...And the Federal Government Continues to Grow: President Obama to Create a New Federal Agency to Deal with Global Warming Despite Scientific Evidence Pointing to the Contrary

(Above: Do you not just love Al Gore's "doom-and-gloom" techniques used in scaring the people of not just the United States, but the world, into buying this B.S. about the existence of "global warming"?)

Introduction: The Mahdi to the Rescue!

I want to begin my article with a quote that will later be repeated in the interview by Der Spiegel journalists with German meteorologist Hans von Storch.  Dr. Storch made this comment to the journalists who thought they knew more about the issues affecting global warming, or the lack thereof, due to their vastly-greater intellects as a result of being followers of the political Left.  It is with great pleasure that I post his quote, as upon reading it when I found the article, I totally was beside myself with laughter:

"Are we going to declare war on China if the country emits too much CO2 into the air and thereby violates our constitution?"

According to the conservative-leaning news site aptly-titled Mr. Conservative, President Obama is set to announce Tuesday, June 25, a new global warming department as well as a new series of executive orders geared toward the regulation of power plants.  

While speaking before what the site referred to as "a small, apathetic audience" at the very same Brandenburg Gate in Berlin that the iconic President Ronald Reagan delivered what became one of the most famous speeches in the history in our nation's history, Obama, who despite the fact that scientific data through research has determined that there have been no real vestiges of global warming over the course of the past 16 years, was undeterred in his announcement of this phenomena being the world's greatest threat. And while the site posits its opinion which I share that the president actively "rejects" Iranian and North Korean nuclear aspirations, "he is actively going to war against the climate." 

Like any other tree-hugging liberal over the past 40 or more years. Obama is talking a big game but will no doubt fail at whatever it is he thinks he will be capable of doing.  Through all or parts of his two predecessors in the global office -- Bill Clinton and George W. Bush -- the change in the level of greenhouse gases has become a virtual non-factor.  Yet, here is Obama, who again is another in the long line of Democrats and leftists from across the world claiming he has the solution to save the world from its ignorant inhabitants, and that only the government can do so.  

To continue further, the Manchurian candidate-elected-president escalated his rhetoric when he sent out a tweet promulgating his intentions that this Tuesday, he will use his executive powers to attack power plants. Unfortunately, this will undoubtedly mean that his main target will be nuclear power plants, the industry in which my best friend is employed as a nuclear engineer.  The announcement he used, in typical Obamian format patterned from the legacies and images of Communist dictators in the Soviet Union and China before him, was stated as follows in his tweet:

“Will you stand with President Obama in the fight against #climate change? Tune in on Tuesday.”

To quote Mr. Conservative:

"At least Americans can sit back and stop worrying about Islamic terrorism. It appears that, when it comes to destroying America, Obama is doing the job for them."

Below is the article from The Washington Post which broke the news of this initiative:

Obama says he’ll unveil climate plan in Tuesday speech ‘for the sake of our children’

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama is preparing to unveil his long-awaited national plan to combat climate change in a major speech, he announced on Saturday.

“There’s no single step that can reverse the effects of climate change,” Obama said in an online video released by the White House. “But when it comes to the world we leave our children, we owe it to them to do what we can.”

People consulting with White House officials on Obama’s plan, to be unveiled Tuesday at Georgetown University, say they expect him to put forth regulations on heat-trapping gases emitted by existing coal-fired power plans. They were not authorized to disclose details about the plan ahead of the announcement and requested anonymity.

Environmental groups have been pleading with Obama to take that step, but the administration has said it’s focused first on controls on new power plants. The Environmental Protection Agency, using its authority under the Clean Air Act, has already proposed controls on new plants, but the rules have been delayed — to the chagrin of states and environmental groups threatening to sue over the delays.

An administration official said last week that Obama was still weighing whether to include existing plants in the climate plan. The official wasn’t authorized to comment by name and requested anonymity.

The White House wouldn’t disclose any details Saturday about what steps Obama may call for. But his senior energy and climate adviser, Heather Zichal, said last week that controls on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants would be a major focus. She also said the plan would boost energy efficiency of appliances and buildings, plus expand renewable energy.

Putting a positive spin on a contentious partisan issue, Obama said the U.S. is uniquely poised to deal with the serious challenges posed by climate change. He said American scientists and engineers would have to design new fuels and energy sources, and workers will have to adapt to a clean energy economy.

“We’ll need all of us, as citizens, to do our part to preserve God’s creation for future generations,” Obama said.

Environmental groups have for months been pushing Obama to make good on a threat he issued to lawmakers in February in his State of the Union address: “If Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will.” Obama’s move to take the matter into his own hands appears to reflect a growing consensus that opposition in Congress is too powerful for any meaningful, sweeping climate legislation to pass anytime soon.

“They shouldn’t wait for Congress to act, because they’ll be out of office by the time that Congress gets its act together,” Rep. Henry Waxman, the top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said in an interview.

Environmental groups applauded the announcement that Obama was finally releasing a plan for executive action, but made clear they want to see firm proposals — including controls for existing power plants.

“Combating climate change means curbing carbon pollution — for the first time ever — from the biggest single source of such dangerous gases: our coal-fired power plants,” said Frances Beinecke, president of the National Resources Defense Council. “We stand ready to help President Obama in every way we can.”

Another key issue hanging over the announcement — but unlikely to be mentioned on Tuesday — is Keystone XL, a pipeline that would carry oil extracted from tar sands in western Canada to refineries along the Texas Gulf Coast. A concerted campaign by environmental activists to persuade Obama to nix the pipeline appears to be an uphill battle. The White House insists the State Department is making the decision independently.

Obama’s speech on Tuesday will come the day before he leaves for a weeklong trip to three African nations.

__

Upon further reflection into the history of the federal government's expenditures on the president and his family's traveling expenses as well as the exorbitant cost of living ($1.4 billion in 2011, compared to the British government spending a mere $57.5 million on the Royal Family), I am sure we will spend another $100 million somehow on Obama's trip to his home continent of Africa to be with his tribesman and fellow Muslims. 

You can watch the speech in which President Obama announces his initiative below: 

__

For opponents of the Mahdi, he always has an insult for them.  Take a look at an E-mail, provided by another article courtesy of Mr. Conservative:

Take a look at these statements on climate change — give ‘em a good read through and see what you think:

“Global warming has become a religion for many back here in Washington. To this crowd, there are no greater or more urgent problems anywhere. They worship at the alter [sic] of carbon generation and reduction.”

“Nobody really knows the cause … the earth cools, the earth warms … It could be caused by carbon dioxide or methane. Maybe we should kill the cows to stop the methane, or stop breathing to stop the CO2 … Thousands of people die every year of cold, so if we had global warming it would save lives … We ought to look out for people. The earth can take care of itself.”

“I’m also old enough to remember when the same left-wing part of our society was creating a global cooling scare in order to generate funds for their pet projects. So 30-some years ago the big scare was global cooling, and once they drained that [topic], they shifted to global warming.”

“[Scientists] are making up their facts to fit their conclusions. They’ve already caught them doing this.”

Sounds like things your crazy uncle would say at Thanksgiving dinner, right?

You’d be wrong. These are all statements made by current elected officials in Congress, folks whose votes have the power to make an actual difference on this issue. These climate deniers need to be called out — and you’re the only ones who can do it.

Add your name to join the team that’s going to hold these deniers accountable.

OFA will be out there making sure that the people saying these things are called out — and the people who sidestep the facts are forced to step up and say what they actually believe is going on with our climate.

Look, our crazy uncles aren’t the problem. But these members of Congress are using these far-fetched conspiracy theories as an excuse for not taking action on an issue that affects our environment, our economy, and yes, the planet our children and grandchildren inherit.

Climate change is real, and we’re not going to get anywhere on the issue until these guys admit that.

If you and I don’t say anything, nothing will change in Washington.

Help climate deniers in Congress see the light and take a step toward progress. Say you’ll help hold them accountable:

http://my.barackobama.com/Hold-Climate-Deniers-Accountable

Thanks,

Jim Messina

Chair

Organizing for Action

__

There are several reports, of course, from people in positions of authority in the sciences of climatology and meteorology who have been easily able to disprove either the existence of the "phenomena" of global warming or it does exist, the severity in which the Left would have you belief we are so afflicted by it.  Since the first file is in .pdf format, I will have to place a link here courtesy of Dr. David Whitehouse.

Paranoia? Delusional? What about science, Mr. President?  There are copious sources disproving your pipe-dream of a Utopian society predicated upon yours and every other tree hugger's ideals.  There are, indeed, facts that will refute your claims that our lives are endangered based upon the patterns of human behavior since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in Great Britain during the 18th Century (Courtesy of Der Spiegel):

Climate Expert von Storch: Why Is Global Warming Stagnating?

AP

Icebergs float in a bay off Ammassalik Island, Greenland. Scientists are puzzled as to why global warming has not risen in parallel with greenhouse gas emissions.

Climate experts have long predicted that temperatures would rise in parallel with greenhouse gas emissions. But, for 15 years, they haven't. In a SPIEGEL interview, meteorologist Hans von Storch discusses how this "puzzle" might force scientists to alter what could be "fundamentally wrong" models.

SPIEGEL: Mr. Storch, Germany has recently seen major flooding. Is global warming the culprit?

Storch: I'm not aware of any studies showing that floods happen more often today than in the past. I also just attended a hydrologists' conference in Koblenz, and none of the scientists there described such a finding.

SPIEGEL: But don't climate simulations for Germany's latitudes predict that, as temperatures rise, there will be less, not more, rain in the summers?

Storch: That only appears to be contradictory. We actually do expect there to be less total precipitation during the summer months. But there may be more extreme weather events, in which a great deal of rain falls from the sky within a short span of time. But since there has been only moderate global warming so far, climate change shouldn't be playing a major role in any case yet.

SPIEGEL: Would you say that people no longer reflexively attribute every severe weather event to global warming as much as they once did?

Storch: Yes, my impression is that there is less hysteria over the climate. There are certainly still people who almost ritualistically cry, "Stop thief! Climate change is at fault!" over any natural disaster. But people are now talking much more about the likely causes of flooding, such as land being paved over or the disappearance of natural flood zones -- and that's a good thing.

SPIEGEL: Will the greenhouse effect be an issue in the upcoming German parliamentary elections? Singer Marius Müller-Westernhagen is leading a celebrity initiative calling for the addition of climate protection as a national policy objective in the German constitution.

Storch: It's a strange idea. What state of the Earth's atmosphere do we want to protect, and in what way? And what might happen as a result? Are we going to declare war on China if the country emits too much CO2into the air and thereby violates our constitution?

SPIEGEL: Yet it was climate researchers, with their apocalyptic warnings, who gave people these ideas in the first place.
Storch: Unfortunately, some scientists behave like preachers, delivering sermons to people. What this approach ignores is the fact that there are many threats in our world that must be weighed against one another. If I'm driving my car and find myself speeding toward an obstacle, I can't simple yank the wheel to the side without first checking to see if I'll instead be driving straight into a crowd of people. Climate researchers cannot and should not take this process of weighing different factors out of the hands of politics and society.

SPIEGEL: Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, outside Berlin, is currently Chancellor Angela Merkel's climate adviser. Why does she need one?

Storch: I've never been chancellor myself. But I do think it would be unwise of Merkel to listen to just a single scientist. Climate research is made up of far too many different voices for that. Personally, though, I don't believe the chancellor has delved deeply into the subject. If she had, she would know that there are other perspectives besides those held by her environmental policy administrators.

SPIEGEL: Just since the turn of the millennium, humanity has emitted another 400 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, yet temperatures haven't risen in nearly 15 years. What can explain this?

Storch: So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We're facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.

SPIEGEL: Do the computer models with which physicists simulate the future climate ever show the sort of long standstill in temperature change that we're observing right now?

Storch: Yes, but only extremely rarely. At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase.

SPIEGEL: How long will it still be possible to reconcile such a pause in global warming with established climate forecasts?

Storch: If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.

SPIEGEL: What could be wrong with the models?

Storch: There are two conceivable explanations -- and neither is very pleasant for us. The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn't mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes.

SPIEGEL: That sounds quite embarrassing for your profession, if you have to go back and adjust your models to fit with reality…

Storch: Why? That's how the process of scientific discovery works. There is no last word in research, and that includes climate research. It's never the truth that we offer, but only our best possible approximation of reality. But that often gets forgotten in the way the public perceives and describes our work.

SPIEGEL: But it has been climate researchers themselves who have feigned a degree of certainty even though it doesn't actually exist. For example, the IPCC announced with 95 percent certainty that humans contribute to climate change.

Storch: And there are good reasons for that statement. We could no longer explain the considerable rise in global temperatures observed between the early 1970s and the late 1990s with natural causes. My team at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, in Hamburg, was able to provide evidence in 1995 of humans' influence on climate events. Of course, that evidence presupposed that we had correctly assessed the amount of natural climate fluctuation. Now that we have a new development, we may need to make adjustments.

SPIEGEL: In which areas do you need to improve the models?

Storch: Among other things, there is evidence that the oceans have absorbed more heat than we initially calculated. Temperatures at depths greater than 700 meters (2,300 feet) appear to have increased more than ever before. The only unfortunate thing is that our simulations failed to predict this effect.

SPIEGEL: That doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

Storch: Certainly the greatest mistake of climate researchers has been giving the impression that they are declaring the definitive truth. The end result is foolishness along the lines of the climate protection brochures recently published by Germany's Federal Environmental Agency under the title "Sie erwärmt sich doch" ("The Earth is getting warmer"). Pamphlets like that aren't going to convince any skeptics. It's not a bad thing to make mistakes and have to correct them. The only thing that was bad was acting beforehand as if we were infallible. By doing so, we have gambled away the most important asset we have as scientists: the public's trust. We went through something similar with deforestation, too -- and then we didn't hear much about the topic for a long time.

SPIEGEL: Does this throw the entire theory of global warming into doubt?

Storch: I don't believe so. We still have compelling evidence of a man-made greenhouse effect. There is very little doubt about it. But if global warming continues to stagnate, doubts will obviously grow stronger.

SPIEGEL: Do scientists still predict that sea levels will rise?

Storch: In principle, yes. Unfortunately, though, our simulations aren't yet capable of showing whether and how fast ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica will melt -- and that is a very significant factor in how much sea levels will actually rise. For this reason, the IPCC's predictions have been conservative. And, considering the uncertainties, I think this is correct.

SPIEGEL: And how good are the long-term forecasts concerning temperature and precipitation?

Storch: Those are also still difficult. For example, according to the models, the Mediterranean region will grow drier all year round. At the moment, however, there is actually more rain there in the fall months than there used to be. We will need to observe further developments closely in the coming years. Temperature increases are also very much dependent on clouds, which can both amplify and mitigate the greenhouse effect. For as long as I've been working in this field, for over 30 years, there has unfortunately been very little progress made in the simulation of clouds.

SPIEGEL: Despite all these problem areas, do you still believe global warming will continue?

Storch: Yes, we are certainly going to see an increase of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) or more -- and by the end of this century, mind you. That's what my instinct tells me, since I don't know exactly how emission levels will develop. Other climate researchers might have a different instinct. Our models certainly include a great number of highly subjective assumptions. Natural science is also a social process, and one far more influenced by the spirit of the times than non-scientists can imagine. You can expect many more surprises.

SPIEGEL: What exactly are politicians supposed to do with such vague predictions?

Storch: Whether it ends up being one, two or three degrees, the exact figure is ultimately not the important thing. Quite apart from our climate simulations, there is a general societal consensus that we should be more conservative with fossil fuels. Also, the more serious effects of climate change won't affect us for at least 30 years. We have enough time to prepare ourselves.

SPIEGEL: In a SPIEGEL interview 10 years ago, you said, "We need to allay people's fear of climate change." You also said, "We'll manage this." At the time, you were harshly criticized for these comments. Do you still take such a laidback stance toward global warming?

Storch: Yes, I do. I was accused of believing it was unnecessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is not the case. I simply meant that it is no longer possible in any case to completely prevent further warming, and thus it would be wise of us to prepare for the inevitable, for example by building higher ocean dikes. And I have the impression that I'm no longer quite as alone in having this opinion as I was then. The climate debate is no longer an all-or-nothing debate -- except perhaps in the case of colleagues such as a certain employee of Schellnhuber's, whose verbal attacks against anyone who expresses doubt continue to breathe new life into the climate change denial camp.

SPIEGEL: Are there findings related to global warming that worry you?

Storch: The potential acidification of the oceans due to CO2 entering them from the atmosphere. This is a phenomenon that seems sinister to me, perhaps in part because I understand too little about it. But if marine animals are no longer able to form shells and skeletons well, it will affect nutrient cycles in the oceans. And that certainly makes me nervous.

SPIEGEL: Mr. Storch, thank you for this interview.

Interview conducted by Olaf Stampf and Gerald Traufetter

Translated from the German by Ella Ornstein

___ 

Conclusion: The Emotional Appeal to the "Phenomena" of Global Warming Proven to be Minimal if Non-Existent At Best Is Comical and Thus Will Be Lampooned and Paradied

Sadly, the ignorance of both Olaf Stampf and Gerald Traufetter are apparent just it seems to be the case with so many members of the media who associate themselves as leftists as they attempt to debunk Dr. Storch's own scientifically-based opinions that he derived based upon mounds of empirical data as a result of the fruits of his research.  I have never been one to deny that there exists the phenomena of climate change, nor have I ever stated that it was not inadvertently the result of the industrialization of mankind beginning with the Industrial Revolution in Great Britain during the 18th Century.  I do, however, find it highly more probable that as with the climate patterns scientists have meticulously researched from gathering information available to them from the many millenia that it is a gradual series of changes in our atmosphere which fluctuates in opposite directions over time.  For President Obama to act as he plans to will result in the further decimation of an already-crippled, whose unemployment rose in the past month to 7.6% after it had experienced a trend of gradual-but-slow decreases.  He does not care, however, if it results in the losses of scores of American jobs; he is doing it "for our children."

In concluding this article, I am going to add yet two more videos.  This first one, however, is courtesy of the satirical Comedy Central cartoon we know through pop culture as South Park.  Though he is a child of questionable virtue, my favorite character on the show on the rare occasions I do watch is Eric Cartman.  My three favorite episodes, in fact, had little to no political or social satire in them, but were strictly comedic.  Those episodes were the one where aliens give Cartman an anal probe, in which he farts constantly and kept on complaining about his "flaming gas"; the second being where Cartman take the "Beefcake 3000" muscle-building supplement to assist in growing more muscular, which of course backfires and he, instead, grows grossly obese; and finally, the episode where Cartman sings, "Kyles Mom is Bitch."  As hilarious as the early episodes during the first couple of years of the series' run, which dates back as far as my freshman year in high school during the 1996-1997 school year, the show has over the past decade or so taken a different approach that has both the consequences of gained popularity as well as attracting to its creators, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, a great deal of controversy.  To those gentlemen's credit, they have not cowered down before the tides of negative public opinion or less-than-favorable media publicity, as they have endeavored in tackling virtually ever social and political issue that has arisen in American during that period of time. The following, which is not exactly directed at either President Obama's spreading of the traditional "doom-and-gloom" fear tactics, does speak to the comparable comical levels of hysteria conservative-libertarians have observed out of their liberal political counterparts for decades now.  

It is therefore with great pleasure that I present to you a clip from South Park's episode where the city's public officials grapple with the daunting task of alerting the public and dealing with the problem of the newest menace to the town's society: the rise of the infamous "Man-Bear Pig"!

Lastly, this is the finding by Weather Channel founder John Coleman, who declares that "as a scientist, I know global warming doesn't really exist" :

(Above: John Coleman, Part One)

(Above: John Coleman, Part Two)

(Above: John Coleman, Part Three)

(Above: John Coleman, Part Four)

A Letter from a Dying Veteran to His Senators: Heartbroken With My Corrupt Government -- Courtesy of Mr. Conservative

"Their lives they held their country's trust; They kept its faith; They died its heroes."

- Quote inscribed on the northeast corner of the University of Nebraska'a Memorial Stadium

There will be no introductory or body paragraphs, nor will there be a conclusion in this article because it will be clear in its intentions. President Obama won convincingly in both the 2008 and 2012 Presidential Elections against his Republican opponents, and has enjoyed to a large degree the phenomena of both the cults of personality and leadership that some of the world's most notorious dictators have experienced throughout history: Napoleon Bonaparte, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Mao Zedong, the Kim family in North Korea, Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro and Che Guevara, and finally Hugo Chavez.  As a recent college graduate, this phenomena was painfully obvious on the campus of the University of Tennessee in my hometown of Knoxville.  The city of Knoxville is very conservative, except for the predominantly-African-American section of town and the university itself.  However, I am comfortable in knowing that the majority of Tennesseans were aware of the dangers this man not only posed upon his first election to the presidency in 2008, but of the policies he has implemented both constitutionally and not.  A few young people, mostly ones who have persevered through the onslaught of the Left's persecution of Christians and Jews nationwide in favor of the violent virtues of the Islamic law Shari'ah, are successfully maintaining a healthy resistance against the rising levels of tyrannical rule we have in our midst in the White House.  As a conservative-libertarian, I am cognizant of the fact that there have been Republican presidents and politicians who have been utterly profligate either morally or politically, as none of us can forget the guilt-by-association of GOP presidents Warren G. Harding and Richard M. Nixon with the Teapot Dome Scandal and Watergate, respectively.  However, neither of those presidents ever were discovered to have directly ordered or surreptitiously enacted policies with the aim towards infringing upon the American people's constitutional rights, particularly those located within the First, Second, Fourth, and Tenth Amendments. Luckily, a large number of middle-age and senior citizens are mature enough to realize that with idolness comes dependency, irresponsibility and unaccountability for one's own actions, and lastly, a society that becomes imbued through its guilt in these endeavors with the stench of decadence and decay.

Our military personnel, both past and present, have traditionally known these facts to be true with regards to presidents who are members of the Democratic Party. While I have not read any articles specifically dedicated to this phenomenon, the incident involving Obama failing to salute the U.S. Marine as he was preparing to board the presidential helicopter had to have been offensive to the Marine and his fellow members of the Semper Fidelis fraternity of officers.  Of course, all the media could do was report how the president returned to shake the hand of the Marine and then brush it off as a non-incident.  You and I, though, patriotic and reverential towards the patriots who have sacrificed blood, sweat, and tears for our great nation, know better than this.  This all occurred after Obama asked Marines to hold umbrellas over the heads of both he and Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan in the White House's Rose Garden so they would not become wet while delivering a press conference.  For those who do not know this, Marine Corps regulations prevent Marines from carrying umbrellas while in uniform.  The article written on the subject can be accessed courtesy of The Washington Times. 

Upon reflections of the dozens of websites I found where wounded veterans of the Iraq and Afghan wars wrote to President George W. Bush in protest of the conflict, I read on my Facebook news feed an article presented by Mr. Conservative that presents a letter written to Washington State U.S. Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, both Democrats, from a dying veteran, aged 79 years, which lifted my spirits. It was a letter by and of a man who had seen much in his life and had many times engaged in reflecting upon the natures of life and the state of our government in our society.  The man, named Bill Schoonover, is a sage, but then again, does it really take a sage to be capable of sifting through the junk with which the Obama presidency and the congressional Democrats have presented before the American people for so many years? With the continuing flow of revelations of the Obama scandals comes yet another truth presented by various polls that are conducted: there are far fewer people who trust the president or even approve of his policies than those who do.  Most believe he is directly responsible for the constitutional rights violations of the American people, though Obama denies it vehemently and even justifies his abuse of the Fourth Amendment with the PRISM program under the guise that he is "protecting the people."

To conclude this article, it is my great pleasure to present before you the letter by Mr. Schoonover.  Liberals will no doubt regard him as an "ingrate" or an "old, senile man," but even on Death's Door, he is wiser than they (Courtesy of Mr. Conservative):

To:
Senator Patty Murray
Senator Maria Cantwell
Washington , DC , 20510

Dear Senator:

I have tried to live by the rules my entire life. My father was a
Command Sergeant Major , U.S. Army, who died of combat related stresses
shortly after his retirement. It was he who instilled in me those
virtues he felt important – honesty, duty, patriotism and obeying the
laws of God and of our various governments. I have served my country,
paid my taxes, worked hard, volunteered and donated my fair share of
money, time and artifacts.

Today, as I approach my 79th birthday, I am heart-broken when I look
at my country and my government. I shall only point out a very few
things abysmally wrong which you can multiply by a thousand fold. I
have calculated that all the money I have paid in income taxes my
entire life cannot even keep the Senate barbershop open for one year!
Only Heaven and a few tight-lipped actuarial types know what the
Senate dining room costs the taxpayers. So please, enjoy your haircuts
and meals on us.

Last year, the president spent an estimated 1.4 $billion on himself
and his family. The vice president spends $millions on hotels. They
have had 8 vacations so far this year! And our House of
Representatives and Senate have become America’s answer to the Saudi
royal family. You have become the “perfumed princes and princesses” of
our country.

In the middle of the night, you voted in the Affordable Health Care
Act, a.k.a. “Obama Care,” a bill which no more than a handful of
senators or representatives read more than several paragraphs, crammed
it down our throats, and then promptly exempted yourselves from it
substituting your own taxpayer-subsidized golden health care
insurance.

You live exceedingly well, eat and drink as well as the “one
per centers,” consistently vote yourselves perks and pay raises while
making 3.5 times the average U.S. individual income, and give up
nothing while you (as well as the president and VP) ask us to
sacrifice due to sequestration (for which, of course, you plan to
blame the Republicans, anyway).

You understand very well the only two rules you need to know – (1) How
to get elected, and (2) How to get re-elected. And you do this with
the aid of an eagerly willing and partisan press, speeches permeated
with a certain economy of truth, and by buying the votes of the
greedy, the ill-informed and under-educated citizens (and
non-citizens, too, many of whom do vote ) who are looking for a
handout rather than a job. Your so-called “safety net” has become a
hammock for the lazy. And, what is it now, about 49 or 50 million on
food stamps – pretty much all Democrat voters – and the program is
absolutely rife with fraud with absolutely no congressional oversight?
I would offer that you are not entirely to blame. What changed you is
the seductive environment of power in which you have immersed
yourselves. It is the nature of both houses of Congress which requires
you to subordinate your virtue in order to get anything done until you
have achieved a leadership role. To paraphrase President Reagan, it
appears that the second oldest profession (politics), bears a
remarkably strong resemblance to the oldest.

As the hirsute first Baron John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton (1834 -
1902), English historian and moralist, so aptly and accurately stated,
“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great
men are almost always bad men.” I’m only guessing that this applies to
the female sex as well. Tell me, is there a more corrupt entity in
this country than Congress?

While we middle class people continue to struggle, our government
becomes less and less transparent, more and more bureaucratic, and
ever so much more dictatorial, using Czars and Secretaries to tell us
(just to mention a very few) what kind of light bulbs we must
purchase, how much soda or hamburgers we can eat, what cars we can
drive, gasoline to use, and what health care we must buy. Countless
thousands of pages of regulations strangle our businesses costing the
consumer more and more every day.

As I face my final year, or so, with cancer, my president and my
government tell me “You’ll just have to take a pill,” while you,
Senator, your colleagues, the president, and other exulted government
officials and their families will get the best possible health care on
our tax dollars until you are called home by your Creator while also
enjoying a retirement beyond my wildest dreams, which of course, you
voted for yourselves and we pay for.

The chances of you reading this letter are practically zero as your
staff will not pass it on, but with a little luck, a form letter
response might be generated by them with an auto signature applied,
hoping we will believe that you, our senator or representative, has
heard us and actually cares. This letter will, however, go on line
where many others will have the chance to read one person’s opinion,
rightly or wrongly, about this government, its administration and its
senators and representatives.

I only hope that occasionally you might quietly thank the taxpayer for
all the generous entitlements which you have voted yourselves, for
which, by law, we must pay, unless, of course, it just goes on the $17
trillion national debt for which your children and ours, and your
grandchildren and ours,ad infinitum, must eventually try to pick up
the tab.

My final thoughts are that it must take a person who has either lost

his or her soul, or conscience, or both, to seek re-election and

continue to destroy this country I deeply love and put it so far in

debt that we will never pay it off while your lot improves by the

minute, because of your power. For you, Senator, will never stand up

to the rascals in your House who constantly deceive the American

people. And that, my dear Senator, is how power has corrupted you and

the entire Congress. The only answer to clean up this cesspool is term

limits. This, of course, will kill the goose that lays your golden

eggs. And woe be to him (or her) who would dare to bring it up.

Sincerely,
Bill Schoonover

Sarah Palin and Her Son Trigg: Their Quest to End Liberal Hostility Toward Disabled Individuals

Introduction: The Background to the Democratic Party's Hypocrisy With Regards to Claiming It is the Party of the Women, Minorities, the Poor and Underprivileged, and the Disabled Which Will Lead to the Discussion on the Left's Attack on Sarah Palin's Son, Trigg, Who Suffers from Down Syndrome

From its founding when the first public meeting where the name "Republican" was suggested for a new anti-slavery party was held on March 20, 1854 in a schoolhouse in Ripon, Wisconsin, to today's incarnation dominated by conservative principles, the Grand Old Party (GOP) has held but one constant throughout the 157 years of its existence, and that is its utter and complete opposition to the Democratic Party. For more than 159 years, the party held the distinction of being the choice of the majority of the black community in the United States based upon Republican lawmakers' roles in ending slavery and promoting the nation's first civil rights laws. This, however, ended with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which former Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law.  The details regarding the legal details and history behind the Act of 1964 are below (Courtesy of The National Archives):

Teaching With Documents:

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Background

In the 1960's, Americans who knew only the potential of "equal protection of the laws" expected the president, the Congress, and the courts to fulfill the promise of the 14th Amendment. In response, all three branches of the federal government--as well as the public at large--debated a fundamental constitutional question: Does the Constitution's prohibition of denying equal protection always ban the use of racial, ethnic, or gender criteria in an attempt to bring social justice and social benefits?

In 1964 Congress passed Public Law 88-352 (78 Stat. 241). The provisions of this civil rights act forbade discrimination on the basis of sex as well as race in hiring, promoting, and firing. The word "sex" was added at the last moment. According to the West Encyclopedia of American Law, Representative Howard W. Smith (D-VA) added the word. His critics argued that Smith, a conservative Southern opponent of federal civil rights, did so to kill the entire bill. Smith, however, argued that he had amended the bill in keeping with his support of Alice Paul and the National Women's Party with whom he had been working. Martha W. Griffiths (D-MI) led the effort to keep the word "sex" in the bill. In the final legislation, Section 703 (a) made it unlawful for an employer to "fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions or privileges or employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." The final bill also allowed sex to be a consideration when sex is a bona fide occupational qualification for the job. Title VII of the act created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to implement the law.

Subsequent legislation expanded the role of the EEOC. Today, according to the U. S. Government Manual of 1998-99, the EEOC enforces laws that prohibit discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or age in hiring, promoting, firing, setting wages, testing, training, apprenticeship, and all other terms and conditions of employment. Race, color, sex, creed, and age are now protected classes. The proposal to add each group to protected-class status unleashed furious debate. But no words stimulate the passion of the debate more than "affirmative action."

As West defines the term, affirmative action "refers to both mandatory and voluntary programs intended to affirm the civil rights of designated classes of individuals by taking positive action to protect them" from discrimination. The issue for most Americans is fairness: Should the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment be used to advance the liberty of one class of individuals for good reasons when that action may infringe on the liberty of another?

The EEOC, as an independent regulatory body, plays a major role in dealing with this issue. Since its creation in 1964, Congress has gradually extended EEOC powers to include investigatory authority, creating conciliation programs, filing lawsuits, and conducting voluntary assistance programs. While the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not mention the words affirmative action, it did authorize the bureaucracy to makes rules to help end discrimination. The EEOC has done so.

Today the regulatory authority of the EEOC includes enforcing a range of federal statutes prohibiting employment discrimination. According to the EEOC's own Web site, these include Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and its amendments, that prohibits employment discrimination against individuals 40 years of age or older; the Equal Pay Act of 1963 that prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender in compensation for substantially similar work under similar conditions; Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 that prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of disability in both the public and private sector, excluding the federal government; the Civil Rights Act of 1991 that provides for monetary damages in case of intentional discrimination; and Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, that prohibits employment discrimination against federal employees with disabilities. Title IX of the Education Act of 1972 forbade gender discrimination in education programs, including athletics that received federal dollars. In the late 1970s Congress passed the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. This made it illegal for employers to exclude pregnancy and childbirth from their sick leave and health benefits plans.

Presidents also weighed in, employing a series of executive orders. The first use of the phrase "affirmative action" in an executive order appeared in March 1961, when President John F. Kennedy signed E.O. 10925. President Lyndon B. Johnson ordered all executive agencies to require federal contractors to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." A 1969 executive order required that every level of federal service offer equal opportunities for women, and established a program to implement that action. President Richard Nixon's Department of Labor adopted a plan requiring federal contractors to assess their employees to identify gender and race and to set goals to end any under-representation of women and minorities. By the 1990s Democratic and Republican administrations had taken a variety of actions that resulted in 160 different affirmative action federal programs. State and local governments were following suit.

The courts also addressed affirmative action. In addition to dealing with race, color, creed, and age, from the 1970s forward, the court dealt with gender questions. It voided arbitrary weight and height requirements (Dothard v. Rawlinson), erased mandatory pregnancy leaves (Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur), allowed public employers to use carefully constructed affirmative action plans to remedy specific past discrimination that resulted in women and minorities being under-represented in the workplace (Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara County), and upheld state and local laws prohibiting gender discrimination.

By the late 1970s all branches of the federal government and most state governments had taken at least some action to fulfill the promise of equal protection under the law. The EEOC served as the agent of implementation and complaint. Its activism divided liberals and conservatives, illuminating their differing views about the proper scope of government. In general, the political liberals embraced the creation of the EEOC as the birth of a federal regulatory authority that could promote the goal of equality by designing policies to help the historically disadvantaged, including women and minorities. In contrast, political conservatives saw the EEOC as a violation of their belief in fewer government regulations and fewer federal policies. To them, creating a strong economy, free from government intervention, would produce gains that would benefit the historically disadvantaged. Even the nonideological segment of the American population asked: What should government do, if anything, to ensure equal protection under the law?

In fiscal year 1997, the EEOC collected $111 million dollars in financial benefits for people who filed claims of discrimination. Its recent successful efforts include a $34 million settlement in a sexual harassment case with Mitsubishi Motor Manufacturing of America, resulting in the company's adoption of changes to its sexual harassment prevention policy . Working with state and local programs, the EEOC processes 48,000 claims annually.

You may see the public statement by President Lyndon B. Johnson of July 2, 1964 about the Act below:

The political aspect of the Act of 1964 is below (Courtesy of History.com)

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which ended segregation in public places and banned employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, is considered one of the crowning legislative achievements of the Civil Rights Movement.  First proposed by President John F. Kennedy, it survived strong opposition from Southern members of Congress and was then signed into law by Kennedy's successor, Lyndon B. Johnson.  In subsequent years, Congress expanded the act and also passed additional legislation aimed at bring equality to African Americans, such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Lead-up to the Civil Rights Act

Following the Civil War (1861-1865), a trio of constitutional amendments abolished slavery, made the former slaves citizens and gave all men the right to vote regardless of race. Nonetheless, many states--particularly in the South--used poll taxes, literacy tests and other similar measures to keep their African-American residents essentially disenfranchised. They also enforced strict segregation through “Jim Crow” laws and condoned violence from white supremacist groups like the Ku Klux Klan. 

For decades after Reconstruction (1865-1877), the U.S. Congress did not pass a single civil rights act. Finally, in 1957, it established a civil rights section of the Justice Department, along with a Commission on Civil Rights to investigate discriminatory conditions. Three years later, Congress provided for court-appointed referees to help blacks register to vote. Both of these bills were strongly watered down to overcome southern resistance. When John F. Kennedy entered the White House in 1961, he initially delayed in supporting new anti-discrimination measures. But with protests springing up throughout the South – including one in Birmingham, Alabama, where police brutally suppressed nonviolent demonstrators with dogs, clubs and high-pressure fire hoses – Kennedy decided to act. In June 1963 he proposed by far the most comprehensive civil rights legislation to date, saying the United States “will not be fully free until all of its citizens are free.”

The Civil Rights Act Moves Through Congress

Kennedy was assassinated that November in Dallas, after which new President Lyndon B. Johnson immediately took up the cause. “Let this session of Congress be known as the session which did more for civil rights than the last hundred sessions combined,” Johnson said in his first State of the Union address. During debate on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, southerners argued, among other things, that the bill unconstitutionally usurped individual liberties and states’ rights. In a mischievous attempt to sabotage the bill, a Virginia segregationist introduced an amendment to ban employment discrimination against women. That one passed, whereas over 100 other hostile amendments were defeated. In the end, the House approved the bill with bipartisan support by a vote of 290-130. 

The bill then moved to the Senate, where southern and border state Democrats staged a 75-day filibuster --among the longest in U.S. history. On one occasion, Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, a former Ku Klux Klan member, spoke for over 14 consecutive hours. But with the help of behind-the-scenes horse-trading, the bill’s supporters eventually obtained the two-thirds votes necessary to end debate. One of those votes came from California Senator Clair Engle, who, though too sick to speak, signaled “aye” by pointing to his own eye. Having broken the filibuster, the Senate voted 73-27 in favor of the bill, and Johnson signed it into law on July 2, 1964. “It is an important gain, but I think we just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come,” Johnson, a Democrat, purportedly told an aide later that day in a prediction that would largely come true.

Provisions Within the Civil Rights Act

Under the Civil Rights Act, segregation on the grounds of race, religion or national origin was banned at all places of public accommodation, including courthouses, parks, restaurants, theaters, sports arenas and hotels. No longer could blacks and other minorities be denied service simply based on the color of their skin. The act also barred race, religious, national origin and gender discrimination by employers and labor unions, and created an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission with the power to file lawsuits on behalf of aggrieved workers. 

Additionally, the act forbade the use of federal funds for any discriminatory program, authorized the Office of Education (now the Department of Education) to assist with school desegregation, gave extra clout to the Commission on Civil Rights and prohibited the unequal application of voting requirements. For famed civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., it was nothing less than a “second emancipation.”

After the Civil Rights Act

The Civil Rights Act was later expanded to bring disabled Americans, the elderly and women in collegiate athletics under its umbrella. It also paved the way for two major follow-up laws: the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which prohibited literacy tests and other discriminatory voting practices, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which banned discrimination in the sale, rental and financing of property. Though the struggle against racism would continue, legal segregation had been brought to its knees.

***

Sarah Palin Fights Back Against the Intolerance of the Left, Who Claim to Be the Champions of Those Who Are Disabled

(Above: Sarah Palin, former Governor of Alaska and Vice Presidential Candidate under John McCain in 2008.)

For nearly 50 years, the Democratic Party has proclaimed itself as the party that champions what the popular cliche states as "the great unwashed."  In the 2008 Presidential Election, Barack Obama received 95% of all African-American votes, while getting a slightly lesser percentage of 93% in 2012.  In 2012, he received 75% of the Hispanic votes.  Perhaps most telling is the percentage of women who voted for Obama in 2012. According to The Huffington Post, 55% of women voted for Obama, while only 44 percent voted for Mitt Romney. Men preferred Romney by a margin of 52 to 45%, and women made up about 54% of the electorate. In total, the gender gap on Tuesday added up to 18% -- a significantly wider margin than the 12-point gender gap in the 2008 election. While the reasons are clear -- women in America are largely licentious in nature and show no sign of a sense of personal responsibility and accountability -- that is not the topic of this article, and it will be further discussed in another entry.

What is the topic, though, is one of sheer bigotry and hypocrisy on the part of the Left in this country.  During a June 8, 2013 stand-up comedy performance in Las Vegas, Bill Mahar did what I consider to be one most terrible ways of insulting someone.  As many of you know, Palin's youngest son, Trig, is diagnosed with Down Syndrome. Maher, during his stand-up routine, called young Trig "retarded," angering Palin, and brought a rather harsh reply in defense of her son to him. 

As there are no videos online with Mahar making his remark about young Trig, I can, however, provide one where Barbara Walters on The View DEFEND Mahar's actions as a simple act of "ignorance," while Whoopi Goldberg states how our society has transformed the word "retarded" into a bad word because the word makes people "feel bad":

Of course, since Mahar is a liberal and, too, are Walters and Goldberg, they were willing to make excuses for him, and state that perhaps society was too sensitive to the word "retarded" when it decided to changed the manner in which people should refer to the mentally disabled.  There is an even greater observation to be made, however.  Liberals are always guilty of political correctness.  Rather than calling members of the black community "the N-word," they choose to use the term "African-Americans" because it is less offensive.  A liberal once tried to defend his manner of describing the situation with women becoming combatants in the military after I stated very bluntly that the number of rapes and sexual harassment lawsuits that would be brought before the courts would skyrocket by saying that "I just don't want to hurt their feelings unlike you conservatives."  We know better, though.  For the purposes of political expediency, a member of the political Left will say or do just about anything to propagate those policies which he or she champions.  To the contrary, when a conservative such as Sarah Palin defends her mentally-challenged son, Trig, who afflicted with Down Syndrome, she is accused of being "too rash," "too impetuous," etc.  

Conclusion: A Heartfelt Set of Admissions that Lead Me to My Total and Complete Disgust of Mahar and Those of His Political Persuasion Claiming to Championing Minorities of All Walks of Life

While I have been guilty in my life of saying the following words or phrases "retard," "that's retarded," or worse, "fucktard," I have come to greatly regret doing so.  The reason I rarely make a practice of saying the word as a derogatory term, unlike when I used to volunteer with special needs children in mostly preschool classes as a teenager during my summers off from school at the Knox County Schools Extended School Year Program during the 1990's when the accepted terminology for describing a child or any individual who was intellectually delayed were the terms "mental retardation," "mentally retarded," and "profound," is because my sister, who is not quite three full years my junior in age, was diagnosed with autism during the summer of 1988 at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.  While in the interest of maintaining her privacy I will not give any further personal details regarding her life, she is perhaps my greatest inspiration in life for having accomplished what things I have been fortunate enough to have done.  Like her, I also have a pair of disabilities as I suffer from the dual diagnoses of bipolar disorder and OCD.  During the Fall 2000 semester at the University of Tennessee after events within the School of Music did not work out as I had hoped, I left the school and transferred to a local community college on the third day of classes.  Upon doing so, I began my lifelong journey of battling mental illness when I experienced my first bout with clinical depression. Little did my family or I know at the time that my problems were far more serious than simply situational depression. My battles with mental illness, simply because many in the general public are frightened by unknown, have lost me many friends over the course of nearly 13 full years.  

For my sister, however, the battle is far more arduous.  While I am unmarried and still in the process of getting my life in order, she will never know the generally-accepted things in everyday life most "normal" people will simply take for granted, and that that is a terrible shame.  But I posit before you the following questions:  "What is normal?  What is this concept of normalcy? Is there any real anomalies in The Eyes of God?"  We are all His children whether or not we wish to accept this fact, and our diversity, while sometimes unbalanced and uneven, is perhaps His greatest gift.  I can say about my sister, however, that she is the happiest individual I have ever known.  While she cannot work because of the severity of her autism and she thus remains at home watching TV and listening to the radio everyday, I have never known a soul more content with his or her lot in life as I have seen in her.  She smiles 95% of the time, and she is always coming up to my parents and myself whenever she sees us to interact in some form of fashion, often times either blowing us kisses or actually "duck kissing" us on the mouth.  She always is desirous of hugs, of which the tighter and firmer they are, the more enjoyable for her. If only everyone -- myself included -- were more content with the gift of life God has bequeathed to each and every individual on Earth regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, or if a person is disabled, the world would be a far more hospitable place, free of not only such relatively minor things in the grand scheme of events as bigotry and intolerance, but of war and poverty brought upon those people based on either political ineptitude or a dictatorship that subjugates its citizens to inhumane living conditions in order to maintain his or its stranglehold on absolute power, or in the case of the United States and the Western nations in Europe where we see millions of people impoverished in societies where the vast majority are living relatively well not because of the a fore mentioned political shortcomings, but because of laziness brought upon by irresponsibility and a lack of accountability propagated by the messages that engaging in class warfare is a worthwhile virtue by those governments.  While I will not go into further detail about the rise in poverty during the Obama administration in which our nation is now experiencing a record number of people living on welfare, the government over the course of the past 80 years has transformed the mentality of America from ones of liberty, manifest destiny, and the mentality that through God, all things are possible and so, too, is the achievement of the American Dream, a concept first explored by the French American Hector St. John de Crevecoeur in his classic work, Letters of an American Farmer (1782).  The definition behind what is an American can be founding within the prose of Letter III (Courtesy of The University of Virginia Department of American Studies):

"What then is the American, this new man?  ...He is an American, who, leaving behind him all his ancient prejudices and manners, receives new ones from the new mode of life he has embraced, the new government he obeys, and the new rank he holds.  He has become an American by being received in the broad lap of our great Alma Mater.  Here individuals of all races are melted into a new race of man, whose labors and posterity will one day cause great changes in the world.  Americans are the western pilgrims."

(from Letter III, 1782) 

While not everyone can be equal in every conceivable fashion with regards to the daily functions within our society, all are free under The Law of God, and are thus equal in His eyes because we are all His children. Liberals such as Bill Mahar, Barbara Walters, and Whoopi Goldberg do not believe this to be true, unfortunately, and while they espouse the Left's position that it or they is or are the champions of the French Revolution's perversion of the trio of terms "liberté, égalité, fraternité," what they really mean is more in line with the Orwellian line near the conclusion of his famous book Animal Farm, which was published in the United Kingdom on August 17, 1945:

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

To close, I will post another video, one that is more insufferable in who made the insult than the case with Mahar insulting young Trig Palin.  It is from none other than former-Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama in June 2009, where he compared his poor bowling skills to that of special needs individuals who participate in the Special Olympics.  As an event created by Sargent Shriver, a member of the Kennedy family, the family who was chiefly responsible for the shaping of the modern Democratic Party after 1960, not only is he incompetent as our president, he is a poor representative to one of the few foundations and achievements I found to be favorable with regards to the achievements of those in his party, as well as his being a moral profligate.

Here below is the clip.  Out of its brevity speaks a lifetime of words about the man who has destroyed in just four and a half years the American way of life and the belief that each one of us has an equal opportunity to achieve the American Dream: