens of pure hatred based solely on skin color.

Blacks continue to murder blacks, by the hundreds, and it’s worth nary a word on any of the nightly news programs. And it does nothing to reduce the level of apprehension or uneasiness one feels whenever alone and in close quarters with any black male whose background one is unfamiliar with. Jesse Jackson has himself made such an admission, once saying, "There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps... then turn around and see somebody white and feel relieved."

OUR MILITARY, A SHIP WITHOUT A RUDDER…

I thank God every single day that the majority of my time spent in the military was spent with someone at the helm who knew what it was to be a leader. Most of my time was spent serving under men whose last name was Reagan or Bush. Out of the 24 years I spent in the Navy I had the misfortune of serving under Jimmy Carter for 1 year and ‘Slick Willie’ Clinton for 8, and it was under these two pathetic imbeciles that leadership was simply nonexistent. So, needless to say, it was during those 9 years that morale was at its lowest, and pay was at its tightest.

And now after 6 years of being forced to contend with he who is without a doubt the most ill-equipped commander in chief in the history of this nation, it comes as no surprise to find out that morale in our armed services is now at an all time low. And I believe that I read somewhere, that pay and benefits are also being reduced for those who serve. The disdain that Democrats have long felt toward those who serve in the military has always been significant, but with this current president of ours it has been taken to new heights. I think we can all agree that he hates the military.

And while for some of our war-weary troops the end of an era of war in Iraq and Afghanistan is seen as being good news, for other service members, it's seen as little more than a total morale killer. You see, for many of them, particularly the young grunts and others in combat arms specialties, it's the realization that they may never go into battle for their country and their comrades. Many of these folks who make the decision to join, do so because of the wars this country is involved in.

But with Barry rapidly reducing the size of our force involved it what has become known as our "Overseas Contingency Operation", many have been force into retraining of one kind or another in the hope of being able to survive as the services are being rapidly downsized. The wars against America's enemies gave troops a noble purpose. Their training had focus, their sacrifices were appreciated by a largely grateful nation. That gratitude was reflected from the White House to the citizen in the street, all of whom heaped praise upon military members for their service.

There was a time when Congress lavished generous pay increases and expanded benefits on them while spending deeply to provide the gear and weapons they needed. Recruiters raced to grow the size of the services, and society vowed to never again undervalue the one percent of the country who willingly stepped forward to keep them safe. But it would appear that was then, because now it all seems quite different. Today, that gratitude seems to be dwindling. Those who join the military are said to do so because they can’t do anything else. What an insult!

And to add insult to injury, it courtesy of Barry’s failed leadership and his continuing effort to reduce America’s leadership role in the world, that the services have been made to weather several years of significant cuts in funding and tens of thousands of troops have been unceremoniously given the boot. Many still in uniform and seeking to retire from the military fear the same fate, as those cuts are not yet complete. I was fortunate to retire when I did, because it’s no longer worth it to make the military a career,

A Military Times survey of 2,300 active-duty troops found morale indicators on the decline in nearly every aspect of military life. Troops report significantly lower overall job satisfaction, diminished respect for their superiors, and a declining interest in re-enlistment now compared to just five years ago. Troops feel underpaid, under-equipped and under-appreciated, the survey data show. Our all-volunteer military is entering an era fraught with uncertainty and a growing sense that the force has been left adrift.

One trend to emerge from a recent Military Times survey is "that the mission mattered more to the military than to the civilian," said Peter Feaver, a political science professor at Duke University who studies the military. "For the civilian world, it might have been easier to psychologically move on and say, 'Well, we are cutting our losses.' But the military feels very differently. Those losses have names and faces attached to [them]." But when our commander-in-chief fails to put a name and a face to those losses, why should anyone else?

The priority for liberals has never been to maintain a strong defense of this nation. What has always been far more important to these scumbags is to make sure that we maintain the ability to cover the cost of those who the Democrats actively encourage to latch themselves onto the fat government teat. And we have been doing just that at an ever-increasing rate during the last 6 years, while sacrificing our ability to defend ourselves against what has become a rapidly growing list of enemies, also thanks to our commander-in-chief. It’s crazy!

DOES ANYONE REALLY PAY ATTENTION TO THESE JOBS NUMBERS???

Something you never hear about is how the labor force participation rate remained at what is a 36-year low of 62.8 percent in November, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). As I have mentioned before, the participation rate is the percentage of the civilian noninstitutional population who participated in the labor force by either having a job during the month or actively looking for one. And as it has also been pointed out before, that number matches the lowest percentage since March 1978 when, as you may recall, it was Jimmy Carter who occupied the Oval Office.

In November, according to BLS, the nation’s civilian noninstitutional population stood at 248,844,000. Of those, 156,397,000 Americans participated in the labor force by either holding a job or by actively looking for one. Those 156,397,000 who participated in the labor force made up 62.8 percent of the 248,844,000 civilian noninsttutional population, which matches the 62.8 percent rate in April, May, June, August and October of 2014 as well as the participation rate in March of 1978. The participation rate hit its lowest level of 62.7 percent in September 2014.

The other 92,447,000 people did not participate in the labor force, which means they did not have a job and were not actively trying to find one. When Barry "Almighty" first took office on that fateful day back in January 2009, there were 80,529,000 Americans who were not participating in the labor force, which means that since that day, nearly 12 Million, or 11,918,000, Americans have left the workforce. Of the 156,397,000 who did participate in the labor force, 147,287,000 had a job, and 9,110,000 did not have a job but were actively seeking one, making them the nation’s unemployed.

The 9,110,000 job seekers were 5.8 percent of the 156,397,000 Americans actively participating in the labor force during the month of November. Thus, the unemployment rate was 5.8 percent, the same as it was in October. And yet we’re supposed to ignore completely the government math involved in Friday’s turbocharged jobs headline. Numbers that came thanks primarily to seasonal adjustments and the rather shady math techniques employed there at the BLS. We’re supposed to believe that U.S. job growth managed to hit 321,000 even as the unemployment rate held steady at 5.8 percent.

These numbers, are, of course, not much more than a work of pure fiction. And the intent here is to present them in such a way, and with the hope, as generate, within the American people, if not a sense of unbridled optimism then at least a perception that the job market continues to mend and is on a pretty steady trajectory higher. It’s really all just smoke and mirrors, the specific purpose of which is to create the perception of a sound economy, where none exists. However, the household survey, which is an actual head count, makes clear that these numbers don’t paint a very accurate picture.

Here are a few figures to consider: That big headline number of 321,000 translated into just 4,000 more working Americans. There were, at the same time, another 115,000 on the unemployment line. That disparity can be explained through an expanding labor force, which grew 119,000, though the participation rate among that group remained at 62.8 percent, which is just off the year's worst level and around a 36-year low. But wait, there's more: The jobs that were created skewed heavily toward lower quality. Full-time jobs declined by 150,000, while part-time positions increased by 77,000.

And yet there were still other points not to like in this report. For instance: There were 110,000 fewer married men at work, while married women saw their ranks shrink by 59,000. So as you can pretty plainly see, the more you take the time to look beyond what it is that you’re being told, the more you find out how everything you’re being told is a lie. The numbers have now been manipulated to the point where they have become totally useless, except, perhaps, as a way for Barry, and is many minions in the state-controlled media, to convince the American people the economy is getting stronger.

HOUSE MEMBERS CLAIM TO HAVE READ 1648 PAGE BILL…

Let me start by saying that I very much doubt that Sheila Jackson Lee, that Democrat genius from Texas, is incapable of reading anything written much beyond the third grade level. So when she stated yesterday morning that she was "still reading" the bipartisan $585 Billion, 1,648-page National Defense Authorization bill I wasn’t the least bit surprised. Because the way I figure it, this moron will be about half way through it come this time next year.

So it was then that the House Republican leadership posted the bill online at 10:32 pm Tuesday night and was set for a floor vote yesterday, when it would go on to be passed 300-119. Before the vote Jackson Lee said, "I have the bill in my office and I am not prepared to vote on a bill that I am still reading, and so I’ll be on the floor raising the point of putting this bill on the floor without the opportunity for a full discussion on the questions of war and peace."

Some enterprising young reporter asked the stellar representative from Texas, "So you’re planning to read all of it before you vote on it?" To wish Jackson Lee responded, "If I have that finished, I’ll make a determination whether the Republicans have adequately provided members a time on the floor to debate it and a time on the floor to know the complete contents of the bill." So can we assume she had it finished before the big vote yesterday?

So why is it that this piece of legislation had to be over 1,600-pages long anyway? Because while this bill is supposed to include thing related to defense appropriations it is also said to contain several, shall we say, non-defense provisions. For instance it also includes the creation of new national parks and the establishment of a commission to develop a plan for, get this, a National Museum of Women’s History. Women’s History? Really?

Look, don’t get me wrong, I’m not naïve enough to think that this moron, Jackson Lee, is the ‘only’ House member out there busy making noisy claims that they ‘knew’ what was in the entire bill, when we all know, for a fact, that not one of them did. It’s just easy to pick on Jackson Lee because she’s just so damn stupid. And while many of us were likely born at night, it wasn’t last night, so we’re more than able to see right through these idiotic claims.