ON THE SUBJECT OF DONALD TRUMP…

Let me be clear, I consider myself a social conservative, a fiscal conservative, pro-life and I favor a strong national defense.  So why is it that at this point in the campaign I feel quite comfortable in supporting Donald Trump instead of any of the other ‘Republican’ candidates who make up his competition in running for GOP nomination?  Well, I suppose the easy answer would be to say that I am, very simply, fed up with those in the party who while they like to refer to themselves as conservatives during the campaign, once elected tend to behave just the opposite, as I see them walking arm in arm with the likes of ‘Dingy Harry’ Reid.  Since gaining control of Congress the Republicans have been little more than a complete disappointment.

And yet, something I find as being quite insulting is how it has been over the last few weeks, really since he first declared himself a candidate, that we’ve seen all manner of Establishment Republican consultant and pundit publicly fretting about whether Donald Trump will irreparably damage the Republican brand.  But seriously folks, I don’t see how Trump could do anymore to ‘damage the brand’ than has already been done by the likes of John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, our supposed leaders in the House and Senate.  And while Trump has been referred to as being somewhat of a joke, I would argue that it is John Boehner and Mitch McConnell who have been, and continue to be, the real jokes here.  Only they’re just not funny.

And when do you suppose that those very same folks will finally begin to start worrying about the damage that Mitch McConnell, John Boehner and the rest of the GOP Establishment has already done to tarnish the Party’s brand?  The evidence is everywhere, all one has to do is to open your eyes.  Wasn’t it recently that McConnell shut down all efforts to defund Planned Parenthood, fight sanctuary cities, kill Obamacare and stop Iran from getting nukes because they might get in the way of pushing corporate welfare?  At this point, Boehner and McConnell might as well just wear the logos of the corporations and wealthy donors that sponsor them because they’ve turned their backs on conservatives and the country to cater to them.

My advice to all concerned would be that we shouldn’t be worried about Donald Trump, the ones we should really be worried about are the guys we were already stupid enough to elect.  They’re the ones who keep stabbing us in the back.  They are the ones laughing at us for actually trusting that what they were telling was the truth.  Any while I am sure there are many who will choose to disagree, I would argue that Trump may actually be good for the Republican Party where guys like Boehner and McConnell are the ones we need to be keeping a very close eye on regarding the amount of damage that they have already done and are continuing to do to our party.  I have gotten to the point where I’m willing to risk supporting someone like Trump.

Because Trump is knocking the GOP Establishment back on its heels. Yes, Trump did go over the line with his “I like people who weren’t captured” remark about McCain, but when all was said and done, it was the Maverick who got pancaked.  Not only did McCain end up getting major blowback for calling Trump supporters “crazies,” he also made an enemy of a billionaire who’ll be willing to pour millions into a campaign to take him out in a primary. And in adding insult to injury, Trump is now polling better with veterans than McCain. Trump has also smashed Lindsey Graham, slapped Karl Rove and ceaselessly attacked Jeb Bush. If Trump does nothing else other than stop Jeb Bush our nominee, we should build a larger than life statue of him.

And after Reince Priebus at the RNC started to interfere in the presidential primary by attacking Trump with there even being rumblings that Trump should actually be left out of the debates, we started hearing that the Donald might choose to run as a third party.  After that, Reince Priebus suddenly remembered what his job was again and started calling on everyone to be civil.   On top of all that, many people believe that Trump’s surge in the polls is a direct result of how unhappy many conservatives have become with the Republican Party. That should be a wake-up call for the GOP. In fact, if it isn’t, then the next one will probably come after we start bleeding seats on Election Day once we don’t have Obama to kick around anymore.

It’s true that Trump is sucking up all the oxygen. And he is dominating the coverage of the 2016 presidential election. While it means that candidates like Bobby Jindal and Mike Huckabee will have trouble getting enough coverage to gain steam, there is a huge plus to the “all Trump, all the time” coverage that most people have missed. In the 2008 and 2012 elections, the state-controlled media and the establishment picked the candidates they liked best and then they systematically destroyed anybody else who started to get any traction.  This time around, Trump is acting like a missile defense shield for the rest of the field and may actually help us break the liberal media/squishy Republican stranglehold on picking our nominee.

Trump is also forcing the other candidates to up their game. If candidates use nothing but “safe” boilerplate jargon to ensure that they don’t offend anyone and act as if we have a thousand years to fix the problems we have in this country, that’s fine, but no one’s ever going to hear their name with Donald Trump in the race.   Because of that, the GOP candidates have been forced to do more to get their names out there.  Ted Cruz called out Mitch McConnell for lying to Republicans on the Senate floor. Rand Paul took a chainsaw to the tax code. Bobby Jindal is threatening to arrest the Westboro Baptist Church wackos if they protest the funerals of mass shooting victims. Mike Huckabee pointed out that Barry’s Iran deal very well may lead to a Holocaust.

Now you may choose to disagree, but to my way of thinking these are all very good things.  We need candidates who can communicate, who show some fire and who have a sense of urgency about addressing the problems that are confronting America. Trump is helping to bring that out in the rest of the field. The failed Republican leadership in Congress has made it abundantly clear that it doesn’t care about anything other than slavishly serving the interests of a few thousand ultra-wealthy donors and corporations. Meanwhile, Trump is talking about securing the border, looking out for veterans, fixing the lousy trade deals we make in this country, getting our hostages out of Iran and stopping the massive crime wave that has been created by taking in so many illegal immigrants.

Now, even those who hate Trump’s guts are talking about sanctuary cities because he turned it into an issue. Quite frankly, neither party is looking out for the best interests of the American people on illegal immigration; so it’s quite refreshing to see the Republican field being forced to address it. It shouldn’t have taken Trump to get a real conversation going, but it has. He's teaching Republicans they don't have to surrender: No politician should want to needlessly offend people, but on the other hand, it’s impossible to accomplish anything without making some people angry. Unfortunately, most Republicans don’t seem to understand this and have allowed cowering to become their standard operating procedure.

In fact, the GOP has become such a group of timid, knock-kneed, namby-pamby pushovers and wimps that Republicans don’t do much of anything other than just sit of their behinds and beg the Democrats not to beat them too badly. Trump is showing Republicans that it’s possible to do something different. Yes, you don’t have to apologize just because the state-controlled media demands that you do so. Yes, you can hit back even harder when you’re attacked. Yes, you can stick it to the press when it treats you unfairly. In all fairness, other Republicans have done this as well, but Trump has made it the centerpiece of his campaign and it has taken him all the way to first place when NO ONE expected him to rise that high.

The Republican Party is called the “Stupid Party” and for good reason. Simply watch McConnell and Boehner and you’ll see why.  But even Republicans can learn a lot from the way Donald Trump has brawled his way to the top of the heap. Even if it doesn’t last, no one will forget that Republicans voters love a fighter.  A big reason that Trump has been able to maintain his position in the polls is the fact that there is a great deal of frustration on the part of conservatives when it comes to the Republican Party.  And it is that frustration together with the sense of being abandoned by our elected leaders that has driven many, rightly or wrongly, to support Mr. Trump.  And if he should win the nomination I’m willing to risk voting for him.  

CREDIBILITY BECOMING A RARE COMMODITY…

Is it just me or does it seem that as the more crucial that elections become, the fewer places we have to turn in our attempt to gain for ourselves some level of useful information so that we can then make an educated decision when it comes to casting our vote?  Let’s face it, there is simply not enough time in a day to personally conduct the type of research that is both necessary and that would effectively cut out the middleman, aka anyone in the state-controlled media, in our effort to cast and intelligent vote.  And it only seems to be getting worse.

Because sadly, it’s these days that it seems there are fewer and fewer of those who can actually be trusted.  Everyone now seems to have their own agenda. And now another of those who has seen his credibility shrivel over the years is Fox News focus group guru, Frank Luntz.  Now I will admit that when Frank first appeared on the scene I was quite impressed with his schtick.  But all that I’ve seen taking place since that time is a rather impressive increase in the size of the man’s ego.  An affliction that now seems to have infected many over at Fox News.

Why I even bring this up is the fact that it has now been 12 days since the first Republican presidential debate was broadcast on the Fox News Channel.  It was immediately following that event on the network’s ‘The Kelly File’, that pollster Frank Luntz conducted a focus group on location there in Cleveland, the site of the debate.  According to the participants of this particular focus group, real estate mogul Donald Trump, the frontrunner of the race, fared pretty poorly, but they gave a mixed response as to who was the strongest in the debate.

Many of the respondents taking part in Frank little group gave favorable reactions to Mike Huckabee, Ted Cruz, former Johns Hopkins neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson as well as to Marco Rubio.  Luntz even went so far as to highlight Huckabee as having received the most favorable reaction of the debate based on his real-time dial response from the focus group during the live event. “Bad news for Donald Trump. Great news for Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee,” Luntz said in assessing the reactions of his focus group panel to the August 6 debate.

However, it would appear that those respondents of Frank’s turned out not to be a very accurate indicator of how the public seems to be reacting to the Republican field nearly two weeks after the debate.  Because, you see, according to an average of a bucket of post-debate polls calculated by Real Clear Politics, Trump, at 22 percent, still holds a commanding double-digit lead in the very crowded field over Jeb Bush, at 10.7 percent.  So I’d be curious to know how it is that old Frank might explain that?  How is it that his group could have been so out of touch?

Because of those that performed well in Luntz’s focus group, only Carson remains in the top tier coming in at 9.7 percent.  Meanwhile, Rubio and Cruz are in the middle of the pack, at 7.3 percent each respectively, and Huckabee, seemingly a favorite of Frank’s, has seen a 2.5 percent drop in polling since the debate.  So I’m kind of wondering what criteria it was that Frank might have used in putting his little focus group together.  And was he, perhaps, trying to skew the out toward a certain candidate or certain candidates?  Just sayin’.

For whatever reason Luntz has been particularly critical of Trump from the very beginning of his presidential campaign.  According to a report from Hadas Gold and Ken Vogel in Tuesday’s Politico, Luntz has been outspoken about Trump’s candidacy, deeming it, and the insurgent candidacy of Democrat hopeful Bernie Sanders, a self-professed Socialist, to be a “big ‘f—- you’ to the elites in America,” but prefacing it as not being helpful to finding solutions to the country’s difficulties.  Seem to me that Frank is as out of touch as was his little focus group.   

On a broader note, I’m not quite sure, exactly, what it is that is currently underway over there at Fox News.  But one thing I do know for certain, and it is that these days I’m watching a lot less of the network than I used to, primarily because with each night it becomes all the more obvious that their success has gone straight to their head.  And the success that they have now seems to have bred a certain level of arrogance that, I think, tends to turn people off.  And it is an emotion that old Frank himself seems to have fallen victim to.  

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND WHAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT ‘REALLY’ SAYS…

I’m amazed how it is that so many of today’s so-called “Constitutional Experts”, be they presidential candidates or TV talking heads seem to be anything but. Especially as far as our illegal immigration problem goes.  Because while parts of Donald Trump’s immigration plan may raise serious constitutional questions, the part that has now launched a media firestorm—ending birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens— most certainly does not.  The Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment does not confer citizenship on the children of foreigners, whether legal or illegal.  So this is yet another area of our Constitution where those on the left, and a good many of those on the right, read only what they ‘want’ to read.

Now I freely admit that I’m about as far removed, as anyone can possibly get, from being an expert on the Constitution.  As must be a goodly number of our media commentators who have continued to get this issue so completely, and so thoroughly dead wrong.  And I was somewhat surprise to hear that even Fox News’s Judge Andrew Napolitano, whom I have always held in rather high regard because of what I thought was his apparent knowledge regarding our Constitution, has now said that the Fourteenth Amendment is “very clear,” and its Citizenship Clause commands that any child born in America is automatically an American citizen.  On the contrary, not only is that’s not the law, it never has been the law.  Come on, Judge!

Under current immigration law—found at 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a)—a baby born on American soil to a (1) foreign ambassador, (2) head of state, or (3) foreign military prisoner is not an American citizen. This is from the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 (INA), as it has been amended over the years. So after all these years is this federal law unconstitutional?  No, it is not!  The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states as follows: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”  Today’s debate can be said to turn on the six words, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

As those familiar with history are no doubt well aware, the Thirteenth Amendment—which ended slavery—barely passed Congress because of the large number of Democrats who supported slavery, and it was only through the political genius and resolve of ‘Republican’ President Abraham Lincoln that the proposed amendment passed Congress in 1865.  In 1866, Congress passed a Civil Rights Act to guarantee black Americans their constitutional rights as citizens, claiming that the Constitution’s Thirteenth Amendment gave Congress the power to pass such laws. But many voted against the Civil Rights Act because they thought it exceeded Congress’s powers, and even many of its supporters doubted its legality.

It was the Civil Rights Act that included a definition for national citizenship the purpose of which to guarantee that former slaves would forever be free of the infamous Dred Scott decision which declared black people were not American citizens. That provision read, “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”  However, nowhere does it say that anyone who is able to sneak across our border, and then able remain undetected in this country for any number of years automatically becomes a citizen of this nation.  Now that may be how some of our politicians read it, but that doesn’t make it so.

That was the original meaning of the jurisdiction language in the Fourteenth Amendment. A person who is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States is a person who is “not subject to any foreign power”—that is, a person who was entirely native to the United States, not the citizen or subject of any foreign government. The same members of Congress who voted for the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865 then voted to define citizenship for freed slaves in a federal law in 1866, then voted again months later in 1866—using only slightly different language—to put that definition of citizenship in the Constitution, language that was ultimately ratified by the states in 1868 as the Fourteenth Amendment.

And it was then in 1884 that the Supreme Court in Elk v. Wilkins noted that the language of the Civil Rights Act was condensed and rephrased in the Fourteenth Amendment and that courts can therefore look to the Civil Rights Act to understand better the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.  The Court reasoned that if a person is a foreign citizen, then their children are likewise not constitutionally under the jurisdiction of the United States, and therefore are not entitled to citizenship.  In fact, the Court specifically then added that this rule is why the children of foreign ambassadors are not American citizens.  That is why Congress can specify that the children of foreign diplomats and foreign soldiers are not Americans by birth.

The very simple fact is that these individuals are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Congress’s INA does not grant them citizenship; federal law never has.  Which then begs the question, why is a child born on American soil to foreign parents an American citizen by birth?  Because the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause is a floor, not a ceiling.  Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution, Congress has absolute power to make laws for immigration and for granting citizenship to foreigners.  Congress’s current INA is far more generous than the Constitution requires.  Congress could expand it to grant citizenship to every human being on earth, or narrow it to its constitutional minimum.

The position of many in our state-controlled media demonstrates quite clearly that they lack any serious knowledge regarding what our Constitution actually says about immigration, or anything else for that matter.  As well, that seem to be quite ignorant of what most of us see as being very clearly spelled out in our immigration laws.  This despite the fact that some of the greatest legal minds in this country have discussed this issue nearly ad nauseam. It’s just that no one has ever put any of them on camera to explain it.  Scholars including Dr. John Eastman of Chapman University, and even Attorney General Edwin Meese—the godfather of constitutional conservatism in the law—reject the myth of birthright citizenship.

Nor is rejection of birthright citizenship something this is limited to only we conservatives.  For instance, it was Judge Richard Posner—a prolific scholar who, despite being appointed by Ronald Reagan, is a liberal judicial activist—who wrote in 2003 in Ofoji v. Ashcroft:  We should not be encouraging foreigners to come to the United States solely to enable them to confer U.S. citizenship on their future children. But the way to stop that abuse of hospitality is to remove the incentive by changing the rule on citizenship.  A constitutional amendment may be required to change the rule whereby birth in this country automatically confers U.S. citizenship, but somehow I seriously doubt it.  I would have to agree.

The purpose of the rule was to grant citizenship to the recently freed slaves, and the exception for children of foreign diplomats and heads of state shows that Congress did not read the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment literally, and literally is how it is read today even by those who should know better. Congress would not be flouting the Constitution if it amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to put an end to the nonsense.  It is another question as to whether Congress could strip citizenship from the children of illegals who already have it.  If Congress could do that, then it could also strip citizenship from the many millions of foreigners who came to the United States legally and went through the lawful process to become Americans.

Trump, if elected, could rescind Barry “Almighty’s” executive amnesty, but that executive order did not grant anyone citizenship, and it would be a steep uphill climb in court to try to take someone’s citizenship away.  And if the children already here are American citizens, then they could never be deported.  Some other parts of Trump’s plan face even longer odds.  The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Bill of Rights applies to all “persons,” not just citizens.  And the courts have always held that due process requires any foreigner to be given a “meaningful hearing” in court before being deported, and that would most certainly have an impact on the pace of deportations.

Now I’m not going to do is sit here and make the claim that Donald Trump’s position on immigration hasn’t changed, and pretty drastically so, from his previous positions, just like his past support for socialized healthcare and abortion.  After all, he has not yet explained why he changed his position on immigration, hence the reason that more than a few voters still do not trust that he sincerely holds to his current campaign positions.  But that being said, none of that changes the legality of his immigration proposal.  While parts of it may face legal challenges, the fact is that denying citizenship to the children of illegal aliens is fully consistent with the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment.

LANNY DAVIS…A BUTT-LICKER WITHOUT EQUAL…

So, it would seem that perennial Clinton ‘butt-lick’, Lanny Davis, has once again gotten his panties in a twist, feeling compelled again to come rushing to the defense of Hitlery.  Lanny became what can only be described as completely unhinged last week after columnist Windsor Mann wrote that Democrat presidential frontrunner Hitlery Clinton has a personality deficit disorder.  Come on, it’s not as if Hitlery hasn’t been accused of being “likable enough” before.  But somehow Windsor’s words got under Lanny’s skin and he reasoned that Windsor has an “irrelevance” problem.

For those out there who may not be familiar with the esteemed Mr. Davis, he is the former White House Special Counsel to ex-president ‘Slick Willie’ Clinton.  I’m sure you remember ‘Slick Willie’, one of only two U.S. presidents to ever be impeached.  Anyway, old Lanny first met Hitlery back in the late sixties while at Yale Law School.  He supported her presidential candidacy in 2008 and has often appeared on TV as a campaign surrogate.  It was Mann’s op-ed column in USA Today that ran with the rather harsh headline: “Hillary Clinton’s personality deficit disorder.”

Here’s just a snippet of what Mr. Mann wrote: “Because her recent past is uninspiring, Clinton is now showcasing her distant past — the era before anyone had heard of her. …Needless to say, if the best part of your political career occurred before your political career, there may be a problem with your political career. Such is the case with Clinton’s. …. If Clinton’s personality is her chief asset, she’s in trouble. To a lot of people, she comes across as neither affable nor interesting nor honest.”  To me none of what Mr. Mann wrote seems to be right on the mark.  But not so for Lanny.

In his effort to defend Hitlery, Lanny puts forward the claim that Mr. Mann is the one with issues.  He said so in a response that ran in USA Today a day after the column published.  Per Mr. Davis:  “Could it be that Mr. Mann actually believes his brand of written bile actually convinces anyone who cares about solving the great problems facing this country?” Davis began his psychoanalysis. “Can he be that blind to his own irrelevance? Or are his personal attacks on Secretary Clinton precisely because he is aware of the latter, and that frustrates him?”

And Lanny went on to say that he was “disappointed” in USA Today for presuming that Hitlery is the frontrunner. He sees this as insulting to the other Democrat presidential hopefuls. He finds this kind of “biased reporting” really “irresponsible” since it “robs the other candidates of their legitimacy.”  But isn’t Hitlery still the one being referred to as the Democrat ‘frontrunner’ by just about everyone in the state-controlled media?  And why not?  Isn’t she leading all of her rivals, both declared and undeclared by double-digits?  So what’s Lanny really talking about here?

I guess we could try to explain Lanny’s rather idiotic behavior by saying this his little rant must have been written after a couple cocktails at dinner.  But he does have a rather long history of exhibiting this level of butt-licking when it comes to the Clintons.  Fuming about a journalist’s ‘irrelevance’ when he’s writing in the biggest newspaper in the country?  Really?  Perhaps ‘Team Hitlery’ is getting a bit worried about Hitlery’s irrelevance now that Bernie is ahead of her by 7 points in New Hampshire.  Lanny’s reaction might actually stem more from panic than from alcohol.

SCUMBAG DEMOCRATS PLAY POLITICS WITH BAD IRAN DEAL…

Barry’s hopes of preserving his cherished nuclear ‘deal’ between Iran and world powers is said to have been dealt a setback this past Thursday when Chuckie Schumer, one of the top Democrats in the Senate said, after deep study, careful thought and considerable soul-searching, he simply could not bring himself to support the agreement.  But I think we all knew this was coming.   After all, Chuckie’s up for re-election next year even though he’s a shoe in, he was most likely been given permission to vote against it so as to have something to brag about next year.  But his action does not mean that Barry’s ‘deal’ is in any real danger of being killed.

Chuckie's supposed opposition, announced in a lengthy statement, could, however unlikely, pave the way for more of Barry's fellow Democrats to come out against the nuclear pact announced on July 1 between the United States, five other world powers and Iran.  Chuckie is said to be among the most influential Jewish lawmakers in the United States.  He was the first Senate Democrat to announce his opposition to the agreement.  But 12 more Democrats would be needed to successfully override Barry’s threatened veto, which means another 11 Democrats can still safely vote against it.  So we should look for that to happen and not be surprised when it does.

Another supposedly ‘influential’ Jewish lawmaker is Rep. Eliot Engel who happens to be the top Democrat on the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee and also said on Thursday that he too would oppose Barry’s nuclear pact.  Mr. Engel would also be one of those Democrats for whom there is likely an ulterior motive for coming out against this very bad deal.  You see, he too is up for re-election and has therefore likely been given permission to vote against this deal for purely political purposes.  Granted, he too may be a sure bet to win re-election but why take any unnecessary chances while at the same time being able to claim to be a defender of Israel.

Barry has been engaged in his own lobbying effort, including a combative speech on Wednesday in which he said abandoning the agreement would open up the prospect of war.  And in making quite clear his preference for operating out of the gutter, Barry attempted to shore up his increasingly unpopular “deal” with Iran which many say hands them nuclear weapons “on a silver platter.”  Barry gave what was billed as a “major” policy speech on the accord that Americans now have come to oppose by a 2-to-1 margin.  But all that matters very little to our ‘Dear Beloved Leader,’ Barry “Almighty”.  It’s all about him and his supposed legacy, or lack of. 

It was in that speech that we saw an obviously desperate Barry make some despicable comments, going so far as to compare the terror-sponsoring Iranian Mullahs to Republicans.  It was in reference to anti-American sentiments that Barry said, “I recognize the resorting to force may be tempting in the face of rhetoric and behavior that emanates from some parts of Iran.”  And added, “It is offensive. It is incendiary. We do take it seriously. But superpowers should not act impulsively in response to taunts.”  And he went on to say, “Just because Iranian hardliners chant ‘Death to America’ does not mean that’s what all Iranians believe.” 

And then in what has become typical behavior for this our least presidential of all American presidents, Barry proceeded to sink to what I think would be an all new low, even for him.  Because Barry would then say, “In fact, it’s those those hardliners who are most comfortable with the status quo. It’s those hardliners chanting ‘Death to America’ who have been most opposed to the deal. They are making a common cause with the Republican caucus.”  Really?  I mean, what is it that he was hoping to accomplish by making such a polarizing, arrogant and more than a little reckless statement?  Was he trying to bully those who oppose his deal into supporting it?

And then, of course, we have our imbecilic secretary of state, John Kerry-Heinz, the genius who ‘negotiated’, and I use that term very loosely, the deal on the U.S. side.  Kerry-Heinz said during a news conference on a visit to, of all places, the Vietnamese capital Hanoi that he respected Chuckie and Engel but added that "rejection is not a policy for the future."  Kerry-Heinz said, "It does not offer any alternative and many people in arms control and others have actually pointed that out. While I completely respect everybody's individual right to make a choice, I obviously disagree with the choice made."  What a buffoon this guy is.  It’s amazing.

Chuckie did his best to convince us that he was not influenced by party or politics and had not been pressured, like any of us would view that as being anything other than a bunch of political bullshit.  He said, "Advocates on both sides have strong cases for their point of view that cannot simply be dismissed. This has made evaluating the agreement a difficult and deliberate endeavor, and after deep study, careful thought and considerable soul-searching, I have decided I must oppose the agreement and will vote yes on a motion of disapproval."   Frankly I was surprised that he was actually able to get through his entire spiel and all with a straight face.

Barry has promised, no make that threatened, a veto if the resolution is passed by the House and Senate.  Now in order for the Republicans to shove that threat right up Barry’s ass, they would need at least 13 Democrats in the Senate and 44 in the House to join them in voting against Barry.  The have to be able to muster a two-thirds majority in both chambers needed in order to override a Barry veto.  So, while Thursday's announcements can, in a sense, be described as being a blow, albeit a minor one, to Barry, opponents of this deal still face a pretty steep uphill battle to enact a disapproval resolution.

Chuckie said lawmakers would have to come to their own conclusions but he would try to persuade other senators to vote against the Iran deal. Now that may be true, but Chuckie has a history of being a little less than honest.  Keep in mind that Chuckie is currently the number three Democrat in the Senate and is in line to succeed ‘Dingy Harry’ Reid as the party's leader in the chamber when ‘Dingy’ finally retires in early 2017.  Meanwhile, a congressional aide said Engel would vote for a resolution of disapproval and also vote to override a Barry veto if the resolution passed Congress.  However, Engel did not say he would lobby against the deal among other lawmakers.

Chuckie said he opposed the nuclear deal because he believed Iran would not change and that the deal would let it eliminate sanctions while retaining "nuclear and non-nuclear power."  He said, "Better to keep U.S. sanctions in place, strengthen them, enforce secondary sanctions on other nations, and pursue the hard-trodden path of diplomacy once more, difficult as it may be."  The White House had no immediate comment on Chuckie's announcement.  MoveOn.org said its 8 million members would organize a "donor strike" to withhold campaign contributions from "any Democratic candidate who succeeds in undermining the president's diplomacy with Iran."

Look, we will likely hear a lot more noise from what will likely be a growing number of Democrats regarding their displeasure with this ‘deal’, but that’s all it’s likely to be, noise.  It will only be for show as there is simply no way that there will be 13 Democrats willing to sign on to any veto override.  That being, of course, because the Democrat Party, Chuckie included, possesses a level of hatred for this country that runs so deep they could never choose sides against Barry and his Muslim brothers.  The very same Muslims who share with the Democrats that same intense hatred of America.  And by siding with Barry they are choosing to stand against this country.  

BLACKS, VICTIMS OF THEIR OWN BEHAVIOR…

So, it’s according to a new Gallup poll, released just this past Monday, that blacks feel more mistreated while shopping in a store, at a restaurant, bar, or theater than by police.  Imagine that.  Now why do you suppose they might be made to feel that way?  Might it be because more often than not it’s a black youth running from a store with something that doesn’t belong to them?  Or that when I do chose to go out to a movie, it’s usually some black punk talking on his phone as if he, or she, is the only one in the theater.  And have you ever seen blacks in a restaurant?  My wife and I jokingly refer to it as ‘Menu Class’ because everything has to be thoroughly explained to them, and then usually everything still ends up going back 2 or 3 times in, what would at least appear to be, an attempt to get a free meal.

Now granted, not all blacks behave in the manner that I outlined above, but a great many do.  And those who do not are, unfortunately, made to suffer a little guilt by association.  To them I say, “That’s life, get over it.”  Anyway, it was according to this poll that 18 percent of blacks said they felt like they were treated unfairly because they were black “in dealings with the police, such as traffic incidents.” However, 24 percent reported discrimination in a store where they were shopping, and 20 percent felt that way “at a restaurant, bar, theater or other entertainment place.”  Putting myself in the position of a business owner, I’d tell these folks that perhaps if more blacks chose to act like adults and not like spoiled children with a sense of entitlement, blacks might begin to be viewed differently in such venues.

And it was also in this very same poll that 18 percent of blacks surveyed felt they were treated unfairly at their “place of work,” which was the same percentage as those who felt discriminated against by police.  Meanwhile, 12 percent felt they were treated unfairly because they were black “while getting health care” for themselves or a family member.  The issue of being treated unfairly when receiving healthcare or in their place of work, I have a hard time buying.  Because I’ll tell ya, the blacks that I’m around during the work day tend to be able to get away with murder.  They play with their phones, compare baby videos, talk about what they did over the weekend, or do just about anything but what they’re actually getting paid to do.  And rarely if ever is anything said to them, usually out of fear of being accused of racism.

Also, according to this poll, younger blacks were more likely to report discrimination than are older blacks.  Among blacks aged 8-49, 21 percent responded that they felt discriminated against because of their race while dealing with police, compared to 13 percent of those over 50. (Excuse me, but why do we really care about what an 8 year old has to say?)  Furthermore, 23 percent of men compared to 13 percent of women reported such discrimination by police.  Among respondents under 50, 29 percent of black respondents felt discriminated against while shopping, while only 18 percent felt that way while shopping. Furthermore, 26 percent of men and 23 percent of women felt they were treated differently because they were black while shopping.  Now if they are treated differently, I think there’s a rational explanation for it.

Also among young blacks, 23 percent reported discrimination while at a restaurant, bar, or theater, compared to 15 percent of blacks 50 and up. Meanwhile, 20 percent of men and 19 percent of women felt discrimination in the same setting.  In the workplace, 21 percent of younger blacks experienced discrimination, the study found, compared to 13 percent of blacks 50 and over. More women, however, reported discrimination based on race in the workplace (18 percent), compared to 16 percent of men, who reported experiencing the same thing.  But I’d be very curious to know what exactly it is that they base this sense of racism on.  I mean, is it simply because they didn’t get the raise or promotion they thought they were ‘entitled’ to?  Or does it go deeper than that? 

Also, 10 percent of younger blacks reported being treated differently because of their race while getting health care for themselves or a family member, while more blacks 50 and older (14 percent) felt discrimination while doing the same. Among men, 13 percent compared to 11 percent of women felt they were treated differently while getting health care for themselves or a family member.  Meanwhile, 88 percent of blacks reported satisfaction with their lives, while only 87 percent of whites felt that way, the poll revealed. Such was not the case, however in 2013 when 89 percent of whites reported greater satisfaction with their lives than blacks, who had an 87 percent approval at the time. 

The survey said, “Blacks' satisfaction with their lives is now higher by one percentage point than at any time over the past 14 years and well above the low point of 80% measured in 2008. On the other hand, whites' personal satisfaction is now essentially tied with its lowest point.”  And it added, “Blacks' reports of satisfaction with the way their daily lives are going is at its all-time high point, providing additional evidence that U.S. blacks' views of their general life conditions have not recently deteriorated.”  Personally, I have a hard time trying to figure out what it is that blacks have to be so unhappy about. Life is made so easy for them, and they have a built in excuse when it comes to failure.  That being, or course, the world is against them because they are black.

As I have said before, on more than one occasion, when I come back in my next life, it is my intent to come back, black.  Because how nice must it be to feel to feel justified in living off your fellow Americans or to get a tax ‘refund’ every year even though you’re not made to actually pay any amount in federal income taxes.  And being black would also entitle me to a free education, be guaranteed to graduate, and to then get a high dollar job, usually with the government, be it local, state or federal, or with the local school district.  And while it would likely be a job for which I would be nowhere near qualified, that would matter very little because I’m black and would likely be needed to fill some quota.  And I wouldn’t be able to be fired also because I’m black.  I mean, where else can you get a deal like that? 

And I wish I could have some level of sympathy for blacks, but I just can’t. And let’s be honest, here, the major issues that many in the black community are forced to contend with on a daily basis, such as, the number of black males in prison, the number of unwed mothers and the number of blacks in poverty, the number unemployed are all pretty much self-inflicted problems.  Meaning, of course, that they have brought this all on themselves by choosing, consistently, to vote for the very people who have essentially made sure that blacks would never be able to get ahead.  The black family has been decimated, and with it went the opportunity for more blacks to enjoy what used to be, pre-Obama, the American dream.  They’ve repeatedly been played for saps, and show no interest in changing things.

AMERICA HAS BEEN MADE TO FALL SO FAR…

It just never fails, just when I think that the Democrats have set an all new standard for absolute depravity, damn if they don’t do something to set the bar even lower.  And usually in what is a very big way.  Take for instance the disgusting videos involving the goings on over at Planned Parenthood, a favorite Democrat organization.  In choosing to respond to the disgusting practices taking place at this organization, what is it that’s the very first thing that Democrats do?  Is it to join in the outcry? Nope, it’s to attack those who are bringing these practices to light.  And by so doing Democrats have once again demonstrated to us how low they are willing to go.  

‘Dingy Harry’ Reid is the perfect example of what today’s Democrat Party has allowed itself to become.  It was shortly before the failed attempt to defund Planned Parenthood, which fell just seven votes short, that this pathetic waste of skin said, "The Planned Parenthood bill isn't going anywhere in the Senate."  Such a statement should make it abundantly clear to anyone with even an ounce of morality just how much of a sick, twisted fuck this leader of Senate Democrats really is.  And it should also be very clear that the Democrat Party is today nothing more than an odd assortment of some of the most despicable and vile individuals on the planet.

And it was in a speech from the Senate floor that ‘Dingy’ would be heard to say, "Senate Republicans are not being fair to American women."  And then he went on to say, "It's our responsibility in the Senate to assure that American women have access to care.  It's our obligation to protect our wives, our sisters, our daughters, our granddaughters -- protect them from the absurd policies of a Republican Party that's lost its moral compass."  So how is it that the Republican Party can now be said to be the political party devoid of a moral compass?  Is it the Republican Party that is so enthusiastically supporting that which is nothing more than infanticide?

So it was then on this past Tuesday the pro-life group behind these undercover videos released yet another one.  This one showed Planned Parenthood's director of research discussing the transfer of "intact fetal cadavers" to people posing as potential buyers of such things.  The research director says intact fetal cadavers are part of the budget -- "just a matter of line items."  What kind of person is it that can bring themselves to talk about dead babies in such a cold and matter-of-fact way?  I mean talk about someone sorely lacking a moral compass.  How is it that we could have ever allowed ourselves to have arrived at a place where such an evil thing is even possible?        

This most recent video, likely considered by many to be the most gruesome one yet, actually shows Planned Parenthood personnel going through bloody baby body parts in the pathology laboratory to find organs of interest to the "buyer."  One of these ‘buyers’ then asks, "Are there any fresh specimens from today that we can still look at?"  A lab worker, laughing, says "You're not going to see nothing intact today," referring to the aborted babies. "We had a really long day, and they're all mixed up together in a bag."  How are these people able to look themselves in the mirror after having done the things that they have done?  What kind of a monster must one be?

The video shows them going through body parts in a dish.  One of the lab workers says the most advanced pregnancy aborted on that particular day was 20 weeks' gestational age.  But the director of research told the "buyers" there are least six abortionists who do second-trimester abortions, and she said some of those doctors also "have projects and they're collecting the specimens and they do it in a way that they get the best specimens."  There is simply no way that those involved in such sadistic activity should ever be referred to as being ‘doctors’ anymore than Josef Mengele was a ‘doctor.’  These individuals are nothing more than butchers.   

What have we allowed our country to become?  And how can anyone accept such ghoulishness as being acceptable behavior.  Is this what it means to be ‘progressive?’  If so, you can count me out!  And I’ll tell you something else, anyone who can bring themselves to vote for ANY so-called progressives simply has no soul.  Because they have made a conscious decision to simply look the other way and for no other reason than because the political party that sees no problem with this, is the same party that serves as their never-ending meal ticket.  They are content to sacrifice the lives of millions of babies one what has become the altar of liberalism. 

I simply don’t understand how it is that anyone, even a Democrat, can justify the mutilation of a human fetus.  When we should be focused on defending the most defenseless among us, we seem to be doing just the opposite by coming up with ever more efficient ways of committing some of the most heinous acts imaginable and all under the banner of women’s health.  Are we really that gullible?  Or are we simply willing to go along with pretty much anything as long as it has no impact on us.  But you see, it does have an impact on us.  Because by choosing to stand idly by and do nothing we doom ourselves to a future so dark that we may never find our way back. 

MIGHT WHITE WOMEN FINALLY BE COMING TO THEIR SENSES??? PROBABLY NOT…

If I’m not mistaken I think the old girl, Hitlery, is already less than the favorite of most white male voters.  And if that is in fact the case, then it’s very understandable as the shrillness that emanates from this bitch is an automatic turnoff.  But now, at least according to a new poll, Hitlery appears to be losing ground with white women voters, marking a potentially damaging development with a demographic important to her and which Barry “Almighty’ fared rather poorly with in the 2012 election. 

It is according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC Poll, which was conducted July 26-30, that it would now seem that among white women, at least those with a college degree, the group that it would seem has the most in common with Hitlery, the former secretary of state's numbers have suddenly begun to head south, with 47 percent holding an unfavorable view of her and 43 percent showing a positive view.  I’d like to think that women are finally beginning to figure out, but I’m just not sure.

The Wall Street Journal reported earlier today that in comparison, as recently as this past June the same demographic showed 51 percent with a positive view and 38 percent negative.  And no matter how hard her supporters may try to explain it all away, there’s simply no way you can say she’s in the same position this month compared to last month.  Even to the most casual of observers it would seem that she has been dented and she is now in a weaker position.

The poll numbers dipped amid negative reports of Hitlery's rather dubious email practices, the millions of dollars she has earned through speaking fees, and donations to the Clinton Foundation and Slush Fund, particularly those coming in from foreign countries.  Some experts are also seeing the numbers as an echo from the 2012 election, when Barry “Almighty” lost white female voters to GOP nominee Mitt Romney by 14 points even though he went on to win the election.

On Tuesday, Hitlery's first television ads for this cycle started airing in Iowa and New Hampshire.  Both of the spots are likely to appeal to female voters, as they focus on the importance of families.  The first spot shares with us what we’re supposed to believe is a true story of Hitlery's late mother, Dorothy Rodham, who has, or so we are told, long served as Hitlery's role model. It tells of her mother's tough upbringing and how it taught her that everybody needs someone to champion them.   

In the second ad, Hitlery's ‘career’ is spotlighted, along with photos of herself and ‘Slick Willie’ as younger adults, and reveals her reason to serve as secretary of state under Barry, saying "because when your president calls, you serve."  Gag me with a spoon!  Both ads put an emphasis on family values, like anyone in their right mind recognizes Hitlery as exhibiting ‘family values.’  Her new ads mark a change from the experience and toughness themes her campaign put on her bid in 2008.

This time around, the campaign is presenting Hitlery as a mother- and grandmother-in-chief, while constantly reminding voters that if elected, she would be the first female president.  Apparently, she’s a mother and a grandmother who seems to have little problem with Planned Parenthood’s selling baby parts.  Even with these ads the latest poll numbers are particularly troubling to Hitlery's team because she is not being seen as able to match the numbers of black voters who turned out for Barry.

So while it would be logical for her campaign to target women and to encourage them to help vote in the nation's first female president, the numbers simply aren't matching up.  In the past, Hitlery has fared pretty well with voters possessing a similar background to hers, but that appears to be changing.  In the first part of this year, suburban women had a positive view of her by 18 points, but by July, suburban women had changed their view, marking a five-point negative opinion.

Other results in the WSJ/NBC poll also showed trends that could, at least potentially, cause Hitlery's campaign trouble.  It showed Independent voters' support is dwindling. In the first quarter of this year, independents were nearly even, but in the new poll, only 27 percent had a positive opinion of Hitlery while 52 percent saw her negatively. Support from black is also dropping.  In June, she had support of 81 percent to 3 percent; in July, the numbers went to 66 percent positive and 15 percent negative.

The poll also showed the numbers narrowing between Hiltery and the second-place challenger, Socialist Bernie Sanders.  In the July poll, Hitlery led Bernie by 59 percent to 25 percent, which is still a sizable lead, but in June, her lead was even wider, 75 percent to 15 percent.  But then we’re also reminded of the fact that ‘Slick Willie's’ initial poll numbers were low in 1992, when he earned a 30-38 percent favorability rating the summer before the presidential election.

The fact that we now seem to be seeing more women jumping Hitlery’s ship, does, I suppose, come as being a bit of a surprise.  But only because the vast majority of women tend to select their political candidates in much the same manner that most blacks choose theirs.  That being where the skin color of the candidate is typically what’s most important to blacks, it’s the gender of the candidate that usually proves to be the most crucial qualifier when it comes to women.

The actual ability of the candidate to perform the job at hand never really seems to enter into the equation.  And with Hitlery supposedly being the smartest woman on the planet, I figured she’d be a shoe in for the female vote, regardless of the female voter’s skin color.  Better to elect someone on the basis of skin color or gender, than to have to expend the necessary time to determine if the candidate is actually qualified to do the job for which they are a candidate.

Now I’m quite sure that there are women out there who are very enthralled with the possibility of electing our first female president.  But by judging how well things have worked out after electing our first black president, I think I’d be more in favor of electing another white guy.  Because we can’t, or shouldn’t, base who we vote for on nothing more than a novelty.  Especially with the country being in the sad shape that it is, and especially if we want to have anything left to pass down to our kids.

RASMUSSEN PROVIDES GOP WITH A HEALTHY DOSE OF REALITY…

A recent survey conducted by Rasmussen Reports is something that, to me, should serve as being the rough equivalent of a slap upside the collective head of the Republican Party.  The reason being this survey pointed out that if “The Donald” does go on to lose the Republican presidential nomination and then decides to run as a third-party candidate, he would most definitely come to put a serious crimp in any GOP plans to reclaim the White House.  It made clear that what we have here is the possibility of the same scenario in 2016 that we saw in 1992.  One that could allow Hitlery to win this time just as it made possible ‘Slick Willie’s’ win back then.

You see, it’s because of a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey that we now find out that 29% of ‘Likely U.S. Voters’ say that they are at least somewhat likely to vote for Trump if he is not chosen as the GOP nominee and decides to run as a third party candidate.  But that number includes only 14% who say they are Very Likely to vote for him.  Meanwhile, it’s 68% who say they are unlikely to vote for the billionaire developer if he runs as a third-party presidential candidate, with 51% who say it’s Not At All Likely.  However, this survey goes on to find even more worrisome news for the Republicans that they really ought to be paying attention to.

Because this survey also points out that it’s 36% of ‘Likely GOP Voters’ who say that they are likely to vote for Trump if he’s a third-party candidate, with 18% who are Very Likely to do so.  Also, it’s one-in-three, or 33%, voters who are not affiliated with either major party who are also likely Trump voters, including 16% who say they are Very Likely to vote for him if he runs third-party.  Even 19% of Democrats describe themselves as likely Trump voters, although that includes just 9% who say they are Very Likely to vote that way.  This is what happens when you insist upon running candidates who too closely resemble the opposition’s candidates.

Right now, Trump leads the pack of 17 Republican presidential hopefuls, going into their first debate this week.  It is 46% of all voters who say they have voted for an independent candidate not affiliated with either major political party.  Among these voters, 34% say they are likely to vote for Trump if he ends up running as a third-party presidential candidate, including 18% who say they are Very Likely to do so.  At this early stage of the game, name recognition is key, and the headlines Trump has been making in recent weeks have undoubtedly helped push him to the top of the heap.  But it will take more than that to remain there and the debates will tell us much. 

Here’s how all the presidential hopefuls stack up so far.  Men are more likely than women to have voted for an independent candidate.  Blacks are less likely to have voted that way compared to whites and other minority voters.  Trump is a more attractive third-party candidate to men and younger voters than he is to women and those 40 and over. Interestingly, roughly one-third of both conservative and liberal voters say they are likely to vote for Trump if he runs third-party, while 74% of moderates say they are Not At All Likely to do so.

Also 34% of voters who think the country is heading down the wrong track say they are likely to vote for Trump if he’s a third-party candidates, but just 21% of those who say the country is heading in the right direction agree.  As each candidate formally announced in recent weeks, Rasmussen asked voters in their respective parties what they think of the candidate and how they rate his or her chances to be their party’s nominee next year. Bush is seen as having the best shot among Republicans, with 56% who see him as the likely nominee, but his last name is a drawback for some.  As far as I’m concerned, his name doesn’t bother me as much as some of his positions. 

Hitlery Clinton remains far and away the leader for the Democrat nomination. But some in her party worry about her electability given the controversies swirling around her, and ‘Slow Joe’ Biden is now reportedly exploring a presidential bid to challenge her.  But let’s face it, at the end of the day the actual Democrat candidate isn’t really all that important.  Those who routinely vote for Democrats will be looking at which of their candidates stands the best chance of keeping their gravy-train in the tracks.  And if that proves to be Hitlery, so be it.  Their no sworn allegiance here by the parasite class, it’s all about who’s willing to pay the most for their vote.

In January 2012 just before the last presidential primary season kicked off, only 6% of Likely Republican Voters said they were prepared to vote third-party if their favorite didn’t win the party nomination.  As well 63% of all voters said later that year that the current electoral setup discourages third-party challenges.  This time those who vote GOP are looking for a bona fide conservative candidate that they can vote for, not a McCain or a Romney.  So if Bush, opposed by many conservatives because of his moderate views on illegal immigration and his support of the Common Core, wins the party nomination, will those right-leaning voters bolt to a third party Trump?

Now I’ll admit I voted for Perot back in 1992, but I just don’t see myself voting for Trump this time around should he decide to go the third party route.  Especially if the only possible outcome would be to virtually guarantee that Hitlery, and her pervert of a husband, would once again gain entry into the ‘People’s House’.  But having said that I am also not so sure that if Bush, or one of the other RINOs currently vying for the prize, were to be the one to win the GOP nomination I could bring myself to vote for any of them.  After all, I’ve been watching the RINOs since assuming control of Congress I’ve seen very little difference than when the Democrats were in charge.  

REPUBLICANS PERHAPS TRYING A LITTLE SLEIGHT OF HAND???

I think most of us would agree, after what we have witnessed over the past several months, the Republican Party, as the result of the 2014 election, won their congressional majority on what was essentially nothing more than a pack of lies.  On every issue from Obamacare to executive amnesty to Obamatrade, the establishment Republican Party has refused to represent the interests of Americans.  Perhaps nowhere is this more acutely noticeable than on the issue of immigration.  Personally, I can’t think of one significant advance in the cause of liberty or limited government under John Boehner.  When he and his counterpart in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, who, by the way is equally bad, surrendered the power of the purse right out of the box they proceeded to deliver to Barry “Almighty” everything he wanted.  So these men have been Barry’s willing accomplices, assisting him in his efforts to oversee the biggest explosion of government both in spending and in power ever.

But that being said, Washington Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers would seem to have a rather different take on things, and actually sees things as being rather rosy.  It was juat yesterday, in fact, that Ms. McMorris bragged about the fact that the GOP-controlled Congress, in just seven months, has enacted entitlement reform, balanced the budget, improved veterans' care, protected phone data privacy and ensured a congressional say in an Iran nuclear deal, but, according to Ms. McMorris, is "just getting started."  In the weekly Republican address, the House Republican Conference chairwoman handed down a glowing report card to lawmakers for the first seven months since the GOP took over the majorities in both chambers.  She added, "Already, we enacted the first real entitlement reform in nearly two decades." And she said, "Now, seniors will have the peace of mind to count on Medicare and taxpayers will save $2.9 trillion over the long term."

She also went on to hail the "first 10-year House-Senate balanced budget plan since 2001," and the enactment of "new tools to fight the evil of human trafficking; new resources to improve care for our veterans; and a plan to advance American trade and promote American jobs."  Also, she said, Congress "ended the bulk collection of phone data, and ensured that Congress will have a say on the bad nuclear deal with Iran."  And since 2010, when Republicans gained control in the House, McMorris Rodgers said lawmakers have also cut spending by more than $2.1 trillion, "protected 99 percent of Americans from permanent tax increases," enacted reforms in job skills, student loan, VA and Medicare – and "stopped the transfer of terrorist detainees into the United States."  She said, "We enacted the most significant measure to help Americans with disabilities in 25 years."  And then added. "And we passed the most sweeping pro-life legislation in history."

But she said, "much more to do," including bills to accelerate the discovery, development, and delivery of life-saving innovations; reduce the power of the federal government in education; and modernize the VA system.  She said, "Here’s the bottom line: we are just getting started on solving problems to empower you have the opportunity to pursue your own future and reach your full potential."  Personally, since day one of this the 114th Congress I have felt nothing more than a great deal of disappointment, frustration and, yes, even anger at what I’ve seen taking place by those whom I had heard promise, on a number of occasions, a commitment to put the brakes on what our corrupt president is trying to do, and to turn back what he has already been successful in doing, to our country.  They have done nothing of the sort.  Our leaders, if you can call them that, have excelled at nothing more than the breaking of nearly every promise that was made prior to the last election.  

So how about we try to cut through some of the bullshit spewed, here, by Rep. McMorris Rodgers, shall we?  Because the fact if the matter is that we have a couple of self-serving powerful politicians at the top—in the House, in the Senate, and in the Republican National Committee (RNC) and various other places that empower themselves, they like exercising power. And they fear conservatives more than the Democratic Party.  They hate conservatives, they hate constitutionalists, and, to be perfectly honest, they hate the Tea Party. They don’t care for the Democrats, but they’ll work with them.  They have no strategic vision whatsoever and, of course, they have no tactical vision at all either.  They just keep saying, ‘Vote Republican, Vote Republican.’  But they are doing more to dispirit Republicans and conservatives than Barry “Almighty”, because people go to the polls, they give them the House, then they give them the Senate, and they get absolutely nothing in return.

I think we can safely say that the Republican Party today is a disaster. It seems to have lost its way, and is clueless as how to get back on track.  In the House, Speaker Boehner has been quite busy in essentially delivering for Barry “Almighty” everything Barry wants. Just because you’re dressed up as a Republican doesn’t mean you are one.  By his actions, he has demonstrated that he is not a conservative.  And together with the other members of his ‘leadership’ team, Kevin McCarthy and Steve Scalise, little more has been done than to conspire against the Tea Party and the more conservative elements of his caucus.  I can’t think of one significant advance in the cause of liberty or limited government under John Boehner.  When he and Sen. Mitch McConnell, who’s just as bad, surrendered the power of the purse right out of the box they delivered to Barry everything he wanted. So these men have helped Barry oversee the biggest explosion of government both in spending and in power ever.

So I’m not sure of purpose behind the rosy picture painted by Ms. McMorris Rodgers.  I mean does she really think we’re that stupid?  If so, therein lies the problem.  We’re not stupid, not at all.  What we are, is weary.  Weary of being lied to and taken for granted.  And all the attempts at distraction, such as the nonsense spewed by Ms. McMorris Rodger, is essentially falling on deaf ears.  As they say, actions speak louder than words, and for the last year and a half, but especially over the last seven months, all we have heard are empty words to which we can now add the words of Ms. McMorris Rodgers.  And as I have said before, the Republicans came into power after being handed a mandate and a very short window of opportunity, politically speaking, to act on it.  And despite the flowery rendition by Ms. McMorris Rodgers they have done nothing more than to squander that opportunity and to run down the clock.  We’re no better off than if Nancy Pelosi was Speaker and ‘Dingy Harry’ still ran the Senate.      

DEMOCRATS, A RATHER BARBARIC BUNCH…

So I ask you, just what kind of a twisted-sick-fuck-of-a-Democrat must one be in order to have little or no problem with what’s been going on over at Planned Parenthood?  And something else that seems to be pretty apparent to me is the fact that we have now raised for ourselves what appears to be a generation of some pretty cold-hearted women.  Because if they can look at the mutilated corpse of a human fetus and still claim that is a woman’s health issue, then there’s simply no hope left for this nation.

And then we also have a growing number of Democrats now rushing to the nearest microphone to express their faux outrage regarding the barbaric activity taking place at Planned Parenthood while at the same time enthusiastically defending that very same organization.  All of which should leave very little doubt about just how far into the sewer the Democrat Party, as a whole, has managed to bury itself.  But then the sewer has always been where Democrats have been the most comfortable.

One of the more vocal supporters of this despicable organization is none other than that devout socialist, as well as current Democrat presidential candidate, Bernie Sanders.  Bernie recently placated to his radical base by lambasting Republican attempts to defund Planned Parenthood over the release of some rather gruesome videos exposing the organization's illegal operation of selling aborted baby organs, calling the move part of a "long-term smear campaign" that seeks to harm women. 

In a statement, Sanders said:  “The attempt by Senate Republicans to cut off support for Planned Parenthood is an attack on women’s health. The current attempt to discredit Planned Parenthood is part of a long-term smear campaign by people who want to deny women in this country the right to control their own bodies.”  So if I understand Bernie, the act of preventing the mutilation of human fetuses in order to harvest their organs, is to deny women the right to control their own bodies?

Sanders also lamented that ending Planned Parenthood's federal funding would be "devastating" and would cheat women out of "quality services".  This escapee from some mental ward said, "Cutting that funding will be devastating to the health needs of millions of women who desperately need the quality services Planned Parenthood provides."  What “quality services” is it that old Bernie could possibly be referring to?  After having watched these disgusting videos, what on Earth can he be talking about?

The statements were made by Sanders Wednesday after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell fast-tracked legislation to defund the abortion conglomerate. The proposed legislation would cut off all federal funding to the death machine and divert it towards other women's health organizations.  Sanders' comments echoed that of ‘Dingy Harry’ Reid who, on Tuesday, called efforts to defund PP "an attack on women's health" and accused Republicans of carrying out "some right wing crazy deal."

For the legislation to pass, it will need a 60-votes majority, something that senate Democrats have, of course, vowed to block.  Behavior that in itself, I would argue, says much more about them than even these videos say about Planned Parenthood.  And much louder.  Democrats are a very sick and twisted lot, a group of people who have managed to take perversion to a whole new level.  And what I find even more disturbing is the fact that so many Americans seem to be going along with them.

Let’s face it, what we are talking about here is an organization that was founded by a woman, Margaret Sanger, who was both a Nazi sympathizer as well as a very vocal proponent of eugenics.  And oddly enough it just so happens that Ms. Sanger is also someone who Hitlery Clinton views as being a personal hero of hers.  Which should raise serious questions about Hitlery’s judgement as I’m pretty sure that what this organization is doing would bring a rather sizable smile to the face of Ms. Sanger.