Tuesday, March 31, 2015


With Senate Minority Leader ‘Dingy Harry’ Reid recently announcing that he won't seek re-election in 2016, this may prove to be one of those rare instances in which the retirement of an incumbent may actually prove to be a relief to his party.  Now Democrats will be able to run a fresh face unburdened by ‘Dingy’s’ record of political vilification, obstruction and disrespect for many of the Senate's traditions.  And what is it, do you suppose, that ‘Dingy Harry’ Reid is likely to be most remembered for after serving some 30 long years in Washington.  The choices are many, but what cannot be said of ‘Dingy’ is that he’s leaving things better than he found them.

Might it be ‘Dingy’s’ near endless railing against the Koch brothers, while at the same time saying absolutely nothing of George Soros, or the casting of unsubstantiated allegations about Mitt Romney not paying his taxes that ‘Dingy’ will be most remembered for?  Or that ‘Dingy’ used his senate perch to spew rhetoric and allegations better fit for Media Matters.  It was not only the utter falsity of his claims that stood out, but also their personalized and nasty tone.  Opponents were deemed to be out to wreck America or engaged in illegal activities. He did more than any Senate leader in recent history to poison political debate and drag the Senate into the mud.

It was also ‘Dingy's’ years of obstruction, his "filling the tree" in order to prevent amendments, refusing to take votes, defying calls to pass a budget, these were his defining "contribution" during the Barry “Almighty” years.  It eventually came to cost his party the Senate majority when his members could not explain to voters why they had accomplished so little.  Most damaging was his refusal to take a vote with veto-proof support for Menendez-Kirk sanctions against Iran that allowed Barry’s administration to continue on its road to appeasement, which may very well result in a tragically flawed ‘deal’.  If so, part of the responsibility will rest with ‘Dingy’.

And it is to this day that ‘Dingy’ continues to obstruct passage of an overwhelmingly positive anti-human-trafficking bill out of deference to the radical pro-abortion lobby, which belatedly discovered language it finds objectionable.   He used the "nuclear" option to jam through presidential appointments and lower-court judges that we will pay for, for decades.  In so doing he set a standard that may be reintroduced or expanded by those who will come after him. The result will be a class of appointees who can be excessively partisan and obviously unqualified, who may be confirmed strictly as a matter of partisan loyalty. That is bad for both parties and for Congress.  

And, of course, it was his controversial use of reconciliation that allowed Obamacare to be ‘passed’ even after the election of Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., deprived the Democrats of a filibuster-proof majority.  The hasty and unprecedented nature of his maneuvers resulted in a poorly drafted and constructed bill, the ramifications of which the Supreme Court is still pondering.  And there’s the matter of how our national debt has been permitted to grow to the staggering amount of $16,955,289,814,977.42 during the 32 years that ‘Dingy Harry’ has served in the United States Congress. That equals an increase of about $145,131 for every household in the country.

‘Dingy’ was first elected to the House of Representatives in 1982 and then was elected to the Senate in 1986. He first took office in the House on Jan. 3, 1983, the first business day in January of that year. At the beginning of that day, according to the Monthly Statement of the Public Debt for December 1982, the total public debt of the federal government was $1,197,073,000,000.  As of March 25 of this year, the latest day for which debt numbers are available, the federal debt was $18,152,362,814,977.42.  That means that since ‘Dingy’ first joined Congress in 1983, the federal debt has increased $16,955,289,814,977.42.

Now it goes without saying that there are many on the left who will herald ‘Dingy’s’ long list of ‘accomplishments’ ignoring completely the rather impressive list of precedents that have been set that may have the result of bringing about a great many untended consequences that Democrat may someday be on the receiving end of.  Many will, I’m sure, spew the same sort of drivel that was heard from so many at the recent dedication of the Ted Kennedy shrine, in Dorchester, Ma., about how Teddy was something other than a drunkard and a pervert, and a man who got away with murder.  And I’m sure Teddy is saving a special chair for ‘Dingy’ there in Hell.   

And while I am quite sure that on ‘Dingy Harry’s’ final day as a ‘public servant’ he will be showered with all manner of accolade, by those eager to list all of his ‘accomplishment, both fact and fiction, mostly fiction.  And I’m sure very little mention will be made when it comes to the rather impressive list of those pesky unintended consequences that have come about as a direct result of all that ‘Dingy’ has foisted upon this country and those who legally inhabit it.  His reckless disregard, and outright disdain for his fellow Americans, and his desire to place their needs well beneath those of his party has earned him nothing but contempt from many.  

But all of that matters very little to those on the left, and I’m quite confident in saying that all of the praise that we will likely hear being heaped upon ‘Dingy’ as he slips off into ‘retirement’ will likely pale in comparison to what will be handed out on the day of his demise.  Which, as I said earlier, I hope is something that takes place much sooner, rather than later.  Because for Democrats all one has to do to be proclaimed as having been some hero of the people is to have simply hung around long enough.  For example, does anyone remember all of the kind words bestowed upon the ‘Klansman’, Robert Byrd, or more recently the murdering, drunkard of a pervert, Ted Kennedy?  This is the company ‘Dingy’ will once again come to keep.  

Saturday, March 28, 2015


Well it only took 30 years, eight of which where we had to tolerate him as the Senate Majority Leader, but we are finally getting rid of ‘Dingy Harry’ Reid.  Now while I would have much rather preferred that we had been able to watch him go down in a resounding electoral defeat, in same manner that we were able to rid ourselves of that other scumbag Tom Daschle, and not in a manner of his own choosing, the fact is at least he is finally going, though, sadly, he is not yet gone.

And while we’re told that the announcement took many by surprise, I have a rather difficult time believing that.  It’s simply is not how Democrats operate.  This is a rather significant development so I find it difficult to believe that most didn’t know it was coming, especially those in the White House.  And while it may be claimed that it was brought on by his coming out on the losing end of a confrontation with a piece of exercise equipment, might there be more compelling reasons behind the decision.

So here are what I think are 10 real reasons behind ‘Dingy Harry’s’ decision to quit the Senate:

1.  We’re hearing how it is that ‘Dingy’ would facing what consider to be a difficult re-election battle next year. According to a "Crystal Ball" report from the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, "We identified Reid as probably the most vulnerable Democratic incumbent in this Senate cycle."  Sad, retirement allows ‘Dingy’ to avoid the spectacle of a humiliating defeat, something I would derive a great amount of enjoyment from watching.

2.  And it also assumed that ‘Dingy Harry’ feared that another campaign in Nevada would take away money and attention from Democrat candidates in other states. "We have to make sure that the Democrats take control of the Senate again," he said in a statement he posted online. "And I feel it is inappropriate for me to soak up all those resources on me when I could be devoting those resources to the caucus." 

3.  We’re told that ‘Dingy Harry’ is being held responsible for the Democrats' net loss of nine Senate seats in November. Republican Mitch McConnell, ‘Dingy's’ successor as Majority Leader, attributed the GOP surge partly as a rejection of Reid.  Well I’m sure about that, and if McConnell’s performance doesn’t take a turn for the better it won’t be all that long before he’s likely to be in ‘Dingy’s’ current position. 

4.  He was chastened by his difficult re-election fight in 2010. At one point he was down by 11 percentage points in a poll against Republican Sharon Angle, considered a weak and controversial candidate.  Angle helped out ‘Dingy’ by, among other things, claiming that Dearborn, Michigan, was under Sharia law and saying the 9/11 hijackers had entered the U.S. from Canada.  Angle still won 14 of Nevada's 17 counties.

5.  ‘Dingy’ is said to be battling back from injuries that he claims to have been the result of a fall on New Year's Day.  A fall which left him with broken ribs and impaired vision in his right eye. He still wears darkened glasses to protect the damaged eye.

6.  He's reacting to fallout from this week's inspector general findings. Reid's retirement announcement came just days after an inspector general said he used his influence to lobby a Homeland Security Department official for special treatment regarding visas for investors in a casino property in Nevada. Back in 2005, Reid earmarked a spending bill to provide funds for a bridge that would make land he owned more valuable. A year later, it was reported that Reid used campaign funds to pay for $3,300 in Christmas gifts to the staff at his condominium.

7.  ‘Dingy Harry’ is 75, which while is not all that much older than Hitlery Clinton, if he did chose to run for re-election next year he would be 83 years old when his sixth term expired.

8.  His hometown newspaper had come out against him. The Las Vegas Review-Journal last year castigated ‘Dingy’ for his comment that "five white men" on the Supreme Court ruled that businesses don't have to provide birth control if doing so would violate the employer's religious beliefs. One of the five was Clarence Thomas, who is black. The newspaper accused ‘Dingy’ of "race-baiting" and using "outrageous rhetoric."

9.  Despite Democrats' losses in November, ‘Dingy’ can still retire felling a sense of accomplishment. He has been a devoted ally and willing participant in Barry’s drive to “fundamentally transform” this country.   He succeeded in protecting Barry’s deportation amnesty policy from Republicans who tried to end it through the spending process, and more recently he blocked an anti-human trafficking bill because it contained language barring federal funds from being spent on abortion.

10. And on the more human side, ‘Dingy’ will be able to spend more time with his family.  He’s a father of five, last year sold his home in Searchlight, Nevada, and bought a condo near Las Vegas so he and his wife could be closer to their grandchildren. Retirement will enable ‘Dingy’ to spend more time with his family in Nevada instead of splitting his time between Washington and his home state.  And with a net worth that’s upwards of $10 Million he’s set himself up quite well.

Now I suppose while this may sound cold to some, but it is my very fervent hope that ‘Dingy’s’ retirement comes to be a relatively short one.  Because not only has he continued to stand by as Barry has done his best to destroy our country, he was, and still is, an active participant in that endeavor.  And while I don’t really blame him for a being a partisan, because we have those on both sides of the political aisle, I do blame him for putting his politics far, far, above the needs of the country. 

Every single time ‘Dingy’ had an opportunity to do the right thing and to stand with the American people, he took a different path.  The objectives of his party, and of this president were what he owed his allegiance to, on everything from Obamacare to massive, unsustainable increases in spending that had the net result of crushing the middleclass and increasing the speed of the downward spiral that this country has been on for the last 6 years.  So I hope that his retirement is a brief one! 


It would appear that there is absolutely no limit to the insanity of Democrats when it comes to their continuing effort to convince the American people that their cockamamie theory that manmade global warming, aka climate change, aka climate disruption, is the next great calamity to be faced by mankind.  And with fewer people believing them these days, the claims have now become all the more bizarre. The most bizarre claim heard to date, came just this week from another Democrat, Barbara Lee.    

And Ms. Lee is another of those in Congress, together with other luminaries of her party such as Corrine Brown, James Clyburn, Emanuel Cleaver, Elijah Cummings, Marcia Fudge, Al Green, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Sheila Jackson Lee, John Lewis, Alcee Hastings, Gwen Moore, Charlie Rangel, Maxine Waters, Hank Johnson and Frederica Wilson to name but a few, who continues to demonstrate on nearly a daily basis, the fact that she possess a remarkably minuscule amount of intelligence.  

The most recent example of her limited intelligence came this past Wednesday when she proposed a resolution in the House of Representatives that claims women will eventually be forced into prostitution in order to obtain life-sustaining food and water for their families. Lee introduced House Concurrent Resolution 29, warning that women will be forced into “transactional sex” to get enough food and clean water, all because global warming will create “conflict and instability” in the world. 

Her idiotic resolution reads in part, “Women will disproportionately face harmful impacts from climate change.” Lee’s resolution reads. It continues claiming, “Food insecure women with limited socioeconomic resources may be vulnerable to situations such as sex work, transactional sex, and early marriage that put them at risk for HIV, STIs, unplanned pregnancy, and poor reproductive health.”  I’m just not sure how it is that she thinks such an imbecilic claim will convince very many skeptics.

Lee’s idiotic little document goes on to urge Congress to agree on the “disparate impacts of climate change on women,” and goes on to ‘demand’ that Congress use “gender-sensitive frameworks in developing policies to address climate change.”  Lee also charges that women, who are “often underrepresented in the development and formulation of policy regarding adaptation to climate change,” are doubtless in the best position to offer policy ideas.  Not with idiotic ideas like this one!

So once again we see the lengths to which Democrats will go in their effort to convince us that what they claim to be occurring, actually is occurring.  But might this be another one of those rare occasions where it depends entirely on what the definition of ‘is’, is?  While Democrats claim to be big supporters of science, few if any possess any kind of an understanding of it, because it would seem that, at least in this case, it’s science that continues to thoroughly discredit their apocalyptic theory.   

Thursday, March 26, 2015


So I’m guessing John Kerry-Heinz must have not been paying attention to a recent Gallup poll which, as part of its annual Environmental survey, Gallup pointed out that the number of Americans who buy into the ‘climate change’ nonsense has taken another hit.  And while a pretty solid majority of Democrats continue to believe that ‘climate change’ is the next great calamity to be faced by human-kind, it’s only about 13 percent of Republicans who believe that that is in fact the case.  And it’s in spite of these numbers that, just yesterday, in Washington at something called the Global Chiefs of Mission Conference, our inept buffoon of a Secretary of State, John Kerry-Heinz, told a gathering of U.S. ambassadors that one day soon they will be “coping” with “climate refugees” “if not now, in the not-too-distant future.”

In speaking about what he sees as being the State Department’s major priorities, Kerry-Heinz listed climate change, saying, “I know a lot of people were sort of surprised, but President Obama and I could not agree more that this [climate change] is a threat to the planet itself. It is a national security threat, it is a health threat, it’s an environmental threat, it’s an economic threat. We’re spending billions upon billions—$110 billion last year—on the damages that occurred because of the increased level of major weather events around the world; droughts that are 500-year droughts, not 100-year droughts; places that have less and less water; food that is less produced where it used to be. There’ll be climate refugees that all of you will be coping with at some point—if not now, in the not-too-distant future.”

And he continued, saying, “And the science? Ninety-seven percent of all the scientists for 20 years tell us unequivocally that this is happening, and happening now, and humans are causing it, and we have a responsibility to respond to it.”  Unequivocally? No, I think not!  Because where is it from that Kerry-Heinz gets that 97% figure which he likes to throw around so frequently in an effort to bolster his false claims?  Perhaps from his boss, Barry, or perhaps from NASA, which has posted on its website, "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities."  Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made problem is nothing more than a work of fiction, fiction in its most absolute purest and most dangerous form.

This so-called ‘consensus’ to which Kerry-Heinz, and others, so frequently, and so enthusiastically, continue to make reference to, comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by that which is far more reliable research.  One frequently cited source for this ‘consensus’ is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by a ‘prominent’ environmentalist-wacko, Naomi Oreskes, who is referred to as being a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in numerous scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none, again according to Ms. Oreske, directly dissented.

Ms. Oreskes's examination left out scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the ‘consensus’.  A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren't substantiated in the papers.  Another widely cited source for the ‘consensus’ view is a 2009 article in "Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union" by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master's thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed "97 percent of climate scientists agree" that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.

The survey's questions don't reveal much. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer "yes" to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem, urgent or otherwise.  Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.  The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a ‘consensus’ make.

But in the world of left wing politics, as is so often the case, facts matter very little, if at all.  It’s all propaganda, all the time that, more often than not, rules the day.  Facts are only as good as is the Democrats’ ability to manipulate them, and in such a manner as to make it so they at least appear to support the propaganda being spewed.  There is very little that is being said today about ‘climate change’ or global warming that is actually based in any actual scientific fact.  And regardless of what we continue to hear from the likes of Barry “Almighty”, John Kerry-Heinz, or even Al Gore for that matter, ‘climate change’, at least that of the man-made variety, simply does not exist.  They have taken flawed data and faulty computer models and constructed that which is nothing more than a fairytale.       

Wednesday, March 25, 2015


News now comes to us in the form of a new Gallup poll, one that covers specifically the topic of Americans’ concern over environmental issues such as water and air pollution and extinction of species, indicates such concern would seem to be down from as recently as last year.  The data also shows that of all green issues, Americans worry the least about global warming, which more recently has become more generically referred to as ‘climate change’ or the even more innocuous sounding, ‘climate disruption.  Now I’m quite sure that such news will have little, if any, impact on the amount of energy that Barry & Co. will spend trying to make this issue seem more important that it is since we all understand the motivation behind it.

As part of its annual Environmental survey, which Gallup has done for more than two decades, the surveyors, back on March 5-8, asked, “I’m going to read you a list of environmental problems. As I read each one, please tell me if you personally worry about this problem a great deal, a fair amount, only a little, or not at all.”  The results showed that when it came to “pollution of drinking water,” 60% worried about it a “great deal” in 2014 but only 55% worried about it a “great deal” in 2015.  For “global warming or climate change,” some 34% worried about it a “great deal” in 2014 but that went down to 32% in 2015.  The full results from Gallup are presented in the screenshot at the top of this post. 

And it was in commenting about the results of the poll that Gallup said, “Americans' concern about several major environmental threats has eased after increasing last year. As in the past, Americans express the greatest worry about pollution of drinking water, and the least about global warming or climate change.”  The Gallup folks went on to say, “[T]he nature of the environmental agenda may indirectly be influencing Americans' concern.”  And they added, “The primary focus of the environmental movement has shifted toward long-term threats like global warming -- issues about which Americans tend to worry less than about more immediate threats like pollution.”  Personally, I don’t worry about any of this crap!

“Importantly,” said the surveyors, “even as global warming has received greater attention as an environmental problem from politicians and the media in recent years, Americans' worry about it is no higher now than when Gallup first asked about it in 1989.”  And then, when Gallup broke the data down by political party, Republican versus Democrat, it found that only 13% of Republicans worry a “great deal” about global warming in 2015 while 52% of Democrats worry a “great deal” about the issue.  And since it’s pretty much common knowledge that Democrats are not really particularly bright, it should come as no surprise that Democrats worry far more than do Republicans about this nonexistent issue.

More and more Americans are coming to realize just how much of a scam all of this ‘climate change’ nonsense really is.  They’re paying more attention, and rightfully so, to what it is that’s going on around them and less to political rhetoric that is really so patently false.  They see that we have not had a major hurricane hitting this country in roughly 5 years, they hear how it was that last year represented a 60 year low in tornado activity and how many areas of the country have yet to wrap up what remains the coldest winter that many of them have experienced in decades.  And yet at the same time they’re expected to believe that the planet is getting warmer and that it’s all because of them.  And they’re responding with a collective, “BULLSHIT!”   

Tuesday, March 24, 2015


After being made to witness what I think have been the devastating results brought about from this country having now been dragged further and further to left over the course of the last 6 years, things like the dramatic increase in the number of Americans who have now been forced onto food stamps, the 92 million Americans that are no longer in the nation’s workforce, a massive increase in the national debt and the staggering number of Americans who now find themselves reliant upon some form of government ‘assistance’, to say nothing of the rather limp-wristed attempt at foreign policy, how is it that anyone in their right mind could actually bring themselves to vote for anyone who so proudly proclaims that the direction in which our country is now headed, is the right direction to be headed in, and one in which they too would work make sure that it remains headed? 

Enter Marty O'Malley, former governor of the People’s Republic of Maryland, and someone who is now beginning to sound more and more as if he might soon announce that he intends to become a candidate for president in 2016.  Now keep in mind that Marty is a man who did such a terrific job while serving in that position that the people of his state thought 8 years of a Democrat being governor was quite enough, and when provided with the opportunity to do so, chose to elect a Republican to lead their state.  Marty has appeared desperate of late in an attempt to position himself as an alternative to presumptive Democrat presidential nominee Hitlery Clinton.  On the stump in Iowa, Marty is giving voice to progressive themes popular among energized supporters of Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren. Warren, meanwhile, has repeatedly insisted that she will not seek the presidency.

In campaign appearances, as well as in an op-ed published in the Des Moines Register, Marty promised that, if elected, he would move to dismantle large banks, tighten regulation of Wall Street, expand Social Security benefits, and guarantee women receive equal pay.  In other words, what he promises is what we always here from pro-government, progressive Democrats, that being, of course, the continued growth of a government that has already grown far too big, far too powerful and that has forced itself way too far into the private lives of the American people.  Marty claims, "What people are longing for is an understanding of how our economy got to the point where wealth and power are so concentrated in ways it never was before." he said.  I would argue that what people are longing for is a government content to operate from within the confines as outlined in our Constitution.

And in what I’m guessing was a rather transparent attempt to woo supporters from the bat-shit crazy Liz Warren, aka the far-left-kook-fringe, Marty proudly pointed to his progressive record as governor. You see it was during his administration from 2007 to 2015 that same-sex marriage was legalized, gun-control tightened, the death penalty repealed, minimum wage increased, and the plight of migrants eased.  All the priorities of the hardcore left in this country.  Marty has also said that he backs a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.  So in other words, what we could expect from a Marty O’Malley presidency is essentially is more of the same misery that we have been forced to experience during the last 6 years under Barry.  I can’t help but wonder if having been made to live through this most recent attempt to turn this country into Europe is something most Americans would want to continue.

A recent Quinnipiac University poll of likely Iowa Democrat caucus participants, showed that while Hitlery had 61 percent support, and Warren pulled 19 percent, 84 percent of those surveyed were not sufficiently familiar with O'Malley to form an opinion.  Warren enthusiasts in Iowa appear willing to hear Marty's message while not giving up altogether on the Massachusetts senator.  Mike Carberry, a Johnson County supervisor and Warren supporter said O'Malley could become an option if Warren stays out of the race. He liked O'Malley's Wall Street-bashing op-ed. "That was a brilliant move," Carberry said.  And he added, "I read it. I loved it, and I re-posted it on Facebook. To me, that's a good sign." For the moment, however, Carberry still hopes Warren will run. "I know she's said she wouldn't run, but at first she said she wouldn't run for Senate either," Carberry noted. "So we'll see."

My faith in the American people to act responsibly is not what it once was.  Granted they seemed to have come to their senses in 2014, but with our Republicans in Congress now seeming to be unwilling to do those things promised in order to get themselves elected, things don’t bode well for whoever the Republican candidate may be in 2016.  And if people come to feel that they are not able to trust the Republicans, well then, it becomes all the more likely that they will end up siding with the likes of Marty or worse, Hitlery.  While those on the left are busy exalting the virtues of progressivism, we must work just as hard to make the case against what is being promised by those who wish to assume the reins of power from Barry.  Promises that if allowed to be kept will accomplish nothing more than to make matters far worse, both here and abroad.  Our country now hangs by a thread.

Monday, March 23, 2015


Well as they sometimes say, truth is stranger than fiction, and with that said it would seem that the U.S. Supreme Court, just today, actually has seen fit to leave intact a new Republican-backed law in Wisconsin that requires voters to present photo identification when they cast ballots. Is that amazing, or what?  The court declined to hear an appeal filed by that well-known communist front group, otherwise known as, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which was behind this most recent challenge of the law.  A law that simply makes good sense.

Voter identification laws have been put in place in a number of Republican-governed states over the very strong objections of many Democrats. You see, Democrats want to make sure the Republicans don’t disenfranchise the dead who may still wish to vote and strongly object to attempts being made to make it more difficult for the dead to vote.  But Republicans in Wisconsin, as well as in other states, say such rules are needed to prevent voter fraud. Democrats say the laws are intended to suppress the turnout of minorities and other groups that tend to vote for Democrats.

It was in October that the court temporarily blocked the Wisconsin law. And while it did not explain its reasoning at the time, possibly feeling that it didn’t really need to, it was assumed that the most likely reason was because the statute was being implemented at a time considered to be too close to the November election, which, or so it was claimed, could have caused confusion and disruption. The ACLU had pointed out in October that absentee ballots had been sent out before the November election without notifying voters of the identification requirements.

The Supreme Court has previously upheld the constitutionality of such voter ID laws. Wisconsin's is but one of several similar voter ID rules that have become a political and racial flashpoint across the United States.  A federal judge blocked the state's voter ID law in March 2012 soon after it took effect and entered a permanent injunction in April, supposedly finding that the measure would deter or prevent a substantial number of voters who lack photo identification from casting ballots, and therefore place an unnecessary burden on the poor and minorities.

Apparently Democrats, and groups such as the ACLU, seem to be of the opinion that the poor among us and those who may belong to our various minority communities, are simply too stupid to know how to go about the obtaining of a ‘free’ picture identification card.  But let’s be real, shall we, if there is one thing that these folks have acquired a real knack for, and what they are able to do better than anyone else, it’s knowing how to go about the getting of ‘free’ stuff.  So I feel quite comfortable that few, if any of these folks, would find it too difficult to obtain an ID card.

So, why should one require a photo identification card to, purchase alcohol, purchase cigarettes, open a bank account, apply for food stamps, apply for welfare, apply for Medicaid/Social Security, apply for unemployment or a job, rent/buy a house, apply for a mortgage, drive/buy/rent a car, get on an airplane, get married, purchase a gun, adopt a pet, rent a hotel room, apply for a hunting license, buy a cell phone, visit a casino, pick up a prescription, apply for a fishing license or to buy an “M” rated video game, and yet not require one to vote?  How idiotic is that?

Sunday, March 22, 2015


To say that I am not greatly disappointed in our new Republican majority in Congress would be a lie.  I too remember all of the promises that were made and how many of those same promises have managed to have been broken in such a remarkably short period of time.  But who is it that can be said to actually be to blame for our current situation.  For in the words of Obi-Wan Kenobi: "Who's the more foolish, the fool, or the fool who follows him?"  Having said that, it was this past November, conservative voters were presented with an opportunity, an opportunity that, as it turns out, was rather badly squandered.  In short, we f*cked up, we trusted them.

And I say squandered because really all we had to do, the only task that we needed to accomplish, was to defeat those who seem to so proudly count themselves among the “Establishment Republicans”, or what many of us have now come to refer to as, RINOs.  Our task was not only to defeat as many as possible, but to replace them with those willing to more closely adhere to our conservative principles.  But we failed at that task, and failed quite miserably.  And now I’m beginning to hear demands that we abandon the Republican Party and to perhaps construct what would be a truly ‘conservative’ alternative or ‘third party.’

Much has been said about the vast amounts of money spent to ensure that these RINO’s were able to remain in office.  Now while I cannot argue against that fact, it’s at the same time that I have to ask, whose fault is that that money accomplished that on which it was spent?  Who was it that bought into bumpersticker slogans which they knew to be false?  Who was that allowed themselves to be literally talked into voting for candidates even if against their better judgment?  Now we can all sit back and blame groups like the Chamber of Commerce, and others, but to do so does nothing more than to ignore who it is that’s really to blame.

Ask yourself how different might things now be if only we had had the courage to rid ourselves of RINOs like Boehner and McConnell as well as any number of others who seemed to have forgotten for whom it is that they work.  But instead we apparently thought it better to maintain the status quo, and the sad fact is that we are now reaping nothing more than what we ourselves have sown.  And now, although some will says that’s it too late to even make the attempt, it’s in looking toward the future that I would argue we have but one more opportunity left in our effort to salvage at least something of this once proud nation.      

And if we are to succeed, it’s going to take more than just a little hard work on everyone’s part.  We can no longer afford to believe any of what we are told by so-called experts.  We need to research candidates ourselves, their beliefs, their past and their positions on what are the truly most important issues.  We can no longer base how we will chose to vote for a candidate solely on a series of 60 second TV ads.  We must never take a face value anything that we are told, because those doing the telling will always have their own agenda.  We must listen only to those asking the truly tough questions and we must actually listen to the answers.

The bottom line here is that we must be willing to expend the necessary time and effort and do all of the necessary legwork to determine for ourselves who the best candidate is.  The candidate with whom we most closely agree on the issues important to us.  Either that or we must be willing to say sayonara to the greatest nation this world has ever seen.  Because that’s now what we have allowed things to come down to.  The days of being able to trust others in assisting us to make our electoral decisions are long gone.  We can trust no one but ourselves, which is going to require us to question everything when deciding for whom to vote.  

Saturday, March 21, 2015


Now look, I fully realize that your average Democrat is far from being the sharpest knife in any drawer, but I ask you, just how demented must one have to be in order to think that it is in any way a good idea that ‘Slow Joe’ Biden would make a good president.  Or for that matter, even a better president than our current disaster in the White House?  But, believe it or not such is the case as it now appears that there is a movement afoot to draft Biden to run for president.  And it seems to be, if we can believe what we’re hearing, picking up a certain amount of steam.  A group advertising itself as "former staffers and campaign veterans" launched Draft Biden on Thursday night, along with a website RunBidenRun.com, to organize volunteers and a petition urging ‘Slow Joe’ to jump into the 2016 race.  And apparently some 3,900 signatures had been collected by Friday afternoon. 

"Voters are tired of dynasties in American politics, and certainly want an election instead of a coronation," said Will Pierce, organizing director of Draft Joe Biden, in talking with The New York Times.  Pierce also said, "The House of Bush and the House of Clinton have had their run, and looking toward the future, Vice President Joe Biden is uniquely suited to tackle the issues America will face over the next decade."  Pierce also pushed back at the notion of a weak Democratic bench for 2016, telling the Washington Times, "We just need to get the best people into the race, and one of the very best is Vice President Biden."  Now no offense here to Mr. Pierce, but I think he’s letting his imagination run a bit wild.  For one thing, I think most of us would agree that there is more than enough footage out there of Biden gaffs to make campaign ads that would rival some of the most hilarious ‘Super Bowl’ ads.

The draft effort and website come as Hitlery faces scrutiny over her use of a personal email server during her stint as secretary of state and the possibility that liberal Massachusetts Democrat Sen. Elizabeth Warren could be persuaded to launch a bid. But it might be a pretty significant uphill battle for ‘Slow Joe’ because despite Hitlery’s continuing email problems, she's maintaining her standing as the front-runner going into the 2016 presidential election.  A recent CNN/ORC poll, no doubt a highly dubious source, has shown her with 62 percent of voters saying they're likely to support her in the 2016 Democratic primaries; Biden is her closest competitor with a mere 15 percent support.  Now that’s not to say, I suppose, that should Hitlery’s perceived problems take a serious turn for the worse that ‘Slow Joe’ couldn’t then experience an uptick in support.  Because, really, who else do Democrats have?

Though avoiding a direct blast at the Hitlery email scandal, Pierce told the Washington Times, "People know exactly who Joe Biden is."  He said, "They know where he stands, they know what he thinks. And if you’re not sure, just wait and he’ll tell you exactly how he feels."  He then went on to say, "That kind of honesty is missing from our politics, and we think that’s something that American voters will appreciate."  A spokesman for Draft Biden told The New York Times that there were about a dozen volunteers so far, and that the group would target key primary states in early summer.  But that’s just it, people DO know exactly who ‘Slow Joe’ is, such is the reason that no one but hardcore socialist Democrats would ever actually vote for him.  And personally, I don’t see enough American voters coming to “appreciate”, what Mr. Pierce referred to as being, ‘Slow Joe’s’ brand of honesty.

Look, I know the Democrats are desperate in their attempt to keep headed in the directed of socialism that Barry has worked very hard, and been quite successful, in turning America toward.  But can anyone seriously imagine ‘Slow Joe’ Biden as president?  What positive changes can anyone identify as having taken place during Barry’s tenure in the Oval Office?  Because the fact is that today we have millions more on food stamps and millions more unemployed than we had before Barry’s first day in office.  And today we over 100 million Americans receiving some form of government benefit - not including Social Security, Medicare or unemployment -  and we are trillions of dollars further in debt than before Barry set out on his mission to “fundamentally transform” American.  And it’s not just here at home that things have proceeded to get so much worse.  Not by any means.

The foreign policy of this nation under Barry, first under what we’re now finding out was the pay to play style of Hitlery Clinton and now currently with the rather unique ineptness of John Kerry-Heinz, has been an unmitigated disaster.  Because today, no matter where you look all across the vast expanse of planet Earth will you see a bright spot, unless it is something that has been set on fire.  You would think that if we have learned anything over the course of the last 6 years, it’s that when America withdraws from the world, bad things tend to happen, very bad things.  But have enough of us learned?  I suppose that might be a question that needs to be asked.  And frankly, I’m not sure of the answer.  I have no doubt that Neville Chamberlain is looking down, or up as the case may be, at Barry’s handy work and is smiling quite broadly.  The world is, as Ted Cruz recently described it, on fire.        

Friday, March 20, 2015


While there does still remain a majority, albeit a shrinking one, on the left of those who at least appear to be enthusiastic when it comes to Hitlery Clinton, but the size of that majority would now seem to be shrinking on what is, at least, a weekly basis.  The more her email problems remain the topic of discussion, as well as the rather sizable donations made to her family’s foundation that have come from some very questionable, to say the least, sources, the less Hitlery ‘appears’ to be ready for primetime.  Enter Marty O’Malley, the former governor of the People’s Republic of Maryland.  Marty who it would seem to standing at the ready to portray himself as a viable alternative should Hitlery falter.

And so it would appear that Marty just might be having a bit of a moment for himself.  But make no mistake, it’s not because of anything that he, himself, might be doing.  What his sudden spike in popularity has much more to do with is a growing level of anxiety regarding Hitlery’s readiness for a presidential campaign that has some Democrats looking around for potential alternatives.  And the only person standing there right now is Marty, who recently passed up a run for his state’s open Senate seat, making it even clearer that he’s serious about a presidential run.  And he did get some national coverage from as speech Wednesday the Brookings Institution and he has recently turned up on MSNBC.

But let’s not be too quick to affix the rising-insurgent moniker to Marty just yet.  After all, it remains difficult to imagine Marty playing the part of progressive challenger, a role played in prior Democrat presidential primaries by such notable characters from the left as Gene McCarthy, George McGovern, Gary Hart, Bill Bradley, and, especially, Howard ‘The Screamer’ Dean.  While O’Malley carried out a staunchly liberal agenda in Maryland—legalizing same-sex marriage, ending the death penalty, and much more—and while he has proven feisty at partisan sparring with Republicans, it is hard to envision him as being able to stir liberal hearts and minds the way previous insurgents have been able to do.  

And it’s not just because he’s a notoriously leaden public speaker; it’s that, as progressive as his governing record is, on more than a few occasions he’s been oddly reluctant to champion liberal values in the terms many on the left crave.  It was during the Obamacare debate that he chided Democrats who “immediately run to the values of caring and fairness” instead of focusing on the economic case for health care reform.  His idea of visionary language is calling for America to be an “opportunity-expanding entity.”  He’s more likely to quote Thomas Friedman than Thomas Frank.  And he is, even by his own account, not a tribune but a technocrat, not an orator but a doer.

And that’s where Marty’s other and, potentially, more significant challenges comes in. His supposed record of accomplishment as a governing executive between mayor of Baltimore, and governor of Maryland, has him taking already one of the more prosperous and well-educated states in the nation, a better place to live. But his ‘legacy’ is now at risk of being at least partially dismantled. His chosen successor and lieutenant governor, Anthony Brown, succumbed in what was surely the biggest Republican upset last of November’s election. In a state that Barry won by 26 percentage points in both 2012 and 2008, Brown managed to lose by four points to Larry Hogan, a conservative businessman who’d never even held elected office.

While the responsibility for this ‘debacle’ ultimately lies with Brown, Marty can also be said to bear some of responsibility as well for the fact that the governorship of Maryland now lies in the hands of those who are seen by many, in this very blue state, as the opposition.  It was Marty who chose the rather underwhelming Brown as his successor, and then proceeded to make himself quite scarce during the race, choosing to spend more time in Iowa and New Hampshire than Arbutus and Aspen Hill.  Gov. Hogan is now hard at work trying to clean up the mess that Marty left behind. And that would be the mess that so many on left describe as being Marty’s wonderfully progressive legacy.

But some of the things that you will rarely, if ever, hear Marty or his allies make mention of, is how he set about the increasing of sales taxes, income taxes on high-income earners and how he even went so far as to create entirely new taxes on services.  He also raised the gas tax for the first time in more than two decades and increased the corporate tax rate.  Joe Cluster, executive director of the Maryland Republican Party, said, "O'Malley's legacy is the strongest Republican Party since the 1920s."  Mr. Cluster went on to say, "He was a strong campaigner, he won two elections, but in the end, his policies created an environment that will bring this state closer to being a two-party state."

And even some Democrats agree that the Republican wave that took the governor's mansion and a record number of House of Delegate seats was sparked, at least in part, by Marty's insatiable appetite for higher taxes. It was House Economic Matters Chairman Dereck Davis, a Prince George's County Democrat, who said, "We were, in retrospect, a bit too aggressive in that department."  Davis said, "The party led by the governor, point blank, was too aggressive in trying to maintain the status quo."  He added, "You have to make tough choices, even if they're just temporary, you have to make those [budget] cuts. You have to slow things down. We were unwilling to say no to anybody, about anything."

But Marty and his defenders will argue that those tax increases were necessary to keep investing in schools and to stave off painful cuts during the nationwide recession.  We’re told that he inherited a $1.7 billion structural deficit when he took over from Republican Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich in 2007, a deficit, which this year, stands at an estimated $750 million, or a reduction of nearly a billion dollars.  But, I can’t help but wonder, wouldn’t you think that after eight years of being governor that Marty could have done a much better job?  Perhaps, had he been a just a bit more interested in cutting spending he might have been able to, like Scott Walker in Wisconsin as a for instance, he could have ended up with a surplus.

In then end though, we shouldn’t be too quick to assume that Hitlery’s current troubles will, in the end, prove to be fatal to her political ambitions which obviously include her desire to enter the 2016 presidential contest.  Because to make that assumption would require us to also assume that Hitlery’s supporters to put the country above their politics.  The truth is that it’s going to take a whole lot more than some emails and questionable donations to her, and ‘Slick Willie’s’, foundation/charity to cause enough Democrats to desert her.  I mean short of being convicted of murder, and even that might not be enough for many, there are those who will remain steadfastly by her side no matter what.

Thursday, March 19, 2015


Does anyone, other than myself of course, view it as being anything more than just a little hypocritical that we would now have the second-ranking Senate Democrat, ‘Little Dick’ Durbin, accusing the Republicans of putting Barry’s attorney general nominee “in the back of the bus?”  It was just yesterday that ‘Little Dick’ chose to criticize the GOP over the delay in confirming Loretta Lynch in what has become rather typical for Democrat, the playing of the ‘race card’.  Now keep in mind here, that this is the very same ‘Little Dick’ who felt completely justified in voting against confirming Condoleezza Rice not once, but twice.  Ms. Rice had the most ‘no’ votes in history of any Secretary of State nominee during her confirmation process two months before the 40th anniversary of Selma.  ‘Little Dick’ was among those no votes. But be that as it may, this is what he said yesterday regarding the pending confirmation of AG nominee Lynch, who just like Condi, is a Black Woman: “I would think, as we approach the 50th anniversary of Selma, that Republicans should be more sensitive about what they’re doing to this woman.”

And in so choosing to once again very blatantly play the race card against Republicans blocking Loretta Lynch’s attorney general nomination, I’m assuming the ‘Little Dick’ must have completely forgotten all of those times that he chose to oppose Republican minority nominees.  It was in one of those, not so rare, instances of hypocrisy that ‘Little Dick’s’ Senate staff submitted a memo in 2001 asserting that George W. Bush U.S. Appeals Court’s nominee Miguel Estrada was an “especially dangerous” prospect because, now get this, “he is Latino.” And yet “Little Dick’ somehow felt it appropriate to take to the Senate floor, just yesterday, and to accuse Republicans of forcing Lynch, who is black, “to sit in the back of the bus” until a vote on a controversial sex trafficking bill is resolved. ‘Little Dick’s’ inflammatory statement was a reference to civil rights icon Rosa Park’s refusal to move to the back of a Montgomery, Ala. bus in 1955.  ‘Little Dick’ said Republicans were treating Lynch unfairly by blocking her from becoming “the first African-American woman” attorney general.

But if we choose to look back in time we would see that it was on Nov. 7, 2001, that a staffer in ‘Little Dick’s’ office sent out a memo summarizing a meeting with “representatives of various civil rights groups” to discuss Estrada’s nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.  The memo showed that one of the reasons Democrats wanted to block confirmation of the Honduras-born Estrada was because he is Latino.  The meeting “focused on identifying the most controversial and/or vulnerable judicial nominees, and a strategy for targeting them,” Durbin’s staffer wrote in the memo which was published only in Nov. 2003, months after Estrada withdrew his name from consideration after a protracted battle with Democrats.  ‘Little Dick’s’ staffer wrote, “They also identified Miguel Estrada [D.C. Circuit] as especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment.” 

A spokesmoron for ‘Little Dick’ issued a statement at the time claiming that the memo was not meant to be a racial attack on Estrada but was, rather, purely political in nature.  So I’d be curious to know why it is that the same claim cannot be used as a very plausible explanation for the Republicans’ reluctance to confirm Lynch.  But besides his opposition to Estrada, ‘Little Dick’ also opposed two other minority Bush nominees.  In 2005, he voted against Bush’s nominee for secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice.  And again, in 2005, he was very outspoken in his opposition of Bush’s U.S. Court of Appeals nominee, Janice Rogers Brown.  Both Rice and Brown were eventually confirmed.  And, as you may recall, like Lynch, both are black.  So it would seem that it was with more than just a touch of hypocrisy that ‘Little Dick’ made his rather incendiary little comment from there on the floor of the Senate as he criticized the GOP over its handling of Loretta Lynch's nomination.

Now as ‘Little Dick’ was right to point out, Ms. Lynch would, in fact, if confirmed become the nation's first black female attorney general, replacing Eric “The Racist” Holder, the first African-American in the job.  But such is far from being a sufficient reason to confirm her, especially when there remains so many unanswered questions about many of her positions.  Lynch was nominated last fall and now several months later, it would seem that the rather reckless accusation in ‘Little Dick’s’ vitriolic attack, indicates that the Democrats are, like any of us should all give a shit, growing increasingly agitated over the holdup in confirming her, even though they were in control of the Senate during at least some of that time.  ‘Little Dick’ said, "Loretta Lynch, the first African-American woman nominated to be attorney general, is asked to sit in the back of the bus when it comes to the Senate calendar."   And then he went on to add, "That is unfair. It's unjust. It is beneath the decorum and dignity of the United States Senate."

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell planned a vote on Lynch's nomination this week but delayed it when the Senate was unable to finish work on a bill to combat human trafficking. That legislation is stalled because of a partisan spat over abortion funding, with Democrats objecting to a provision blocking money in a new victims' fund from paying for abortions in most cases.  It was in response to ‘Little Dick’s’ racial implication that McConnell spokesman Don Stewart said, "The Lynch nomination is next on the schedule. The only thing holding up that vote is the Democrats' filibuster of a bill that would help prevent kids from being sold into sex slavery."  He went on to say, "The sooner they allow the Senate to pass that bipartisan bill, the sooner the Senate can move to the Lynch nomination."  Democrats claim that Republicans snuck the abortion provision into the trafficking bill without telling them. Republicans note that the language has been there since the bill was introduced early this year, and no one raised objections as it unanimously passed the Judiciary Committee. Democrats insist they were never made aware of it. 

When Democrats look at Loretta Lynch, all they see is her skin color. In taking this ugly road, ‘Little Dick’ has been joined by fellow Democrat Rep. George Kenneth Butterfield, from North Carolina, who argued who yesterday also did his best to imply that race was “a major factor in the reason for this delay.”  Also adding her voice to what would seem to be a growing chorus of political charlatans was none other than Rep. Marcia Fudge, from Ohio,  It was this genius who also suggested that “there is some racial bias” at play.  And then we also had the president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, some imbecile by the name of Sherrilyn Ifill.  Now knowing as we all do what the kind of organization that today’s NAACP has become, it comes as no surprise to hear that it was she who proposed that “women are watching, that African-American women are watching,” and that neither of them would like what they were seeing.

Because they regard themselves as the unimpeachable champions of American progress, it’s unlikely that ‘Little Dick’ & Co. will recognize just how acutely this mindset damages their cause.  But damage their cause it most certainly does. As Aesop taught us in his “Boy Who Cried Wolf,” dramatic claims eventually have to be backed up with demonstrable facts or they will begin to invite indifference and ridicule. The sins of America’s past are real, and they are often overlooked by those who would prefer to talk about something else. And yet, in the political realm at least, the charges of “racist” and “sexist” have become so ubiquitous that it is becoming difficult for most listeners to determine when they are legitimate and when they are opportunistic. Jim Crow involved the systematic subjugation of an entire race of people; Loretta Lynch is seeing her nomination delayed because the two main parties in Washington disagree as to what constitutes the best way forward. If both these occurrences are to be described in exactly the same language, indeed, if the two are to be directly compared, our historical and linguistic comprehension will eventually become damaged beyond repair. Then what?

Wednesday, March 18, 2015


Compounding Hitlery’s continuing email woes comes news that her résumé for 2016, at least when it comes to her promoting women's rights around the world, may now be coming under some much needed scrutiny as her actions as secretary of state, as well as foreign funding questions swirling around her family foundation, seem to have opened the door regarding her rather questionable connection to regimes known for their rather unfriendly attitude toward women's rights.

While Hitlery will, no doubt, champion her ‘experience’ at the State Department as well as her work on women's issues as a first lady and senator, how people will come to view how that squares with her friendly relations with governments like Saudi Arabia and others in the Middle East may likely need to be a bit better spun.  But knowing her as we do, and the fact that many in the state-controlled media remain steadfast supporters, I’m sure the proper amount of spin, will be spun.

The so-called "Hillary Doctrine" follows her own words on human rights: "The subjugation of women [is] a threat to the common security of our world and to the national security of our country."  But that declaration would seem to stand in stark contrast to her joining such world leaders as the Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, in 2010 as well as the Clinton Foundation's eagerness to accept millions in donations from nations like Qatar, Oman, Algeria, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates.

It’s in those countries that gender inequality is not only real but a protected way of life.  And as recently as last week Hitlery defended her record when questions arose about the foundation's donations.  She said in the wake of a release of a U.N. report about the status of women and girls: "There can’t be any mistake about my passion concerning women’s rights here at home and around the world. So I think that people who want to support the foundation know full well what it is we stand for and what we’re working on."

Others say her record is worth questioning and are now giving it a second look as Hitlery prepares to launch a national campaign.  Danielle Pletka, vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, asked "What exactly are her grand accomplishments on behalf of women?"  And in essentially answering her own question, Ms. Pletka said, "I'm really impressed with how she turned around Saudi Arabia.''  And she then went on to add, "She doesn't do much more than talk.''

And there are also other powerful women in the political and business sphere who have also raised a cold eyebrow to Hitlery's rather obvious contradictions.  One of those being former Hewlett-Packard CEO, and potential 2016 GOP presidential candidate, Carly Fiorina.  Ms. Fiorina told a Conservative Political Action Conference group in February that Hitlery "tweets about women's rights in this country and takes money from governments that deny women the most basic human rights."

‘Slick Willie’ Clinton, also well-known for his being a staunch defender of women’s rights, as long as the women happen to be on their knees, defended his family foundation's donations from Middle East countries, as part of the family's pushback on the scrutiny. The ‘Slickmeister’ asked, rhetorically of course, "Do we agree with everything they do? No!"  And then went to say, "You’ve got to decide when you do this work whether it will do more good than harm if someone helps you from another country.”

This is all just more of what we have come to expect from the Clintons, and what I think many people are tired of.  Hitlery likes to portray herself as being an advocate for women, when she is really nothing of the sort, especially when it comes to those women who have been molested, or worse, by her husband.  And when it comes to the supposed ‘war on women’ it’s Hiterly who, I would argue, is essentially a traitor to those for whom she claims to be an advocate. It would seem that her concern for women’s rights can very easily be silenced, as long as the price is right.


Well it would seem that despite his best efforts to rid himself of having to deal with Benjamin Netanyahu, Barry “Almighty” is now going to have to contend with him for the remainder of his time as president.  And isn’t that a shame?  I think most of us have all come to the conclusion that Barry despises Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu.  And apparently with such an intensity that he, and his team of rabble-rousers, actually set out to, albeit covertly, come up with a scheme that would prevent the PM from being reelected in yesterday’s legislative election.  But apparently all of the scheming and plotting was all for naught.

Much has been talked about how it was during the lead up the election that Barry was hard at work secretly funding certain non-profit organizations in Israel that were actively attempting to dissuade the Israeli people from voting for Netanyahu.  This unauthorized funding casts an extraordinarily pernicious light on Barry, especially given that we, as a nation, ought not to be interfering with an ally’s election.  And this is why Barry has now ordered those same non-profits involved in his little plan, to scrub anything from their websites that might lead back to him.  And they, not surprisingly, have followed his orders to the letter.

Take for instance the website ‘OneVoice’, a supposed non-profit group that was said to have sponsored “a get-out-the-vote-organizing drive aimed at replacing Netanyahu’s government with a center-left coalition.”  The non-profit’s website used to contain a logo of the U.S. Department of State on its “partner” page, but, strangely enough, the logo has since gone missing.  It also happens that OneVoice’s staff contains a whole slew of “former top staffers for President Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign.”  Now are all of these facts merely a coincidence or are they actually something that can be seen as being a bit more sinister? 

Many in the Senate, although none you can find anywhere on the left, believe where there’s smoke there’s definitely fire and have therefore responded by launching an investigation into whether or not Team Obama “aided OneVoice’s efforts to defeat Netanyahu via grants from the State Department.”  Look, we know for a fact that Barry’s State Department gave OneVoice a grant for $350,000.  However, what is not known, but is suspected, to be true, is whether or not the grant was issued specifically to help the non-profit thwart PM Netanyahu’s reelection efforts.  But I think we can all safely assume that that’s a given.

Because this isn’t the first time Team Barry has gone meddling in Israeli politics.  Because we also know that back in 2010, Barry’s State Department issued a nearly one million dollar grant to something called the Abraham Fund.  That money would come to allow this organization to actively plot against and to, the greatest extent possible, negatively affect Bibi’s chances of winning.  So it would seem that we have a history of Barry “Almighty” being willing stoop to just about anything in what is a continuing effort of his to prevent Netanyahu’s election, which is why he must be exposed – the sooner the better.

So now that the dust has pretty much settled, it wasn’t just Israel’s left-wing parties that took a pretty big hit as a direct result of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s dramatic 30 seat victory yesterday. Because Team Obama, which pulled as many strings as it possibly could to bring about what it hoped would be a Netanyahu defeat, also took a hit, being humiliated, and pretty substantially so.  It had dispatched Jeremy Bird, the architect of the grass-roots and online organizing efforts behind both of Barry’s presidential campaign, to Israel in what was an attempt to work the same magic there with a group called Victory 15.

Victory 15 was in turn a close ally of the One Voice Movement, which is a U.S. tax-exempt organization with a subsidiary in Israel that actively worked against Netanyahu. One Voice apparently used $350,000 in State Department grants to fund its anti-Netanyahu efforts in direct contravention with U.S. law.  And there has been much talk about how it was that several million dollars were secretly funneled into the effort to engineer the defeat of Netanyahu.  So we need to investigate this “dark money” that the U.S. government may have indirectly spent in Israel.  And letter has been sent calling on Bird and other Barry operatives to give a full accounting of their activities.  But don’t hold your breath waiting for a response.