Tuesday, September 30, 2014
Apparently leftwing nutjob and Democrat senator, Chuckie Schumer, attended the recent climate change march there in the ‘Big Apple’. And it was there that he was heard to say, in an interview, that the people of New York are very well aware of the cataclysmic effects being brought about by ‘climate change’. Now even if that nonsense were true, which it is not, it says much more about the less than average intelligence of the people to whom he refers than it does about any real possibility that ‘climate change’ is, in fact, taking place.
Chuckie said, "Well, I’ve been a leader on these things in Congress for a long time. But anybody in New York who doubted the effects of climate change changed their minds after Sandy." And I guess what I find as being more than a little humorous is the fact that Chuckie could actually refer to himself, and with a straight face, as being a leader, when in reality he’s just another Democrat stooge who continues to get himself re-elected courtesy of imbeciles stupid enough to have allowed themselves to be convinced that ‘climate change’ actually exists.
Chuckie made his imbecilic remarks about ‘climate change’ to some reporter during the ‘climate change’ march over a week ago but the clip of this ignoramus just made to the web over this past weekend. Democrats like Chuckie, and other big supporters of ‘climate change’ continue to point to Hurricane Sandy as being their irrefutable proof that ‘climate change’ really is taking place. REALLY, it is! But upon closer inspection of the actual facts, there’s simply no there, there. It’s all nothing more than science-fiction.
But with actual examples that can be used to support their cockamamie theory remaining few and far between, supporters of the ‘climate change’ theory, like old Chuckie, are forced to continue to revisit the Sandy well. Even though ‘climate change’, at least as it is portrayed by those on the left, actually played no part in either the creating of the storm, the intensity of the storm, or the amount of damage left in its wake, that hasn’t stopped them from making their outlandish claims.
One of those whom I can only assume is someone those on the left would categorize as being a "flat-earther" would be Alabama's top climatologist and UA-Huntsville professor, Dr. John Christy. He’s one of those who doesn’t agree with claims that Sandy was affected by ‘climate change’ and he says those who claim that the size of ‘Hurricane’ Sandy may have been affected by global warming are not supported by the facts. And as we all know, Democrats and facts are like oil and water.
According to Dr. Christy, "Hurricane Sandy was a minimal hurricane. So, it is no way indicative of arising trends in hurricanes that might be attributed to global warming." He said Sandy was unusual because a low intensity hurricane typically cannot survive long enough to hit such a large area. He said, "It occurred during a high tide. The moon was full. It occurred at a time when a very cold upper level trough was coming through the east coast, which helped keep it alive after it hit the land."
None of that, he added, is related to ‘climate change’. He said there is no evidence that global warming is causing more major storms. Christy went on to say, "We've looked at hurricanes starting in the 1850's. There is no trend in hurricanes. In fact, if you look at the last seven years, there has not been single major hurricane hit the United States. This is the longest period of such a dearth of hurricanes in that entire record." And yet those on the left continue to sound the alarm about the coming apocalypse that will, they say, supposed result from ‘climate change.’
Democrats, as you know, love to portray themselves as being big supporters of science, but they tend to be rather selective when it comes to just what kind of science it is that they’re willing to support. And when it comes to ‘climate change’ the ‘only’ science they choose to support is the junk science that they claim backs up their cockamamie theory of ‘climate change’, climate disruption, global warming or whatever it is that they want to call it this week. Those who support the myth of ‘climate change’ ignore the science that very clearly refutes their claims.
Monday, September 29, 2014
According to nearly everyone’s favorite faux journalist and very devoted Barry apologist, Juan Williams, Barry may just be "on to something" with his statements that echo President Ronald Reagan's famous question that asked voters if they are better off today than they were four years ago. Now I don’t know about any of you, but I for one can very safely say that I am in no way better off than I was the day this America-hating socialist first stepped foot into the Oval Office. I’m now paying more than I was then for everything!
Williams does his best to perpetuate the idiotic myth that Barry has somehow engineered an economic ‘recovery’ in this country. He claims that, "'On Obama’s watch, 5.1 million jobs have also been added to payrolls, the S&P/Case-Shiller national home price index is up about 17 percent and the S&P 500 stock index has more than doubled while hitting all-time records.'" But what Juan conveniently leaves out is the fact that it’s also been on Barry’s watch that the nation’s workforce has been made to shrink by over 10 Million workers.
Williams seems to take great pleasure in pointing out that the unemployment rate has been lower for the past five months than during the last five years, and is now at 6.1 percent. Meanwhile, the Dow Jones industrial average is near an all-time high, now regularly closing at over 17,000 points. Look, as far as the unemployment numbers go, I think we can all safely agree that those numbers have now gotten to point where they have become meaningless. And the 17,000 Dow to which he refers, is just as phony as the unemployment numbers.
Also it’s also according to Juan that consumer confidence is also up to its highest point in nearly seven years. And Barry, just this past Sunday, said on CBS' "60 Minutes" that he plans to spend the weeks before the November midterm election campaigning for Democrats, or at least those willing to be in the same room with him, on his economic record, and that he would put it "against any leader around the world in terms of digging ourselves out of a terrible, almost unprecedented financial crisis." Good luck with that!
Because most Americans seem to be more than just a little skeptical when it comes to the rather questionable claims heard coming from Barry and his many supporters like Juan make when it comes to our supposed booming economy. Most don't seem to believe that he’s handling the economy all that well. And a CNN poll released just today would seem to show that 42 percent of respondents said they approve of how Barry is handling the economy, and just 44 percent gave him a favorable job performance rating.
Barry did admit on Sunday that Americans aren't feeling the recovery, but of course he accepted none of the blame, blaming it instead on what he called the fact that on incomes and wages that are not increasing. That problem can be addressed through Democrat policy, said Barry, and he plans to convince Americans that the economy has actually improved during his presidency. Right, now if you believe that then I’ve some wonderful ocean front property in Arizona that I’ll let you have dirt cheap. How it is that he can even make such claims?
And as Williams points out, Barry's job approval, when it comes to the economy, has a negative ranking, with RealClearPolitics showing that 55 percent of Americans disapprove of the way he’s handling of the economy, with only 40 percent approving. The economy is the top issue to voters, Williams said, so Democrats will need to work to turn the negative numbers around. And it’s also worth noting here that it has been on Barry’s economic watch that median household incomes have fallen by some $2,100.
According to old Juan, Democrats and Barry both say wages are down because those evil Republicans are just not working hard enough to boost wages, and have refused to back efforts to raise the minimum wage. But as we know there is a reason for that. Further, Democrats say the House refused to extend unemployment benefits for people who have been unemployed for longer terms. But if Barry’s economy is doing as well as Juan claims it is, then why is that we have people who have been out of work long enough for their ‘benefits’ to run out?
And then in demonstrating the fact that he can only be smokin, snortin’ or shootin’ up what must be some pretty powerful shit, Juan actually said that Barry may be playing the right card when it comes to campaigning on the economy. And in what I’m not quite sure was an attempt to convince himself or possibly others, Juan said, "If the midterms turn into a referendum on which party to trust to boost middle-class wages, look for Democrats to hold the Senate." But the fact is, it has been the Democrats who have done their best to destroy our economy
Let’s face it, Williams is nothing but a pathetic hypocrite who has demonstrated time and again that he is a guy willing to say absolutely anything in trying to get his team elected. And I think we all realize that if we now had a Republican in the White House who was putting up the same kind of economic numbers as is his BFF Barry, Juan and his many leftwing media friends be hammering that president 24/7. The plain fact of the matter is that Juan has zero credibility when it comes to just about any topic on which he might choose to speak.
Anyone who still stubbornly refuses to believe that Barry is a racist, has either not been paying attention to all of the racist things that Barry has said, or has simply chosen to willingly ignore all of the evidence that Barry himself has provided that makes the point painfully clear. It’s either that or they are naïve to the point of being comatose. And it is once again that Barry has provided us with yet another glimpse of his inner racist as he went about the preaching of pure "divisiveness" to those described as being black ‘leaders’ present at a recent, and very swanky, awards dinner. Barry confidently declared that America is basically a racist society.
Barry told the mostly black audience in attendance at the Congressional Black Caucus dinner, that police nationwide "are to blame" for community mistrust. He said, "Too many young men of color feel targeted by law enforcement — guilty of walking while black or driving while black, judged by stereotypes that fuel fear and resentment and hopelessness." Barry indicated that it is his understanding that "most Americans" believe the American justice system suffers from institutional racism, while giving examples ranging "from enforcing drug policy to applying the death penalty to pulling people over."
Wouldn’t it have been better, and totally unexpected, if Barry had been able to see his way to acting a bit more presidential and used this very same black-tie event to talk optimistically about race in America. I mean what better opportunity than with a slew of prominent black lawmakers, lawyers and entrepreneurs there in the audience. If he had I might, today, have a slightly different opinion of him. But instead Barry, as is usually the case with this racist ‘community agitator’, insisted upon taking the low road and really accomplished little more than to make the job of law enforcement just that much tougher.
Barry's comments came on Saturday evening and, as it just so happened, on the same night that a police officer was shot in Ferguson, Missouri. The shooting followed an encounter with two men, most likely a couple of men robbing while black, at a community center who ran from him and then opened fire during a foot chase. The shooting incident comes in the aftermath of the race riots in the St. Louis suburb that erupted after 300 pound black ‘teen’, and convenience store robber, Michael Brown was killed by a white police officer, Darren Wilson as Wilson was trying to prevent himself from being killed. Which I’m sure Barry would have preferred.
After Barry had informed his dinner audience that Brown's parents were guests in the audience, he made the patently idiotic claim that he didn't plan on talking about the federal investigation into the 18-year-old's death. But then he went on to say, "I know that nothing any of us can say can ease the grief of losing a child so soon. But the anger and the emotion that followed his death awakened our nation once again to the reality that people in this room have long understood, which is, in too many communities around the country, a gulf of mistrust exists between local residents and law enforcement."
And he went on to say, "There are significant racial disparities. That's just the statistics. One recent poll showed that the majority of Americans think the criminal justice system doesn't treat people of all races equally. Think about that. That's not just blacks, not just Latinos or Asians or Native Americans saying things may not be unfair. That's most Americans." This guy is so pathetic, and on so many different levels. And it wouldn’t be so bad if people were a little smarter and were therefore able to see that the image that Barry is so desperate to paint for them, has far more to do with politics than with anything else.
Barry added, "And the worst part of it is it scars the hearts of our children, that it leads some youngsters to unnecessarily fear people who do not look like them and others to constantly feel under suspicion no matter what they do." So it would seem that, at least to Barry and most likely the vast majority of blacks in this country, that the color of a man's skin is far more important than is the content of his character. Barry, our Divider-in-Chief made a conscious decision to stoke the dying embers of the racial tension in Ferguson just in case he could cash in on a late campaign issue ahead of the midterm elections.
Rather than talk about all that unites the races, at least for Barry, America just keeps getting worse and worse. And let’s be honest here, that's exactly as he wants it to be. For only by dividing Americans by race, sex and class can his pessimistic worldview ever have a chance to take hold in the manner in which he, and his fellow Democrats need it to. Voters will go to the polls in little more than a month and we can only hope that a majority of Americans will vote against just the kind of divisiveness that Barry preaches every single day. But I can’t say that I’m all that optimistic about things, but then I’m always up for a good surprise.
Sunday, September 28, 2014
I’ve been reading everywhere, or nearly everywhere, that the parents of Michael Brown made the statement that they were unmoved by the apology given by the Ferguson, Missouri, police chief weeks after their18-year-old, 300 pound, son was killed by a police officer. But I’m more than a little curious, what exactly did he have to apologize for? I’m guessing the parents of this thug would now be much happier if this policeman had not been permitted to defend himself and therefore had no way to keep this 300 pound ‘teen’ from killing him. As far as I’m concerned, the ones who are owed an apology are the people of Ferguson and Officer Darren White!
But Brown's mother, Lesley McSpadden, who oddly enough has a different last name, took things a step further answering, "yes," when asked if Chief Tom Jackson should be fired. And his father, Michael Brown Sr., said rather than an apology, they would rather see the officer who shot their son arrested for his Aug. 9 death. Brown Sr. said, "An apology would be when Darren Wilson has handcuffs, processed and charged with murder." The fact that these two, apparently, never found it necessary to get married only serves to compound the fact that they were also, and quite obviously, lousy parents who succeeded in raising nothing more than a common thug.
Wilson, as everyone should know by now, is white; the 300 pound young man that was shot, black. The shooting sparked days of violent protests and racial unrest in the predominantly black community that continue to this day. Some residents and civil rights activists have said responding police officers were overly aggressive, noting their use of tear gas and surplus military vehicles and gear. Brown Sr. called the looting that has been interspersed with the protests "disrespectful," but the "First Amendment protesting? They have that right." They have that right to destroy other people’s private property? Where’s it say that?
Ms. McSpadden essentially threatened Ferguson officials when she said, "There's going to continue to be unrest until they do what should be done." Jackson released a video apology to Brown's family and the community, in which he acknowledged that Brown's body should have been removed from the street much sooner than it was. The young man's remains lay uncovered for more than four hours while police collected evidence. Ms. McSpadden said, "I don't want words, I want action." The parents, both wearing T-shirts with messages about their son, talked hesitantly about their emotions following their son's death.
Ms. McSpadden said she feels lost and helpless, and her life will never be normal again. She said, "I have to find a new normal." Brown said, "I'm empty." Adding, "There's nothing there anymore. It's hard to fill that spot with other happiness." Brown's parents met with lawmakers and lobbied Congress to pass a law requiring police officers to wear cameras during their interactions with the public. They also called on the Justice Department to take over the criminal investigation into the shooting. The Justice Department is already investigating whether Brown's civil rights were violated, and a county grand jury is weighing whether to indict Wilson.
"All of our eyes see the same thing, that it was wrong, an injustice," Ms. McSpadden said. "Why wouldn't they come back with an indictment?" Duh? Now just how stupid of a question is that? Her ‘son’, the one that she and his supposed father raised, met the end that they themselves spent years crafting for him by setting such sterling examples. They, and they alone, are the ones to blame for the son’s premature death, and for them to try to pin it on this cop, and for no other reason than because he’s white is beneath contempt. And far from deserving of our sympathy, they are worthy of nothing but our disgust.
And these ‘parents’ actually had the nerve to expressed anger at Ferguson police who wore bracelets in support of Wilson. In a letter released Friday, the Justice Department asks Jackson, the police chief, to "confirm our understanding" that officers in the suburban St. Louis County department won't wear "I am Darren Wilson" bracelets while on duty. Ferguson residents complained about the black bracelets with white lettering at a meeting with federal officials. The Brown's family lawyer, Benjamin Crump, said the bracelets give an impression that the police lack impartiality in this case.
Hysterically Brown Sr. called their efforts a fight for human rights. "They say that this is America, but we're not being treated like we're Americans. Our fight here is to just open other eyes and understand how we're feeling and try to get something done about it." But it was Ms McSpadden who made what was likely the most idiotic statement uttered thus far when she said that she had taught to respect his elders. She said, "I taught my son respect for a policeman, for you, for this woman, for anybody, so if he felt like he was doing nothing wrong, which I don't believe he was, why would he be in fear of him? You're not supposed to fear the police."
Well, you’re not supposed to be in fear of the police unless, of course, you happen to have just robbed a convenience store. Now having never robbed a convenience store myself, I can only assume that one might view the police just a tad differently than if you had not just robbed a convenience store. I mean, if there’s the assumption that they’re coming to arrest you, that might make one tend to behave a little differently. But then this women, like most mothers I guess, thinks that her son did nothing wrong. Well, then apparently she hasn’t seen the video that shows her thug son in action. Look, that this ‘kid’ is dead is no one’s fault but his own. It’s just that simple!
Friday, September 26, 2014
|ITS MISSION IS NOW TO DEFEND THE ENVIRONMENT?|
The top official to whom I refer, is some leftist bimbo by the name of Caitlin Durkovich, Ms. Durkovich has the rather impressive title of, the assistant secretary for "infrastructure protection" there at Homeland Security. That would be, like I said, that agency which, or so I thought, is responsible for safeguarding the homeland against any and all potential terrorist threats. And it was she who said, "Increasingly, we've moved not only from a security focus to a resiliency focus." Well, I don’t know about you, but that certainly makes me feel just so much safer. "Resiliency focus?" God protect us from these morons!
Durkovich made her patently idiot comments while serving as a panelist this past Thursday at something called the Rising Seas Summit, a three-day conference organized by the U.S.-based Association of Climate Change Officers. The purpose for this rather bizarre little get together was, or so we were told, to discuss tools and ideas on building resiliency, particularly against those impending rising sea levels. In the aftermath of 2012's Hurricane Sandy, Durkovich said her department reviewed the task of rebuilding with a new focus on "how to think about baking in resilience from the get-go."
And it’s because of that new focus on resiliency that our brilliant Ms. Durkovich said that she has how assembled a team of specialists, including city planners, in conjunction with the National Academy of Science to develop better tools for such planning. And in what I guess is an attempt to get ahead of a problem that anyone with a brain knows doesn’t really exist, the Department of Homeland Security has already wasted an untold amount of money as it has now launched regional efforts to assess resilience of infrastructure and judge where gaps in adaptation and preparedness may be.
For example, the Portland, Maine area, far from being a part of the country recognized for it’s rather questionable intelligence, is being looked at in terms of risks from rising sea level, how floods might be mitigated and how to deal with saltwater intrusion into what had been bodies of fresh water. California, another bastion of left wing loons, which has the country's second longest coastline after that of Alaska, is also looking increasingly at ‘climate change’ adaptation and resilience, said ‘climate change’ alarmist, Ken Alex, senior policy advisor and director of the California Governor's Office of Planning and Research.
It was this boob who said the needs and concerns of every coastal region are different. For example, the San Francisco Bay area is home to two airports subject to flooding while the port city of San Diego must work to protect a major military installation. Ports in Los Angeles and Long Beach provide one in six jobs in southern California. He said California derives about $1 Billion annually from its emissions cap-and-trade program, which sells greenhouse gas emissions permits, and the state has decided that all that revenue must be spent in ways "linked to resilience." Is any of this making any sense?
To help communities develop this supposed ‘resilience,’ Alex said, California is part of a pilot program under which AmeriCorps, the Corporation for National and Community Service, will dispatch 50 young people to educate local communities about climate adaptation and resilience. Ok, just how nutty is this idea? And let’s be honest here, where else is it but in some deep blue socialist haven like California would one normally expect to find something as silly, and a completely idiotic waste of time, as this even being attempted? And who is it that these "young people" will be ‘educating’ exactly?
And this bonehead went on to make the claim that if successful, the program could become national. In New York, "Hurricane Sandy really highlighted our vulnerability" to ‘climate change,’ said Daniel Zarrilli, another panelist attending this silly gathering. Zarrilli is director of the city Mayor's Office of Recovery and Resiliency. He said that the city is still recovering from the effects of the storm, which flooded most of its extensive shoreline, left tens of thousands without electricity for days, did billions of dollars of damage to infrastructure and killed 44 people. But what does any of this have to do with climate change that doesn’t exist?
So it is then that as our world continues to deteriorate, and at what appears to be a rapidly accelerating rate, it’s becoming increasingly apparent that the priorities of those agencies responsible for keeping Americans safe have become seriously and, I would even argue, dangerously corrupted. And whether we’re talking about the State Department or the Department of Homeland Security, it’s becoming painfully obvious that this country has now been made to veer off sharply to the left when it comes to focusing on those things that truly do represent a danger to this country and her people.
Thursday, September 25, 2014
Because I think people must be made to understand that this is such a non-issue, I’ve decided to remain on the topic that recent posts here have also stressed. That issue is, of course, ‘climate change, ‘climate disruption’, ‘global warming’ or whatever nomenclature it is that you may choose to use to identify it. Facts, as they say, are very pesky things, and while there are those who insist that we are now faced with that they describe as being the next great apocalypse, and one actually caused by we humans, it’s those pesky little facts that tell a far different story.
One of those rather ‘inconvenient’ little truths that you’re unlikely to hear about from the many advocates of ‘climate change’, was recently pointed out by Mr. Patrick Michaels, director of the Cato Institute’s Center for the Study of Science. And it has to do with datasets used last year that actually show that this coming October 1st will mark the 18th year of "no significant warming trend in surface average temperature." And yet we still have the ‘Henny Penny’s’ among us running around loudly warning us about how we must change our evil ways, or die.
And Mr. Michaels, who by the way has a Ph.D. in ecological climatology and has spent three decades as a research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, said that even if the current 18-year trend were to suddenly come to an end, it would still take nearly 25 years for average global temperature figures to reflect the change. So who are we supposed to believe here, this obvious expert on the subject, or buffoons like Barry "Almighty", John Kerry-Heinz and Al Gore who are far more motivated by politics than they are by any scientific fact?
And in speaking of the likes of these three lying sacks of shit, it’s Mr. Michaels who states that it will be sooner rather than later that even these clowns, along with numerous faux scientists, leftist academics and corrupt politicians who actually agree with them that the "Earth has a fever", will have to admit that their climate models predicting catastrophic ‘global warming’ were off, and off by a long shot. Mr. Michaels, by the way, also happens to be a contributing editor to the United Nations’ second Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.
Mr. Michaels said, "It has to be admitted eventually that too much warming was forecast too fast. That just has to happen. You can’t go on and on and on." And he went on to say, "If the surface temperature resumed the warming rate that we observed from, say 1977 through 1998, we would still go close to a quarter of a century without significant net warming because there’s such a long flat period built into the record now. " And he also makes the point that there’s no indication that after 18 years, global warming will resume anytime soon. Imagine that!
And it’s in making that claim that Mr. Michaels points to what is a record amount of Antarctic ice, which "is at its highest extent measured by the current microwave satellite sounding system" since 1978, according to data from the University of Illinois’ Polar Ice Research Center. And he added, "And if you take a close look at the Arctic data, it appears the decline stopped somewhere around 2005/2006, which means we’ve almost had ten years without any net loss in Arctic ice." And yet we’re told that we must continue to worry about all of those poor polar bears.
Nor does it look likely that the next El Nino will have much of an effect on global temperatures. He pointed out, "The much vaunted and predicted El Nino, which would [ordinarily] spike global temperature, is not going according to plan." In an El Nino, trade winds suppress the upwelling of cold water. He said, "So what happens after an El Nino suppresses the cold upwelling, all that cold water that was sitting down there, which normally would have been dispersed into the tropical Pacific, comes up and so the temperature drops pretty substantially after a major El Nino."
He said, "In fact, you can see that in 1999. We had a very large El Nino in 1998, maybe the biggest one in the 20th century, it’s not completely clear, but it was really, really big. And the next year, the temperatures were way down." He went on to say, "And so what an El Nino will do is it will give you a one-year or perhaps two-year spike [in temperature]. But the net change is not very much. Now it turns out the lack of warming has gone on for so long that even throwing in a one or two-year spike into it is not going to induce a significant warming trend in that data."
Pointing to a Pew survey earlier this year in which Americans listed global warming 19th out of a list of 20 issues they considered as top priorities, unless of course you happen to be a Democrat, Michaels responded to Secretary of State John Kerry-Heinz’s recent statement that climate change is "the biggest challenge of all that we face right now." He said, "I would say that his order of needs is a little bit out of whack." That’s being far too generous as far as I’m concerned. Kerry-Heinz said that ‘climate change’ is a bigger threat to us than Islamic terrorism.
Mr. Michaels went on to say, "Given that a cogent political analysis indicates that the loss of control of the House of Representatives by the Democratic Party was the result of their passing the unpopular cap-and-trade bill in 2009 - in the 2010 election they lost 64 seats- you would think that this is kind of a political hot potato." He said, "And in fact, our friends in Europe, who are certainly leftier and greenier than we tend to be as a country, are trying to back away from this issue." And he noted that China, India, Australia, Canada and Germany have all declined to join Barry at the United Nations’ Climate Summit held in New York this week.
And even with the mountain of available evidence that very clearly refutes virtually every single insane claim made regarding ‘climate change’ and it’s effects on the planet, that are supposedly taking place, it remains those of us who take issue with these wild claims who are the ones accused of being the ‘flat-earthers’. But it’s those who continue to support this insanity that are the ones of whom it can be said are on the side of politics, not science. Because their claims are not supported by science, they are instead driven by what is their rabid leftwing ideology.
Tuesday, September 23, 2014
|THE SKY IS FALLING|
You see, the survey to which I refer found that a substantial majority of Democrats actually believe that the threat to them posed by climate change is far greater than the threat posed by either al Qaeda or the Islamic State (ISIS) in Iraq and Syria. Is that not one of the stupidist things you’ve ever heard in your life. And these are the same people with whom the fate of country may now rest
The Pew Research Center/USA Today survey, conducted between Aug. 20 and 24, shows that 68 percent of Democrats said global climate change is a "major threat" to the U.S. while 67 percent chose al Qaida and 65 percent chose ISIS as a major threat to the country. Now is this an intelligent group of folks or what? That makes all the obviousl why this country is so screwed up!
Things looked a bit more realistic over on the Republican side. It was there that 80 percent said al Qaida was the major threat and 78 percent chose ISIS, while only 25 percent said they thought that global climate change was a major threat. Among Independents, 69 percent chose al Qaeda as the major threat, 63 percent chose ISIS, but still 44 percent agreed that climate change was a threat.
What follows are the top major concerns for:
Democrats: global climate change (68%), extremist groups like al Qaeda (67%), ISIS (65%), North Korea's nuclear program (58%), Iran's nuclear program (56%) the rapid spread of infectious diseases from country to country (55%), growing tensions between Russia and its neighbors (54%), the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (44%), and China's emergence as a world power (43%).
Republicans: the greatest percentage chose al Qaeda as being the top threat (80%), followed by ISIS (78%), Iran's nuclear program (74%), North Korea's nuclear program (63%), China's emergence as a world power (60%) the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (60%), Russian tensions (54%), rapid spread of infectious disease (49%) and climate change (25%).
Independents: (69%) chose al Qaeda as a "major threat to the U.S.," followed by ISIS (63%), Iran's nuclear program (54%) North Korea's nuclear program (54%), growing tensions between Russia and its neighbors (52%), spread of infectious disease (50%), China's emergence (46%), Israeli-Palestinian conflict (45%), and global climate change (44%).
So perhaps we have now struck upon the reason why it is that ‘climate change’ continues to remain a topic of conversation. And far from being taken seriously, those who continue to claim that the sky is falling should be ridiculed at every opportunity. They claim that we non-believers are nothing more than modern day flat-earthers, but it’s they who are nothing more than modern day "Chicken Littles."
While he may not be able to do very much about the current state of the Middle East, or Putin’s recent troubling tendency to invade his neighbors, John Kerry-Heinz does, by golly, know a ‘real threat’ when he sees one. That threat is, of course, the threat that we all supposedly face from …"climate change," or what some now refer to as "global climate disruption." Both are what used to be known by the nomenclature of "global warming."
According to our useless boob of a secretary of state, "climate change" may now be "the most serious challenge we face on the planet." Kerry-Heinz argued just this past Monday that people don’t need to accept his or Al Gore’s or even the U.N.’s word on the matter all they really need to do is to just "listen to Mother Nature, who is screaming at us about it." If Mother Nature ‘is’ screaming, she’s screaming at idiots like Kerry-Heinz!
Anyway, it was in addressing some meeting in New York opening what is being described as a week of U.N. climate-related events, that Kerry-Heinz spewed more of his typical nonsense as it relates to his favorite topic. And in so doing he claimed that there was still time to prevent the worst impacts of climate change, "but it is absolutely imperative that we decide to move and to act now." Nothing that he says actually makes any sense.
Kerry-Heinz said, "You don’t have to take my word for it. You don’t have to Al Gore’s word for it." And he went on to say, "You don’t have to take the IPCC’s word and the Framework Convention – all those people who are sounding the alarm bells. You can just wake up pretty much any day and listen to Mother Nature, who is screaming at us about it." And you gotta know that he knows nothing of what he says is even remotely true.
Kerry-Heinz was once again heard doing his very best to sound the alarm, this time by actually comparing ‘climate change’ to such things as terrorism, poverty and the spread of non-conventional weapons and said it could be argued that climate change was the most serious issue of all. But you do have to give him some amount of credit, I guess, because he was able to get through his entire speech with a straight face.
He said, "When you think about terrorism, which we think about a lot today; poverty, which is linked obviously to the levels of terror that we see in the world today; and, of course, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction – all of these are challenges that don’t know any borders." He added, "You can make a powerful argument that it may be, in fact, the most serious challenge we face on the planet because it’s about the planet itself.
And then he went on to tell what was nothing more than an outright lie in what I guess was an effort to prove his idiotic case. He said, "And today, more than 97 percent of all the peer-reviewed studies ever made confirm that." And that is simply not true! Kerry-Heinz expressed frustration at congressional opposition to the administration’s climate initiatives, saying "Common sense is not particularly common right now."
You may recall that Kerry-Heinz championed the global warming cause during his almost three decade-long Senate career and has made the issue a top priority as secretary of state. He said, "I’ve also set a directive to every single one of our 275 missions, embassies, consulates, that the chiefs of mission are to put this issue on the front burner in all of our interventions with our – with the host countries, wherever they may be."
I am curious about something however. Hasn’t anyone ever wondered, even a little bit, about why it’s only nutjobs like Kerry-Heinz on the left, of even left of center, who are out there busily making some of the most outlandish claims about what is supposed the next great apocalypse? And the ONLY supposed science that supports any of the claims from within their own ranks! None of the claims hold water.
And let’s all not forget another thing. Let’s not forget that it was according to many of these very same people, or associates of theirs, who were quite busy proclaiming back in the 70’s warning us all that by this time we’d now be in the middle of another ice age. Look around you, are you surrounded by a glacier? How stupid must one be in order to go along with any of this malarkey. It’s all nothing more than politically motivated bullshit.
|AN ENVIRONMENTALIST WACKO AND HIS YACHT|
De-Cap is someone who, or so we’re supposed to believe, has focused his philanthropic efforts on protecting and preserving good old planet Earth. And to prove to all in attendance that he was worthy of his award, he urged those in attendance at Sunday night's little gala to work to address what he referred to as being "a real and terrifying crisis." In accepting this rather meaningless award, De-Cap went on to say, "Climate change is compromising the very livability of our planet." I’m curious though, on what exactly does this boob base this nutty claim of his? I mean it can’t be on any actual science.
De-Cap said, "less than three percent of all philanthropic giving goes toward protecting and preserving our environment," a statistic he called "ridiculous," with even less going toward protecting the world's oceans. He urged the audience of global leaders and philanthropists "to put environmental issues at the forefront of the human agenda." He added, "Together we can find ways to scale up funding and create intelligent partnerships. By protecting our oceans and our wild lands we allow species to recover, local communities to thrive and ultimately maintain a stable climate for all life on Earth."
Earlier in the day Leo participated in something called the People's Climate Change march. He said, "the world is now at a turning point, and climate change is the defining issue of our time.… The task before us to protect this planet will require the largest movement in human history. It will have to cross all cultural, religious and political boundaries. But the good news is the solutions are ready, and with leaders like the ones in this room who do not shrink in the face of crisis. They can rise, they can inspire and they can contribute. And that truly is the best hope of planet Earth."
Joining De-Cap at this gathering of some of the most bizarre people on the planet were, of course, several other Hollywood loons. This list of leftwing luminaries included presenter Eva Longoria, who honored the subjects of her upcoming documentary, ‘Food Chains’; the host Seth Meyers; music director Randy Jackson; performers Aloe Blacc, Jason Mraz and The Roots; Brian Grazer; Sting and Trudie Styler; and Idris Elba. And of course ex-president ‘BJ’ Clinton was in attendance joined by his ‘wife’, and presidential wanna be, Hitlery along with product of this bizarre little union, daughter Chelsea.
It was later on in the ceremony, that we had another Hollywood loser, actress/activist Eva Longoria, who presented one of the leadership in civil society awards to Greg Asbed and Lucas Benitez, co-founders of the Coalition of Immokalee Workers, an organization that works to end the exploitation of farm workers and the group that is the focus of her upcoming documentary Food Chains, set to be released on Nov. 21. Yup, I’m sure that’ll be packing in the crowds. NOT! She, like so many others in her ‘profession’ is obviously another one of those who’s a legend in her own mind.
These ‘do as I say and not as I do’ Hollywood liberals actually see themselves as being someone who the rest of us should be listening to. They travel around in their big limousines and fly around in their private jets and still feel that they are able to lecture the rest of us about where it is that we keep our thermostats, or about the kinds of cars that we like to drive or about how fossil fuels are evil. And though they see themselves as being just so much smarter than the rest of us, it’s very few of these geniuses who were able to successfully navigate any grade beyond the 6th grade. Most possess an IQ lower than their shoe size.
And something that I have always had a very difficult time trying to figure out is, why is it that they so hate the very country that made it possible for them to become so wealthy, by doing something so insignificant as ‘acting’. I mean let’s be honest, it’s not like acting requires the same intelligence as, say, being a brain surgeon. They’re really quite pathetic. They have no background in science and thus are simply incapable of determining whether or not they’re being lied to. But it matters very little to them, because all they’re really in search of is a cause. And it matters not whether it’s based on something real, or imagined.
And what REALLY pisses me off is how hypocritical little creeps like De-Cap-Rio get to live the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed while it’s only the rest of us, we the little people, who MUST keep our thermostats at 68 and drive around in Smart Cars. Otherwise, or so we are told, we’re causing the planet to be doomed. Let’s face it, if the climate is changing, which I very much doubt, why is it that it’s just we the little people who are causing that change to take place? That’s why this is all just so much bullshit. What’s behind it, again ‘IF’ it is taking place at all, is Mother Nature herself. The Earth warms and cools in a natural cycle.
Monday, September 22, 2014
Once again we have that faux journalist, and perennial Obama apologist, Juan Williams, doing his best to defend his pal. This time we find him busily warning those in the Republican Party that they shouldn’t be too confident about their chances of taking control of the Senate. He claims that they can expect there to be some political bombshells going off in the weeks leading up to this November’s midterms caused by what he referred to as being "the ISIS effect."
Writing in The Hill, old Juan confidently claims that the Democrats are now gaining steam ahead of the November elections as voters now appear to be rallying around Barry due to his recent, yet less than stellar, handling of (ISIS) terror threat. So am I actually to assume, judging by what Juan is saying, that most Americans actually do agree with Barry’s assessment of the situation when he says that the group that calls itself the ‘Islamic State’ has nothing to do with Islam?
And in what I guess must be Juan’s attempt to add support for his rather questionable claims, is the fact that he takes the time to point out that a Fox News poll from last week now shows that terrorism is just as important to people as is the economy, at least when it comes to how they will vote. According to this poll, 41 percent of Americans say that they are both "extremely important" to their decisions. I’m just not quite sure how that translates into support for Barry.
Juan also noted that it is pollster Dana Blanton who has referred to this surge in public opinion, "the ISIS effect," saying that Barry’s approval numbers have been climbing since he announced plans to "degrade and ultimately destroy" ISIS with U.S. air power. If that is in fact the case, it says much more about the ignorance of the American people than it does about anything that Barry has actually done. Because most experts see Barry’s strategy as being doomed to fail.
Previously, the beheadings of two American journalists and Barry’s rather idiotic admission that he lacked having any sort of a strategy to deal with the Islamic terror group had hurt his ratings. But Juan, ever the enthusiastic Barry "Almighty" cheerleader, and someone who is very obviously a registered Democrat, pointed out that because of Barry’s brilliant leadership, the polls have been "shifting in the president’s favor." I’ve seen precious little actual leadership.
Williams wrote that a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll reported 62 percent of voters supported Barry’s decision to take action against ISIS with airstrikes in Iraq and Syria. Pew polling last week even found support for Barry’s plan is coming from both sides of the political aisle and a Rasmussen poll similarly found 66 percent of likely U.S. voters support Barry’s plan. But many of these folks will likely be forced to admit that Barry’s effort is half-hearted at best.
And though many Republicans have attacked Barry for not putting boots on the ground in the Middle East conflict, most polls would seem to show that many Americans back Barry’s decision not to send combat troops back to the region to fight the Islamic extremists. But like it or not, there is going to be only one way to take care if this problem in any meaningful way, and it’s going to require a lot more than a few air strikes. Americans must come to realize that.
Juan said, "The president’s leadership role during this fight has the potential to pump up his public approval and that will benefit several Democrats locked in close Senate races," adding that Republicans ‘could’ face an "October Surprise" with polls showing a major turnaround for embattled Democrats. ‘Could’ doesn’t mean will, despite Juan’s best efforts to make it appear as if it is a certainty. And I’m sure we haven’t heard the last from this pathetic fraud.
Juan wrote, "An upswing in the president’s approval rating as the nation gets in line behind the commander-in-chief could tip the outcome of a political fight now based on voter turnout and last minute advertising." Williams concluded by saying, "To be clear, Republicans remain a slight favorite to win enough seats to claim the majority of the U.S. Senate. But the twists and turns of war have the capacity to create one legendary October political surprise."
If the American people prove themselves ignorant enough to be played in the manner laid out by Juan, then there is, quite literally, no hope for this once proud nation. Barry’s response to those who he has said have nothing whatsoever to do with Islam, is half-baked at best. Instead of taking the advice of those who know how to fight these extremists, Barry has, like always, chosen instead to base his decisions entirely on politics. That’s not leadership, by anyone’s definition!
So let me see if I have this right. Democrats think that by removing any mention of Barry from their many campaign speeches, or seeking ways to otherwise distance themselves from their president, whose approval rating is now somewhere in the basement, they will somehow be able to sufficiently convince enough voters of, what exactly? That they have not been, and continue to be, simply a rubberstamp for every leftwing policy that he comes up with? Or that they don’t support his position on such things as Obamacare, the economy, and taxes? But who knows, this strategy of theirs may yet work.
But I do seem to remember back when Barry first took office in 2009 how it was that congressional Democrats were quite euphoric. We were told that what we were witnessing was the beginning of 20 years, if not more, of solid Democrat rule. With control of the House, Senate and the White House, and high public approval for their new party standard bearer, Democrats eagerly embraced Barry and all the long-awaited policy initiatives he’d surely help them to bring about. To say that they squandered it all, is a statement that, I think, even many Demcrats would likely agree with.
And how it was back then in that first month when congressional Democrats went out of their way to mention Barry during their floor speeches, to the point where they spoke of him 200, or so, more times than did the Republicans. In the next year and a half, the parties referred to the president at similar rates, sometimes with the Republicans having more to say, other times the Democrats. One can reasonably assume, I suppose, that when the Democrats speak of the president publicly it’s in a far more favorable way and when Republicans do it’s, well, not quite as glowing, shall we say.
But as they say, there is no honor among thieves, or in this case, Democrats. Because as the positive public opinion of Barry began to head toward the deck, and I’m doing my best to remain polite here, after his first year in office, the spread between how often Republicans and the Democrats invoked Barry grew noticeably wider. Put simply, the Democrats weren’t mentioning Barry by name nearly as often as were the Republicans. And suddenly that solid 20 years of Democrat rule was starting to look not quite so solid. But as is so often the case, Democrats figured they could fool us.
The gap is particularly notable over the course of the last year according to a group called the Sunlight Foundation, which measures how often any given word is spoken against all words in floor speeches and debates collected by the Congressional Record. Last fall, at the height of the government shutdown and the Obamacare rollout, Republicans were predictably discussing Barry more. But, as we can see, the trend has continued. Much has been written during this election cycle about the Democrats’ efforts to distancing themselves from Barry ahead of the midterm elections.
Some Democratic candidates in tough races regularly emphasize their differences with the president. And Barry is persona non grata on the campaign trail (unless it’s inside those private high-dollar fundraiser dinners). If the number of times they bring him up in front of the C-SPAN cameras is a measure, the Democrats detachment from the president is even evident on Capitol Hill – where every spoken word is recorded forever, so it’s especially crucial to choose them carefully. After all, no one wants to furnish ammunition for any campaign ads that may be run against them.
As my dear departed grandmother used to tell me, "You can’t take back the spoken word." And I’m reminded of the fact that it was also quite often that she could be heard to say, "If you can’t say anything nice about somebody, don’t say anything at all." So perhaps what’s really going on here is that the Democrats simply don’t have anything nice to say about Barry. But, for sure, we must never allow ourselves to be convinced into believing that even though they may not be talking about Barry all that much in public, they are, and very much so, supporting him in private.
Saturday, September 20, 2014
I find it difficult to believe how any responsible adult would actually want to allow the Democrats to continue holding any amount of power when it comes to our government. And yet, there seems to be a growing number of people who do, as indicated by the fact that as the November midterms creep ever closer it’s with nearly each passing day that the odds favoring ‘Dingy Harry’ Reid being able to hold onto his job seem to improve. Now granted, part of that can be blamed on the Republican Party, if for no other reason than not enough people now think that there will be much of a difference no matter who it is that controls the Senate. But there would be a difference, and a big one: Judges. ‘Dingy Harry’ has so skewed the confirmation process that for the first time in more than 10 years Democrats hold a rather sizeable majority of Appellate Court seats. If you don’t see that as being frightening, then you’re simply crazy.
That Democrat can no longer, if they ever could be, trusted with holding the reins of power was made all the painfully clear by those who attended something called the Americans United rally "Hands Off Social Security & Medicare" at the Capitol on Thursday. It was at this gathering of leftwing kooks that Nancy Pelosi proceeded to blame Republicans for the economic recession of 2007-09, saying their "lack of regulation and supervision took our country to the brink, and so when President Obama won the election, he took us out of that brink." And it was this reject from a psycho ward went on to say, "I know you've heard from many members of the House and Senate about the importance of the three pillars of security for America’s seniors: about Social Security, about Medicare and about Medicaid." Adding, "And I’m here to add my support to strengthening, not weakening those pillars. But I want to just take a different tack for a moment."
And as if that idiotic claim were not bizarre enough, she went on to recount the day that the Federal Reserve Chairman, and another incompetent boob, Ben Bernanke, supposedly came to her office to discuss how financial institutions were in jeopardy and there was a meltdown in the economy. According to this fairytale of hers, Pelosi said, "And I said to the chairman of the Fed, Mr. Bernanke, what do you think about what the Secretary had to say? And he said, ‘If we do not act immediately we will not have an economy by Monday.’ Thank you to the Republicans and their economic policies to undermine our economy." She said, "If we’re concerned that they’re not there supporting Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid, we should also be concerned that they are not supporting the middle class. Their lack of regulation and supervision took our country to the brink, and so when President Obama won the election, he took us out of that brink."
The last recession ‘officially’ lasted from December 2007 to June 2009, ending, or so we have been repeatedly told, 5 months after Barry "Almighty" was sworn in as president in January 2009. Pelosi said, "But people are still starved, they’re still uncertain." And then she went on to claim, "We still have to make the fight all the time that people who do not share our values of security for our seniors and the three pillars upholding it, still want to return to the failed policies of the Bush administration of no regulation and no supervision that took us to that place." Now I’m quite sure those there within the crowd we quite receptive, but let’s face it, the combined IQ of this entire crowd was, most likely, somewhere down in the single digits. Democrats like Pelosi have no values, no morals and are completely indifferent to the struggles our seniors are forced to contend with. This was all nothing but more typical Democrat election-year rhetoric!
And joining Pelosi at what was nothing more than the equivalent of the freak shows that line any carnival midway, was her fellow dingbat, and squaw wannabe, Elizabeth Warren who is actually, hysterically speaking, the senior Democrat senator, from that haven for leftwing kooks in the northeast, Massachusetts. This complete moron also spoke at the rally and she said, "America is on the leading edge of a retirement crisis. Families are squeezed. The last thing we need to be talking about is cutting Social Security – last thing." She stressed twice during her speech that the first premise of Social Security is that it’s about "dignity." And old Liz went on to say, "Social Security is not charity." And she went on to say, "Social Security is what people worked a lifetime for. Social Security is what keeps people independent. Social Security is about eating. Social Security is about dignity and that’s why we’re here to protect it today."
And she was far from being done as she too made sure to talk about the supposed values of those in attendance. She said, "But when it comes right down to it, this is about values." And then went on to say, "This is about who this country works for. This is about what we do together. And I want to start with this first premise: and that is Social Security is about the dignity of human beings. You work a lifetime, you’re entitled to retire with dignity. And that means a strong Social Security system and strong Medicare." The ‘Dingbat from the Bay State’ went on to say, "People built Social Security through their working years, we built it together, we made promises to ourselves and to each other." And she finally added, "And if Republicans want to break those promises, then we’re here to say we will fight you every inch of the way." What a pathetic crock of shit! Nothing but pure election year propaganda!
And of course there were several other leftwing kooks in attendance, those who lent their support to this very obviously bizarre and politically motivated event. Other leftwing kook in attendance icluded: Rep. Bruce Braley (D-Iowa), Rep. Paul Tonko (D-New York), Rep. Dina Titus (R-Nev.), Rep. Jan ‘Devoted Socialist’ Schakowski (R-New York), Rep. Keith ‘Muslim Sympathizer’ Ellison (D-Minn.), and Rep. Joe ‘Ear Wax Eater’ Garcia (D-Fla.). So I guess the only point that I’m trying to make here is that there is so much riding on this year’s election. and we should give this type of rhetoric no more attention than what it deserves. Which, if we’re being honest, is none. These people, and I mean every single one of them, hate this country as it was originally conceived. And there is absolutely nothing they will not say in their effort to maintain, or to possibly increase, the level of political power that they now possess.
And don’t get me wrong, the Republican Party is not perfect, far from it! But having said that, the Democrat Party grows more determined every single day in its effort to bring about the death of this country. The values they advocate are not the values that the rest us must subscribe to, instead they must be shunned. And we must not allow ourselves to believe those Democrats who, because they now find themselves in a close election, seek to distance themselves from the most corrupt president in our history. Because the one thing that you most certainly can take to the bank is, that if they victorious in their quest for re-election, they will all be doing a group hug with he whom they are now trying so hard to disavow. So don’t be fooled! Don’t fall for the ploy! Think about your kids and what you may have to tell them someday when they finally realize, and they will, all of the freedoms that the government will have taken away from them.
Friday, September 19, 2014
Well supposedly, if recent polls are anywhere near being correct it would seem to appear that Democrats may be beginning to lose some of their appeal at least for some women and oddly enough it’s global unrest that’s being blamed as part of the reason. In a recent New York Times/CBS News poll, and a Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey, a shift in the traditional edge Democrats have over Republicans among women was noted.
In the Times/CBS News poll, for example, asked the question: "If the 2014 election for United States House of Representatives seats were being held today, would you vote for the Republican candidate or the Democratic candidate in your district?" And in answering women picked Democrats over Republicans by just one point, 43 percent to 42 percent. I would have thought women might have been too busy using their free birth control to answer.
And then it was in the Journal/NBC News survey that when women were asked if they wanted the midterm elections to produce a Democrat - or GOP-led Congress, it was 47 percent of them who chose Democrats while 40 percent said they actually preferred a Republican majority. And this is quite significant when you consider it was just a month earlier that women favored a Democrat controlled Congress by 51-37 percent.
American Thinker reported that, "Perhaps what we are seeing here is the awakening of the under-appreciated 'Wal-Mart mom' Jacksonians." Adding, "But when things seem to be going reasonably well, their Jacksonianism lies dormant, and they can appear to be non-interventionists. It is only when threats pile up and the world begins to seem less safe that Americans reveal their true foreign policy colors."
It also noted that many Americans, including, apparently, many women, favor the use of force abroad to protect U.S. interests. And it was also the American Thinker that reported, "Though Obama’s "war on women" rhetoric has served him well to date, it may be losing its pull among women now concerned about, well, actual wars." One Democrat pollster said as much to the Journal after its survey found the shrinking appeal of the party with women voters.
I don’t know, when it comes to voting, or to selecting for whom to vote, women tend to have a rather strange methodology. And as I have said before, where blacks focus primarily on race, women tend to focus on gender. Because any female candidate, as long as their liberal, is better than any male, or conservative, candidate. But I’m constantly amazed at the ease with which women with children can vote for those who are busy destroying the future of those children.
So I think that’s it’s still way too early to say with any level of confidence that women are beginning to see the light as far as their continued willingness to vote for Democrats is concerned. And for them to continue to do so is proof that they are committed to living in denial and there is no way to convince them of the error of their ways. The are robbing from their children the ability to live the American dream and are instead dooming them to a life of poverty.
According to ‘Slick Willie’ Clinton, one of the only two U.S. presidents to ever be impeached, and the only one ever to be accused of rape, power is more diffuse in a technologically advanced world, and that means ‘inclusiveness’ is the only way to battle the world's problems. Now don’t that just make everyone feel all warm and fuzzy?
It was during his appearance over there on Jon Leibowitz’s idiotic little program, ‘The Daily Show’, that ‘The Slickmeister’ claimed that even though the world seems to be disintegrating all around us, there is actually more good news than bad. Oh ya, there’s all kinds of good news out there. I was just telling my wife that the other day.
And what might some of this "good news" come in the form of? Well, Slick says that the explosion of information technology is helpful to fishermen in Indonesia, who now can use cellphones to determine the price of fish. Of course the drawback is that the Islamic State (ISIS) terrorist group can use that same technology to draw in new recruits.
‘Slick said he believes Barry’s plan to defeat ISIS has a chance to succeed because the Iraqi government finally includes Sunnis who represent the tribal leaders needed to help defeat ISIS. Slick demonstrated the knack Democrats have for rewriting history when he said, "We can't win a land war in Iraq. We proved that." Well no, not exactly.
Democrats like old Slick, here, have never been willing to admit that the Iraq war was essentially won. It was Barry who lost it. And this moron went on to say, "But they can, and we can help them win it. … If the democracy model is going to work it has to be inclusive." So apparently, Slick’s assessment of the situation is no better than Barry’s.
Still, he said, we have to accept that we can't win every battle and that we are likely only about halfway through what may well be a 50-year struggle to define the terms of our interdependence. Now I realize I’m not as sophisticated as is old Slick, but what the Hell is he even talking about? That statement is just so much pure and unadulterated drivel.
Slick then went on to say, "But we do know this: We are interdependent." And then he added the clincher saying, "That is, all the borders of the world look more like nets than walls. … We've got to realize inclusion works, and unilateralism doesn't." What a completely ‘progressive’ way to look at things. More "New World Order’ drivel that makes no sense.
Thursday, September 18, 2014
I am embarrassed to admit this but I was completely unaware that yesterday was national Constitution Day, or the day that marked the 227th anniversary of the signing of our Constitution. But at least I can safely count myself as being among the 36 percent of Americans who can actually name the three branches of government that our Constitution created. So while I freely admit that I was unaware of the significance of yesterday, thankfully I’m not forced to suffer the embarrassment of being too stupid to name the three branches of my government.
And it’s also according to a new survey from the Annenberg Public Policy Center that it would seems that a rather significant percentage of Americans are long overdue for some sort of a civics refresher course. Because it’s only 38 percent of Americans that know the Republican Party controls the U.S. House of Representatives, while 17 percent think Democrats are still in charge. The number of people who knew Republicans were in charge has dropped 17 percent since the last time Annenberg asked, back in 2011, right after Republicans reclaimed control.
And it would be an identical number, 38 percent, who are actually aware that it’s the Democrats who run the Senate, while 20 percent actually believe that it’s the Republicans who control the upper chamber. Only 27 percent know it takes a two-thirds majority of the House and Senate to override a presidential veto. Annenberg released the survey in partnership with the Civics Renewal Network, a group of 25 nonpartisan organizations including the Library of Congress, the Newseum and the National Archives that offers free civics education resources.
Other groups, like the Civics Education Initiative, are pushing to include more civics education in high schools, requiring students to pass the same citizenship test that immigrants do when they come to the U.S. That group will introduce legislation in seven states that would require passage of the citizenship test before graduating. They cited Annenberg’s 2011 survey, which found just 15 percent of Americans could correctly identify the chief justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, while 27 percent knew Randy Jackson was a judge on American Idol.
And it was only 13 percent who knew that the Constitution was signed in 1787. And that would be the very same Constitution which are told that, as a ’senior lecturer’, Barry was assigned the responsibility of instructing those under his charge of the benefits and the meaning behind this most perfect document ever created by man. And is the same Constitution which he and his fellow Democrats feel no responsibility whatsoever to abide by. So is it any wonder that the country is in such bad shape. We must change course, and very soon! Time is running out!
|BENNIE 'THE BOOB'|
And then it was just yesterday that we had that halfwit boob, Bennie Thompson, Democrat from Mississippi, say at the House Homeland Security Committee hearing on Wednesday that the threat posed to the homeland by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (ISIL) has nothing whatsoever to do with religion or culture. Ok, so we have this murdering horde that refers to itself as the Islamic State, and this moron makes the claim that is has nothing to do with religion or culture. Really?
Thompson said, "Violent extremism has no race, ethnicity, religion or culture, and there is no single profile or pathway for individuals who come to embrace violent extremism." While I suppose, in a sense, that comment may make some sort of sense, in a weird sort of way, there’s no denying the fact that those who profess to be practitioners of Islam, which I would argue is much less a religion than it is simply a violent cult, exhibit a level of very violent and extremist behavior that should be considered as being difficult to ignore, even by Democrats. And yet.
One of the witnesses at this hearing where this moron, Thompson, made his idiotic comments was Matthew Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, said religious ideology was a motivating factor for ISIS or ISIL. It was in his prepared remarks that Olsen said, "ISIL’s goal is to solidify and expand its control of territory and govern by implementing its violent interpretation of sharia law." He added, "The group aspires to overthrow governments in the region, govern all the territory that the early Muslim caliphs controlled, and expand."
Democrats like Thompson remain quite determined in their efforts to defend those who are proud members of what is, as I have said before, nothing more than a evil cult founded on the purest forms of both violence and hate. And I really do have to laugh whenever I hear anyone referring to it as being a "religion of peace," because it is no such thing. And until we are able to get past the foolish political correctness that is essentially killing us and to call it what it really is, then those who act on its behalf will continue to have the upper hand.
Well, to be honest with you, I’m not quite sure what to make of this latest Gallup survey regarding Americans and their trust, or lack of trust, of that which has come to be not so fondly referred to as our ‘state-controlled media.’ Because they still seem to spend a considerable amount of time not only listening to but, dare I say, believing much of what they are told by those whom they claim not to trust. Personally, if I don’t trust someone then I tend not to listen to what it is that they are saying because I automatically assume they’re lying to me.
Anyway, according to the most recent survey on the topic of ‘trust in the media’ we find that when it comes judging the news that we listen to as being presented "fully, accurately, and fairly," it was a combined 60% of respondents who said they had "not very much" trust and "none at all" in what they were hearing. But at the same time there 40% of Americans who also said that they had, combined, a "fair amount" and "great deal" of trust and confidence in newspapers, TV, and radio to report the news accurately and fairly.
And in what sort of reminded me of the story involving those three bears and a little girl, 44% of those who took part in this survey said that our state-controlled news media is "too liberal" while only 19% said it was "too conservative," and 34% said that it was all "just about right." Frankly, it’s my opinion that one has got to pretty naïve to view that which was once referred to as being our "mainstream media" as being today anything other than the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party. The job of the media today is not to inform, it is to persuade by means necessary.
This particular survey was conducted Sept. 4-7 and was said to consist of 1,017 adults, age 18 and older in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Gallup asked, "In general, how much trust and confidence do you have in the mass media -- such as newspapers, T.V. and radio -- when it comes to reporting the news fully, accurately, and fairly -- a great deal, a fair amount, not very much, or none at all?" The breakdown is as follows: 24% said None at All, 36% said Not Very Much, 10% said a Great Deal and 30% said a Fair Amount.
According to the pollsters, "After registering slightly higher trust last year, Americans' confidence in the media's ability to report ‘the news fully, accurately, and fairly’ has returned to its previous all-time low of 40%." They went on to say, "Americans' trust in mass media has generally been edging downward from higher levels in the late 1990s and the early 2000s." They also reported that 54% of Democrats have a "great deal/fair amount" of trust in the media and only 27% of Republicans do. That little fact right there should tell you all you need to know.
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
I must admit that there was once a time that I was a pretty big fan of the rotund governor of New Jersey. I even went out of my to make sure I was able to tune in to watch his speech given at the 2012 Republican Convention, that now seems so long ago. But, as they say, times change, and with them opinions that were once held. Because back then I would have thought that Christie would have been smart enough to realize just how important the last election was, and yet he failed to come through when he could have made difference.
And Christie, the current head of the Republican Governor’s Association, as well as the guy touted by many in the state-controlled media as being a GOP front-runner for 2016, has demonstrated once again that he’s not a much of a team player and in do doing may have done irreparable damage to his chances for a 2016 presidential bid. What was that Christie did? Well, he recently went well out of his way to publicly praise Democrat, New York Gov. Andy Cuomo instead of coming out and supporting Andy’s GOP challenger.
And Christie proceeded to take things a step further by refusing to commit to any fundraising events on behalf of Andy's GOP challenger, Westchester County Executive Rob Astorino. In what I guess an attempt to justify his behavior, Christie said, "The job of myself and Gov. Cuomo, as we see it, is to lead and make sure that the appropriate amount of intensity is being brought to the task of protecting our region." I hate to have to correct the governor, but neither of these two, but Cuomo maybe more so than Christie, are what I would call leaders
Christie went on to say, "I thank the governor for, like this and many other issues, our partnership over the last number of years in making sure that we're doing our jobs for the people of this very interconnected region in a way that's going to keep us safe." These comments have raised plenty of eyebrows among those whose job it is to comment on such things. And it has been said that his positioning could hurt his chances if he makes a bid for the White House in 2016. Duh, ya think? I’m officially done with this guy.
Rick Shaftan, who is, I guess, a Republican strategist of some type, said, "How could that not turn Republicans off for both Astorino's campaign and for Christie?" He went on to suggest that the George Washington Bridge scandal has put Christie in a position where he can't campaign against Cuomo, as the governors share control of the agency which operates the bridge. Christie is now damaged goods, and if he thinks that many of out here will vote for him, should he try running for president, he’s more of an imbecile than even I thought he was.
Monmouth University pollster Patrick Murray, however, suggested that Christie's appearances with Cuomo and other leading Democrats earlier in the day Monday could have some upsides for his presidential chances. It was Murray who said, "Assuming he runs for president, he's got to win a Republican nomination process, but at the same time he has to position himself for a general election. He carefully chooses those issues on which he's willing to appear at a bipartisan venue." No offense to Mr. Murray, but I think he’s nuts.
And let’s not forget that it was earlier this summer that Christie angered the party faithful by declaring that the RGA does not "invest" in campaigns that are seen as "lost causes." Last month former New York Gov. George Pataki also expressed anger at Christie's refusal to support Astorino. Christie has since tried to mend fences, publicly declaring last week that Astorino was "the best candidate to lead the state forward." but it was a rather limp-wristed attempt besides being way too little and way too late.
Look, if this pathetic loser decides to throw his hat into the presidential ring as 2016 edges ever closer, we would be very wise if we were to convince him very early on that he has very little chance of becoming our candidate. We need to dump him fast and focus on those conservative candidates who more closely exemplify the values that we all hold dear. We simply cannot afford to waste our time on someone like Christie, and we should learn from our past mistakes of Dole, McCain and Romney. We MUST be smarter this time around.
And also, or so it would seem, a growing number of Americans don’t seem to bothered all that much by the fact that they continue to earn less while at the same time be faced with each trip to the gas station or the grocery costing more than the last trip. And as it was recently pointed out by the Census Bureau in its annual report on "Income and Poverty in the United States, " real median household income as stagnated for two years after declining for two. Thanks in part to insane Democrat policies having to do with the economy.
And it’s according to this same report that, "Median household income was $51,939 in 2013, not statistically different in real terms from the 2012 median of $51,759." The report goes on to make the point that, "This is the second consecutive year that the annual change was not statistically significant, following two consecutive years of annual declines in median household income." So for those who have been paying attention, does such information really come as being much of a surprise?
So in telling us something that we should, from our own personal experiences, already know, American households are poorer now than they were when the 21st century began. According to the Census, "Median household income was $51,939 in 2013, not statistically different from the 2012 median in real terms, 8.0 percent lower than the 2007 (the year before the most recent recession) median ($56,436), and 8.7 percent lower than the median household income peak ($56,895) that occurred in 1999."
The same basic pattern holds for real average (as opposed to median) household income. Real average household income peaked at $77,287 (in constant 2013 dollars) back in 2000. For all you liberals out there, that was the last year of the 20th century. It dropped to $74,569 by 2004, and then climbed back up to $76,912 in 2006. But by 2013, it had dropped rather precipitously to $72,641, a real decline of 6.4 percent from the peak of 2000.
The real median income for households headed by high school dropouts peaked in 2000 at $30,699. In 2013, it was $25,672, a drop of 16.4 percent from the 20th-century peak. The real median income for households headed by high school graduates who did not attend college, peaked in 1999 at $49,802. In 2013, it was $40,701, a drop of 18.3 percent from the 20th-century peak. The real median income of households headed by Americans who have earned at least a bachelor's degree peaked in 1999 at $97,470. In 2013, it was $86,411, a drop of 11.3 percent from its 20th-century peak.
The real median income for married couple families peaked in 2007 at $81,552. By 2013, it had dropped to $76,339, a decline of 6.4 percent. In households headed by a male with no spouse present, real median income peaked in 1999 at $52,201. In 2013, it was $44,475, a decline of 14.8 percent. In households headed by a female with no spouse present, real median income in 2000 at $34,786. In 2013, it was $31,408, a decline of 9.7 percent.
At the beginning of the 20th century, America was still a pioneering nation. People were responsible for their own and their family's material well-being, and, I might add, very proud to be so. There was no Medicaid, no food stamps, no federal housing projects and no school lunch program, in other words it was before many of the liberal/progressive/Democrat policies were brought into being. In the 20th century, our government built these things ‘for’ us, and the pioneering spirit of the nation began to erode.
By the fourth quarter of 2012, according to the Census Bureau, 109,631,000 Americans were living in households that received benefits from one or more means-tested federally funded program. That was 35.4 percent of the national population. That was before Obamacare began full implementation this year, with its expansion of Medicaid and its premium subsidies for people who buy government-mandated government-approved health insurance plans on government-run exchanges.
It shouldn’t take a genius to figure out that if our welfare state continues to grow and expand, household incomes will continue to shrink. The questions that Americans now face, and the ones that each and every one of us should ask ourselves as we troop off to the polls this November are: Do we want to take care of, and control our own lives, or do we have government do it for us? And just how much more money are we going to need to fork over to the government before we say, enough is enough.
And, you know, just as a side note here, another reason for which I’m being told that there has been a sudden surge for the Democrats, regarding this November’s elections, is that many are said to have achieved some level of success in being able to distance themselves from Barry "Almighty." And how stupid are those people who would actually fall for such an idiotic ploy in the first place? Because while they may be trying to distance themselves before the election, they will be joined at the hip with Barry after the election.
Tuesday, September 16, 2014
Just as I don’t understand the fixation that most Democrats have when it comes to their outright hostility toward Israel, neither do I understand how it is that many Jews in this country can bring themselves to support those very same Democrats. Now I can understand it coming from Barry, because in his heart I think we all realize that he is essentially a Muslim, and therefore an enemy of Israel. But now it would appear that one of the only two U.S. presidents to ever be impeached and the only one, at least as far as I know, ever known to be a rapist, and one who was never really known for being much of a leader, has now taken it upon himself to criticize the Israeli government's handling of peace negotiations with the so-called, Palestinians.
Sounding much like that other presidential loser, Jimmy Carter, it was ‘Slick Willie’ Clinton who was recently heard joining with the chorus of many others within his party and actually agreeing with a suggestion that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is "not the guy" to achieve lasting peace in the Middle East. ‘Slick Willie’ made his ignorant comments while speaking in a conversation at a Democrat fundraiser in Iowa this past weekend. He said, "If we don't force him to make peace, we will not have peace." So how arrogant of a statement is that? What ‘right’ do we have to force Mr. Netanyahu to do anything that he feels places his country in jeopardy and is not in the best interest of his people? Suppose if the shoe was on the other foot?
The exchange was recorded by C-SPAN and covered by the Israeli newspaper, Haaretz. ‘Slick’s’ comments actually stood in direct contrast to what we had heard from his wife, that disaster of a secretary of State, Hitlery Clinton, who has been, at least in public, rather supportive of Netanyahu's handling of the conflict in Gaza, in keeping with but a few other Democrats. The newspaper said, "Whether Bill Clinton's comments reflect the private thinking of these other leading Democrats is impossible to tell." Adding, "But they also serve as a reminder that should Hillary Clinton run for president, the presence of a vocal and very opinionated spouse on the campaign trail creates added opportunity for embarrassment and even inadvertent policy shifts."
Here’s my attempt at a rather brief historical refresher. First of all, there has never been the country of Palestine. So therefore calling these people Palestinians is simply incorrect. In the second century, Emperor Hadrian crushed a new Jewish rebellion with many Jews being banished while others were made slaves of the Romans. A small number of Jews did stay in the land and remained there right up through the twentieth century. However, the name of the land at this time was changed because Hadrian wanted to destroy Jewish identity. He renamed the land "Syria-Palestinian." Palestine was a Latin version of the word Philistine, an ancient enemy of the Jews who were now extinct as a people. Hadrian was deliberately insulting the Jews.
So therefore, as I said, there has never been a country called Palestine. This was a nickname for the Holy Land under the Romans. The people who today call themselves Palestinians are Arabs and the fact is that they referred to themselves as Arabs for, quite literally, centuries until they were dubbed "Palestinians" as a publicity ploy by the terrorist and founder of the PLO, Yassir Arafat. And the truth is that Arafat himself did not use the title "Palestinian" until after the year 1964. Those who have ever since referred to themselves as ‘Palestinians’ have no rightful claim to any of the lands. And freedom loving people everywhere must stand shoulder to shoulder with the Jewish people to repel those who wish to steal that which does not belong to them.
So as we can once again very plainly see, the recurring tendency of Democrats to either ignore history completely or their attempt to rewrite it whenever it doesn’t suit their needs or justify their actions, once again becomes apparent. And while much has been made of the Palestinian exodus of 1948, what hear very little about is how the Palestinians have been made to suffer far more traumatic, and more recent, ordeals at the hands of their Arab brothers. Because as early as the mid-1950s, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Libya all chose to expel striking Palestinian workers. And in 1970, Jordan expelled some 20,000 Palestinians and demolished their camps and in 1994-95, Libya expelled tens of thousands of Palestinian residents in response to the Oslo process.
And it was after the 2003 Iraq war that some 21,000 Palestinians essentially fled the country in response to what was a systematic terror and persecution campaign. And then it was as recently as 2007 that Beirut effectively displaced 31,400 Palestinian refugees when the Lebanese army destroyed the Nahr el Bared refugee camp during fighting between the militant Fatal al-Islam group and the Lebanese army. But the largest forced displacement of Palestinians from any Arab state took place in 1991 when Kuwait expelled most of its Palestinian residents in retaliation for the Palestine Liberation Organization's (PLO) endorsement of Iraq's brutal occupation of the emirate (August 1990-February 1991).
And it mattered very little that this population, most of which had resided in Kuwait for decades, was not at all supportive of the PLO's reckless move. From March to September 1991, about 200,000 Palestinians were expelled from the emirate in a systematic campaign of terror, violence, and economic pressure while another 200,000 who fled during the Iraqi occupation were denied the ability to return. By September 1991, Kuwait's Palestinian community had dwindled to around 20,000. And yet even after all of this it is still Israel that is painted as being the villain in this continuing struggle. Democrats like ‘Slick Willie’ would have us believe that Israel is solely responsible for the plight of the ‘Palestinian’ people.
The true fact of the matter is that absolutely none of this, not one iota, not a smidgen, has anything to do with the reacquiring for the ‘Palestinian’ people their homeland. Because as I said earlier, this particular piece of real-estate where so much blood has now been shed over the years, was never their homeland to begin with. What is truly underway here is nothing more than an all out, no holds barred attempt to once again banish the Jewish people from what is, and really always has been, ‘their’ homeland from the time of Moses. And it absolutely sickens me that we have those in this country, who belong to primarily one of our political parties, who are completely willing to assist those who seek to drive the Israeli people from their home.