***FLASH*** MILITARY MEMBERS AND VETERANS ARE NONE TOO THRILLED WITH OBAMA'S JOB PERFORMANCE

Speaking as a veteran of 24 years in the U.S. Navy and one who served under 5 Commanders-in-Chief, did we really need a poll to tell us this? As commanders-in-chief go, this guy makes a good used car salesman or, let's say, a "community agitator." It's pretty common knowledge that as a general rule, Democrats always suck in the role of Commander-in-Chief, and our buddy Barry here is no exception, with him now having taken that sucking to a whole new level. But still, that didn't stop our friends over at Gallup from inquiring among those who make up this unique demographic regarding their thoughts on the matter. Gallup has now released the result of that little research endeavor and what it shows is that there is a rather deep divide between U.S. military personnel (including veterans) and the general public when it comes to rating Our Dear Leader, Barry "Almighty's" job performance. Gallup reports that thirty-seven percent of all active-duty military personnel and veterans surveyed approved of the job Barry is doing during the January 2010 to April 2011 time frame. That compares with 48% of nonveterans interviewed during the same period. And what do you want to bet who it is that's making up all or most of that thirty-seven percent? Can anyone say…blacks? And the only reason I say that is because it always comes down to race with these people. ALWAYS!!! NO MATTER WHAT!!! IN OR OUT OF UNIFORM!!! It's sad that they can get past that, having instead allowed themselves to be convinced that they remain only victims.

This 11-percentage point difference shows a more negative view of the president’s actions, or inaction, while in office among those individuals who have served or who currently serve in the U.S. military. While young members of the military and veterans are the most likely to provide to Barry the benefit of the doubt and therefore hand him positive approval ratings, there is still a substantial gap between these individuals and their peers in the general public. It was found that 44 percent of young people ages 18 to 29 (veteran or currently active duty) approve of the president’s job performance, with 58 percent of non-military youths stating the same. Let's face it, what was the high point of this pathetic Commander-in-Chief's Memorial Day? It was going out and playing his 70th round of golf. How do you spell pathetic? I spell it B-a-r-a-c-k O-b-a-m-a. No trips to Walter Reed, no trips to the battle field, nope only a trip to the nearest golf course. This guy stinks. Can anyone imagine the level of outcry that would now be taking place from our state controlled media, and the scumbag Democrats, if this guy were a Republican? Or worse, if it were Bush? There is no connection, or bond between this man and the Soldiers, Sailors, Airman and Marines who are currently under his command. How can there be when by detesting what it is that they do, which is to defend America, he detests them? You can see the distain in his face every time he's before a gathering of our military folks. He doesn't even try to hide it.


Gallup concludes its study as follows: Americans who currently serve or previously served in the U.S. military are less likely to approve of the job Barry "Almighty" is doing than are those who have not served in the military, by about 10 percentage points. This approval gap occurs across all age groups. What's kind of ironic is the fact that these results come following Joe Klein’s (TIME Magazine) laugher of a statement that the military’s relationship is better with Barry "Almighty" than it was with Bush. The other day, Klein said the following during an appearance on MSNBC, "I’d say the relationship is pretty good, very, better than it was with Bush because the military hated the fact that he wasn’t really doing the job in Iraq." Seems like a pretty bold statement to make. Regardless of what the military thought of Bush, the current commander-in-chief has relatively weak support for his job performance among the nation’s bravest men and women. This isn’t good news for any president, regardless of his (or her) political affiliation. Realistically, all that idiotic statement shows is that this bonehead Klein is the same caliber of "journalist" as is Chris "Tingles going up my leg" Matthews. These faux journalists do their absolute best in their attempt to influence public opinion regarding anything having to do with Barry. But this particular demographic is a little harder to fool since it is uniquely qualified in its being able to recognize a true leader when it sees one. And that sure as HELL ain't Barack Hussein Obama.

A LETTER FROM A PROCTER AND GAMBLE EXECUTIVE TO THE PRESIDENT*

THE LAST SENTENCE IS THE MOST CHILLING

Lou Pritchett is one of corporate America 's true living legends- an acclaimed author, dynamic teacher and one of the world's highest rated speakers. Successful corporate executives everywhere recognize him as the foremost leader in change management.. Lou changed the way America does business by creating an audacious concept that came to be known as "partnering." Pritchett rose from soap salesman to Vice-President, Sales and Customer Development for Procter and Gamble and over the course of 36 years, made corporate history.


AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA


Dear President Obama:


You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.


You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.


You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.


You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.


You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.


You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.


You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others.


You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail..


You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America' crowd and deliver this message abroad.


You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.


You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.


You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.


You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.


You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations.


You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.


You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.


You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.


You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.
You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaugh's, Hannity's, O'Reillys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.


You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.


Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.


Lou Pritchett


This letter was sent to the NY Times but they never acknowledged it. Big surprise. Since it hit the internet, however, it has had over 500,000 hits. Keep it going. All that is necessary for evil to succeed  is that good men do nothing. It's happening right now.*

DECEPTION IS RULE OF THE DAY AS DEMOCRATS PLAN FOR 2012...



Democrats suffered huge losses in last year’s elections, largely because of the economy’s sorry state. But now they think they have come across an economic issue that if they pull out all the stops, they will be successful in their effort to get it to work in their favor. And just what might issue be? Why, it's Mediscare, of course. The battle over who can best reel in the federal deficit hasn’t yet flipped in favor of the Democrats. The GOP isn’t suddenly at grave risk of losing its House majority in 2012. But after two years of getting pummeled over rabid spending and the size of government, Democrats now appear to have found what they think is a potent political weapon that will allow them to even out the fight. The plan is to use their typical scare tactics and the labeling of any and all proposals by the opposition as extreme, a plan that does absolutely nothing to actually fix the problem but then that is not their intent. The intent is to use a tactic because it just might, because of the rampant stupidity of the general voting public, increase their odds of winning at the ballot box. Now I'm not exactly sure what it's going to take, but at some point our imbecilic/senile voting population is going to have to come to the realization that if Medicare does not get fixed, and soon, it will be gone for everybody, including them. They are going to have a decision to make, do we fix it or do we lose it entirely. So I guess what it all boils down is that either these folks can just continue to delude themselves into thinking that Democrats are really looking out for their interests and therefore allow themselves to continue to be used by scumbag Democrats, or not. They can allow themselves to be convinced that, yes, it's ok to be a little selfish now and to screw over those who come behind them, because their going to be dead by then anyway, or not. What these folks ought to do is to poke their boney old fingers right in the eyes of these scheming Democrats and show a little more concern for future generations. But is that going to happen? I seriously doubt it! Sadly it used to be that the folks that make up our seniors, were the ones we could look to set the example, but apparently that is no longer the case. Maybe when you realize just how close to the grave you are, your fellow man becomes just a little less important to you. They have apparently allowed themselves to become corrupted by an immoral political party, convinced that it is in fact the government's and therefore the taxpayers job to ensure their golden years are as golden as possible. They've allowed themselves to be convinced, I guess, that their sense of entitlement trumps the survivability of not only the Medicare program but the country as well.

So now that we have House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan having had the courage to call for Medicare cutbacks in the budget, which the Republican-controlled House then approved, what do we see the Democrats proposing. Nothing except inflammatory and incendiary rhetoric that succeeds in doing nothing more than scaring our seniors and does nothing to ensure the survivability of a broken system. The program is destined to crash and burn, an event that will take place much sooner rather than later, but that is of very little concern to Democrats. Votes are what are important, nothing but votes. Those that actually possess some level of understanding and recognize what needs to take place here if we are to enable ourselves to crawl out this fiscal cesspool, all agree that entitlements such as Medicare must be reduced if we are to make any meaningful dent in our rapidly ballooning budget deficit. But Democrats, along with their many accomplices in the state controlled media, simply don't see it that way and have thus far been able, through the use of some very unsavory tactics, to exploit the fear of our seniors that their benefits are going to be slashed. “Medicare’s going to be a very important part of that overall message and a fundamental referendum for the 2012 election,” Alixandria Lapp, executive director of the pro-Democratic House Majority PAC, told Politico. So the whole Democrat battle plan is to be based solely upon lies, stacked upon lies stacked upon more lies. In other words, same shit, different day. What seems to offer encouragement to the present batch of insidious Democrat Party tacticians, is that while the popular entitlement program wasn’t the sole issue behind Kathy Hochul's supposed upset victory in a New York special election Tuesday night, strategists in both parties say it was an important force. And for the first time since November, the idea that the nightmare scenario in which the Democrats might have a shot at winning back the House is no longer a laughing matter. The three-way race between Hochul, Republican Assemblywoman Jane Corwin and self-funding independent Jack Davis offers at best mixed omens for the 2012 campaign. Hochul drew a stronger-than-expected 47 percent of the vote, and Corwin won an anemic 42 percent. But the 9 percent Davis took as a third-party candidate prevented any candidate from getting a telling majority. A former Democrat running as a Tea Party standard bearer, Davis likely skewed the results against the GOP nominee.


What the above mentioned scenario should lay bare are the perils of having any third party candidate in the next presidential election, because it is something that would most assuredly hand to Barry "Almighty" something that this country would, in all likelihood, not survive. That being a second Barry "Almighty" term in office. To Hochul supporters, there was no question what turned the tide of the campaign. At the Democrat’s election night celebration in, of all places, a UAW hall in Amherst, an elated crowd chanted, “Medicare,” over and over again as Hochul declared victory. “We had the issues on our side,” Hochul told her supporters, asking rhetorically: “Did we not have the right issues on our side?” Hochul’s almost single-minded focus on entitlements accomplished a few key goals: It put her on the right side of seniors. It forced Corwin to fight the election on Democratic-friendly ground. Most of all, it gave Hochul a way of pushing back on the GOP’s popular fiscal conservative message, without losing the independent voters who loathe excessive government spending. So rather than defending the federal budget, Hochul cast the debate over spending entirely in terms of one of the most beloved major programs on the books. By focusing on Medicare, Democrats say, Hochul and other candidates can make a larger argument about Republican priorities and what the GOP is willing to cut in Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan’s much-touted budget plan. Look people, we're not going to be able to have it both ways here. Ok, speaking of priorities, which are the better ones. To attempt to bring some solvency to the system in the long run, or allow it to slam full speed into the ground in order to achieve some level of short term political gain. I dare anyone to look me in the eye and tell me that the Democrat priorities are the right ones for this country. “Republicans like to pretend that they are doing something noble, something fair — in the interest of asking all Americans to sacrifice,” said Alixandria Lapp, executive director of the pro-Democratic House Majority PAC, which invested heavily in the race. “They’re not asking oil and gas companies to sacrifice. They’re not asking multimillionaires to sacrifice. Medicare’s going to be a very important part of that overall message and a fundamental referendum for the 2012 election.” Buffalo, that well-known armpit of New York State, Mayor Byron Brown, a Democrat, told POLITICO that Hochul’s win “shows the Democratic message resonates with independents. I do think it changes the debate a bit.” No, Mr. Brown, what it shows is that non-stop lies to old people too stupid to realize they're being lied to will work for unscrupulous Democrat politicians.


Republicans blasted out a flurry of statements from party leaders Tuesday night, all rejecting the idea that the debate over entitlements was the decisive factor in the New York race. Instead, the GOP pointed to Davis’s involvement and groused about Corwin’s unsteadiness on the campaign trail. But while top Republicans resisted calling the race an up-or-down vote on Medicare, some acknowledged that the GOP had spent the final weeks of the campaign with its back against a wall, having effectively lost control of the campaign narrative. “They were on defense the whole time on Medicare, not on offense on the deficit or Obamacare or anything else,” said former Virginia Rep. Tom Davis, who chaired the National Republican Congressional Committee. “You can’t just sit there and be a punching bag on this issue, and that’s what they were.” Former New York Rep. Tom Reynolds, himself a former NRCC chairman who held the 26th District seat until 2009, said Medicare “appears to have had an impact both with seniors and independent voters,” adding: “Anyone who says this is all Medicare either hasn’t watched the race closely or is just spinning.” “This race has a lot of complexities,” he said, “which include Medicare but also include a $3 million candidate running on the Tea Party line.” One Republican strategist who follows House races put the party’s position in grimmer terms, predicting: “Medicare will define 2012.” “From Day One, our members need to be attacking their challenger for supporting the president’s Medicare-cutting health care bill and his plan to ration benefits for future seniors,” the strategist wrote in an email. It's all about who can best articulate the benefits of their respective plan. One can safely argue the Democrats have no plan which is true, but if they can sufficiently scare people, apparently they won't need a plan. “Paul Ryan was wrong; leaders don’t change polls — scaring seniors changes polls, and we had better be prepared to do it as shamelessly as they did in this special if we want to retain the majority.” It is time to crawl down into the gutter and go elbow to elbow, toe to toe with these sewer dwelling Democrats. The chance that the GOP could lose 24 seats next year, and with them, control of the House, still seems remote. But unlike a few months ago, it no longer seems like an impossibility. There are limits, of course, to the predictive value of a single special election, especially one featuring a third-party wild card. Democrats learned that in 2010, after a pair of 2009 upstate New York Democratic victories and a 2010 win in western Pennsylvania failed to forecast the conservative midterm wave. But as I mention, it does show the dangers that a third party candidate represents in any race.


So the Republican Party now has it's work cut out for it, and the path that needs to be taken has now been made very clear. The mission is to regain control of the narrative, don't wait for an opportunity to present itself to put forward your proposals, and to instead, make the opportunities happen. We need to circumvent those in the state controlled media as they are now firmly in the pocket of the Democrat Party and to be blunt, no longer serve any useful purpose. The argument is important, so to make only half hearted attempts at persuading people of the urgency of our self-inflicted financial predicament does nothing to advance the conservative cause, a cause which should have at its foundation the rescuing of America. Democrats must not be allowed to prevail here, the consequences are just to severe. It's time for a little backbone to appear in many of our more spineless Republicans. Before we can impress upon the American people that the Republican priorities are what's best for the country, our Republican members of Congress or going to need to at least appear to believe that is the case. We need to increase our level of intensity, of our passion, in our believing that it is our ideas which will bring us back from the brink, while those of the Democrats will result in nothing more than our being pushed over the edge. Victory will be ours if we commit ourselves to doing all that is necessary to achieve it. This is no time for wimps, the stakes are way too high.

GATES RECOMMENDING THE CUTTING OF MILITARY PAY AND BENEFITS...

It is one of the most insane recommendations I have yet heard regarding a way of reducing out current deficit and it comes to us by way of the outgoing Defense Secretary, Robert Gates. I can honestly say that I've never really liked this guy, going all the way back to when George Bush nominated him to replace Donald Rumsfeld. He was, and continues to be, nothing more than a lifelong bureaucrat with all the charisma of a wet dish rag and just never come across, at least to me, as being one who could be trusted with such a job. And now in what was reported as being Secretary Gates' last major policy speech as he prepares to most likely hit the lecture circuit, our stellar outgoing Pentagon chief made the recommendation that the government would finally have to now "re-examine military compensation," and consider altering the retirement system in order to bring down costs, and address spiraling health-care costs. Now there's an absolutely brilliant idea. Trimming Pentagon spending, Gates said, "will entail going places that have been avoided by politicians in the past." So let me see if I have this right. Here we are at a time when we have 535 members of Congress and a "community agitator" president and a moron for a vice president, who are all grossly overpaid and severely underworked, and what we're thinking about doing here is to go about cutting military pay and benefits. What we should be thinking about is cutting the pay of those same 537 malingerers. Which is really pretty ridiculous when you stop to consider the amount of work that those in Congress actually do and how little they actually produce when compared to all that our service members are asked to do and with less and less. But instead of cutting the pay of those overpaid bureaucrats what we're going to, instead, we're apparently now contemplating cutting the pay of those who are already under paid because of they're choosing to serve in our military. You know, the same folks who are out there defending us against the many murdering Islamic thugs who busy themselves by trying to kill us. Does this idea make sense to anybody? Apparently it makes perfect sense to guys like outgoing Secretary Gates. Secretary Gates said on Tuesday that cuts to the nation's defense budget will force lawmakers to consider reducing military pay and benefits, raising an issue that could prove politically sensitive in a time of war, or so The Wall Street Journal reports. I tell you, things are just going nuts. "Hope and Change," ya just gotta love it.

It strikes as being more than just little strange that the first place that we always go looking for cuts is the same place liberals always begin their for search for savings, National Defense. And it's kinda ironic really because that's the one area that is actually a job belonging to the Federal Government. It's like, constitutionally mandated. You know, defending the country! So it was then that our stellar outgoing Pentagon chief issued a warning that cutting the budget "will entail going places that have been avoided by politicians in the past." Which I guess is easy for him to say, he headed out the door. Gates has said the looming cuts are likely to generate a steep decline in military spending and could force the U.S. to abandon some missions, minimize the armed forces and possibly limit America's role in the world. Not exactly what I would think is needed at the present time. But hey, what do I know? Gates says a steep decline in military spending may force the Pentagon to abandon some missions, minimize the armed forces and possibly limit America's role in the world. Spoken like a true Obama man. Mr. Gates' previous efforts to trim compensation costs failed, like when he last tried to raise health-care premiums or co-pays for military retirees, and lawmakers were loath to raise expenses for military families during wartime. But in today's deficit fighting environment there is a growing pressure on those afore mentioned grossly overpaid lawmakers to deliver some big reductions in our rapidly ballooning federal deficit. And that may have persuaded defense planners that Congress may now be willing to take a new look at military compensation. In his speech at the American Enterprise Institute, Mr. Gates signaled that he believed reducing compensation wouldn't necessarily hurt recruiting, noting that with the exception of Army recruiting during the worst of the Iraq war, "all the services have consistently exceeded their recruiting and retention goals." I'm curious to just what he might be basing that assumption on. I spent 24 years in the Navy and if I hadn't found a job after retirement I'd be living below the poverty line. Yet they still want to cut retirement benefits. And just how many thousands of families of active duty members now find themselves living on food stamps? And somehow we think it's just a jim-dandy idea to cut the pay and benefits of those folks?

CAN STENY HOYER REALLY BE THIS CLUELESS? OR DOES HE THINK WE'RE JUST THAT STUPID?

The only reason I ask is because it seems to me that old Steny and his many Democrat cohorts are busily trying to convince me that things are just hunky-dory. Because, even though the annual federal budget deficit is expected to hit $1.65 Trillion this year and the national debt is already at $14.34 trillion, our esteemed House Minority Whip Steny "Dumber than Poop" Hoyer (D-Md.) has said that he disagrees with the assessment of our present fiscal condition which has been made by House Speaker John Boehner’s (R-Ohio) and any number of other Republicans. An assessment that has America as now being officially broke. “America is not broke,” Hoyer enthusiastically proclaimed at the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington, D.C.. “America has extraordinary resources and we can use those resources, both intellectual and financial, to get us to a place where we are again a fiscally sound nation, a fiscally balanced nation, and future generations are not at risk.” You know, you just can't make this stuff up. Does this guy really think that the American people are as stupid as are, apparently, those who make up his constituents there in Maryland?

As of May 20, 2011, the total public debt outstanding stood at $14.34 trillion, according to the Department of Treasury. Prompting House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), in a February 2011 speech at the annual National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) convention, to describe the U.S. fiscal state in this way: “Now surpassing $14.1 trillion, our national debt is on track to eclipse the size of our entire economy this year. In other words, we’re broke. Broke, going on bankrupt.” Boehner continued: “Just as a bankrupt business has trouble creating jobs, so does a bankrupt country. ... Yes, this debt is a mortal threat to our country. It is also a moral threat. It is immoral to bind our children to as leeching and destructive a force as debt.” “It is immoral to rob our children’s future and make them beholden to China,” he said. “No society is worthy that treats its children so shabbily." Personally I find nothing to disagree with in that statement. I think that it sums things up pretty well regarding the quagmire, to use a liberal Democrat word, in which we now find ourselves. And to try to deny that which is so obvious is to deceived the American people regarding the dire straights that we are in here.


It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that what we have here is a pretty serious fiscal and economic mess, first created and made worse by decades of idiotic liberal/progressive policies. But for someone to look me in the eye and to deny that fact goes far beyond simply being dishonest, or excusing it as being your typical politics, it's being devious and insidious to the extreme. Hoyer is a liar as is anyone else, including our "community agitator" president, who attempts to downplay the seriousness of our present situation. To pretend that things are different than we know them to be, does nothing but to allow the situation to become worse, much worse. I detest being lied to, and to be talked down to by someone who is trying to do nothing more than to sell me a bill of goods. And that's all that this dim bulb Hoyer is attempting to do here. Even a blind man can see that we simply cannot go on spending the way we are, and yet that's exactly what Barry and the Democrats are advocating. It's NUTS! What kind of lunatic can see what is taking place in this country, with all of this crazy spending and say, hey no problem, everything is just fine.

UNION LEADERSHIP ON A MISSION TO SILENCE ALL OPPOSITION...

That well known flaming socialist, political anarchist and ardent Democrat Party supporter, AFL-CIO President "Dick" Trumka, has demonstrated yet again that he hates this country as much, or maybe even more so, than does our "Dear Beloved Leader" Barry “Almighty." He apparently has dedicated himself, as has Barry, to the extermination of freedom in this country. Guys like Trumka are gutless punks and they turn my stomach. They serve absolutely no useful purpose on this Earth, accomplishing nothing other than the stirring up of hate and discontent through their frequent use of incendiary and inflammatory rhetoric. They look to profit from their constant preaching of class warfare and victimization. They make outlandish statements to justify their own existence, such as how it is they, and only they, who are the ones looking out for "the working class," when in reality the only ones they're actually looking out for are, themselves. If you believe their nonsense, you'd think that if it weren't for guys like Trumka and the corrupt organizations that they head we'd have nothing but sweatshops operating here in this country. It's all pure BS. His most recent idiotic outburst is one that only adds to the perception that he is nothing more than a Democrat political hack as well as a raving leftwing loon. His latest claim is that the U.S. electoral process has been badly broken by none other than the Supreme Court which, he states, has successfully put a dagger through the heart of our Republic with its ruling in the Citizens United campaign finance case.

Trumka, speaking in front of what I'm pretty sure must have been a very friendly and receptive crowd at the National Press Club luncheon on Friday, accused the Supreme Court of helping to break the American electoral system by ruling that corporations were covered by the First Amendment. Ah, there's that pesky old First Amendment mucking things up again, a First Amendment defined by guys like Trumka view as being something that is a privilege to be enjoyed by a select few more than a right to be enjoyed by all. These guys feel it is something that should be more selectively applied. Ya know, other that Vice President Cheney, it's just not very often that I find myself able to trust any guy with the name, "Dick." And this "Dick" is definitely no exception. Everyday we see more evidence that, except in the public sector, that unions have pretty much worn out their welcome over the years with fewer and fewer Americans wanting to join the ranks of union members. Because other than bilking their members through ever-increasing monthly dues, they really accomplish nothing other than accumulating substantial amounts of money that they then contribute to Democrat Party candidates. That and higher unemployment, at least in the private sector. Public sector jobs are the only ones that seem to be on the increase. And they make almost impossible to fire any public employee no matter how egregious the behavior might be. You know, like an air traffic controller taking a snooze at the most inopportune time. And of course for those union members in the public sector it's the taxpayer who really gets royally screwed being forced to cover outrageous wage and benefit packages through higher and higher taxes. It’s this little nightmare scenario that when combined with the rabid spending that has taken place over the course of the last two years, that forms the cornerstone regarding the cause for our present fiscal collapse.


What seems to cause guys like Trumka so much heartburn is the fact that the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling in Citizens United vs. the FEC lifted restrictions on companies, unions, and other organizations, allowing them to make independent expenditures in political campaigns. In other words, it leveled a playing field that previously had been very dangerously slanted in such a way as to provide unions, who hand over to Democrats astronomical amounts of money, with a very clear and distinct advantage. And, politically speaking, a very unfair advantage. Speaking on union involvement in federal elections, "Dick" Trumka said that the landmark decision put unions at a disadvantage. You can plainly see that lying obviously runs pretty deep out there on the lunatic left. “If you want to look at the system, the system is broken,” he said. “The Supreme Court helped break it even more with Citizens United. The system needs to be changed so that average, ordinary Americans can have as strong a voice as ExxonMobil does in the Congress.” This is the same old tired and worn-out broken record that we hear anytime we see a little fairness being applied to the system. These union cronies of the Democrat Party find it very difficult to survive in a system that has at its core even the slightest amount of fairness. They require special treatment. It's kind a funny, in a strange kind of way, how guys like Trumka perceive the system as being broken only when all participants in the political arena are treated the same. The system is working just fine only when it's the unions who enjoy a rather lopsided advantage in the whole process. The blatant hypocrisy of these anti-America miscreants is nothing short of astounding. If things don’t favor them and their disgusting tactics, they cry foul.


So despite what this left wing wack job may like you to believe, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United did nothing more than to allow corporations to spend an unlimited amount of money advocating for candidates and causes during elections, though they are still prohibited from giving directly to individual candidates. The ruling also allowed unlimited election spending by unions, which previously had been subject to the same limits as corporations. This clown Trumka said the entire campaign finance system needed an “overhaul,” starting at the Supreme Court itself. “The campaign finance laws need to be changed, so I for one would be for an overhaul,” he said. “I’d start at the Supreme Court probably because they believe that money equals free speech. That’s what their decision said." Now seriously, does that sound like a statement made by a rational human being, or the ravings of a certifiably insane crackpot. I'll let you decide. I mean, these union extremists have a rather skewed perception of things, in that the "only" ones who should be permitted to have their voices heard are, them. Trumka also said that the Founding Fathers did not intend for financial ability to equal someone’s ability to speak freely. He also called for a more “rational” system that would restore “government of the people.” “We need to take on the system and change it and make it more rational so we can have again government of the people, by the people, and for the people,” said Trumka. Oh that's just great, Trumka thinking he knows best about what it is that the Founding Fathers intended. I just love it when these leftists attempt to interpret our history or what our Founding Father might have intended. Talk about revisionists!


It was just earlier this year that the Barry "Almighty" administration leaked a draft executive order that would have restricted campaign financing by companies that contract with the government, requiring them to disclose on their contracting applications whether they or any of their top employees made political contributions and the amounts of those contributions. Funny thing though, unions were not included in this rather exclusive little order, even though many federal employees are unionized. And I'm sure we all remember the very un-presidential behavior Barry exhibited during his 2010 State of the Union address to Congress, when Barry "Almighty" put on full display his arrogance by essentially calling out the Supreme Court regarding its decision in Citizens United. “Last week [Jan. 21, 2010], the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections,” Barry said. “Well, I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.” It was grossly inappropriate and a blatant lie that even had Justice Alito shaking his head. Our president is nothing short of disgusting. The sooner that we can manage to insert him back into the sewer from which he crawled out, the better off we will all be. It's really quite sad when the president of the United States has no appreciation, whatsoever, for our Constitution and what it stands for. We're going to have to be willing to vanquish this blight on our country in 2012 if we are to have any hope of being able to survive as a nation based on freedom and individual rights. Which is what, despite Mr. Trumka's rather idiotic interpretation, our Founding Fathers intended for us.

OBAMA IS COMING FOR YOUR RETIREMENT SAVINGS…PART II

I’ve written on this topic before back in January, but back at that time I kinda got the idea that this whole notion was less something that might actually become a reality, than it was more a topic of discussion regarding something that Barry “Almighty” would like to use as a “tool” to cover the massive amount of debt he has created. The "chatter" regarding this little scheme has increased of late to the point that now has me asking, "So, how long before Uncle Sam comes for our private pensions to be used as a method to balance the public budget?" It’s very quickly becoming a reasonable question to ask. After all, it's much easier to confiscate the savings of the American people than it is to actually reduce our out of control spending. Right? Just ask our resident alarmist, “Little” Timmy “The Tax Cheat” Geithner who is busy ringing alarm bells all across Washington, D.C., warning of the disastrous outcome if an agreement to raise the debt ceiling is not made and soon. “A default would call into question, for the first time, the full faith and credit of the U.S. government,” Geithner wrote in a letter Friday to Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo. Well, how else can one describe the irresponsible spending that has taken place over the course of the last two years. As has been said on any number of occasions, it is the fact that what we “do not have” is a revenue problem, what we “ do have” is a spending problem! And therein lies the cause to our burgeoning debt “crisis.” This is “NOT” brain surgery!


After weeks of Timmy making such warnings, nearly nonstop, the United States has now come up against its $1.43 trillion debt ceiling and near as I can tell the sky has not fallen, nor has the World stopped turning. In response, GOP leaders have made what is a very reasonable demand in that cuts in federal spending need to be made that would be equal to any increase in the limit while maintaining a strong line against tax increases. As Congress squares off over a debt ceiling vote, we’re told that Timmy and the Treasury Department has been busy scrambling to find cash in the "couch cushions" in and effort to temporarily tie things over. One of the ways they will work to scare up a little extra cash is by putting off saving for the retirements of federal workers, in effect, short-term “borrowing” from public pension funds. By suspending investments into the civil service retirement and disability fund, as well as putting off reinvestments into another big retirement bucket known as the G-Fund, Treasury could “claw back” up to $202 billion, at least according to estimates made by Reuters. That sounds like a lot, but it’s just 10 percent of the $2 trillion the agency says it needs to stay afloat until after Election Day 2012, and it will have to be put back. So once again it sounds like we're robbing Peter to pay Paul, the typical method for Democrats when it comes to doing the books.


Holding off public pension payments could be cast as prudent short-term scrambling to avoid a serious problem with U.S. Treasury holders. Taken another way, such moves could instead be seen as the first step toward an eventual tax or outright “seizure” of private savings in tax-favored retirement plans. That simply can happen here, you say? Well not that long ago I was willing to bet that we wouldn’t ever have to deal with socialized medicine in this country, but look at us now. The seizure of private pensions has happened in plenty of indebted countries, such as Argentina and Hungary, and it just happened last week in Ireland. Hungary seized $14 billion from private pensions, according to The Christian Science Monitor, while Bulgaria and Poland demanded partial government control of private savings. Earlier, Ireland dipped into state pension funds to bail out banks and, more recently, finding itself unable issue new debt, the Irish finance ministry announced it would tax private savings at a rate of 0.6 percent of assets over a four-year period, a decision it expects to raise $668.2 million per year. So with the precedent having now been set, in a sense, it’s not much of a stretch to imagine Barry now trying the same stunt here in America. And speaking of Ireland, it has now asked America for financial assistance even though we too are broke. So I guess we're simply expected to borrow more money from Communist China so that we can then lend it to the Irish in order to help them take care of their insolvency problem. Does this screwy little financial scenario make sense to anyone?


So what “deep pockets” could Treasury and Congress target next in the coming years to cover their excesses? Hold on to your hats, make that your wallets, folks, those so-called “deep pockets and/or wallets” are yours! Like you didn’t already know that, right? Despite reports that Americans are woefully unprepared for retirement, Americans with access to private 401(k) plans have been good about saving. Americans held $3.1 trillion in 401(k) plans as of Dec. 31, according to the Investment Company Institute. That makes for a very tempting target for Barry "Almighty" and the congressional Democrats. So the cash cow that could be used to subsidize our Barry "Almighty" created debt may be…YOU! Fidelity Investments, which manages 11 million participants in 16,500 employer-sponsored plans, says savings are at the highest level in years. The average account balance is at $74,900, up 12 percent from the previous year and at an all-time high, Fidelity told Bloomberg News. Vanguard Investments said of its 3.5 million participants' average account balances hit $79,077 recently. For long-term savers, the average was higher, Fidelity noted, at $191,000 for those who had saved for 10 continuous years and $233,800 for those over the age of 55 who had saved for 10 years consecutively. Now, I’m pretty sure those who make up Barry’s core constituency more often than not are busy spending more of their income on booze, drugs and hookers than they are on their retirement. So this potential scheme of Barry’s will, most likely, have very little effect, if any, on whether or not these folks support this blatant abuse of power. Also it remains a pretty sure bet that 99 percent of them will still vote for him. After all, he not robbing from them.


While those retirement savings are technically tax-free until their holders take distributions, the government could very easily force earlier distributions and then simply tax them more heavily. Currently, the “minimum required distributions” age is 70½. That affects all IRA-type funds except tax-free Roth IRAs, including SEP and Simple IRAs commonly used by small business owners. Potentially, the deal on Roth IRAs could be undone, too. Megan McArdle at “The Atlantic” believes both traditional IRAs are in danger due to normal tax increases and that tax-free Roth accounts eventually will be tapped, too. The government raised the income limits for conversions of Roth IRAs and fearful Americans responded. Conversions subsequently spiked fourfold in 2010, Fidelity Investments said in February. That means a short-term spike in tax collection as people pay for the conversions now but then tax-free growth for years to come, unless, of course, Uncle Sam gets desperate. And trust me when I say, Uncle Sam is going to get desperate, that’s a forgone conclusion because there is no desire whatsoever to curb our out of control spending. This binge that Barry has us on has got to be brought under control or the resulting hangover may prove to be terminal.


“I think that Congress is going to go after all of it,” McArdle writes. “But Congress doesn't have to do anything special to get money out of traditional IRAs; it just has to raise income taxes. (401ks and traditional IRAs are taxed at ordinary income tax rates). Roth IRAs, on the other hand, represent a sizable pool of tax-free assets.” The shear arrogance involved here not only of our president but of the Democrats in Congress as well, that they can somehow manipulate the system to steal from the American people money they have saved for their retirements is appalling. Congress might end the tax break on municipal bonds, too. As Jason Zweig at The Wall Street Journal points out, the muni bond tax break has been a perennial target of politicians over the years. Now, the idea of removing the tax break, a major support for retiree income, is on the table. We know that because the recent Barry deficit commission brought it up. The Congressional Budget Office figures killing the tax exemption would save $143 billion from 2012 to 2021. With us having accrued a debt of over $1.6 Trillion just this year, thanks to the rabid spending of Barack Hussein Obama, what does the “saving” of $143 billion really amount to in the big scheme of things other than the robbing from American their retirement savings.


It seems that something is going to have to give. Angel Gurria, Secretary General of the Paris-based Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), recently warned that the developed countries face a “Mount Everest” of debt that will take a generation to unload. Really? “We have unsustainable deficits throughout the OECD countries. And that includes the United States and includes Japan. That also includes the whole of Europe, practically the whole of Europe,” Gurria told CNBC. Growth will continue, Gurria said, and countries will begin to address their individual problems, but the really tough decisions are still years away, he warned, as legions of workers in the biggest economies quit work and begin to draw promised pensions and health benefits. “We’re going to find ourselves in a very uncomfortable situation in two, three, four years' time. Then we’re going to have to come down from there, and by that time, we’re going to have the aging process come in. So, it’s going to take a generation to get out of this situation of the debt in the OECD countries.” So if the "really" tough decisions are still supposed to be years away, doesn't it make sense to start toward a more rational fiscal policy now so that those decisions become a little less tough, or perhaps won't need to be made at all? This insane pace of spending that has been underway practically since day one by Barry "Almighty," has got to be reduced, and quickly!


So what is it that Barry and his socialist cadre of cheerleaders of his bogus economic revitalization policies see as being the solution to this ongoing scenario, at least here in America? This little band of malcontents comprised exclusively of uniquely worthless academics, bureaucrats, members of the state-controlled media and patently corrupt politicians. What they have in mind is the confiscating of all that money which you have been scrimping and saving all these years to put toward your retirement. What a deal, right? Because you see, this slime bag president of ours, and his rat pack in Congress, don’t have to worry about their retirements, because, thanks to your tax dollars, those are all covered. So in effect you’ll be paying for the retirement of all these corrupt politicians, just not your own. Ah, “Hope and Change,” don’t ya just love it? One gain, proof that "change" just for the sake of change is not always what's needed.

HAVE YA HEARD? OBAMA'S COMIN OUT WITH A NEW BOOK, IT'S CALLED "HOW TO FU*K OVER A FRIEND and SMILE WHILE DOING IT!"

“The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine,” Barry said in his speech at the State Department. “We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”

This week the seventh meeting took place between Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and our "Supreme Leader," Barry "Almighty" since Barry took office, and the two men are now facing what can accurately be described as a turning point in their relationship. A relationship that, I think it fair to say, has never been warm. By all accounts, they do not trust each other and from Mr. Netanyahu point of view, with good reason. Barry has told aides and allies alike that he does not believe that Mr. Netanyahu will ever be willing to make the kind of big concessions that will lead to a peace deal. What Barry, like most progressives, fails to understand or realize, which is but one thing on a very long list of many, is the fact that the Palestinians aren't after concessions. Arafat squelched that myth a long time ago when he was literally handed everything that he supposedly wanted by then Prime Minister Ehud Barak. Miraculously, Arafat turned him down, and then promptly started an Intifada. Barak, touted as "Mr. Security," proceeded to withdraw unilaterally from South Lebanon, creating a vacuum very soon filled by Hezbollah, and then worked with Bill Clinton to prepare a complete withdrawal from virtually all of Judea and Samaria. Barak then proceeded to loss control of the government to Ariel Sharon in what was essentially a landslide.


Fast forward to today and for his part, Mr. Netanyahu has complained, and rightly so, that Imam Obama has now pushed Israel too far, a point driven home most recently during a furious phone call with Hitlary Clinton on Thursday morning. The call took place just hours before Barry’s anti-Israeli speech, which was specifically designed to undercut Mr. Netanyahu's visit. Barry's speech, a segment of which begins this post, was one which the prime minister reacted very angrily to, and deservedly so, regarding Barry’s asinine plan to endorse Israel’s pre-1967 borders for a future Palestinian Terrorist state. The boundaries that Barry endorsed Thursday as Israel’s future borders would leave the country, at its narrowest point, only nine miles wide between “Palestine” and the Mediterranean Sea. By declaring that the Palestinian terror state should border Jordan, Barry furthermore implied that Israel should not retain possession of the strategic Jordan Valley, the strip of land immediately to the west of the Jordan River. A succession of Israeli governments, both right and left, together with generations of top military officers, have argued that a military presence there is essential for the future security if Israel.


Sometimes inaccurately called the “1967 borders,” the lines referred to by Barry, a fact that I'm sure he must be aware of, are actually the 1949 armistice lines that were in place up until the June 1967 Six Day War. By the time the fighting ended, Israel had captured the entire West Bank, including eastern parts of Jerusalem from Jordan; the Gaza Strip and Sinai Peninsula from Egypt; and the Golan Heights from Syria. The demonstrably indefensible boundaries held by Israel between 1948 and 1967 prompted Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban’s famous remark in 1969 to the effect that those borders evoked the Nazi extermination camp at Auschwitz. “I do not exaggerate when I say that it has for us something of a memory of Auschwitz,” Eban was quoted as saying. “We shudder when we think of what would have awaited us in the circumstances of June, 1967, if we had been defeated; with Syrians on the mountain and we in the valley, with the Jordanian army in sight of the sea, with the Egyptians who hold our throat in their hands in Gaza. This is a situation which will never be repeated in history.” This is the environment what Barry wants to return Israel to. His hated of the Jewish state could not be more obvious.


When it comes to these men being able to trust one another, I think very fair to say that of the two, Mr. Netanyahu has the much better reason not to trust Barry than Barry has to distrust Mr. Netanyahu. The last-minute furor highlights the discord as they head into what one Israeli official described as a “train wreck” coming their way, that being, a United Nations General Assembly vote on Palestinian statehood coming this September. Mr. Netanyahu, at least according to close associates, is desperate for Barry to use the diplomatic muscle of the United States to protect Israel from the vote, not only by vetoing it in the Security Council, but also by leaning hard on America’s European allies to get them to reject it as well. Apparently, Barry has indicated that he will certainly do the first, but as he has demonstrated so many times before, can you really take him at his word. THAT'S A BIG NO! Especially with he continuing propensity for telling rather outrageous lies. Besides, it still remains unclear how far Barry would be willing to go to in any effort to persuade Britain, France and other American allies to join the United States in rejecting the move, particularly as long as Mr. Netanyahu continues to resist endorsing the pre-1967 lines.


Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League and a friend of Mr. Netanyahu’s, recalled that after the first meeting between the two men, Mr. Netanyahu had told him that he had been impressed with Barry’s intellect, and that the American presidency “was his to lose.” An impression that would indicate that Mr. Netanyahu made not be the judge of character that he thought he was. But things very quickly went downhill after Barry officially took office and, within months, called for a halt in Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank. Slamming the dictates of Barry, Mr. Netanyahu refused, handing the new president his first foreign policy humiliation when Barry had to abandon the demand in the face of Israel’s refusal to comply. Compounding the problem, Mr. Netanyahu delivered a fiery speech to a pro-Israel lobbying group in Washington declaring that “Jerusalem isn’t a settlement, it’s our capital.” A furious White House promptly shoed just how childish it can be, by then denying Mr. Netanyahu all the trappings of a presidential meeting with Barry the next day, even refusing to allow photographers to take pictures of the two men in the Oval Office, as is usually the case for meetings with foreign leaders.


Things got so bad between the two leaders, Mr. Foxman recalled, that Mr. Netanyahu “told me, ‘Abe, I need two hours just alone to talk to him.” Late last year, Mr. Netanyahu got his two hours at the White House with Barry, a meeting which, both American and Israeli officials say, helped clear the air. “The relationship now is very cordial,” a senior White House official said. These clowns must have a very interesting definition for "cordial" because Barry's behavior toward Mr. Netanyahu has always been one of very thinly veiled disdain, an arrogance that has him coming off as someone trying to bully someone that is smaller and weaker. But the easing of tensions came to and end this spring when, Israeli and American officials said, Mr. Netanyahu got wind of Barry’s plans to make a major address on the Middle East, and alerted Republican leaders that he would like to address a joint meeting of Congress. That move was widely interpreted as an attempt to get out in front of Barry, by presenting an Israeli peace proposal that, while short of what the Palestinians want, would box in the president. House Speaker John Boehner issued the invitation, for late May. And we are all very well aware that Barry is notoriously thin-skinned.


So it was then that White House officials arranged Barry’s speech on Thursday to make sure that this time around Barry went first. “You get so many reports that Bibi is playing politics in your backyard that eventually you’ve got to draw the conclusion that there’s nothing there to work with this guy,” said Daniel Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator who is now a fellow with the New American Foundation, referring to Mr. Netanyahu by his nickname. Administration officials said that they were determined not to allow Mr. Netanyahu to get out in front of Barry. In a statement after Mr. Barry’s speech on Thursday, Mr. Netanyahu’s office pointedly said that the prime minister would raise his concerns about Barry’s language about the pre-1967 borders during Friday’s meeting. “While there were many points in the president’s speech that we appreciate and welcome, there were other aspects, like the return to the 1967 borders, which depart from longstanding American policy, as well as Israeli policy, going back to 1967,” Michael B. Oren, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, said in an interview.


Also now jumping onboard this crazy train and adding a little more fuel to what is now the sizeable fire created by the insane proposal advocated by Barry in his Mideast speech, was that imbecilic blast from the past, none other that former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. Apparent, Mr. Brzezinski is of the opinion that Barry's speech was far too “timid, adding that it cannot generate international support for the peace process. Old "Bonehead" Brzezinski also said Friday while on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” that, left to themselves, the Israelis and the Palestinians will not resolve their decades-old issues. No shit there Sherlock! It doesn't take a rocket scientist to determine that when you've got one side that genuinely wants piece and the other side wanting nothing more than the annihilation of the other side, that peace is going to be a pretty hard commodity to come by. “I thought I heard a speech which was trying to initiate movement on the peace process, a peace process that is stalemated, but, a rather timid initiative in my mind, which as a result is not likely to mobilize the kind of support that is needed to move the process forward,” said Brzezinski, who was Jimmy "Peanut Brain" Carter’s national security adviser during the 1978 Camp David Accords that led to an Israel-Egypt "peace treaty." “I think if we are going to have peace in the Middle East, we have to face two basic realities, fundamental realities: First of all, the parties to the conflict, the Israelis and the Palestinians, will never resolve it by themselves — the differences between them are just not bridgeable by themselves,” Brzezinski said. “Secondly, the issue in the Middle East is not just security for Israel, or rights for the Palestinians — it’s also fundamental American national interest — and that has to guide American policy. “So, I approve of what the president did, but I wish he had gone further, because if he had, he would have been able to mobilize much more support from among the Israelis, the Palestinians and the international community,” he said. So here we have someone who dates all the way back to the 70's and is someone that clearly reveals that this dangerous agenda toward Israel is far from being anything new.


So what I fail to understand is why it is that a very substantial number of those in the Jewish community continue to insist upon supporting people who exhibit this type of warped mentality. It just leaves me scratching my head. The one political party that has always been more than eager to throw Israel to the Arab wolves is the one party that a majority of Jews continue to reliably vote for. It simply makes no sense to me. Oddly enough, according to pollster John Zogby, despite the uproar over Barry's support for Palestinian demands that Israel return to its 1967 borders, he predicts that Barry won’t suffer significant defections from Jewish voters at the polls in 2012. Zogby noted that Democrats traditionally enjoy a 75 percent to 25 percent advantage in the Jewish vote. The lone exception was Ronald Reagan’s re-election bid in 1984. He says that it will take more than a little friction with the current leadership of Israel to change that dynamic. “Israel is extremely important to American Jews. But so are traditional liberal stances, particularly on social issues." So there you go, the Jews in this country are now cheerfully furnishing the rope with which Israel will get hung, or is that hanged. And they are apparently very happy to do so. Nice!


Sadly we now have a man who is supposed to be the leader of the free world but who has instead continually chosen to abdicate that responsibility. The most recent example of this is his very cheerfully throwing of one our staunchest allies on the planet firmly under the proverbial bus. This most pathetic of men, most disgusting of men, this man whom we elected, represents the complete opposite of all that this country has stood for, for over 230 years. He has repeatedly turned on our friends and kowtowed to our enemies, the whole time having a smile on his face. This cannot be allowed to stand, and this sad situation that we brought upon ourselves by electing this man is something that must be reversed in 18 months. His time in office will forever remain a stain on this country that will be a constant reminder of what voter ignorance can bring about. And it will be very difficult to get passed all that he has done to the reputation of our great country. He has committed, and continues to commit, crimes against freedom. We must purge ourselves of this malignancy in 2012, or risk becoming mired down in the sewage that will most assuredly be the legacy that Barry leaves behind for us.

COMMIE GENERAL TELLS AMERICANS, HEY, DON'T WORRY, BE HAPPY…

In what was all nothing more than a silly attempt to convince Americans that their worries about his country’s rapid military growth and expansion are completely unwarranted, we had a top Chinese general coming to Washington on Wednesday saying that the communist nation’s defense clout lags decades behind that of the U.S., and that China very much wants there to be warmer relations between the two countries. Yeah, and if you believe that crap you're as stupid as these guys thinks you are. Look, these Communists are, and have been for quite some time now, committed to one thing, and thanks to Barry and the scumbag Democrats there are now whole lot closer to the achieving of their goal than they were before Barry assumed the duties of Commander-in-Chief. One of the most dangerous aspects of what has taken place is the fact that the Communists have assumed a huge portion of our debt, and having done so have managed to acquire for themselves a certain amount of very significant leverage.

Gen. Chen Bingde, the top commie general to whom I make reference, whose position in Beijing is roughly the equivalent our chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, used a 45-minute speech/sales job/con job at the National Defense University to play down any fears regarding Chinese intentions. “Although China’s defense and military development has come a long way in recent years, a gaping gap between you and us remains,” Chen said through a Chinese interpreter. He added, “China never intends to challenge the U.S.” Now look, if there is anything that we know about these soulless individuals, with any degree of certainty whatsoever, it's that they continually lie, and rather convincingly, about what their true intensions are. To risk taking what he has said with anything other than a grain of salt, would be very reckless on our part. Having said that, however, it would seem that Barry is only too willing to lend a helping hand to the nation who wishes to replace us by expediting our demise.


Our buddy Chen made a similar point later on while at a Pentagon news conference with his American counterpart, Navy Adm. Mike Mullen. As far as I'm concerned this guy Mullen is a dope, every time I see this clown I find myself wondering just how it was that he got that job. He strikes me as being just a bit too much of a politician, or put another way, nothing but a brown-noser. Anyway, Chen said, “I can tell you that China does not have the capability to challenge the United States" Adding that China’s wealth and military strength pales in comparison with that of the United States. He said China’s navy is 20 years behind the U.S. Navy. This is the same level of propaganda that you hear from Barry. What amount of technology have we "willingly" provided to this communist country going all the way back to "BJ" Clinton? And what valuable technology has been recently been provided to the communists by one of the most recent additions to the Barry administration, GE Chairman and CEO, Jeffrey Immelt? Because of such "opportunities," the Communist Chinese have attained the ability to make up for those 20 years in very short order.


Chen‘s remarks were in line with China’s strategy of countering U.S. fear of China as a military threat by emphasizing the limited scope of its military reach and advancing efforts to cooperate in areas like counterterrorism and anti-piracy. Chen said that he has invited Mullen to make his first visit to China as Joint Chiefs chairman. Chen and Mullen announced several agreements, including a plan for the U.S. and Chinese militaries to jointly conduct a humanitarian assistance and disaster relief exercise in 2012. They also agreed to use a special telephone link to maintain communication between their offices. This whole sideshow all nothing more than some sinister little charade put together by a nation that we quite simply cannot afford to trust. To do so is at our peril. It has it's eye on replacing America as the world's dominate player, and it has laid out for itself an agenda for accomplishing just that. And what's really kind of amazing is the fact that it is making significant progress with help from us.


This general told a group of reporters from our lap dog media, who, I might add, enthusiastically took onboard all that this Commie was telling them. He peddled such drivel as how it is that China’s recent boost of investment in military power is “compensatory in nature,” making up for decades during which modernizing the Chinese economy was given the first priority. Washington often complains that China is too secretive about the purpose and exact scale of its military buildup. To illustrate his point that any fear of Red China is severely overblown and is not a threat, even to Taiwan, Chen noted that some Americans have called on China to remove or withdraw ballistic missiles positioned on its southeast coast, across from Taiwan. “I can tell you here responsibly that we only have garrison deployment across (from) Taiwan, and we do not have operational deployment, much less missiles stationed there,” Chen said. Sure thing there General. Whatever you say! Does this guy really think that anyone, other than of course those warped individuals who reside inside the beltway, is going to believe anything that he says?


Chen, chief of the general staff of the People’s Liberation Army, is leading a delegation of eight Chinese generals on a weeklong visit to the United States. The "People's Liberation Army," now is that an oxymoron or what. It might be more appropriate to call it the "People's Extermination Army," because this army has absolutely nothing to with liberating anybody and everything to do with exterminating anyone who may voice even the slightest amount of dissent against the state. Any voice of opposition is squelched by guys like this general. They are the guardians of the never-ending oppression where the state has assumed total control over the populace. These people must be seen for what they are, a threat to this country on any number of levels. They are determined in there continuing effort to undermine us whenever and wherever the opportunity may present itself. All this faux good will, and the presenting of a willingness to work together is nothing more than PR campaign on the part of the Communist Chinese. We must not allow ourselves to fall into the trap that is so obviously being laid.

OBAMA SAYS EIGHT YEARS IS ENOUGH….

If we can believe one liar when talking about another liar, it would appear that eight years as president will be enough for Barry "Almighty." At least that’s what Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says is what fellow congenital liar Barack Hussein Obama told her the other day. Hell, 2 years of this guy has already been more than enough for me! Can you possibly imagine the level of devastation that will be left behind should this guy actually be president for 8 years? Talk about a doomsday scenario for America. In the last two years it is this guy who can be seen as being singularly responsible for the highest inflation rate in over 2 and half years, a housing market that is now laying in shambles, 4 dollar a gallon gasoline, nearly 10 percent unemployment and food prices that are now seen as going through the roof. And that's after just 2 years! The presidency of Barack Hussein Obama has been nothing short of horrific and the future looks all the more grim because of him and his policies. He may be an American, but he is not "of" America. He possesses a very deep loathing for this country that goes all the way to his core.

Ms. Clinton said Tuesday that she and Barry often marvel over foreign despots who want to stay in power for decades. I just find it very hard to picture these two so patently dishonest individuals sit around and "marvel" at the ability of these foreign despots who are able to finagle lifetime positions of power for themselves. An image much more believable would be one that has them sitting in a dark room somewhere surrounded by sinister looking folks as they busily plot how to best destroy their next political opponent. And instead of "marvel," I would think a much better way, or a more honest way, to describe these little bouts of fanciful thinking on the part of these two "progressive" malcontents, would be to say that they more closely resemble a feeling of envy. Because I really feel that these two feel a bond of sort with those whom Ms Clinton describes as despots. These people dream about staying in power forever and would do absolutely anything to make that become a reality. There is a malignant sense of entitlement possessed by these people, they see themselves as deserving of their positions of power. They and their kind think of themselves as being the elite, individuals who have been thrust into their powerful positions because of their superior intellect.


Supposedly she made the idiotic comment to a State Department forum that neither she nor Obama can understand leaders who refuse to transfer power and who stubbornly cling to power for 10, 20, 30 or 40 years. She says she and the president often joke: “Oh, my gosh. Can you imagine?” What the real joke here is to believe that these two sleazy political hacks wouldn't instead be sitting around conniving as best they can on to make just such a thing a real possibility for themselves. They salivate over the prospect of being able to be afforded the same opportunity. I think it becomes readily apparent that when looking over our recent history that both of these individuals have huge egos and are narcissistic to the extreme. And to say that both have a rather obvious difficulty when it comes to telling the truth, would be an understatement, to say the least. And both see their present positions as being as being both "rightful and deserved." Folks like these two see themselves as being the special ones among us, and there elevated status being nothing more than the natural progression of things. They see themselves as being the ones we've been waiting for to save us from ourselves.


Clinton says Barry told her, “I’m going to win re-election, and then I’m done,” a remark that drew laughter from the audience. Well gee, that's mighty white of him. So are we to understand that at some point he was actually pondering the attempting of a third go around? Assuming, of course, that he ends up being successful in his second. I can only assume that he must be under the rather misguided impression that we are all so enthralled with him that we would all just love to have him stick around a little longer. He must feel that if he were to be so inclined, being that he's so special and all, that he could in fact run, and very easily win, again. Now we all know that 99 percent of the blacks would love nothing more than to have him stay around, but I think the rest of us may be pretty much ready to see him go off and join the lecture circuit and leave us and our wallets alone. And the sooner the better! And, I can only assume that he must be more than just a little unfamiliar with the fact about U.S. presidents being constitutionally barred from a third term. Of course, we are all very well aware of the rather low regard with which Barry holds our Constitution.

BARRY AND HIS TELEPROMPTER GO ON THE ROAD

Busy angling for a second term, our "Beloved Leader," Barack Hussein Obama tried to fire up supporters Monday night, saying failure to get everything they wanted as fast as they wanted it should motivate and not dissuade them. Liberals and other key Barry supporters have voiced their frustration with Barry on any number of issues, from his supposed "compromise" with Republicans on tax cuts to his failure to deliver on a promised overhaul of the immigration system. Barry acknowledged the lengthy to-do list that he sees as lying ahead, but he said his accomplishments to date show that change is possible. I just don't view the outright destruction that he has been successful in bringing about, as being accomplishments. His message to his supporters: Don't give up just yet. So apparently, those who wanted him to inflict even more damage upon our country should not be disheartened. "When you think back to these last two and a half years, I want you to do so not with complacency, not with full satisfaction, but I want it to motivate you," Barry told about 600 supporters at a campaign fundraiser at the Capital Hilton. "Don't let people tell you that we can't bring about change. We have already brought about change." But as we have all been witness to over the course of the last 2+ years, change is not necessarily positive change, or change for the better. The change that has been implemented by this disciple of Alynski, has brought about a calamity that we may very well never fully recover from. And still you can have poll taken that loudly proclaims that in spite of the highest inflation in over 2 and a half years, a housing market that is in a complete shambles, 4 dollar a gallon gas, nearly 10 percent unemployment and skyrocketing food prices, that this guy has a 60 percent approval rating. I find it very hard to believe that that many Americans feel that good about the level of decay that has been brought about by the policies of this one man. Not counting of course the 90 percent of the black population who thinks that Barry is doing just a bang up job, and can’t wait to vote for again, as many times as they can!

Barry also spoke at a dinner with about 60 high-dollar donors at the St. Regis hotel. Recalling his election-night speech in Chicago's Grant Park in 2008, Barry said he told everyone at the time that his winning the presidency wasn't the end, but the beginning. Those, my friends, were most likely are the truest words we have ever spoken by this guy, because coinciding with his assuming office was a beginning, of sorts. It was the beginning of the end for an America that had been the beacon of freedom and a source of economic strength across the globe. He said that he wants to leave behind for future generations an America that is strong and vibrant, yet compassionate and capable of doing big things. What he'll actually be leaving behind is an America that has been gutted and is nothing but a shell, one that has been severely weakened, not only economically and militarily, but socially and morally as well. It will be an America that is so destitute that it can no longer pay its bills without help from such “friendly” countries as Communist China. And it will be an America that will be forced to siphon off from future generations yet to be born an ever increasing amount of their income, robbing from them any hope of achieving any level of prosperity, or even the level of prosperity enjoyed by their parents. In what was truly a terrifying thought to those of us who love our country and a stuck watching this common thug, this punk, destroy it, Barry claimed, "We're just a quarter of the way through," sounding almost as if he was assured of a second term. "We've got to finish our task." That’s how he feels about the tearing down of this great country on every front possible, as being the task at hand. Barry was introduced at the second event by Little Rock Nine member and mental midget Ernie Green, one of the first black students to attend racially segregated Central High School in Little Rock, Ark., in 1957. Green enthusiastically praised Barry for his leadership on the economy, health care and foreign policy. All I can say is that they must teach a rather strange definition of leadership there at Central High School, because Barry is about as far removed from being leader as is possible.


"I don't know any American who didn't stand a little taller on May 1 as you led us through a successful mission," so said this imbecile in his introduction of Barry “Almighty.” Believe it or not this moron was referring to the U.S. military raid in Pakistan that ended with the death of Osama bin Laden. What a bunch of drivel. God, I think I'm gonna puke. Barry couldn't lead himself out of a paper bag. As our Commander-in-Chief he's an absolute disgrace, and I thank my lucky stars every damn day that I retired from the Navy before this, this community agitator, assumed the duties of my Commander-in Chief. This grim reaper of a president will take credit for anything if he sees it as being something that he can then take advantage of to enhance his stature. He's really quite pathetic in this regard, as are those supporters of his who can so casually look the other way as this poor excuse of a leader only uses those under his command as a way to provide himself with some level of political gain. He is so far removed from anything that would even remotely resemble a true leader. He is a user and an opportunist. The American people deserve much better than such an individual as our president. He is the kind of man that our Founders warned us about, and apparently we weren’t listening, because now look at the fine mess we've now gotten ourselves in. We have elected ourselves an egomaniac of the highest order. And as much as he seems to enjoy saying that it's not about him, everything he does makes the point very clearly that it's ALL ABOUT HIM. It's always been about him. He’s the one we’ve been waiting for. And if that same 99 percent of the Blacks once again insist upon demonstrating their rather questionable “standards” by once again voting for this man, and enough Hispanics allow themselves to be convinced by his lies that this he is all about them, then those of us that remain must unite in our effort to bring this man down, to defeat him. He does not deserve the privilege of being our president. It’s just that simple.

FOR THE FAVORED FEW, OBAMACARE WAIVERS JUST KEEP ON COMING…

In what should be viewed as nothing less than a pure indictment against this whole attempt by Barry to seize control of our healthcare system, is the growing number of waivers that are not only being sought, but being approved. Republicans charge the scores of waivers approved by Barry's administration very clearly reflects the fatal flaws contained in the legislation. “I think it tells you everything you need to know about this law,” so says Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich. He adds, “The very fact that they had to immediately grant these waivers so that these people wouldn’t lose their health insurance tells you that if they should be exempt from the law, the rest of us should be exempt from the law too.” Of course there is a bit of obvious political favoritism going on here when it comes to whose waivers are approved and whose are denied. In what is fast becoming pretty much a weekly event, the Barry "Almighty" administration just recently granted 200 more companies waivers from the Democrats' sweeping health care law. That brings the number of companies receiving waivers to 1,372. (You can get a full list of the companies exempted here.) Not surprisingly of course, it does help dramatically if you happen to be a Democrat ally when seeking a waiver. The Republican Policy Committee reports that over half of the workers that have been exempted so far belong to unions. Now there's a shocker! Here's another, the largest single waiver was granted to the United Federal of Teachers Welfare Fund, which covers teachers in New York. The waiver shielded some 351,000 of its members from the premium hikes that many experts say Obamacare will bring.

The plans newly approved for waivers cover more than 160,000 people, bringing to nearly 3.1 million the number of individuals in plans exempted from the requirements of Barry's healthcare "reform" law. Of the participants receiving waivers, more than half, that would be over 1.55 million, belong to union plans, raising the very obvious questions of why such a disproportionate share of union members are receiving waivers from the law’s requirements. The percentage of participants receiving waivers that come from unions is also very much on the rise, the number was 48% in April, and 45% in March. Unions already received a generous concession in the health care bill. Their generous plans, commonly referred to as "Cadillac" insurance plans, were exempted from being taxed until 2018, adding about $120 billion to the bill’s total cost over ten years. The reason the Barry "Almighty" administration says it has given out waivers is to exempt certain companies or policyholders from “annual limit requirements.” They claim that the applications for the waivers are “reviewed on a case by case basis by department officials who look at a series of factors including whether or not a premium increase is large or if a significant number of enrollees would lose access to their current plan because the coverage would not be offered in the absence of a waiver.” The waivers don’t allow a company to permanently refrain from implementing Obamacare’s stipulations, but companies can reapply for waivers annually through 2014.


Constitutional scholar and patient advocate Ms. Betsy McCaughey says that, “The key issue is that under our system of government, the law is supposed to apply equally to everyone. But unfortunately, the Obama administration is moving in the totalitarian direction: It’s who you know, rather than whether you are duty-bound to obey the law." Republicans must repeal Obamacare because it shreds your constitutional rights, says Betsy McCaughey. But then I think as we all should know by now, Barry's not a big believer or supporter of our Constitution. Ms. McCaughey says opposition poll numbers may have dropped some but that's only because Obamacares congressional supporters, in government and the state controlled media are so busy blatantly lying about what it does. “So some companies get waivers, other companies don’t,” McCaughey says. She goes on to say that, “There’s no rhyme or reason or way to describe why some deserve it, and some don’t. And that is really the end of the rule of law in our system of government.” And what should as come as no surprise to anyone with at least half a brain is that with at least 44 of the waivers granted to unions were granted for no other reason than that they contributed substantially to Democrats and the Obama campaign specifically, and that would include that gem known as the Service Employees International Union SEIU). But major corporations such as McDonald’s, Darden Restaurants, and over a dozen health-insurance companies, are included as well. McCaughey, who has been an ardent opponent of the president’s healthcare reforms, says that granting the waivers to some companies but not to others may be unconstitutional. Well, what part of this entire "reform" isn't unconstitutional?


I'm sure we all remember like it was only yesterday how, how all during the healthcare charade that was referred to as being a "debate," Barry promised time and again that under his proposals people could keep their current insurance coverage. He attempted to laugh off all of the criticism, claiming that all of the "chatter" heard to the contrary was nothing more than "scare tactics." But it wasn't very long before McDonald’s Corp. announced that it might have to drop coverage for 30,000 of its workers due to onerous ObamaCare provisions. Just days later, however, HHS announced it had granted the company a one-year waiver from implementing the reforms. Edmund Haislmaier, a senior research fellow in health policy studies for the Heritage Foundation, says the administration issued the waiver to avoid the pre-election political nightmare of “30,000 workers at a business that everyone already knows, because there’s one in every town, suddenly losing their coverage.” He is an obvious critic of the whole waiver process, saying, “It’s entirely arbitrary and discretionary.” Adding, “This is what we mean by the rule of law. The rule of law says that law is there, accessible to everybody, and it is clear that everyone is treated equally. This is not the rule of law. This is arbitrary government.” Large restaurant chains, such as McDonald's, often offer workers basic “mini-med” policies, which have strict limits on payouts. Those policies don’t meet certain minimum standards established in Obamacare, including the percentage of premiums that must be spent on benefits.


Just a little side note here, and something that very clearly reveals the obvious hypocrisy of this whole so-called waiver process is that of the 204 new Obamacare waivers that Barry "Almighty" approved just this past April, 38 are for fancy eateries, hip nightclubs and decadent hotels in, of all places, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s Northern California district. Perphaps it's just a coincidence? That’s in addition to the 27 new waivers for health care or drug companies and the 31 new union waivers Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services approved. Ms. Pelosi’s district secured almost 20 percent of the latest issuance of waivers nationwide, and the companies that won them didn’t have much in common with companies throughout the rest of the country that have received Obamacare waivers. Other common waiver recipients were labor union chapters, large corporations, financial firms and local governments. But old "Botox" Pelosi’s district’s waivers are the first major examples of luxurious, gourmet restaurants and hotels getting a year-long pass from Obamacare. For instance, Boboquivari’s restaurant in Pelosi’s district in San Francisco got a waiver from Obamacare. Boboquivari’s advertises $59 porterhouse steaks, $39 filet mignons and $35 crab dinners. Must be a big hangout for Liberal Democrats. Then, there’s Café des Amis, which describes its eating experience as “a timeless Parisian style brasserie” which is “located on one of San Francisco’s premier shopping and strolling boulevards, Union Street,” according to the restaurant’s Web site. “Bacchus Management Group, in partnership with Perry Butler, is bringing you that same warm, inviting feeling, with a distinctive San Francisco spin,” the Web site reads. Somehow, though, the San Francisco upper class eatery earned itself a waiver from Obamacare because it apparently cost them too much to meet the law’s first year requirements. Imagine that!


Many have sharply criticized the administration’s apparent failure to foresee the unintended consequences of how the legislation would affect some 1.5 million policyholders. Mr. Haislmaier has also said, “If you’re going to put something in that’s going to have the effect of abolishing mini-med plans and you didn’t realize that you were doing that, then you were incompetent.” Haislmaier and Rep. Rogers warn that giving some companies waivers to keep their premiums down thwarts the stated objective of spreading health costs across the entire population. Remaining policy holders, they say, are more likely to see the costs of their premiums go up. And McCaughey says premium costs are already rising sharply. “Certainly, it has forced up premiums,” she says. “Look, there’s no tooth fairy. When the law requires insurance companies to cover more, or in this case to eliminate lifetime caps on what they’ll pay out when you’re sick, or annual caps on what they’ll pay out when you’re sick, you have to pay more." “If insurance companies eliminated the cap on what they’d pay out under your homeowner’s policy, or your auto policy, you’d have to pay more for those policies too. The more you get, the more you pay,” she says. The health care reform bill passed by the 111th Congress gives the secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, broad latitude in setting rules to administer the program. This whole thing was, and continues to be, nothing but a sham, or scam, and an outrageous abuse of power initiated by the most corrupt politician to come along in my lifetime. He looked us straight in the eyes and repeatedly lied to us, and continues to do so to this very day. The voice of the American people was, quite simply, ignored for no other reason than this seizure of our healthcare system has been the dream of these twisted, power hungry people for decades.