There’s an old adage that says, “If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.”  And it’s an adage, I think, that is very applicable when looking over the list of 2016 candidates for president, on both sides.  Being a conservative myself I am far more concerned with those running under the Republican banner than the three socialist stooges we have on the left who actually have the nerve to still refer to themselves as Democrats.  But then I suppose it’s only fair to say that there are a few Republicans, referred to as ‘establishment’ candidates or ‘RINOs’, who also tend to lean a bit too far to the left to be seen as acceptable by most Republican voters.

Personally I find myself facing a bit of a quandary as I try to decide who it is that I will vote for in my state’s primary.  And then there comes the business of deciding whether to vote for the nominee should he, or she, not be who I voted for in the primary.  Decisions, decisions!  Now I will admit that there is currently less than a handful of candidates that I am currently even considering voting for, having disqualified the others some time ago.  And the few that remain, while they tend to say all of the right things, how much of what they say, can one actually believe?  And to think that one can, or should, take what they say at face value, is simply foolish.

As we all know, those who reside on the left, and especially those on the far left, are a rather lazy bunch.  They prove that, repeatedly, by constantly choosing to vote for whichever candidate it is that promises to give them the most ‘free’ stuff.  And what’s really funny about these morons on the left, those for whom they choose to vote don’t even need to deliver but on just enough to make sure their voters fall for the very same charade in the next election.  Obviously the majority of those who vote for Democrats tend to be ignorant, lazy and rather uninformed, which is just the way Democrat candidates prefer it.  It makes their supporters all the more malleable.

However, I think it safe to say that, that under normal circumstances, those of us on the right tend to pride ourselves on being a bit better informed and willing to ask the tough questions of our candidates.  Having said that, I’m far from certain that the 2016 election can be referred to as being anywhere a near normal event.  Those of on the right got rather badly burned in 2010, even more so in 2012 and again, and even more so, in 2014.  We allowed ourselves to be fooled in 2010 and then proceeded to compound our original error by falling for essentially the same promises again in 2012 and to an even greater degree in 2014.  In short, we behaved like those on the left.

Which brings me to the 2016 election.  Because of the previous three elections we have been conditioned, more or less, to ignore those considered to be ‘establishment’ candidate and have thus widened our search to those outside the generally accepted pool of candidates.  And in so doing have we may have let our guard down. Because while many of these ‘outside the beltway’ candidates may say much of what we the voters want to hear, are we only once again being lead down that proverbial primrose path?  Are these candidates simply too good to be true?  Can we trust them to follow through with the promises being made?  Or, are we once again being played for fools?


Democrats 36

It was while speaking at the official opening of a new Democrat Party branch office, aka The Washington Post’s new headquarters, just this past Thursday that Secretary of State John Kerry-Heinz said that the paper had once “proved that not even the president of the United States is above the law.”  Before making this remarks, Kerry-Heinz also made note of the fact that ‘Watergate’ reporter Bob Woodward was in attendance.  He then alluded to the movie “All the President’s Men,” which was based on the book bearing the same title that was authored by Woodward and his Watergate reporting partner, Carl Bernstein.  I’ve always wondered if these two enterprising young ‘journalists’ would have been anywhere near as energetic in their efforts if Nixon had been a Democrat.  Somehow, I think not!

Here’s a little excerpt from Kerry-Heinz’s speech:

“Now, all of you here know–I think Bob Woodward is here somewhere. I saw him. There he is, right here, Bob.

When the Post last time inaugurated its headquarters, it was 1972, and the White House was slamming this paper’s coverage of a certain third-rate burglary. And a year earlier, the Nixon administration had tried, passionately, to stop the publishing of the Pentagon Papers. And for many of us, this was a formative moment in our political lives and in our lives, period. Make no mistake, one reason that so many people in the media today are prepared to tell the truth, to stand up to powerful interests, is precisely because The Washington Post proved that not even the President of the United States is above the law.”

While such a statement may have, at one time, been considered as being true, it’s when reviewing the actions of our current president, over the course of the last seven years, that it becomes painfully clear, and in relatively short order, that that no longer seems to be the case.  And if Kerry-Heinz truly does choose to stand behind that statement then how is it that he is able to explain why the many scandals of Barry “Almighty” haven’t resulted in impeachment?  I can only assume that Kerry-Heinz sees absolutely nothing that warrants our current Democrat president actually being charged with the breaking of any laws.  But I suspect that if it were a Republican who had committed even one of the many infractions that have been committed by Barry, Kerry-Heinz would be singing a very different song.

Because Barry has, over the course of his presidency, succeeded in setting the bar  when it comes to the level of illegal activity that can originate from the Oval Office. After all Barry “Almighty”:

Breaks “the law of the land” (the ‘Constitution’) at least once a week.

Has ‘spent’ money when the congress controls the ‘purse’.

Has (literally) written law. ‘Law’ must be written by the House.

Has (literally) changed law.

Has gone around ‘Congress’ rather than work with them using executive orders to so.

Has ‘chosen’ (literally) which ‘laws’ he will demand to be enforced and that WILL NOT.

Has (literally) gifted U.S. sovereignty to every nation counter to our own best interests with treaties and just plain not enforcing the law.

Has (literally) PROVIDED weapons to drug cartels and our enemies in a 14 year old war.

Now keep in mind that this is but the ‘short’ list of Barry’s rather impressive accomplishments/offenses which have taken place in a relatively short span of time, historically speaking.  And also, let’s not forget that Barry has just shy of one more year in office.  And since Congress has proven itself to be quite derelict in its duty, as has the Supreme Court, when it comes to implementing the ‘checks and balances’ they possess to counter Barry’s many abuses of ‘power’, Barry likely isn’t through yet.  What Kerry-Heinz “IS” using here “IS” a commonly understood tactic of ‘projection’ to ‘reframe’ or ‘deflect’ the truth by playing the card up front. This “IS” classical political out maneuvering. Unfortunately, this administration has used it with such frequency that it has exposed itself for what it “IS”.  The EXACT opposite of what he’s ‘saying’.

And I find it quite amazing how it is that Kerry-Heinz can so easily, even nonchalantly, ignore the rather long list of rather diabolical scandals that have come to surround Barry “Almighty” as well as his entire administration.  From the IRS targeting, to Fast and Furious, to Hitlery’s email server and cover-up as well as all the abuses by Hitlery with her Clinton Foundation slush fund, the blatant violations of Obamacare, the VA scandal and cover up, etc, etc.  Interesting how he dwells on Watergate when there are so many scandals and abuses of the law laying right at his feet.  Scandals that so completely overshadow a second-rate burglary that would result in the resignation of a president.  And so it would seem that we have no modern day versions of Woodward and Bernstein who feel at all compelled to pursue any of them.  What a shame!


Hitlery 113

We should have all heard by now the near endless nauseating denials coming from Democrat frontrunner Hitlery Clinton about how she is very confident that she never knowingly sent or received any classified information using her private email server and that she never sent any information that was ‘marked’ classified.  And yet it was just today that the Obama administration confirmed, for the first time, that Hitlery’s unsecured home server contained some of the U.S. government’s most closely guarded secrets, censoring 22 emails with material demanding one of the highest levels of classification.  So it would seem that someone is certainly lying, but who?

Now those of us brighter than your average Hilery Clinton supporter have known pretty much all along that Hitlery was lying through her pearly white, so this most recent revelation regarding Hitlery’s continuing email ‘problem’ did little more than to confirm really what we’ve already known all along.  And don’t you have to wonder if it’s some sort of weird coincidence that this revelation comes out just three days before the Iowa presidential nominating caucuses in which Hitlery is a candidate.  Might it be some sort of clandestine attempt by Barry to throw Hitlery under the bus at the most inopportune time?  Or am I simply reading way too much into it?

And then The Associated Press (AP) learned that seven email chains are being withheld in full because they contain information deemed to be “Top Secret.”  The 37 pages include messages recently described by a key intelligence official as concerning so-called “special access programs”, a highly restricted subset of classified material that could point to confidential sources or clandestine programs like drone strikes or government eavesdropping.  Department officials wouldn’t describe the substance of the emails, or say if Hitlery sent any herself. And they also wouldn’t disclose if any of the documents reflected information that was classified at the time of transmission.

State Department spokesmoron John Kirby described the decision to withhold documents in full as “not unusual.”  It was in so doing that Kirby said, “The documents are being upgraded at the request of the intelligence community because they contain a category of top secret information.”  Apparently that means they won’t be published online with the rest of the documents, even with blacked-out boxes.  Barry will also withhold a number of Hitlery’s emails because they are considered “too damaging” for public consumption and the State Department will withhold 18 emails exchanged between then Secretary Hitlery and Barry himself.  Imagine that!

The emails have been a continuing source of irritation for Hitlery’s campaign ever since it became known 10 months ago that she exclusively used a nongovernment account linked to a homebrew server while in office.  Hitlery first called the decision a matter of convenience and then later termed it as being a mistake, even if doing so wasn’t expressly forbidden. But the matter could prove more troublesome now that Hitlery’s former agency has confirmed that business conducted over the account included Top-Secret matters.  Because like Hitlery, the State Department discounted such a possibility last March.  And now we find out something quite different.

The FBI is looking into Hitlery’s email setup, but has said nothing about the nature of its probe. Independent experts say it is highly unlikely that Hitlery will be charged with wrongdoing, based on the limited details that have surfaced up to now.  But legal questions aside, it’s the potential political costs that are probably of more immediate concern for Hitlery. She has struggled in surveys measuring her perceived trustworthiness and an active federal investigation, especially one buoyed by evidence that Top Secret material coursed through her account, could negate one of her main selling points for becoming commander in chief: Her national security resume.



Far too many of those who, strangely enough, are viewed as being ‘leaders’ of the black community, as well as most Democrat politicians, expend what is an inordinate amount of time and effort in trying to make their point that there can be only one possible explanation for the fact that more young blacks find themselves incarcerated or more often, than whites, find themselves being questioned by a police officer for what are claimed to be minor offenses.  That explanation is, of course, racism.  But to do so is to take the denying of reality to astronomical heights.  While I will admit that there are instances where racism can said to be factor, if we are being honest, we would have to admit that those instances are remarkably few.

Rep. Bobby Rush, a Democrat, is one of those black ‘leaders’ who sees all police officers as racists.  Not only that, but now he wants the House to create a select committee to investigate “the unjustified use of lethal and excessive force by police officers against African-Americans.”  And it was earlier this month that Rep. Rush introduced a resolution that would create a select panel similar to the one reviewing the attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi in 2012.  His resolution states, “This past year alone we have seen 7 different incidents of the unjustified use of lethal and excessive force by police officers against African- Americans.”  What makes this guy able to determine the level of force justified in a given situation?

This resolution goes on to say, “It is the will of the Congress that a select committee be formed to investigate these patterns of excessive use of force in communities of color.”  And then it continues, “There is hereby established in the House of Representatives the Select Committee on Excessive Use of Police Force.”  And I’m pretty sure that it’ll come as a surprise to no one to hear that 9 other representatives from that rather odd assortment of misfits, the Congressional Black Caucus, have now signed on as co-sponsors of Rush’s idiotic little measure.  And yet, it’s this very same group that has cheerfully sold millions of their fellow blacks into eternal bondage to the Democrat Party and in exchange for what, a little political clout?

Rush and those who have now signed onto his silly resolution, seek only to exploit their own people.  Because the truth is blacks tend to bring more attention to themselves through their own bad behavior.  And this trend is far from anything new.  For instance, it was back in the late 1950’s in Detroit that someone decided to dare the local newspaper to list the daily crimes committed by race as a way to prove that whites in Detroit were committing just as many crimes as were blacks. The newspaper was only too happy to accept the dare.  On the front page it showed the number of arrest for blacks and then whites.  After three days the paper ceased doing this because it was becoming embarrassing for blacks. It was like 100 to 3 each day.

And it’s these hypocrites like Rush who do a great disservice to members of the black community when they chose to ignore the obvious and they are more than a bit disingenuous when they claim to wonder why it is that blacks get arrested more often than do whites and continue to have issues with the police. The real reason is that blacks are very often the ones committing the majority of the crimes.  When you get right down to it the black community has been on a steady decline for the last 50 years, to the point where today it is in such a shambles that many young blacks feel they have no alternative but to turn to crime.  And yet men like Rush continue to insist that all of the blame rests with the police and none rests with young blacks.



So, as Mr. Peabody and his trusty sidekick Sherman used to do, let us jump into our own ‘Wayback Machine’ and take a journey back in time to 2006, to that specific point in time when Al Gore was at the Sundance Film Festival premiering his global warming ‘documentary’ entitled, ‘An Inconvenient Truth’.  And once there we will hear Al introduce his film with a dire warning to those in attendance.  He will say that unless something is done, and done fast, the Earth will be speeding toward what will be its man-caused ruin.

And Mr. Gore will then go on to make an even more specific prediction about things to come, making the claim that if the world continued to ignore the issue and refuse to take steps necessary to reduce greenhouse gases within the next 10 years, “the world will reach a point of no return.”  And then in returning back the present and to the 2016 Sundance Film Festival earlier this month, strangely enough we can find no one walking the red carpet in solar-safety suits. So it would seem that Gore’s prediction was more than just a little off.

But then, of course, being wrong has never stopped the former vice president, or any of the other ‘climate change’ enthusiasts’, from continuing with his environmental crusade. Al Gore still flies privately all over the world in fuel-guzzling jets to spread his message of reducing carbon emissions.  And when not painting the sky with vapor trails, Gore can be found in one of his many climate-controlled mansions writing speeches and books, or spotted riding in a cavalcade of SUVs to get coffee or to make a personal appearance.

Really, you would think that old Al would be glad that he was so wrong, because it just gives him just that much more time to profit even more off of his continuing apocalyptic gibberish.  Even now, he’s gathering “experts” to hightail it over to the Philippines this year for yet another climate summit. And you’d think that if these ‘climate change’ wackos were going to continue to make such wild-assed predictions, they could save themselves a lot of embarrassment by predicting well out into the future long after they’re dead.

But nope!  Not even after what were some hysterically wrong, and incredibly apocalyptic, predictions that were made on that very first Earth Day back in 1970.  Among them being the end of civilization within 15-30 years, 100-200 million deaths due to starvation annually for ten years, urban dwellers having to wear gas masks to survive, and an ice age by the year 2000.  And yet, here we are in 2016 with the most serious threat that we’ve had to survive being the presidency of one Barack Hussein Obama.



Everyone’s favorite faux preacher, Al ‘Not-So’ Sharpton, has now seen fit to insert himself into this growing conspiracy against black actors that is being called the #OscarsSoWhite campaign.  Sharpton has now called upon all Americans to “tune out” of the 88th Academy Awards next month. He also vows to use his bogus ‘civil rights’ group referred to as the National Action Network, to drive down 2016 viewing figures and reduce the US Academy’s advertising revenue. Sharpton has backed calls for a boycott of the 2016 Oscars over the US Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences’ failure to nominate a single actor of color for the second year running.

Sharpton, who also happens to be Barry “Almighty’s’ advisor on all matters having to do with discrimination, real or imagined, said Hollywood had “locked out” people from black and ethnic minority backgrounds. He said, “To me, it is clear that they think they can get away with this as a pattern.”  Al went on to say, “We must escalate our feelings and we must escalate our activism to now, in my view, affect the bottom line, because mere conversations and appeals don’t seem to reap any benefits or change for the community at large.”  Sharpton then went on to say, “You must remember that people of color are 40% of movie ticket buyers.”

Sharpton said, “We are not asking for favors here; we are supporting an industry that has now … locked us out. They have a policy they won’t correct. Even the president of the Academy says that something needs to be done.” ‘Not-So’, who labelled Hollywood “fraudulent” following last week’s announcement of an all-white list of acting nominees, said his boycott would aim to hit the Academy in the pocket by reducing viewing figures and therefore advertising revenues.  But if I’m not mistaking, viewership of the Oscars, as with most other awards shows, has been declining, and pretty steadily so, over the last few years anyway.

He said, “I’m not saying that we want to select who is nominated or wins, but if you are telling me out of best actor, best actress, best supporting actor, best supporting actress – out of 40 slots, two years in a row, that there are no blacks and no browns who rose to a level of being considered, that’s hard to believe.”  He added,  “That’s unacceptable. Then I have the right to say, ‘You know what, you can do what you want, but you won’t do it with my support.’ Let’s see if advertisers and others think that you are as attractive to pay those high fees if they know that sizeable portions of the population will not be watching your show the night it airs.”

Sharpton started shooting his mouth off after Jada Pinkett-Smith, Spike Lee and Michael Moore all said they would not be attending the 2016 ceremony in protest at the Oscars’ diversity deficit.  Pinkett Smith, who first raised the prospect of a boycott over the weekend, tweeted on Tuesday that she would “look forward to the future”, after Academy president Cheryl Boone Isaacs released a statement saying she was “heartbroken and frustrated” by the all-white nominations and vowing to improve diversity among the Academy’s membership. It was not clear if Pinkett Smith and her husband Will Smith would attend next month’s ceremony.

And then there was Lupita Nyong’o who, or so I’m told, won a best supporting actress Oscar in 2014 for her turn in the drama Twelve Years a Slave.  She chose to vent her frustration via Instagram.  So on Wednesday morning she took to the web to announce her support for improving diversity.  She wrote, “I am disappointed by the lack of inclusion in this year’s Academy Awards nominations,” she wrote. “It has me thinking about unconscious prejudice and what merits prestige in our culture. The Awards should not dictate the terms of art in our modern society, but rather be a diverse reflection of the best of what our art has to offer today.”

And it was Whoopi Goldberg who was heard to say on her imbecilic little television show ‘The View’ that Hollywood’s problems went way beyond this year’s all-white list of acting nominees.  She said, “It’s not that the people doing the nominating are too white.”  And she went on to say, “The problem is, people who can help to make movies that have blacks and Latinos and women and all that, that money doesn’t come to you because the idea is that there’s no place for black movies. There has never been, in the history of movies, a plethora of black movies made because people believe we don’t want to see movies with black people in them.”

So what do you suppose is it that will make these poor, distraught black actors feel better about themselves.  How about if we cease with all these ‘Best’ awards and simply hand out to all who take part in making a movie, no matter how good or how bad, “Participation Oscars.’  That way everyone would get an award and no one’s feelings would be hurt.  Because, frankly, I’m getting pretty tired of these Hollywood losers telling me that this entire problem stems from the fact that my country is racist.  If in fact it is racism that’s the problem, I would argue that it is less about my country and more with Hollywood.  Why’s it the country’s fault?

Personally I could really give a shit less about any of these overpaid crybabies.  I stopped watching stupid awards shows decades ago.  And the skin color of those nominated, or not nominated, really had nothing to with my decision to tune them all out.  I simply came to see all of these imbecilic entertainers as being, quite frankly, pretty boring.  And I got tired of them interjecting their leftist politics into everything.  When it became less about being a way for us, the ‘fans’, to cheer for our favorites and more about political propaganda, I just stopped watching.  So at this point if people want to boycott they can go right ahead, it’ll have no impact on me.



Knowing as we all do the caliber of most of those individuals currently under the employ of our federal government, as well as our state and local governments, do we really need a poll pointing out our government’s less than stellar problem solving abilities?  Personally, I would argue that we most certainly do not.  But, be that as it may, there was apparently someone, in their infinite wisdom, who thought that just such a poll was indeed needed.  And as most of us likely expected, as the first voting nears in this the 2016 presidential contest, it seems that most Americans have little or no confidence in the federal government’s ability to confront what they see as being the country’s most important priorities.

So it was then than this past December ‘The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research’ conducted such a poll in an effort to essentially confirm that which the vast majority of Americans were already convinced of.  And what the poll found out was that more than 6 in 10 respondents expressed only slight confidence — or none at all — that the federal government can make any amount of progress when it comes to any of the more problems facing the nation in 2016. Terrorism edged health care as the issue most often mentioned — each by about one-third of those questioned — when people were asked to volunteer the issues they believe Washington should address this election year.

The polling would at least seem to suggest an electorate that is more focused on the economy and domestic affairs than on foreign policy. Two-thirds of respondents included an economic issue on their priority list, and about 4 in 5 named a domestic policy other than the economy.  In addition to those who mentioned terrorism, nearly half added another foreign policy matter, and immigration was the next most frequent topic raised.  And perhaps most vexing for the dozen or so candidates vying to succeed Barry “Almighty”, the poll indicates widespread skepticism about the government’s ability to solve problems, with no significant difference in the outlook between Republicans and Democrats.

There were those who took part in this poll that were of the opinion that members of Congress are essentially unable to pass anything of importance, or that isn’t grossly self-serving, and were therefore not at all confident about seeing any solutions coming about in 2016.  And there were some who while they admitted to possessing some level of confidence in our government’s problem solving ability, bemoaned a system of lobbyists paid thousands upon thousands of dollars to get Congress to do what they want instead of what the people want.  And some described the executive branch as a bureaucratic behemoth and the legislative branch as an endlessly partisan wrangle saying that’s why government can’t get anything done.

Along with terrorism and health care, respondents were most likely to cite immigration, education and unemployment as priorities.  Democrats and Republicans were about equally likely to mention unemployment, though there was a racial disparity, with more blacks mentioning the issue than whites.  Also, Republicans were more likely than Democrats to cite terrorism as a priority, and Immigration was mentioned by twice as many Republicans as Democrats.  One-fifth of Republicans mentioned the federal budget deficit, compared with less than a one-tenth of Democrats.  Democrats were more likely to consider guns as public policy priority, along with education, crime, racial problems, the environment and climate change.

Many of those breakdowns reflect the separate debates now playing out in the presidential race.  The GOP field, led by rather vocal candidates like Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, characterizes Barry “Almighty” as being an irresponsible, profligate manager of taxpayer resources, and unable to ensure national security and protect U.S. interests amid international threats and strife. The leading Democrat candidates, Hitlery Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders, are focused more directly on economic matters, both framing themselves as supposed defenders of the middle class.  Sanders rails against the disproportionate economic and political power of the nation’s wealthiest individuals and corporations.

While the candidates may work to reflect the priorities of their respective bases, many if the respondents taking part this poll said they really haven’t heard much of anything that improves their outlook when it comes to those things of most concern to them actually being addressed.  And there was some level of agreement in that Trump or Sanders would offer what was described as being “the most radical change” from the status quo, but there were many who didn’t particularly like what either of these men has been saying.  And many admitted, exhibiting some level of frustration, that it was extremely likely that 95 percent of Congress will get re-elected anyway.  An assessment that is very likely to prove pretty accurate.