WHAT MUST IT BE LIKE TO BE A LIBERAL???

How it is, exactly, that in a nation where those on the left have absolutely no problem whatsoever in allowing the killing of millions of black babies each and every year, the method of choice being abortion, it’s at the very same time, and from many of the same people, we also continue to hear how it is that black lives matter?  Or that there can take place in this country a record number of murders every year, most of them black and in a place that has the strictest gun laws in the country, and yet we continue to hear from the gun control crowd that if only we had stricter gun laws we could finally bring an end to all of the senseless violence taking place in this country?

And it is from those who are so desperate to take guns out of the hands of law abiding Americans that we saw what was yet another example of the liberal lunacy that continues to plague this country.  It was demonstrated just this past Friday when California Attorney General and now U.S. Senate candidate Kamala Harris continued to defend sanctuary cities even after illegal alien Francisco Lopez-Sanchez confessed to murdering Kathryn Steinle in San Francisco.  She attempted to justify her idiotic stance by suggesting that the admitted crime of one illegal immigrant should not dictate immigration policy for all illegals.  Is that not just plain nuts?

Let’s face it, a better example of the left’s hypocrisy on murder would be difficult to find despite the fact that the examples of such hypocrisy are as numerous as they are dangerous.  And while I’m quite sure that it all makes sense to liberals, to rest of us, it sounds like nothing more than the liberal lunacy that it is.  I mean think about it, on one hand when one criminal commits a public crime with a gun, the left falls into line to punish all gun owners with new gun laws.  Yet on the other hand, when an illegal immigrant admits to gunning down a woman on San Francisco’s Pier 14, they say it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with their preferred policy.  DUH?

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Harris responded to news of Sanchez’s five previous deportations, seven felony charges, and ‘alleged’ murder of Steinle by saying, “What needs to be looked at is comprehensive immigration reform, that’s the bottom line. Let’s not react to one specific case, when we are looking at a national problem.”  Then this obvious escapee from a rubber-room said, “Let’s react to that specific case in prosecuting that specific murder, and making sure he faces very swift consequences and accountability.”  She went on to say, “On the issue of immigration policy, let’s be smarter.”  How about we simply enforce the law, what a novel idea! 

In 2013, when Harris was pushing for a better gun confiscation plan for an outstanding list of prohibited persons who own guns, the Huffington Post reported she had no problem casting what was described as being a rather wide net and defending it by saying, “This is not about ideology or politics. It is a false choice to suggest you are either in support of the Second Amendment or in favor of reasonable gun safety rules. We can do both.”  We already have numerous gun laws, just as we already have numerous immigration laws, neither of which Barry seems to have the slightest interest in enforcing.  We don’t need MORE laws, simply enforce the ones we have.

And in August 2012 the Davis Guard reported that Harris endorsed an “assault weapons” ban that impacted any Californian who owned a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine. The bill’s sponsor, Democrat state senator Leland Yee, argued that the ban was necessary because “similarly-styled weapons were used in the Aurora, Colorado massacre.”  Harris had no problem supporting that ban, although it was a reaction to the murderous actions of a lone gunman in Colorado.  But ask her now about abolishing sanctuary cities, and she’ll tell you overarching immigration policy should not be set based on the actions of one illegal alien in San Francisco.

I suppose there’s always a chance I could become a liberal, but I’ve just never wanted to submit to the required surgery for doing so.  That would be, of course, the dreaded frontal lobotomy.  Because who is it that could ever come to think the way these people do without having first been operated on to remove what would have to be a rather substantial portion of one’s brain?  There is nothing that any of these people ever say that makes any amount of sense.  And what’s more than a little scary is the fact that we seem to have a growing number of them on our side despite the fact that they claim to be conservatives.  We’re supposed to be adults here!

DO BLACK LIVES ‘REALLY’ MATTER???

MAKING IT EASIER TO KILL MORE BLACK BABIES

Stop and think for a minute how much more influential, not that that would be a good thing, as a voting block, blacks would now be in this country were it not for abortion.  I mean how many millions of black babies have been aborted over the course of the last 40 years?  It has to be a staggering number.  And since blacks habitually vote for Democrats nearly en masse, because Democrats have done so much ‘for’ them, I’ve always found it a bit bizarre why it is that Democrats are so intent upon killing their own constituents.  I can hear some asking, but isn’t that kind of good thing?  No.

And now along comes Barbara Lee, Democrat, who together with about 70 of her very closest Democrat friends in the House of Representatives, recently introduced a bill in Congress that if passed into law would, in all likelihood, bring about a significant  increase in the number of abortions being performed each year.  Because, you see, the purpose of this bill would be to provide taxpayer-funded abortion coverage to all women who are covered by an insurance plan through the federal government.  And make no mistake that’s a pretty significant number of women. 

Their creation, called ‘The Equal Access to Abortion Coverage in Health Coverage Act, or EACH Woman Act’, states that “The Federal Government shall (1) ensure coverage for abortion care in public health insurance programs, including Medicaid, Medicare and the Children’s Health Insurance Program” and “in its role as an employer or health plan sponsor, ensure coverage for abortion care for participants and beneficiaries.”  But it doesn’t stop there.  The bill also mandates that all health care facilities that are contracted by the government provide abortion services. 

Additionally, this Democrat creation seeks to impose a requirement that state and local governments “shall not prohibit, restrict or otherwise inhibit insurance coverage of abortion care by private health plans.”  The bill also states, “It is the sense of Congress that (1) the Federal Government, acting in its capacity as an insurer, employer, or health care provider, should serve as a model for the Nation to ensure coverage of abortion care; and (2) moreover, restrictions on coverage of abortion care in the private insurance market must end.”

It was in a press release issued shortly after the bill was introduced that moron called for a repeal of the Hyde amendment, which she labeled as being a “harmful” policy that “restrict a woman’s ability to make the best healthcare decisions for herself and her family.”  It was also in this release that Lee said, “Each and every day, the rights of women are under attack in America.”  And this moron went on say, “Today, we push back because every person has a right to healthcare.”  Well look, nowhere does it say that healthcare is a right nor that anyone has the right to murder a baby.

She continued, “The EACH Woman Act is a bold and groundbreaking step forward.”  Going on to say, “This legislation would ensure that every woman can access ALL of her healthcare options, regardless of how much money she earns or where she lives. Regardless of how someone personally feels about abortion, none of us, especially elected officials, should be interfering with a woman’s right to make her own healthcare decisions just because she is poor.”  Rarely is abortion a healthcare decision.  More often than not it is a selfish decision based on convenience.

And as expected, the ‘EACH Woman Act’ was met with high praise by dozens of abortion advocate groups, including Planned Parenthood, the Center for Reproductive Rights, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws and the National Organization for Women.  Millions of Americans are currently covered by insurance plans funded by the federal government, including those covered by Medicaid and Medicare, federal employees, military members and those incarcerated in federal prisons.

The use of taxpayer dollars to fund abortion coverage is currently prohibited by the Hyde Amendment. The amendment has been in effect since 1976, and specifically prohibits any taxpayer funding to go toward any health coverage that includes abortion services.  This new bill seeks to skirt the Hyde Amendment by requiring federally subsidized health insurance plans that do cover abortion to apply a separate surcharge to each plan for those services. These funds then go into a separate pot from the tax dollars and are used to pay for abortion services.

Since 1973, legal abortion has killed more blacks than AIDS, cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and violent crime combined.  Every week, more blacks die in American abortion clinics than were killed in the entire Vietnam War. Just over 12 percent of the American population is black, yet 37 percent of abortions are performed on black women.  Black children are almost five times more likely to be aborted than white children.  The abortion industry kills as many black people every four days as the Klan killed in 150 years.  And yet Ms. Lee, a black woman and a Democrat, sees no problem with that. 

WHAT SHOULD BE A VERY SIMPLE GOP STRATEGY FOR 2016…

Now I’m pretty sure that those who are now, or soon will be, running for the Republican nomination in 2016 couldn’t care less about I would do were I in their shoes.  After all, a political tactician I most certainly am not, I’m just an average guy who fears for my country.  But having said that, it’s because of my status as pretty much of a nobody that I can be seen as being relatively immune to any and all criticism that may come my way when stating the first thing I would do were I a presidential hopeful.

Step One of this little strategy of mine to which I refer, would involve candidates heading into inner cities all across the country, and with cameras rolling, in an effort to point out not only how badly liberals have failed at the running of our cities but to also make clear the net result of decades of liberal policies.  That being, of course, the fact that our cities have been turned into cesspools of violence and corruption.  Next would be to make crystal clear that if our country continues on its present course, it will most certainly come to look the same way.   

But, obviously, simply pointing out the failures, or shortcomings, of liberalism is not going to be enough. That’s why Step Two in this strategy of mine would be to point out that the amount of black rage that exists in a lot of our inner cities, not just the ones like Baltimore, St. Louis or Chicago, but Washington D.C. and Los Angeles as well, is essentially well founded, as our inner cities of today have become little more than combat zones.  There are no jobs, they have lousy schools, there's no safety and half of the people live on welfare.

And then, I would ask that all important question, who is it that has been running these cities for what, in some cases, has literally been decades?  Let’s take Detroit just as a for instance.  In Detroit it has been made painfully clear what happens when you just let liberalism run amok.  What happens is that you turn a once thriving city into what is now a modern day wasteland.  The last Republican mayor in Detroit was Louis C. Miriani, a son of Italian immigrants, who served from 1957 to 1962.  So for over 50 years Detroit has been run by Democrats.  

And to my way of thinking, keeping in mind that I’m no ‘Architect’ like Kark Rove, that's where the Republicans could make for themselves a real opportunity.  But it would require them go to these places and say to bona fide black leaders, black ministers and go to the churches, schools and neighborhoods and say we're going to fix this thing.  That includes such commonsense things as creating more opportunity and improving education.  Republicans needn’t bother wasting their time seeking out the race baiters like Sharpton or Jackson.

What Republicans must do is to make very clear how it is that they intend to improve things. They have to say, “we're going to bring you jobs through our economic programs, we're going to give you school choice so you don't have to go to these lousy schools, we're going to make the streets safe because 90 percent of the blacks who live in these neighborhoods, they don't want this, they're the victims of this."  Republicans must reach out to these potential constituents and say it's liberalism, and those who practice it, who have created these unlivable conditions.

So there you have it.  And anyone who chooses to use my strategy can do so absolutely free of charge.  Consider it as being my little gift.  After all, we have to get this country back on track and do all that we can to correct, to the greatest extent possible, as much of what has been done over the course of the last eight years.  And I’m not saying that convincing those who live in these dilapidated cities will be easy, but the evidence, which is really quite staggering, if presented correctly, should be quite convincing and rather difficult to refute.

GEORGE LOPEZ, JUST ANOTHER LEFTWING LOUDMOUTH…

I have never quite been able to figure out how it is that those who so proudly wear the moniker of ‘Liberal’ can come to so vehemently hate this country and all that it stands for.  What makes someone applaud efforts to tear down, eradicate, or simply have declared as being illegal the very institutions which form the very foundation of this once great and proud nation.  They have no problem with condoning all manner of bad behavior, no matter how illegal, or perverted it may be, and then accuse those of us who choose not to, of being intolerant.       

For instance, it was earlier this week during an interview that comedian, and I use the term very loosely because I’ve seen this guy’s act and he’s anything but funny, George Lopez described Donald Trump’s comments on illegal immigration as “vile”.  But I’m thinking that more than likely the reason Lopez didn’t like what Trump said had far more to do with the fact that it was a white guy who said it than with what was actually said.  Because Lopez has been saying derogatory things about Hispanics for years as part of idiotic standup routine.  

And now come reports that NBC’s top brass are said to be looking for a minority to replace Trump on the popular reality television show ‘Celebrity Apprentice’, a decision that was apparently made after Trump’s comments during his campaign announcement which ignited what has now become a media firestorm.  But let’s face it, as a candidate Trump wasn’t going to be able to do the show anyway.  And who is better than Trump at being Trump?  That would be ‘No One.’  And if it’s Lopez that’s being considered as a replacement, lots of luck!

It was during the aforementioned interview done with ‘TMZ’ that Lopez said, “Listen, those (Trump’s) comments are vile in any civilized society, but there’s a freedom of speech.”  And he went on to say, “I know him, I don’t particularly like what he’s saying, but there is a right to say that.”  Well at least he got that part right, but I’m sure it was nothing more than a slip of the tongue.  Because usually freedom of speech is the first to go whenever one is taking on one for the issues most favored by those on the left.  You must agree or be called a bigot.   

Lopez said that he plans on boycotting Trump’s golf course, though he conceded that it probably won’t affect Trump’s bottom line.  Ya, I bet that’ll bring a tear to ‘The Donald’s’ one good eye.  NOT!  Lopez also went on to say that he thinks Trump could get elected, and predicted what Latinos might do if that were to actually happen, and that would be for all them to just leave.  Sorry George, but I’m just not seeing a down side to that, and somehow I think this country could go on.  So in other words, don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. 

“Yeah, sure, [he has a chance],” Lopez told TMZ. “There’s enough racists in this country for him to get elected.”  Lopez jokingly ended the brief interview saying, “Trump in 2016.”  He added, “If he wins, he won’t have to worry about immigration, we’ll all go back.”  We should be so lucky!  But where else does Lopez think he could go and make the amount of money that he makes in America.  And yet he so disrespects this country.  And let’s be honest here, it doesn’t take much brainpower to be a standup comic.  Lopez proves that point every time he opens his mouth.

Liberals like Lopez see absolutely nothing wrong with allowing those who are in this country illegally to ignore our laws.  And they also seem not to be bothered in the least when these individuals, again who are in this country illegally, murder and rape Americans.  Perhaps if it had been this moron’s daughter who had recently been murdered by an illegal scum his opinion might be different.  Although I seriously doubt it.  Liberals just don’t look at things the way normal people do.  We are supposed to be nation of laws, but liberals don’t see it that way.

And so it would seem that those on the left, those who agree with Mr. Lopez, are winning, or may even have already won, the battle for the soul of America.  And I think we can also all safely come to agree on the fact that it has been the presidency of one Barack Hussein Obama that has provided much assistance in that endeavor. And, again, all too sadly at the expense of the rule of law.  And it has been those on the left who view such a consequence as being insignificant and as a necessary, even integral, part of the entire ‘transformation’ process.    

THE ‘POLITICIANS’ BUSY PILING ON THE ‘NON-POLITICIAN’…

So, what do you do when you’re running to be the Republican candidate for president in 2016 and you possess neither the conviction nor the intestinal fortitude to discuss one of the most important issues now faced by this country?  That being of course, illegal immigration.  Oh, that’s easy, you simply hammer the one guy who does possess the aforementioned conviction, and intestinal fortitude, to not only bring up the issue, but to call it what it is.  And you appear to take great pleasure in doing so. 

While seeing such behavior from some really came as no surprise, I was, to say the least, quite disappointed to see it coming from others, those whom I had once thought were above such petty partisan behavior.  And hearing what was really nothing more than the typical election-year rhetoric coming from those whom I had some level of respect for and had considered as being potential candidates worthy of my support now has me reconsidering their viability as potential 2016 candidates.

So it is then that we appear to now have what is a growing number of Republican candidates working very hard to distance themselves from billionaire Donald Trump’s comments on how illegal immigrants fuel crime, even as Mr. Trump doubled down, citing last week’s San Francisco shooting to bolster his case.  First it was Jeb Bush who, while at an Independence Day parade in Merrimack, New Hampshire, said Mr. Trump “doesn’t represent the Republican Party or its values.”

The reaction to Trump’s remarks was fodder for most of the Sunday talk shows, during which Republicans were repeatedly asked by various members of the state-controlled media to either disavow the comments or stand by them.   Rick Perry, who had been a favorite of mine, said, “I will stand up and say those [comments] were offensive, which they were.”  And it was on ABC’s ‘This Week’ that Perry also said, “The fact is, I’ve said very clearly that Donald Trump does not represent the Republican Party.”

Perry went on to say, “I was offended by his remarks. Hispanics in America and Hispanics in Texas from the Alamo to Afghanistan have been extraordinary citizens of our country and our state, they have served nobly, and to paint with that broad a brush as Donald Trump did — he’s going to have to defend those remarks.”  Such remarks have, at least for the present, diminished Perry’s appeal, as far as I’m concerned, although I have yet to settle on any one candidate.

In interviews and posts on Twitter, however, Trump has continued to defend the comments from his June 16 announcement for the Republican presidential nomination, when he said illegal immigrants from Mexico are “bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime.”  He added, “They’re rapists and some, I assume, are good people.”  But let’s be honest, ‘good people’ wouldn’t come here and purposely break our laws.  ‘Good people’ would be coming through the front door, not sneaking in the back door.   

Trump cited the shooting death of 32-year-old Kathryn Steinle on Wednesday.  Arrested in connection with the shooting was Francisco Sanchez, 45, who had been deported five times and was released in March by San Francisco officials, consistent with the city’s “sanctuary policy” despite the federal government’s request to detain him.  And I have to wonder that if it was one of their own family members who now lay dead instead of Ms. Steinle, would their warped opinion be any different?

Not all Republicans, however, were critical of Mr. Trump.  Deliberately avoiding the Trump pile-on was Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, who said he refused to participate in “Republican-on-Republican violence” and that liberal journalists were only trying to make a talking point and to stifle discussion of immigration.  It was during an appearance on NBC’s ‘Meet the Press’ that Cruz said, “I salute Donald Trump for focusing on the need to address illegal immigration.”  As do I!

Cruz went on to say, “The Washington cartel doesn’t want to address that. The Washington cartel doesn’t believe we need to secure the borders. The Washington cartel supports amnesty, and I think amnesty’s wrong. And I salute Donald Trump for focusing on it.”  He said Mr. Trump “has a colorful way of speaking.  It’s not the way I speak. But I’m not going to engage in the media’s game of throwing rocks and attacking other Republicans.”  And that, my friends, is as it should be. 

Rick Santorum said, “People who are coming illegally, obviously, are coming with a bad intent. Let’s just be honest. They’re coming with the clear intent of breaking the law. I don’t think we can sugarcoat that, but that doesn’t mean that everybody who’s coming across is a rapist or a murderer or anything else.”  He said, “While I don’t like the verbiage he’s used, I like the fact that he is focused on a very important issue for American workers and particularly legal immigrants in this country.”

And RINO, Marco Rubio, issued a statement Friday calling Mr. Trump’s comments “not just offensive and inaccurate, but also divisive.”  He went on to say, “Our broken immigration system is something that needs to be solved, and comments like this move us further from — not closer to — a solution. We need leaders who offer serious solutions to secure our border and fix our broken immigration system.”   All this coming from a former member of the ‘Gang of Eight’.  Remember them?

Meanwhile, Mr. Trump proceeded to follow that old adage that the best defense is an even better offense. He called Mr. Rubio “very weak” on immigration during a CNN interview and criticized Mr. Perry on “Fox & Friends” for not doing more to shore up the border during his 14-year term in office as governor of the state that holds the largest part of the Mexican border.  Perry was quick to fire back by saying, “I don’t think he understands the challenge, obviously.”

And apparently not wanting to be left out, Christ Christie recently added his two cents into the conversation, saying that while he is not offended by Trump's recent statements on Mexican immigrants, he did describe the statements as being "inappropriate."  He went on to say, "I think what he said was wrong. It was inappropriate and I don't think it has any place in the campaign."  Christie said, while calling Trump a "good friend", Trump is someone who tries to provoke a reaction with his opinions.

These politicians who now seem to be so determined in their attacks on ‘The Donald’ are going to need to tread somewhat lightly in their endeavor to go after Trump, because the bottom line here is that Trump is making some very valid points that do seem to be resonating with a great deal of Americans who vote.  What we have here, at least in my opinion, is a case where there is far more interest in shooting the messenger than paying attention to what I think is a very important message.

Instead of focusing on Trump those on our side really should be focusing much more on the Democrats and the liberal/progressive policies which they support that are smothering this country, than on attacking Trump in an effort to score what are so obviously cheap political points.  While such a tactic may, I suppose, look good in the short term, there is potential for doing some long term damage.  And that’s the problem with those on our side, they rarely really consider the consequences.

So why is it that those who apparently consider themselves worthy of being elected president, continue with the attacks on Trump?  After all, he’s right, simply check out the statistics!  The numbers speak for themselves, it’s a terrible price being paid by more and more Americans every single day.  And it’s a price that’s not only measured in dollars but also in lives being lost as well.  And yet these presidential wannabes continue to attack Trump instead defend Americans.  What’s up with that?    

SANCTUARY CITIES ARE REALLY NOTHIN’ MORE THAN SHIT MAGNETS…

Apparently all four of those now at least claiming to Democrat candidates for president in 2016 have not the least bit of trouble condoning the behavior of these sanctuary cities that continues to place the lives of American citizen in danger.  A fact that was once again pointed out the recent senseless death of a young woman.   This very controversial policy, to say the least, is being blamed for the recent release of a five times-deported illegal alien who murdered a woman in broad daylight in San Francisco.  You couldn’t pay to live in one of these cities that are essentially nothing more than shit magnets that attract all manner of scum in this country illegally.

It was as a senator from New York that Hitlery Clinton, now the proclaimed 2016 Democrat frontrunner, twice made public statements backing sanctuary cities.  In 2008, she and two of her present-day Democrat 2016 candidates, Bernie Sanders, a proud socialist, and Jim Webb, then all sitting U.S. Senators, voted against an amendment that would have blocked federal funds from going to sanctuary cities.  And just last year, as governor of Maryland, it was Marty O’Malley who announced that the Baltimore city jail would stop honoring requests from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to hold illegal aliens until they could be deported.

These idiotic, and essentially illegal, sanctuary city policies, are now on the books in about 140 cities.  And they are apparently, not that we can expect any changes to occur I’m quite sure, now coming under scrutiny following Wednesday’s shooting death of 32-year-old San Francisco resident Kate Steinle.  Ms. Steinle was simply out for a walk on Pier 14 with her father and a friend when 45-year-old Francisco Sanchez shot her.  The Mexican national, who was last deported in 2009 and had a rap sheet that included seven felonies, was in ICE custody as recently as March following an arrest for felony re-entry.  And yet he was able to murder this young woman.

ICE turned Sanchez over to the San Francisco sheriff’s department which had a warrant on him for a drug charge.  At that time, ICE placed a detainer request asking to be notified before Sanchez’s release so that he could be taken back into federal custody and be deported.  But because of San Francisco’s sanctuary city policies, the sheriff’s department declined to honor ICE’s request because San Francisco hands over illegal aliens at its own discretion.  So despite numerous past felonies and deportations, this shitbag, Sanchez, was released back onto the streets in April because he did not have a felony charge pending against him at the time.

Now the last time Hitlery weighed in publicly on sanctuary cities was during the 2008 presidential campaign.  It was Tim Russert who, during a Sept. 6, 2007 debate at Dartmouth College, asked Hitlery, “You would allow the sanctuary cities to disobey the federal law?”  To which she responded by saying, “Well, I don’t think there is any choice.”  So there is a choice whether or not cities must obey federal laws?   Hitlery said she backed the sanctuary city concept because without it, illegal immigrants refuse to cooperate with police because they are afraid of being deported.  Now there’s a typically progressive type answer for ya.

And she went on to justify her cockamamie idea, by saying, “Local law enforcement has a different job than federal immigration enforcement.”  Hitlery added, “The problem is the federal government has totally abdicated its responsibility.” And Hitlery again expressed her support for sanctuary cities in a 2008 interview with Fox’s Bill O’Reilly when she was asked, “Are you going to crack down on the sanctuary cities?”  She again responded saying, “No, I’m not.”  And Hitlery has now moved even further to the left on immigration policy since her last presidential bid.  She has also said she wants to expand on Barry’s far-left immigration policies.

Jessica Vaughan, a policy director at the Center for Immigration Studies, said, “Hillary Clinton’s recent public statements indicate that she intends to outdo the Obama administration in dismantling immigration laws, so there is good reason to be concerned that this problem would get worse under a Clinton administration, and that more local governments would either be encouraged or coerced into obstructing ICE.” She added, “I would expect another Clinton administration to stoop to the same kind of legal hi-jinks, abuse of authority, disregard of safety and security, and then evasion of accountability, much as we witnessed when she was Secretary of State.”

So far, only one presidential candidate has weighed in on Steinle’s murder.  And that is, of course, ‘The Donald.’  It was Trump who wrote on Twitter, “Where are the other candidates now that this tragic murder has taken place b/c of our unsafe border.”  Well apparently, or so it would seem, all but Mr. Trump haven’t got the guts to say what so obviously needs to be said about how it is that this scumbag came to have the opportunity to murder this woman whose only crime was to be out for a walk with her father.  Now I would expect to hear nothing coming from the Democrats, but it’s disappointing not hear much more from the Republicans.

So apparently it is in the rather bizarro world of progressive Democrat politics that it becomes simply a matter of choice as to whether or not a particular locale must actually enforce federal laws.  Now of course the rationale for doing so must be in complete agreement, or directly correlate, with the stated Democrat position on whatever issue it is that may be involved.  Which means, of course, that as long as it’s in any way whatsoever related to drug use or illegal immigration then local governments are free to ignore federal laws if they so choose.  And, apparently, that’s just fine with all of the current 2016 Democrat candidates.

OH TO BE YOUNG, STUPID AND SO INCREDIBLY CLUELESS…

Well my friends, I think by now it has become pretty obvious that the future of our country is looking pretty bleak.  And nothing makes that more apparent, at least to me, than taking even a brief stroll through the local mall.  Because it takes little time at all, after glancing around at those members of today’s younger generation, these millennials, before I become more than a little uneasy when considering the fact that it’s those who I am observing that represent the future of our country.  And I can’t help but feel that they are nowhere near prepared for such an undertaking.

And then when I read, or hear, from some of the more ardent Democrat cheerleaders in the state-controlled media say, and with great pleasure, that today’s young people are planning to turn out in significant numbers in 2016, and that they have a clear choice about who it is they want to see as the nation’s next president, I get even more uneasy.  Because, of course, that very clear choice, or so we are being told, is none other than Hitlery Clinton.  And I have to ask myself, where are these kid’s parents?  Can they ALL be Democrats devoted to the progressive cause?

We are told, again by those who determined in their effort to promote Hitlery, that those who comprise our younger generation are increasingly engaged ahead of the all-important election.  But it’s also clear that engaged is not the same as being well-informed.  But let’s face it, being uninformed ever prevented anyone from voting for Democrats.  And let’s face it, Democrats, Hitlery Clinton included, prefer that Americans, and particularly those who vote, remain uninformed.  And Democrats rely on their minions in the state-controlled media to make sure that they do. 

Someone needs to point out to these younger folks, that at some point in their life they are going to be required to become an adult.  And since no one else seems to be interested in explaining to them some political facts of life, then I will do my best and do it myself.  Not that I’m naïve enough to think that any of them will listen, but still I feel it needs to be said.  So I will get certain things off my chest, things that will go in one ear and out the other of those to whom my comments are directed and when all is said and done we will have made no significant progress.  But still:   

1.  Hillary Clinton is a liar.  I don’t mean this as political conjecture, but a proven, verifiable liar.  The fact it is that even New York Times columnist William Safire once called Hitlery a congenital liar.  She lied about the Irish peace process, her vote in favor of the Iraq war, her reason for illegally using a personal email server, that her family was dead broke when they left the White House, about landing under sniper fire in Bosnia, where Chelsea was on 9/11, who she was named after, Benghazi… and the list goes on.  We don’t need a liar-in-chief.  We tried that already.  It just doesn’t work.

2.  Hillary Clinton was MIA when that 3am phone call came from Benghazi.  What difference does it make?  The life of four Americans – a huge difference.  The Russian Reset?  Russia invaded Ukraine on her watch.  Again.  And again.  And again.  Boko Haram?  Hitlery Clinton’s State Department refused to call it a terrorist organization.

3.  Hitlery Clinton defended a child rapist.  And then laughed about it.  If you don’t know this story, you need to.  Read all about it. I repeat. She defended a child rapist… and laughed about it.  In her 1975 defense of this rapist, Hitlery helped this scum avoid a lengthy prison term by relying on a technicality relating to the chain of evidence of his blood-soaked underwear, as well as arguing at the time that the 12-year-old victim may have exaggerated or encouraged the attack.  Hitlery’s defense strategy also included aggressive claims about the victim’s character, including allegations that the 12-year-old “sought out older men” and was “emotionally unstable.”  The rapist ended up being sentenced to one year in jail, with two months off for time served. He had been facing 30 years to life in prison for first-degree rape.

4.  And you have to hand it to Hitlery who proved to be quite the entrepreneur in seeing her position as Secretary of State as being a real money-making opportunity and then going on to make what was the very most of it.  She accepted millions of dollars, albeit illegally, from foreign governments while serving as Secretary of State that went straight into the coffers of The Clinton Foundation.  Literal boatloads of cash was taken from countries that fund Hamas, harbor terrorists, suppress women, and regularly execute gays and lesbians.  Can you say, “Conflict of interest?”

5.  Hitlery Clinton is endorsed by fellow disciple of Saul Alinsky, Barry “Almighty”.  Although, given his track record, he may not have meant what he said about her being an “excellent choice” for president.  Ask your friends how many of them feel if they are better off today than they were back in 2008.  Ask your friends if they like the direction in which our country is now headed.  If they answer “yes,” well then I guess they could legitimately like Hitlery enough to vote for her.  But if they want some serious hope and favor some real change, they can’t vote for more of the same.  That’s would be the definition of insanity.

6.  Hitlery Clinton wants women to shut up. At least all of the women who tried to come forward regarding ‘Slick Willie’s’ sexual harassment, misogyny and overall perpetuation of “rape culture“.  She referred to these victims as being “trailer trash” and even went so far as to threaten one of the victims in person.  And when it comes to women voters, I mean intelligent women voters, is the most serious issue on the table really unrestricted abortion and ‘free’ birth control?  If so, then I would argue that we have no ‘intelligent’ women voters in this country.

7.  And last but not least, actually I could go on far longer, Hitlery Clinton is not a champion of the middle class.  Despite her campaign slogan, she is definitely not just like you or me.  Hitlery Clinton was married to an ex-president (albeit an impeached ex-president), had a personal chef, flies in an environment polluting personal jet, has sent her daughter exclusively to private schools, and makes about $250K for every speaking engagement.  That’s so you, right?  And your middle-class neighbors – they’ve got a private jet out back, right?

I suppose the adult thing to do would be for me to excuse these young idealistic ‘dreamers’ for being stupid, but I don’t.  I just can’t bring myself to do it, not when their stupidity is likely to have such an adverse effect on the ones I love.  I will admit that the fact many of our young think the way they do is a testament to the efficiency of our public school system in indoctrinating them.  But still, that doesn’t excuse them from the responsibility of getting, and staying, informed.  They choose not to, other than to watch someone like Jon Leibowitz.  And that’s not being informed. 

WE MUST KEEP AN INCREASINGLY WATCHFUL EYE ON OBAMA AS THE END GROWS NEAR…

It was earlier this week that in answering a question posed by one of our stellar members of the ‘press’ Barry included the question asked.  He said, “"How am I going to spend whatever political capital that I've built up?"  And it was then that he proceeded to answer his own question by saying, "You know, the list is long, and my instructions to my team and my instructions to myself have always been that we are going to squeeze every last ounce of progress that we can make when I have the privilege of -- as long as I have the privilege of holding this office.”

Now Barry may choose to define what has taken place in this country during his presidential tenure as progress, but as one who has been forced to live through it, it has been nothing but progress backwards.  Because in looking at the numbers, that’s precisely the direction in which he has taken us.  For example, we now have the lowest participation rate in the nation’s workforce since 1977, or during Jimmy Carter’s presidency.  This despite Barry’s claims of having created millions of jobs and a thoroughly concocted unemployment rate of 5.3 percent.

But such substantive topics of discussion simply never come up during any interaction between this president and our state-controlled media.  Instead, Barry is permitted to talk about such things as the new overtime rules he's planning to issue.  He said, "That's going to give a raise to 5 million people potentially in this country who really deserve it."  And rarely, if ever is he ever challenged on any of his rhetoric.  He’s simply allowed to say whatever he wants while those assigned the task of keeping him honest simply nod in agreement.  

Barry then went on to mention his desire to work on rebuilding the nation's infrastructure, saying that he very much wants to work with Congress in order to "put people back to work" on road, bridge and other projects.  But come on folks, Barry has had over seven long years to focus on getting people back to work, and instead chose to work on those issues that were more politically favorable.  Remember when he said, and with a sizable grin on his face, that those “shovel-ready projects” turned out “not to be quite as shovel-ready as he expected?”

And of course Barry couldn’t resist to once again bring up the topic of race.  He said, "I am really interested in the possibilities, the prospect of bipartisan legislation around the criminal justice system, something that I think directly speaks to some of the themes that I mentioned on Friday."  Of course he was referencing his eulogy for the Reverend Clementa Pinckney in Charleston, S.C. last Friday in which he mentioned racial bias, and the tens of thousands of young black men "caught up in the criminal justice system."  His phrase, “caught up,” meant to imply innocence perhaps?

And it was also during that same eulogy that Barry simply could not resist focusing on "gun violence," saying "the vast majority" of Americans, including gun owners, "want to do something about this."  Actually “the vast majority” of all Americans, both those who own guns as well as those who do not, not only support the Second Amendment but according to recent polling date, public opinion now seems to be shifting in favor of gun rights. Maybe that’s because more Americans are growing wary of their increasingly powerful government.     

And it was also on Tuesday that Barry said, "I want to keep on making progress on job training and making sure that the idea of two years of free community college starts taking root. And the list is long. And what we're going to do is just keep on hammering away at all the issues that I think are going to have an impact on the American people.”  Having an impact on the American people is all well and good, as long as said impact is positive.  But let’s be honest here, how much of what Barry has done as president has had a positive effect on very many Americans?

Barry promised, "Some of them will be left undone, but we're going to try to make progress on every single one of them."  He went on to say, "One of the things I've learned in this presidency is that there are going to be ups and there are going to be downs. But as long as my focus and my team's focus is on what is going to make a difference in the lives of ordinary Americans -- are we going to give them more opportunity so that if they work hard, they can get ahead.”  Now I don’t know about anybody else, but I’m a lot farther behind than I was in 2009.

Barry continued by saying, “Are we going to make this a more inclusive economy, a more inclusive society, a more fair, just society -- if that's our North Star and we keep on tacking in that direction, we're going to make progress.” And he added, "And I feel -- I feel pretty excited about it. So I might see if we can make next week even better."  This is typical socialism.  And what’s scary, if we continue to experience the same level betrayal from our supposed Republican leadership then there’s no reason not to expect Barry to achieve even more success in his effort to destroy America.

And it was at one point that Barry was asked if last week was the best week he's ever had, given the Supreme Court rulings upholding Obamacare subsidies and same-sex marriage, as well as the Republican-led Congress helping him get the trade legislation he wanted.  But little mention was made of the specifics behind the actions taken by the Establishment Republicans, aka RINOs, that make up the leadership in Congress or the faux conservatives now on the Supreme Court who chose to ignore the Constitution.  Barry can thank them for how his week turned out.

Barry indicated it probably wasn't his best week overall -- but he did call it "gratifying: "In terms of my best week, now my best week, I will tell you, was marrying Michelle. That was a really good week. Malia and Sasha being born, excellent weeks...There was a game where I scored 27 points. That was a pretty good week.” He went on to say, "I've had some good weeks in my life, I will tell you. And I'm blessed to have had those. I think last week was gratifying."  Of course it was gratifying, he was able to further transform America. 

It was in describing his week that Barry referred to it as "simply a culmination of a lot of work that we've been doing since I came into office."  But that’s far from an accurate portrayal of how things came to be.  What we were witness to was when Barry found himself being deserted by many members of his own party, there was more than a sufficient number of Establishment Republicans ready, and quite willing, to come riding to his rescue and thus allow him his opportunity to gloat.  Republicans who essentially got themselves elected under what were very false pretenses. 

THE CONTINUING TREACHERY OF A DISGUSTING EX-PRESIDENT, JIMMY CARTER…

Jimmy Carter has once again proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you just can’t keep a good traitor down, and has demonstrated yet again just how determined he is not to lose his title as “Worst American Ex-President Still Alive.”  After having now lost his crown as ‘The Worst American of All Time” to Barry, Jimmy sought to gain favor by providing an interview with the George Soros-funded "policy studies" nonprofit Aspen Institute.  And of course as the former “Worst President of the United States”, Carter did what he has always done best: criticize America.

And for that, of course, he was rewarded with frequent applause from those in attendance, a crowd who very obviously shared his revulsion for this the greatest country in the history of humankind. When asked about Barry's rather obvious inability to "establish relationships with other countries," Carter replied that “I think the historical trend is for the United States to relinquish its unquestioned domination of the world’s politics and economy and cultural influence."  Spoken like the insidious, senile, shriveled up prick that he is!  Nothing ever changes with this guy.

Carter’s notion that we are relinquishing our economic, cultural, and political influence to China, Russia, India, and others, actually brought applause.  It’s mission accomplished for progressives.  And I’m not sure if that’s because they’re actually naïve enough to think that that’s a good idea, or if they simply hate America so much that they have become willing to turn the whole shooting match over to an ideology responsible for the death of hundreds of millions of innocent men, women and children.  And how demented must one be in order to think like that?

It might also be worth noting that there really is no such thing as an "historical trend" independent of human agency.  History isn't like the weather.  It is shaped, for good or ill, by the will of world leaders, or in Carter's case, the rather purposeful lack of will.  So there is no such thing as an historical "inevitability," as Carter put it, that America will relinquish its superpower preeminence.  That our nation is in decline is not because that is the historical "trend" or that it is "inevitable," but because our leaders have taken it upon themselves to steer us in that direction.

Carter continued, musing on how the United States can fit into this Brave New World. He said, “I think the American superpower goal should be to be the champion of peace, and to be the champion of human rights, and to be the champion of the environment and to be the most generous nation on Earth.”  Applause followed every clause of that sentence.  Of course, we're talking about the Aspen Institute, which operates from the belief that the United States is a nation whose history is an unbroken narrative of injustice and deep-seated “structural racism.”

But I have news for every self-righteous, self-loathing, progressive idiot in that audience, and for Jimmy Carter, our Ambassador of Anti-Americanism.  The fact is that historically, America has been the champion of peace, the champion of human rights, the most generous nation on Earth, and even the champion of the environment. What other nation on earth can claim to have filled any of those roles, much less all of them? Russia? China? India? Saudi Arabia? Great Britain? France? Venezuela? Cuba? Pakistan?  Or Carter's personal favorite, "Palestine"?

No. Only the United States of America. And America continues to be all of those things.  But Carter wasn't done yet, far from it. He went on to declare that "We are the most warlike country on Earth."  What a blatantly offensive lie.  But this is the kind of drivel that Carter, the elder statesman of the Democrat Party, has been known ever since first leaving office.  And you rarely hear anyone on the left disagreeing with anything that the obviously demented Carter ever says.  That would only be, of course, because they are in total agreement with him.    

The truth is that Carter and his ilk at the Aspen Institute and in the White House are actively seeking to dismantle the greatest national force for good in the world that has ever existed. They believe that if only America would demilitarize itself and let the world up from beneath the heels of its jackboots, then peace would reign supreme and world cultures would hold hands and sing in perfect harmony like a 1970s Coke commercial.  However, the reality of these progressive utopians will be not paradise, but hell on earth forced upon future generations.

Let’s face it, whether anyone on the left cares to admit it or not, Carter has only one lasting legacy as president, and it coincides rather nicely with all that this rather pathetic scumbag has ever stood for.  That being, of course, the modern era of continuing Islam terrorism which he played a crucial role in igniting.  Carter, as you may recall, forced the Shah of Iran, who was then an important ally of America, to leave his country which then allowed the Ayatollah Khomeini to return from ‘exile’ and to then overthrow what was the sovereign government of Iran. 

That one act is what can be said to have been the flashpoint that first created the issue that we are still made to face today and that Barry simply refuses to deal with.  What appears to be taking place today, and what may be what Carter had in mind all those many years ago, is an alliance of sorts between these Muslim extremists and the American left.  After all, both hate this country and both seem to hate Christians.  Granted, the left is not cutting off heads, but that does not mean a war on religion is not going on in this country.  So an alliance only serves to make perfect sense. 

CHRIS CHRISTIE IS DEAD TO ME…

Well Chris Christie has finally made official what many of us had known, or had long suspected, was coming.  And that would be that he has now declared himself to be a candidate for president in 2016.  And while all of his rhetoric sounded pretty good, it was really all nothing more than we’ve all heard may times before, by many others only to hear the tune change, and rather drastically, once the office sought has been safely secured.  Where I once was a fan of Mr. Christie, I am no longer.  I’ve moved on, so to speak, to those who do more than simply call themselves a conservative.

And so it was just yesterday that those choosing to tune in got to watch Christie as he returned to his alma mater to formally announce his 2016 presidential bid, embracing his blunt-talking persona as he strives to stand out from what has now become a rather crowded GOP field.  It was from the podium there at Livingston High School, standing with his wife and children that, in sounding rather reminiscent of Barry’s declaration that it was he who we had been waiting for, Christie said, “I mean what I say and I say what I mean, and that’s what America needs right now.”

At times, Christie, who delivered his remarks while standing in front of a large American flag and without a teleprompter, sharply criticized both Republicans and Democrats alike.  He said, “Both parties have failed our country,” he said, declaring he is “out to change the world.”  He went on to say, "We need to have strength and decision-making and authority back in the Oval Office.”  And then he added, “And that is why today I am proud to announce my candidacy for the Republican nomination for president of the United States of America."

Christie spent much of his 20-minute speech reintroducing himself to a national audience that’s seen him fade from favor among the GOP faithful, yours truly included.  Days earlier, he launched a website under the campaign slogan, "Telling It Like It Is."  Christie slammed the persistent bickering in Washington, saying, “compromise is now a dirty word,” and also took aim at Barry “Almighty's” disastrous foreign policy record.  He said Barry's "second mate, Hillary Clinton" should not be allowed to take charge after years of "weak and feckless foreign policy."

Once considered an early front-runner, Christie and his camp hope to rebuild momentum as the race for the White House gets under way. The "Bridgegate" scandal set his national profile back, but his team is still looking for an opening among a diverse cast of GOP primary candidates.  Christie is one of four current governors in the mix on the GOP side.  He joins Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal, who announced his candidacy last week, as well as expected candidates Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and Ohio Gov. John Kasich.  Their announcements are expected in July.

Christie said Americans are filled with anxiety because “they look to Washington, D.C., and they see not only a government that doesn’t work anymore, it doesn’t even talk to each other anymore.  It doesn’t even pretend to work anymore.  We have a president in the Oval Office who ignores Congress, and a Congress who ignores the president.”  But Christie strikes me as being too much like those whom we now have in Congress on the GOP side who have been far too accommodating, especially since taking control of Congress, giving him much if what he has wanted.

More recently, though, Christie has dealt with a lengthy criminal investigation over his staff’s involvement in a politically motivated bridge closure.  Christie has maintained he was not involved in the matter.  Now look, let me be very clear about something, my opinion of Christie as a candidate notwithstanding.  This supposed scandal involving the closing of some bridge pales in comparison when held against what has become nothing short of a laundry list of scandals that surround not only this president but also the number one Democrat presidential contender for 2016.  

Let me be right up front here regarding the reason why I feel the way I do about Mr. Christie and his decision to run for president.  While I am not usually one of those folks who typically holds a grudge, it’s in the case of Mr. Christie that I’m willing to make an exception.  Because to this day I feel that he deserted Mitt Romney at what was a very critical time on the 2012 campaign and when you combine that with what appeared to be a real bro-mance between him and Barry as recently as 2013, there is simply no way in Hell that I can ever see myself voting for him for president.

Christie may be a lot of things, but what he is not is a conservative.  At least not in the truest sense of the word, but in the sense that it’s his kind of conservative that we seem to already have too many of in Washington.  He’s one of those who many of us refer to as being a RINO, and one who confidently brandishes the moniker of conservative during the campaign and then, once safely elected, conveniently comes down with a case of political amnesia.  He is simply not one who can be trusted, and the fact is we already have an over-abundance of his kind of conservative.

At this point in time, and I honestly don’t see myself changing my mind about him.  There are others in this current group of 14 whom I view as being far more conservative and far more trustworthy.  As far as I’m concerned out of the current batch its Christie, Bush, Rubio, Pataki and Graham who can be immediately discounted.  Nor am I fan of John Kasich who is apparently getting ready to throw his hat into the rapidly expanding ring.  And to be honest, despite some of his recent comments, I’m not a fan of Mike Huckabee.  We need to be very selective this time.  

HANK JOHNSON, WHAT STUPID LOOKS, AND SOUNDS, LIKE…

I may be a bit bias in my opinion here, but I would argue that most conservatives have only the best interest of all American's at heart.  While at the same time it becomes a bit more obvious, with each passing day, that the entire Democrat elected body, as well as the leadership of the Republican Establishment, have now officially sold out American's interest in freedom as well as the strategically positioning of our nation for continued peace and prosperity.  They tell us one thing while in front of the cameras, but once behind closed doors they have very little trouble throwing us under the bus.

No one should be foolish enough to believe any of the hype heard coming from the Republican Party leadership.  Most American's, myself included, simply want everyone to be self-reliant and to at least be provided with the opportunity to make their own way in life.  It's in American's self-interest for that to happen.  However, it is not in the interest of Democrat politicians for that to happen, nor is it in the interest of Republican leadership. Those politicians need to increase the numbers of those enslaved by the government in order to perpetuate their continued rule over us.

Which brings me to Hank Johnson, that prize winning Democrat dipshit from the great state of Georgia.  You see, it was our old buddy Hank that was recently heard to say, “I believe it’s a culture that enables or says it's okay for law enforcement officers to shoot to kill blacks.”  Johnson made his very idiotic comment during an appearance during something called the ‘So That Happened’ podcast just last week, when he was asked about cultural problems on police forces.  I can only assume that the district which Hank represents must be home to some spectacularly ignorant individuals.

Hank went on to say, “I believe it’s a culture that enables or says it's okay for law enforcement officers to shoot to kill blacks be they male or female, Hispanics, to use excessive force. Yes, I do think it’s a cultural issue within certain departments.”  And he added, “Certain departments have a documented history of using excessive force and that’s evidenced by the United States Department of Justice having investigated and found that to be the case, with, I think around 20 law enforcement agencies around the nation.”  I don’t think I’d rely on this Justice Department for accurate numbers.

Johnson says that’s a small number because budget cuts have impaired the oversight ability of the Justice Department.  He said, “Without the resources to be able to investigate and conduct oversight of police departments we’ve seen a proliferation of misconduct.”  What we have is a Justice Department that can now be said to have gone totally rogue together with a black population that has little or no respect for authority.  I would suggest that perhaps if police were to simply stop venturing into black neighborhoods, blacks might at last begin to get with the program.  

Mr. Johnson should really do the math here, however difficult that may be for him due to his rather limited intelligence.  For instance, Hank needs to review how many blacks are killed by law enforcement in a year compared to the number of black lives taken by other blacks that occur in that same span of time. The race hustlers, and we all know who they are so there’s really no point to keep mentioning their names, want to keep the focus away from what has become a highly dysfunctional black community by making law enforcement appear to be the real issue.

But frankly, I’d be more than just a little curious to know what Johnson, who is a pretty hardcore progressive, might have expected to see happen once the left was able to successfully remove God from our schools and is also now well on its way to thoroughly remove God from the culture.  You know, I’m always being told about how religious blacks are supposed to be and yet it’s these very same supposed ‘religious’ people who seem to have no problem with voting for politicians like this anti-religion dolt, Johnson.  And does Johnson even think police should be obeyed by blacks.

And perhaps old Hank should demonstrate a willingness to look a bit closer into the hip hop culture that endorses killing cops and bangin' hoes and the likes. There's your breakdown, Hank. Parents have a hard time competing with what these kids think these days is "Cool"... Yeah, they'll be cool on the coroner's table by the time they're 18.  And has Mr. Johnson ever considered the fact that black miscreants have absolutely no respect for the law or the police?  Instead of crying like a little girl, maybe he should, instead, tell his people to obey the law and respect the police.

The bottom line here is that liberalism/progressivism is a moral manipulation that exaggerates inequity and unfairness in American life in order to justify overreaching public policies and programs. Liberalism undermines the spirit of self-help and individual responsibility.  And it does so with a very specific goal, and purpose in mind.  For liberalism to be able to move forward people must be convinced that they are unable to succeed on their own without all manner of government assistance.  And the numbers show that liberalism is now winning and in a very big way.