Stars & Bars 03

While we continue hear from black and white Democrats, as well from the likes of Al ‘Not-So- Sharpton and ‘Calypso Louie’ Farrakhan about the need for removing not the actual flag of the Confederacy but the more recognizable Confederate battle flag, from public spaces across America’s South, there are blacks now asking if such a move actually marks what can be called real progress for black Americans, or if it’s merely nothing more than distraction.  Of course it’s a distraction, employed by those on the left desperate to distract blacks away from the issues that truly impact them.

Across the country, blacks are applauding a fast-growing movement to remove the Confederate flag from public life after last week’s racially charged massacre of nine black worshipers in a Charleston church. But even many of those who support the effort suspect it will do little to address what they see as fundamental racial injustices, from mass incarceration of black men to a lack of economic and educational opportunities.  These are self-inflicted issues.  Blacks have simply reaped that which they have sown for years by insisting upon voting for Democrats.

In South Los Angeles, where police last year shot and killed Ezell Ford, a 25-year-old unarmed black man, residents, when interviewed by Reuters, said that while they welcomed the prospect of the Civil War-era flag finally being purged from public grounds, they did not see its removal as a watershed moment for race in America.  It’s a flag!  And to considered as anything more than that seems to be rather pointless.  Personally, I would think the Civil War would be viewed by blacks as positive.  After all, it was thousands of white folks that came to their rescue.

And in demonstrating that the near endless propaganda which we continue to hear from both Democrats and their many minions in the state controlled media is having its desired effect, we have Melina Abdullah.  It was Ms. Abdullah that said, “Black folks are still being killed; they are still being undereducated; they still have little access to health care.”  Abdullah is an attorney who has helped organize community response to Ford’s killing. Taking down the Confederate flag, she says, will not solve what she called “institutional racism and a police system that kills black people.”

And at first glance it would at least seem to appear that statistics underscore those concerns: the average white family had about seven times the wealth of the average black family in 2013, according to the Urban Institute. Since the early 1970s, black unemployment has been consistently more than twice as high as that of whites. And more than 27 percent of blacks now live below the poverty line, compared to 13 percent of whites.  And yet, oddly enough, blacks continue to vote for source of their misery.  They vote for Democrats and voted for Barry in rather impressive numbers.

Now there are those within the black community who see far more intractable problems facing blacks than the Confederate flag, including a justice system with an incarceration rate six times higher for black men and a high rate of gun violence in many neighborhoods. In the United States, blacks are more than twice as likely to die from gunshots as whites.  And it was Abdullah who said, “We can’t have this debate over the flag blind people to the larger struggle.”  But if any serious headway is to be made on these issues, blacks will first have to accept some level of responsibility.

Still, for many blacks, the movement to bring down the Confederate flag holds powerful symbolism, especially after Dylann Roof, 21, was charged with the June 17 shooting in Charleston.  In the days following Roof’s arrest, photos were circulated showing the accused killer posing with the flag.  Ms. Jerri Haslem, 51, who grew up in Birmingham, Alabama, said, “That symbol, the flag, is hurtful for so many people of color. If you’re not a person of color, you might not understand that.”  I’m sorry, but to claim this flag remains to have such an impact 150 years later is ridiculous.

By the way, she claims to feel the way that she because she remembers as a child being called a racial slur by a boy wearing a Confederate T-shirt.  Come on, really.  Suppose I were to say that as I child remember as being harassed or intimidated by some thug wearing a Black Panther T-Shirt.  Does that mean that such shirts should no longer be allowed to be worn?  Somehow I think I’d be told to get over it.  The flag in questions symbolizes nothing more than the Confederate Army, it was not the official flag of the Confederacy that chose to go to war over the institution of slavery.

The defenders of the flag who say it is nothing more than a symbol of Southern pride and a tribute to the tens of thousands of Confederate soldiers killed in the 1861-65 Civil War. But many Americans, black and white, still claim to see it as a reminder that 11 Confederate states seceded from the union in order to preserve a system that enslaved blacks.  But that would be the same 11 states, then controlled by southern Democrats, who were defeated and denied their desire to do so!  It is part of our history, we can’t pick and choose what parts of our history are to be remembered.

Mervyn Marcano is someone who has helped organize a number of protests around the killing of Michael Brown, who you will remember as being the black teenager who was made to meet his rather untimely demise because he made the conscious decision to attack a white policeman in Ferguson, Missouri.  Mr. Marcano describes calls by politicians for the flag’s removal, particularly those of white lawmakers in South Carolina who never backed such a move previously, as a “cheap political branding opportunity”.  But it’s those on the left who are the political opportunists here.

Glenn Martin he grew up in the crime-ridden New York neighborhood of Bedford-Stuyvesant in the 1980s and 1990s, one of three children of a single black mother who was on welfare. He says he was subjected to racist taunts and insults by white colleagues at a series of jobs.  He said, “For so many black lives, it’s a cycle of in and out of the welfare system and the jail system.”  Asked whether the movement to bring down the Confederate flag will help, he was dismissive. “We are always looking for the easy way out rather than having difficult discussions about systematic racism.”

Again with the rather idiotic, and I would argue baseless, claims of systemic racism.  Look, such claims are really nothing more than an excuse to be used by those who refuse to take any responsibility for their own lives.  And until they choose to do that absolutely nothing, or very little, is ever going to change in the black community, with or without this confederate flag flying.  More black men are in prison because more black men commit crimes that makes prison their only possible destination.  And many, sadly, see that almost as being a badge of honor.

So I guess my question is, what’s to be gained by trying to erase such a very significant period of time in our history and that which, like it or not, played a very important role in us becoming the nation that we have become?  A nation that would come to elect, and then re-elect, a black man as our president.  Historically speaking, slavery lasted only a very brief time here in America.  And it’s also a fact that slavery remains alive and well in many countries to this day.  And blacks are far from being the only ones to ever find themselves placed into slavery by others.

And what I find curious is which modern day political party is it that played a prominent role during that same period of our history that is now under assault with desperate attempts for it to be forever purged?  That would, of course, be the Democrat Party.  That same political party that found itself intricately intertwined with slavery, Jim Crow, the Ku Klux Klan and segregation.  And it is now members of that same political party who seem to be so determined in their efforts to erase every remnant of that history, starting with the banning of the confederate flag.


LBJ 01

Aren’t blacks, I mean other than the race profiteers like Barry, Sharpton, Farrakhan and Jackson, the least bit curious about why it is that Democrats, and apparently some RINOs as well, seem to be so determined in their efforts to remove every last vestige of the Confederacy?  Are they really stupid enough to think that it’s simply because Democrats are just so concerned about any remaining stigma of slavery and racism that it may create?

Hey black folks, you really do need to wake up and smell the deceit which has also been laced with more than a dash of treachery being added in!  What’s it’s really about is the Democrats doing their best to rid themselves of their own history.  It was Democrats who ran the south, it was Democrats who supported slavery enough to go to war over it, it was then Democrats who were behind the Jim Crow laws, the Ku Klux Klan and segregation.

And then came 1964 when with nothing more than a mere stroke of a pen, by a Democrat president, blacks somehow became convinced, whether out of ignorance, stupidity or maybe just laziness, that the Democrats were somehow guilty of none of that and were the party worthy of their loyalty.  And what have those years of loyalty?  Yet in spite of all that the Democrat Party has put them through for the last 50 years, blacks remain loyal to this day.

Slavery by any other name is still slavery.  And it’s because of their blind loyalty that, in many respects, blacks are no further ahead today than they were 50 years ago.  And it has nothing whatsoever to do with whatever racism by whites that may still exist.  It has everything to do with their allegiance to one political party, the same party that has been stabbing them in the back for decades.  And yet all we continue to hear from blacks is, “Thank you master, may I have another!”


Schumer 03

Recently old Chuckie Schumer, Democrat from New York, might have tipped his hand a bit when he said that if Hitlery Clinton does in fact win the presidential election and the Democrats are able to regain control of the Senate next year, there would be a very real possibility that the government could act to place a tax on carbon emissions.  A tax that would, in fact, have some pretty dire consequences for the vast majority of Americans.  But Hell, the way things have been going so far this year, why shouldn’t we expect that the very same thing could happen if it’s the Republicans who win the White House and are able, however unlikely, to maintain control of Congress?

But anyway, it was during gathering billed as being an environmental event this past week that Chuckie, in talking about what may lay ahead after the next election, was heard to say, “If Hillary wins and we take back the Senate, I believe many of our Republican friends will say we’ve been starving the government for revenues, but many of them will not be for raising rates.”  What exactly does he mean when he says, starving the government for revenues?  We are now in a time where the federal government is robbing from the citizenry more than it ever has before in the way of record tax revenue while printing money at a feverish pace.  And it’s still not enough?

And I assume Chuckie must feel quite confident in making such a declaration, apparently feeling that those folks who typically vote for Democrats won’t mind in the least if their utility bills are made to skyrocket, at least as long as their taxpayer funded checks keeps coming.  Let’s face it, such is the mentality of those who vote for Democrats like Schumer.  And Chuckie even said that some oil and gas companies have expressed at least an interest in enacting a carbon tax before saying, “I think in 2017 people of both parties might come to that as the best way to fund the government.”  Both parties?  He must be talking about the Democrats and the RINOs.

It was Sheldon Whitehouse, another scumbag Democrat, who hosted the event at which Schumer was heard to lay out just part of a Democrat plan, the purpose of which would appear to be to drive this country even further into the economic ditch than Barry has already succeeded in doing.  Two weeks ago it was Whitehouse and some other Democrat loser by the name of Brian who unveiled a carbon tax proposal at the ‘right-leaning’ American Enterprise Institute (AEI).  Look, this organization can call itself center-right if it so chooses.  But anyone who would go along with such an obvious socialist idea is definitely not center-right, it’s hardcore to the left.

Whitehouse said, “This bill shows that acting on climate change need not be costly, and that protecting our environment and strengthening our economy can go hand in hand.”  This lying sack of shit went on to say, “As Republicans increasingly shift away from climate denial and toward potential solutions, I hope this bill can help move the conversation. A carbon fee follows conservative free-market principles in driving emission reductions and generates big economic benefits for American families and businesses.”  Economic benefits?  This is an economy killer as well as something that places yet another burden on American families when it comes to energy costs.

A Wall Street Journal opinion piece goes into more detail about Chuckie’s thoughts on a carbon tax, which, while it would, theoretically, help keep the government funded in a way that would make fossil fuel energy far more expensive, it would also hit the majority of the American people like a proverbial ‘Mack’ truck.  At a time when Americans are already being hit with all manner of increasing expenses, Chuckie’s plan is one that many Americans simply would not be able to keep up with, financially.  We are literally surrounded by examples, in the form of our cities, of what happens when liberals are put completely in charge, and yet we vote for them.

It’s the Journal’s opinion piece that says, “It’s amusing that Sen. Schumer thinks a federal government that spends nearly $4 trillion and 21% of national output a year is ‘starving’ for anything.”  And it goes on to say, “But then he knows that entitlements continue to grow unchecked and spending for Obamacare is just getting started. The political pattern pre-Reagan had been that Democratic Presidents pass new entitlements and then Republicans would feel obliged to pay for them. Perhaps he figures Republicans will fall for that again.”  And why shouldn’t he?  What has transpired since the last election that would indicate anything different?  Nothing!

And with ‘Dingy Harry’ Reid now set to retire at the end of next year, after having done just about as much damage as any one man can possibly do, it’s now his old buddy Chuckie Schumer who is now next in line to fill his shoes as Senate Minority Leader or, God forbid, the Majority Leader, should the Democrats succeed in regaining control of the chamber.  And that should send a cold chill down the spine of every single patriotic American, as should the thought of Hitlery Clinton sitting in the Oval Office.  The end is getting ever nearer folks, make no mistake, that light at the end of the tunnel is nothing more than a train headed straight for us.

While the plan that these Democrats seem to be so much in favor of would in all likelihood be a boon for the government’s coffers, it would be absolutely devastating to average Americans who, besides having to now pay far more for their healthcare, would also now, again courtesy of the Democrat Party, be faced with the skyrocketing cost for simply heating and cooling their homes or even driving their cars.  This is madness!  And for what?  Well, it would be for the very simply reason of making it possible for Democrats to continue with their plan of getting even more people dependent on government in an effort to create even more Democrat voters?

And I’m quite sure that we will, as we usually are, be talked down to as if we are nothing more than children as we are told once again that the fact the government is taking even more money from our collective pockets, is really all for our own good.  Because, after all, it’s the government that’s fighting ‘climate change’ which, again according to that same government, is the greatest threat yet to be faced by our children.  But oddly enough it’s a threat that really only seems to exist in the rather demented minds of those on the left.  And if Chuckie’s plan does become a reality it’s simply another example of our government being allowed to run amuck!

And as just a little side note here, if we do permit Hitlery to become president, while at the same time also failing to replace those that comprise what has become a rather substantial, and growing, number of faux conservatives in Congress, than where this country ultimately ends up will be totally on us.  For instance, we need to find out who it was that voted for what without knowing, or caring, what it was that they were voting for, and get rid of them.  And we’re going to need to look long and hard at just how we’re going to deal with these continuing un-Constitutional decisions by the Supreme Court.  We are the last line of defense against this liberal lunacy.



Finally, something that I have been waiting to see for I don’t know how long has now finally become a reality.  And I gotta tell you, I could not be happier.  After all, it’s the little things in life that make it worth living.  You see, it was announced earlier in the week that Fox News had finally come to its senses and parted ways with Bob ‘Jabba the Hut’ Beckel, a liberal hack who was a regular on that network’s “The Five”.  Beckel’s only claim to fame, as near as I can figure, is the fact that guided Walter Mondale to what was a landslide defeat in 1984.  And what makes it all the better, at least for me, is the fact that, apparently, the split was not on good terms.

So anyway, it was Bill Shine, who is, I guess, the executive VP of programming, who said, “We tried to work with Bob for months, but we couldn’t hold ‘The Five’ hostage to one man’s personal issues.”  Mr. Shine went on to say, “He took tremendous advantage of our generosity, empathy and goodwill and we simply came to the end of the road with him.”  In other words, and what Mr. Shine is too nice to really say here is that, Beckel took it upon himself to behave as one would typically expect any liberal to behave.  And also, as is the case with most of those who reside on the left, Beckel apparently possesses a rather over-inflated sense of importance.

Beckel has been off the air since February apparently because of some back surgery.  Quite frankly I hadn’t even missed him.  In May, it had been reported that he was in rehab after becoming addicted to pain medication.  And then we find out that, also in what is typical fashion for your run-of-the-mill liberal, Beckel has a rather long history with drug and alcohol abuse.  Beckel joined Fox News as a contributor back in 2000 and has appeared on a number of shows, including his regular stint on “The Five” that began four years ago.  He has also become, for whatever reason, a regular guest on “Hannity” and the network’s news shows that air during the day.

Beckel has stirred controversies over the years by the rather idiotic things that he’s said on the air.  In 2013, for example, he argued that the United States should suspend giving out student visas and that Muslims should stop building mosques on U.S. soil.  He said, “I will repeat what I said before: No Muslim students coming here with visas.”  He went on to say, “No more mosques being built here until you stand up and denounce what’s happened in the name of your prophet.”  Now I have to admit this was one of those very rare occasions where I actually found myself in complete agreement with him.  But as they say, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

But look, Beckel has said more than a few things over the course of however many years he’s been with Fox News that I thought should have gotten him canned.  Far worse than what was his, in this case, rather accurate opinion regarding Muslims and the building of mosques in this country.  But being right once doesn’t erase the many times that he was more than simply inappropriate while on the air.  Let’s face it, he rarely, if ever, had any sort of a point to make and seemed only to be there for the specific purpose of spewing the currently Democrat talking points.  I always thought they kept him around so that he could provide a little comic relief.




I’ll admit there was once a time in my life when I actually bought into the myth that those whom home was the black community were, some ho much more religious, than the rest of us.  But keep in mind the part of the country in which I grew up had very few blacks.  In my high school of roughly 1000 students there was but one who was black.  But then I left home, departing for what’s been called the cold, cruel world I very quickly came to realize just how wrong I had been for a large portion of my life.

What I quickly came to find out was that within the black community there seems to reside a very deep-seated hatred of anyone that is not like them, but especially of whites.  Strangle though it was in looking back in history that I found that that had not always been the case.  Even in the days of slavery hated of whites was nowhere near as intense as it seems to be today.  And I also found that once blacks were given the vote it was far more often than not that they chose to vote for white Republicans.

The flames of hatred for whites began to grow, I would argue, from a spark created by the Democrat Party back in the 1960’s.  And it was the passage, and then enacting, of LBJ’s ‘Great Society’ and the war on poverty that would act as an accelerant of sorts.  Johnson’s goal was to bring slavery, always supported by Democrats, back into existence.  Only this time to put a different spin on it.  This time around there would not be individual ‘masters’, only one.  And that master would be the Democrat Party.

But the Democrats were going to need some help, some cheerleaders, if they were to ever have any hope of succeeding in their goal of enslavement.  What they would need would be some blacks working on the inside who could convince those blacks who may be a little hesitant in becoming slaves to the left.  And, sadly, they had very little trouble in finding plenty of suitable volunteers who, for the right price, were only too willing to throw their own people squarely under the Democrat bus.

Now fast forward to the election of our first black president.  Americans, both black and white, had high hopes that by electing a black man as our president, a man that would be uniquely qualified to bring all Americans together, we could finally move beyond the issue of race.  But sadly just the opposite occurred.  But then I suppose we shouldn’t be all that surprised.  We should have known that by electing a community agitator what we’re witnessing today was the only possible outcome.

Now while Democrats will never admit this, it’s really they who will never allow racism to die in this country, so they work to inflame and incite.  So, were it not for the Democrat Party racism would have long ago gone the way of the dinosaur and the do-do. But the Democrats refuse to let it die, because the party ‘NEEDS’ it.  Because without it, if it were suddenly to disappear, they would lose what is their most effective weapon in convincing their most reliable voting block to vote for them.

Which, I guess, brings me to the topic that I had initially intended to discuss.  That being the continuing myth that blacks are so religious.  I’ve always thought it odd that some of the most vitriolic, hate filled speech about race has always come from those who profess to be men of God.  Men like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan and, more recently, the ‘pastor’ of the church that our black president sat in for 20 years, the esteemed Rev. Jeremiah Wright.  And these are but a few of the men.

And in what would, I’m afraid, be the perfect example of what may be typical of what is heard in far too many black churches today, is the recent, and most vitriolic speech at the Metropolitan AME church in Washington D.C., by Nation of Islam leader ‘Calypso Louie’ Farrakhan.  It was in this ‘speech’ that he actually called white people “sinful by nature” and said that the cops who arrested the man who killed nine people at a black church in Charleston, S.C. last week were happy he did so.

It was in referencing the nine people murdered by white supremacist Dylann Roof at the historic Emanuel AME church last Wednesday that Farrakhan said, “White folks march with you because they don’t want you upsetting the city. They don’t give a damn about them nine.”  He went on with his racist rant saying, “When they arrested him they took him to the Burger King.”  And he added, “You know what they were saying? ‘You did a good job. Killed all them niggers.’”  This from a man of God?

Farrakhan, who is known for racist and hate filled ‘sermons’, was on hand at Metropolitan AME to announce plans for the Millions for Justice Mobilization event to be held on the National Mall in October. The event marks the 20th anniversary of Farrakhan’s Million Man March, which was also held in Washington.  The original event attracted far less than what the name of event implied.  And it was Farrakhan who threaten to sue over estimates of crowd size that he claimed were purposely too low.

During Wednesday’s speech, which was posted in full to the website Justice or Else, Farrakhan addressed the controversy surrounding the Confederate flag.  Roof, 21, had posted numerous pictures online of himself waving and carrying the flag.  South Carolina lawmakers have since called for it to be removed from the state house, and numerous retailers such as Wal-Mart and Amazon have decided to no longer sell the flag or apparel bearing it.  Despite the fact that they still sell Nazi paraphernalia.

But Farrakhan said he saw little difference between that flag and the Stars and Stripes.  The 82- year old Farrakhan aid, “I don’t know what the hell the fight is about over the Confederate flag.”  And he went on to say, “We need to put the American flag down because we’ve got as much hell under that as the Confederate flag.”  And to no one’s surprise, I’m sure because it’s what he does, Farrakhan also devoted much of his speech to attacking whites.

He said, “White folks, you’ve got to get out of your sinful nature,” while at the same time asserting that black are “not sinful by nature.”  And it was to a cheering audience that he said, “You are righteous by nature,” adding, “but made sinful by your intercourse with a sinful people who rebel against God.”  He said, “Everywhere the white man has gone his nature drove him to kill. Kill the brown. Kill the red. Kill the yellow. Kill my own white brother, and kill the black and make sure that the black never rises again.”

Farrakhan’s two-hour rant took a rather bizzare turn when he began discussing white peoples’ birth rates and stereotypes about white women’s anatomy. He said that “the white man” is “coming after the black woman because that’s the way he’s going to have a future.”  He said, “Because your womb is what’s going to give him a future. Because right now whites are dying a natural death. Their birth rate is down under zero meaning that more of them are dying and less of them are coming to birth.”

I would argue that when it comes to being sinful, to say that one race is more sinful than another makes it very clear that even as a man of God, Farrakhan doesn’t possess even a basic understanding of what sin is.  And apparently neither do those who were cheering him on.  That racism still exists in this country, there is no doubt.  But while there are whites who are racist, they are vastly outnumbered by racist blacks.  Despite the fact that blacks are still very much a minority population.

So I have to wonder how much the intensity of their racism toward whites has to do with what they may be hearing in their church every Sunday.  And it is basing my assessment of things on nothing more than my daily interactions with those who are black, I have come to the conclusion that blacks are far more likely to be people of hate rather than people of faith.  If not, then how do you explain the ease with which so many continue to be so easily manipulated by the purveyors of hate?



So now I am to be considered as being ‘less than normal’ because I have enough intelligence to believe the actual ‘facts’ when it comes to supposed ‘manmade climate change’ and not to simply swallow the idiotic propaganda?  Well, that’s what’s now being claimed by the very obviously less than normal EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy.  She ought to take a good long look in the mirror before calling anyone else “not normal.”  Because I would argue that if ever there was a perfect example of what’s NOT normal, Ms. McCarthy would most assuredly be it!

It was just this past Monday during a White House summit on global warming that Ms. McCarthy accused those who have been identified as being “climate deniers” are not ones that can be, or should be, considered as being ‘normal humans’.  McCarthy was addressing a group of doctors, health professionals, and others about why the EPA feels that ‘climate change’ is a public health issue.  Hey, when all else fails make the claim that ‘climate change’ not only ‘may’ be hazardous to one’s health, but IS!  These leftist now seem to be grasping at straws in an effort to convince we deniers.

In, alluding to the EPA’s practice of releasing reports, aka propaganda, the purpose of which is to inform, aka brainwash, the public about ‘climate change’, McCarthy said, “I am doing that not to push back on climate deniers.”  She then went onto add, “You can have fun doing that if you want, but I’ve batted my head against the wall too many times and if the science already hasn’t changed their mind it never will.”  But that’s just it, the science to which she refers has been seriously manipulated.  Actual science doesn’t ‘have’ to change my mind, because it’s already on MY side!

This pathetic propagandist then went to say, to what I’m quite sure was a very friendly crowd, “But in any democracy, it’s not them that carries the day. It is normal human beings that haven’t put their stake into politics above science. It’s normal human beings that want us to do the right thing, and we will if you help us.”  McCarthy once again proceeded to try to make the case that ‘climate change’ is “the biggest public health challenge of our time.”  But that’s nothing more than one more scare tactic on a list of many others that have been employed to no avail.

It was ahead of McCarthy’s remarks that the White House released what was referred to as being an action plan of sorts, for dealing with ‘climate change’, one which would include the involvement of multiple federal agencies.  Meanwhile, it was another leftist group, the 2015 Lancet Commission on Health and Climate Change, that released a report in the medical journal, The Lancet, detailing what were said to be its findings about ‘climate change’ and how it relates to public health.  Of course we should never question any of these claims.

The co-chair of this odd bunch of climate extremists, ‘Professor’ Hugh Montgomery, said in a statement released to the press: “Climate change is a medical emergency.”  Reading like something straight from the Democrat Party, the statement want on to say, “It thus demands an emergency response, using the technologies available right now.”  It has also been reported that the White House has tasked the Pentagon with measuring the amount of ice in the Arctic.  Now there’s an effective use of military resources.  We can’t fight those who are determined to kill us, but by golly we can send them off to measure ice.

This thug regime we seem to have today which continues to be fondly, or not so fondly, referred to as the ‘Obama administration’ argued that a decreased amount of ice in the Arctic could lead to a greater military presence there.  This despite the fact that all recent data would seem to indicate that there is now more ice in the Arctic than ever before.  So it would seem to be a rather extraordinary waste of time, manpower and resources to do what?  But our military shouldn’t be used for fighting wars when attending to ‘climate change’ is so much more important.

And it’s a recent study from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) that was quoted as saying: “Difficulty in developing accurate sea ice models, variability in the Arctic’s climate, and the uncertain rate of activity in the region create challenges for DOD to balance the risk of having inadequate capabilities or insufficient capacity when required to operate in the region with the cost of making premature or unnecessary investments.”  It added, “DOD plans to mitigate this risk by monitoring the changing Arctic conditions to determine the appropriate timing for capability investments.”

Now I’d like all of you less-than-normal folks out there to stop and consider, just for moment, whose behavior it is that one would most likely see coming from someone who truly does have science on their side.  Would it be the never-ending, screeching that we continue to hear from the climate alarmists such as Ms. McCarthy?  Or would it be, perhaps, the calm refuting of those apocalyptic claims, courtesy of actual scientific facts, by those whom she refers to as not being normal?  I think the answer to that is pretty clear, as well as being pretty revealing.


obama 107

Have you ever noticed how it is that Barry never misses an opportunity to advance what has become his continuing claim that racism is still not only very much alive and well here in these United States, but absolutely thriving.  And it’s in listening to him that you would have to come to the conclusion that this country had managed to change very little, if at all, since before the Civil War.  Whether it’s in places with names like Cambridge, Sanford, Ferguson, Baltimore or even New York City, Barry can always be counted on to insert himself into the conversation well before any of the facts are actually known.  All the better to steer the conversation in the proper direction, don’t you see.

So once again we are witness to Barry’s eagerness to take it upon himself, and again without knowing any of the actual facts, to weigh in on the topic of race, this time following the recent, and very tragic, shooting at a Charleston, South Carolina church. On a podcast with some supposed comedian by the name of Mark Maron, Barry discussed race and gun control, and made the rather idiotic claim that the United States has not yet overcome its history of racism.  This coming from an individual who has ‘used’ his race his entire life.  Because had he been born white, and not half white, there is little chance he would have never been able to make it as far as he has.  He’s simply not that bright.

Barry said, “Racism, we are not cured of it.”  Then in behaving at his very crude and offensive best as well as beneath the dignity of his office, Barry said, “And it’s not just a matter of it not being polite to say nigger in public. That’s not the measure of whether racism still exists or not. It’s not just a matter of overt discrimination. Societies don’t, overnight, completely erase everything that happened 200 to 300 years prior.” Wouldn’t you have thought that, as president, he would have taken the opportunity to point out the very obvious differences in the behavior exhibited by those in Charleston compared to those in Ferguson or Baltimore?   But nope, he just couldn’t bring himself to do it!

Barry also said that while the country has come a long way since he was born, the legacy of slavery “casts a long shadow and that’s still part of our DNA that’s passed on.”  But when Barry, or any Democrat for that matter, brings up the topic of racism, it’s always in the same context, and they always, very conveniently, gloss over the fact that the most of prominent players involved in perpetuating the institution of racism, were, very nearly, all Democrats.  A fact that also seems to be lost on the vast majority of blacks in this country.  It’s never mentioned that those who supported slavery, who crafted Jim Crow laws, who supported segregation and created the Ku Klux Klan, were nearly all Democrats.

But look, Barry is far from being the only one desperate to make excuses for, or downplay the fact the black racism that takes place in this country, and on nearly every single day.  Juan Williams, for instance, who appeared just last night on O’Reilly, has worked very hard in his effort to not only downplay the extent of black racism in this country, but to deny that it even exists.  His rationale is that because there are more whites than there are blacks, examples of black racism are to be considered as being far too few to be considered any sort of a problem.  I guess that’s makes sense in a progressive sort of way, unless you’re the white person who gets beat up by a group of racist blacks.

But this is how accusations of racism are used by those on the left, as a political weapon to be used against opponents.  It’s only whites who are to be considered as being racist.  Liberals make the claim that it’s impossible for blacks to be racist because, again according to those on the left, racism is all about power, and it’s whites who hold all the power.  But I would argue that what racism is all about, is hate.  And it’s hate that not only resides on the left, but it thrives there.  Blacks have overwhelmingly supported the Democrat Party for over 50 years and what have they got to show for it?  Absolutely nothing, and yet blacks remain doggedly loyal and firmly on the Democrat plantation.

I would think that it would painfully obvious to anyone possessing even the slightest level of commonsense that the fact those on the left who continue to rescklessly throw around accusations of racism do so only in an effort to gain favor with the weak-minded.  And sadly, the tactic continues to demonstrate some level of success.  Which means that it will continue to be used.  And that’s not going to change until we, the American people, want it to change.  Until blacks are able to come to grips with the fact that Democrats, both white and black, have been playing them for suckers, and for decades, don’t expect to see much change when it comes to how race is treated in this country.



I would argue that our country, today, can said be on what is a continuing downslide that is most definitely tilting to the left.  And after nearly seven years of having had Barry in the White House I think we can all agree that the rate of speed at which that slide is now occurring can be said to have very noticeably accelerated.  And, I’m afraid, I feel confident in saying that that trend is very much likely to continue until such time as there are more Americans who would rather work than live off the government.  And frankly I don’t see that trend reversing itself anytime soon.

Practically since day one of Barry’s presidency we have heard from many in the Democrat Party about how it is that Americans shouldn’t be force to work if they choose not to.  And, again, it has been over the past few years that we have seen a growing number of Americans having come to the conclusion that work is something that they simply don’t feel the need for anymore.  And with it now having been made so easily to claim all manner of condition as some sort of disability, many have now come to see that as being their primary route for exiting the workforce.

Today in America there are over 10 Million fewer people in the nation’s workforce than there was on the day that Barry assumed office.  And we also now have over 100 Million Americans who are on some form of disability, nearly 50 Million on food stamps, over 10 million more than when Barry took office, and 100 Million Americans who are on some form of taxpayer funded government program.  And wages for those who do still working have now essentially been in freefall for nearly the entire Barry presidency.  Liberal/progressive policies have proven to be a failure on all fronts.

And despite the fact that there is absolutely nothing positive one can point to that has resulted from these leftist policies, many Americans continue to support both the policies, as well as the politicians who vote to continue them.  The very same politicians who continue to dream up new and improved ways of making it all the more easy for more Americans to latch themselves very firmly onto the government teat.  Democrats are working to get more people addicted to government because those folks are more likely to vote Democrat, and many Americans seem happy to help.


So far it would seem that at this point in the electoral process we have yet to see an actual Democrat announce they are a candidate for president in 2016.  Because thus far, whether you’re talking about Hitlery Clinton, Bernie Sanders or Marty O’Malley all we seem to have ‘running’ would those who can very easily be referred to as being, in the worst case, communist and in the best case, socialists.  So this is what the modern day Democrat Party has now morphed into, that which would at least appear to be not much more than a thinly disguised version of the Communist Party.

Now we know that we now have a communist mayor in New York City.  So does that give us some indication that the American people may now be ready to elect as their president a candidate who essentially espouses, and very openly, the ‘Communist Manifesto’?   The rhetoric from those who call themselves ‘Democrat’ has for decades sounded eerily similar to the words of Marx and Engels but it would seem that these days these two are being quoted nearly verbatim. If you listen to the rhetoric coming from these candidates you’d have to think you were someplace other than America.

But sadly such is not the case.  America has been on a trek to the left essentially since the presidency of Woodrow Wilson, if not before.  There have been a few speed bumps along the way, but far too few to be of any consequence.  And with the election of Barry “Almighty” and with the American people having now been officially thrown under the bus by the Republican Party, that move to the left has rapidly accelerated!  And those who operate under the banner of the Democrat Party use rhetoric designed to further divide and to set the American people fighting with one another.

Because you see, when Americans are fighting with one another, they’re not paying attention to what those for whom they voted for are really up to.  Not that most Americans are known for paying that much attention in the first place, but that’s apparently not good enough for these ‘Democrats’.  Meanwhile, our children are being robbed of their futures and what are we, their parents doing about it?  Are we taking to the streets and demanding a return to responsible government?  Nope!  Most of us are doing little more than sitting our hands, waiting for our next government check.



Hitlery 58

Now if one were to be willing to look objectively at where our country is today, which it would seem far too few are willing to do, one would quickly come to the conclusion that there are any number of very obvious reasons why Hitlery Clinton should be forever disqualified from running for president.  Or for that matter, even dog catcher.  Any one of the many items on what has become Hitlery’s rather impressive list of disqualifiers could, and would, be used by Democrats to prevent any Republican from ever having the opportunity to become president.  But the length of the list notwithstanding, there would seem to be nothing yet considered as being serious enough to derail Hitlery’s chances of becoming her party’s 2016 nominee for president.  What follows next is but a very brief summary of those items which, unless you border on being completely brain dead, would seem to be sufficient to prevent Hitlery from being able to seek office she so desperately wants.

First on our list is the rather shady operation referred to as the Clinton Foundation.  Founded in 2001, The Clinton Foundation and renamed the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation in 2013.  And it is this supposed ‘philanthropic’ concern that has now become somewhat of a liability for Hitlery in that there seems to be more than a few rather questionable ‘transactions’.  One of which would be that while serving as secretary of state, Hitlery was lobbied by human rights groups and union leaders to address the Colombian government’s abuse of striking oil workers.  At the same time, the oil company in question, Pacific Rubiales, was promising millions to the Clinton Foundation.  The result?  Hitlery’s State Department wound up publicly hailing Colombia’s commitment to human rights reform, and that statement allowed the United States to continue funding the Colombian military.  And oddly enough, today that the founder of Pacific Rubiales is a board member of the Clinton Foundation.

And then there are the questions regarding a major phosphate company owned by the Moroccan government.  That would be the very same company that recently pledged at least $1 million to the Clinton Foundation.  In 2011, Hitlery’s State Department assailed Morocco as being a corrupt state guilty of “arbitrary arrests and corruption in all branches of government.”  Women in Morocco are still subjugated by Islamic rule and yet, just last September, Hitlery’s public stance on the government seemed to have changed.  She called it, “A vital hub for economic and cultural exchange,” one that was “in the midst of dramatic changes.”  Now we are told that the foundation had supposedly stopped accepting money from foreign governments in 2009, when Hitlery became secretary of state. When she resigned in 2013, the foundation changed this policy, and it has since taken money, by the truck load, from such countries as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Oman.

Now there has recently been much talk about Hitlery’s supposed impressive resume, and about she is the most qualified individual to ever run for president.  Now obviously that’s overstating things quite a bit, but understand the primary source for much of this talk comes from fellow progressives.  But if you’re willing to spend the time, it’s upon closer inspection of that that much lauded resume quickly becomes far less than impressive and even borders on being rather mediocre at best.  Look, we all know that Hitlery served as US senator from New York from 2001 to 2009, but few, I would guess, realize that her ‘accomplishments’ go well beyond being more than a little on the thin side.  The fact is that not a single piece of legislation, of any significance, bears her name. Her tenure came to be defined in the 2008 presidential primaries by her vote for the war in Iraq — which Barry “Almighty”, who had opposed the war, used to chip away at her foreign policy bona fides.

And then there is that time Hitlery spent as secretary of state.  Her accomplishments as secretary of state aren’t exactly legendary by any means.  Granted, she did travel to over 100 countries, but that’s really not an accomplishment.  And again, as with her time as a senator, she has nothing of consequence to her name after having made all of those visits.  There were no peace treaties signed, no accords agreed to, nor summits of any consequence.  Now her defenders will say that she helped restore America’s reputation in the wake of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; critics say she was too afraid to make a mistake that would affect her presidential run in 2016.  When asked in 2014 by Diane Sawyer to name her greatest achievement or “signature doctrine,” Hillary could not.  She said, “We haven’t had a doctrine since containment worked with the Soviet Union, but we’ve had presidents who’ve made some tough calls and some hard choices, some of which have worked, and some of which have not.”

Then, of course, there is what has been the decades-long history where there has been virtually every possible manner of financial chicanery being perpetrated on the part of the Clintons.  Without ever actually breaking any laws, or at least as far is anyone can tell or is willing to admit to, the Clintons have long appeared to be reaping staggering amounts of ill-gotten gains.  For instance, right before ‘Slick Willie’ was elected governor of Arkansas, family friend James Blair, who also worked as a lawyer for Tyson Foods, helped Hitlery turn $12,000 worth of stock, Hitlery only had $1,000 in her account at the time, into a near-immediate $100,000 profit.  She chose not to disclose that little tidbit of information until her husband’s second year in office.  You see, because like most Democrats, the rules that the rest of us must obey or face some pretty significant consequences are not intended for the Clintons.  They simply see themselves as being so very far above all that petty nonsense.

And it was during ‘Slick Willie’s’ first run for president, back in 1992, that the Whitewater scandal first surfaced.  In the 1970s and ’80s, the Clintons and their friends Jim and Susan McDougal had invested in the Whitewater Development Corp.; it was alleged that ‘Slick Willie’, as governor, had pressured a local S&L to loan Susan McDougal $300,000 for real estate investments with the company, and that transactions between an Arkansas bank and ‘Slick Willie’ Clinton had been concealed.  Neither Clinton was ever charged, although both McDougals and Gov. Jim Guy Tucker, who served as governor after ‘Slick Willie’, were convicted of fraud.  So once again we see how it is that Hitlery and her rapist husband seem to be above the law and are never made to face the same consequences that any of us would be made to face.

And after watching her for the last 20+ years Hitlery has demonstrated time and again that she has little competition when it comes to her possessing a rather spectacular level of greed.  And what I view as being more than just a little ironic is how it is that Hitlery continues the attempt to portray herself as somehow being the champion of the middle class.  And it’s all nothing more than a complete farce.  Anyone who can take that claim as having any basis in truth, is nothing short of a complete imbecile.  Because it was in 2014, that it was revealed that Clinton, who charges a minimum of $300,000 per speech, also had an extensive list of demands.  Most anyone who hires Hitlery to speak must also provide her with a private jet — a $39 million Gulfstream G450 or better — and put her up in presidential suites.  Her standard agreement requires her presence for only 90 minutes, and 50 photos with 100 attendees — no more.

Hitlery has defended her enormous speaking fees by actually claiming, and with a straight face no less, that she and ‘Slick Willie’ were “not only dead broke, but in debt” when they left the White House.  And yet, in 1999, ‘Slick Willie’ and Hitlery managed to buy their house in Chappaqua for $1.7 million, and in 2000 purchased a seven-bedroom in Washington, DC, for $2.85 million. Hitlery’s Senate financial disclosure form that year listed their assets at $1.8 million. In Clintonian fashion, Hitlery backed off the “dead broke” statement, sort of. She said, “I regret it. It was inartful.”  She added, “But it was accurate.”  Now I don’t know about you, but it would seem to me that Hitlery’s definition of being ‘dead broke’ must be more than a bit different from the generally accepted definition.  When I’m dead broke I can’t pay my utility bill let alone go out and buy a house.

And then, of course, there were all those many other women.  One of the great lessons of 2008, say Hitlery’s aides, is that she has learned to run toward history, not from it: Instead of downplaying her gender, she’ll amplify it, running not just as the potential first female president but as a proud feminist. If so, she may create a new problem for herself: How to explain her decades-long defense of her womanizing husband — a philanderer at best, a predator, or even rapist, at worst?  But hey, that was all a false narrative created by that mysterious vast right-wing conspiracy, remember?  In 2014, the papers of Hitlery’s late friend Diane Blair were made public; in them, Blair wrote that Hitlery dismissed Monica Lewinksy, then a 22-year-old White House intern, as a “narcissistic loony-toon” and insisted that ‘Slick Willie’ had not abused his power.  There’s a narcissistic loony-toon here, but it ain’t Ms. Lewinsky.

As for Bill’s many other women — including Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey, who alleged sexual harassment, and Juanita Broaddrick, who accused him of rape — the Clintons often embarked on a “nuts and sluts” campaign, denigrating the accusers. According to Carl Bernstein’s “A Woman in Charge,” Hillary called ‘Slick Willie’s’ longtime mistress Gennifer Flowers “trailer trash”; she also encouraged his team to get signed statements from all of ‘Slick Willie’s’ many other women, swearing they’d never had sex with him. Willey later said that Hillary spearheaded a “terror campaign” against her. “She is the war on women, as far as I’m concerned,” Willey said.

And last, but hardly least, are Hitlery’s many ‘secret’ emails.  In March, we learned that during her four-year stint as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton conducted all business — political, public and private — solely through her personal email account, on a server in her house. When asked why she didn’t use two emails, one for official business and one for personal use, Hillary said: “I thought it would be easier to just carry one device for my work and for my personal emails instead of two.”  Then an email surfaced that was sent from her iPad, undermining that excuse.  In a press conference to address the controversy, Hitlery answered questions with all-too-familiar arrogance, contempt and incredulity that her word should be questioned.  One Democrat said, “She came off as defensive and artificially put-off.”  Yet another said, “I’m a huge Hillary Clinton fan.  But after that press conference, I do have major concerns about her ability as a campaigner and to get elected.”

Look folks, let’s face it.  The reality of it is that Hitlery could be found guilty of murder and the vast majority of Democrats could still find in their heart to vote for her.  Because with Democrats it’s never about the country, it’s only, and always, about them.  And in that regard Hitlery, I suppose, just like with Barry before her, is the ideal Democrat candidate because, to be perfectly honest and more than a little blunt, Hitlery is all about Hitlery.  Democrats don’t seem to put the same level of importance on being free that the rest of us do.  And Democrats have little or no trouble relinquishing their freedom to the government as long as there’s a check in it for them.  After all, no one is making them work, all they have to do is to become a little more dependent on government, and therefore a little less free.  And really, what’s the harm in that?  Well I’ll tell ya what the harm is, it’s that I become a little less free in the process!