Previous month:
April 2015
Next month:
June 2015





I cannot believe Gutfeld’s first show.It is unexpectedly boring and Gutfeld in large doses is unwatchable. A whiny voice, a forced and pretentious attitude, as if someone will buy a conservative spewing facts in an attempt to be funny. Nothing to see here, move along.

Compared with Jon Steward, Stephen Colbert, Gutfeld is not especially perceptive nor funny, and his show looks like an amateur effort produced by professionals. This program should belong to Adam Carolla whose wit is perceptive, unforced and spontaneous.

This is the Fox Media release and Gutfeld is just as boring …


FOX News Channel (FNC) will launch a new one-hour program entitled, The Greg Gutfeld Show on Sunday, May 31st at 10PM/ET, announced FOX News Chairman and CEO, Roger Ailes. As Gutfeld takes on a new solo host role, he will also continue as co-host of the weekday ensemble program The Five (weekdays at 5PM/ET), as well as his weekly appearances on The O’Reilly Factor (weekdays at 8PM/ET).

In making the announcement, Ailes said, “Gutfeld is a distinctly versatile talent whose quick witted humor and gift for comedy writing will enable him to stand out in primetime on Sunday nights.”

Gutfeld added, “Every host of a new show likes to say they’re breaking new ground. So why should I be any different. This show will forever change the way you watch television, plus guests provide their own transportation.”

The Greg Gutfeld Show will be a multi-faceted comedic hour, with parodies on current events, conversation on key issues and signature monologues showcasing Gutfeld’s eclectic humor. Drawing on his unpredictability and witty intellect, the show will also interview newsmakers, culture critics, and media personalities on major headlines of the week. Additionally, FNC contributor and Red Eye regular Joanne Nosuchinsky will provide offbeat reports and commentary on the program.

Most recently, Gutfeld hosted FNC’s late night show Red Eye (3-4 AM/ET) from 2007 until late February 2015. With Gutfeld at the helm, the program grew 35% in total viewers and 25% in the 25-54 demographic, outpacing several primetime programs on CNN and MSNBC. Red Eye is currently being hosted by a rotating group of FNC personalities in the interim.

Prior to cable news, Gutfeld served as one of the first contributors to The Huffington Post as well as the editor-in-chief of Men’s Health and Stuff magazines. He is also the author of several books, including “The Bible of Unspeakable Truths,” “The Joy of Hate: How to Triumph over Whiners in the Age of Phony Outrage,” and New York Times bestseller “Not Cool: The Hipster Elite and Their War on You.”

FOX News Channel (FNC) is a 24-hour all-encompassing news service dedicated to delivering breaking news as well as political and business news.  A top five cable network, FNC has been the most-watched news channel in the country for more than 13 years and according to Public Policy Polling, is the most trusted television news source in the country. Owned by 21st Century Fox, FNC is available in more than 90 million homes and dominates the cable news landscape, routinely notching the top ten programs in the genre. <Source: Fox>

Bottom line …

Gutfeld might be a great writer, a colorful guest, but cannot seem to carry a show as a solo act. Even if you bought the “Letterman Premise,” of hip, sophisticated, nuanced, parody … it still doesn’t work and is not entertaining.

Perhaps Gutfeld is trying too hard and is funnier in off-the-cuff comments. But, the show still doesn't work as written.

Roger … bring on Adam Carolla and capture the audience’s attention.

-- steve

P.S. My best friend Al said that the show started off slow and he thought the second part was excellent. He plans to watch it again. And, of course, he told me not to nitpick the show.

“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell



While I have no problem with libertarianism or the Austrian school of economics, I am not a fan of Rand Paul. I believe that he is every bit the nutter and small time grifter as was his father Ron Paul, and only in a deeply polarized America where the GOP is in disarray, could this clown make it to the big game.

His propensity to say provocative things may attract the media’s attention, but his very words make him unfit to become the President of the United States.

I also believe that Rand Paul is a closet bigot and anti-Semite and his refusal to disassociate himself from white supremacists and others is not only distasteful, but extremely troubling. It is that I regard Rand Paul to be every bit a nutter as Lyndon LaRouche and his young LaRouchies who would do or say anything necessary to grab power. Rand’s recent homage to Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli lobby appears to be in the vein.

Consider Paul’s squishiness on illegal immigration and Obama’s “executive” amnesty. And, Paul’s support of social liberals (RINOs) like Mitt Romney and Mitch McConnell, far from any vestiges of conservatism. Although, Romney would have made a much better president than Obama.

But the real danger of Rand Paul is that he is another Barack Obama – a Senator without and executive or governance experience and would be prone to error during his “on the job” training.

Perhaps Rand Paul needs a dose of reality …

Rand Paul says GOP hawks ‘created’ ISIS

Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul is blaming his own party for the rise of the Islamic State group.

The freshman senator from Kentucky said Wednesday that the GOP’s foreign policy hawks “created these people.”

The Islamic State group, commonly referred to as ISIS, has seized one-third of Iraq and Syria and in recent days made gains in central Iraq.

ISIS exists and grew stronger because of the hawks in our party who gave arms indiscriminately,” Paul said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” He continued: “They created these people. ISIS is all over Libya because these same hawks in my party loved – they loved Hillary Clinton’s war in Libya. They just wanted more of it.”

Source: Rand Paul says GOP hawks ‘created’ ISIS | New York Post

  1. The GOP “Hawks” had little or no influence on U.S. foreign policy since 2008 and the election of Barack Hussein Obama.
  2. ISIS is al Qaeda in Iraq; although the “group split apart from al-Qaeda in February 2014 because it wouldn't listen to al-Qaeda HQ's commands, including orders to curtail its violence against civilians.”
  3. ISIS grew in strength due to President Obama’s withdrawal from Iraq. Leaving a power vacuum to be filled by a militant Sunni-organization that redressed many of the grievances caused by Iraq’s government when they removed the majority Sunnis from positions of power and leadership and allowed the minority Shia to exact a measure of revenge against the Sunnis. Another contributing factor is that most Iraqis remained loyal to their tribal leadership and not to the President of Iraq who was little more than the corrupt Mayor of Kabul. Thus, with no loyalty and little to defend, they cut and ran – leaving behind their weapons.
  4. Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi venture saw the transshipment of military-grade weaponry to Islamic militants via Turkey and the 9/11 attack on the joint CIA/State Department compound was not only a terrorist attack, but could possibly be classified as an opposition attack on a “legitimate” military target.
  5. Barack Obama is actually aiding Shia Iran against the Sunni ISIS – perhaps believing that such support that cedes power over Iraq to Iran will help him get a photo-op and a meaningless agreement in the nuclear negotiations.

Bottom line …

While I do not believe that Rand Paul will ever be elected President, the harm he can do to the GOP is enormous; first by muddling the GOP message, and second, by splitting off votes from legitimate candidates. Since I believe him to be a small-time grifter, I am looking forward to seeing how he plans to “sell” his support to a more viable candidate.

I believe Paul to be a libertarian ideologue and that he is a libertarian first, a republican second, and becomes a conservative only when convenient and his libertarian values coincide with the core values of conservatives.

To further illustrate Paul’s danger, consider his previous opinion that enforcing anti-discrimination laws shouldn’t be legal because of the conflict with the constitutional rights to private property as embodied in the Fifth Amendment. Or, that Paul engaged it moral equivalency when he saw Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear capability as being no different from our own nuclear capabilities. When questioned, it is all about rhetoric and ideology which is neither clear nor easy to understand.

The GOP needs to marginalize Rand Paul if they are serious about winning the Presidency and curtailing the damage done to viable GOP candidates during the primary season.

-- steve

“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell



There is little doubt in my mind that billionaire Tom Steyer is a well-credentialed (Yale University, economics and political science; Stanford MBA), well-accomplished (Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Farallon Capital Management) man whose philanthropy is well-documented. So why does this businessman embrace the progressive socialist democrats and their radical socialist agenda as it relates to manipulating the science of climate change?

There is also little doubt in my mind that Steyer is a liberal whack-job who is ignoring significant science and using his money to advance the corrupt political ideology of the progressive socialist democrats.

Billionaire Environmentalist Pushes New Oil Tax in California

In an effort to combat high gasoline prices in California, billionaire environmentalist activist Tom Steyer is pushing for a state ballot measure to pass an oil severance tax.

[How does this educated man come to the conclusion that the way to decrease gasoline prices is to imposed a tax on the oil producers. A tax that will be passed along to the very same progressive socialist democrats who mandate that California needs two special blends of gasoline (winter and summer); and that when refinery capacity is near maxed-out and they do the change-over, the normal supply and demand skyrockets. As we saw with Enron’s manipulation of the energy marketplace for their own profits, just scheduling maintenance can increase prices and profits for the energy companies.

So where does this money go? Into the general fund to be spent on illegal aliens, to hiring more unionized government workers, or to some other progressive pipedream.]

Steyer, founder of NextGen Climate, announced support for the potential ballot measure earlier this month at the California Democratic Party convention.

“I want to understand why Californians are paying up to $1 billion more to oil companies per month for gasoline prices than anywhere else in the country,” Steyer said. California has the highest gasoline prices in the nation, where a gallon of regular gasoline is $3.739, a dollar more than the national average.

According to the Los Angeles Times, one measure would impose a 10 percent oil extraction tax, while the other would “strengthen disclosure requirements for oil companies’ management of gasoline supplies and prices.”

In a letter to the California lawmakers, Steyer, along with Jamie Court—president of Consumer Watchdog—blamed the oil industry for a lack of transparency over prices and inventory levels.

“The oil industry must answer for this half-billion dollar cost to Californians,” they wrote. “The market is rigged to the benefit of an oligopoly and the rules need to be changed to benefit consumers rather than the oil industry.”

[Has Steyer not noticed the corruption in California’s politics, especially when it comes to progressive socialist democrats whose mismanagement of the state has forced productive individuals and companies to seek relief elsewhere, out of state or out of the country? Where the corrupt politicians respond to their lobbyists and not to their constituents. Where districts are created to ensure a minority constituency because somehow that would be “fair.”

The only way the rules can be changed to benefit consumers is through subsidized socialism. And, Californians are now being burdened by some of the highest electricity prices in the nation as we subsidize solar and wind power to no avail. Even if carbon emissions were reduced to zero – trying to overcome the Sun’s influence on the global climate is nonsensical.]

Nick Loris, senior policy analyst at The Heritage Foundation, believes that high costs of energy in California are directly related to state policy and taxes. “The economic and regulatory environment in California is a big reason the costs of energy are so high in California,” Loris said. “If Californians want lower prices, they should urge their politicians not to implement higher taxes to fund their pet projects, especially since those projects tend to be economic disasters.”

[I wonder if they are speaking about building the Moonbeam Express, Jerry Brown’s multi-billion dollar train to nowhere that will never recover its initial and operating costs. Why build dams to mitigate future dry periods when you can waste funds going to Modesto?]

In 2006, the California State Legislature passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act, requiring a statewide reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. This legislation created a cap-and-trade program, requiring oil refiners to purchase pollution credits from the state.

[Great. Let the gross polluters continue polluting by purchasing government-approved indulgences from Wall Street Wizards and Al Gore as they continue polluting the air, water, and land to disadvantage the locals in favor of seeding rain forests in lower crapistan.]

Source: Billionaire Environmentalist Pushes New Oil Tax in California

So what’s up with Tom Steyer? One explanation …

See the answer about five-minutes into the presentation.

Bottom line …

This will not be the first time that a mega-wealthy, well-credentialed whack-job ignores the science and promotes the same political philosophy as his progressive socialist democrat peers in San Francisco.

The road to hell is certainly paved with good intentions – and Tom Steyer seems to have $1.6 billion of them.

-- steve

“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell



Once again, I am dismayed to see one of the leading progressive internet publications,, tell Americans and the world that “the United States is a superpower in decline” without pointing out that the situation is a failure of leadership …

Delusionary Thinking in Washington, The Desperate Plight of a Declining Superpower - What is a declining superpower to do in the face of widespread defiance?

Take a look around the world and it’s hard not to conclude that the United States is a superpower in decline. Whether in Europe, Asia, or the Middle East, aspiring powers are flexing their muscles, ignoring Washington’s dictates, or actively combating them. Russia refuses to curtail its support for armed separatists in Ukraine; China refuses to abandon its base-building endeavors in the South China Sea; Saudi Arabia refuses to endorse the U.S.-brokered nuclear deal with Iran; the Islamic State movement (ISIS) refuses to capitulate in the face of U.S. airpower. What is a declining superpower supposed to do in the face of such defiance?

This is no small matter. For decades, being a superpower has been the defining characteristic of American identity. The embrace of global supremacy began after World War II when the United States assumed responsibility for resisting Soviet expansionism around the world; it persisted through the Cold War era and only grew after the implosion of the Soviet Union, when the U.S. assumed sole responsibility for combating a whole new array of international threats. As General Colin Powell famously exclaimed in the final days of the Soviet era, “We have to put a shingle outside our door saying, ‘Superpower Lives Here,’ no matter what the Soviets do, even if they evacuate from Eastern Europe.”

[Laugh all you want about a superpower. Just consider your life as an East German under the Russians. A South Korea under the rule of the crazy dictators in the North? Or Cambodia – whoops, we pulled out and gave them a political victory and millions were slaughtered.]

Imperial Overstretch Hits Washington

Strategically, in the Cold War years, Washington’s power brokers assumed that there would always be two superpowers perpetually battling for world dominance.  In the wake of the utterly unexpected Soviet collapse, American strategists began to envision a world of just one, of a “sole superpower” (aka Rome on the Potomac). In line with this new outlook, the administration of George H.W. Bush soon adopted a long-range plan intended to preserve that status indefinitely. Known as the Defense Planning Guidance for Fiscal Years 1994-99, it declared: “Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union.”

[Without the United States as a force for good, America and the rest of the world is screwed. Who will stand up to the people who want to enslave you?]

H.W.’s son, then the governor of Texas, articulated a similar vision of a globally encompassing Pax Americana when campaigning for president in 1999. If elected, he told military cadets at the Citadel in Charleston, his top goal would be “to take advantage of a tremendous opportunity -- given few nations in history -- to extend the current peace into the far realm of the future. A chance to project America’s peaceful influence not just across the world, but across the years.”

For Bush, of course, “extending the peace” would turn out to mean invading Iraq and igniting a devastating regional conflagration that only continues to grow and spread to this day. Even after it began, he did not doubt -- nor (despite the reputed wisdom offered by hindsight) does he today -- that this was the price that had to be paid for the U.S. to retain its vaunted status as the world’s sole superpower.

[At the core of most progressive socialist democrat complaints is an attempt at misdirection: “Blame it on Bush.”

If the progressives were intellectually honest, they would acknowledge two facts: one, we were wrong to invade Iraq and try to bring freedom to what is a tribal society; and two, almost everyone, including republicans, democrats, other world leaders, believed the same faulty intelligence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was prepared to use them. Literally true if you include chemical weapons which were used to kill and injured thousands of Kurds at Halabja.

And, at one point in time, Iraq was somewhat under control with Vice President Joe Biden hailing that country as one of President Obama's "great achievements. That is, until the feckless and incompetent Barack Hussein Obama decided that he would remove American troops from Iraq to fulfill a domestic campaign pledge, thus leaving a power vacuum that was filled by warlords and Iranian Shia soldiers.]

The problem, as many mainstream observers now acknowledge, is that such a strategy aimed at perpetuating U.S. global supremacy at all costs was always destined to result in what Yale historian Paul Kennedy, in his classic book The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, unforgettably termed “imperial overstretch.” As he presciently wrote in that 1987 study, it would arise from a situation in which “the sum total of the United States’ global interests and obligations is… far larger than the country’s power to defend all of them simultaneously.”

[Excuse me! Years of denigrating and downgrading America’s military is the sole purview of the progressive socialist democrats; many of whom believe that American colonialism is one of the root causes for the world ills. Failing to note a 1,200-year religious war between the Sunni majority and the Shia minority that has nothing to do with America, its principles, or its political activities.

Again, if we were being intellectually honest, we would see that former President Jimmy Carter, a bungling and ineffective leader, became the father of the type of Iranian Islamo-fascism that faces us all today when he failed to support an American ally and sided with a radical Imam named Ayatollah Khomeini. And, no so coincidently, do we find a current President, Barack Hussein Obama, bowing to the will of another Ayatollah, Ayatollah Khamenei, as he pursues his nuclear agenda.] 

Indeed, Washington finds itself in exactly that dilemma today. What’s curious, however, is just how quickly such overstretch engulfed a country that, barely a decade ago, was being hailed as the planet’s first “hyperpower,” a status even more exalted than superpower. But that was before George W.’s miscalculation in Iraq and other missteps left the U.S. to face a war-ravaged Middle East with an exhausted military and a depleted treasury. At the same time, major and regional powers like China, India, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey have been building up their economic and military capabilities and, recognizing the weakness that accompanies imperial overstretch, are beginning to challenge U.S. dominance in many areas of the globe. The Obama administration has been trying, in one fashion or another, to respond in all of those areas -- among them Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and the South China Sea -- but without, it turns out, the capacity to prevail in any of them.

[Has anyone else noticed that President Obama has replaced competent military leaders with politically correct progressive lickspittles and toadies? Has anyone noticed that our rules of engagement are designed to disadvantage our military and convey an advantage to our enemies – by preventing civilian casualties; even knowing that our enemies hide behind women and children to create propaganda wins and to play on our weaknesses. When the enemy uses schools, mosques, and hospitals to stage or launch weapons, they have signed their own death warrants. America no longer fights to win – but to provide the President with a photo-op and talking points.]

Nonetheless, despite a range of setbacks, no one in Washington’s power elite -- Senators Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders being the exceptions that prove the rule -- seems to have the slightest urge to abandon the role of sole superpower or even to back off it in any significant way. President Obama, who is clearly all too aware of the country’s strategic limitations, has been typical in his unwillingness to retreat from such a supremacist vision. “The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation,” he told graduating cadets at West Point in May 2014. “That has been true for the century past and it will be true for the century to come.”

[You have lost the argument when you cite a socialist (Sanders) and a small-time grifter (Paul) as exceptions that prove the rule. Sanders would surrender America to the socialists and Rand would bury his head in the sand until the time the Muslims came to chop it off. Russia and China would like nothing better for America to back off and let them have their way with their respective regions. Who would believe the claptrap that Obama is unwilling to retreat from a supremacist vision when he continues to weaken the military, refuses to win wars, and above all, apologizes for America’s past bad behavior.]

How, then, to reconcile the reality of superpower overreach and decline with an unbending commitment to global supremacy?

[First, it is a flawed assumption that America is guilty of superpower overreach when the truth is that America is guilty of electing a President who is not a leader. A community organizer who seeks consensus. A lazy community organizer who allows others to act in his stead, soaking up the credit if things work out, and expressing shock – shock I tell you – if something goes wrong. This is the man who lies. Lies about reading about problems in the daily news when we know he gets a PDB (Presidential Daily Brief). And, then proceeds to throw and underling under the bus; until the media is no longer interested and they reappear in another position.]

The first of two approaches to this conundrum in Washington might be thought of as a high-wire circus act.  It involves the constant juggling of America’s capabilities and commitments, with its limited resources (largely of a military nature) being rushed relatively fruitlessly from one place to another in response to unfolding crises, even as attempts are made to avoid yet more and deeper entanglements. This, in practice, has been the strategy pursued by the current administration.  Call it the Obama Doctrine.

[This is a lie. The progressives hope you will confuse movement with action. Like sending Hillary Clinton to visit world leaders and claim that it is diplomacy. America, under Barack Obama, does not want to extend its military might to decisively take action. How many people remember when ISIS was relatively small and massed in a few concentrated locations. A single B-52 raid staged from Diego Garcia with conventional weapons would have solved that problem? Or how many people remember Obama’s red line in Syria – which when breached, opened the door to further aggressive actions by our enemies?]

After concluding, for instance, that China had taken advantage of U.S. entanglement in Iraq and Afghanistan to advance its own strategic interests in Southeast Asia, Obama and his top advisers decided to downgrade the U.S. presence in the Middle East and free up resources for a more robust one in the western Pacific.  Announcing this shift in 2011 -- it would first be called a “pivot to Asia” and then a “rebalancing” there -- the president made no secret of the juggling act involved.

[Can it be the progressive socialist democrats are attacking Obama or is this just another one of those misguided misdirections to gin up the appearance of opposition?]

“After a decade in which we fought two wars that cost us dearly, in blood and treasure, the United States is turning our attention to the vast potential of the Asia Pacific region,” he told members of the Australian Parliament that November.  “As we end today’s wars, I have directed my national security team to make our presence and mission in the Asia Pacific a top priority.  As a result, reductions in U.S. defense spending will not -- I repeat, will not -- come at the expense of the Asia Pacific.”

[Who the hell believes this liar? Here is a President who fetes our enemies and disadvantages our allies. Even our staunchest allies do not believe anything he says as they prepare to take action independent of the United States. Including, but not limited to, Saudi Arabia acquiring nuclear capabilities. His national security team? You mean the liars who lied about Benghazi and see everything through the prism of domestic politics? The people who have no experience with the military and are directing battles from the White House.]

<snip – to read the entire piece in full and in context, click on the link below>

Time to Stop Pretending

Back, then, to our original question: What is a declining superpower supposed to do in the face of this predicament?

Anywhere but in Washington, the obvious answer would for it to stop pretending to be what it’s not. The first step in any 12-step imperial-overstretch recovery program would involve accepting the fact that American power is limited and global rule an impossible fantasy. Accepted as well would have to be this obvious reality: like it or not, the U.S. shares the planet with a coterie of other major powers -- none as strong as we are, but none so weak as to be intimidated by the threat of U.S. military intervention. Having absorbed a more realistic assessment of American power, Washington would then have to focus on how exactly to cohabit with such powers -- Russia, China, and Iran among them -- and manage its differences with them without igniting yet more disastrous regional firestorms.

[Can you say surrender? Turning America into the progressive socialist democrat’s wet dream: France!]

If strategic juggling and massive denial were not so embedded in the political life of this country’s “war capital,” this would not be an impossibly difficult strategy to pursue, as others have suggested. In 2010, for example, Christopher Layne of the George H.W. Bush School at Texas A&M argued in the American Conservative that the U.S. could no longer sustain its global superpower status and, “rather than having this adjustment forced upon it suddenly by a major crisis… should get ahead of the curve by shifting its position in a gradual, orderly fashion.” Layne and others have spelled out what this might entail: fewer military entanglements abroad, a diminishing urge to garrison the planet, reduced military spending, greater reliance on allies, more funds to use at home in rebuilding the crumbling infrastructure of a divided society, and a diminished military footprint in the Middle East.

[I am tired of hearing progressives talk about reducing military spending and repairing our crumbling infrastructure. As we saw with the Jobs Stimulus plan, the money went to support progressive local governments and their unions. As we can plainly see, the infrastructure in the inner cities, governed for decades by progressives remain cesspools of decay, disease, poverty, illiteracy, and crime. Will billions siphoned off by corrupt politicians and their special interests. Making America more vulnerable and allowing the kleptocracy to govern is absolutely crazy.

Other than Israel, to which we have a moral and humanitarian duty, there is nothing in the Middle East except chaos caused by a wayward religion founded by a pedophile warlord to expand his fiefdom. To the extent that the ignorant were kept ignorant and the others chose not fight for reform, there is little doubt that Islam is the religion of peace and is tolerant of other religious viewpoints. Hell, they can’t even get past a convention of cartoonists without rioting and killing.]

But for any of this to happen, American policymakers would first have to abandon the pretense that the United States remains the sole global superpower -- and that may be too bitter a pill for the present American psyche (and for the political aspirations of certain Republican candidates) to swallow. From such denialism, it’s already clear, will only come further ill-conceived military adventures abroad and, sooner or later, under far grimmer circumstances, an American reckoning with reality.

[What Americans need to realize is that we have to abandon the pretense that President Barack Obama is a leader who truly believes in American exceptionalism and that his cadre of progressive socialist democrats is not a fifth column seeking to destroy America from within and replace capitalism with socialism or communism. Isn’t that what he was taught by his communist father, his communist mentor Frank Marshall, and his spiritual mentor Reverend Jeremiah Wright?]

Delusionary Thinking in Washington, The Desperate Plight of a Declining Superpower | Alternet

A President Romney … or even a President McCain would have been better for America that President Obama. Think back, what the hell have the progressives given us with Presidents Carter, Clinton, and Obama? Bush the Elder may have been an elitist weakling and Bush the Younger a crony capitalist – but you could not openly question their patriotism and love of country. They knew about military matters. They knew about fighting for America. Not so President Obama who is destroying our domestic life with his illegal immigration program; our economy with his global warming rules and regulations; and now our ability to defend ourselves with military downsizing and his reluctance to win a war.

An illustration of how corrupt the progressive socialist democrats are …


Here is a prominent progressive, said to be one of the next generation of leaders, misstating the First Amendment of the Constitution – claiming that hate speech is excluded from protection. Perhaps he needs to take his own advice and read it one of these days. And, knowing Cuomo, it is the progressives who are attempting to define what is hate speech. Today it might be about Blacks, Muslims, gays – and tomorrow it might include the progressive leadership of our nation.

Bottom line …

The progressive socialist democrats have damaged and nearly destroyed America. Whether their evil design is allowed to continue is a function of voter apathy and the ability of the progressives to convince Americans to choose color over competence and sex over substance.

We are so screwed.

-- steve

“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell


Have you ever wondered why the progressive socialist democrats seem wedded to abortion, birth control, and homosexuality; and what does that have to do with global warming and genetically-modified foods?

Simply put, the socialists and communists have a worldview that posits a finite supply of natural and man-made resources and that these resources need to be conserved for the collective, now and in future generations, by enlightened leaders – mostly pseudo-intellectuals – for the benefit of all. And that political power derives from the creation of scarcity, real or imagined, and its management. Supporting special interests with perks, privileges, and positions in return for political loyalty.

It sounds strange, but population control is driving the progressive socialist democrats and that their philosophy of the ends justify the means, fair or foul, is pretty much why we see progressive socialist democrats engaging in lies, corruption, and cronyism.

In their own words … 

Abortion, birth control, and non-reproductive homosexuality all feed into the meme of population control.

Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger

  • "The mass of significant Negroes, particularly in the South, still breed carelessly and disastrously, with the result that the increase among Negroes, even more than among whites, is [in] that portion of the population least intelligent and fit and least able to rear children properly." 
  • "Before eugenicists and others who are laboring for racial betterment can succeed, they must first clear the way for birth control.  Like the advocates of birth control, the eugenicists, for instance, are seeking to assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit.  Both are seeking a single end but they lay emphasis upon different methods." 
  • In her book The Pivot of Civilization, Sanger advocated the eradication of "human weeds," segregating "morons, misfits and [the] maladjusted" and sterilizing "genetically inferior races." <Source>

There have always been academics and others who sincerely believed that population control was a necessary evil and that handicapped, disadvantaged, or disabled people were an unacceptable cost burden to society. While the government wages a war on obesity, it is not a far stretch to see someone apply additional criteria in providing or denying specific healthcare or remedies to specific people. But, then again, we see the progressive socialist democrats implementing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, although neither condition is accurate. And, we also notice that the government is compiling a health dossier that is being merged with financial and employment details -- and question if this is the beginning of something quite different from what the people were told.

As does the reduction of our standard of living by curtailing energy and the engineered production of food.

Stanford University biologist and author of the best-selling book The Population Bomb, Dr. Paul Ehrlich

Since the release of this book in 1968, Ehrlich has been one of the most frequently cited "experts" on environmental issues by the media, despite the fact that his predictions on the fate of the planet, more often than not, have been wrong.

In The Population Bomb, Ehrlich predicted that hundreds of millions of people would die of starvation during the 1970s because the earth's inhabitants would multiply at a faster rate than world's ability to supply food.

  • "Actually, the problem in the world is that there is much too many rich people..." - Quoted by the Associated Press, April 6, 1990
  • "Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun." - Quoted by R. Emmett Tyrrell in The American Spectator, September 6, 1992
  • "We've already had too much economic growth in the United States. Economic growth in rich countries like ours is the disease, not the cure." - Quoted by Dixy Lee Ray in her book Trashing the Planet (1990)
  • "The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer." - Ehrlich in his book, The Population Bomb (1968), predicting widespread famine that never materialized. <Source>

Socialism and Communism, the central planning of our existence by enlightened ruling elites has never worked and can never work due to the vagaries and frailties of human nature.

That is, people who are once granted power over others, will do everything in the power and use any means at their disposal, to remain in power. Thus, leading to a totalitarian government necessary to quell any revolution by the mistreated masses who will eventually come to see their esteemed leadership’s actions be considered crimes against humanity when viewed from outside the closed kingdom.

The Republican response to the democrat challenge should be simply to tell the truth; reverse everything a progressive socialist democrat says and apply it to them.

  • When they speak of civil rights and social justice, point out is was the democrats, especially in the South, that espoused racism and quarantining blacks in concentrated locations. Point out the onerous public policies under the democrats that separated black men from their families and their children.
  • When they speak out about abortion, birth control, and homosexuality, point to socialists like Margaret Sanger and highlight her work; especially the number of black babies that are aborted each and every year.
  • When they speak out about climate change,or genetically-modified food, turn the subject back to population control and a reduced standard of living.
  • When they speak about environmentalism and energy usage, question why they allow "local" polluters to keep polluting and endangering the "local" population by paying for government-sanctioned indulgences that benefit the Wall Street Wizards and funnel money abroad to the special interests located in a tax-free haven for so-called "carbon credits." It's a scam that benefits the rich and does not make the local population any healthier. The truth it has always been about controlling energy -- the key to our economy -- and not so much about pollution. 
  • When they speak of fiscal responsibility, transparency, and accountability, point to the corruption, waste, fraud, and abuse in the democrat’s public policy actions.
  • When the attack gets personal, point out that the attacker has exhausted all rational arguments and must attack the messenger.
  • Be prepared to be attacked in the progressive mainstream media. Turn it back on the progressive socialist democrats by saying that you do not excuse bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior, you propose workable solutions to solve problems.
  • Do not be afraid to use Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals against the progressive socialist democrats. These techniques work. And, if they are used against you, point out which rule is being used and ask your attacker if he agrees with Alinsky’s socialist view of the world.
  • When they mention the middle class, ask how unions have destroyed American education and produced another generation of functional illiterates; or destroyed entire industries, forcing many to send work abroad to remain competitive and in business.
  • And, when they denigrate the rich, the fat cats, and the one-percent, ask them why the progressive socialist democrats are so hell-bent on soliciting campaign funding from the very hand that they bite. Or, ask them about the quid-pro-quo grants, contracts, and subsidies that make this nothing more than a progressive socialist shell game.

Bottom line …

Diminishing the influence of the progressive socialist democrats is no easy task; especially when they are aided and abetted by RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) who are the progressive socialist democrat’s fifth column to attack the GOP from within.

We are living in a time when the progressive socialist democrats are creating coalitions of victims, dividing Americans up into hyphenated-Americans, and then promising to redress their grievances in return for political power. Ask how that has worked out for the Blacks? Ask how that has worked our for the middle class?

Thirty years of progressive socialist democrat governance in Baltimore and what have these democrats done for the people?

If we do not unite, a class of professional politicians will sell us out to the highest bidder while they loudly proclaim their patriotism. Or in the case of Barack Obama and his cadre of socialists and communists, apologize for our historical shortcomings and promise taxpayer reparations.

-- steve

“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell



Once again it appears that President Obama has overstepped the bounds of his Presidential authority and that the matter of granting amnesty to illegal aliens is a matter for the Congress of the United States … [my comments in bracketed blue italics]

White House: Fifth Circuit Judges Misinterpreted The Law On Immigration Decision

The White House reacted to the news that the Fifth Circuit court of appeals denied an appeal from the Obama administration to lift a stay on his executive amnesty plan, accusing two judges in the decision of interpreting the law incorrectly.

Today, two judges of the Fifth Circuit chose to misinterpret the facts and the law in denying the government’s request for a stay,” White House spokesperson Brandi Hoffine said in a statement to Breitbart News. The court ruled against Obama administrations appeal with a 2-1 vote.

[Stunning that a non-lawyer spokesman, Brandi Hoffine, can put forth the legal conclusion that two of the three Judges hearing the case misinterpreted the facts, based upon a single dissenting judge, without citing a single competent legal source in the White House.]

In response Hoffine cited the dissent from Judge Stephen Higginson, who was appointed by President Obama.

“As the powerful dissent from Judge Higginson recognizes, President Obama’s immigration executive actions are fully consistent with the law,” she said.

[This is the type of executive action that President Obama himself said that he did not possess. 22 Times President Obama Said He Couldn’t Ignore or Create His Own Immigration Law.]  

Describing Obama’s executive action as an effort to bring “accountability” to the nation’s immigration system, Hoffine insisted that the president had the authority to issue amnesty to a group of illegal immigrants.

[It is the height of hypocrisy for any White House spokesperson to speak of accountability when most of the numbers, locations, destinations, medical conditions, and criminal actions of illegal aliens have been hidden from the public as well as the local and state governments that were suddenly required to deal with an influx of illegal aliens thus burdening the system and the taxpayer unnecessarily. Where the original concept was to allow the “children of illegal aliens” to pursue higher education and professional certifications, DHS programs have morphed into a morass of unconstitutional and unaccountable activities for which the Administration refuses to disclose.] 

“They are squarely within the bounds of his authority and they are the right thing to do for the country,” she said.

[This is pure balderdash coming from the liars that seem to act as White House spokespeople. It is up to the court, not the White House, to ultimately determine if a gross exercise of Presidential power and Executive Agency discretion – meant to redress individual and small group injustices – can be extended to blanket amnesty for millions of illegal aliens not to benefit the United States or its people, but to serve the political agenda of the President and his party of progressive socialist democrats.]

Source: White House: Fifth Circuit Judges Misinterpreted The Law On Immigration Decision - Breitbart

Before we dismiss Judge Higginson’s dissent as just the judicial legerdemain of an Obama-appointed lackey or just another progressive socialist democrat jurist, let us consider the clarity with which he frames the argument of the case …

STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge, dissenting:

Agreeing with the district court, the plaintiff-states recognize that removal and deportation of non-citizens is a power exclusively of the federal government.

Their complaint, however, is that the federal government isn’t doing its job; that whereas Congress, through unambiguous law, requires the identification, apprehension, and removal of non-citizens who lack documentation to be in the United States, see 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(3) (inspection); id. § 1225(b)(2)(A) (detention); id. § 1227(a) (removal), the President is thwarting that law.

According to the plaintiffs, the President refuses to remove immigrants Congress has said must be removed and has memorialized that obstruction in a Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) memorandum.

This, plaintiffs contend, is a Take Care Clause violation, a Youngstown scenario courts must correct; furthermore, because deferring removal of immigrants causes states injury and has substantive impact, the plaintiffs contend that the DHS memorandum is invalid without the full apparatus of rulemaking, notice and comment and public participation, under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). 5 U.S.C. § 553.  

The district court offered extensive viewpoints on the first point, but ruled in plaintiffs’ favor only on the second. The government seeks to stay that ruling, which is the matter before us.

My colleagues conclude that the government has not made a “strong showing” of likelihood of success on the merits. Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). I am grateful to them for their analysis and collegiality, and our exchange has informed my views, although I dissent as follows.

Judge Higginson has taken care to frame the argument, so let’s see if he can frame his dissent with the same clarity …

D. Commonsense

Judge Kavanaugh brackets his National Mining Association framework for the § 553 analysis applied above with commonsense.

First, he offers that “agency action that merely explains how the agency will enforce a statute . . . in other words, how it will exercise its broad enforcement discretion or permitting discretion under some extant statute or rule—is a general statement of policy.” Nat’l Mining Ass’n, 758 F.3d at 252.

The Supreme Court, in Arizona, resolved that immigration officials have “broad discretion” to enforce the federal immigration laws, including the “deci[sion] whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all.” Arizona, 132 S. Ct. at 2499.

[This is incorrect. No government agency has the “broad discretion” to simply ignore laws passed by Congress, the sole government law-making body in the land. To allow any government agency to simply ignore laws with which they disagree would promote anarchy, political corruption, and nullify the “rule of law,” one of the guiding principles of the United States of America.]

Second, Judge Kavanaugh notes that a token of a general statement of policy is that the agency would have legal authority to undertake the action absent the guidance document. See Nat’l Mining Ass’n, 758 F.3d at 253 (“[W]hen the agency applies [a general statement of] policy in a particular situation, it must be prepared to support the policy just as if the policy statement had never been issued.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

[Again, this is incorrect. No government agency, with or without a guiding document such as the one by DHS and cited in this case, can thwart the law nor the explicit wishes of Congress as codified in legislation.]

As described earlier, deferred action has existed for half a century, reflected in longstanding regulations as an “act of administrative convenience,” see 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(c)(14), and recognized by the Supreme Court as an appropriate exercise of the Executive’s removal discretion, see Reno, 525 U.S. at 483–84. Indeed, the same deferred action decisions for which the November 20 memorandum provides guidance already are permissible under the unchallenged 2014 enforcement priorities memorandum, which is explicitly incorporated into the November 20 memorandum. See Memorandum from Jeh Charles Johnson, Policies for the Apprehension, Detention and Removal of Undocumented Immigrants (Nov. 20, 2014).

[Again, this is wrong. While the Administration may have used their broad powers of discretion to resolve immigration issues as a matter of convenience in the past, this in no way provides a legally controlling authority for the present actions of the Administration which leads to Amnesty for millions of people – a broader class of impacted individuals than contemplated previously or by Congress and their explicit legislation. You simply do not excuse bad behavior by pointing to prior bad behavior and claiming it is precedential.]

The November 20 memorandum, by incorporating a framework the plaintiffs admit is discretionary, necessarily contains at least that identical level of discretion.

[While the principle may be the same, the disparate impact certainly is not, especially given the costs and societal harms to the states impacted by the flow of illegal immigrants who will now become eligible for state and federal programs meant for citizens and financed by citizens.]


I would hold that the underlying issue presented to us—the order in which non-citizens without documentation must be removed from the United States—must be decided, presently is being decided, and always has been decided, by the federal political branches. See Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 81 (1976) (“For reasons long recognized as valid, the responsibility for regulating the relationship between the United States and our alien visitors has been committed to the political branches of the Federal Government.”).

[There is a subtle logic flaw in the Judge’s statements. Yes, the decision is a federal matter, but it cannot be decided by the federal political branches. Branches? No, the Constitution is abundantly clear; only the Congress can make laws through the legislative process and the Executive is responsible for carrying out that law. And, if the law is not executed faithfully and in compliance with the law by the Executive Branch, it is up to the Judiciary to remedy the situation with their rulings and guidance. Exactly what is happening in the present instance. The plaintiffs-appellees have alleged that the Administration has overstepped the bounds of their discretionary authority causing harm to the plaintiffs and are now seeking judicial redress for the harms committed by the Executive Branch.]

On the expedience of immigration measures, sensible things can be said on all sides, mindful that our country is an immigrant society itself.

[This statement is misleading. We are a nation of legal immigrants who have obeyed the laws and have come to the United States to assimilate and to help build this great nation into an even greater nation. The present case involves illegal aliens who have broken one of more federal laws to cross the border and to illegally stay in the country. Other than the initial offense of entering the country without permission (a misdemeanor on the first offense, a felony if they were previously deported), you find identity theft, perjury, forgery of documents, and various other criminal actions that are felonies. And, even the reporting of crimes committed by illegal immigrants is often withheld by government officials for political reasons.]

The political nature of this dispute is clear from the names on the briefs: hundreds of mayors, police chiefs, sheriffs, attorneys general, governors, and state legislators—not to mention 185 members of Congress, 15 states and the District of Columbia on the one hand, and 113 members of Congress and 26 states on the other.

[Clearly this is not a political matter, but a challenge to our Constitution and the authority of the President of the United States to disregard those laws that he deems to be politically inexpedient and harmful to his political agenda.]

I would not affirm intervention and judicial fiat ordering what Congress has never mandated.

[To deny the hearing of this Constitutional issue of this magnitude and importance is to clearly demonstrate that one Judge may be acting on his political beliefs rather than protecting the Judiciary and the Constitution he has sworn to preserve, protect and defend the to the best of his ability.]

<Source: Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals - 15-40238 - 05/26/2015 - State of Texas, et al v. USA, et al>

Bottom line …

This is one of the most generous nation on the planet. Nobody wants to deport all of the law-abiding illegal aliens that currently exist in the United States. Nor do we want to keep importing illiteracy, poverty,  sickness, and crime.

We want Congress to makes the laws, we want the President to enforce the laws, and we want the Judiciary to rule on the constitutionality of those laws. We want our politicians to do their jobs and represent the people of the United States. We do not want political fiefdoms and political corruption on behalf of the special interests.

As President Obama has exclaimed on numerous times, he is the President, bound by our Constitution, and is not the Emperor of the United States.

Obama: ‘The Problem Is…I’m Not The Emperor Of The United States’

When asked specifically what he would do to make sure more families weren’t deported, Mr. Obama responded: “This is something I’ve struggled with throughout my presidency. The problem is that I’m the president of the United States, I’m not the emperor of the United States.

This is a case that needs to be addressed in Congress and the Supreme Court else President Obama could just very well be the emperor of America. Including the power to declare himself above the Constitution and not subject to its term limits.

-- steve

“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell



“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell



It appears that Obama and his cadre of progressive socialist democrats may have refused to provide assistance to save children from Boko Haram because of political positions on gay rights or the political corruption of foreign policy …

Obama Accused of Obstructing Battle against Boko Haram to Promote Axelrod’s Nigerian Muslim Client

When the notorious Islamic terrorist group, Boko Haram, kidnapped 278 school girls from the town of Chibok in northeastern Nigeria last year, Michelle Obama began a Twitter hashtag campaign, #BringBackOurGirls.

But behind the scenes, the Obama administration was undermining Nigeria’s efforts to take the battle to the terrorists. Obama refused to sell Nigeria arms and supplies critical to the fight, and stepped in to block other Western allies from doing so. The administration also denied Nigeria intelligence on Boko Haram from drones operating in the area.

While Boko Haram was kidnapping school girls, the U.S. cut petroleum purchases from Nigeria to zero, plunging the nation’s economy into turmoil and raising concerns about its ability to fund its battle against the terrorists. Nigeria responded by cancelling a military training agreement between the two countries.

The Nigerian presidential election is coming up Saturday, March 28, 2015. AKPD, the political consulting group founded by Obama confidante David Axelrod, is assisting Retired Gen. Muhammadu Buhari, a Muslim presidential candidate from Muslim-dominated northern Nigeria, where Boko Haram was spawned and wields the most influence. Buhari is well-known throughout the country, having led as “Head-of-State” following a military coup in 1983. He was dislodged following another coup in 1985.

Source: Obama Accused of Obstructing Battle against Boko Haram to Promote Axelrod’s Nigerian Muslim Client

Shock claim: Why Obama refused to help fight Boko Haram -- Top White House adviser working to elect Muslim dictator who wants Shariah law

Boko Haram is a radical Islamist terrorist group that recently pledged allegiance to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS. In recent years, Boko Haram has slaughtered entire villages, burned countless churches and targeted Christians and moderate Muslims for death. It received global attention last year for abducting nearly 300 Nigerian schoolgirls.

Allegations are mounting that the Obama administration withheld weapons and intelligence support from Nigeria’s fight against Boko Haram in an effort to boost the chances of the Muslim candidate for president, who is a client of the political firm founded by key Obama strategist David Axelrod.

Another major issue at work is the Obama administration’s push for a “gay” rights agenda throughout the world and Nigeria recently moved decisively in the opposite direction. Fifteen months ago, Nigeria enacted laws that criminalize homosexual behavior and strictly forbids “gay marriage.” Simpson says a public display of affection between homosexuals could draw imprisonment of 10 years or more. That is not sitting well with the Obama administration.

The diplomatic friction over the Obama administration’s “gay” rights agenda may well be a key factor in America’s refusal to provide more help against Boko Haram and in Obama’s desire to see a new president in Nigeria.

Shock claim: Why Obama refused to help fight Boko Haram

Bottom line …

If you have wondered why the Obama Administration sat by and watched while girls were kidnapped and then later raped, mutilated, or killed, perhaps this the reason. Obama and his cadre of progressive socialist democrats were trying to make a point about gay rights – or even worse, made foreign policy to aid a significant Obama political crony. How anyone could sit by when little boys were buried alive and children burned alive is  incomprehensible.

It is time for Congress and the  media to investigate this matter because the Obama Administration appears unable to investigate itself without stonewalling, lying, and the destruction of documents.

We are so screwed. It is almost unconceivable that anyone would vote for the progressive socialist democrats after the past six years.

-- steve

“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell


Only in Hollywood, could they declare a movie actor an American patriot for his role in a combat movie – hypocritical when that person is a progressive socialist democrat – or even worse, appears to be a communist …


Not everyone agrees with Hollywood’s assessment …

Maria Conchita Alonso and Sean Penn Get Into Heated Shouting Match Over Hugo Chavez Comments

Sean Penn called Maria Conchita Alonso a “pig” and the former beauty queen responded by calling Penn a “communist a--hole” after the pair of actors ran into each other Sunday at Los Angeles International Airport. <Source>

Bottom line …

Confusing a movie actor and their role is the height of hypocrisy when that actor is a squishy liberal playing a patriotic American. 

-- steve

“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell


On this Memorial Day, 2015 …

We commemorate our brave soldiers who died or were grievously wounded to safeguard our precious freedom.

Freedom that is being squandered by those self-serving traitors who are selling out our nation and its citizens in return for ephemeral political power.

While our troops fought to protect each other and our nation, today's political leadership, from the corrupt, incompetent, and uncaring Commander-in-Chief, and his cadre on progressive socialist democrats, down to the government executives in charge of the VA hospitals,  are playing political power games with healthcare in order to earn bonuses, and refuse to fight equally hard to help distraught veterans recover their health and to adjust to civilian life. 

Be grateful for your freedom and remember it should never be taken for granted. We have seen, in just a few cycles of progressive socialist democrats, our national resolve, our military strength, and our stature within the international community eroded by corrupt, incompetent, and uncaring progressive socialist democrats.

Remember who we are and what we stand for -- and kick the bastards that do not agree to the curb. 

The Patriotic Kid wishes you and yours a pleasant memorial day …

amerikid glitterribbon7

and reminds you that it is not the government, nor the media, nor the community organizers; but our VETERANS: past, present and future who insure your safety, security and your Constitutional liberties.

And while our President decides that his political agenda is more important  than leading our great nation …


our men and women in  uniform, their civilian support services and all their families are sacrificing to keep this nation both strong and free.



Capture5-29-2010-6.26.22 PM

Capture11-10-2010-8.06.22 PM

Bottom line …

Can you imagine any America where the nation will take better care of its illegal aliens than the troops guarding our safety and security worldwide?

Can you imagine an America where the President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, and the democrat frontrunner Hillary Clinton hold the military in contempt?

And can you imagine any America that would knowingly and openly consort with our nation’s enemies for political advantage?

Beyond imagination – not really – the corrupt sleazebags in Washington are busy selling us out for the proverbial thirty pieces of silver.

Be safe, be well and take care of yourself and your family first.

-- steve

“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell