LANNY DAVIS, DEVOTED CLINTON STOOGE…

Every time I see this guy, Lanny Davis, it seems that he goes a little further out of his way to make an even bigger fool out of himself than he did the time before.  And judging by his most frequent comments, I can only assume that old Lanny, former White House Special Counsel for ‘Slick Willie’ Clinton, must define ‘transparency’ in pretty much the same manner that Barry ‘Almighty” seems to.  Because it was during his appearance on Tuesday’s “Imus in the Morning” on the Fox Business Network, that old Lanny actually made the claim, and with a straight face no less, that the Clinton Foundation is the most transparent of all foundations.  Really?

And then it was right out of the gate that Lanny set out to put forward a disclaimer, of sorts, in what I can only assume was an attempt to convince viewers that he represents neither the of Clintons nor Hitlery’s campaign.  As if he really expected anyone to believe that.  And it was then that Imus proceeded to ask Lanny, “do you ever say to yourself, ‘look what I’ve done with my life, defending these skunks, it’s just — is it worth it? I mean, I could have been doing good in my life instead of covering up for these crooks and despots and dictators all over the world?”  In answering, it seems that Lanny just couldn’t help himself.

Because it was then that he proceeded to launch into what can only be described as being some of the most pathetic sounding drivel that I think I’ve ever heard.  And in answering the question, Lanny said, “So, here is my honest answer. I’ve known Hillary when her name was Rodham, before she met Bill Clinton. I’ve known Bill Clinton since 1970 when he first arrived at Yale Law School, and I already graduated. These are two, in my longstanding experience with them, two people dedicated to doing good, to public service, as long as I’ve known them. The first five minutes after I met Hillary Rodham…I was a senior, she was a freshman.”

Lanny continued his rather sappy recollection of things by saying, “I recognized her from the speech she gave, which was a great speech about the ’60s, as the valedictorian at Wellesley, and I said ‘is there any advice I can give you about taking courses or teachers? Because the first semester, Yale Law School, very challenging.’ And she said, ‘not really, but could you tell me where the nearest legal services clinic is?’” Lanny went on to say, “Now, that’s a true story within five minutes of meeting Hillary Rodham. I thought to myself, ‘this is an unusual person who looks like public service is going to be her life.’ Oh, gag me with a spoon.

Imus said, “well you have to wonder, the — how they got from there to the point where, in her case, destroying thousands of emails, at least she learned, she was on the Nixon committee. At least she learned from him, we all know he should have burned the tapes. So, she got rid of emails. That was smart on her part. And then, to the point, whether or not reporting these contributions to, their foundation, and then, where he’s getting these extraordinary speaking fees for these various countries they are getting cut slack by her, what happened in between, where they got from this noble beginning to where they are now?”

Lanny said, “the destruction of private emails is no different than you and me not wanting private emails –” Which then prompted Imus interject, “we’re assuming they’re private. We don’t know that.”  Lanny continued, “every single member about Congress, every elected official, everyone in government is told ‘you make the decision what’s private or public.’ So there’s double standard here, whether it’s Governor Jeb Bush, who I greatly admire, who kept his own server, and a half a million emails he never disclosed. So, that double-standard, which I absolutely defend what Governor Bush did, is clear when it applies to the Clintons.” 

Imus objected, “what does Jeb Bush got to do with anything? Because OJ murdered his wife, I can murder mine? Your defense is OJ murdered his wife, so I’m going to kill mine.”  Lanny argued, “I don’t think Governor Bush did anything wrong. This man who wrote this book filled with smoke and no facts. He admitted that on the air. He said he’s doing the same book about Governor Bush, who I think is a decent, and honorable man. I will say the same thing if he blows smoke with no facts about Governor Bush, as I have about the Clintons. And you were not accurate in saying, the non-reporting of contributions to the foundation. It’s the most transparent foundation, way, way beyond what you’re required to do under the law. That is absolutely a fact.”

This guy continues to have absolutely zero credibility whenever the topic of conversation is Hitlery Clinton.  There’s loyalty to ones ‘friends’ and then there’s what can only be described as possessing a willful blindness to just how corrupt, dishonest and downright sleazy one’s ‘friends’ really are.  And frankly I’m not sure if this is how Lanny really views these people or if he’s so desperate to see his ‘friend’ Hitlery get elected that there’s nothing that he will not say in his effort to defend her.  Obviously he is much more infatuated with Hitlery than he is the least bit interested in saving what’s left of the country.  Nothing he says can be believed.    

BALTIMORE, ANOTHER BASTION OF PROGRESSIVISM GOING UP IN SMOKE???

I think we can all agree that there are morons and then there are those who have been able to make being a moron into an art form!  And it’s Baltimore mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake who I think we can safely say is one of those, and ranks right up there with another well-known moron, Kwame Kilpatrick of Detroit fame.  You see it was in her first remarks made in addressing the chaos now underway on the streets of Baltimore that this poorest excuse for a responsible public official said that one thing she wanted to make sure took place was “that those who wished to destroy, had room to do that.”  Is this what you’d want to hear from your mayor?

Now after receiving more than just a little push back regarding the recklessness of her statement, she’s saying that her words were simply taken out of context.  Now you can watch the video at the top of this post and are free to decide for yourself if there is ANYTHING she said has since been presented in anything other than in the context in which she made it!  But that hasn’t’ stopped her from whining at a ‘news conference’ on Monday when she said, "I'll say the very blatant mischaracterization of my words was not helpful today."  This at the very same time that fires burned and hundreds of "thugs" (the mayor's word) looted and destroyed her city.

She then attempted to accuse the media of taking her words out of context, referring to it as being "unfortunate" that the media "decided to mischaracterize my words and tried to use it as a way to say that we were inciting violence."  What’s “unfortunate” is that she’s apparently the best the people of Baltimore could find in their search for a mayor.  She made her accusation after a reporter suggested that her own words on Saturday may have contributed to the problem.  And it was on Saturday night, after violence began to escalate in Baltimore, that the mayor said she was working with police to make sure they protected the protesters' right to free speech. 

What’s now causing the mayor to resort to doing a little damage control is the direct result of she herself having said, "It's a very delicate balancing act, because while we tried to make sure that they (protestors) were protected from the cars and the other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well.”  She then went on to say, “We worked very hard to keep that balance and put ourselves in the best position to de-escalate, and that’s what you saw.”  On Monday night, she tried to explain away her idiotic remark, much like we have heard Barry, himself do, on any number of occasion, by simply placing blame on others. 

She said, "I was asked a question about the property damage that was done, and in answering that question, I made it very clear that we walk a -- we balance a very fine line between giving protesters -- peaceful protesters -- space to protest.”  She added, "What I said is, in doing so, people can hijack that and use that space for bad. I did not say that we were accepting of it; I did not say that we were passive to it. I was just explaining how property damage can happen during a peaceful protest.”  And added, "And it's very unfortunate that members of your industry decided to mischaracterize my words and tried to use it as a way to say that we were inciting violence. There's no such thing."

Later Monday night, she told the Communist News Network (CNN) she was "very measured" in her response to Monday's out-of-control violence, because, "We see what happened in jurisdictions that overreacted and brought in resources that escalated the violence on the street, and I didn't want that to happen in Baltimore.” She went on to say, "We wanted to make sure we had the appropriate response to what was going on on the ground. And when we saw that the breakout violence in the small groups --we realized that it was time to bring in additional resources, and I'm very grateful for the governor's cooperation."

CNN's Don Lemon, a black guy, noted that some people think the rioting was allowed to get out of control and that the looters were "given way too much leeway."  To which the esteemed mayor responded, "It is a very delicate balancing act to make sure you protect people's right to free speech their right to protest."  And then she actually had the gall to say, "The fact that people exploited the opportunity to protest, with violence and looting, doesn't mean that I don't have a duty to protect people's right to be heard.”  The people’s right to be heard?  Is she serious?  I guess I just don’t see her logic in making such a statement.

"What I said very clearly was, when you...facilitate space for people to be heard -- that space was exploited by those who meant to do harm to our city. That's what I was saying, very clearly. And when the protesters got out of hand, and started to destroy property, we did -- we used best practices -- the way the officers are trained to make sure that we are focusing on those that were doing the damage, and also working to not escalate.”  She added, "We have seen all over the country, and throughout our history, what happens when you use too much force to respond to an incident. It escalates and it can be a lot worse. I didn't want that for my city. We worked very hard to contain this, and to do it in a way that doesn't turn Baltimore into a military state."

Oddly enough, and something I’m sure is just some weird coincidence, it was also Ms. Rawlings-Blake, the very same mayor who gave rioters the necessary “space to destroy” property and who also reportedly told the police to stand down, who just so happens to have been a key player in the Justice Dept.’s plan to expand federal control over local law enforcement.  Rawlings-Blake was one of three mayors who provided broad input into Barry “Almighty’s” Task Force on 21st Century Policing, which advocates the federalization of police departments across the country by forcing them to adhere to stricter federal requirements when they receive funding.

Look, the sad truth here is that Democrats now control most, if not all, of America’s larger cities.  Hence the reason that we have seen most of our cities become nothing more than what can be described as cesspools of violence and corruption on what is nearly a massive scale.  And the residents of these cities really have no one to blame but themselves.  And it has been over the course of just the last 6 years that America as a whole has come to look more and more like the vast majority of its Democrat controlled cities.  If I was white and lived in nearly any big city in this country I would spend everything that I had to leave it as far behind as I could.

And what is it that our country and these cities now have in common, what’s that one common denominator?  Well, like many of these cities we now have a black Democrat who is currently in charge.  So might our cities be providing us a glimpse of what our country is destined to become?  What many of our cities have now become are nothing more than the equivalent of decades-long rat experiments that have gone horribly, horribly wrong and, as such, are deserving of little more than to have a very sizeable fence being placed completely around their perimeters to ensure safety for the rest of with the occasional food being dropped in on a weekly basis.  

HITLERY CLINTON STAYS IN HIDING…

Apparently Hitlery is trying out a new, and rather unique, tactic to be used when running for president. But even if it does work, I doubt very much that it would work for anyone other than Hitlery, or any other corrupt Democrat.  I feel quite confident in saying that it would NEVER work for any Republican.  This latest tactic to which I refer involves Hitlery continuing to lay low to the point where one could argue that she has essentially gone into hiding.  And instead of making appearances herself, she has left it to her many flunkies, those like Lanny Davis, to go out and tell anyone who will listen what a wonderful president you would make.  Although there are very few in the state-controlled media who would describe things in this way, that’s only because of who she is, and the fact that she’s a Democrat. 

And, really, the only reason I even bring this up is the fact that Hitlery now would seem to hold the rather dubious record of now having gone longer than any presidential candidate in modern history without appearing on any national television news network or conducting a sit down interview with national media.  Hitlery, who many still agree is the likely Democrat presidential nominee, announced she would run for president via a recorded, and rather silly, little  two-minute video message on Twitter Sunday all the way back on April 12th.  Following the announcement, Hitlery then dashed off to Iowa in her very own “Scooby” van without giving any time to the national press, and very little time, if any, to local reporters.  Reporters were seen running after her van like the little groupies that they are.

It is research tracing back through the 2012 and 2008 primaries that would seem to, at least, suggest that the longest a candidate has previously gone without doing an interview with national press after a presidential bid announcement was roughly two days.  And oddly enough that too was Hitlery.  The other candidates at the time, in 2008, ‘Slow Joe’ Biden, ‘Maverick John’ McCain, Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani, John ‘The Hair’ Edwards and Mike Huckabee all conducted interviews with the media on the very same day as their presidential bid announcements.  And both Barry “Almighty” and Mitt Romney gave national interviews the day after they made their 2008 presidential bids official. Romney also did a sit down interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity the very same evening of his 2012 announcement.

During the first time around, Barry “Almighty” announced his run for president back on February 10, 2007 and it was the very next day that he addressed the media.  He and his wife, Moochelle, even did a sit down interview special just two days later, which aired on CBS.  And as I mentioned earlier, it was Hitlery who was the candidate that went two days back in the 2008 primaries before taking the time to speak to the national media. She announced she would vie for the White House January 20, 2007 and did her first national interview on January 22, 2007.  Looking at 2012, Newt Gingrich appeared on Fox News the same day as his announcement, and Rick Santorum appeared on ABC’s Good Morning America the morning of his announcement discussing his day’s event and criticisms of Barry “Almighty.”

The Associated Press caught Rick Perry on camera following his first campaign event answering reporter questions off the cuff.  Buddy Roemer, Fred Karger and Jon Hunstman Jr. all spoke to national media the same day as their presidential bid for the Republican nomination in 2012.  Michele Bachman appeared on ABC’s Good Morning America the day after her announcement, and Herman Cain appeared on Fox News with Chris Wallace the day after he made his 2012 bid official.  And if we go all the way to back 1999, we find that George W. Bush made his presidential campaign official in Cedar Rapids, Iowa on June 12th, and by June 16th he was doing a sit down interview with CNN.  Also in 1999, Al Gore sat down for an ABC 20/20 interview with Diane Sawyer the night before he made his 2000 campaign announcement. 

It has now been more than two weeks since Hitlery ‘officially’ threw her hat in the ring, but she has only spoken with local reporters at roundtable events with voters and business owners.  RNC Spokesman James Hewitt said, “Hillary Clinton is sticking to small, staged events because she can’t give an honest answer to any tough questions regarding her secret email scandal or the troubling new revelations surrounding the foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation.”  Rep. Marsha Blackburn, Republican from Tennessee, has previously said Hitlery’s team realizes it must manage her if they are to have any chance at all.  Ms. Blackburn said, “I think what they are going to do is very carefully manage her appearances,” adding that she believes the Democrats will “stage-manage” Clinton through this race.

So while we know that most in the state-controlled media will do all that they can to assist Hitlery in her endeavor to remain in hiding, at the end of the day, will there be a sufficient number of voters who view Hitlery’s apparent unwillingness to give voice to, and to defend if necessary, her positions on important issues, as being enough of a reason for not voting for her?  Will voters see it as being an issue important enough to influence the way they are likely to vote, or will most simply not care, choosing to simply laughing it off, or even cheer her on?  You’d have to be pretty naïve not to know that there are millions of people who will vote for Hitlery no matter what, just as there are millions of people who would not vote for her even if she was the only one running.  So once again it’s left to those in middle. 

HITERLY CLINTON…THE WORST POSSIBLE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE???

What is it that makes Hitlery Clinton think that she is in any way worthy of being elected president of the United States?  She who is one of the most corrupt, dishonest and unethical individuals alive today.  From the questionable donations to the Clinton Family Foundation, to her, at best, rather spotty resume, to a rather long list of shady financial dealings, you would think that she would be, if not the very last, at least one of the very last, person the American people would ever want to have as their president.  But then, the American people did elect Barry “Almighty” twice.

And I’m not sure that even Barry can be accused of possessing the same level of spectacular greed that can very safely be claimed to be possessed by not only Hitlery, but her rather sleazy spouse as well, he who is one of only two presidents ever to be impeached.  A man who many have said is, if not guilty of rape, most certainly guilty of unseemly behavior that has, other than perhaps John Kennedy, rarely been seen from a sitting president.  The list of women is rather lengthy, and yet it was Hitlery who blamed his many liaisons on some supposed vast right-wing conspiracy.

And then there’s that rather nasty business about all those emails.  In March we learned that during her four-year stint as secretary of state, Hitlery conducted all business — political, public and private — solely through her personal email account, on a server in her house.  When asked why she didn’t use two emails, one for official business and one for personal use, Hillary said: “I thought it would be easier to just carry one device for my work and for my personal emails instead of two.”  Then an email surfaced that was sent from her iPad, undermining that excuse.

While I would never profess to be a Democrat, I can’t help but wonder if there are those who do call themselves Democrats who might actually want to come up with someone better than Hitlery to be their party’s presidential candidate for 2016.  But I also realize that there are those, millions of them in fact, who will vote for any Democrat no matter what.  That’s where Republicans and Democrats differ, because as they demonstrated in the last two presidential elections there are candidates for whom Republicans, and again millions of them, will not vote.     

JUST MORE ‘CLIMATE CHANGE’ GIBBERISH…

For anyone who spends any amount of time on these pages it should be readily apparent that I am not a big supporter of ‘global warming’, ‘climate change’, ‘climate disruption’ or whatever it is that those on the left insist upon calling what they view as being the next great apocalypse to be faced by we here on Earth.  But be that as it may, a recent study led by Duke University of 1,000 years of temperature records has apparently shown that global warming is not occurring quite as fast as those on the left have alleged.  Imagine that!  So I’m assuming here that the researchers at Duke University apparently remain convinced that ‘climate change’ is occurring, albeit at a slower rate than what we have all been led to believe.

And it was regarding the analysis of this recent research that Patrick Brown, who we’re told is a doctoral student in climatology at Duke University, said, "Based on our analysis, a middle-of-the-road warming scenario is more likely, at least for now."  To which he quickly added, most likely out of fear of being labeled a “flat-earther” or worse, "But this could change."  Look, we’ve known for decades that the data on which this theory is based has been either fudged or simply made up altogether, and while Mr. Brown may claim that ‘climate change’ is taking place slower than what we’ve been told, he apparently still thinks it’s occurring.  So might this all be nothing more than simply a less ‘alarmist sounding’ version of the very same propaganda? 

The analysis, which, we are told, compared results with scenarios suggested by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and relied on observed data, not climate models, determined that high and low warming rates that occur over a decade are a part of the "natural variability in surface temperatures."  It also found, apparently, that temperature shifts are the result of ocean-atmosphere interactions and other natural factors.  This natural balance, however, could shift, these scientists warn, and the "climate wiggles" seen over the years could change, forcing Earth to warm at a faster speed than expected.  So, is it the extent, or duration, of these “climate wiggles” that is the next thing which we all now need to worry ourselves about?

And then we heard from Wenhong Li, who is, we’re told, an assistant professor of climate at Duke, and someone who worked with Brown on the climate change study. He said, "At any given time, we could start warming at a faster rate if greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere increase without any offsetting changes in aerosol concentrations or natural variability."  So what’s he really saying here?  It sounds to me like maybe he’s either trying to play down what it is that the data is saying or to, at the very least, have it both ways.  Because on one hand he’s saying ‘climate change’ is not occurring as fast as was thought, and on the other hand he’s saying that the data is useless because things could pick up again on a moments notice.   

Another study, published in the journal ‘Science’ last year, also said ‘climate change’ was slowing as a part of an ongoing cycle.  That study found that "temperatures have risen more slowly in the past decade than in the previous 50 years, and will continue to rise at a somewhat slower rate in the next decade."  It attributed the change to heat moving "into deeper oceans," yet after the current cycle is finished, warming could pick up at a fast rate.  Yet according to a study by the IPCC in 2013, "Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth's surface than any preceding decade since 1850."  It added, "Trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends."

Now, let’s take all if that into consideration when listening to Barry “Almighty” in an interview from earlier this week with National Geographic (NG), where we were once again treated to the more apocalyptic version of what will result from ‘climate change’, and therefore the version that has become the left’s only truly accepted ‘climate change’ scenario.  You see, it was in this very interview that Barry “Almighty” once again stressed the importance of California’s conservation efforts amid a fourth year of drought, laid out ‘His’ expectations for this year’s climate conference in Paris, and reiterated America’s commitment to a “low-carbon future.”  In other words his rather cockeyed view of another fictional crisis.

In honor of Earth Day Barry was sent 10 questions, touching on issues of ‘climate change’, the Clean Air Act, and the impact of development on national parks and the environment.  On the federal response to the drought, Barry told NG that the government is “working with the state to speed investments that respond to California’s long-term water challenges.”  He said, “While no single drought event can be traced to climate change, the fact of the matter is with a arming climate we’re going to see more frequent and more severe droughts in the West in the future.”  He added, “That’s one of the reasons my administration has been focused on helping communities prepare for the effects of climate change.”

Barry also listed a number of ways the federal government is working with the state to help alleviate the drought, including providing millions in emergency loans to farmers and food banks.  Barry went on to say, “At the same time, Californians need to do everything they can to save water, and we’re starting to see some progress on that front.”  And he then added, “Everyone is in this together and we all need to be doing our part.”  Barry also defended against criticism of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris this year, writing that the conference will allow for the establishment of “an ambitious, durable climate regime that applies fairly to all countries, demands accountability, and deals with some other key issues.”

Barry said, “If we can do that, we’ll have a way to hold each other accountable for the goals we have set, and a framework for coming back together to set new goals and raise our ambition on regular cycles.”  And then added, “And I’m hopeful that we can get there.”  Yes, I’m sure Barry is very hopeful ‘we’ can get there.  But I can’t help but wonder where is it, really, that Barry wants to get?  There is one reason and one reason only why the left remains focused, so intently on their ‘climate change’ boogieman.  And despite the fact that a growing number of Americans don’t see it as being a major concern. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the environment, the future of our children, or making sure the planet remains inhabitable. 

Barry did strike a bit of a conciliatory tone when asked about his administration’s response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and whether the U.S. would continue to develop its domestic energy resources.  Barry said, “Today, we are very much at the center of Deepwater Horizon restoration activities, and we are committed to making sure we leave the Gulf Coast stronger than ever.”  And he went on to say, “At the same time, the reality is that we will continue to rely in part on fossil fuels while we transition to a low-carbon economy… So we’re committed to a low-carbon future, but we need to have a balanced approach to getting there.”  What Barry is truly committed to is his war on ‘cheaper’ energy from right here at home!

So what, if anything, do we take away from any of this?  Is ‘climate change’ speeding up, is it slowing down, or is it even going on in the first place?  And if it is taking place, is it, as Barry and his comrades on the left love to claim, all the fault of mankind and our addiction to fossil fuels?  Or, is it all nothing more than a natural occurring event?  As more and more Americans come to realize just what a scam this truly is, the more desperate those on the left seem to become regarding their claims of apocalyptic consequences of doing nothing.  And it’s in that regard that I suppose that they cannot be too pleased with the research from Duke.  Even though those at Duke do not deny it is taking place, it’s just not taking place as fast as the left claims.

SO, WHO IS IT THAT’S REALLY RUNNING THE SENATE???

Does anyone other than myself remember all that wonderful sounding rhetoric that we heard from, and all of the promises made by, so many Republicans in the run up to the last election?  Was I just imagining it all, or did they promise that they would work very hard to stop the Obama nightmare if only we would hand to them complete control of Congress?  And we bought it all, hook, line and sinker, as we all marched off to the polls, and very dutifully so, and, for the most part, voted for Republicans.  And what, so far, have we gotten in return?  Absolutely nothing!

And if you haven’t figured things out for yourself, I hate to be the one to have to tell ya, except for the number of players on each team, not much else has changed when it comes to what’s coming out, and not coming out, of the U.S. Congress.  Because, or so it would seem, Senate Democrats still remain pretty much on control of the legislative agenda in Congress, election results from last November notwithstanding.  And how is it that I can say that?  Well, because that’s what an analysis of all the votes taken since RINO Mitch McConnell took over as Majority Leader shows.

Apparently, with only two very minor exceptions, every single vote that has passed the U.S. Senate since the beginning of this Congress in January, has passed with at least, and usually more than, 93 percent of support from Democrats.  So what’s that’s tell ya?  What it tells me is that the legislation being voted on must be pretty much to their liking.  So I have a little warning for the Republicans, including those running for president in 2016.  The fact that we were so blatantly lied to leading up to the last election does not bode well for them in the next election.

And what we’re now hear coming out of ‘Dingy Harry’s’ office should come as a surprise to absolutely no one.  Because it was ‘Dingy’s’ spokesmoron, some boob by the name of Adam Jentleson, who said, “While Republicans have done nothing to create jobs and help the middle class, on other topics like passing clean funding for Homeland Security and confirming Loretta Lynch, Senator McConnell has done the right thing by bringing bills and nominations to the floor that Democrats can support.”  He then added, “Democrats hope this trend will continue.”

Since January, according to the U.S. Senate vote count website, 10 of Barry’s nominations have been confirmed.  And each one of those nominations has seen unanimous support from the Democrats who voted and with varying levels of Republican support.  So it would seem to me that, to use Rand Paul’s terminology, we have far more than just two lap dogs in the Senate.  And lap does are not what’s needed if we are to have any hope of saving our country.  What we need are a lot more junkyard dogs willing to take Barry and the Democrats.

Now it was seven of those ten nominations that passed the Senate unanimously.  Now what that means is that every single senator, both Republican and Democrat, who voted on those nominations voted in favor of confirmation.  Not one Republican voice any measureable opposition, not one.  And those nominations were:

George C. Hanks, Jr., to be a U.S. district Judge for the Southern District of Texas

Alfred H. Bennett to be a U.S. district Judge for the Southern District of Texas

William P. Doyle to be a Federal Maritime Commissioner

Carlos A. Monje, Jr., to be Assistant Transportation Secretary

Christopher A. Hart to be National Transportation Safety Board chairman

Daniel Henry Marti to be Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator

Michael P. Botticelli to be Director of National Drug Control Policy

For another one of those nominations, Russell C. Deyo to be Under Secretary for Management for the Department of Homeland Security, only two Republicans voted against confirmation.  And on Ash Carter’s nomination to be Secretary of Defense, just five Republicans voted no.  And on the nomination of Loretta Lynch to be Attorney General, all Democrats voted in favor joined by 10 RINOs. And those RINOs were: McConnell and Sens. Kelly Ayotte, Thad Cochran, Susan Collins, Jeff Flake, Lindsey Graham, Orrin Hatch, Ron Johnson, Mark Kirk, and Rob Portman.

McConnell broke a pre-election promise, and in near record time, that no attorney general nominee would be considered in ‘his’ Senate if that nominee supported Barry “Almighty’s” executive amnesty, something that Lynch has testified that she fully supports.  In addition to those nominations that all passed with unanimous support from ‘Dingy Harry’s’ Democrat conference in 2015, there have been eight pieces of legislation that passed the U.S. Senate so far this Congress, each passing with near unanimous Democrat Party support.  So what has changed since November?

The first bill to pass in 2015, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2015, passed the U.S. Senate 93-4. Sens.  There were the only 3 Democrats to vote against it. The only other vote against it came from Sen. Marco Rubio. Since two of the three senators not voting were Democrats, Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Reid himself, that means that 41 Democrats voted for it. This was the worst vote for Democrats all Congress, with a whopping 93 percent of their conference that voted on the bill voting for it and just 7 percent voting against it.

Of the other seven pieces of legislation that passed the U.S. Senate so far this Congress, three—a Veterans Affairs bill dealing with mental health of veterans, an anti-child pornography bill, and the recent anti-human trafficking bill passed unanimously with no opposition from Republicans or Democrats.  A fourth, the so-called “doc fix” which raised the national debt by nearly $200 Billion without offsetting cuts to pay doctors who accept Medicare more, passed with unanimous Democrat support and only eight Republicans voting against it.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) bill that funds Barry’s executive amnesty, despite the many pre-election promises that we heard from nearly every Republicans running that they would do no such thing, was passed thanks to Democrat support, no Democrats vote against it.  Only Republicans, and then only 31 of them, opposed the measure to fund Barry’s amnesty.  RINO McConnell got it passed with a coalition of 45 Democrats and 23 of his RINO Republican friends.  So I ask you again, what is it that has changed since before the last election?

There are only two measures, both bills, which passed the U.S. Senate in this Congress that did not have the at least 93 percent, but usually unanimous support, from Democrats.  One was a bill the purpose of which was to block Barry’s National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ambush elections rule and the other was a bill that would have approved the Keystone XL pipeline. The NLRB vote passed on purely partisan lines, with 53 Republicans voting for it with Sen. Lisa Murkowski, Republican from Alaska, actually joining all 45 Democrats voting to oppose it.

Meanwhile, the Keystone pipeline bill saw all Republicans who were voting, vote in favor, joined by 9 Democrats.  But it’s worth noting that Barry vetoed both the NLRB bill and the Keystone bill, and while Republicans tried to override Barry’s Keystone veto, they failed.  What’s perhaps most interesting about all this data is that there are 54—a majority—Republicans in the U.S. Senate and just 46 Democrats. The GOP majority is because of the midterm elections last November, which saw a nine-seat swing in favor of Republicans—one of the biggest in history.

But it’s quite clear from the empirical data that nothing has really changed, and as we have heard, ‘Dingy Harry’s’ office is clearly quite happy about it.  Especially since it seem as if he’s still the Senate Majority Leader.  McConnell on the other hand continues to get his ass handed to him all over the place.  Whether it’s by choice or by accident, and I’m not sure which would be worse, McConnell has no defense for his failures as a leader.  He is the one charged with getting done what the Republicans promised they would do.  And if he’s not up to the challenge, he needs to go! 

THE WORLD ACCORDING TO OBAMA…

Earlier this week Barry “Almighty” was heard to say that he wanted the American people to gain what he called perspective, and to be thankful there is less violence today than there was during the Cold War.  And while Barry may be correct in stating that there is less violence in the world today, that really has more to do with Barry’s rather skewed view of things than it does with any actual world events.  Because while the world may be less violent today, that doesn’t necessary translate into the world being a more stable place than it was during those ‘Cold War’ years. 

Because despite the fact that there may be less actual conflicts underway today, in many respects the world is a far more unstable place than it was during those years which Barry makes references to.  Barry also made a rather dangerous prediction, choosing to imply that there is no sense of urgency when it comes to radical Islam, saying that Islam’s process to rid itself of extremism would be a “generational project.”  Apparently he’s quite confident that the problem will simply resolve itself.  But just how long might that take and at what cost in human life, I wonder?

Barry said, “I remind people that, you know, there actually is probably less war and less violence around the world today than there might have been 30, 40 years ago. It doesn’t make it any less painful but things can get better.”  And I would very curious to know how it is, exactly, how Barry actually expects that things will come to “get better.”  Will they simply become better all on their own as if by magic, with no outside assistance being neither warranted nor even needed?  Is it simply naïveté that has Barry assuming that things will work themselves out all on their own?

Barry set a pretty high standard for himself in saying that at least the United States is not involved in another Cold War. Barry did not compare his time in the White House with that of his predecessors.  Instead, he portrayed his six years in a more promising point of view by contrasting it with some of the most violent and politically complex times in modern world history.  The 30 to 40 years Barry chose for comparison cover the span of 1975 to 1985, during which, the United States engaged the Soviet Union in a number of proxy wars and the world lived in fear of all-out nuclear war.

In looking back we see that it was fresh off of the resignation of its president, that the United States was embroiled in war in Vietnam and Cambodia that proved, thanks to many in the Democrat Party, to be politically toxic back here at home. The American military was called upon to Zaire, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Korea, El Salvador, Iran, Libya, the Sinai, Egypt, Granada, Honduras, and Chad.  So Barry’s statement while factually correct, it really doesn’t mean much.  There’s not as much war today as there was then, but the world has become a much more dangerous place.

Because it’s today that the world, especially the Middle East, is stuck in regional turmoil.  Putin’s aggression in Crimea highlighted the worst relations have been with Russia since the Soviet Union collapsed.  Hitlery Clinton’s much heralded Russian reset has been deemed an unmitigated disaster. The United States has witnessed anarchy in regions where Barry has decided to “lead from behind.” Libya, Syria, Oman, Egypt, Tunisia, and Yemen have all become failed states during Barry’s presidency. Our relationships with important allies, such as Israel, have deteriorated.

So as America does little more than watch as the world slips just that much further into chaos, do we see Barry being even the least bit concerned?  Nope!  In fact, it was just yesterday that Barry flew down to the Florida Everglades aboard Air Force One, and in the process expended roughly 9000 gallon of aviation jet fuel and emitted 5 times as much CO2 as the average American does annually, just so he could ‘celebrate’ Earth Day.  Obviously Barry sees ‘climate change/global warming/climate disruption’ as being a far more serious problem that a rapidly deteriorating world. 

Because while the very real problem of radical Islam MUST be left to resolve itself, when it comes the bogus theory of ‘climate change’, Barry said, "We do not have time to deny the effects of climate change."  He then added, "This is not some impossible problem that we cannot solve. We can solve it if we have some political will."  Poll after poll continues to point out that this ‘climate change’ nonsense is not as high of a priority with a majority of the American people as it seems to be with Barry.  What’s most important to them are the economy, jobs and national security.

So as his term in office now begins to slowly wind down, Barry seems to be working very hard to ensure that he will leave behind a trail of destruction, both here at home and abroad, the likes of which has never before been witnessed as coming from an American president.  And one that will prove to be most difficult for this country to ever recover from.  His will be a legacy of an America that lies in economic ruin, and one where our friends no longer trust us and our enemies no longer fear us.  We will be an America that is broke and drowning in debt.  So, will things ever get better?

WILL WE COME TOGETHER TO SAVE AMERICA? ‘CAN’ WE COME TOGETHER TO SAVE AMERICA???

Listen up everybody, let me make one thing perfectly clear.  Your country, my country…OUR country is now in some serious, serious trouble.  And regardless of your faith, or lack of, your gender, your sexual persuasion, your skin color, your ethnic background, or your position on gun control, abortion, or illegal immigration, what is now going to be required if we are to have any hope of surviving as a free and independent nation, is that we must ALL come together.  Coming together, what a concept.  But it has now become a concept so foreign to so many I wonder if we are even capable of such a thing anymore.  To be perfectly honest with you, I’m just not sure anymore. 

The politicians, the race-baiters, or really anyone with an agenda the purpose of which was to destroy America, have long been working to divide us for decades.  Because when the American people can be made to fight amongst themselves they are much easier to control, and they are also not paying much attention to what many of their leaders, not the least of which is their president, might be up to.  For instance, not enough of us seem to be paying any attention to the massive debt that we have now put upon the backs of our children, nor to the fact that millions of Americans have now become almost completely dependent upon their government.

It’s within our borders that we now see how Barry is working very hard to tilt the playing field in his own party’s favor by importing literally millions of illegal immigrants in what is nothing more than an effort to stack the electorate with undocumented Democrats who will vote for his party.  Ever since Woodrow Wilson, the Democrat Party has been working very hard to maneuver America into the very precarious situation that they have her in today.  And we the American people have not only allowed them to do so, many of us, far too many of us, out of our own selfish interests, actually encouraged them along the way by voting for them. 

But it is not just within our borders that trouble brews, but beyond them as well, in a World that seems to grow more volatile, more chaotic, and more dangerous almost by the hour.  America was once seen as being the primary stabilizing force in a world that seemed poised to come apart at nearly any moment.  And now that America seems to have purposely relinquished, what up until now had been, its traditional leadership role, we can very plainly see just how quickly the world descends into chaos without a strong America at the helm, and keeping things on an even keel.  The world is now in flames and thousands of people die needlessly every single day.

Which, I suppose, brings me to what, I guess, can be the only natural conclusion to be drawn from this little piece, the 2016 election.  It should be obvious to nearly everyone that we are rapidly running out of time if we are to have any hope of salvaging anything of what this country once was.  But, I wonder, are there enough in this country who possess the will necessary to even try?  Never in my life could I have ever imagined that a near majority of the American people would be so willing, even eager, to hand over so much of their freedom to their government, and in exchange for something so trivial.  Have we become nothing more than a nation of parasites?

While we all may never agree 100 percent on everything, least of all who it is that should be our next president, I think it should be painfully obvious, if one were to look deep inside oneself, who it is that most definitely should not be.  There is simply too much hanging in the balance to elect anyone just because it’s viewed as being his, or her, turn.  Is that really how we should go about selecting the leader of our country?  The tremendous amount of damage that will have been done by the time we will vote, demands that we act responsibly when choosing our next president.  To do otherwise jeopardizes the future for all of those who will come after us.      

HITLERY CLINTON: TOO MANY SCANDALS TO OVERCOME??? I WONDER…

Over there on conservative, or at least the Republican, side of American politics, scandals, whether they happen to be real or merely concocted by those in the state-controlled media, are usually seen as being somewhat more difficult to extricate oneself from.  While over on the Democrat side, scandals, even those that are very easily provable, have exactly the opposite effect as, for whatever the reason, they are more typically viewed as being not much more than resume enhancers.  Which brings me to Hitlery Clinton.  And it’s no secret that Hiterly is, by far, the strongest candidate that the Democrats have in the build up to the 2016 presidential elections.

While there are many who will question whether Hitlery has too much political “baggage” to actually win the presidency, that opinion is one held primary by those on the right, as her laundry list of scandals seems to be of little importance to Democrats.  Most assuredly Hitlery has been no stranger to scandals in her long and storied political ‘career’, but dare we assume that any of these scandals are of sufficient severity to actually cost her the election in 2016 or, for that matter, even the nomination.  Democrats have been known to tolerate a scandal or two, especially when it comes to one of their own.  After all, Teddy Kennedy got away with murder. 

As we all know, Hitlery is what you might call a repeat offender when it comes to scandals, so let’s take a few minutes to glance back in time at just a few of the main ones that might, just might, yet end up costing the old girl the presidency:

First and foremost, simply because it’s the more recent, is her ‘private email’ scandal.  Hitlery’s private emails while serving as Barry’s Secretary of State are at the forefront of her most recent political scandal. Let’s lay some background first: after Barry appointed Hitlery to be his first Secretary of State, she elected to use a private email address for her official State Department business as opposed to the traditional government-assigned email. Her decision to use a private email address while at the White House only came to light in 2015, but it’s already quickly sent shockwaves throughout Washington D.C. and the nation.

Many, again mostly on the right, argue that this is a significant scandal for Hitlery to overcome, because if true, it would seem that she had openly defied the Federal Records Act while serving as Secretary of State, which mandates that all State Department officials use government-assigned email addresses so as to maintain oversight, ease investigations, and prevent governmental abuses and corruption. The Federal Records Act was optimized in 2014 in order to ensure that the law covered all electronic communications, so it appears as if there is no way for Hitlery to get around the fact that she openly disregarded the law during.

Now why ‘should’ this be seen as being a big deal?  Well, first off, using a personal email address, as opposed to a government-assigned email address, might indicate to those with suspicious minds that Hitlery did so because she wanted to keep her endeavors at the State Department off-the-books, so to speak.  Why?  Well, perhaps because she was involved in activities that she thought might jeopardize her impending presidential campaign, such as her role in the Benghazi crisis or her knowledge of the NSA’s questionable wire-intercept practices. While we can’t yet be sure what she was hiding, it must be something pretty significant or why would she have felt the need to disregard federal law in order to cover her tracks.

Next on the list of her more serious scandals is the Haiti Mining Scandal.  Now this little gem just recently came to light, and could actually be a damaging one for Hitlery.  Here’s a brief summery of the case: in 2012, the Haitian government awarded a gold-mining permit for its Morne Bassa mine to a North Carolina company called VCS Mining. What’s notable about this permit is the fact that the government has not issued a similar permit in over 50 years, and what’s also strange is that VCS Mining will only pay 2.5% royalties to the Haitian government for this permit, which mining experts say is drastically lower than the average mining royalty rate. So what gives, you might ask?

Well surprise, surprise.  That which I’m sure is just a coincidence is the fact tha Hitlery’s brother, Anthony Rodham, was a member of VCS Mining’s board of directors at the time that the company was awarded the Morne Bassa permit.  And the permit came in the wake of Bill Clinton raising millions of dollars for the nation of Haiti’s rebuilding efforts after the country was devastated by an earthquake in 2010.  And guess who was another member of VCS Mining’s board?  Jean-Max Bellerive, who was the former Prime Minister for Haiti and ‘Slick Willie’s Co-chair at the Interim Haiti Recovery Commission.  Furthermore, to date USAID has contributed over 3 billion dollars to Haiti since 2010. So what’s this all mean?

It would at least appear that through their vigorous financial relief and fundraising efforts, Hitlery and ‘Slick Willie’ “bought” the Morne Bassa gold-mining permit from the Haitian government for Anthony Rodham’s company, VCS Mining.  If true, this is an incendiary event that should be fully investigated and prosecuted.  American politicians should be above using their positions to do lucrative favors for their family, so this ‘could’ prove to be a devastating scandal for both Clintons, but particularly for Hitlery as she gears up for a presidential run. But it remains unclear what will come of the Haiti scandal, but what is clear is that this incident does have the potential to severely damage Hillary’s reputation.

And then of course we have that oldie but goodie, Hitlery’s Benghazi scandal.  Hitlery took a lot of her flak for her mismanagement of the Benghazi incident, so let’s start with some background information. On September 11, 2012, Islamic attackers raided and destroyed much of the American embassy in Benghazi, Libya. This act of terrorism cost the lives of 4 Americans, including the U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens, who was the first American ambassador to die at the hands of combatants since 1979, when Jimmy Carter, that other foreign policy genius, was in the White House.  So what was Hillary’s role in these events?

In the weeks leading up to the attack, American officials at the Benghazi consulate had repeatedly asked Hitlery’s State Department to beef up security at the location, though the State Department repeatedly denied these requests. The CIA and Ambassador Stevens had warned the State Department that an attack might be imminent, but still Hitlery’s State Department decided to do nothing about it. Thus it was Hitlery’s outright negligence that ended up costing the lives of four Americans, and the State Department has since failed to report the number of times that it had been warned about an attack. So what does this mean for Hitlery?

Benghazi remains a potent stain upon Hitlery’s supposed legacy. She attempted to blur the reality of the attack by having her aide, Victoria Nuland, remove any mention of terrorism or Ambassador Steven’s warnings from all official government reports on the incident. Why, you ask?  Because she knew that her approval ratings would most likely take a pretty significant hit if it were ever come to light that she had an opportunity to prevent the attacks but openly chose not to.  Her political mismanagement or ignorant negligence cost the lives of four innocent Americans, and the American public, at those outside the Democrat Party, might not forget about this.

Then there’ the Sandy ‘Burglar’ Berger Scandal:  When Hitlery was still running for the Democrat presidential nomination in 2007, she made the puzzling move of hiring Sandy Berger as a personal adviser. Who is Sandy Berger, you ask? Well, he’s a previously convicted criminal who was charged and found guilty of smuggling sensitive files out of the National Archives and thereafter destroying them.  The files were related to the 9/11 Commission’s report, and specifically the files Berger destroyed pertained to ‘Slick Willie’s’ failure to contain terrorists during his presidency. This was an extremely questionable and unflattering political move on Hitlery’s part, and the American people will not forget her decision to surround herself with a criminal.

Next is the 2000 Senate Campaign Donation Scandal.  This one is pretty straightforward and is indicative of Hitlery’s unflinching tendency to withhold the truth.  It involves a guy by the name of Peter Paul.  It was back in 2000 that Peter Paul made an extremely large donation to Hitlery’s Senate Campaign. When the Federal Election Commission examined the donation, they discovered that Hitlery significantly under-reported the size of Paul’s donation, meaning that thousands of dollars of illegal cash likely ended up in her campaign funds. Even though such an act can bring several years in prison, nothing ever happened to Hitlery. This scandal is just another incident that reveals her willingness to consistently hide the truth.

Clinton Foundation Scandal:  This is another of Hitlery’s scandals that is just downright low. While serving as the Secretary of State, Hitery interceded 6 times in federal affairs in favor of companies that had directly contributed to Slick Willie Clinton’s ‘not-for-profit’ foundation.  At best, this is woeful negligent on Hitlery’s part and at worst, it is a blatant example of Hitlery’s willingness to “scratch the backs” of those who help her and her creepy letch of a husband. This kind of nefarious unethical action should have no place in Washington D.C., and the American people should certainly take note of this scandal during the presidential elections in 2016.  But will they?

Conclusion:  While it’s clear that Hitlery is currently the Democrat’s best shot at the presidency in 2016, it says a lot about the Democrats when their potential candidate has been involved in so many scandals.  But having said that, are any of them considered as being serious enough to even potentially cost her the Democrat nomination for the presidency in 2016.  New York Times columnist William Safire once referred to Hitlery as bring a congenital liar.  And in light of these scandals, it’s impossible to dispute that Hillary has a consistent tendency to lie, aide political allies, and mismanage crises. Such tendencies will either cost Hitlery the presidency in 2016 or, as I said earlier, be viewed as nothing more than resume enhancers.

THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND THE RULE OF LAW...

PART 1

PART 2

PART 3

PART 4

So if you think that it can’t happen here?  Think again, my friends, because it already has albeit on a small scale!  The Battle of Athens was an armed rebellion led by WWII veterans and citizens in Athens and Etowah, Tennessee, United States, against the tyrannical local government in August 1946.

Now look around you at what “We the People” are being confronted with from our rapidly expanding government.   What we are forced to contend with is that same sort of tyrannical government but on a national scale.  And God help us all if it’s Hitlery Clinton who becomes our next president.  

STOPPING HITLERY CLINTON...

OBAMA AND ‘CLIMATE CHANGE’, LIKE A DOG WITH A BONE!!!

Like a dog with his favorite bone, Barry “Almighty”, like many others on the outer fringes of the left, just isn’t willing to let go of ‘climate change’ and the bogus theory that it is somehow all the fault of humans.  Just today, in his 'weekly address', Barry once again took the opportunity to do his best to make the idiotic point, and to warn the American people, that it’s in his opinion that “there’s no greater threat” than ‘climate change’ and that it “poses immediate risks to our national security.”

He said Americans need to work against climate change because “it’s about protecting our God-given natural wonders.”  Barry went on to say, “Wednesday is Earth Day, a day to appreciate and protect this precious planet we call home.”  Barry added, “And today, there’s no greater threat to our planet than climate change.”  As Barry points this Wednesday, April 22, is Earth Day.  It’s also a date significant for another reason in that it marks the birth of Vladimir Lenin.  Just a coincidence?

During his weekly spiel, one that we are still, thankfully, only subjected to by choice and not by some executive order mandated to watch, Barry went on to say, “This winter was cold in parts of our country--as some folks in Congress like to point out--but around the world, it was the warmest ever recorded.”  He went onto say, “And the fact that the climate is changing has very serious implications for the way we live now.  Stronger storms.  Deeper droughts.  Longer wildfire seasons.”

Barry said, “The world’s top climate scientists are warning us that a changing climate already affects the air our kids breathe. Last week, the Surgeon General and I spoke with public experts about how climate change is already affecting patients across the country. The Pentagon says that climate change poses immediate risks to our national security.”  The Surgeon General of which he speaks just happens to be a political appointee who if he did not agree with Barry, would never have been appointed.

According to Barry, we need to counter ‘climate’ change in the interests of families and children.  He said, “This is an issue that’s bigger and longer-lasting than my presidency,” he said. “It’s about protecting our God-given natural wonders, and the good jobs that rely on them.  It’s about shielding our cities and our families from disaster and harm.  It’s about keeping our kids healthy and safe.”  What all of this ‘climate change’ nonsense really is, is nothing more than a leftist crock of shit!

Those of us who continue to refuse to fall for all of this idiotic propaganda are constantly being referred to as being modern-day “Flat-Earthers.”  There have even been calls from the zealots who believe that those of us who dare to deny that ‘climate change’ is taking place be prosecuted.  I would argue that it’s the Barry “Almighties”, the John Kerry-Heinzs and Al Gores who are the true ‘Flat-Earthers’, And while I’m not quite ready to start calling for their prosecution, I’m getting close.

There has ever been a claim considered as being too outrageous, if it would further the ‘climate change’ cause.  So while Barry continues to spew that which is really nothing more than politically motivated rhetoric that is, in reality, devoid of any all actual scientific fact, here are but a few of the ‘facts’ that would seem to make very clear that what the ‘climate change’ alarmists insist upon calling the next great self-inflicted apocalypse to be faced by humankind, bears little resemblance to the truth:    

1) There hasn't been any global warming since 1997: If nothing changes in the next year, we're going to have kids who graduate from high school who will have never seen any "global warming" during their lifetimes. That's right; the temperature of the planet has essentially been flat for 17 years. This isn't a controversial assertion either. Even the former Director of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, Phil Jones, admits that it's true.

Since the planet was cooling from 1940-1975 and the upswing in temperature afterward only lasted 22 years, a 17 year pause is a big deal. It also begs an obvious question: How can we be experiencing global warming if there's no actual "global warming?"

2) There is no scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and caused by man:  Questions are not decided by "consensus." In fact, many scientific theories that were once widely believed to be true were made irrelevant by new evidence. Just to name one of many, many examples, in the early seventies, scientists believed global cooling was occurring. However, once the planet started to warm up, they changed their minds. Yet, the primary "scientific" argument for global warming is that there is a "scientific consensus" that it's occurring.

Setting aside the fact that's not a scientific argument, even if that ever was true (and it really wasn't), it's certainly not true anymore. Over 31,000 scientists have signed on to a petition saying humans aren't causing global warming.  More than 1000 scientists signed on to another report saying there is no global warming at all. There are tens of thousands of well-educated, mainstream scientists who do not agree that global warming is occurring at all and people who share their opinion are taking a position grounded in science.

3) Arctic ice is up 50% since 2012: The loss of Arctic ice has been a big talking point for people who believe global warming is occurring. Some people have even predicted that all of the Arctic ice would melt by now because of global warming. Yet, Arctic ice is up 50% since 2012. How much Arctic ice really matters is an open question since the very limited evidence we have suggests that a few decades ago, there was less ice than there is today, but the same people who thought the drop in ice was noteworthy should at least agree that the increase is important as well.

4) Climate models showing global warming have been wrong over and over: These future projections of what global warming will do to the planet have been based on climate models. Essentially, scientists make assumptions about how much of an impact different factors will have; they guess how much of a change there will be and then they project changes over time. Unfortunately, almost all of these models showing huge temperature gains have turned out to be wrong.

“Former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer says that climate models used by government agencies to create policies “have failed miserably.” Spencer analyzed 90 climate models against surface temperature and satellite temperature data, and found that more than 95 percent of the models “have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH).”

There's an old saying in computer programming that goes, "Garbage in, garbage out." In other words, if the assumptions and data you put into the models are faulty, then the results will be worthless.  So I would argue that if the climate models which show a dire impact because of global warming aren't reliable, and make no mistake, they are not, then are not the long term projections they make meaningless as well?  The answer to that would be yes, but that doesn’t seem to matter to the alarmists.

5) Predictions about the impact of global warming have already been proven wrong:  The debate over global warming has been going on long enough that we've had time to see whether some of the predictions people made about it have panned out in the real world. For example, it was Al Gore who predicted that all of the Arctic ice would be gone by 2013.  In 2005, the Independent ran an article saying that the Artic had entered a death spiral.

“Scientists fear that the Arctic has now entered an irreversible phase of warming which will accelerate the loss of the polar sea ice that has helped to keep the climate stable for thousands of years....The greatest fear is that the Arctic has reached a “tipping point” beyond which nothing can reverse the continual loss of sea ice and with it the massive land glaciers of Greenland, which will raise sea levels dramatically. Of course, the highway is still there.”

Meanwhile, Arctic ice is actually up 50% just since 2012. James Hansen of NASA fame predicted that the West Side Highway in New York would be under water by now because of global warming.  If the climate models and the predictions about global warming aren't even close to being correct, wouldn't it be more scientific to reject hasty action based on faulty data so that we can further study the issue and find out what really might be going on, if anything?

So I ask you, who is it that’s really in denial regarding the myth called ‘climate change’, ‘global warming’, climate disruption, or whatever they’re calling it this month?  The claims that ‘climate change’ is actually taking place is nothing more than a scam perpetrated by the enemies of capitalism, most of whom reside on the left.  It’s all nothing more than a worldwide propaganda campaign, and despite the fact that many people are just not buying it, the sounding of the alarm continues.