We’re told that at a time when the Republican National Committee has a war chest of $20 million on hand it’s at the same time that the Democratic National Committee is sinking deeper into the hole as little cash is coming in while the party’s debts continue to rise.  And in what I can only guess is an attempt by RNC Chairman Reince Priebus to create the impression that the Republican Party is much better positioned than it likely is, it was in a recent press release that he said, “With just under a year until Election Day 2016 we’re seeing great enthusiasm for the GOP.”

The RNC announced last week that it brought in a total of $8.7 million in October, setting a record for fundraising during an off year for presidential races, and according to the Center for Responsive Politics, the party has raised $89.3 million during this election cycle. It has more than $20 million in cash on hand, and owes $1.8 million.  The DNC, however, has raised a total of $53.2 million, and has just $4.7 million in cash in hand, but $6.9 million in debts it owes. In October alone, the DNC raised just under $4.5 million, but spent $5.2 million.

The issue, or so it is hoped by many on the right, may hinder, at least to some degree, the Democrats’ push to reclaim the House and Senate and win the presidential race.  And it was Republican strategist Ron Bonjean who told Fox that the numbers show the DNC “simply can’t get its act together,” and most likely Democrats will have to start relying on outside sources, rather than their own party’s committee.  But when it comes to those outside sources, the Democrats are much better positioned than are the Republicans.  Something Mr. Priebus doesn’t talk about much.

You see, the Democrat Party has quite the impressive string of billionaires in its corner who, I’m quite sure, would be more than willing, even eager, to more than make up for any potential deficit or cover any debt, come the 2016 election.  Democrats spend much time talking about those evil billionaires to contribute to Republican causes, making it sound as if they are somehow at a disadvantage. However, nothing could be further from the truth because the available money on the left dwarfs whatever funds are to be found on the right.

Just a few of the many BILLIONAIRE DEMOCRATS include:

George Soros:  (Net worth – $23 Billion)

Mike Bloomberg: (Net worth – $37 Billion)

Warren Buffett:  (Net worth – $67 Billion)

Bill Gates:  (Net worth – $79 Billion)

Tom Steyer: Net worth – $2 Billion)

Dennis Washington: (Net Worth – $6 Billion)

Carlos Slim Helu:  (Net worth – $60 Billion)

Daniel Abraham: (Net worth – $2 Billion)

Charles Ergen: (Net worth – $17 Billion)

Charles Kushner: (Net worth – $10 Billion)

Look, I could go on here, but, really, what’s the point.  And then when you add to this very impressive list, dollar-wise, all of the left-leaning billionaires and millionaires in the entertainment business, the amount of money that can be amassed by Democrats can seem to be nearly insurmountable.  So when I hear Mr. Priebus running around blowing his own horn, I have to laugh.  Because the fact that the RNC may have more money than does the DNC, means nothing and is not a reliable benchmark when trying to gage genuine party enthusiasm regarding the 2016 election.

Comparing such numbers really accomplishes little more than to simply point out which organization has more money at any particular point in time.  You can’t, or at least you shouldn’t, use it as some sort of bellwether of future events, especially an event as important, or event critical, as the 2016 election.  Republicans should not assume that they are in a better position than they really are to achieve victory.  To do so is beyond foolhardy.  And Mr. Priebus does a bit of a disservice by placing way too much importance on something so insignificant.


obama 135

Well it would seem that Barry “Almighty”, our ‘Dear Beloved Leader, has now issued a rather stern warning to those whom I’m sure he views as being the insubordinate governors of those states who have dared to disobey ‘The One’ by having declared their opposition to taking in Barry’s most favored Syrian refugees.  The warning was issued just this past Wednesday and came in the form of a letter which informed the aforementioned governors that they must cease and desist in their opposition as they do not have legal authority to refuse accepting these refugees into their states.  And apparently if they choose to continue with their refusal, they may be subject to enforcement action.  Enforcement action?

This letter originated from bureaucratic enclave referred to as the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), which, to me, kinda sounds like something you’d be likely to read about when reading something like  George Orwell’s ‘1984’ or something similar.  But anyway, I digress.  Now this letter apparently dictated to the respective state resettlement officials, and apparently in no uncertain terms, that they are not permitted to deny benefits or to refuse services to ANY refugees based on their country of origin or religion.  And they are to allow into their states anyone deemed appropriate by Barry “Almighty” and with no questions being asked.  Period!  End of freakin’ story!

And it was this letter that said, “Accordingly, states may not categorically deny ORR-funded benefits and services to Syrian refugees.”  And it then went on to say, “Any state with such a policy would not be in compliance with the State Plan requirements, applicable statutes, and their own assurances, and could be subject to enforcement action, including suspension and termination.”  It also went on to say that the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on race and national origin in all programs that receive federal financial assistance.  And it said, “Thus, it is not permissible to deny federally funded benefits such as Medicaid or TANF to refugees who otherwise meet the eligibility requirements.”

What apparently prompted this letter was that more than two dozen governors, most of which are Republicans, big surprise there, announced that they had had enough of Barry’s refugee bullshit and would be resisting any and all efforts to resettle Syrian refugees in their states in light of the November 13 terrorist attacks in Paris, and fears that ISIS militants could use the controversial resettlement program to infiltrate the U.S.  Which I might add sounds like a very rational and responsible position to take especially when we all now that this terrorist group has stated numerous times that it fully intends on doing just that.  So just how reckless is it to risk the allowing of this Muslim vermin, this scum to enter into our country?

And I know there has been all kinds of talk about how, in the House, lawmakers were able to overwhelmingly approve a bill just last week the purpose of which was to supposedly improve the screening process for Iraqi and Syrian refugees.  And while we’re told that the bill requires comprehensive background checks of every refugee from Iraq or Syria before they can be admitted into the United States and for each refugee to be certified that they do not pose a threat, I’m less than confident that it does any of that.  Because the real story here is that this bill does absolutely nothing to reduce the flow of these refugees, hence the only reason that there were so many Democrats who decided to vote for it.

Barry and his illustrious team of anti-America zealots continue to their claim that the vetting process is already very rigorous.  They claim that it is very thorough and can actually take up to two years to complete.  But meanwhile, these people are able to remain in our country.  And the ORR continued with its claim that Syrian refugees are subject to even more precautions than are other refugees, going to far as to call it “a multi-layered and intensive screening and vetting process involving multiple law enforcement, national security, and intelligence agencies across the Federal Government.”  But that’s really all nothing more than bullshit because, as we know, the FBI has already made clear that such is not the case.

And really, even though there is really nothing funny about our current Barry-instigated refugee crisis, those reading this idiotic letter must have had a difficult time maintaining a straight face while reading it. Because it was, in referencing Barry’s rigorous screening process that, this letter said: “It is the most robust screening process for any category of individuals seeking admissions into the United States, and it is only after admission that ORR and our partners in resettlement begin our work.”  But like everything else we have always heard, and continue to hear, from this gang of thugs, it’s all smoke and mirrors based on one lie being told after another.  These people, including Barry, are incapable of telling the truth!

Republicans, and with good reason, reacted rather angrily to the letter, with House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte calling Barry’s stance “hypocritical.”  Goodlatte, said in a statement, “While the United States has the most generous refugee system in the world, the American people are rightly concerned about admitting Syrian refugees and the impact it would have on the safety of their families and neighbors.”  He said, “In light of these concerns, the majority of state governors have taken positions that reflect the views of their residents. It’s hypocritical for Barry to continue to threaten enforcement action against these states when they refuse to enforce the vast majority of our immigration laws, such as cracking down on sanctuary cities that openly defy federal law and endanger the American people.”

Roughly 2,200 Syrian refugees have been allowed into this country over the last four years.  And now Barry has outlined his goal of bringing 10,000 more Syrian refugees to the U.S. during the current budget year.  But that’s merely the tip of the iceberg as Barry’s open-door policy is set to accept more immigrants from Muslim nations over the next five years than the entire population of Washington, D.C.  Keep in mind here that Barry has already issued 680,000 green cards to immigrants from Muslim nations over the past five years and unless Congress changes his policy, like that’s going to happen, that number will be repeated in the next five years.  This nonsense has got to be stopped, and if those in Congress refuse, the options that remain are few.

Each of these Muslim refugees costs the U.S. taxpayer, at a minimum, around $60,000 just to settle them here and then there are all of the incidentals that come along with that. And have you bothered to ask yourself why is it that these people are not being taken in by those Muslim countries that are right there in their local neighborhood?  Now I don’t mean to sound like some conspiracy nut, but think about it.  How much sense does it make to bring these people halfway around the world to a country that is so completely foreign to their way of life?  I mean, is that making sense to anyone?  To my way of thinking there is likely to be something far more sinister at work here.  I’ve also read that George Soros is somehow involved in this mess.

And to be perfectly blunt here, besides the risk that there are likely to be terrorists embedded within this mass of refugees, the truth is that we simply cannot afford to take in all of these refugees, the money just simply isn’t there.  Because thanks to Barry, we’re now BROKE!  And too, we should be working to deport every on of those refugees already here, especially when we’re also being forced to absorb, also at Barry’s command, the millions of illegal immigrants who continue to flood across our southern border unabated.  And the bigger problem with the middle easterners is that they are going to be bringing the cult of Islam. And of allowed to do so they will come to grow in number to that the threat the pose will only grow.

And you know, when you get right down to the nitty-gritty of it all, it should be painfully obvious to everyone with a brain that what Barry is really trying his best to accomplish here is nothing more than to collapse our entire financial system.  And so his ongoing effort to spend all this money on all of these to ‘Syrian’ refugees is really seen as being nothing more than just another avenue to help him get to that goal. He is desperate to achieve that goal prior to his leaving office.  And as Barry has threatened on more than one occasion he intends to stick around Washington after leaving office just ‘to make sure his policies aren’t changed’.  Is he thinking that Trump or Cruz might invite him by to discuss policy over coffee?

I think we all fully realize that Barry is determined to do as much damage as he possibly can before finally leaving office. The next president is going to have one helluva mess to clean up, but if it’s Hitlery, the mess will most certainly only be made worse. I mean after all, she does hold the same position as Barry on most of the important issues of the day.  And as the Democrats continue to yell and scream about how Republicans don’t care about the poor, it’s at the same time that they insist that we flood the country with a couple hundred thousand new refugees and demand that we throw open our border as wide as possible to anyone from south of the border who wants to break in and live off our benefits.


Climate Change 20

According to a new Fox News poll it’s only 3 percent of Americans who now believe the propaganda spewed by Barry “Almighty”, John Kerry-Heinz, Hitlery Clinton, and any number of others, about how it’s 97 percent of scientists that agree it’s humans who are to blame for global warming.  More importantly it’s 97 percent of Americans who apparently don’t seem to care about the issue when stacked up against those issues seen as being far more pressing such as terrorism and the economy.

A November Fox News poll questioned more than 1,000 registered voters and what they found was that only 3 percent of those who took part in the poll listed “climate change” as being the most important issue facing the country today.  And that number was actually down from 5 percent in August. Americans now say that they are far more worried about such things as the growing threat of terrorism, the economy and immigration than they are about global warming or ‘climate change’.

And oddly enough, even among Democrats the concern over man-made global warming remains very low.  Again according to this same Fox poll it was only 6 percent of Democrats who chose to list global warming/’climate change’ as being their top concern, compared to just 1 percent of Republicans.  And for some reason it seems that men were slightly more likely than women to list global warming as their top concern, and whites were more likely than blacks to worry about warming.

And I’m sure it’s a just a coincidence that Fox released its poll just as Barry was preparing to meet with more than 140 other world ‘leaders’ in Paris next week for what’s being billed as a United Nations climate summit.  He desperately wants countries to sign onto a global agreement to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and make up for his foreign policy failure at Copenhagen in 2009 when he was blamed for not showing up with a commitment for getting the US economy off fossil fuels.

Even though the ‘climate change’ hard sell that has been intensified during Barry’s tenure as president, his climate agenda has yet to gained any substantial traction with Americans despite increased efforts to tie global warming to extreme weather, public health concerns, national security and just about anything else Barry and his trusty sidekick, John Kerry Heinz can think of.  It seems that no matter what the calamity there is always an effort made to somehow connect it to global warming.

That well-known Democrat sugar-daddy, and environmentalist wacko, Tom Steyer spent $73 million during the 2014 election cycle backing liberal candidates and the attempt to make global warming a top tier issue in campaigns.  But unfortunately for Mr. Steyer, and fortunately for the rest of us, the spending of all that money accomplished little more than to put a bit of a dent in Mr. Steyer’s bank account.  Now admittedly it was a very small dent, but it was a dent nonetheless.

Steyer, who is a hedge fund billionaire, has vowed to dump money into getting candidates to talk more about global warming. Steyer held a fundraiser earlier this year for Hitlery Clinton, who later released a plan to build half a billion solar panels by the end of her first term.  However, the Australian renewable energy company ENErgy, in response to Clinton’s plan, says that 500 million new solar panels will only increase pollution, claiming they will actually add emissions due to needed backup.

But apparently it’s not only those on the left who are so fixated on the global warming issue.  It is clearly a bipartisan issue as Republican donor Jay Faison, a North Carolina businessman, has chosen to join Mr. Steyer, as he has now pledged to spend big in what is an effort to make global warming a top-tier political issue. And Faison’s money may have already convinced New Hampshire RINO Kelly Ayotte to support federal regulations limiting carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.

Faison donated $5,400 to Ayotte’s campaign in June, and in exchange for such a paltry sum Ms. Ayotte was only too happy to change her position regarding these regulations.  Faison also gave $500,000 to a super PAC called Granite State Solutions, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That PAC could be used to defend Ayotte and other New Hampshire Republican candidates during the 2016 election cycle.  So apparently Ms. Ayotte can very easily be bought, if the price is right.

And then in what was very clearly nothing more than an attempt to justify her change in position, Ms. Ayotte said in a statement that was released just last month: “After carefully reviewing this plan and talking with members of our business community, environmental groups, and other stakeholders, I have decided to support the Clean Power Plan to address climate change through clean energy solutions that will protect our environment.”  So Ms. Ayotte proves that her RINO moniker is very well deserved.

So clearly the ongoing rhetoric about how global warming is the next manmade apocalypse to be faced by mankind continues to be bipartisan in nature.  And once again it will be left to the American people to make sure that they do not fall victim to that which is to very clearly nothing more than a scam.  One being perpetrated not only by those on the left, but from many on the political right as well.  We can never trust at face value anything that any of these people tell us, we can trust only after we verify.



I thank my lucky stars every single day that I was fortunate to have been able to retire from the U.S. Navy before having to be subjected to serving under Barry “Almighty” as my Commander-in-Chief.  What I have seen taking place since his having assumed that role is primarily the promotion of those who are essentially nothing more than ‘Barry yes-men’ into positions that they are far from qualified to hold.  And it is because of that that Barry has been quite successful in further transitioning our military from a fighting force and into something that is not much more than a social experiment.

Which brings me to retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling, who after having retired from the military found a new position as a ‘military analyst’ over there at the Communist News Network, aka CNN.  Hertling recently criticized Trump on “CNN Newsroom With Carol Costello” where he called Trump’s strategy to “bomb the shit out of” ISIS, is “not only immoral but illegal,” and said it would lead to “mass resignations” across the military.  I would argue that if many of today’s top brass were to resign that that might actually be a good thing.  If Trump does win I would suggest that he weed out many of those who Barry promoted.

Anyway the General went on to say, “I’m trying to remain apolitical in this, but it’s increasingly difficult to do that when you hear these kind of statements of individuals who have not been there, who don’t know more than the generals do, and in many cases, don’t know more than the privates do.”  When he says that he’s trying to remain apolitical I have to chuckle.  Because if he’s affiliated himself with CNN, he wasn’t hired on to be apolitical.  So whatever opinions this guy may have about Trump, or any of the other Republicans for that matter, should already be considered as being more than just a little tainted.

So it was a couple of weeks ago now that Trump said, “I know more ISIS than the generals do, believe me. I would bomb the shit out of them. I would just bomb those suckers. And, that’s right, I’d blow up the pipes. I’d blow up the refineries. I’d blow up every single inch. There would be nothing left. And you know what? You’ll get Exxon to come in there, and in two months — have you ever seen these guys how good they are, the great oil companies? They’ll rebuild that sucker brand new. It’ll be beautiful. And I’d ring it, and I’d take the oil.”  But  Hertling suggested Trump “might want to take a visit to Iraq or some of the combat areas and see how things work on the ground. It’s now getting into the scary category.”

Hertling went on to say, “He is talking about things that he knows very little about. It’s not only a little bit scary, but it’s also dangerous, and it’s also immoral. You just don’t do that. Americans don’t fight wars by carpet-bombing nations.”  And he added, “And I think if he were on the ground in Iraq or Syria, and he would see the population that is in dire fear of ISIS and how they are intermingling with the population, I think he would have a better perspective. I think it might also be interesting to get him into that country when other organizations like Mobil or Exxon have attempted to try and repair some of the oil works.”

And in sounding more like he was trying to make excuses for Barry’s ineptitude or his arrogance, Hertling said, “I’d remind folks that less than one percent of the American population has served in the military.”  And he continued by saying, “And even a fewer percentage of the population has served in these kind of areas, so you just don’t know what it’s like. When other countries are under conflict, under siege like this, it’s hard, extremely hard, to re-establish both their economic and their industrial capacity once they are bombed.”  I guess I’m not sure what point it was that the general was trying to make here.

Costello asked Hertling what he would do if Trump came to him with this strategy.  To which CNN’s resident general responded, “I would react by first of all trying to inform him of the laws of land warfare and Geneva Conventions that are involved in this and how it’s not only immoral but illegal to do that.”  He continued, “I would not be a partner to these kind of things, because it would put me as a commander before the Hague Courts. And if he persisted in saying ‘bomb it,’ I think what you would eventually have in the military across the board is mass resignations. And that’s a tough stance to take, Carol, but truthfully, that’s what would occur.”

As I said earlier, it’s my impression, that today many of those currently in the upper echelons of military command are either nothing more than straight-up ‘Barry yes-men’, simply agreeing with whatever he says, or are those who, out of fear of retribution through demotion or forced retirement, are afraid to do what they know is right to keep our country safe.  And if any of these individuals were to feel it necessary to resign, then maybe they should.  And while I fully understand that one must obey one’s superiors, having said that, one has also taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution against ALL enemies foreign and domestic.


obama 133

I’m sure we all remember that catchy little phrase from back in 2008 when Barry was running for president.  What we were being promised back then was plenty of “Hope and Change.”  Sadly there was enough people who bought into what was really nothing more than a bumper-sticker slogan and Barry was able to strut into the Oval Office.  But unfortunately, if we have learned anything over the course of Barry’s presidency, we’ve learned that some ‘Hope’ can be misplaced and that ‘Change’ is not always for the better.

So  unless you happen to be one those who see absolutely nothing wrong with what Barry has done to our country, or are quite comfortable viewing the world through rose colored glasses, or are simply nothing more than your typical rabid leftwing ideologue, I think it’s rather difficult to look at this country, or the world in general, and say with any confidence that either are in better shape today than they were on that day when Barry first assumed office on that very dark day back in January 2009.

Much has been talked about over the course of the last 7 years that makes it pretty much unnecessary to list here all of the damage inflicted upon our nation by Barry during his tenure as president.  Nor is there any real need to list all of the hot spots that have sprung up all across the globe since that same dark day in 2009.  But having said that I think it might be worth mentioning that the worldwide number of annual terrorist deaths has more than quadrupled since Barry was inaugurated in January 2009.

And despite the growing number of conflicts springing up all across the globe, it was as recently as December of last year that, while on yet another one of his many vacations, Barry, in speaking to service members at the Marine Corps Base Hawaii last Christmas, actually said that the world has become much safer in recent years.  I can’t help but wonder if many of those in attendance weren’t left scratching their heads wondering just what the Hell it was that their Commander-in-Chief was talking about.

Because the fact is, deaths from terrorism increased 80 percent last year to an all-time-record of 32,658 people killed, compared to 18,111 in 2013. The number is up about 426 percent from the 7,654 killed by terrorists in 2008 under President Bush. The 2014 economic cost of 13,370 terrorist attacks in 93 countries included property damage, medical costs, lost income for victims, and the indirect costs of preventing and responding to terrorist acts and the estimate costs for those attacks hit an all-time-high of $52.9 billion.

For instance, Boko Haram and Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (ISIL), you know the JV Team, were jointly responsible for 51 percent of all claimed global terrorist fatalities in 2014.  About 57 percent of all the attacks and 78 percent of all the deaths occurred in the five nations of Afghanistan, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan and Syria.  But the number of nations suffering over 500 or more deaths from terrorism increased in 2014 by approximately 120 percent, to 11 countries.

Nigeria experienced the largest increase in terrorist activity with 7,512 deaths in 2014, a jump of over 300 percent over the prior year.  But Iraq continued as the worst place for terrorist attacks in 2014, with 9,929 killed, setting another new all-time-record for a single nation.  The number of countries suffering at least one terrorist fatality spread significantly last year, from 59 in 2013 to 67 in 2014. Advanced Western nations suffering at least one terrorist death included Austria, Australia, Belgium, Canada and France.

And as the Middle East destabilized from 2011 through 2014, global terrorist attacks set a new record each year.  Over the three-year period, the total number of people killed by terrorism was approximately 63,214.  And let’s not forget that it was Dec. 18, 2011, that the last U.S. forces left Iraq, effectively ending an almost nine-year war in the country.  It was two months earlier that Barry had said, “As a candidate for president, I pledged to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end.”  A responsible end?  Hardly!

And it would appear that 2015 year was well on track through mid-June (latest data available) to set another all-time record, with the IntelCenter tracking “5,209 terrorist and rebel incidents” that killed a total of 14,193 people.  The rapidly expanding number of terrorist attacks, nations targeted and civilians killed virtually guarantees that terrorism will continue set new records in the years ahead.  Which will be virtually guaranteed should Hitlery Clinton be elected president, God forbid!

To even the most liberal among us it would seem that if the presidency of Barack Hussein Obama has made anything abundantly clear, it’s the fact that when America does little more than to sit on its hands, the world tends to go to shit, and in pretty short order.  And when you have as president a man who came into office promising to “fundamentally transform the United States of America”, the country will quickly deteriorate on every front: economically, socially, spiritually and morally.  And that is what has now happened, on both counts.


Schumer 05

Yet another warning shot has now been fired across the bow of those of us law abiding citizens who choose to own a gun.  We who desire nothing more than our constitutionally guaranteed right to protect ourselves and our families from those who would wish to do us harm.  At a time when our president has seen fit to release thousands of convicted criminals from prison, allow millions into this country illegally and is now permitting an unknown number of Muslim terrorists in our country, it’s members of his own party who now wish leave the American people so thoroughly vulnerable to a increasing population of potentially violent offenders.

This most recent shot over the bow comes in the form of what is nothing more than a very thinly veiled threat from one of the top-ranking Democrats in the Senate who vowed that his party will “bring a universal background check bill to the floor of the Senate early next year.”  It was none other than ‘Little Chuckie’ Schumer of New York who made this threat last Friday while at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.  He was there, oddly enough, to be honored with the “Sarah Brady Visionary Award,” named after the wife of former President Ronald Reagan’s press secretary Jim Brady, who was shot and left brain-damaged by an attempted Reagan assassin in 1981.

A press release issued by the pro-gun control organization quoted Chuckie’s promise/threat to pursue the legislation, and he referenced 1993’s Brady Act, which mandated federal background checks and imposed a five-day waiting period on gun purchases in the U.S.  Chuckie said, “The Brady Bill proved – proved – that we could do something in this country to make our communities and neighborhoods safer without in any way abridging rights or threatening a legitimate part of the American heritage.”   However, there have been any number of studies that have shown that the Brady Bill has had virtually no impact on the number of gun homicides.

But none of that was enough to keep Chuckie from spewing his standard anti-gun drivel to what was, I’m quite sure, a very friendly crowd.  Chuckie said, “The Brady Bill was step one… but it was always incomplete. We need to close the loopholes that still remain in the background check system and finish the job that Jim and Sarah Brady started so many years ago. If we could do it then, we can do it now…. We are going to bring the universal background check bill to the floor of the Senate, early next year, and with your help we’re going to win!”   Well, with the president cadre of limp-wrists Republicans, Democrats may well succeed here.

And it was in reference to a bill that would ban people who are on the terror watch list from purchasing guns that we heard White House Spokesmoron Josh Earnest, just yesterday, expressed his hope that Americans would discuss the need for gun control over Thanksgiving dinner.  He said, “As people are sitting around the Thanksgiving table talking about these issues — as they should and I’m sure they all will across the country — I hope that is a question that will be raised and asked by members around the table.”  I’m not sure about anyone else, but any discussion about guns that comes up at my table won’t involve any sort of gun control debate.

The new bill to which our esteemed Mr. Earnest alluded is one that many Democrats have now dubbed the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2015.  It would give the U.S. attorney general, you know the very trustworthy Loretta Lynch, the authority to “deny the sale, delivery, or transfer of a firearm or the issuance of a firearms or explosives license or permit to dangerous terrorists.”  And according to several of the bill’s Democratic sponsors, the proposed law would allow the attorney general to deny a criminal background check clearance to any individual whose name appears on the national terror watch list.

The huge problem with this expansive new power is that there are precisely zero statutory criteria for inclusion on this massive list.  In fact, when statutory authority for the centralized government database was first codified into law via the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Congress gave all authority for determining criteria for inclusion in the watch list to unelected, unaccountable government bureaucrats.  So now, if some faceless Beltway bureaucrat decides you might be a terrorist, then guess what, you’re a terrorist.  Needless to say the NRA is wary of such a bill due to what it says are numerous incidences of people being wrongly placed on the list.

And I think it might be worth noting here, that this terrorism watch list already has over one million names on it.  Which does cause me some level of trepidation in light of just how eager the Democrats seem to be in their effort to violate our Constitution. And it’s unlikely that those of us who legally own a gun will get any meaningful assistance from our gutless Republicans in Congress.  And as I have made note of before, more laws are not what’s needed, what’s needed is for the laws currently on the books need to be enforced.  But to do so doesn’t accomplish for the Democrats that which they so desperately want.  A completely unarmed American public.



Bernie Sanders who, believe it or not, is actually a 2016 Democrat presidential candidate for president, is also actually one of those people who still believes that global warming represents the greatest threat to America’s national security, rehashing the stance taken by any number of Democrat politicians in recent years as part of an ongoing effort to perpetuate the myth that carbon dioxide emissions are somehow much more dangerous to this country than are the Muslim terrorists who are quite intent upon killing anyone who refuses to take part in their violent and perverted little cult.  Even though I don’t seem recall a single instance where it’s been climate change that’s blown up anyone sitting in a café.

So it was then on the day after the last Democrat ‘debate’, and I use the term loosely, that we saw Bernie go on CBS’ ‘Face the Nation and essentially double-down on the rather idiotic remarks that he had made just the night before.  Bernie said, “If we are going to see an increase in drought, in flood, and extreme weather disturbances as a result of climate change, what that means is that people all over the world are going to be fighting over limited natural resources.”  How is it that any rational thinking human being, Republican or Democrat, could hear such drivel and remain of the opinion that the person who uttered it should be considered as being a viable candidate for president?

And, apparently, old Bernie was nowhere near being finished, having much more to say on the topic to anyone willing to listen.  Because he continued on with his juvenile little rant saying, “If there is not enough water, if there is not enough land to grow your crops, then you’re going to see migrations of people fighting over land that will sustain them. And that will lead to international conflict.”  But to be fair to Bernie, he’s far from being the only liberal politician, nor the only Democrat candidate, to try to make the cockamamie connection between terrorism and the climate.  Sanders’ primary opponents Hitlery Clinton and Marty O’Malley have also repeated this very same insane argument.

Even Barry “Almighty” himself has said on any number of occasions how it is that global warming is the U.S.’s greatest national security threat.  And it was in a speech back in October that John Kerry Heinz, a longtime advocate of ‘climate change’, said, “It is not a coincidence that immediately prior to the civil war in Syria, the country experienced the worst drought on record.”  And while all of these losers acknowledge “terrorism is a major issue that we’ve got to address today,” they still name carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels represent the greatest long-term threat to Americans.  And you have to ask yourself, what does it say about the voters in this country that we now have these corrupt imbeciles in their current positions?

And it was during the same previously mentioned Democrat ‘debate’ that also heard Sanders also say, “In fact, climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism.” He went on to say, “And if we do not get our act together and listen to what the scientists say you’re gonna see countries all over the world– this is what the C.I.A. says, they’re gonna be struggling over limited amounts of water, limited amounts of land to grow their crops. And you’re gonna see all kinds of international conflict.”  And yet those in our state-controlled media can hear such nonsense and can continue to feel justified in calling into question the legitimacy of Republican candidates?  Nope, no bias here.

But seriously folks, how can it be intelligently argued that global warming is actually what’s driving Islamic terrorism?  And to simply bolster support for a U.N. climate treaty misses the point entirely of whether global warming is a driver of violent conflict.  And yet it was the liberal rag, ‘Time’ magazine that recently came rushing to Sanders’ defense, arguing that “many academics and national security experts agree that climate change contributes to an uncertain world where terrorism can thrive.” And it was Time’s Justin Worland who went so far as to point to a 2014 Defense Department report and another study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences earlier this year to bolster such claims.

This guy Worland made clear his political affiliation when he wrote, “The worst drought on record in the Middle Eastern country has created instability for farmers and threatened the food supply.” And he also went on to write, “At the same time, the government has struggled to hold on to power across the country in the face of militant groups and millions of Syrians have fled their homeland.”  If anything, this guy proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that he, just like most of those who so proudly identify themselves as journalists today, is far from being an actual journalist and is nothing more than an shill for the Democrat Party.  I’d be willing to be that a good many ‘journalists’ are actually on the payroll of the DNC.

Look, even the bona fide experts say that it remains very much unclear if global warming actually has had any detectable impact on Syria’s climate in the run-up to the start of the civil war in 2011.  Syria has a very long history of droughts, and poor government agricultural policies encouraged farmers to grow cotton and other water-intensive cash crops — despite the country’s drought-ridden past.  But it would seem that none of that makes any difference to our climate change alarmists who really come across as nothing more than desperate as they try to attach global warming to every new global calamity that presents itself, no matter how ridiculous.

Chip Knappenberger and Patrick Michaels, climate scientists at the libertarian Cato Institute, wrote back in March: “It is not until you dig pretty deep into the technical scientific literature, that you find out that the anthropogenic climate change impact on drought conditions in the Fertile Crescent is extremely minimal and tenuous—so much so that it is debatable as to whether it is detectable at all.”  They also wrote: Drought “conditions which are part and parcel of the region climate and the intensity and frequency of which remain dominated by natural variability, even in this era of increasing greenhouse gas emissions from human activities.”

While a drought no doubt made things worse for Syrians, contributing to rising tensions, the cause of conflicts almost always stem from politics and not environmental causes. National security expert Jeff Kueter with the George C. Marshall Institute wrote in a 2014 paper that “[p]olitical and economic factors prove to be much better and more compelling explanations for men to fight other men.”  Claims that global warming will drive more violent conflict also hinges on the argument that warming will cause extreme weather events, like droughts, to become more frequent and intense.  But that doesn’t seem to be occurring like climate models predicted.

And according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a scientific intergovernmental body that operates under the auspices of the United Nations, and was set up at the request of member governments and was established in 1988, found in its latest major report there’s no strong evidence extreme weather is getting more frequent or extreme. The IPCC said “there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness since the middle of the 20th century due to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice.”

Look, what this all boils down to is an interesting little fact that was brought to light by a recent Fox News poll. You see, it was in that poll that 24 percent of those taking part identified terrorism as being their primary issue regarding the next election while only 3 percent said they were most worried about climate change.  So might that be why Democrats are working so hard to make a connection between the two?  There seems to very little that can occur in this world that Democrats don’t see as being somehow associated with climate change, no matter how remotely that association might be.  Today’s Democrats are nothing more than real life ‘Chicken Littles.’  And as the election get closer the rhetoric will only get more intense.


Blacks 06

Is it just me or am I missing the point when it comes to polls taken that do nothing more than to state what’s obvious to nearly all of us?  I mean, really, why waste the time, effort and expense it takes to conduct one of these polls when you already have a pretty good idea about what the outcome is going to be.  Unless, of course, you’re trying to conduct it such a way as to create a false impression as part of some attempt to manipulate public opinion regarding a favorite issue.

Anyway, what causes me to even bring any of this up is the fact that there is apparently a new poll out that shows there is a large number of Americans who now believe discrimination against whites has become as much of a problem as it is against blacks and other minorities.  Now I do view reverse discrimination as being a problem.  Especially when I see my daughter having to take out all kinds of college loans because she’s white, while if she was black college would likely be free.

And while I’ll admit that I don’t feel personally discriminated against, I most definitely do feel that I am, and pretty regularly, on the receiving end of some intense racism from both blacks AND Hispanics.  Which is kinda odd when you stop and think about it, because I’m one of those lucky ones who has to work to cover the cost of the government handing out all of that ‘free’ money to these people every single month.  And they have the nerve to look at me like they do?

So it’s according to this poll that was released earlier this week, on Wednesday, that was conducted by some organization that calls itself the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) that we find out that 43 percent of Americans now think discrimination is just as big a problem for Whites as it is for Blacks. The PRRI American Values Survey also broke the data down further into racial and political demographics that show the disparity between responses.

The reports reads, “Half (50%) of white Americans agree that discrimination against whites has become as big a problem today as discrimination against blacks and other minorities, while fewer than three in ten Hispanic (29%) and black Americans (25%) agree.”  Come on, do you really think that those who view whites as being racially prejudiced would think whites are discriminated against?  And what sticks in my craw is that whites are made to pick up the tab for blacks as they go through life.

And of course opinions also follow pretty closely along party lines.  It’s according to this poll that 64 percent of Republicans believe whites face as much discrimination as blacks, while only 28 percent of Democrats agreed.  Let’s face it, there’s no real surprise here either.  After all, which party is it that provides most of those in the workforce and which party is it that provides the lion’s share of those who sit around every day watching Jerry Springer, Maury Povich or The View?

Respondents were about as equally divided when asked if there have been enough changes made to give equal rights to both blacks and whites. Just under half of Americans say all of the needed changes have been made to give blacks equal rights with whites, while 47 percent say more changes needed to be made.  Ok, so what more does anyone think really needs to be done?  What is it that blacks, or Hispanics, feel they are entitled to that they’re not already getting?

Nearly nine in 10 blacks make the claim that there is a lot of discrimination against blacks, while just six in 10 white Americans say the same.  Unlike other groups, though, white Americans were not more likely to say that whites face a lot of discrimination.  Just 27 percent of white people said they face a lot of discrimination.  And as I said, I would agree that whites may not face much discrimination, on a personal level, but they are forced to contend with a great deal of very overt racism.

And look, anyone who needs a poll to be pointing this out to them, is very obviously someone who voted for Barry “Almighty’ not once, but twice!   And it’s racism here that I think is the much bigger issue, and when it comes to being racist, whites can’t hold a candle to the level of racism exhibited by most blacks.  These people are the most racist individuals that you will find anywhere on the entire planet!  And they are also some of the most paranoid and insecure people you’ll ever meet!

And it’s at the same time that they exhibit such racist behavior that blacks love to continue the myth that it’s somehow impossible for them, as a people, to even be racist.  Blacks do their best to float a definition of racism that allows them to make the claim that they simply can’t be racist because they hold none of the power.  But most blacks hate whites, that’s simply a fact of life.  And isn’t hate a form of racism when the specific reason you hate someone is because they’re of a different color?



Ya know, there are days that I wake up wishing I could go through life as a Democrat.  That I could be one of those people who really don’t give a shit about their country’s rich history and how it has made, at least up until Barry came along, the world a much better place simply by existing.  And there are even those days that I wake up and vow to watch nothing but MSNBC or CNN in an attempt to be as clueless as Democrats are about what’s going on in the world around me.  I wish I could listen to our president and accept without question every single thing he tells me.  I’m pretty sure I’d sleep much better at night.  And I wish I could look into the eyes of my daughter and say, “Sorry hon, you’re screwed.  You’re going to get stuck paying for everything.”  And I wish I could know what was coming and not be the least bit worried about the future my daughter will likely be made to endure as an adult.

But try as I might, being a Democrat simply isn’t in me.  Because if there’s one thing I learned growing up, it’s that life isn’t fair, not by a long shot.  Our lives are what we choose to make of them.  Oh sure, we all get a little help along the way, but we still need to choose to take advantage of the help provided, otherwise it’s not really help.  We are, after all, the product of the choices that we make as we travel through life.  Bad choices lead to bad outcomes, outcomes which are no one’s fault but our own.  And yet, there are those who somehow think that others should be made responsible for their inability to choose wisely.  Life is short, and I don’t care what they say, you only get to go around once, and you will reap only what you sow.  But some are never able to quite grasp that concept, instead feeding into the nonsense that it must always be someone else’s fault when one is unable to succeed in life.

And where self-reliance was once something that we took great pains to teach to our young, such a notion now seems to have long ago become obsolete, much to the detriment of our younger generation’s ability to thrive and to prosper.  And it is a direct result of that lack of instruction that today we now have far too many people far too dependent upon their government, and that is never a good thing.  And where we, the current generation, should be setting the example, more often than not we do little more than to provide credence to the notion that being dependent upon the government isn’t necessarily a bad thing.  We seem to be intent upon raising an entire generation of whiners and complainers instead of a generation of doers.  And how wonderful it must be, don’t you think, to go through life with all of your bad decisions always being someone else’s fault.  And to never be responsible for anything.

But with all that being said, I must admit that it has become increasingly difficult, especially over the course of the last seven years, to simply kick our young out of the nest especially since the overall condition of the cold cruel world is essentially our fault. That being because of our rabid insistence to continually elect and then re-elect those politicians who have not the slightest interest in getting our country headed back into the right direction.  So, I will continue to lose sleep over what continues to be the worsening condition of our country, hoping that somewhere along the line more of my fellow countrymen will come to realize where it is we now seem to be headed.  But I fear that by the time that happens, if it ever happens, it may well be too late, if it isn’t too late already.  Barry still has nearly 17 months to wreak as much havoc as he possibly can, and I’m quite sure he will waste not a single second.


Gun Control 09

So, what’s going to be Barry’s top agenda item as he heads into what will be, thankfully, his final year in office?  Will it be to finally address properly the threat posed by ISIS so that the next president won’t be forced to deal with it?  Or will it be to try to calm the racial tension in this country that he has worked hard to incite?  Or might it be to take one last for-real crack at actually reducing the nation’s debt?  Or how about this?  How about working to get folks off the government dole, and into decent paying, ‘fulltime’ jobs?  Or will he make an attempt to extinguish any of the fires now blazing across the globe that he has played at least some role in starting?

Sorry, if you said any of those things, you’d not only be wrong, you’d be dead wrong! Because what Barry views as being his primary mission in life for the next year, besides bogus climate change of course, is to do all that he can to drastically reduce the number of Americans who own guns.  Yup, Barry wants to make gun control the top priority of his final year in office, because he say that while Americans aren’t more violent than other people, they do “have more deadly weapons to act out their rage.”  It was in a recent interview published in GQ magazine that Barry said easy access to guns is “the only variable” between the U.S. and other developed countries.

Barry said, “The main thing that I’ve been trying to communicate over the last several of these horrific episodes is that, contrary to popular belief, Americans are not more violent than people in other developed countries.”  He said, “But they have more deadly weapons to act out their rage.”  And when asked by interviewer Bill Simmons of HBO if gun control will be the “dominant” issue on his agenda next year, Barry replied, “I hope so.”  He said, “We have this weird habit in this culture of mourning and, you know, 48, 72 hours of wall-to-wall coverage, and then … suddenly we move on.”  He stressed, “And I will do everything I can to make sure that there’s a sustained attention paid to this thing.”

Over the course of recent months Barry has once again begun to more forcefully speak out about the need for stricter gun regulations, following mass shootings at a church in South Carolina and a community college in Oregon. It was in this most recent magazine article that Barry claimed the aftermath of the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre in Connecticut in December 2012 was “the worst few days of my presidency.”  Following that shooting, the administration pushed Congress to enact tighter background checks on gun purchases, but the effort failed in the Senate.  Luckily it was one of those rare occasions where sanity actually ruled the day.

Barry went on to say, “We knew it was a stretch, just because of the politics of Congress and the NRA. But we had to try.”  Barry said, “In the absence of a movement politically in which people say, ‘Enough is enough,’ we’re going to continue to see, unfortunately, these tragedies take place.”  But look, as I have mentioned before, any number of times, if Barry were truly interested in seriously addressing what he has called the problem of gun violence, then there would be a very simply solution.  All Barry would need to do would be to enforce those gun laws already on the books.  The same laws that he essentially allows to go unenforced because of his twisted desire to use the ensuing gun violence as the premise for stricter laws.

This interview was conducted in the White House and apparently sometime back in October. And it was then, in what I’m not quite sure is a good thing or a bad thing, that Barry said in his seventh year in office, he feels “looser” and more confident.  He said, “There’s no doubt that the longer I’m in this job, the more confident I am about the decisions I’m making and more knowledgeable about the responses I can expect.”  And he went on to say, “And as a consequence, you end up being looser. There’s not much I have not seen at this point, and I know what to expect, and I can anticipate more than I did before.”  I don’t know, do we want a Barry who feels, ‘looser?’

And then Barry made a rather odd comment.  He said that when he leaves office, he doesn’t want an appointment to the Supreme Court.  Can you possibly image what it would be like to have this communist turd sitting on the Supreme Court?  For the rest of his life?  Man, if that doesn’t send a cold chill down your spine, your freakin’ dead!  Barry said, “Supreme Court justices, obviously, are hugely important.” And he added, “I don’t have the temperament to sit in relative solitude and just opine and write from the bench. I want to be in the action a little bit more.”  Not sure I really believe that.  That would certainly boost his already monumental ego in the stratosphere.

But anyway, so it is then that during his final year in office Barry’s primary focus will be working to create more laws instead of choosing to enforce the many gun laws already on the books.  In other words, his approach to gun laws is pretty much the same as his approach to our immigration laws.  It’s much easier to claim that the system is broken, than it is to simply enforce current laws,  Besides ,to do nothing more than to simply enforce current laws might create the illusion that there is nothing ‘the government’ can do to stem the supposed increase in gun violence.  And we know about Barry’s fondness for getting the government involved in everything.