While there are many who, apparently, seem to have been caught by surprise at the level of economic and social degradation occurring today in Venezuela under chavismo, the movement founded by the late leftist dictator Hugo Chávez, who, praise God, died of cancer three years ago, after seeing what has been the result of every other attempt at socialism, there’s really nothing surprising about it. What began as a war against the “squalid” oligarchy in order to build what he called “21st-century socialism” — cheered on as he was by many leftists from abroad — has collapsed into an unprecedented heap of misery and conflict.  As has always been the case wherever the implementation of this twisted ideology has been attempted.

Unsurprisingly, Chávez was incapable of reinventing socialism as anything other than a prescription for abject failure. Ultimately, all he wound up bequeathing to his people is this century’s longest national train wreck.  The distressing stories that continue to flow from Venezuela only continue to worsen.  From stories about the simple necessities like being unable to buy toilet paper to horror stories about the spiraling public-health emergency there due to shortages of medicine, doctors, and, among other things, electricity to keep hospitals and medical equipment functioning.  Stories of babies dying in maternity wards, lack of water to wash blood from operating tables, surgeons forced to wash their hands with bottles of seltzer water.

The easily preventable deaths of innocents is tragic, but it is only one more ghastly layer atop Venezuelans’ increasingly brutish quality of life. Added to this are levels of street crime among the world’s highest; shortages of the most basic goods, leading to hours-long queues and looting; triple-digit inflation, which has resulted in more than 70 percent of the population’s living in poverty; and the collapse of government services exacerbated by the two-day work week, ordered by Chávez’s hapless successor, Nicolás Maduro, to save energy.  This explains why, for three years running, Venezuela has been ranked No. 1 in the world in the Cato Institute’s annual Misery Index. All this in a country with the largest oil reserves in the world.

So you may ask, how could it all have come to this?  While it may be true that international oil prices have dropped to less than half of what they were at the height of Chávez’s power, anyone who has been watching Venezuela closely knows that the downward glide path predated by years the oil-market collapse. It also doesn’t explain how other countries heavily dependent on energy exports have weathered the storm without such catastrophic consequences. No, what has brought on Venezuela’s nightmare is the systematic destruction of economic freedom through politicized rule of law, the wanton confiscations of private property, and an orgy of price and currency controls, which have led to rampant distortions and dislocations.

Still, it wasn’t so long ago that legions of leftist admirers of Venezuela were falling all over themselves singing the praises of Chávez. In 2012, Mark Weisbrot, wrote in the New York Times: “Since the Chávez government got control over the national oil industry, poverty has been cut in half, and extreme poverty by 70 percent. College enrollment has more than doubled, millions of people have access to health care for the first time and the number of people eligible for public pensions has quadrupled.”  And it was in a Salon article titled “Hugo Chávez’s Economic Miracle” (2013) that we read: “As shown by some of the most significant indicators, Chávez racked up an economic record that a legacy-obsessed American president could only dream of achieving.”

But perhaps the most shameless of the Chavez apologists was the hardy perennial Oliver Stone, who, unable to limit himself to one hagiographic documentary on Chávez, felt compelled to make two. On Chávez’s death in 2013, Stone issued this statement: “I mourn a great hero to the majority of his people and those who struggle throughout the world for a place. Hated by the entrenched classes, Hugo Chavez will live forever in history.”  But it’s not enough to simply point out the enduring folly of socialism’s apologists, of which there are many.  Now I suppose will always have  our Useful Idiots. But the point is to prevent yet another generation of Americans from being led astray by the siren song of socialism.

In other words, those Millennials currently enamored by the quixotic campaign of “democratic socialist” Bernie Sanders for the U.S. presidency. They seem to have an idea of socialism as a sort of imaginary Scandinavian bliss rather than as a pernicious deal with the devil whereby you relinquish more of your rights to government on the faulty promise of improving your security and well-being. All you are left with is poverty, less dignity, and no hope. Every new generation must be made to understand that ideas will always have consequences.  And, if you have any doubts about that, a visit to Venezuela, just a few hours’ flight time from Miami, will likely convince you of that essential fact.  Government is NOT the solution!

We have in Venezuela that which was once a thriving country and it was the leadership of a madman that proceeded to drive it straight into the ground. Those Hollywood elite royalty that so many worship, the likes of Sean Penn, Oliver Stone, Michael Moore and Danny Glover, probably push the radio station button or quickly turn the page of a newspaper when they now read of the destruction that Hugo Chavez has wrought.  It’s amusing to see the spin put on this by places like National Public Radio (NPR), your tax dollars at work, when they actually mention it, that is. It’s not the socialism’s fault, it’s solely the fault of falling oil prices. Otherwise Venezuela would be a little socialistic heaven.

We do not appreciate enough the fact that socialism doesn’t start by asking you to give up your rights. It begins by demanding that others give up their rights for the sake of the public good. It is popular to demand that the 1% pay their workers more, and pay more taxes. All this is done by centrally applied force, and the persons applying the force are incompetent, and soon enough we all suffer consequences. The problem is that young America, courtesy of our public school system and out institutions of ‘higher learning’, has now so propagandized that using another’s money to make your life a little more comfortable is a good idea. So the realistic question we are faced with is how can we now introduce them to reality?


warren 07

After having spent some time in that bastion of leftwing lunacy known as Massachusetts, where nearly everyone gets paid under the table in order to avoid paying the taxes levied against them by the very ones they vote for, the antics seen coming from Elizabeth ‘Pocahontas’ Warren comes as no surprise.  The cause for my spending time in such a loony bin was because my duty station at the time which was just south of Boston.  And if there really is a God there will never be a reason for me to return to a place so overflowing with the mentally challenged.  Now it should come as no surprise that this hypocritical dingbat calls ‘The Bay State’ home, after all so did Teddy Kennedy as does John Kerry-Heinz.

And what we have here in the person of “Fauxcahontas”, as she is fondly, or not so fondly, referred to by some in the conservative blogosphere due to her fictitious claim of Native American ancestry, is another Democrat who has shown herself to be a classic example of liberal hypocrisy as she blasted, among others, Republican nominee Donald Trump for having the nerve to buy homes for profit during the housing crisis. But a funny thing happened on the way to her soapbox, because as it turns out old ‘Goofy’, aka Pocahontas, did the exactly the same thing.  And for years.  According to a report by National Review  (NR) Warren bought several homes — including ones that had gone into foreclosure — in order to “flip” them for a quick profit.

Of course this would not be problematic if she had not built her entire political career on vilifying people who’ve done exactly the same thing.  NR points out, “She campaigned for the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, intended to shield people from the predations of the mortgage and credit-card industries, among others.”  And adds, “In her 2006 book, All Your Worth, co-authored with her daughter, Amelia, Warren lists as a top myth the idea that ‘you can make big money buying houses and flipping them quickly.'”  Which is more than just a bit odd especially since that’s precisely what she did for a number of years. And listed elow are but a few examples of Warren’s home purchases:

“Nearly two years after Veo Vessels died, her daughter, 70-year-old Mary Frances Hickman, decided to sell the home her mother had left to her. A sprawling brick house in Oklahoma City’s historic Highland Park neighborhood, it was built in 1924, just a year after Mary’s birth. Decades later, one of Vessels’ great-grandchildren fondly recalls the wood and tile floors, the fish pond, the butler’s quarters, and the multi-car garage where children played house.

“It was really, really nice,” says Hickman’s granddaughter, Andrea Martin. That’s part of the reason she’s so surprised her grandmother sold the home in 1993 for a mere $30,000. Despite a debilitating stroke, Martin says Hickman remained sharp, and she had always been business-savvy. As an Avon saleswoman, she had at times ranked among the top ten in the country. “So I don’t know why,” Martin says.

“Maybe she just wanted out from underneath it, but to sell it for such a low number — I don’t know. Maybe she got bad advice, maybe she was just tired.” The home’s new owner: Elizabeth Warren, today a Massachusetts senator who has built a political career on denouncing the sort of banking titans and financial sophisticates who make a buck off the little guy.

Five months after purchasing Veo Vessels’ old home, Warren flipped the property, selling it for $115,000 more than she’d paid, according to Oklahoma County Property Assessor records. Warren rose to political prominence in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis as a crusader against big banks and a dispenser of common-sense economic advice.  […]

Warren bought two homes after they’d fallen into foreclosure. And though she spent money fixing up the Hickman home before selling it, records suggest she sold others at a significant profit without making any meaningful upgrades.”

The report indicates that Warren made more than $240,000 in profit flipping homes. For more details on each of Warren’s home purchases, read the full report.  So as we can once again plainly see, the ultimate form of political power in America is the power of hypocrisy, and those on the left are masters of this, and this alleged Indian is the latest, greatest version. She is also one of the more dangerous elected leftists in America, and since her lack of honesty doesn’t seem to be much an issue with her supporters, including those in the state-controlled media, that makes her that much more powerful.  Because she’s essentially free to say, or do, anything she wishes, no matter how outrageous and no matter how dishonest.

I suppose it goes without saying that I find the lack of ethics regarding this women quite disturbing.  Her claims of origin based on a family tale of ‘high cheek bones’ that enabled her to meet employment quotas, hiring quotas, business requirements should be considered as being deeply offensive to families of native Americans. Her playing while making a quarter of a million dollars during (in her words) the great recession by buying low and selling high, the private homes of unfortunate families, is just more evidence of what a corrupt woman she really is. She says one thing, yet lives another reality. I would not trust her as a friend, nor as a neighbor, why would anyone ever trust this liar with the reins of power?

“Do as I say, not as I do” is, always has been, and will likely continue to be for the foreseeable future, the mantra of those on the left.  And it’s inside every liberal Democrat that there resides a liar waiting for just the right opportunity to demonstrate how little they are to be trusted.  You see, Democrats are able to say, or do, whatever they want and are never be made to face any consequences. These people are nothing more than parasites who prey upon the misfortunes and hopelessness of minority groups.  And all the while being able to convince their victims that it is only they who have their best interest at heart.  And their victims continue to buy it, and sadly to their own detriment!

And if there is one common denominator, so to speak, among these unscrupulous scumbags, it’s that they are millionaires many times over.  And like all those who are supporters of socialism, they lead lives that are much, much different than those whom they claim to represent?  Just like all of those liberals who seem to take such great pleasure in running around screaming about ‘climate change’, while the same time flying everywhere in their private jets, owning numerous, and very huge, homes, big shiny yachts and their own personal fleet of cars.  We know they don’t actually believe what they say, it’s just a way for them to get rich and to increase their control over the people.  Because that’s what it’s always about.



So, how many times over the course of that several years have we heard that there is simply no such thing as voter fraud, or how it is does exist it’s only on a minuscule level.  And how many time have we on the right been accused of being racist for no other reason than because we think before one gets to vote they should, at a minimum, prove they are who they say they are.  Now comes proof that we’re not simply being racist, or even paranoid for that matter and courtesy of an investigation by, of all organizations, a CBS News’ Los Angeles-based affiliate, KCAL-9.

It would seem that in what might be only the tip of a rather sizable iceberg, KCAL has determined that “hundreds” of dead people seem to be still voting in California.  According to investigative reporter David Goldstein, “CBS2 compared millions of voting records from the California Secretary of State’s office with death records from the Social Security Administration and found hundreds of so-called dead voters.”  And Mr. Goldstein went on to say, “Specifically, 265 in Southern California and a vast majority of them, 215, in Los Angeles County alone.”

Now while these voters are, in fact, genuinely dead, others are voting in their names, often through vote-by-mail.  While it is not clear how these “so-called dead voters” voted, 86 were registered Republicans, and 146 were registered Democrats. Votes have been cast on behalf of some dead individuals for decades, over several election cycles.  Their votes diluted the votes of living people, whose choices count less when weighed against votes cast fraudulently.  And I have a rather difficult time believing that these 86 dead Republicans maintained their party loyalty from the grave.

The possibility of voter fraud in Southern California is a particularly acute problem in the run-up to the June 7 California primary, where the presidential campaigns of Bernie Sanders and Hitlery Clinton are focused on vote-rich Los Angeles and surrounding areas.  Roughly two-thirds of primary ballots are expected to be cast by mail. California does not have a photo ID requirement to vote, and is the only state out of compliance with the Help America Vote Act of 2002, Goldstein says, making voter rolls less accurate.  No surprise there!

Former Department of Justice attorney J. Christian Adams told Goldstein, “The problem is California has been the most derelict state in the country in implementing statewide databases that are required under federal law. They just blew it off for over a decade.”  And I’m everyone is familiar with how Barry and his Democrat cronies have consistently argued that new laws to improve ballot security and voter transparency, like voter ID, are racist efforts to exclude minorities, and are unnecessary because voter fraud rarely happens.  Oh, really?

Next expose is likely to involve the thousands of noncitizens registered to vote in CA.   Thousands vote but state refuses to prosecute due to the provisions of the CA Voting Rights Act 2016.  You see, the 2016 CA Voting Rights Act duly passed by the CA Legislature and signed into law by Jerry Brown contains this key provision: Any noncitizen who is automatically registered by the expanded Motor Voter provision of the Act that casts a ballot/votes will have been presumed to have made an “error” and will not be prosecuted.  Gee, what a deal, right?

Thus the felony for voter fraud will not be enforced and the offender will not be prosecuted or fined.  Democrats and their supporters like claim that CA has not given the vote to noncitizens, as it is still illegal to vote, just there is now no penalty for an illegal vote.  So the question is, if an illegal act has no penalty or fine, is it that illegal act still really illegal?  Apparently not.  Again Democrats and liberals are playing word games to achieve a goal of having noncitizens vote. So as we can plainly see, California does nothing to properly maintain the voter rolls.

Democrats are for dead voters, undead voters, illegal voters, underage voters, alien voters, criminal voters, pedophile voters, rapist voters, murder voters, drugged voters, sex crimes voters, drug cartel voters, terrorist voters, transnational voters, and any voter willing to help bury what’s left of America regardless of voter status. The only voter the Democrats oppose? The American Voter.  We are all familiar with the Democrat motto – “Vote early, vote often, vote dead!  And Democrats still can’t figure out why the American people want voter registration and ID laws.

It’s amazing that you need an ID to sign up to march with the Democrats in D.C., and an ID to buy alcohol, cigarettes, and drive a car and yet to require someone to prove they are who they say they are when showing up to is somehow disenfranchising that person. How flipping idiotic is that?  Talk about liberal logic!  Voting is the very most important thing we do as American citizens.  And to so trivialize it by allowing those who have absolutely no business doing so, to take part in something so fundamentally important to our republic, is so completely inexcusable!


minimum wage

Well, as you know, or should know, there has been much talk this primary season about fairness and the need to raise the minimum wage to a rather unrealistic level.  And most, if not all of such talk has been heard coming from those on the left.  And while I suppose it sounds pretty good, we need to keep in mind that such talk is coming from those who have never in their life actually been responsible for the running of any sort of business, be it large or small.  So entering into the fray is former CEO of McDonald’s Ed Rensi, who has made the point that a proposed $15 minimum wage would accomplish nothing more than to drive restaurants to use automation more, and therefore to hire far fewer workers.

And it was during a recent interview on Fox Business Network’s “Mornings with Maria” program that Mr. Rensi slammed the idea of raising the minimum wage, saying, “If a $15 minimum wage goes into effect across the country, you’re going to see job loss like you can’t believe.”  And he then went on to add that “it’s cheaper to buy a $35,000 robotic arm than it is to hire an employee who’s inefficient making $15 an hour bagging french fries.”  The former CEO said automation will be the result of a higher minimum wage because “if you can’t get people a reasonable wage, you’re going to get machines to do the work. It’s just common sense, it’s going to happen whether you like it or not.”

Rensi said he favors the idea of leaving the minimum wage issue up to the states and eliminating a federal minimum altogether, saying, “The states ought to decide what the minimum wage is based on cost of living in the regions they’re in.”   Which would seem to make much more sense.  Mr. Rensi also believes the minimum wage debate is little more than “a sham and it’s destroying this country” because low-wage employers, such as fast-food restaurants, shouldn’t be focused on minimum wage, but on training employees to grow.”  He said, “They shouldn’t be minimum-wage workers their entire life. That’s wrong.”  However, I would argue that if one remains a minimum their entire life the fault lies with them, not with their employer.

Mr. Rensi is one who has been quite vocal in the ongoing minimum-wage debate, including writing an article in Forbes, in which he places blame on union organizers for the $15 minimum wage proposal. He said, “I suspect the labor organizers behind this campaign for a $15 minimum wage are less interested in helping employees, and more interested in helping themselves to dues money from their paycheck.”  Bureau of Labor Statistics figures show that roughly 3 million workers, 3.9 percent of all hourly paid workers, made the current $7.25 minimum wage or less, and 1.7 million had wages below the minimum wage, while 1.3 million had wages at the minimum wage level.  But again, moving beyond that rests with the individual.

Look, once again we have the law of unintended consequences kicking in. Why do you think that manufacturing is moving towards robots to do everything? They don’t complain, they don’t strike, they don’t call in sick, they don’t take a vacation or require union negotiations and their cost is pretty much predictable over any period of time.  And what these protesters don’t seem to be able to grasp is that while they may have gotten away with their idiotic antics 15, or so, years ago, today automation has gotten so good that these days they can, and very often are, be replaced relatively easy and at a cost that is recouped in a relatively short time.  And the end result there is that you end up getting better service with a lot less attitude!

Conservatives have long tried to tried to tell these lefties who insisted on “feeling good” by pushing the minimum wage increase that the end result would be a LOSS of jobs.  Did they listen?  Do they EVER listen? Oh, no, they use ear plugs and now hundreds of thousands of kids who aren’t worth that minimum wage will be sitting at home or out causing mischief.  Do the math. If 5 years is the assumed life expectancy of the typical robot: Depreciation, $35,000/5 = $7,000 per year, upkeep $30,000/year for 10 Robots = $3,000.  Add the need for maybe 4 techs to keep everything running for 16 hours/week = $50,000/year and there you go: $7,000 + $30,000 + 50,000= $87,000/year, which is less than 2,000 hours x $15/hr x 4 employees = $120,000/year.

It’s so simple you’d think even a liberal Democrat could understand it. But apparently not!  When you raise the minimum wage the price of everything goes up, there’s simply no way to stop that. The only thing that raising the burger flippers’ wages to $15 an hour will do is to make the job that real people work, for 15 bucks an hour, worthless too. People who get paid $15 an hour for construction jobs that are actually skilled laborers, you have to actually be good at what you do.  Minimum wage jobs are job that teenagers gets to gain experience and to develop a good work ethic that allows them to move up the ladder to better jobs.  What the policies of the left make clear is that they are trying to destroy this country and its people.


Hitlery 149

I suppose one could argue that those upon whom we depend for our news and information have, for decades, been not so gradually sliding further and further to the left after having started from a point that was already well left of center.  And I think it’s fair to say that those who are today’s members of the press, instead of seeing themselves as being the people’s watch dog over their government, see themselves as being nothing more than an extension, of sorts, of the Democrat Party.  They have now chosen sides and it’s the people who come out as being the biggest losers.  But that seems to be of little consequence to those who remain quite contact in their role as lapdog to the left in this country.

So it came as little surprise when on Tuesday of this week, on what has once again become the Clinton News Network, in much the same way it was back in the 90s, it was CNN’s “The Lead” host, Jake Tapper, who called presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump “shameful” for saying that the circumstances surrounding the death of former ‘Slick Willie’ Clinton aide Vince Foster were ”very fishy.”  Tapper is another one of those who routinely practice that which is nothing more than the sort of journalistic malpractice that we have all come to expect from today’s state-controlled ‘news’ media.  And Tapper was quick, maybe a bit too quick, to come rushing to Hitlery’s defense.

Tapper said, “Once again, journalists are in the unhappy predicament of trying to decide whether and how to cover false allegations raised by a candidate for president of the United States. A candidate for the president of—in the midst of the attacks of scandals and accusations from 1990s, Mr. Trump has repeated an outrageous and long-ago debunked falsehood about Vince Foster, a friend of Bill and Hillary Clinton’s until his tragic suicide in July 1993. Foster, who suffered from depression, walked into the park with an old revolver and shot himself in the mouth. The park service police concluded that year that Foster committed suicide.”  So the brilliant forensic investigators of the park service determined it was a suicide?

Jake went on to say, “But that did not stop conspiracy theorists at time from concocting unfounded allegations. Now that first investigation was followed by an investigation by CNN in 1994 concluding Foster’s death was due to suicide and alternative scenarios had no credibility.”  And Jake added, “Other investigations reached the same conclusion, one by independent counsel Robert Fiske in 1994, two by congressional reviews, another by independent council Ken Starr in 1997. One would think case closed, right? Wrong.”  But I would ask the enterprising Mr. Tapper is a murder case, or even a potential murder case, ever closed?  And why is it that Trump’s allegations are considered as being false?  Because we’re talking about a Clinton?

Jake said, “Donald Trump, in an interview appearing in “The Washington Post,” called circumstances surrounding the death very fishy and said, ‘I don’t bring Foster’s death up because I don’t know enough to discuss it, I will say there are people who continue to bring it up because they think it was absolutely a murder. I don’t do that because I don’t think it’s fair.’ Right. Except, of course, you just did that, Mr. Trump. You lend credence to a bizarre and unfounded conspiracy theory. You’re right, it’s not fair you did that, certainly not to Mr. Foster’s widow or their three children. The notion that this was a murder is a fiction borne of delusion and untethered to reality and contradicted by evidence reviewed in six investigations.”

And Jake went on to say, “One of them by Ken Starr, hardly a Bill Clinton defender. So to say otherwise is ridiculous and, frankly, shameful. Again, this is not a pro-Clinton position or an anti-Trump position. It is a pro-truth position.”  So apparently Jake didn’t take too kindly to Trump’s raising some rather interesting questions.  In fact, he seemed almost offended at even having to report on it.  But I wonder, if it was Hitlery bringing up such matters regarding Trump would Jake have felt the same way?  Somehow I very much doubt it.  Jake is nothing more than one more drivers of one of the many wagons that have now been circled around Hitlery in an effort to fend off any and all attacks at least until after the election.

Vince Foster, for those of you who may not remember, was Deputy White House Counsel and the Clinton’s lawyer.  He was found dead in Fort Marcy Park on July 20, 1993. Three investigations into Foster’s death, including one by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, concluded that the death was an apparent suicide.  Critics of the investigations say Foster’s death does not fit the facts of a suicide and that there are still a lot of unanswered questions about his death, some of the activities at the White House after his body was found, and the investigations themselves.  Although there are numerous theories about what may have happened to Foster and why, none of them has yet to be proven conclusively.

So now, and in much the same way that none of Barry’s many questionable associations were worth reporting on back in 2008, nor again in 2012, any questions that may be brought up regarding Hitlery’s rather shady past should now simply be considered as having been put to rest.  Meanwhile, I suppose anything that can be dug up by the many ‘journalists’ that have now been set to work digging up anything they can find on Trump is to be considered as being fair game and would be something that Jake would be only too happy to report on.  Is it any wonder that we have poll after poll that point out just how little trust the American people have in people like Tapper?  How is it that he can even call himself a journalist?  He’s nothing but a joke!


Gary 1

The worst thing that could possibly happen to this country would be for Hitlery Clinton to be elected president.  And yet, there are those who seem more determined than ever to make just such a nightmare, becomes a reality.  Looking back at the election of 1992 there was only one reason ‘Slick Willie’ was able to walk away with a win.  And that was because of the third party candidate, Ross Perot, who ran that year.  And now here we are 24 years later and it would seem that wife Hitlery has found herself a willing accomplice who seems quite willing to assist her in much the same way that Perot assisted her husband.

How much must one hate America to be willing to assist Hitlery in her effort to become president?  Libertarian Party leaders must see an opportunity to garner for themselves more than the typical few thousand votes.  With an insurgent spirit coursing through the electorate and voters looking for an alternative to strikingly unpopular candidates from both major parties.  Johnson has said that all of the pieces are falling into place for his party to have a dramatic impact in November.  Dramatic impact?  So I’m guessing that’s how he defines his willingness to assist Hitlery in winning the White House?  He can’t be running because he thinks he can win, right?

Johnson, a former New Mexico governor, has been polling in double digits in theoretical three-way contests against likely Democrat nominee Hitlery and presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump.  The party is also said to be experiencing a surge of new members. And widespread dissatisfaction with the status quo in Washington has spurred political movements that are challenging both the GOP and Democrat Party establishment.  If Johnson garners 10 percent of the vote in November, it would be Libertarians’ strongest showing since the party began fielding presidential nominees in 1972.

And apparently there has been a poll conducted by Monmouth University just this past March which seemed to show a similar outcome, with Johnson taking 11 percent of the vote but not significantly altering the outcome.  In that hypothetical three-way contest, Hitlery garnered 42 percent of the vote — down 6 points from the two-person race — and Trump got 34 percent — down 4 points from the two-person race.  Still, Johnson said that he is ready to go after Hitlery and Trump for their big-government agendas.  But I have to wonder what motivates him to accomplish nothing more than to ensure Hitlery wins the election.

Johnson said that Trump’s big-government thinking was evident in his plans to tackle illegal immigration, which is the cornerstone of the billionaire businessman’s campaign.  Johnson said, “He says he wants to build a wall and then deport 11 million people here illegally.”  And he went “That’s big government right there. These are people who take jobs Americans don’t want and whose only major barrier is the language, which they can overcome.”  He said Hitlery would “do more to make government grow and isn’t going to change anything. At the end of the day, taxes will go up.”  So I’m guessing Johnson is totally in favor of illegal immigration?

Republican National Committee (RNC) spokesman Sean Spicer dismissed the idea that Johnson would hurt Trump’s chances of winning the White House.  He said he has “zero” concern about Johnson, who appeared to lack the campaign or organization needed to have a big influence on the election.  Spicer said, “I think the media frankly wants a third-party. They want a fight.”  And he added, “They are not going to get it.”  However, it was recently reported that Billionaire businessman and philanthropist David Koch has apparently pledged “tens of millions of dollars” to help bankroll Johnson’s campaign.  At least according to Johnson.

And it was Mr. Spicer who went on to say that there are now some very clear signs that Republicans are consolidating behind Trump and he said Democrats should be the ones who are concerned as Hitlery has continued to struggle in her effort to woo supporters of Bernard Sanders.  He also pointed to a recent poll that showed some of the Vermont senator’s backers are planning to back Trump in the general election.  He said, “So I appreciate the intrigue about the Republican Party, [but] I think the Democrats have a much, much, more substantial problem that is really bearing out in the polls.”  Johnson would, I think, cause more of a problem for Trump.

But with all that being said we need to remember that the current leader and Presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party, just like the progressive Democrats, is for open borders, more unlimited immigration, more abortion, less police and military, unrestricted drug use including cocaine/heroin, and believe that private businesses can be sued by gay couples even if the owner has religious convictions that would go against them catering an event such as a wedding.  Not to mention the fact that Johnson is little more than a full on nutbag!  It’s hard for me to respect a guy who’s running for no other reason than to be a spoiler and to help Hitlery.

Let’s be real here, if there was going to be a genuine third party attempt worthy of real support then it would seem to me that preparation for such an endeavor would have started back on January 21, 2009, or at the latest on January 21, 2013, not 160 days before the scheduled election.  Because what we now have being cobbled together is little more than a sour-grapes attempt by those who, apparently, wish to do nothing more than to risk everything in their effort to assist Hitlery in achieving that which she thinks she actually deserves.  And I refuse to go along with it, and will do all that I can to convince others not to go along with it.



It would seem to me as we are now being provided with yet another example in the making of just how it is that socialism simply does not work anywhere it’s tried, that Bernie would have a difficult time keeping supporters.  And while I dream of the day that those who so enthusiastically support him, as well as Hitlery, will somehow come to see light and recognize it as being the disaster that it most certainly is, I am not naïve enough to think that they ever will. And I feel quite confident in saying that they most certainly will not.  But it’s not only the young and impressionable who, while watching Venezuela crash and burn, refuse to see it for what it is.

Throughout his entire 14 year reign of terror as leader of his country, during which time he took great pleasure in mistreating his own people, now dead Socialist Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez was continuously praised by any number of those leftist mongrels in academia, journalism and Hollywood despite the fact that those doing the praising were very well aware of the brutality that was taking place at the direction of this thug.  As you may recall that Sean Penn and Oliver Stone were but a couple of the Hollywood elites who felt it appropriate to pay homage to the man who they claimed provided the perfect example for America to follow.

But it was also many in our state-controlled media were also very eager to heap all manner of praise on Chavez.  For instance, it was Salon writer David Sirota who wrote a piece after Chavez’s death which was entitled “Hugo Chavez’s economic miracle.”  And in the British publication ‘The New Statesman’, a headline as Chavez was nearing death in January 2013 was “Hugo Chavez: Man against the world,” and its sub-headline read “As illness ends Hugo Chavez’s rule in Venezuela, what will his legacy be? Richard Gott argues he brought hope to a continent.”  I can only assume that Mr. Gott must define hope in much the same manner as does Barry “Almighty’.

But all of the praise that was so energetically heaped upon Mr. Chavez while he was alive, and that has pretty much continued even after his death, by so many who have reaped the benefits of living in a capitalist society is now coming undone and very rapidly so.  And that they could do so while knowing full well what a disastrous economic record Chavez, as well as his successor President Nicolas Maduro, possessed says much more about those who were doing the praising than it does about the man they felt so comfortable praising.  Because it’s not like what was going on wasn’t there in plain sight for all to see.  These are some truly twisted individuals.

Especially after the Mexican Non-Governmental Organization (NGO), the Citizens’ Council for Public Security and Criminal Justice, published its annual ranking of urban crime earlier this year in January, and found that in 2015, Caracas, the capital of Venezuela, was the most murderous place on the planet.  Caracas has 119.87 murders per 100,000 people, making it even more dangerous than Chicago. Other than personal concerns for safety, Venezuelans also suffer from lacking any economic opportunity due to low oil prices as well as from complete government mismanagement of the state-owned oil firm.

From 1998, when Chavez was first ‘elected’, up to until the time he died in March 2013, oil output at Pdvsa, which is the state-owned oil firm of Venezuela, had fallen 25%, from 3 million to 2.4 million barrels per day.  And that would be despite the fact that Venezuela has what’s been identified as being the largest hoard of oil reserves on the entire planet, at more than 500 Billion barrels. And that number would be according to Forbes’ Christopher Helman.  OPEC reports that Venezuela has 24.9 percent of proven crude oil reserves as of the end of 2014 — Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, comes in a close second with 22.1 percent.

But when comparing GDP per capita, Venezuela’s economic problems become devastatingly clear. Venezuela’s GDP per capita is $12,771.6 as of 2012, while Saudi Arabia’s GDP per capita is almost double at $24,883.2 for that same year.  Venezuela’s GDP has only gone down significantly since 2012 (since Venezuela has not provided The World Bank with more recent data), while Saudi Arabia’s 2014 data demonstrates only a slight dip of $24,406.5. Even the small oil-rich Arab Gulf state of Qatar, which only has 2.1 percent of the world’s proven crude oil reserves, boasts a 2012 and 2014 GDP per capita of $94,407.4 and $96,732.4 respectively.

It’s pretty much a given that Venezuela’s economy will only continue to get worse since according to the country’s Vice President for the Economy, Miguel Perez, the country will remain in a recession through the end of next year. The country’s economy shrank by 5.7 percent in 2015 alone, the second year of what will be a long-running economic downturn.  And despite the irrefutable evidence that Venezuela finds itself in an incredible economic hole, one that is entirely of its own making, several media types, such as Wired’s Linda Poon, continue to peddle headlines like “Venezuela’s Economic Success Fueled Its Electricity Crisis.”

Meanwhile, the Venezuelan workweek for government employees was limited to four days a week and then to just two days a week in April in order to deal with electricity shortages. Daily four-hour blackouts across most of Venezuela is another policy that was implemented in April by the socialist government in an attempt to deal with its self-made crisis.  But economic problems aside, Venezuela has faced a long-running political crisis.  Mass protests in February 2014 were halted through repression and fear-mongering by government forces that arrested the U.S.-educated opposition leader Leopoldo Lopez.  Things have only managed to go from bad to worse.

Now I thought it worth mentioning that Chavez’s daughter happens to be worth a rather impressive $4.2 billion. So it would seem that as long as one happens to part of the ruling elite, socialism can be seen as being beneficial!  Likewise, the Clinton’s are now worth over $2 Billion while the Castro Boys are multi-millionaires.  So it appears that life is good as long as you happen to be one of those at the top of the socialism food chain.  But if you’re one of the poor unfortunate souls more toward the bottom then you’re essentially left scrounging for something as basic as toilet paper and paying $200 for a burger.  What a deal!  And yet Bernie is still packing them in.

It would seem then that in order to be a Democrat, one must either be intellectually dishonest or a complete moron.  And in the Democrat Party what we have are leaders who are dishonest riding herd over followers who are essentially morons.  Because it doesn’t matter how many times socialism fails Democrat leaders continue to say it works and their followers continue to believe them.  Excuses include: it was not executed properly, or some capitalist conspiracy undermined it or it just didn’t have time to work.  Imbecilic followers are unwilling to take responsibility for their failed choices and will always try to take from those who have made better choices.

And what’s happening in Venezuela is the mirror picture of what Sander’s ideological fervent will produce in the United States. Nationalization of the largest corporations; mandated salary controls for working people from top to bottom; socialist indoctrination; invalidation of the US Constitution; further weakening of Congress and its powers; military turned into national police, composed of foreign nationals who could care less about firing upon citizens and free benefits from all the wealth redistribution; electrical brownouts; utility failures; economic collapse, followed by long lines to get into food markets that have nothing to sell or give away.

When it comes to the net result of choosing Socialism over Capitalism, the natural outcome is always going to be the same.  What you will always end up with is political leaders determined to rape their nation of as much of its wealth as they think they can get away with and then create for themselves foreign banks accounts to hide all of their illegally acquired booty and then making sure that those people who dare to stand in opposition are first made examples of and then made to secretly vanish in the dark of night.  Ah, the utopia that yokes people to the slavery of an ideology that has proven itself to be a failure throughout these many generations.


Al Gore 4

As proof that he must spend a great deal of his time living in own special kind of denial, ex vice president and everyone’s favorite leftwing global warming scam artist, Al Gore, recently told The Hollywood Reporter (THR) that his 2006 exercise in climate propaganda, “An Inconvenient Truth,” was not only far from being an exaggeration when it came to any of its claims, but actually underestimated just how serious global warming would turn out to be.  Even though such a claim ignores completely the fact that NONE of the predictions made throughout the film came about.

So it was then that just says before the 10th anniversary of his epic boondoggle, it was in the interview with THR that Gore said, “I wish the film had over-estimated the seriousness of the crisis, but unfortunately it actually underestimated how serious it is,” Gore told THR in an interview Thursday, just days before the 10th anniversary of his film.  Gore added, “But on the positive side, solutions are now being developed so quickly that there is real cause for hope and optimism.”  I’d be curious to know just what specific solutions he might be talking about.

Gore’s 2006 film made the claim that global warming was the greatest challenge facing mankind, and that human-produced carbon dioxide emissions were pushing the Earth towards an ecological disaster. The film even won Gore and his crew two Oscars in 2007, and the movie revitalized Gore’s political relevance.  But did Gore’s film actually “underestimate” the seriousness of global warming?  A group of reporters re-watched “An Inconvenient Truth” in early May to see just how well Gore’s predictions fared after a decade.  I’m afraid old Al didn’t fare too well.

It has been pointed out by any number of sources just how far off the mark Gore’s top five predictions really were. Some of his more famous predictions, including that Mount Kilimanjaro would have no snow by 2016, turned out to be hilariously incorrect, and, yes Al, Kilimanjaro still has plenty of snow.  But that didn’t stop Gore from playing up his film’s success when interviewed by THR.  For example, Gore actually bragged about his expertise on the connection between global warming and extreme weather.  His expertise?  He’s kidding, right?

Gore said, “All 50 of the state insurance commissioners were meeting in New Orleans and had invited me to make a presentation on the linkage between hurricanes and the climate crisis.”  And he went on to say, “It was scheduled for the very day that Hurricane Katrina ended up slamming into New Orleans.”  I’m wondering if those insurance commissioners regret paying Gore to explain global warming to them since there’s not a lot of evidence global warming has caused the weather to become more extreme.  Is Al simply delusional, or just plain dishonest?

For crying out loud, even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) data doesn’t support Gore’s idiotic claim. The IPCC found in 2013 there “is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century.”  The IPCC also found “no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century” and “[n]o robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.”

What we have here, from old Al, what we have here is really nothing more than another example of repeating a lie over and over again until it’s seen as being the truth.  And when you take into consideration the fact that the left has been telling what is essentially the same lie, going first from global cooling in the 1970s to now where the greatest thing we have to fear, even more the Muslim terrorists, is global warming.  And still the vast majority of Americans simply don’t buy.  But I’m pretty sure that Al will keep working to sell his climate nonsense.



Would it be unfair of me to at least suggest that the Democrat Party has now gotten to the point where it is finally beginning to reap nothing more than what it has chosen to have sown?  Might it also be fair to say that perhaps the Democrat Party can now be considered as being a victim of its own success?  Their years of blame America first rhetoric, their years of class warfare rhetoric, and their years of what is essentially nothing more than hate speech has created a bit of a monster for them.

Because isn’t this the kind of stuff one typically gets when one moves as far to the left as today’s Democrat Party has now positioned itself?  It would seem that the chaos that began at last weekend’s Nevada Democratic caucus is continuing to spread and maybe even to grow.  What began as taunts and curses thrown during Sen. Barbara Boxer’s speech have now turned into outright threats of violence against other Democrat leaders.  It’s getting pretty ugly out there!

And it’s Nevada’s Democrat Party chair Roberta Lange who would appear to be one of the primary recipients of the ugliness.  She has been on the receiving end of some really vile and malicious threats that you would think would be vehemently denounced by members of the party.  And yet, there has been relatively little pushback in comparison to how much time has been spent, by those on both sides of the aisle, decrying Donald Trump supporters for ‘their’ actions.

The Huffington Post published screenshots of many of the text messages Lange has received from Bernie’s supporters. Read the wonderful things they’ve been saying:

“Answer the phone bitch… Someone will hurt you.”

“#FeelTheBern… Speak or else… Corrupt bitch… Answer the phone you pu**y.”

“You will regret your actions… Shameful C*NT.”

“You stupid ass bitch… We’re coming for your ass… Start looking for a new job asshat.”

“Hey bitch… Loved how you broke the system… We know where you live… Where you work… Where you eat… Where your kids go to school/grandkids… We have everything on you… We are your neighbors… Friends… Family… ETC… You made a bad choice… Prepare for hell… Calls won’t stop.”

“This will haunt you for the rest of time… How much did the Hillary campaign pay you for that sh*t? Biggest c*nt in politics next to Clinton.”

There were also voicemails, detailed here. This was considered the worst:

“You should be tried for treason, stripped of all authority that you think that you have. All your property, everything. You should be hung in the middle of town, till dead. You are a disgrace to the American people. You should just commit suicide. You’re a disgrace. You’re horrible. Nobody wants you in power. You are a dirt bag. You are the reason why we are voting for Bernie Sanders.”

Bernie’s campaign has issued an obligatory condemnation of any violence on behalf of his organization but he has certainly been far more vocal when it comes to condemning Trump supporters.  Lange has stated that she has not heard from the Sanders campaign about this matter. Sanders avoided answering a question about the eruptions in Las Vegas and his press secretary has expressed disappointment in how Lange and other Nevada Democrats used their power “to prevent a fair and transparent process from taking place.”

If this primary season, as well as much of what we have seen take place over the course of the last seven years, has come to prove anything it’s that there can now be very little doubt that the Democrat Party has been taken over by those who are nothing less than complete lunatics.  I mean, how is it that anyone with half a brain can look at what’s happening around them and claim that it is in anyway normal?  Our country has been put into the position where it is now circling the drain and choosing to elect either Hitlery or Bernie will bring about the end of America.



While I suppose I could have entitled this post, “Careful What You Wish For” or, “What Goes Around, Comes Around”, it just seemed most fitting to use the one that I did, seeing how so many top Democrats now appear to be more than just a little worried about how it’s becoming more likely to be their convention that could turn out to be a political nightmare, perhaps even similar to what the party of peace experienced back in 1968.  The problem, according to some of those Democrats, is none other than Bernie Sanders and his rather raucous supporters.

Bernie, or so it would seem, has now  gone into pretty much full attack mode on the Democrat establishment, putting the splintered party on, what some fear, is the verge of open warfare between factions.  And at least one veteran Democrat has now gone so far as far as to actually make the prediction that this summer’s Democrat convention could actually erupt into riots reminiscent of 1968 gathering of Democrats in Chicago.  Bernie has made it very clear that he intends to take his campaign against Hitlery Clinton all the way to the convention in Philadelphia.

Remember, now, it was in 1968 that Chicago cops and anti-Vietnam War protesters clashed violently at the party’s convention in August of that year.  After the June assassination of New York Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, who had been the Democrat frontrunner and who had been running on an anti-war platform, anti-war Minnesota Sen. Eugene McCarthy had faced off against Vice President Hubert Humphrey.   Humphrey had vowed to continue the Vietnam policies of retiring Lyndon Johnson.  Humphrey emerged victorious, enraging the anti-war left.

Now in fast-forwarding to 2016 we saw how party tensions spiked as recently as just this week between ‘Team Bernie’ and the national party after Bernie’s campaign manager, some clown by the name of Jeff Weaver, accused national party Chair Debbie Wizzerman Schultz of trying to stop Sanders’ populist outsider candidacy.  It was Weaver who told MSNBC, “It’s been pretty clear almost from the get-go that she has been working against Bernie Sanders for personal reasons.”  I think it’s difficult to argue that Wizzerman Schultz has been pulling for Hitlery.

And it was then that Weaver went on to say, “It’s clear there is a pattern of conduct from the beginning of this campaign that has been hostile to Bernie Sanders and his supporters and really she has become a divisive figure in the party.”  Weaver proceeded to slam Wizzerman Schultz a day after she blasted Sanders supporters for their rowdy behavior during the Nevada Democrat State convention last weekend.  The Nevada party said earlier this week that Sanders’ campaign is “failing to adequately denounce the threats of violence of his supporters.”

Sanders’ backers overturned furniture, threatened state party officials and had to be escorted out of a Las Vegas convention hall by cops after party big wigs disqualified 58 state delegates supporting Sanders. Nevada’s Democrat Party charged that the Bernie backers posted state Chair Roberta Lange’s personal info online and threatened her and her family.  While Sanders condemned the violence, sorta-kinda, he also mixed that with a not subtle swipe at the party’s leadership.  And, at least for now he shows no sign of letting up in his attacks on party leadership.

It was on the Communist News Network (CNN) that Weaver also accused Wizzerman Schultz of “throwing shade on the Sanders campaign since the very beginning.”  He criticized the party’s decision to limit the number of debates and hold some of the showdowns on weekends.  Wizzerman Schultz replied, telling CNN, “My response to that is SMH,” an acronym for “shaking my head” in disgust or disbelief.  Let’s face, Wizzerman Schult has been rather obvious in her desire to ensure that Hiltery gains the Democrat nomination, so you can understand Bernie’s frustration.

Meanwhile, Ms. Wizzerman Schultz said Democrats needed to focus on getting through the primary season and working to prepare for the general-election campaign against presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump.  Which I guess is all well and good as long as it’s the ‘proper’ candidate that ends up being the one to go against Trump.  Which is where the problem comes up.  Because, you see, it’s Bernie’s supporters who feel that, as being the better candidate, Bernie is being edged out to make room for Hitlery.  And the ire of Bernie’s supporters show no sign of subsiding.

Meanwhile, New York Democrat Party officials assured the Sanders campaign and its local supporters that they will be treated fairly at Monday’s state party convention, in order to avoid a Nevada-type debacle.  It was on Monday of this week that Sanders’ New York campaign lawyer, Arthur Schwartz, held a preliminary meeting with the Hitlery campaign as well as state Democrat Party brass.  He said, “They want everything to go smoothly. They don’t want to happen in New York what happened in Nevada.”  I’m sure they don’t.

So anyway, here we are after all of the wisecracks, and all of the jokes, that we heard over the course of the last several months, coming for any number of Democrats, as well as those in the state-controlled media, about how the Republican Convention was likely to end up as little more than a hot mess.  But it now looks like we might be the ones who have the last laugh.  Now I don’t want to be counting my chickens before they’re hatched, but it would seem that things are beginning to look a bit more dicey for the Democrats than they do for the good guys.