THERE HE GOES AGAIN…

I don’t believe that I have ever been witness to a more classless American president than Barry “Almighty”.  Even ‘Slick Willie’ Clinton, who was, and remains, a man of very little or no class, and is so in a completely different way.  We once again have heard how it is, and with a general sense of ease, that Barry can continue to blame all of his screw ups on his predecessor.  He knows perfectly well that President George W. Bush won’t defend himself, because he – unlike Barry – does have a sense of decorum, so he quickly tries to put the blame for his own failures on Bush.  And the fact that Barry has proven himself to be such a classless individual should really come as no surprise.  I mean, think about it.  What exactly is it that you see, every time you look at Barry?  Seriously!

Now don’t get me wrong, or start jumping to conclusions, because by no means is it my intent, here, to make this into a left versus right thing, or even a white versus black thing.  What it’s about is something much more basic than that.  Because what it’s about is being a gentleman rather than a bore. And should be very obvious into which of these categories Barry falls into.  Of course it simply isn’t a matter of him just being rude when he behaves in such a juvenile manner, it’s the fact that he’s also lying.  I’ll be the first on to admit that George W. Bush made some mistakes, some of them tragic, but he played no part in the rise of ISIS, that, my friends, is all on Barry. He was informed about the group’s potential a full year before it started its reign of terror, and yet he did nothing.

And I don’t seem to recall Bush ever making mention of the fact how it was that more terrorist attacks occurred on his predecessor’s watch, both inside and outside of U.S. borders, than during any other presidential administration in U.S. history.  You remember: The 1993 World Trade Center bombing that killed 6 and injured 1,000, The 1993 Mogadishu firefight that killed 18 U.S. soldiers, The 1995 Oklahoma City terrorist attack on the federal building by American extremists that killed 168, wounding several hundred others, The 1995 Saudi Arabia car bomb that killed 5 U.S. military personnel, The 1996 Khobal Towers bombing that killed 19 U.S. soldiers, wounding 515, The 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa that killed 231 citizens, 12 Americans and injured 5,000 or the 2000 USS Cole attack in Yemen that killed 17 U.S. sailors, wounding 39.

In 2007 George W. Bush took the advice of his military commanders and increased the number of American troops in Iraq to bring security to the struggling nation plagued by violence.  By 2008 the US military had very clearly defeated Al-Qaeda in Iraq after the Bush surge of troops from just a year earlier.  Barry “Almighty” was very vocal in his opposition of that very same surge. In 2007 Barry “Almighty” told supporters, “Preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn’t a good enough reason to keep US forces there.”  When George W. Bush left office the US military had brought victory to Iraq.  But despite repeated warnings, Barry was determined in his efforts to snatch defeat from jaws of victory and withdrew troops from Iraq. ISIS then proceeded to take over Western Iraq in 2014.

But oddly enough, today it’s Bush that Barry continues to blame for ISIS.  He pinned the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) on Bush’s invasion of Iraq while calling for more investment in diplomacy and education to stop terrorism.  And it was in a recent interview with VICE News that Barry said, “Two things: one is, ISIL is a direct outgrowth of al Qaeda in Iraq that grew out of our invasion.”   To which he then added, “Which is an example of unintended consequences. Which is why we should generally aim before we shoot.” Barry’s direct shot at Bush comes despite the fulfillment of his own campaign promises to pull troops out of Iraq.  Barry completed the troop draw down in 2011, an ‘achievement’ that was touted as a major victory but which left a power vacuum which ISIS was only too happy to fill.

What’s obvious today, or should be to anyone willing to look objectively at the situation, is that Barry, for whatever the reason, simply chose not to take ISIS seriously when it first began conquering land in Syria and western Iraq.  And I’m sure we all remember when he, and now quite famously so, compared the terrorist group to a “JV” basketball team in an interview last January. Since then ISIS has taken over more territory in those two nations while establishing branches in Libya and reportedly forming alliances with other terrorist groups, such as Nigeria’s Boko Haram.  Barry did say that he is confident that the U.S. and its 60 nation coalition will “slowly push back ISIL out of Iraq.”  But he said he is worried about “the underlying problem of disaffected Sunnis around the world.” 

And what might some of those supposed underlying problems be that Barry claims to be so worried about?  Well it’s according to Barry that it is in places like Libya and Yemen that young men with no education and no prospects are gravitating towards groups like ISIS.  He said, “And now you’re giving me a religious rationale for doing this — that’s a problem we’re going to have generally.”  He said that to combat terrorism the U.S. will have to take a more comprehensive approach.  He said, “And we can’t keep on thinking about counter-terrorism and security as entirely separate from diplomacy, development, education — all these things that are considered soft, but in fact are vital to our national security.”  He then added, “And we do not fund those.”  Barry said that the U.S. currently spends just over 1 percent of its budget on those diplomatic measures.

So you may ask, what is Barry’s plan for combating this terror group, ISIS?  Well according to Barry, “We should be thinking about making investments there that ultimately save us from having to send our young men and women to fight or having folks come here and doing great harm.”  So you have to ask yourself, is this really how one would expect the supposed ‘leader’ of the free world to behave?  Under normal circumstances I would say no.  But it has become the norm in this ‘Age of Obama’, and the world has become much worse off because of it.  It’s because of Barry that our friends no longer can bring themselves to trust us, and our enemies, which seem to be growing in number with each passing day, no longer fear us.  And like it or not, if they no longer fear us, then they no longer respect us.  

ONCE AGAIN HITLERY CLINTON SEES HERSELF AS ABOVE THE LAW…

When it comes to Hitlery’s continuing email troubles, first we had that raging nutjob, and longtime Clinton attack dog, James Carville, admitting it as being something that she actually did and even made the claim that it was all perfectly legal.   And in the process he may have inadvertently admitted that she did so to avoid accountability since his basis for making such a statement was the fact that he suspected she didn't want Louis Gohmert rifling through her e-mails.  And then he took it a step further saying that, to him, it seems to be a kind of reasonable position for someone to take.  And then he really laid it on saying that it amounts to, just like everything else before it, nothing but a bunch of people flapping their jaws about nothing.

And then we also, quite recently, had some guy by the name of David Goodfriend, who was former deputy staff secretary to ex-president ‘Slick Willie’ Clinton (one of only two presidents to ever be impeached), and who is now someone described as being a Democrat strategist, who put forth the notion that the storm surrounding Hitlery Clinton's use of personal email for government business is a rush to judgment before all of the facts in.  This guy, Goodfriend, said in a recent interview: "Part of what's going on here is we have a rush to conclusions before we have evidence."  He added, "Secretary Clinton herself has said, 'I turn over documents as requested, as needed, I turned over 50,000, I'll turn more if need be.'" 

What this boob, Mr. Goodfriend, seems to be completely ignorant of is the fact that there shouldn’t be any emails that she should need to turn over to anyone.  And that the ONLY reason that there is, is because she CHOSE to violate the rules that govern such things because she simply saw them as not applying to her.  She CHOSE to use her personal email instead of the government email account, which was something that she herself fired someone else for doing.  So what other facts are there that Mr. Goodfriend thinks might be required here?  Last week, The New York Times revealed Hitlery used her personal email account to conduct State Department business and maintained a server at her home in Chappaqua, New York.

Our ex-secretary of state, has insisted, and repeatedly so, that she has now turned over all correspondence she that is “legally required” to do and has said she will not allow an independent third party to review some 30,000 emails contained on her home server because they are "personal."  She will not allow?  And I suppose we’re all just supposed to trust her when she puts forward the claim that those 30,000 emails are “personal”.  Sorry, but knowing the old girl as I think we all do, or at least should by now, she is someone who very simply cannot be trusted.  Despite the fact that, as Goodfriend claims, government officials routinely write emails, some which are public and some private.

And it was Mr. Goodfriend who, in what must have be an effort to prove that he is, in fact, Hitlery’s ‘good friend’, said, "Sometimes there's crossover. Is that a crime? Is that a violation of policy? Is it an oversight?"  So he’s claiming what here, exactly?  That all of this may have a perfectly innocent explanation, that there’s no there, there?  He then went on to say, "We can ask these questions and will ask these questions from now until Election Day assuming Hillary Clinton runs." Goodfriend said some are already concluding that "Hillary is toast, this is it, it's over, this is the big one … I would paraphrase Mark Twain in saying rumors of political death are greatly exaggerated."  Obviously, that’s how Mr. Goodfriend sees things.

Mr. Goodfriend then went on to make the claim that all government agencies have "an enormous amount of discretion … to decide what is confidential, what is highly sensitive and what is not" as far as what should be maintained.  Now try as might to defend Hitlery, what her ‘good friend’, here, is implying isn’t exactly accurate.  Having spent time in the military in a position that required a Secret clearance, I had no role to play in determining which information that I came into contact with was classified or highly sensitive, and neither would Hitlery Clinton.  The classification of information is determined by others.  There are always instances when information that you think is useless, is not.

Just because one is in the position of being the head of some government agency, bureau or department, doesn’t automatically make one an expert on what is, and is not, classified information.  That why they have people working for them who are. Now regardless of the fact that many view Hitlery as being the ‘smartest’ women on the planet, I feel quite comfortable in saying that she hasn’t a clue when it comes to being able to determine what information is to be classified and which is harmless, other than the mindless drivel that might have been exchanged on a purely personal level.  And somehow I have a rather difficult time believing that over 30,000 emails would be of this specific category.  I just don’t believe her.

OBAMA ‘IS’ THE FOOD STAMP PRESIDENT…

Yet another sign that Barry is right when he makes the claim that he now has our economy fully back on track, and going gangbusters, is the fact that the number of ‘beneficiaries’ on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as food stamps, has topped 46,000,000 for 40 straight months.  This proof of a booming economy comes to us by way of recent data released by the Department of Agriculture (USDA).  And yes, I’m being more than just a bit sarcastic here.

In December 2014, which is the latest month where data was reported, there were 46,252,064 Americans on food stamps and with that food stamp recipients have exceeded 46 million in each month since September 2011.  As it happens, the 46,252,064 on food stamps in December was down from the 46,263,096 on food stamps in November, which was a rather unimpressive decline of 11,032.  But I’m sure Barry saw that number as being very significant.

Now according to estimates by the Census Bureau as of July 2014 the national population stood at 318,857,056.  Thus, the 46,252,064 Americans on food stamps equaled roughly 14 percent of the entire population.  While the number of beneficiaries did decline over the month, the number of households on food stamps actually increased. There were 22,724,435 households on food stamps in December, which was up 28,141 from the 22,696,294 households on food stamps in November.

As of last September, again according to the Census Bureau, there were 115,831,000 households in the country.  Thus, the 22,724,435 households on food stamps in December equaled nearly 20 percent of the nation’s households.  Households on food stamps got an average benefit of $259.98 during the month, which brought the total cost to the taxpayers, for these supposed ‘benefits’, if you want to call them that, for just a single month to the rather staggering sum of $5,907,873,849.  You do the math.

Let’s say we take a little trip through the looking-glass to 1969, to a time before socialists like Jimmy Carter, ‘Slick Willie’ Clinton and Barry “Almighty” came onto the scene.  It was then that the average participation in the SNAP program stood at a mere 2,878,000.  Then we fast-forward to 2014, and to a time where average participation has now grown to a staggering 46,536,000, or an increase of 1516.96 percent.  How can anyone think that’s acceptable?

And if we were to look back no further than January 2009, or when Barry was first elected, there were 32 million Americans on food stamps, so what we have now had is an increase of over 45 percent in just 6 years.  Barry came into office on a mission, and that mission was to essentially break the bank in any way that he could.  And massively increasing entitlement programs, such as food stamps, is but one way he is trying, and succeeding, in doing just that.  The madness must be stopped.  But will it? 

HITLERY CLINTON…‘STILL’ THE FAVORITE OF DEMOCRATS…

Ever found yourself wondering just how far gone our country really is?  Well then, I think that a recent Gallup poll might seem to provide us all with an answer.  You see, it’s according to this poll that we find that Hitlery Clinton is currently the best-known of all the potential 2016 contenders.  And, apparently, this poll was conducted at the same time as our ex-secretary of state was having her tired old mug plastered all over the television because of a continuing email problem.  But what I find most concerning is that, also according to this poll, Hitlery was also the most favorably viewed ‘potential candidate’, even after news broke about her use of personal email for official business.  Personally I view that as being sufficient proof that America, at least as most of us would like it to be, is now, officially, dead.

According to a Gallup poll conducted March 2-4 of 1,522 adults, before her press conference on the issue, 50 percent of respondents said they view her favorably, compared to 39 percent who have a negative impression, putting her ahead of any other potential Republican candidates.  At the same time, 89 percent of Americans are familiar enough with Hitlery to have an opinion, again more than any other potential candidate.  Hitlery is in only a slightly weaker position than last summer when she released her fictional account of her time as Secretary of State, "Hard Choices." At the time 54 percent of Americans had a favorable view, suggesting the email controversy has not had a significant impact of views of Hitlery.  So what’s that say about the priorities of those who are so determined to ‘support’ her?

A statement released by Gallup said, "Clinton's relatively high scores on both dimensions give her a better starting position regarding her image than other competitors would have in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.”  Meanwhile, among Republicans, it would seem that former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie are the best known, with roughly two-thirds of Americans having an opinion about them.  Personally, I’m not a big fan of either man.  But, be that as it may, for Bush, 35 percent had a favorable view compared to 33 percent who had an unfavorable view. Christie's negative views outweigh the positive with 34 percent compared to 31 percent.  Sen. Marco Rubio had the highest net favorability rating with 26 percent holding a positive view versus 21 percent who have a negative view.

And what I thought was yet another prime indicator of just how far gone the Democrat Party is today, it was among those Democrats tested in the survey that Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth “Squaw Wanna-Be” Warren had a net positive rating while being far less known than Hitlery and eight of the potential GOP contenders. Specifically, 22 percent view her favorably compared to 19 percent who view her unfavorably.  Another potential 2016 player there on the Democrat side, although apparently not mentioned in this specific poll, is ‘Little Marty’ O’Malley from the People’s Republic of Maryland, who did such a bang-up job as governor that the voters of his state elected a Republican as their new governor.  So such is the cast of characters lining up to take the baton from Barry.   

As I have said before, Hitlery could be found guilty of murder, and Democrats would still vote for her, because their priorities, are also her priorities.  The most important of which is to finish the job begun by Barry “Almighty” to completely tear down what will still remain of our once proud nation.  I guess I don’t understand the hatred that Democrats have for their country and the fact that they never have a difficult time, going all the way back to Woodrow Wilson, in finding themselves a champion of whom they can all get behind.  We on the right cannot afford to nominate anyone who fits the definition of ‘moderate’, or what many of us, not so fondly, refer to as being RINOs.  We cannot allow those in the state-controlled media, or the many big dollar donors, to steer us toward who we ‘think’ we should vote for.        

JOHN KERRY-HEINZ AND HIS IDEOLOGICAL PREOCCUPATION WITH CLIMATE CHANGE…

I’m only guessing, but at some point before John Kerry-Heinz assumed his current position someone must have managed to alter, and pretty significantly so, that which I have always thought must be the job description for someone whose job it is to be our Secretary of State.  Because wouldn’t you think that under normal circumstances, when so many areas of the world are now essentially in flames, that job one for our Secretary of State would be to work very hard toward at trying to extinguish those flames by inserting, to the greatest extent possible, some much needed American leadership into these various trouble-spots.  But for whatever the reason, that seems to no longer be the case.  Instead, it would seem that issues now deemed by our State Department to be far more important are such things as gay marriage and climate change, with the latter being addressed as recently as just yesterday.

You see, it was during a speech at the Atlantic Council in Washington, on Thursday of this week, that John Kerry-Heinz once again made it crystal clear that, when it comes to the cockamamie theory ‘climate change’, he is a true believer.  It was then that Kerry-Heinz let it be known that it is in his esteemed opinion that not only is climate change actually taking place but that we humans are the ones largely, if not solely, responsible for causing it to take place.  And he actually went so far as to say that that fact should be as universally accepted as the law of gravity.  Doing his best to imply that ‘climate change’ should now be viewed as ‘settles science, Kerry-Heinz said, “When an apple falls from a tree, it will drop toward the ground. We know that because of the basic laws of physics.”   He then went on to say, “Science tells us that gravity exists, and no one disputes that.”  That’s really an idiotic analogy.

It at this event that Kerry-Heinz put his fanaticism fully on display, to the point of coming across sounding a little nutty.  And in attempting to claim that ‘science’ tells us something that it very clearly is not, he said, “So when science tells us that our climate is changing and humans beings are largely causing that change, by what right do people stand up and just say, ‘Well, I dispute that’ or ‘I deny that elementary truth?’ ”  Any yet some do, Kerry-Heinz said, pointing, without naming the state, to recent reports claiming that state officials in Florida had banned the use of the term “climate change” in official documents.  Florida Gov. Rick Scott has since denied the claim.  But Kerry-Heinz said, “Literally a couple of days ago, I read about some state officials who are actually trying to ban the use of the term ‘climate change’ in public documents because they’re not willing to face the facts.”

Kerry-Heinz’s climate change/global warming fanaticism goes back decades, even predating his nearly three-decade ‘career’ in the Senate.  He told Thursday’s audience it went “back to Earth Day when I’d come back from Vietnam.”  Now keep in mind here that Kerry-Heinz returned from his relatively brief, yet personally rewarding, stint in Vietnam in 1969; meanwhile the inaugural Earth Day wasn’t until 1970.  So it would seem that old Kerry-Heinz has gotten his timeline a little out of order.  And then, it was as a senator that Kerry-Heinz participated in the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio and he was a delegate to other major climate conferences, including those in Kyoto in 1997 and The Hague in 2000.  And so it would seem that he has now allowed that fanaticism to seriously cloud his judgment as Secretary of State.

And his disdain for those who dare to challenge climate change dogma was again evident in this speech.  He said, “Now folks, we literally do not have the time to waste debating whether we can say ‘climate change.’ We have to talk about how we solve climate change. Because no matter how much people want to bury their heads in the sand, it will not alter the fact that 97 percent of peer-reviewed climate studies confirm that climate change is happening and that human activity is largely responsible.”  Kerry-Heinz once again chooses to repeat, more times than I care to count, a claim that has been thoroughly debunked.  Those who believe in climate change are always quick to attempt to create a perception that science is clearly on their side by perpetuating the myth that an overwhelming number of scientific studies, that 97 percent number, support their side of the argument.  But it’s a lie. 

Kerry-Heinz went on to say, “Future generations will judge our effort not just as a policy failure but as a collective moral failure of historic consequence. And they will want to know how world leaders could possibly have been so blind or so ignorant or so ideological or so dysfunctional and, frankly, so stubborn that we failed to act on knowledge that was confirmed by so many scientists, in so many studies, over such a long period of time, and documented by so much evidence.”  Now if what Kerry-Heinz refers to here are future generations of brain-dead Democrats, well then, maybe he’s onto something.  But I have no doubt that anyone with a brain is more than able to see through all of the climate change bullshit the Kerry-Heinz, and others are peddling, and would rightly be pretty pissed off if our leaders proceeded to waste billions, if not trillions, of dollars on something that isn’t even taking place.  

And as he explained his views on climate change, Kerry-Heinz said later in his speech that he did not “mean to sound haughty.”  He said, “Last year was the warmest of all. And I think if you stop and think about it, it seems that almost every next year becomes one of the hottest on record. And with added heat comes an altered environment.”  But there is simply no scientific facts to back up anything that he says.  It’s all a work of fiction, one that consists of nothing more than manipulated data and faulty computer models.  And yet Kerry-Heinz has it within him to say, “It’s not particularly complicated – I don’t mean to sound haughty, but think about it for a minute.”  Kerry-Heinz might want to be careful in what he asks for.  Because when careful, and logical thought, is applied to that which Kerry-Heinz is working so hard to sell, the fallacy of his theory becomes all the more obvious.

Elsewhere in the speech Kerry-Heinz reprised familiar themes he has visited repeatedly in previous speeches as secretary of state and in the Senate, such as the view that climate change is at least as serious as other major current global threats.  He once again made the same idiot claim that he’s made on any number of previous occasions when he said, “Terrorism, extremism, epidemics, poverty, nuclear proliferation, all challenges that respect no borders – climate change belongs on that very same list.”  And he added, “It is, indeed, one of the biggest threats facing our planet today.”  Kerry-Heinz also repeated his argument that if climate change advocates are wrong, the world will still benefit from their efforts – in the creation of jobs, economic growth, better health and greater security – whereas if skeptics are wrong, the result will be “catastrophe.”

And then, in trying to sound as ominous as he could, he said, “What will happen if we do nothing and the climate skeptics are wrong and the delayers are wrong and the people who calculate cost without taking everything into account are wrong?” And then in sounding quite dramatic, he answered his own question saying, “The answer to that is pretty straightforward: utter catastrophe, life as we know it on Earth.”  But we already know that Kerry-Heinz & Friends are wrong.  Because all of their dire warnings about the coming apocalypse that they all are working so hard to sell, run completely counter to all that we see taking place right before our eyes.  Let’s face it, 2014 was a record low year for tornadoes, there hasn’t been a major hurricane to hit the east coast in 5 years, there is now an historic amount if ice at the poles and we’re just wrapping up a winter that, in some places, was the coldest on record. 

SO, WHAT DO ‘SLICK WILLIE’ CLINTON AND A SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASE HAVE IN COMMON?

Answer?  Both can, apparently, be very difficult to get rid of.  Because by the time the next presidential election rolls around, ex-president ‘Slick Willie’ Clinton, one of only two presidents to ever be impeached, will have received $16 million from taxpayers for post-presidential support, the highest figure of any ex-president.  According to federal records, we the taxpayers, courtesy of something called the Former Presidents Act, will have covered his pension, travel, office expenses, and salaries and benefits of staff at his philanthropic foundation.

Rumor has it that scrutiny of the act, as well as of the vast financial empire built by the Clintons, is poised to intensify, and rightly so, as questions mount about the family's co-mingling of personal, political, government, and foundation business. Critics have for years questioned the need for taxpayers to offer financial support for presidents, who have a multitude of opportunities for earning after leaving office.  But while the funds for the Clintons seem to be rather excessive, to say the least, they do, apparently, comply with federal government guidelines.

And it is only to be expected that officials there at the ‘Slick’, Hitlery and Chelsea Clinton Foundation have very casually brushed aside any and all questions about the use of public funds to supplement staff salaries.  According to the General Services Administration (GSA), which administers the funds, nearly $3 million has been allocated for staff salary and benefits.  Such an amount can be considered as pocket change when compared to the hundreds of millions of dollars donated to the ‘Foundation’ by ant number of questionable sources and shady governments. 

In addition, $947,000 was distributed for communications-related costs and for "equipment," which could include anything from "information technology hardware or software."  Perhaps, maybe, some of that money may have actually been spent on that very same email server that’s been in the news of late?  But, supposedly, a Clinton spokesman has come out and said that no taxpayer money was used to buy or maintain the private email server which ex-secretary of state Hitlery Clinton used during her time in office.  Well then, I certainly feel better.  You?

Anyway, the Former Presidents Act also provides funding for lifetime Secret Service protection for Clinton and other presidents, but the cost remains undisclosed. The law was set up after former President Harry Truman left office in 1958 to "maintain the dignity" of the presidency.  But I think we can all agree that it’s now far too late for us to be concerned about maintaining the ‘dignity’ of the presidency.  Because what dignity remained after Jimmy Carter was reduced still further by ‘Slick Willie’ Clinton and will have been totally eradicated by Barry “Almighty”.

Pete Sepp, president of the National Taxpayers Union, which has urged Congress to scale back payments to former presidents, said, "The notion of former presidents becoming paupers in their old age was laid to rest with Harry Truman."  He went on to say, "With the prospect of ex-presidents becoming even more deeply involved in post-career politics, there should be more motivation now than ever before to try and put reasonable limits on the load taxpayers are being asked to shoulder."  Presidents today, impeached or not, seem able to command rather generous fees for speeches.

Sepp also warned that, in the case of the Clintons, the funds are effectively being used to "subsidize activities that could aid presidential campaign operations."  Because you see, as incredible as it may sound, ‘Slick Willie’ Clinton will receive $3.1 million in pension payments from the act through 2016, more than the amount that any of the other former presidents are set to receive.  And I think makes very obvious the level of greed possessed by this pathetic scumbag, that he doesn’t return this paltry sum back to the taxpayers.  But I suppose that’s far too much to expect. 

HITLERY CLINTON, ONCE AGAIN SEES HERSELF AS BEING ABOVE THE LAW…

In what has become typical fashion for her, as well as her pervert of a husband, ex-secretary of state Hitlery Clinton, on Tuesday, did her best to avoid answering any and all questions regarding her use of a private email system while serving as our nation's top diplomat.  It’s a story that seems to have disrupted, at least for the present time, the plans for the launch of her expected campaign for president in 2016.  But let’s face it, Hitlery could be found guilty of murder, and the vast majority of Democrats would still flock to the polls to support her.

And although it mostly prove to be nothing more than a complete waste of everyone’s time, here are five things to know about what she said and how it is that others have chosen to react to what she said:

Hitlery told reporters, "I fully complied with every rule that I was governed by."  Just coincidently, her well-choreographed little presser took place after a speech to a United Nations conference on women's empowerment.  The fact of the matter is that government rules allow officials to use personal email accounts, but also mandate that ALL official documents be preserved.  And for Hitlery to say that her work-related emails went to other officials who were using government email addresses, and those would have therefore been saved, skirts the law.   

She said the computer hosting her email system was physically housed at the family's estate in Chappaqua, New York. The U.S. Secret Service protects that property, she said.  So?  While that may have prevented someone from carting of the hardware involved, it did very little to prevent that same hardware from being hacked into.  And finally, Hitlery offered a practical reason for using one email account for her work and her personal correspondence: She did not want to carry a government and a personal smartphone to read two separate email accounts.

Hitlery said, "Looking back, it would've been better for me to use two separate phones and two email accounts. I thought using one device would be simpler, and obviously, it hasn't worked out that way."  If this bitch is supposed to be as smart as all the Democrats claim, wouldn’t it have been much smarter to have had simply obeyed the laws.  But as we have seen countless times before, both Hitlery, and her rather sleazy other half, have a rather troublesome aversion to following those rules that everyone else is expected to follow, and to the letter.

Hitlery has faced questions about her use of a private email account since last week, following reports that she used a private email address and ran her own ‘private’ server.  Aides initially argued the controversy would pass.  But thus far it hasn’t.  And I’m sure it comes as no surprise that any number of Democrats are now beginning to circle the wagons.  One in particular, fellow Democrat ‘Little Dick’ Durbin, told MSNBC, "I think it's only fair to say to Hillary Clinton: 'Tell us your side of the story.  What did you put on this personal email?"

And when asked about the political impact on her presumed 2016 candidacy, Hitlery said, "I trust the American people to make their decisions about political and public matters."  But the American people have very little actual say in the matter.  The law is very clear, as is the fact that Hitlery chose to ignore it.  But how is it up to the American people to say, as Hitlery claims, whether or not it matters that she may have actually broken any number of laws here?  How insane it that?  It shouldn’t matter what people think, if in fact she broke the law!    

Hitlery said, "No one wants their personal emails made public, and I think most people understand that and respect that privacy."  She said her private emails contained plans for her mother's funeral, her daughter's wedding and her yoga sessions — none relevant to her job as secretary of state. Also, she deleted them.  Well the easy way to have avoided such situations would have been to use the appropriate email when conducting State Department business.  As every other employee of the State Department was forced to under penalty of being terminated.

Hitlery said, "In going through the emails, there were over 60,000 in total, sent and received."  She went on to say, "About half were work-related and went to the State Department, and about half were personal that were not in any way related to my work. I had no reason to save them."  And I guess we’re just supposed to trust her when she says such things.  I’m guessing she honestly thinks that she is somehow worthy of such trust when she most certainly is not.  She was once described as being a ‘congenital liar’, a description that I thought was rather fitting.

In echoing a tweet she posted last week about her continuing email ‘scandal’, Hitlery said, "I took the unprecedented step of asking that the State Department make all my work-related emails public for everyone to see."  But what Hitlery conveniently leaves out of both tweet and her comments to the press, it that it took her over two years to do it.  Hitlery claims to have turned over all of her work-related emails to the State Department, which said it will review and release the messages, which will take months.

In a statement, Republican National Committee Chairman (RNC) Reince Priebus said, "Because only Hillary Clinton controls her personal email account and admitted she deleted many of her emails, no one but Hillary Clinton knows if she handed over every relevant email."  And why is it that should believe her?  But Democrats don’t really care if she broke any laws, because Democrats don’t really care if their politicians are corrupt.  All that matters to Democrats is the bringing down of our country.  That’s why they vote for people like Barry and will vote for Hitlery Clinton.

But there’s hope because South Carolina Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy, the chairman of a House committee investigating the deadly 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, said Tuesday he will call Hitlery to appear before his committee at least twice.  Gowdy said the committee wants to establish it has a complete record of Hitlery's time at the State Department, and one appearance is needed to "clear up" Hitlery's role in using personal email to conduct official business.

We know that Hitlery deleted at least 32,000 emails, emails that, it can be argued, belonged to the American people.  And we have no idea if that number is anywhere near accurate.  Also, we have no idea what was discussed in any of those emails.  And you know, at the end of the day Hiterly will, in all likelihood, get away with this. If for no other reason than because she’s a Democrat, and Democrats always do.  But that does not mean that she should not be held to account.  She feels she is above the law, and she needs to be made to understand that she’s not!  

OBAMA GETS HIMSELF ALL STOKED UP…

Apparently Scott Walker must be doing something right as evidenced by the fact that Barry “Almighty” recently felt it appropriate to take the extraordinary step of publicly criticizing the Wisconsin governor for signing a "right to work" law that blocks unions from collecting mandatory fees from ‘non-union’ members.  Walker, as you may or may not know, is a rising contender for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination. He has built a national reputation, of sorts, for countering union influence.  In 2011, as a newly elected governor, he worked to undo the collective bargaining powers of Wisconsin's public employees' unions.  He has continued to draw the ire of big unions that spent a great deal money trying to remove him from office.

Barry declared, "I'm deeply disappointed that a new anti-worker law in Wisconsin will weaken, rather than strengthen, workers in the new economy."  And he went on to say, "Wisconsin is a state built by labor, with a proud pro-worker past.”  He added, "So even as its governor claims victory over working Americans, I'd encourage him to try and score a victory for working Americans, by taking meaningful action to raise their wages and offer them the security of paid leave."  Barry acts as if he has scored so many victories for working American.  But on the contrary, it has been his policies that have decimated our economy, and have had the result of removing 10 million Americans from the nation’s workforce.

Barry went on to say, "That's how you give hardworking middle-class families a fair shot in the new economy — not by stripping their rights in the workplace, but by offering them all the tools they need to get ahead.”  And he continued, "It's no coincidence that the rise of the middle class in America coincided in large part with the rise of unions — workers who organized together for higher wages, better working conditions, and the benefits and protections that most workers take for granted today."  The new law means that in Wisconsin unions may no longer enter into arrangements with the private sector in order to collect fees from non-members.  You’d think that even Barry would see that as being reasonable.

But Barry said it was "inexcusable that, over the past several years, just when middle-class families and workers need that kind of security the most, there's been a sustained, coordinated assault on unions, led by powerful interests and their allies in government."  Barry likes to spend a great deal of him time talking about such things as fairness, but what’s fair about having to pay dues to an organization of which you are not even a member?  Critics of “right to work” laws, which you’ll find in considerable number there on the left, like to point out how it is that non-members are able to obtain the same wages, benefits, and grievance process won by the union for its workers.  It’s really the only argument they have, lame as it may be.   

So now Wisconsin will join 24 other states that have "right to work" laws on their books.  Let’s face it, while once unions provided a useful purpose, today that is no longer the case.  Unions have morphed from being and advocate and guardian of the American worker, into what is, today, nothing more than an arm of the Democrat Party, spending millions in dues money provided by members to elect Democrats or, as Walker’s case, to unseat sitting governors.  In 2013 there were 14.5 million members in the U.S., compared with 17.7 million in 1983.  In 2013, the percentage of workers belonging to a union was 11.3%, compared to 20.1% in 1983. The rate for the private sector was 6.7%, and for the public sector 35.3%, a trend that must continue.

RACISTS OF TODAY ARE OF A DIFFERENT COLOR…

Much has been said, especially of late, how despite the fact that America has made some tremendous progress, racially speaking, it still has a very long way to go.  Now in one sense I suppose there is some truth to that claim.  Because while racism has been significantly reduced in one regard, white on black, it is black on white racism that seems to have increased, and rather dramatically so, over just the past few years.  And whether or not anyone chooses to admit it, it is within the black community that you will find a majority of the racists who, today, reside here in these United States.    

Case in point is someone who has been described as having been a lieutenant of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Ms. Diane Nash.  It was just this past weekend that the esteemed Ms. Nash described what went through that miniscule mind of hers when she noticed that former President George W. Bush was about to march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, on Saturday along with Barry “Almighty” and the many others who were there to mark the 50th anniversary of 1965′s Bloody Sunday.  And at no time was there any mention of the fact that the politicians involved in the events of that day in 1965, were Democrats.

Said the very racist Ms. Nash: “I refused to march…when it was apparent that he was going to be part of it.”  She then went on to say, “I think the Selma movement was about nonviolence and peace and democracy, and George Bush stands for just the opposite — for violence and war and stolen elections.”  And then, leaving very little doubt that she is, in fact, one of the most ignorant people that you are likely to anywhere on the planet, she said, “And George Bush’s administration had people tortured, so I thought that this was not an appropriate event for him.”  What an absolutely idiotic thing to say on such a day. 

Declaring that Bush’s “presence is an insult,” Nash went on to say she “did not wish to be part of something that included him.”  We’re supposed to believe that Nash worked closely with King, taking part in nonviolent protests and helping to organize the 1963 March on Washington and promote the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  But if that’s the case, then I guess Ms. Nash has long since forgotten that had she had to depend on the Democrats for passage of that very important legislation, it would never have been passed, much less even brought up for a vote.  But she conveniently forget that fact.

But that’s all ancient history, I guess, at least for the likes of Ms. Nash.  Because the truth is that the political party to which she has chosen to be a member of has worked very hard to undermine all that Dr. King accomplished, is all of very little consequence.  It’s was the Democrat Party that supported slavery and Jim Crow, and it is also a fact that the Ku Klux Klan and segregation were both creations of Democrats.  But things didn’t stop there.  Because with his ‘Great Society’, LBJ declared he’d “have the N*ggers voting Democrat for the next 200 years.”  And so far he seems to have been correct.

I have never really understood why it is that blacks can be so forgive when it comes to the very dark past of their political party of choice.  They seem only too to ignore the history of the Democrat Party, a history steeped in racism while the same time quite eager to believe the Democrat version of the Republican Party’s history.  And for what would appear to be no other reason than to make sure they are able to continue to get their Democrat Party sponsored government handouts.  After all, that’s far easier than actually looking for a job or, God forbid, finding one, so that you then have to go off to work every day.      

I think it’s obvious that racism will never end in this country until more blacks choose to act a bit more like responsible adults and a little less like spoiled brats who as soon as they don’t have their way start throwing around accusations of racism.  They have come to simply expect those things which the rest are forced to work for.  Everything from a good college education, a good job, good daycare of our kids, you name it.  Blacks feel that such things are somehow owed to them for the perceived injustices they were made to suffer in the past.  Many have never been able to move beyond the days of slavery, which ended 150 years ago.  

RACE RELATIONS WORSE UNDER OBAMA…

You don’t have to be some sort a genius to recognize the fact that race relations in this country today, are pretty much at an all-time low.  And neither do any of us need some new poll that points that out, or that things have continued to worsen over the course of the presidency of Barry “Almighty”, the first half-black man ever to be elected to the White House.  But be that as it may, we do now have a CNN poll that finds that 39 percent believe relations between blacks and whites have gotten worse, not better, since Barry took office in January 2009.  Just 15 percent say relations have improved. In an interesting finding, 45 percent of whites think relations have worsened while just 26 percent of blacks think so.

What I’ve noticed over the course of the last 6 years, and you can call me crazy, is the fact with the election of a black, or half-black, president what has since appeared to be a growing number of blacks have come to feel that they are now to be considered as being above the law, and, to even to greater extent than in the past, have come to consider that the rules simply no longer apply to them.  And the fact that they are black is to be their ‘get-out-of-jail-free card.  And Barry, along with his boy Eric “The Racist” Holder, has done nothing to even imply anything else.  It’s like, blacks consider themselves to be somehow immune to the consequences which would normally be the natural result of their actions.  And in many respects they are right.

Case in point, Ferguson, Mo.  Despite a very obviously flawed Department of Justice report regarding the Ferguson police department, and the idiotic remarks that Barry made based on that report while on some hokey radio show, after so many people of Ferguson lost their businesses, their livelihoods and their futures, not one Negro went to jail, even though their faces were plastered all over our televisions for weeks.  As well, the father of Michael Brown, the dead black thug at the center of it all, has yet been made to face any jail time for inciting violence.  And he probably never will.  And yet Barry has the gall to focus on the actions of a police officer guilty of nothing more than trying to save his own life.  It’s disgusting and it very un-presidential.

Like I said, it was while on the hokey radio show of some guy by the name of Joe Madison, that Barry was heard to say, "I don't think that is typical of what happens across the country, but it's not an isolated incident.”  He then went on to say, "I think that there are circumstances in which trust between communities and law enforcement have broken down, and individuals or entire departments may not have the training or the accountability to make sure that they're protecting and serving all people and not just some."  He called civil rights "an unfinished project."  It’s only an “unfinished project” because of blacks are not yet finished milking it for all they think they can get from it.

And then in a speech at, South Carolina’s, Benedict College on Friday, Barry claimed, "We may never know exactly what happened" the day white police officer Darren Wilson shot black teenager Michael Brown.  Oh really?  Attorney General Eric ‘The Racist’ Holder found that witness stories greatly varied, but in clearing Wilson of any wrongdoing, the report said there was no truth to the account that Brown had his hands up when shot.  Barry said, "If there is uncertainty about what happened, then you can’t just charge him anyway just because what happened was tragic.  That was the decision that was made."  And yet, Barry charged that the racial discrimination from police in Ferguson, Missouri, was "oppressive and abusive."

We’re told, and Barry obviously whole-heartedly supports the premise that, the Justice Department investigation found patterns of racial profiling, bigotry and profit-driven law enforcement and court practices within the Ferguson Police Department. And despite the fact that Eric Holder is himself, and very obviously so, a racist, we’re still all supposed to believe that this racially biased report paints an accurate picture of the Ferguson police department.  Holder, who accompanied Barry on the trip, told reporters the federal government will "use all the power that we have to change the situation there," including possibly dismantling the police force. "If that's what's necessary we're prepared to do that," Holder threatened.

And in what was something that really came as no surprise, questioner at the college town hall meeting held at the historically black college asked Barry why Holder had filed no charges against Wilson.  Barry replied that the standard for federal charges is very high and the officer is entitled to due process like anyone else.  Although Barry said he didn't think what happened in Ferguson was typical of the rest of the country, he was quick to add that it wasn't a totally isolated incident, either.  He called for communities to work together to address tensions between police and residents without succumbing to cynical attitudes that say "this is never going to change, because everybody's racist."  How blacks simply behave themselves?

The moral of the Ferguson story is a relatively obvious one.  Regardless of Barry says, if you don’t rob a convenience store, don’t threaten store clerks and do what a police officer tells you to, don’t struggle for a policeman’s gun and, regardless of skin color, the chances of you ending up being shot dead are really pretty remote.  And yet when we have someone who, because of their own actions, winds up dead, we’re supposed to believe that the only reason that that person is dead is because was black and the police officer was white.  Therefore, I’m one of those who are of the opinion that race relations in this country, have most definitely taken a turn for the worse.  And I don’t see things getting better any time soon. 

Because I tell you what, until the day comes when blacks, or at least enough of them, manage to come to their senses and realize that the political party to which they have so blindly aligned themselves with for decades is the very same party that was responsible for slavery, Jim Crow, the Ku Klux Klan and segregation, not much is going to change in any number of areas, only one of which is that racism continues in this country.  Racism that far more often comes from blacks and directed at whites, than the other way around.  Until blacks come to see themselves as having to abide by the same rules as the rest of us, and come to possess at least some desire to be self-sufficient and not merely a parasite on the rest of us, things will remain the same.       

OBAMA…MORE EMPLOYMENT NUMBER MUMBO-JUMBO…

For over 6 years now Barry “Almighty’s” war on the American worker has continued, and, sadly, pretty much unabated.  Some of the numbers that we’re seeing today haven’t been seen since the days of that other economic genius, Jimmy Carter.  One number in particular is the labor force participation rate which hovered between 62.9 percent and 62.7 percent in the eleven months between April 2014 and this February.  It has been 62.9 percent or lower in 13 of the 17 months since October 2013. Prior to that, the last time the rate was below 63 percent was 37 years ago, in March 1978 when it was 62.8 percent.

According to data released from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) on Friday, the labor force participation rate declined to 62.8 percent in February, thus matching that of March 1978, with 92,898,000 Americans not in the labor force.  In February, according to BLS, the nation’s civilian noninstitutional population, reached 249,899,000. Of those, 157,002,000 were described as participating in the labor force because they were either holding a job or actively seeking one.  The 62.8 percent also matches the rate in April, May, June, and October of 2014.  The participation rate hit its lowest level of 62.7 percent in September and December of 2014.

In February, 92,898,000 people did not participate in the labor force. These Americans did not have a job and were not actively trying to find one. Now keep in mind, when Barry first took office in January 2009, there were 80,529,000 Americans who were not participating in the office, which means that since then, 12,369,000 Americans have left the workforce.  Of the 157,002,000 who did participate in the labor force, 148,297,000 had a job and 8,705,000, or 5.5 percent, did not have a job but were actively seeking one, making them the nation’s unemployed.  Thus we once again see the ‘fuzzy math’ used in coming up with the nation’s unemployment rate.

Now I spoke earlier of Barry’s war on the American worker, but there is also something else going on here that would seem to indicate, at least to me, that Barry is perhaps trying to kill two birds with one stone.  You see, there were a record 56,023,000 women, age 16 years and over, who were not in the labor force in February.  And keep in mind that not only was that a record high, but it's also the first time the number has exceeded 56 million, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).  In January 2015, there were 55,756,000 women not in the labor force, which means that 267,000 women dropped out of the labor force since then.

According to the BLS, 56.7 percent of women were participating in the labor force in February, a drop from 56.8 percent in January.  In the last year, since February 2014, the labor force participation rate for women has fluctuated within a range of 56.6 percent to 57.2 percent, and February’s percentage of 56.7 falls on the low end of that scale. The BLS labor force numbers begin with the nation’s civilian noninstitutional population, for women, that number was 129,252,000. Of those people, there were 73,230,000 women in the labor force, meaning they participated by either having a job or looking for one. This brings the participation rate to 56.7 percent.

Of those 73,230,000 women participating in the labor force, 69,291,000 had a job in February, and 3,939,000, or 5.4 percent, did not, making them the nation’s unemployed.  While the number of unemployed women decreased over the month from 4,076,000 in January to 3,939,000 in February, the number of employed women also decreased from 69,332,000 in January to 69,291,000 in February. The unemployment rate for women decreased from 5.6 percent in January to 5.4 percent in February.  Much has been said about a Republican “war on women” but who is really that has brought about the most casualties, economically speaking?  Barry! 

And something that I also think worthy of note is the fact that there on the eve of the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the civil rights march in Selma, Alabama, the unemployment rate among African Americans remains more than twice that of white Americans and nearly twice the national average.  Even if we choose to use the latest numbers provided to us by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which we all know are nothing more than a work of pure fiction, the African American unemployment rate for the month of February was 10.4 percent, compared to the white unemployment rate of 4.7 percent and national average of 5.5 percent.

While the White House boasted about February’s job gains of 295,000 jobs and its 5.5 percent unemployment rate Friday morning, it did acknowledge the “unacceptably high” unemployment rates among blacks and Hispanics.  In a statement about the jobs data Jason Furman, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, argued that while the African American and Hispanic unemployment is nearly down to pre-recession levels, it is still too high. He said, “This is why the President has proposed a number of policies, including the My Brother’s Keeper initiative for young men of color and tax relief for working families, to help reduce disparities in labor market outcomes.”

Look, I thinks it’s pretty clear what Barry’s entire objective is here.  And that is to slowly but surely destroy the private sector economy by any means available in order to get as many Americans as possible addicted to the government.  He claims to be working to help rebuild the middle class, but in reality he’s done more to destroy it than any president in history.  And with Hitlery Clinton now waiting in the wings, does anyone really think that she’s going to do anything other than what he has done for, what will be by that time, the last eight years?  She’s just as much of a devoted Socialist as he is.  What makes the American people want to go in that direction?   

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA…OUR RACIST-IN-CHIEF…

So it is then that once again we have heard our esteemed Racist-in-Chief Barack Hussein Obama sounding, like so many others in his racist administration, as if we are somehow still living in the midst of the 1940s or 50s, racially speaking.  And in so doing, Barry put forth his claim that the type of racial discrimination found in Ferguson, Missouri, is in no way unique to that specific police department.  And it was in the making of such an assessment that Barry identified law enforcement reform as being the chief struggle of today's civil rights movement.  So I guess we are intended to believe that in a time when a black man has been elected president, twice, America just hasn’t seemed to move beyond her racist past.

Barry made the patently idiotic claim that improving civil rights and civil liberties with police is one of the areas that "requires collective action and mobilization" 50 years after pivotal civil rights marches brought change to the country.  Barry made his first remarks about this week's Justice Department report of racial bias in Ferguson, which found officers routinely discriminating against blacks by using ‘excessive force’.  It seems to me that as more time passes by, it takes less and less action by the police to be defined as being ‘excessive force.’  I feel quite confident that in the not too distant future just the act of a police officer asking for identification will bring about accusations of ‘excessive force’ having been used.    

It was during something called, “The Joe Madison Radio Show” on Sirius XM radio's Urban View channel that Barry said, "I don't think that is typical of what happens across the country, but it's not an isolated incident."  Barry said, "I think that there are circumstances in which trust between communities and law enforcement have broken down, and individuals or entire departments may not have the training or the accountability to make sure that they're protecting and serving all people and not just some.”  Mr. Madison, who is also a black man, was, I’m quite sure, only too eager to assist Barry in the spreading of his racist propaganda.  After all, it makes much more sense to blame the bad behavior of black males, on white police officers.

Barry's interview was to preview his trip Saturday to Selma, Alabama, where he plans to speak from the Edmund Pettus Bridge, where white police officers beat civil rights protesters on March 7, 1965.  Barry last visited Selma in 2007, when he was running for the Democrat presidential nomination and spoke about the responsibility of those who came after the civil rights generation of the '60s to carry on the struggle.  Apparently he views making the trip to Selma to be important enough to make only when either running for election, or when working hard to stoke the flames of racism.  What other explanation might there be to explain the span of time that has taken place between visits?  There simply was no need before. 

It was earlier today that Barry was kicking off the weekend's 50th anniversary with a town hall meeting at South Carolina's Benedict College, a historically black college. The White House said Barry plans to speak about efforts young people made throughout history to expand opportunity.  And oddly enough, Barry's visit to Columbia happens to be his first trip to South Carolina since becoming president. Apparently Barry has to travel to just two more states, South Dakota and Utah, in order to reach his goal of traveling to all 57, or so, states while in office.  I’m quite sure neither state cares one way or the other if our Racist-in-Chief were to pay a visit there or not.  And why is it that Barry always has to have some political motivation?    

Look, that there are still racists in this country, I will not deny.  But what I do take great exception to are all of the claims that all of these racists are all, supposedly, white.  And that’s simply a lie.  Because while the vast majority of whites in this country have managed to move well beyond the racist proclivities of the 50s and 60s, and even more so of the days of slavery, it would seem that blacks in this country have only become more racist over what has essentially been the same period of time.  And I would argue that blacks today are far more racist than were even the white folks during the days of slavery.  And yet we continue to have racist scum like our president trying to use race to further divide.   

DEMOCRATS AND THEIR DEEP-SEATED HATRED OF AMERICA…

Let’s face it, Barry “Almighty” is far from being the ONLY Democrat who hates America and all, or nearly all, of the institutions that have made her great.  And what sense of patriotism, if any, that there may exist there on the left is a rather strange and perverted one to say the least.  Because instead of seeking ways to make sure that America remains a strong force for good, Democrats, including our president, seem to expend a great deal of time and effort in seeking out new ways to weaken her.  But why is it, exactly, that Progressives and Democrats are so vehement in their hatred of America?  They are quite literally consumed by it.

That Progressives and Democrats want to change America is, I suppose, no great secret to any of us. And it would seem that these days they are far more willing to crawl out from the shadows and to boast, much more openly than they used to, about how it is that they would like to change America.  They have even come to base entire political campaigns on the premise of changing it for what they claim would be the better. I’m sure we all recall how it was on the verge of the 2008 election how it was that we heard Barry declare that we were then on the verge of “fundamentally transforming” the United States of America.

But consider this, why is it that anyone would want to change, or to “fundamentally transform”, anything unless they were to be, for whatever reason, extremely unhappy with it?  After all, if you’re happy with your job, do you go about trying to change it?  If you love your dog, would you ever consider trading him, or her, in for a different one?  Or, if you’re a guy, and you had a classic car, since your high school days, that you really loved, would you be looking to trade it for a newer model, for any reason?  I just don’t think so.  Am I wrong?  You don’t try to drastically change those things which you love, unless the purpose of such changes is to genuinely enhance.

Now getting back to America, I think it has now become pretty much of a given that our children will never hear it from their public school teachers or read about it in any of their history books, nor are we likely to see anywhere in the state-controlled media, how it is that the United States of America, in its short 200 year history, has done more good for more people than every country in the entire world, combined. America began as a haven for those seeking religious freedom and fought a war to preserve that freedom.  America fought a war to end slavery and won.  Sadly even today slavery still continues in many parts of the world.

And lest we all forget, it was the Democrat Party that was very determined, to say the least, in its support of slavery and it was the Republicans who were just as determined in their opposition to it.  And it is yet another very dark period in Democrat Party’s history, that soon after the Civil War, it was defeated Democrats who formed the Ku Klux Klan.  Strange how white Americans today are still blamed for the slavery of a hundred and fifty years ago, yet are never thanked for sacrificing their lives in order to bring it to an end.  And stranger still is the fact that the party of slavery, Jim Crow and segregation has earned the allegiance of blacks today.

America won two World Wars, and put an end to Hitler’s socialist Nazi party.  America stemmed the tide of communism, a socio-economic system supported by a majority of modern-day Democrats, and it provided safety for thousands of Vietnamese refugees who would have been murdered by the communists of North Vietnam.  For centuries, America has given freedom and hope to the oppressed; hope and joy to the suffering; and liberty and opportunity to people of all races and nationalities. The proof of her greatness can be found every day in the millions of immigrants who continue to flock to her shores seeking the freedom that America offers.

Yet Progressives and Democrats seek to change America. Doesn’t that make you just a tad bit suspicious?  Indeed, Progressives and Democrats want not just to change America, but to “fundamentally transform” it.  And they seek to do so under an ideology that has killed more people in the last one hundred years than have died in all the wars in the history of the world combined: Socialism.  Socialism under Hitler murdered millions and set the entire world at war.  Socialism under Stalin murdered upwards of forty million people. Socialism under Mao murdered over sixty million people.  Socialism under Castro continues to murder people today. 

Everywhere socialism goes, it kills, and yet Socialism is what Progressives and Democrats want for America.  Doesn’t THAT make you a tad bit suspicious?  Just what could cause so many people to despise a country so great as America?  Have you ever seen a man get rejected by a beautiful woman?  At first, he criticizes her, looking for whatever flaws he can find, then he despises her, and eventually he hates her. Why? Because he can’t have her. He feels unworthy of the woman who rejected him and projects his hate onto her and others. His future attempts at seduction become a means of revenge, a perverted attempt to escape his own self-loathing.

Progressives and Democrats are no different in their hatred of America. America was born a religious, God-loving country and, for the most part, it remains so today. But, you see, Progressives and Democrats, on the other hand, have rejected God and embraced lives of sin. They support and encourage abortion, racism, intolerance, promiscuity, homosexuality, government theft, and a host of other ills, and then project the guilt and self-hatred they feel for embracing these sins onto a hatred of America and its religious heritage. Because Progressives and Democrats falsely believe that God has rejected them, they respond by rejecting God.

America has always offered opportunity and economic freedom to anyone who was willing to take a risk and to work hard. Progressives and Democrats have risked once or twice in their lives, failed miserably, and are now terrified at the prospect of competing with other risk-takers. Their fear leads to a sense of entitlement that extends to food stamps, housing allowances, “free” health care, and personal and corporate welfare. The stronger their self-hatred, the stronger they feel they are above hard work. They hate America, because it reminds them of their own failures to provide for themselves and their families.

America stands for strength, independence, honor, and compassion.  Progressives and Democrats are so frightened by life and have developed such a dependence on government for survival that they have lost all of these qualities.  No self-respecting man can call himself a man if he’s beholden to government entitlements for his survival. Progressive and Democrat men know this and they hate themselves for it.  No self-respecting woman can call herself a woman if she rejects the honor and compassion of motherhood by embracing abortion and feminism. Progressive and Democrat women know this and they hate themselves for it.

Progressives and Democrats hate America, because it reminds them of all the positive qualities of strength, self-reliance, and kindness that they lack the courage to develop in themselves. Like rebellious children who must depend on their parents for survival, but hate their parents because of it, Progressives and Democrats live in a state of suspended adolescence, forever running from the responsibility of motherhood, fatherhood, and limited government.  They hate America, because they hate themselves.  Which brings us back to socialism, that which those on the left are so desperate to inflict upon the rest of us. 

The bottom line here is that Progressives and Democrats have a history of embracing socialism.  They do so because it represents everything they long for: the complete eradication of the individual. And if you support Progressivism or the Democrat Party, then you also support socialism, there’s just no way around it.  And if you support socialism, then, by definition, you also support the socialism of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro, and many others.  So I guess the question of the day would be: Is that something you can live with?  To my way of thinking it takes a rather twisted and demented mind to support the forcing of such an ill on our once prosperous nation.