Farrakhan Tuskegee

There’s an old adage that says, there’s a first time for everything.  And there is obviously a lot of truth in that.  Because had you ever told me that there would come a day when I would find myself actually agreeing with ANYTHING that would have ever come out of the mouth of ‘Calypso Louie’ Farrakhan I would have told you that you were completely insane.  But, as they also say, “Truth is stranger than fiction.”  But, that said, truth is something you hear very little of when listening to ‘Calypso Louie.’

You see. It was just this past Sunday, there at the Nation of Islam, that ‘Calypso Louie’ said don’t “fall” for Democrat presidential candidate Hitlery Clinton’s “crap” on African-American issues because she and her husband, ex-president ‘Slick Willie’ Clinton are responsible for mass incarceration of black people.  Now while I disagree with his rationale for doing so, I do agree, and very much so, with his conclusion that blacks should always avoid falling for the crap that they hear coming from Hitlery.

Anyway, it was this past Sunday that Louie said, “How many of you are going to vote for Hillary Clinton? You don’t have to raise your hands. I do not blame you for wanting a female president, but that is a wicked woman. She can be sweet but so can you. And you know when you are sweet but playing a game.  All of a sudden she knows about Trayvon Martin. All of a sudden—the boy’s been dead two years now—she talking about him like she met the mother and oh…  White people this is Satan.”

And he would go onto say, “And you fall for that crap? Most of you went to jail for having a little blunt. They arranged that—the Clintons. Mass incarceration came about under the Clintons, Don’t forget that. They call my young gang bangers super predators. And Black Lives Matter put it to her—she didn’t know how to handle that. Call you a super predator, that has no conscience, no sense of dignity like you are a dog, an animal.”  But if we can be honest here, his rhetoric is no better than Hitlery’s.

And ‘Louie’ would ramble on still further by saying, “She gotta bring you to heal you my young brothers. This is what she said about you and she didn’t just say it—it became law and policy of the U.S. government under Bill Clinton and his wife, and now she is apologizing, but apologizing can’t bring back the broken families. Apologizing can’t bring back those that been destroyed in prison life.”  Maybe those whose lives have been destroyed in prison shouldn’t have broken the law.  What a concept.

But it would seem to me, being just a old white guy with some level of commonsense, that if ‘Minister’ Farrakhan was truly interested in improving the lives of those in the black community he would set about trying to show, point by point, exactly how it is that the Democrat Party has proceeded to decimate the black family.  But that doesn’t seem to be his true objective here, despite the fact that he is a man of God.  Because it would seem that he seeks only to spread his own kind of ‘crap’.

Look, if we’re being honest here, the number of black men currently behind bars can be directly related to the political party to which blacks have continually been encouraged, by men like Louie, to pledge their loyalty.  Over the course of the last 50 years blacks have been convinced by various so-called ‘leaders’ of their community of the supposed ‘benefits’ of essentially voluntarily enslaving themselves to what continues to be  described to them as the party of compassion.  But it’s all a lie.

And Another thing, if ‘Louie’ were truly interested, which he so obviously is not, in rectifying the issue which he professes to be so concerned about, he has a rather curious way of demonstrating it.  By appearing less interested in addressing it than he is in simply using to further incite racial hatred, he tends to focus on those things which serve only to inflame.  Hatred has never solved anything, and yet that is all he is selling here.  What if he were to spend more time talking about such things as personal responsibility?

And while most of what he said should be considered as nothing more than the ravings of a mad man, judging by what I know of those who follow this hate-filled man of God, there were likely, just as there were in the congregation of ‘Rev.’ Jeremiah Wright, a great many who were likely to be seen nodding their head in agreement as they listened to Louie spew his rather unique brand of racist drivel.  But whenever you listen to any of these religious frauds all you ever hear is hate, hate and more hate!



In what appears to be yet another attempt on the part of Fox News to torpedo the candidacy of Donald Trump, it was Friday on Fox Business Network’s “Mornings With Maria Bartiromo,” that former president of Mexico Vicente Fox was provided with an opportunity to double down on his prior usage of profane language to say Mexico is not paying for a wall.  And, of course, he also took the opportunity to say that he believes that Trump should drop out of the presidential race, saying, “I would invite this guy to withdraw from the race and go back to his business.”

Senor Fox said, “I can tell you he doesn’t know a little bit about macro-economics, he doesn’t know about history, he doesn’t recognize what NAFTA is all about. This very solid partnership that we have built together, three economies Canada, United States and Mexico. And he should learn that Mexico buys from the United States over a half a billion U.S. dollars worth of trade. And this is what he should consider. Building a wall is stupid. It will go against your best interest.”  Say what? Go against whose best interest?  What the Hell is this idiot talking about?

And then in reacting to Trump saying the “the wall just got 10 feet taller” after Fox’s previous statement, Senor Fox said, “My reaction is it’s more stupid. I mean, that’s a wrong thought. Immigration should be handled in a different manner, that’s why we have a proposal, I feel, in Congress presented by Senator McCain long time ago, that solves and makes the case of migration positive for the United States and Mexico. It’s not attacking everybody, attacking the Mexicans, attacking the Muslims. attacking women, attacking migrants. that’s not the way to go.”

And then Senor Fox went on to say, “That chair for the president of the United States is so elegant, so full of power that only people with ability with intelligence and with compassion have sat in that chair and this guy is out of the world. He thinks that by building a wall, which is only a consequence of the fear he builds inside, he feels fear. Only those who feel fear build walls.”  Fox continued, “I would invite this guy to withdraw from the race and go back to his business and forget about what is a nation and what is the presidency of a nation.”

And it was to the shock of the host that Fox again said, “I am not gonna pay for that f*cking wall, I am not.”  But really, who really gives a flying f*ck what some ex-president of Mexico has to say?  And let’s face it, isn’t it really the drug cartels that run Mexico?  And here’s a better idea, maybe Senor Fox should retire to private life and shut the f*ck up.  He’s just another globalist saying the wall “won’t work” and “is stupid.” Nothing of substance. And with immigrants (legal and illegal) sending $120 BILLION back to Mexico just last year, it is any wonder Fox is concerned about ‘Trump’s Wall?’

I would think Senor Fox would be a bit more forthcoming with aggressive actions towards the Drug cartels that are killing his citizenry making it possible for further illegal activities.  But instead he focuses his attention and his rhetoric on ‘Trump’s Wall.”  Why, because Mexico’s number two source of income is the money being sent back to Mexico from those who, one way or another, come America. Build the wall and we can then watch Vinente Fox continue to sit in his third-world-shithole-of-a-country.  One more reason to get it built.  The sooner the better!

And about NAFTA, this fiasco was poorly conceived and is nothing but a magnet sucking resources and jobs from the U.S.  And in return we get drugs and illegal Mexican parasites and those taking work from Americans. Then consider the treatment of a US Marine in Mexico, not too long ago, for doing nothing more than getting lost. The wall that you will build, Senor Fox, will be the only way to save your economy and fix our relationship. You should consider what would happen to Mexico under a Trump Administration, because it will happen.

So what might we see next from the folks at Fox News?  So far they’ve given a platform to Mitt ‘The Loser’ Romney to do nothing more than to cast aspersions on Mr. Trump.  This after it was Trump who defended Romney when ‘Dingy Harry’ Reid made the same sort of claims against him.  And then they bring on Senor Fox to throw a few more stones at Trump.  What the folks there at Fox seem unable to comprehend is the fact that it’s this sort of stuff only serves to strengthen Trump’s support.  Fox is now seen by many as having now gone over to the ‘Dark Side.”


FOX News 1

There was once upon a time when most nights at my house pretty much the only thing that was on my television from 8 until 11 was the Fox News channel.  But, as they say, times change. And it would seem that time has changed for far more folks than just me.  Because while over the course of the past six months Fox News has boasted some the highest ratings in its near-20-year history, its standing upon Republican viewers seems to have hit a three-year low.

By mid-February perception by Republican adults 18 and over had reached its lowest point in more than three years, and has declined by approximately 50% since January of this year.  And it is perhaps no coincidence that the downward trend in Republican esteem coincides with a highly dramatic election cycle that has seen the rise of Donald Trump, the GOP frontrunner who has gained favor with many Republican voters, and has relentlessly needled both Fox and the party establishment.

Trump’s rather ‘dramatic’, to say the least, style has garnered him mountains of free media publicity, and no doubt is partially responsible for the blockbuster ratings of the first Republican debate, which aired on Fox in August, setting a record for the most-viewed telecast in the network’s history. The second-most-viewed was Fox’s second GOP debate, which Trump sat out.  But it was the tactics of Megyn Kelly during the first debate that simply turned me off.

Both anti- and pro-Trump Republicans are apt to have lost some partiality for Fox: the anti-camp because the network rewards his antics with free publicity, the pro faction because Trump has constantly blasted the network and its ‘anchor’ Megyn Kelly for not demonstrating sufficient fairness or respect to him. That 50-percent downturn since January corresponds to the period of the most antagonistic feuding between Fox and ‘The Donald’.

And look, anyone who has been paying even the slightest amount of attention to Fox News over the course of this campaign could not help but to have noticed which candidate it is that the network so very obviously favors.  And really, any supposedly enlightened “news organization” that is stupid enough to support Rubio is no longer worth considering as a credible news source, nor one that truly qualifies as caring about what will benefit America.  It’s all about propaganda.

And it demonstrating that what we have going on over at Fox is nothing short of a concerted effort to prevent Trump from becoming our nominee we have some folks over there on the Fox Business channel.  I watched the first debate that they had and it seemed like Maria Bartiromo was doing her best Megyn Kelly impersonation and Neil Cavuto must have been channeling Chris Matthews.  Hence that was the first and last debate that I chose to watch on that channel.

And it was very recently that Cavuto had Mitt ‘The Loser’ Romney call into his program and allowed him to take what were nothing more than baseless pot shots at Trump.  Interestingly enough, Romney’s pot shots at Trump were remarkably similar to the pot shots that ‘Dingy Harry’ Reid took at Romney in 2012.  And I think it’s worth mentioning here that it was Trump who was very vocal in his defending of Romney against what Reid was claiming.  But I guess this is how Romney shows his appreciation.

And it’s FoxNews.com that, by its oh so obvious biases in favor of Rubio, has now managed to join the ranks of the much despised New York Times as being yet another example of journalistic malpractice gone wild.  These days it would seem that we can no longer trust much of what they say, as is the case with the Times, MSNBC, etc., not to be slanted or twisted to whatever degree they think they can get away with without stretching the bounds of absolute incredulity.

And despite being overtly favored by Fox, when it comes to Rubio, all I have to do is to picture him standing there between Chuckie Schumer and ‘Little Dick’ Durbin’ to remind myself that this guy is nothing if not a pathetic fraud.  There is, quite literally, nothing that this guy can say that would ever convince me to vote for him, at least not in the primary.  Now if, by strange chance, he does become our nominee then, I suppose, I’ll have very little choice BUT to vote for him.


Democrats 42

We all know how we’re always hearing from those on the left about how everyone needs to pay their fair share. Well if that truly is the case then how is it that that we have, in this country, more than 77 million American households who will end up not paying one red cent in federal individual income taxes this year.  Half because they’ve got no taxable income, the other half because they get enough tax breaks to wipe out their tax liability.

Citing data from the Tax Policy Center, Market Watch reports, it’s an estimated 45.3 percent of American households who will get off scot-free this April 15 when it comes to their federal income taxes.  And surprisingly, people in the top 1 percent of taxpayers, despite the bad rap they get from Democrats for dodging Uncle Sam, will pay a higher effective income tax rate than any other group.  And yet they’re still accused of cheating.

In 2014, that rate paid by the super-wealthy was around 23 percent, or nearly seven times higher than those in the bottom 50 percent.  Market Watch reports that on average, those in the bottom 40 percent of the income spectrum end up getting money from the government.  This despite the fact that they paid nothing in.  I’ve always been confused about how it was that someone could pay nothing in the form of taxes but could still get a refund.

Meanwhile, the richest 20 percent of Americans pay the most in income taxes, Market Watch reports, forking over nearly 87 percent of all the income tax collected.  The top 1 percent, who have an average income of more than $2.1 million, pay 43.6 percent of all the federal individual income tax in the United States, Market Watch reports.  And yet they are constantly being accused by those on the left of not paying their fair share.

I’ve always been a firm believer that EVERYONE should pay something in and that no one is deserving of a free ride.  Paying nothing cannot be considered as being someone’s fair share.  And yet, this is how Democrats have succeeded in purchasing votes from people, by telling them that are entitled to a free ride and, not only that, to be on the receiving end of all manner of freebies the costs of which left for those of us  who have to pay taxes to pick up.

Look, I don’t care how much money a person makes, no one should be forced to hand over to the government half of the earnings that they have worked for.  Especially when that government has demonstrated that is has virtually no interest in the proper accounting of how that money is spent. But those who are required to pay nothing aren’t bothered in the least by the amount of wasteful spending that goes on since they have no skin in the game.


Democrats 45

I realize that I might be accused of beating of dead horse by choosing to point out, yet again, something that I would have thought by now, would be painfully obvious to anyone with a brain.  That being the fact that Democrats love to claim how it is that the Republicans somehow behave differently than they themselves have behaved in exactly the same situation, and how that is nothing more than a lie.  Oddly enough we are all supposed to perceive members of the Democrat Party as being as ‘pure as the wind driven snow’ when, in fact, they are the complete opposite.

If this latest dustup regarding the nominating of a Justice to replace Antonin Scalia has done anything, it has been to once again lay bare the blatant hypocrisy of Democrats.  The latest bit of proof of that comes to us in the person Democrat Chris Murphy who, on Wednesday, made the rather idiotic comment that the Republicans’ stand against replacing the late Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia until after the next presidential election is akin to “giving a middle finger” not only to Americans but Barry “Almighty” as well.  An idiotic comment to say the least, but typical.

Because, and let’s be very clear here, I think most of us would agree that if there’s anyone who can be said to be guilty of giving the American people the big middle finger, it would be hypocritical Democrats like Mr. Murphy!  And that becomes all the more obvious when one takes the time to look back over the course of the last seven years.  Let’s face it, how many times have Barry and his team of corrupt Democrats sought to stick it to the American people?  It was right out of the gate that they committed the ultimate fraud against the people, and called it ‘Obamacare.’

Anyway, it was what at recent press conference held there at the Capitol that our esteemed Mr. Murphy made his idiotic remarks.  He said, “Senate Republicans are giving a middle finger to the American people.”  He was there with other leftist lawmakers and activists touting 1.3 million petition signatures asking the Senate to hold hearings on any nominee put forth by Barry.  However, knowing Democrats as we all do, I would very be curious to know just how many it is of those 1.3 million signatures that actually belonged to folks who are still alive.

And then in what could only be described as an act of pure desperation, Murphy, then went on to make the claim that the Republicans’ stance is the “final proof” that the GOP does not believe in the “legitimacy” of Barry’s presidency and implied that that alone is the reason they opposed not only the president’s executive actions and international diplomatic efforts, but are blocking a Supreme Court justice nomination. He said, “They simply don’t believe that this president, nor his election, is legitimate.”  Obviously this scum will resort to saying absolutely anything.

And so it was that we had standing alongside those lawmakers present, and behind boxes containing some of the petitions and labeled “1,000,000 Americans to Senate Republicans – Follow the Constitution,” several representatives from a number of hardcore left-wing groups, including MoveOn.org, Color of Change Campaign, Every Voice, People for the American Way, Common Cause, Progressive Change Campaign, Demand Progress Campaign, and Daily Kos Campaign.  Ah yes, together these groups form quite the cadre of ardent defenders of freedom.  NOT!!

And of course there were any number of other left-wing groups who enthusiastically supported the petition drive including such bastions of leftwing kook-dom as CREDO Action, UltraViolet Action, and NexGen Climate.  And, I’m sure it would come as no surprise to anyone that Ding-bat Democrat Elizabeth ‘Pocahontas’ Warren also collected signatures for the petition campaign.  That was according to some press release that was distributed at the press conference.  Those on the left are truly pulling out all the stops in their effort to seize control of the court.

Then, it was in a letter sent this past Tuesday to Senate Majority Leader Mitch ‘The Spineless’ McConnell and signed by all 11 Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is the committee that clears a nominee to be voted on by the whole Senate, in which members stated they believe that while the Constitution calls for the president to name a nominee, the power to “grant or withhold” that nominee rests solely with the Senate.  Apparently it’s this power which belongs to the Senate is something Democrats view as relevant only when they are the ones in charge.

It was this letter that stated: “Accordingly, given the particular circumstances under which this vacancy arises, we wish to inform you of our intention to exercise our constitutional authority to withhold consent on any nominee to the Supreme Court submitted by this president to fill Justice Scalia’s vacancy.”  It went on to state, “Because our decision is based on constitutional principle and born of a necessity to protect the will of the American people, this committee will not hold hearings on any Supreme Court nominee until after our next president is sworn in on January 20, 2017.”

This continuing nonsense on the part of these pathetically corrupt Democrats may be music to the ears of those on the left, because, as you must be able to tell, they are quite literally salivating over the opportunity to apply what would be a decades long leftist slant to the highest court in the land.  Those of us the right are going to be required to be just as determined in our efforts to prevent that from occurring by putting the fear of God into OUR elected leaders who are the only ones standing in the way of turning this Democrat dream of a leftist court into a reality.


Schumer 12

Isn’t it amazing how Democrats are rarely, if ever, confronted with their hypocrisy and how it is that our limp-wristed, politically-biased, state-controlled media continually allow them to get away with past statements.  And what I’m making particular reference to here are statements that have been made about the appointing of Supreme Court justices and how it “doesn’t matter” what Democrats may have said on this particular subject in the past.

Such is the case with, none other than, Chuckie Schumer and ‘Slow Joe’ Biden.  Schumer’s recent remarks refer to the Republican-controlled senate’s assertion that it will not, at least for now, consider Barry’s pick to replace Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court but will, instead, wait until the next president is elected.  Several Democrats have already complained, even ‘demanded’, that the Republicans give Barry’s choice a hearing in their “advise and consent” role.

However past statements from both ‘Slow Joe’ Biden and Chuckie Schumer would seem to conflict with what we’re now hear coming from Democrats.  Statements that make it clear that these two hacks had no problem whatsoever with blocking Supreme Court nominees when the power structure was in their favor and the president making an appointment was a Republican.  But now because the shoe is now on the other foot, the whining about the injustice of it all is in full swing.

As I am quite sure you most likely have all heard by now, unless you’ve been living under a rock somewhere, how it was that back in 2007, how Chuckie was heard to say, “We should reverse the presumption of confirmation.”  And he would go on to say, “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”  But it’s ok to have Justice Scalia replaced by another Kagan?

And then we heard in 1992 how ‘Slow Joe’ Biden, then a Delaware senator and Chairman of the Judiciary Committee was heard to say, “It would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway — and it is — action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over.”  And ‘Slow Joe’ would go on to say, “That is what is fair to the nominee and essential to the process.”  So I guess what was fair then, isn’t fair today?

And it’s only after fast forwarding to 2016 that we now hear Schumer singing what is a different tune saying, “Look, the simple answer to this, which everyone is saying everywhere is, ‘Do your job.’ It doesn’t matter what anybody said in the past. Do your job. It’s working,” Schumer said. “We should do our job.”  So what’s he saying, that the Senate needs to do its job today, but back in 2007 it didn’t?  I’m sorry, but I’m so confused, but then I’m not an empty-headed Democrat.

As far as I’m concerned these videos, these blasts from the past, should now be placed on what is a continuous loop, playing over and over again, 24/7 from now and for at least the next 9 months.  Not that we’d be able to shame such consummate ideologues like Schumer, but simply because it’s such a wonderful opportunity to display their ultimate-hypocrisy and double-standards for all the world to see, from now all the way up to Election Day.

Of course the goal of the left, which should be obvious to all, is to put another activist on the bench to further destroy the Second Amendment and trash our God given rights. Congress and the Senate had better wait until next year or there will be Hell to pay.  And as expected ‘Dingy Harry’ Reid has begun making all manner of threats about bringing pressure to bear on the Republicans, so I suppose it’s only a matter of time before we have one more, on what is a long list of many, caves!



Ya know, there was once a time, not all that long ago, when was a pretty regular follower of the website Redstate.com and of its creator, Eric Erickson, as well.  But over the years Mr. Erickson has proceeded to come across as being one who perhaps takes himself just a bit too seriously.  And one who is, much like Barry, comfortable putting his ideology above what’s good for his country.  It’s rare, these days that I bother a stop at his website, and rarer still that I take the time to seek out what his opinion may be on any given issue.

And so it was then, on one of those few occasions that I still tune into watch Ms. Megyn Kelly, who is also not a fan of Trump, that Mr. Erickson joined Ms. Kelly on the program along with a supporter of Mr. Trump to debate the candidate.  Erickson was there, I guess, to demonstrate the point that even as Trump racks up back to back to back caucus/primary victories, the polarizing frontrunner elicits what has, at the same time, become some very vocal, and rather intense, opposition from within Republican ranks as well.

Erickson, for example, has formally vowed that he will not, under and circumstances, be voting for Donald Trump, even if he becomes the Republican nominee for president, and did so again on Ms. Megyn’s show just last night.  So I can only assume that he will then either simply stay home, or will decide to vote for Hitlery Clinton.  It’s these days that Mr. Erickson seems to come across as a guy who, while he claims to be a conservative, is now someone who has become quite comfortable in cozying up to those in the ‘GOP Establishment’.

Erickson claims to base his decision primarily on Donald Trump’s stance on abortion, saying the real-estate mogul never truly flipped his views, and only says so for convenience.  It was in a post on his website, The Resurgent, that he wrote, “I have become convinced that Donald Trump’s pro-life conversion is a conversion of convenience.”  And he went on to say, “Life is the foremost cause in how I vote. Therefore I will not be voting for Donald Trump at all. Ever.”  I too am pro-life, but having said that, I am also pro-freedom and pro-America.

Though Erickson had previously stated that he would support Trump if he became the nominee, it would seem that has since changed his mind.  He said, “If Trump were elected President, there would be members of the pro-life movement who would compromise their convictions for access to power. If Trump were elected, portions of the conservative movement would compromise the movement to be one degree from Donald Trump. The intellectual institutions on which we have made our case for limited government and freedom would crumble.”

In order to defeat Trump, according to Erickson, conservatives now have a duty to rally in support of Marco Rubio.  He said, “I will not rally to Trump. Frankly, if Trump is able to get the nomination, the Republican Party will cease to be the party in which I served as an elected official.”  And he said in Monday’s post, “It will not deserve my support and will not get it if it chooses to nominate a pro-abortion liberal masquerading as a conservative, who preys on nationalistic, tribal tendencies and has an army of white supremacists online as his loudest cheerleaders.”

Sorry, Mr. Erickson, but I would have to disagree.  You see, I have a difficult time trusting someone who, upon his arrival in Washington, saw fit to partner up with, of all people, Chuckie Schumer and ‘Little Dick’ Durbin in what was a coordinated attempt to shove amnesty for those here illegally down the throat of the American people.  And I am someone who not only voted for Rubio, but also gave money to his campaign.  Trust is a very fragile thing, and once lost it is almost impossible to regain.  And if he’s has betrayed us on one issue, might he betray us on others?

So while Trump is definitely not my first choice, the possibility of Hitlery Clinton as our next president is terrifying.  At a time when our country is hanging in the balance, it just seems rather naïve, at least to me, to be a single issue voter.  As I have said numerous times before, Trump is not who I will be voting for in my state’s primary, but should he become the Republican nominee I will vote for him.  But unlike Mr. Erickson, should Mr. Rubio end up being our nominee I will feel compelled to vote for him because the alternative is just too frightening to consider.

Granted, I may be leaving myself open for an ‘I told you so’ moment from Mr. Erickson, but I’m willing to take that chance!  I cannot be like him and stand by and simply watch as things continue to unravel.  And while abortion is a truly important issue, I would argue that immigration is also a very important issue.  And it makes no sense to ignore one issue in favor of another.  While I wish I could look at each of these candidates and tell which one it is that can be counted on to save my county, sadly I have no such ability.  I just have to pray that I make the right choice.



Now we all know, or should know, about all of the hoopla that has resulted from the Republicans putting forth their argument that it should be the next president, Democrat or Republican, who nominates a Supreme Court justice to replace Justice Scalia.  But how different things were in 1992 when, during a speech from the Senate floor, then Senator, ‘Slow Joe’ Biden said that President George H. W. Bush should wait until after the presidential election and let his successor fill any Supreme Court vacancy.  And yet, oddly enough, it’s this same rules that never seem to apply to Democrats.

It was June 25, 1992 when it was ‘Slow Joe’ who, from the floor of the Senate, was heard to say, “It is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow or within the next several weeks or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not – and not – name a nominee until after the November election is completed.”  So why is it then, do you suppose, that the actions of Barry’s predecessors is now considered as being nothing more than a guideline, of sorts, and has become suitable for ignoring?

‘Slow Joe’ would then go on to say, “If the president goes the way of Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election year nomination the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”  So if this was such a good idea then, why, suddenly, is it not such a good idea today?  Could it be because the most leftist president in our history, along with many members of his party, now see an opportunity to tilt the court very sharply to the left and, quite possibly, for decades?

As they say even a blind squirrel finds a nut once and awhile, and so it was in one of those very rare occasions where ‘Slow Joe’ has actually been known to make a certain amount of sense, that he said, “Others may fret that this approach would leave the court with only eight members for some time, but as I see it Mr. President, the cost of such a result – the need to reargue three or four cases that will divide the justices four-to-four are quite minor compared to the cost that a nominee, the president, the Senate and the nation would have to pay for what would assuredly be a bitter fight.”

But isn’t it amazing how it is that the rules are always made to change from when there is a Republican in the White House to when there is a Democrat occupying the Oval Office.  And I know it’s not just my imagination because I’ve seen it take place so often over the course of my life.  And granted, I know if it was currently the other way around the Republicans would be pushing for an appointment with the Democrats standing opposed.  But I think we can all agree that the Democrats could be counted upon to be much more resolute in their opposition than the Republicans are likely to be.


2015 Legislative Kickoff: Governor Election, Inaugural, Health Care Protest

Well, it would seem that yet another Democrat, this time Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin, who has chosen to enter the gun control fray declaring, just this past Friday, that, “We’re not living in the Middle Ages.”  He made this brilliant statement as part of his call for national gun control legislation.  Democrats, assisted by their many minions in the state-controlled media, have expended, and continue to expend, a great deal of time and effort to create the perception that gun the level of gun violence continues to worsen in this country.

And if one is truly interested in seeking out the evidence, which is truly all around us, that their plan for greater gun control would only serve to make the ‘problem’ which they claim to be trying to resolve, so very much worse, then we need to look no further than to those places that already have some of the strictest gun laws in the country.  And it’s many of those very same places that are currently under the control, and have been for decades, of Democrats.  I mean, look at nearly any big city or any Blue State and the facts literally speak for themselves.

And when looking at that country as a whole the level of gun violence has continued to decline over the years.  Now granted there has been a spike of gun shootings over the course of the last seven years, shootings that those on the left have been only too happy to exploit to the greatest extent possible.  But what exactly is it that can be said to be behind that spike?  Might it be the unwillingness on the part of current president to properly enforce current gun laws all in the hopes of actually increasing the odds of more gun violence taking place.

Gun control activists constantly clamor that there’s a “gun violence epidemic” in the United States, but the numbers simply don’t reflect that. In fact, the argument could be made that as the firearms ownership rate increases there’s a correlation to a decline in the murder rate. So perhaps, more guns equal less crime?  That’s the position taken by a study from Virginia that showed a decrease in violent crime as the number of firearms being sold increased, and while it’s an interesting possibility there’s no good way to decisively prove it.

And it’s more often than not that those who are focused the most on restricting the rights of law abiding citizens to own a gun rarely, if ever, even mention the those instances, and there are many, of where a life was saved because someone had a gun.  Because in so doing they would, and in pretty short order, prove the fallacy of their own argument that guns are ONLY ever used by those who commit crimes and NEVER in a way that can be, even remotely, seen as being defensive in nature.  And to make such a claim, they say, is simply propaganda on the part of gun rights advocates.

So, back to this boob, Shumlin. He said, “My view on gun legislation is this: You will not solve this problem state by state. You need a 50-state solution, and we better come up with one fast.” Shumlin made his comment while attending  Politico’s Sixth Annual State Solutions Conference at the Microsoft Innovation and Policy Center in Washington, D.C.  Shumlin pushed for what he called a “50-state solution” despite coming from a rural state where guns are commonly used for hunting.  No matter what state we’re talking about, it should have no impact on one’s right to own a gun.

Scumlin was taking questions from those on line because it was in responding to a question that was posed via Twitter about balancing public safety with Second Amendment rights that he said, “There’s no question there’s a different culture with guns and a different challenge for politicians in urban and rural states.”  Since I am not a Democrat, it would seem to me that when it comes to those rights guaranteed to us by our Constitution, regardless of topic, it matters not in the least whether we live in an urban or a rural state.

Shumlin went on to say, “You know, Vermonters treat guns, we use guns to manage our deer herd, to manage our natural resources. And you know, you learn about guns at a very young age from, like me, my dad.”  He added,  “You know, I’m a hunter. I’m a Democrat, but I hunt deer. I know I’m not supposed to as a Democrat, but I do.”  So by his choosing to make such an admission are we all somehow supposed to believe that that makes him more of a supporter of the Second Amendment?  Nope, I don’t trust these people as far as I could throw them.

Shumlin, who was elected to his first two-year term as governor in 2010, signed into law a bill just last May that  imposed restrictions on gun ownership in Vermont.  And then, oddly enough, it was the following month that he announced that he was not running for reelection.  So obviously what we have here is yet another Democrat who, while perfectly willing to restrict the rights of the people, lacks the courage to defend his actions.  These Democrats, you can never really believe anything that they say.  They really are a pack of political low-lifes.

No, Mr. Shumlin, thank God we are not, as you say, living in the Middle Ages.  And yes, it was taken for granted during the Middle Ages that the peasants wouldn’t be allowed to own their own weapons.  You see, it was back then that arms were the privilege of the elite and how they held on to their power.  Such is the mentality behind this effort by the Democrats to gut our Second Amendment.  And by the way, something being missed by Shumlin, as it tends to be with all Democrats, is the fact that we already have a fifty state solution. It was ratified over two hundred years ago and it’s called the…CONSTITUTION!

And while Shumlin can said to be correct when he says we’re not living in the Middle Ages, what we are living in is that era of human history which has produced the worst forms of government tyranny imaginable, starting with the emergence of atheistic Communism; the monstrosity of Nazism; the virulent spread of international Communism; the insanity of modern progressivism; and, of course, the death loving cult of Islam.  And yet what is seen as being of the highest priority is the disarming of law abiding American citizens.  Who but those of the Democrat Party thinks this way?

It was the Founders of our great nation who, in their infinite wisdom, truly understood the inclination of certain types of people to be drawn to exercising what is nothing short of dictatorial rule over their neighbors. The Second Amendment acts as a guarantee that no tyrant can so easily subdue us as has been done so often to defenseless people in the rest of the world.  In that regard we who are so blessed to live in this country remain unique among all the peoples of this planet.  And it is our modern day Democrats who represents exactly who is was that the Founders were most concerned about.


Democratic U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton reacts to recognizing someone in the crowd during a campaign stop in Concord, New Hampshire

You know, the level of hypocrisy continually exhibited by those on the left never ceases to amaze.  I mean, it was just recently that we heard Hitlery criticizing Bernie Sanders for what she called his “free this and free that and free everything” philosophy.  But yet it seems to me that it’s that very philosophy that has been part of the Democrat platform for decades and to now ridicule Sanders for supporting it seems a bit hypocritical.  After all, Bernie is far from being the first one to ever make such promises, and I seem to recall hearing much the same from Barry.

And it struck me as being more than just a little odd how it was really not all that long ago, politically speaking, that Hitlery was going after Jeb Bush for trying to make the very same point that she is now trying to make in her attempt to go after Bernie.  Of course, when she was attacking Bush for pointing out the Democrat philosophy that advocates the giving away of all manner of free stuff, and the more free stuff the better, it was at a time when she was beating Bernie Sanders pretty handily.  However, that race has now gotten very much closer.

For those who may not remember, it was during some campaign event in South Carolina that Bush was asked how he planned to appeal to black voters.  Bush responded by saying, “Our message is one of hope and aspiration.”  He went on to say, “It isn’t one of division and get in line and we’ll take care of you with free stuff. Our message is one that is uplifting — that says you can achieve earned success.”  What Bush said is factual, yet those who have been on the receiving end of so much free stuff and who should have been listening, weren’t.

And it was in her response to that statement that Hitlery, back in September, took a not so subtle jab at Jeb.  She said, “I think people are seeing this for what it is: Republicans’ lecturing people of color instead of offering real solutions to help people get ahead, including facing up to hard truths about race and justice in America.”  The Democrats have been proposing these “real solutions” for “people of color” for over 50 years.  And how much have these ‘real solutions’ improved the lives of anyone over that same period of time?

And it was Hitlery who would go one to say, “Republicans have no problem promising tax breaks and sweetheart deals to their corporate friends, but when Democrats fight to make sure all Americans have access to quality, affordable health care, early childhood education and job training, that’s giving away “free stuff”?  Now does she mean the kind of quality, affordable healthcare that was provided to us by the creation of Obamacare?  Because from where I’m sitting, under the Democrats, healthcare has been made to be lacking in both quality and affordability!

But then in what was a pretty obvious flip-flop on the whole ‘free stuff’ thing, it was at a campaign event in Nevada just this past Thursday, that Hitlery seemed to be quite comfortable in borrowing a line from Jeb’s playbook in taking a direct shot at Bernie.  She said, “I’m not just making speeches and not just promising free this and free that and free everything.”  Sanders, as we know, is a devout socialist who supports nationalized health care and “free” tuition to public colleges and universities.  And Hitlery now says that Sanders’ proposals are unrealistic.

As someone who could never be a Democrat, for any number of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that my IQ is a higher number than my shoe size, it would all seem to be just a bit disingenuous of Hitlery to be going after Bernie for doing nothing more than what Democrats have been doing for as long as I can remember.  That being, the promising of all manner of ‘free stuff.’  But what the recipients of that ‘free stuff’ seem unable to grasp is the fact that there are always going to be strings attached to all that free stuff. It’s either that or they just don’t care.