AND THE BUDGETARY CAN ONCE AGAIN GETS KICKED DOWN THE ROAD…

Personally, I would have preferred the government to have been shut down rather than to have our esteemed members of Congress come up with yet another piece of patchwork legislation that accomplishes nothing more than to kick the fiscal can down the road, this time until March. Despite all of the fearmongering from Democrats and their friends in the ‘fake news’ media about the supposed consequences of shutting down the government, in truth it’s only roughly a third of the government that is affected and actually gets shut down. And why is it, do you suppose, that there is never nary a word said about how we never do what is an actual annual budget?

But despite the fact that an agreement on a bill that was much larger than the original, there were many, especially among Democrats who complained and would have much preferred the larger and more costly bill. And one of those Democrats was none other than Jamie Raskin who hails from the ‘The People’s Republic of Maryland.’ And it was during Friday’s broadcast of CNN’s “AC360” that Raskin responded to a question on if he thinks the government funding bill is an overall win by stating that it’s better than a shutdown and the funding bill that was voted down on Thursday, and “given where we were, this was probably the best possible solution."

He went on to say, “But, of course, it was not what we had agreed to, originally. There were six weeks of arduous negotiation and then bipartisan agreement to a deal that got blown up by a tweet.” Well, that’s not exactly a true statement, but Raskin hasn’t exactly got a reputation for telling the truth. Actually, it got blown up when the electorate got to peek behind the curtain and got a look at all the ‘pork’ that was included. And what’s up with this budgetary process anyway. It’s supposed to be built in public forum, debated in committee, and voted as several separate budgets in a time frame that allows inspection, deliberation, amendment, and passage.

Anyway, host Jim Sciutto asked, “So, House Minority Leader Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, he described this bill, to your caucus, as an overall win for the American people. Why? Do you agree with that?” Raskin answered, “Well, look, it’s certainly vastly superior to shutting down the government of the United States. … And it was certainly vastly superior to the hodgepodge bill that they sent to us yesterday, where they — where Donald Trump was attempting to abolish the debt ceiling entirely to allow for them to have this vast tax cut for the wealthy again. So, given where we were, this was probably the best possible solution."

And he said, “But, of course, it was not what we had agreed to, originally. There were six weeks of arduous negotiation and then bipartisan agreement to a deal that got blown up by a tweet.” Raskin belongs behind bars. This guy’s old man was an Anti-American Marxist blowhard too. You know, this is the very same shit we get every single time. It’s always an 11th hour emergency spending bill that must be passed or all Hell is gonna break loose, there never seems to be enough time to carefully craft or read a legitimate piece of legislation and it always ends up being a huge win for the Democrats. But it just had to be done in order to avoid a shut-down, Again!

Bipartisan? The Democrats simply tried to roll Speaker Johnson, a guy clearly not up to the task at hand. And once the entire caucus saw how much pork was in it, it was doomed. Raskin is another of those who must be made to realize that November 5th has changed everything. These end of year Porkulus bills of the past are just that, the past, there’s now a new sheriff in town and he’s bringing an army of deputies to eliminate corruption, waste and excess. Raskin is a treasonous, evil hack. Clearly, he’s frustrated that the pork-filled spending bill wasn’t passed. I couldn’t help but laugh while reading his comments, because his frustration is so apparent.

We’re going to see a lot of this the next four years…everything from the border wall to rebuilding our military to economic prosperity will be sub-titled “tax cuts for the rich” by Democrats and the ‘fake news’ media. Raskin, who should have been jailed for his involvement in the first Trump impeachment, has the nerve to complain about six weeks of hard work to create a 1,500 page bill that was 1 percent for keeping the government running and 99 percent spending for various leftwing pet projects and wasted taxpayer dollars because Democrats and RINOs realize next year’s budget battles will be brutal as D.O.G.E. scrutinizes every penny being spent.

We owe our children’s children a chance to live life, not live to work, each citizens portion of the current debt is 106,000 dollars. Our politicians are not the only ones to blame but you must blame voters that believe they are entitled to free stuff. Those voters may not see the bill coming due but our children’s children, who did not cause this, will be the ones punished. Wouldn't it be refreshing to go back to the days when a budget was submitted on time, and we could eliminate the political theatrics and needles stress on the people of this country. Raskin is simply pissed because his share of the pork got eliminated from the thousands of pages.

THE GREAT MIGRATION FROM BLUE STATES TO RED STATES…GOOD THING OR BAD???

So there has been much talk of late about how there has been a sizable increase in the number of Americans relocating from Blue States to Red. And while it does make a great deal of sense, as one who lives in one of those Red States, I’m here to tell you that there is a definite downside for such an occurrence. Here in Florida it seems that there has been a massive influx of people who are nothing but rude. And then there’s the fact that housing costs have now gone through the roof, to the point where many native Floridians have simply been priced out of being able to buy a home.

And while Blue states experienced the largest population declines in 2022, it was those referred to as Red states that topped the list with the most population growth, according to United States Census Bureau figures. This year, California saw more than 343,000 residents depart the state, which was more than any other in the nation, closely followed by New York, which lost nearly 300,000 residents, and Illinois who lost nearly 142,000 residents. At the same time, it was more Americans who chose to resettle here in Florida, more than 318,000, than any other state this year.

By region, it is the South that had the greatest increase in population and was the fastest growing region of the country this year, adding about 1.3 million new residents, nearly 868,000 of which were Americans who moved to the South and the other 415,000 who were newly arrived ‘immigrants.’ The West, likewise, grew in population, adding fewer than 154,000 residents. Meanwhile, the Northeast and Midwest both saw population declines this year, attributed to Americans moving out of both regions for other destinations in the South and West.

The Northeast, alone, lost nearly 219,000 residents this year, while the Midwest saw almost 49,000 Americans leave the region. In total, the U.S. population climbed to a record 333 million residents this year. More than 80 percent of the rapid population growth is driven by the nation’s legal immigration policy that brings more than a million foreign nationals to the U.S. annually and gives them green cards. Without immigration, the U.S. population would have stabilized at a comfortable 245,000 new residents last year as the result of new births versus deaths.

It used to be called “voting with your feet”. Hopefully most of those fleeing the Blue states and arriving in the Red states are conservatives. And while we can’t yet be sure, that is certainly the hope. But sadly, I think, many of those fleeing California, Illinois, and New York are likely lower income Democrats who can no longer afford to live in the places they voted Democrat. And will they continue to vote Democrat bringing about the downfall of their new state? Take Arizona for example. Deep red for decades now (as of 2022) purple and the way it's going will be blue in 2024.

Democrats are like the worst form of a malignant cancer. Once they get established they then proceed to vote for those who seek to wreck the economy, raise taxes, increase crime, destroy businesses and increase dependence on government. They are like a swarm of locusts going from field to field. They seek fertile ground to destroy with the liberal politics they bring with them. They infest the schoolboards and get into local politics and turn their new ground into their old ground. Every Red state that is the recipient of these toxic hordes is the next potential victim.

Yet might this all be by some sick design? Enslave the poor and middle class and have the upper classes move to Red states and convert them to Blue states. These people vote for Democrats and then flee from the hellhole they helped to create to more fertile ground. They are little more than carriers, out to destroy the successful Red states with the same elitist and authoritarian policies that made their Blue state homes uninhabitable. Those moving from Blue states to Red States should be made to wait for at least a year before being able to cast their first vote in any election.

How do we send them back from whence they came? Rude, mannerless and self-centered are best descriptions for the vast majority of horn-honking new arrivals here in Florida. You can spot them a mile off, walking around like they own the place. They are destroyers and will lay waste anywhere and everywhere they go. And when there’s no longer a decent place to live anymore, they’ll be incapable of understanding how and why it all happened!! Most certainly not the smartest bunch but they’ll never change and will always think themselves smarter than us!

And finally, Americans are, slowly but surely, being replaced by ‘Third World’ illegals for the very simple reason that they are easier to control. They will gladly live on the measly government handouts/freebies, because it is more than what they had in the countries they left. They aren’t asylum seekers, they are invaders who don’t give a crap for hard working American taxpayer. Without an easily controlled population, the vile politicians can’t continue getting their wealth and power. America is quickly becoming the very third world cesspool that these people are running from.

SADLY, THE MORE THINGS CHANGE, THE MORE THINGS STAY THE SAME…

It seems that after each election I find myself being a little more frustrated with those in the leadership positions of my party than I was before.  Because it’s whenever presented with an opportunity to make good on their many promises that they have made in order to get themselves elected, that they choose to punt.  They come up with any number of excuses for being unable to make good on all of those things that they promised.  On the other hand, as we saw during the first two years of having Obama in the White House and the Democrats in complete control of Congress they displayed not a moment’s hesitation in seizing the moment to advance their leftist agenda as far as they could and as quickly.  

And so it was in 2010 that the Republicans promised to do all that they could to rein in the socialist agenda that Obama and the Democrats had managed to implement during those first two years of Obama’s presidency, and to work just as hard as they could to do away with the debacle that remains to this day, Obamacare.  So, of course, assuming they were men, and women, of their word, Americans handed to them control of the House.  But it wasn’t long before they were saying that even that wasn’t enough, to succeed they would need control of the Senate as well.  Because, they claimed, as long as the Democrats still controlled the Senate they were helpless at being able to prevent Obama’s effort to fundamentally transform America.

And despite their inability, or their unwillingness, to keep the many promises they had made to their supporters, the Republicans were permitted to keep their majority in the House and then in 2014 they were also handed control of the Senate.  And it was even still that they claimed that without the White House whatever it was that they could come up with would not survive the veto pen of Obama.  So, in 2016, even when everything seemed to be totally against them, the Republicans were handed that which they claimed they so desperately needed in order to finally yank America back from the brink, control of Congress and the White House.  And it was then thought by many that we would finally bring some sanity back to government.

But sadly once again it was simply not to be.  Because it was then that those of us who had thought that electing more Republicans would result in getting our country back realized that for six long years we had been lied to, that the folks who we had been voting for had no intention of doing any of the things they had promised.  We had known that if there was one guy we could elect who would sign into law nearly anything presented to him by our now Republican controlled Congress, it would be President Donald J. Trump.  To our way of thinking it was going to be a time for a little payback for those first two years of Obama’s presidency.  And yet how was it that our Republicans to use this rare opportunity?  We know the answer.

And now even after losing control of the House Republicans seem oblivious as to why, making it clear they’ve learned absolutely NOTHING.  They made that very clear by once again chalking one up for the status quo when they chose Paul Ryan’s right-hand man, and Establishment RINO, Kevin McCarthy, to be the party leader in the House and by also unanimously re-electing his fellow RINO Mitch McConnell to lead the Senate.  And despite the fact that Republicans suffered the worst mid-term defeat since Watergate, McConnell and McCarthy touted a list of supposed Republican accomplishments but conveniently failed to mention the party’s failure to keep their promises, which is the primary reason why the Democrats won the midterms.

And it was in a recent opinion piece for FOX News that McConnell, and rather hysterically so, actually bragged about how the past two years of Republican leadership “will be remembered as a period of historic productivity.”  He then challenged the new Democrat majority in the House to put aside partisan politics and work with Republicans to get things done.  Apparently, the concept of irony is lost on McConnell.  Outside of the Republican’s ‘alleged’ success at saving the Supreme Court, Democrats and Republicans have always been working together, which is why they still fund Planned Parenthood, Obamacare, DACA, and sanctuary cities with massive new spending that exploded the budget deficit. 

And while McConnell and McCarthy have adopted Presiden Trump’s “blame the Democrats for my failures” playbook, the sad reality is Republicans, or most of them, favor the Democrat agenda because it’s also their agenda.  And based on developments during the lame duck session, it’s going to be worse when the 116th Congress opens for business in January.  Pelosi called last week’s victory a mandate to save Obamacare and she will promote legislation designed to move America closer to a single-payer healthcare system.  And following the recent shootings in California, Pelosi announced that she would make gun control a top priority.  And there is little doubt that Republicans will go squishy rather that to oppose such an agenda.

And also comes word from the Democrats that they will work to bring back a classic of Bernie Sanders and Democratic Socialists — a federal minimum wage of $15 an hour.  This despite the mountain of evidence that such action is a real economy killer.  But then Democrats have virtually no interest in taking measures that do anything other than to make our economy weaker. Because when folks can find a job they don’t need the government.  And when they don’t need the government they tend not to vote for Democrats.  And I think we can also now agree that what was the ‘Make America Great Again’ agenda is now essentially on life support if not dead.  And I don’t blame the Democrats as much as I blame lying RINOs like McConnell and McCarthy.

We were repeatedly told before the election to vote Red to make sure we stopped the Democrats from being able to threaten.  But to quote Hitlery during the Benghazi hearings, the Republicans have made it painfully clear over the course of the last eight years that when it comes to themselves and the Democrats, “what difference, at this point, does it make?”  With the election of Donald Trump the Republicans were presented with what was nothing less than a golden opportunity, just as the Democrat were with the election of Obama.  But did they seize the moment as the Democrats had done, no of course not.  Republicans simply pissed it away.  And it will be we who believed them, who trusted them, who will suffer the consequences.

THE DEMOCRATS STRUGGLE WITH A WEAK BENCH AND A WEAKER AGENDA…

After recently coming up short in the recently held special election in Kansas’ 4th congressional district, Democrats have now pinned their hopes on Georgia’s 6th congressional district when it comes to their next attempt to flip a U.S. House seat from Red to Blue, and in the process declare that victory as being a referendum on the policies of President Trump.  And that opportunity will come early next week.  But a new poll may dampen those high expectations just a bit.  Democrats have already given $8 million to help their candidate, Josh Ossoff, prevail among the 18 candidates running in the district primary.  The district was previously represented by Republican Tom Price who has since been tapped by President Trump to become his Secretary of Health and Human Services. 

And although Trump barely carried the Georgia district in 2016, a new poll released by Decision Desk HQ and RRHElections.com shows that Mr. Ossoff is heading toward a rather difficult runoff with one of the five Republicans in the primary.  Ossoff can only avoid a runoff if he gets at least 50 percent of the vote in the district, but the poll now shows Ossoff with just 39 percent.  Another Democrat in the race takes 4 percent, pushing total Democrat support to 43 percent.  The smorgasbord of Republicans in the primary have a combined total of 51 percent, with Karen Handel at 15 percent.  So this new polling, if in any way accurate, would seem to indicate that the Democrats will have no better luck in Georgia than they had in Kansas with Ossoff likely getting beaten like a rented mule.

It’s also this same poll that shows that with more than 39,000 ballots cast overall as of Wednesday, Democrats currently lead Republicans in early voting.  And as many as 95,000 to 130,000 voters may ultimately turn out to vote by Tuesday.  Decision Desk HQ notes, “Republicans remain divided on who to back, and this is their Party’s blessing and curse going into Election Day.  Ossoff is barely clearing a third of the remaining vote with much of the rest divided in a battle royal between four Republican hopefuls.”  The site goes on to add, “If these voters stay engaged and do eventually show up, they’ll prevent Ossoff from clearing 50% Tuesday. If they aren’t as eager, things get hairy and Ossoff’s first round win odds improve greatly.”  So Democrats, I’m sure, are holding their collective breath.

And it’s both this upcoming election and the previous one in Kansas, that should make very clear just how shallow of a bench the Democrats truly have, all thanks to Obummer, because this guy Ossoff is nothing more than a fraud and on a pretty significant number of levels.  First of all he’s claimed to be a small business owner, which he is not.  And he’s also claimed to have held high security clearances, but this is also apparently not the case.  So I guess you could say that he’s the perfect individual to be picked as a candidate for the Democrat Party.  So I can’t help but wonder if this is truly the caliber of individual that the Democrats are looking for, and if they feel that fielding such candidates provides to them their best opportunity for winning enough seat to once again become the majority party.   

But I do have some questions for Democrats.  Such as, if the Democrats truly are the party of the poor, the middle class, and of America's “working families" then why is it that they continue to demand amnesty and citizenship for millions of illegal aliens?  And too, why is it that they seek to increase the number of immigrants from third world countries including those from the most dangerous area on the planet including countries that both sponsor and support terrorism as evidenced by the attacks in Germany, Italy, Greece, France, Great Britain, Sweden, etc.?  And why do they continue to support open borders thus simultaneously serving as the instrument of destruction of the very poor, the middle class and the same “working families" that they claim to represent and to champion?

And I guess what I’m most curious how it is with such an agenda that Democrats plan to convince enough voters to go off to the polls and to vote for them, and in so doing agree with providing what will be the billions of dollars which will be required to cover the costs of that agenda.  The most egregious lie I think that I have heard in my lifetime came from Democrats when they declare that they are the party that is the protector of the poor, the middle class as well as the workers and minorities.  The truth is that when it comes to Democrats their only remaining path to power is through the destruction of our sovereignty via the legalization of millions of illegals and so called "refugees" regardless of the danger and financial costs to our own citizens.  I simply do not see that as being a winning strategy.

But in spite of all that has been said about the issues now confronting the Democrat Party, and there are many, there is also mounting pressure on the Republican Party to produce.  If they continue to squabble amongst themselves and remain unwilling, and unable, to move forward on President Trump’s agenda of repealing and replacing Obamacare as well as, tax and immigration reform, including the building of ‘The Wall’, then make no mistake, come 2018 I have no doubt that we will witness a great resurgence in the Democrat Party’s ability to regain positions of power, at least in Washington.  So our Republican leadership must recommit themselves to advancing the agenda of our still new president just as our still new president must remain committed to keeping his campaign promises.

I’M GETTING PRETTY FRUSTRATED!!!

I’ll be honest with you, these days I’m not quite sure who it is that’s more responsible for driving my blood pressure up, imbecilic Democrats like Chuckie Schumer and Stuart Smalley, or RINOs like McConnell, Ryan, McCain and Rubio.  And to tell you the truth, I don’t see a dime’s worth of difference between any of them.  I mean here we have our country headed down the crapper, and all the Democrats can do is whine about how they lost the last election while working to gain some level of revenge against the guy who not only won, but won fair and square.  When is it, exactly, that these low lives plan on growing up?  But while such behavior can, I suppose, be expected from those on the left, it’s these damn RINOs that we’re forced to contend with, who need to be taken out behind the woodshed.

I guess I’m just not sure what it is about the country going down in flames that none of these assholes just don’t understand.  And these damn Democrats are no more unhappy than those of us on the right were when Barry “Almighty” won not just once, but twice.  So Chuckie and Co. need to get over it, and move on for the sake of your country!  And with that said, it’s just once that I wish those on our side would behave as if they were all on the same team, instead of like a bunch of infantile malcontents.  There seems to be no sense of urgency in addressing the sad shape our country is in, which when it comes to the Democrats doesn’t really surprise me because they want the country to come apart at the seams, it’s what they’ve been working on for years.  But the Republicans, I just don’t get.  

Republicans have been handed nothing less than a golden opportunity which could very well result in turning back most, if not all, of the damage done by Barry during his time in office, and in so doing improve the life of every single American citizen.  And all that’s being accomplished is a huge insane wasting of so much time.  Our GOP leadership team is a mixture of the completely gutless and totally incompetent, to the point where they come across as not having a clue about what it is that they’re supposed to be doing.  Most of them are people who, while they are quite enamored with their title, simply don’t see the need to do what it is that we the people demand of them.  They’re all very happy to go on Sunday talk shows, but they don’t want to actually do anything, even if they knew what to do.

As for all of this silly Russia stuff, it should have been squelched a long time ago.  There is no there, there and there never has been.  And there’s simply no reason to give credence to what are nothing more than rumors spawned by those who think that Hitlery was somehow cheated out of an election victory.  Hitlery lost because she was the most corrupt and dishonest candidate to ever run for president.  The Democrats know that just as most of those in the state-controlled media do.  But they thought they could pull the wool over the eyes of the American people just long enough to get the old girl into the White House and then be able to maintain the perfect balance in their bizarre leftist little world.  And when that didn’t happen they decided to slander and undermine the winner, Donald Trump.  

Of course things would be much better if we actually had a bona fide free press in this country and not some leftwing propaganda smear machine that passes for a free press.  Frankly, I’m not sure what the point is of our media today.  I mean it’s now less than 10 percent of the American people who actually believe anything they hear, because most of what they hear is nothing more than pure leftwing propaganda, and is very easily recognizable as such.  Those who do choose to tune in are being fed only a steady diet of bullshit, and apparently they don’t seem to mind that all their being told is ‘fake news’.  Hell, they might even prefer it that way.  Too many folks today either choose not be bothered with, or couldn’t care less about, the fact that their country is so close to collapsing.  They would rather not think about it.   

And you know, disappointment doesn’t even begin describe how I feel when the political antics of our supposed leaders are put on full display.  I saw better examples of leadership back in my days as a member of my local 4-H Club.  With the Democrats the main focus has become destroying the country.  And with the Republicans the main focus in simply playing it safe in the hope of getting re-elected.  But people like me are rapidly running out of reasons to vote for Republicans.  And I’ll tell you right now that if they don’t band together behind this president, and work to save what’s left of my country, my days of voting for Republicans are over.  It was in 2010, 2012 and 2014 that the Republicans essentially lied to me.  And if it turns out in 2016 that they’ve lied to me again, I’m done with them.

And on one final note, there has been much talk, even from myself, about how the Democrat Party can be said, today, to be hanging by a thread.  But, as we all know, if there is one certainty in the ever changing political landscape, it’s that the Republicans have a well-deserved reputation for shooting themselves in both feet, and on what has become a fairly frequent basis.  And it is such occasions as these that typically provide Democrats with numerous lifelines which they would not normally have had access to.  And that were it not but for the opportunities provided by the Republicans themselves, the Democrat Party would have long ago been relegated to the ash heap of American politics.  But sadly, such has not been the case, so America still has that Albatross hanging around her neck.

2016, THE NASTIEST CAMPAIGN EVER??? NOPE, NOT EVEN CLOSE!!!

Well there are some who say that this current presidential campaign is shaping up to be a pretty ugly one.  And there are others who say that it has already become pretty ugly out there, at least on the Republican side with far too much talk about what the size of a man’s hands might mean.  And I suppose I would tend to agree that things have become just a bit too high-schoolish for my taste but, as they say, politics can be a rather nasty business.  And if it’s anything that can be said about the campaign of 2016, it’s that it only serves to reinforce that old adage that says, “What was once old is now new again.”

Because as we plod through the 2016 presidential campaign season, in what at times almost seems to be slow motion, we continue to experience what has become an increasing level of hostility and, frankly, it’s getting to the point where I’ve simply started tuning a lot of it out.  Hitlery Clinton is under attack as being out of touch, old, dynastic, dishonest, and untrustworthy and rightly so.  And let’s not forget the threat of indictment also hanging over her head, although it’s doubtful that the current DEMOCRAT administration is likely to pursue that.  But it’s the name calling on our side that has become rather unproductive.

And as is usually the case, it’s every four years that our state-controlled media declares the current election cycle to be the dirtiest in history.  And while it is true that negative campaigning continues to win elections, and every campaign does have its share of dirty tricks, the fact is that no modern presidential campaign has yet been able to claim the title of nastiest ever.  At least, not yet anyway.  Because that title belongs to an election which none of us were around to witness.  The ‘honor’ of dirtiest presidential campaign in history goes to the Andrew Jackson/John Quincy Adams contest of 1828.

In providing a little background, it was the previous election of 1824, which was the first time that Jackson and Adams were pitted against each other that actually set the stage for what would become the 1828 slugfest between these two. Jackson was the nominee of the Democratic Republicans, which would come to be shortened to Democrats, as we know the party today. The Democrats of this era were more reminiscent of the modern Republican Party, with a commitment to limited government, individual liberty and states’ rights. Old Hickory, as Jackson was known, was seen as being the choice of the common man.

Now unlike the presidents that had come before Jackson, who were upper class, well-schooled and wealthy, Jackson came from humble means.  Poor, Southern, orphaned, and occasionally abused as a child, his up-from-the-bootstraps success as a military hero appealed to the masses.  His opponent, John Quincy Adams, was Jackson’s complete polar opposite. The son of the former president and Founding Father John Adams, was privileged, a world traveler, multi-lingual, and scholarly. By the age of 15, he had already worked as a translator in the royal court of Czarina Catherine the Great of Russia.

It seems that Jackson had managed to squeak by Adams in 1824, winning the popular vote, but failing to gather the necessary majority of electoral votes.  Jackson had ended up by taking the entire Southwest, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and the Carolinas, winning a total of 11 out of 24 states.  He had garnered 43% of the popular vote and 99 electoral votes.  While it was more than any other candidate, it was still not enough for him to declare victory. Therefore, the decision of who would become the next president fell to the House of Representatives.

And it was there, in what Jackson supporters would call the "Corrupt Bargain,” that Henry Clay, an influential congressman (and also a presidential candidate that year), threw his support to Adams, and in return, Clay was named Secretary of State once the Adams administration was in place. Jackson’s camp, of course, cried foul.  And thus the groundwork for the nastiest campaign in American history had now been laid.  From the start of the John Quincy Adams administration, the Andrew Jackson machine worked behind the scenes lining up support for 1828.

The South was Jackson’s natural base, among the rural, the poor, the “common” people. Jackson needed help in the North, and he found his partner in Martin Van Buren. Van Buren was a New York power broker who served as senator while maintaining control over the New York political machine in Albany. A committed Democratic Republican and fervent opponent of the president, Van Buren felt Adams would concentrate power in the federal government. He threw his influence behind Jackson and with that came significant support in the North.

But Jackson was known to have a number of skeletons in his closet, one that were easy for the Adams camp to exploit in 1828. For one, he had a fierce temper. His violent life included a number of duels, one of which, in 1806, ended with the death of his opponent. For another, General Jackson, during the War of 1812, had ordered the execution of six men in his militia who were accused of desertion. This incident haunted him in the election, when an Adams supporter, a printer named John Binns, produced and disseminated a poster featuring six black coffins, intimating that Jackson had murdered the militiamen.

And in what some I’m sure would call a the echoing the modern-day 2004 election, when military hero John Kerry-Heinz was “swift-boated” by George W. Bush, Jackson’s military successes were turned against him. He was accused of disobeying direct orders when he successfully subdued Spanish Florida in 1819, the equivalent of invading a foreign county. In New Orleans during the War of 1812, his declaration of martial law, and his harsh military rule, became a campaign issue because it had actually happened after the war was over.

Jackson’s marriage was another weapon Adams used in the election. Rachel Jackson had been married, by most accounts unhappily, before meeting Jackson. Rachel divorced her first husband, but the Adams campaign insinuated that her divorce had not gone through at the time she married Jackson. Jackson was accused of adultery and living in sin. Rachel was accused of bigamy. These were no small accusations in 1828. The Washington Daily National Journal, which supported Adams, published a pamphlet claiming that Jackson had fought Rachel’s husband, chased him away and stolen his wife.

However, John Quincy Adams had his own problems. Having been elected as a minority president, he had worked tirelessly to legitimize his administration, supporting federal programs to improve national transportation infrastructure and protective tariffs to safeguard American industry. This left him open to accusations from Democrats of corruption and federal overreach. The South, especially, felt that the tariffs penalized them in order to prop up northern industry. The Jacksonians labeled protective tariffs on iron, hemp and flax as the “Tariff of Abominations.”

Apparently, Adams began his career in public service by working for an American diplomat serving in Russia, eventually becoming America’s ambassador to Russia. And it was the Jackson people who spread the rumor that Adams had provided the Russian czar with the sexual services of an American woman. Adams, or so they claimed, was nothing more than a pimp and his success in Russia was a result of his pimping prowess. Adams was even accused of gambling and of having a pool table in the White House that he supposedly paid for with government money.   

As the mud flew back and forth, the campaign got so nasty that Adams completely withdrew from any active participation, feeling that he was above such campaign filth. However, it was one Adams newspaper that went so far as to write, "General Jackson's mother was a common prostitute, brought to this country by the British soldiers! She afterward married a mulatto man, with whom she had several children, of which number General Jackson is one!"  So it would seem that there was nothing that was to be considered as being out of bounds, even back then.   

However, Jackson, on the other hand, was so offended that he became even more involved, instructing his supporters how to respond to accusations from the Adams handlers. Paralleling the 2000 Gore/Bush campaign, Jackson, like George W. Bush, was the candidate voters were more comfortable with, the one they most wanted to sit down, have a beer and shoot the breeze with. Adams recognized this himself. In his diary, even before the election took place, he wrote, "[I]n a popularity contest, in a political contest, no man could stand against the Hero of New Orleans.” 

In the end, Jackson won pretty handily in 1828, receiving 56 percent of the vote and 178 electoral votes to Adams' 83.  Which brings me to the antics here in 2016.  I think we can all agree that those who comprise ‘The Establishment’ have become quite desperate in their drive to stop Trump.  But it’s their own fault that we are where we are in this thing.  And if the effort to stop Trump has shown us anything, it’s that ‘The Establishment’ holds we voters in rather low regard.  Because it would seem that they seek to deny us any attempt at retribution against those who made promises to us in 2014, only to keep none of them.  It’s called payback!

THE DEMOCRAT PARTY – RUMORS OF ITS DEMISE ARE BEING GREATLY EXAGGERATED…

According to a recent issue of the ‘National Journal’, it is made to sound as if the Democrat Party is now in its final death throes and claims as part of its evidence for making such a claim, the deterioration of the Democrat bench under Barry’s tenure in office.  It puts forth the claim, one that I sort of agree with, that “the party has become much more ideologically homogenous having lost most of its moderate wing as a result of the last two disastrous midterm elections.”  It also points to a party-strength index introduced by RealClearPolitics analysts Sean Trende and David Byler that is said to show Democrats in their worst position since 1928.  That dynamic has manifested itself in the Democrat presidential contest, where the bench is so barren that a flawed Hillary Clinton is barreling to an uncontested nomination.

Much was also made about how the shrinking number of Democrat officeholders in the House and in statewide offices is said to be affecting the party's Senate races. It's pointed out how dependent Democrats have become in relying on former losing candidates as their standard-bearers in 2016.  For instance, Wisconsin's Russ Feingold, Pennsylvania's Joe Sestak, Indiana's Baron Hill, and Ohio's Ted Strickland all ran lackluster campaigns in losing office in 2010, and now are looking to return to politics six years later. Party officials are courting former Kay Hagan of North Carolina to make a comeback bid, despite mediocre favorability ratings and the fact that she lost a race just months ago that most had expected her to win. All told, more than half of the Democrats' Senate challengers in 2016 are retreads.

On one hand most of these candidates are the best choices Democrats have. And Feingold and Strickland are even running ahead of GOP Sens. Ron Johnson and Rob Portman in recent polls.  Hill and Hagan boast proven crossover appeal in GOP-leaning states that would be challenging pickups. Their presence in the race gives the party a fighting chance to retake the Senate.  The point is made that Democrats are in the position of having to rely on former failures because they have no one else to turn to, but if your failures are already beating your competition, what’s that say about your competition?  The argument is also made that if the brand-name challengers didn't run, the roster of up-and-coming prospects in the respective states is short.  But as long as your brand-name challengers are running and winning, what’s the problem? 

And the point is also made that Democrats face the rather ominous historical reality that only two defeated senators have successfully returned to the upper chamber in the last six decades. And as political analyst Stu Rothenberg put it, they're asking "voters to rehire them for a job from which they were fired."  Senate Democrats are relying on these repeat candidates for the exact same reason that Democrats are comfortable with anointing Hitlery Clinton for their presidential nomination: There aren't any better alternatives.  But I would argue the point that Democrats simply are not all that fussy.  Because what it really comes down to, at least for Democrats, is which candidate will end up giving away the most free stuff if elected?  Who cares if they lost yesterday?  It’s about what you’re gonna give me today?

To illustrate the Democrats' slim pickings, the Journal pointed to three of the most consequential battleground.  Republicans hold 12 of Ohio's 16 House seats, and all six of their statewide offices.  In Wisconsin, Republicans hold a majority of the state's eight House seats and four of five statewide partisan offices.  In Pennsylvania, 13 of the 18 representatives are Republicans, though Democrats hold all the statewide offices.  These are all Democrat-friendly states that Barry carried twice.  The claim is made that if Strickland didn't run, there in Ohio, the party's hopes against Portman would lie in the hands of 30-year-old Cincinnati Councilman P.G. Sittenfeld, who would make unexpected history as one of the nation's youngest senators with a victory.  But Strickland IS running so doesn’t that make this entire argument a moot point?

The Journal argues that without Feingold in Wisconsin, the Democrat’s only logical option would be Rep. Ron Kind, who has regularly passed up opportunities for a promotion.  Former Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett already lost to Scott Walker twice, and businesswoman Mary Burke disappointed as a first-time gubernatorial candidate last year. And despite the Democrat establishment's publicized carping over Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania, the list of alternatives don’t impress with his only current intra-party opposition being the mayor of Allentown.  In the more conservative states, it was said that the drop-off between favored recruits and alternatives is said to be even more stark. Hagan would be a flawed nominee in North Carolina, but there's no one else waiting in the wings. The strongest Democrat politician, Attorney General Roy Cooper, is running for governor instead.

Even in Indiana, the Journal claims that the bench is so thin even the GOP's embattled governor, Mike Pence, isn't facing formidable opposition. Hill, who lost congressional reelection campaigns in both 2004 and 2010, is not expected to face serious primary competition in the race to succeed retiring GOP Sen. Dan Coats.  Even in the two swing states where the party landed young, up-and-coming recruits to run, their options were very limited. In Florida, 32-year-old Rep. Patrick Murphy is one of only five House Democrats to represent a district that Mitt Romney carried in 2012—and his centrism has made him one of the most compelling candidates for higher office.  But if Murphy didn't run, the alternatives would have been limited: freshman Rep. Gwen Graham and polarizing Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz being the most logical alternatives.

It’s in Nevada that it’s said the Democrats are able to boast one of their strongest challengers in former state Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto, vying to become the first Latina ever elected to the Senate.  But again the Journal makes the point that her ascension is due, in part, to the fact that other talented officeholders lost in the 2014 statewide wipeout.  Democrat lieutenant-governor nominee Lucy Flores, hyped by MSNBC as a "potential superstar," lost by 26 points to her GOP opponent.  Former Secretary of State Ross Miller, another fast-rising pol, lost his bid, and rather badly, for attorney general against a nondescript Republican. By simply taking a break from politics, Cortez Masto avoided the wave and kept her prospects alive for 2016.

We’re told that what was being presented here by the Journal is not meant to be some sort of an assessment of Democrat chances for a Senate majority in 2017, but a glaring warning for the party's longer-term health.  The notion is put forward that if Hitlery can't extend the Democrats' presidential winning streak—a fundamental challenge, regardless of the political environment—the party's barren bench will cause even more alarm for the next presidential campaign. And if the Democrats' core constituencies don't show up for midterm elections—an outlook that's rapidly becoming conventional wisdom—Democrats have serious challenges in 2018 as well.  It's why The New Yorker's liberal writer John Cassidy warned that a Clinton loss next year could "assign [Republicans] a position of dominance."

The Journal said that by focusing on how the electorate's rapid change would hand Democrats a clear advantage in presidential races, Barry's advisers have overlooked how the base-stroking moves would play in the states. Their optimistic view of the future is said to have been adopted by Hitlery, who has been running to the left even without serious primary competition.  But without a future generation of leaders able to compellingly carry the liberal message, there's little guarantee that changing demographics will secure the party's destiny. The irony of the 2016 Senate races is that Democrats are betting on the past, running veteran politicians to win them back the majority—with Hitlery at the top of the ticket.  If that formula doesn't work, and it remains a sizable if, the rebuilding process may be long and arduous. 

Personally I don’t really see this as being much more than wishful thinking on the part of this particular publication.  Especially when you take into consideration that a growing number of people today not only do not pay any income taxes but are also becoming increasingly dependent upon a growing number of government programs.  Who is that this publication thinks these people will end up voting for?  Will it be for the ones that will demand that they pay income some amount of taxes and will need to wean themselves off of their multiple government subsidies?  I hardly think so.  The Democrat Party will be around for many years to come.  And I feel quite confident in saying that any rumors regarding its impending demise are more than a bit premature, and to assume otherwise would ‘make an ass out of you and me.’    

And while I suppose it might be fun to ponder such an eventuality, the reality of the situation is that for most of us what is of a far greater concern is the continuing viability of the Republican Party.  Especially at a time when our supposed party leadership seems hell-bent upon sabotaging the party’s prospects for the future.  Because while all of this talk, about the dire straits in which the Democrat Party supposedly finds itself, is really not much more than watercooler scuttlebutt.  The fact is the parasite class in this country has been growing exponentially for decades, and is continuing to grow.  All thanks to encouragement coming from both parties, but primarily because of only one.  And it is that rather sizable parasite class that may very well decide elections going well into the future.

THE CONTINUING BIG-MONEY MYTH…

During every election cycle, and even for some time afterwards, we always hear about how evil fat-cat Republican donors are determined in their efforts to buy elections and are accused of being singlehandedly responsible for destroying our political process.  And it’s always these very same critics who are always so noticeably silent when the numbers come out that show which donors shelled out the most cash and where their donations really went.

So it should come as no surprise then that as the newly minted Republican majority assumes control of Congress, they are once again the recipients of the very same factually incorrect rhetoric, something that the tally from the just-completed midterm elections would seem to make very clear.  Because what we find is that the truly big money in this most recent campaign was directed to those candidates on the left and not to those on the right. 

Among groups that are required to disclose what they raise and spend, the top 10 individual donors to outside groups gave nearly $128 million toward the 2014 elections, with Democrat-leaning groups collecting $91 million of it. More than half of the top 100 individual donors to political groups gave primarily to Democrats or their allies, and Democrat-friendly donors held the top 13 spots on the list of groups who donated more than $100,000 to allies.

Simply put, Democrats are very good at raising money, money they and their PACs actually control.  Democrats held a 3-to-1 cash advantage among the 183 groups that gave $100,000 or more to another group. Their biggest donor was the National Education Association at $22 million, and the two biggest super PACs of 2014, Senate Majority PAC and House Majority PAC, both backed Democrats. Not a single Republican group even made the top 10.

Not only does the Democrat myth that Republican donors buy elections fall apart upon deeper scrutiny of the actual numbers, but so does the idea that money correlates to successful outcomes in elections.  Donors who gave $1 million or more sent 60 cents of every dollar to left-leaning organizations, yet Democrats still got their asses handed to them at the polls.  But that simply makes them determined to seek even more money next time.   

Yes, right-leaning groups like the Koch brothers-backed Americans for Prosperity raise millions of dollars without having to abide by the same disclosure rules as overtly political groups. But voters did not throw out Democrats during the midterm elections because they saw ads from Americans for Prosperity. No, voters rejected Democrats because they doubted the competence and honesty of an unpopular president.

Since so much ire was, and continues to, consistently directed at the Koch brothers, even directly from the floor of both the House and the Senate, it should be pointed out that the $4.6 million they personally gave to Republicans and conservatives pales in comparison to the $74 million that billionaire hedge fund operator and Keystone XL pipeline opponent Tom Steyer singlehandedly gave to liberals and Democrats. But I digress.

‘The Founders’ took great care to protect political speech from government sanction or limitation. And money equals speech. Maybe if politicians of both parties spent just a little less time worrying about and raising money and more time focusing on governing and making good policy that would benefit all, and doing what we actually elected them to do, they wouldn’t have to raise so much money in the first place.  But what are the odds of that?

IS THE ELECTORATE ANY LONGER INTERESTED IN SAVING THE COUNTRY???

Even though America is, I think it safe to say, pretty much on its last leg, I can’t help but wonder if there are, any longer, enough remaining Americans who have any interest, whatsoever, in electing anyone who might want to do anything but to further destroy their country, or to expedite the destruction currently underway. And one of the reasons that I say that is because we now have a recent Quinnipiac University poll that makes clear, at least in New York, voters would pick congenital liar Hitlery Clinton or even Andy Cuomo, despite the fact that he’s hip deep in a corruption scandal, above all potential Republican candidates in a 2016 race.

It was Maurice Carroll, assistant poll director, who said in a statement that Hitlery apparently has the largest leads of 20 points or more. Meanwhile, the poll showed Andy ‘The Crook’ Cuomo would have leads of 10 to 24 percentage points. Their largest leads are over Chris Christie, the poll of 1,034 state voters taken between Aug. 14-17 reveals. Hitlery holds a commanding lead of 54 percent to 34 percent over Christie, and Andy leads him by 47 percent to 37 percent. I suppose to use Christie is not really an accurate way to gauge things how things could possibly turn out in 2016. After all, at this point few on the right would vote for him.

In some of the other matchups, Hitlery is said to hold a 60 percent to 29 percent lead over Jeb Bush and a 61 percent to 30 percent over Rand Paul. Andy leads Bush by 53 percent to 30 percent and Paul by 55 percent to 31 percent. The poll only compared Christie and Andy with three of the potential Republican candidates, and did not ask about other possible contenders such as Ted Cruz, Rick Perry or any of the other possible choices. But even at that it does offer us a glimpse of just how disinterested the electorate seems to have become in ensuring that this country, and freedom in general, survives for future generations.

And oddly enough it’s among women that the anti-woman Hitlery's margins in the poll went from 33 percentage points over Christie to 41 percentage points over Paul, and independent voters put her margin rating at 7 points over Christie to 26 points over Bush. Meanwhile, Andy's leads among women went from 16 points over Christie to 32 points over Paul. However, Christie comes out ahead of Andy with independent voters, by 41 percent to 35 percent, and Andy is ahead of Bush by 44 percent to 32 percent and Paul by 43 percent to 35 percent. Women, in a way, are a lot like blacks, neither has any desire to choose the best candidate.

But I must admit that after having spent the first 25 years of my life in ‘The Empire State’, this doesn’t come as much of a surprise. And having said that, I do realize that what we are talking about here is a poll that was rather limited in its scope. But what I worry about is that the warped way of thinking that this poll reveals, can very quickly turn into something akin to a very malignant form of the deadliest cancer. A cancer which can very quickly spread well beyond the borders of its host, in this case New York, with the help of a state-controlled media that behaves with much the same characteristics as your basic cancer causing carcinogen.

ROBERT GATES, WHAT TOOK HIM SO LONG???

Much is already being made about a book that is yet to even be available for purchase. It’s a book written by former defense secretary, Robert Gates, and it’s apparently a book in which he takes more than few shots at Barry, Hitlery and ‘Slow Joe’, two of our current, and one former/future, less than stellar politicians. Gates, who served as Pentagon chief from 2006 to 2011 under both Barry and his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush, is rather critical of Barry's ‘leadership’ on several defense-related issues, but especially Afghanistan. According to Gates, Barry lacked belief in his administration's policy toward the war in Afghanistan and was skeptical it would even succeed. But to be honest here, what can you really expect someone who has never really been more than a "community agitator" to understand about something as complex as military strategy?

But anyway, according to various sources supposedly familiar with what has been written, Gates wrote that he concluded by early 2010 that Barry, who had ordered his own troop "surge" in Afghanistan like Bush's in the Iraq war, "doesn't believe in his own strategy, and doesn't consider the war to be his. For him, it's all about getting out." Gates adds that Barry was "skeptical if not outright convinced it (the administration strategy) would fail." After Barry was elected in 2008 to succeed Bush, Gates agreed to the new president's request that he remain on as defense secretary, becoming the first Pentagon chief to have served presidents of different parties. Personally, I don’t see that as something that can be, or should be, seen as being much of an accomplishment, it only proves that, like most career bureaucrats, Gates was only too happy to go with the flow.

I think it fair to say that when it comes to those in public life there are some, who after, I guess, either deciding that it just isn’t any fun anymore, or have for whatever reason become disgruntled employees, run off and write some tell-all book. And then there are those like former Secretary of Defense, Gates whose purpose in writing this book I haven’t quite been able to put my finger on. Here’s a guy that I was never a fan of, I saw him as being nothing more than a career bureaucrat who possessed neither the aptitude nor the skill set required for the job. To my way of thinking, he was no Donald Rumsfeld. And now Mr. Gates has apparently come out with this book, titled "Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary of War," a book which, as I said, is rather unflattering, to say the least, toward both Barry "Almighty" and Hitlery Clinton as well as old ‘Slow Joe’ Biden.

And it’s a book that only serves to confirm that I was correct all along in my feelings toward Mr. Gates, who makes several allegations in this new book, slated for release January 14, that both Barry and Hitlery opposed the surge in Iraq chiefly for "political" reasons. "Hillary told the president that her opposition to the 2007 surge in Iraq had been political because she was facing him in the Iowa primary. The president conceded vaguely that opposition to the Iraq surge had been political," Gates writes, noting he found it "remarkable." He went on to add, "To hear the two of them making these admissions, and in front of me, was as surprising as it was dismaying." As long as this guy has been around Washington, the fact that he could have been surprised by anything that either of these two haters of American could have said or done, proves that he was nothing short of naïve.

Also in his new book, the former defense secretary accuses Vice President ‘Slow Joe’ Biden of "poisoning the well" against the military leadership. "I think he has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades," Gates said of ‘Slow Joe’. Gates also makes the claim that when ‘Slow Joe’ and National Security Adviser Thomas Donilon tried to pass orders to him, he told the two, "The last time I checked, neither of you are in the chain of command." Gates reportedly added that he expects to receive his orders directly from the president of the United States. Anyway, that’s what he’s saying now. And really, whether or not he really made such a statement is immaterial and will simply be seen as being his version of events, his word against theirs, since here’s really nothing to back up his claims.

But I guess the main questions that I would have for Mr. Gates are, "If you felt as strongly about things as you now claim, why did you stick around for as long as you did?" And, "Why didn’t you come out then and take a stand against those things that you, supposedly, so vehemently opposed?" Was it that he saw himself as being able to provide some sort of positive influence? I’d like to hear how it could have been so easy for him to just sit idly by while our commander in chief was busy sending Americans off to fight, and die, as part of a strategy that, according to Gates, Barry had absolutely no confidence in. And frankly, I’m more than a little curious about what it is that Gates is even hoping to accomplish with this book. Because from my point of view, he’s only revealing himself to be a bit of a coward.

And I say coward because here we have a man who didn’t have the guts, at the time, to stand up for those who relied on him to do so. He said nothing as he watched an incompetent boob send troops into combat and who were then forced to operate under some of the most idiotic rules of engagement ever devised. All he would have had to have done, was to open his mouth, to say something, or to do something. But he didn’t, not until now, and in a book that might end making him some money. How many died who might not have if he had just said or done something. But nope, he wanted to save everything for a book, a book that I doubt very many will pay much, if any, attention to. Because at the end of the day what is this book likely to tell us about any of these people, Barry, Hitlery, Biden or even Gates, that we haven’t at least suspected for a very long time?

DOES MONEY RAISED, ACCURATELY REFLECT SUCCESS IN GETTING THE MESSAGE OUT?

Now this is just my own personal opinion, and I am by no means an expert in the area of politics, but is the fact that one party is able to bring in more cash than its opposition an accurate reflection of how well it’s able to get it's message out? Does one thing have anything to do with the other? I'm just not sure whether it's something that can be, or even should be, used as a gauge when one is trying to get a feel for where the country might stand, as a whole, on any issue. Especially a significant issue.

Now the only reason I bring it up is because, apparently, the RNC now has significantly more cash on hand than does their Democrat counterpart. It had $12.3 million in cash on hand and no debt at the end of July, while the DNC had $4.1 million in cash on hand and nearly $18.5 million in debt, which is an increase from the end of June. But can we make too much out of this? And do we have a tendency to rely too heavy on such numbers when trying to measure the success of our message?

The RNC reported raising about $5.9 million and spending $6.3 million last month, while the DNC raised $3.9 million and spent $5.4 million. The RNC has outraised its Democrat counterpart so far every month this year, and that would be despite the fact that Barry "Almighty's" has been pretty heavily involved in fundraising for the Democrat Party and campaign committees. So are we to take heart the fact that the Democrats are bringing less money in, or would that be reading too much into it?

While I suppose it all may serve a purpose as far as bragging rights might be concerned, and may even make for some good party propaganda, I find myself wondering if such news might actually have an adverse effect, at least to those on our side. Might it actually play a role in creating what could be a false impression that there are more people in favor of such things as, say, the passage an amnesty bill or ensuring that Obamacare gets funded, than may actually exist? Just askin.

And might it also be possible that those contributing the money may have an ulterior motive of trying to create some false impression that would then sway public opinion on certain key issues? Might there be hope that if enough money, coming not from those of us who have been the most vocal in voicing our opposition, but from those who make up what’s often referred to as being the party’s establishment, can be shown to be coming in, voter opinion could then be nudged more toward what is seen as the ‘proper’ position?

Those of us who live out here in the real world must not allow such information to cause us to start doubting ourselves when it comes to the positions that we hold on the truly important issues that this country now faces. We mustn’t allow ourselves to be treated like, somehow, it's us who are actually on the wrong side here. Or to consider the possibility that those giving all the money can’t be wrong, or why else would they be giving all that money. Many give money out of an attempt gain influence.

Personally, I stopped giving any money to the RNC sometime ago, deciding, instead, to focus on providing what money I can to specific candidates. And even then I took it in the shorts because I gave money, and cheerfully so, to Marco Rubio's campaign. That has since turned out to have been a complete waste of my hard earned money. I put very little stock in reports of which party is raising the most money, because I just don’t see how that translates into useful. I dunno, maybe I’m all wet.

THE POLITICS OF BETRAYAL…

BIRDS OF A FEATHER?

When it comes to Chris Christie, I ask myself each and every day, how could I have so stupid to have allowed myself to have been so badly fooled by this guy. I mean, even after his rather lackluster convention speech I still had myself talked into believing that he was for real, and that he was just what my party needed. But it wasn't too long after that that the real Chris Christie slowly started to bob to the surface. And to say that I was disappointed is a bit of an understatement. And I have to admit that I was more than a little embarrassed at having been so easily fooled. It was a lot like how I feel now after having fallen for all that I heard from Marco Rubio which first caused me to want to support and then vote for him. But that's a topic for another time.

Anyway, back to Christie, who, apparently, it now seems has more than a few New Jersey Democrats now willing to line up to declare their support the rotund one from New Jersey. Christie recently landed the endorsement of one of the state's most prominent Democrat Party members as recently as this past Monday and is expected to receive another on Tuesday, at least according to the Huffington Post. State Sen. Brian Stack, who also is the mayor of Union City, made his formal endorsement of Christie on Monday, citing the governor's willingness to work across the aisle and his help on local issues as the reason he chose him over Democrat candidate Barbara Buono.

According to the Newark Star Ledger, Essex County Executive Joe DiVincenzo will also endorse Christie on Tuesday, which will then bring the total number of prominent Democrat endorsements of the Republican governor to a rather impressive, 16. "I'm proud of the work we have accomplished together and I'm honored to call Governor Christie a friend," Stack said in a press release issued by Christie's campaign. "There is no one better suited to continue that work for Union City, for this district, and for New Jersey altogether, which is why I am proudly endorsing him for reelection today." Well, ain't that quite the ringing endorsement coming from a Democrat.

Ya know, I guess I just don't get what it is about being in politics that seems to have this effect on people. Is it that they become so intoxicated with the attention they're paid, or with their newfound power? Or is it simply the fact that they have a title? Or maybe I'm just being way too naïve in my choosing to think that I can actually believe what I'm being told by people that I thought I could trust, failing to realize that they're only telling me what I want to hear in order to gain my support. Support that, once it has resulted in my choosing to vote for them, is no longer needed. And while I am not in a position to vote for Christie, he is far from being the only example of someone who possesses this mentality.

ONLY A THIRD OF US SAY WE’RE ‘HAPPY’…

Something that I’m assuming is supposed to come as some sort of surprise to us, although for the life of me I can’t imagine why, especially after more than four years of Barry, is the fact that only a third of U.S. adults say they are very happy. Minorities, a very substantial percentage of which, who decided to troop off to the polls for the specific purpose of voting for their hero, Barry, show particularly pronounced declines in the past two years, or so a U.S. survey would seem to indicate. As far as I’m concerned, they have no reason to be unhappy, they got what they asked for.

A Harris Poll of 2,345 U.S. adults surveyed online April 10-15 by Harris Interactive found that certain groups, such as minorities, recent graduates and the disabled, all trended downward, regarding their level of happiness, in just the last couple of years. Again, these are all little groups who thought that it would be just oh so cute, to re-elect Barry. Well as my dear old dad uses to say, what goes around, comes around. Seventy-one percent of Hispanics voted for Barry "Almighty", that’s just a fact, and now they want to cry over spilt milk? Too bad, so sad.

"Our happiness index offers insight into what's on the minds of Americans today and is a reflection of the state of affairs in our country," Regina Corso, senior vice president of the Harris Poll, said in a statement. "While the attitudes on the economy may be improving, we're seeing that this is not translating into an improvement in overall happiness." To think that the economy is improving is a pipe dream. Today we have more people than ever before receiving some sort of government assistance, and we have the smallest number in the workforce since WWII, that’s also a fact!

Since last measured, roughly two years ago, the Happiness Index was especially low among the Hispanic-American population. It seems to be Ms. Corso’s opinion that, while a causal link cannot be established, it might not be a coincidence that this drop coincides with a political landscape that has seen frequent, sometimes contentious, discussion of immigration policy in recent months. If that is in fact the case here, then I would call into question the priorities of those who make up this specific community. And maybe they need to be re-evaluated.

Americans earning under $50,000 per year were less likely to qualify as very happy than in 2011 -- down from 33 percent to 29 percent among those earning less than $35,000, and from 35 percent to 32 percent among those earning between $35,000-$49,999. Those 50 and older were more likely to be very happy than younger people. Thirty-two percent of political independents were less likely to qualify as very happy than members of either the Democratic or Republican parties at 35 percent each. No margin of error was provided.

And yet, despite the fact that so many members of these groups seem to be so unhappy, they don’t seem to be unhappy ‘enough’ to vote for someone other than a Democrat. Because come next the election they will, most likely, once again, and very cheerfully so, go vote for their favorite Democrat candidate. And yet, somehow, it’s the fault of the Republican Party that these people are so stupid as to keep voting for the one party who’s most responsible for actually preventing them from moving up the income ladder and gaining some level of happiness.

So excuse me here if any sympathy that I might have had for these folks is nonexistent! Because as far as I’m concerned, they’ve brought it all on themselves. But I’ll be honest with you, what does really piss me off is the fact that their need to vote for Democrats has also had an adverse impact on MY level of happiness. Folks are going to have to come to some sort of a decision. Do they ever want to be happy or are they content to merely exist as parasites and dependent on the government? Because going down that road is not going to lead to happiness.