OLD ‘SLICK WILLIE’, DOIN’ WHAT IT IS THAT HE DOES BEST!!!

Ex-president ‘Slick Willie’ Clinton, one of only two president to ever be impeached, both of whom were Democrats, has been operating at his smarmy best of late in trying to dismiss the notion that donors to the Clinton Foundation somehow got special treatment during Hitlery’s tenure as Secretary of State.  The ‘Slick-meister’ has said that he believes such allegations are driven solely by political motives.  Normally I’d say that old ‘Slick’ probably knows a thing or two about such motives.  But in this particular instance, I think his claim is more than a little off the mark.

It was just this week, while in Denver attending something billed as a Clinton Global Initiative event, that old ‘Slick Willie’ was heard to say, "Nobody even suggested it or thought about it or talked about it until the political season began, and somebody said, 'Well, what about this?'"  ‘Slick’ went on to claim that he hadn't been asked for anything by any donors and he doesn’t know if any companies were seeking influence from his wife's position on ‘Team Obama’.  Such an idiotic statement would be funny if didn’t involve she who may yet become the next president.  But it does!   

Now while political opponents and investigative journalists have yet to uncover any specific wrongdoing on the part of this dynamic, and very shady, duo, the circumstantial evidence is pretty significant and damn convincing.  And with these two slimy characters, where’s there’s the least bit of smoke there is likely to be a roaring bonfire.  And the recent book, "Clinton Cash" by Peter Schweizer, has suggested while there was "no direct evidence" there is a pattern of transactions that should be sufficient to warrant, at a minimum, a legal probe of some kind.

And I found it downright disgusting that it was with a straight face that ‘old Slick’ was actually able to say, "I don't know. You never know what people's motives are, but in this case, I'm pretty sure that everybody that gave to Haiti in the aftermath of the earthquake saw what they saw on television, were horrified and wanted to make a difference," he said, adding that he did not "think Hillary would know either."  No, of course not, Hitlery wouldn’t have a clue as to why someone might be the least bit suspect about the motivation of these two unscrupulous and unethical crooks.

‘Slick’ gave the example of the government's relationship with Boeing, saying the U.S. had always lobbied for American-made planes and that the government worked with the company while it was also donating to the foundation's relief efforts for the 2010 earthquake in Haiti.  He said, "She was pretty busy those years, and I don't — I never saw her study a list of my contributors."  He added, "No one has ever asked me for anything or any of that."  Now keep in mind all of this nonsense is coming from the same guy who once wanted to quibble over what the meaning of ‘is’, is. 

So I guess it’s simply assumed that we’ll except at face value everything we are told by this the sleaziest couple in America.  Now I’m pretty sure that your average Democrat will have no trouble swallowing, hook, line and sinker, anything that old ‘Slick’ may say, but then I think we all very well aware of the priorities of these folks.  That would be the making sure that their taxpayer funded welfare check keeps coming.  Democrats are the lowest form of life on this planet.  They are parasites.  Even ‘Slick’ and Hitlery are parasites, just uptown parasites.  

THE WHITE HOUSE AND THE WORSENING OF RACISM IN AMERICA…

In having listened to a majority of those in the state-controlled media on what has been nearly a daily basis for the last several years, I suppose one could be forgiven for coming to the conclusion that our first family is a tad bit racist toward white people.  However, this conclusion would appear to fly in the face of the trumpeted post-racial America that Barry “Almighty” was supposed to usher in.  After all, the newly elected president was supposed to bring us a multicultural utopia; let’s not forget that he is half white.  The world was supposed to be saved, and seas would stop rising.  Yes, we’ve all heard that by now very famous quote from Barry.

Now look, I mean no offense, I simply feel that I must call them as I see them.  And please believe me when I say that I don’t come to this conclusion lightly.  It has been arrived at after years of having watched example after example being brought to the light of day by our national media.  Now they say actions speak louder that words, but having said that, the words that we have all heard, and continue to hear, coming from the first couple have been pretty loud and clear.  Of course, they never come right out and say it, but the implication is there.  And as I learned a very long time ago, if it looks, walks, and talks like a duck, well, you know the rest.

Let’s look at the New Black Panther Party controversy for a moment.  This is a group that blatantly espouses anti-white as well as anti-semitic views.  Even the Southern Poverty Law Center has called them a black racist hate group.  When several of their thugs showed up at polling centers at Philadelphia in 2008 carrying police batons and calling out racial slurs at voters, it was ‘Team Obama’ who declined to prosecute that for voter intimidation.  It’s not hard to imagine what would have happened if members of the Klu Klux Klan showed up at an Alabama polling station carrying weapons.  But then the KKK was founded, as you may recall, by Democrats.

One of the most shocking comments that I think I have ever heard come from an American president were the words Barry uttered about Russian president Vladimir Putin.  After the media pressed Barry on his relationship with Putin in 2013, Barry stated, “He’s got that kind of slouch, looking like the bored kid in the back of the classroom.”  Can you imagine a white president saying that about a black African leader?  Could this be the reason our relationship with Russia has deteriorated so badly, despite the infamous reset button?  We have as our president a man who most world leaders likely tolerate as they would a spoiled, petulant child.  

Then there is the incident where Harvard professor Skip Gates was arrested for disorderly conduct after police were called to the house for a possible burglary.  Barry admitted that he knew none of the details and yet proceeded to state that the police had acted stupidly in arresting the black professor.  Don’t we have due process in this country?  Is that comment not borne out of an anti-white worldview?  Barry is the president of the United States as he has famously said, not the president of black America.  But Barry again shot his mouth off before knowing the facts in the Trayvon Martin case, and again in the Michael Brown case, and yet again in the Freddie Gray case.

And then over the course of the last several month our less than stellar first lady, Moochelle Obummer, who made it clear she is as racist has her husband.  First most notably at Tuskegee University and then once again, much more recently, when she suggested during a speech to a Chicago high school graduation ceremony that students should monitor their relatives and friends for anti-minority comments.  Hmmm.  Funny that I’ve never heard Moochelle Obummer talk about black racists and their comments likely made around the dinner table.  I wonder what the reason could be?  I’m sure that that is merely an oversight her part.  Don’t you think?

Personally, I think it’s pretty obvious we are not living in a post-racial society today in the United States.  In fact, I believe it’s just the opposite that’s true.  The Obamas have taken the country backwards and have worked very diligently to divide the American people along racial lines.  There is now more animosity between the races than I think I have ever seen in my 63 years of life.  Yes, there are racist white people.  However, their views are not mainstream, nor are they accepted in society.  On the other hand, black racism, no matter how obvious, is always tolerated.  Just look at the actions and words of our first family.

Whenever those on the left, as well as from many of those within the black community, loudly decry the fact that racism remains very much alive and well here in the United States, I find myself having to agree with them.  Because who better to know for a fact that racism continues to plague this country than the very perpetrators of that racism?  You will not find a more racist individual anywhere than one who is a Democrat, or who is black, or, worst of all, who is a black Democrat.  And whenever you see any of these clowns on television it is very short order, nearly as soon as they open their mouth, that their racism becomes painfully obvious. 

PERFECT TIME TO BUY STOCK IN BURGER KING OR WENDY’S???

I admit it, when I was a kid, all those many years ago, my family and I did spend some amount of time eating at McDonald’s.  But that had a lot more to do with the fact that my Dad liked the taste of their fries than it did with anything else.  But today, whether it’s because more Americans have become more health conscious, or because of an increase in competition, it would seem that the fast-food chain has seen a significant decrease in its sales of late.  So what’s a corporation to do? 

Now I’m certainly no business expert, but it seems to me that it wouldn’t make much sense, at least from a business standpoint, to bring in someone that has no experience in business.  But be that as it may, Robert Gibbs, of Barry press secretary fame, has been hired on to build McDonalds into the nation’s first ‘modern, progressive burger company.’  Things will, most likely, go from bad to worse and in pretty short order.  How is it that anyone could think this is anywhere near being a good idea?

So the former Barry Spokesmoron, Robert Gibbs, has now been hired on by McDonalds as the new Executive Vice President and Global Chief Communications Officer.  Quite the fancy title that Bobby has managed to acquire for himself.  Connections work wonders.  Gibbs, as you may recall, served as Barry’s communications director during the Barry’s time in the Senate as well as his 2008 campaign, and was the first press secretary for his administration, before finally departing in 2011.

McDonald’s President and CEO Steve Easterbrook released a statement that said in part: “Robert and Silvia [Lagnado] are both highly-respected, talented leaders who will bring a wealth of experience and outside perspective to McDonald’s as we build a more modern, progressive burger company.”  I can see it now, McDonald’s veggie burgers and zucchini fries.  Yum, Yum!  How better to guarantee that your sales will continue to plummet, at a highly accelerated rate, than to bring in a boob like Gibbs?

Easterbrook added that Gibbs would help restore “excitement to our business proposition” and “turnaround plan.”  After having spent years watching this guy in action, I’m just not getting why it is that someone might think that he would be the ideal choice for such a position.  Personally, I just never thought Bobby came across as being all that bright.  Perhaps now might be just the right time to at least start thinking about buying some stock in either Burger King or Wendy’s, or both.

Now I could be wrong here, but it would seem to me that if I were the head of some multi-million dollar corporation, looking to stem the bleeding from my bottom line, I just don’t see myself turning to someone like Robert Gibbs, expecting him to be my savior.  It just doesn’t compute.  And would you even want your company to be associated with such an unsavory and dishonest character as Gibbs?  I wouldn’t!  And what’s that say about the moron who decided to hire him? 

And you have to ask yourself, what on God’s green Earth does a guy who has associated himself with the most anti-capitalism president in our history know about the inner workings of a business of any size, let alone one the size of McDonald’s?  And has he ever spent any amount of time, of any duration, working in the private sector?  Or does he possess some special qualifications or unique connections that I don’t know about that would somehow explain this rather bizarre hire?     

IT’S JUST ALL PART OF THE “FUNDAMENTAL TRANSFORMATION” PROCESS…

You’ll remember that it was as a candidate for president that Barry “Almighty” promised to restore balance to the Constitution, after what many argued had been a period of executive overreach, infringing on civil liberties and the balance of powers.  When he launched his campaign, he even went so far as to refer to his past career as a “civil rights lawyer,” and a constitutional law teacher.  But as we know, his past career involved little more than being a community agitator and a ‘senior lecturer.’

Once in office, however, Barry chose to embark upon a somewhat different path.  One that would, instead, see him choosing to expand executive powers even further, and that would lead to what has been a very aggressive 6-year assault on judicial independence.  The most recent example was on Monday, when Barry discussed the upcoming Supreme Court ruling in King v. Burwell, which challenges federal subsidies for Obamacare insurance policies in states that have not set up their own exchanges.

The plaintiffs argue that the letter of the law bars such subsidies.  Barry, in claiming to be citing “well-established statutory interpretation approaches,” said the case should be “easy” to throw out, and the had the nerve to add, “Frankly, it probably shouldn’t have been taken up.”  It was Charles Krauthammer who described it as being “indecent,” for Barry to so blatantly attack the Supreme Court’s competence in advance of the ruling.  But this was not the first time that Barry has done so.

It was in April 2012, after oral arguments in the original Obamacare case (NFIB v. Sebelius) went badly for his side, that Barry responded by challenging the power of judicial review itself, warning America lest an “unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.”  Now, in the first place, for Barry to refer to Obamacare as being a “duly constituted and passed law” was more than a stretch.  What it is, is a result of what was an act of pure political chicanery.

And sadly it would appear that it was Barry’s rather thinly disguised warning that convinced Chief Justice John Roberts to essentially throw the American people under the bus while at the same time choosing to abandon his Constitutional responsibility by changing his vote in order to preserve the popular image of the Court.  Roberts issued an opinion that effectively rewrote the Obamacare penalty as a tax–a far more brazen form of judicial activism than anything Barry had described.

Later, in his second inaugural address, Barry again sought to direct the Court, this time on the gay marriage cases it was about to hear, suggesting they had a civic duty to rule the way he wanted.  Now at the risk of repeating myself, this is not how one expects an American president to act.  And for someone who claims to be a “Constitutional scholar” he seems to be rather ignorant about how our government works.  Either that or he simply sees himself as being far above all that constitutional nonsense.

Perhaps the worst incident was one that played out on live television in front of the entire nation, during Barry’s 2010 State of the Union address, as six of the nine Justices sat quietly in the House chamber. Barry rebuked the Court for its decision in the Citizens United case, saying their decision would “open the floodgates for special interests–including foreign corporations–to spend without limit in our elections.”  And we watched the Democrats disgracefully, yet typically, leap to their feet in applause.

When courts have ruled against his administration, Barry has tried to ignore or defy them.  In 2011, a federal judge found the Obama administration in contempt of court for banning offshore oil drilling in the wake of the BP/Deepwater Horizon disaster, even after the policy had been struck down.  And it was more recently, that Barry tried to snooker the federal judge in the lawsuit against his “executive amnesty” immigration policy, triggering an angry rebuke from the court.

Even Barry’s judicial appointments have shown a blatant disregard for the institution. He packed the D.C. Circuit, which had been balanced between Republican and Democrat appointees, in the hope that a heavy Democrat majority would shield his very ambitious executive agenda from challenge.  It’s sad that these ‘judges’ are so willing to put their leftist agenda over and above the Constitution.  Democrats are simply not to be trusted, and therefore should never be appointed to the bench.

Barry’s two Supreme Court appointees, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, two the least qualified individuals to ever sit on the high court, were chosen not for their judicial experience (dubious in the former, absent in the latter), but rather because of their race and gender.  This is not how a president of the United States should treat the judiciary, or the Constitution.  But then, Barry is far from being our typical president, he sees himself more as some two-bit, tin-horn, dictator wanna-be. 

The last one to attempt anything similar to what Barry is trying to pull here, was Democrat Party icon, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and even he ran up against the opposition of his own party, who were more well-steeped in constitutional principle than any of today’s crop of leftist Democrats.  And for all of his high-minded, professorial rhetoric on the campaign trail, Barry’s real attitude towards the Constitution is that it is a means to an end–and the judiciary better not get in his way.

Putting politics aside, is there anyone who can in any way justify Barry’s antics.  As I have asked before, is this what we should expect from American president?  Frankly I would think blacks would be so pissed off because when Barry first came into office, as this nation’s first black president, it would have been so easy for him to become so much more than a rabid ideologue.  Imagine if he had come into office wanting to strengthen America instead of working to weaken it?  What might he have become? 

SADLY, CHANGE, FOR THE SAKE OF CHANGE, IS NEVER GOOD…

Why is it that I should, today, find myself, an American citizen, being fearful of my government?  And not just the government that resides in Washington, but also the one whose home the local City Hall.  Have I suddenly, somehow and without my knowledge, been teleported through time and space having come to rest in what is nothing more than some third world banana republic or nation ruled by some second rate communist despot?  I didn’t think so, and yet why have I come to feel that way? 

I mean this is still the United States of America, is it not?  I thought so, but it seems to be in name only.  It seems that every day my country becomes just that much less recognizable than it was the day before.  And the rate at which these changes are now being made to take place, it won’t be long before ‘America’ disappears completely.  We heard much talk of change back in 2007, implying change is good.  But if the last few years have shown us anything, it’s that that notion is crap.

Because while the country in which I am now living may bear the same name as the country of my youth, it has come to bear very little resemblance to that country.  Sadly, very few of the changes that have been made to take place over the years, but especially those made more recently, have actually been for the better.  And what’s worse, much of what has been lost over the years, as a result of these changes, most will likely be lost forever, unable to be recovered for future generations to enjoy. 

Efforts made, over the years, by one political party in particular have been very successful in creating an environment where the American people were first divided into specific blocks so that it would then be all that much easier to create conflict or friction between them.  Of course the specific purpose behind creating this conflict and friction was for it to act as a distraction.  Because attention needed to be diverted away from what the Democrat Party was really up to.

And while it would be easy to blame the politicians, who was it that allowed them to succeed in the first place by putting up little or no resistance?  Who was it that allowed themselves to be convinced that it was somehow more personally beneficial to get into petty disagreements with one’s fellow countrymen instead of ignoring what it is was that our politicians were trying to do?  If only we had perhaps been a bit more resistant to the tactics that were being employed against us.     

So we have allowed ourselves to maneuvered into thinking that it was all our idea that our government has now become better able to control so much of our daily lives.  We thought we were all being so clever, when in fact we were so very foolish.  We bought the propaganda hook, line and sinker, and all that has really been accomplished is that we have become much less free.  We have been successfully convinced to throw future generations under the proverbial bus.  And for what?

So when looking at and listening to those running, and those soon to be running, for president in 2016, is there anyone we can trust?  I think it would be rather foolish to think we can trust Hitlery Clinton, but I’m sure many do.  As for the competition, I’ve not yet decided who it is that I trust within what seems to be a rapidly growing field.  But I can tell you that I already know who it is that I don’t trust.  We need to look for that candidate whose priority is the survival of our country. 

SO THE KOCH BROTHERS ARE BAD, AND GEORGE SOROS IS GOOD???

I’m sure most will remember all of the talk, even from the floor of the U.S. Senate, about the evil Koch brothers during the lead up to the 2014 midterm elections.  But during that time the very same ones who were busy preaching the evils of these two men, were strangely silent when it came to the billionaires on the left.  And you know who I’m talking about, men like George Soros, Tom Steyer and Mike Bloomberg to name but a few.  There was silence, you see, because these men are the financiers of the Democrats’ war on America. 

Which brings me to Democrat Sugar-Daddy, George Soros.  According to news reports Soros has agreed to spend upwards of $5 Million on Democrat court battles against voting laws passed in recent years by Republican-controlled state governments.  It was in describing these legal battles that Soros said, "We hope to see these unfair laws, which often disproportionately affect the most vulnerable in our society, repealed."  And he would go on to describe himself as being "proud" of his involvement in this matter.

Soros political adviser, some guy named Michael Vachon, said the billionaire has given $1 million so far this year to the liberal ‘research’ super PAC American Bridge.  Backers of Democrat presidential candidate Hitlery Clinton, who has made these types of voting laws a cornerstone of her campaign, have been pushing Soros to commit millions of dollars to her super PAC.  Soros has not done so thus far.  The lawsuits against the states are being led by attorney Marc Elias, who is Hitlery’s campaign general counsel.

Most, I’m sure are well aware that this is far from being the infamous Mr. Soros' first involvement in issues such as this.  His first major push into American politics included the America Coming Together voter-mobilization drive back in 2004, in what was his all out effort to defeat President George W. Bush. The lawsuits include attacks on voter ID requirements, time restrictions on early voting that make it difficult to cast ballots on the weekend before Election Day, and rules nullifying ballots that are cast in wrong precincts.

It has been reported that Soros was in contact with Elias back in January 2014, while the attorney was then exploring federal lawsuits before the midterms and before the 2016 cycle.  Elias himself refused comment this past Friday regarding the funding behind these lawsuits. So it should come as no surprise to find out that as part of Soros’ effort to destroy this country, we find him supporting lawsuits filed in Ohio and Wisconsin last month, and is helping finance a case Elias and other groups filed in North Carolina last year.    

Hitlery and the Democrats have done, and continue to do, their best to advance the argument that these voting laws affect poor, minority, and young voters unfairly. Republicans on the other hand say, and rightly so, that the new laws, enacted since 2010, serve as protection against what has become the growing problem of election fraud. Further, Republican opponents point out that the lawsuits, also expected in Georgia, Nevada, and Virginia, are politically motivated, filed only to attract minority voters to support Democrats.

Vachon, though, said it is "disingenuous" for Republicans to say the laws prevent voter fraud, which he claims is "nearly nonexistent," but instead, they are "meant to give Republicans a political advantage on Election Day.”  But on the contrary, the purpose behind these laws is really two-fold.  It is to make it so that only those who are entitled to vote, get to vote, and by doing so to creating a level playing field for both parties by preventing the dozens of examples of Democrat voter fraud that we hear about after every single major election.   

It was in a speech in Houston this past week that we heard Hitlery attack many of her potential Republican opponents for the presidency by name, including Chris Christie and Scott Walker, who fired back.  Christie responded by telling The Record of Elmwood Park, New Jersey, "Secretary Clinton doesn't know the first thing about voting rights in New Jersey or in the other states that she attacked."  And he went on to say, "My sense is she just wants an opportunity to commit greater acts of voter fraud around the country.”

And it was Walker who commented that it’s Hitlery's push against laws that make it "easier to vote and harder to cheat" defies logic and most Americans' wishes. Vachon said in an interview with the New York Times that Elias first approached him last year about a lawsuit against a North Carolina law that says student identification cards are not acceptable to use as a photo ID for voting, and which ended a program allowing teenagers to fill out a form that automatically registered them to vote on their 18th birthday. 

With all this talk of lawsuits, I think it would be important to take note of a new poll by Rasmussen Reports.  It’s a poll which finds that a strong majority of Americans favor a requirement for voters to show a photo ID before being allowed to vote.  Following several years of similar results, the June poll finds that Americans overwhelmingly support Voter ID laws.  Rasmussen found that 76% of respondents favor voter ID laws and even a majority of Democrats, 58%, agree that voter ID is a good idea.

So it would appear that Democrats like Hitlery, and they’re big money backers like Soros, don’t’ really care that a majority of Americans are of the opinion that one should have to prove who one says one is when showing up to vote.  So you have to ask yourself, why is it, exactly, that the Democrat Party opposes such an idea?  And why is it that someone like George Soros would be willing to spend $5 Million in an effort to prevent such an idea from becoming a reality?  I think we all know the answer to that.

HITLERY CLINTON BANKING ON THE IGNORANCE OF BLACKS…

So riddle me this.  What’s a lying sack of shit Democrat, who’s running for president, supposed to do when she has absolutely no record on which she can run and has none of the qualifications thought to be necessary for the job, nor expected to be possessed by those seeking the job of president?  And also, just how stupid does she think those folks who comprise the black community, really are?  Because believe it or not, one most certainly has very much to do with the other.

You see it was during just this past week, while in Houston, TX, at Southern University, a historically black college, that Democrat presidential candidate Hitlery Clinton took the opportunity to accuse several of the Republicans vying to be her opponent come 2016, including Rick Perry, Scott Walker, Chris Christie and Jeb Bush, of intentionally attempting to disenfranchise voters based on race, age and poverty level.  But I suppose such lunacy coming from Hitlery has come to be expected.

Hitlery said, “We have a responsibility to say clearly and directly what’s really going on in our country. Because what is happening is a sweeping effort to dis-empower and disenfranchise people of color, poor people, and young people from one end of our country to the other.”  So I guess what she’s really implying here is that those of us who think it should be a requirement for folks to identify themselves when voting are what, racist?  And yet, is it racist to have to identify oneself when boarding an airplane?

And Hitlery was rather specific in her accusations, saying, “Yet, unfortunately, today there are people who offer themselves to be leaders, whose actions have undercut this fundamental American principle. Here in Texas, former Governor Rick Perry signed a law that a federal court said was actually written with the purpose of discriminating against minority voters.”  You see, this is how Hitlery, and every other Democrat, operates.  When one has nothing to run on, simply slander the opposition.

And she went on to say, “He applauded when the voting rights act was gutted, and said the lost protections were outdated and unnecessary. But Governor Perry is hardly alone in his crusade against voting rights. In Wisconsin, Governor Scott Walker cut back early voting and signed legislation that would make it harder for college students to vote. In New Jersey, Governor Chris Christie vetoed legislation to extend early voting.”  So denying early voting is also to be seen as being racist?

And still she went on, saying, “And in Florida, when Jeb Bush was governor, state authorities conducted a deeply flawed purge of voters before the presidential election in 2000.  Thankfully in 2004, a plan to purge even more voters was headed off. So today, Republicans are systematically and deliberately trying to stop millions of American citizens from voting. What part of democracy are they afraid of? I believe every citizen has the right to vote. And I believe we should do everything we can to make it easier for every citizen to vote.”

She added, “I call on Republicans at all levels of government, with all manner of ambition, to stop fear mongering about a phantom epidemic of election fraud and start explaining why they’re so scared of letting citizens have their say.”   Who she ought be calling out are those within her own party, those who while they deny that voter fraud even exists as being a problem, seem to, at the same time, work to make it even easier and even actively encouraging it.

Look, Democrats have, going back 50 years or more, always banked on the ignorance of blacks in this country.  And the result has been Democrats have been very successful, electorally speaking.  This despite the fact that it’s the Democrat Party that has a history of supporting slavery, Jim Crow, and segregation.  And yet blacks have allowed themselves to be convinced into voting for the very party that still works to keep them enslaved, this time to a government that does not have their best interests at heart.

And so as obviously evidenced by Hitlery’s performance from this past week, there is little reason to think that that trend will come to an end anytime soon, and most definitely not within the next 18 month.  And like I said, this is the only thing that she’s got.  Looking back we see a Hitlery Clinton that was a less than impressive first lady, a failure as a U.S. Senator, and an absolute disaster as a secretary of state.  And yet, somehow, she still feels she’s qualified to be president?  Bizarre, just bizarre! 

JIMMY CARTER, NOW JUST THE SECOND WORST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY…

Jimmy Carter, he who was for so very long, and rightly so, considered to be the worst president this country has ever been made to endure, until Barry “Almighty” came along, has once again demonstrated quite clearly why it was that that moniker was first bestowed upon him, and how it was that he was able to hold on to for so long.  He has once again made quite clear he is man if little character.

You see, it was this doddering old boob, and yet another Democrat who has no love for this country, who recently said, “A great number of Americans still have "feelings of superiority to people of color."  But once again it’s Jimmy who has everything exactly backwards.  Because the majority of racists in this country are those very same “people of color” of whom Jimmy speaks so fondly.

In an interview that he provided to AARP, a group that has become little more than a front group for the Democrat Party, the 90-year-old Carter said recent stories about "mistreatment of black people in the judicial and police realm has been a reminder that the dreams of the civil rights movement have not been realized.”  Now is it out of nothing more than ignorance that causes him to say such a thing, or perhaps something more sinister?

This senile old reject from a home for the demented went on to say, "Many Americans still have racist tendencies or feelings of superiority to people of color."   Right, the fact is that the majority of those of Jimmy is talking about reside in Carter’s very own Democrat Party.  Oh and by the way, that would be the party that supported slavery, created Jim Crow and the KKK, and perpetuated segregation as long as they could.

Carter also took the opportunity to warn against the influence wealthy special interests in politics, saying over-the-top campaign spending has chained presidential elections since he launched his own in 1976.  But I have a funny feeling that the “wealthy special interests” about whom he is truly concerned, would not be George Soros or Tom Steyer, but those on the right.  He’s such a pathetic fraud!

Jimmy said, "I don’t think anybody now can hope to be the nominee of the Democratic or Republican Party if they can’t raise like a quarter of a billion dollars. "  And he went on to say, "This massive infusion of money automatically polarizes our country."  What’s he talking about?  It’s the Democrat Party that’s all about polarizing the country!  They’re all about class warfare, it’s a Democrat campaign staple. 

Jimmy said, "When hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent tearing down the reputation of an opponent in order to get elected, animosity and negativism carries on into Washington."  I found it being more than just a little ironic that Jimmy would be heard complaining about something that the Democrats are so well-known for, that being, of course, character assassination and the slandering of one’s opponents.

Jimmy said he wouldn't get far in today's political climate.  He said, "There was harmony among Congressmen when I was there, and I got just as much support from Republicans as I did from Democrats."  And he added, "I can’t imagine myself as a successful candidate today.  Frankly he likely wouldn’t have been successful back in 1976 either if the Republicans had had a better candidate than Gerald Ford.

Not only was Jimmy, until recently, thought of as the worst president in this nation’s history, but since leaving office he has become little more than a national embarrassment and on a global scale.  It comes as a surprise to see him side with the terrorists especially since he’s best remembered as being the American president who first struck the match that set off the same ongoing Islamic inferno about which Barry has done little more than to throw gasoline on. 

YET ANOTHER CLAIM IS HEARD ABOUT HOW WELL OBAMACARE IS WORKING…

Yup, this whole Obamacare fiasco is working out just great!   Now with that said, were any of you, like me, more than just a little startled by the news that insurance companies are planning health insurance rate hikes of 10 percent or more in 37 states?  Or by the fact that, according to the White House, this is actually considered as being one of the signs that Obamacare can said to be working?

White House Spokesmoron Josh Earnest explained to reporters that, thanks to Obamacare requirements, insurance companies are forced to report publicly any proposed rate hikes exceeding 10 percent for the coming period.  State insurance regulators, he very confidently declared, would then conduct a review of the rate increases.  So what is this boob’s point, exactly?

Apparently the fact that these rate increases are now public was the source for Earnest’s rather peculiar brand of optimism because he seemed quite confident that, ultimately, these proposed rate increases would not stand.  According to this genius, “The result typically has been that after that state review is conducted, that insurance companies would slash their rates.”  I guess we’ll see.

When asked if rate increases were contrary to Barry’s promise to reduce health care costs through Obamacare, Spokesmoron Earnest chose to spew the same drivel that we have heard ever since this thing was shoved through Congress essentially in the dark of night.  That being, of course, the law’s supposed ability to slow down spiking health care premiums, which as we all know was a fallacy. 

Earnest said, “Our goal of this has been to slow the growth in health care costs, and that has been our mantra.”  And he went on to say, “And we have seen, as our economists can demonstrate to you, that since the health care law went into effect — since the Affordable Care Act went into effect health care costs in this country have grown at the slowest rate in recorded history, the slowest rate in 50 years.”

There is nothing that these clowns will not say in their continuing effort to claim that this ever-worsening debacle is somehow actually working.  But the truth of the matter is that it is not.  All that has been accomplished here is the destruction of what once the finest healthcare system anywhere on the planet.  Because despite all of the claims, cost haven’t slowed, they’ve accelerated, and rather dramatically.    

Look, nothing that was said regarding what would be accomplished by this nightmare has been accomplished.  We still have millions of folks without insurance and those that are able to obtain insurance are now paying far more, through higher premiums, higher deductibles, or both, than they were before the Democrats ‘passed’ this monstrosity.  The sole purpose behind this abomination was not to lower costs, but to expand the government’s ability to better control “We the People?”  

OBAMA, OUR FIRST ‘JEWISH’ PRESIDENT? WHO KNEW???

Now I’m quite sure that it comes as quite a shock to most Israelis when on this past Tuesday, they heard former Barry advisor David ‘My Mommie is a Commie’ Axelrod inform an Israeli television channel that Barry “Almighty” considers himself “the closest thing to a Jew that has ever sat in this office.”  Barry’s deep and abiding connection to Jewish identity is obviously rooted in his ethnic background, connected to Jews via (?); his ideological ties to Jews, such as (?); and a profound connection with the state of Israel as evidenced by (?).

Let’s face it, in reality, Barry is about as Jewish as George Wallace was black.  But Barry spouted this drivel in order to whine about his treatment at the hands of commentators who, not having undergone full frontal lobotomies, can identify his animus for the Jewish state. “You know,” he allegedly told Axelrod, “I think I am the closest thing to a Jew that has ever sat in this office. For people to say that I am anti-Israel, or, even worse, anti-Semitic, it hurts.”  Come on, he can’t be serious.  I mean really, how crazy is that? 

And oddly enough it was on the very same day that Barry’s former top advisor announced that Barry’s rabbinic degree could be expected in the mail at any moment, that Barry saw fit to threaten Israel with abandonment at the United Nations. Barry then said that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s realistic assessment of the status of negotiations – Netanyahu said there could be no deal to create a Palestinian state with the current leadership of the Palestinian Arabs – created a threat to the “credibility” of Israel.

Barry said that Netanyahu’s position, which is that Israel’s enemies ought to be forced to acknowledge its existence and disown terrorism prior to negotiations, “has so many caveats, so many conditions that it is not realistic to think that those conditions would be met at any time in the near future. So the danger is that Israel as a whole loses credibility. Already, the international community does not believe that Israel is serious about a two-state solution.”  If that’s true then those who comprise the international community haven’t been paying attention.

Obviously, at least Barry’s way of thinking, Israel will only be credible when it accepts an Iranian nuclear threat, as well as a terrorist Palestinian state on its borders.  Few seem to recall when in 2000 it was Prime Minister Ehud Barak who agreed to nearly every demand made by Yasser Arafat only to have Arafat walk away and deliberately turn to terrorism.  That act alone should have been enough to convince the entire world that neither Arafat nor the Palestinians had any real interest in achieving peace.  Their mission then was, as it is today, the complete annihilation of Israel.

Netanyahu indirectly responded to Barry’s patently idiotic comments as any real leader would.  He said, “When it comes to Israel’s security, I rely, first of all, on ourselves.”  Thus is the difference between having a man as your leader who actually possesses those leadership traits necessary for the job and having someone like Barry who even on his best day is in no way whatsoever someone who can even remotely be described as being a leader.  What he is, is all he has ever been, a two-bit community agitator and a purveyor of hate.  It’s all he knows how to do.   

It’s obvious that he despises Israel.  And he does so because to him, it represents a Judeo-Christian colonialist outpost in an oppressed, Third World, Muslim area.  So why the nonsense about being a member of the Tribe?  Because Barry sees himself as all things to all people.  Barry once said that he was a blank canvas on which people could project their thoughts and dreams, but he thinks of himself as an honorary member of every minority. He has Muslim roots, and thus understands Muslims better than Islamists. He is black, of course.  He is also white, and understands the racism of his “typical white person” grandmother.

Now he’s Jewish, which allows him to lecture Jews about “Jewish values,” which he did again just last week.  This is the beauty of thinking about the world in little subsets of humanity operating through ethnic solidarity: if you appoint yourself an emissary of each of those groups, you can speak to each of those groups as an insider, and never be challenged for having other interests at heart. Sadly for Barry and for the world, however, he has no relationship to Jews, no kinship with Jews, and certainly no love for Judaic values. The result: the most anti-Israel, anti-Semitic administration in American history.

But you know, this really this goes far beyond just being about Barry.  The Democrat Party of today, and nearly as a whole, is no friend to the Israel.  And if Hitlery is in fact our next president the adversarial relationship that currently exists will likely continue and get even worse, which does not bode well for the long term survival of the Jewish state.  And I’ve never been able to figure how why it is that so many Jews insist upon voting for Democrats and against Israel.  I mean how do they sleep at knowing that they have been willing accomplices in the destruction of the homeland?

OBAMA’S ROSE COLORED GLASSES…

Ok, so I’m having a rather difficult time trying to figure out whether Barry is merely looking through what has to be the most power pair of rose colored glasses ever created, or if he has now become delusional to point where, for the safety of the rest us and for the sake of the country, he should be committed and forced to spend what will be the rest of his time in office in a nice comfortable padded cell somewhere in one of our finer institutions for the mentally deficient.  Now what has me bringing up this little quandary is the fact that Barry, just yesterday, chose to once again toot his own horn, doing so when speaking to a “town hall” gathering at the White House for fellows of his Young Southeast Asian Leaders Initiative (YSEALI).

Barry told the members of this group, "People don't remember, when I came into office, the United States in world opinion ranked below China and just barely above Russia."  He went on to say,  "But today, once again, the United States is the most respected country on earth, and part of that I think is because of the work that we did to reengage the world and say that we want to work with you as partners, with mutual interest and mutual respect.”  And he then added, "It's on that basis that we were able to end two wars while still focusing on the very real threat of terrorism, and to try to work with our partners on the ground in places like Iraq and Afghanistan."  And he was able to say all of this with a straight face!

He went on to say, “It’s the reason why we are moving in the direction to normalize relations with Cuba and the nuclear deal that we are trying to negotiate with Iran.”  Yes, my friends, Barry is truly a legend in his own mind.  But I would be very curious to know what it is that might be Barry’s source for his “most respected” characterization.  I mean, I suppose it had to have come from somewhere.  And who was it, exactly, that provided the answer to the question that was asked the question which allowed such a conclusion to be arrived at?  And I’d also be more than a little curious know how the question was asked.  Because when surveys are taken they can essentially be made in such way to arrive at whatever conclusion you want to reach.        

Republican critics, including RINO Lindsey Graham, say Barry's failure to leave a residual U.S. troop presence in Iraq has contributed to the ongoing disintegration of that country as well as the rise of the Islamic State.  Barry's so-called "re-set" with Russia has resulted in the worst relations with that country since the Cold War. His antagonism toward Israel's prime minister has elevated tensions with that close ally. The leaders of Iran sneer at the Obama administration, even as Barry tries to negotiate a nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic. And anarchy has engulfed Libya, after Barry ordered air strikes to topple Moammar Gaddafi. And more recently, Americans were chased out of Yemen as the security situation deteriorated.

Charles Krauthammer described it this way: "He says we're the most respected country in the world once again. You wonder what world, what planet, he is living on?"  Charles went on to say, "And it is not just, as you enumerated, our enemies who have no respect for us -- the Chinese, the Russians, the Iranians, of course, ISIS -- you can go all the way down. It is our allies.”  He said, "You think the Ukrainians respect us, or the Poles, the Lithuanians? How about Saudis? How about the Bahrainis? The king of Bahrain was supposed to come to the summit in Camp David with the president of the United States. He stiffs the president and the foreign ministry of Bahrain issues a statement saying on that day, where was the king? At a horse show in England. Now if that's a sign of respect, we've got problems."

Charles also pointed to Egypt: "Where did the president of Egypt go several months ago? For the first time in 40 years he goes to Moscow looking for assistance and for weapons. We had a monopoly in that area of influence. That is not only gone and dissipated, but there's been a revulsion against the United States because we have checked out under Obama. And these allies who have depended on us for so long are finding themselves left hanging in the wind."  Over the course of Barry’s presidency our enemies have continued to become more emboldened because they see us as weak, and therefore they no longer fear us.  And with no fear there is no respect.  And despite what liberals think, respect is more important than being liked.    

When Barry his idiotic remarks, he was responding to a question, "How do you want the world to remember you?"  Barry responded, "Fondly, I hope."  He said, "I still have twenty months in office, so I've got a lot of work still to do."  And then he went on to say, "Obviously there are things I've been proud of." He actually bragged about the non-recovery-economic-recovery, claiming we avoid a "terrible depression," claimed to have saved the auto industry and averting an international financial crisis.  And he said, "That's an important legacy for me."  He also mentioned providing health insurance, ignoring completely that healthcare costs have skyrocketed when it was claimed just the opposite would happen and "educational opportunity.”

Barry insisted, "Internationally, we've reinvigorated diplomacy in a whole variety of ways."  And he pointed to his administration's efforts to help encourage democracy in Myanmar.  He said, "I think the people of Myanmar deserve the credit for this new opening, but my visit there didn't hurt in trying to reinforce the possibilities of freedom for 40 million people. So that direct engagement, the work that we've done to build and strengthen international organizations, including on issues like public health and the fight against Ebola that is just the most recent example of that -- I think we've been able to put our international relationships on a very strong footing that allows us then to work more cooperatively with other countries moving forward to meet the important challenges ahead.”

Earlier, Barry told the group that "Democracy is hard. I think that many of the things that are said about me are terribly unfair. But the reason Americans democracy has survived for so long is because people, even if they're wrong, have the right to say what they think.”  He went on to say, "George Washington, our first president, he complained terribly about some of the foolishness that was said about him. But part of the reason he's considered one of our greatest presidents is because he set an example of recognizing that if democracy was to work, then you had to respect the rights of even those people who you disagree most with. Because otherwise there's no way that a democracy can flourish over the long term."

So as I mentioned earlier, either Barry has acquired for himself some rather powerful rose colored glasses, or he has embarked on yet another one of his many, and rather legendary, ego trips.  Sorry, Barry, but you and your inflamed ego have done nothing but bring us even further down into the dirt. You have turned our once-great nation into a baby killing Sodom and Gomorrah where evil is called good and good evil.  People from other nations look on us now with a mixture of disgust and contempt. Certainly very few fear us, and our enemies from the Middle East arrive every day by the truckload in Texas, Arizona, and Detroit. Russia does jet flyovers into our air space on a regular basis and China doesn’t regard us at all.  Respected?  Hardly!!       

DEMOCRAT PARTY CRIES, “POOR ME!”

Democrats have been whining quite a bit of late as they try to convince anyone who will listen that they have somehow managed to get themselves behind in at least one race for the White House, that being the race for big donors.  Now I’m sorry, but I’m finding such nonsense more than just a little absurd.  Democrats have long had an army of billionaires behind them, those willing to spend whatever was necessary to ensure the Democrat mission against America succeeded.  And it is an army that is much larger in both number and in wealth possessed than we could ever hope to have on our side.  I’m sure everyone is quite familiar with names like George Soros, Tom Steyer, Bill Gates or ‘Nanny Mike’ Bloomberg to name only a few.  And how many Hollywood millionaires do they also have in their pocket?  Now granted there have been a couple losses when it comes to Democrat big-money men.  John Sperling and Peter B. Lewis have since moved on to the great beyond, but I’m sure their wealthy families have remained faithful to the list of progressive causes.

According to The New York Times, longtime Hitlery ally Harold Ickes has been hard at work trying to come up with the Democrat answer to the GOP's Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson, Foster Friess and Norman Braman.   But, or so we’re being told, it hasn't been easy.  It was Ickes who actually told the Times, "Our side isn’t used to being asked for that kind of money."  He went on to say, "If you asked them to put up $100 million for a hospital wing, they’d be the first in line."  Really?  That would be funny if it wasn’t so patently dishonest!  But part of the problem, at least according to the Times, is the expected nominee herself.  Hitlery reportedly isn't meeting with those megadonors on her side.  She also faces the rules limiting candidate coordination with super PACS, which are able to accept the large sums of cash that candidates cannot.  Another problem: People think Hitlery's campaign has a larger budget than it actually does.  Reports of a $2.5 billion budget are more than double her actual budget of $1 billion, again according to the Times.

And I guess we’re also supposed to buy into the myth that Democrats are said not to see any real value of super PACs.  At least that’s what Democrat ‘operative’, Guy Cecil has said.  It was Cecil who reportedly told the Times, "If we are going to be successful in 2016, it will require more from everyone, at every level."  Supposedly the ever-popular Democrat Sugar-Daddy George Soros has yet to pledge his usual, and rather sizable, amount to the Democrat cause.  But there remains many other potential megadonors who will, more than likely, make vast amounts of cash available to the Democrats.  Such a list would include Walmart heiress Alice Walton, Los Angeles investor Ron Burkle and media investor Haim Saban.  The Democrats have never had a problem outraising the Republicans.  And this election will prove to be no different.  After all, it’s the Democrat Party that has become the party of the upper crust, and the affluent, not the Republicans.  Anyone who still believes the myth that Republican Party is the party of the rich, simply hasn’t been paying attention.  

AMERICA EDGES EVER CLOSER TO BRINGING ABOUT ITS OWN DEMISE…

Are we here in America becoming far more socially liberal, and therefore more immoral in how we go about living out our lives?  Well, if a recent Gallup poll is anywhere near correct, then the answer would appear to be…yes.  Because it’s according to Gallup that 31 percent of Americans now describe their views on social issues as being generally liberal, matching the percentage of those who identify as social conservatives for the first time in Gallup records dating back to 1999.  It’s also the highest figure ever recorded for liberals and the lowest for conservatives.

Some 63 percent of Americans now say gay or lesbian relations are "morally acceptable." That's a 23-point jump since 2001, when only 40 percent felt that way, according to Gallup. That jump reflects the greatest shift in opinion to the left of any issue Gallup measured in its survey.  Americans today are also more accepting of having a child out of wedlock: 61 percent said it's OK, compared with 45 percent in 2001. And some 68 percent of Americans now say sex outside of marriage is acceptable, compared with 53 percent in 2001.

Liberals are giddy, as well they should be. They delight in having been able to bring the rest of us down to their level, there in the gutter.  According to that liberal rag of a newspaper, the Washington Post, “You may not have realized it, but a large cohort of Americans did something brave this month.”  The writer goes on to say, “For years—in some cases, decades—these lonely, marginalized souls had repressed their shameful feelings, hiding them from the world. Then May came along, and they finally decided to come out of the closet. As liberals.”  If so, that is in no way a good thing.

And it was this same writer who said, “On multiple social issues,” adding, “Americans have indeed become more likely to adopt the standard lefty stance.” She cites only two examples—same-sex marriage and marijuana legalization—and then allows that “abortion appears to be the outlier . . . with views bouncing around a bit; ‘pro-choice’ and ‘pro-life’ have taken turns holding pluralities in recent years.”  What is claim to be “the standard lefty stance” is really nothing more than the manner in which those on the left refer to their increasingly level of perversion.

And then we have the New York Times, another liberal rag, joining in and providing additional examples, from Gallup’s “moral acceptability” index.  The writer in this instance said, “Acceptance of gay or lesbian relations is up 23 percentage points over that time. Having a baby outside of marriage is up 16 points. Premarital sex is up 15 points. Divorce and research using stem cells obtained from human embryos are both up 12 points.”  It would seem these are odd things to crow about, and they make quite clear just how far we have fallen as Christian nation.

Gallup’s findings on same-sex marriage, which are consistent with those of other pollsters, show a steady and rapid increase in support: 60% this year, up from 37% in 2005 and 40% in 2009.  Now it might be worth pointing out that that this growing support for gay marriage may be based, at least in part, on the fact that a majority of Americans also ‘assume’ that the percentage of our population that is gay to be roughly 25 percent.  The actual percentage is under 4 percent.  Which begs the question, where would people get the impression that the number is so much higher?  

By definition, “social conservatives” (and some “moderates”) are the holdouts against, for the most part, same-sex marriage and abortion.  And sadly, it would seem that the holdouts by definition are decreasing in number. This explains how changing opinion about same-sex marriage could—and in our view almost certainly does—account for virtually the entire trend away from “socially conservative” and toward “socially liberal.” It’s a mistake to think substantial numbers of voters have suddenly embraced the entire package deal of “social liberalism” more broadly defined.

It is said that the findings of this poll have implications for the next election.  It is said that Republicans will have to abandon, or at least soften, their opposition to such things as gay marriage.  It seems reasonable to surmise that an aggressively oppositional position, of the sort George W. Bush adopted in 2004, will be as untenable in 2016 as support for same-sex marriage would have been that year—or, for that matter, as recently as 2008, when even Barry claimed to yield to the dictates of his faith and declared himself against same-sex marriage.

Liberals, and some conservatives, doubtless are puzzled that public opinion has stubbornly refused to move to the left on abortion while it has done so with such ease on same-sex marriage.  But it’s unlikely that the abortion figures are stable because everybody’s mind is made up; rather, people change their minds in both directions. Younger people tend to be more “pro-choice” and older ones more “pro-life,” just as older folks tend to be more about family.  By contrast, hardly anyone goes from supporting same-sex marriage to opposing it, movement has been all in one direction.

This increase in “liberal” positions on both abortion and same-sex marriage are said to have come about because of cultural assumptions about sexual equality and freedom. Assumptions that, for better or worse, have become more widely shared over the past half-century or so. There remain arguments against same-sex marriage but they are countercultural arguments and comprehending such arguments requires a fairly deep familiarity with philosophical or theological systems of thought that, while far from dead, are also far from universally agreed upon or even understood.

And while the argument against abortion may be more easily understood, there is still little tolerance for those who oppose it.  The claim is always made that women are in control of their bodies and therefore have the right to determine the fate of that child inside of them.  Little consideration is given to the fact that when a woman becomes pregnant it’s a separate life that resides within her.   One cannot ignore the fact that the unborn child one is carrying is a human being worthy of the very same protections under the law as is the mother, and not merely a clump of cells that can be, or should be, removed. 

Now one would think that “pro-life” arguments would be especially appealing to liberals, or at least to that sensitive subset of liberals who find themselves compelled to protest for the equal rights and fair treatment of those animals part of the food chain. Or that group on the left that has little difficulty in arguing that some cop killer deserves to have a second chance more than he deserves to be executed.  That they are not is testament to liberals’ determination to resist any encroachment, in practice as well as in theory, against the ideals of sexual equality and freedom.

And where abortion has been around since time immemorial, same-sex marriage is a relatively new idea, the subject of serious debate only for the past 20 years or so. At the start of that debate most people opposed the idea because it was novel and seemed strange.  For a while, appeals to tradition were sufficient to sustain the opposition, but sadly we have now gotten to the point where appeals to tradition cannot long withstand what is sure to become a virtual onslaught once the philosophy on which that tradition is based has died in the minds of most of the populace.

I think few would argue that America has now been brought to what can be described as being a tipping point and we have been brought there primarily by those on the left.  But that’s not so say that some on the right have not played a role.  And not only is there now an effort underway to push this nation over the cliff fiscally, but morally and spiritually as well.  And if this poll tells us anything, it would seem that those determined to bring an end to this country are achieving as much success morally as they are fiscally.  They do so by using their own immorality as a weapon.