THE LEFT BECOMES EVEN FURTHER UNHINGED…

The closer we get to December 19th, the date which the Electoral College will officially make Donald Trump our president, the more unhinged those on the left become.  And their attempt to play spoiler would seem to know no bounds.  First their election recount ploy turned out to be pretty much of a bust, and blaming Russia for installing Donald Trump as a Putin-puppet President doesn’t seem to be making much headway for them, so now the left has turned its desperate sights on the members of the electoral college in what can only be described as being a Hail Mary attempt to sway just enough of them to change their vote on December 19th.

And is toward that end that a movement which refers to itself as ‘Unite for America’ has now produced a Public Service Announcement (PSA) video in which D-list and/or all manner of has-been, washed up old celebrities plead with the electors to help "change the course of history."  Their pathetic little website reads: "We are a multi-partisan movement of concerned citizens and volunteers, united against the unprecedented threat of an unqualified candidate taking our nation's highest office."   Funny though, not one of these clowns seemed to be the least bit concerned about a candidate's qualifications when Barry “Almighty” was elected. 

But then perhaps that was because in that particular instance they approved of his left leaning, anti-America agenda.  What they now seem to not approve of is a candidate who might actually undo the damage that Barry has wreaked upon this country.  This merry band of malcontents is apparently led by that legendary loser Martin Sheen, who while he has never been president, did play one on TV.  Other leftwing "celebrities" such as Debra Messing, James Cromwell, BD Wong, Noah Wyle, Moby, Mike Farrell, and Loretta Swit also urge electors to "vote their conscience." Check out the short PSA, and prepare to be underwhelmed by their actorly sincerity.

Let’s not forget that even ‘IF’ enough electors were to change their vote, the election would then go to the House of Representatives for a decision, and since the House is GOP-controlled, one can assume that Trump would still end up in the White House.  But let us also keep in mind what the true motivation is for this continuing left driven political sideshow.  It’s not really to overturn the election results, but instead to provide to the left with an opportunity to make the claim that Trump won neither the popular nor the electoral vote, and thus his victory is illegitimate. That would give the left justification for all kinds of political mischief to derail a Trump presidency.

And let’s be honest here, that's the left's real goal here, not to support the President-elect but to expend every effort to subvert him at each and every turn, if not actually overthrow him.  Remember back when George W. Bush was in office and how it was that Hitlery, and a number of other Democrats, claimed that dissent was the highest form of patriotism?  And then after Barry took office it was those very same individuals on the left suddenly claimed dissent was nothing less that racist and treasonous and unconstitutional and obstructionist.  Now that a Republican is headed back to the White House, dissent has once again become fashionable and patriotic!

I think it fair to say that the dishonest, and blatantly corrupt, Democrat Party of today has now become so infested with socialists/progressives that is has gotten to the point where it has, as a collective, decided to completely abandon democracy and go for full throttle subversion.  Where there once was conservative Democrats such political animals have now long been extinct Democrats like to make the claim the Ronald Reagan would not be welcome in the Republican Party today, but let’s face it, would a John Kennedy or a ‘Scoop’ Jackson, to name just a couple, be welcome in the Democrat Party of 2016.  Somehow I very much doubt it.   

As I have mentioned more than just a few times before, he who was to have been a boon to the Democrat Party for the next 40 years, will, in fact, be leaving the party being little more than a shadow of its former self.  Losses in the Era of Barry (2010 - 2016) has the Democrats losing 10 seats in the Senate, losing 63 seats in the House, losing 13 governorships across the USA, and losing nearly 950 state legislature seats lost across the USA.  And let’s not forget the fact that Hitlery won only 300 of the nation’s 3200 counties. America has said "no more" to the radical, extremist, elitist, corrupt, deceptive and bigoted Democrat Party.

There is no way around the fact that the Democrat Party has become a regional party of urban enclaves. Democrats are essentially furious that America is a geographically and demographically immense country.  Given their druthers they'd allow for 'voting' only on the west coast narrow strip, Chicago, Austin, Atlanta, Chicagoland and the strip from DC to Boston.  And nowhere else. The problem for them is twofold. 1) the world doesn't work that way and 2) it leaves them as a parasitic elite reliant on everyone else for their survival.  Oh they can clatter on about how much money they return to the government, but WE grow the food, we run the factories, etc.

At this point I don't care what we have to do.  Whether it’s to write it down, chisel it in stone, carve it into a tree or whatever else we have to do we must never forget what it is that we are witnessing here today.  And we must never let our children forget it either. Never before have the Democrat Party and its many allies in the media, our supposed institutions of higher learning, Hollyweird and wherever else, dropped their mask of faux patriotism to so blatantly reveal their Anti-American sentiment, anti-Constitution agenda driven Fascism for ALL of America to see.  And it is up to US to never forget.  NEVER!!

I hope that every moderate voter, every fence sitter and even every nonvoter out there, is watching this so they can see for themselves how over-privileged and immature adults act when they don't get what they see themselves as being entitled to. I want them to see the kind of disrespectful undisciplined juveniles they almost put in the White House.  A bunch of childish rich kids who point fingers at the republican rich while they themselves have more money than they'll ever be able to spend.  Who only preach the Constitution when they get what they want, and if not, they attack the Constitution and burn flags. This is the shit bullet America almost got.

I'm sooo glad these ‘celebrities’ are sooo much smarter than all of us common folk! How else would we know how to survive in a country that is filled with people who don't seem to know which sex they are, or what bathroom to use, or who use diaper pins to feel safe, who cry at every word used, and who try to find their safe place! Now I can only assume that these Hollyweird kooks view themselves as being the cavalry riding to America’s rescue and our Electoral College members being in need of these half-baked celebrities to enlighten them.  What a bunch of snowflake zombies we have in Hollyweird!  And they are so out of touch with those outside their bubble. 

THE MOST RACIALLY DIVISIVE PRESIDENT EVER…

When one stops to think about all that could have been with the election of our first black president, it makes all the more disappointing everything that has transpired since Barack Hussein Obama first set foot into the Oval Office.  Not once over the course of the last eight years has our current president made any sort of an attempt to bring this country together but what’s truly sad is the reason why.  Because, you see, the reason is politics.  It simply wasn’t politically expedient for him to do so.  It wasn’t beneficial for his party to do so.  Because what’s best for his party, again politically speaking, is to keep the country divided, to pit blacks against whites, women against men, gays against straights and on and on.  Unity doesn’t play well for the Democrats.  Conflict works much better, because when Americans can be made to fight with one another we are less apt to see what it is that the Democrats are actually up to. 

Which brings me to Barry’s recent appearance, earlier this week, on Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show”.  It was then that Barry described America as a place still struggling to overcome its "legacies of slavery, Jim Crow, colonialism, and racism."  Of course Barry failed to mention that such events were also very much part of the history of his party.  Appearing on "The Daily Show," Barry was asked by host Trevor Noah about race, naturally, because the left is obsessed with it, not getting beyond it, but with keeping racial grievances alive and keeping that tension in the forefront of everyone's consciousness.  Noah asked Barry how it is that he is able to "skirt that line between speaking your mind and sharing your true opinions on race whilst, at the same time, not being seen to alienate some of the people you are talking to."   Where else but on a ‘fake news’ program such as this could one expect to hear such an idiotic question asked of the man who is one the most racist individuals to ever hold his office? 

Asked how he managed to deliver his “true opinions” on race while avoiding alienating people, Barry responded, You know, my general theory is that, if I was clear in my own mind about who I was, comfortable in my own skin and had clarity about the way in which race continues to be this powerful factor in so many elements of our lives. But, that it is not the only factor in so many aspects of our lives, that we have, by no means overcome the legacies of slavery and Jim Crow and colonialism and racism, but that the progress we’ve made has been real and extraordinary — if I’m communicating my genuine belief that those who are not subject to racism can sometimes have blind spots or lack of appreciation of what it feels to be on the receiving end of that, but that doesn’t mean that they’re not open to learning and caring about equality and justice and that I can win them over because there is goodness in the majority of people.” 

Barry said he has never had to bite his tongue as President, but he has pondered how to deliver certain messages "diplomatically" and "in a way that it’s received”.  Barry said, “So there have been very few instances where I’ve said, “Well, that was racist, you are racist.” There have been times where I’ve said, “You know, you might not have taken into account the ongoing legacy of racism in why we have so many black men incarcerated. And since I know that you believe in the Constitution and believe in justice and believe in liberty, how about if we try this?”  The notion that Barry believes in the Constitution, which he has described as a flawed, living document, is laughable -- as is the notion that "so many black men" are incarcerated because they are victims of racism. How about if we try this, Barry, acknowledging that those men are in prison because they were convicted of crimes?  Barry went on to say, “Now, some might say, well, you’re not speaking fully truth to power because of that diplomacy. But I don’t think that trying to appeal to the better angels of our nature, as Lincoln put it, is somehow compromised. There may be times where you just have to call things out and name names.”  

You mean like when Barry accused the Cambridge police of "acting stupidly" for arresting his friend, black academic Henry Louis Gates?   Barry went on to tell Noah, “But the challenge we face today, when it comes to race, is rarely the overt Klansman-style racism and typically has more to do with the fact that, you know, people got other stuff they want to talk about and it’s sort of uncomfortable.”  The fact that overt Klansman-style racism is rare would seem to be an indication that this country has overcome its legacy of slavery. And perhaps people don't want to talk about racism all the time because that's not how you solve it.  And he added, “It’s somebody not getting called back for an interview, although it’s never explicit. Or it’s, you know, who gets the TV acting job, the actress who doesn’t quite look the part, and what does that mean? And in that environment, where you’re not talking necessarily about cut and dried racist behavior, but rather about the complex ways in which society is working these issues through, you know — trying to reach folks in ways that they can hear, I think, is important.”

Look, what's happening across our once-great republic is contrived and well-orchestrated state sponsored mayhem the purpose of which is to divide people by race, class and any other means.  It's dishonesty. To actually deal honestly with issues of race will require blacks to confront their own racial bigotry and hate.  It will also require them to discard the demagoguery of their community organizers, men like Jackson, Sharpton, Farrakhan and, yes, even Barry himself, who are no more than grievance peddlers with a vested financial interest in keeping things exactly as they are.  It will require them to turn toward self-reliance and away from the opiate of government entitlements.  And it will require a return to family values that are so lacking within their communities.  It will require them to focus on their own solutions and turn away from the same old tired excuses.  And, it will require them to stop their own self-destructive tendencies.

It will require a realization that only they can pull themselves from the abyss in order to enjoy the opportunities that the nation offers to everyone.  And what it the likelihood and any of these things will take place let alone all of them?  The fact of the matter is, if you can't make it in the U.S.A., you can't make it anywhere.  The race hucksters don't want people to be judged on the content of their character because they profit from identity politics. They don't want people being oblivious to skin color. They want such divisions on people's minds all the time. Barry has done more to fan the flames of racial division in this country than even Democrat Robert Byrd in his hay day as a Klansmen.  I base my assessment of an individual on their actions and attitudes. Race is not even a factor.  Because if you're an asshole, you're an asshole.  Plain and simple. The color of your skin really has nothing to do with it.  We get into problems once we start to look at data. 

Crime rates, income rates incarceration rates, rates of children born to unwed mothers, the list goes one.  When these are proportionally higher among a certain ethnic group others tend to prejudge based on ethnicity.  When members of the ethnic group fail to take responsibility for their actions and poor choices, and attempt to blame others for their own mistakes or bad decisions, the prejudice increases exponentially.  For decades Blacks in this country have been conditioned to view themselves as being society’s victims, when in fact what they are actually the victims of their own ignorance.  For the last 50 years they have allowed themselves to be convinced to vote against what was in their own best interest.  It’s really quite amazing that they and continued to vote for those whose only interest is to keep them in poverty.  And yet it remains those of us the right who are routinely referred to as being the racists responsible for blacks inability to escape poverty.

‘GANG OF FOUR’ HELPS TO CREATE AND TO SPREAD ‘FAKE NEWS’…

It would appear that we are witnessing the formation of yet another congressional ‘gang of whatever’, this one being a ‘Gang of Four’.  A gang comprised of two our illustrious RINOs who have teamed up two Democrat senators in an effort to spread the ‘fake news’ that the Russians somehow interfered in our most recent presidential election.  It was just this past Sunday that these four stooges came together and released a joint statement urging a bipartisan investigation into ‘alleged’ Russian hacking of the U.S. election.  The allegations of Russian interference in the presidential election should "should alarm every American," they said, urging Congress to investigate further without allowing it to become a partisan issue.  The RINO simply can’t bring themselves to believe that TRUMP actually won, and the Democrats refuse to accept that their “most qualified candidate to ever run for president’, LOST!

The statement came from incoming the newly minted Senate Minority leader Chuck Schumer, Armed Services Committee Chairman and Ranking Member, John McCain and Jack Reed, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, and it read, in part, as follows: "Democrats and Republicans must work together, and across the jurisdictional lines of the Congress, to examine these recent incidents thoroughly and devise comprehensive solutions to deter and defend against further cyber-attacks."  These boobs went on to say, "This cannot become a partisan issue."  And they added, "The stakes are too high for our country. We are committed to working in this bipartisan manner, and we will seek to unify our colleagues around the goal of investigating and stopping the grave threats that cyberattacks conducted by foreign governments pose to our national security."  Gimme a break! This kind of rhetoric is COMPLETELY irresponsible.

This cockamamie statement put out by these purveyors of ‘fake news’, these losers who can’t bring themselves to accept the reality the Trump won, also said, “While protecting classified material, we have an obligation to inform the public about recent cyberattacks that have cut to the heart of our free society.”  And they went on to declare in their statement, “Democrats and Republicans must work together, and across the jurisdictional lines of the Congress, to examine these recent incidents thoroughly and devise comprehensive solutions to deter and defend against further cyber-attacks.”  However, regardless of what this ‘Gang of Four’ might say, or may wish to convince Americans into believing, here are just ten reasons that the “Russian hacking” story is nothing more than “fake news”, a left-wing twist on the red-baiting McCarthyism of the 1950s.

1. There is actually no new information leading the CIA to its conclusion. None!  The New York Times reports: “The C.I.A.’s conclusion does not appear to be the product of specific new intelligence obtained since the election, several American officials, including some who had read the agency’s briefing, said on Sunday. Rather, it was an analysis of what many believe is overwhelming circumstantial evidence — evidence that others feel does not support firm judgments — that the Russians put a thumb on the scale for Mr. Trump, and got their desired outcome.”  In other words, someone only decided after Trump won that the accusation was worth making.

2. The “evidence” that the CIA has gathered is inconclusive as best. The FBI also disagrees with some of the CIA’s conclusions about Russia’s motives. The Hill reported this past Sunday that, “While lawmakers were seemingly united on the need to present a strong bipartisan response, the FBI and CIA gave lawmakers differing accounts on Russia’s motives, according to The Post.”

3. The CIA is not making public claims that Russia hacked the election. Several CIA veterans, in fact, have urged caution about the leaked reports. As Newsweek reports: “‘I am not saying that I don’t think Russia did this,’ Nada Bakos, a top former CIA counterterrorism officer tells Newsweek, in a typical comment. ‘My main concern is that we will rush to judgment. The analysis needs to be cohesive and done the right way.'” Thus far there is not even a clear idea what the CIA’s conclusions are.

4. Despite all of the left-wing “fake news,” there is no evidence Russian hackers actually distorted the voting process.  The most that the CIA is alleging is that the Russians may have helped hack the Democrat National Committee emails, as well as the emails of Hitlery’s campaign chairman John Podesta. There is zero evidence Russian hackers messed with voting. Ironically, Green Party candidate Jill Stein’s recount has eliminated any doubt about the integrity of the results.

5. Barry has a history of manipulating intelligence for political gain. The most under-reported scandal of Barry’s presidency was the CENTCOM scandal, in which it emerged that “senior U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) leaders manipulated intelligence assessments in 2014 and 2015 to make it appear that President Barack Obama is winning the war against the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL).” There is even more reason to doubt the truth of a selective leak about the election.

6. Julian Assange and Wikileaks have vigorously denied that the Russians were involved in Wikileaks’ disclosures. Of the Democrat National Committee emails, Assange said: “That is the circumstantial evidence that some Russian, or someone who wanted to make them look like a Russian, was involved, with these other media organisations. That is not the case for the material that we released.” Assange made similar denials about the Podesta email leaks later in the election.

7. The fact that the Russians might constantly be trying to hack U.S. systems, and might even specifically have targeted the election, does not in any way prove that they actually succeeded. Nor does it prove that they tipped the election to Trump even if they had some effect. As pollster Frank Luntz tweeted: “Did Russia also hack Hillary’s campaign calendar and delete all her stops in rural Wisconsin, Penn., and Michigan?” Hitlery lost the election for reasons entirely of her own making.

8. Foreign interference in elections is nothing new — and Barry’s administration is a prime culprit. In 2015, Barry’s administration made a strenuous and not-terribly-well-hidden effort to swing the Israeli elections toward the opposition and away from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The State Department gave $300,000 to a “pro-peace” Israeli group, which then paid political activists whose goal was to unseat Netanyahu.  In 1984, the late Teddy ‘The Drunk’ Kennedy actually asked for Soviet help.  Russian efforts to intervene would be bad, but not unique, either for Russia or for the U.S.

9. What would the consequences of allowing undue Russian influence in our elections be, exactly?  Would we yield primacy in Eastern Europe to Vladimir Putin?  Would we give up our plans for missile defense?  Would we make deep unilateral cuts in our nuclear arsenal in exchange for flimsy concessions?  Would we tolerate a Russian land invasion of a friendly, pro-Western country?  Would we cede the Middle East to Russian hegemony?  Because the dynamic duo of Hitlery and Barry already did all of that.

10. Occam’s razor: the simplest explanation for the “Russian hacking” story is that it is “fake news” that suits the left-wing media. It’s not unknown for Russia to use false propaganda to affect public opinion in foreign countries. Nor is it unknown for the U.S. media to use bias, “fake news,” and outright lies to shift public opinion in this country.  The current focus on Russian “hacking,” is based on no new evidence and — again — zero evidence of tampering with the voting process.

I don't buy the conspiracy theories around Barry's candidacy, but even they were far more credible than this Russian hacking nonsense.  The real purpose of all this is really quite simple, to destabilize the incoming president at all costs, and to the greatest extent possible, because the political and state-controlled media elites simply can’t stomach the fact that the guy won.  So the end justifies the means. Want to investigate?  Do it, and if you can’t lead with some hard evidence that supports your idiotic claim then shut your pie hole.  What, you don’t have any?  Then get away from me.  Come back to me when you’ve got some actual proof.  Why is it that anyone should willingly waste any amount of time listening any of these individuals who have absolutely nothing to support their theory?  This pointless, empty pursuit of Russian hacking has already been solved. 

DEMOCRATS, THE WHINING CONTINUES…

First of all, if there is a group of people anywhere on the planet who knows what it means to be a stooge, a crony or a misfit, it would be the Democrat Party right down to the last man or woman.  Secondly, if we are using those individuals selected by Barry “Almighty” to be members of ‘his’ Cabinet as our standard, then those selected thus far by Donald Trump are nothing less that rock stars.

All of which brings me to Rep. Jared Huffman, a scumbag Democrat from California, and member of the Congressional 'Progressive' Caucus.  You see it is Mr. Huffman’s opinion that those whom President-Elect Donald Trump has thus far nominated for various Cabinet positions are "the greatest collection of stooges and cronies and misfits we have ever seen in a presidential administration."

Huffman made his idiotic statement during a press conference held by the Congressional ‘Progressive’ Caucus on Thursday.  And it was then that this moron went on to say, "Some of these folks only qualifications for the job they are being appointed for is that they have attempted to dismantle and undermine and destroy the very agencies that they are now hoping to run.

The Congressional ‘Progressive’ Caucus, which is itself a rather odd collection of some rather odd people, also made clear that it intends to fight against most of Trump’s nominees, including Betsy DeVos to the Department of Education, Dr. Ben Carson to the Department of Housing and Urban Development and Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) to head the Justice Department.  Fine, let ‘em try, I doubt they’ll have much luck.

Other members joined in.  Rep. Rosa DeLauro, said, “It is not just a responsibility, but it is a moral responsibility that we stand up and fight - and that is what the Progressive Caucus is intending to do.”  And Rep. Jan Schakowsky said, "Donald Trump, as it has been mentioned, has already been breaking his campaign promises and rather than draining the swamp, he is now filling it up with hungry crocodiles." 

So let’s compare to Trump’s pick to just some of those who Barry nominated for his Cabinet: Kathleen Sebelius, Eric Shinseki, Eric Holder, Timmy Geithner, Janet Napolitano who was followed by Jeh Johnson, Ken Salazar, Leon Panetta, Arne Duncan and of course Hitlery.  And these are just the few that come to mind.  So if we’re going to talk about stooges, cronies and misfits, how about we start with these?

But wait, there were other stellar members of Barry’s administration:  Remember Lois Lerner, Julia Pierson, Dan Pfeiffer, Katherine Archuleta, Margaret Hamburg, Shirley Sherrod, Desiree Rogers.  And what else do these folks have in common?  Well if memory serves all were forced to resign in disgrace.  So I would only caution members of this particular caucus, those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

It might be worth mentioning that this ‘Progressive’ Caucus operates as nothing more than a front group for George Soros.  Even the name of the caucus is counter-intuitive. There is nothing progressive here except that they are regressive and desire another four years of Barry.  As someone else once said, elections have consequences. The progressives can’t get over the fact that they lost and are still crying about it.

It is great to hear them crying and whining and feeling sorry for themselves. These characters total a minus IQ and they have the gall to talk about ANYBODY!  It gives people with a brain something to laugh at.  But they are used to that as every one of them have been laughed at all their pitiful lives.  Ah, the sound of Liberals crying. It's like listening to the ocean.  And it just goes on and on and on.....

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA…’THE GREAT DISAPPOINTMENT’…

First let me start out by saying that even though I did not vote for Obama, either time, no one could have been more disappointed in how he turned out as president than myself.  Because not since the early days of this country had a man come into office, in 2008 more so than in 2012, possessing so much promise and potential to do truly great things.  When you stop and think of all that he ‘could have done’ the magnitude of his failure as president becomes all the more glaring.  And it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the color of his skin but instead, I would argue, his upbringing.  Because what we had, and what we will continue to have up to his final minute in office is a president who is a rigid leftwing radical ideologue who, quite literally, hates America.

So after Barry went on CNN, this past Wednesday, and suggested racism played some part in opposition to his White House agenda – arguing "there's a reason" why attitudes about his presidency are different between white voters in northern and southern states, Republicans were understandably more than a little upset.  Because what opposition there has been to his agenda was based entirely on the politics of it, not the color of the man behind it.  And whether or not Barry can bring himself to admit it, he is a man of the left.  His mission upon entering office was to “fundamentally transform” the United States of America.  And now he has the nerve to blame racism as being behind the actions of those who worked to prevent him from completing that stated mission.  How absolutely juvenile.

It was during the interview with CNN's Fareed Zakaria during the special, "The Legacy of Barack Obama," aired Wednesday night Barry said, "There are people who dislike me because they think I'm a liberal."  And he went on to say, "I think there is a reason why attitudes about my presidency among whites in northern states are very different from whites in southern states."   Barry said, "So are there folks . . . whose primary concern about me has been that I seem foreign, the other?  Are those that champion the birther movement feeding off of bias? Absolutely."  But the truth is, over the course of his time in office fewer people came to view Barry as being your garden variety liberal as more came to see him as being little more than a Socialist.  Not because of his skin color, but because of his policies.

The simple fact of the matter is that those who chose to take a stand against the policies that Barry was seeking to advance did so only because those policies ran counter to a freedom-loving, conservative agenda.  The fact that Barry is black had nothing whatsoever to do with their opposition.  And to suggest that opposition to Barry's ‘liberal’ policies was a result of Republicans being a bunch of bigots, that they opposed him on Obamacare only because they were racist, they didn't like his stimulus bill and his economic policies because they hated black people, that's condescending and fundamentally wrong.  And for him to make such a claim diminishes his standing even more.  He is unable to take responsibility for his many failures, therefore they must be blamed on others.

Let’s face it, if Americans were as racist as Barry claims, he would never have been able to set foot inside the White House.  The fact that he has proven himself to be the worst president this country has ever seen rests squarely on his shoulders.  Barry has consistently tried to destroy everything this country stands for and has stood for from the time of its creation.  The Democrats, with the help of the media, were able to con the voters into voting for Barry.  The fact is that blacks tend to vote based solely on skin color, so who are the real RACISTS here?  And now with all this talk about "Racism" and lately the "Fake News" is about nothing more that silencing the truth.  Barry sees his ‘legacy’ going up in smoke and fears the last eight years will have been for naught.  Hence the accusations of racism.

It seems that no matter what the level of hypocrisy exhibited by those on the left, they can never quite bring themselves to ever admit it when they're wrong.  And that includes Barry as well.  Because rather than admit that his policies have done nothing but to wreak all manner of havoc on our economy, our military, as well as our standing in the world, be blames it all on the racism of others.  For his first two full years in office Barry had Democrat super-majorities in both the House and the Senate.  And what did we get?  Midnight basketball and Obamacare ‘passed’ in the dead of night on Christmas Eve.  No matter where it is that you look, Barry has put our country in a race to the bottom!  I can't wait for the Trump bulldozers to move in and begin deconstructing Barry’s legacy! 

2016 – ‘STATE-CONTROLLED’ MEDIA PROVES ITSELF TO BE NO LONGER RELEVANT…

There should be very little doubt that over the course of the last eight years that which was once referred to as our ‘mainstream’ media has now morphed our ‘state-controlled’ media.  And as such they proven itself to be no longer relevant as they threw everything they had at Trump, and yet he still won.  And we know that because of a study released Wednesday by the Harvard Kennedy School's Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy, that makes clear the fact that media coverage of Donald Trump was 77 percent negative during the general election.  And like I said, he still won the election.

Trump stated the obvious during the campaign when he said the media was biased against him in favor of Hitlery.  This study found that while Hitlery also received more negative coverage than positive, it was only 64 percent negative in the general election.  Although, I don’t recall seeing that much in the way of negative press directed at her, and what negative press there was it dramatically less incendiary than what was being directed at Trump 24/7.  When it came to questions of the candidates' fitness for office, we were told that Hitlery and Trump each had equally high negative numbers, coming in at 87 percent.

The study's author, Thomas Patterson, wrote, "Were the allegations surrounding Clinton of the same order of magnitude as those surrounding Trump?"  Mr. Patterson is a Bradlee professor of Government and the Press at the Harvard Kennedy School.  And he went on to write, "It's a question that political reporters made no serious effort to answer during the 2016 campaign."  Prof. Patterson also wrote, "A healthy dose of negativity is unquestionably a good thing."  And added, "Yet an incessant stream of criticism has a corrosive effect. It needlessly erodes trust in political leaders and institutions and undermines confidence in government and policy."

Still, The Washington Post announced back in early May how it was assigning 20 reporters specifically to look into Trump's past. The Post's Bob Woodward said at the time it also was working to get to the "essence" of Hitlery, but wouldn’t say whether the paper had assigned 20 reporters to go digging around in her past.  Negative presidential campaign coverage is not new, especially when it comes to those running under the Republican banner. Negative stories have outweighed positive ones for all candidates since 1980, according to this study.  It peaked in the contentious 2000 Bush-Gore election at 75 percent for both candidates combined.

According to this particular study, we’re told that Hitlery actually received more negative coverage than Trump when the two parties' primary campaign seasons were included in the figures.  We’re told that Hitlery received 62 percent negative coverage to Trump's 56 percent.  Hitlery faced attacks from rival Bernie Sanders and his supporters in the primaries, but Trump also was attacked by some of his 16 GOP primary opponents.  But I find it rather hard to believe that over the course of the entire campaign Hitlery received more negative media attention, both in volume and intensity, than did President-elect Trump.

The negative press coverage isn't limited to political races, at least according to this study.  Negative stories also are far more common than positive ones on topics such as immigration, Muslims, health policy and even the economy.  And where I disagree with Prof. Patterson is when he says, "The real bias of the press is not that it's liberal. Its bias is a decided preference for the negative."  Because there is most definitely a very obvious liberal bias when it comes to how members of the press choose to report on our political parties.  A bias that results in a willingness on their part to exaggerate, distort, or blatantly lie about positions held by candidates on the right. 

While this particular study focused on news reports by ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, the Los Angeles Times, NBC, The New York Times, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post, the number of left leaning media outlets is near to limitless.  In there was even a fair amount of negative reporting that was seen coming from Fox News, supposedly a right leaning news organization, on the candidacy of the candidate Trump.  And it was even on Fox News that, except for Sean Hannity, coverage on the candidates came across as being pretty obviously pro-Hitlery.  To the point where I went from being a pretty regular viewer, to rarely watching at all.

The real problem however is not the liberal media's goal to bring up negativity.  The real problem is that "reporters" and "editors" are taught in "journalism school" that socialism is the perfect form of government and that the phrase "all men are created equal" means everyone, regardless of ability, status, position, creed, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, are to be considered equal at all levels and ages.  The true meaning behind the phrase "all men are created equal" was to point out that all men are born with equal opportunity to succeed or fail on their own merits.  The fact that some make better decisions than others in life is the problem that liberals have.

And those in our ‘state-controlled’ media frequently confuse the words "truth" and "fact".  They seem to think they’re interchangeable, and when all else fails, it’s acceptable to simply make shit up.  They are taught, indoctrinated if you will, that God doesn't exist so therefore the government becomes God.  And once one can be made to accept that cockamamie premise, it becomes all the easier to be convinced that one’s individual rights do not come from God but are instead allocated by the government.  And what the government giveth, the government can also taketh away.  Hence that rationale for cutting God out of the loop. 

Far too many members of the media are thoroughly convinced that they are the smartest people to ever have existed, they fully believe they need only to listen to themselves on all matters, and anyone who contradicts them is obviously wrong, regardless of what the facts, the truth, or simple the reality of the situation may say.  History means absolutely nothing to them (even when they have degrees in it) because history is populated with people of inferior intellects.  From this viewpoint, there's no reason to learn from the past; what could these brilliant and enlightened folks possibly learn from all the backwards idiots who may have come before them?

Leftist hubris will come to destroy Western civilization if we don't find a way to bury it.  Leftists have turned our education system into indoctrination camps, our ‘news’ media into what has become essentially the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party, and our entertainment industry has become a sort of brain-killing drug for the masses instead of a thought-provoking expression of diverse ideas.  The end result is that we’re confronted by imbeciles experiencing rather bizarre little meltdowns because they can't handle someone saying something they don’t like or someone like that moron Sally Kohn declaring that Sharia law is totally compatible with liberal "ideals."

Personally, it’s to my way of thinking that from this point on the ONLY thing that’s going to prevent Donald Trump from becoming a successful president is not the negative press that he’s surely going to receive.  It will be Donald Trump himself.  He made a great many promises throughout the campaign, some of which he already appears to be going soft on.  And frankly I’m getting a little concerned.  I was a reluctant passenger on the Trump train, but it was my fear of Hitlery as president that encouraged me to step off the platform and get onboard.  But I have always had an uneasy feeling when it came to actually trusting him to follow through. 

And with Trump also having meetings with such questionable characters as Al Gore, Rahm Emanuel, Bill De Blasio and even Lenny DiCaprio, as well as some of his more recent comments on immigration, I must admit that I’m beginning to question his commitment to follow through on many of the promises he made, especially as they relate to the issues such as ‘illegal immigration’, sanctuary cities and so-called “climate change.”  Expectations are very high for Mr. Trump, if for no other reason than because of the many promises he himself has made.  We are in a very dangerous place in our history. Hopefully, he can turn this ship around.

DESPITE DEMOCRAT WHINING, THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS A WORK OF GENIUS…

In the wake of an election in which Hitlery ‘won’ the popular vote, albeit with votes from primarily one state, but Donald Trump was elected president by winning the Electoral College, we have heard an increasing level of whining coming from those within the Democrat Party as well as from a vast majority of our supposed ‘journalists’ in the state-controlled media about the need to abolish the Electoral College.  Now I’m quite sure that if the situation were to be reversed these same people now doing all the whining about abolishing the Electoral College, would instead be expending just as much energy to keep it as they are now expending in their effort to abolish it.  And oddly enough, it’s a recent Gallup survey that showed the lowest percentage of people ever in a poll saying they would support amending the Constitution to eliminate the Electoral College and decide presidential elections by the popular vote. 

According to a Gallup analyst, “This year, for the first time in the 49 years Gallup has asked about it, less than half of Americans want to replace the Electoral College with a popular vote system.”  Now that’s not news likely to be music to the ears of our many whining Democrats.  Gallup’s latest poll on the issue, conducted November 28-29—three weeks after this year’s election—showed that 49 percent said they would amend the Constitution so that the nationwide populate vote would decide the presidential election.  However it was 47 percent of respondents who said they would keep the Electoral College system.  Since 1967, Gallup has conducted ten polls in which they asked Americans if they would approve amending the Constitution to eliminate the Electoral College.  The first five polls were conducted from 1967 to 1980. These included one poll in 1967, two in 1968, one in 1977 and one in 1980.

In this most recent poll, respondents were asked: “Would you approve or disapprove of an amendment to the Constitution which would do away with the Electoral College and base the election of a President on the total vote cast throughout the nation?”  The second five polls were conducted from 2000 to 2016. These included two polls in 2000, one in 2004, one in 2011 and one in 2016.  In this second set of polls, Gallup asked: “Thinking for a moment about the way in which the president is elected in this country, which would you prefer: to amend the Constitution so the candidate who receives the most total votes nationwide wins the election, (or) to keep the current system, in which the candidate who wins the most votes in the Electoral College wins?”  Prior to this year the highest percentage who had said that in the five Gallup polls asking the same question was 37 percent. That was in a survey done December 15-17, 2000.

In all ten surveys done by Gallup, the greatest support for amending the Constitution to eliminate the Electoral College came back in a November 1968, just after that year’s election.  According to Gallup, “Support for an amendment peaked at 80% in 1968, after Richard Nixon almost lost the popular vote while winning the Electoral College.”  And it was the folks at Gallup who went on to say, “Ultimately, he wound up winning both by a narrow margin, but this issue demonstrated the possibility of a candidate becoming president without winning the popular vote.  In the 1976 election, Jimmy Carter faced a similar situation, though he also won the popular vote and Electoral College.  In a poll taken weeks after the election, 73% were in favor of an amendment doing away with the Electoral College.”  The fact that so many favor doing away with the Electoral College, makes clear just how ignorant most people are as to why it even exists.

The continuing, and somewhat overwhelming, level of whining we’ve heard coming from the Democrats about the need to get rid of the Electoral College has never really made all that much sense to me.  Because if you actually add up all of the states that are considered as being either “safe” for any eventual Democrat nominee or “favor” that nominee, you get 217 electoral votes out of the 270 that are needed to win.  Do the same for states considered safe or favoring any Republican standard-bearer and you get just 191 electoral votes.  And that Democrat advantage becomes even more pronounced if you add to the party’s total the states that typically “lean” Democrat.  Place such states as Pennsylvania (20 electoral votes), Iowa (6) and Nevada (6) into the Democrat column and the party’s electoral vote count surges to 249, or just 21 votes short of winning a presidential contest.

Back when Donald Trump was lagging badly in the polls, any time the republican candidate accused the electoral system of being rigged, Democrats would scream over each other to explain to him just how fair, balanced and sensible is the mandated framework of the US presidential election.  Well, Trump won, and the roles are now flipped, with liberal pundits from Michael Moore to Paul Krugman, slamming the concept of the Electoral College, which Trump won decisively despite losing the popular vote.  Senator Babs Boxer is retiring at the end of the current term, but that isn’t stopping her from introducing one last big bill.  Old Babs introduced long-shot legislation to abolish the Electoral College, roughly a week after her candidate lost to the political newcomer, Donald Trump.  The purpose of her bill is to leave the choosing of a president to the popular vote, and one look at the 2016 electoral map should tell you that’s a pretty nutty idea.

Look, I get it. I really do!  The Electoral College is old and dumb and undemocratic.  At least that’s what I would probably think too if I had no context or depth of understanding for why it exists.  This is the only explanation I can deduce for why outgoing Senator Babs Boxer, and any number of other Democrats, think that getting rid of it is a good idea and that a straight popular vote wouldn’t be even more problematic.  Bab’s blatant ignorance about how our federal government is set up and why shows in her statement issued regarding the bill: “In my lifetime, I have seen two elections where the winner of the general election did not win the popular vote. The Electoral College is an outdated, undemocratic system that does not reflect our modern society, and it needs to change immediately. Every American should be guaranteed that their vote counts.”  Every American’s vote already counts.  What Babs seems to be missing here is that there’s always gonna be a loser.

Apparently, old Babs thinks that our Founders didn’t even bother to consider the option of electing our president by popular vote. That their reasons for electing the president through the Electoral College had nothing to do with the time they lived in and the problems they foresaw still exist today.  Perhaps even more so.  She, and the growing list of others who wish to see it abolished, obviously don’t understand that the Electoral College is a necessary function of federalism and the best way to ensure that the voters in each state are represented equally (in the Senate) and proportionally (in the House of Representatives).  Despite what old Babs and her many Democrat cohorts may think, I think we call safely assume that it’s not something that was devised for no other reason than to simply to screw with Democrats.  But you know how Democrats are, little more than a bunch of spoiled brats.

Babs claims that she only wants everyone to feel like their vote counts.  But somehow she is failing to recognize that under her proposal of a straight popular vote, only about four states could decide the presidency, which flies in the face of her stated goal. Our Founders thought about this and decided against it for obvious reasons.   I’m going to go out on a limb and predict that Bab’s bill goes nowhere. Even if there were enough constitutionally ignorant dopes in the Senate and House that would vote “yea,” our one saving grace it that three-quarters of the states would have to ratify it over the next seven years to get it passed as an amendment. And while I am certain some would gladly cede more power to the federal government, many more would not.  Now I have no doubt that there will come a day when the Electoral College is done away with, but I’m quite confident that it won’t be in my lifetime.

In reality, Bab’s bill is nothing more than a repeat attempt to dismantle the electoral process because Democrats are mad their corrupt candidate, for whom they sacrificed all, won’t be the first woman president after all.  That’s the way it always is with these people.  How much whining was heard from the right when Barry was elected and then reelected?   Sure we called into question his obvious lack of qualifications and complained because the guy was, and still is, the most corrupt individual to ever hold the office of president.  But then we got busy just trying to survive.  The Democrats, for whatever the reason, whether it’s because they presume their motives to be so pure or because they profess to know what’s best for the rest of us, feel that they should win every election and if they don’t it’s only because something nefarious has taken place.  Let them have their temper tantrum.

PRESIDENT TRUMP MAY NEED TO YANK OUR RINOS UP BY THE OLD SHORT-HAIRS…

To be honest with you I’ve never really trusted either Paul ‘RINO’ Ryan, or his sleazy-little-shit-of-a-counterpart over in the Senate, Mitch McConnell.  If I had a dollar for every time these two slimy shits have lied to me I’d be a wealthy man.  Who knows, I might even have as much money as they do.  And now comes word that these two have already begun plotting against our newly elected Republican president, and how best to go about stabbing him in the back.  Because rumor now has it that there is a bit of mutiny being planned by many of our RINO members of Congress, one that is being spearheaded by those of our ‘establishment’ leadership team. 

And how do we know this?  Well, it seems that a top ally of House Speaker Paul ‘RINO’ Ryan has outlined the GOP leadership’s strategy to be implemented in an effort to isolate and even block President Donald Trump’s populist campaign promises, likely to include his popular immigration reforms.  So I would argue that there may be more than enough justification on the part our newly elected president to summon these losers over to the Oval Office on day one and make it clear how he expects things to progress.  And if they can’t see their way to sign on to the Trump agenda than he may need to take things directly to those who voted for him.  Which we know he can do.

Anyway, it all started when Texas Rep. Bill Flores told an ‘inside-the-beltway’ audience back on Dec. 1, “We all agree that some of President Trump’s proposed policies are not going to line up very well with our conservative policies.”  And it was also Flores who told Arthur Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute, “Let’s do the things where we agree — let’s do tax reform, let’s do Obamacare, lets replace Obamacare, let’s start dealing with border security, let’s rebuild our national security and then, on those areas where his agenda is not exactly aligned with ours … then, we’ll figure out the rest in the next six months.”

Flores also put forth the notion that if the GOP takes the lead, Trump also will be less likely to push forward with his populist agenda by changing agency policies and regulations.  According to this guy, Flores, the GOP leadership should “just tell him, ‘Hey, we’ll take the lead on this, and we will give you the legislative and constitutional support to go forward,’ and that way, he’s not inclined to use a pen, to try to follow the Obama model.”  I would argue that if anybody is going to be telling anyone anything, it needs to be President Trump telling these RINO turncoats, and in no uncertain terms, how it is that he expects to get onboard the people’s agenda. 

Flores’ effort to head off regulatory changes is important, because President Trump will have the ability to implement most of his immigration policy without any aid from Congress. For example, he can reduce companies’ use of the salary-shrinking guest worker programs, he can end Barry’s catch-and-release policy, and he can restart criminal investigations of employers who hire illegals instead of Americans.  The GOP’s business donors strongly oppose Trump’s popular immigration plans, because they would reduce the massive legal and illegal immigration that transfers $500 billion a year from pay packets to corporate profits and to Wall Street. 

And as to be expected, Flores’ press aides dismissed questions from various conservative outlets.  It was an email from Travis Hall that said: “Conservatives in the House are ready to work with the new administration to advance a conservative agenda that provides the American people with much needed relief after eight years of President Obama’s disastrous policies.”  Hall just happens to be the communications director at the Republican Study Committee, where Flores has served as chairman for the last two years. The email went on to say, “House leadership is best poised to answer questions about what it intends to do in the next Congress.”

And as has been pointed out by others, there’s growing evidence that Flores’ description is actually ‘RINO Ryan’s’ plan.  In a 60 Minutes interview conducted Dec. 1, ‘RINO Ryan’ outlined what he saw as being his six top priorities and something that seemed to obviously missing was implementation of Trump’s election-winning immigration reform policy.  As Ryan, himself, pointed out to CBS, the six priorities are “repealing and replacing Obamacare, fixing the regulatory state to grow jobs, reforming the tax code, rebuilding the military, securing the border, and making sure that we can address some of the infrastructure problems that we have.”

That’s a pretty close match to Flores’ priority list of tax reform, repealing and replacing Obamacare, dealing with border security and rebuilding our national security. I really don’t thinks it’s much of a secret that both Ryan and Flores would very much like to distract Trump, to the greatest extent possible with complex plans for infrastructure spending which would likely drag Trump away from pushing his election-winning immigration reforms through Congress.  But I’d like to think that these guys aren’t half as smart that they think they are, with President Trump being more than capable of beating them at their own game. 

Under Barry, the federal government annually imports at least one million legal immigrants, plus almost one million temporary white-collar guest workers and blue-collar guest workers for jobs sought by Americans. Those two million new foreign workers, plus the roughly eight million illegal immigrants in jobs, compete against the four million young Americans who begin looking for jobs each year. That wage-cutting competition shifts roughly $500 billion per year from wages and salaries into company profits, boosting investors and Wall Street.  Hence the motivation for the RINOs to do all that they can to keep President Trump focused on other issues.

So here we have our very typical congressional snakes in the grass! Did they not get the memo in the form of a landslide electoral victory while being outspent by hundreds of millions of dollars?  Not sure why we should be all that surprised, these idiots never really get it!!!  I foresee much RINO bloodletting come 2018 if they pull off this crap.  If they do it may slow Trump down a bit at first, but I think he’s doing the wall and border security first.  Once done Trump will see if what's on the RINO agenda is acceptable because I’m sure he won’t hesitate in the slightest to pull the trigger on each of those who oppose him when they come up for re-election.

Personally, I would argue that this guy Flores isn’t really a conservative. He’s a freaking RINO Establishment Republican and a globalist. I’m sorry but globalism is not conservatism, it’s about as Marxist and leftwing as it gets.  Therefore, what does this mentally handicapped loon mean that Trump’s immigration policies don’t line up with conservatism?  Give me a freaking break. Is this idiot really that stupid?  Apparently!  Heck, if they keep this kind of nonsense up, maybe it’s time to start a true conservative party that will exclude these establishment RINO faux conservatives and globalists.  None of those idiots voted for Trump anyway. Screw them.

They need to accept the reality that the American people do not subscribe to their kind of faux conservatism, which is exactly why Trump won and they were soundly defeated. If they want to support Trump only when it lines up with their globalist agenda, then we need to break up the Republican Party and start fresh with a new conservative political party that excludes those who represent only the crony Capitalists as opposed to the people who elected them, and we need to do so before the next elections. As our federal government, the last time I checked, is supposed to be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

And if the Republican Party wants to be the party for the crony capitalists, let it. And conservatives can form a new political party for the people and for preserving America’s sovereignty, traditions, and values.  Who was elected president in November, anyway? That RINO loon needs to be tarred and feathered and then ran out of Washington DC. Yeah, Trump needs to hold their leftwing globalist agenda hostage via the threat of veto, until he’s fulfilled all of his promises that he made to the American people that voted him into power, and then after he’s has our agenda fully in place, then he can start looking at those other items but not before.

And if they do try to block, or to even slow, the Trump agenda, they must understand that the American people will not stand for that, and will rain down an ungodly firestorm upon these RINO lunatics to the point where they will need to call their beloved U.N. for a freaking binding resolution in order to keep us from running them all right out of Congress.  They will be made to realize that we, the American people, will massacre them, politically speaking, if they insist upon heading down the road that they now seem so intent upon going down.  If they are unable to keep straight who works for who, then maybe we need to remind them, and forcefully.

If supporting the will of their voters is simply too difficult, that what we need to do is to get rid of guys like Flores, Ryan, McConnell as well as every other RINO!  You can’t play nice with them, Mr. Trump, those turncoats will stab you in the back every time you turn around just as they are planning to do today.  We watched them sell out America time after time for the past 8 years and if you don’t drain the swamp, they will do it for the next 8 years.  Fight back, Mr. Trump. Fight back as hard as you can.  Pretend they are “Crooked Hitlery.”  Let there be no doubt in anyone’s mind that the agenda that won the last election is the agenda of at least the next four years. 

NANCY PELOSI SAYS NO CHANGE IN DIRECTION IS NECESSARY…

Well, if you can believe the newly re-elected House Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi, the Democrat Party neither wants, nor does it need, to venture off in some new direction.  She said as much during an appearance on “Face the Nation” as recently as this past Sunday.  Despite the Democrats underwhelming results on election night, Pelosi put forth the argument that the party is not questioning its identity.  And it was to host John Dickerson that Pelosi said, “Well, I don’t think that people want a new direction. Our values unify us.”  And she went on to say, “And our values are about supporting America’s working families. That’s one that everyone is in agreement on.”  I can only assume that Pelosi must have been dropped on her head as a baby.

A number of Democrats blamed her for the party’s poor performance November 8, with Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan even going so far as to challenge her for her leadership position, arguing if they don’t change directions they will soon become obsolete.  Pelosi said it is not the direction, but the messaging that’s the problem.  She said, “What we want is a better connection of our message to working families in our country. And that clearly in the election showed that message wasn’t coming through.”  And added, “But we are united in terms of the security of our country, which is our first responsibility, to be smart and strong and not reckless in how we protect the American people, strong in how we protect our economy.”

Republicans, of course, praised Pelosi’s leadership win, saying that as long as she is in power they believe they will retain the majority.  Because the message we’ve heard from Democrats over the course of the last six years, and the message we are likely to continue to hear, equates to little more than screaming racism at everyone who isn't a Democrat.  And I’m not sure how that helps "working families" in any way.  And I’m confused about how it is that "fighting" for transsexual bathroom usage assists those same working families.  And I doubt the passing of a Rube Goldberg healthcare law "so we can see what is in it" only to find that what's in it are huge increases in deductibles and premiums clearly wasn’t done with working families in mind.

And if by helping the American worker she means giving jobs and government aide to Illegals or having Americans getting shot by Muslim terrorists while calling the victims racist bigots, then yeah she's right.  Pelosi is an old school hardliner who may have been powerful when the presidency, House and Senate were all under Democrat control, but as the leader of the minority she’s been far less than impressive. The Democrat Party is based solely on the spending of other people's money.  They claim to be the Robin Hood political party, taking from the rich and give to the poor.  But I question their definition of ‘rich’, as I view more of my tax dollars being provided to poor illegal aliens and refugees in the hope of growing more Democrat voters.

When Pelosi says, “she doesn’t believe people in the Democratic party want to take a new direction", I agree with her.  Democrats don't want to go in a different direction. That's obvious by the bought-and-paid-for-protests, the recount effort, and the continuing Snowflake meltdown in the media. That's probably the first thing she's said that isn't a lie.  And when she says, "Our values unify us. And our values are about supporting America’s working families. That’s one that everyone is in agreement on," I’m confused.  Because while the Democrats’ ‘values’ certainly do unify them, and they claim those values support America's working families, it’s only so long as you're not white nor a Christian.  And they certainly are all in agreement on that.

Pelosi said it is not the direction of the party, but its messaging that’s the problem.  The direction that she is talking about is sharply to the left, because there’s no other direction in which the Democrat Party desires to head.  As for the messaging, I agree.  But in order to get Americans to agree with your message, you must first have a cohesive, precise, and honest message.  And none of these three ingredient are apparent in the current Democrat message.  Before allowing America to understand your message, you must actually tell them what you stand for and that has never been the objective with the Democrats.  Because if they were to be intellectually honest with their message to the American people, it would be rejected outright.

And now that the media has been pretty much outed from their rather crowded ultra-Liberal closet, there is less of a chamber than there once was which allowed the left to do little more than to regurgitate their incessant talking points.  This message is definitely "off" as Pelosi so eloquently puts it.  To most rational, freedom loving Americans, the Democrat Party message is, to say the least, "off-putting".  And that's far worse than merely having a problem communicating something successfully.  Now I’m no genius when it comes to formulating a political message, but it would seem to me that the message I’ve heard coming for those in the Democrat Party for at least the last eight years isn’t one that would resonate with me, were I a loyal Democrat.

Pelosi "wants" to better connect the party’s message with working families, yet she won't tell them she wants to raise their taxes, again, she won't tell them that she believes that the sale of baby parts by Planned Parenthood should be funded by taxpayers and, worse yet, that she wants the courts to be able to prevent investigative journalist videos from exposing such atrocities.  Also she won't tell them she supports grown men sharing public bathrooms with little girls, won't tell them that she believes that whites should be subjected to greater scrutiny when entering college than people of color.  So she's right about one thing: those messages were not coming through in the election, because they were purposefully omitted from the platform in order to obfuscate the truth.

Pelosi also says Democrats are united in regards to the security of our country.  Now if, by "security", she means that we need to blindly accept without question hundreds of thousands of Middle Eastern refugees into our country, or that we need to continue to restrict the rights of legal gun owners, or that we must continue to whittle away at the Second Amendment, or that we must early-release convicted felons of "lesser crimes" in order to right past inconsistencies in the court system, or that we must embrace globalization and be a country without borders, or that we must continue to ignore the growing threat of radical Islam, then I guess "security" means something completely different to me and millions of other Americans than it does to Nancy.

But united the Democrats remain, at least according to Pelosi.  Except for those, I guess, who didn’t vote to re-elect her as their fearless leader.  But, I suppose, even those folks will eventually come around because, after all, independent thought isn’t something that’s usually tolerated from within the ranks.  So, I guess all in all, yeah...she's probably right.  So what we have here is the Democrats being united and many of the American people being united, with there being a failure to communicate.  And if things remain as they are, never the twain shall meet.  And the longer that situation is allowed to continue the greater the chance remains that the Republicans will remain in control of at least the House and maybe even the Senate.