OBAMA PROCLAIMS, “WORLD LESS VIOLENT THAN IT HAS EVER BEEN”…

To be honest with you, I’m just not sure if it’s from some sort of delusions which Barry suffers, or if he is perhaps suffering from some form of mental illness, or if he has now gotten to the point where he simply chooses to live in absolute denial. But whatever the reason there is now very little doubt that Barry is absolutely clueless and has become dramatically out of touch with what’s going on in the world around him. And quite frankly, if we are being honest here, absolutely clueless probably doesn't even come close to describing how it is that Barry views the world.

Here’s how Barry assesses this point in world history: "I mean, the truth of the matter is that for all the challenges we face, all the problems that we have, if you had to be -- if you had to choose any moment to be born in human history, not knowing what your position was going to be, who you were going to be, you’d choose this time. The world is less violent than it has ever been. It is healthier than it has ever been. It is more tolerant than it has ever been. It is better fed then it’s ever been. It is more educated than it’s ever been." Man, talk about looking through rose colored glasses!

It doesn’t take a genius to see that in one way or another our world is going up in flames. And it has nothing to do with ‘climate change.’ It has everything to do with an ‘attitude change,’ Barry’s attitude. To Barry’s way of thinking the time has come for the United States to relinquish its leadership role in the world. Even though, ever since World War II, it’s the United States that has been the one constant in an ever changing world. Like it or not, we were the glue that held it all together, the one country most capable of acting as ‘the’ stabilizing force on the world.

But with Barry’s arrival onto the scene all that has now changed. Far from being less violent than it has ever been, minus those periods of world wars, the world has never been more violent. Thanks to Barry’s rather peculiar, and very dangerous, style of foreign policy and conducting that foreign policy courtesy of two of the most inept secretaries of state to have ever come down the pike, it should come as a surprise to no one that our world is becoming increasingly volatile. And as commander-i-chief, Barry has demonstrated a real knack for getting more of our soldiers killed, and for losing wars once considered as being won.

And if all that weren’t enough, now lurking just over the horizon we have Hitlery Clinton, who is very obviously a legend in her own small mind. Because to hear her tell it, she helped rebuild the U.S. image in the world after the George W. Bush administration badly mangled it. God help us if this loon becomes Barry’s successor. Because according to her, "The most important thing I did was to help restore America's leadership in the world. And I think that was a very important accomplishment. We were flat on our back when I walked in there the first time." Quite the ego, don’t you think?

But Hitlery does so love to brag on herself. She went on to say, "We were viewed as being untrustworthy, as violating our moral rules and values, as being economically hobbled. And we had to get out there and once again promote American values and pursue our interests and protect national security. Because of the eight years that preceded us — it was the economic collapse, it was two wars, it was the war on terror that led to some very unfortunate, un-American actions being taken. That was my biggest challenge. It was why the president asked me to be secretary of state."

The sad truth of the matter is that individuals such as Barry and Hitlery are just not very adept when it comes to the conducting of foreign policy. I think we can all agree that pretty much the ONLY thing that these people are any good at is screwing things up here at home by creating an increased dependency on the government all in their effort to buy votes. When it comes to the truly important issues they are most definitely in well over their heads. But be that as it may, Americans still see fit to elect these people ti high office thus creating their own nightmare scenario.

DEMANDS FOR AMNESTY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED A NONSTARTER…

There has been much talk, of late, and from sources on both sides of the political aisle, claiming that should Republicans fail to bring up some form of comprehensive immigration reform, aka amnesty, they face the possibility of never again winning the White House and of becoming the permanent minority party. Personally, I would argue that just such a scenario would be far more likely if they ‘were’ to bring it up.

And now inserting themselves into the amnesty fray, we have a team of supposed top Republican pollsters who have now, collectively it would seem, come to the conclusion that Republicans can generate a "more positive electoral environment" by choosing to embrace immigration reform. "A more positive electoral environment?" So what the Hell do they mean by that? Sounds like a bunch of mumbo-jumbo to me.

But with recent events, specifically the fact that House Majority Leader Eric Cantor essentially had his ass handed to him in Virginia’s GOP primary, the group's findings could be dampened. Because Cantor’s defeat by a complete unknown is said to have had a direct correlation to his very enthusiastic support for some form of amnesty. And the voters made it quite clear that that is not something in which they are in favor.

This team of 16 pollsters from 10 firms, including some that have polled for Tea Party-related figures and groups, conducted two surveys for FWD.us, which is a pro-reform group headed by Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg. It released its findings today in a memo which, I have no doubt, will likely be used as ammunition by the pro-amnesty crowd. But I simply don’t find their results to be all that credible.

The fact that these supposed ‘Republican’ pollsters at least appear to be on the payroll of a big money liberal who’s strongly in favor of amnesty, tells me pretty much all I need to know regarding both the results they came up with and how it was that they might have come up with them. And it causes me to distrust their findings as well as to call into question what might have motivated them to side with Zuckerberg.

This group also said that the reforms would also include a pathway for citizenship for undocumented immigrants. However, we’re told by those who should know that Cantor's loss on Tuesday came in part because of a backlash over his support of a Republican-backed version of the "Dream Act," which allows some immigrants who came to the United States as children to qualify for in-state college tuition rates.

And much is being made about how RINO Lindsey Graham was able to easily win his primary on Tuesday despite the fact that he has played a pretty active role in the ‘bipartisan’ effort to pass immigration reform. But, perhaps, had his opposition gotten their shit together with Graham being made to face only one primary candidate, instead of six, the contest would have been considerably closer than it was.

Anyway, back to these supposed ‘Republican’ pollsters. We’re told that they surveyed 800 Hispanic voters between May 27 and June 1, and another group of 800 voters, including an oversample of Republicans, from May 17-23. And I guess we’re supposed to believe these pollsters when they tell us that half of these Hispanic voters say that they blame Republicans for the reform efforts' failure to pass. I say, so what?

In addition, 76 percent of them said they would listen to Republicans say about other issues, as long as they support immigration reform. I’m thinking that’s pretty much bullshit. There is simply nothing that anyone is going to be able to say that will convince me that amnesty is the way to go. What we need to do is start locking up employers who hire those here illegally so that they will simply choose to self-deport.

And it’s according to the same memo generated by these pollsters that, "There is a strong sentiment in the country that undocumented immigrants should not be granted amnesty." And it went on to say, "This immigration reform proposal addresses that issue by requiring that undocumented immigrants pay a fine, taxes owed, learn English and wait at least thirteen years until they can become citizens." It all bologna.

Look, folks like these 800 Hispanics supposed quizzed by this gang of Zuckerberg-funded Republican pollsters are going to have to make up their minds about something. Illegal immigrants are just that, they are in our country illegally, which means they are breaking our laws. If those here legally can’t bring themselves to support our laws, maybe they too should be shipped back to ‘their’ country of origin as well!

PETER KING…’RINO ALERT’, ‘RINO ALERT’

You know, I used to have a great deal of respect for Peter King, the Republican who represents New York’s 2nd District. As a strong supporter of the ‘War on Terror’ I saw him as being someone who, or at least I thought, would put the interests of America about all else. But that was before. Before he decided to finally come fully out of the shadows so that we would all then be able to recognize him for the RINO that he has apparently been all along.

King has long been a very vocal opponent of the Tea Party, to the point where, these days, he sounds much more like a Democrat than he does a Republican. And the events of last night where we saw Eric Cantor get what he so rightfully deserved has, apparently, caused King to become a bit unravelled. Because according to him, Republicans can't allow the primary defeat of Cantor to open the door for the "Ted Cruzes and the Rand Pauls to take over." I disagree!

Cantor's defeat in Virginia's Republican primary Tuesday to economics professor Dave Brat is said to have sent shock waves through political circles. Brat walked away with the primary win with 55.5 percent of the vote to Cantor's 45.5 percent. Polls leading into the election showed Cantor with a comfortable lead over Brat. And the loss certainly has spurred King to throw around all manner of rather incendiary remarks that I never thought I would hear coming from him.

It was during an appearance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" that King made the claim that the approach of fellow Republican Sen. Cruz of Texas tarnished the party's brand when he led the shutdown of the government in October. King said the "overwhelming majority of the country" thought lawmakers were "crazy" and "irresponsible" to have allowed it to happen. Well maybe that’s how the whiners in our growing entitlement class saw things, but not me!

King warned that the politics of the more conservative GOP party members such as Ted Cruz and Rand Paul would be detrimental to the GOP because he claimed they did not represent conservative views. King seemed to try to back up his claim saying, "What Ted Cruz did last year was suicidal. I hope that doesn't become party policy. So, we can't allow Eric's defeat last night, allow the Ted Cruzes and the Rand Paul’s to take over the party, or their disciples to take over the party."

According to King, "This is not conservatism. To me, shutting down the government is not being a conservative." Personally, I no longer think this fraud even knows what conservatism really is. He’s another one of those people who, like Cantor, enjoy going around calling themselves conservative, but they really aren’t. And the only time they even sound like conservatives is at election time. Then as soon as they get themselves re-elected it’s back to business as usual.

King said he didn't think anyone in the House on Tuesday had anticipated Cantor would lose. I’m sure they didn’t, I didn’t either. But that didn’t keep me from hoping that it would happen. King said, "Yesterday, if you went around the House floor, people thought that if Eric got less than 65 percent of the vote it would have been considered a defeat. It was just a question of how high the majority was going to be." Well, it happened, Pete, so get over it!

It's still uncertain whether or not Cantor's position on immigration reform was what motivated voters to get rid of him. On Monday, Cantor had renewed a push on amnesty reform for children, urging Barry "Almighty" to work with Congress on moving forward on legislation. King said he was concerned Cantor's loss would not only slow down possible immigration reform, but all legislation leading into the fall midterm elections. So you see, this guy too is a big supporter of amnesty. Too bad we can’t rid of his dumb ass too!

WHAT MUST IT TAKE TO BE A DEMOCRAT THESE DAYS???

I seriously doubt that I could ever become a Democrat. And that would be because I could never get past the rather long list of disqualifiers. Because, first and foremost, I love my country. And that is simply not to be permitted when attempting to join this club of rabid America haters. Secondly, I place a very high premium on making sure this country remains capable of defending itself against, what has become thanks to Barry, our rapidly growing list of enemies.

Thirdly, I don’t view ‘work’ as being a dirty four letter word. My dad was a hard worker, sometimes working two jobs. And he instilled in all of his kids a strong work ethic. Fourthly, I realize that where I am at this stage of my life is the direct result of the choices that I have made throughout my life. And to be jealous of others who may have more than I, simply because during their life they have obviously made much better choices than I did, is just so juvenile.

Which brings me to one of those shining examples of what it means, these days, to be a member of what has become nothing more than a group of dangerously inept malcontents, is Rep. Jackie Speier. Who, of course, besides being a Democrat also represents a district out there in the land of the fruits, the nuts and the flakes. Ms. Speier has also now declared that the Taliban is "part of the fabric of Afghanistan" and therefore should be not labeled as a terrorist organization. DUH!

This moron made this declaration during an appearance on, where else but, some MSNBC program called "NewsNation," whatever the Hell that is. She said, "Let me underscore the term 'terrorist.' The Taliban is part of the fabric of Afghanistan. They were part of the leadership of that country before we engaged there." How on Earth is it that there are voters who can look at someone as nutty as this boob and are still able determine them being qualified for public office.

Anyway, it was then that this imbecile went onto say, "We are now actively attempting to get the Taliban to negotiate with President [Hamid] Karzai and the Afghanistani government, because there will be some cooperation, some level of coordination, between the two if that country is going to survive and move forward." She added, "So, to say that they are terrorists, at this point, is not necessarily accurate." It’s no wonder that our country is going down the tubes.

The fact that this dim-witted boob can bring herself to make these reckless remarks demonstrates that she, and very clearly so, has absolutely no business being in the position which she now find herself. She clearly does not have a clue when it comes to being able to recognize the threat that we face from these religious fanatics. Her comments fly in the face of the views of U.S. intelligence experts, who perceive the Taliban as an ongoing threat to the United States.

One of those experts, Rob Williams, U.S. national intelligence officer for South Asia, told a closed, classified Senate Intelligence Committee hearing last week that four of the senior Taliban officials released from Guantanamo Bay in a prisoner exchange for Army deserter Bowe Bergdahl are expected to resume their activities with the Taliban, Reuters reported, citing two senior congressional officials who spoke on condition of anonymity. No big surprise there!

These five prisoners who recently handed over in exchange for our deserter included the former Taliban interior minister, who was described in a U.S. case file leaked by WikiLeaks as having had close ties to Osama bin Laden; the Taliban's former deputy chief of intelligence; and a former member of a joint Taliban-al-Qaida cell. Al-Qaida expert Thomas Joscelyn has said that "all five were part of [Taliban leader] Mullah Omar's inner circle."

This moron, Speier, has represented her Northern California district in the House since 2008, has been known for making ignorant comments in the past. Back in March, when Republican Rep. Peter King planned to address fears over the radicalization of U.S. Muslims before a House committee, it was Speier who was standing at the ready to hurl all manner of strident accusations of racism at him. And all she accomplished was to expose herself as being a moron.

She told the San Francisco Chronicle, "This is one member's bias that he is now putting forth as the policy of this country, and there are going to be many of us who will shout out and call him out on abusing his role as chair and abusing the Congress of the United States for whatever his personal bias is." And she went on to say, "To pinpoint Muslims as if they're the only category — it's wrong, it's discriminatory, it's racist and inappropriate." They are the only category!

She also made waves in June 2013 with a pronouncement that men, and Republican men specifically, had no place speaking about abortion. It also while appearing on MSNBC, this time with that raving loon, Low-Rents O’Donnell, that she said, "I always get frustrated because not one of them has a vagina. And unless you've got one, and unless you've experienced that kind of horrendous experience [being raped], how can you possibly speak to it?" Brilliant!

Personally I’m now of the opinion that the children have now been in charge of things long enough. And that’s really all these liberals/progressives are, children. They whine about fairness and equality as if they are somehow guaranteed. There’s an old saying, "life isn’t fair." And there is nothing government can do to make it so. And I’ll tell you something else, I have absolutely zero sympathy for those who see it as being perfectly acceptable to mooch off the rest of us.

HILLARY SAYS, “OOPS”…

A funny thing happened on the way to the nomination of the 2016 Democrat candidate for president. It seems that Hitlery Clinton, the supposed smartest woman in the world in much the same way that Barry is the smartest black guy, shot off her big mouth before her brain was fully engaged. All in what I can only assume was some sort of an attempt by Hitlery to make herself appear to be more like one of us little people.

Because apparently old ‘Slick Willie’ and Hitlery weren’t quite as "dead broke" as old Hitlery would have liked us all to believe. And now the old girl is saying that she wasn’t being insensitive to America’s middle class when she said in an interview that she and the ‘Slickmeister’ were "dead broke" when they left the White House and had then had to struggle to pay mortgages on their two multimillion-dollar mansions.

Hitlery, who is seen by many of the party’s faithful as the most likely Democrat nominee for the White House come 2016, told "Good Morning America" host Robin Roberts that she recognizes that she and her husband were "blessed" and that they worked "hard for everything we got in our lives, and we have continued to work hard." Somehow I think that her definition of hard work and mine, aren’t quite the same.

Hitlery said that to which she was referring was the many legal bills that she and her ex-president husband had amassed during their eight years in the White House. Well, someone really should take the time to explain to this bitch that that’s what happens when you’re a couple of freakin crooks. Or, let me rephrase that, a crook and a pervert/rapist. So are we supposed to somehow feel sorry for these two slimy weasels?

Hitlery’s comments were part of an interview with ABC’s Diane Sawyer on Monday as part of the kick-off tour of her new memoir. Hitlery said, "We came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt." She said, "We had no money when we got there, and we struggled to, you know, piece together the resources for mortgages, for houses, for Chelsea's education." Adding, "You know, it was not easy."

Hitery’s comments make it very clear that she is absolutely clueless with what it is that most Americans are forced to contend with on a daily basis. And they are forced to do so because of policies that she fully supports and that have been enacted by her fellow Democrats. Hitlery alone has amassed as much as $5 million in speaking fees just since leaving the State Department in 2013, raking in $200,000 per speech.

When Hitlery ran for the Democrat presidential nomination in 2008, she and ‘Slick Willie’ had earned a reported total of $109 million over just the previous seven years. RNC Chairman Reince Priebus made the point, "I think she's been out of touch with average people for a long time." He went on to say, "Whether she was flat broke or not is not the issue. It's tone deaf to average people." And on that point I agree.

In reference to her generous speaking fees, Hitlery justified things in her own unique way. She said, "I thought making speeches for money was a much better thing than getting connected with any one group or company as so many people who leave public life do." So I’m not quite sure what she was saying there. Was it that she could have gone off to be a lobbyist and that ripping people off for 200 grand a speech is better?

The Vox website published a post titled "Only a rich person could go as broke as Hillary Clinton." According to Vox, "The story with the Clintons is that they left office millions of dollars in hock to various law firms." It added, "But this wasn't some random financial misfortune that could have happened to anyone. If you found yourself in legal hot water, you wouldn't possibly be able to hire the Clintons' lawyers."

Let’s face it, there’s not a law firm anywhere that would allow us common folk to run up a multimillion-dollar tab. And the only reason that Hitlery and the ‘Slickmeister’ were able to get away with it is because it was always obvious that the old pervert had what was considered to be enormous post-presidential earnings potential. There was never any doubt that they’d be able to pay off their accumulated debt.

THE PHONY DISCONTENT OF DEMOCRATS…

Never in my life have I ever trusted anyone who called themselves a Democrat to tell me the truth. And it’s that which is the main reason that I believe very little of this talk about how it’s a growing number of Democrats who seem to be deserting Barry. I think way too much is being made of that which is absolutely nothing. We’re told that the Bergdahl case is just the latest reason many Democrats appear to be distancing themselves from Barry. But this supposed distancing is something that is purely for public consumption, because when behind closed doors I’m sure things are as cozy as ever.

We’re somehow expected to believe that there is now an increasing number of Democrats who have now simply "had enough" of Barry’s antics. We’ve even been told that some of them have gone so far as to complain, "D.C. is hard, and depressing." But it’s these same Democrats who claim to have become so disenchanted with D.C., who still remain stubbornly convinced that good comes from government. But that they can look back at the events of just the last 5 years and still be of that opinion demonstrates just how dedicated they are to the notion that all government is good government.

And as bizarre as this may sound, we’re told that somehow the White House totally underestimated the reaction the public would have regarding the release of the deserter Bergdahl in exchange for the five absolute worst Taliban terrorists held at Gitmo. And we’re supposed to be naïve enough to believe a growing number of Democrats when they tell us that they too were outraged by this apparent unilateral decision by Barry and that it was this action of his that was finally the straw that broke the camel’s back. But what was so unique about this unilateral action out of so many others?

Because after all that Barry has done to bring about all manner of economic, fiscal and social ruin to this country, it was somehow this one act of Barry’s that we’re supposed believe has now caused these Democrats to become so disillusioned? And yet, we ‘re told that the fact so much attention has remained on the growing Bergdahl scandal, from the circumstances of his disappearance to the wild beard his father grew while he was being held and even the decision by Bergdahl's hometown to cancel a homecoming celebration is simply a symbol for our hatred toward Barry.

And we’re supposed to believe that we have a growing number of Democrats who view Barry as now being bored with it all, that he’s simply become tired of being president. And Barry has been described by some as being a "talented guy but no leader." I’ll certainly agree on the point that the guy’s certainly no leader, but the only thing he seems to be truly talented at doing is telling lies. And some have said, "If he could govern half as well as he campaigns, he'd be a good-to-great president." But the fact is is that he has no interest in governing, he never has. His interest is in ‘ruling’.

The bottom line is that I’m just not sure what to make of all this faux discontent that is now supposedly taking place with those on the left. Because many of these same Democrats now expressing their discontent with Barry, are all very ardent supporters of Hitlery Clinton and will most assuredly rally around her once she officially declares that, yes, she is a candidate for 2016. This even though there is really very little difference between Barry and Hitlery. In fact there are only two, gender and race. They are identical in their political philosophy and both are disciples of Saul Alinsky. And both hate America.

And despite what we’re hearing from many of these dissolutioned Democrats, they have, over the course of his presidency, been some of Barry’s most energetic accomplices in his effort to "fundamentally transform" this country. It’s all nothing more than another election year ploy that has them trying, at all costs, to avert what many political ‘experts’ are saying is inevitable. That being, of course, the loss of control of the Senate. If things do go in their favor, after the election Democrats, once more, will be one big happy family and once again focused solely on the destruction of America.

THE MOST ADMIRED WOMAN IN THE WORLD???

Not being a woman myself, I can only assume that women, today, must have as difficult time as many men when it comes to finding someone worthy of their admiration. I only say this because it would seem that the best women can come up with, in form of someone that they can admire, comes in the person of one of the most corrupt politicians and genuinely dishonest people that one would be able find anywhere on good old planet Earth.

And you know, what does it say about someone, man or woman, who can actually allow themselves to admire a person who has absolutely no shame? Those who I choose to admire are usually those for whom I have great respect and are those I wish could be more like. Far from admiration, it’s disgust that I typically feel toward those who have managed to acquire money or power only because of their willingness to stab others in the back.

And what is it about this particular woman that seems to make her so special, so admirable and by, what appears to be, so very many? After all, what we have here is a women who is quite proud to be identified as being an advocate for women, and practically of any age, to have the right to an abortion at any time between conception and birth. And she is of the opinion that those women underage can do so without their parents knowlwdge. Admirable?

And it’s curious that this woman, seen as being so admirable, while claiming to be an advocate for women’s rights, has had very little to say when it came to speaking out against those nations where, here in the 21st century, it is seen as being perfectly acceptable for men to beat their wives, for women to be stoned for adultery, barred from being able to drive a car or prevented from being able to a seek higher education. Admirable?

And again it’s this very same woman who is a very firm believer in, and a skillful practitioner of, all manner of character assassination. And she has demonstrated, on any number of occasions, her willingness to use that tactic against the many women upon whom her philanderer/rapist of a husband has chosen to force himself upon over the many years. Although very obviously a pervert of the highest order, she sees him as being an innocent victim.

Remember now, it was according to this very woman that it was the fault of every woman who her sleazy husband chose to take advantage of, and all in order that he might enjoy his own brand of perversion. And in adding insult to injury this woman would make sure that each of these women would be run through the gutter, called every name in the book, and blamed for her husband’s rather bizarre, brand of kinkiness. Them and the "vast right wing conspiracy."

And it’s also this same woman who has a rather bizarre concept of child rearing, thinking that it should take a village, when we all know that what it really takes is simply a loving mom and dad. She seems to be believe that it’s the government that is better suited to raise a child than is the woman who brought that child into this world. Is that trait really all that admirable? I wonder. It seems that women could much better than to admire Hitlery Clinton.

And yet, many women are able see Hitlery as being worthy of being our next president. But it would seem that she is, without a doubt, the least deserving of any person I have yet heard being mentioned, on either side of the political aisle, as being a candidate in 2016. She must not be rewarded for her decades of disservice to this country. She should not be permitted to attain a position from which she would then be able to do maximum harm to our country.

SO, WHAT NUMBER OF SCANDALS WOULD BE TOO MANY???

Strangely enough, it still remains unclear whether Democrats, some of whom now appear to be distancing themselves somewhat from Barry, even yet, fully comprehend why it is that trading terrorists for a deserter, who may also be guilty of treason, and the continuing implosion of Obamacare may be problems for them. And the growing numbers of scandals has yet to impact, in any meaningful way, Barry’s ability to continue his drive to "fundamentally transform" America. And the fact that I have yet to see any significant blowback from the American people, may be why Democrats may feel things will blow over well before the election.

As Barry becomes more of what you would think would be toxic, at least to those Democrats seeking election, there are some who have, together with more friendly media outlets, stuck their necks out for him over the past six very scandal-plagued years who now at least appear to be slowly edging away. With Barry's self-inflicted Bowe Bergdahl scandal on top of the latest Obamacare debacle, vast swathes of those who managed to enroll are quite possibly ineligible, you do have to wonder. Was spokesmoron Jay Carney's sudden resignation a sign that perhaps even he knew bad news was coming down the old PR pike?

It also remains unclear what it was about the Bergdahl swap that Barry & Co. thought would actually be applauded by the American people. Because it’s pretty clear from Barry’s little Rose Garden presser that they most assuredly thought that it would be. But as things turned out it was only a few loyal Democrats and, of course, the Taliban, who reportedly slaughtered numerous goats in celebration, were applauding. I mean, it’s no secret how Barry feels about this country. So perhaps he somehow felt obligated to bring home someone who feels the same way as he does, and that was reward enough.

And, of course, it was very recently that even old Hitlery Clinton herself took it upon herself to actually commend Barry for bringing Bergdahl, the deserter, home. But then it was just yesterday, I think, that the line being pushed by those ‘news’ outlets friendly to the old girl, that Hitlery as secretary of state had actually wanted a much tougher deal, and had even promised consultation with Congress. So apparently the Democrats' presumed 2016 front-runner, already sweating because of a Benghazi scandal that just won't go away, doesn't want to also end up with what could be a Bergdahl problem as well.

And now to add a bit of insult to injury, even one of Barry’s more ardent allies in the Senate, Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, is now voicing "surprise and dismay" over the deserter Bergdahl deal. As well, some of the many Barry-friendly ‘news’ outlets like the New York Daily News are now beginning to openly turn on him, while all the New York Times could manage was a lame defense in making the claim that it remains rather "murky" whether the 2009 search for Bergdahl can be directly linked to the deaths of six soldiers. This rag will leave no excuse unused in trying to defend Barry.

We can now safely add the Bergdahl mess to what has become, for Barry, a rather impressive list of scandals that already had some Democrats distancing themselves from him ahead of the fall's midterm election, in which they fear losing control of the Senate. Obamacare topped that list even before news emerged yesterday that as many as 2 million enrollments are suspect. But there are so many others. The Veterans Administration, the IRS targeting of conservatives, the Fast and Furious guns-for-drug-gangs program, NSA spying, and the many, many foreign policy failures, from Libya, to Egypt, to Syria and the Ukraine.

It’s hard to say with any degree of certainty, if Americans may finally be hitting scandal fatigue. But the standoffish body language of top Democrats is a clear sign that they think they might be. America's liberal elite may not fully understand why any of those things are problems for voters. Obviously we’re nowhere near the number of scandals needed to cause blacks to turn their backs on their beloved Barry. And I’m not sure if there is anything he could do to cause that to happen. After all, it’s not like he can turn himself white. Short of that happening I really don’t think there’s much Barry could ever do to lose the support of blacks.

FOR DEMOCRATS AND THEIR WAR ON WOMEN…IT’S FULL SPEED AHEAD!!!

The Democrat ‘War on Women’, with Barry "Almighty" out front leading the charge, continued into May. The number of women 16 and older who were unemployed in the United States climbed by 60,000 in May. In May, there were 4,519,000 unemployed women, 60,000 more than the 4,459,000 American women who were unemployed in April. So it’s at the same time that the unemployment rate for women rose to 6.2 percent in May from 6.1 percent in April. But that number is nothing more than the direct result of Barry & Co.’s rather heavy manipulation of the numbers. Because the ‘real’ unemployment figure are well into the double-digits.

In order for someone to be counted as being among the unemployed, a person must have actively sought a job in the last four weeks and be part of what Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) calls the civilian non-institutional population (meaning a person is 16 or older and not on active duty in the military or in an institution such as a prison, mental hospital or nursing home). The number of American women who had jobs increased 128,000 from April to May, increasing from 68,376,000 to 68,504,000. From April to May, the number of women in the civilian non-institutional population increased by 89,000, climbing from 127,951,000 to 128,040,000.

Of those 128,040,000 women in the civilian non-institutional population, 73,023,000 participated in the civilian labor force, meaning, of course, they either had a job or actively sought one in the past four weeks. That put the labor force participation rate for women at 57.0 percent in May—up from the 56.9 percent it was in April. There were also 55,017,000 women who did not participate in the civilian labor force in May, meaning they neither held a job nor actively sought one. But I can’t help but wonder how big of a deal that this really is for many women, at least many single women. How important to them is it that they are unable to find a job?

Most women, for some bizarre reason, seem to think that the Democrat Party, the party that has done the most to destroy our economy, is more capable of ‘handling’ economy issues than is the Republican Party. Apparently what is the most important issue to many, but obviously not to all, women is their ability to have sex as often as possible, and with as many different partners as they may want. And they want to able to so without the fear of what might happen should they ever become faced with an ‘unwanted’ pregnancy. So they think it important that they have access to all manner of birth control and also feel that it should be paid for by the taxpayers.

I’m not naïve enough to think that young women today, or young men for that matter, would have the initiative or the forethought to consider how things done today will come to impact things tomorrow. After all, I was young once myself. But having said, I would expect them to be smart enough to figure out what it is that’s going on right before their eyes and who it is that’s primarily responsible. The fact is that more young people are unemployed today than ever before and many are back home living with mommy and daddy. And if this is as high as their aspirations go, as long as they can still screw their brains out, then they should vote Democrat.

OBAMA’S ASSAULT ON AMERICA CONTINUES…

Barry & Co. just love to tout, as well as to take complete credit for, the fact that on their watch the unemployment rate has now come down to 6.3 percent. But a fact that is typically glossed over by this cadre of socialist malcontents is the fact that the percentage of American civilians, 16 or older, who do not have a job, and who are not actively seeking one, remained at what is a 36-year high in May. So from my point of view, they really don’t have all that much that they are able to brag about.

In December, then in April, and again now in May, the labor force participation rate has been hovering around 62 percent. What that means is is that roughly 38 percent of those eligible, were not participating in the labor force during those months. Before December, the last time the labor force participation rate had sunk that low was in February 1978, which was back during the malaise of the Jimmy Carter era. Funny how when such a occurrence takes place it’s when we have a Democrat president,

In April, the number of those not in the nation’s labor force hit a record high of 92,018,000. In May, that number declined by 9,000 to 92,009,000. Yet, the participation rate remained essentially the same from April to May. In May the nation’s civilian noninstitutional population, consisting of all people 16 or older who were not in the military or an institution, hit 247,622,000. Of those, 155,613,000 participated in the labor force by either holding a job or by actively seeking one.

The 155,613,000 who participated in the labor force equaled only 62.8 percent of the 247,622,000 civilian noninstitutional population, matching (along with the 62.8 percent rate in May) the lowest labor force participation rate in 36 years. It’s interesting to note that at no time during the presidencies of Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, ‘Slick Willie’ Clinton or George W. Bush, did such a small percentage of the civilian non-institutional population either hold a job or at least actively seek one.

When Barry first took office on that very fateful day back in January 2009, one of those things that he actually did inherit from George W. Bush was a labor force participation rate of 65.7 percent. But after just four short years of having Barry at the helm, it was by the beginning of 2013, and the start of Barry’s second term, that it had already dropped to 63.6 percent. And just since January 2014, when the participation rate was 63.0, it has continued to decline, hitting a 36-year low of 62.8 percent in May.

People in the civilian noninstitutional population who did not have a job and did not actively seek one in the last four weeks are considered "not in the labor force." And it would be that number that has now climbed by nearly 12 Million, or 11,480,000 since Barry first took office, rising from 80,529,000 in January 2009 to 92,009,000 in May 2014. So here we have yet another significant achievement by Barry and further evidence regarding his success at ‘fundamentally transforming’ America.

FILE THIS ONE UNDER: GAG ME WITH A SPOON…

Rumor now has it that our less than impressive first lady, Moochelle Obummer, may now actually be considering a run for the Senate seat now occupied by Illinois Sen. Mark Kirk. Supposedly it wasn't all that long ago that such an idea would have seemed somewhat absurd, but those who are paid to hypothesize about all matters having to do with politics are once again beginning to wonder aloud about whether she might be mulling a run for Kirk's seat in 2016. Nothing surprises me anymore.

It was in a column that appeared in Reuters just this past Thursday that suggested Moochelle would be the only candidate with a large enough profile to unseat the Republican. The column also points to Obummer's recent willingness to debate the merits of her idiotic school lunch program with Republicans, her rather useless trip to China, her ability at fundraising and her even her silly stance on the kidnapped Nigerian school girls as all being signs that her tone has been turning more political.

This is not the first time that old Moochelle has been mentioned as a potential senatorial candidate, but that speculation has always focused beyond 2016. And Moochelle herself has never publicly indicated any interest in seeking political office. But at a time when the Democrats are desperate in the effort to maintain control of the Senate, she could represent the Democrats' best chance to pick up a desperately needed, and winnable, seat. Democrat pressure on her to run might get intense.

But just like a senator named Barry Obummer who decided to run for president in 2008 when many thought he should wait his turn, politics is more often about timing. And with an ego that rivals Barry’s, I wouldn’t be surprised to see her run. And, of course, Moochelle has demonstrated on any number of occasions that she possess as strong a commitment to left wing values as does her socialist husband. That to could will compel her to enter the race, to continue to 'make a difference.

According to Reuters -- "She would quickly become the most recognizable face in the Senate. Her fame and fundraising ability would command deference in a body that normally operates on seniority. Whether the recent elevation of her profile suggests a plan to run is unclear, but she will be well positioned should she jump in." There's also that 2012 Public Polling Policy survey showing Moochelle picking up 51 percent of the vote against Kirk's 40 percent if they were to have run at that time.

But let’s face it, these days nothing surprises me. And we have more than enough people holding public office that prove the point that you don’t need to be particularly bright in order to get yourself elected. And after all, she does possess one of the most important qualities necessary, these days, when running for nearly any office. She’s black, a quality that if possessed by a liberal, makes it completely unnecessary for the candidate to possess any amount of intelligence whatsoever.

So anyway, I have no doubt that should this arrogant bitch decide to run she would most likely win. Because such is the level of intelligence possessed by a majority of the American electorate of today, especially loony leftwing place like Illinois. The survival of our country simply doesn’t matter to most Americans anymore, what’s become far more important is that they continue to be on the receiving end their many taxpayer-funded goodies they now get from the government. It’s all about priorities.

THE MOST ILL-EQUIPPED MAN TO EVER BE PRESIDENT…

Ya know, it’s a pretty rare occasion when someone comes along who, while possessing none of the skills or abilities necessary to perform his job, sees it as being appropriate to compare himself to such men as George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. That takes a level of arrogance that’s rarely seen. But such a man is none other than our current president, Barack Hussein Obama.

Barry "Almighty", as I like to call him, said Thursday that he "absolutely makes no apologies" for seeking the release of the deserter/traitor Bowe Bergdahl in what has been described as a prisoner swap but was really nothing of the sort. Barry vigorously defended the exchange that has caused a furor here at home and has continued to dog him while on his European trip this week.

When it comes to getting soldiers back from war, Barry said, "We don't condition whether we make the effort to get them back." He also said Bergdahl's health had been deteriorating and "We were deeply concerned about it." It’s a shame that that same level of concern wasn’t shown for the four men who Barry left behind in Benghazi to die because it was politically convenient.

This scumbag, Bergdahl, was released following a deal between the U.S. and the Taliban that was brokered by Qatar. Five of the absolute worst Taliban detainees held in Guantanamo were released as part of the exchange. Both Republicans and Democrats have voiced their objection to the swap. Except for, of course, ‘Dingy Harry’ Reid, who apparently knew about it before hand.

Barry again made the claim that members of his administration had discussed with members of Congress in the past that such an exchange was possible. But he did not notify lawmakers in advance that he planned to release Guantanamo detainees, even though he is required to provide such notice 30 days ahead of a release. But Barry pays little attention to such things.

Barry said, "Because of the nature of the folks that we were dealing with and the fragile nature of these negotiations, we felt it was important go ahead and do what we did." He also took the opportunity to defend his announcement of the release, which he did Saturday at the White House with Bergdahl's parents at his side. Barry was obviously expecting a different outcome.

Barry said, "It was important for people to understand that this is not some abstraction, this is not a political football." And of course he went on to say, "You have a couple of parents whose kid volunteered to fight in a distant land, who they hadn't seen in five years and weren't sure whether they'd ever see again." A son who, as it turns out, was a deserter and possibly even a traitor.

He said that as commander in chief of U.S. military forces, he has a responsibility for those soldiers. He said, "I make absolutely no apologies for making sure that we get back a young man to his parents and that the American people understand that this is somebody's child and that we don't condition whether we make the effort to get them back." What a bunch of bullshit.

I hate to sound like a broken record here, but those four men who Barry was only too happy to leave in Benghazi to be murdered, were someone’s children as well. But their misfortune to find themselves in their predicament just a little too close to a presidential election. Maybe if they had been traitors instead of patriots Barry might have expended a bit more effort in trying to rescue them.

THE FUTURE IS NOT LOOKING TOO GOOD…

I find it a little odd that I keep hearing about how it is that a majority of the American people say they think that the country is now headed in the wrong direction, or about how a majority thinks that the American dream is now officially dead or about how Barry has only succeeded in making America weaker. And oddly enough, it’s even a majority of Americans who now think that this supposed ‘prisoner swap’ engineered by Barry & Co. was a really bad idea.

So I’m more than just a little confused. Because how can a majority of Americans be said to think this way when, at the very same time, it’s seems to be Hitlery Clinton that everyone wants to see elected as Barry’s successor? After all, she has been a major player in this country having now been moved in the wrong direction, as secretary of state she contributed much in making America weaker, and she was very much in favor of that recent "prisoner swap’.

So which is it? What is it that the American people really want, because they can’t have it both ways? Do they really want to see a change in the direction that our country is currently on and a revival of the American dream? The reason for my confusion is the fact that in another recent poll it’s presumed 2016 Democrat candidate Hitlery Clinton who is leading her possible GOP rivals in the critical swing state of Pennsylvania in an early look at the race for the White House.

The poll to which I refer was conducted by Quinnipiac University from May 29-June 2, shows old Hitlery with a lead over Chris Christie of 45 percent to 41 percent. Among women, with whom the highest priority must be birth control, she leads by 51 percent to 37 percent, while men favor Christie at 45 percent to 38 percent. The survey which consisted of 1,308 registered voters also found that Hitlery has an even wider lead over every other potential GOP nominees.

It according to this same survey that we see that in a match-up with Rand Paul, old Hitlery would have a lead of 51 percent compared to 37 percent for Paul. Amd in a race against Mike Huckabee or Jeb Bush, old Hitlery would hold 51 percent support, while Huckabee would trail at 36 percent and Bush at 35 percent. The lead is slightly narrower if the match-up is with Paul Ryan. In that instance, Hitlery would have 50 percent support compared to Ryan at 38 percent.

It was this same poll that also found that Barry's approval rating continues to be in the negative in Pennsylvania, at 44 percent compared to 53 percent. In the February poll, his approval rating was negative 42 percent compared to 54 percent. Women in the state tend to be more divided about Barry's job performance at 47 percent compared to 48 percent. Men, meanwhile, give Barry a 40 percent approval rating compared to 58 percent who disapprove.

What’s the most important thing to Americans today? I would argue that the most important thing to a majority of us is to make sure we don’t need to pay taxes and to ensure that we get to remain on whatever government assistance programs we are currently able t take advantage of. Which most definitely tilts the playing field in favor of someone like Hitlery Clinton. We have now officially been overrun by the latest Democrat voting block, the parasite class.

The bottom line here is that if we are to have any hope, whatsoever, of being able to change the direction that our country is currently on, something very specific is going to have to take place. Those folks who have the rather nasty habit of doing little more than to perpetually walk around with their hand out, thinking, for whatever reason, that they are somehow owed something, must come to the realization that their free ride does not come without a very significant price.

Something that far too many Americans understand is the fact that the freedom is really a very fragile thing. And it takes a group effort by all involved to guarantee that it continues from on one generation to the next. Because when one generation assumes itself to be more important than those who will be coming after them, the ability to live in freedom is jeopardized for all. Therefore it is incumbent every single American to act responsibly and to not provide to the government opportunities to insert itself into the private lives of the citizens.

IN THE WORLD OF SPORTS FRANCISES IT’S OK TO BE RACIST, BUT ONLY IF YOU’RE BLACK…

If the most recent little racial dustup involving Donald Sterling and accusations of racism prove anything, it’s that if you’re the black owner of an NBA team, it’s acceptable to be racist. But if you’re a white guy who happens to own an NBA team, well then, you must NEVER exhibit any behavior that might be construed, even remotely, as being racist.

Apparently professional race baiter, and everyone’s favorite faux preacher, Al "Bull Horn" Sharpton and a few other supposed ‘civil rights’ leaders are saying that they have now had what they called a "constructive" meeting about ‘racial issues’ in the NBA with Commissioner Adam Silver. With Silver being relatively new to the job, Sharpton, I’m sure, saw an easy mark.

This group of supposed ‘civil rights’ leaders met with Silver just today for, what was said to be, more than an hour in the league's Manhattan offices. It was old ‘Bull Horn’ Sharpton who said they stressed that disgraced Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling and his estranged wife must never be allowed to have any kind of a role in the league.

Now I’m sure that everyone knows by now that Sterling has been officially banned for life from the NBA and fined $2.5 million for making ‘racist’ remarks that were recorded by his girlfriend. Silver had also worked to oust him as owner of the team until his wife, Shelly Sterling, concluded a deal to sell it to former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer for $2 Billion.

But racism, at least in the world of sports franchises, seems to be a matter of perception. Because it was back in 2010, during the same time that he co-owned the Brooklyn Nets that Jay-Z held a party for fans, but ordered bouncers not to allow in any white folks. Strangely enough the NBA leadership chose to take no action whatsoever. So what’s different here?

And another little fact about this racist asshole, Jay-Z, is the fact that he openly supports one of the most radical white hating organization that you’ll find anywhere on the planet. It’s called "5%er Nation" and they claim they are preparing for a race war to exterminate all white people. The group makes the claim that white people are biological devils.

And as we also know our buddy Jay-Z is also a foul-mouth rapper. And anyone familiar with the supposed lyrics to what are referred to as being ‘songs’ must also be aware that the lyrics of these ‘songs’ do little more than to attack white people. So it becomes rather difficult not to see this guy as being a racist. And yet he had no trouble owning an NBA team.

But things operate pretty much the same way in the NFL. Remember back when Rush Limbaugh was going be one of several owners of the St. Louis Rams. I seem to recall it was Sharpton making accusations of racism back then as well. But instead of being told to go f*ck himself, the commissioner of the NFL did little more than to kiss his lying black ass.

OOPS, THE NRA CHOOSES TO MESS WITH TEXAS…

Ya know, there’s an old saying, and I mean really old in that it dates back to, most likely, before Texas was even a state, that says that you just don’t mess with Texas. But apparently at least some of those over at the NRA have either never heard of it or, for whatever reason, simply chose to ignore it. Because the National Rifle Association recently decided to release a statement saying that open carriers of firearms should practice more discretion and even went so far as to call the behavior of some as being "downright weird." And now the group labelled as being ‘weird’, Open Carry Texas (OCT), is fighting back.

According to one source, the group said that the NRA's statements were both "ignorant" and "unnecessary." In taking to it’s page on Facebook, OCT wrote, "The NRA has refused to learn for themselves how Open Carry Texas (OCT) conducts itself other than what the liberal media and Bloomberg-funded gun-control extremists have falsely portrayed." It went on to say, "The real ignorance in their statement is that it was completely unnecessary. OCT – along with Come And Take It Texas, Texas Carry and Gun Rights Across America – has already changed its methods and the whole world is aware of that."

The group is reported to have said, "The more the NRA continues to divide its members by attacking some aspects of gun rights instead of supporting all gun rights, the more support it will lose." Adding, "Already, OCT members are posting pictures of themselves cutting up their life membership cards. If they do not retract their disgusting and disrespectful comments, OCT will have no choice but to withdraw its full support of the NRA and establish relationships with other gun rights organizations that fight for ALL gun rights, instead of just paying them lip service the way the NRA appears to be doing."

According to an earlier reports, the NRA felt compelled to make the unusual statements after multiple chain restaurants started refusing customers entry if they were openly carrying arms. One columnist associated with Mediate, Evan McMurry, wrote that the NRA wants gun owners to be more discreet, "lest the sight of heavily armed groups descending upon public spaces backfire ... and produce more stringent gun restrictions." The NRA's legislative arm wrote: "Here at NRA, we are big fans of responsible behavior … legal mandates, not so much," according to a Mediaite report.

But apparently someone at the NRA came to their senses. Because after realizing that they may have taken things a bit too far, the NRA has now apologized to OCT for calling it "downright weird." Chris Cox, the executive director of the NRA’s policy wing, said that the organization was wrong to condemn OCT supporters for showing up with large rifles at stores and restaurants as part of their open carry protests. Their actions have led to a public outcry over the "scary" guns with some chains, including Starbucks and Chipotle, now urging their customers not to bring weapons into their stores.

And it was Mr. Cox who said on the NRA’s Internet channel, "The truth is an alert went out that referred to this type of behavior as weird or somehow not normal, and that was a mistake." He went on to say, "It shouldn’t have happened and I’ve had a discussion with the staffer who wrote that piece and expressed his personal opinion. And our job isn’t to criticize the lawful behavior of fellow gun owners. So this is a distraction and certainly the media has had a field day with it." One would think that with a state-controlled media that’s so rabidly anti-gun, someone should have known what would happen.

THE BLATANT DISHONESTY OF THOSE WHO STILL PUSH ‘CLIMATE CHANGE’…

Well according to former Democrat, and now Independent, Joe Lieberman and some other ‘climate change’ nut by the name of Tim Profeta, who heads up something referred to as the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University, we should all now be applauding Barry for his plan to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. But, also according to these same two ‘climate change’ advocates, politics, thankfully, will prevent the new standards from making much of an impact. It was these two men recently got together and co-authored an article published in that left of center publication, Politico.

Barry just this week announced his latest proposal to combat that which does not exist by using his executive powers to cut carbon emissions by an average of 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030. Now I’m sure it goes without saying that the environmentalist crowd was thrilled with Barry’s efforts while those with a bit more commonsense were very much opposed to this latest attack by Barry on the gas and oil industry, properly characterizing what Barry has chosen to embark upon as being nothing short of a "war on coal." Barry chooses to ignore completely the resources that would make this country energy independent.

If executed exactly as it has been proposed, Barry’s little ‘climate change’ initiative, which is to be regulated, of course, by his rabidly out of control Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could reverse the United States’ long-standing policy of sitting on the sidelines. At least that’s how Lieberman and Profeta put it in their idiotic little article. You see, it was following the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the international ‘treaty’ mandating industrialized countries to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions, that the U.S. Senate voted, and rightfully so, to disavow the economy-killing document.

But global warming and its supposed effects have garnered increasing attention over the years, primarily with those on the left end of the political spectrum. But these two go on to observe, "There is no reason for optimism that any time soon there will be enough votes in Congress to adopt comprehensive legislation that will stem the tide of harmful climate change." They make the statement, "Congress’s continuing failure to even begin to deal with the challenge of climate change has left President Obama and the EPA with no choice but to use their legal powers to try avert a climate catastrophe. It would be irresponsible not to do so."

But being the devoted believers that they are, they stubbornly maintain that ‘climate change’ continues to remain a very viable threat and one that we will someday all be made to deal with. And even though the entire theory is based on nothing more that faulty science and data seriously manipulated by those on the political, and scientific, left, over time, they claim, the supposed reality of climate change, and the havoc wreaked by greenhouse gas emissions, will force Congress to act. But their claims are nothing more than pure propaganda because there is absolutely no basis in ANY scientific fact that backs them up.

These two go on to write, "The EPA regulations cannot solve the issue on their own. The agency’s actions, however, can stimulate the innovation in the states necessary to design smart approaches to reduce pollution that can be translated across the country. And if those programs succeed, they may also help us build political consensus to act, because their example will show that we do not have to choose between addressing climate change and growing the economy." But the actual fact of the matter is that there is NO issue that is in need of being solved. Other than to point out that this is all just a lie.

Barry’s proposal calls for states to play a leading role in cutting carbon emissions, allowing for a cap-and-trade market, and encouraging states to develop ways to reduce the reliance on coal. For the time being, according to Lieberman and Profeta, "this week’s actions by Barry and the EPA are the best we can do to address the problem in the politics of today." The BEST we can do? How is it that the BEST we can do involves the forcing of Americans, who are already seeing their disposable income shrink to almost nothing because of the rapidly rising costs of food, healthcare and gasoline, to spend even more on electricity for their homes?

OBAMA…AN INEPT COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF, OR SOMETHING FAR MORE SINISTER…

Whether it’s been out of sheer incompetence on his part, or a concerted, albeit rather twisted, effort to see just how many service men and women he could manage to get killed, the fact is that 86 percent of all U.S. troops who have been wounded in the war in Afghanistan have incurred their injuries since January 2009, the very month that, as it just so happens, Barry "Almighty" was first inaugurated. And that would be according to figures provided by Barry’s own Department of Defense.

The Afghan War, as many will remember, began back on Oct. 7, 2001, and in the more than 12 years since then, 19,793 U.S. service personnel have been wounded in and around Afghanistan in support of U.S. military activities in that country. And out of that 19,793, 17,095, or 86.4%, were injured between the start of February 2009 and May 2014. It was a total of 2,698 of the 19,793, or 13.6 percent, who were wounded before Barry "Almighty" would assume his role as commander-in-chief.

Also to date, we have now had a total of 2,198 U.S. military personnel who have lost their lives in the Afghanistan War. And it has been through sheer determination that Barry has been quite successful in his efforts to significantly increase battlefield casualties. Because out of the 2,198 who have now lost their lives, it has been 1,629 U.S. military personnel, or 74.1%, who have died since Barry assumed the role of commander-in-chief. A role he has used like no other before him.

Between 2001 to 2013, there were 762 military personnel who incurred some form of major limb amputations in the Afghan War. From 2003 until the first quarter of 2009, the majority of the major limb amputations due to battlefield injuries occurred in Operation Iraqi Freedom. However, it was in the second quarter of 2009 that the trend changed, and since that time the majority of the major limb amputations due to battlefield injuries have occurred in Operation Enduring Freedom.

Look, I think we all know, and with some degree of certainty, that Barry hates, maybe even loathes, those who serve in the military as well as those who have served in the past. And when you take everything into account, between the VA’s treatment of veteran’s, Barry’s idiotic rules of engagement, and his most recent scheme of trading 5 cold-blooded killers for a deserter, you’d think even a blind Democrat would be able to recognize just how much this guy hates those in the military.

And what kind of a sick individual must one be in order to devise a strategy that most assuredly would result in more of your own troops being killed or wounded? But what I find just as disturbing is the fact that so many of our senior military commanders continue to allow him to get away with it. If they truly cared about the troops serving under them we would be seeing mass resignations. But you’ll notice that no such thing is taking place, which indicates, to me at least, a condoning of Barry’s actions.

As well, it seems that there are very few Americans, as well, who object to what is so very obviously Barry’s rather unusual, and somewhat grisly, method of reducing the size of our military. Many seem to be bothered very little by the fact that our service members have been reduced to being used for not much more than cannon fodder by a president who seems to be quite determined in bringing about the extermination of as many of those in uniform as possible. And yet, where’s the outrage.

Now I’m quite sure that most, if not all, Democrats have absolutely no problem with the rather unorthodox manner in which Barry approaches his duties as commander-in-chief. Because what we’re seeing here really isn’t all that unusual whenever we have a Democrat occupying the Oval Office. We’ve just never seen things taken to the extreme that we are witnessing today. We’ve never had a commander-in-chief who played, as Barry has, such an active role in the death of so many of our own soldiers.

THE LIES AND THE LYING LIARS WHO CONTINUE TO TELL THEM…

Well it would seem that this little swap of Barry’s involving a supposed prisoner of war/deserter and five cold-blooded Muslim terrorists accomplished just what it was that Barry wanted it to do. Because not only has Barry been able to engineer a way of finally getting the VA scandal off the front pages, but he was also able to get five of his Muslim brothers out of Gitmo and back to their respective homelands. Just as Barry had hoped, the Taliban’s release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl pretty much dominated the Sunday talk shows, and pushed Friday’s resignation of VA Secretary Eric Shinseki from the headlines.

The Sunday shows were dominated with all manner of both administration officials who were out there determined to do their best to defend what was so very obviously nothing more than a blatant political decision and Republicans who were just as determined to point out how this was nothing more than yet another example of how Barry seems to think that he is above the law by arbitrarily deciding to transfer five of the most dangerous Taliban members from Guantánamo Bay to Qatar in exchange for the release of this guy Bergdahl, a guy who many are now saying is really nothing but a deserter.

And as was to be expected members of this corrupt gang of political misfits hit back hard against the implication that Barry "Almighty" had negotiated with terrorists and broke the law requiring him to notify Congress 30 days before the release or transfer of Guantánamo Bay prisoners. Old douchebag Chuck Hagel and national security adviser, the well-known Beghazi liar, Susan Rice appeared in separate Sunday shows and claimed that Barry acted well within his constitutional authority as commander in chief, forced to act claiming that Bergdahl's health was supposedly deteriorating. Sorry, but I’m just not buying any of it,

"We didn’t negotiate with terrorists," Hagel claimed on NBC’s "Meet the Press." "Sgt. Bergdahl is a prisoner of war, that’s a normal process in getting your prisoners back. ... We don’t let anyone out of Guantánamo, and I will not sign off on any detainee coming out of Guantánamo unless I am assured … that we can efficiently mitigate any risk to American security." Ok, so how many of you believe that? These guys would let all of these murderers go if they thought they could get away with it. Come on folks, you don’t need to be a genius to see that this was well beyond being a simple prisoner exchange.

And then we had that waste-of-skin-Rice go on CNN's "State of the Union" and make the claim that Defense Department officials had consulted with Department of Justice officials prior to the transfers. The Justice Department? She said, "Given the acute urgency of the health condition of Sgt. Bergdahl and given the president's constitutional responsibilities, it was determined that it was necessary and appropriate not to adhere to the 30-day notification requirements because it would have potentially meant that the opportunity to get Sgt. Bergdahl would have been lost." What a bunch of BULLSHIT!

And then we have those like Democrat Claire McCaskill who dismissed the GOP attacks as nothing more than politics. "We save an American life on foreign soil, the president gets criticized. We lose American lives on foreign soil, the president gets criticized," she said on Fox's "Fox News Sunday." "Are you seeing a theme here? It’s politics." But this moron’s logic is a bit flawed. Because while we’re happy to exchange 5 of the worst we had at Gitmo for some deserter to get a scandal off the front pages, we saw no problem with leaving four Americans to be butchered because it was too close to an election.

Barry & CO., of course, dodged any and all questions pertaining to whether or not this guy, Bergdahl, deserted the military as well as how it was that came to be ‘captured more than five years ago. There now seems to be more than a few critics who allege that he simply walked off his base in Eastern Afghanistan in 2007 and in the company of three Afghans. Despite that claim, this idiot Rice made the statement that he performed on the battlefield with both distinction and honor. ABC News "This Week" host George Stephanopoulos asked Rice whether allegations desertion would be "investigated."

In answering the question Rice said, "Certainly, anybody who has been held in those conditions in captivity for five years has paid an extraordinary price, but that is really not the point," I’d say the price this guy paid has yet to be determined. And whatever price it is, I think, can be said to pale in comparison to the price paid by four Americans in Benghazi, as well as the six soldiers who were killed in the effort to find this guy who may very well not have wanted to be found. But, let’s face, the objective, as defined by Barry & Co., was accomplished, in that it has been several days without nary a mention of the VA.

CORRINE BROWN…DUMBER THAN DIRT…

Down here in Florida we have something that is quite unique in the person of Corrine Brown, a Democrat, who is living proof that a human being, of a sort, can actually live, and get herself elected, while possessing only one partially functioning brain cell. And it’s according to this genius that over 4 million Florida residents will somehow die if Medicaid is not expanded here. It was during Wednesday night’s Veteran’s Affairs Committee hearing that this reject from a mental ward made her bizarre accusation, saying, "In fact, we’ve got over 4 million people that need medical expansion of health care that we are sending back, that’s going to die because they’re not getting the quality health care that they need."

The object of Brown’s supposed outrage was, of course, Florida’s governor, Rick Scott, who, as it just so happens, is a Republican. All that she was really doing was to offer up her own, very obviously, politically motivated opinion regarding Scott’s announcement that he plans to sue the U.S. Department of Veteran’s Affairs for not allowing state hospital officials to inspect federal medical care facilities. Brown said, "I am going to put in the record a letter that I’m sending to the governor of the State of Florida. He is grandstanding, indicating that he is suing the VA, for the fact that he is sending people to the various VA facilities around the State of Florida and he wants to take a look at the records."

Brown made the idiotic claim that Scott’s legal maneuver amounts to nothing more than election year grandstanding because "the state has absolutely nothing to do with the VA." She also focused on Scott for his not pushing for an expansion of Medicaid in Florida. "In fact, we’ve got over 4 million people that need medical expansion of health care that we are sending back, that’s going to die because they’re not getting the quality health care that they need," she said. Scott announced his plan for a lawsuit earlier in the week. He claims that it was on seven separate occasions state inspectors were prevented from inspecting the facilities at six federal VA hospitals. Personally I think it’s a pretty good idea.

I’m not sure whether it’s because we might have something in the water down here or what, but for some reason we do have the nasty little habit of sending some rather bizarre folks off to Washington to represent us, of which Brown is only one of many. Joining her in this weird cast of characters is Debbie Wizzerman Schultz impeached District Court Judge, Alcee Hastings, one of only eight federal officials in American history to be impeached and removed from office, we also have that certified loon, Alan Grayson, Frederica Wilson and, of course, the earwax eater, Joe Garcia.  So you can plainly see the delegation that we here in Florida send off to Washington closely resembles what could be seen at any carnival sideshow.

AND THE ‘BLAME BUSH’ MANTRA CONTINUES…

Having only been in office for 5 years Barry has still managed to compile what is a rather long, and equally impressive, list of scandals. A list that I’m quite confident would have made even Richard Nixon blush. Since the very beginning of the most recent scandal, this one involving the VA, Barry "Almighty" had repeatedly claimed to take full responsibility. But when it comes to scandals, Barry has one thing that Richard Nixon didn’t have, he has George W. Bush. Because on Friday instead of taking full responsibility for the events that have occurred, in what has become the stand modus operandi for our "community agitator" of a president, Barry proceeded to spread the blame around, claiming that the problem "predates my presidency."

It was at the news conference where he announced the resignation of the VA Secretary, the highly incompetent Eric Shinseki, that Barry "Almighty" also took the opportunity to do that which he has been doing practically since day one of his less than transparent, and boldly corrupt, administration. He did his best to weave what would be a timeline that led right back to the Bush administration. And in once again lying through his teeth, Barry said, "In terms of responsibility, as I've said before, this is my administration; I always take responsibility for whatever happens, and this is an area that I have a particular concern with." It was then that he, and in his very typically arrogant fashion, boldly declared, "This predates my presidency."

Barry said, "When I was in the Senate, I was on the Veterans Affairs Committee." And he then went on to say, "I heard first-hand veterans who were not getting the kinds of services and benefits that they had earned. And I pledged that if I had the privilege of serving as commander in chief and president, that we would fix it. The VA is a big organization that has had problems for a very long time ...." Barry’s very brief, and really quite insignificant, tenure in the Senate ran from January 2005 until November 2008, during the administration of President George W. Bush. But it was only three short months into his own new administration that Barry began pointing the finger of blame at Bush for nearly every problem that he encountered.

"By any measure," the president said on March 4, 2009, "my administration has inherited a fiscal disaster," The Washington Post reported, adding: "Obama had initially been content to leave partisan defense strategy to his proxies, but as the fiscal picture has continued to darken, he has appeared more willing to risk his image as a politician who is above petty partisanship to personally remind the public of Bush's legacy." Apparently this strategy still works, at least if you can believe the Communist News Network (CNN). Because according to a CNN survey that was conducted back in February, it would appear that most Americans still blame Bush for the bad economy even five years after the "official" end of the recession.

Let’s just say for the sake of argument that this nutty CNN poll accurately reflects the sentiment, and the intelligence, of the American people. I mention intelligence because how is it that anyone, well anyone who isn’t black, can look at the economic policies that have been put into place by Barry, and his party, over the course of the last 5 years, policies the specific purpose of which were to cripple our economy to the point where any kind of a ‘real’ recovery is now nearly impossible, and still say our current economic woes are tied to Bush? And it’s the same with the VA. What problems there were that existed when this asshole took office have now, through a combination of neglect and sheer incompetence, proceeded to get so much worse.

The only reason that this boob Shinseki even got the job in the first place was because he was a rather vocal critic of George W. Bush. So I suppose in that respect you could say that all of this ‘is’ Bush’s fault. Look, Bush had his faults, all that ‘compassionate conservatism’ crap which resulted in some pretty crazy spending. But when he was elected Barry told us all that he was just the guy to get things going in the right direction. But instead of focusing in getting things fixed, he instead went straight to work "fundamentally transforming" this country, and has now succeeded to the point where our country is barely recognizable compared to what it looked like when Barry first took office. Blame Bush? No, I don’t think so, I blame Barry "Almighty"!!