Friday, October 31, 2014
While I remain a bit of a skeptic when it comes to all of the recent hype about how it is that the Democrats are now said to be in full-blown panic mode regarding the election in 4 days, it does seem that they are resorting to what can only be described as some rather unseemly tactics in their effort to hold on to the Senate. From Maryland to Georgia to North Carolina to Louisiana, what we are now seeing from the Democrats is a new low even for them.
And now joining the chorus of the unhinged we now have none other than the very senile Charlie Rangel making all manner of idiotic, and very racist, accusations. It was just yesterday that Rangel once again likened Republicans to Confederates from the Civil War era, charging that they "believe slavery isn't over." But I thought that was a rather odd thing for him to say, especially since it’s Rangel’s party that was, and in a sense still is, the party of slavery.
While attending an evening rally for the corrupt governor of New York, Andy Cuomo, who’s seeking re-election, Rangel said, "We have to win. We have to be able to send a national message with Andrew Cuomo." And this senile old boob went on to say, "And the thing is everything we believe in, everything we believe in, they hate." I thought that statement, too, was a bit ironic since it’s the Democrat Party that is so obviously consumed by hate.
And then he went on to say, "They don't disagree — they hate." Adding, "They think if you didn't come from Europe 30 years ago, you didn't even make it." And then is demonstrating that he must be in the advanced stages of dementia, Charlie went on to say, "Some of them believe that slavery isn't over and they and think they won the Civil War." Are blacks really stupid enough to believe this tripe? If so, they and the Democrats deserve each other!
Rangel, who said last week that the Islamic State (ISIS) was not a national security threat to the United States, has long compared Republicans to Confederates. He also told the Cuomo rally that the Democrats were, by contrast, doing "God's work" on issues that were important to Americans and called on participants to "send a collective voice" in next Tuesday's elections. I think old Charlie might want be careful what he wishes for.
Rangel said, "Everything we're doing is God's work: education, healthcare, affordable housing, discrimination, paying people the minimum wage." He must have a rather twisted perception of what ‘God’s work’ consists of. I don’t see it as being ‘God’s work’ to rob from people their ability to decide for themselves the type of healthcare coverage they wish, or their ability to find a job or the expectations that their government will keep them safe.
Look, not only was Rangel’s party, the Democrat Party, the main proponent of slavery, but it was also the main culprit behind Jim Crow, years of segregation and it remains quite difficult to find a member of the Ku Klux Klan that is not a Democrat. So to say that Charlie is being a bit hypocritical here, as well as trying hard to rewrite history, I think would be a bit of an understatement. But it’s what Democrats will continue to do until it no longer works.
Thursday, October 30, 2014
Believe it or not, but as we get closer to the election and in anticipation of the Democrats losing control of the Senate, White House officials have now begun to imply that if only Democrats would have tied themselves more closely to Barry “Almighty” they would not now find themselves in their current predicament. But according to the National Journal such a notion is nothing short of "pure delusion." But is it a simple matter of being delusional or is it choosing to live in denial?
Josh Kraushaar, political editor of the National Journal wrote, "Obama is the main reason Republicans are well-positioned to win control of the upper chamber next Tuesday. And Democrats' biggest strategic mistake in this election is that most candidates didn't run away far and fast enough." And with that statement Mr. Kraushaar succeeded in hitting the nail on the head. But with it being known that many of these folks supported Barry 90 percent of the time, I’m not sure how far they could have run.
Kraushaar writes, "Given the president's rock-bottom approval numbers in the many Republican-friendly Senate states that Democrats needed to win — as well as the reality of a worsening political environment for the party as early as last winter — that distance was a downright necessity. But a host of Senate candidates failed to create it, and the party is likely to pay the price in Senate seats." So while the fate of the Democrat majority remains uncertain, they could have made things easier for themselves.
The Journal also points out, "To be sure, in a nationalized election, even those who break from an unpopular president often fall victim to his political problems. The biggest victims in the 2010 wave election were House Democrats in conservative districts, most of whom voted against the president's healthcare law. Their opposition did little to help them. But in Senate races, where candidates' personal brands play a bigger role, there's more opportunity to create space." And yet, few chose to do so.
And as the Journal points out, "This year's midterms are shaping up to be a referendum on President Obama's management, giving anxious voters an opportunity to express their frustration about everything from the president's handling of healthcare, growing terrorism threats, an Ebola scare, and a broken immigration system, among others." But having said that, how surprised should voters really be that this ‘community agitator’ with no real experience has managed to muck things up so badly?
And it concludes by saying, "Democrats should have recognized that the president was falling out of favor with the public and inoculated themselves a long time ago. Instead, many bought the White House's spin, and are at risk of going down with a sinking ship.” These candidates are now victims of having drank the same ‘Kool Aid’ that so many of their constituents once were only too eager to swill down, and in mass quantities, only to find out later that there was something not quite right about it.
In looking back to January 20, 2009, I’m quite sure that Democrats never imagined they would be in the position that they now find themselves in today. Barry was to be the harbinger of 20 years of solid Democrat rule. He was, after all, the ‘One’ whom we had all been waiting for. But the Democrats got a little too greedy, and now they just might be made to pay a pretty stiff price. And while the level to which they’ll be made to pay is still to be determined, there’s no doubt that a price will be paid.
You know, some guys simply aren’t cut out to be Commander-in-Chief. And it’s a shame that there isn’t some way to make it a Cabinet position should it ever come about that the guy elected as president just isn’t up to the task, as in the case of our current president, Barry "Almighty". Barry has demonstrated more times than I care to count that he has no interest in, nor does he have the aptitude for, being our Commander-in-Chief. I thank God, that I retired before this incompetent boob assumed the position of being my boss.
And just one of those things that makes it so glaringly obvious that Barry simply is not someone worthy of such an awesome responsibility, is the fact that as U.S. Marines withdraw from Operation Enduring Freedom (the Afghanistan war), a database on the number of casualties in that conflict shows that 418 Marines gave their lives and that 92% of those casualties, or 385 deaths, occurred on Barry’s watch. And it is Barry, and Barry alone, who bears the blame. His reckless disregard for those in uniform is beneath contempt.
But let’s face it, it’s rarely, if ever, that liberals, let alone blatant socialists, make good Commanders-in Chief. Seriously, who can remember the last time we had a Democrat who was able to handle the task with any level of skill or exhibited any level of concern for those under his command? Certainly not ‘Slick Willie’ Clinton, and most definitely not Jimmy Carter, who, before Barry happened along, was quite possibly the most inept individual ever required to fill the position. I served during his tenure, I was thrilled when Reagan came along.
According to a new poll, Republican turned Independent turned Democrat Charlie Crist, candidate for governor here in Florida, seems to have pulled 3-points ahead of GOP Gov. Rick Scott, as ‘Independent’ voters, for whatever bizarre reason, appear to be throwing their weight behind him. I feel like I’m surrounded by idiots, because how stupid must one be in order for them to support a loser like Crist.
According to a Quinnipiac University Poll conducted Oct. 22-27 of 817 likely voters, 45 percent of those surveyed support Crist compared to 42 percent who support Scott. Among Independent voters though, 47 percent are backing Crist compared to 29 percent for Scott. Personally, I’ve always viewed Independents as being folks who just can’t bring themselves to admit the fact that they’re really Democrats.
Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll, said in a statement, "Independent voters are often the difference in swing states like Florida, but the size of former Gov. Charlie Crist's lead among them is truly remarkable." Obviously, these self-proclaimed, holier than thou, independents are some of most gullible folks that you’re ever going to meet. And how unfortunate for the rest of that our fate seems to be in their hands.
Brown added, "Crist, who always has sought to portray himself as a pragmatist rather than an ideologue, seems to have sold that message to independents who historically have favored problem-solvers who are less political." Crist is now, and always has been, nothing more than lying sack of shit. And the fact that anyone can bring themselves to vote for him, I suppose, tells us much more about them than it does Crist.
Crist, as you may or may not recall, served as governor as a Republican from 2007 to 2011. And his record is not something he likes to talk about all that much. He made a bid for U.S. Senate in 2010 instead of seeking re-election, but lost in the GOP primary to Sen. Marco Rubio before deciding to switch to becoming an independent for the general election, where he lost yet again. That alone should tell you something about Crist.
Shortly after his defeat, Crist then decided to take the only option left open to him and joined the Democrat Party after which he then went on to very enthusiastically support Barry's 2012 re-election bid. You’d think that the party switches might have demonstrated to most folks the fact that Crist is really nothing more than a sleazy political opportunist, but apparently not. And why more people can’t see this, quite frankly, amazes me.
You know, I just can’t believe that anyone, regardless of their political affiliation, or even lack of, would actually be so irresponsible as actually to vote for a sleazy character like Charlie Crist. But I’ll tell you what, people need to think long and hard about whether they’re really ready to go back to where it was that Crist took the state the last time he was in the governor’s mansion, because it certainly wasn’t very pretty!
Wednesday, October 29, 2014
I’d be curious to know how many of our stellar younger generation might now be questioning the wisdom of they’re having decided to vote for Barry ‘Almighty". Because what they have now turned out to be is just another voting block that Barry has no problem in using to get what HE wants while making sure they get the shitty end of the stick.
Because it’s according to a newly released study that we now know Obamacare, aka the Affordable Care Act, which was supposed to make health care more affordable, has had just the opposite effect. This study shows that average premiums have skyrocketed and it’s these younger folks who could face increases of as much as 78 percent.
Average insurance premiums in the sought-after 23-year-old demographic rose most dramatically, with men in that age group seeing an average 78.2 percent price increase before factoring in government subsidies, and women having their premiums rise 44.9 percent, according to a report by HealthPocket scheduled for release Wednesday.
The study, which was shared Tuesday with The Washington Times, examined average health insurance premiums before the implementation of Obamacare in 2013 and then afterward in 2014. The research focused on people of three ages — 23, 30 and 63 — using data for nonsmoking men and women with no spouses or children.
The study to which I refer was entitled "Without Subsidies Women & Men, Old & Young Average Higher Monthly Premiums with Obamacare." And it is this study that points out the fact that the premium increases for 30-year-olds were almost as high as those for 23-year-olds, 73.4 percent for men and 35.1 percent for women.
Kev Coleman, head of research and data at HealthPocket, a nonpartisan, independently managed subsidiary of Health Insurance Innovations in Sunnyvale, California, said, "It’s very eye-opening in terms of the transformation occurring within the individual health insurance market." This was obvious to most people.
Coleman also went on to say, "I was surprised in general to see the differences in terms of the average premiums in the pre-reform and post-reform markets." And he added, "It was a higher amount than I had anticipated." Just what the Hell was this boob expecting to see happen? How naïve can someone be?
This is but one more example on a very long list of many, that proves this nationalization of our healthcare system was never intended to lower costs or to make healthcare more accessible to all. It was only intended to be a way for the government to control how one is able to obtain healthcare. Nancy did say we’d need to pass it to see what was in it.
Picture this: A sitting vice president, in the midst of his own run for president, dashing across Pennsylvania Avenue and bursting into the Senate to cast what is the deciding vote on make-or-break piece of legislation, saving the day for his party while C-SPAN cameras capture the entire event for posterity…and future campaign ads.
And for ‘Slow Joe’ Biden, such a scenario could very well become what would be, for the rest of us, a scary reality in the event of a deadlocked Senate after the midterm elections. Because if the Senate splits evenly between Democrats and Republicans, the vice president's role as the 101st senator would instantly be elevated.
And if, God forbid, that were to actually happen it would, in turn, likely raise ‘Slow Joe's’ own political profile heading into 2016, when he has already made in known that he may very well run for president again. It could even help him try to rival the rock-star status that many Democrats have already bestowed upon Hitlery Clinton.
According to Douglas Brinkley, who is, I’m told, a presidential historian at Rice University, "It makes Joe Biden suddenly a hugely relevant Washington figure." He went on to say, "It shows he's a power player." No offense to this supposed ‘presidential historian’, but as far as I’m concerned there is nothing in this world that could make Biden relevant.
Personally I’m of the opinion that it could end up making ‘Slow Joe’ the poster boy for messy political fights on Capitol Hill, replacing even ‘Dingy Harry’ Reid and also potentially alienating some voters along the way. Friends say he'd relish the chance to play kingmaker. No surprise there, this boob has an ego that rivals that of his boss.
‘Slow Joe’ is said to be a ‘creature’ of the Senate, having spent nearly 40 years there, and a high-profile return would allow him to show former colleagues that he's still in the game. But it wouldn’t be very good for the country to have such a hapless nitwit able to wield such political power. But what are the chances of it actually happening?
It's a definitely possibility, I suppose. Republicans need a net gain of five seats, but with Barry's unpopularity dragging his party down, Democrats are already bracing for even greater losses. Democrat hopes for averting a GOP majority rest in places like Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, New Hampshire and North Carolina.
Even if the Senate deadlocks, it wouldn't technically be a 50-50 split. That's because there are two independents. Both caucus with Democrats, so they're counted as Democrats in determining which party has the majority. There's a chance, though, that one of them could switch allegiances if the GOP wins the majority.
Further muddying the waters, two more ‘independents’ could win seats this year as well. In Kansas, Greg Orman has said he'd caucus with whichever party wins the majority, while in South Dakota, former Sen. Larry Pressler has been coy about his intentions. But we know that both of these ‘gentlemen’ are simply Democrats disguised as Independents.
And, thankfully, it’s not like ‘Slow Joe’ would be casting a vote on every bill. He would only be called upon on those rare occasions where a deadlock would require the vice president to weigh in. These days, parliamentary maneuvering has raised the threshold to pass almost anything to 60 votes, so the likelihood of ‘Slow Joe’ being called upon is pretty remote.
Still, an even balance of power could provide to ‘Slow Joe’ the chance to play deal-broker, boosting his credibility as a pragmatist who can work with both parties. But if he gets called in to swing the vote on a controversial Barry-backed policy, an immigration bill, for example, Republicans would likely use that vote against him on the campaign trail.
But look, let’s just all keep our fingers crossed and hope that when the dust finally settles we won’t be finding ourselves in the situation of having to depend on ‘Slow Joe’ to be the deciding vote. What we need to hoping for is a Republican majority of sufficient size to curb Barry’s continuing attempts to "fundamentally transform" this country.
Tuesday, October 28, 2014
Something that I’m sure is a work of pure political propaganda or something that might have some degree of truth to it, is the fact that we’re now being told that Democrats are said to deeply concerned about their political future, at least as far as the House is concerned. We’re told that they fear they are on the verge of suffering losses in these midterm House elections that may take them years for the party to recover from. Granted, I am far from being an expert on such things, but frankly, I just don’t see it.
With Republicans spending a ton of cash in congressional races that were once comfortably liberal, there’s a growing fear that not only will the GOP expand its 17-seat majority in the House next week, but Democrats will not win it back in 2016. And with that, Democrats are said to be caught suffering from a financial conundrum, whereby they have to stop pumping money into districts they were hoping to win and put it toward preventing those once considered as safe to prevent them from being captured by the GOP.
In recent days, Barry’s popularity continuing to wane even among party faithful, the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee has poured cash into races in Hawaii and Nevada, states which turned sharply left in 2012. Emily Bittner, spokesmoron for the DCCC has said, "There’s no question it’s a tough climate for Democrats right now but it certainly doesn’t come as a surprise." Emily goes on to say, "Heading into the final week of the election every single Democratic incumbent is still competitive, which is drastically different from the situation in 2010."
One example of the situation the Democrats now find themselves in, is the fact that there has been increasing concerns about California Rep. Lois Capps, an eight-term congresswoman who previously has had very little trouble during re-elections. She’s now fighting for her political future in a close contest with perennial Republican candidate Chris Mitchum, son of the actor Robert Mitchum, and the DCCC has had to step in to help Capps by spending $99,000 on radio ads in the Santa Barbara area promoting her.
The committee’s chairman, Steve Israel of New York, is, apparently, also fretting over the fate of Rep. Dave Loebsack. Mr. Loebsack happens to be a fourth-term Iowa incumbent Democrat who has recently been on the receiving end of a series of some rather potent campaign ads from various Republican groups. Israel was so worried about the seat that he recently organized a fundraiser on Loebsack’s behalf just days ahead of the Nov. 4 elections. But it has yet to be determined whether it’ll make a difference or if it’s too little too late.
Nancy Pelosi, together with Israel, were to hold a conference call with members just today to outline the problems Democrats are facing in the final run-up to the elections, while also calling for, make that begging for, more donations. There have been several reports that strategists from both parties expect Democrats to lose between five and 10 seats, and that out of the 30 House races that are now seen as being most likely to change hands, 23 are held by Democrats. So things are looking a bit dicey for at least the House Democrats.
Democrat operatives say that Barry’s policies and unpopularity are hurting candidates across the board. For instance, in West Virginia and downstate Illinois, Rep. Nick Rahall and Rep. Bill Enyart are seeing their election chances slip away as the GOP ties them to their boss. Republicans are also targeting districts that have been long been considered liberal strongholds, such as in Hawaii and eastern Iowa, which has received an injection of cash from American Action Network, a conservative group with links to House Speaker John Boehner.
The DCCC has, in fact, now stopped the flow of money to races in both Colorado and Virginia and has essentially been forced to start running TV ads in two eastern Iowa districts, both of which Barry won in 2012. Speaker Boehner has recently campaigned in Iowa for GOP hopefuls Rod Blum, a software company owner, and Mariannette Miller-Meeks, an ophthalmologist. Boehner’s spokesman Cory Fritz, said, "All year, the speaker has been emphasizing the importance of making the most of every opportunity."
While things may, at least appear, to be pretty dire for the Democrats at the present time, what I see as taking place in this election is really nothing more than what is likely to be a minor set back for the Democrats. Because it’s pretty clear that more and more people are becoming addicted to government while fewer and fewer are called upon to pay taxes. In 2016 when Hitery Clinton runs, all those who are now so concerned about the failing popularity of Barry, will be thrilled with the popularity if Hitlery. And all will be right in their world, again.
As many of you have probably guessed, I like to listen to talk radio. And of those I listen to, the one person that I usually always manage to learn something from is Mark Levin. It was just yesterday that I posted something here that, while at the time I thought it made sense, it was only after listening to Mark that that little light bulb went off in my head that made me realize that what I had written actually made very little sense at all.
The main premise of my post centered around the fear that I have that if the Republicans do gain control of Congress and do not handle themselves well over the course of the next two years leading up to the next presidential election, then they, as well as the country, are essentially doomed to go the way of the dinosaur. And in reading what it was that our House Majority Leader intended to put forward, his, at least initially, sounded like an adequate plan.
BUT…Then along came Mark to enlighten me.
My previous post had to do with the fact that we now have less than a week to go before what will be one of the most important elections in many of our lives. I spoke of how Kevin McCarthy had sent out a preview of the House agenda for next year. And I guess I allowed my eagerness at the prospect of having Republicans gaining what would be complete control of Congress to blind me to what it is that McCarthy is really proposing.
Mark made it clear how it is that we are living through a time of upheaval with Barry fundamentally remaking America. How we have Obamacare, open borders, a dangerously insecure visa system, global Jihad, and now even infectious diseases being forced upon our country. And how on the economic front, we have crushing energy regulations that raise the cost of living and destroy jobs and how we have the threat of an Internet sales tax.
And he went on to point out how we have a president who has accumulated more debt than any president in our history and how we have the complete collapse of federalism with unelected judges violating states’ rights and religious liberty. Most scandalously, he explained how we have a president who is promising to remake America through endless executive orders, most prominently, through remaking our immigration system.
And yet, the sum total of the McCarthy agenda is "making government work again." His most potent proposals are limiting the number of agency reports that Congress must read and look into tacking on regulatory reforms to all bills that authorize new regulations! And adding insult to injury, he cites the 2012 highway bill as being the paradigm for success and future initiatives, even though it added to the deficit and contained numerous policy and process problems.
Mark point out how it is that McCarthy fails to mention immigration; just as there is no mention of repealing Obamacare through budget reconciliation; no mention of reversing Barry’s wrongheaded policies with fighting ISIS and Ebola. There’s no mention of using the power of the purse to stop Barry’s executive orders and no mention of passing legislation to protect religious liberty against the sexual identity mafia.
Mark also pointed to how McCarthy seems to be on a crusade to make the bureaucracies work more efficiently with notional and intangible policy solutions. Ironically, the only way you can ensure that the agencies work efficiently is by wielding the power of the purse over them, something McCarthy, for some reason, is clearly scared to do. Where is the bold vision? Where is the Morning in America come November 5?
But, as pointed out by Mark, therein lies the acute division between the two branches of the Republican Party, laid bare before the eyes of the public. The vision of the party elite has always been the same. It is a vision of avoiding anything consequential. It is a vision of holding the ball and running out the clock so as to preserve their power without taking any risks, even on popular proposals that will anger the Democrats.
In light of this memo, Mark points out the fact that the House conference plans to hold leadership elections and adopt the rules for next Congress within a week of the new incoming freshmen winning election. And he points out how these people, many of whom are citizen candidates unfamiliar with Washington, will likely still picking out their new D.C. apartments and trying to orient themselves to their surroundings.
Yet, he says, they are given hardly any time to evaluate the leadership of their party, they will be shepherded into a room where they will conduct a kangaroo court-style election and adoption of the rules before these freshmen even get a chance to mobilize and offer some semblance of a rational input. And I can only assume that that is what’s intended by the likes of Mr. McCarthy. How else can the maintaining of the status quo be guaranteed.
Mark points to those incoming freshmen who ran on stopping Barry’s executive orders and amnesty. Those who ran on repealing Obamacare through the budget process, protecting religious liberty, and on the notion that they would serve as the bulwark against Barry’s most dangerous years in office. They deserve a choice, not an echo. They deserve an opportunity to push for alternative leaders and ideas that will reflect the desires of those who elected them.
Barry and the Democrats are so unpopular right now that it appears that the Republican Party is headed for a victory in 6 days whether they run on red meat or on nothing more than soggy white bread. But come November 5, the new members and those who elected them deserve leadership that will actually confront those who are working so hard to reshape our form of government, not work with them to help preserve it.
So, as the title of this post makes clear, I now stand corrected. And as Mark has made so very clear, we must be able to see through what it is that the likes of McCarthy, Boehner, and even McConnell, are telling us when it comes to what it is that they intend to do with their new found control of Congress. They are not to be trusted, because far from being the solution, they are nothing more than part of the continuing problem with Washington.
Monday, October 27, 2014
Well, it would appear that things seem to be tightening up a bit there in the People’s Republic of Maryland, but it’s not clear, exactly, why that might be. Because we now have a poll that was recently leaked to ‘The Daily Caller’ which shows that the gubernatorial race there has become extremely close. And by extremely close I mean that it appears to have narrowed to the point where there are now only 2 points, 46 to 44, that separate Democrat Lieutenant Governor Anthony Brown and Republican small businessman, Larry Hogan.
In Maryland, the bluest of blue states, Democrats have a 2 to 1 registration advantage, but Gonzales finds this race is well within the 3.5 percent margin of error of its survey, commissioned by the Maryland GOP. Independents appear to breaking for Hogan, 46 to 32, and he’s receiving 89 percent support from his party while Brown is pulling only 73 percent of Democrats. Barry has campaigned for Brown, and Hitlery Clinton will be going to the state this week. Chris Christie has campaigned with Hogan and is scheduled to return this week as well.
And as far as what the top issues might be for voter, taxes come in first at 32 percent, with the economy and jobs coming in a close second at 29 percent. Maryland’s unemployment rate has been bucking the national trend and is now higher than the national average, sitting at 6.4 percent. In the past 8 years, when Brown served as Lieutenant Governor to Democrat Marty O’Malley, devout socialist and 2016 presidential wannabe, the state saw 40 tax increases on everything from gasoline to the taxing of rain.
As I said this particular survey was commissioned by the Maryland Republican Party, which might cause some to question it’s accuracy and outcome, as well as to ask just what the internals of this most recent survey might have consisted of. It’s also true that polls conducted by Gonzales this cycle have tended to show the race tighter than others, but as even the Washington Post noted, Gonzales "does not have a partisan track record." Which would seem to add some level of credibility to the survey’s outcome.
With those caveats out of the way, let’s assume for a minute that this survey is pretty close to being accurate. This would represent a nine point swing from a week ago, when, according to the RealClearPolitics poll average, Hogan was down by 11 points. How could this be possible? I mean, what has happened in the last week? Well, for one thing, Barry "Almighty", not welcome in most, if not all, red states, campaigned for Brown in Maryland, where, you may remember, crowds began streaming out during his speech, leaving empty bleachers behind.
So could it be that Barry is now such a drag on Democrats that he even hurts them in the bluest of blue states like Maryland? That’s one possibility. Another possibility is presented by the fact that New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, the head of the Republican Governor’s Association, has also been stumping hard for Hogan, of late. Now whether or not these events have anything to do with one another is unclear. But it seems unlikely that Christie would be visiting Maryland so often, so late, unless there was sufficient reason for doing so.
There has also been a focus on race in this race with the Maryland Democratic Party, like that in Georgia and North Carolina, mailing out some disgusting fliers. These fliers encourage blacks to make Brown the state’s first black governor, going so far as to equate him to Martin Luther King and Barry, while, like in Georgia, trying to tie Republicans to segregation and Ferguson, Missouri. Gonzales found the black vote breaking 87 to 5 for Brown. The survey was conducted by Gonzales between October 20 and October 24 with 822 likely voters.
As I have said before, and on more than one occasion, should the Republican Party successfully avoid what has become their standard practice of ever so skillfully snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, and actually end up being fortunate enough to gain for themselves complete control of Congress, their window of opportunity to demonstrate to the American people that they’re doing so was worth the risk, will be a very narrow one.
And so it is then that these days I find myself in the rather unusual position of actually agreeing with House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy. Mr. McCarthy recently warned that the GOP must make "radical changes" in the next two years if it does in fact succeed in taking control of the House and the Senate as a result of the midterm elections. It’s either that, he says, or the party will lose the 2016 presidential race. He’s correct in his assessment.
It was while speaking to a group of donors that McCarthy was heard to say, "I do know this, if we don’t capture the House stronger, and the Senate, and prove we could govern, there won’t be a Republican president in 2016." McCarthy’s plan is to build bridges with Republican senators so that they can reach the voters with one voice, and he’s already been talking to South Dakota Sen. John Thune about strengthening ties between the two chambers.
It’s been through a series of interviews that McCarthy has said, "My belief is you have one chance to make a first impression." He has also said, "From the very first day after the election, we should be laying out to the American public what the expectations are. Why make two different agendas?" Now while what he says does make a great deal of sense, it’s a very rare occasion when you see the actions of Republicans matching up with the rhetoric.
McCarthy says that there’s a "75 percent" chance the GOP will take the Senate, while noting that it the Democrats maintain control of the upper chamber it will be a tough time for him personally and the public. He said, "If it stays Democratic, it’s going to be a frustrating time." McCarthy may be overstating his party’s chances a bit, but he’s right about the consequences to be faced if the Democrats are able to maintain their control of the Senate.
The thing is, the task that McCarthy has set for himself and his party will not be an easy one, because it’s a sure thing that the Democrats will begin to construct every type of roadblock imaginable right after it becomes official that ‘Dingy Harry’ is out of his job. And if the Republicans hope to meet with any amount of success over the course of the next two years, then they will need to grow both a spine and a rather sizeable pair of cojones. Otherwise, what we’re hearing from McCarthy will amount to little more than just words.
Saturday, October 25, 2014
I always find it rather amusing when those who I’m fairly certain have spent their entire lives voting for Democrats, have the nerve to complain about what is essentially the direct result from they’re having done so. Recently former basketball player Charles Barkley spoke, in what was described as being a very candid manner, about the problems facing the black community. He did so while appearing on a Philadelphia radio station, and went so far as to accuse "unintelligent," "brainwashed" African-Americans of keeping successful ones down. Barkley is another one of those folks who are long on complaining, but short on action.
It was while appearing on "Afternoons with Anthony Gargano and Rob Ellis," that old Chuck was asked about a rumor that Seattle Seahawks QB Russell Wilson was getting criticism from his black teammates for not being, quote, "black enough." Chuck then launched into a long monologue on the subject saying, "Unfortunately, as I tell my white friends, we as black people, we’re never going to be successful, not because of you white people, but because of other black people. When you’re black, you have to deal with so much crap in your life from other black people. It’s a dirty, dark secret; I’m glad it’s coming out."
Chuck went on to say that young black men who do well in school are accused of "acting white" by their peers. He said, "One of the reasons we’re never going to be successful as a whole, because of other black people. And for some reason we are brainwashed to think, if you’re not a thug or an idiot, you’re not black enough. If you go to school, make good grades, speak intelligent, and don’t break the law, you’re not a good black person. And it’s a dirty, dark secret." While I really don’t really think it’s all that much of a secret really, what it is, is something that is routinely taken advantage of and for purely political purposes.
Chuck continued, saying, "There are a lot of black people who are unintelligent, who don’t have success." And added, "It’s best to knock a successful black person down because they’re intelligent, they speak well, they do well in school, and they’re successful." He went on to say, "We’re the only ethnic group who say, ‘Hey, if you go to jail, it gives you street cred.’ It’s just typical BS that goes on when you’re black, man." Personally, I don’t think it’s about brainwashing. I think the root cause of what Chuck talks about has more to do with the fact that over the course of the last 60 years, the black family has been completely decimated.
And what Chuck conveniently leaves out of little rant, is who it is that he thinks is responsible for this brainwashing that he says is now taking place. I don’t suppose there’s anyway that those perpetrating this alleged brainwashing might be doing so in an effort to weaken the black community in such a way as to make blacks less able to become more self-sufficient and as such less likely to require the government to intervene in their lives. I’m sure that that’s not what Chuck might be implying here. After all, this guy was a big supporter of Barry, even going so far as to call Romney out during the 2012 presidential campaign.
If guys like Chuck really wanted to make a serious impact, he would be venturing out into the community and ask those folks how is it that the Democrat Party has made their lives better. He would ask blacks, what is that Democrats have done to keep black men out of prison and to make sure more black men are employed. And he would then answer that question by saying, "NOTHIN." But Chuck will never do that, because like so many others he would rather be part of the problem than part of the solution. Because to encourage blacks to leave the ‘Democrat Plantation’ risks drawing the ire of those to whom Chuck as sworn political allegiance.
It was during a recent interview that the Democrat National Committee Chairmoron, the esteemed Ms. Debbie Wizzerman Schultz was asked what was really a very simple, yet very direct question. Ms. Wizzerman Schultz was asked to name those Democrat candidates for whom Barry "Almighty" had been seen actively campaigning for.
All Ms. Wizzerman Schultz, who I might add is another political waste of skin from here in Florida, could do in her effort to respond to this very simple request, was to break out what has become her frequently used pair of dancin’ shoes. Because all she really did was to repeatedly dodge the very simple question and in what has become very typical Democrat fashion.
It was while appearing on Bloomberg TV’s "With All Due Respect," that Wizzerman Schultz was asked why ex-resident ‘Slick Willie’ Clinton is now seen nearly everywhere campaigning for those Democrats involved in tight Senate races but Barry is nowhere to be seen. Wizzerman Schultz said, "The president is campaigning in competitive races during this election cycle."
Wizzerman Schultz was, oddly enough, repeatedly pressed by the program’s co-hosts, Mark Halperin and John Heilemann, to name just one Senate race, just one, where Democrats have been busily distancing themselves from Barry, for which he's campaigned. Heilemann then asked, "What competitive Senate races is the president campaigning in?"
Wizzerman Schultz still did nothing but to continue to repeat herself, saying only, "Like I said, the president has been campaigning in competitive races." Wizzerman Schultz added, "There are races that the president is campaigning in around the country, and he’s also governing." Governing? Guess that why the Ebola crisis is going so well, right?
The American people can not, no they MUST NOT, allow themselves to be fooled by what Democrats like Wizzerman Schultz are trying to pull off here. These Democrats who are now so desperate to separate themselves for Barry ‘Almighty’ are, just like Barry himself said, are the very ones who support him and his American dream-killing agenda.
So make no mistake about it, when you step into the voting booth in less than two weeks, you will be presented with a choice. And that choice is, do you want things to continue exactly as they have for the last six years, or do you want something different. If you are happy with the way things have been going the choice is an easy one, vote for the Democrat.
Friday, October 24, 2014
In what I’m not quite sure is an act based on sheer desperation, a blatant disregard for the facts, or perhaps both, we now have, and contrary to numerous recent polls that put ‘climate change’ pretty far down on the list of what the American people view as being their pressing concerns, our resident dyke over there at Barry’s EPA, Gina McCarthy, once again demonstrating that she lives in that same rather strange and alternate universe that all Democrats live in. She does so by continuing to see things quite a bit differently than do the rest of us.
Never one to say die when it comes to the leftist cause of ‘climate change’, Ms. McCarthy was recently heard to say, "From all the recent public opinion work out there on climate change, what stands out to me is this: First, people overwhelmingly consider climate change a problem, and they want action. And second, what’s even more impressive, is the overwhelming support specifically for EPA action to curb carbon pollution from power plants." Such drivel should cause one to ponder just what it might be that she’s been smokin’, drinkin’ or shootin’ up!
Ms. McCarthy spoke Friday at something called the Conference on Energy and the Environment at that haven for leftwing loons of every stripe, Georgetown University. But as was reported just eight short days ago, a recent Gallup Poll found that ‘climate change’ ranked at the bottom of a list of 13 ‘concerns’ that are considered as being most pressing for registered U.S. voters as next month’s midterm elections approach. So I guess I’m not sure where she gets her information or if, like many others of her rabid ideological persuasion, she simply makes shit up as she goes along.
It was in was in the above mentioned Gallup poll that only 40 percent of respondents identified ‘climate change’ as either a "very important" or and "extremely important" factor in their votes. That was well behind the second-lowest-ranking concern, which was abortion and access to contraception, which was considered an important factor by 50 percent of respondents. But such opinions seem to have very little effect on the dykish Ms. McCarthy. I guess she thinks that if she talks about ‘climate change’ often enough and loud enough, the rest of us will come around.
Likewise, there was a Gallup poll in March of this year that found that only 24 percent of Americans worried a great deal about ‘climate change’. In that poll, both "climate change" and "quality of the environment" were near the bottom of a list of 15 issues Gallup asked Americans to rate. Only "race relations" ranked lower than those two issues in Gallup's March 6-9 survey. Look, the only thing that causes me to worry when it comes to ‘climate change’, is how it is that those on the left will try to use it to force me into paying even more for gas and utilities.
Ya know, the fact that we can have Democrats, or these stealth Democrats running around calling themselves Independents, now leading in the polls anywhere in this country as the midterm elections rapidly approach, would seem to say much more about the priorities of the American people than it says anything about these candidates themselves. People tend to vote for those politicians who will ‘give’ them what they want. And right now, it would seem that far too few people are even the slightest bit interested in the survival of our country.
So if the Democrats are able to maintain their current control of the Senate it will only be because a majority of the voting public essentially made what was a very conscious decision to assist them in doing so, and for their own selfish reasons. And in so doing voters will have decided to aid the Democrat Party in its endeavor to further destroy this country. I don’t know how else to describe a willingness of someone who, while able to see that this country is drowning in debt, can at the same time seem to have no problem with that trend continuing.
And to tell you the truth, I’m not sure if I’m more disappointed in my fellow Americans than I am angry with them, or the other way around. Because while I see poll after poll where those taking part express the opinion that they view the country as now being headed in the wrong direction, at the same time I see very little willingness on the part of a growing number of people to do much, if anything, about it. And trust me when I say, the time has now come for us to either shit or get off the pot. If we’re going to act, we need to act now!
And you know, for the life of me I simply do not understand how it is that any reasonably intelligent person can look at absolutely ANY Democrat politician and, regardless of what he or she may say, not see in that politician someone who, once elected to Congress, fully intends to support every single one of Barry "Almighty’s" disastrous policies. To view these Democrats any other way is to not only be terminally naïve, but also to be incurably retarded, extremely anti-American or completely demented. There simply no other way to look at it.
I mean here we are at what is, in all likelihood, one of our final two opportunities where we can actually take action to possibly save this country, and yet, what is it that we are now quite possibly on the verge of doing? Are we really going to allow this president, this horrible, disaster of a president, to finish that which he has started by allowing the Democrats to maintain their control of the Senate? I fail to understand how anyone can look at what the Democrat Party proposes and can come to the conclusion that what’s being proposed is good for the country.
But I’ll tell you what, if that is the road that we choose to head down, and we do decide to allow things to continue as they are, then from this point on we will have no right to make the claim that we think things are on the wrong track. And for the very simply reason that it will be we, choosing to elect Democrats, who essentially kept things on the wrong track when we had the opportunity to do otherwise. Our destiny, and the destiny of our children and our grand children rests squarely in our hands. The only thing lacking is our willingness to act accordingly.
Thursday, October 23, 2014
What is it that North Carolina, Georgia and now the People’s Republic of Maryland all have in common during this election season? Well, all three have Democrats who are, to one degree or another, in trouble, electorally speaking, and all three have demonstrated little hesitation in resorting to now playing the race card. From implying, in North Carolina, that the impeachment, portrayed as the political lynching, of Barry "Almighty" will take place should the Republicans win control of the senate, to the using of Ferguson, Missouri to imply that open season will be declared on blacks unless blacks vote for the Democrat running for the Senate in Georgia, the race card is being played loudly and played often.
Which brings us to the People’s Republic of Maryland where Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown was supposed to have, according to many, what was to be an easy victory come this November. He’s the Democrat in a state with a two-to-one voter registration advantage over Republicans and was expected to coast to victory in the deeply blue state and become its first African-American governor. However, that’s not shaping up to be the case. Now make no mistake, Brown is still favored to win, and heavily so, but polls have it as being much closer than conventional wisdom thought it would be. Republican challenger Larry Hogan is within single digits and gaining steam. If he were to win it would send shock waves clear across the country.
The unpopularity of Gov. Martin O’Malley, a devout socialist and 2016 presidential wannabe, together with Brown’s rather questionable leadership in the state’s failed $288 Million health-care exchange website, have come together to hamper what was expected to be nothing short of a coronation. Also, Brown performed poorly in each of the three candidate’s debates, and his campaign ads, as is usually the case with Democrats, have been mostly negative attacks on Hogan, a small business owner and founder of the non-profit Change Maryland. He’s also been accused of constantly ducking the media. He even got the name of one of the state’s largest cities wrong, saying he visited "Fredricktown." The city is Fredrick.
Another complication has to do with the fact that enthusiasm for Brown is pretty low. So it is then that all of these factors appear to have led the Democrat Party of Maryland into a panic. And it’s that panic that has resulted in a rather distasteful new mailer with the authority line "Paid for by the Maryland Democratic Party." This particular piece of campaign mail targets black voters and actually tries to tie the Republicans to the Democrat Party’s own very racist past. The mailer’s front page reads, "It’s been a long journey…" over a picture of Martin Luther King and civil rights marchers. This pathetic little stunt gives the phrase, "grabbing at straws" a whole new meaning. In the end I’m sure blacks will fall for this stunt, Brown will win and the bullet will have been dodged.
But isn’t it sad that here in 2014 we still have a political party using this sort of tactics? And isn’t it sadder still that we have people stupid enough to fall for them? And what’s really so ironic is the fact that it’s the Democrat Party which remains so determined to keep blacks forever dependent upon government. Little has changed over the course of the last 150 years, or so, when it comes to Democrats and their perception of blacks. It was the Democrats who were the driving force behind slavery, who created and gave life to the Ku Klux Klan and who were the biggest proponents of segregation. With the creation of his "Great Society", LBJ said he’d have ni**gers voting Democrat for the next 200 years. And blacks are on the way to proving him right.
Well it would seem that, much to the disappointment of the faux reverends Sharpton and Jackson, and, perhaps even to some degree, of Barry himself, as things progress regarding the shooting of an unarmed black ‘teen’, in Ferguson, Missouri, it’s beginning to appear as if we might not have a racist cop, eager to shoot the first unarmed black ‘teen’ he saw, on our hands after all. Imagine that? But how can that be?
Apparently, Michael Brown, the unarmed black ‘teen’ in question, was shot in the hand at close range, or so says an official county autopsy report obtained by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. That would appear to bolster police officer Darren Wilson's claims that the 300 pound black ‘teen’ had attacked him. No, say it isn’t so. You mean to say that this innocent black ‘teen’, may not be so innocent after all?
The Washington Post also reported early Tuesday that at least six black witnesses support Wilson's account of the shooting, that he was attacked by Brown. Which begs the question, where were these honest, upstanding individuals while all of the rioting and looting were taking place? These six would seem to be at odds with earlier accounts suggesting that most black witnesses said that Brown was shot for no reason at all.
And, as it just so happens, Wilson’s account is also backed up by the physical evidence that leaked from the grand jury last week. That includes blood spatter analysis, shell casings and ballistics tests. Taken as a whole this casts our innocent black ‘teen’ as being the aggressor in this little altercation and the one who threatened the officer’s life. And, I might add, as being the one solely responsible for his own death.
The examinations were conducted by the St. Louis County Medical Examiner's Office, and contradict the private autopsy that was conducted for Brown's family. It was that autopsy that was said to show there were no signs of a struggle between the ‘teen’ and Wilson, who shot Brown on Aug. 9, sparking weeks of often violent protests in Ferguson, a predominantly black suburb of St. Louis.
After all, it makes it rather difficult to profit off the death of one’s son, or to ‘justify’ outrageous public behavior if it’s shown that this black ‘teen’ was anything but a victim of police racism. But it’s the official autopsy that backs up Wilson's account of how this tragedy unfolded, that this innocent black ‘teen’ had struggled for his weapon while inside the police car. That the cop was fighting for his life.
St. Louis Medical Examiner Dr. Michael Graham, who is not part of the official investigation, reviewed the autopsy report and told the Post-Dispatch that "it does support that there was a significant altercation at the car." Also it has been reported that a toxicology report taken during the autopsy showed that Brown's body tested positive for marijuana. And yet, we’re still supposed to view him as some sweet and innocent little teenager.
And there now appears to be underway what is nothing more than effort that seeks to go after this cop who is guilty of nothing more than trying to keep himself from being killed. Because we now have yet a third autopsy that has been ordered, this one by federal officials, and those results have not yet been released. Meanwhile, the official and private autopsies both agree on the number and locations of Brown's wounds.
And now we’re being told that as the election grows near we have now going on that which I’m sure comes as a surprise to no one. We now have the official Democrat Party in the state of Georgia sinking to an all new low as it goes about the using of this tragedy in Ferguson as a way of motivating blacks to get out and vote next month. I’d like to think that most blacks would see through such a ploy but, sadly, I doubt that that will be the case.
Wednesday, October 22, 2014
Ya know, Democrats are a strange bunch, as they continue to demonstrate that in the name of politics, anyone can be thrown under the bus. And if I didn’t know better, I’d swear that by the reaction we continue to see coming from a growing number of Democrats, with them seeming to bend over backwards in trying to avoid having any connection with Barry, you’d think the guy had come down with the Ebola virus.
The most recent Democrat to join the growing chorus of Democrat voices refusing to even use Barry’s name, is none other than DNC Chairman Debbie Wizzerman Schultz. It was while appearing on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" and asked about whether a vote for Democrats in the 2014 midterm elections was a vote for Barry's policies, Wizzerman Schultz sidestepped the question entirely, referring instead to particular Democrat initiatives.
After repeated questions by host Joe Scarborough about whether a vote for Democrats was a vote for Barry's policies, Wizzerman Schultz chose, instead, pivoted away from Barry. She said, "If you vote for Democrats, you are voting for candidates who are focused on creating jobs, getting the economy turned around, and continuing to move us forward, creating more opportunities for people to succeed." Actually, it’s just the opposite.
We have thus far had quite a number of Democrats who have refrained completely from tying themselves to Barry, including Democrat candidates for the Senate Alison Lundergan Grimes in Kentucky, Natalie Tennant in West Virginia, and Michelle Nunn in Georgia and Mark Begich in Alaska. In listening to these folks talk, you’d think they had never heard of Barack Obama. It’s really something to behold.
And yet, despite the best efforts of these same folks to put as much distance as possible between themselves and Barry, it’s Barry himself who seems to be trying to make their efforts all for naught. It was in a radio interview with Alvin ‘Bull Horn’ Sharpton on Monday that Barry said Democrat candidates running for office were "folks who vote with me" and were "strong allies and supporters of me." But wait, how can that be?
And yet instead of admitting that she has been a very ardent supporter of Barry’s policies, Wizzerman Schultz, instead, sought to contrast Democrats with the GOP, saying that a vote for Republicans will be a vote "for someone who has embraced the tea party agenda, who would double down on obstruction, and who would stop us from moving forward." The primary obstructionist in Congress is…’Dingy Harry’ Reid.
Throughout the entire interview Wizzerman Schultz only called Barry by name once, opting instead to refer to him as "he," "his," or "the president", and credited "extreme" Republicans for why there were "still competitive races all over the country and Democrats well positioned, for governors, for the House, and the Senate." But judging but the tactics currently being employed in Georgia and North Carolina, it’s the Democrats who appear, "extreme."
Wizzerman Schultz said, "Barack Obama was on the ballot in 2012 and 2008. The candidates that are on the ballot are Democratic and Republican candidates for Congress, for the U.S. Senate, and governors across the country." So, because Barry doesn’t happen to be on the ballot this time, no one is allowed to say his name? He may not be, but those who supported the vast majority of his policies certainly are on the ballot.
Scarborough wondered why Democrats couldn't say, "Yes, Barack Obama has done a great job for six years, and I look forward to being his partner another two years." He said, "It is so ridiculous that you have people that voted with the president 95, 96, 97, 98 percent of the time who can't say his name. It's like, 'You send me up there, I'm going to be a pain in his back side.' It's a joke. It's a clown show."
So, I’m curious. How many more Democrats, over the course of the next two weeks, will we see trying to sever their connection to this guy, Barry? The very same guy that they have very enthusiastically supported on every issue, right down the line, for the last six years. But more importantly, how many voters are going to buy the story that any of these Democrats are as far removed from Barry as they claim? Probably more than you’d think.
Well it would appear that Charlie Crist’s transition to the ‘Dark Side’ can now safely be said to be complete. He made that quite clear in a statement he made when asked a question regarding the raising of the minimum wage during what was the third and final gubernatorial debate here in Florida, just last night.
I think most reasonable people are quite able to recognize the fact that the Democrats’ continuing effort to make an issue of raising the minimum wage is really nothing more than an attempt to distract attention away from what are far more important issues. To make the claim that we have people trying to support a family of four on minimum wage, is simply untrue.
And it was Jake Tapper, of Communist News Network (CNN) fame, who was tapped to moderate the Jacksonville debate and in so doing he asked Charlie specifically what he would say to the Florida business owner who said that she would have to lay off one of her 17 employees if the minimum wage was raised.
"It's worth it," was Charlie's reply. Which I suppose is fine unless you happen to be the individual who would no longer have a job and for no other reason than so someone else could make more money doing the job that you used to do. This is nothing more than another example of what’s referred to as ‘Liberal Logic’.
Poll after poll shows that voters nationwide overwhelmingly say that jobs and the economy are their number one concern. At Tuesday night's debate, which was televised nationally, Charlie's comment was made in support of a policy that could cost the state as many as 50,000 jobs, according to The Miami Herald.
Under Rick Scott, unemployment here in Florida has dropped to 590,000, down from 1 million in January 2011, when he took office. Some 700,000 residents are working part time because they can't find full-time jobs or have dropped out of the labor force. So Charlie’s ok with nudging more folks onto the unemployment line, I guess.
Charlie, a Republican-turned-Independent-turned-Democrat, supports raising the minimum wage to $10.10 saying. And he went on to say, "Well, the reason I think it is worth it because people deserve it," though some firms might have to lay workers off as a consequence. That’s such an idiotic thing to say, but it’s typical Charlie.
So who is it, I wonder, that Charlie might think ‘deserves’ to lose their job so that liberal scumbags like him can feel better about themselves? And why is it that it’s the employer who’s left to be the one to decide who it is that must be made to either look for another job or to become another government dependent?
Scott pointed out that Charlie was responsible for the loss of some 800,000 jobs during his tenure as governor. He also said Charlie's wealthy upbringing, of which I was unaware, put him out of touch with ordinary working Floridians. I guess I’m confused about what it is that so many folks find so appealing about Charlie.
Scott said, "I grew up with families that struggled. I don't know my natural father. I lived in public housing. I have an adopted dad." He went on to say, "I didn't grow up with money. You did. You grew up with plenty of money. Charlie, you lost more jobs than any state but one." And now he wants another chance to do the same thing again?
Charlie, of course, accepted none of the blame for the loss of jobs that occurred during his tenure, blaming it instead on the "economic meltdown" that had hit the country. Well, that’s pretty much the same lame excuse that we’ve been hearing from every other Democrat, that it’s always someone else’s fault. Why should Charlie be any different?
Tuesday, October 21, 2014
Now I freely admit that I am nowhere near to being the political genius that, say a, Bob Beckel is. But still, having said that, I gotta tell ya that if I was running the campaign of any Republican now running for the Senate this year, I would not hesitate for a second to use the most recent sound bite that was kindly furnished by Barry "Almighty" himself. And I would use it at every opportunity I could.
Because as hard as these scumbag Democrats who are now either running for re-election, or challenging Republican incumbents, in next month's midterm elections, have been working to put some distance between themselves and Barry, what Barry managed to do with just one interview was to make it very clear that not only do they have his full support, but he, apparently, also still has their full support as well.
Barry went so far as to tell everyone’s faux reverend, and his go-to-guy on all things having to do with race, Al ‘Bull Horn’ Sharpton on MSNBC, "This isn't about my feelings being hurt." Barry then went on to say, "These are folks who are strong allies and supporters of me, and I tell them, 'you know what, you do what you need to do to win. I will be responsible for making sure that our voters turn out.'"
Barry declared that those Democrats in tightly-contested races are on his side. Barry said, "We've got a tough map. A lot of the states that are contested this time are states that I didn't win." And he went on to say, "And so some of the candidates there, it is difficult for them to have me in the state because the Republicans will use that to try to fan Republican turnout." Right, it’s all the fault of the Republicans.
And then, and in what I’m sure was music to the ears of these Democrats so eager to disavow him, Barry said, "The bottom line is, though, these are all folks who vote with me; they have supported my agenda in Congress, they are on the right side of minimum wage, they are on the right side of fair pay, they are on the right side of rebuilding our infrastructure, they're on the right side of early childhood education."
Several Democrats, I think we’re up to at least four by now, in races said to be key, this November, have now actually gone so far as to refuse to reveal who they voted for in the past two presidential elections. And others seem to be going out of their way to make the point that Barry's assistance is neither sought or desired, especially with his approval rating now down below the 40 percent mark, the lowest of his presidency.
Republicans need to capture six additional Senate seats to take control of the chamber. There are 10 races that could swing either way or are leaning toward one party in Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, New Hampshire, and North Carolina. Most ‘experts’ are predicting enough Republican victories on Nov. 4 for the party to win over control of the Senate.
There have been several recent polls showing that a majority of the American people are quite unhappy with how Barry has handled, and continues to handle, pretty much everything from the economy and race relations to the crisis in the Middle East and the Ebola scare. Combined with the disaster that Obamacare has proven itself to be, and you quickly see why it is that the Democrats have been trying so hard to distance themselves from Barry.
Well it would seem that we have a rather bizarre little trend developing here as we edge closer to the all-important, and some would say crucial, midterm elections. One that I’m not quite sure that I’ve ever witnessed before, even on the Democrat side of things. You see, Barry "Almighty", you know, the ‘One’ who we were all told was the one whom we had all been waiting for, is now being avoided by members of his own party as if he had suddenly become infected with the Ebola virus.
And so it is then that as the election grows nearer, the list of those Democrats now running for election, or re-election, who seem to be in no hurry to admit that they actually voted for Barry, seems to be growing. The most recent addition to the list is Mark Begich, Democrat from Alaska, who’s one of those running for re-election. Now I’m quite sure that we can all very safely assume that all of these folks did vote for Barry, so their denials seem to be little more than a little pointless. Although, they do make for some great ads.
Begich is joined, in this growing chorus of voices, by his fellow Senate candidate from West Virginia and Democrat, Natalie Tennant. Ms. Tennant would not mention Barry by name when asked whom it was that she chose to vote for in the previous election. And two other Democrat Senate candidates, Alison Lundergan Grimes of Kentucky and Michelle Nunn of Georgia, have also since refused to answer questions about whom they supported when Barry "Almighty", unpopular in all their states, was on the ballot.
Citing Grimes’s mishaps, the Charleston Daily Mail editorial board asked during a candidates’ forum whether the candidates would be willing to say whom they last supported for president in the last election. Republican Shelley Moore Capito and the Libertarian, Constitution, and Mountain party candidates seemed on to happy to volunteer the information, with both responding with their respective party’s presidential nominee. Grime’s, on the other hand, simply refused to say who she voted for.
Tennant, was another who chose to take the coward’s way out. All she would say was that she had "voted for the Democratic party" before immediately launching into what she said were her objections to the president and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator Gina McCarthy. She then proceeded to go into what was nothing more than a long explanation that evolved into a stump speech about how she will stand up for West Virginians regardless of party. And I’m sure she can be trusted to do just that. NOT!
But it’s not only Barry’s rather questionable ‘reputation’ that seems to be having many of those in his party hightailing it in the opposite direction. Barry’s also been struggling to convince members of his party, and who are running for election in 2014, to come to his side in support of Obamacare, his signature ‘achievement’, a term I use very loosely. In fact it’s a growing list of Democrats, of late, who have been seen trying very hard to distance themselves from Barry's takeover of the nation's healthcare system.
Barry has been telling Democrats that they shouldn't apologize for being on board the Obamacare bandwagon and but instead tells them that they should be proud of the law. Now that would be the very same law that they essentially snuck through the dark of night using every political shenanigan in the book. And, or so he claims, "there is a strong, good, right story to tell." But members of his party running for election or re-election seem not to be so eager to jump on Barry’s bandwagon.
And, it was as far back as November 2013 that we had a group of incumbent Democrats looking to launch re-election campaigns meet with the administration to discuss the disastrous rollout of Obamacare. But things have not improved all that much since then. Democrats are still running away from this brilliant piece of legislation, and Barry’s namesake, Obamacare, in increasing numbers. Of course, once we’re past the election they will once again become very enthusiastic supporters of this very bad law.
The list of Democrat candidates who seem to be working very hard to distance themselves from the Obamacare debacle seems to be growing on nearly a daily basis and will most likely continue to do so right up to Election Day. Democratic candidate for Senate, Michelle Nunn of Georgia, was asked if she would have voted for Obamacare said say it would be "impossible" to say what she'd have done if she were in Congress when the Obamacare vote was held. REALLY? I’m sure that that’s what she would like everyone to think.
Democrat candidate for the Senate from West Virginia, Natalie Tennant, is attempting to distance herself from the administration on a whole host of issues. And rather than talk about anything even remotely has anything to do with Obamacare she would much rather tout her supposed support of coal. And then we have Kentucky Democrat Senate candidate Alison Lundergan Grimes who was ‘for’ coal before she was against coal before she was said to be ‘for’ it again.
Nebraska Democrat and candidate for the U.S. House, Pete Festersen, has also refused to answer whether he supports Obamacare. Staci Appel, an Iowa Democrat, also refused to answer Obamacare questions recently. Another Iowan and current member of the U.S. House, Democrat Senate candidate Bruce Braley, is also pulling against Obamacare. Braley just voted with Republicans on a bill to put a crimp in the law. Michigan's Gary Peters also voted with the Republicans and Rep. Braley on the same bill.
And then there was a recent article in The Hill that detailed how several Democrats up for reelection are trying to squirm away from Obamacare, so the number of nervous Democrats continues to mount. For instance, Rep. Gerry Connolly, from Virginia, recently told The Hill that he is hearing a lot of grumbling in the ranks. He said, "A lot of members are very concerned" over the multiple failures of Obamacare. He went on to say, "This is a swelling chorus."
Kay Hagan, North Carolina, recently wrote a letter stating that the problems in Obamacare "are simply unacceptable, and Americans deserve answers and swift solutions." Embattled Mary Landrieu, Louisiana, has even launched a TV ad criticizing Barry over his "lie of the year" claim that if we liked our insurance plans we could keep them. "What I’ve said to the President is, 'You told them that they could keep it,'" Landrieu said in the ad. "This is a promise that you made. This is a promise that you should keep," she added.
Mark Begich, from Alaska, recently said that he has "been frustrated from the beginning." In a letter to constituents last November, Begich said, "It is simply unacceptable for Alaskans to bear the brunt of the administration’s mismanagement of the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, and that is the message U.S. Senator Mark Begich delivered to President Obama today." This year Begich also criticized the administration for less signups than there could have been.
And then there’s Senator Mark Pryor, from Arkanas, who recently tried to distance himself, not only from Obamacare, but from a number of Barry's policies. He said, "I've always said that I'll work with the President when I think he's right but oppose him when I think he's wrong. I'll continue to oppose his agenda when it's bad for Arkansas and our country." Well apparently he thinks Barry is only wrong about 6 percent of the time, because he’s supported Barry about 94 percent of the time.
Montana Senator John Walsh made sure that his constituents knew that he did not vote for Obamacare. "I was preparing soldiers and airmen to deploy to Iraq and Afghanistan. So I did not vote on the Affordable Care Act--just want to make that clear," Walsh said at a candidates' forum. In May, Walsh said that the "jury is still out" on Obamacare and pointed out that "the intent was to bring healthcare costs down and provide health care for all of our citizens. As of today, we’re not seeing that."
When it comes to Obamacare most of the recent news coming out lately is definitely not good news for the American people. It has now become pretty much common knowledge that rates for 2015 will be going to go up by double digits. So why should we be surprised when these Democrats refuse to defend that which the rest of view as being indefensible. So rather than defend it, they hope to distract us by talking about such things as raising the minimum wage and the ‘war on women.’ But it’s all nothing but smoke and mirrors.
And as far as Barry, himself, is concerned, as president he has been nothing short of an unmitigated disaster for both the American people, as well as the country as a whole, and in every conceivable way; socially, morally, financially, militarily, economically and internationally. There is nowhere one can look and say that he has done what could in any way be called a good job. But having said that, for what’s it worth, I think we can say that he has been relatively successful in his effort to "fundamentally transform" America.
Monday, October 20, 2014
I’m sure most everyone has seen by now how it was this past weekend, during one of Barry’s scant number of campaign stops during this 2014 election season, this one in Maryland, how large numbers of blacks could be seen heading for the nearest exist once Barry began speaking. Now while much was made of this rather unexpected political oddity, I’m wondering if we’re being too quick to make more out of it than what we should.
Even with apparent disdain for Barry, and some of his policies, on the rise, the vast majority of blacks would still rather vote for almost any Democrat than they would for almost any Republican. And that would be for the very simple reason that blacks are not going to vote for anyone who takes the position that it’s far better to get people back to work than to have a growing number of Americans simply living off the government.
It’s been especially since that failed experiment called "The Great Society" that the vast majority of blacks have now simply become accustomed to living on the government dole and as such have no motivation to do much of anything else, certainly not to go to work. And until that mindset can be significantly altered, don’t count on blacks, at least in large numbers, to be voting Republican any time soon. I don’t care what Rand Paul has to say.
There has been much talk, as there always is around election time, about how the Republicans need to work much harder at increasing the size of their tent and that they could do that be being far more welcoming to minorities. But the party has always been welcoming to minorities, all minorities. But the party has always been avoided by minorities because the party’s expectations were, and still are, considered as being too high.
So I’m not exactly sure what it is that those like Sen. Paul would like to have us do. Are we simply supposed to lower our expectations and to become more like the Democrats, where we too would discourage people from working while condoning the fact that they would rather live off the taxpayers? I mean, if that’s what it’s going to take to entice blacks to leave the Democrat Party, then maybe they should simply stay where they’re at.
Personally, I’ll welcome in with open arms anyone who wants to join my team. But having said that, they can rest assured that they will be made aware right up front that advocating the policies that are known to be the favorites of the opposition will simply not be tolerated. And that while we are perfectly willing to give anyone a hand up, we are far less willing to provide and endless stream of taxpayer funded handouts.
How you ever found yourself wondering what it might look like if Barry were to give a speech, and no one showed up? Well we got some idea when Barry made one of his rare public appearances on the campaign trail, this past Sunday, at a rally to support the Democrat candidate for governor in Maryland. Because it was in fairly short order that there were more than a few early departures from the mostly black crowd while he spoke, underscoring his continuing unpopularity.
With his ‘approval’ levels hovering now what is record low territory, Barry has spent most of his campaign-related efforts this year raising money for struggling Democrats, who risk losing control of the U.S. Senate come the Nov. 4 midterm elections. Most candidates from his party have been wary of appearing with him, to put it mildly, during their election races because of his sagging popularity. Rarely these days do you ever see any Democrat candidate and Barry on the same stage at the same time.
But not so when it comes to Lieutenant Governor Anthony Brown, who is now quite busy running for governor of the People’s Republic of Maryland, and Governor Pat Quinn of Illinois, who is running for re-election. Barry planned to appear at an event for Quinn later in the evening. It was while at the rally for Brown that Barry attempted to motivate Democrats by repeating over and over, "You've got to vote." Democrats have a history of not turning up to vote in midterm elections.
Barry went on, "There are no excuses. The future is up to us." But even his old black-magic was insufficient to slow what looked to be a pretty steady stream of people who walked out of the auditorium while he spoke in search of the nearest exit. And there was also a heckler who interrupted his remarks. Barry's help, or lack thereof, probably doesn’t matter all that much in such a socialist bastion. Especially with Brown comfortably ahead of his Republican opponent Larry Hogan by 11 points.
However, Quinn's race is a bit tighter. He currently finds himself ahead of his Republican opponent, Bruce Rauner, by a mere 2 points. Barry was scheduled to spend the night at his Chicago home after the campaign event for Quinn. I haven’t heard how that event went, whether there were folks walking out or not. But, let’s face it, I doubt that it matters much more in Illinois that it did it Maryland. Both states are the bluest of blue and both have a very substantial parasite majority.
Remember how it was back in 2008, when Barry "Almighty" was first elected and how it was then that said by so many, such as loony luminaries of the left such as James Carville, claim that with the election of Barry "Almighty" would come what was likely to be 20 years of Democrat rule? Well, while much has been accomplished in the last 6 years, courtesy of getting millions more Americans addicted to government, that may still yet become a reality. Which makes November’s elections all the critical.
And what I mean by critical, is critical for the survival of our country. We have to do something to hinder that which Barry is so desperate to do to this country. There are now nearly as many of us who are not dependent upon government as there are those of us who are. Which means there is very little time left, and an even a lesser number of opportunities, to stop the madness. We have this election and the election in 2016. And if we haven’t gotten our shit together by then folks, I think it’ll be safe to say that it’s all pretty much over!
Friday, October 17, 2014
Sounding much like his boss, Barry "Almighty", when he made his rather idiotic declaration that the Islamic state has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Islam, we recently heard our buffoon of a secretary of state, John Kerry-Heinz, and just last night, saying pretty much the same thing when he chose to confidently reject any link between Islam and extremism practiced by the likes of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS/ISIL/Daesh). Kerry-Heinz, instead, pointed to factors such as poverty among youthful Mideast populations, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and, of course, ‘climate change’.
So it was then that while addressing some reception there at the State Department in honor of the recent Islamic holiday of Eid al-Adha, Kerry-Heinz told an audience that consisted of, what I assume to be were some of those very same peace-loving members of the Muslim community that we’ve all heard so much about but have rarely, if ever, had the opportunity to meet, along with several diplomats and others in attendance, that the world was facing "a very complex time, and there are many currents that are loose out there that have brought us to this moment." Now that would seem to be quite the understatement.
Kerry-Heinz, that reject from some Bay State mental ward and someone who has absolutely no business being in the job that he’s in, said, "The extremism that we see, the radical exploitation of religion which is translated into violence, has no basis in any of the real religions." And, of course, he then went on to say, "There’s nothing Islamic about what ISIL/Daesh stands for, or is doing to people." And then this idiot went on to say that the situation was "complicated, and for other reasons." Kerry-Heinz continued, saying, "We’re living at a point in time where there are just more young people demanding what they see the rest of the world having than at any time in modern history."
And then in trying to explain things as only he can, Kerry-Hrinz made the claim that when you have large youthful populations in some countries in the Middle East, South-Central Asia and the Horn of Africa, "you are going to have a governance problem unless your governance is really addressing the demands and needs of that part of the population." Kerry-Heinz said extremist violence was just a symptom of underlying causes that needed to be addressed. He spoke in that context of a need for a partnership to pursue peace, shared prosperity and the ability to get an education and a job, as well as, wait for it, the "sustainability of the planet itself."
And then Kerry-Heinz proceeded to head off into to the weeds as he proceeded to talk about that which is near and dear to his heart. Kerry-Heinz said, "And that brings us to something like climate change, which is profoundly having an impact in various parts of the world, where droughts are occurring not at a 100-year level but at a 500-year level in places that they haven’t occurred, floods of massive proportions, diminishment of water for crops and agriculture at a time where we need to be talking about sustainable food." Kerry-Heinz rarely passes up an opportunity that will allow him to interject ‘climate change’ into the conversation.
And in continuing with his favorite, albeit idiotic, ‘climate change’ theme, this moron went on to say, "In many places we see the desert increasingly creeping into East Africa." But he was far from being done, as he added, "We’re seeing herders and farmers pushed into deadly conflict as a result. We’re seeing the Himalayan glaciers receding, which will affect the water that is critical to rice and to other agriculture on both sides of the Himalayas. These are our challenges." Is that not some of the most inane drivel that you’ve ever heard? The world is being made to go to Hell in a hand-basket and it’s all because of…‘climate change?’
Kerry-Heinz also linked the threat of ISIS-type extremism to the Israeli-Palestinian situation. He said, "As I went around and met with people in the course of our discussions about the ISIL coalition, the truth is we – there wasn’t a leader I met with in the region who didn’t raise with me spontaneously the need to try to get peace between Israel and the Palestinians," adding, "because it was a cause of recruitment and of street anger and agitation that they felt – and I see a lot of heads nodding – they had to respond to." He added, "And people need to understand the connection of that." And said, "It has something to do with humiliation and denial and absence of dignity."
After the failure of his nine-month effort to nudge Israeli and Palestinian leaders into a negotiated settlement, and Israel’s offensive against Hamas in Gaza over the summer, Kerry-Heinz has recently begun talking with renewed urgency about the need for yet another peace push. While animosity towards Israel may be shared by many of the jihadists that have joined ISIS, the narrative of humiliated and dispossessed Palestinians plays little part in the propaganda of the al-Qaeda-inspired group, which focuses largely on the restoration of the caliphate and its hatred for Christians, Jews, Shi’ites and other Muslims who don’t embrace its radical views.
Look, the bottom line here is that there is one reason, and one reason only, why we’re seeing the world slip further into widespread chaos. And that reason is that where we once had strong American leadership, today it’s nowhere to be found. Going first from the team of Barry and Hitlery to the team of Barry and Kerry-Heinz, things have been allowed to get worse. When it comes to responsible foreign policy and strong leadership, liberals tend to give the word incompetence a whole new meaning. They are completely ill-equipped when it comes to knowing how to address issues like ones we’re being made to face today all across the globe.
And blaming these events on such things as ‘climate change’ makes it all the more apparent that the true cause of the world’s ills are either being ignored because they’re seen as being to difficult to be dealt with, or because of out of ignorance, naivete or something far more sinister, they are simply not recognized as being what they are. And it’s to do nothing more than to at least attempt to take the easy way out. What’s really being done here, is the attempting by Kerry-Heinz to blame what are very real problems on something that many say, and science backs them up, doesn’t even exist. Is it any wonder that the world seems to be coming apart?