DEMOCRAT THINKS WE NEED TO MAKE IT ‘EASIER’ TO VOTE…

It never ceases to amaze me how eager Democrats appear to be in their continuing effort to subvert the one right that is so important to the survival of our nation, that being, of course, our right to vote.  They constantly claim how it is that those of us on the right are working to disenfranchise certain segments of our population.  But we do no such thing, all we ask is that a person prove who it is that they say they are when showing up to cast your vote.  How is that disenfranchising anyone?  Democrats, on the other hand, couldn’t care less who you are when showing up to, or even about how many times you have cast your vote.  What’s most important to them is that every time you did show up you cast your vote for a Democrat.  Their desire to reduce the importance of voting, to trivialize the entire process of voting.

Which brings me to Keith Ellison, Muslim sympathizer and moron extraordinaire.  You see, it was earlier this month while speaking at something called the U.S. Vote Foundation's Voting and Elections Summit that this flaming imbecile said "We need to make voting easier," and "I've often asked myself why you should have to register to vote."   In his remarks in the opening keynote address, Ellison said, "Now I also think we need to make voting easier. It should be easier. In other countries it's easier. Why should voting be so difficult? Tuesday? Who thought that up? I mean the fact is, is that there's wide variation in when people can vote. You can't necessarily register to vote on Election Day. I've often asked myself why you should have to register to vote. Why shouldn't it be automatic."  Seriously?  How stupid is that?

As is the case with most Democrats, especially with ones such as our esteemed Mr. Ellison, one who so very obviously emerged from what can only be one of the very shallowest of gene pools imaginable, there is a willful ignorance when it comes to the history that surrounds why it is that we vote when we do.  So since Mr. Ellison seems not to possess the necessary motivation required to seek out the answer to his own question, it was in my attempt to assist Mr. Ellison, while also wanting to refresh my own memory, that I went in search of finding out why Congress, in 1845, selected the first Tuesday in November as Election Day.  And I found what was a pretty terrific response to his question at, of all places, the web site of the Federal Election Commission.

Here's how they explain it:

". . . For much of our history, America was a predominantly agrarian society. Law makers therefore took into account that November was perhaps the most convenient month for farmers and rural workers to be able to travel to the polls. The fall harvest was over, (remember that spring was planting time and summer was taken up with working the fields and tending the crops) but in the majority of the nation the weather was still mild enough to permit travel over unimproved roads.

Why Tuesday? Since most residents of rural America had to travel a significant distance to the county seat in order to vote, Monday was not considered reasonable since many people would need to begin travel on Sunday. This would, of course, have conflicted with Church services and Sunday worship.

Why the first Tuesday after the first Monday? Lawmakers wanted to prevent election day from falling on the first of November for two reasons. First, November 1st is All Saints Day, a Holy Day of Obligation for Roman Catholics. Second, most merchants were in the habit of doing their books from the preceding month on the 1st. Apparently, Congress was worried that the economic success or failure of the previous month might prove an undue influence on the vote!"  So there you go Mr. Ellison.

It was also in his address that Ellison called for "greater enfranchisement" of voters in the US.  He said, "We have to protect voting rights. We need to make voting easy as possible, and we need to fix our broken campaign finance laws."  But I would argue that we have already carried the notion of ‘greater enfranchisement’ to such an extreme as to have resulted in making a mockery of the entire concept of voting.  Let’s face it, we have now gotten to the point where dead people routinely vote, we have pets and even cartoon characters voting, as well as people who show up at multiple polling places to cast their votes.  I’m not sure how it is that Mr. Ellison would have us make the process any easier than it already is.  Instead we need to instill in people that voting is uniquely important and not the equivalent of taking a dump.  

And it was this event that also presented Mr. Ellison with an opportunity that he was only too happy to take advantage of.  He get on what has become the standard Democrat soapbox and commenced to criticize conservatives for what he called, trying to restrict the right to vote through voter I.D. laws.  He said, "Conservatives know that the data doesn't support the need for these restrictive laws, and I remember way back as a Minnesota state legislator making the case that there's no voter impersonation going on, why do we need those photo I.D. laws?  Well, I was missing the point. The point was they wanted to restrict the right to vote."   On the contrary, what the vast majority of data tell us is that with each successive election the problem of voter fraud gets a little worse.  Hence the need for voter I.D. laws. 

PROGRESSIVES, THEY NEVER STOP TRYING TO TAKE OUR GUNS…

Progressive Democrats, let’s just call them what they are since they seem to have ‘evolved’ well beyond anyone’s definition of ‘liberal’, have long tried, and by just about means they could come up with, to take guns out of the hands of law abiding Americans.  They’ve tried bullying us, they’ve tried threatening us and they’ve even tried shaming us into giving up our guns.  And then there have been some at the state level who have gone as far as to force rather draconian gun laws upon us, some of which that, thankfully, have gotten overturned by even left leaning judges.  But now it seems that there is possibly a new move afoot.  A little concoction that that is the brainchild of the more progressive member of Congress from Oregon.  According to his plan, guns, like tobacco products, should be declared as hazardous to your health.   

So anyway, what we have here is Rep. Earl Blumenauer, progressive Democrat, who recently released a plan calling for “more research on the health effects of guns.”  What he’s calling his “Enough is Enough” plan, looks back at how it was that the U.S. government addressed tobacco use and automobile safety in years past and calls for a similar approach to guns.  According to his plan, “The Surgeon General's report on tobacco was a major catalyst for the efforts to reduce tobacco use. Ralph Nader’s research captured headlines and focused public attention on automobile safety. Similarly, we need more research on the health effects of guns. We can start by improving the ability of researchers and the federal government to study and share information about guns.”  What does he see as being the “health effects of guns?”

His cockamamie plan also increases the role that doctors and nurses are to play in the ongoing debate on guns.  The plan states that, “Our doctors and nurses should be part of the efforts to increase gun safety. Just as your physician would encourage you to stop smoking, or to put your child in a car seat, they should be able to ask questions and give advice about guns. People know and trust their doctors; when doctors encourage safe gun practices, people listen.”  I suppose that ‘might’ be true if the physician himself, or herself, was in fact a gun owner.  If not, might anything that they might have to say make things more dangerous than they might otherwise be?  Other aspects of the plan are said to include “Improving the Mental Health System”, “Increasing Product Safety” and “Controlling Access to the Most Dangerous Products.” 

According to, this moron’s plan, “There is tremendous variability in gun designs and features. Some are best used as tools or for sport - specifically designed for hunting or target shooting. Other guns have additional features such as pistol grips, barrel shrouds, and magazines that are detachable or attach outside the pistol grip. These features can allow a shooter to fire a large number of rounds at an extremely rapid pace without reloading. Commonly referred to as assault weapons, they are designed to be highly deadly.”  The plan also says, “Restrictions on assault weapon availability and magazine capacity can be a small but important step in addressing the lethality of mass shootings.”  So would like to see a return to something like an assault weapon ban that proved so ineffective last time it was tried that it was simply allowed to die?

Apparently as the basis for his "Enough is Enough" plan Blumenauer cites Australia’s laws which ban semiautomatic and automatic rifles and shotguns, institutes a 28-day waiting period for every gun purchase and requiring every potential owner to show a genuine reason to own, possess, or use a firearm as an “inspiring” example of incremental steps to reduce gun violence that can be effective.  According to his plan, “Solutions in the United States will not look like those in Australia, but the Australian experience shows that it is possible to reduce gun violence significantly while still allowing hobby and sport shooting for responsible owners. We must chart our own path forward, but we cannot be afraid to take the first step.”  Democrats ignore completely the fact that stricter gun laws do little to reduce gun violence.

And it really wasn’t that long ago Barry, too, was citing Australia’s gun laws as being the example for stricter gun laws here.  Just last June Barry said, “My biggest frustration so far is the fact that this society has not been willing to take some basic steps to keep guns out of the hands of people who can do just unbelievable damage. We’re the only developed country on earth where this happens. And it happens now once a week. And it’s a one-day story. There’s no place else like this.”  He went on to say, “A couple of decades ago Australia had a mass shooting similar to Columbine or Newtown, and Australia just said, ‘Well, that’s it. We’re not doing — we’re not seeing that again,’ and basically imposed very severe, tough gun laws, and they haven’t had a mass shooting since. I mean, our levels of gun violence are off the charts. There’s no other advanced, developed country on earth that would put up with this.”

These two may have been a bit hasty because it was on 15–16 December 2014, that a lone gunman, Man Haron Monis, held hostage ten customers and eight employees of a Lindt chocolate café located at Martin Place in Sydney, Australia.  Police treated the event as a terrorist attack, and negotiated with Monis throughout the day.  After a 16-hour standoff, during which areas of the Sydney central business district surrounding the site were cordoned off and nearby buildings locked down, police officers from the Tactical Operations Unit stormed the café upon hearing gunshots from inside. At least one hostage was shot by Monis, who himself was shot dead after police entered in response.  Hostages Katrina Dawson and Tori Johnson died, while three other hostages and a police officer were injured during the police raid.  The incident still has many asking, would good guys with guns have prevented this tragedy from happening?

And it would later be that a PRO-guns Senator there in Australia would seem to be of the opinion that his country has now become what is essentially a “nation of victims” because citizens, like the hostages in the Sydney siege, are now unable to properly defend themselves.  According to the Liberal Democrats’ David Leyonhjelm, those held against their will that day were helpless because they were unable to arm themselves.  It was Senator Leyonhjelm who told ABC Radio, “What happened in that cafe would be most unlikely to have occurred in Florida, Texas, or Vermont, or Alaska in America, or perhaps even Switzerland as well,” adding at least “one or two” there would have had a concealed gun.  He said, “That nutcase who held them all hostage wouldn’t have known they were armed and bad guys don’t like to be shot back at.”

The bottom line here is that I find it somewhat, oh I don’t know, ironic I guess, that while progressives like this boob Blumenauer and Barry wish to emulate the gun laws of Australia because they are far more strict than those laws we have here, they have absolutely no interest whatsoever in emulating the immigration laws of, say, Mexico, whose immigration laws are also far more tougher than the immigration laws that we have in this country.  Democrats have always been so very selective when it comes to determining into which areas they wished government to force itself.  They claim to be acting on behalf of increasing public safety when pushing for stricter gun laws while at the same time decreasing public safety by working to weaken, or to simply unenforced, our immigration laws.  So it simply makes no sense.  

WHEN I COME BACK, I COMING BACK BLACK…

Oh what it must be like to be black in America today.  I’m serious!  Because it would seem that far too many blacks today are of the opinion that society’s rules simply don’t apply to them, and that they should therefore be free to abide by them, or not.  And if they choose not to, then by virtue of their skin color, they should not be forced to deal with any of the rather nasty consequences that those of us who are not black would typically be made to deal with.  Also, we non-blacks don’t have the equivalent of an Al Sharpton or a Jesse Jackson, but then most of us tend to act like adults and not juvenile delinquents, so our need for someone like that is not as great.       

And also if you happen to be black in America today, thanks to any number of various quotas that must be met and, of course, affirmative action, it’s far easier, and far cheaper, to get into college since you don’t need to be as bright as, or need to come up with near as much money, as your competition.  And once there, you’re pretty much shoved through to make sure you graduate.  From there it’s on to some cushy job in the local, state or federal government, a job that you have no aptitude for, are able to make a pretty decent living at and, oh by the way, that you can never be fired from.  It’s all a pretty good gig if you can get it.  All it takes is being black.

And also as we have learned a few months ago, if you’re black you can disregard what you’re told to do by a police officer, you can then assault and even attempt to kill that police officer, and when killed by that police officer, you can still be seen as a Saint.  And now word comes that if you happen to be an all black little league team there’s absolutely no reason why you should obey the rules if those rules prevent you from winning a championship. At least that’s what those associated with the Jackie Robinson West little league team claimed after Little League Baseball vacated all of the team’s wins from the 2014 Little League World Series tournament on Wednesday.

After investigating allegations that several players on JRW do not happen to reside within the team’s district borders, Little League Baseball (LLB) decided to strip the team of both its Great Lakes Regional and U.S. national titles.  Despite the open and shut nature of the case, several of the team’s supporters, including such well-known rabble-rousers like Jesse ‘The Extortionist’ Jackson and, rouge preacher, Michael Pfleger stated at a Wednesday press conference that JRW’s punishment had nothing whatsoever to do with any possible recruiting infractions and was born purely through…wait for it…RACISM!!!  Yup!  It’s all because it was an all black team.

What is it with so many of these faux preachers, these fraudulent men of God, who are so casually able to blame everything on racism?  To my way of thinking they not only do a great disservice to their parishioners, but to the black community as well.  For instance, according to Jesse ‘The Extortionist’ Jackson, “this decision is untimely and inappropriate at this time. It should not take six months after a team has played a championship game to determine eligibility to play the game in the first place… Is this about boundaries or race?”  Why, race of course!  It can’t be that they cheated, these days everyone cheats.   So it HAS to be because they are black.

And then we have this moron reverend Pfleger whose idiotic comments essentially expressed the same idiotic message.  He said, “When you’re going over to voter registration and going to birth certificates and doing all this time of hunting and a witch hunt that’s been going on for the last number of months, I can’t help but wonder the question if the same thing would have been done with another team from another place, another race.”  This moron has been around for years, doing his best to stoke the flames of hate, incite as much violence, with him being, at the end of the day, very proud of himself.  Another one of those fraudulent men of God.

While the team’s supporters made ample references to skin color, was it just a matter of coincidence that neither of our very stellar reverends, nor any of the parents of players on this team, bothered to mention either of the true culprits in this scam?  First there was Darold Butler, the team’s manager, and then Michael Kelly, the league’s district administrator; both have been identified as the scandal’s masterminds and have been indefinitely suspended from all Little League activity.  But to place the blame only on those two men would be to do nothing more than to use them as scapegoats.  Everyone, EVERYONE, knew what was going on here.

At the press conference during which accusations of racism were suggested, Jesse Jackson called Little League International’s decision to strip the national title from the Chicago-based Jackie Robinson West little league team for using players outside its boundaries “persecution.”  “This is persecution,” said Jackson, who is planning to hold a rally for the team Saturday. “This is not right, it is unnecessary and it is not fair.”  While he agreed the adults involved should be punished, he argued, the kids on the team should not.  Look, it’s obvious that what went on here was a concerted effort by all involved to garner for themselves a championship.  And all should be punished!

Players and parents also spoke up, including mother Venisa Green, who agreed that race played a role in the league's actions despite the clear violation of rules.  It was this mental midget that said, “It is amazing to me that whenever African-Americans exceed the expectations, that there is always going to be fault.”  This racist imbecile went on to say, “Little League says that they teach character and they teach courage, well this isn’t an act of courage and it sure isn’t an act of character."  So because they’re black, we should accept the fact that they cheated?  I’d also be curious to know if this supposed devoted mother, or any of the parents, knew what was up.

There are those in this country who make their fortunes from creating friction between the races.  These are the true racists in America today.  And it’s these individuals who are the haters and these are people who see themselves as being above the rules.  And these are examples of what it means to be black in America in the 21^st century.  Slavery, it seems, can still be blamed for just about everything, even though it ended 150 years ago and was, historically speaking, relatively short lived here in the United States.  That’s not to justify or to in any way provide an excuse for it, but to simply put it into the proper historical context.

STENY HOYER…THE GAS BAG CHRONICLES…

It is in this the latest episode of ‘The Gasbag Chronicles, starring Steny Hoyer” that we once again catch up with the lead character in what has become our continuing saga behaving badly.  This time we catch him in the middle of saying that while “freedom of religion is a constitutional guarantee,” he would not vote to overturn a D.C. law that forces Christian organizations to employ people who advocate abortion.

Now what it was that prompted old Steny to even comment on the issue was the fact that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) recently co-signed a letter to members of Congress asking them to disapprove a D.C. law, titled the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act of 2014.  Their feeling is that this law is, and very clearly so, a violation of employers' First Amendment rights.  

And, of course, Hoyer declined to say whether he supported the D.C. law when asked about it at his weekly press briefing on Capitol Hill Tuesday.  However, later that same day a Hoyer aide said in an email that Hoyer would vote to uphold the District law, saying, “Mr. Hoyer supports D.C. autonomy and home rule, and consistent with that support, he defers to the City Council and Mayor in enacting legislation.”

Hoyer’s office was provided a copy of the letter sent to Congress by the USCCB and 14 other organizations with offices in the District of Columbia, which stated:  “The law requires our organizations to hire or retain individuals whose speech or public conduct contradicts the organizations’ missions, and could be read to require our organizations to subsidize elective abortions through their employee health plans.”

And the letter went on to say, "The law plainly violates the First Amendment, the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), and possibly other federal laws and clearly contradicts the Supreme Court’s recent, unanimous ruling in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Church and School v. EEOC.”  And the Bishops were quite right in what they saying despite the fact that it was falling on deaf ears.

The letter went on to point out that the D.C. law “prevents religious institutions, other faith-based employers, and pro-life advocacy organizations from making employment decisions consistent with their sincerely held religious beliefs, or their moral and ethical views about the sanctity of human life.”  And therefore the Bishops were more than justified in their request that Congress ‘disapprove’ the law.

Since all D.C. laws are subject to congressional review, the letter urged Congress to “disapprove” the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act as well as the Human Rights Amendment of 2014, which it said “requires religiously affiliated educational institutions to endorse, sponsor, and provide school resources to persons or groups that oppose the institutions’ religious teachings regarding human sexuality.”

First Hoyer was asked, "The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is asking Congress to disapprove the D.C. Reproductive Health and Non-Discrimination Act because it would force religious organizations to hire people who advocate for abortion. Can the government force religious organizations to hire people who advocate for abortion?" Now you would think that a very reasonable, and relatively simple, question to ask.

But Hoyer chose a bullshit response, saying, "Well, look, I don’t know specifically what you’re referring to. We’ve been through this with the ACA [Affordable Care Act]. I believe that clearly the ability of people to speak freely is a constitutional guarantee, but I also think freedom of religion is a constitutional guarantee and they need to be balanced, and that’s always a tough thing to do. I’ll leave it at that."

Hoyer was asked if he thought Congress should disapprove the law?  And then in doing his best to ‘play’ dumb, he asked if the law being referred to was the ACA.  The answer was no, and that what was being talked about was D.C.’s Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act.  Hoyer then responded by saying, "I need to look at D.C., I don’t really know enough about it to comment directly.”  Somehow I doubt it!

You see, legislation becomes law in the District of Columbia after passage by the city council, except in the event Congress passes a joint resolution of disapproval, which must then be signed by the president. It has happened just three times in the last 40 years.  Congress is also presently considering whether to overturn a recent referendum legalizing marijuana in D.C.  It’s doubtful that either will be overturned.

OH FOR THE DAYS OF JAY CARNEY…

I gotta tell ya, these days I find myself almost yearning for a return to the days of Jay Carney.  I did say almost.  Because while Jay used to tell us all some real whoppers, there just ain’t no way that he could ever hope to hold a candle to this new guy, Earnest.  I’m not sure where the Hell it was that they dug this guy up, but I’m sure that it must have been someplace pretty sleazy.  For example, it was just yesterday that this clown chose to double down on what was Barry’s idiotic claim that somehow ‘climate change’ represents a much greater threat than does Islamic terrorism.

You see, it was when our favorite spokesmoron, Josh Earnest, was asked if Barry was actually serious when he said that the threat of ‘climate change’ is greater than the threat we face from terrorism, that he answered, “The point that the president is making is that there are many more people on an annual basis who have to confront the impact – the direct impact – on their lives of climate change or on the spread of disease than on terrorism.”  Now I don’t know about the rest of you, but I can’t remember one time that ‘climate change’ was directly linked to the death of anyone.

It was during the recent interview with the liberal news website Vox, that Barry was asked, “Do you think the media sometimes overstates the sort of level of alarm people should have about terrorism and this kind of chaos as opposed to a longer term problem like climate change and epidemic disease?”  He very enthusiastically responded, “Absolutely!”  He went on to say, “And I don’t blame the media for that. What’s the famous saying about local newscasts, right, if it bleeds, it leads, right? You show crime stories, and you show fires, because that’s what folks watch.” 

But he wasn’t finished, as he went on to say, “It’s all about ratings, and the problems of terrorism and dysfunction and chaos along with plane crashes and a few other things, that’s the equivalent when it comes to covering international affairs.”  Barry   said stories about cutting the infant mortality and slashing extreme poverty don’t generate a lot of interest. He said, “It’s not a sexy story, and climate change is happening at such a broad scale and such a complex system that it’s a hard story for the media to tell on a day-to-day basis.”  Which ‘media’ is he talking about?

But might it be considered as being ‘complex’ because at a time when so many folks now find themselves walking around waist deep in snow, they’re not really thinking it’s all because the Earth is getting warmer.  Barry went on to add, “The point is this: my first job is to protect the American people. It is entirely legitimate for the American people to be deeply concerned when you’ve got a bunch of violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris.”  But he doesn’t act like someone who sees his first job as protecting the American people.

And when Earnest was asked to clarify Barry’s obviously politicized response, he quickly slipped into his nonsensical drivel mode as he repeated ad nauseam that the philosophy of this White House, no matter how bizarre it may sound to any reasonably intelligent person, is that ‘climate change’ directly impacts the lives of Americans on a daily basis far more so than does Islamic terrorism.  This demonstrates just how devoted those on the left are today when it comes to the theory of ‘climate change’, and how desperate they are to downplay the dangers of Islamic terrorism.

“So the answer’s yes, the president thinks that climate change is a greater threat than terrorism?” a reporter asked Earnest.  To which Earnest responded, “I think that the point that the president is making is that when you’re talking about the direct daily impact of these kinds of challenges on the daily lives of Americans … Americans living in this country, that that direct impact is more, that more people are directly affected by those things than by terrorism.”  From my own perspective, I have a greater fear of being taken out at the mall or theater than by ‘climate change.’   

The reporter asked again, “So climate change is more of a clear and present danger to the United States than terrorism?”  Earnest simply repeated more of the same, saying, “I think even the Department of Defense has spoken to the significant threat that climate change poses to our national security interests, principally because of the impact that it can have on countries with less well developed infrastructure than we have.”  The reporter said, “I’m not asking if it’s a significant threat. I’m asking if it’s a greater threat.”  Earnest said, “Again, I wouldn’t have a whole lot more to say about what the president has said in that interview.” 

And as has been previously reported, National Security Adviser Susan Rice in a speech at the Brookings Institution last week, said part of the president’s national security strategy is fighting “the very real threat of climate change” as well as promoting gay rights.  Rice said, “American leadership is addressing the very real threat of climate change.”  She added, “The science is clear.”  She went on to say, “The impacts of climate change will only worsen over time.”  Claiming finally that, “Even longer droughts; more severe storms; more forced migration.”  But it’s all bullshit!

What does it say about our president when he makes it so obvious that he cares far more about doing all that he can to advance something as deeply rooted in politics as is ‘climate change’, than he cares about taking all the precautions necessary in making sure our that country remains secure and our people remain safe?  And what does it say about Earnest who I have now come to view in much the same way as I viewed Carney, which was as being nothing more than a paid liar.  Credibility is in very short supply in this White House, Earnest only serves to compound the issue.  

DEMOCRATS ARE SUCH DISGUSTING CREATURES…

Democrats are most certainly a holier-than-thou bunch.  You see, it is only they who are capable of providing what’s needed to those considered to be perhaps a bit less fortunate than most.  Just ask them!  Therefore, most, if not all, possess a level of self-importance that is grossly over-inflated, to say the least.  They see themselves as being the protector of little guy but sadly, they are really nothing of the sort.  What they are is something far more sinister and quite dangerous to our country.  

Take Elijah Cummings as a for instance.  Cummings was recently heard to very proudly say: “So many people come to government knowing that they are not going to make the kind of money they would make in the private sector but they come to government to feed their souls.”  At the time Cummings made that rather silly statement he was speaking in Washington D.C. at the Legislative Conference of the National Treasury Employees Union on February 4th when he made the comments.

This racist, name-calling imbecile went on to tell those gathered in attendance, “People do not seem to understand that so many people come to government knowing that they are not going to make the kind of money that they would make in the private sector but they come to government to feed their souls.”  Taking what we have seen as Mr. Cummings skills, just how much money could he make in the private sector to which he refers?  I would argue, not very much.

This corrupt, doddering, old fool who hails from a place one would expect to, the ‘People’s Republic of Maryland.  He also told union members that getting federal workers a raise higher than the one proposed in Barry “Almighty’s” budget is among his priorities.  He said, “So what are my priorities? What’s my reason for being here?”  And went on to add, “My ardent priority is to do whatever I can to help federal workers obtain fair compensation and meaningful pay raises.”

He said, “President Obama’s budget for the next year recommends a 1.3% pay raise for federal employees I believe this is too low. I love the president but I believe this is far too low, far too low.”  And it was then, it was nothing more than a pure example of political pandering, that this pathetic piece of shit went to say, “That’s why I co-sponsored with Representative (Gerry) Connelly (D-Va.) the FAIR Act.  Which would raise pay up to 3.8% - even that’s too low."

Now, not meaning any level of disrespect toward the good Mr. Cummings, it becomes very clear, very quickly, that when he made that statement, he knew he was lying.  You see, it was a December 2014 Cato Institute report on federal and private sector worker pay that found, “In 2013 federal civilian workers had an average wage of $81,076, according to data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. By comparison, the average wage of the nation’s 107 million private-sector workers was $55,424.”

But wait, it becomes much worse.  Because when benefits like health care and pensions are included, it turns out that "federal worker compensation averaged $115,524, or 74 percent more than the private-sector average of $66,357."  And a 2012 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report shows that overall compensation for federal workers is 16% higher than for private sector workers, with private sector workers with bachelor’s degrees making $7.50 less per hour on average.

And there is little chance that someone as ‘intelligent’ as Mr. Cummings would be unaware of either report.  Hence the rationale for my previous accusation that Democrats are, for the most part, more than just a little sinister.  The bottom line here is that they, essentially, care for no one other themselves, and therefore will say, or do, whatever they feel they must.  And any attempt to portray themselves as being a caring protector is nothing more than a perverted, self-serving, charade. 

ACCORDING TO OBAMA, THE MEDIA USES TERRORISM TO BOOST RATINGS…

Apparently, if we can go by what Barry himself said in a recent interview with Vox, when it comes to how many of us view the threat posed against this nation by murderous Muslim terrorists, the only reason that we feel the way that we do is because the national media choses to cover terrorism in a such a way that makes clear that their primary interest is only in creating ratings for themselves.  It was during this interview that Barry was asked whether he thinks the media “sometimes overstates the level of alarm people should have about terrorism as opposed to a longer-term problem of climate change and epidemic diseases.”  Barry very enthusiastically responded by saying, “Absolutely.”

Barry went on to say, “I don’t blame the media for that. What’s the famous saying about local news casts, if it bleeds it leads.”  And he said, “You show crime stories and you show fires. That’s what folks watch. It’s all about ratings.”  Barry continued, saying, “The problems of terrorism and dysfunction and chaos along with plane crashes, that’s the equivalent when it comes to covering international affairs.”  “There is just not going to be a lot of interest in a headline story that we have cut infant mortality, or that extreme poverty has been slashed.”  And it was then that he brought up another favorite topic if his, when he said, “climate change is happening at such a broad scale” that it’s “a hard story for the media to tell.”

While Barry did say that terror groups like the Islamic State should be covered, at the same time he seemed to try to trivialize the level of violence committed by this group, as well as others, by equating it to an attempt to lower our crime rate.  He said, “It is entirely legitimate for the American people to be deeply concerned when you’ve got a bunch of violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris.”  And he then went on to say, “We devote enormous resources to that, and it is right and appropriate for us to be vigilant and aggressive in trying to deal with that — the same way a big city mayor’s got to cut the crime rate down if he wants that city to thrive.”

During the domestic policy portion of the interview, when asked about political polarization, Barry chose to blame gerrymandering, the Senate filibuster and a fragmented news media.  He said, “The balkanization of the media means that we just don’t have a common place where we get common facts and a common worldview the way we did 20, 30 years ago, and that just keeps on accelerating, you know, and I’m not the first to observe this.”  He added, “You’ve got the Fox News/Rush Limbaugh folks and then you’ve got the MSNBC folks and the — I don’t know where Vox falls into that, but you guys are, I guess, for the brainiac-nerd types. But the point is that technology which brings the world to us also allows us to narrow our point of view. That’s contributed to it.”

So then, I’m guessing, if we are to follow Barry’s rather simplistic logic to what would be its natural conclusion, then I can only assume that if were it not for many in our various media organizations most Americans would not now be giving these radical Muslim extremists so much as even a second thought.  And according to Barry, news organizations purposely choose to overstate the dangers posed to this country when reporting on terrorist events only as a way of boosting their ratings.  But who is that Barry is talking about?  He can’t be referencing most of those in the state-controlled media, because they spend most of their time bending over backwards in their effort to downplay any threat we may face from these murdering fanatics.          

DEMOCRATS POSSESS THEIR OWN UNIQUE VERSION OF HISTORY…

By now I’m quite sure that after having been lectured to by our esteemed president, most of you have probably now seen fit to dismount from what he described as being, your high horse.  Because as Barry “Almighty’ recently reminded all of us, while it is bad that the Islamic State, which apparently has no connection to Islam whatsoever, runs around busily lopping off the heads of anyone who has the misfortune of getting in their way here in 2015, it was Christians who also did very bad things back in 1215.  A connection that, I must admit, I’m having more than a little trouble with.

And for those of you for whom Barry’s little history lesson wasn’t enough, well then, maybe you are in need of staying after class for some much needed remedial training on the topic so that you can be made to better understand the point that Barry was trying so hard to make.  And your volunteer instructor on that very topic is some moron by the name of Ta-Nehisi Coates, who, I’m told, writes for ‘The Atlantic’.  You see, Mr. Coates also has pointed out that Christianity was often invoked in defense of slavery, segregation and even white supremacy for a large part of American history.

This imbecile said, “The interest in power is almost always accompanied by the need to sanctify that power.”  He then went on to say, “That is what the Muslims terrorists in ISIS are seeking to do today, and that is what Christian enslavers and Christian terrorists did for the lion’s share of American history.”  Personally, what I think it is that this little twerp might actually be up to is nothing more than another attempt by the left to re-write history so as to justify, in some warped way, the idiotic position maintained by most Democrats, including Barry, when it comes to Islam.

But his comments got me to wondering.  You see I found myself wondering what the odds might be that when next some Republican says something stupid about race, that our Democrat friends would apply the same sort of logic and say something like: “Lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other party, remember that from its founding until the 1960s, people committed terrible deeds in the name of the Democrat Party.  In our own party, slavery and Jim Crow all too often were justified in the Democrat platform.”  I venture to say the odds are pretty slim.

For instance, it was Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest, quite possibly the first grand dragon of the Ku Klux Klan, who spoke at the 1868 Democrat National Convention.  And despite Democrat claims, it also a very well-known fact that most Klansmen were, and for that matter still are, Democrats.  And something else worth noting when it comes to the Klan and the Democrat Party, is the fact that the party refused to condemn the Klan as late as its 1924 convention, a gathering that many newspapers at the time referred to as a "Klanbake."

And then we have Woodrow Wilson, a progressive Democrat, a devout racist as well as someone who was a white supremacist and a president who re-segregated the federal workforce.  And those who know history as it actually occurred and not how Democrats would like us all to believe that it did, segregationists were also part of the New Deal coalition and were running mates even to liberal Democrat presidential candidates into the 1950s.  And it was in 1956 that 99 of the 101 politicians who signed the racist “Southern Manifesto” were also, in fact, Democrats.

The major civil rights legislation of the 1950s and 1960s were supported by a much lower percentage of Democrat members of Congress than Republicans. This included J. William Fulbright, who was a mentor to ‘Slick Willie’ Clinton, Al Gore Sr., who was father of the future vice president, and Robert ‘KKK’ Byrd, an ex-Klansmen who would become the Senate Democrat floor leader until 1989 and was an elected Democrat until he finally died in 2010.  And it was George Wallace, Bull Connor and Lester Maddox who also were all Democrats.  By now I’m sure you get the point. 

We don’t need to ask whether liberals think any of this history is relevant to the Democrat Party today. They’ve told us repeatedly that it’s in no way relevant.  And it was back in 2009 that Bruce Bartlett wrote a book, ‘Wrong on Race’, about the Democrats’ past racism, which was promptly dismissed by the Washington Monthly’s Steve Benen as being “cheap and silly.”  Benen said, “If history ended in 1965, Bartlett may have a legitimate point.”  So once again, it would seem that the ONLY version of history we’re to believe is the version concocted by Democrats.

Or as Matthew Yglesias, another liberal eager to make excuses when it comes to the shady history of the Democrat Party, put it, “that was all quite a long time ago.”  But really no longer ago than the history Barry and Mr. Coates cite in comparing Christian supporters of slavery and segregation in the 19th and 20th centuries to ISIS today. And what Coates very conveniently leaves out is the extent to which Christianity also played a role in abolishing slavery and segregation.  It’s all much more recent than the Crusades or the Inquisition.  Such comparisons make no sense to me.

If we’re talking about Christians or Americans, there is always a direct link between the distant past and today.  But if we’re talking about Democrats, well then, it’s all just ancient history that can very easily be discounted.  It’s almost like saying that bringing up the weather to argue against global warming is stupid but bringing up the weather to argue for it is really smart and sophisticated.  All analogies break down somewhere. There’s obviously less continuity between the Democrat platforms of 1860 and 2012 than Christian doctrines from the early church to today.

If you ask most Democrats they’ll say that whatever sins were committed by Democrats in the past, simply don’t matter, that what’s relevant is where the party stands today.  But, oddly enough, that same rule seems to apply only to Democrats.  The same is true for Barry’s supposed history lesson, in that whatever sins have historically been committed in the name of Christianity remain relevant today for comparison purposes.  ISIS goes about the setting of people on fire and lopping off the heads of people, and the United States abolished slavery in 1865, while ISIS still practices it.

UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBERS REMAIN PURE PROPAGANDA…

Even after six long, and very painful, years the lies told by this administration continue pretty much unabated.  And those involved have demonstrated time and again that there is absolutely nothing that they will not lie about.  One of the favorite topics of their continuing falsehoods is how our economy is supposedly gaining strength every single day and how millions upon millions of new jobs have been created.  And who do we have to thank for that?  None other than Barry “Almighty”.

The reality of our situation is that over the course of Barry’s presidency, while 3 Million jobs have been created, less than 1 Million of them were actually fulltime jobs.  Also over that same span of time, 13 Million jobs have been lost.  And this administration continues to use numbers that we all know are completely bogus, as was recently pointed out by Gallup, and for the sole purpose of painting our employment and economic situation as being much rosier than it actually is.

According to most recent numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), again if we choose to believe them, the labor force participation rate is said to have increased from 62.7 percent to 62.9 percent in January as we’re told that the number of people not in the labor force is also said to have declined from 92,898,000 in December to 92,544,000 in January.  And yet despite what these numbers tell us, the unemployment rate actually ticked up from 5.6 percent to 5.7 percent.

In December, again according to BLS, the nation’s civilian noninstitutional population was 249,027,000.  In January, it climbed to 249,723,000, which was an increase of 696,000.  And it was among that civilian noninstutional population of 249,723,000 that 157,180,000 were said to have participated in the labor force by either holding a job or by actively seeking one. That was an increase of 1,051,000 from the 156,129,000 who participated in the labor force in December.

That 157,180,000 participating in the labor force in January equaled 62.9 percent of the 249,723,000 civilian noninstitutional population, thus the labor force participation rate was said to be 62.9 percent.  The BLS has tracked the labor force participation rate since 1948.  Since that time, it hit its historical peak back in January through April 2000, when it was 67.3 percent. The 62.9 percent participation rate in January was 4.4 percentage points below that peak.

Meanwhile we also had a staggering 92,544,000 who did not participate in the labor force. These Americans did not have a job and had not actively sought one for four weeks so remain simply ignored.  This group was down 354,000 from the 92,898,000 who were not in the labor force in December.  Of the 157,180,000 who did participate in the labor force in January, 148,201,000 had a job and 8,979,000 did not have a job but were actively seeking one, making them the nation’s unemployed.

Those 8,979,000 job seekers were 5.7 percent of the 157,180,000 actively participating in the labor force during the month.  We’re told that the number of unemployed and employed both increased in the month of January.  Apparently, the number of unemployed went from 8,688,000 in December to 8,979,000 in January, an increase of 291,000.  We’re also told that the number of employed people climbed from 147,442,000 in December to 148,201,000 in January, or an increase of 759,000.

So once again what we have here is just more of the same.  A continuation of the very same, and very sad, trend that we have seen from this pathetic gang practically from day one.  If Barry is to have any sort of legacy it will one of how it was that his administration, the one that he himself claimed would be the most transparent administration in history, will have turned out to be one of the most corrupt, most secretive and most destructive that we have ever had the misfortune to bring upon ourselves.

COME ON PEOPLE, FOCUS!!!

At a time when it seems that far too many Americans are infatuated with the rather bizarre exploits of Bruce Jenner as he moves forward on his mission to become a ‘woman’, than seem the least bit interested in the fact that our country is quite literally being destroyed right before eyes.  So, how is it that we can possibly hope that, come the next presidential election, they will have the desire, or even the willingness, or will be sufficiently lucid, to vote for someone who might actually work to undo some of what has been done over the course of what will be, by then, the last eight years?  Personally, I’m not holding out much hope.

At the same time that there are so many things that are in urgent need of being discussed, far too many people are far too easily distracted by such unimportant topics as missing airplanes, supposed blizzards of the century that don’t quite materialize, deflated footballs and now, of all things, the gender transformation of some weirdo.  Really?  Are any of these things really all that much more important to people than is the future of their children and the sort of country that we, their supposedly responsible parents, will be leaving behind for them to endure?  Is that really the best we can do?  If so, what a sad state of affairs! 

To me, at least, it would seem that living in this age of Barry “Almighty” can be said to very closely resemble a ‘National Inquirer’ kind of world.  It’s like whatever bizarre event or circumstance that comes along is somehow automatically deserving of 24/7/365 news coverage.  It seems as if EVERYTHING is perceived as being so much more important than is the preservation of our country and our way of life.  Come on folks, we really do need to get our act together, and focus on those things that are most important, even crucial, not only to our survival but the wellbeing of our children. We have so little time left to get our shit together.   

FILE THIS ONE UNDER: BLAH, BLAH, BLAH…

It was right after it had become painfully clear just how badly he had botched his analysis of the 2012 election, having all but guaranteed a Romney victory, that I gave up listening to anything that Karl Rove, the so-called ‘Architect’, has since had to say about pretty much anything that’s even remotely defined as politics.  And I see no reason to alter that position today as Mr. Rove does his best to paint a rosy picture for 2016.  I think that, as we saw in the run up to 2012, he simply leaves too many things overlooked.

You see, it’s according to our esteemed Mr. Rove’s recent piece in The Wall Street Journal, that despite all of Barry's talk in the State of the Union address about the middle class, those who are genuinely in that category are rapidly losing faith with the Democrats, making it likely that the party will go down to defeat in 2016.  He makes the claim that those who make up the white working class, college-educated Americans earning in the $50,000 to $100,000 range annually, are drifting away from the Democrats.

Rove cites a John Judis essay in the National Journal that argues that Democrats have lost the electoral advantages they had not long ago.  Reagan Republicanism, writes the left-leaning Judis, now appears to be the default position of many Americans.  The party's prospects are also stymied by the demoralized ranks of Senate Democrats. ‘Dingy Harry’ Reid has returned to work after an accident, but his leadership team, comprised of ‘Little Dick’ Durbin, Chuckie Schumer, and Patty Murray, remain quite divided.

Guided by Barry, Democrats have chosen "confrontation over conciliation and posturing over legislating," at least according to Mr. Rove.  Senate Democrats can do little more than vote no as "the upper chamber is again a functioning legislative body" under the new Republican majority.  They may be able to obstruct Republicans from using a Homeland Security funding bill to stop Barry's immigration policies. But their agenda is not taken seriously, leaving them with "little to stand for," writes Rove.  I lack Rove’s confidence in our Republican majority.

Roves makes the claim that it will not be easy to run in 2016 as a Democrat in a swing state. The president's proposal to hike "taxes on the top 20 percent to provide more refundable tax credits to the bottom 20 percent" is said not to be a winning strategy.  Nor are Barry's budget proposals that would increase discretionary spending, thereby raising the national debt another $7 Trillion by 2025. He claims that a solid majority of Americans think reducing the yearly deficit should be an "absolute priority."  But I have yet to see evidence of that.

Rove says, "The year's arc is set: Led by their stubborn and ideologically rigid president, Democrats will obstruct popular Republican proposals in Congress."  And that could well set the stage for the GOP to capture the White House next year.  However, there is much that can happen over the course of the next 20, or so, months, and if there is one certainty in the world of politics, it’s that nothing is for certain especially when taking into consideration the incredible ignorance of the American people.

And while Mr. Rove may think he has his finger on the pulse of America, it’s far more likely that he has that finger buried somewhere else, a place quite unpleasant.  Because the ignorance of the American people quickly becomes all the more apparent when, as their country is being destroyed right before their eyes, they seem to be far more interested in the fact that Bruce Jenner is now on his way to becoming a woman.  And it seems frightening, to say the least, that the future of our country lies in the hands of such people.  

OUR UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBERS…THE BIG LIE…

Those of you who have become so hopelessly out of work that you've stopped looking over the past four weeks might be interested to know that the Department of Labor doesn't count you as actually being among the unemployed.  And it was recently that the Gallup organization provided a hard-hitting commentary by Jim Clifton exposing the truth behind the 5.6% unemployment rate that Barry “Almighty” and the boys on Wall Street are so busy pointing to as proof that the economy is in full recovery mode.  Gallup goes so far as to call the unemployment figure a "big lie" as it doesn't take into account those individuals who have completely dropped out of the job market. 

Gallup said, “None of them will tell you this: If you, a family member or anyone is unemployed and has subsequently given up on finding a job -- if you are so hopelessly out of work that you've stopped looking over the past four weeks -- the Department of Labor doesn't count you as unemployed. That's right. While you are as unemployed as one can possibly be, and tragically may never find work again, you are not counted in the figure we see relentlessly in the news -- currently 5.6%. Right now, as many as 30 million Americans are either out of work or severely underemployed. Trust me, the vast majority of them aren't throwing parties to toast "falling" unemployment.”

Gallup went on to say, “There's another reason why the official rate is misleading. Say you're an out-of-work engineer or healthcare worker or construction worker or retail manager: If you perform a minimum of one hour of work in a week and are paid at least $20 -- maybe someone pays you to mow their lawn -- you're not officially counted as unemployed in the much-reported 5.6%. Few Americans know this.”  This is in stark contrast to the propaganda that has been continually delivered by the White House in an attempt to portray to the American people that our economy is far stronger than it actually is.  And what they are doing is all one big lie.

The White House went so far as to create the very spiffy little graphic at the top of the page to bolster their claim that it’s because of the decisions that have made and the policies that have been put into place by Barry, that the unemployment rate has dropped much faster than predicted.  Of course, what the snazzy graphic fails to mention is the astonishing number of Americans who have just given up on even trying to get a job in Barry’s economy.  Today our workforce has 90 Million fewer participants than it did when Barry first assumed office.  And neither fancy graphics nor outrageous claims being endlessly made, will alter that fact.

Gallup defines a good job as 30+ hours per week for an organization that provides a regular paycheck. Right now, the U.S. is delivering at a staggeringly low rate of 44%, which is the number of full-time jobs as a percent of the adult population, 18 years and older. We need that to be 50% and a bare minimum of 10 million new, good jobs to replenish America's middle class.  I don’t think that most of us need anyone, even someone like Gallup, to tell us that the numbers that we are constantly being presented with, regarding our continuing unemployment situation, are anything other than a work of pure fiction.  And Barry has to know we’re just not buying them anymore.   

FREDERICA WILSON: LIAR, FRAUD, RACIST…

Somehow I feel I must apologize to all for the number of left-wing kooks that we here in Florida seem determined to send off to Washington every couple of years.  But having said that, it is with a certain amount of pride that I can say, and thankfully so, that I voted for none of them.  I’m sure most of you are familiar with the names.  We have such left-wing luminaries as Corrine Brown, Alan Grayson, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Patrick Murphy and Alcee Hastings to name just a few.

And I fear I would be remiss here if I were not to add one more name to the aforementioned list of less than stellar individuals.  She who is yet another of those who we here in Florida have decided, for whatever the reason, to set upon the rest of our country like a plague.  The person of whom I speak is none other than Rep. Frederica Wilson.  It was Wilson who was recently heard to say, while discussing the topic of racial profiling by police, “I’m profiled myself, and I’m a congresswoman!”

At the time of her rather idiotic remarks Wilson was in Miami taking part in something called the ‘5000 Role Models of Excellence Project’ event late last month.  I thought it all a bit bizarre that this moron could, in any way, be viewed, by anyone other than the most imbecilic among us, as a role model. This event was billed as being an ‘educational’ event focused on teaching minorities in high school how to interact with police and the discussion of racial profiling.

Wilson told WBFS-TV, “It’s going to happen.  So what you do is you prepare the children on how to react when it does happen.”  She then went on to say, “They know that profiling exists.  I’m profiled myself, and I’m a congresswoman.”  Adding finally, Because of what is happening in America today, it appears as if there is this tension that never goes away between police and especially black boys.”  I wonder, what is it, exactly, was she speaking of in making such an ignorant comment?

And I can’t help but wonder if more of those like our esteemed Ms. Wilson were to actually behave as if they were a little more concerned about the lives of those same “black boys”, and a little less interested in some lame attempt to score what are really nothing more than cheap political points, that race relations in this country might take a turn for the better.  But let’s face it, that’s not what Wilson and her Democrat cohorts really want, hence the reason they work to incite. 

OBAMA, THE AMERICA-HATING AMERICAN PRESIDENT…

It was during one of Barry’s pre-Super Bowl interviews that he once again exhibited his obvious reluctance when it comes his being able to call Islamic terrorism by its rightful name.  Sunday on CNN’s “Fareed Zakaria GPS,” Barry “Almighty” chose to once again “reject the notion” that the war on terrorism is any kind of “religious war” against radical Islam.  Barry said, “I think that the way to understand this is, there is an element growing out of Muslim communities, in certain parts of the world, that have perverted the religion, have embraced an annihilistic, violent, almost medieval interpretation of Islam. And they’re doing damage in a lot of countries around the world. But it is absolutely true that I reject a notion that somehow that creates a religious war, because the overwhelming majority of Muslims reject that interpretation of Islam.”  Spoken like a true Muslim.

Barry went on to say, “They don’t even recognize it as being Islam. And I think that for us to be successful in fighting this scourge is very important for us to align ourselves with the 99.9% of Muslims who are looking for the same thing we’re looking for — order, peace, prosperity, and so I don’t quibble with labels. I think we all recognize that this is a particular problem that has roots in Muslim communities, but I think we do ourselves a disservice in this fight if we are not taking into account the fact that the overwhelming majority of Muslims reject this ideology.”  But if that’s true, where are those who make up this mythical 99.9% of Muslims that Barry makes reference to?  The other day I came across something the Marco Polo once said, and I thought it quite fitting today.  He said, “The militant Muslim is the person who beheads the infidel, while the moderate Muslim holds the feet of the victim.”

Barry continued, “What I do insist on is that we maintain a proper perspective and that we do not provide a victory to these terrorist networks by over-inflating their importance and suggesting in some fashion that they are an existential threat to the United States or the world order. The truth of the matter is, they can do harm, but we have the capacity to control how we respond in ways that do not undercut what’s the essence of who we are. That means that we don’t torture, for example, and thereby undermine our values and credibility around the world. It means that we don’t approach this with a strategy of sending out occupying armies and playing whack-a-mole wherever a terrorist group appears, because that drains our economic strength and it puts enormous burdens on our military. What’s required is a surgical, precise response to a very specific problem.”

So if I’m understanding him correctly, it’s according to Barry that those of us who have little problem in being able to identify the perpetrators of this growing terrorist threat that the world is now being forced to contend on what has become a daily basis, do so out of some incorrect perspective.  And that by choosing to take the actions that we deem necessary in order to protect ourselves, willing to use every means at our disposal, we accomplish nothing more than to reduce ourselves to the level of the terrorist.  Who but a rabid leftwing Democrat thinks this way.   Barry ended by saying, “And if we do that effectively, then ultimately these terrorist organizations will be defeated because they don’t have a vision that appeals to ordinary people. It really is, as it has been described in some cases, a death cult or an entirely backward looking fantasy that can’t function in the world.”

And in demonstrating that the area of terrorism is far from being the only area where he seems to have lost all touch with reality, it was during yet another interview, this one with “Today” show hose Savannah Guthrie, that Barry seem to tout his economic policy vision as set forth in his State of the Union address last week.  He essentially dismissed the notion they were irrelevant because the Republican Congress wouldn’t not pass them and emphasized why they were important for the middle class.  Barry once again worked to perpetuate the myth that our economy is somehow being made to grow by saying, “What I’d like to see is that not only that the economy continues to grow, but that everybody’s benefiting.”   But the economy is not growing, all that has been accomplished, through the manipulating of the numbers, is to have first created, and then maintained, the perception of a growing economy.

Barry said, “When you travel around the country you see incredibly hard-working folks. They’re doing the right thing, they’re looking after their families, but they haven’t seen as much wage and income growth as they should have, given high the stock market’s gone, how well corporate profits are doing. If we can make sure growth is coming from the middle class up, everybody’s benefitting from the hard work they’re putting in.”  And Barry sought to once blame the guy who left office essentially 7 years ago when he said, “We’ve made progress coming off the worst financial crisis of our lifetimes,” he continued. “We’re now back in a really strong position. I just want to make sure that, in two years when we look back, we’ll say not only have we recovered from that crisis, but actually we’ve built the kind of foundation that ensures America does well for generations to come.”

Nothing makes more obvious how it is that Barry truly feels about this country than his own description of how he views things.  His mission upon coming into office was to destroy this nation, and since first assuming office he has met with a great deal of success.  And while we who wish to preserve this nation for future generations are barred from using any and all means to do so, Barry has demonstrated time and again that there is little that he will not take advantage of, including using those who wish to kill us, in his drive to reduce this country to that which is the equivalent of some third world country.  Unless you’re some leftwing loon, or some worshipper of Barry, little of what he says actually makes much sense.  And while I chose to focus on only two examples here, there are countless others that easily make the case.  Barry is now in a mad rush to have the death of America as his legacy.