‘THE SLICKMEISTER’ IS BUT THE LATEST DEMOCRAT TO ATTACK ISRAEL…

Just as I don’t understand the fixation that most Democrats have when it comes to their outright hostility toward Israel, neither do I understand how it is that many Jews in this country can bring themselves to support those very same Democrats. Now I can understand it coming from Barry, because in his heart I think we all realize that he is essentially a Muslim, and therefore an enemy of Israel. But now it would appear that one of the only two U.S. presidents to ever be impeached and the only one, at least as far as I know, ever known to be a rapist, and one who was never really known for being much of a leader, has now taken it upon himself to criticize the Israeli government's handling of peace negotiations with the so-called, Palestinians.

Sounding much like that other presidential loser, Jimmy Carter, it was ‘Slick Willie’ Clinton who was recently heard joining with the chorus of many others within his party and actually agreeing with a suggestion that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is "not the guy" to achieve lasting peace in the Middle East. ‘Slick Willie’ made his ignorant comments while speaking in a conversation at a Democrat fundraiser in Iowa this past weekend. He said, "If we don't force him to make peace, we will not have peace." So how arrogant of a statement is that? What ‘right’ do we have to force Mr. Netanyahu to do anything that he feels places his country in jeopardy and is not in the best interest of his people? Suppose if the shoe was on the other foot?

The exchange was recorded by C-SPAN and covered by the Israeli newspaper, Haaretz. ‘Slick’s’ comments actually stood in direct contrast to what we had heard from his wife, that disaster of a secretary of State, Hitlery Clinton, who has been, at least in public, rather supportive of Netanyahu's handling of the conflict in Gaza, in keeping with but a few other Democrats. The newspaper said, "Whether Bill Clinton's comments reflect the private thinking of these other leading Democrats is impossible to tell." Adding, "But they also serve as a reminder that should Hillary Clinton run for president, the presence of a vocal and very opinionated spouse on the campaign trail creates added opportunity for embarrassment and even inadvertent policy shifts."

Here’s my attempt at a rather brief historical refresher. First of all, there has never been the country of Palestine. So therefore calling these people Palestinians is simply incorrect. In the second century, Emperor Hadrian crushed a new Jewish rebellion with many Jews being banished while others were made slaves of the Romans. A small number of Jews did stay in the land and remained there right up through the twentieth century. However, the name of the land at this time was changed because Hadrian wanted to destroy Jewish identity. He renamed the land "Syria-Palestinian." Palestine was a Latin version of the word Philistine, an ancient enemy of the Jews who were now extinct as a people. Hadrian was deliberately insulting the Jews.

So therefore, as I said, there has never been a country called Palestine. This was a nickname for the Holy Land under the Romans. The people who today call themselves Palestinians are Arabs and the fact is that they referred to themselves as Arabs for, quite literally, centuries until they were dubbed "Palestinians" as a publicity ploy by the terrorist and founder of the PLO, Yassir Arafat. And the truth is that Arafat himself did not use the title "Palestinian" until after the year 1964. Those who have ever since referred to themselves as ‘Palestinians’ have no rightful claim to any of the lands. And freedom loving people everywhere must stand shoulder to shoulder with the Jewish people to repel those who wish to steal that which does not belong to them.

So as we can once again very plainly see, the recurring tendency of Democrats to either ignore history completely or their attempt to rewrite it whenever it doesn’t suit their needs or justify their actions, once again becomes apparent. And while much has been made of the Palestinian exodus of 1948, what hear very little about is how the Palestinians have been made to suffer far more traumatic, and more recent, ordeals at the hands of their Arab brothers. Because as early as the mid-1950s, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Libya all chose to expel striking Palestinian workers. And in 1970, Jordan expelled some 20,000 Palestinians and demolished their camps and in 1994-95, Libya expelled tens of thousands of Palestinian residents in response to the Oslo process.

And it was after the 2003 Iraq war that some 21,000 Palestinians essentially fled the country in response to what was a systematic terror and persecution campaign. And then it was as recently as 2007 that Beirut effectively displaced 31,400 Palestinian refugees when the Lebanese army destroyed the Nahr el Bared refugee camp during fighting between the militant Fatal al-Islam group and the Lebanese army. But the largest forced displacement of Palestinians from any Arab state took place in 1991 when Kuwait expelled most of its Palestinian residents in retaliation for the Palestine Liberation Organization's (PLO) endorsement of Iraq's brutal occupation of the emirate (August 1990-February 1991).

And it mattered very little that this population, most of which had resided in Kuwait for decades, was not at all supportive of the PLO's reckless move. From March to September 1991, about 200,000 Palestinians were expelled from the emirate in a systematic campaign of terror, violence, and economic pressure while another 200,000 who fled during the Iraqi occupation were denied the ability to return. By September 1991, Kuwait's Palestinian community had dwindled to around 20,000. And yet even after all of this it is still Israel that is painted as being the villain in this continuing struggle. Democrats like ‘Slick Willie’ would have us believe that Israel is solely responsible for the plight of the ‘Palestinian’ people.

The true fact of the matter is that absolutely none of this, not one iota, not a smidgen, has anything to do with the reacquiring for the ‘Palestinian’ people their homeland. Because as I said earlier, this particular piece of real-estate where so much blood has now been shed over the years, was never their homeland to begin with. What is truly underway here is nothing more than an all out, no holds barred attempt to once again banish the Jewish people from what is, and really always has been, ‘their’ homeland from the time of Moses. And it absolutely sickens me that we have those in this country, who belong to primarily one of our political parties, who are completely willing to assist those who seek to drive the Israeli people from their home.

HITLERY CLINTON, LIKE THE PROVERBIAL BAD PENNY…

It would seem to be our lot in life that we must be made to continually suffer the ordeal of having to constantly put up with this woman and her perverted ‘rapist’ of a husband, and impeached ex-president, ‘Slick Willie’. And so it was then that on just this past Sunday Hitlery Clinton, in making her first appearance in Iowa since back in 2008, said, in sounding much like Jack Nicholson in ‘The Shining’, "Hello, Iowa, I'm back!"

Hitlery made her appearance at the annual steak fry/fundraiser sponsored by that communist senator Tom Harkin, who’s finally retiring from the Senate after spending nearly 30 years doing as much damage to this country as he possibly could. And as previously mentioned she had ‘The ‘Slickmeister’ in tow. Both Clintons where supposedly there to rally the crowd of more than 6,000 Democrat ‘activists’ regarding November's midterm and state elections.

But I’m sure what was on the minds of most in attendance was Hitlery’s possible run for the White House in 2016. And she did little to dampen the speculation when she said, "I've got a few things on my mind these days. First, and most importantly, Bill and I are on constant grandchild watch. I'm calling Chelsea every 5 minutes to make sure things are going all right." Then, she said, "There's that other thing. It is true I am thinking about it."

She told those assembled, "I'm here first and foremost for Tom, for Ruth (Harkin), and for the great candidates that you have a chance to elect." Adding, "In just 50 days Iowans have a choice to make, a choice and a chance. A choice between the guardians of gridlock and the champions of shared opportunity and shared prosperity." She urged voters to elect those who would "carry on Tom Harkin's legacy of fighting for families." Harkin’s legacy is not one of "fighting for families!"

As you may recall it was Barry who defeated Hitlery in the state's leadoff presidential caucuses back in January 2008. In fact Hiterly would come in in third place behind Barry and John ‘The Hair’ Edwards. It was said of those in attendance at Sunday's little get-together, that together they form what is the backbone of Iowa's presidential campaigns every four years. Hence the true reason for Hitlery’s appearance at this progressive backyard gala.

Hitlery, if not the last person we need as our next president, is most definitely in the top tier of those whom we should never elect! And if the last 5 years have shown us anything, it’s that progressive policies, whether dealing with the economy, immigration or even national defense, simply don’t work. Look around you, does anyone think things are better today than they were in 2008. And make no mistake, Hiterly is every bit the progressive that Barry is.

DEMOCRATS HIT ANOTHER POTENTIAL SPEED-BUMP ON THE WAY TO THE MIDTERMS…

In referencing the very same Politico poll that was used earlier to point out the fact that Americans in those pesky ‘battleground states’ seem to be none too thrilled when it comes to Barry’s handling of the economy, we also find that it’s a majority of voters in those very same states who also seem to be not very big fans of his approach to immigration reform. So who is it that might actually be shocked by this little bit of news?

So in providing what may prove to be yet another potential complication for the Democrats as the November midterm elections rapidly approach, and with control of the Senate hanging precariously in the balance, we find out that its nearly two-thirds of likely voters in those battleground states who now disapprove of Barry method of dealing with the issue of immigration. It seems that they don’t take kindly to his threats

The results of this poll come on the heels of Barry 's apparent, and quite recent, about-face, or what some might call his flip-flop, regarding his threat to use executive action in his effort to allow millions of immigrants who are in this country illegally, to remain here without fear of being deported. Barry has also been accused of playing politics, announcing that he will now wait until after the elections before taking any action.

Barry’s obviously politically motivated decision drew the ire of more than a few supposed immigration-reform ‘advocates.’ One in particular was Frank Cherry, executive director of America's Voice. Cherry told Fox News that "we are bitterly disappointed in the president. The president and Senate Democrats have chosen politics over people." And this guy is somehow surprised by this? What kind of advocate must he be anyway?

So anyway, according to the Politico poll, 64 percent of voters in the most competitive House and Senate races disapprove of how Barry is handling immigration. More voters trust Republicans than Democrats on the issue, including 26 percent of independents. It was 18 percent of those who take great pride in calling themselves ‘Independents’ who said that they have more trust in the Democrats to handle immigration reform.

And I’m quite sure that it comes as no surprise to find out that a majority, or 48 percent, of Hispanic voters continue to side with Democrats on the issue of immigration, while just 27 percent said they had more trust in the GOP. This despite the fact that nearly half of all Hispanic voters disapprove of the way Barry has handled immigration reform. So the issue has become sort of a political football with red state Democrats.

North Carolina Sen. Kay Hagan, a Democrat, has spoken out against executive action on immigration reform. Hagan is embroiled in a tight race with her Republican challenger, Thom Tillis. Hagan said, "I don't think it should be by executive action." Adding, "I made the comment weeks and weeks ago that this is a congressional decision. I've supported the immigration reform bill and … I think the House needs to take that legislation up."

And that would be ditto for Maine Sen. Angus King, an Independent who caucuses with Democrats. King has said, "Significant executive action would undermine support for comprehensive reform and actually perhaps could set the cause back." And he went on to say, "It's not about the midterms. It's about whether this is a good policy decision, and I don't think it is." He really expects us to believe that the midterms have nothing to do with it?

Remember now, it really matters very little, if at all, what these Democrats say before the election, because it’s all essentially etched in jell-o. And what I mean by that is that after, and I mean immediately after, the election, if they were to win, anything that they might have said before the election would all simply be forgotten. Because with victory would come their very enthusiastic support for the same executive action they claimed to oppose before the election.

WILL THE ECONOMY HAVE AN IMPACT ON NOVEMBER’S ELECTIONS???

It is according to another new survey, this one put out by Politico, that a feeling of gloom and doom surrounding the economy still persists in the United Sates. That despite the many rumors of continuing signs of some supposed economic recovery now being underway. While I may not be an expert on the economy, I am someone who is forced to deal with the effects, on a daily basis, brought about by those policies that Barry has put into place. And I dare say that there are very few, if any, actual indicators that any sort of recovery is currently ongoing.

I mean let’s face it. The jobs numbers that are being reported at the end of each month have now become nothing much more of a complete work of fiction than an accurate portrayal of our employment situation. And it’s a fact that we now have nearly as many people on some sort of government program, i.e., food stamps, disability, extended unemployment or welfare, as we now have working to cover the costs of all of those program. And in the span of Barry’s presidency we have had 10 Million workers who have now left the workforce. Recovery?

So this new Politico poll, supposedly involving 917 ‘likely’ voters, points out that at least in those states said to be ‘battleground states’, we have a majority of likely voters who blame, and rightly so, Barry "Almighty" for the nation’s financial woes. We see that 57 percent of them said that they either "strongly" or "somewhat" disapprove of his ‘leadership’ on the issue. The poll showed that only 15 percent "strongly approve" of Barry’s handling of the economy, while 27 percent said they somewhat approve.

And it also courtesy of this poll that we see that only 23 percent of potential voters in those states identified as being ‘competitive’, again regarding November’s midterm elections, believe that their financial situation has improved, compared to the 30 percent who say that it has actually gotten worse. And it’s the frustration and anger over the current state of the country’s economy that I think we can say has played at least a part in the fact that 36 percent of voters in the poll now say that the GOP is better suited to handle the economy.

And yet, as bizarre as it may sound, that figure was matched by the same percentage of those people who actually believe that it’s the Democrats who are better positioned to continue handling the country’s economy. Some 28 percent of respondents were undecided on which party should be running the economy. Now how ignorant, or completely misinformed, must one be in order to think that those in the Democrat Party are the least bit concerned about the economy or actually want it to improve in the first place?

And then, to add insult to injury, this poll also pointed out the fact that we now have a majority of Americans, 61 percent, say they do not have enough savings to deal with a sudden loss of the job. And we also has 62 percent of Americans who said that the rising cost of basic household items like gas and groceries has now put a significant strain on their finances. And I think we can also make the case for now saying that the rising cost of both of those particular items are a direct result of policies that have been put into place by Barry & Co..

Although Politico made the claim that the economy has marginally improved in recent months, the political news website said that unemployment still remains above 6 percent and that in August the country added just 142,000 jobs. But like I said earlier, there is very little doubt that the unemployment figures we hear about have been, and continue to be, manipulated to the point where they are now essentially meaningless. They in no way provide any sort of an accurate picture of our current employment situation.

So when all is said and done I find it all a bit confusing that while a significant number of people blame Barry for our rather dismal performing economy, they can, and in almost the very same breath, say they enthusiastic supporters of Hitlery Clinton, who is essentially cut from the very same cloth as Barry himself. She supports many of the same policies, and both are nothing more than rabid progressives. And as such neither possess any interest in ensuring that our economy is strong, because with a strong economy, fewer people require government ‘assistance’.

TAVIS SMILEY, ANOTHER WHO CONTINUES TO BETRAY THE BLACK COMMUNITY IN THE NAME OF RACISM AND POLITICS…

Talk-show host, and perennial racist loudmouth, Tavis Smiley is yet another one of those blacks who, while claiming to be some ardent defender of the black community, are in reality doing little more than to sell out blacks in this country. In seeking to come up with any rationale for what continues to befall the black community, it was in his best idiotic sounding rhetoric that Smiley once again continued his criticism of Barry "Almighty", saying that "black people lost ground in every single leading economic category during the Obama years." I’d like to remind Mr. Smiley that blacks really have no one to blame but themselves. They are the ones who chose, or allowed themselves to be convinced, to vote for Barry nearly en masse. Now perhaps if blacks were to vote a little closer to what we’ve been told are their true positions on such issues as education, jobs and even gay marriage instead of on their ability to obtain a government check of ever-increasing amounts, they might come out a little farther ahead.

It was in a recent interview with ‘The Huffington Post," that Smiley said, "We’ve been at the back of the bus." With him going on to say, "Every other constituency has spoken their truth and made demands of this president." And then, in referring to the White House's recent announcement that Barry would announce his executive actions on immigration after the November elections, this moron said, "Right now, the Hispanic community, for obvious reasons, is livid with him for pushing back once again something he should’ve done, I think, a long time ago." And he added, "But the data is going to indicate — I said this before and I’m not happy about this. I don’t celebrate this." He continued by saying, "I don’t say it as a way of demonizing the president or casting an aspersion on him, but the data is going to indicate that black people lost ground in every single leading economic category during the Obama years." So Smiley seems quite confident in denying any of this is actually Barry’s fault.

Smiley, 50, hosts a late-night talk show on, where else but, taxpayer supported PBS. He has been a Barry critic throughout his term, along with author and Union Theological Seminary ‘professor’ Cornel West. Shortly after Barry's re-election in 2012, Chicago Public Media canceled their program, "Smiley & West," citing concerns about fairness and balance. And apparently Mr. Smiley has also written a new book about the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and made the same claim in January about the lack of black progress under ‘his’ black president, saying "on that regard, the president ought to be held responsible." In his Huffington Post interview, Smiley said that he still respects Barry despite his attacks. And Smiley demonstrated that simply having a black president seems to trump even the continuing plight of blacks when he said, "As Cornel West and I said many years ago, I respect the president." Adding, "I will protect the president against white supremacist attacks or anything else he’s unfairly targeted for.

And then Smiley said something that very clearly makes the point that he’s little more than a complete fraud. He said, "So you’re respecting, you’re protecting, but you’re correcting when he’s wrong." And he concluded things by saying, "Not because he’s Barack Obama, but because he’s the president." Somehow I just can’t bring myself to believe that Smiley would be as generous if we were to have a white guy in the Oval Office, and worse yet a conservative Republican. If that were in fact the case I seriously doubt that Smiley would be as forgiving. In that situation we would be hearing only about how the white man was continuing to keep the black man down. But the odd reality of things is that it’s the very ones who Smiley himself votes for that are the ones so determined to keep the black man down and essentially enslaved to the government. So until Smiley, and those like him, can finally be honest with those in the black community very little will change other than that things will get much, much worse for all.

OBAMA ‘IS’ THE FOOD STAMP PRESIDENT…

The reason that Barack Hussein Obama has been referred to as being the "food stamp president" should be fairly obvious to all. And while some, such as the devoted Barry apologist, Juan Williams, have expressed their outrage at such claims, it does not alter the fact that the label very much fits. And to back that claim, it was in the month of June, of this year, that there were now 46,496,145 recipients of the food stamp program. And in an effort to help better visualize just how big of a number that is, that would be enough people to fill the Yankee Stadium 925 times.

The Yankee Stadium is equipped to hold 50,291 faithful fans, meaning that the 46,496,145 people who were recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) this past June, could fill the stadium 925 times. And its that number of recipients which was actually up from the previous month of May by an additional 270,999, when there were 46,225,146 individuals participating in the program. So it then, and in using the same example, that in the span of one short month we had an increase of roughly the equivalent of 5 Yankee Stadiums.

Similarly, the number of households participating in the SNAP program has increased as well from the 22,590,393 participating in May of this years up to the 22,713,934 participating in June, an increase of 123,541 households. Participation in the SNAP program peaked for individuals in December of 2012, when there were 47,792,056 persons participating. Since this peak, participation for individuals has declined by 1,295,911 individuals. In October 2010, there were 43,201,052 recipients of SNAP benefits. That number has now increased by 3,295,093 persons.

The convincing of more and more citizens to see the ‘wisdom’ of becoming dependent upon government is one of the integral pieces of the progressive, and therefore the Democrat, master plan. And in that regard Barry has been quite successful. But this is but one small piece, because with Barry having come onto the scene, we now have nearly one third of our population dependent upon government to at least some degree. And when combined with the effects of Obamacare, never before in our history has our government held so much control over us.

AMERICA, WHERE NOTHING CAN GO WRONG…GO WRONG…GO WRONG…

While those with whom I am surrounded on a daily basis at my place of employment probably don’t realize it, they have come to serve a useful purpose. That purpose is that they serve as being my very own personal, and quite unique, cadre of ‘lab rats’ which I use to assess many of things that I hear about every day in the news. And it’s amazing just how clueless most of these people are when it comes to what’s going on not only in their country, but the world.

And what I have been able to discover is despite the fact that a rather significant number of them seem to pride themselves on being quite well informed, in reality most, if not all, of them are anything but. Whether it’s on the subject of Obamacare, the economy, unemployment, the growing number of scandals that surrounds Barry "Almighty", or even how we should go about combating terrorism, they are all pretty much oblivious to all that’s going on around them.

Most of them are members of one minority group or another, and as the only white guy in the immediate area I am officially outnumbered. And, quite frankly, that should tell you all that you need to know right there. And, as I’m sure many of you might have already guess, I’m quite sure most of them are Democrats. And as I listen it’s many of things that I hear many of them complaining about that were brought about by the very ones that they voted for.

And yet when you try to point that inconvenient truth out them, very tactfully of course, they simply look at you like they have no idea what on Earth you’re talking about. It’s really quite amazing. And what I find it as being pretty funny is how a few them claim they are independents, saying that they are fed up with both parties and therefore don’t belong to either. But whenever you listen to them talking about certain issues, it’s very clear they are Democrats.

Now keep in mind most, but certainly not all, of these folks are fairly well educated, so I can’t really say that they’re simply too stupid to know any better. So might they be the product of their environment when growing up or a college education? But either way, many do have children and yet seem to be bothered very little by the fact that they have become the willing accomplices in the burying of those children under what has become a mountain of debt.

What I can’t seem to impress upon them is the fact that we simply can no longer go on this way. Personally I am very worried about the current state of not only my country, but the world as well. And I fear that we may have now moved well beyond the point of no return. We seem more proof of that every single day and yet people continue to move through life as if we can just keep on going the way we are. But to do so is nothing short of delusional.

And for whatever the reason, and nearly to a person, they either choose to ignore, or simply cannot comprehend, the fact that the Democrat Party in this country has but one mission. And that mission to bring about the complete collapse of this country, and it’s taking place right in front of their eyes. I fail to understand how anyone can look at what’s going on and deny that that is what they are trying to do. I mean even a crazy person will run from a burning theater.

These people choose to ignore completely the fact that the day will come when we, as a nation, will required to pay back all that we have borrowed. Commonsense should tell you that! Use your own household budget as an example. When have you ever been able to borrow money without having to pay it back? And they seem not to care that while they may escape the likely repercussions, it’s unlikely that their children will be as fortunate. And I wonder if any of them will ever wake up.

RIDDLE ME THIS, WHEN IS A ‘WAR’ NOT A ‘WAR’???

With the arrival of Barry onto the scene back in 2009, it was in fairly short order that there was a change in nomenclature regarding how we were to refer to the "War on Terror". Because word quickly went out that it was now to be called an "Overseas Contingency Operation." Apparently very little has changed, because according to John Kerry-Heinz our battle with the group ISIS is not to be referred to as a ‘war’ but instead as a "counter-terrorism operation."

Here are but a few of the questions put to Kerry-Heinz on Thursday along with his various and, quite frankly, rather idiotic responses:

"Will this be another presidency defined by a war in Iraq?" NBC asked Kerry-Heinz:

Kerry-Heinz responded by saying, "No. No. I’m convinced it will not be." And then he went onto say, "Iraq has its own government now. Iraqis are making these decisions. Iraq does not want American combat troops on the ground. Iraq wants to win back its future."

Kerry-Heinz then proceeded to drone on as only he can, saying, "And I believe what we are engaged in is not a full-fledged war like we were before; it’s a heightened level of counter-terrorism operation, and it will have its own pace, its own dynamic, but it’s counter-terrorism, and it is happening -- not because the Iraq experiment failed -- but because ISIL came about and invaded Iraq and the military dropped the ball and obviously there were expectations of them standing up that didn’t hold up."

------------

And then he was asked by CBS, "Is the U.S. at war with ISIS?":

And he answered saying, "Well, we’re engaged in a major counter-terrorism operation -- and it’s going to be a long-term counter-terrorism operation. I think 'war' is the wrong terminology and analogy, but the fact is that we are engaged in a very significant global effort to curb terrorist activity, and it’s unfortunately too prevalent in certain parts of the world, and in certain cases represents a direct threat to the United States and to our interests in those regions. So we’re going to have to, obviously, be super focused on that.

"But I don’t think people need to get into war fever on this. I think they have to view it as a heightened level of counter-terrorist activity. It’s – have a slightly higher level of activity, but it’s not dissimilar to what we’ve been doing the last few years with al-Qaida in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and in Yemen and elsewhere."

------------

And then it was CNN who piped up and told Kerry-Heinz, "Is the United States at war with ISIS? It sure sounds from the President’s speech that we are."

And Kerry-Heinz said, "I think that’s the wrong terminology." And he went on to say, "What we are doing is engaging in a very significant counter-terrorism operation, and it’s going to go on for some period of time. If somebody wants to think about it as being at war with ISIL, they can do so.

Adding finally, "But the fact is it’s a major counter-terrorism operation that will have many different moving parts, many different things that one doesn’t think of normally in context of war. But it’s an effort to destroy them ultimately through that counter-terrorism approach."

------------

Kerry-Heinz was asked by ABC, "The president stayed away from saying that we’re at war with ISIS. Is the U.S. at war with ISIS?"

"No," Kerry-Heinz said. "Look, we’re engaged in a counter-terrorism operation of a significant order. And counter-terrorism operations can take a long time, they go on. I think 'war' is the wrong reference term with respect to that, but obviously it involves kinetic military action. It has its dangers, and – but it’s critical to the security of the United States and in this case to global security because of the reach of ISIS.

------------

State Department spokesmoron Marie Harf and Barry adviser Anita Dunn have also used the phrase "counter-terrorism operation" to describe the bombing of hostile targets in Iraq and Syria. So I guess by not using the term ‘war’ means that one is not actually involved in a ‘war’? But then, can it even be called a war when only one of the combatants actually views it as such? And how can you ever expect to win a war when you can’t even bring yourself to identify it as being a war?

DO WOMEN EVEN KNOW WHAT THEY WANT???

Frankly I’ve always thought that all most women wanted in order to be happy, and therefore persuaded into voting for Democrats, was to be provided with free, and unlimited, birth control and unrestricted access to an abortion right up to the time they were being wheeled into the delivery room. In at least that the last two election cycles it was that that seemed to have been the overriding issue and the one that seemed to be the most important to a majority of women. And any candidate who opposed such things was accused of being at ‘war with women’.

And one of those women was Kimberly Cole, who is a 36-year-old mother of three young children in Valencia, California. She was part of that so-called coalition which made it possible in 2008 for Barry to become the 44th president and that would also ensure, in 2012, that he would enjoy another four years in office. She was only too happy to buy all of Barry’s empty promises of ‘Hope and Change.’ Now, apparently, she is among the majority of Americans who have lost confidence in Barry’s so-called ‘leadership’ and the job he’s doing as president.

And it was during a recent interview that this gullible airhead, Ms. Cole, demonstrated just how naïve she really was, and remains. She said, "He’s been faced with a lot of challenges, and he’s lost his way." She claims to be worried that Barry lacks the resolve needed at a time when things at home and abroad seem to be unraveling. So Barry has been faced with a lot of challenges? How about the fact that he’s hip deep in a number of pretty serious scandals! Does that little fact bother this moron in the least? Apparently not, as she makes no reference to any of them.

Meanwhile on the opposite side of the country we have yet another rather disappointed, and just as naïve, female in the person of Karlene Richardson, 44, who once counted herself as a "very strong supporter" of Barry. But now she feels much the same as Cole does. This author and motivational speaker who teaches health-care administration at a community college in Queens said, "Honestly, I just feel that what I bought into is not what I’m getting." Adding "I’m starting to wonder whether the world takes us seriously." Well the answer to that is a simple one, NO!

Both of these women, Cole and Richardson, were among those recently surveyed in the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll and represent one of its most striking findings. That being, the degree to which Barry’s approval has managed to slip among key parts of the coalition, comprised of a rather odd assortment of supporters, that was most responsible for putting him into office in the first place. The coalition of women, younger voters and Latino voters. Look, all of these people knew what they were getting, and now they have little right to complain.

Women surveyed said they now disapprove of Barry by a 50 percent to 44 percent margin, which is very near to an all-time low in the poll. It’s almost the reverse of the 55 percent to 44 percent breakdown for Barry among female voters in 2012, according to exit polls at the time. His approval rating among women has slipped four percentage points from a year ago and 16 points since his second inaugural in January 2013, when his approval was 60 percent among the group. So it would seem that the criteria women used in selecting for whom to vote was a little faulty.

Of all the groups that tend to vote Democrat, women are said to be, traditionally, the most likely to be swing voters, and the two parties have fought fiercely to win over their loyalties. And the Democrats, using their mantra of the ‘war on women’, have managed to come out ahead in the more recent election cycles. At slightly over half the electorate, they are not a monolith, of course. Single women, or the free birth control crowd, tend to vote more solidly Democrat, while married women usually tend to vote Republican.

But there is fresh and growing evidence that many women’s faith in Barry has turned to misgivings, possibly making it more difficult for his party to retain their support in this year’s midterms and beyond. Virginia Wilson, 60, of Charleston, W.Va., is another disillusioned Barry voter. She said, "I can’t blame it all on him." But she added, "There was going to be a change, that we would see people coming together, instead of falling apart." So I’m curious, why might it be that she has difficulty blaming the one guy most responsible for things "falling apart?"

Suburban women’s concerns, in particular, tends to change from election to election, and over the years, pollsters and political strategists have come up with different labels to describe this crucial slice of the electorate. In the 1990s, these middle-class women were known as "soccer moms," and ‘Slick Willie’ Clinton won reelection in part because of how well he related to their harried lives. And apparently these "soccer moms" had very little trouble in deciding to support this rapist, which, I suppose, tells us far more about them than it does the rapist, ‘Slick Willie.’

In the Post-ABC poll, Barry’s handling of international affairs loomed as a significant problem for women. Just 37 percent said they approve of the job he is doing, which is his lowest rating on this issue among women in Post-ABC polls and nearly matches his 38 percent approval among men. When called back for follow-up interviews, some of the women who responded to the Post-ABC poll said they, too, had been unsettled by the beheadings and by Barry’s decision to play golf just minutes after giving a statement expressing his revulsion at the death of journalist James Foley.

Cole, the California woman, said it seemed to her that Barry was "very nonchalant. . . . The personal side of it, that he has feelings, is gone." And Richardson, interviewed before Barry gave his idiotic prime-time speech this past Wednesday, during which he laid out his newly minted plan to target the non-Islamic, Islamic State with airstrikes, said "he just made these promises that he doesn’t go through with" related to the terrorist group. How much effect this will have on the midterm elections remains unclear. But I’d be willing to bet, not much.

Because look, at the end of the day the fact that women may now be coming a little less enchanted with Barry matters very little, at least in the long term. Because, you see, women are much like blacks when it comes to selecting who to vote for. For blacks the main criteria for selecting candidate is race, things like experience or abilities matter very little. For women, the primary qualifier for a candidate is gender. Talk to any woman about 2016 and they’ll likely tell you that, yes, they intend to vote for Hitlery and for absolutely no other reason than because she’s a woman.

OBAMA THE TRAITOR…STILL ‘LEADING’ FROM BEHIND…

I simply could not bring myself to watch our ‘Dear Beloved Leader’ last night as he went about the laying out of his supposed strategy for dealing with the latest terrorist threat, a strategy, which just a mere two weeks ago we’re were told didn’t even exist. I have since sought out those who did watch and have been able to piece together what seems to be a rather limp-wristed strategy for dealing with what is the genocidal Islamic horde known as ISIS.

First of all I have to very much disagree with Barry’s rather idiotic claim that ISIS is not Islamic.  I think that might come as being a bit of a surprise to the members of this murderous little cult. I couldn’t believe it when I read that Barry had actually said, and quite emphatically, "Now let’s make two things clear: ISIL is not Islamic." And then he added, "No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim."

And, I’m afraid, to be perfectly blunt, from all that I’ve managed to gather thus far from those who were able to get through this speech without losing their dinner, and who are much more knowledgeable than I, this was a rather pathetic attempt by Barry to present the nation with a rather weak outlining of the threat ISIS poses to the United States and to the rest of the civilized world, and with his inadequate strategy to deal with this cult of terrorist scumbags.

So according to those whom I have sought out for an opinion, it would seem that Barry’s "counter terrorism" strategy to deal with ISIS is to simply do more of the same, but with more international partners ‘perhaps’ chipping in. Barry stated that the month long limited air strike campaign in northern Iraq will continue but with one difference, those air strikes will now assist Iraq military forces as they attempt to reclaim their country from ISIS.

Barry also, apparently, stated that he will authorize the US Air Force to begin launching air strikes against ISIS targets inside Syria. And while Barry claimed he has the authority, as commander-in-chief, to move forward with the action that he proceeded to outline, I just don’t see it being as clearcut as he made it sound, declaring that he has such authority to go after ISIS, on his own and in the manner that has apparently now become his latest strategy.

But what is clear here, is the fact that Barry fully intends on going ahead with it regardless. In his speech to the nation, Barry repeated, yet again, that ‘his’ strategy regarding how it is that these Islamic militants operating in Iraq and Syria will be dealt with, calls for no U.S. troops to enter into the fight. Now while I’m certainly no military expert, somehow I just don’t think that it can be said to be that simple. I mean I certainly could be wrong, I guess.

But let’s take a look at some of his claims and how they compare with those pesky little things called facts:

BARRY: "I have the authority to address the threat from ISIL."

VS.

THE FACTS: Barry didn't elaborate on his claim of authority to conduct a potentially years-long campaign against the Islamic State group, or ISIL, without new congressional approval. But administration officials briefing reporters before the speech said it is grounded in two authorizations passed by Congress, in 2001 and 2002. Now please excuse my confusion but it was Barry himself who criticized the 2001 authorization in the past and his administration called the 2002 resolution outdated. But it’s both that are now being cited to support his action in Iraq and Syria???

Just as a little refresher, it was the 2001 authorization that supported President George W. Bush's war against al-Qaida and the then-Taliban government of Afghanistan. In a May 2013 speech, Barry said he wanted to "refine and ultimately repeal" it because "we may be drawn into more wars we don't need to fight." The Islamic State group was once tied to al-Qaida but has broken those links and now considers it a rival.

And it was the 2002 authorization that supported the invasion of Iraq. Last year, Barry's national security adviser, the brain dead Susan Rice, asked House Speaker John Boehner to repeal it, calling it "outdated."

In short, it's very much in dispute whether Barry has the authority that he claims to have. The ability of presidents to launch sustained military action on their own is questioned whenever it happens, but it tends not to stay their hand. The administration does acknowledge it needs approval from Congress to conduct one part of its strategy — training and equipping Syrian opposition forces.

BARRY: "We will send an additional 475 service members to Iraq. As I have said before, these American forces will not have a combat mission — we will not get dragged into another ground war in Iraq. ... It will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil."

VS.

THE FACTS: That's splitting hairs. It's true that the troops he is sending, in addition to the approximately 1,000 already there, are not intended to get into a shooting war. But some will be advising Iraqi army commanders in the field so they can advance more decisively against Islamic State forces under the cover of U.S. bombs. And under standard military rules of engagement, they will be allowed to defend themselves if shot at.

And apparently Barry said, because again I didn’t watch the speech, that he wants the American people to understand that this will be "different from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan," where hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops fought extended battles. To make his point he termed his Iraq-Syria action a "counterterrorism campaign" to "take out" Islamic State forces using American air power and "support" for "partner forces" on the ground.

Even so, this very easily could evolve into a shooting war and no one, not even Barry, can say with any certainty that U.S. troops will not engage in combat and possibly get killed. Barry acknowledged that any military action involves risk to those who carry them out. And who should know that better than him? It was on his watch as commander-in-chief, that more of our soldiers lost their lives, and in a shorter period of time, than lost their life under his predecessor.

Once again we see how it is that Barry has the peculiar tendency of choosing to ‘lead’ from behind. This latest strategy of his, that consists of nothing but air strikes and a reliance on the building up of the Syrian rebels, who, I would argue, are no better than ISIS, is woe-fully inadequate and is at best roughly six months too late. I think we can all agree that Barry is far more interested in making sure not to offend Muslims than his is in doing whatever is necessary to keep America safe.

AND NOW, ANOTHER EXASPERATING EPISODE OF THE….’THE GASBAG CHRONICLES’…

Little has changed since last we left our intrepid representative from the People’s Republic of Maryland, Steny Hoyer. It was on the topic of Barry’s ability to legalize those in this country illegally that Steny was sounded, then, pretty much the same as he did when we recently caught up with him again, just yesterday. Prior to yesterday Steny had said that Barry could not legalize those in this country illegally, but could "implement the laws as he believes they should be implemented." And then yesterday Steny refused to say whether the Constitution authorizes Barry to make good on the statement he made last Friday that he would use executive power to let illegal aliens "be legal."

So what we had yesterday was yet another attempt to get Steny to clarify exactly what his position is. He was asked: "President Obama said on Friday that ‘in the absence of congressional action,’ he will take unilateral action so that illegal aliens can ‘be legal.’ Where specifically does the Constitution give the president the power to make illegal aliens legal?" Steny responded in typical fashion. He said, "Well, look, he hasn’t taken any action, so I don’t know what action he’s going to take." First of all, one has to be pretty stupid to believe that Steny has no idea what sort of action Barry intends on taking regarding those in this country illegally. Of course he does!

Steny went on to play dumb by saying, "He didn’t articulate specifically what action beyond what he’d said." Adding, "And, furthermore, he said he wasn’t going to take action in the near future, meaning before the election. So we’ll have to see what action he proposes and we’ll have to make a judgment on that." Steny must think the rest of are as stupid as the imbeciles there in the People’s Republic of Maryland who keep re-electing this pathetic boob. Look the ONLY reason Barry has backed off from taking his unilateral action is politics, pure and simple. I know that, you know that and Steny knows that. And we all know what Barry is going to be pushing for as soon as the election is over.

So just to remind everyone, here’s what Barry said during a press conference in Wales back on Sept. 5:

"What I’m unequivocal about is that we need immigration reform; that my overriding preference is to see Congress act. We had bipartisan action in the Senate. The House Republicans have sat on it for over a year. That has damaged the economy, it has held America back. It is a mistake.

And in the absence of congressional action, I intend to take action to make sure that we’re putting more resources on the border, that we’re upgrading how we process these cases, and that we find a way to encourage legal immigration and give people some path so that they can start paying taxes and pay a fine and learn English and be able to not look over their shoulder but be legal, since they’ve been living here for quite some time. ...

But I want to be very clear: My intention is, in the absence of action by Congress, I’m going to do what I can do within the legal constraints of my office -- because it’s the right thing to do for the country."

Now as a little refresher course for everyone, including Barry and the Democrats, because one appears to be needed, it’s the Constitution of the United States that gives ‘Congress’, and not the president, authority over immigration. More specifically, it’s Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution that says: "Congress shall have power … to establish an uniform rule of naturalization." So there’s really no gray areas here, it’s all pretty cut and dry. And wouldn’t you think that a guy who was supposed to be some big-time ‘senior lecturer’ and who supposedly taught the Constitution to the young and impressionable, would have a better understanding himself of what it actually says? I guess not!

Now like I said, it was back in July when Steny was asked, "Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution states that Congress has the power to make laws governing naturalization. Given this, does President Obama have the unilateral power to legalize illegal aliens?" At that time that Steny responded, "I don’t think he does." And he claimed, at the time, Barry could choose how to implement the laws. He also said, "And there have been a lot of scholars, and I’m not going to go through the quotes now, who have said the president clearly has broad authority to decide how he’s going to implement the law." Steny added, "But that does not mean he can legalize people." Steny then said, "He can’t make them citizens. Not according to the law."

So here we are at the end of another ‘Gasbag Chronicles’ with Steny saying pretty much the same thing he was saying when last we saw him back in July. If anything, Steny has shown himself to be even more vague on the issue of what he thinks Barry can, or can’t, do with respect to those in this country illegally. Even if you didn’t know that there was an election just around the corner, it wouldn’t be all that difficult to figure out just that by simply listening to how it is the Steny dances around the issue of Barry taking his much threatened "executive action." Steny simply can’t bring himself to say that the Constitution is quite clear regarding under whose purview is the granting of naturalization. He wouldn’t want to offend those here illegally.

MOST AMERICANS REMAIN NONE TOO KEEN ON OBAMACARE…

Well, if the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll of 1000 registered voters is anywhere near accurate, it would seem that we still have a rather sizeable majority of those Americans who remain less than thrilled with the socalled Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare. It’s according to this poll that those who favor Obamacare are significantly outnumbered by those who think it's simply a very bad idea. And with that being the case it continues to irritate me to no end that we have heard less and less from the Republicans in the way of their having a desire to repeal it as we grow nearer to the midterm elections

The September poll has 34 percent in favor versus 48 percent opposed to the 2010 law, with most respondents saying they feel strongly about their sentiments. Eighty-two percent of Republicans oppose the law versus only 37 percent of Democrats who are against it. Independents oppose the law by a 51 to 26 percent margin, again according to this poll. And people say recent news coverage about Obamacare, good or bad, hasn't swayed their view of the law. Not even the news that the Department of Health and Human Services recently revealed that a hacker had broken into the HealthCare.gov site earlier in the summer.

But apparently, at least according to the Journal, the public's negative view of Barry's signature healthcare plan has held pretty steady through the last two election cycles, with 46 percent against in 2010 and 44 percent opposed in 2012. The only good news for Barry is that among Latino voters there is now a majority who actually like the law. Well of course! Our rapidly growing parasite class in this country is in favor of anything, and everything, that they themselves don’t have to pay for. The more that they can get and at someone else’s expense the happier they are! Hence the reason the vote for Democrats.

And something that, quite frankly, I just don’t understand is the fact that, by a 39 to 31 percent margin, voters are somehow able to say that Democrats are best at addressing healthcare, though this lead is noticeably lower compared to the pre-Obamacare years, at least according to the Journal. But then what exactly am I to take away from that? Are there really that many Americans who are actually in favor of having the government dictate to them how it is that they will be able to obtain their healthcare? Because that’s certainly what the Democrats are in favor of! That’s simply insane!

A Kaiser Family Foundation poll released Tuesday offers basically identical survey results. That poll, though, showed that voters across the political spectrum thought the economy was a more important issue than healthcare, which tied with foreign policy for second place. Now keep in mind here this particular ‘Foundation’, like most others, while it claims to be a "non-partisan source of facts and analysis for policymakers, the media, the health care community, and the general public, tends to lean pretty far to the left. So whatever information it provides should always be questioned.

As someone who was made to lose the insurance that he liked and was quite happy with, despite being told by our Liar-in-Chief that I’d be able to keep it, I am one of those who is very much ready for Obamacare to be completely gotten rid of. Thanks to Barry, after the recent surgery and hospital stay by a family member, instead of having everything paid for, I’ve now been left with a rather sizeable bill which will only be applied to my now rather substantial deductible. So as you may be able to guess I’m among those who continue to oppose this government acquisition of our healthcare system in this country.

‘CLIMATE CHANGE’ THE SCAM, PART II…

The numbers are now in, and much to the disappointment of those on the left, the official verdict is that there has been no global warming for the last 17 years and 11 months. Satellite data prepared by Lord Christopher Monckton shows there has been no warming trend from October of 1996 to August of 2014, or 215 months. And in an effort to, perhaps, better put that into perspective, kids graduating from high school this year have not lived through any global warming in their lifetimes.

Calling it the "Great Pause," Lord Monckton wrote, "It is becoming harder and harder to maintain that we face a 'climate crisis' caused by our past and present sins of emission." Monckton went on to say, "This is the longest continuous period without any warming in the global instrumental temperature record since the satellites first watched in 1979. It has endured for half the satellite temperature record. Yet the Great Pause coincides with a continuing, rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration."

Monckton, who was a policy adviser to former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, says that the rate of warming is half of what climate scientists initially predicted a quarter-century ago. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) first predicted back in 1990 that global temperatures would rise at a rate of 2.8 degrees Celsius per century. But the temperature rise since the IPCC’s prediction has only been at a rate of 1.4 degrees Celsius per century. Proving yet again that this organization is pretty much useless.

The so-called "pause" in global warming has apparently baffled those who identify themselves as being ‘climate scientists’, as many of their supposed climate models failed to predict such a prolonged period of little to no warming. But let’s face it when it comes to such ‘models’ as these, it’s important to remember that old saying that tells us, "garbage in, garbage out." And with that said, there remains more than a few of these ‘climate scientists’ who continue to deny that a "pause" in global warming is even taking place.

Monckton wrote in his climate analysis, "The Great Pause is a growing embarrassment to those who had told us with ‘substantial confidence’ that the science was settled and the debate over." And he went on to say, "Nature had other ideas." He added, "Though more than two dozen more or less implausible excuses for the Pause are appearing in nervous reviewed journals, the possibility that the Pause is occurring because the computer models are simply wrong about the sensitivity of temperature to manmade greenhouse gases can no longer be dismissed."

So there you have it. Even more proof, as if we needed any, that what’s being perpetrated here, and on what is pretty much of a global scale, is nothing more than one monumental scam designed to do nothing more than make people like Al Gore, very, very rich. And yet we continue to hear from the likes of John Kerry-Heinz how it is that immediate action must be taken, before it’s too late, to address this issue that doesn’t really even exist in the first place. And we’re talking about massive amounts of money here, and it’s all just a fraud.

‘CLIMATE CHANGE’ THE SCAM, PART I…

Regarding that ‘climate change’ about which John Kerry-Heinz says we’re all supposed to be so worried about. Well, I’m sure many have been keeping track of all the dire predictions that we’ve heard over the years, everything from bigger and more powerful superstorms, to melting polar ice caps to a growing number of wildfires. But none of the many predictions have ever come to amount to anything. There’s more polar ice today than ever before, fewer storms, either super or otherwise, than ever before, and now comes news that we seem to be in the midst of a below-average wildfire season. And while that may be good news for those in wildfire country, it burns a rather sizeable hole in the environmentalist narrative on ‘climate change.’

Now granted, summer is far from being officially over, so I suppose that maybe we shouldn’t be celebrating just yet. And while there are fires still burning in California and Oregon, on the whole it has been a relatively mild year in terms of both the number of wildfires and the number of acres burned. And that would be according to the National Interagency Fire Center. The agency reports that 2.77 million acres have burned this year as of Sept. 5, a decline from the 3.9 million acres that had burned by the same date in 2013 and less than half the 10-year average of 6.2 million acres. The number of fires, 38,451, is also down considerably from the 10-year average of 56,278.

That reduction becomes all the more impressive when you stop to consider the fact that the Pacific Northwest was hit with an above-average wildfire season. In July Washington suffered the most destructive fire in its history, the Carlton Complex Fire, which burned 252,000 acres and destroyed 300 homes in the state’s north-central region. And even with that, so far the 2014 wildfire season is on pace to be the second-least destructive in the last decade, which, you would think, would put a damper on the campaign to connect elevated carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere to an increase in extreme weather events, including wildfires. But that’s likely to matter very little to the ‘climate change’ zealots on the left.

Zealot’s such as those found right there in the White House. Specifically Barry’s science adviser, John Holdren, who said in a recently released video on the White House website that climate change "has been making the fire season in the United States longer and, on average, more intense." In the same video he said, "The National Climate Assessment released in May tells us, consistent with earlier studies, that longer, drier summers are expected to continue to increase the frequency and the intensity of large wildfires in the United States." Adding, "In the Western United States, the average annual area burned by large wildfires has increased several fold in recent decades. The evidence is strong that climate change is responsible, at least in part, for this increase."

But Paul Knappenberger, assistant director of the Center for the Study of Science at the free market Cato Institute, argued that this year’s wildfire season comes as further evidence that Mr. Holdren and others have drastically overstated the impact of carbon dioxide emissions on weather conditions. But then we all know that those on the left have been overstating things for decades. Mr. Knappenberger went on to say, "When these guys are making these predictions — ‘Wildfires are going to get worse’ — and then you have a wildfire season which is way below normal, it’s ripe for coming back to them and saying, ‘See? Why are you making these crazy predictions? It’s not going to happen like that all the time.’"

He went on to also note that the 2013 and 2014 hurricane seasons have also been relatively uneventful, even though those in the climate change movement have forecast that storms will intensify as wind speeds and rainfall associated with hurricanes and tropical storms increase due to global warming. He said, "It was a very inactive year last year and, frankly, the science is just not there to support making definitive statements about how hurricanes or how cold outbreaks are going to change in the future." Going on to say, "To push those things as though they’re known, proven facts is just doing an injustice to the science." But, as we also know, those on the left only care about science when it ‘supports’ their cockamamie theories such as climate change.

And as expected, Jamie Henn, spokesman for some group that calls itself 350.org, and bills itself as some sort of an advocacy group "building a global climate movement," declined to comment on this year’s unusually mild wildfire season. Instead he offered up some resources regarding what he called the connection between wildfires and global warming, including some silly ‘fact sheet’ from Climate Nexus. This ‘fact’ sheet points out, "These wildfires are yet another indication that climate change has arrived, and the fire threat is only projected to get worse in the future. Unless we cut carbon pollution, extreme weather events like this will become more frequent in the future." Like I said, they’ve been making these same claims for decades.

And then we have Coleen Decker, who is the NIFC assistant program manager for predictive services in Boise. Ms. Decker has attributed this year’s below-average wildfire activity to a combination of factors, starting with the virtual absence of wildfires in the Southeast as a result of cool temperatures and high moisture during the January-to-April fire season. Wildfires were also down in the Southwest. She also said there are too many variables involved in wildfire seasons to offer conclusions on how climate change may be contributing. Ms. Decker said, "The factors are weather, terrain and fuel, and it’s hard to filter out the noise and decide what’s been attributed to each factor."

And the fact that Washington, Oregon and Northern California have been hit pretty hard by wildfires this year would seem to suggest that there are likely other factors which can be said to be playing a much bigger role than are hotter temperatures. I say that because, as it turns out, it’s actually been getting cooler in the Pacific Northwest. At least that’s what Myron Ebell, director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said. He says that temperatures in this region of the country peaked around 2007 and then proceed to steadily fall until 2013, when they ticked up slightly, at least according to figures obtained from the National Climatic Data Center.

Mr. Ebell said, "The problem with wildfires is not climate change. For example, the number of big catastrophic fires has gone up in the Northwest, and yet the Northwest is in a cooling cycle." He also went on to say, "The problem with the Western forests is there’s just far too much fuel that’s been built up. Under pressure from the environmental movement, we have stopped logging in our national forests." So here we have what can be said to be the perfect example of something that can actually be attributed to the interference of man, just not in a way that environmentlist wackos are likely to agree with. The fact is that it’s they who are to blame for what they continue to claim is a direct result of ‘climate change’.

And exhibit A in proving just that would be the 1990 decision to list as threatened the Northern spotted owl has resulted in a huge reduction in the amount of timber being cut in the Pacific Northwest national forests. Timber production has dropped from 12 billion board feet to 2 billion since the early 1990s, according to the Forest Service. And like Mr. Ebell says, "You can’t add 17 billion board feet of fiber every year and only cut 2 billion and not end up with these catastrophic fires." This isn’t rocket science, as I doubt there is adequate ground water to support such thick growth, which results in even more dead and/or sick trees that make perfect fuel just waiting for a spark.

Personally I couldn’t care less if I’m called a ‘climate change’ denier, because, as far as I’m concerned, that actually puts me in with some pretty good company. After all, what is it that I’m actually denying? Look, fossil fuel emissions may, in fact, have some impact on the climate, but I do not accept as fact the many baseless claims that the impact is in any way detectable or is going bring about the next great apocalypse. There is simply no proof! And I take rather strong exception to the fact that the taking of any immediate, and extremely costly, action is now urgently required to address something that is nothing more than a theory. Just because those on the left claim it exists, does not mean it does.

MARCIA FUDGE…NOPE, YOU JUST CAN’T FIX STUPID…

So it was that while speaking at something called the Akron Roundtable Luncheon just last month, Rep. Marcia Fudge sounded much like her fellow Democrat Sheila Jackson Lee, when she posed the question about the importance of balancing the budget. This reject from a mental ward asked, "Why is it so important to have a balanced budget?" This imbecile then when on to ask, "If you had a healthy budget, what would you do with it? Nobody can answer that question for me. Why is it so important to have a balanced budget?"

And it was then that she went on to say, "We haven't had a balanced budget one time in the last 50 years. Once. What you do with it, just say oh we balanced our budget. When people are hurting, it is our job to take care of them. Now have we spent too much money? Yes, we have. But we need to prioritize what is really important in this country." In 2011, the House passed a Balanced Budget Amendment, but two resolutions were defeated in the Democrat controlled Senate. Ms. Fudge, as you might have guessed, voted 'no' on the Balanced Budget Amendment.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects the deficit for Fiscal Year 2014 to be $506 Billion. Fudge criticized House Republicans saying, "They got wingnuts on the one side who don't want anything to pass," but later admitted "sometimes I'm extreme too." Extreme doesn’t even begin to describe the behavior of this loon, or many of her fellow Democrats. Fudge was asked: "You begin each day with the pledge to do the people's work, how might Washington step up and step out to really accomplish what the people want-or better yet what the people need?

And our esteemed Ms. Fudge responded by saying, "I think what has to happen is, on both sides of the aisle, the people who are in extreme positions need to kind of be pushed to the side and let the middle ground win. Except for that— that's not what happens. We have a Congress right now that can pass almost anything that they put on the floor, whether it's immigration, voting rights, any of those things, because we have enough people in the middle." She exaggerates a little of course, because the House has now passed, and moved to the Senate, nearly 300 bills.

She continued saying, "But instead of being the speaker of the entire House, we have a speaker who is a speaker just for the Republican side of the House, and so they got wingnuts on the one side who don't want anything to pass. And so as long as they listen to the few and not the many, we're never going to get anything done." Adding, "We have to listen to reasonable minds. I'll admit sometimes I'm extreme too, and in those instances they should say ok Marcia, go sit down, and I understand it, because our job is to move America forward, not our own personal agendas."

As it turns out Ms. Fudge, here, is a member of a rather exclusive little club that boasts such mentally challenged members as the previously mentioned Sheila Jackson Lee along with others such as Corrine Brown, Yvette Clarke, Gwen Moore, Frederica Wilson and Barbara Lee to name just a few. I think we can all very safely agree say that the collective IQ of this bizarre little group would be roughly equivalent to the shoe size of any one of them. Rarely to they ever make any sense, and yet they are to continue on in their positions. America is in a very sad state.

MORE PRE-ELECTION BULLSH!T FROM THE DEMOCRATS…

And now in what is clearly nothing more than another example of the pull-out-all-the-stops strategy now being employed by the Democrats in their effort to maintain their control of the U.S. Senate, we now have even more tough talk coming from none other than Democrat Dianne Feinstein, the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. This time around she was trying to sound tough on none other than the issue of immigration. During her appearance on CNN’s "State of the Union" this past Sunday, Feinstein said that if Barry were to bypass Congress and take unilateral action on immigration "it would be legally challenged."

Now, as you may recall, it was as recently as just last Friday, at a press conference in Wales, that Barry proudly declared that if Congress did not pass the sort of immigration reform that ‘he’ wants, he would then take unilateral action that would include allowing foreign nationals now illegally in the United States to "be legal." He also said, "What I’m unequivocal about is that we need immigration reform; that my overriding preference is to see Congress act." Frankly I think that he would prefer it if Congress were not to act, because it would then provide him with the necessary excuse for going it alone. Hence the ongoing ‘Dingy Harry’ Senate roadblock.

Barry said, "We had bipartisan action in the Senate. The House Republicans have sat on it for over a year. That has damaged the economy, it has held America back. It is a mistake. And in the absence of congressional action, I intend to take action to make sure that we’re putting more resources on the border, that we’re upgrading how we process these cases, and that we find a way to encourage legal immigration and give people some path so that they can start paying taxes and pay a fine and learn English and be able to not look over their shoulder but be legal, since they’ve been living here for quite some time."

And then it was just the next day that it was reported Barry had suddenly decided to put off taking his much-threatened unilateral executive action until after the mid-term elections. On NBC’s "Meet the Press", on Sunday, Barry very obviously lied when he said that he was not delaying unilateral action because he was worried about the impact it might have on the midterm elections but, instead, because he wanted to "make sure the T’s are crossed and the I’s dotted" and that, in the wake of the surge of unaccompanied children who came across the border this summer, people understand why the action he is contemplating is necessary.

Barry said, "Not only do I want to make sure that the T’s are crossed and the I’s are dotted. But here is the other thing, Chuck, and I`m being honest now, about the politics of it." And he went on to say, "This problem with unaccompanied children that we saw a couple weeks ago, where you had from Central America a surge of kids who were showing up at the border got a lot of attention, and a lot of Americans started thinking, we’ve got this immigration crisis on our hands. And what I want to do is, when I take executive action, I want to make sure that it’s sustainable." Who does he really think he’s kidding? Does he think we’re that stupid?

And then it was a moment later that Barry was heard to say, "What I`m saying is, that I’m going to act because it’s the right thing for the country, but it’s going to be more sustainable and more effective if the public understands what the facts are on immigration, what we`ve done on unaccompanied children and why it`s necessary." Look, this is nothing more than an attempt by Barry to placate those on both sides of this hot button issue. He hopes encourage those who oppose amnesty to go to the polls, and discourage those in favor amnesty from staying home. The primary objective here is to ensure Democrats are able to remain in charge of the Senate.

On CNN’s "State of the Union" on Sunday, host Candy ‘The Cow’ Crowley asked Sen. Feinstein if Barry has now damaged his credibility, and I use that term rather loosely, with the Latino community by delaying executive action on immigration. Feinstein answered, "Well, I have no knowledge of what he can do legally under an executive order." Adding, "I also believe it would be legally challenged. The Senate has spent, under the leadership of Pat Leahy, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, literally months on a bill, a comprehensive bill, 100 amendments, week after week after week. It is a good bill."

Feinstein went on to say, "All the House would have to do is pass one part of that bill." And then added, "We could conference it, work out the differences, and we would have an immigration bill which would be strong." Crowley followed up: "But the president says, look, I'm going to do this after the election. Politics are at play here, yes? Can we state the obvious?" to which Feinstein replied, "Well, I’m of the opinion that the way this should be done is legislatively, because anything else will be challenged, and probably will not be nearly the bill that is actually needed to solve the problems."

Ok, so let’s review things, shall we? First we recently heard from Feinstein, sounding very un-Democrat-like I might add, about how it is that the time has now arrived for America to project power and strength. Ya think? And then now we hear from her again with her this time around talking about how any attempt by Barry to bypass Congress on the issue of immigration would be legally challenged. Why is it, do you suppose, that we are now hearing all of this ‘tougher talk’ from her as well as a few other Democrats? You don’t suppose it could possibly have anything to do with the fact that we have an election taking place in a mere 56 days, do you?

ANDY CUOMO…ANOTHER DEMOCRAT CROOK WHO GETS A PASS…

Sadly, it would appear that what was once expected to be for Andy Cuomo's an obstacle free cruise to a second term as New York’s governor may have now hit a couple of snags. First being, the law professor Zephyr Teachout, Andy's Democrat primary opponent. Her liberal campaign seems to have gained some steam of late, and though she’s unlikely to beat him, a good showing could hurt Andy's presidential ambitions. God help us if he’s elected president.

In what was typical Cuomo fashion, it seems that Andy was a no-show at a debate on cable TV with Teachout, and he's been relatively quiet since allegations first hit that he personally interfered with his own anti-corruption commission. Of course Andy denies those allegations and because he doesn’t happen to be a Republican, our beloved state-controlled media once again neglects its responsibilities when it comes to challenging Andy regarding his denials.

And the other potential problem for our enterprising, and quite corrupt, presidential hopeful, is that he could very well end up with a running mate that he doesn't really want. In New York, candidates for governor and lieutenant governor run separately, and Columbia University law professor Tim Wu, Teachout's running mate in the primary, may actually beat Cuomo's running mate Kathy Hochul. Hochul, apparently comes with baggage.

That baggage being that as a former member of Congress, Hochul was, or at least claimed to be, a conservative, which could hurt her with liberal Democrat primary voters. She has sought to shed that label by garnering the support of ‘Communist Bill’ de Blasio. Wu gained The New York Times' endorsement. Wu has said, "Kathy Hochul's positions are really far out of line with the Democrats who vote in a Democratic primary." Adding, "She's in a really difficult position."

Now just a little side note on our good friend, the very corrupt, and patently dishonest, Andy Cuomo. To say that this guy is as crooked as they come, which makes just like his old man, would be I suppose and understatement. But unlike Bob McDonnell of Virginia, or Rick Perry, of Texas, both Republicans, prosecuted based on bogus claims of corruption/abuse of power, Cuomo’s actual corruption is allowed to go unprosecuted and simply swept under the rug.

BENGHAZI: OBAMA AND HILLARY LIED AND FOUR AMERICANS DIED...

It was two years ago that four Americans were simply left to die in Benghazi. While not only were their calls for assistance left unanswered, worse still those that could have helped were told to stand down. And why was it that these men were left to die on foreign soil? The answer to that is a very simple one. To have sent in help would have been an admission by Barry "Almighty" that the terrorist group that he had claimed had been decimated or forced to go on the run, was still very much alive. And at a time he was quite busy trying to get himself re-elected. So these men were not the priority.

But Barry wasn’t the only one to play a role in the death of these four men. Men who we were repeatedly told died because of some anti-Muslim video. Long after the fact we were finally told by our then Secretary of State, and future Democrat Party presidential candidate, Hitlery Clinton, that it really made no difference why it was that these men were left to be murdered. We were also told, repeatedly, that the perpetrators would be brought to justice, and yet two years later we’re no further ahead in doing just that than we were back in 2012.

GWEN MOORE…WHAT OPERATING ON ONE LONE BRAIN CELL LOOKS LIKE…

We’ve heard from this moron on any number of topics more times than I care to count. And with each and every time that she has chosen to open her big fact mouth, she provides us all with a bit more proof of how it is that one functioning brain cell simply is not enough. Rep. Gwen Moore, Democrat from Wisconsin, said in a recent interview with some Milwaukee television station, that she will be "saving my pennies" to pay her $691 disorderly conduct fine. This liberal lunatic was one of those arrested in a Milwaukee protest this past Thursday involving fast food workers who are now demanding, now get this, a minimum wage of $15 per hour.

"I’ll be saving my pennies to pay this $691 dollar fine," Moore told television reporters after her release. She was among the 26 protestors arrested after they refused to vacate the road they were blocking. Now keep in mind here that Ms. Moore, like many lawmakers, ‘earns’ the sum of $174,000 a year for her ‘work’ as a U.S. Representative. Moore told WISN-TV that she took part in the minimum wage rally, "to really protest the egregious inequality in our society." Actually, what I find as being quite egregious is the fact that this scumbag is able to continue rip off the American taxpayer in the amount of $174, 000 each and every year.

Anyway, this brain dead liberal loon went on to say, "I wanted to speak out on that. As I indicated earlier, you know, I’ve put on my best suit, had my hair done, my nails done and used the King’s English to debate this in Congress and no one is listening." She added, "What we see is a tremendous inequality based on an unfairness, that gap, between what people at the top make and what low wage workers make." Ok, now let’s think about all of this for a second. Instead of simply taking at face value that which we hear from Democrats like Ms. Moore and those in the state-controlled media, let us delve a little deeper into this ongoing ‘discussion.’

And lets discuss what it is that moron’s like Ms. Moore rarely, if ever, like to talk about. You see, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics there are about 3.6 million workers who are at or below the minimum wage. That is 2.5 percent of all workers and 1.5 percent of the population of potential workers. Within that small group, 31 percent are teenagers and 55 percent are 25 years old or younger. That leaves only about 1.1 percent of all workers over 25 and 0.8 percent of all Americans over 25 earning the minimum wage. Now within that tiny group, most of these workers are not poor and are not trying to support a family on only their earnings.

In fact, according to a recent study, 63 percent of workers who earn less than $9.50 per hour (well over the minimum wage of $7.25) are the second or even third earner in their family and 43 percent of these workers live in households that earn over $50,000 per year. Thus, minimum wage earners are not a uniformly poor and struggling group; many are teenagers from middle class families and many more are sharing the burden of providing for their families, not carrying the load all by themselves. This group of workers is also shrinking. In 1980, 15 percent of hourly workers earned the minimum wage.

And what loons like Ms. Moore never like to acknowledge is the fact that today that share of the workforce is down to only 4.7 percent. Furthermore, almost two-thirds of today’s minimum wage workers are in the service industry and nearly half work in food service. Because this is where the minimum wage workers are. So, we have now established that the number of minimum wage workers is small and shrinking, that most minimum wage workers are actually not poor, and that most of them are young and/or working their way up the ladder rather than supporting a family. But do these pesky little fact stop those like Moore? Nope!

But let’s take things a step further by addressing another popular myth about the minimum wage: the relationship over time between the minimum wage and labor productivity. This one is particularly obnoxious because those selling this myth almost surely know that they are advocating for their preferred policy on the basis of a lie. Liberals love to trumpet a study claiming that if the minimum wage had risen in tandem with worker productivity, the minimum wage would be nearly $22 per hour. Yet another dingbat Democrat, and potential 2016 candidate Elizabeth Warren, has gone to great lengths to push this statistic into the policy debate.

Democrats would like us all to believe that the minimum wage should have risen at the same rate as worker productivity to ensure that workers continue to take home the same share of the value of the output they produce. However, the statistic they quote is meaningless because it is not measuring the relevant concept. Labor productivity may have risen faster than the minimum wage over the last twenty or thirty years, but the study getting all the press uses the productivity gains of all workers to calculate a hypothetical increase in the minimum wage. What is needed is a measure of the productivity gains of minimum wage workers, and unfortunately, the government does not produce such a number.

Luckily for the discussion at hand, the BLS does track the labor productivity of food service workers. The BLS data shows that in 2011 labor productivity gains in the food service industry were nonexistent (that is, equal to 0 percent). In 2012, it was slightly worse; labor productivity in the food service sector dropped by 0.1 percent. In limited service restaurants, where minimum wage workers are likely to be concentrated, labor productivity fell by 2 percent in 2012 while business owners saw their unit labor costs rise by 2.8 percent. Over the past few years, these workers, as a group, not only have not earned a raise, but they are getting paid more for doing less.

Taking a longer view, from 1987 to 2012 the same BLS data shows that worker productivity in the food service sector rose by an average of 0.6 percent per year. In limited service restaurants, the gains were slightly lower, only averaging 0.5 percent per year. Meanwhile, unit labor costs have risen by an average of 3.6 percent. Over this period the minimum wage has risen from $3.35 to $7.25 per hour which is an average annual increase of 3.1 percent. In other words, at least in food service, the minimum wage has risen at a rate five or six times as fast as justified by the gains in worker productivity.

These numbers reveal not just the selective statistics employed by the likes of Ms. Moore and her Democrat compatriots regarding their efforts to raise the minimum wage, but they also make very clear that the ongoing debate has much more do with politics than it has anything to do with actually helping the poor. Ms. Moore, as well as the many others in her party who continue to take part in what is in reality nothing more than a charade, hope that a majority of voters will choose to listen to them, and their many friends in the media, rather than troubling themselves to go looking for the actual facts involved, facts that very clearly discredit the Democrat position on the matter.