EXPECT RYAN TO PICK UP RIGHT WHERE BOEHNER LEFT OFF…

So now it all becomes painfully obvious why it was that John Boehner proved to be such an unmitigated disaster as Speaker.  It would seem that carrying out the people’s business in what should have been a responsible manner was seen by Boehner as being simply too hard and too much work.  So old ‘Boner’ decided to take the easier less stressful route, hence the reason that our national debt increased by nearly $4 Trillion on his watch.  Boehner made the claim in a recent interview that he came to Washington to fight for a smaller, less costly and more accountable government.  And yet, now that he's finally leaving the House that still hasn't happened.

It was just yesterday, in an interview with Fox News’ Bill Hemmer, that Boehner admitted, "I began to realize over the years there is no winning this fight."  Well shit no John, it’s damn near impossible to win fight when all you do is to choose to constantly surrender.  His as much as admitted to being an abject failure shortly after a man who is essentially his clone, Paul Ryan, took up the gavel.  The fight has been going on for over 200 years in Washington, he told Hemmer in the interview, which aired earlier today on the network's "America's Newsroom" program, and "it will be a constant struggle over how big should Washington be, how much should it take?"

Boehner said his biggest regret for the time he was speaker was the failure to reach the so-called "Grand Bargain," in 2012, which would have been an agreement with Barry “Almighty” and congressional leaders to curb spending while reducing the national debt and avoiding sequestration.  Boehner said, "I sat in the Oval Office with the president of the United States and Eric Cantor, shook hands with the president and the deal was done."  He said, "$5 trillion in deficit reductions would have meant tens of trillions of dollars over the next 20 years in terms of really fixing our entitlement programs and getting us on to a much more solid foundation."

But instead, he said, Barry "walked away from the agreement and caused, really, the country to have a real struggle, because how are we going to raise the debt limit? How will we offset spending? The country went through a lot more than it needed to."  But the fact that Boehner was surprised by Barry actions demonstrates better than anything else that he simply was not up to the all-important task at hand.  Let’s face it, anyone who can be outsmarted by Barry, and who is unable to recognize what it is that Barry is trying do, even after he has made it abundantly clear on numerous occasions, simply has no business being in a position of party leadership. 

Still, Boehner said that he and Barry have had a good relationship, despite their disagreements about many issues.  He said, "I think it's essential the leaders be able to work with each other, have a relationship, build some trust so we do the nation's business."  He went on to say, "The president called me the day I announced my retirement and we had a nice conversation. At one point he said, 'Man, I'm going to miss you.' I said, 'Yes, you are, Mr. President, yes, you are.'"  What a bunch of idiotic nonsense.  Look, working together is one thing, but to purposely aid and abet a man like Barry in his effort to destroy this country is inexcusable and unconscionable.

Boehner did leave office on a high point, if you can call it that.  That being, the arranging for the first communist pope to address a joint session of Congress.  Boehner, a devout Catholic was, as he was on any number of other occasions, moved to tears while Pope Francis spoke.  Boehner resigned his office the very next day.  But he said he does not have any regrets about quitting, as "it was the right decision, the right time. And you are right, I'm ready to go."  Well no, not really.  Actually, if we’re being honest here, the ‘right time’ would have been 3 years earlier, after making it quite clear after his first 2 years as Speaker that he just didn’t have what it took.

And now, here we go again with Paul Ryan.  This is a guy who Democrats have said, sounds remarkably like he’s one of them.  I mean here we have a guy who favors open borders, favors amnesty, and is a guy who was all in when it came to this recent ‘budget’ fiasco that was essentially snuck through in the dark of night.  What Ryan is, is Boehner 2.0. or, the new and improved version of what we have had to put up with for the last five years.  Ryan’s made a lot of noise about wiping the slate clean and making a fresh start, but it’s all nothing more than bullshit.  Because what we’re likely to experience over the coming months is nothing but more of the same.  

MEDIA BIAS AT ITS MOST DISGUSTING…

What seems like for years those who are part of our state-controlled media have long denied that a liberal bias exists anywhere within their ranks.  And even though those of us on the right continued to very vigorously point out example after example of what we viewed as a blatant bias, they would continue to just as vigorously deny it and say we were all just imagining things.  During elections past there has always been present a certain amount of liberal bias, sometimes to the point where many of us on the right wondered why it was that Republicans continued to tolerate such unprofessional behavior.

But for those who tuned in last night to the Republican presidential debate it would be hard to deny that some of the most egregious examples of bias ever to be witnessed were on full display.  And also on display were candidates who seemed to be sick and tired of it, and who weren’t going to take it anymore.  The best retorts came from Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie and, to a lesser degree, Mike Huckabee.  Each of them, at some point during the evening, took the opportunity to score some points at the expense of what were really some pretty pathetic moderators. 

But the behavior on the part of these moderators should really have come as a surprise to no one.  And while the die hard liberals will continue to make the claim that the moderators did nothing more than to ask some very tough questions, you’d have to be significantly detached from reality to think that any of the questions were substantive in nature and designed to do anything other than to tear down the candidates.  I thought the purpose of these debates was supposed to be to provide Republican voters with an opportunity to learn more about their prospective presidential candidates.

And I think it was on that point that CNBC so very badly missed the mark, and probably on purpose.  Because it was obvious that none of these moderators was the least bit interested in delving into what many Republicans voters view as being the most important issues of the day.  To be perfectly frank, what this was last night was an exercise in journalistic malpractice the likes of which hasn’t been seen in quite some time.  And anyone who prides themselves on being a journalist should be extremely embarrassed, but I doubt very much if that will ever happen.  The night likely gave them all a bit of a chuckle.

But I have to ask you, when was the last time anyone can recall tuning in to a Democrat debate, regardless of which office the candidates were all vying for, and witnessing such deplorable, even sophomoric, behavior on the part of the moderators?  Now granted, I don’t usually watch Democrat debates, but on those rare instances that I have, I don’t seem to remember ever seeing anything that was anywhere near the level of rudeness that I witnessed while watching last night’s Republican debate.  That liberal bias exists is now irrefutable and to deny it exists is to deny reality.  It’s just that simple.

OBAMA SEEMS CONTENT TO SACRIFICE LIVES IN HIS DRIVE FOR STRICTER GUN LAWS…

So riddle me this, why is it that at the very same time Barry is out there busily advocating for even more and stricter guns laws, he also seems quite content to leave a good many of our gun laws already on the books, unenforced?  Does that make any sense?  And how do you suppose that I can come to know that that’s what’s going on?  Well, it’s because Syracuse University’s TRAC Reports recently revealed that Barry’s tough talk about increasing prosecution of federal gun laws was just that—talk.  In fact, Barry’s annual prosecution of gun crimes has never even reached the levels of prosecutions seen during George W. Bush’s last five years in office.  So all this bullshit about Barry being so concerned about our public safety is just that, BULLSHIT!  What this really is, is just a ploy to take guns from law abiding Americans. 

And ironically the fact that fewer gun laws are being enforced comes despite the fact that one of Barry’s 23 executive orders that he pumped out back in January 2013 was supposed to “amp up prosecutions of federal gun laws.”  According to Syracuse’s TRAC Reports what we know is that prosecutions for gun violations actually began to decline back in 2013.  In fact, prosecutions in 2013 were lower than in 2012.  Gun crime prosecutions were even lower in 2014 and actually hit an all-time low for Barry’s administration in 2015.  For example, “during fiscal year (FY) 2014 the Justice Department said the government obtained 20.3 weapons convictions for every one million people in the United States… [and that dropped to] 19.1 weapons convictions for one million people in the United States during FY 2015.”

Or to put it another way, FY 2015 represents a 15.5 percent drop in prosecutions from 5 years ago and a 34.8 percent drop from the midway point of Bush’s eight years in office.  And it’s also interesting to note that these reductions in gun crime prosecutions have correlated with an ever increasing push for more gun control. In fact, in January 2013—the very month in which Barry called for an increase in gun crime prosecutions—Sen. Joe Manchin, Democrat, was being tapped for a gun control push, and Gabby Giffords’s gun control PAC, Americans for Responsible Solutions, was founded. Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America had formed in the prior month, and this meant January, February, March, and the first two weeks of April witnessed a gun control push unlike any other in American history.

And through it all, we were led to believe that gun crime prosecutions were actually being increased, yet they would actually end the fiscal year considerably lower than the year before.  And ya know, it’s rather ironic that it’s crime-riddled Chicago which serves as the perfect microcosm of the country as a whole when it comes to a failure to prosecute gun crimes coupled with a relentless push for more gun control. The NRA’s First Freedom summed it all up this way: “In 2014 in Chicago, over 2,500 people were shot—nearly 400 of them fatally—and police seized more than 6,252 guns. Yet out of those 6,252 guns seized, (U.S. Attorney Zach) Fardon’s federal prosecutors saw fit to pursue just 62 weapons prosecutions. In other words, for every 100 guns police seized, federal prosecutors made just one prosecution.”

So you can plainly see that Barry’s rather unique approach to gun laws can be said to mirror his approach to immigration laws.  That being, of course, that many of those laws already on the books simply are not to be enforced, while at the same time demands are being made for new laws to be created.  And the fact that Barry seems to prefer leaving gun laws unenforced should cause one to call into question what it is that might motivate him do so.  Personally, I would argue that what’s he’s hoping to have happen here is for there to be more gun incidents that he can then turn around and use to bolster his continuing claims that we need much stricter gun laws.  He’s willing to sacrifice, for example, the hundreds of blacks who are shot in Chicago if it means improving the odds for him getting to where he wants to be on gun control.   

ESPN – THE “EXCEPTIONALLY STUPID PEOPLE NETWORK”…

I never watch this particular network unless, of course, I happen to be out to dinner at some establishment that likes to refer to itself as being a “sports bar.”  And it’s on those rare occasions that I use it to entertain myself by watching the missing-links in attendance as they sit around the bar or the many tables with their eyes glued to the TV waiting with baited breath for that next bit of truly important sports information.  And I swear, as look around the room very few brain-cells seem to be present. 

I mean seriously, no matter what you happen to be watching on this idiotic network it’s more often than what’s there on the television screen some knuckle-dragging Neanderthal in a suit that doesn’t seem to quite fit, doing his best to sound intelligent while making what is essentially a kids game sound complicated.  And sitting next to is some moron whose only claim to fame is that he’s a ‘sportscaster’.  Wow, now there’s a job that requires a rather impressive amount of brain power.  NOT!

The only reason I even bother to bring any of this up is because this past Friday, on Washington, D.C.’s ESPN 980’s “The Tony Kornheiser Show,” the show’s host, Tony Kornheiser, in speaking with Huffington Post editor and supposed political ‘journalist’ Howard Fineman, felt compelled to spout off about something which he very obviously knows absolutely nothing about, that being Tea Party people.  The topic of the conversation was Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)and the Speaker of the House position. 

I would assume that the format for such a program would at least be semi-related to sports.  So to veer off into leftist politics would typically seem a little unexpected.  But many of these characters on ESPN today seem to feel the need to interject politics into their conversations.  But more often than not all they end up doing is to prove just how stupid they really are.  And Fineman is another guy not known for being particularly bright and he does nothing more than to spew DNC talking points.

And it was the less than brilliant Mr. Fineman who said that as Speaker, Ryan would be “spending all his time” dealing with “Tea Party people” and that he would have to “fight them and defeat them” or “take away their power.” And then it was the genius Kornheiser who wanted to know if those Tea Party people were like ISIS, trying to “establish a Caliphate.”  Is this guy not a complete moron?  Apparently he’s trying to be more like that other leftwing loser, Keith Olbermann.

The dialogue between these two morons went as follows:

FINEMAN: The House needs a dictatorial leader, or nothing will ever happen. And the Tea Party people understandably don’t like that. If the person in charge is a moderate that doesn’t agree with them politically.

So, Paul Ryan has the kind of conservative chops, where, he can sort of try to unify the whole party. But, he’s going to be spending all his time trying to deal with these Tea Party people.

What he’s probably going to have to do, if in fact he gets in. Is stage some kind of fight with them and defeat them, or take away their power, and go after them. I don’t know if he’s got the guts to do that. I don’t know if he’s got the numbers to do it.

KORNHEISER: Are they like ISIS trying to establish a caliphate here?!

FINEMAN: Yes! Yes! That’s a very good analogy! Without the violence obviously, but yes, they are a rejectionist front. They don’t want to legislate.

You know, if jerkoffs like this Kornheiser guy want to ramble on about stupid sports bullshit, that’s fine, after all this is America.  But what the Hell does this stupid sonofabitch know about Tea Party people?  Obviously nothing more than what he hears from that rather odd assortment of freaks and imbeciles over on MSNBC or CNN.  Typically I wouldn’t waste my time commenting on anything a clown like Kornheiser might say, but this latest comment of his kinda struck a nerve with me.

Quite frankly, I’ve got an extremely low tolerance for stupidity.  And as far as I’m concerned sports announcers and thuggish athletes are about as stupid as they come.  Let’s face it, you could train a monkey to do what Kornheiser does.  And most of today’s athletes had they not been blessed with God given ability would be standing on a corner holding a sign.  And instead of being role models they choose to spend their exorbitant salaries on drugs, strip clubs and numerous very fancy cars.   

HITLERY SAYS, DEMOCRATS ALWAYS DO A BETTER JOB WITH THE ECONOMY…

Hitlery Clinton is quite fond of saying how our economy ALWAYS performs better when we have a Democrat in the White House.  While I suppose one could argue that such rhetoric is to be expected in the heat of a presidential campaign, what should also be expected is that there will be very few people willing to take the time to verify the validity of such a claim.  Because her claim ignores completely the state of our economy during the recent presidencies of three men, all of whom were…Democrats.  That would be, of course, the presidencies of Jimmy Carter, ‘Slick Wille’ Clinton and of course that of our current disaster of a president, Barry “Almighty’.

When it comes to Carter many of us will remember the economic disaster fondly referred to as, ‘The Carter Malaise’.  The Carter nightmare included four years of crippling high unemployment, stagflation of 13.5%, unimaginable 21.5% interest rates, record gas prices, shortages and gas lines, and a doubling of the deficit from $27 billion to almost $60 billion.  Needless to say not a stellar job handling the economy.  It was also under Carter that we had U.S. embassy personnel in Iran held hostage, an unsuccessful hostage rescue attempt, the embarrassing decline of our military, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.  America almost did not survive Jimmy Carter.

Next on our hit parade we have ‘Slick Willie’ Clinton, the rapist husband of the current Democrat candidate and one of only two presidents, both Democrats, to have ever been impeached.  Oddly enough when it comes to the performance of the economy under this loser, we find that there are two rather inescapable flaws that mar ‘Slick Wille’s’ economic legend.  One is conveniently papered over; the other conveniently forgotten.  But with that said I suppose, a flawed legend is better than the economic reality Barry ‘Almighty’s’ policies have produced, so it is no surprise the sitting President has outsourced his economic messaging to the former President.

The first flaw is the claim that despite the fact that ‘Slick Willie’ raised taxes, the economy during his tenure still boomed.  Now the flaw here, and it’s a rather sizable one, is that the narrative ignores the passage of time—four years, to be exact. The timeline matters. ‘Slick Willie’ raised taxes in 1993 just as the economy was set to take off from a recession, and it was because of that that job and wage growth sputtered for four years. The famous ‘Clinton Era’ boom started four years after the tax hike, in 1997, and was triggered at least in part by the Republican tax cut of that year.  Four years may seem like a small detail, but details like this matter.

The second flaw marring ‘The Slickmeister’s” economic saga is a recession. Because the fact is ‘Slick Willie’ did not leave his successor a booming economy.  What he did leave President George W. Bush was a recession. The recession began in March of 2001, two months after old ‘Slick’ left office.  And even though they may try, even the most rabid leftist cannot blame George Bush for the 2001 recession.  It was, in fact, the ‘Slick Willie’ recession.  And yet, I don’t seem to recall hearing George W. Bush, 7 years into his presidency, running around blaming things on his predecessor, ‘Slick Willie’ Clinton.  Or was I just not paying attention?

Which brings us to presidency of Barry “Almighty’.  Now there has been much talk over the course of the last many years, all of which was about some mythical economic recovery that was supposed to be ongoing.  The fact is we are now at a time where the number of Americans participating in the nation’s workforce hasn’t been this low since Carter was president.  And the monthly unemployment numbers are nothing more than a work of pure fiction.  And yet another sad fact when it comes to the ‘Obama Economy’ is that over half of working Americans, 51 percent, make less than $30,000 a year.  Is that what anyone would call a booming economy?

And keep in mind that that’s $2,500 a month before taxes and just over the federal poverty level for a family of five. In 2014, half of working Americans reported an income at or below $28,851 (the median wage), and 51 percent reported an income of less than $30,000. Forty percent are making less than $20,000. The federal government considers a family of four living on an income of less than $24,250 to be impoverished. The wage index doesn’t take into account any of the eight million Americans who are unemployed, or the tens of millions of working age Americans who are not participating in the nation’s workforce.

And we are now at a point, with a Democrat in the White House, where nearly 40 percent of Americans are not working, which is the lowest participation rate since 1977, when we had another Democrat in the White House.  A coincidence?  No, I think not!  Although it has been claimed that the unemployment rate has dropped from double-digits in the height of the 2008 recession to about 5 percent in the latest bogus jobs report, wages have remained largely stagnant.  Wages and share of income for the bottom 90 percent of American wage-earners declined over the past 40 years, as the foreign-born population increased rather dramatically.

It was the Congressional Research Service (CRS) that recently charted the correlation between wages and the number of foreign-born workers in the U.S. between 1945 and 2010.  Before 1970, wages rose sharply as the number of foreign-born persons declined.  However after 1970, that population increased dramatically as wages stagnated, increased slightly and then dropped. And it’s that population that has accelerated rather significantly under the very watchful eye of the Democrat we now have in the White house.  And it’s that same Democrat who has had an ulterior motive for doing so while caring little about the impact on the American worker.

So, how are we supposed take seriously this claim from Democrat presidential candidate Hitlery.  Do we simply accept it as being nothing more than pure politics, or do we view her as being more than delusional, taking into consideration the fact that she is, after all, a Clinton.  Or, are we to view such idiotic claims as being nothing more than another example of how it is that Hitlery will lie about anything.   But you see, her lying is one thing, but the more important issue is that there are people out there who fail to see how it is that Democrats are toxic to economic prosperity, they act in much the same way as a cancer acts on the human body.

DO ENOUGH INDEPENDENTS REALLY CARE THAT HITLERY IS A LIAR???

Well, with ‘Slow Joe’ Biden having now made it official, this past Wednesday, that he will not being running for president of the United States in 2016 I think it’s become pretty much of a foregone conclusion that those in our state-controlled media will now be spending much of their time worshiping at the altar of one Hitlery Clinton.  And I think we can all safely agree that there will now be no effort left unexpended as they will certainly go about bending themselves into pretzels, desperate to exhaust any opportunity to defend the lying bitch, especially when it comes to her pathetically dishonest Benghazi testimony.  But do they really have any choice?  Hitlery must now be protected at all costs, which means covering up for her long list of lies, her calculated obfuscations, and her charmless faux-gravity.

And thanks to that moron Kevin McCarthy, it has been made considerably easier for those who are so determined to defend this lying bitch to first establish and then to advance a narrative that is really nothing more than a work of the purest form of fiction.  Hitlery, or so we are told, was a victim of a political Benghazi committee dedicated to her destruction.  Let’s be real, every Congressional committee in history has entailed some form of political motivation.  Would anyone argue that the Watergate investigations were completely apolitical?  Our state-controlled media myopically focused on the idiotic comments of Mr. McCarthy before Hitlery’s testimony, crafting the story of her victimization before it had even taken place.  Today’s media is nothing more than the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party.

Hitlery, as always, is portrayed as being the poor, put-upon victim of that ever-mysterious, and shrouded in the shadows, vast right-wing conspiracy.  And yet it was she alone who set up a private email serve, she who deleted relevant emails from it for purely political reasons, she who pressed for a pointless invasion of Libya for political reasons, she who chortled at its conquest for political reasons, she who watched it descend into chaos while doing nothing, again for political reasons, she who then allowed her ambassador to twist in the Libyan tornado without proper security also for political reasons, and finally she who covered up that disaster by repeatedly lying about its causes for political reasons. But those who dare to ask questions about such matters are accused of being partisan politician hacks.

As Charles Krauthammer rightly observed on Thursday evening, “We’re not going to get the facts, we’re not going to get the real story underlying it. We’re living in an age where what you say and its relation with the facts is completely irrelevant.”  There is just something more than a little creepy about someone like Hitlery, and Barry as well, who can look the American people in the eye and lie with such ease.  And even after 11 hours of lying, which is only slightly longer than the number of hours that Hitlery and her boss’ administration did virtually nothing as Americans died under fire in Benghazi, Hitlery made it clear that she had plenty of lies left and could very likely have gone on even longer.  But with that said, let’s examine 13 of the most shocking revelations that came out of the hearing.

1. It was Hitlery who originated the false narrative about a YouTube video protest — Using Hitlery's emails and calls as proof, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, accused her of lying to the American people, telling them that the incident in Benghazi was a protest that got out of hand, instead of what it really was: a terrorist attack.

Jordan said, "So if there's no evidence for a video-inspired protest, then where did the false narrative start? It started with you, Madam Secretary."   He went on to say, "Here's what you said at 11 o'clock that night, approximately one hour after you told the American people it was a video, you say to your family, 'Two officers were killed today in Benghazi by an al-Qaida- like group.' You tell — you tell the American people one thing, you tell your family an entirely different story. Also on the night of the attack, you had a call with the president of Libya. Here's what you said to him: 'Ansar al-Sharia is claiming responsibility.' It's interesting; Mr. Khattala, one of the guys arrested in charge actually belonged to that group. And finally, most significantly, the next day, within 24 hours, you had a conversation with the Egyptian prime minister. You told him this: 'We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest.'"

2. Hitlery avoided taking any responsibility for Amb. Stevens' death and it was during her testimony that Hitlery said, "I was responsible for sending Chris Stevens to Libya. I was responsible for supporting a temporary facility in Benghazi."  She went on to say, "I was not responsible for specific security requests and decisions," saying that some of the Benghazi outfit's security requests were granted after departmental review, while others were not.

Hitlery said, "Chris Stevens had an opportunity to reach me anytime he thought there was something of importance," adding that Stevens and his team in Benghazi "very well understood the dangers that they were confronting. They did the best they could under the circumstances that they were confronting."  And let’s not forget, the last time this country lost one of its ambassadors, it was in 1979 and it was due to the incompetence of another Democrat.

3. Hitlery likely never spoke to Stevens — Asked by Rep. Susan Brooks, R-Indiana, if she'd ever spoken to Stevens between his swearing-in in May 2012 and before his death on Sept. 11, 2012, Hitlery responded "Yes, I believe I did. I don't recall."  In turn, Brooks responded, "Had you talked to him in July, he would have told you that he had asked to keep the security in Libya that he had. He was told no by your State Department."

4. Stevens didn't have Hitlery's email address — "I do not believe he had my personal email . . . He had the direct line to people he had worked with for years," Hitlery admitted to the Benghazi committee.

5. Hitlery said she "knew and admired" Chris Stevens, but called him "Chris Smith" on night of his death — Hitlery claimed she "knew and admired" Stevens during her opening statement, and later told the congressional panel she'd "lost more sleep than all of you put together" over the terrorist attack that killed him. Recently disclosed emails show, however, that she didn't get his name right on the night of the attack. In an email to her top aides, she called him "Chris Smith," possibly conflating Chris Stevens and diplomat Sean Smith, who was also killed that night.

6. Hitlery knew "nothing" about Stevens’ meeting with al-Qaida affiliate — "Were you aware that our folks were either wittingly or unwittingly meeting on the ground with members of al-Qaida hours before the attack?" Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kansas, asked Hitlery. To which she responded, "I know nothing about this, Congressman."

7. Sidney Blumenthal had direct access to Hitlery, Amb. Stevens did not. It was Rep. Mike Pompeo who asked Hitlery, "A man who was a friend of yours, who had never been to Libya, didn't know much about it, at least that was his testimony, didn't know much about it, every one of those reports that he sent on to you that had to do with situations on the ground in Libya, those made it to your desk."  He added, "You asked for more of them. You read them. You corresponded with him. And yet the folks that worked for you didn't have the same courtesy."

8. Blumenthal was Hitlery's "most prolific emailer on Libya" and it was committee chairman Trey Gowdy who asked Hitlery, "The documents show he was your most prolific emailer on Libya and Benghazi, and my question to you is did the president, the same White House that said you can’t hire him, did he know that he was advising you?"  Hitlery answered the question saying, "He was not advising me, and I have no reason to have ever mentioned that or know that the president knew that."

9. Barry's White House didn't know Blumenthal was emailing Hitlery.  And again it was Gowdy who asked Hitlery, "What was he doing when you hired him when the White House rejected him?"  Hitlery said, "He was, in fact, working for my husband."  Gowdy clarified, asking, "So he was working for The Clinton Foundation?"  Hitlery responded, "Yes, that's right, Mr. Chairman." In the year following the 2012 Benghazi attacks, the William J. Clinton Foundation was renamed the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation.

10. Blumenthal's emails weren't entirely unsolicited — Hitlery denied during the hearing that Sidney Blumenthal advised her on Libya, but admitted she responded to his emails "Thanks and please keep them coming," "Greetings from Kabul and thanks for keeping this stuff coming, any other info about it?" and "What are you hearing now?" She also said she frequently forwarded his intelligence to colleagues, oftentimes redacting his name so they wouldn't know the source.

11. Hitlery says she didn't know where Blumenthal's intel was coming from — "I don’t know where he got the information," Hitlery said of Sidney Bluementhal, who'd never been to Libya himself. "I did learn later that he was talking to . . . former American intelligence officials."

12. The committee doesn't have all of Stevens' emails — "I might add for the record: we do not, still, to this day, have all of Chris Stevens' emails," Rep. Susan Brooks, R-Indiana, said to Hitlery.  She went on to say, "We received 1,300 more this week, we received most of them last week. We don't have the universe, yet, of Ambassador Stevens' emails."

13. Hitlery expected us to believe that Amb. Stevens was joking about security.  And it was in speaking about one of Stevens’ December emails that Hitlery said, "One of the great attributes that Chris Stevens had was a really good sense of humor. And I just see him smiling as he’s typing this [email], because it is clearly in response to the email down below talking about picking up a few 'fire sale' items from the Brits."  Rep. Susan Brooks, R-Indiana, did not think Hitlery's suggestion was at all funny.  She told Hitlery, "Those 'fire sale' items, by the way, are barricades. They are additional requests for security for the compound."

Hitlery was largely responsible for a pointless invasion of Libya which, shortly thereafter, turned into what would become a terrorist-run hellhole. She was, as Secretary of State was responsible for the security of her diplomats in Libya, but she chose not provide for it.  And while she had no correspondence with those diplomats on the ground she seemed to have plenty of time to speak with sleaze bag, Sidney Blumenthal.  And when those diplomats and those who ran to help them were killed, she chose to blame a YouTube video. And finally, she used her jerry-rigged email server to selectively edit the material the public would see.  But don’t worry—Hitlery’s the victim, Republicans are the perpetrators, and Chris Stevens is just one more bump in the road on her journey to the White House.

But look, in all likelihood this attempt to get Hitlery to accept at least some level of responsibility will be for naught.  The stonewalling has gone on for so long now that despite the fact she’s viewed as a liar by a majority of Americans, she’s going to end up getting away with allowing four Americans to be butchered.  Your average Democrat doesn’t give a squat that she’s is a liar or about those four Americans.  And dare I say that there is really very little she could ever do or say that would keep Democrats from voting for her.  Because Democrats have one overriding priority, that being of course, to make sure that there is a continuation of all the ‘free’ taxpayer funded goodies that they get.  So I suppose the more important question to ask would is, do enough Independents care that Hitlery is a pathological liar?

But ya know, at the end of the day if Hitlery does turn out to be the kind of person that a majority of the American people truly want to be representing them for the next 4 years, then none of her blatant dishonesty nor her pathological tendencies is going to matter, and she will most assuredly be elected as our next president.  And I must admit that, as much as it pains me to say it, I have now gotten to the point where I have very little faith in the ability of the American people to do right thing simply because most Americans don’t possess even the slightest interest in salvaging what’s left of our country.  Frankly, they seem very content with saddling future generations with what has become an astronomical amount of debt brought about because of their own selfish demands and complicit politicians.  

RYAN CANNOT BE TRUSTED…

Well yet again I’m feeling that sense of being abandoned by those whom I thought were on my side and on the side of preserving what’s left of my country.  But apparently I was wrong again.  This so-called “Freedom Caucus” is apparently less interested in freedom that it is in politics as usual.  And even though at the end of a meeting that took place yesterday in the U.S. Capitol Ryan had failed to earn the group’s endorsement, he still walked out having received the group’s support. 

And it was after making all manner of promises including promising members a return to regular order, changes to the steering committee that decides committee assignments centralizing power in the Speaker’s office and even promising to give up the Speaker’s five votes on the committee and an end to retaliation against Republican members who vote their conscience that Paul Ryan was able to convince enough of the group’s members into supporting him.

He also reiterated his promise made in the full GOP conference on Tuesday that there would be no amnesty bill under Barry “Almighty”—which most notably did not extend to the next president—and an end to the crisis-to-crisis style of  governance under outgoing Speaker John Boehner. Ryan also promised more “regional representation” rather than representation centralized in the Speaker’s office.  Lots of promises of which very few, I expect, will be kept.

However, the many promises came with two significant strings very firmly attached: first, those present couldn’t tell the public what just happened because, Ryan argued, it would infuriate the other side of the House GOP conference. And Ryan would get what he wanted with significant changes to a House rule that was put in place back in the early 1800s by Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, America’s third president and the author of America’s Declaration of Independence.

That would be the rule which allows any member to offer a “motion to vacate the chair” as a privileged resolution—allowing members to, if a Speaker is out of control, as Boehner has been, remove a Speaker from power. Ryan wants to severely undercut the power of rank-and-file members to hold a Speaker accountable with a motion to vacate the chair. So he wants to keep members from being able to use it whenever necessary, just in case they should come to feel betrayed.

So, heading into the meeting with Ryan, on Wednesday, there was near-unanimous opposition to him in the House Freedom Caucus. And there were many outlets reporting that it was “unlikely” that Ryan would receive the endorsement of the Freedom Caucus.  Every member except two opposed a Ryan Speakership—and they were agreeing to the meeting simply to be fair. But when Ryan made all these promises, it seems that most members chose to believe him at face value.

Ryan made all these nice-sounding promises to the members on the condition, that they surrender the only two ways they have to enforce such promises: going public, or kicking him out of office down the road.  Several of the members worry that Ryan is untrustworthy and dishonest, especially given the misleading nature of the way he has sold Republicans in the past on Obamatrade, “doc fix,” the budget deal he cut with Democrat Patty Murray and immigration to name just a few.

But if they do come to vote for Ryan, and then he chooses not to deliver all those things that were promised, the Freedom Caucus essentially becomes politically irrelevant.  I suppose some would argue, including myself, that by choosing to support him by any measure is nothing short of a capitulation and therefore they have already made themselves irrelevant.  Ryan is not the man for this position that has already been so badly squandered over the last 5 years.  What’s needed is a conservative! 

PAUL RYAN FOR SPEAKER…JUST SAY NO!!!

Now I’ll be right up front here and say that I am not a big supporter of Paul Ryan becoming our new Speaker of the House.  Sorry, but I have a rather difficult time accepting a guy who has been so very enthusiastically endorsed by none other than ‘Dingy Harry’ Reid.  But be that as it may, it would at least appear that the Establishment wing of the Republican Party may now be close to getting its wish.  That being, of course, their wish for another Boehner.  But for conservatives, Ryan is far from being the ideal candidate to fill the role of Speaker. 

After meeting with House Republicans, Ryan admitted, during a press conference, that he was willing to run for Speaker of the House, but only if they met the list of demands of what it would take to get him to run.  But is such behavior something we should coming from someone described as being a leader?  And is it something that we would expect to hear from someone who really wanted the job?  I would argue that it’s a no on both counts.  He’ll only take the job if everyone agrees to go along with whatever position he may take on any issue?  Really?

Ryan said, “We as a conference should unify now and not after a divisive Speaker election.”  He called for Republicans to gather as a team and “move from an opposition party to being a proposition party.”  What I want now, and what I think many Americans want, is for the Republican Party to finally start behaving like a true opposition party, instead of caving every time they start feeling a little heat.  Frankly, I’m tired of this bunch if eunuchs.  They have surrendered so many times because, I think, it’s simply easier than putting up a fight.

And the level of arrogance exhibited by Ryan in presenting his list of demands that he says must be met before he’d even be willing to accept the third highest office in our constitutional republic, is not a leadership trait.  These demands appear to highlight not only party unity but also loyalty to Ryan.  He has also criticized the chaos in the Republican caucus that lead to Boehner’s resignation.  Well perhaps the chaos to which Ryan refers might never have occurred had Boehner at least made an attempt to follow through on at least a few of the promises made in 2014. 

And according to Ryan’s spokesperson Brendan Buck, before Ryan would become Speaker, one of his demands involves changing the process for a motion to “vacate the chair,” a rule that was put into place by the third President of the United States and Founding Father, Thomas Jefferson.   And it was put into place in order to give members of the House power to remove the sitting Speaker of the House.  Buck told reporters before Ryan’s speech, “No matter who is speaker, they cannot be successful with this weapon pointed at them all the time.”   

So I guess what Ryan is saying here is that every House Republican must simply stand with him regardless of the position he takes, regardless of the issue.  Now I ask you, how stupid would it be to agree to that?  Especially when considering some of the rather questionable positions that Ryan has taken on some pretty important issues such as immigration.  Look, I didn’t send my representative off to Congress so he could simply agree with a RINO like Ryan.  I voted to send him to Washington for him act on my behalf on the truly important issues of the day.

Ryan signaled that the partisan brinkmanship had to come to an end.  Ryan said, “We have become the problem.”  And he then added, “If my colleagues entrust me to be the Speaker I want us to become the solution.”  Ryan also urged his House colleagues to stop blaming the other party, the president, and the media for blocking their agenda.  He said, “People don’t care about blame, people don’t care about effort, people care about results.”  And he called for Republicans to embrace “results-driven, common-sense conservatism.”

Ryan admitted that if the conference couldn’t unite behind him, he would be “happy” to remain as chairman of the Ways and Means committee. He said, “This is not a job I ever wanted and I’ve ever sought,” referring to the situation as a “dire moment” in America.  Ok, so let’s keep him happy and on the Ways and Means committee.  He is not fit to be Speaker.  He’s not a conservative, or at least conservative enough.  He would be no better that Boehner, and maybe even worse!  He’s more interested in getting along than in getting something done that will get this country back on track.

It remains unclear whether or not the House Freedom Caucus will oppose Ryan unanimously or begrudgingly support him.  Ryan’s ultimatum might be enough to divide rebel conservatives who will likely face peer pressure from their colleagues to fall in line.  After Ryan spoke with the conference, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) announced that he would drop out of the Speaker race in favor of Ryan.  “Right person at the right time,” he wrote briefly on Twitter.  I would choose to respectfully disagree with Mr. Chaffetz, Ryan is NOT the right person at this time.

So I’ll say this one more time and then I’ll let it go.  It is my humble opinion that Paul Ryan is not the right choice for what has become a critically important job in a very critical time for this country.  Frankly I don’t see him as being the leader we need in going up against Barry during this the final hear of his administration. Look, Paul Ryan is Boehner 2.0, except worse.  And if he in fact he is chosen to take over from Boehner then I have a sneaky suspicion that come January 2017 that which had been a historic Republican majority will come to an abrupt end.   

DEMOCRAT = SOCIALIST…

Once upon a time, in the not so distant past, politically speaking, a guy like Bernie Sanders would have, I think, enjoyed very little success as a Democrat.  For sure, there would have been very little chance of someone like him finding his, or her, way to leading in any presidential polls.  Instead, he would have been ridiculed by the party's mainstream as a lunatic, a lefty, a "pinko," and as being unelectable.  But we see today something very different taking place.  It would seem to be that that was then and this is now, with those days likely being gone forever.

You may recall how it was this past summer, when MSNBC's "Hardball" host Chris Matthews asked Debbie Wasserman Schultz, "What is the difference between a Democrat and a socialist”, that he got no response.  Now you would think for the head of the Democrat Party that should be a relatively easy enough question to answer. And when she didn't, Matthews asked again, and again, all to no avail. Instead, Wasserman Schultz chose to respond in typical fashion by blathering on about how the GOP is now captive to its extreme right.

And then just a few weeks later it was yet another Democrat suck up, Chuck Todd, who tried to get old Debbie to answer the very same question when she appeared on his program, "Meet the Press." And again she refused. And when asked a third time at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast for reporters, Wasserman Schultz replied: "I'll give you the same answer that I gave both of them." And then, once again, old Deb proceeded NOT to answer the question.  She wasn’t about to acknowledge the fact that the Democrat Party is now captive to the extreme left.

Now Debbie may choose to disagree, but this isn't some political game of gotcha. It's what I, and even some in the leftist media, think is a very legitimate question and one deserving of a straight answer.  After all, it is self-described socialist Bernie Sanders who is beating Hitlery Clinton in some state polls for the 2016 Democrat Party presidential nomination. The reason Wasserman Schultz won't answer the question is because Democrats have now moved so far to the left that there’s hardly a dime's worth of difference between the two anymore. 

That's right.  There is no longer any real difference, and while some would say that that is not a good path to national election for the Democrats, I’m not so sure.   It would seem that more and more Americans now seem quite content to just sit back and watch as others are made to pick up their tab as they go through life functioning as nothing more parasites, consuming everything that comes their way while producing nothing more than waste.  They have been told by those for whom they vote that there’s really no need to work if they choose not to.  

And I suppose one could argue that at least ‘Slick Willie’ Clinton tried to move his party toward the center.  After all, he did work with the GOP to pass welfare reform and he did sign free trade agreements like NAFTA. ‘The Slickmeister’ understood that the party had gone too far to the left and was losing the middle class.  And many think that it’s ‘Slow Joe’ Biden who would be able to perhaps move the party back toward the middle.  But having said that, how would old ‘Slow Joe’ be able to please the Sanders voters in the process?  

It wasn’t all that long ago that many on the left mocked the GOP as the party of old guys clinging to their guns and the 10th Amendment.  But these days I think one could safely argue that it’s the Democrats who are the party of old guys, and old ladies, clinging to the Great Society and their Woodstock LPs.  And as well I think it can also be argued that there is no longer such political animal able to be defined as a either Conservative or a Centrist Democrat.  Such a breed of Democrat can be said to have long ago gone the way of the dinosaur. 

Since the arrival of Barry “Almighty” onto the political scene the Democrat Party has made a pretty significant lurch to the far left.  And among those who identify themselves as being a Democrat, there has been a shift from equal support for socialism and capitalism to a six-point swing in favor of socialism. Meanwhile, there has also been a seven-point dip in Republican support for capitalism.  Weird, huh?  And while on the GOP side that may be little more than noise, can we also then identify the Democrat swing as being little more than noise as well?

I don’t think so.  Because when Democrats are asked whether Sanders calling himself a socialist makes them more or less likely to vote for him, 20 percent say more versus just six percent who say less. And when Democrat voters are asked to describe themselves politically, this is what you get.  Out of 356 Democrats that were asked, 14% said they supported capitalism, 21% said they supported socialism, 47% said they supported neither and, get this, 17% actually said they weren’t sure.  They weren’t sure? And from 390 Independents the numbers were 25%, 5%, 53% and 17% respectively.

Now that we’re 25 years removed from the dissolution of the USSR, I suppose memories of what revolutionary socialism looked like have pretty much faded and have now been replaced with smiley-face domestic initiatives like “free” college for everyone and happy talk at Democrat debates about Denmark which, actually, is less socialist in some ways than is the United States. One of the more lasting aftershocks of what can, I guess, be defined as Sandersmania this year, is that on the left there has been a rehabilitation, of sorts, regarding the term “socialist” for young liberals.

Apparently old Bernie intends to offer up his definition of what he refers to as ‘Democratic Socialism’ in what’s being billed as a major speech on that very subject. I suppose that making leftists comfortable with the term “socialism” by slapping the label on garden-variety progressive programs might be a clever first step to making them more comfortable over time with socialism’s grander utopian ambitions. Or maybe Sanders himself is just frustrated with the vagueness of the term.  Most people today have no idea what true socialism represents.

After having spent the last 8 years watching the many bizarre goings on in the Democrat Party it has become quite obvious that this is not your father’s Democrat Party.  Granted the party has always tended to tack more than a little left of center, but these days, regarding of the issue that one might want to discuss, it has come to stray a long way from the center, choosing to hug the far left instead.  And most of those who identify as Democrats don’t seem to be all that bothered by their party’s evolution to the far left. They seem to relish it!

JOHN KERRY-HEINZ BLAMES HIS INEPTNESS ON, YOU GUESSED IT, ‘CLIMATE CHANGE’…

Our exceptionally dimwitted secretary of state, that would be the very mentally deficient John Kerry-Heinz, has demonstrated, once again just this past Saturday, that he has no intention whatsoever of letting up on his drumbeat when it comes to how it is that he views ‘climate change’ as continuing to be the root cause of every malady imaginable currently taking place here on good old planet Earth.  This time around the claim we hear coming from this dunderhead is how ‘climate change’ is, in fact, now considered as being a contributing factor in the Syrian civil war, using as proof of his claim, some study conducted last spring which linked drought-driven urbanization to the conflict that began back in 2011. 

It was in a speech at the Milan Expo 2015 in Italy that this reject from a mental ward said, “It is not a coincidence that immediately prior to the civil war in Syria, the country experienced the worst drought on record.”  And this mental-midget then went on to say, “As many as 1.5 million people migrated from Syria’s farms into Syria’s cities, and that intensified the political unrest that was beginning to brew.”  This boob went on to say, “Now, I’m not telling you that the crisis in Syria was caused by climate change. No, obviously, it wasn’t. It was caused by a brutal dictator who barrel-bombed, starved, tortured, and gassed his own people.”  But, according to Kerry-Heinz, ‘climate change’ allowed things to get so much worse.

But instead of taking any responsibility for this part of the world to have been allowed to be turned into what is not much more than a tinderbox, Kerry-Heinz instead put forth his best effort to portray ‘climate change’ as having played some critical role in making things considerably worse than they would otherwise have been.  Kerry-Heinz said, “But the devastating drought clearly made a bad situation a lot worse.”  Clearly?  How so, exactly?  And clear to whom?  Now I suppose it’s clear to someone like Kerry-Heinz who has been quite busy supporting the cockamamie global warming/climate change/climate disruption myth for decades, but to anyone with an ounce of brainpower, I’m thinking that it’s probably not quite so clear. 

So in an effort to perhaps provide a little background here, unrest in Syria erupted back in March 2011, when demonstrators, evidently inspired by protest movements in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen, began calling for political reforms, an end to five decades of emergency law, and freedom for political prisoners, which at the time were estimated to number around 4,000.  In the southern town of Dara'a, 60 miles from Damascus, security forces opened fire on protesters demanding reforms – and the release of more than a dozen school students arrested for writing anti-regime slogans on walls. Four people ended up being killed.

Protests against the Assad regime quickly spread, and over the ensuing month more than 170 people ended up being killed, the majority by live ammunition fired by what were identified as ‘security forces’.  And by early August the death toll had reached 1,600.  The unrest degenerated into a full-blown civil war, complicated by the proliferation of extremist groups and foreign support for various parties in the conflict. The U.N. estimates that more than 250,000 Syrians have died, and millions have sought refuge in neighboring countries while others seek new lives in Europe.  But somehow we’re expected to believe that without ‘climate change’ the situation would never have been anywhere near as bad.  Really?

The notion that ‘climate change’ can somehow be seen as being a contributing factor in the conflict began making headlines last March and was provided some level of legitimacy when a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences highlighted a severe drought in Syria and surrounding parts of the Middle East in 2007-2010 that triggered a mass migration from farms to urban centers.  The authors, from the University of California Santa Barbara, Columbia University and Columbia’s Lamont–Doherty Earth Observatory, referred to the figure of 1.5 million people, which would then come to be cited by John Kerry-Heinz. 

The authors of this particular study wrote, “The rapidly growing urban peripheries of Syria, marked by illegal settlements, overcrowding, poor infrastructure, unemployment, and crime, were neglected by the Assad government and became the heart of the developing unrest.”  They said that the drought – which they attributed in part to “human influences on the climate system” – exacerbated other factors that contributed to the Syrian unrest, including corruption, unemployment and inequality.  I’m not sure how ‘climate change’ can have any sort of impact on the level of corruption, unemployment or, for that matter, inequality.  But then I’m not some nutty professor residing in one our leftist institutions of ‘higher learning’.

Anyway, in his speech in Milan, Kerry-Heinz pointed to the refugee and migrant crisis besetting Europe, and said that without action on climate change, future refugee flows could be even worse.  “Here in Europe, you’re in the middle of one of the worst refugee crises in decades,” he said. “And I would underscore, unless the world meets the urgency of this moment, the horrific refugee situation that we’re facing today will pale in comparison to the mass migrations that intense droughts, sea-level rise, and other impacts of climate change are likely to bring about.”  Whoa, talk about a worst case scenario pulled right out of thin air.  The boy has quite the imagination!

Kerry-Heinz linked his appeal to the forthcoming U.N. climate conference in Paris, France, which governments and activists hope will deliver a far-reaching new global climate agreement. He said, “We need every country on the same page, all pushing for an ambitious, durable, and inclusive agreement that will finally put us on the path towards a global clean-energy future.”  What a bunch of idiotic drivel.  Idiots like Kerry-Heinz continue to pull out all the stops in their never-ending attempt to convince the rest of us that this bogus theory of theirs actually exists and is something the rest of us really need to be concerned about and is worth going broke over trying to remedy.  To buy any of what he’s saying you’d have to be a complete moron.

Our current ‘diplomatic team’, with Barry and Kerry-Heinz enthusiastically leading the charge, is constantly on the hunt for any excuse to justify what has been a chain of rather disastrous diplomatic decisions going back to even before John-Kerry-Heinz assumed his current position.  And if by chance they can, at the same time, push bogus ‘climate change’ to the forefront as somehow being to blame, all the better.  That way, perhaps, they will be able to kill two birds with one stone.  Coming up with what they see as being a viable excuse for their own failed policies while continuing with their increasingly dire scenarios regarding the coming apocalypse of ‘climate change.’  I wonder, might we soon be hearing about how it’s all the fault of ‘climate change’ that Iran has been able to acquire a nuclear weapon?

THE INCOMPETENT MR. PRIEBUS…

Finally bringing himself to acknowledge the fact that if the party fails to regain the White House in 2016 the Republican Party’s goose will effectively have been cooked, there still seems to be no let up in the ongoing assault on those of us who are conservatives or who identify with the stated goals of the Tea Party.  The push still seems to be behind the establishment candidates, or, in other words, those guaranteed to lose.  Look at any of presidential polls and it’s those guys who are consistently in single digits.

So according to Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Reince Priebus, the Republican Party is "cooked" if it fails to take back the White House in 2016.  It was in a recent interview with the Washington Examiner that Priebus said, "We're cooked as a party for quite a while if we don't win in 2016."  But then he quickly adds that he doesn't anticipate a disastrous election for the GOP because "history is on our side."  He said, "Our job as a national party is to elect Republicans, and it generally means House, Senate, presidential."

And he went on to say, "However, I think that we have become, unfortunately, a midterm party that doesn't lose and a presidential party that's had a really hard time winning.  We're seeing more and more that if you don't hold the White House, it's very difficult to govern in this country, especially in Washington D.C."   Well maybe if those who won elections actually did what they promised to do it would be easier to win when presidential elections rolled around.  And why do the Democrat never have a problem driving the bus without possessing the White House?

And in a Washington Post piece published Thursday and titled "The GOP was Right to Fear Clinton," columnist Eugene Robinson said Republicans lack a "compelling" message on many issues.  He writes, "How can government help the middle class? With a higher minimum wage? With a mandate for businesses to offer paid family leave? With assistance in paying for higher education, perhaps even free tuition at public universities? With trade and tax policies that encourage keeping jobs in the United States?"  All wonderfully socialist ideas, but would accomplish little in getting the country back on track.

Robinson goes on to write, "The Democratic candidates understand that these are the issues people care most about. [Donald] Trump gets it, too, in his own bombastic way. A party that goes into the election without a compelling message on jobs and incomes — I'm talking to you, GOP establishment — is begging to lose."  But I would argue that the burying of our children under a mountain of debt, the economic destruction that has taken place during the last 8 years and the opening of the floodgates for illegal immigrants is a more compelling, realistic, albeit less socialist, message.

I think this election is less about the message than it is about getting people to listen.  Because what’s keeping folks from listening is the number of promises made during the 2014 campaign that were broken.  Promises to stop Barry’s insane spending, his assault on the Constitution regarding his illegal executive orders and the promises made to get rid of Obamacare. Not one promise was followed through on. Combine that with how the GOP rolled over in confirming Loretta Lynch and you come up with a lot of pissed off people who refuse to listen to what they see as the same old shit.

And to simply say you’re relying on history as the rationale for your confidence in being able to achieve electoral success is, I think, rather simplistic if not more than a bit naïve, or even foolish.  Because what has effectively taken place in this country during the time since Barry first strutted his cool self into the Oval Office is that the playing field has now been changed to the point where using election trends of the past as your guidepost is no longer applicable.  Historical trends of the past have become meaningless and to continue to rely on them is foolish.   

Because the net result of having had Barry in office for what will have been eight long years by the time Election Day 2016 rolls around is that we will have millions more Americans firmly on the government dole, in some form or another, and millions of Americans who want to get their fair share and see voting Democrat as being their path to getting lots of ‘free’ stuff, so it’s hard to see any of these folks voting for Republicans who are less likely to give away ‘free’ stuff, who advocate personal responsibility and who want to get people back to work.  Hell, who wants that?