Saturday, May 30, 2015


Recent news came out that I’m quite sure was not music to the ears of those who claim that the planet is getting hotter by the minute, and it is all the fault of you and me.  It comes to us in the form of a new study out of, all places, the United Kingdom.  You see, it’s this new study that predicts planet Earth is about to go through a major climatic shift that could mean decades of cooler temperatures resulting in fewer hurricanes hitting the United States.  At the very same time that Barry was recently heard decrying the ‘fact’ that there will be more and stronger hurricanes and we also heard Al ‘Not-So’ Sharpton blaming the storms in Texas on ‘climate change.’ 

You see, apparently, we seem to have some actual scientists at the University of Southampton who are now predicting that a cooling of the Atlantic Ocean could cool global temperatures by at least a half a degree Celsius and may even offer what the study called, a “brief respite from the persistent rise of global temperatures.”  According to Dr. Gerard McCarthy, one of the guys involved, this cooling phase in the Atlantic will influence “temperature, rainfall, drought and even the frequency of hurricanes in many regions of the world.”  The study’s authors based their results on ocean sensor arrays and 100 years of sea-level data.  Not faulty computer models.

McCarthy, the study’s lead author, said,  “Sea-surface temperatures in the Atlantic vary between warm and cold over time-scales of many decades”  And he went on to say, “This decadal variability, called the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO), is a notable feature of the Atlantic Ocean and the climate of the regions it influences.”  And Dr. David Smeed, a co-author, said in a statement, “The observations of [AMO] from [sensor arrays], over the past ten years, show that it is declining.  As a result, we expect the AMO is moving to a negative phase, which will result in cooler surface waters. This is consistent with observations of temperature in the North Atlantic.”

Researchers argue that a negative AMO will bring “drier summers in Britain and Ireland, accelerated sea-level rise along the northeast coast of the United States, and drought in the developing countries of the Sahel region.”  Interestingly enough, the study also predicts fewer hurricanes hitting the U.S. as a result of a cooler Atlantic.  Atlantic cooling can impact the climate for decades, according to researchers, on timescales from 20 to 30 years. This means cooler global temperatures and changing weather patterns could unfold over the next two to three decades, possibly extending the so-called “pause” in global warming.

For years, scientists have been debating why satellite temperature data shows that there has been about 18 years with no warming trend. Surface temperature data shows a similar pause in warming for the last 10 to 15 years.  So far, the dominant explanation seems to be that oceans have absorbed a lot of the heat that would have otherwise gone into the atmosphere. And most scientists argue the world will continue warming because of increasing greenhouse gas emissions.  Some scientists, however, have been arguing the world is indeed headed for a cooling phase based on solar cycles. Scientists from Germany to India have argued that weakening solar activity could bring about another “Little Ice Age.”

Jürgen Lange Heine, a physicist with the German-based European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) wrote, “The stagnation of temperature since 1998 was caused by decreasing solar activity since 1998.”  He went on to write as well, “From 1900 to 1998, solar radiation increased by 1.3 W / m², but since 1998 it has diminished, and could reach values similar to those of the early 20th century. A drop in global temperature over the next few years is predicted.”  The Virginia-based Vencore Weather recently reported that “[n]ot since cycle 14 peaked in February 1906 has there been a solar cycle with fewer sunspots.”

It was Vencore Weather experts that also noted, “We are currently more than six years into Solar Cycle 24 and the current nearly blank sun may signal the end of the solar maximum phase.”  These experts went on to say, “Going back to 1755, there have been only a few solar cycles in the previous 23 that have had a lower number of sunspots during its maximum phase.”  McCarthy and his colleagues, however, argue there could be a reprieve from warming based on natural ocean cycles– not solar activity. The British scientists argue that weaker ocean currents are carrying less heat northward from the tropics.  Either way, the evidence says it’s not caused by man.

So if these scientists are correct, and this supposed “global warming” is actually not being caused by man, what’s an environmental scam artist like Al Gore to do?  And doesn’t Barry look like even more of a liar when he tells Coast Guard graduates that ‘climate change’ is a very real threat.  So, will the cadre of ‘climate change/global warming/climate disruption’ goons now simply set out to assassinate the character of these ‘bogus’ scientists who insist upon denying that the planet is now heating up?  So can these scientists now consider themselves as being counted amongst those of us who are commonly referred to as “deniers” or flat-earthers?”  

Friday, May 29, 2015


While it’s those of us the right who are usually in the position of having to choose between the lesser of two, or more, evils, this time around it may be those on the left who may be forced into just such a situation.  Such a dilemma has as its source the myth among many on the left that decades of experience has made Hitlery the most pragmatic choice, and therefore the odds on favorite, for president in 2016.  But like most fairy tales, it conveniently glosses over the heroine's many, and very obvious, flaws.  For instance, there is her 31,000-plus missing emails (the subject of a lawsuit by the Associated Press), questions about foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation, and direct donations to Hitlery from big banks, including Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan.

And it’s because of such flaws that there now seems to be a growing amount of talk about there being a rather obvious alternative to the old girl.  That rather than to rely on someone who can't seem to elude perpetual media scrutiny, the person now being heralded as being the one that more Democrats should pay closer attention to is none other than Marty O'Malley, former governor of the People’s Republic of Maryland.  Marty, who, is said to be poised to officially join the race later this Saturday. The former Baltimore mayor and two-term governor is said to offers genuine alternative to the status quo within Washington and is said to be a real threat to any GOP challenger.  But would we really elect the guy who dreamt up a tax on rain?   What else might he want to tax, perhaps the air we breathe?  But I digress.

It’s said by those who support Marty that, unlike Hitlery, he isn't linked to perpetual scandal and criticism, nor is he beholden to foreign donors, investment banks or a family surname.  He has stated, and rightfully so I suppose, that the presidency isn't "some crown to be passed between two families" and compared to Hitlery, Marty is said to offer what is a genuinely ‘progressive’ outlook on American politics. As if that progressivism has been shown to be a good thing for America.  When both candidates are analyzed, it's apparent that one caters to poll-driven centrism while the other is far more confident in a ‘progressive’ vision for America.  That would be, I guess, the same vision he inflicted upon Maryland which resulted in the governor’s mansion going Republican for the first time since the 60’s.

Another supposed selling point for Marty that many leftists seem to like to point out is the fact that while Hitlery voted for the invasion of Iraq, Marty has been a longtime critic of the Iraq War.  And also it was as governor that Marty sponsored and then signed a same-sex marriage bill when Hitlery was overtly against gay marriage.  He also signed a marijuana decriminalization bill, while Hitlery has said she was against the decriminalization of marijuana.  Marty wants to bring back the Glass-Steagall Act (repealed during the Clinton years), has called the Trans-Pacific Partnership a "bad trade deal," and urged the Senate in 2014 to reject the Keystone XL pipeline.  Hitlery, on the other hand, once referred to TPP as "the gold standard in trade agreements," and she still hasn't taken a stance on the Keystone XL pipeline.

Perhaps the biggest issue many have with Hitlery, and one that many on the left say that Marty, Bernie Sanders and Jim Webb don't face, is a "trust deficit" felt by many of those on the left.  A recent Washington Post article titled "For Hillary Clinton, a trust deficit to surmount," highlights how even favorable polls indicate a rather distinct lack of trust.  More than six in 10 voters, or 62 percent, seem to think that Hitlery has "strong leadership qualities."  In that same sample, though, less than four in 10, or 38 percent, said she was honest and trustworthy. A majority, 54 percent, said she is not honest and trustworthy, including 61 percent of independents.  With Marty, however, leadership skills don't translate to a majority of people questioning his honesty, only his intelligence.

According to his supporters there on the left Marty represents an honest, bold and capable alternative to Hitlery and a worthwhile challenger to any GOP candidate.  However, I would argue that the making of such a claim can also be easily described as being a fairy tale in its own right.  Those on the left say that he isn't a magnet for perpetual scandal, and he isn't beholden to special interests or vapid centrism. These, or so it is claimed, are competitive advantages over Hitlery would help Marty defeat any Republican for important battleground states in 2016.  But Marty does have a record as governor, and while it is a record in which progressives may find many positives, it is not a record that demonstrates what many feel, after the Barry years, our country needs to get back on the right track.  

And as has always been the case, but especially regarding those Democrat candidates running for president, what must be determined before taking anyone under possible consideration is the level of patriotism and love of country that the candidate possesses. Now we know, and with some level of certainty, that Hitlery, like Barry, has a very low opinion of this country, and I have heard nothing from Marty that would indicate to me that his sentiment is any different than the other two.  Democrats have a long, and very proud, history of hating their country, and have consistently demonstrated that they have absolutely no love for any of those institutions that made this country great.  And they certainly have no love for our Constitution.  For the rest of us there is no lesser evil where Democrats are involved.  

Thursday, May 28, 2015


In the words of Ronald Reagan, “There they go again.”  This past Wednesday it was Democrat presidential hopeful Hitlery Clinton who was heard telling what must have been some of her more devoted followers, "We have come through some really tough economic times."   And she then went on to say, "American families have made a lot of sacrifices," noting that people lost jobs and homes and delayed college and retirement when the recession hit in 2008.  She neglected to mention, however, that it has been during the tenure of Barry “Almighty” that things have only gotten worse.

And it was then that she went on to imply to that same demented little group that none of those sacrifices that have become so necessary are the fault of our current president.  She said, "And I will say that there does seem to be a pattern. Democratic presidents -- and there's two in particular I'm thinking about -- over the last 35 years seem to inherit a mess of problems. Have you noticed that?”  And then Hitlery said, "So then they have to dig us out of the ditches they find themselves in and put us back on the right track. And of course, I'm talking about Bill Clinton and Barack Obama."

She then proceeded to ask the crowd, "Are we going to hand over our country once again to the people and policies that crashed our economy before and that will shred the progress that we've made?"  Now I gotta ask you, just how ignorant must one be in order to actually believe such idiotic drivel?  Whose policies have been in place over the course of what has been the last seven years that have succeeded in reducing American economic forward progress to near zero?  Is that what Hitlery considers as being the right track?  I guess I’m not sure what old Hitlery is talking about.

Hitlery said that's what her campaign is going to be about -- "because we're going to have to stand up to the people who want to keep the deck stacked in favor of those at the top."  I just thought that it was a rather odd thing for her to say, especially since it is her own party that has worked, and continues to work, so hard to keep the deck to which she refers stacked against so many.  The reason being, of course, is that Democrats ‘need’ people to become increasingly dependent upon government, and it has been under Barry millions more have come to depend on government.

Now I will admit that Hitlery is quite right when she implies that the next president, whether it’s a Democrat or a Republican, male or female, will most certainly inherit what can only be described as being a rather sizable "mess of problems."  Of that there is very little doubt.  And the list is a rather long and quite impressive one.  It includes the rise of the Islamic State, the disintegration of Iraq, turmoil in the Middle East, tensions with Russia and China, a continuing troop presence in Afghanistan, to name only a few of the more important foreign policy concerns.

And it’s here at home that the economy and jobs remain a top concern of most Americans, according to a Gallup Poll conducted earlier this month. And was that same poll that showed Americans are more concerned about race relations than they were when Barry first took office. No surprise there especially after having witnessed Barry do all that he can to increase tension between the races for nothing but purely political purposes.  Other top worries of the American people include immigration/illegal aliens, and ethics/moral/religious decline.

And then of course there's the problem of our growing national debt. When Barry first took office on Jan. 20, 2009, the total federal debt was $10,626,877,048,913.08. As of the close of business on May 26, 2015, it had risen to $18,152,327,453,268.84 -- up $7,525,450,404,355.76 from Barry’s first inauguration day.  Talk about a rather impressive list of problems to be inherited!  Now that’s not to say that these things cannot be overcome, if the right person is elected.  After all, Reagan took the mess handed to him by Carter, and instead of whining, fixed things. 

At the end of her speech, and in a message apparently intended for her only female rival thus far, Republican Carly Fiorina, Hitlery said, "No matter how hard this election or any election becomes, we should remember that, at the core, we can have disagreements -- and we will. We have different governing philosophies. We have different views about what works and what the evidence shows works about economic policies. That's all fair game.”  The evidence to which Hitlery likely refers, proves nothing more than what an abject failure leftist economic policies are.     

And Hitlery went on to say, "But we should show more respect toward each other."  But as we all know, when it comes to mutual respect, as far as Democrats like Hitlery are concerned, that’s pretty much a one way street.  Hitlery said the "core of every political campaign" should be "how we treat one another and how we care for this gift we have been given, the United States of America."  I find more than a bit disingenuous whenever I hear someone like Hitlery, a devoted follower of Saul Alinsky, so determined in destroying our country, describe America as being a gift.    

Fiorina also campaigned in South Carolina on Wednesday, and was heard criticizing Hitlery directly on a number of various policy issues.  Fiorina told reporters on the sidewalk outside the hotel where Hitlery would speak later, "I think we need a nominee who will ask her (Hitlery) these questions about trustworthiness, about transparency and about track record."  In an interview on Wednesday with NBC's Andrea Mitchell, Fiorina said she comes from a world where what you have actually done matters more than what you have said.

She said, "Actions speak louder than words. People want to know are your words and your actions consistent and are they consistent over time.  And so I think when 82 percent of the American people now believe that there is a professional political class more interested in preserving its own power and privilege than it is in serving the American people, people expect basic questions to be asked of anyone running for president.  What have you done?  Are you trustworthy?  Are you transparent?  Will you answer questions?"  But I wonder if people really do care.  I’d like to think so.

You know, it frightens me to think that there may now be enough people in this country who are convinced that Hitlery is just the right person to take the helm.  I wonder how it is that anyone can look at what has become of our country, both hear at home and abroad, during Barry’s time as president and can still come to the conclusion that things are going so well that it would be idiotic to change things now.  Actually what’s idiotic is to think it makes any amount of sense to keep things going as they have been for the last seven years.  If ever ‘change’ was needed, it’s NOW!  

Wednesday, May 27, 2015


With his time in office now slowly, albeit far too slowly, drawing to a close, although it can’t get here soon enough for me, there has much talk going around of late regarding what kind of legacy Barry “Almighty” will leave behind.  It has been during his two terms in the White House, Barry has done his best to make same-sex marriage the law of the land; implement trailblazing environmental regulations to crackdown on climate change; issue sweeping legislation allowing millions of undocumented immigrants to remain in the country; and reconstructed, some would argue deconstructed, the healthcare system in this country.

It has been noted by many of those whose job it is to ponder such ponderable things that there have been more than a few blows dealt to Barry’s various policies by the Supreme Court — a venue where those representing his administration have done less than a stellar job — that some think have placed his legacy in jeopardy.  And it has also been pointed out that the Supreme Court has unanimously ruled against Barry’s administration positions in at least 13 cases just since January 2012.  Not exactly a ringing endorsement of those policies that Barry has tried to promulgate.  But that never stopped him from trying to use his pen and his phone.

It was John Fund who writes, "The tenure of both President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder has been marked by a dangerous push to legitimize a vast expansion of the power of the federal government that endangers the liberty and freedom of Americans."  And he goes on to say, "They have taken such extreme position on key issues that the Court has uncharacteristically slapped them down time and time again.”  He adds, "Historically, the Justice Department has won about 70 percent of its cases before the high court. But in each of the last three terms, the Court has ruled against the administration a majority of the time."

And it’s on the topic of same-sex marriage that Barry continues to maintain that his views on the topic have "evolved" from opposing it when he first ran for president in 2008 — a reversal from his 1996 Illinois Senate campaign when he supported it — to backing it in 2012 after Vice President ‘Slow Joe’ Biden publicly pledged support for gay marriage. After contradictory decisions by federal appeals courts, the Supreme Court heard a case brought by Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee arguing that the decision should be left to the states. Same-sex marriage proponents say gay marriage bans violate couples' constitutional rights.

The court's much anticipated June decision is a "potentially historic ruling" that will cap "a two-decade legal and political fight for marriage equality," at least according to the Los Angeles Times.  In 2013, according to the Washington Post, the Supreme Court ruled in the administration’s favor by allowing the federal government to recognize legally married same-sex couples.  So Barry may yet be able to ram this down the collective throat of the American with help for a Supreme Court that may actually lean more than a little to the left on the issue.  So we will see if it turns out to be a ‘historic ruling’ or another slap at Barry.

Obamacare, aka The Affordable Care Act, Barry’s signature legislation, could be torpedoed if the court rules in favor of a group challenging the legality of Obamacare subsidies to residents in 37 states that didn't set up their own healthcare exchanges.  The New York Times reported this week that a four-word clause — "established by the state" — included in the 900-page act specifies that federal subsidies are only permitted for people who buy their coverage on state-run exchanges, not those who go through the federal marketplace, HealthCare.gov.  Some 7.5 million people stand to lose their subsidies if the court rules they are unconstitutional.

And it was in the Hobby Lobby case, brought by the evangelical Christian owners of an arts and crafts store chain by the same name, that the Supreme Court found that family-owned businesses do not have to provide birth control coverage to their employees if it conflicts with the business owners' religious beliefs.  The landmark decision, rendered on June 30, 2014, extended for the first time religious protections to for-profit corporations, The Boston Globe reported, noting that the ruling was a win for social conservatives who opposed a provision of Obamacare that required contraceptive coverage be included in health insurance provided by businesses.

And as far as Barry’s penchant for making rather questionable recess appointments, the high court issued a unanimous rebuke of the president for exceeding his constitutional authority by making high-level government appointments in 2012 — specifically to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) — when he declared that the Senate was in recess and unable to act on the nominations.  In January 2012, while the Senate met in pro forma sessions every three days specifically to deny the president his recess powers, Obama made three recess appointments to the NLRB and one to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Barry contended that "even though the Senate was meeting every three days, the pro forma sessions meant just a single senator was on the chamber floor for a brief time, and no real business was conducted, which meant the Senate was really not in session."  The majority opinion of the justices on the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that "the founding fathers intended for the president only to be able to use his recess appointment powers when the Senate was gone for a long period of time, not the brief breaks Congress regularly takes for holidays or weekends."  Apparently Barry, the Constitutional scholar, interpreted things differently.

This past spring, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case challenging what has been called by some in the state-controlled media Barry’s "signature environmental achievement": Environmental Protection Agency regulations limiting the amount of mercury emissions and other toxic pollutants from coal-fired and oil-fired utility plants.  More than 20 states and "major industry groups" such as the National Mining Association argue that the rules place undue costs on power plants.  The EPA estimates that the regulations, which would require plants to install high-tech scrubbers to remove the pollutants, come with an estimated $9.6 Billion annual price tag.  A decision is expected next month.

And on the topic of Immigration, Barry’s immigration policy took a hit as recently as this past Tuesday, when a federal appeals court in New Orleans, in a 2-1 decision, denied Barry's emergency request to lift a lower court's injunction on deferring deportations of millions of undocumented immigrants, according to a Washington Post story.  Alleging executive overreach, 26 states sued the federal government after Barry issued an executive order in November expanding programs that allow millions of undocumented immigrants to remain in the country and apply for work permits and some government benefits.  But he didn’t get his way, at least not yet.

In February, a federal judge in Brownsville, Texas, blocked Barry's order on the grounds that it should not be implemented until the case is resolved.  The administration appealed the decision and it was decided in the plaintiffs' favor.  In typical fashion the White House issued a scathing criticism of the opinion.  White House bimbo, Brandi Hoffine said, "As the powerful dissent from Judge [Stephen] Higginson recognizes, President Obama's immigration executive actions are fully consistent with the law.  The president's actions were designed to bring greater accountability to our broken immigration system, grow the economy, and keep our communities safe."

Republican House Speaker John Boehner lauded the ruling.  And in one of those rare instances where I find myself in agreement with the Speaker, he said, "The president said 22 times he did not have the authority to take the very action on immigration he eventually did, and the courts have agreed once again."  But the number of things that Barry has managed to do despite the fact that he did not have the authority to them is really quite impressive.  And he got away with doing those things primary because we had in Congress a combination of rabid ideologues who were in complete agreement with him, and a band of gutless cowards too afraid to stand up to him.

Personally, I would argue that Barry's legacy is quite secure.  He is the first foreign born, affirmative action, America hating, white-hating president of this once great republic.  He has done what will most likely turn out to be irreparable damage to this country both domestically and internationally.  This harm was not done out of ignorance, incompetence or even stupidity as many would have you believe, but out of a naked, plain and obvious hatred for The United States.  His legacy will be one of an evil-doer who could always count on the ignorance of the American people.  His legacy will be one of someone who easily and blatantly lied about everything and always got away with it because the press was too feckless to call him on it. They were too afraid of being called "racist".  Better to let a half black man lie than tell the truth about his lies.  Let's pray that the electorate never makes the same mistake.  But with so much talk about Hitlery Clinton, I'm not the least bit optimistic.

Tuesday, May 26, 2015


Regarding the goings on in our nation’s capital, does anyone other than myself find themselves wondering how it is that we who were once considered to be the freest, and most prosperous people on the face of this planet, came to allow things to spin so wildly out of control?  When was it that things to come so completely off the tracks?  And what must we have been thinking for us to allow our politicians to have now come so completely off the chain?   We had to have known deep in our gut that that was not a good idea.  And yet, we offered so very little resistance.

But then I suppose ‘how’ we came to be at this particular point in time matters very little.  What matters now, I would think, is that we all agree to work together toward finding some way of possibly reversing things.  But the question is, do enough of us still possess the necessary will, or the desire, to even attempt such a thing?   We are supposed to be a nation of laws, with a government of the people, by the people and for the people.  But somewhere along the way that was apparently thought to be far too difficult.  So instead, we chose to relinquish our control.

So whose fault is it that we now find ourselves being so thoroughly ignored by a majority of those whom we chose to put into office as recently as 7 months ago?  Our first mistake was to believe the many campaign lies we were told, and now we’re paying the price.  And likely when the next election rolls around many of these same perpetrators will once again expect us to trust them when they say that they are on our side.  But their actions speak far louder than their words.  They need to be made to understand that once trust is lost, it’s very difficult to regain. 

So what are we to do in the meantime?  Resign ourselves to the fact that we now have no control of our government?  It saddens me greatly that the future that now lies in front of my daughter is most certainly not the one that I had envisioned for her.  And I cannot be the only one who feels this way.  And if we are to have any hope of providing a better future for our children than the one that now exists then we must be willing to make certain sacrifices.  Freedom is not cheap nor is it something that comes about without there being a great deal of work involved.   

And by work, I’m not necessarily talking about any actual physical labor, because we know that these days far too many Americans avoid that as if it were the plague.  What I mean by work is the getting, and keeping, of ourselves informed of what your leaders may be up to, and to be willing to hold them accountable regardless of political party.  The country must always be made to come first.  And if you are unwilling to do that, then you become nothing more than a part of the continuing problem.  The country must be made to survive.

What we all need to do, regardless of our gender, sexual orientation, faith, or lack of, our race or ethnic background is to come to grips with the fact that there is no other country on Earth where one can, if willing to work hard and play by the rules, accomplish absolutely anything that one puts one’s mind to.  And what we are rapidly losing here is that opportunity, and once it is lost, it will essentially be lost for us all and for generations.  Life isn’t fair, but life ‘is’ what you choose to make of it, and nowhere but here in America can you make so much of it.

I worry that we’re letting things slip through our fingers, with far too few of us seeming to see that as being any sort of a problem.  Freedom is a pretty rare commodity here on planet Earth, and once it’s lost, whether by being freely given away, or with it being taken at the point of a gun, it’s always nearly impossible to ever get back.  But many see that as being no big deal.  But it is a big deal, it’s a very big deal!  Look, I don’t claim to have all the answers when it comes to trying to take our country back, but I do know that we need to recalibrate our priorities if we are to have any hope of surviving.  

Sunday, May 24, 2015


There’s an old saying that says, “What goes around, comes around.”  And then, there’s yet another, just as old, saying that might also be applicable when it comes to the behavior of those in our state-controlled media.  It says, “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”  I will leave it to the reader to determine for themselves which might be the most fitting regarding the recent discovery made by a new Rasmussen survey about how the American people feel about their ‘news’ media.  You see, what was found out as a result of this survey is that 61 percent of Likely Voters in the United States now say they don’t trust the political news they’re getting.

In addition to the 61 percent, it was 59 percent who are of the opinion that coverage of the 2016 presidential race will be slanted, and it was 46 percent who said that ABC’s George ‘Stephy’ Stephanopoulos should be banned from any presidential campaign coverage because of donations he made to the Clinton Foundation.  The survey asked likely voters five questions ranging from whether they trusted the ‘news’ they were getting, to their opinions on whether reporters would try to help or hurt certain candidates.  It might be worth noting that the 61 percent of likely voters who do not trust the political ‘news’ they receive is a 16-point increase from the last survey taken just last October, when 45 percent of likely voters said the same thing.

It was also according to Rasmussen that 21 percent of likely voters say they still have confidence in the political coverage they get while 17 percent say they aren’t sure. The 21 percent who said they have confidence is down 12 points from the last time the survey was taken, when 33 percent said they were confident.  In addition to not trusting the political ‘news’, 48 percent of likely voters believe that media bias is a problem in politics.  According to Rasmussen, “Forty-eight percent of voters think media bias is a bigger problem in politics today than big campaign contributions, but nearly as many see campaign cash as the larger problem.  Majorities of voters across most demographic groups do not trust the political news they are getting.”

And not only do many voters think that media bias is a problem, but 37 percent also believe that the average reporter is more liberal than they are.  According to Rasmussen, “Thirty-seven percent of Americans believe the average media reporter is more liberal than they are.  Eighteen percent consider that reporter more conservative.”  The report goes on to state, “When it comes to the 2016 presidential campaign, only 23% believe most reporters will try to offer unbiased coverage.”  It adds, “Fifty-nine percent think that coverage will be slanted instead, with 36% who say most reporters will try to help Hillary Clinton during the campaign and 23% who say they will try to hurt her bid for the White House instead. Seventeen percent are not sure.”

The survey states, “Forty-two percent of voters who don’t trust the political news they are getting think most reporters will try to help Clinton; just 14% believe the media's coverage of the 2016 race will be unbiased.”  And it then says, “Among those who do trust political news coverage, 38% say most reporters will try to stay neutral, but nearly as many think they will try to help the Democratic frontrunner.”  While 46 percent said Stephanopoulos, who was a top adviser to ‘BJ’ Clinton, should be banned from covering any news on the 2016 presidential race, 34 percent said “they are less likely to believe the reporting on ABC News because Stephanopoulos failed to disclose the donations [he made] to the Clinton Foundation.”

But you know, if you bother to tune into any of the nightly network ‘news’ programs or nearly any of the cable ‘news’ programs, or choose to pickup a copy of nearly any issue of print ‘news’, it would seem that the purveyors of what passes as ‘news’ today are bothered very little by the fact that a majority of Americans simply no longer trust much of what it is that they have say.  And yet, far too many Americans simply can’t be bothered to do what’s necessary to get, and to keep, themselves informed despite the level of journalistic malpractice that has been painfully obvious since 2007, especially as it related to Barry.  It has become obvious we can no longer trust the state-controlled media to provide us with usable, and actionable, information.   

Saturday, May 23, 2015


According to a recent issue of the ‘National Journal’, it is made to sound as if the Democrat Party is now in its final death throes and claims as part of its evidence for making such a claim, the deterioration of the Democrat bench under Barry’s tenure in office.  It puts forth the claim, one that I sort of agree with, that “the party has become much more ideologically homogenous having lost most of its moderate wing as a result of the last two disastrous midterm elections.”  It also points to a party-strength index introduced by RealClearPolitics analysts Sean Trende and David Byler that is said to show Democrats in their worst position since 1928.  That dynamic has manifested itself in the Democrat presidential contest, where the bench is so barren that a flawed Hillary Clinton is barreling to an uncontested nomination.

Much was also made about how the shrinking number of Democrat officeholders in the House and in statewide offices is said to be affecting the party's Senate races. It's pointed out how dependent Democrats have become in relying on former losing candidates as their standard-bearers in 2016.  For instance, Wisconsin's Russ Feingold, Pennsylvania's Joe Sestak, Indiana's Baron Hill, and Ohio's Ted Strickland all ran lackluster campaigns in losing office in 2010, and now are looking to return to politics six years later. Party officials are courting former Kay Hagan of North Carolina to make a comeback bid, despite mediocre favorability ratings and the fact that she lost a race just months ago that most had expected her to win. All told, more than half of the Democrats' Senate challengers in 2016 are retreads.

On one hand most of these candidates are the best choices Democrats have. And Feingold and Strickland are even running ahead of GOP Sens. Ron Johnson and Rob Portman in recent polls.  Hill and Hagan boast proven crossover appeal in GOP-leaning states that would be challenging pickups. Their presence in the race gives the party a fighting chance to retake the Senate.  The point is made that Democrats are in the position of having to rely on former failures because they have no one else to turn to, but if your failures are already beating your competition, what’s that say about your competition?  The argument is also made that if the brand-name challengers didn't run, the roster of up-and-coming prospects in the respective states is short.  But as long as your brand-name challengers are running and winning, what’s the problem? 

And the point is also made that Democrats face the rather ominous historical reality that only two defeated senators have successfully returned to the upper chamber in the last six decades. And as political analyst Stu Rothenberg put it, they're asking "voters to rehire them for a job from which they were fired."  Senate Democrats are relying on these repeat candidates for the exact same reason that Democrats are comfortable with anointing Hitlery Clinton for their presidential nomination: There aren't any better alternatives.  But I would argue the point that Democrats simply are not all that fussy.  Because what it really comes down to, at least for Democrats, is which candidate will end up giving away the most free stuff if elected?  Who cares if they lost yesterday?  It’s about what you’re gonna give me today?

To illustrate the Democrats' slim pickings, the Journal pointed to three of the most consequential battleground.  Republicans hold 12 of Ohio's 16 House seats, and all six of their statewide offices.  In Wisconsin, Republicans hold a majority of the state's eight House seats and four of five statewide partisan offices.  In Pennsylvania, 13 of the 18 representatives are Republicans, though Democrats hold all the statewide offices.  These are all Democrat-friendly states that Barry carried twice.  The claim is made that if Strickland didn't run, there in Ohio, the party's hopes against Portman would lie in the hands of 30-year-old Cincinnati Councilman P.G. Sittenfeld, who would make unexpected history as one of the nation's youngest senators with a victory.  But Strickland IS running so doesn’t that make this entire argument a moot point?

The Journal argues that without Feingold in Wisconsin, the Democrat’s only logical option would be Rep. Ron Kind, who has regularly passed up opportunities for a promotion.  Former Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett already lost to Scott Walker twice, and businesswoman Mary Burke disappointed as a first-time gubernatorial candidate last year. And despite the Democrat establishment's publicized carping over Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania, the list of alternatives don’t impress with his only current intra-party opposition being the mayor of Allentown.  In the more conservative states, it was said that the drop-off between favored recruits and alternatives is said to be even more stark. Hagan would be a flawed nominee in North Carolina, but there's no one else waiting in the wings. The strongest Democrat politician, Attorney General Roy Cooper, is running for governor instead.

Even in Indiana, the Journal claims that the bench is so thin even the GOP's embattled governor, Mike Pence, isn't facing formidable opposition. Hill, who lost congressional reelection campaigns in both 2004 and 2010, is not expected to face serious primary competition in the race to succeed retiring GOP Sen. Dan Coats.  Even in the two swing states where the party landed young, up-and-coming recruits to run, their options were very limited. In Florida, 32-year-old Rep. Patrick Murphy is one of only five House Democrats to represent a district that Mitt Romney carried in 2012—and his centrism has made him one of the most compelling candidates for higher office.  But if Murphy didn't run, the alternatives would have been limited: freshman Rep. Gwen Graham and polarizing Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz being the most logical alternatives.

It’s in Nevada that it’s said the Democrats are able to boast one of their strongest challengers in former state Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto, vying to become the first Latina ever elected to the Senate.  But again the Journal makes the point that her ascension is due, in part, to the fact that other talented officeholders lost in the 2014 statewide wipeout.  Democrat lieutenant-governor nominee Lucy Flores, hyped by MSNBC as a "potential superstar," lost by 26 points to her GOP opponent.  Former Secretary of State Ross Miller, another fast-rising pol, lost his bid, and rather badly, for attorney general against a nondescript Republican. By simply taking a break from politics, Cortez Masto avoided the wave and kept her prospects alive for 2016.

We’re told that what was being presented here by the Journal is not meant to be some sort of an assessment of Democrat chances for a Senate majority in 2017, but a glaring warning for the party's longer-term health.  The notion is put forward that if Hitlery can't extend the Democrats' presidential winning streak—a fundamental challenge, regardless of the political environment—the party's barren bench will cause even more alarm for the next presidential campaign. And if the Democrats' core constituencies don't show up for midterm elections—an outlook that's rapidly becoming conventional wisdom—Democrats have serious challenges in 2018 as well.  It's why The New Yorker's liberal writer John Cassidy warned that a Clinton loss next year could "assign [Republicans] a position of dominance."

The Journal said that by focusing on how the electorate's rapid change would hand Democrats a clear advantage in presidential races, Barry's advisers have overlooked how the base-stroking moves would play in the states. Their optimistic view of the future is said to have been adopted by Hitlery, who has been running to the left even without serious primary competition.  But without a future generation of leaders able to compellingly carry the liberal message, there's little guarantee that changing demographics will secure the party's destiny. The irony of the 2016 Senate races is that Democrats are betting on the past, running veteran politicians to win them back the majority—with Hitlery at the top of the ticket.  If that formula doesn't work, and it remains a sizable if, the rebuilding process may be long and arduous. 

Personally I don’t really see this as being much more than wishful thinking on the part of this particular publication.  Especially when you take into consideration that a growing number of people today not only do not pay any income taxes but are also becoming increasingly dependent upon a growing number of government programs.  Who is that this publication thinks these people will end up voting for?  Will it be for the ones that will demand that they pay income some amount of taxes and will need to wean themselves off of their multiple government subsidies?  I hardly think so.  The Democrat Party will be around for many years to come.  And I feel quite confident in saying that any rumors regarding its impending demise are more than a bit premature, and to assume otherwise would ‘make an ass out of you and me.’    

And while I suppose it might be fun to ponder such an eventuality, the reality of the situation is that for most of us what is of a far greater concern is the continuing viability of the Republican Party.  Especially at a time when our supposed party leadership seems hell-bent upon sabotaging the party’s prospects for the future.  Because while all of this talk, about the dire straits in which the Democrat Party supposedly finds itself, is really not much more than watercooler scuttlebutt.  The fact is the parasite class in this country has been growing exponentially for decades, and is continuing to grow.  All thanks to encouragement coming from both parties, but primarily because of only one.  And it is that rather sizable parasite class that may very well decide elections going well into the future.

Friday, May 22, 2015


I’m pretty sure that anyone who pays even the slightest amount of attention to politics is at least somewhat familiar with that racist loon from Minnesota, Rep. Keith Ellison.  Ellison is a member of the Minnesota state chapter of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, he’s a co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and he is also the first Muslim ever to be elected.  So with a background such as this I’m never really surprised by anything that I hear come out of his mouth.

Another opportunity for him to cause little surprise came just last week when Ellison was heard telling graduates of something called the Hartford Seminary, “students ought to be able to go to college, they go to college for free in Germany.”  He went on to say, “We believe that the students ought to be able to go to college, they go to college for free in Germany. They’re not bigger than us, they are not richer than us - how can they send their kids to school for free and we cannot?”

According to the YouTube video posted by Hartford Seminary, an institution that describes itself as a non-denominational graduate school for religious and theological studies, the topic which Ellison was said to be addressing was something called the “Myth of Scarcity."  Ellison said, “We live in a world where we are told constantly ‘there is just not enough’. We are given the myth of scarcity all the time.”  The focus of Ellison’s ‘not enough’ rant seems to be only on money.

Ellison said, “There's just not enough. There’s not enough money so we cannot possibly afford to make sure our senior citizens retire in comfort –gotta cut social security. Oh, there’s not enough – so our students they just gotta pay 40-thousand dollars a year in loans, because there’s not enough to educate our young people.”  I would argue that if was truly was a leader he would focus not on the quantity of money the government has to spend, but how carefully that money should be spent. 

Government supported college has long been a theme of the progressive left and therefore of the Democrat Party.  Democrat presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (Commie-Vt.) has proposed government funded tuition for 4-year public colleges and universities.  Hitlery Clinton, supposed Democrat frontrunner, has called for making higher education as “debt-free as possible” and Barry “Almighty” has proposed making community college free for two years.

So besides being a U.S. congressman from Minnesota and the first Muslim elected to the U.S. House of Representatives what else is there of any interest regarding this creep?  Well, we know he’s been a supporter of ‘Calypso Louie’ Farrakhan's Nation of Islam, and even says that Farrakhan “is a role model for black youth,” “is not an anti-Semite,” and “is a sincere, tireless, and uncompromising advocate of the black community and other oppressed people around the world.”

And something else that proves what a creep this guy really is, is the fact that spoke favorably of the high-profile murderers and leftist icons Mumia Abu Jamal, Assata Shakur, and Geronimo Pratt.  He was also a former steering committee member of the National Lawyers Guild's Minnesota chapter, and publicly defended former Symbionese Liberation Army terrorist Kathleen Soliah.  And he also supported the activities of the anti-capitalist Occupy Wall Street movement in 2011.

Look, this boob is no different than any other Democrat, because with them it’s only about how much money can be spent, not how responsibly it can be spent.  There is absolutely no regard for those who go out and work hard every day only to see as much as a third of their wages simply taken from them by the government which then turns around and wastes much of it.  But pond-scum like Ellison couldn’t care less about those folks, because they tend not to vote for Democrats anyway.  

Thursday, May 21, 2015


Proving the point once again that this entire ‘climate change’ malarkey is simply nothing more than some cockamamie leftwing con, it has now come to light that at least three foreign countries may be changing their historical weather data in order to show warming trends.  This according to a scientist in the field.  Dr. H. Sterling Burnett of the Heartland Institute claims in a story that Australia, Paraguay, and Switzerland have each altered their data in an effort to prove global warming is real.

Dr. Burnett writes, "Switzerland joins a growing list of countries whose temperature measurements have been adjusted to show greater warming than actually measured by its temperature instruments."  And then he goes on to say, "In previous editions of Climate Change Weekly, I reported weather bureaus in Australia and Paraguay were caught adjusting datasets from their temperature gauges. After the adjustment, the temperatures reported were consistently higher than those actually recorded."

Citing a report from Swiss Science journalist Markus Schär, Burnett writes that Switzerland altered its weather data and now it shows a "doubling of the temperature trend."  He goes on to write, "For example, in Sion and Zurich, [the Swiss Meteorological Service] adjustments resulted in a doubling of the temperature trend."  He adds, "Schär notes there has been an 18-year-pause in rising temperatures, even with data-tampering. As a result, Schär calls the adjustments a 'propaganda trick, and not a valid trend.'"

In March, it was reported that U.S. government scientists often change weather data, a practice that is neither new nor a secret. Scientists say the data is changed to correct for inaccuracies in testing. Critics say it is a way to show a warming trend, which it has done.  The National Climatic Data Center, or NCDC, pulls every trick in the book to turn the U.S. cooling trend into warming. The raw data shows cooling since the 1920s. NCDC creates a hockey stick of adjustments to reverse the trend.

Global warming skeptics, commonly referred to as “deniers” or “flat-earthers” say it is a man-made scam, while defenders, commonly referred to as “environmentalist wackos”, of the phenomenon point to evidence in weather data, which is apparently being changed in countries across the world.  Bill Nye, who hosted a popular children's show in the 1990s, told Rutgers University graduates over the weekend that global warming is real.  "So, hey deniers — cut it out, and let's get to work," Nye said.

The ones who need to, using Mr. Nye’s words, cut it out, are those like Mr. Nye, himself, who insist upon perpetuating what is nothing more than one of the most diabolical scams of all time.  And what is the worst part of all is they know full well that what they are peddling is nothing more than a lie.  And while there is very little actual science that supports their apocalyptic claims, that does not prevent them from looking us all straight in the eye as they tell us we are destroying our planet. 


Now you would think that since we are talking about she who is proclaimed to be the smartest woman on the planet, at least by those on the left, the list of her accomplishments would be many, varied and relatively easy to list.  But apparently such is not the case.  Because when Bloomberg Politics’ Mark Halperin recently asked a panel of 10 Iowa Democrats to name just one significant accomplishment, not one could name a single accomplishment that could be claimed by Democrat presidential candidate Hitlery Clinton while she served as our secretary of state.

But wait how can that be?  They just weren’t trying, right?  Well, apparently such is not the case.  It was in a video that was aired on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” this past Wednesday that Halperin is seen asking one panelist, “What did she accomplish that you consider significant as secretary of state?”

“As secretary of state?” the panelist repeated, before sighing and shaking his head.  “I really can’t name anything off the top of my head.” 

“Give me a minute,” said another, when asked the same question. “Give me two minutes — to go somewhere else!”

“Christina, can you think of something she accomplished as secretary of state that impressed you, or is important?”  Poor Christina simply sat there in silence for 10 seconds before finally admitting that she couldn’t come up with a thing that Hitlery had managed to accomplish during her tenure as secretary of state.

It was left to a young idealistic college-aged man to finally come up with what was some semblance of an answer, albeit a rather idiotic one.  He said, “She’s been in high offices for about 20 years now. I mean, it’s either that, or it’s going to be Scott Walker, you know, taking away — destroying America’s unions.” He did admit however, “She’s not perfect.”  And then went on to say, “But she’s been in the eye for a long time, been in the public’s eye, and you’re going to have some stuff on her. But she has good policies and she knows how to get stuff done.”

Get stuff done?  What planet is this moron from?  This is exactly the sort of starry-eyed lunacy that old Hitlery is counting on, and one that the state-controlled media will be only too happy to propagate.  Democrats as a whole care very little about the actual qualifications possessed by their candidates.  All that really matters to them is which candidate promises to give them the most ‘free’ stuff.  As I have said before the Democrat are but one election away from fulfilling their vision for America.  And if the clones on this panel are any example, we’re worse off than I thought.

As much as I hate to admit it, I’ve nearly given up on the American people.  Too many have allowed themselves to become not much more than parasites.  Most would now rather live off others than to take any amount of responsibility for their own lives.  Laziness has become pervasive, ingrained even, and work has become something to avoid, nearly at all costs.  The American work ethic has become all but extinct.  All of which dramatically increases the odds that Hitlery, or some other Democrat, will be able to very easily waltz right into the Oval Office come 2017.  

Let’s face it, whether it was as a senator, a secretary of state, or even as first lady, Hitlery Clinton was nothing more than a colossal failure and an unmitigated disaster the likes of which has not been seen in many of our lifetimes.  Everything she has ever touched has almost immediately turned to shit.  Unless of course we discussing her many efforts to weaken our country while at the same time enriching herself.  And yet for the vast majority of Democrats all of that seems to matter very little, if at all.  If she is elected as president, our children will be doomed to a life spent in darkness. 

Wednesday, May 20, 2015


Barry has no problem telling us that what we now face from the terrorist group, ISIS, is what he calls a generational problem.  In other words, the battle against this group is likely to last through the next generation.  And apparently he has no problem with that.  Meanwhile, at the same time that he tells us that the problem we face from “global warming/climate change/climate disruption” is not only a far more dangerous one, but it is also a far more immediate one, and one that is in urgent need of being addressed.  It’s one that requires that we act now, as there is literally no time to waste as it’s a problem that simply cannot wait.  Now is it me or do Barry’s priorities seem to be more than just a little outta wack?  Because to me it sounds like he has things exactly backwards.  But what would be new about that?

It was earlier today that Barry saw it as important enough to warn graduates of the Coast Guard Academy that their biggest fears should be about climate change, citing its specific dangers to national security.  He said, “I am here today to say that climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security, and, make no mistake, it will impact how our military defends our country.”  His words sounded eerily reminiscent, it was in 2014 Barry said, “When I think about the array of global climate – of global threats – think about this: terrorism, epidemics, poverty, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction – all challenges that know no borders – the reality is that climate change ranks right up there with every single one of them.”

Speaking to graduates today, Barry put forth the claim that climate change will “change the nature of U.S. military missions” predicting widespread humanitarian problems around the world.  Barry said, “Climate change, especially rising seas, is a threat to our homeland security — our economy, infrastructure, and the safety and health of the American people.”  And in doing his best to sound the alarm, Barry then went on to say, “Climate change will impact every country on the planet.  No nation is immune. So I am here today to say that climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security, and, make no mistake, it will impact how our military defends our country. And so we need to act— and we need to act now.” 

But he didn’t stop there.  Barry told all those in attendance, “You are part of the first generation of officers to begin your service in a world where the effects of climate change are so clearly upon us.”  And went on to say,  “Climate change will shape how every one of our services plan, operate, train, equip, and protect their infrastructure, today and for the long-term… Climate change poses a threat to the readiness of our forces.”  And then, I guess in what was an attempt to create the impression that there is some theoretical danger from supposed rapidly rising sea level, he said, “Many of our military installations are on the coast, including, of course, our Coast Guard stations.”  But it’s all nothing more than a bunch of bullshit.  And frankly, you have to be pretty stupid to buy into any of it.

And then in what I guess was some sort of an attempt to hit the point home, the White House has released an eleven-page document listing the different ways global warming will affect national security. The White House warns that troops must be ready for extreme weather, sea level rise, droughts, food shortages, violent conflicts, climate refugees and the list goes on.  According to this specific document, “Climate change will change the nature of U.S. military missions, demand more resources in the Arctic and other coastal regions vulnerable to rising sea levels and other impacts, and require a multilateral response to the growing humanitarian crises that climate change is predicted to bring.”

Secretary of State John Kerry-Heinz joined has Barry in highlighting the national security concerns of global warming, also making sure to criticize anyone who “doubts” that man-made global warming was real.  Kerry-Heinz said in a statement, “Anyone who doubts that confronting climate change is a national security issue should have sat in the meetings I just had in Asia, where it was a primary topic of discussion with every one of my interlocutors, alongside other security issues like [North Korea] and violent extremism.”  He added, “And that’s true around the world.”  He went on to say, “So now it’s time to put aside discredited scientific arguments and partisan politics and to focus on the facts — not just for our health and the health of our children but for our planet’s security as well.”

Ever since the midterm elections, Barry has spent more time discussing the issue of ‘climate change’, particularly in the light of national security.  As recently as this past February Barry went so far as to put forth the argument that the media “absolutely” overstated the threat of terrorism compared to more long-term problems such as climate change.  This has also been a theme advanced by Secretary of State John Kerry-Heinz on a number of occasions.  Kerry-Heinz has actually gone so far as to frequently refer to climate change as being as great a threat as those posed by radical Islamic terrorists.  That essentially takes insanity to a whole new level.  Because while there is very little actual scientific data that tells us climate change is real, you see the threat posed by Islamic terrorists, right before your eyes, every night on the news.

Tuesday, May 19, 2015


Enough already with the “Bush Lied” claims.  From both sides!  From any number of Democrats who continue in their attempts to rewrite history in an effort to make it appear as if they knew all along that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, to many in the current field of Republican 2016 candidates, and soon to be candidates, who appear to be only too eager to throw George W. Bush under the bus in what, I guess, is an effort to make it appear as if ‘they’ would have never taken the nation to war in the first place.  Look, there is plenty of criticism that can be leveled against George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003, but the one critique that simply does not hold water is that he somehow deliberately mislead (lied to) the country about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction. 

With the new cool question to ask any of the Republican 2016 contenders, and even perspective contenders, now being, “knowing what we know now, would you have invaded Iraq,” the debate about pre-Iraq war intelligence has once again come to the forefront.  Predictably, some liberals have used the occasion to again trot out the wholly dishonest spin that the Bush administration concocted evidence and pressured the intelligence community into saying that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.  Here’s Peter Beinart, someone known for being an American political pundit and who actually supported the Iraq war, has been busying himself propagating this sort of idiotic drivel most recently courtesy of a piece in ‘The Atlantic’.  According to Mr. Beinart:

“To understand how ludicrous that position is, it’s worth remembering a few things. First, the evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was extremely weak. Yes, the U.S. government in October 2002 produced a National Intelligence Estimate that appeared to suggest Iraq had chemical and biological weapons and a nuclear-weapons program. But a 2004 Senate review concluded that “most of the major key judgments in the Intelligence Community’s October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) … either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting.” The NIE, which was produced under intense pressure from White House and Pentagon officials seeking a justification for war, painted a far more menacing picture of Iraq’s WMD programs than had previous U.S. assessments. As the head of British intelligence famously remarked, “intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” The unclassified summary of the NIE was also far more categorical than the full, classified version, which, according to Florida Senator Bob Graham, was “pocked with dissent, conditions, [and] minority opinions on a variety of critical issues.” After reading the full NIE, Graham voted against authorizing war. Unfortunately, by one estimate, only a half-dozen other senators bothered to do so.”

Now if any of this was true that would be one thing, but there is very little, if any, truth in any of Beinart’s rather idiotic rant.  It is little more than one man’s purposeful attempt to recast past events so as to more favorably agree with Democrat rhetoric, to rewrite history in such a way as to create the perception, at least, that the rationale for going into Iraq was based on nothing more than a lie of the worst kind and perpetrated by Bush and others in his administration.  But let’s not forget the fact that Democrats dating back to the Clinton administration also believed that Iraq had stockpiles of WMDs based on the intelligence they saw.  But the evidence against this lie is so much greater than that. And the debunking of this recurring myth has been underway now for a number of years.  For instance:

1.) Read the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s W.M.D programs. “Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade,” the report reads. The report goes on to say it has “high confidence” that “Iraq possesses proscribed chemical and biological weapons and missiles” and “Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year once it acquires sufficient weapons-grad fissile material.”

2.) Read Bob Woodard’s account of then-CIA director’s George Tenet’s briefing of the George W. Bush on the eve of the Iraq war. According to the Washington Post journalist, Tenet told Bush that it was a “slam dunk case” that Iraq had W.M.D.s. Tenet later said he was taken out of context, but that doesn’t seem to be the case and, in any event, Tenet doesn’t deny he was fundamentally confident that Iraq possessed W.M.D.s.

3.) General Tommy Franks, who led the invasion of Iraq in 2003, writes in his book that he was not only told by Egyptian and Jordanian leaders that Iraq possessed W.M.D.s, he was also told that Saddam would use them against invading American troops.

4.) Former CIA agent Kenneth Pollock has noted that the world’s most vaunted intelligence agencies, including some of those who opposed the war in Iraq, all believed Saddam Hussein possessed W.M.D.s. These include the intelligence agencies of Germany, Israel, Russia, Britain, China and France.

5.) As Barry “Almighty” contemplated whether to authorize the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, he was told by CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell that the evidence indicating that Iraq had W.M.D.s before the Iraq war was “much stronger” than the evidence that bin Laden was living in the Abbottabad compound. “And I’m telling you, the case for W.M.D. wasn’t just stronger—it was much stronger,” he told the president.

In fact, Morell recently published a book where he reiterates the aforementioned point and emphatically states that the Bush administration did not pressure the CIA whatsoever to conclude there were WMDs in Iraq.  A book in which he writes:  “The view that hardliners in the Bush administration forced the intelligence community into its position on WMD is just flat wrong.”  And he goes on to say, “No one pushed. The analysts were already there and they had been there for years, long before Bush came to office.” Which oddly enough, or maybe not so oddly, is similar to the conclusion of 2005’s bipartisan Robb-Silberman Commission.  The report states, “[W]e closely examined the possibility that intelligence analysts were pressured by policymakers to change their judgments about Iraq’s nuclear, biological, chemical weapons programs.”

It’s this very same report also goes on to say, “The analysts who worked Iraqi weapons issues universally agreed that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments.”  And in going back to Morell’s book, he writes, “An NIE represents the authoritative view of the entire intelligence community on an issue. They are carefully considered. The coordination sessions among the analysts are rigorous and NIEs are approved by the leadership of each agencies in the community.”  As for the conclusions laid out in the NIE that Iraq had stockpiles of WMDs, “there was little controversy” within the intelligence community, Morell continued.

And in his book Morell says, “One agency, the State Department’s intelligence shop, dissented on one aspect of the paper, the nuclear question, but agreed on all others because almost everyone who had looked at the issue — from intelligence services around the world to think tanks and the United Nations itself — had come to the same conclusion,” he went on. “There were no outliers, no group with a different view. No one to force a broader debate that might have led to a more rigorous assessment on the part of the analysts. Group think turned out to be part of the problem.”  And Beinart, in referring to the Downing Street Memo, mentions that a British analyst argued in 2002 that “intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy” of removing Saddam Hussein from power.  But even that’s not much of a leg to stand on.      

So criticize Bush’s decision to go into Iraq all you want. But the evidence was what it was. Our intelligence community got it wrong about Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction. Bush didn’t lie, nor did his administration pressure the intelligence community into concluding what it said about WMDs.  And wouldn’t it be nice if I could say, and with some confidence, that it was only those on the left who can’t seem to stop falsifying history.  Sadly, it’s also many on our side who are also revisionists in their own way, apparently in the hope of scoring some cheap political points as they go about trying to convince the American people of their viability.  Which, and I hate to disappoint them, does absolutely nothing to convince me that I should vote for any of these pathetic political opportunists.