“Trumping” the Election!


Needless to say, I’ve made up MY mind about who to support in 2016. Provided he’s still a candidate. I’m really hoping the latter comes true.

Donald Trump has scored big with millions of Americans who have been looking for someone to give voice to their frustrations over the last decade. Imagine that! A candidate who tells it like it is and says what needs to be said! What a novel idea!

After major Republicans flubs in 2008 and 2012, why shouldn’t they?… How a candidate could lose to the absolute worst president in the history of the United States is beyond me! But, Mitt Romney managed to do so!

Along comes Donald Trump in 2015, seizing upon what he KNOWS Americans feel! No other politician would have the gall to take advantage of that! Of course, Trump isn’t a politician. Considering how BAD this country’s national disgust is with those that have been in charge for far too long, he is the right man at the right time.

As expected, the political class, pundits, and prognosticators are up in arms! There’s no way they’re going to stand by and allow someone who actually LISTENS to the people find his way to the White House. Their frustration lies in the fact that they just can’t seem to grasp the situation. Which is something anyone with common sense can figure out!

I’d like to defer to Rush Limbaugh’s analysis of the Trump saga as it continues to play out since the first Republican debate.. As usual, ‘the godfather’ lays it out in laymen’s terms and makes it crystal clear!….

“There’s a percentage of the population that is totally fed up with the political class, including the media. And they have wanted things said to people and about people for the people they’ve been voting for for years and they haven’t heard it. I mean, the media is not loved. The media in some cases is despised, and Trump is giving it right back to ’em in ways that many people in this country have dreamed of happening. And, as such, he comes off as refreshing….

There is real visceral anger over this amnesty BS. There is real visceral anger over what’s been done for the economy. There is real visceral anger over what is being done to the health care system via Obamacare. The reason they don’t know it is because they do not care to talk to the people who feel that way, so they never do features on them. They never go out and do man-on-the-street interviews with people like that.

Because they are interested in furthering the agenda that has made all of this happen. Now, they know there are gonna be some people that disagree with it, but they immediately relegate them to insignificant status. They’re either bitter clingers or they’re lunkheads or they’re small in number or they’re just old-fashioned ditties that don’t deal well with change or what have you. But they’re missing the real anger, and it’s been building.

The anger, you can see it in the midterm 2010, 2014 elections. There have been people have shown up in droves. The Democrats have lost over a thousand seats in those midterm elections, and part of those elections were Republicans being elected because the people voting for them wanted them to stop all of this, or at least try. And they don’t see any trying to stop it. They don’t see any effort being made, any serious effort to defund Planned Parenthood.

I think there’s some real outrage in this country over what has been learned, was always suspected but now what has been confirmed was going on in those abortion clinics. There’s real anger out there. And the one person that’s come along that’s tapped into it and that gives everybody the impression that he’s fully aware of it and agrees with them is Donald Trump. As such, he’s got a pretty wide berth here. He’s got a pretty big margin of error…”

“Visceral anger!”..That sums it up perfectly! Millions of Americans are simply fed up! And they have been waiting for YEARS to have a candidate that speaks to that! Say what you will about Trump..love him..hate him… He knows what he’s doing and offers the best chance to turn around the disastrous direction in which we’re currently headed. Sadly, most other  GOP options can’t come near dynamic enthusiasm Trump projects. And the strongest attraction?..He doesn’t give a DAMN about the media and political elites. And that frightens them! For me, that is a MAJOR advancement in taking control of a nation that seems to be SPIRALING out of control!


The Man Who Knew Too Little!

Well…here we go again…one more time….

The Obama administration in the midst of yet another mess. Another mess, which in the REAL world, would have damning consequences. Unfortunately, those days are obviously long gone with the distractions of today’s world.

Nevertheless, the exposing of the matter of then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton using a personal server instead of the standard government designated email process, would seemingly run the risk of damaging national security. But, as is ALWAYS the case with the Clintons, she will likely escape with little more than collateral damage. An excuse will be put forth and approved by the media.

Her boss, Barack Obama, is now stepping forward to claim he didn’t know about the situation beforehand and learned about it only through news reports.

.."the same time everybody else learned (of) it..through news reports.."

..”the same time everybody else learned (of) it..through news reports..”

It continues to strike me as disturbing how THIS president conveniently feigns ignorance when it comes to one serious matter after another. It’s just the latest example to vindicate those of us who knew the election of this man continues to grow as one of the biggest disasters to befall this nation.

Of course…this isn’t the first…there’s a virtual parade of these incidents coming out of the White House…

On the IRS’s selective targeting of conservative groups..

"I can assure you that I certainly did not know anything about the [inspector general] report before the I.G. report had been leaked"

“I can assure you that I certainly did not know anything about the [inspector general] report before the I.G. report had been leaked”

On the Obamacare website woes…

President Barack Obama didn't know of problems with the Affordable Care Act's website -- despite insurance companies' complaints and the site's crashing during a test run -- until after its now well-documented abysmal launch, the nation's health chief told CNN on Tuesday.

“President Barack Obama didn’t know of problems with the Affordable Care Act’s website — despite insurance companies’ complaints and the site’s crashing during a test run — until after its now well-documented abysmal launch, the nation’s health chief told CNN..”

On the Justice Department seizing phone records of the A.P….

Other than press reports, we have no knowledge of any attempt by the Justice Department to seek phone records of the AP," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters.."

“Other than press reports, we have no knowledge of any attempt by the Justice Department to seek phone records of the AP,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters..”

On the NSA’s spying on German chancellor Merkel..

President Barack Obama didn't know the United States was collecting communications of allied leaders such as German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said on Monday.

“President Barack Obama didn’t know the United States was collecting communications of allied leaders such as German Chancellor Angela Merkel..”

Just a few instances of the obvious inconsistent and dangerous sphere in which this administration operates. It makes you wonder WHAT ELSE this president DOESN’T know!

It shows an administration in disarray and mired in incompetence. It shows the arrogance of a leader lacking in substance and skill. And the most frightening part…..it shows a nation so easily swayed by flourished words, promises..and absolute lies…that it would entrust our literal future to a man who has proven himself so UNFIT to hold the office he does and the power he wields.

NO CLUE!!!!!

NO CLUE!!!!!

Benghazi: The Spin


Admittedly, the Benghazi hearings will result in little, if any damage for the Obama administration. Nevertheless, I thought it a good idea to present this analysis of how the spin is, yet again, attempting to minimize the importance of serious incompetence and deceit in the White House. There are a few points brought out which have been mentioned previously here. With the level of idiocy among the general populace, it’s always a good idea to reiterate your argument. Unfortunately, it’s a reflection of the nation we are today. Arrogance and disconnect rule the day and we will all eventually pay the price…


The Obama administration has lied, stonewalled, bullied, and intimidated – the true marks of an open and transparent administration

“In the real world, when you cover up four murders after the fact, you likely go to jail. In government, you retire with dignity and run for president with full media support.

Up until yesterday, that was the Benghazi scenario following the death of four Americans including our ambassador to Libya.

The Obama administration has lied, stonewalled, bullied, and intimidated – the true marks of an open and transparent administration. And, with a few notable exceptions, the American media haven’t just let them get away it. Heck, they’ve helped.

Hill testimony of State Department whistleblowers might change that, but it’s doubtful given the one-sided reporting so far.

NBC said there was an “obvious political undercurrent” to the hearings and accused the GOP of going after the “most popular Democrat,” Hillary Clinton.


The New York Times public editor criticized her own paper’s Benghazi coverage and The Washington Post’s Twitter account inexplicably mocked those Tweeting about the case as “Chick-fil-A lovers.” AP even called it a “GOP” hearing, to make sure readers saw it as partisan.


Politico story about CBS showed the truly insidious nature of media bias on this story and how the network held back Emmy award-winning reporter Sharyl Attkisson. “CBS News executives see Attkisson wading dangerously close to advocacy on the issue, network sources have told Politico,” wrote Dylan Byers. So much so that Attkisson is “in talks to leave CBS ahead of contract.” As a result, she hadn’t even reported on the Libya attack for five months.

It hasn’t just been CBS that has been trying to corral this story. New York Times coverage might still damage the administration even though that paper has tried to prevent it. MSNBC’s sometime conservative, former Florida Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough, even Tweeted about Thursday’s Times story, saying it “should cause great concerns in the White House.”


That piece, “Diplomat Says Questions Over Benghazi Led to Demotion,” detailed State Department retaliation against one witness, saying “the prospects for the 2016 presidential election” could be impacted.

Of course, the article minimized that impact. “Mr. Hicks offered an unbecoming view of political supervision and intimidation inside the Obama administration,” wrote three Times staffers.

Unbecoming? Quite the understatement. Hey, sorry we ruined your career. That’s so unbecoming.


Public Editor Margaret Sullivan took her own paper to task, but also blamed Fox News for having “fomented” criticism of the Times. “In fact, what’s been written in The Times has been solid. But my sense is that, starting last fall, The Times has had a tendency to both play down the subject, which has significant news value, and to pursue it most aggressively as a story about political divisiveness rather than one about national security mistakes and the lack of government transparency,” she concluded.


The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank treated the testimony as if witnesses were lying. His column called the sworn comments a “yarn” and referred to our No. 2 diplomat in Libya as a “virtuoso storyteller.” Milbank pushed the standard lefty response you can expect to see at least till November, 2016: “Hicks didn’t lay a glove on the former secretary of state Wednesday.”

It wasn’t just the traditional media spinning for Team Obama. Lefty outlets did their darnedest to downplay the death of four Americans, including the only U.S. ambassador killed since 1979.



On MSNBC, NBC News Political Director Chuck Todd undercut the scandal on the May 8 “Morning Joe.” Todd called the decision to not send more special ops forces to Benghazi “very rational.” Host Rachel Maddow blasted the GOP on her May 8 show for an organized conspiracy to make Obama resign, calling it “the most ambitious thing they have done.”


Comedian Jon Stewart devoted 8 and a half minutes attacking the GOP for the hearings, even bringing up Nixon cover-ups and saying the party has “a history of hysteria.” Increasingly, his role isn’t to make jokes. It’s as Obama’s Youth Ambassador/Spinmeister.


The liberal propaganda site Huffington Post incredibly didn’t even mention the hearings on the front page, just an attack on Fox’s coverage. Buried on the Politics page was the approved Democratic spin: “Benghazi Hearing Reveals Incompetence, But No Cover-Up.” Instead, it found room for stories on food addiction, “the female word for blowjob,” and “The Incredible Name Kevin Spacey Picked For His Rescue Dog.”


Other liberal sites went even further, ignoring the hearing and the testimony entirely. The Nation, Alternet and Democracy Now had no visible coverage. That’s a far cry from how the left reacted to even something as mundane as theNRA convention, where no terrorists killed four Americans.

It doesn’t really matter how they spin it, the news continues to get out. But if all major news outlets do is cover for the administration, they may well succeed in protecting their 2016 candidate.”

Dan Gainor is the Boone Pickens Fellow and the Media Research Center’s Vice President for Business and Culture. He writes frequently about media for Fox News Opinion. He can also be contacted on Facebook and Twitter as dangainor.

The days are over when you could depend on the media to do their job. Agenda oriented coverage is all that’s left. You have only yourself to depend upon for the truth….

Obama's Lap Dogs

Why Barack Obama will never BE President….






If you ask yourself the question “what the hell happened?” nearly every day, as I do, there just might be an explanation out there. Barack Obama occupies the White House. He has the title of President of the United States. Is he a leader?..No!…Does he govern with the best interest of the nation?..Absolutely NOT!…

So how in the HELL did this divisive, vindictive man con the American people into awarding him the most powerful position on the planet?…“El Rushbo” has a theory….

“TheHill.com: ” Obama Waging an ‘Endless Campaign’.” Where have we heard this?  I love this. I must tell you, I love this.  I elucidated, enunciated what turns out to be a profound theory on Tuesday and Wednesday, and it’s being picked up now.  This is actually just more support for the theory.  And what they’re saying is, Obama doesn’t want to govern. He only wants to campaign because governing would make him responsible for what is happening.  He doesn’t want to compromise.  That would put his name on something.

So he doesn’t want to govern. He only wants to campaign.  As he campaigns, he’s always opposing these mythical, mysterious people, powerful forces who are actually the ones doing all this stuff to the country.  They’re the ones causing unemployment.  They’re the ones causing the housing crisis.  They are the ones, whoever they are.  But Obama’s fighting ’em.  He’s been fighting ’em for four years and they’ve been around a lot longer than Obama.  It goes back to Reagan, as we will learn here in a moment.

He’s not trying to accomplish anything.  Therefore there will be no compromise.  This is all in the story.  “President Obama will never again be an election candidate but, for now at least, he has the look,” and sound, “of a man on the campaign trail.  Thursday brought the latest example, with a rally-style event in Decatur, Ga., intended to build support for the administration’s proposals on pre-K education.” But there won’t ever be any governing.  If Obama ever settles in to where he’s perceived to be governing, that means he’s in charge, that means he’s responsible, that means he’s accountable.  That’s what he’s avoided.

That’s what we all missed for four years.  That’s why you can have polling data that show 55, 60% of the people oppose Obama’s agenda and still support him.  They don’t associate his agenda with the problems in the country.  They don’t believe, they don’t understand, they don’t think that Obama’s policies have had any of the negative impact on the country.  Somebody else did that, other presidents did that.  They view Obama as trying to fix it.

So this led to a discussion of the theory on Fox News yesterday.  Megyn Kelly had a couple of guests.  The first is the Talk Radio News Service president, Tony Sayegh.  And she said to him, “Rush believes that people don’t associate Obama’s policies with what’s happened in the country.  They associate the spending and the debt to the lack of jobs, so they think he’s out there working to fix it as opposed to the one who’s created it.”



SAYEGH:  He does have support, whether Republicans like to admit it or not, on an emotional level with the voters. And if you look at the election, Megyn, what I suggest is that President Obama did something extremely effective.  He ran it like a jury trial.  He knew he was on trial. He found someone else to blame, George W. Bush. He created reasonable doubt that it was his fault, and we saw in the exit polling that people really did not associate the failure of the first four years with this president.  So he’s trying to continue down that road because he knows that he has, as the president, a very strong bully pulpit, and he’s excellent at being able to talk directly to voters.

RUSH:  Right.  But not govern.  He positions himself as the guy fighting all of these powerful forces that are causing you to not have a job, causing your home value to plummet, the gas price to skyrocket, you name it.  The debt, the deficit, whatever it is, he’s just trying to fix it.  And everybody supports him.  A majority support him trying to fix it, and they want everybody to work together in the process.  So the next guest is somebody named Tara Dowdell. Tara Dowdell’s a Democrat strategerist.  Megyn Kelly said to her, “At what point do they look at the guy at the top and say, ‘Okay, now I’m gonna hold you accountable.'”



DOWDELL:  I go back further than George W. Bush.  I think our economy has been in decline for 30 years.  We’ve had a huge gap between people who have money in the United States and people who don’t.  That’s been going on far beyond George Bush.  But I think that people recognize that dynamic, but at the same time, of course they want the president to be out there fighting.  But where I disagree with Tony is, what’s wrong with taking your message and pushing your agenda to the people?  If we’re saying government is the about people, then why not ask the people to get involved and get engaged in our democracy?

RUSH:  Now, you hear this, and you end up scratching your head.  Here’s a woman — by the way, she fits the theory to the T.  All of this mess that we’re in, this goes back to Reagan.  This goes back to Reaganomics.  That’s when the rich got everything. That’s when those tax rates were really reduced.  The rich got all the goodies and that’s what Obama’s fighting.  And he can’t fix what’s been going wrong for over 30 years in four.  I mean, it goes way back further than Bush.  We got a huge gap between people that have money in this country and people who don’t.

All Obama’s doing is trying to fix it.  Everything Obama’s done has been to try to change the differences, the inequalities in economic outcome.  It’s a fair thing.  It’s a very noble thing Obama’s trying to do.  Until Reagan, everything was hunky-dory.  The Republicans were in the minority, Watergate had happened, the Democrats are running the show for the most part. I tell you, as far as the Democrat Party, the American left, and a lot of Republican establishment people, the Reagan eight years did turn this country upside down in a whole bunch of ways, and a lot of them have not gotten over it.

Obama’s written about Reagan and how much he admired him but despised his policies.  Reagan was admired by Obama for becoming a transformational president, changing the ideological trajectory of the country.  And he wants to do the same thing.  You run into a lot of pitfalls trying to compare Obama to Reagan in any way you want, it’s not a really fair thing to do to Reagan.  But the point is that what Reagan did policy-wise upset the insiders, the ruling class like we don’t understand even now.  But that is why the entire Obama presidency is not seen as Obama in charge of anything.  Whatever policies Obama has enacted have nothing to do with the current state of the economy or the country.  It’s an amazing feat, folks.

Look, I don’t want to be too redundant.  We’ve talked about it all week, but this couldn’t happen without a slavishly compliant, activist media, and it couldn’t happen without a Republican Party willing to bend over, grab the ankles and just basically cave on everything.  And I think the racial component, first African-American president, gives him a lot of cover as well.  But don’t doubt me on this.  His is a perpetual campaign.  He’s never seen as governing.  That is the key.  Therefore his policies are not at all responsible for what is happening.  He’s seen totally as somebody fighting all of this, and particularly among the low-information voters and strategists like this woman you just heard, low-information, who vote for him.

RUSH: I do want to go back and cover something here, and we’ve talked about it all week. But based on the reaction that I’m getting from Snerdley, who’s 25 feet away from me, I don’t think I did it. Now, admittedly, he’s been screening calls while I’ve been doing the program. But I don’t know that Snerdley fully comprehends, and he’s right here.

So if he doesn’t fully comprehend what I’ve been trying to say, you may not, and it is profoundly important. I want to go back to Tuesday the 12th of February. There was a story in the New York Times and the headline was all it took. I have been trying to understand something for four-plus years, just like you have. Actually, I’ve been trying to understand it longer than that. I’ve been trying to understand it since the Clinton years.

I have been trying to understand how it is that Democrats in the White House are never tied to the performance of the country’s economy or anything else, how it is they are never linked to it. Yet every Republican is. Whatever happened economically during George Bush’s eight years, he and he alone was responsible for it. Barack Obama has had nothing to do with whatever has gone wrong in this economy since 2009, as far as voters are concerned.

I have been pulling my hair out trying to figure out why. In the process of tearing my hair out, I’ve been trying to figure out ways to connect with those people who we’ve now named low-information voters, to try to open their eyes in some way and have them understand what they don’t understand now, or have them see what they don’t see now. Persuasion, that is a huge task. There are not very many people that can do it on a mass basis, and even fewer on an individual basis.

It’s a very hard thing to really talk somebody out of what they think they know, things that have become almost core beliefs. But I must tell you: Just like you, I have sat here since the Clinton years and I have been have alternately, shocked, stunned, depressed, angry, you name it, over how Democrats are never ever linked to the effect their policies have on people. I’ve wondered, how in the world have they made people believe that they’re not responsible when they hold all the power?

When it is their policies that are causing jobs to be lost, their policies causing taxes to go up, their policies resulting in the loss of liberty and freedom, their policies that are responsible for gas prices going up and housing values plummeting, how is it that they have never been held accountable? Obama is the king of this. When I saw this headline in the New York Times… There were two things, but the dominant one was this headline in the New York Times.

We had had polling data from Gallup the day before, on Monday, and the Gallup poll shows that on every issue except for one, which was national defense, a majority of people disagree with Obama’s policies. It’s not even close. Fifty-two percent here, 57% there, 64% there disagree with Obama’s policy. Yet he was reelected, and yet people do not hold him accountable for what’s happening. They disagree! They’re informed enough to know what his policies are, and they’re informed enough to know that they’re not good.

But they don’t connect those policies to him, in terms of how the country’s functioning. So this headline in the New York Times: “Polls Show Dissatisfaction with Country’s Direction But Support for Obama’s Agenda.” Now, I can’t tell you what it was, but that headline shone the light on 20 years of frustration, and I finally got it. It finally made sense. The only way it can make sense to you is if you, as I did, totally abandon yourself from the requirement that common sense be part of any education.

How in the world can poll after poll show massive disagreement with Obama’s policies, and poll after poll show dissatisfaction with the direction the country is going, but poll after poll find support for Obama’s agenda? You know, the first reaction you have is, “This country has got to be populated by a bunch of genuine, absolute morons.” That’s the first reaction you have. But then you have to throw that out because there has to be something more than that, and I finally cracked it.

He is not associated with his policies. Or better stated, his agenda, his policies that people disagree with are not associated — there’s no causal relationship — with Obama’s policies and what’s happening in the country. So you say, “Well, why is that? How does that happen? How does anybody get away with that?” And then the second light went off, and it was this: He’s never, ever seen as governing! He’s always campaigning against the very things he’s causing.

He’s out there promising to create jobs, while destroying the market, but people don’t see him destroying the market. We gotta face it. What they hear is, “Obama’s working hard to create jobs.” He had the jobs summit. He says we’re not going to do anything that’s gonna add a dime to the deficit, yet the deficit keeps going up. What I had to come to grips with is, a majority of people who vote think somebody else is doing all this.

Now, how does that happen?

How does Obama make that happen?

It goes back again to the fact that he is not seen as in charge of this. It’s not so much that he’s an outsider, but the constant campaign mode allows him to constantly be seen as running against everything that’s happening. If he ever assumed the role of governing — and that includes if he ever, say, compromised and made an agreement with the Republicans — that would end the idea that he is not attached to what happens.

That’s why there will never be any compromise with the Republicans. That’s why there will not be any bipartisanship. No matter what happens on any issue, legislatively or otherwise, when it’s all done, Obama is gonna run around the country after whatever was signed and start campaigning against the dastardly, mean stuff that was just done to him. With a slavish, supportive, compliant, involved media, he’s able to create this illusion and to continue to present it and sell it. So Megyn Kelly did story on this yesterday.

She had a couple people in, and I want to replay the sound bite from one of her guests, a Democrat strategerist by the name of Tara Dowdell.  Megyn Kelly said (paraphrasing), “At what point do the voters of this country finally look at Obama and say, ‘You know what?  It is your fault.'”  Or, “You know what, Mr. President, you are running the country, you are accountable.”  ‘Cause we’re five years into his presidency, and he’s not accountable to anything, folks, as far as the people of this country are concerned.  She’s asking this Democrat strategist, when’s that gonna happen?  When is he gonna be held accountable?

DOWDELL:  I go back further than George W. Bush.  I think our economy has been in decline for 30 years.  We’ve had a huge gap between people who have money in the United States and people who don’t.  That’s been going on far beyond George Bush.  But I think that people recognize that dynamic, but at the same time, of course they want the president to be out there fighting.  But where I disagree with Tony is, what’s wrong with taking your message and pushing your agenda to the people?  If we’re saying government is the about people, then why not ask the people to get involved and get engaged in our democracy?

RUSH: Now, that answer is an entire disconnect from reality just as Obama’s presidency is a disconnect from reality.  Obama’s presidency has no relationship to reality whatsoever.  But this woman has really made my point.  The way Obama looks at this country is, it was unjustly founded, it was immorally founded, it was a racist country, it favored the few privileged that happened to be white, and those people set up a system, the founding fathers, to make sure that they got to keep most of what was produced.  The precious few got most of it, and then everybody else just got the crumbs. So this country’s been a 200-plus-year mistake, and he’s out trying to fix it now.  And that’s what his perpetual presidency, which is a campaign, is all about.  Trying to right those injustices, trying to correct all these wrongs that have been going on for 200 years. But the focus point in the modern era is the Reagan years.

That’s when everything went south. That’s when it got worse than ever, ’cause that’s when Reagan really let it be known that all he cared about was the rich people.  This is what history revisionists have written.  Of course none of this is true.  That doesn’t matter for this discussion.  The history revisionists have seen to it that Reagan was the exact opposite of what he was.  For example, it was Ronald Reagan, when he took office, the top marginal tax rate was 70%.  By the time he left office it was 28%.  Revenues to the Treasury doubled.  Ronald Reagan did more to elevate lower, middle-income people than anything that had been done prior.  But what is written about him is just the exact opposite.  And this woman, this Democrat strategist, I don’t think knows the truth.

I think she’s been educated, informed, whatever, she’s living the lie, and now she’s out talking about the lie.  But to her it isn’t one.  She really believes Ronald Reagan’s the focus of modern evil, and before him, the Founding Fathers were.  This country’s been unjust and immoral from the beginning, capitalism has never been the fair way to do it, and so Obama is seen as the first president to really come along and seriously to try to fix all this.  And that’s why he’s apologizing for the country, and that’s why he’s running around at every step he can, pointing out the problems, the injustices.  And he’s seen as fixing it.  At the same time he’s made himself out to be Santa Claus.

By the way, did you see Boehner?  When did we say that Obama was like Santa Claus?  It was the day after the election.  “You can’t beat Santa Claus.”  The Speaker of the House figured this out yesterday.  John Boehner actually said that Obama’s trying to make himself ought to be Santa Claus.  So at some point it all clicks for people.  Eventually they will get it.  But polls show dissatisfaction with the country’s direction, support for Obama’s agenda.  The only way to understand this — and it defies common sense, you have to set that aside.  The only way to understand it is people do not hold him accountable.  He will never be seen as governing.  Now, you may think, “Rush, that’s not possible.  He’s president.”  Look at what he does.  He’s constantly campaigning.  He’s constantly running against something.  He’s constantly warning people of the danger and the evil that’s lurking out there unless he does something, unless we come together to do something.”

Remember: No one says more and does less than Barack Obama!

Barack Obama: Nobody does NOTHING better!

What Lies Ahead






With the dereliction of duty absorbing mainstream media these days, it’s important to get the message out there when they absolutely refuse to do their job. I take pride in that task.

We all know how enamored the press is of Obama and how their turning a blind eye to the reality of this dangerous man in the White House is detrimental to the country. The American Spectator’s Jeffrey Lord offers an unnerving take on the second term of the most divisive, un-American President the nation has entrusted…


“An Orwellian inaugural address and a backwards march to another failed utopia.

Backwards, march!

Yesterday’s declaration by President Obama, signaling with his inaugural address that he intends to turn America around and march it backwards to the glory days of failed leftism — making of America one gigantic society of beggars — raises the central and obvious point.

It’s the damage, stupid.

So how much damage can the American left do over the next four years?

Really. Seriously.

How much damage can the far-left-wing do with a re-elected Obama presidency?

A lot. When one hears the President of the United States use his inaugural address to favorably cite the most infamous phrase associated with the disastrous Neville Chamberlain — that would be “peace in our time” — there can only be trouble ahead.

The mechanics for this march backwards to failure are already in place.

First and foremost is the Orwellian use of his language. Tyranny is freedom. Collectivism is liberty. “Together” is shorthand for government control.

Second is the renewal of campaign warfare — with a new target.

Remember Kill Romney? You remember this, right? The moment back there in the 2012 campaign when it was said by an Obama strategist that the president’s team, politically speaking, intended “to kill Romney.”

And so they did. Mitt Romney was magically transformed from the reality of solid American citizen and accomplished businessman to murderer and thief. In the political nano-second of a presidential campaign cycle mere months long.

Move over Mitt.

There is a bigger target in left-wing sights now. A much bigger target: The Constitution of the United States.



Yet again, the people whose ancestors so hated the Constitution they have repeatedly tried to eliminate or severely restrict the guarantees of liberty it provides, believe their moment has arrived.

These are the political descendants of those who tried to write slavery into the Constitution — the Dred Scott decision, written by the liberal Andrew Jackson appointee, the slave-owning Chief Justice Roger Taney. In which a liberal court declared blacks were not human beings and thus their right to anything other than literal chains simply did not — and never would — exist. Then there was the brainchild of segregation, ruthlessly enforced for decades by a long succession of liberal Democrats at the federal, state, and local level, in which blacks were denied their liberty to vote, eat in restaurants, sit in the front of a bus or even marry outside of their race. Lynching? Democrats made a specialty of this one, refusing repeatedly to outlaw the denial of a basic right to life to black Americans, instead empowering the Ku Klux Klan — the Klan in turn a pillar of support for a big government.

The modern versions of all this? The modern restrictors of liberty and freedom who in the past were slave owners, segregationists, lynchers, and Klansmen — all key components of the Democrats and the progressive movement?

How and who specifically will manage this backwards march?

How specifically will the Constitution be assaulted? And what are the envisioned results?

This time the targets will be the First and Second Amendments… free speech, religious liberty, and the right to bear arms.

And the allies arrayed to strip these?

Can you say the National Education Association? The Sierra Club? Greenpeace? The Communications Workers of America? The NAACP?

Can you say the Obama campaign team turned into the post-election Organizing for America?

Can you say MSNBC? Tom Brokaw, Chris Matthews? How about CBS and Bob Schieffer…and CBS political director John Dickerson? More on the latter in a moment…






Let’s start with the president’s liberal allies.

Over at the Washington Free Beacon Matthew Continetti has put the spotlight on a significant story.

Continetti zeroes in on a little noticed report in the far-left Mother Jones magazine by writer Andy Kroll. What was Kroll’s headline:


Revealed: The Massive New Liberal Plan to Remake American Politics

Have you ever heard of the “Democracy Initiative”? Continetti brings us up to date about the results from two progressive “retreats” held in June and December of last year.


the AFL-CIO, the Center for American Progress, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Color of Change, Common Cause, Demos, the Friends of the Earth, the League of Conservation Voters, Mother Jones (in a “non-editorial” capacity!), National People’s Action, the National Wildlife Federation, People for the American Way, the Piper Fund, Public Campaign, the Service Employees International Union, the United Auto Workers, and Voto Latino…

And these progressives, who, according to the Center for American Freedom have a collective revenue base of $1.69 billion at their disposal, are about what?

A full-fledged assault on the Constitution of the United States.

Oh, they don’t phrase it that way. They aren’t stupid. They will couch their point the way White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer did when making it to the Washington Post (as noted here by the Weekly Standard ). Said Pfeiffer:

“There’s a moment of opportunity now that’s important. What’s frustrating is that we don’t have a political system or an opposition party worthy of the opportunity.”

And what “political system” is so not “worthy” in the view of this senior Obma aide? Why, the American political system based on the Constitution, of course.

Make no mistake: peeling away liberty is what these progressives are all about.

According to Kroll, the first targets will be to “get big money out of politics.” Hey, no irony there. These groups with $1.69 billion at their disposal want to restrict — that is take away…the First Amendment rights of Chevron (for donating to House Republicans), Google (“for its continued membership with the generally pro-Republican U.S. Chamber of Commerce”) and ALEC — the American Legislative Exchange Council — for daring to promote conservative legislation in states around the country. To do-in ALEC’s First Amendment rights the Democracy Initiative will use its resources to intimidate the group’s donors into silence — forcing them to give up their First Amendment rights and withdraw their support.

All this on the heels of two important First Amendment battles already held: the decision to force the Catholic Church through Obamacare to relinquish its First Amendment right to not fund abortions and contraceptives. And the concerted attack by the Obama White House and its allies on conservative media and its personalities from Fox News to Rush Limbaugh, in the case of the latter —along with Glenn Beck, Lou Dobbs, and Pat Buchanan — openly seeking to remove them from the radio or television airwaves.

But that’s only the First Amendment.

Moving on to the Second Amendment the decision is to take away the right to bear arms. The GOP’s Senator Marco Rubio (FL) has said to Fox’s Bill O’Reilly:

“I think that the President — and he doesn’t have the guts to admit it — is not a believer in the Second Amendment, although he states that he is. I didn’t write the Constitution. Neither did you — neither did he. If he doesn’t want it in the Constitution or he wants to reform the Second Amendment, then have the guts to admit that.”

So while the President won’t have, in Rubio’s words, “the guts” to openly state his real goal — there are all those Democrats in Red States to worry about in 2014 — his allies will go about Romneyizing supporters of the Second Amendment.

How will it be done? It will be done in the same fashion the Kill Romney campaign turned Romney from a considerable man of achievement into a murderer and a thief.

Take a look at this TV commercial made by Congressman John Barrow, in which Barrow proclaims his steadfast support for the Second Amendment.

Now take a look at the very same commercial — except this time it has been re-cut and selectively edited by the anti-Constitution group “Stop the Gun Violence” to cast the Congressman as a recipient of “blood money” from the NRA.

The irony? Congressman Barrow, from Georgia — is a Democrat.

No matter. When it comes to the Kill the Constitution campaign, either you get in line — or you get run over.

Which is where the mainstream media comes in. Take a look at this from Breitbart about this outburst from one John Dickerson, the political director for CBS. Dickerson, who used to work at Time with Obama spokesman Jay Carney, took to the cyberpages of the left wing Slate in an article titled — really:



Go for the Throat!

Why if he wants to transform American politics, Obama must declare war on the Republican Party.

Ranted Dickerson:

The president who came into office speaking in lofty terms about bipartisanship and cooperation can only cement his legacy if he destroys the GOP. If he wants to transform American politics, he must go for the throat.…

Obama’s only remaining option is to pulverize. Whether he succeeds in passing legislation or not, given his ambitions, his goal should be to delegitimize his opponents. Through a series of clarifying fights over controversial issues, he can force Republicans to either side with their coalition’s most extreme elements or cause a rift in the party that will leave it, at least temporarily, in disarray.

Nice, yes? This is shorthand that tells you the campaign to destroy the Constitution will have important allies in the liberal media.

One could go and on here with the list of the liberal assaults on the Constitution and the Orwellian fashion in which they are presented. Voter corruption becomes “Voter ID.” Attacks on the free market and capitalism are all about a mythical “fair share” — in which the real game is to protect liberal elites while punishing the hated middle class. The most destructive game in all this, of course, is the blockheaded belief that massive government spending to endless degree will bring a halt to the growth of the national debt.

But why? Why all this?

What is it that drives this determination to reverse 200-plus years of American progress and march the nation backwards ?

Why wreck the Constitution with this vast confection of Orwellian language and straw men, both of which Obama indulges in on a regular basis?

Our friend Mark Levin has captured the core reason: the eternal leftist drive for utopia. As Obama phrased it yesterday, the drive “to complete our journey”.

Or, as Levin phrased it in the title of his last book, AmeritopiaThe Unmaking of America This is the reason for all this. To quote Levin:

Tyranny, broadly defined, is the use of power to dehumanize the individual and delegitimize his nature. Political utopianism is tyranny disguised as a desirable, workable, and even paradisiacal governing ideology. There are, of course, unlimited utopian constructs, for the mind is capable of infinite fantasies. But there are common themes. The fantasies take the form of grand social plans or experiments, the impracticability and impossibility of which, in small ways and large, lead to the individual’s subjugation.

What we are living through, what the Obama inaugural and the campaign that preceded it was all about, is creating utopia in America.

That is the goal of Barack Obama. That is the goal of his campaign-operatives-turned-agenda-operatives calling themselves “Organizing for Action.” That is the goal of the humorously named “Democracy Initiative” and it’s $1.69 billion pool of special interest money.

And they cannot accomplish this utopia — surprise, surprise — by using the Constitution of the United States. The rights of others — i.e., you — stand in their way. They must be either restricted if not abolished outright.

There is no Orwellian language too far-fetched, no straw man big enough that cannot and will not be pressed into the service of wrecking the Constitution.

CBS’s John Dickerson put it well.

When it comes to the survival of the Constitution of the United States, the American Left is going to “go for the throat.”

If you think the campaign to “Kill Romney” was a political dogfight — you ain’t seen nothing yet.

The best advice for Republicans?

Wake up.”





Well…let’s see where we stand this morning….

The Middle East is still burning out of control…..the media narrative is Romney’s statements on the matter are out of line…and President Obama is off for fundraising in Las Vegas. THIS is the abject GARBAGE that describes perfectly the Presidency under Barack Obama. Yet, I STILL stand by my prediction the moronic voters of this country will award him a second term.

In the meantime, here’s a spot on perspective from the End of the American Dream Blog:


“The truth is that the U.S. government has absolutely no idea what it is doing in the Middle East!”

Many of us tried to warn Barack Obama that using militants from al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations to overthrow governments in the Middle East would not end well.  The Obama administration has been so determined to get rid of some of these dictators in the Middle East that they have not even really stopped to think about who would be replacing them.  Our leaders assured us that those opposed to Mubarak and Gaddafi were “freedom fighters” that just wanted “liberty” and “democracy” in those countries.  Well, of course it turns out that the folks that took control of both Egypt and Libya bear no resemblance to George Washington whatsoever.  They have simply replaced one form of tyranny with an even worse form of tyranny.  Sadly, the last couple of days have been a huge wake up call for all of us.  Radical Islamic militants stormed the U.S. embassy in Cairo, Egypt and replaced the American flag with the al-Qaeda flag.  In Benghazi, Libya the U.S. consulate was attacked by a crowd equipped with guns, homemade bombs and rocket-propelled grenades.  They torched the consulate, looted it, and killed the U.S. ambassador and three other U.S. officials.  Apparently they are not as grateful for our help in “liberating” their homelands as the Obama administration thought they would be.  Unfortunately, our politicians fundamentally misunderstand what is going on in the Middle East, and this is going to continue to lead to more policy errors.

For years, our politicians told us that “al-Qaeda” was the big enemy in the “War on Terror”.

But then during the “Arab Spring” the U.S. government was openly working with “al-Qaeda” and a bunch of other similar organizations all over the Middle East to overthrow established governments.

To say that our approach to the Middle East has been “inconsistent” would be a massive understatement.

After the protesters stormed the U.S. embassy in Cairo, they made it very clear who they are aligned with.  They tore down the U.S. flag and desecrated it, and they put up a black Islamic flag in its place.

So what did the black flag have on it?  The following is how CNN described the flag….

The black flag, which hangs atop a ladder inside the compound, is adorned with white characters that read, “There is no God but Allah and Mohammad is his messenger,” an emblem often used in al Qaeda propaganda.

This is very reminiscent of what happened in Libya in the days after the toppling of Gaddafi.  At the time, the Daily Mail and other international media organizations posted pictures of the black al-Qaeda flag flying high and proud over the courthouse in Benghazi….

The black flag of Al Qaeda was hoisted in Libya yesterday as Nato formally ended its military campaign.

The standard fluttered from the roof of the courthouse in Benghazi, where the country’s new rulers have imposed sharia law since seizing power.

Today, the new government in Egypt is completely dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood.  They hold 47 percent of the seats in parliament and the new president of Egypt belongs to the organization.

So how are they responding to this incident?

Well, they have issued a half-hearted condemnation of the attacks in English, and they have also announced that new protests against the anti-Islam film that originally sparked the violence will be held in Tahrir Square on Friday.

I’m sure that a new round of mass protests will definitely calm everyone down.

Or not.

Hopefully the U.S. embassy in Egypt will have significantly strengthened security by Friday.

In Libya, the U.S. consulate has been essentially destroyed.

You can see pictures of what the U.S. consulate in Benghazi looks like after the attack right here.

Looters took off with whatever they were able to carry.  Reporters saw some people carrying desks, chairs and even washing machines away from the consulate.

The U.S. ambassador, Chris Stevens, was killed along with three other U.S. officials.

You can see a photo of an unconscious Stevens being carried through the streets after the attack right here.

So who was responsible for the attack?

Once again, it appears to have been Islamic radicals associated with al-Qaeda.  The following is from a Reuters article about this incident….

“The attack was believed to have been carried out by Ansar al-Sharia, an al Qaeda-style Sunni Islamist group that has been active in Benghazi, a Libyan security official said. Witnesses said the mob also included tribesmen, militia and other gunmen.

Ansar al-Sharia cars arrived at the start of the protest but left once fighting started, Hamam said. “The protesters were running around the compound just looking for Americans, they just wanted to find an American so they could catch one.”

Most Americans thought that it was a good idea for the Obama administration to back “the rebels” that were fighting to overthrow Gaddafi, but perhaps more people should have been asking what those “rebels” actually stand for.

The following is what former CIA officer Bruce Riedel once said about the composition of the fighters that were attempting to overthrow Gaddafi….

“There is no question that al-Qaida’s Libyan franchise, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, is a part of the opposition. It has always been Gadhafi’s biggest enemy and its stronghold is Benghazi. What is unclear is how much of the opposition is al-Qaida/Libyan Islamic Fighting Group – 2 percent or 80 percent.”

The leader of the Libyan rebel forces even admitted that some of the very same militants that were shooting at U.S. troops in Iraq were among those that were seeking to “liberate” Libya.  The following is from a 2011 article in the Telegraph….

“Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi’s regime.”

You can find much more on the link between al-Qaeda and the rebel forces in Libya right here.

So we were shooting at them in Iraq but we supplied them with weapons and gave them air support in Libya?

What kind of nonsense is that?

The truth is that the U.S. government has absolutely no idea what it is doing in the Middle East.

And it looks like more trouble is ahead.

There were other anti-U.S. protests in Sudan, the Gaza Strip and Tunisia on Wednesday.

Sadly, even the top officials in our own government fail to grasp why these militants hate us.  In response to the torching of the consulate in Benghazi, Hillary Clinton asked the following question….

“Today, many Americans are asking, indeed I ask myself … How could this happen in a country we helped liberate in a city we helped save from destruction?”

And of course foreign policy has never been a point of emphasis for Barack Obama.

In fact, it has been reported that he skips more than half of his daily intelligence meetings.

So the blind are leading the blind and we continue to make mistake after mistake in the Middle East.

When will we ever learn?


What’s it going to take for Americans to open their eyes to the ever growing danger in the White House?…What’s it going to take?…..





The Power of Lies vs The Power of Truth or YOUR PRESIDENT IS A LIAR!

We have a choice in November. We can continue with the epitome of disaster that is currently in the White House. Or we can place our faith in a man who would place his belief in this country before all else. Sadly, the true choice is not that apparent to many. And that confounds me to no end.

Combine that with discouraging news this morning, and you have a creeping sense of doom ahead. Gov. Romney would do well to take heed to some appropriate advice today…

A powerful column by Matthew Continetti at the Washington Free Beacon tells us a lot!….

THE KILLING – The battle to define Mitt Romney is over – and Romney lost.

The Massachusetts multimillionaire who won his party’s nomination largely on perceptions of “electability” had become the target of a ferocious blitz of negative advertising. Partisans and media decried many of the attacks as misleading or false. The nominee, busy raising money, had yet to respond with a commensurate ad buy that made the positive case for his candidacy. He relied instead on outside groups to pummel the incumbent’s record. And though unaffiliated consultants worried that the challenger may have unilaterally disarmed in the contest to define his biography, personality, and policies, campaign operatives and their media allies said the race was more or less tied. The choice was made to stay the course, and to accumulate a war chest that could be spent in the fall.

“This decision may be remembered as the most brilliant move of the campaign,” wrote Ryan Lizza, “or the one that cost” the nominee “the presidency. It is a large-scale version of rope-a-dope—allow your opponent to unload with his most powerful punches as you hunker down and bide your time, waiting to unload in the next round, once the other guy has spent himself.”

The “other guy” to whom Lizza referred in his May 3, 2004, New Republic articlewas of course George W. Bush, whose portrayal of John Kerry as a flip-flopping tax-and-spend liberal weak on national security was a success. President Bush eked out re-election, 51 percent to 48 percent nationally, thanks to a hundred thousand votes in Ohio and some trusty Diebold machines.

Eight years later, the positions are reversed. The incumbent whose poll numbers are in dangerous territory is a Democrat. The Massachusetts multimillionaire is a Republican. It is conservatives who are crying foul over the incumbent and his allies’ negative advertising, not liberals.

What has not changed is the incumbent’s use of donations from millionaires and billionaires to define his opponent in terms anathema to the voters who will decide the election, while in the midst of the onslaught the challenger engages in a version of rope-a-dope. The voters to whom the Bush appeal was targeted in 2004 were the right-leaning independents who may have had second thoughts about the Iraq war after David Kay reported that he had been unable to find weapons of mass destruction, but who also were leery of the ashen-faced and aristocratic liberal from the north.

In 2012 Obama campaign manager Jim Messina, chief strategist David Axelrod, White House senior adviser David Plouffe, and super PAC strategists Bill Burton and Paul Begala are out to disillusion white voters without college degrees in the Rust Belt and Mountain West, who will elect Mitt Romney president if they vote Republican by the 30-point margin they gave the GOP in 2010, but who could also give President Obama a second term if they do not turn out in great numbers, or if their support drops to the 18-point margin they gave John McCain in 2008.

We are therefore witnessing a well-rehearsed and coordinated and almost balletic exercise in voter suppression, as Obama and his helpers spend hundreds of millions of dollars convincing middle America that Romney is a rich elitist who made a fortune in rapacious finance capitalism, and whose concern for the bottom line trumps transparency, compassion, and community. The objective of this campaign is to tie Romney down, Gulliver-like, with connections to the most lurid aspects of Bain Capital and the global economy, thereby hobbling his ability to make his case and dragooning white voters into apathy.

The chief objective of any candidate is to define himself positively and his opponent negatively. Romney has allowed the Obama team to define him in their terms. He has three opportunities—his vice presidential pick, his convention speech, and his performance in the debates—to seize the initiative and escape the fetters Obama has constructed. Failure to do so would leave this close election to chance. Romney risks John Kerry’s fate.

The mystery is why the GOP nominee allowed himself to fall into this trap. He and his team knew the Bain attacks were coming. The late Ted Kennedy used Bain as a cudgel to beat back Romney’s senate challenge in 1994. As early as last August, Politico reported that the Obama campaign’s “mission” was to “destroy Romney.” Both Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich flung Bain at the frontrunner during the Republican primaries. Ann Romney put it well when she told CBS News that the entirety of Obama’s re-election strategy was “let’s kill this guy.” The most senior levels of the Romney campaign had assured conservatives that Republicans were prepared for the attacks on private equity. They’ve had a funny way of showing it.

One has rather had the impression of a campaign overwhelmed by the volume and salaciousness of Obama’s smears. It was May when Axelrod and companyloosed Bain on the campaign trail once again, and persisted in the offensive despite protests from Cory BookerBill ClintonDeval Patrick, and other Democrats. That month also saw the political debut of Joe Soptic, the steelworker who lost his livelihood in a Bain deal, and who would star in commercials for both the Obama campaign and the Obama super PAC Priorities USA.

In July the argument intensified, with the Obama and Romney camps squabbling over when exactly the Republican nominee “retroactively retired” from the company he created, with Obama For America deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter suggesting Romney may have committed a felony, and with Obama portraying Romney as a man willing to ship just about every job overseas but his own. In July, too, surrogates for Obama inside and outside the media launched another line of attack that focused on Romney’s reluctance to release his tax returns for years prior to 2010. A high profile report in Vanity Fair suggested Romney was squirreling away money in secret overseas accountsOther media speculated that Romney did not release the returns because he may have paid an extraordinarily low effective tax rate on investment income. The theories were legion. It did not matter that these allegations were based on absolutely no evidence. It did not matter that Romney has no legal or even moral requirement to release any more returns than he thinks are necessary. What mattered was that suspicions were raised. Doubts were sown. Cynicism spread.

Leave it to Harry Reid to crank the amplifier up to eleven by alleging, without substance, that an anonymous Bain investor once told him Romney had paid no taxes for 10 years. There is no evidentiary hurdle a smear must clear—if a Democrat utters it. Nancy Pelosi stood by our national embarrassment of a Senate majority leader. The Obama campaign released an ad raising the zero percent question and asking, “Isn’t it time for Mitt Romney to come clean?” Meanwhile Joe Soptic returned to the stage in an Obama super PAC advertisement suggesting that Romney was somehow responsible for the death of Soptic’s wife by cancer. The official Obama campaign initially denied knowledge of Soptic’s story in an attempt to distance itself from the ridiculously offensive television spot, only to later reverse its position.

Tax avoidance, felony, possible murder—this is the picture of Mitt Romney that Barack Obama has presented to the American people. One can point out the numerous factual errors and distortions and elisions in the portrait. One can observe, as Romney campaign manager Matt Rhoades did in a fundraising e-mail issued Thursday, “This week, the Obama campaign hit a new low.” One can suggest that the race has continued to be stable and that, in the current hostile environment, to be within the margin of error is a good thing for the Republicans. And yet all of these arguments were just as applicable to the candidacy of John Kerry eight years ago as they are to Mitt Romney’s candidacy today.

If Obama loses, it will be because Mitt Romney reminded white voters without college degrees of the threat Obamacare poses to individual liberty and national solvency; of Obama’s ritual sacrifice of energy independence and economic growth on the altar of environmentalism; of the burden that future generations will bear because of Obama’s spending; of Obama’s support for a redefinition of marriage and for an amnesty of illegal immigrants. Whatever prevents Romney from pointing these things out—whether it comes from the Obama campaign or from within Romney’s high command—also prevents him from winning the presidency.

Mitt Romney did not kill Joe Soptic’s wife, but the Obama campaign is effectively killing Mitt Romney’s reputation. It may be ugly. It may be dishonest. But if it succeeds, like all killings it will be irrevocable.



HOW TO WIN – Charles Krauthammer @ National Review


A NATION THAT BELIEVES NOTHING – Peggy Noonan @ The Wall Street Journal