.

.

Sunday, January 31, 2016

IF SOMETHING SOUNDS TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE, IS IT???


There’s an old adage that says, “If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.”  And it’s an adage, I think, that is very applicable when looking over the list of 2016 candidates for president, on both sides.  Being a conservative myself I am far more concerned with those running under the Republican banner than the three socialist stooges we have on the left who actually have the nerve to still refer to themselves as Democrats.  But then I suppose it’s only fair to say that there are a few Republicans, referred to as ‘establishment’ candidates or ‘RINOs’, who also tend to lean a bit too far to the left to be seen as acceptable by most Republican voters.

Personally I find myself facing a bit of a quandary as I try to decide who it is that I will vote for in my state’s primary.  And then there comes the business of deciding whether to vote for the nominee should he, or she, not be who I voted for in the primary.  Decisions, decisions!  Now I will admit that there is currently less than a handful of candidates that I am currently even considering voting for, having disqualified the others some time ago.  And the few that remain, while they tend to say all of the right things, how much of what they say, can one actually believe?  And to think that one can, or should, take what they say at face value, is simply foolish.

As we all know, those who reside on the left, and especially those on the far left, are a rather lazy bunch.  They prove that, repeatedly, by constantly choosing to vote for whichever candidate it is that promises to give them the most ‘free’ stuff.  And what’s really funny about these morons on the left, those for whom they choose to vote don’t even need to deliver but on just enough to make sure their voters fall for the very same charade in the next election.  Obviously the majority of those who vote for Democrats tend to be ignorant, lazy and rather uninformed, which is just the way Democrat candidates prefer it.  It makes their supporters all the more malleable.

However, I think it safe to say that, that under normal circumstances, those of us on the right tend to pride ourselves on being a bit better informed and willing to ask the tough questions of our candidates.  Having said that, I’m far from certain that the 2016 election can be referred to as being anywhere a near normal event.  Those of on the right got rather badly burned in 2010, even more so in 2012 and again, and even more so, in 2014.  We allowed ourselves to be fooled in 2010 and then proceeded to compound our original error by falling for essentially the same promises again in 2012 and to an even greater degree in 2014.  In short, we behaved like those on the left.

Which brings me to the 2016 election.  Because of the previous three elections we have been conditioned, more or less, to ignore those considered to be ‘establishment’ candidate and have thus widened our search to those outside the generally accepted pool of candidates.  And in so doing have we may have let our guard down. Because while many of these ‘outside the beltway’ candidates may say much of what we the voters want to hear, are we only once again being lead down that proverbial primrose path?  Are these candidates simply too good to be true?  Can we trust them to follow through with the promises being made?  Or, are we once again being played for fools? 

Saturday, January 30, 2016

JOHN KERRY-HEINZ DECLARES, THE PRESIDENT IS ‘NOT’ ABOVE THE LAW…


It was while speaking at the official opening of a new Democrat Party branch office, aka The Washington Post’s new headquarters, just this past Thursday that Secretary of State John Kerry-Heinz said that the paper had once “proved that not even the president of the United States is above the law.”  Before making this remarks, Kerry-Heinz also made note of the fact that ‘Watergate’ reporter Bob Woodward was in attendance.  He then alluded to the movie “All the President’s Men,” which was based on the book bearing the same title that was authored by Woodward and his Watergate reporting partner, Carl Bernstein.  I’ve always wondered if these two enterprising young ‘journalists’ would have been anywhere near as energetic in their efforts if Nixon had been a Democrat.  Somehow, I think not!

Here’s a little excerpt from Kerry-Heinz’s speech: 

“Now, all of you here know–I think Bob Woodward is here somewhere. I saw him. There he is, right here, Bob.

When the Post last time inaugurated its headquarters, it was 1972, and the White House was slamming this paper’s coverage of a certain third-rate burglary. And a year earlier, the Nixon administration had tried, passionately, to stop the publishing of the Pentagon Papers. And for many of us, this was a formative moment in our political lives and in our lives, period. Make no mistake, one reason that so many people in the media today are prepared to tell the truth, to stand up to powerful interests, is precisely because The Washington Post proved that not even the President of the United States is above the law.”

While such a statement may have, at one time, been considered as being true, it’s when reviewing the actions of our current president, over the course of the last seven years, that it becomes painfully clear, and in relatively short order, that that no longer seems to be the case.  And if Kerry-Heinz truly does choose to stand behind that statement then how is it that he is able to explain why the many scandals of Barry “Almighty” haven’t resulted in impeachment?  I can only assume that Kerry-Heinz sees absolutely nothing that warrants our current Democrat president actually being charged with the breaking of any laws.  But I suspect that if it were a Republican who had committed even one of the many infractions that have been committed by Barry, Kerry-Heinz would be singing a very different song. 

Because Barry has, over the course of his presidency, succeeded in setting the bar  when it comes to the level of illegal activity that can originate from the Oval Office. After all Barry “Almighty”:

Breaks "the law of the land" (the 'Constitution') at least once a week.
Has 'spent' money when the congress controls the 'purse'.
Has (literally) written law. 'Law' must be written by the House.
Has (literally) changed law.
Has gone around 'Congress' rather than work with them using executive orders to so.
Has 'chosen' (literally) which 'laws' he will demand to be enforced and that WILL NOT.
Has (literally) gifted U.S. sovereignty to every nation counter to our own best interests with treaties and just plain not enforcing the law.
Has (literally) PROVIDED weapons to drug cartels and our enemies in a 14 year old war.

Now keep in mind that this is but the 'short' list of Barry’s rather impressive accomplishments/offenses which have taken place in a relatively short span of time, historically speaking.  And also, let’s not forget that Barry has just shy of one more year in office.  And since Congress has proven itself to be quite derelict in its duty, as has the Supreme Court, when it comes to implementing the 'checks and balances' they possess to counter Barry’s many abuses of 'power', Barry likely isn’t through yet.  What Kerry-Heinz "IS" using here "IS" a commonly understood tactic of 'projection' to 'reframe' or 'deflect' the truth by playing the card up front. This "IS" classical political out maneuvering. Unfortunately, this administration has used it with such frequency that it has exposed itself for what it "IS".  The EXACT opposite of what he's 'saying'.

And I find it quite amazing how it is that Kerry-Heinz can so easily, even nonchalantly, ignore the rather long list of rather diabolical scandals that have come to surround Barry “Almighty” as well as his entire administration.  From the IRS targeting, to Fast and Furious, to Hitlery’s email server and cover-up as well as all the abuses by Hitlery with her Clinton Foundation slush fund, the blatant violations of Obamacare, the VA scandal and cover up, etc, etc.  Interesting how he dwells on Watergate when there are so many scandals and abuses of the law laying right at his feet.  Scandals that so completely overshadow a second-rate burglary that would result in the resignation of a president.  And so it would seem that we have no modern day versions of Woodward and Bernstein who feel at all compelled to pursue any of them.  What a shame!

Friday, January 29, 2016

HITLERY CLINTON AND HER CONTINUING EMAIL SAGA…


We should have all heard by now the near endless nauseating denials coming from Democrat frontrunner Hitlery Clinton about how she is very confident that she never knowingly sent or received any classified information using her private email server and that she never sent any information that was ‘marked’ classified.  And yet it was just today that the Obama administration confirmed, for the first time, that Hitlery's unsecured home server contained some of the U.S. government's most closely guarded secrets, censoring 22 emails with material demanding one of the highest levels of classification.  So it would seem that someone is certainly lying, but who?

Now those of us brighter than your average Hilery Clinton supporter have known pretty much all along that Hitlery was lying through her pearly white, so this most recent revelation regarding Hitlery’s continuing email ‘problem’ did little more than to confirm really what we’ve already known all along.  And don’t you have to wonder if it’s some sort of weird coincidence that this revelation comes out just three days before the Iowa presidential nominating caucuses in which Hitlery is a candidate.  Might it be some sort of clandestine attempt by Barry to throw Hitlery under the bus at the most inopportune time?  Or am I simply reading way too much into it?

And then The Associated Press (AP) learned that seven email chains are being withheld in full because they contain information deemed to be "Top Secret."  The 37 pages include messages recently described by a key intelligence official as concerning so-called "special access programs", a highly restricted subset of classified material that could point to confidential sources or clandestine programs like drone strikes or government eavesdropping.  Department officials wouldn't describe the substance of the emails, or say if Hitlery sent any herself. And they also wouldn't disclose if any of the documents reflected information that was classified at the time of transmission.

State Department spokesmoron John Kirby described the decision to withhold documents in full as "not unusual."  It was in so doing that Kirby said, "The documents are being upgraded at the request of the intelligence community because they contain a category of top secret information."  Apparently that means they won't be published online with the rest of the documents, even with blacked-out boxes.  Barry will also withhold a number of Hitlery’s emails because they are considered “too damaging” for public consumption and the State Department will withhold 18 emails exchanged between then Secretary Hitlery and Barry himself.  Imagine that!

The emails have been a continuing source of irritation for Hitlery's campaign ever since it became known 10 months ago that she exclusively used a nongovernment account linked to a homebrew server while in office.  Hitlery first called the decision a matter of convenience and then later termed it as being a mistake, even if doing so wasn't expressly forbidden. But the matter could prove more troublesome now that Hitlery's former agency has confirmed that business conducted over the account included Top-Secret matters.  Because like Hitlery, the State Department discounted such a possibility last March.  And now we find out something quite different.

The FBI is looking into Hitlery's email setup, but has said nothing about the nature of its probe. Independent experts say it is highly unlikely that Hitlery will be charged with wrongdoing, based on the limited details that have surfaced up to now.  But legal questions aside, it's the potential political costs that are probably of more immediate concern for Hitlery. She has struggled in surveys measuring her perceived trustworthiness and an active federal investigation, especially one buoyed by evidence that Top Secret material coursed through her account, could negate one of her main selling points for becoming commander in chief: Her national security resume.

Thursday, January 28, 2016

DEMOCRAT BOBBY RUSH SAYS CONGRESS NEEDS TO INVESTIGATE COPS…


Far too many of those who, strangely enough, are viewed as being ‘leaders’ of the black community, as well as most Democrat politicians, expend what is an inordinate amount of time and effort in trying to make their point that there can be only one possible explanation for the fact that more young blacks find themselves incarcerated or more often, than whites, find themselves being questioned by a police officer for what are claimed to be minor offenses.  That explanation is, of course, racism.  But to do so is to take the denying of reality to astronomical heights.  While I will admit that there are instances where racism can said to be factor, if we are being honest, we would have to admit that those instances are remarkably few.   

Rep. Bobby Rush, a Democrat, is one of those black ‘leaders’ who sees all police officers as racists.  Not only that, but now he wants the House to create a select committee to investigate “the unjustified use of lethal and excessive force by police officers against African-Americans.”  And it was earlier this month that Rep. Rush introduced a resolution that would create a select panel similar to the one reviewing the attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi in 2012.  His resolution states, “This past year alone we have seen 7 different incidents of the unjustified use of lethal and excessive force by police officers against African- Americans.”  What makes this guy able to determine the level of force justified in a given situation?

This resolution goes on to say, “It is the will of the Congress that a select committee be formed to investigate these patterns of excessive use of force in communities of color.”  And then it continues, “There is hereby established in the House of Representatives the Select Committee on Excessive Use of Police Force.”  And I’m pretty sure that it’ll come as a surprise to no one to hear that 9 other representatives from that rather odd assortment of misfits, the Congressional Black Caucus, have now signed on as co-sponsors of Rush’s idiotic little measure.  And yet, it’s this very same group that has cheerfully sold millions of their fellow blacks into eternal bondage to the Democrat Party and in exchange for what, a little political clout?

Rush and those who have now signed onto his silly resolution, seek only to exploit their own people.  Because the truth is blacks tend to bring more attention to themselves through their own bad behavior.  And this trend is far from anything new.  For instance, it was back in the late 1950's in Detroit that someone decided to dare the local newspaper to list the daily crimes committed by race as a way to prove that whites in Detroit were committing just as many crimes as were blacks. The newspaper was only too happy to accept the dare.  On the front page it showed the number of arrest for blacks and then whites.  After three days the paper ceased doing this because it was becoming embarrassing for blacks. It was like 100 to 3 each day.

And it’s these hypocrites like Rush who do a great disservice to members of the black community when they chose to ignore the obvious and they are more than a bit disingenuous when they claim to wonder why it is that blacks get arrested more often than do whites and continue to have issues with the police. The real reason is that blacks are very often the ones committing the majority of the crimes.  When you get right down to it the black community has been on a steady decline for the last 50 years, to the point where today it is in such a shambles that many young blacks feel they have no alternative but to turn to crime.  And yet men like Rush continue to insist that all of the blame rests with the police and none rests with young blacks.

Wednesday, January 27, 2016

IT WOULD SEEM THAT HISTORY TENDS TO SIDE WITH THE ‘CLIMATE CHANGE’ SKEPTICS…


So, as Mr. Peabody and his trusty sidekick Sherman used to do, let us jump into our own ‘Wayback Machine’ and take a journey back in time to 2006, to that specific point in time when Al Gore was at the Sundance Film Festival premiering his global warming ‘documentary’ entitled, ‘An Inconvenient Truth’.  And once there we will hear Al introduce his film with a dire warning to those in attendance.  He will say that unless something is done, and done fast, the Earth will be speeding toward what will be its man-caused ruin.

And Mr. Gore will then go on to make an even more specific prediction about things to come, making the claim that if the world continued to ignore the issue and refuse to take steps necessary to reduce greenhouse gases within the next 10 years, "the world will reach a point of no return."  And then in returning back the present and to the 2016 Sundance Film Festival earlier this month, strangely enough we can find no one walking the red carpet in solar-safety suits. So it would seem that Gore’s prediction was more than just a little off.

But then, of course, being wrong has never stopped the former vice president, or any of the other ‘climate change’ enthusiasts’, from continuing with his environmental crusade. Al Gore still flies privately all over the world in fuel-guzzling jets to spread his message of reducing carbon emissions.  And when not painting the sky with vapor trails, Gore can be found in one of his many climate-controlled mansions writing speeches and books, or spotted riding in a cavalcade of SUVs to get coffee or to make a personal appearance.

Really, you would think that old Al would be glad that he was so wrong, because it just gives him just that much more time to profit even more off of his continuing apocalyptic gibberish.  Even now, he's gathering "experts" to hightail it over to the Philippines this year for yet another climate summit. And you’d think that if these ‘climate change’ wackos were going to continue to make such wild-assed predictions, they could save themselves a lot of embarrassment by predicting well out into the future long after they’re dead. 

But nope!  Not even after what were some hysterically wrong, and incredibly apocalyptic, predictions that were made on that very first Earth Day back in 1970.  Among them being the end of civilization within 15-30 years, 100-200 million deaths due to starvation annually for ten years, urban dwellers having to wear gas masks to survive, and an ice age by the year 2000.  And yet, here we are in 2016 with the most serious threat that we’ve had to survive being the presidency of one Barack Hussein Obama.

Tuesday, January 26, 2016

RACISM...OR JUST A BUNCH OF CRYBABY ACTORS WITH A SENSE OF ENTITLEMENT???


Everyone’s favorite faux preacher, Al ‘Not-So’ Sharpton, has now seen fit to insert himself into this growing conspiracy against black actors that is being called the #OscarsSoWhite campaign.  Sharpton has now called upon all Americans to "tune out" of the 88th Academy Awards next month. He also vows to use his bogus ‘civil rights’ group referred to as the National Action Network, to drive down 2016 viewing figures and reduce the US Academy’s advertising revenue. Sharpton has backed calls for a boycott of the 2016 Oscars over the US Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences’ failure to nominate a single actor of color for the second year running.

Sharpton, who also happens to be Barry “Almighty’s’ advisor on all matters having to do with discrimination, real or imagined, said Hollywood had “locked out” people from black and ethnic minority backgrounds. He said, “To me, it is clear that they think they can get away with this as a pattern.”  Al went on to say, “We must escalate our feelings and we must escalate our activism to now, in my view, affect the bottom line, because mere conversations and appeals don’t seem to reap any benefits or change for the community at large.”  Sharpton then went on to say, “You must remember that people of color are 40% of movie ticket buyers.”  

Sharpton said, “We are not asking for favors here; we are supporting an industry that has now … locked us out. They have a policy they won’t correct. Even the president of the Academy says that something needs to be done.” ‘Not-So’, who labelled Hollywood “fraudulent” following last week’s announcement of an all-white list of acting nominees, said his boycott would aim to hit the Academy in the pocket by reducing viewing figures and therefore advertising revenues.  But if I’m not mistaking, viewership of the Oscars, as with most other awards shows, has been declining, and pretty steadily so, over the last few years anyway.     

He said, “I’m not saying that we want to select who is nominated or wins, but if you are telling me out of best actor, best actress, best supporting actor, best supporting actress – out of 40 slots, two years in a row, that there are no blacks and no browns who rose to a level of being considered, that’s hard to believe.”  He added,  “That’s unacceptable. Then I have the right to say, ‘You know what, you can do what you want, but you won’t do it with my support.’ Let’s see if advertisers and others think that you are as attractive to pay those high fees if they know that sizeable portions of the population will not be watching your show the night it airs.”

Sharpton started shooting his mouth off after Jada Pinkett-Smith, Spike Lee and Michael Moore all said they would not be attending the 2016 ceremony in protest at the Oscars’ diversity deficit.  Pinkett Smith, who first raised the prospect of a boycott over the weekend, tweeted on Tuesday that she would “look forward to the future”, after Academy president Cheryl Boone Isaacs released a statement saying she was “heartbroken and frustrated” by the all-white nominations and vowing to improve diversity among the Academy’s membership. It was not clear if Pinkett Smith and her husband Will Smith would attend next month’s ceremony.

And then there was Lupita Nyong’o who, or so I’m told, won a best supporting actress Oscar in 2014 for her turn in the drama Twelve Years a Slave.  She chose to vent her frustration via Instagram.  So on Wednesday morning she took to the web to announce her support for improving diversity.  She wrote, “I am disappointed by the lack of inclusion in this year’s Academy Awards nominations,” she wrote. “It has me thinking about unconscious prejudice and what merits prestige in our culture. The Awards should not dictate the terms of art in our modern society, but rather be a diverse reflection of the best of what our art has to offer today.”

And it was Whoopi Goldberg who was heard to say on her imbecilic little television show ‘The View’ that Hollywood’s problems went way beyond this year’s all-white list of acting nominees.  She said, “It’s not that the people doing the nominating are too white.”  And she went on to say, “The problem is, people who can help to make movies that have blacks and Latinos and women and all that, that money doesn’t come to you because the idea is that there’s no place for black movies. There has never been, in the history of movies, a plethora of black movies made because people believe we don’t want to see movies with black people in them.”

So what do you suppose is it that will make these poor, distraught black actors feel better about themselves.  How about if we cease with all these ‘Best’ awards and simply hand out to all who take part in making a movie, no matter how good or how bad, “Participation Oscars.’  That way everyone would get an award and no one’s feelings would be hurt.  Because, frankly, I’m getting pretty tired of these Hollywood losers telling me that this entire problem stems from the fact that my country is racist.  If in fact it is racism that’s the problem, I would argue that it is less about my country and more with Hollywood.  Why’s it the country’s fault?

Personally I could really give a shit less about any of these overpaid crybabies.  I stopped watching stupid awards shows decades ago.  And the skin color of those nominated, or not nominated, really had nothing to with my decision to tune them all out.  I simply came to see all of these imbecilic entertainers as being, quite frankly, pretty boring.  And I got tired of them interjecting their leftist politics into everything.  When it became less about being a way for us, the ‘fans’, to cheer for our favorites and more about political propaganda, I just stopped watching.  So at this point if people want to boycott they can go right ahead, it’ll have no impact on me.   

Monday, January 25, 2016

REGARDING THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT, BIGGER IS ‘NEVER’ BETTER!!!


Knowing as we all do the caliber of most of those individuals currently under the employ of our federal government, as well as our state and local governments, do we really need a poll pointing out our government’s less than stellar problem solving abilities?  Personally, I would argue that we most certainly do not.  But, be that as it may, there was apparently someone, in their infinite wisdom, who thought that just such a poll was indeed needed.  And as most of us likely expected, as the first voting nears in this the 2016 presidential contest, it seems that most Americans have little or no confidence in the federal government’s ability to confront what they see as being the country's most important priorities.

So it was then than this past December ‘The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research’ conducted such a poll in an effort to essentially confirm that which the vast majority of Americans were already convinced of.  And what the poll found out was that more than 6 in 10 respondents expressed only slight confidence — or none at all — that the federal government can make any amount of progress when it comes to any of the more problems facing the nation in 2016. Terrorism edged health care as the issue most often mentioned — each by about one-third of those questioned — when people were asked to volunteer the issues they believe Washington should address this election year.

The polling would at least seem to suggest an electorate that is more focused on the economy and domestic affairs than on foreign policy. Two-thirds of respondents included an economic issue on their priority list, and about 4 in 5 named a domestic policy other than the economy.  In addition to those who mentioned terrorism, nearly half added another foreign policy matter, and immigration was the next most frequent topic raised.  And perhaps most vexing for the dozen or so candidates vying to succeed Barry “Almighty”, the poll indicates widespread skepticism about the government's ability to solve problems, with no significant difference in the outlook between Republicans and Democrats.

There were those who took part in this poll that were of the opinion that members of Congress are essentially unable to pass anything of importance, or that isn’t grossly self-serving, and were therefore not at all confident about seeing any solutions coming about in 2016.  And there were some who while they admitted to possessing some level of confidence in our government’s problem solving ability, bemoaned a system of lobbyists paid thousands upon thousands of dollars to get Congress to do what they want instead of what the people want.  And some described the executive branch as a bureaucratic behemoth and the legislative branch as an endlessly partisan wrangle saying that’s why government can't get anything done.

Along with terrorism and health care, respondents were most likely to cite immigration, education and unemployment as priorities.  Democrats and Republicans were about equally likely to mention unemployment, though there was a racial disparity, with more blacks mentioning the issue than whites.  Also, Republicans were more likely than Democrats to cite terrorism as a priority, and Immigration was mentioned by twice as many Republicans as Democrats.  One-fifth of Republicans mentioned the federal budget deficit, compared with less than a one-tenth of Democrats.  Democrats were more likely to consider guns as public policy priority, along with education, crime, racial problems, the environment and climate change.

Many of those breakdowns reflect the separate debates now playing out in the presidential race.  The GOP field, led by rather vocal candidates like Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, characterizes Barry “Almighty” as being an irresponsible, profligate manager of taxpayer resources, and unable to ensure national security and protect U.S. interests amid international threats and strife. The leading Democrat candidates, Hitlery Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders, are focused more directly on economic matters, both framing themselves as supposed defenders of the middle class.  Sanders rails against the disproportionate economic and political power of the nation's wealthiest individuals and corporations.

While the candidates may work to reflect the priorities of their respective bases, many if the respondents taking part this poll said they really haven't heard much of anything that improves their outlook when it comes to those things of most concern to them actually being addressed.  And there was some level of agreement in that Trump or Sanders would offer what was described as being "the most radical change" from the status quo, but there were many who didn’t particularly like what either of these men has been saying.  And many admitted, exhibiting some level of frustration, that it was extremely likely that 95 percent of Congress will get re-elected anyway.  An assessment that is very likely to prove pretty accurate.

THE ‘INCREDIBLY SPACEY’, MR. KEVIN SPACEY…


Well it would seem that we have yet another Hollywood luminaries who is not partial to Donald Trump.  This time it’s Kevin Spacey, who plays President Frank Underwood on House of Cards, who has now offered his opinion of the 2016 presidential race.  And it’s according to Spacey that Donald Trump’s campaign reminds him of George Wallace’s independent campaign in 1968.  Apparently Spacy was interested in politics at an early age, as he was the ripe old age of 9 when Wallace represented the American Independent Party in the 1968 presidential race.  Of course Spacey fails to mention that Wallace ran for the nomination of Spacey’s own Democrat Party in 1964, 1972 and again in 1976.

In making his idiotic comments Spacey said, “I mean, Frank Underwood would look at this particular year and find it as amusing as I do. At the end of the day, the United States has time and again — despite sometimes when we think there’s some crazy shit going down — we generally get it right eventually.” He compared Trump’s campaign to Wallace’s, saying, “It’s exactly the same campaign. I mean, exactly the same.”  Now since I doubt very much that as a 9 year old Spacey was paying much attention to presidential politics I can only guess that the basis for this comparison of his comes from sources other than memory.  Sources that are, most likely, extremely left-leaning in their politics.

This is far from being the first time that Spacey has made his dislike of Trump public.  Last September, in an appearance on the Communist News Network (CNN) it was Dana Bash who then asked him how ‘Underwood’ would beat Donald Trump in the 2016 election, Spacey replied, “He would kill Donald Trump. That’s number one. Trump would never make it to Election Day. Done. Over.”  Now is that really the sort of ‘intelligent’ response that one would expect to hear from someone who wishes to have their opinions taken seriously?  And yet these imbeciles, like Spacey, demand that the American people pay attention to what it is they have to say.  They’re nuts!!

And ya know, I’m sure it goes without saying, Spacey has always been known as being a big supporter of Barry “Almighty”.  It was back in July 2013, that he gushed, “President Obama will go down as having passed some of the most historic bills in the history of this country. That despite constant knee-jerk opposition from the Republicans. A lot of people don’t realize how much he’s done in the most difficult circumstances.”  That the legislation that has been passed during Barry’s tenure can be called ‘historic’ is not in dispute here.  But how much of that legislation has proven to be a benefit to the country and how much has proven to be a benefit to the Democrat Party?

But look, this has become the kind of gibberish that now passes for intelligent conversation whenever we have limousine liberals like Spacey offering up their idiotic opinions on the important issues for the day.  And it’s why most rational, patriotic Americans tend to ignore anything that these imbeciles might have to say.  Hollywood has always been home for communist sympathizers so, I suppose, it should come as no surprise that is remains, today, home for some of the most twisted, left-leaning and drugged out morons that you’ll find anywhere in the country, or anywhere on the planet for that matter.  People who, if they were to live anywhere else, would be penniless.  

Friday, January 22, 2016

ALL I’M SUGGESTING IS THAT A LITTLE CAUTION BE USED WHEN CHOOSING TO SUPPORT TRUMP…


Trust me when I tell you that there is absolutely nothing that would make me happier than to find out that Donald Trump would actually come to prove himself to be the second coming of Ronald Reagan.  But I have this nagging little voice in the back of my head warning me to very wary of Mr. Trump.  And while he most certainly has been saying all the right things, as my dear old dad used to say, “Talk is cheap, it takes money to buy whiskey.”  So at the end of the day I am at the point where I still can’t quite bring myself to vote for Trump as I simply don’t trust him to follow through on so much of what he has promised, and continues to promise.

But be that as it may, as we all know, Trump currently leads, and has been leading, the polls nationally and in most states in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, and essentially since the very first day he declared himself a candidate. And there are certainly some very understandable reasons for his maintaining what has become, in some polls, a very impressive lead.  And while he has shown himself to be a skillful campaigner, I would caution conservatives in offering up their support to Mr. Trump in the caucuses and primaries.  And please don’t misunderstand, I am not saying don’t vote for the man, just that you should think it through first.

Because in looking back over the history of our current Republican front-runner what we see is someone who has been described as being a “philosophically unmoored political opportunist who would trash the broad conservative ideological consensus within the GOP in favor of a free-floating populism with strong-man overtones.”  And upon closer inspection we find that the real-estate mogul and reality-TV star has supported everything from abortion to gun control to single-payer health care à la Canada, and even punitive taxes on the wealthy.  So, again, all I’m asking for folks to do is that a little caution be used when going to the polls.

Now I will admit that since first declaring his candidacy, back in June of last year, Trump has tended to take a more conservative approach than he has in the past.  Particularly on those issues that remain near and dear to the heart of those who closely identify themselves as being conservatives.  And yet, one must admit that there does remain some rather sizable holes in Trump’s plan for addressing some of these issues, most of which tend to go ignored by a great many of his supporters.  He has succeeded in exploiting the discontent regarding a government continues to be seen by many as one that can’t be bothered to enforce its own laws. 

Trump’s mantra since then has been, and remains, one that has as its primary focus that Washington is full of problems, his claim of being a problem-solver and a leader, and a ‘let me at ‘em’ kind of an attitude.  But if, like Trump, you have no real familiarity with the relevant details and the levers of power, and no clear principles to guide you, you will, like most tenderfeet, end up getting rolled. Especially if you are, at least by all outward indications, the most poll-obsessed politician in all of American history. Trump has shown very little interest in limiting government, in reforming entitlements, or in defending our Constitution.

As we have seen after listening to the three Democrat candidates, any candidate can, and usually will, promise the moon if only voters will elect him, or her, to higher office.  But politicians have records of success, of failure, or plain of backsliding by which their promises must be judged. And while Trump can try to turn his blankness into some sort of virtue by referring to it as a kind of innocence, voters need to be taking such a claim with a grain of salt.  Because like a man with no credit history applying for a mortgage, or, in this case, applying to manage a $3.8 Trillion budget and the most fearsome military on earth, Trump may be in over his head.

And if Trump were to become the president, the Republican nominee, or even a failed candidate with strong conservative support, what would that necessarily say about conservatives?   Could it then be said, and with some degree of accuracy, that the movement that ground down the Soviet Union and took the shine, at least temporarily, off socialism would have fallen in behind a huckster?  The movement concerned with such “permanent things” as constitutional government, marriage, and the right to life would have become a claque for a Twitter feed.  Trump, nevertheless, has provided to the Republican Party with a valuable warning.

That being, of course, that if responsible men irresponsibly ignore, or simply refuse to address in any meaningful way, those issues deemed as being most important to those voters who proudly identify as conservative, then those in power should not be surprised when such behavior is then seized upon, and taken advantage of, by someone like Trump.  If they cannot explain their Beltway maneuvers — worse, if their maneuvering is indefensible — they will be rejected by their own voters. If they cannot advance a compelling working-class agenda, the legitimate anxieties and discontents of blue-collar voters will be exploited by demagogues.

And, you know, I totally get the complaints coming from those who call themselves supporters of Trump when it comes to ‘Establishment Republicans”, I really do.  But that doesn’t make him any less of a flawed candidate for them to get behind.  And while I am certainly not going to be telling anyone that they should not vote for Trump, because that’s not my purpose here, what I am asking for is that those of you who do intend to vote for him, at least do some level of research on the man before doing so.  But then, you should be doing that regardless of whomever, Republican or Democrat, it is that you intend on voting for.  

Thursday, January 21, 2016

THAT BASTION OF LEFTWING LUNACY KNOWN AS HOLLYWOOD DECLARES WAR ON TRUMP...


Who is it, other than those who reside on the outer fringes of leftwing kook-dom, who would give a rat’s ass about what it is that other leftwing kooks have to say, least of all when it comes to having an opinion about who it is that should become our next president?  Now the only reason I even ask such a question is because, apparently, there has come into being a rather strange group comprised of actors, writers and other assorted ‘leftwing’ nuts, all of whom have now banded themselves together to form something they call the "Stop Hate Dump Trump" campaign.  And they claim to have done so in an effort to denounce the billionaire Republican presidential frontrunner, actually claiming that he is a threat to the United States.

And there are now dozens of these self-described ‘protectors of America’ who have now joined this odd assortment of mental midgets, the sole purpose of which appears to be nothing more than the derailing of, or at least the attempted derailing of, the presidential prospects of one Donald J. Trump.  As well, this group of leftwing crazies also opposes what it refers to as being the “politics of hate and exclusion” that they say Mr. Trump represents.  Well now I must admit that if there is a group of individuals anywhere who likely knows a thing or two about hate and exclusion, it would likely be this very group made up of some of the most vile individuals and who have come together in such a twisted endeavor.

After all, when we examine the cast of characters involved here what we find are names such as Michael ‘Jabba the Hut’ Moore, Kerry Washington, Rosie ‘Ms. Piggy’ O’Donnell, Harry ‘Banana Boat’ Belafonte, ‘Hanoi Jane’ Fonda, Dylan McDermott, Roseann Barr, and Lily ‘One Ringy-Dingy’ Tomlin as being among those who have now pledged to “speak out in every way possible” in trying to prevent Trump from becoming the next President of the United States. Other leftwing notables getting in on the act include Noam Chomsky, Connie Britton, Rosanna Arquette, Reza Aslan, Ani DiFranco, Danny Glover and Eve Ensler. And I must admit, I don’t know who half of these losers even are, nor do I care to know them.

And in a statement on its idiotic little website, the group states that it believes Trump is “a grave threat to democracy, freedom, human rights, equality, and the welfare of our country and all our people.”  And then it goes on to say, “We have witnessed Trump inciting hatred against Muslims, immigrants, women, the disabled.”  And it then says, “We have seen him evidencing dangerous tendencies that threaten the bedrock of democracy: unleashing a lynch mob mentality against protesters, calling for the expulsion of Muslims from the country, bullying, and fear-mongering.”  And yet those who make up this very same group have absolutely no problem with what our current president is doing to our country, or has done to it.

Their imbecilic mantra of a declaration goes on to say, “History has shown us what happens when people refuse to stand against hate-filled leaders.”  And it says, “We pledge ourselves to speak out in every way possible against the politics of hate and exclusion he represents.”  And it was Ms. Ensler, in her own statement, who said, “We are offering Americans a chance to be heard and engage in action, as Trump’s campaign gains momentum even as he increases his hateful and divisive rhetoric.”  And as amazing as it may sound, or maybe not so amazing after all, nearly 1,200 lefty flakes had signed on with the group within hours of it going live on Wednesday.  And I’m quite many more have since decided to join the group.

The website also features a number of examples of what it calls Trump’s “hate,” including statements that are critical of Democrat Hitlery Clinton.  And the group also included Trump’s vow to “blow up” and defeat the Islamic State terror group in its list of ‘hateful’ comments that it attributes to Trump.  And oddly enough, there was even a warning to the media: "We also intend to put the media and political institutions on notice that they are accountable for normalizing Trump's extremism by treating it as entertainment, by giving it inordinate and unequal air time and by refusing to investigate, interrogate or condemn it appropriately."  Though you’d think many in the state-controlled media would have been among the first to join this little clique.

The website claims to have united people as diverse as worker movement leaders, actors, teachers, farmers, students, poets and even heads of companies.  The campaign said, "We believe Trump is a grave threat to democracy, freedom, human rights, equality and the welfare of our country and all our people."  And it added, "History has shown us what happens when people refuse to stand against hate-filled leaders. We pledge ourselves to speak out in every way possible against the politics of hate and exclusion he represents."  It’s regarding that last claim of theirs that they might actually be onto something.  After all, that’s how we came to be saddled with our current hate filled leader, Barry “Almighty”, for eight years.

Now look, I’m no Trump supporter, but I’m certainly no one who’s going to be spending any amount of time listening to this pathetic cadre of leftwing loons.  And really, when you stop and consider the fact that the majority of these imbeciles likely never made it out of high school, or if they did, they did so just barely, you have to ask yourself, how it is that they came to perceive themselves as being so smart that the rest of us must pay now attention to what they have to say.  After all, possessing a high level of intelligence is hardly a requirement to be an actor, a singer or, like Chomsky, a propagandist.  All that’s needed is enough morons willing to pay attention to you.  And today, as you know, there is certainly no shortage of morons!

Wednesday, January 20, 2016

COME NOVEMBER, WHAT IF WE ALL JUST STAYED HOME???


The further we get into this election year the crazier things seem to get and the less sure I become that we’re gonna make it out alive.  I mean, let’s face it on one side we have real estate mogul running away with things and on the other side we have a criminal, a Socialist and a guy who tried to tax rain.  And this after having a corrupt Muslim sympathizer for president for the last eight years.  It makes me dizzy!

Donald Trump, Sarah Palin’s endorsement notwithstanding, is simply not my guy.  While I most certainly am not a supporter of ‘The Establishment’, I am also in no hurry to hand over the reins of power to Trump.  Because, while he may be saying all the right things, I can’t help but wonder if he genuinely believes what he’s saying, or if it’s lip service. At the end of the day I’m not sure if I can trust him.

At this point time in our history the type of person that we actually need to have running seems nowhere to be found.  Whereas back in 1980, when a similar situation existed, Ronald Reagan was there to come riding to the rescue of the country.  And while there are a great number comparisons being bandied about, there is really no one who bears even the slightest resemblance to the man.

And now I hear that with the growing enthusiasm behind Trump’s campaign we could be on the verge of witnessing some new form of American conservatism.  But I would ask, what’s wrong with the old brand of American conservatism?  And how conservative might this new form of conservatism actually be?  The only way to find that out, I suppose, would be to elect Trump.  But by then it would be too late.

And am I the only one who’s rather disappointed with what we have as being our list of candidates, on both sides?  How is that in a nation of 330 Million people these are the best folks that we can come up with?  Is this really the cream of our crop?  I really would have thought that we could have come up with someone better.  I’m having a rather difficult time ginning up the necessary enthusiasm to vote.

So, what do you suppose would happen if we all, and it would have to be every single one of us, simply decided to stay home this November and not vote for any of them?  Would we make our point or might we perhaps be providing them the impetus for ending elections?  Could they use our decision not to show up against us, to use it as being their justification for doing away with elections altogether?   

CAN WE STILL TRUST THE SUPREME COURT???


So it seems that the Supreme Court will, in fact, come to have the final say regarding the rather questionable legality of Barry “Almighty’s” executive amnesty over-reach.  The Court announced just this past Tuesday that it will, by early summer, rule on whether or not Barry abused his authority in taking his executive actions on immigration.  And I think that we can all reasonably assume, after taking into account the rather leftist make up of the court, how that decision is likely to turn out.   

As you may know, Barry’s actions, which are aimed at millions of undocumented parents of U.S. citizens and for children who were raised in the United States, have been on hold since they were first announced a year ago. After Barry announced the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) and the expanding of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), federal courts blocked their implementation because of challenges from 25 states and led by Texas.

And so, if the court does rule in favor of  Barry's actions, which is how this is likely to play out, some five million illegal immigrants will be shielded from deportation as they apply for worker eligibility and other benefits. The result of the ruling will also likely set the standard for what a future president can do without Congressional approval.  Furthermore, if  Barry's actions are approved, they will be implemented during his final months in office, securing the legacy he has hoped for since 2008.

Barry’s 2014 effort to grant millions of illegal immigrants de facto legal status and work permits hangs in the balance. According to various reports, the case will be argued during the first half of this year with an expected ruling in June, before the 2016 presidential election.  The court will decide the final outcome in Texas and 25 states’ lawsuit seeking to block the administration’s executive amnesty programs. So far the states have been successful at the district and appeals court levels.

The states and Republicans have argued that Barry’s executive amnesty is an unconstitutional overreach of executive authority.  Yet Barry continues to maintain that he was within his right to shield millions from deportation and grant them work permits.  Of course this comes after the dozen, or so, times that he himself said that he did not have the authority to do what he went ahead and did.  Not that any of that will likely matter to any of these austere practitioners of leftist jurisprudence. 

The government appealed to the high court shortly after the 5th Circuit ruled in favor of upholding the amnesty block.  Barry’s gang there at the Justice Department argued in its petition to the Supreme Court in November that, “If left undisturbed, that ruling [of the appeals court] will allow States to frustrate the federal government’s enforcement of the Nation’s immigration laws.”  Translation:  It would actually allow the states to enforce federal immigration law whereas Barry chooses not to.

The states called for the court to let the ruling stand or rule in their favor.  Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said when the states filed their petition, “President Obama’s executive action on immigration represents an unprecedented attempt to expand the power of the executive branch.”  And he added, “The president alone does not have the authority to grant millions of illegal immigrants a host of benefits – like Social Security and Medicare – which should be reserved for lawful citizens.”

This will likely prove to be is yet another example of just how important it is that we elect a conservative president in this next election.  Can you possibly imagine the caliber of justices that Hitlery or Bernie would appoint to the court?  And the next president will likely have the opportunity to appoint as many as four justices.  And when the Democrats regain control of the Senate this coming election, and with Chuckie Schumer running the show, confirmation of leftist justices will be little more than a formality.

Tuesday, January 19, 2016

THAT MOST AMERICANS DON’T BUY ‘CLIMATE CHANGE’ IS BLAMED ON BAD POLLING???


One of John Kerry-Heinz’s many imbecilic underlings over there at the State Department, some fella identified as being the ‘special envoy’ on bogus ‘climate change’, was heard to say, just this past Friday, that even though a recent poll would seem to suggest that 62 percent of the American people don’t think ‘climate change’ will pose a threat in their lifetime, a sampling of what he described as being “good polling” would actually reveal that there has been an increase in public concern.  So when he says ‘good polling’ does he really mean biased polling?

If so, I’m guessing that is that is in fact what he means, then he must think that if we were to apply the same logic typically employed by this administration in determining our unemployed, to how we determine the level of concern over ‘climate change’, what would then be arrived at is a far more accurate percentage of Americans concerned about climate change.  Isn’t that the way this administration typically approaches things?  When the numbers don’t reflect the desired outcome, then they simply change the numbers so they do reflect the proper outcome. 

This special envoy, some boob by the name of Todd Stern, who also appears to be the intellectual equivalent of John Kerry-Heinz, was asked, “In March of 2015, Gallup took a poll, and 55 percent of Americans were concerned about climate change, and also they asked a specific question: Do you think that global warming will pose a serious threat to you or your way of life in your lifetime, and in 2015, 62 percent of Americans said, ‘No.’ How do those numbers jibe with what you’re saying about an increasing number of people believing in climate change and its effects?”

And it was our esteemed ‘climate change’ envoy that responded by saying, “I’m not armed with poll numbers that I’ve look at recently.”  He went on to say, “Look, I think a lot of, here and everywhere else, questions like this depend enormously on what the nature of the question is and how it’s phrased, and then for people to say they don’t think it’s a serious threat within their lifetime is completely understandable given what – the way the issue is commonly talked about and understood in the press.”  Right, so the question must be ‘properly’ phrased?

Stern, who was appointed to his current position by Hitlery Clinton back in 2009 said, “So I think if we were – if you’re an election buff and you look at Real Clear Politics every day like I do, you’ll see that there’s a whole bunch of polls in New Hampshire, Iowa, this place, that place, and the line that’s at the top of Real Clear is an average of a bunch of polls.”  He added, “So I think if we did a sampling of good polling and a range of the way the question is asked, you would see that there is, in fact, a real movement up in the level of U.S. public concern.”

Stern was speaking at Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), there in Washington, D.C. about the recent United Nations ‘climate change’ agreement that Barry signed onto in Paris late last year. The agreement includes the U.S. providing funding to developing nations to reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.  So you can plainly see why it is that Mr. Stern would be very much in favor of at least creating the perception that more of the American people could be said to be in agreement with the cockamamie notion of manmade ‘climate change.’

Look, much to the disappointment of those on the left, there is an overwhelming amount of actual scientific evidence that continues to make very clear that the entire notion of manmade ‘climate change’ is nothing more than a huge scam.  But whenever presented with such evidence those such as our esteemed Mr. Stern simply put their fingers in their ears and begin yelling la, la, la, la, thinking, I guess, that by doing so somehow discredits any and all opposing science.  They claim to be ‘pro-science’ but ONLY when that ‘science’ supports their nutty theory.  

Monday, January 18, 2016

WATCHING THE DEMOCRAT DEBATE WAS LIKE HAVING A TOOTH PULLED…


I suppose some might tend to accuse me of being a bit of a masochist since it was on the advice of my wife that I tuned in to watch the Democrat presidential debate broadcast on NBC last night.  Her argument for doing so was, “we really need to know what it is that those on the other side are saying to convince people to vote for them.”  And to tell you the truth, I couldn’t argue with her logic.  So, I decided to follow her advice. 

But try as I might, I could only make it about half way through before I simply HAD to turn the channel.  And as I watched and I listened to what these people were saying I couldn’t help but wonder how any responsible person could actually go along with anything that was being said. And I came away with a sense disbelief that these three people were somehow the best that the Democrat Party could come up with for being their eventual nominee for president. 

And now as we move through this the day after the night before, many in our state-controlled media continue to gush about how “substantive” this most recent Democrat debate really was.  But, in fact, there was very little of substance that was discussed. The moderators treated Hitlery with velvet gloves while Bernie essentially accomplished very little, if anything, in his effort to put any kind of a sizable dent in her support among minority voters. 

And then there was Marty O’Malley, a guy who has no business even taking part in this contest and is really little more than filler.  Marty did nothing to make himself a relevant player in this contest.  So at the end of the night it was mission accomplished for the Democrats.  Hitlery suffered no major damage and nothing seems to have really changed in the race. Exactly what Debbie Wizzerman Shultz and the state controlled media wanted. 

And what I found as being one of the more interesting statements made during the hour or so that I was watching, was when Hitlery told the moderators of the debate, "There should be no bank too big to fail and no individual too big to jail."  I thought it rather ironic to hear such a comment coming from someone who so very obviously views herself as being someone “too big to jail.”  I wonder if those words may come back to haunt her.

After all, Hitlery has defended, and continues to defend, herself against numerous scandals and sought to decrease voters' distrust in her since she launched this her second bid for the White House. Several reports last week signaled an expansion of the FBI investigation into the private email server Hitlery kept during her tenure as secretary of state.  And her involvement in events surrounding Benghazi may yet still have an impact.

And it was in watching, and listening to, these three ‘candidates’ that something became very obvious to me.  Because the more these candidates spoke, the more it became apparent, at least to me, that, while the party these three individuals represent may call itself the Democrat Party, these three are proof that that party has now made a very sharp turn to the left and now bears little resemblance to the party of JFK. 

Something that has become all the more apparent from having watched Debbie Wizzerman Schultz, Hitlery Clinton and Chuckie Schumer exhibit an unwillingness to explain the difference between being a Democrat and being a Socialist.  And yet, there are a great many Americans who don’t seem to be bothered by that in the least.  A fact that frightens me far more than does the prospect that any of these candidates just may actually win.

Saturday, January 16, 2016

OBAMA CONTINUES WITH HIS WAR ON COAL…



With Barry’s decision just this past Friday to halt new coal leases on federal lands, he has once again made it very clear that the only war he has any interest in pursuing is his continuing war on fossil fuels, particularly coal.  Not only is it the only war he deems worthy of fighting, but the number of casualties and the incredible amount of collateral damage seems to matter little.  Now granted this war does not involve the dropping of munitions, or soldiers in combat, but the resulting damage is no less quite severe.  This is a war that Barry has now taken to a whole new level, and is a purely ideological one with its only goal being to further attack middle-class jobs and to punish the already poor with escalating energy costs. 

Throughout his entire time in office Barry has spoken at great length about what he describes as being the plight of the middle class and how it is that we need to get people working again.  And yet he, as well as any number of other members of his Democrat Party, has gone far out of his way to worsen the plight of those whose lives he claims to want to improve and yet puts into policies that do only harm and all in the name of the cockamamie theory of “climate change.”  Hard to believe, I know, but no less true.  So while Barry and his fellow Democrats, including those Democrats now vying for his job, claim to be on the side of a struggling middle class, their priorities seem to be just the opposite.      

Even before Barry assumed office he had made it very clear what his opinion was regarding coal.  So Barry’s not so covert attack regarding the energy source should come as no surprise.  And Barry’s recent announcement to halt federal coal leasing is but the latest front in his ideological 'war on coal' that has contributed to the devastation in hundreds of communities and the loss of thousands of jobs.  Jobs held by middle class Americans.  Today nearly 40 percent of the coal produced in the United States comes from federal lands located, primarily, in Wyoming, Montana, Colorado, Utah and New Mexico. So is it any wonder that more than 70 percent of Americans want to see the next president take a different approach.

It was Barry’s stellar Interior Secretary, Sally Jewell, said that the administration is seeking to determine whether fees charged to mining companies provide a fair return to American taxpayers and reflect coal's impact on the environment.  I am curious about something though, just who is it that will be put in charge of determining what that supposed impact on environment might be?  Ms. Jewell also said that companies can continue to mine coal reserves currently under lease and made the comment that the coal-leasing program has not been significantly changed in more than 30 years. She said it was time for it to be modernized to ensure a fair return to American taxpayers and to account for “climate change.”

Meanwhile House Speaker Paul ‘RINO Ryan’ said Barry's decision "has made it absolutely clear what he plans to do with America's energy — keep it in the ground.”  Because as far as Barry is concerned, that’s the ‘safest’ place for it. ‘RINO Ryan’ went on to say, "Coal on federal land belongs to all Americans, but the president is denying people access to their own abundant, low-cost energy source."  And he went on to say, "The ramifications for the country will be terrible: lost growth, lost jobs, and lost revenue that would have gone to schools, bridges, and roads.”  And yet I doubt very much that Mr. Ryan will attempt to take any measures in an effort to stop, or even slow, what Barry has in mind here.

Ryan went on to say, "The president's policies have already ravaged coal country, destroying jobs and people's way of life — and this will increase that suffering."  But what does he offer up as being measures that can be taken by Congress to prevent Barry from moving forward with this insanity?  Does he threaten to use whatever power he has at his disposal to prevent Barry from moving forward in completing his mission to decimate America's coal industry, all in the name of protecting future generations from something that doesn’t even exist except in the rather twisted minds of those on the left.  No, as is usually the case our Republicans in Congress sit on their hands.  They are all talk and no action!

Meanwhile it remains unclear what impact, exactly, Barry’s moratorium will have on many coal companies, given the declining domestic demand for coal and the closure of numerous coal-fired power plants around the country.  Coal companies have already stockpiled billions of tons of coal on existing leases.  But the announcement will no doubt please the many environmentalist wacko groups in this country, groups that have long said the government's fee rates actually encouraged production of a product that they claim contributes to nonexistent global warming.  Look, while Barry is only too happy to claim ‘climate change’ is his rationale for taking this action, there’s something far more sinister at work here.

Friday, January 15, 2016

THOSE “NEW YORK VALUES”…


Let me start by saying that I don’t have a problem when Cruz brings up the fact that ‘The Donald’ exhibits what Cruz refers to as “New York values.”  Honestly, I think it a pretty fair, and quite accurate, description.  And, ya know, I thought to proclaim some faux outrage and to then use 9/11 as part of your retort was really more than just a little tacky.  Look, it’s sad to say but most Americans hardly even remember the events of that horrible day, and sadder still is the fact that a great many New Yorkers choose to no longer remember. 

And how can it be anything other than faux outrage when New York now considers itself to be a ‘’sanctuary city’?  So just how offended can Trump really claim to be over Cruz’s morals comment?  It was during last night’s GOP primetime debate on the Fox Business Network that Cruz also told Trump that “not a lot of conservatives come out of Manhattan”.  A debate in which, I thought, the two Fox moderators much more closely resembled something that I might have been watching on CNBC.  Strangely enough the best actual debate so far was on CNN.

It was Cruz who, in responding to a ‘question’ asking what he might have meant when he said Trump “embodies New York values,” stated, that “values in New York City are socially liberal” and “focus around money and the media. He continued, “Not too many years ago, Donald did a long interview with Tim Russert, and in that interview he explained his views on a whole host of issues, that were very, very different from the views he’s describing now.”  There’s a lot of truth in what Cruz says.  Which causes me to be a little slow in coming to trust Trump.

Cruz went on to say, “And his explanation, he said, look, I’m from New York, that’s what we believe in New York. Those aren’t Iowa values, but this is what we believe in New York. And so, that was his explanation.”  He then added, “I guess I can frame it another way, not a lot of conservatives come out of Manhattan. I’m just saying.”  Which was apparently a reference to Trump having said, “not many evangelicals come out of Cuba.”  And, again, Cruz was right.  Conservatives, while they may be easier to spot upstate, are a pretty rare breed there in ‘The Big Apple.’

And I thought it was a bit sanctimonious on Trump’s part to respond to Cruz in the way that he did, in what was an obvious attempt to score cheap political points at Cruz’s expense.  Trump said, “So, conservatives actually do come out of Manhattan, including William F. Buckley and others, just so you understand. And just so — if I could, because he insulted a lot of people. I’ve had more calls on that statement that Ted made, that New York is a great place, it’s got great people, it’s got loving people, wonderful people.”

Trump went on to say, “When the World Trade Center came down, I saw something that no place on earth could have handled more beautifully, more humanely than New York.  You had two 110-story buildings come crashing down, I saw them come down, thousands of people killed, and the cleanup started the next day, and it was the most horrific cleanup, probably in the history of doing this, and in construction, I was down there.”  But nothing demonstrates ‘New York values’ better than the fact that it has now declared itself to be a ‘sanctuary city.’

Trump finished up by saying, “And I’ve never seen anything like it. And the people in New York fought, and fought, and fought, and we saw more death and even the smell of death, nobody understood it, and it was with us for months, the smell. the air. And we rebuilt downtown Manhattan, and everybody in the world watched, and everybody in the world loved New York, and loved New Yorkers, and I have to tell you, that was a very insulting statement that Ted made.”  Insulting? Really?  Come on, Donald, give a break!  I’m just not buying the theatrics.

Ya know, big deal, if Donald thought it was insulting. I could care less.  Frankly, Cruz was spot on in making his point that New York City is one of the most liberal enclaves in the entire country.  They even voted themselves in a Communist for mayor.  So don’t start throwing 9/11 in anyone’s face as way of somehow trying to deflect criticism that is rightfully deserved.  As far as I’m concerned, the only time that 9/11 needs to be mentioned during these debates is when a candidate vows to do whatever is necessary to prevent another one from happening.

My primary issue with Trump comes down to trust.  While he may say all the right things, I simply don’t trust him to follow through with much of it.  So when primary time comes to my home state, I’ll be casting my vote for Cruz.  However, if when the dust settles Trump is our last man standing, then, come November, I’ll cast my vote for him, and hope for the best.  I must admit though that I will do so with much trepidation, but feeling like I have no other option.  Because I can’t vote for Hitlery or Bernie, and I won’t be staying home.