WHAT AWAITS US BEYOND THE NEXT ELECTION???

So, let’s just say for the sake of argument that the Republicans end up with control of the Senate after the midterm elections. Then what? Will the leadership that we presently have, and most likely will still have when the next Congress begins the new session, have the wisdom, the skill, the forthrightness and the courage, to do what we all know must be done if there is to be any hope of saving the Republic?

I wish I could say, and with some level of confidence that, yes, they will! But the sad fact is that if recent history provides us with any sort of an example, I’m afraid that that is very unlikely. I hate to sound like a pessimist here, as I do pride myself on being somewhat of a ‘glass is half full’ kind of guy, I also pride myself on being a realist. And try as I might, I’m just not sure if things will be different.

So why, then, even bother handing over to the Republicans the complete control of Congress? Well, if for no other reason than to acquire for myself a certain amount of satisfaction from having poked my finger into the eye of Barry ‘O’. And because maybe, just maybe, the Republicans will come through for us, the American people, and the country. That from somewhere will come the necessary courage to act.

And if they don’t, well then, I think even they realize that come 2016 they’re done. As I have said before, the Republicans will be provided with only the very briefest window of opportunity to make the substantive changes that we all know must be made. The free-reign that Barry has had since first coming into office must now come under much closer scrutiny. Things cannot continue as they have.

So, we wait and see. Not only to see who comes out on top in this next election, but to see, if we do gain control of the Senate, what is it that will come next? I’d like to think that the next two years would be spent proving just how much more benevolent, and supportive, conservatism is than is liberalism. Or, on building a foundation upon which Republican candidates for president, whoever they might be, could actually run in 2016.

ABOUT 2014…I AM CAUTIOUSLY OPTIMISTIC…

While I do think that it is far too early to start celebrating, I am, at least, beginning to think that the Republicans just might be able to gain a sufficient number of seats in the Senate to finally remove ‘Dingy Harry’ Reid from his current majority leader position. And my increasing level of confidence has much less to so with Karl Rove and his supposed prophetic little ‘white board’ that proved itself pretty useless in 2012, than it does with Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics.

Because it’s now Mr. Sabato who says that the Republicans have a "strong and increasing chance to control the next Senate," in projecting that the GOP could take up to eight seats on Nov. 4. Sabato writes in his latest "Crystal Ball" analysis that, "Our projection remains a five-to-eight seat Republican gain in the Senate, and with less than three weeks to go we would much rather be holding the cards Republicans have been dealt versus the ones dealt to the Democrats as both sides play for a Senate majority."

There are several "unusual and even a few bizarre features on the landscape," Sabato goes on to say, pointing out that the midterm election is "a classic sixth-year itch election" that will see the incumbent president's party lose seats in both the House and Senate. But he also says, "We're just arguing about exactly how many." And then adds, "Overall, it is indisputable that Republicans will have more critical victories to celebrate than Democrats when all the ballots are counted." So as I say, I remain cautiously optimistic.

But there is also now something that has become the generally accepted opinion that as Americans become more dissatisfied with Barry "Almighty’s" handling of thing, it’s increasingly possible that their opinions could show up in the ballot box and tilt the scales even more in the direction of the GOP. Barry is garnering some of the lowest approval ratings of his supposed career, with a new ABC News/Washington Post poll released Wednesday showing that just 40 percent of respondents approve of how he is doing his job.

The poll showed that Barry's public support is dropping rather precipitously and that that drop has at least something to do with how he is handling, or mishandling, the Islamic State (ISIS) threat. At the end of September, 50 percent of the public approved of his actions against ISIS, but Wednesday's poll shows that it’s now only 35 percent who now approve. Republicans have also been criticizing, and rightly so, Barry's rather piss-poor response to the growing Ebola crisis, saying that he has been too slow to protect the public.

Still, Sabato said that at least in a few states the Democrats are holding tight in Republican territory, when observers, at least initially thought the Republican candidates would win pretty handily. In some states, such as Alaska, Georgia, Kansas, and South Dakota, the races are deemed as toss-ups, and some, like in Georgia, could end in a runoff vote, delaying the decision about which party will end up with control of the Senate. So as I said, we shouldn’t be counting our chickens just yet. And may not be able to do so until January.

Part of the issue, at least according to Mr. Sabato, has to so with the fact that supposed ‘Independent’ candidates are competing in places where Democrats "would have a devil of a time winning." However, he does go on to note that party loyalty will probably win out in the end. Lest we forget, Democrats only need 50 seats to maintain what Sabato termed a "Biden majority" in the Senate, as the vice-president votes to break ties, but Republicans need 51 seats, and it’s just a few weeks that remain until the election.

Overall, said Sabato, "it's not impossible to imagine the GOP having a good enough night that they get to 51 seats without Georgia or Louisiana." Meanwhile, Sabato does not predict large changes in his predictions for the House. Lately, the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee has canceled ad spending in some Republican-held districts they'd hoped to win, allocating the money to other races seen as highly competitive or tossups. So we’ll have to wait and see if that turns out to have been the right move.

And as Democrats are focusing on protecting their incumbents rather than going after Republican seats, "that gives us further confidence that the Republicans will in fact add more seats to their majority, but probably not significantly more," said Sabato. "Our outlook remains a six-to-nine seat Republican net gain." Overall, Crystal Ball lists 232 races as leaning Republican, 189 Democrat, and 14 as tossups or leans. Of the latter 14, three are held by Republicans and 11 by Democrats.

So I would hope most of us who are now tired of watching what it is that Barry, ‘Dingy Harry’ and old ‘Botox Nancy’ are doing to this country will go out and vote for whatever Republican it is that we have the opportunity to vote for. We need to ignore the silly third party candidates running and be able to recognize that most of those who are running under the guise of being an ‘Independent’ are really nothing more than Democrats who think they fool us into voting for them. We can ill afford to fall for such blatant political trickery. The stakes are just too high!

MOST VOTERS STILL NOT SOLD ON ‘CLIMATE CHANGE’…

I’m sure that by now everybody has heard about how it is that ‘climate change’ now represents the next great danger to be not only endured by human kind, but actually caused by we humans. Greater even than the threat posed by radical Muslim terrorists, Ebola, a nuclear Iran, a Russia gone rouge, and the growing military threat we face from a increasingly hostile Red China.

But despite this administration’s best efforts to convince us all that we are bringing about our own demise, and of the importance of dealing with ‘climate change’ sooner rather than later, the issue remains at the bottom of a list of 13 concerns that are most pressing for registered U.S. voters as they relate to next month’s midterm elections, according to a recent Gallup poll.

Because, thus far, the ‘Chicken Littles’ have been able to convince less than half of us that ‘climate change’ is really something that we need be very worried about. And it’s according to this recent Gallup survey that we see only 40 percent of respondents actually identified ‘climate change’ as being either "very important" or "extremely important" to their votes.

By contrast the list was topped by the economy, at 88 percent, followed by the availability of good jobs, at 86 percent, the way the federal government is working, at 81 percent, and Islamic militants in Iraq and Syria, at 78 percent. And funny thing, but it’s all of these things that Democrats, and especially Barry, have had some hand in screwing up so badly.

Next on the list of what registered voters view as being very or extremely important to their vote were the issues of equal pay for women, at 75 percent, the federal budget deficit, at 73 percent, foreign affairs, at 69 percent and taxes, at 69 percent. I wonder how many of these folks realize that Barry pays the women who work for him less than he pays the men? Just sayin’.

And still further down on this very same list of important issues came immigration, with 65 percent of respondents seeing it as important, Obamacare, at 64 percent, income and wealth distribution in the U.S., at 64 percent, abortion and access to contraception, at 50 percent, and then finally way down on the bottom and coming in at 40 percent, comes climate change.

Which I’m quite sure came as being quite the disappointment to John Kerry-Heinz who has spearheaded the administration’s effort on the issue and who is a longtime global warming campaigner. And in what was, I guess, an effort to convince people of the importance of this issue, Kerry-Heinz has called it "the most serious challenge we face on the planet."

Barry unveiled his Climate Action Plan in June 2013, introducing limits on carbon emissions from new and existing power plants and measures to raise energy efficiency standards. Kerry-Heinz says he unfailingly brings up the topic with foreign counterparts in meetings at home and around the world, and on the sidelines of high-level U.N. meetings in New York.

High on the administration’s agenda is a U.N. megaconference planned in Paris, France late next year, where leaders are meant to adopt a new global agreement on cutting greenhouse gas emissions. The Gallup poll suggests that the administration faces an uphill battle in getting Americans to ascribe the level of urgency to the issue that it does.

And with the midterm elections now essentially just around the corner, the poll also sought to examine which party stands to benefit the most from the respective levels of importance voters give to the 13 issues. And in so doing, respondents were asked whether they think Republicans or Democrats in Congress would do a better job of dealing with each.

On five of the six issues viewed as most important, Gallup found that Republicans hold leads over Democrats ranging in size from significant to small – the federal budget deficit (a 20-point GOP advantage), Islamic militants in Iraq and Syria (19 points), the economy (11 points), how the federal government is working (8 points), and the availability of good jobs (1 point).

Republicans also held the advantage over Democrats in foreign affairs (13 points), taxes (10 points) and immigration (5 points). The area of greatest strength for Democrats in Congress, the pollsters found, was that of equal pay for women (a 38-point advantage). Which is ironic, since many Democrats, including Barry, pay the women who work for them far less than they pay the men.

Democrats also scored well on the two issues which respondents indicated were least important to their vote in November, abortion and access to contraception (13 points), and climate change (20 points). On the remaining two issues, income and wealth distribution and Obamacare, Democrats held advantages of 2 and 10 points respectively.

So, how much of this really matters? And does this most recent survey provide us with any amount of insight regarding how it is that we can expect people to vote come this November? To be perfectly honest, I have no idea. I gave up trying to figure out the American electorate a long time ago. It seems that they say one thing and vote another.

OUR NATIONAL DEBT, WHAT ARE WE DOING TO OUR KIDS???

What might also come to play a role in how this November’s midterms turn out, or at least it should if enough of the American people are paying the slightest bit of attention, might be the fact that as of last Friday, the total debt of the federal government is now nearly $18 Trillion, coming it at $17,858,480,029,490.28. That was equal to $200,258.81 for each of the 89,177,000 full-time ‘private-sector’ workers that were in the United States in 2013.

Federal debt per full-time ‘private-sector’ worker has escalated, and escalated very rapidly. For example, at the end of 2007, the total federal debt was $9,229,172,659,218.31, which equaled $101,158.25 for each of the 91,235,000 full-time ‘private-sector’ workers in the United States that year. In 2000, the total federal debt was $5,662,216,013,697.37, which equaled $66,553.23 for each of the 85,078,000 full-time private-sector workers that year.

So as a way of putting this whole debt thing into perspective, regarding the crushing burden future generations will be made to bare, let’s use as our example the cost of attending one of our four-year private colleges. Because the sad reality is that, on average, going to a four-year private college, and borrowing every single penny of the cost, would actually impose much less of a burden on this year's college freshman than will the weight of our national debt place upon them once they become full-time private-sector workers.

Because upon graduating these enterprising young college grads, at least those fortunate enough to find full-time private-sector employment after leaving college behind them, the covering of the cost of their four years in college will actually place less of a burden on them than will covering the cost of the federal deficit spending that has taken place, per every full-time private-sector worker, before that young person ever stepped foot onto his or her college campus.

Now it’s according to the College Board that the full price for tuition, fees, room and board at a four-year private college in the 2013-2014 school year averaged $40,917. At that rate, a student who went to a private college for four years would spend, an average, about $163,668 for their education, if they paid full fare. Thus, the current federal debt per full-time private-sector worker of $200,258.81 exceeds the average four-year cost at a private college by about $36,591.

When this year's college freshmen graduate and, hopefully are able to get jobs, quite likely the biggest personal expense that they will come to face is the buying of a home. So which will be greater: the federal debt per full-time private-sector worker, or buying an existing single-family home? In the short run, it may be a close call. In 2013, the median price on an existing single-family home was $197,400, according to the National Association of Realtors.

In January, it was $187,900. But by August, the latest month for which figures are available, it had risen to $220,600. But single-family homes were less expensive in August in the South and Midwest, where the median prices were $192,000 and $175,000, respectively. Still, a person putting a 10-percent down payment of $22,060 on a single-family home at the median August price of $220,600 would end up with a mortgage of $198,540.

That $198,540 mortgage is less than the $200,258.81 in current federal debt per full-time private-sector worker. Americans who invest in a college education or a single-family home are not only buying a solid asset that will serve them well for the rest of their lives; they are investing in what we used to consider the American dream. But it’s that same American dream that has now been "fundamentally transformed" into less of a dream and more of a nightmare.

Because at the end of the day, Americans who get up every morning and go to work, and do it week after week after week, and are forced to pay progressively higher taxes to maintain a federal welfare state that is driving our national debt to an unsustainable level are being forced to subsidize a system that is accomplishing nothing more than to kill the American dream. And unless we make some radical changes, and soon, things are only going to get worse.

‘SLOW JOE’ BIDEN, NOT ‘CRAZY’ ABOUT THE TEA PARTY…

Apparently old ‘Slow Joe’ Biden is another one of those who is no fan of we who comprise the Tea Party movement. Because it was while speaking to a group of what we’re told was a group of 100 black ministers in South Carolina, on Tuesday, that ‘Slow Joe’ was heard calling the Tea Party "crazy" and lacking in judgment. So I guess we’re to be considered as being crazy simply because we think the government is too big and spends too much of our money?

Frankly I thought that it was more than a bit ironic, especially coming from a boob who has demonstrated on more than one occasion that he is, and very clearly so, certifiably crazy as well as being one who is sorely lacking when it comes to possessing any amount of judgment. But having said that, I also have little doubt that this crowd of black ‘preachers’ was in, anything other than, whole-hearted agreement with just about everything ‘Slow Joe’ said.

‘Slow Joe’ actually said to this audience of blacks, "This is not your father's Republican Party." And it was then that this imbecile went on to say, "This is a different breed of cat, man. I am not making a moral judgment, but I will tell you that they have no judgment." First of all, I think that was a rather idiotic statement to make since I very seriously doubt that there were very few, if any, there in the audience who might have had fathers who were Republicans.

And as to be expected ‘Slow Joe's’ office declined to comment on his typically idiotic remarks. That’s the way Democrat scum like ‘Slow Joe’ operate. Anyway, the purpose behind ‘Slow Joe’s’ visit to South Carolina was to support Democrats in local races. It was also reported that this escapee from a mental ward warned these ‘clergy’ members that if Republicans take over the Senate in November it will be bad news for Democrats.

And in what appeared to be a sudden shift of dialect, much like we’ve often heard Hitlery Clinton do whenever finding herself in front of a black crowd, ‘Slow Joe’ referred to himself as being a "white boy" during the same closed-door meeting with those identified as being black clergy. Biden called himself, "the only white boy on the east side of Wilmington (Delaware)" and urged those gathered to elect Democrats in the upcoming election.

And then in repeating the same tired refrain of income inequality that we always here from Democrats around election time, ‘Slow Joe’ prodded the clergy to consider the "dire consequences" of Republicans maintaining congressional control. He said, "If they win again, we are going to get no consensus on anything for the next two, four, six years." He added, "But if we beat some of these folks, it's going to give some spine to the Republicans who know better."

The bottom line here is that if any of these supposed ‘men of God’ were actually what they profess themselves to be, they would not continually fall for the ideological malarkey spewed by the likes of ‘Slow Joe’. But I’m quite sure the vast majority of those in attendance were nodding in agreement and thus made it clear that they have been, and continue to be, nothing more than willing accomplices in the destruction of their own community that has taken place at the hands of men like ‘Slow Joe’ Biden.

I SMELL SOME RATS…SOME DEMOC-RATS…

As the midterm elections rapidly approach it should come as no surprise that we now find those who call the Democrat Party home being very busy in trying to come up with some way that will allow them to maintain their current strangle hold over the U. S. Senate. And in so doing they continue to pull out all the stops as they go about the leaving of no stone unturned in their ongoing quest to preserve their current majority in the Senate.

And with them now experiencing some degree of difficulty in being able to bullshit the requisite number of voters that their task demands into supporting their so obviously discredited agenda, the Democrats have now struck upon what they think may be just what the doctor ordered. That being, the idea of using a "false flag" strategy in the attempt to successfully advance their plan to literally steal a Senate majority for themselves come this November.

So while now masquerading as independents in four key Senate races, Democrat candidates are fully embracing a wolf-in-sheep's-clothing tactic in the hopes of being able to fool just enough voters into believing that they are not the party Barry rubberstamps that they actually are. And it is in pretending to be ‘Independents’, that they plan is to maintain their power and thus remain able to assist Barry implement his plan to create a single ruling party.

So as Democrat campaigns unfold, we’re seeing what some may view as being a conspiracy theory actually being backed up by the facts on the ground. And were these "Independent" Democrats true Independents, their presence in our national politics would be welcome. But they are not. And if elected, they most assuredly would cast their ballots for ‘Dingy Harry’ Reid to be Majority Leader, allowing him to maintain his bloc that controls the Senate.

It’s in South Dakota that we now have a former Republican senator turned liberal Democrat, Larry Pressler, running as an "Independent" against former Governor Mike Rounds, the Republican candidate. Having served three terms as a GOP senator, Pressler backed Barry in 2008 and 2012 and supports Obamacare. His strategy is either to win or to take enough votes away from Rounds to elect Rick Weiland, the overt Democrat candidate.

Meanwhile in Kansas, Republican Pat Roberts was coasting to a fourth Senate term when Greg Orman jumped into the race as an Independent. Orman also voted for Barry in 2008 and 2012 and, like Pressler, backs Obamacare, embraces the Democrat platform in toto, and actually tried to run before as a Democrat. But now he’s an "Independent." The fact that George Soros' son is reportedly hosting a fundraiser for Orman should make it very clear that he's no Independent.

And in North Carolina, Republican Thom Tillis is locked in a close battle against Democrat Kay Hagan. The only reason the race is close in this state Mitt Romney carried in 2012 is the presence of Sean Haugh, a pizza delivery man running as the Libertarian Party candidate. Haugh draws between 4 and 8 percent of the vote, in various polls, but all of it comes from Tillis, the Republican candidate. Where is Haugh getting his support? His money? Ask the Democrats.

And then we come to Kentucky, where we have Alison Lundergan Grimes running against Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Ms. Grime, as you may have seen recently in the news, refuses to say whether or not she voted for Barry in 2008 or 2012. Obviously, she did. And just as obviously, she is running away from it now. She says she will oppose Barry’s war on coal, but, if elected, it is clear she will toe the party line as Reid demands.

This tactic is actually nothing new for the Democrats, they first used this false flag strategy successfully in Maine back in 2012 when Governor Angus King, running as an Independent, was successful in his attempt to win seat formerly occupied by, Republican, Olympia Snowe. Once in the Senate, all traces of independence vanished and King fell in line with the Democrat Caucus. Granted most folks are smarter than those found in Maine, but still the tactic worked.

Independent Senator Bernie Sanders has been telling his Vermont voters for years that he, too, was not a Democrat. But at least old Bernie has had the guts to call himself what he really is, which is a Socialist. These new Democrat "Independents", however, have so such courage. And I think that it’s also worth nothing that the previously mentioned South Dakota seat had been written off as a certain Republican pickup until Pressler implemented his "false flag" strategy.

I wish I could say, with some level of confidence, that the American people are simply too smart to fall for something so obviously transparent, that they would never fall for such a scheme. But sadly, I fear, such is not the case. And I’m concerned not only about those folks who are certain to be fooled, but also with the folks who couldn’t care less about the dishonesty involved here, caring only about who it is that will ‘give’ them the most in exchange for their vote.

WHAT’S MISSING IN THE WORLD TODAY???

How is it, exactly, that any rational human being, regardless of their political affiliation, can look back over the course of just the last 6 years and say that the world in general, is in much better shape, and more at peace today than it was back then? Can anyone point to that one spot on the planet where things are going better today than they were back in 2008? I can’t, and I’ve tried only to come up empty.

And if we were to try a little comparative analysis, what is it that we’d likely find as missing today, that was not missing prior to the last 6 years? Personally, I think anyone who’s being honest with themselves will quickly come to the same conclusion that I did and should have very little, or no, difficulty spotting what it is that’s been missing and doing so right off the bat. And yet few choose to speak up.

What can we see as having been completely removed from the equation, the net result of which, is now a more unstable, more violent and more chaotic world? And what has always been the instrumental ingredient in accomplishing the opposite? Now it would seem to me that if I can see what it is that’s missing, then it can’t be that difficult for others to pick up on it as well. I think many are able to see it, but just don’t want to admit it.

I mean it seems pretty obvious to me. What I refer to as being that one ingredient vital to ensuring a somewhat stable world, is the American leadership that has been lacking for a number of years. It would seem to me that those responsible for making sure that America remains at the forefront, have been nothing if not AWOL. What we have seen is a purposeful attempt to increase, and not to keep in check, the level of chaos in the world.

And you know, try as I might, I simply can’t come up with a rationale for why anyone would chose to do such a thing. Other than, of course, because there’s something to be gained by allowing the world to deteriorate. And it seems to have now become the stated foreign policy goal of this nation to pull back from that which has been, for decades, the traditional role of America in maintaining some semblance of stability.

After all, just how much of a political low-life must one have to be in order to do nothing more than to simply sit back and watch, or play a few rounds of golf, as the world continues to spin so wildly out of control? What we’re seeing take place in the world today is what can be described as the ONLY natural outcome when America is made to vacate it’s historical leadership position in the world, leaving it to be filled by others far less civilized.

DEMOCRATS…DESPERATION REACHING A FEVER PITCH???

***KOOK ALERT***KOOK ALERT***

With the midterm elections now rapidly approaching, more and more of the Democrat kooks are now beginning to crawl out of the woodwork as it becomes increasingly likely that the Democrats may come to lose their Senate majority. And they seem to now be exhibiting what can only be identified as a new level of desperation. But it’s not just the Washington types who are sinking to what are some all new lows. We also have Wendy Davis, who’s running for governor of Texas, who’s now taken to mocking her wheelchair bound opponent. Meanwhile, other Democrats have now begun to employ a ‘blame Republicans for Ebola’ strategy.

This new ‘Ebola’ strategy was first deployed just today coming in the form of what is a rather dishonest, and albeit distasteful, little video released by a Democrat Party front group that’s been around since 2010. Apparently it’s to be the opening salvo in a "blitzkrieg" of attacks on GOP congressional spending cuts on programs that, or so it’s implied, could have been used to fund overseas health efforts that ‘might’ have helped stop the killer virus. But I’d be curious to find out which Republican it was that authorized those infected to come to America. I could be wrong, but believe it was Barry who gave the green-light for that, wasn’t it?

Anyway, it was some leftwing kook, and supposed author, by the name of Erica Payne who actually said, "Like rabid dogs in a butcher shop, Republicans have indiscriminately shredded everything in their path, including critical programs that could have dealt with the Ebola crisis before it reached our country. Yesterday, a health worker tested positive for the virus-- now, the effects of the GOP's fanatical hatred for our government may finally be exposed." Talk about someone being a rabid dog, this ‘bitch’ sounds like someone who is on the verge of coming completely unhinged!

Ms. Payne, beside appearing to be someone who is more than a little crazy, as is typical for those on the left, is not only the president of, but is also the proud founder of something called the Agenda Project Action Fund.  And it’s this organization that serves as being the vehicle by which she works to advance what is a blatantly progressive political ‘agenda’. This particular video features clips of Mitch McConnell, Pat Roberts, and many other Republicans and implies that austerity cuts to the National Institute of Health (NIH), the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), and in foreign aid that are what’s responsible for the Ebola outbreak.

She said in a statement: "In launching this effort, we will be the first major progressive group to directly blame GOP budget cuts for the nearly 4,000 deaths caused by the Ebola crisis. Our hope is that this ad and the accompanying report will spark a national conversation about the utter stupidity of the GOP's approach to government policy. Clearly, a party that despises government will purposefully underfund it, while a party that fundamentally understands the positive role of government will ensure it functions effectively. We hope this ad will begin to establish the idea that only those who understand government should be allowed to run it."

Obviously Ms. Payne is someone who is more than just a bit nutty, as are most those of her political persuasion. Because when you’re a country that’s already nearly $18 Trillion debt, you no longer have the luxury of spending money on even the most worthiest of causes. And it’s been those who Ms. Payne so energetically supports who have done the most to get us into a fiscal predicament that we, nor our children, may never be able to recover from. And yet she’s demanding that we spend even more. And as much as she, and her kind, may wish that it weren’t so, there’s no escaping the fact that this country is now broke.

And it is imbecilic kooks like Ms. Payne who, for what are purely political reasons, refuse to accept that very obvious fact. And while I feel sorry for all of those being made to suffer, it is completely inexcusable to allow ANYONE who might have been exposed to this deadly disease, entry into this country. And the fault for allowing that to take place cannot be laid at the doorstep of any Republican. And yet, the Agenda Project Action Fund plans to run the ads -- that also feature images of Sens. Ted Cruz and Rand Paul on TV stations in Kentucky, North Carolina, Kansas, and South Dakota.

‘HANOI JANE’ FONDA…SENILE OLD CRACKPOT…

And demonstrating the fact that leftwing loony-ism is really nothing new to Hollywood, we have that leftwing nut from the older generation in the person of ‘Hanoi Jane’ Fonda. Apparently Fonda recently revealed more details of her mother's troubled life. She claims to have discovered that her mother had been sexually abused from a young age and had nine abortions before giving birth to the actress. Too bad dear old mom didn’t make it an even ten!

These supposed new details come to us by way of a report on a recent speech that Fonda is said to have made at a fundraising event in Beverly Hills for a charity benefiting the victims of rape. The 76-year-old moon-bat said she discovered the abuse after recently reading her mother's medical records. Now we have no way to determine if there’s any truth to what Fonda claims, but her reputation as liar is sufficient to call into question anything she says.

According to the reports, Fonda said, "The minute I read that, everything fell into place." She then went on to say, "I knew [the reason for] the promiscuity, the endless plastic surgery, the guilt, the inability to love or be intimate, and I was able to forgive her and forgive myself." Fonda also told friends she believes that it was a piano tuner, of all people, who sexually abused her mother, Frances, who suffered from bipolar disorder and ultimately committed suicide.

Look, there is really very little that a leftwing kook like Fonda won’t say in an effort to advance whatever leftwing cause it is that she claims to support. You can never believe anything that people like her say because, more than likely, they’ve simply made it all up. And I’m quite sure Fonda feels very justified in, and not the least bit hesitant about, using her dead mother as long as she thinks that she might persuade even one person to support her idiotic cause.

PALTROW MUST BE VYING FOR DUMBEST BITCH ON THE PLANET!!!

Gwyneth Paltrow, the brain-dead bimbo who chose to name one of her kids after a fruit and the other after a major player in the Bible, a book which I’m quite sure she knows very little about, has once again made quite clear the fact that very little intelligence is actually required for one to be able to excel in her chosen profession. A profession in which, if you’ve ever seen any of her movies, she would have never made it very far were it not for her mommy and daddy.

Anyway, it was Ms. Paltrow who played host to a fundraiser this past Thursday, attended by her favorite little stud-muffin, Barry "Almighty" and she was apparently quite flustered by merely being in his presence. It was in introducing our Liar-in-Chief that she said, "You're so handsome that I can't speak properly." Obviously it doesn’t take much to get the old girl all worked up. Either that or it’s been a while since she’s managed to get herself laid.

According to reports of the event there were several hundred of like-minded folks in attendence there in the lush backyard of her home there in the movie star haven, Brentwood. In a not-so-subtle reference to what she called her "conscious uncoupling" earlier this year from then husband Chris Martin, Paltrow said it was a "profound honor" to have Barry in the home she shares with Apple and Moses, her two children by he with whom she recently uncoupled.

Paltrow hosted this little reception and dinner benefiting the Democrat Party which also marked the start of a three-day, California fundraising swing for Barry "Almighty." After all, what else has Barry got to do these days, other than fundraise? Fundraising is far more important than dealing with ISIS or Ebola. He’s scheduled to attend three other Democrat National Committee fundraisers in Los Angeles and San Francisco before returning to Washington on Saturday.

Tickets to the reception at Paltrow's home started at $1,000, while dinner tickets cost a minimum of $15,000. That washed-up old hag of an actress, Julia Roberts, was in attendence as was someone by the name of Bradley Whitford, who I presume must be an actor of some sort or another. In a brief introduction punctuated by "ums," Paltrow declared herself to be one of Barry's biggest fans and said he's an "incredible role model." Role model?

And what must have been an effort to make herself look as stupid as possible, which is really nothing new for this moron, she said, "I am one of your biggest fans, if not the biggest, and have been since the inception of your campaign." And she went on to say that she thinks both of his campaigns and his presidency will be one of the most important and most scrutinized of all time. Of that there is little doubt, as he is easily the most corrupt individual to ever hold his office.

Paltrow noted the approaching Nov. 4 midterm elections in which Democratic control of the Senate is at risk. She called it a "critical time" for Democrats and seemed to urge everyone to vote. And then in making a statement that prove, and better that I ever could, that she is, without a doubt, one of the dumbest things walking on two lets, she said, "It would be wonderful if we were able to give this man all of the power that he needs to pass the things that he needs to pass."

She also went on to mention equal rights for women in the workplace, and investments in sustainable energy and "everything green." I’m curious if she happened to ask Barry why it is that he insists upon paying the women who work for him much less than the he pays the men who do. But then I doubt that that topic ever came up in conversation. And by declaring her support for "everything green" I’m assuming the attendees to her little soiree arrived by means other than a limousine?

But look, it’s imbeciles like Paltrow and her many liberal Hollywood buddies, folks that have never had to work a day in their life, who are really Barry’s kind of people. Because it’s these folks with whom Barry has much in common. He too has never had to work for a living. And while he may be black, he cares little about the plight of average blacks. To Barry, as well as the entire Democrat Party, blacks are seen as being nothing more than group to be exploited. But blacks have been, and continue to be, too stupid to figure that out.

FOR DEMOCRATS, THIS ELECTION NOW CALLS FOR DESPERATE MEASURES…

Desperate times, as they say, call for desperate measures, and in politics, apparently, things are no different. Because as the election grows near many of those Democrats who are now finding themselves embroiled in tight midterm races seem to be working hard to distance themselves from Nancy Pelosi, whose polarizing dominance is seen by many as part of the problem for Congress's continuing gridlock. But have no fear, I’m sure the Democrats will once again be members of what has become one big, very happy, America-hating, family once we’ve moved past the election.

However, at least for the present time, no stone is being left unturned as there are now more than a few Democrat candidates who have gone so far as to actually call their beloved Ms. Pelosi out by name in some of their more campaign ads, including Pelosi's Democrat House colleague John Barrow, in his race for Georgia's 12th District. This guy tells his constituents, in an ad spot that pushes back on the partisan influence of the House minority leader, "I voted 54 percent of the time with Speaker [John] Boehner [R-Ohio] and I voted against Nancy Pelosi for speaker."

And this guy Barrow is far from being the only one choosing to employ this tactic. Because it’s out in Colorado that yet another congressional candidate, Democrat Irv Halter, who’s running against four-term incumbent Doug Lamborn and has also invoked Pelosi's name in a television spot that says even he hopes to distance himself from Washington's do-nothing, partisan malaise. Halter says in a new ad, "Career politicians like Doug Lamborn and Nancy Pelosi have failed." Adding, "There's only one way to change Washington. Vote them out."

Now I’m sure it goes without saying that Ms. Pelosi has, at least so far, declined to respond to what is the growing number of stories now appearing the press regarding her supposed negative association in campaign ads this season. But her office did mention that she remained one of Congress's most popular members. It was back in April that Gallup showed her with a 33 percent favorable rating and 49 percent unfavorable rating, which was enough to place her ahead of her colleague in leadership positions, but not my much. But enough, I guess, to give her bragging rights.

Anyway, it’s important that people be able recognize what’s going on here and what this supposed ganging up on of poor old Nancy really amounts to. Which is nothing more than what has become your very typical Democrat election year shenanigans. Because much like the ongoing efforts of many Democrats to separate themselves from Barry, this ploy by some to now create the impression that they are actually not in lockstep with Pelosi, on nearly every issue, is nothing more than attempt to hoodwink voters just long enough for them to step in into the voting booth and cast their vote.

UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBERS…OBAMA’S COOKIN’ THE BOOKS…

Well the latest round of bogus jobs numbers as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), was released last Friday, Oct. 3, and, as is usually the case, we were once again provided with what was nothing short of a pure work of fiction. And as was expected it was once again pointed out that the unemployment rate for black Americans in September was more than double that of white Americans. And yet, what is it exactly that we’re supposed to take away from that ‘fact’, that the only reason blacks are unemployed is because, employers are all racists?

According to the BLS the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for white Americans, age 16 and over, in September was 5.1%, which, we’re told, is down slightly from 5.3% in August. Now anyone who actually believes this is either a gullible moron, a very devoted Democrat, or is employed by the state-controlled media complex. Because there is no way on God’s green Earth that these numbers can be said to accurately reflect what the true employment situation in this country. This is the perfect example of the numbers have been politically corrupted.

And it is also according to the government that the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for black Americans, age 16 and over, in September was 11.0%, also down slightly from 11.4% in August. The unemployment rate for blacks has not fallen below 11% since August 2008, and it reached a high of 16.9% in March 2010. And these numbers are just as bogus as the numbers for whites. Which begs the question, at which point does having a job become more important to black than does having a black guy in the White House? Apparently never!

We’re also told that for white Americans, the unemployment rate has not been below 5% since May 2008, and it hit a high of 9.2% in October 2009. Ok, let’s be serious for a minute, shall we. The real unemployment rate for this country is well into the double-digits. And the unemployment for blacks very likely is considerably higher than it is for whites. But the actual rate for both blacks and whites is nowhere near what we’re being told that it is by our government. The numbers can no longer be used to gauge how many folks have a job.

Also, and again according to that ‘reliable information provided by the BLS, we’re told that the unemployment rate for the month of September for Hispanic or Latino Americans was 6.9%, also seasonally adjusted, age 16 and over. And we’re told that the last time that rate was below 6.9% was in February 2008, when it was 6.3%. But again, these numbers can be trusted no more than can the numbers we’re told supposedly represent the unemployment rate for blacks and whites. But none of these numbers mean anything, they’re fiction.

And I’ll tell ya something else, if I were a betting man, which I most definitely am not, I’d be willing to bet that come the end of October, miracle of miracles will once again take place when we again will be expected to believe that the unemployment once again has managed to fall even lower. Now call me cynical if you wish but I’m pretty certain that if that does in fact occur, it will have much more to with the election that comes a mere four days later than it has anything to do with the fact that more Americans have suddenly become employed.

JIMMY CARTER, FORMERLY KNOWN AS OUR WORST PRESIDENT…

Speaking as someone who definitely knows a thing or two about "screwing things up", especially in this same region of the world, ex-president Jimmy Carter is better qualified than most when it comes to criticizing Barry’s rather inept execution of some semblance of a rational Middle East policy. Carter said that Barry has continued to shift policies and ultimately waited too long to take action against the Islamic State of Iraq (ISIS). That would also be the same group that Barry has declared has absolutely nothing to do with the violent cult of Islam.

In an interview published just yesterday in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Carter said Barry’s administration, by not acting sooner, allowed ISIS to build up its strength. He said, "[W]e waited too long. We let the Islamic State build up its money, capability and strength and weapons while it was still in Syria." He went on to say, "Then when [ISIS] moved into Iraq, the Sunni Muslims didn’t object to their being there and about a third of the territory in Iraq was abandoned." It’s pretty bad when you’ve got someone like Carter criticizing you.

The administration has launched airstrikes in both Iraq and Syria, which some have call "pin pricks" designed neither to kill terrorists nor to inflict all that much damage. Meanwhile ISIS has swept across much of northern and central Iraq and has released videos of its members beheading two U.S. journalists and two British aid workers, so far. Carter said Barry’s air campaign against ISIS in Iraq has "a possibility of success," provided that some troops are available on the ground. He did not specify whether he meant U.S. or other ground forces.

The Democrat ex-president also accused Barry of shifting his Middle East policy on several occasions. It was in describing Barry’s Middle East strategy, or lack thereof, that Cater said, "It changes from time to time." Carter went on to say, "I noticed that two of his secretaries of defense, after they got out of office, were very critical of the lack of positive action on the part of the president." But let’s face it, if either of these guys had had serious concerns regarding what Barry doing, or not doing, they should have acted while still able to do something about it.

Carter was making a reference to former defense secretaries Robert Gates and Leon Panetta who, in preferring book sales over taking action to protect the country, have each now released a memoir detailing frustrations with Barry’s foreign policy and management style. In particular, Panetta, who stepped down just last year, has criticized Barry in several interviews since the release of his book earlier this week. But I think Panetta’s motive is very clear, as a close friend of Hitlery, he’s doing his best to grease the skids regarding her possible White House run.

Typically, former presidents are often seen as being reluctant to criticize one another, as well as the sitting president out of respect for the difficulty and pressures of the job, unless, of course, you happen to be a scumbag Democrat ex-president like a Carter or ‘Slick Willie’. Former Republican President George W. Bush has repeatedly declined to disparage his successor. But neither Carter, nor old ‘Slick’, has ever demonstrated such a level class, and has shown on any number of occasions not to be the least bit hesitant when it comes to criticizing other presidents.

Carter, I think it fair to say, is someone of whom it can be said struck the match that ignited what would become the Muslim scourge that we are forced to contend with today. It was on Carter’s watch that the Shah of Iran, up until that time considered to be a staunch ally of the United States since 1953, was essentially nudged out in 1979. And it was, like Barry, Carter’s inept approach to foreign policy that made it possible for the Ayatollah Khomeni to return to Iran on February 1, 1979, and serve as being the first contact between the United States and the cult of radical Islam.

OBAMA AND THE COMING MIDTERM ELECTIONS…

In trying to come up with some sort of role for Barry to play regarding our upcoming election that will determine which party it is that will control the Senate, it’s former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown who has come up with a suggestion. He told the New York Times that the best and only place for Democrats to deploy Barry, as we head into the midterm elections, would be to send him out to stir up the black base. If there’s one group of people that has suffered more than most during Barry’s tenure as president, it’s the black folks.

It’s a fact that black unemployment has essentially gone through the roof since Barry first set foot into the Oval Office. His economic policies have done nothing more than to make what was an already bad situation, much worse, and especially for minorities. Barry’s continuing war on fossil fuels has had an adverse effect on all of us, but it has hit the poor especially hard. Because with high gas prices comes the trickledown effect on such things as the weekly grocery bill, and with higher energy costs come higher utility bills.

But be that as it may, it’s according to this crackpot Brown that Barry could do the most good for his party, as the election grows near, by going out into the black community. Brown said, "I'd have Obama on an evangelistic schedule of black churches all over the country." And he went on to say, "I think he really should go to the black base. I don't think there's any other place I would trust he wouldn't create an adverse reaction rather than a positive reaction." But what is it that’s positive that he can say to blacks?

As most are probably very well aware, those Democrats considered as being vulnerable and who are involved in some pretty tight races, have made it very clear that they want Barry nowhere near them nor their constituents. And it has already been reported in The Hill that the blame game has already broken out among many Democrats over what promises to be a rather lackluster, if not punishing, midterm election for the Democrats. This as voters will be heading off to the polls in a mere 27 days to make their voices heard.

That blacks continue to support Barry despite the fact that he’s only succeeded in making their situation worse, says much more about them, I suppose, than it does about Barry himself. I mean Barry has had to do absolutely nothing to earn their vote, because he possess that one quality which for blacks makes their support for him a given, he’s black. It’s very clear that what’s most important to them is not that they are able to become self-sufficient and productive members of society, but that we have a black man in the White House.

WE MUST STAND UNITED AGAINST THOSE WHO WISH TO DESTROY OUR COUNTRY…

Well, my fellow Americans, here we are a mere 27 days out from an election that may very well prove to be one of the few remaining opportunities that those of us, who wish to save our country, have to set things in motion that will hopefully undo at least some of what has been done over the course of the last 6 years. The results of which have been disastrous!

Now try as I may to remain at least somewhat optimistic about our chances of being able to prevail in these upcoming midterms, I can’t help but feel like a salmon trying to swim upstream while trying to avoid the bears. And I wonder if things haven’t now progressed past the point where we have much of a chance to ever succeed in getting things turned around.

Because for us to achieve the level of success that we must in order to be able to stem the tide, so to speak, I fear we may be more than a little short in the number of folks needed in our all-volunteer force to get the job done. Because it’s with each passing day that I feel that we become a bit more outnumbered than we were the day before. It’s all quite depressing.

Our country is slowly being made to slip from our grasp as it becomes "fundamentally transformed" into something that is so completely unrecognizable. And yet, fewer and fewer people actually seem to care. It seems that these days people are far more concerned with how much they can collect from the government rather than limiting the government’s power.

Personally I’ve always thought that having the privilege of being able to call oneself an ‘American’ was something quite unique in this world. Because up until the last several years there has always been that certain something that set us apart from the rest of the world. That was once seen as being the primary reason people wanted to come to this country.

And I’m sure I’ll offend some when I say this, but I think we, as Americans, were actually entitled to see ourselves as being a bit better than those from other lands. But at the same time, we’ve always been willing to welcome others in if they were willing to become one of us by learning our language, obeying our laws and becoming contributing members to our society.

But these days America has been made into little more than the free-lunch wagon. It seems as if more and more wish to come here for no other reason to see what they can get in exchange for little or nothing in return. America has been made to fall a considerable distance, and yet, few of us seem to care. Patriotism and love of country seem to have all but completely vanished.

So what’s the answer? Do we raise the white flag and simply retreat and leave our country behind for the likes of Barack Obama to restructure into what would essentially be nothing more than the country formerly known as that beacon of freedom upon the world? While I may not yet be ready to surrender, I am being steadily worn-down as the battle becomes more difficult.

DESPITE OBAMA'S MANY CLAIMS, THE ECONOMY CONTINUES TO TANK…

Americans apparently think no better of Barry "Almighty's" economic policies than they do about much of the rest of his anti-America agenda. And I’d like to think that that’s because more Americans are finally coming to the realization that socialism simply does not work, and never really has anywhere its ever been tried. And despite the many promises made by those on the left, that the ever elusive socialist utopia remains just that, elusive.

But as is usually the case, there remains that stubborn few who continue to hold out hope that Barry can somehow make that utopia a reality. Besides those Democrats in Congress, we continue to have 24 percent of Americans who say they are extremely or quite confident in Barry's economic policies. That's a record low for his presidential tenure and down from 33 percent when the question was last asked as recently as June 2013.

Meanwhile, 74 percent of the 805 respondents in CNBC’s, Sept. 25 to 28, All-America Economic survey, say they are not at all or somewhat confident in Barry's economic policies. Specifically, 44 percent of the respondents say they have no confidence at all in Barry's stewardship of the economy, which tied with the prior record high back in August of 2012. How can you have confidence in someone who has only succeeded in making things worse?

Even among anti-capitalism, pro-socialism, Democrats, it’s only 45 percent who are able to bring themselves to say that they are extremely or quite confident in Barry when it comes to economic policy. The only bright spot for Barry, and something that makes very little sense to me, is that it appears, again according to this most recent survey, that the ratings for Republicans in Congress are even worse. This despite the fact that it’s Democrat policies that have failed so miserably.

So in what shows that many folks still are not ready to throw in the towel when it comes to socialism in America, only 11 percent of those polled are extremely or quite confident in congressional Republicans' economic policies, compared with 16 percent for congressional Democrats. A total of 79 percent of the respondents view the economy as fair or poor, down from 84 percent a year ago, while those rating the economy as excellent or good rose 3 points.

Even those who are doing well are not confident in Barry's economic policies. A little more than a fourth of those with at least $50,000 in the stock market have high confidence in Barry's economic policies even though the market has risen 144 percent during his presidency. But I think most of those are able to recognize the fact that the only reason the stock market is where it’s at is because we have had far too much government intervention.

The bleak views on economic policy and the economy's health are said to come despite recent signs of strength in the economy. GDP grew 4.6 percent in the second quarter, and the September jobs report was stronger than expected. But again, I think most people also realize that the jobs numbers which we are presented with at the end of each month are pretty much nothing more than a pure work of fiction.

As much as Barry and the Democrats which to present a rosy economic image and of increasing job growth, it’s just the opposite that’s true. Since Barry assumed office 10 million folks have left the nation’s workforce, and more people than ever before in out history are now dependent, in one way or another, on the government. And our $17 Trillion, and growing, debt weighs like an anchor on our struggling economy. And Barry’s lies cannot alter that fact!

DEMOCRATS ALREADY COMPILING A LIST OF WHO TO BLAME…

As they say, there is no honor among thieves, and likewise much the same can, I think, be said whenever referencing Democrats. Because as the midterm election grow ever nearer, Democrats can already be heard starting to play the blame game as they now being to face the very real possibility of losing the Senate in November. Because to their way of thinking there could never be any rational explanation for such a thing to ever occur.

So it is now because of that apparent eventuality that tempers appear to be to running rather short now that we are essentially less than a month out from Election Day. And adding fuel to that which at least appears to a foregone conclusion, is the fact that there are now a growing number of polls that would seem to show that Democrat candidates continue to trail in those crucial contests that may decide which party ends up with control of Congress.

The stress being felt within the Democrat Party was made rather public last week when the behind-the-scenes tension kind of spilled, and rather vocally, out into the open. It was then that we had ex-Senate Majority Leader Tom "Douche Bag’ Daschle, Democrat, questioning ‘Dingy Harry’ Reid’s decision not to endorse Democrat Rick Weiland in South Dakota’s Senate race. Tommy apparently saw that as a tactical error on Reid’s part.

But with control of the Senate now seen as being very much in jeopardy, there are more than a few Democrats already busying themselves as the go about the lining up any number of potential scapegoats. Everything from Barry’s low approval rating, to low turnout from Hispanic voters, overly centrist messaging; and the media, to name just a few. But I’m sure this is just the tip of the election iceberg. After all, like Barry, nothing is ever their fault.

Some Democrats have pointed at Barry’s low approval numbers as being a major headwind for Democrats to contend with as the midterms rapidly approach. Senate Democrat leaders predicted their poll numbers would improve after Congress recessed in September because voters would then be paying more attention to the candidates and less to Washington. So far, such has not really been the case.

And some liberal activists say Democrat candidates should be pushing bolder economic proposals, such as expanding Social Security benefits, instead of more modest ones such as raising the minimum wage. Charles Chamberlain, executive director of something called Democracy for America, said, "I would argue that we would be in a better place if candidates across the board were running on economic populist message."

And went on to say, "We can’t just run on being GOP light." And he added, "For example, in Kentucky, where we polled on expanding Social Security, if Alison Lundergan Grimes was running on expanding Social Security or on a more populist economic message I think she would be in a different place in the polling." GOP light? Is this guy serious? That has to be about the most absurd thing I’ve heard this entire election season!

But Chamberlain did say that he remains quite optimistic that the Democrats will, when all has been said and done, keep control of the Senate. And Don Fowler, a former chairman of the Democrat National Committee, apparently feels the same way as he has also expressed confidence that his party would keep control of the upper chamber, but said the party could improve its messaging on the economy.

Fowler cited the Labor Department’s report Friday that the economy added 248,000 jobs, cutting the unemployment rate to 5.9 percent. "We have to do a better job of selling that message," he said. I’m guessing what he really means here is that he feels that the Democrats must do a much better job of lying about these jobs numbers that everybody, and their brother, knows are completely bogus. They have been manipulated to point of being useless.

Barry in several instances this year has continued to point to what he has referred to as being the historical trend of low Democrat voter turnout in midterm elections as a major reason why this November’s election is likely to a tough one for Democrats. It was in May when he said, "Democrats have a congenital defect when it comes to our politics and that is we like voting during presidential years and during the midterms we don’t vote."

So I’m quite sure that there will be any number of excuses floated after the election if in fact the Democrats do lose control of the Senate. But demonstrating how it is that they live in denial I think the real reason behind their losses is the fact that they have shown themselves to be, and on more than one occasion, far more concerned with the amassing of political power much more so than with the needs of the American people.

And while there remains to be, and very obviously so, millions of folks to continue to buy into the whole Democrat Party victimization philosophy, there at least appears to be, and at least at this point in time, millions of folks who do not. And how long that may hold true is anyone’s guess, it may be completely different come 2016. But wouldn’t be nice if more people actually put the saving of our country above everything else?

WHAT DO WOMEN WANT???

One of the things that we may finally learn from this year’s midterm elections is what it is that women may actually want. Do they want to be able to find a job or do they want nothing more than to have unfettered access to birth control? Now if you’ve spent any amount of time listening to Democrats running for election, or re-election, this November you’d think that it’s the latter that is much more important to women than is the former.

Case in point is Democrat Jeanne Shaheen, Senator from New Hampshire and who, as it just so happens, is up for re-election. It was our esteemed Ms. Sheehan who recently walked into a roomful of primarily Democrat New Hampshire women voters and presented what was a very simple pitch: She would be more focused on their issues than her challenger, Scott Brown, the former Republican U.S. senator from Massachusetts.

Shaheen told her supporters, after collecting the endorsement of the state chapter of abortion rights activist group NARAL, "We need to make sure that women and families understand what the choice here is because this is a close race." Shaheen is one of the three Democrat incumbent female U.S. senators up for re-election in November. Republicans consider all three seats vulnerable as they look to take a majority in the Senate.

In an effort to fire up core supporters and attract independent women voters, both Shaheen and her North Carolina counterpart, Democrat Kay Hagan, have been focusing much of their campaigning on nothing more than the protecting of access to abortion, as well as women's health generally, issues that they hope can offset their opponents' focus on unpopular Barry "Almighty". But yet there’s been nary a mention of women unemployment.

The third female Democratic incumbent, Senator Mary Landrieu, has sought to avoid the issue in her re-election bid in conservative Louisiana. Democrats' strategy to seize on what was termed a "war on women" by Republicans was particularly effective in 2012. But with literally millions of women unable to find a job, you’d think it would be relatively easy to see which political party is actually at war with women.

Some fella by the name of Neil Levesque, who is the executive director of the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at St. Anselm's College said, "Women voters are the most important component going into the final few weeks of this campaign." He added, "There are some issues which will get a voter into their car in the middle of a blizzard." He said, "Reproductive issues, Second Amendment issues will traditionally do that."

So what’s it gonna be, ladies? Will you once again prove just how gullible you are by again falling for an argument that is so blatantly political? Or will you, perhaps, finally be able to see through all of the BS, and then vote accordingly. If there is one thing I’ve learned in my 60+ years on this planet, it’s that there is absolutely no way to determine what a woman will do in any given situation, and voting is no different. All we can is to cross our fingers and hope for the best.

MORE BOGUS JOBS NUMBERS POP UP AHEAD OF THE ELECTION…

I think most of us can safely say that we saw this one coming. Somehow, as if by some strange miracle, the jobless rate in this country has just been made to drop to 5.9 percent. Now keep in mind that such a thing takes place at the very same time that a record 92,584,000 Americans, 16 and older, did not participate in the labor force in September, as the labor force participation rate matched a 36-year low of 62.7 percent.

Now also keep in mind that it has been 6 times in just the last twelve months that the participation rate has been as low as 62.8 percent; but September's 62.7 percent is actually the lowest since February of 1978. And we all remember who was president then, or at least we should. But just in case anyone has forgotten, that would be Jimmy Carter, whose been worse an even worse ex-president than he was a president.

In September, the civilian noninstitutional population in this country stood at 248,446,000. And of that 248,446,000, 155,862,000, or 62.7 percent, actually participated in the labor force, meaning they either had or job or had actively sought one in the last four weeks. Of the 155,862,000 who did participate in the labor force, 146,600,000 had a job and 9,262,000 did not have a job but actively sought one.

And it’s that 9,262,000 who are said to ‘officially’ comprise the unemployed. They equaled 5.9 percent of the labor force, or an unemployment rate of 5.9 percent, which was down slightly from the 6.1 percent unemployment rate in August. So you can pretty plainly see how it is that the numbers can be easily manipulated, and to the point where they have now essentially become pretty meaningless, yet are touted as being accurate.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), in an August 2014 update to its Budget and Economic Outlook, said the "temporary weakness" in the labor force participation rate "is expected to largely disappear by the end of 2017." And apparently in using what can only be their crystal ball, those at CBO projected that increased hiring would bring the unemployment rate to 5.6 percent in the fourth quarter of 2017.

The CBO makes the claim that greater hiring will encourage some people to reenter the labor force, slowing both the decline in the unemployment rate and the decline in labor force participation rate. The report said, "CBO anticipates that the labor force participation rate ... will decline slightly -- from 62.8 percent in the second quarter of 2014 to 62.3 percent in the fourth quarter of 2017."

And another rather interesting little tidbit of information that I think is worth mentioning is the fact that a record 55,553,000 women did not participate in the labor force in September. This means that 55,553,000 women in the United States did not have a job and did not actively seek one in the past four weeks. That means that number of women not in the labor force actually increased by 208,000 from the 55,345,000 in August.

The participation rate for women also dipped in September to 56.7 percent and it hasn’t been this low since back in September of 1988 when it was 56.6 percent. This means that only 56.7 percent of women participated in the labor force by either having a job during the month or actively seeking one. Those are pretty dismal numbers but neither Barry, nor those of his party seem very interested in doing anything about it.

The number of employed women decreased from 68,525,000 in August to 68,499,000 in September, or a decline of 26,000. However, the number of unemployed women also declined from 4,466,000 in August to 4,390,000 in September, which means there were 76,000 less unemployed women in September. And we’re told that the unemployment rate for women declined from 6.1 in August to 6.0 in September.

But does any of this really matter to women voters? And is this issue important enough, and will it persuade women to vote for other than Democrat candidates in the coming election? Well, I guess we’ll find out. Personally, I don’t trust many women to be able to figure out that the fact that if the country is allowed to continue down the path that Barry and the Democrat have placed it, things will not end well, for anybody. Including women!

MOOCHELLE OBUMMER HITS THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL!!!

We all know that her husband is not all that welcome these days out there on the campaign trail, as most Democrats running for office busy themselves trying to come up with excuses for not being able to appear with him. Their attempt here is to convince voters that they think he’s as big of an asshole as many voters seem to. Barry has proven himself to be the political equivalent of the black plague, no pun intended here, during this election season, and with us now about a month out from what by most accounts could likely prove to be some pretty critical midterm elections, Moochelle is now seen as being the one most capable of riding to the rescue.

So in hitting the campaign trail it has now become Moochelle’s task to try to ‘salvage’ what’s left of this disaster of a presidency and to, in the process, try to help get Democrat candidates elected giving her husband a fighting chance to finish off what’s left of this country. Starting today, Moochelle will be heading to New England where she will make an appearance in support gubernatorial candidates Martha Coakley in Massachusetts and Rep. Mike Michaud in Maine. She follows up with a pair of Midwest stops on Tuesday: an appearance with Mary Burke, the Democrat candidate for governor in Wisconsin, and in Chicago for Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn.

Moochelle also plans appearances this month in Iowa, where Democrat Rep. Bruce Braley and Republican Joni Ernst are locked in one of the year's most competitive Senate races, as well as in Michigan for Senate candidate Gary Peters and gubernatorial candidate Mark Schauer. Moochelle made her 2014 campaign trail debut last month with stops in Georgia with Michelle Nunn, who hopes to pick up a key Senate seat for Democrats on Nov. 4, and in Wisconsin with Burke, who is trying to unseat Republican Gov. Scott Walker, a potential presidential candidate.

Voters will soon decide which party it is that they think should be in control of Congress during Barry's remaining two years in office, along with determining control of more than 30 governor's offices. Republicans are expected to keep control of the House and hope to pick up the 6 seats needed to claim the Senate majority and, with it, control of both houses of Congress. While such an outcome would leave Barry with scant hope of enacting any major legislation before leaving office, it would increase the odds of America being able to survive until he’s finally gone.

Democrats have been clamoring for Moochelle to campaign with them even as they avoid appearing with Barry. Barry, for example, has not campaigned for Nunn in Georgia, where he lost in 2008 and 2012. So far this election season, he has campaigned only with Democrat candidates from his home state of Illinois. A planned joint appearance in Denver in July with Sen. Mark Udall quickly became a solo Barry stop when Udall decided at the last minute he just couldn’t bring himself to appear on the same stage as Barry and at the same time.

At her campaign stops, Moochelle encourages turnout among base voters whom both she and Barry have chided for tuning out politics in election years when there is no presidential race. She tells them that staying home would be a disservice to the work the president they voted into office is trying to complete. Moochelle said at a Democrat Party event last month, "If we want to keep making that change that we all believe in, then we need a president who will fight for that change but we also need a Congress who will pass it, and leaders at our state level who support it." She added, "And frankly, if we lose these midterm elections, it's going to be a whole lot harder to finish what we've started."

I would argue that the point of this election should be to make it as difficult as possible for Barry to finish what he started. And it was Republican Party spokeswoman Kirsten Kukowski who recently said it wasn't surprising that Democrat candidates prefer campaigning with Moochelle over a president who is sagging in the polls. And she went on to say, "But she still represents the same failed Obama policies that are wildly unpopular and dragging Democrats down across the board." Polices that have but one purpose, the "fundamental transformation" of America.

THERE IS SOME TRUTH BURIED IN PELOSI’S RANT…

Nancy Pelosi, Democrat from ‘crazyville’, has made what has been described by some as a wild, even outrageous prediction, claiming that the Democrats will re-take the House in the 2016 elections. Those who get paid to know such things, say that that projection flies in the face of the GOP’s current 17-seat majority in the chamber, which many Republicans believe could actually increase come the midterm elections next month.

It was at her weekly press conference that Nancy ‘Old Stretch’ Pelosi made a rather bizarre reference to the Republicans saying, "Their days are numbered." She then went on to say, "I know that in two years, I know we’ll have a Democratic Congress and a Democratic president." While I suppose anything is possible in today’s political environment, I do feel that Nancy may be getting a little bit ahead if herself.

But the old girl did, at least, appear ready to admit that such a victory is unlikely to be the result of this year’s midterms in November. "I’d like it to be in two months." she said referring to the next session of Congress. And when asked whether she meant that she’d given up hope of recapturing the House in the midterms, Pelosi said, "No, I’m not. I think we’ll do okay." But how is it that she defines, ‘ok’?

And it was then that Pelosi proceeded to launch into what can only be described as a tirade against GOP policies. "They have no ideas," she said. "They have nothing to offer the American people in terms of job creation, financial stability, lowering the cost of education, raising the minimum wage, stopping their tax breaks for their friends to send jobs overseas." But what is it that we ever hear from the Democrats that is genuinely ‘new’?

Pelosi also made the claim that Democrats have run a much better campaign during this election cycle than have the Republicans. She said, "We’ve out-mobilized them, we’ve out-recruited them, we’ve out-raised them to a shameful extent. They’re desperate." But who is it that is really sounding more than a little desperate here. And as far as having out-raised the Republicans, I think we all know which side has the more billionaires.

Pelosi also chose to take issue with the term "illegal aliens" during her strange little press conference. Because when a reporter asked about Iraqis living illegally in America while using the term "illegal aliens," she replied, "Are you referring to undocumented people who are in the United States?" To which the reporter responded, "Illegal aliens, yes ma’am." And Pelosi said again, "Undocumented people, OK."

Now as much as I might hate to admit it, in a rather nutty sort of a way, I do kind of agree with her, as there is a small amount of truth in what she says. Because, like I’ve said, ‘IF’ the Republicans do gain control of the Senate, they will have a very brief window of opportunity to prove to the voting public that it is they who are better suited to be running things; economically, fiscally and when it comes to our national defense.

But if the American people come to see that there is very little difference between our newly minted Republican majority in the Senate and what has been for the last few years a Senate led by ‘Dingy Harry’ Reid, then most assuredly Nancy is right when she declares that the Republicans’ days are in fact numbered. In gaining control of Congress the Republicans will have been provided with the means of controlling their destiny. Will they be up for it?

LANNY DAVIS…CERTIFIABLE LOON…

I’ve always been of the opinion that former special counsel to ex-president ‘BJ’ Clinton, Lanny Davis, was more than just a bit of a crackpot, and his infatuation with the Clintons, especially Hitlery, seemed just this side of creepy. But I must admit that I really had no idea he had such a man-crush on Eric Holder, our racist degenerate of an Attorney General. But his recent claim that Holder has been "one of the great attorneys general in this country’s history," would seem to now make that pretty clear.

While Holder has been roundly criticized by a large number of Republicans regarding a variety of issues, Lanny, and very proudly so, stands by his man. Even with Holder being found in contempt of Congress for failing to provide information in the Fast and Furious gun running investigation, the Justice Department’s mishandling of the IRS scandal in which conservative groups were targeted and the decision to prosecute terror cases in civilian courts, to name only a few, Lanny still sees Holder as being one of the all-time greats.

Davis proves himself to be Holder’s butt-buddy, when he maintains that Holder worked diligently to carry out the policies "consistent with the person who appointed him." So I guess I’m not sure what it is it that Lanny is really saying here. Is he saying that no matter how un-Constitutional certain policies may be, Holder, as Attorney General, was duty bound to not only abide by them to actively enforce them because they were policies dreamt up by the creep who appointed him? Who thinks like this, other that an imbecilic liberal like Davis?

And also, according to Lanny, Congressional allegations against Holder in the Fast and Furious scandal "have been proven factually wrong." Lanny puts forward the claim that the inspector general found that Holder had no knowledge of the program until after Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed by one of the guns allowed to travel into Mexico. And it’s also according to this ninny, that Holder ended the program once he learned of it. I’m thinking this effort of his to defend the indefensible is actually more about semantics than the guilt or innocence of Holder.

And Lanny said that since terrorists were tried in U.S. criminal courts and still managed to get convicted, that would seem to vindicate Holder’s decision to go that route. Davis also maintained that Holder’s record on enforcement of civil rights is, to use his word, exemplary. Lanny said, "The Justice Department is currently enforcing 12 agreements with law enforcement agencies for abusive police practices, including seven consent decrees, the largest number in the history of the department." I guess I’m missing Lanny’s logic on this one.

Davis brags a bit regarding the fact that it was under Holder that the Justice Department stopped a section of the Defense of Marriage Act barring the federal government from recognizing state-approved same-sex marriages. And Davis, always one of the more vocal opponents of voter ID laws, made the patently dishonest claim that Holder also "sought to enforce the Voting Rights Act against states where legislatures passed laws impeding or suppressing the right to vote for non-fact-based and apparently political reasons." That’s simply a lie!

Davis notes a speech Holder delivered earlier this year to a Human Rights Campaign audience where he said "the Justice Department’s role in confronting discrimination must be as aggressive today as it was in Robert Kennedy’s time. As attorney general, I will never let this department be simply a bystander during this important moment in history. We will act." And that’s fine, I would expect him to act if in fact there were people actually being denied the right to vote. But what Holder wants to do is to make sure that the dead can continue to vote!

According to Lanny, "These words are reminiscent of the famous passage from RFK’s anti-apartheid speech in 1966 in Cape Town, South Africa, which eloquently described the impact of a single principled individual who stands up for justice: "It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped." So is he really trying to convince us that Holder is in any way a principled individual who stands up for justice? Is that really how he expects us to view this rabid ideologue, Holder. If so he’s nuttier than even I thought he was.

Davis said, "Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance." He went on to say, "Whatever one’s opinion of Holder’s policies, no one should doubt his deeply felt belief in Robert F. Kennedy’s words as an inspiration for his leadership as attorney general." Now that was the same Robert Kennedy who had wiretaps placed on Dr. Martin Luther King, right?

So at the end of the day, what must it be like to live in Lanny’s world? I can only imagine that it must be akin to living in ‘The Twilight Zone." I’d be curious to know if Lanny would be such steadfast defender of this racist, if he happened to be white and also happened to be appointed by a white conservative. Somehow I rather doubt it! But then that’s the way all these hypocritical libs are, it’s their guys who are always the ones out to protect the people, when we all know that it’s just the opposite. I find such people thoroughly disgusting.