HERMAN CAIN AND THE POLITICS OF PERSONAL DESTRUCTION...

While Herman Cain is now being accused of what would normally be seen as a resume enhancer if he were a Democrat, Herman and his team are going to have to become much better in how they choose to handle what could become a serious hit to his campaign. Having said that, I want to make it clear that, despite money supposedly having been paid to these accusers, what has been described by some as "hush money," I find it rather hard to believe that he did anything wrong. It never ceases to amaze me how these pathetic liberals who profess themselves to be so inclusive, are permitted to exhibit such racist behavior and yet never be challenged on it. It is just one more very clear indicator of the liberal bias in the state controlled media conglomerate. It's amazing just how quickly, and with how so little proof of any wrong doing, these people will go after any female or black candidate who is not a liberal.

So what we now have is Herman Cain's campaign adamantly denying the allegations that he was twice accused of sexual harassment while he was the head of the National Restaurant Association back in the 1990s. In a statement Sunday to The Associated Press, his campaign disputed a Politico report that said Cain had been accused of sexually suggestive behavior toward at least two female employees. The report said the women signed agreements with the restaurant group that gave them five-figure financial payouts to leave the association and barred them from discussing their departures. Naturally, neither woman was identified. Now you would think that if the supposed act was so egregious, there would have been a lot more than a mere five-figure payout. In realty, this is nothing more than the same caliber of smear campaign that was attempted against Clarence Thomas by the likes of Teddy Kennedy, who is now, thankfully, rotting in Hell.


The report being made is based on "anonymous" sources and, in one case, what the publication said was a review of documentation that described the allegations and the resolution. Reviewed by whom, someone on a little muckraking mission perhaps? Cain's campaign told the AP that the allegations were not true, and amounted to unfair attacks. "Inside-the-Beltway media have begun to launch unsubstantiated personal attacks on Cain," spokesman J.D. Gordon said in a written statement. "Dredging up thinly sourced allegations stemming from Mr. Cain's tenure as the Chief Executive Officer at the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s, political trade press are now casting aspersions on his character and spreading rumors that never stood up to the facts." Ok, this is a nice little summation of what's going on, but the campaign is going to need to be a bit more forceful in its denials here.


Asked if Cain's campaign was denying the report, Gordon said, "Yes." "These are baseless allegations," Gordon said in a second interview later Sunday evening. "To my knowledge, this is not an accurate story." Cain plans to continue with several planned appearances in Washington on Monday. He is slated to discuss his tax plan at the American Enterprise Institute, appear at the National Press Club and hold a healthcare briefing on Capitol Hill. I think it safe to say that at both occasions Mr. Cain can expect a goodly amount of questions on this topic, so he had best be prepared. Cain, a self-styled outsider relatively new to the national stage, is facing a new level of scrutiny after a burst of momentum in the race for the GOP presidential nomination. And with that increased level scrutiny comes and eagerness by those in the liberal to dig up as much dirt, substantiated or not, as possible on a conservative candidate.


The former pizza company executive has been pointing to his long record in business to argue that he has the credentials needed to be president during a time of economic strife. In its report, Politico said it confronted Cain early Sunday outside of the CBS News Washington bureau, where he had just been interviewed on "Face the Nation." "I am not going to comment on that," he told Politico when asked specifically about one of the woman's claims. When asked if he had ever been accused of harassment by a woman, he responded, Politico said, by asking the reporter, "Have you ever been accused of sexual harassment?" Cain briefly told a reporter on Sunday he would not comment on a report that didn’t even name the people who are accusing him. But while many are already maybe a little too eager to assign guilt, one conservative did come to Cain’s defense Sunday night. And that was Ann Coulter.


And I have to agree with Ann Coulter, who appearing on Jerry River's, aka Geraldo Rivera, "Jerry at Large" on Fox News, described herself as being “spitting mad” about “this attack on Herman Cain.” “Liberals are terrified of Herman Cain,” Coulter said. “He is a strong, conservative black man. Look at the way they go after Allen West and Michael Steele, and they’re not even running against Obama. They (liberals) are terrified of strong, conservative black men.” As for the substance of the attack on Cain, “What’s being alleged here isn’t even genuine harassment,” Coulter said. “Like I say, it isn’t touching, it isn’t groping; it’s ‘Ooh, he said something and we thought it was inappropriate.’” Which should make it all the more easy to handle by Cain's campaign team. They're going to need to be a bit more aggressive in nipping this silliness in the bud.


Coulter called the Politico hit piece an “outrageous attack on a black conservative who is doing extremely well and I think will be our vice presidential candidate.” But Cain’s team is going to have to much better in how it chooses to handle this potential campaign killer. Campaign spokesman J.D. Gordon, after repeatedly given a number of opportunities to deny the Politico report, refused to do so in his Sunday night telephone interview with Jerry. Gordon called the Politico report a liberal smear: “This is not even a sourced allegation,” he complained. But repeatedly pressed on whether the report is true, Gordon dodged the question every time: Is Herman Cain denying that two women were given a cash payout to hush up the allegations against him, Geraldo asked. And again, referring back to the Clarence Thomas episode, what is being perpetrated here against Mr. Cain, is nothing more than a "high tech lynching," albeit an updated version.


Gordon responded that “Mr. Cain deserves better than this.” Jerry, being ever the persistent gutter journalist wasn’t about to give up: “Do you deny that this ever happened?” "You know, Geraldo, just let me tell you. This is just an example of the inside-the Beltway media attack…” In the end, Gordon told Jerry the question of whether two women received cash payouts to settle the harassment allegations would have to be put to the National Restaurant Association. "Multiple sources" told Politico that the two women complained of "sexually suggestive behavior by Cain that made them angry and uncomfortable." Now I understand there is a fine line when denying accusations of this type, if you're too strong, then media morons, like Jerry, will begin to think that maybe there's some truth to them, if the response is too weak, inconsistent or even non-existent, the accusations only fester and become much more than they really are.


This form of slimy tactics is a perfect example of why so many good people refuse to run for public office. Why should they be forced to run a gauntlet made up of liberal faux journalists, and to expose their family to what is nothing more than the pathetic behavior exhibited by those same sleazy journalists. And it's always the conservative candidates who come under the most severe level of scrutiny. If Democrats were made to face the same in depth digging up of any dirt there wouldn't be but a handful in all of Congress. They're permitted to be "former" members of the KKK, take part in all manner if inappropriate behavior and are even permitted to have committed murder. Look back over all that was glossed over in the case of Barry "Almighty" regarding his background and very questionable associations. The net result here is the fact that we’re left with candidate essentially "selected by those in the media by their keeping certain information on some candidate under wraps regarding candidate they favor while exposing, or even making things up, when it comes to candidates that they oppose.

I BELIEVE HERMAN CAIN



Ironically speaking, Mr. Cain is being blamed for committing an act that is ususally seen as a resume enhancement for Democrats.  And as any Democrat will tell you, the paying out of some sort of "settlement" is not an admission of any guilt.  Do I think Mr. Cain actually did what he's being accused of?  No, I think not.  He's now facing the slings and arrows of having now been labeled the "front runner."

RACIST MSNBC "ANAL"YST DEMEANS HERMAN CAIN...

As much as liberals refer to Republicans as being racist, or as much as you hear coming from morons lke Shaprton and Jackson, that Republicans want nothing more than to "keep the black folk" down, from whom is it that we consistently hear some of the most incendiary racial language?  Racism does still exist, and it has a home on the left.

OCCUPY WALL STREET PROTESTORS = TEA PARTY DEMONSTRATORS?

Nope, I just don't think so!  None of what's going on here, the taking of dumps on door steps, the spitting on military folks, the vulgarity, the drug use, the petty thievery, or the threats of violence, none of it was seen from those who made up the Tea Party gatherings. 

NO LIE TOO BIG TO TELL FOR OUR FIRST LADY…

We now have something new coming from the person who stated that, for her entire life, there had been absolutely nothing about her country that could be said to have made her proud of her country, at least up until that point in time when her socialist husband was running for president. Now, as our current First Lady, Mrs. Barry "Almighty," has suggested that a Republican victory in the 2012 presidential election would result in curbs on freedom of speech and of religion. Can you believe it? Aren't those exactly the types of things that her husband is busy trying to inflict? Anyway, speaking at a recent fundraiser at some private residence somewhere in Tampa, Mrs. Barry "Almighty" spoke specifically of the power of the president to appoint members of the Supreme Court. She clearly indicated that a Republican would select justices who would attack basic First Amendment rights, saying, “that’s what’s at stake” in this election.

The White House transcript of the little get together was made available and what she said it goes like this: "Let’s not forget about what it meant when my husband appointed those two brilliant Supreme Court justices — (applause) — and for the first time in history, our daughters — and our sons — watched three women take their seats on our nation’s highest court. (Applause.) But more importantly, let’s not forget the impact those decisions will have on our lives for decades to come — on our privacy and security, on whether we can speak freely, worship openly, and love whomever we choose. That is what’s at stake here. (Applause.)" I'd be curious to know just who these people were who were doing all of this applauding. I mean, are they really so stupid as to believe any of what she was saying? Really? Here she is telling these people that it's the Republican who are going to be doing exactly what it is that her husband is doing now! Except, I suppose, for the gay inference being made here.


Mrs. Barry "Almighty's" contention here is that Republican justices, in other words, conservatives who interpret the Constitution as written and not imagined, would set about curtailing people’s abilities to “love whomever we choose,” and she appears to suggest that Republicans would go beyond opposition to gay marriage and even move to limit gay relationships. Barry "Almighty" himself claims he opposes gay marriage, although he's pretty much thrown the "Defense of Marriage Act" squarely under the proverbial bus in his effort to pander to gays, so her suggestion that Republican-selected justices would jeopardize the ability to “love whomever we choose” cannot possibly refer to gay marriage. And being much like her spouse who is never one to let an opportunity for playing the race card go by, Mrs. Barry, also posits racism on the part of Republicans, indicating their policies would lead to discrimination against children based on “what they look like." Yup, stand by, we're headed back to the good old days of segregation with those old racist, homophobic Republicans leading the way!


So then this moron goes on to ask, "Will we be a country where opportunity is limited to just the few at the top? Who are we? Or will we give every child a chance to succeed no matter where they’re from, or what they look like or how their money parents are — have. Who are we?" So once again our stellar First Lady very clearly demonstrates just how little class she actually possesses. It kinda makes you wonder just how shallow one person can be, when all she can do is to look at black Americans and tell them such obvious lies. And she knows that what she's telling them are lies, but it's now gotten to the point where this is all these people have. It's sad really to think that a ploy such as this would even continue to work in the 21st century and that we would have someone in her position who can so very easily, and I suppose you can agrue, somewhat callously, can lie to these people. But what's sadder is the fact that there remains enough people who still believe this kind of drivel.

HEY, HAVE YOU HEARD, IT'S A REPUBLICAN CONGRESS...

Never being ones to pass up any opportunity to hoodwink the American people, Barry "Almighty," along with a number of other slimy Democrats in tow, have now begun to freely using the term “Republican Congress,” this even though it is their man "Dingy" Harry who is in charge of the Senate. And the reason for this latest tactic should be pretty obvious to anybody with a brain. With congressional approval ratings currently residing in the toilet, having now dropped below 15 percent, no politician wants to be seen with a link to the legislative branch. So Barry and his allies have struck on a very simply idea having now started to deploy the phrase “Republican Congress” in a regular basis. And it's what most experts see as being a clear attempt to gain some level of political advantage. “I’m the first one to acknowledge that the relations between myself and the Republican Congress have not been good over the last several months, but it’s not for lack of effort,” Barry told ABC’s Stephy Stephanopoulos earlier this month. “It has to do with the fact that, you know, they’ve made a decision to follow what is a pretty extreme approach to governance,” he said.

And there has been no shortage of other Democrats who have very enthusiastically jumped on this little bandwagon and have gone out of there way to used the term loudly and very frequently. “I’m sure the president would like it to be creating jobs more quickly. And if the members of the do-nothing Republican Congress would actually put a couple of oars in the water and help us, [we could] do these things like [Mississippi] Gov. [Haley] Barbour mentioned that make so much sense,” Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, lying Democrat, said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” earlier this month. So, is it a harmless slip of the tongue, or, instead, a subtle messaging strategy? You don't have to be some political expert to recognize, and very easily so, that it’s very obviously the latter. “I think it’s to convey a message and I think it’s great they’re doing it. There’s so much dissatisfaction in Washington. It’s very important for Democrats to label that dissatisfaction. It’s important to say who’s being the obstructionist and who has real plans,” said Democratic pollster Celinda Lake. So once again the end justifies the means, and that's perfectly acceptable, if you happen to be a slimy Democrat.


Some guy named Darrell West, who is, I guess, the director of governance studies at the Brookings Institution, said, “Democrats are trying to give ownership of Congress to Republicans because the institution is dysfunctional and not addressing the jobs problem, and this is a way to tie blame to the GOP.” In other words, what these scumbag Democrats are in search of, is a way they can have their cake and eat it too. Political scientists have said that Barry is now using a game plan similar to that used by Presidents Truman and "BJ" Clinton. Both won their reelection by railing about Congress. The difference, however, is that both chambers in 1948 and 1996 were controlled by Republicans. So in order for this little slight of hand plan to be successful this time around, Barry and the Democrats are going to have to bank on the fact that the general public is just too stupid to figure out that they're, once again, being lied to. But, you know, when looking at the track record of the American people regarding they're being able to figure out such things, I'd have to say that the odds are, most likely, very much in favor of these slug Democrats. It's this malignant form of stupidity which I think it very safe to say can now be considered as being an epidemic. And it way we are one the verge of losing everything.

WHATEVER THE REASON, MANY STILL LOOK TO HILLARY...

I simply do not understand the fascination that people have with a person the caliber of Hitlery Clinton. Next to Obama, and with her husband now at least semi-sequestered in private life, she is probably the most blatantly dishonest person in American politics today. And she has no more love for this country than does Barry, with her idiotic "It Takes a Village" leftist mentality. And unlike Barry, Hillary has actually met Saul Alinsky and being a devoted discyple, she is very well-versed in his tactics. As well as, or maybe even better, than Barry himself. And yet, apparently, people just can't help but wonder what might happen if Hillary Clinton ran again for president. And how do I know this? Well, because we now have a new Time Magazine poll, probably not one of the more reliable polls one can look at, that shows that Clinton would easily defeat the major Republican candidates, were she somehow to become the 2012 Democratic nominee for president. But why?

According to this poll, Clinton leads Mitt Romney, 55% to 38%; Rick Perry, 58% to 32%; and Herman Cain, 56% to 34%, among likely voters in a general election. Time magazine notes, "The same poll found that President Obama would edge Romney by just 46% to 43%, Perry by 50% to 38% and Cain by 49% to 37% among likely voters." Clinton's leads are bigger. Clinton, who we all well remember, lost the 2008 nomination fight to Barry "Almighty," says she has no interest in another White House run. But if there is one thing you can take to the bank when dealing with this congenital liar, and in this area she's right up there with Barry, it's that you can never believe a single word she that comes out of her mouth. And I doubt that, had it been she that was elected in 2008 and not he, we'd be in any different place than where it is that we currently find ourselves. Because socialism has been proven not to work no matter who administers it.


It's things like this recent poll that has people, primarily on the left, now saying that Hillary Clinton is emerging as the most formidable non-candidate candidate heading into the 2012 presidential election. But how can this be? In the past Clinton has made her feelings very clear regarding her rather socialist beliefs. For instance, then Senator, Clinton said, "Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." Or how about this little tidbit, "We can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people." Then there's the clincher, "I certainly think the free-market has failed." Is someone who has such opinions really someone that we want as president? Isn't that what we presently have?


And as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton told BBC Persia as recently as this week, that the State Department has plans to set up a "virtual embassy" in Tehran by the end of the year to answer questions about how Iranians can study or travel in the United States. "I'm trying to increase the number of visas for students so that we have more Iranian students coming to study here. We’re trying to reach out to the Iranian people, and we’ve tried to reach out to the government, just not very successfully," she said in an interview with BBC Persia's Bahman Kalbasi. So it I understand this correctly, she is actually attempting to make it easier for individuals to come here from a country who views America as being the "Great Satan." Does that not sound like something that should be considered as being the height of irresponsibility? And people think she would make a good president? How nutty is that? Every time I hear this nonsense I find myself wondering just how much longer we're going to be able to hold this whole thing together.

PART 2 OF CEO PETER SCHIFF AND OCCUPY WALL STREET MORONS

MICHAEL MOORE SAYS OCCUPY MOVEMENT OBAMA'S ONLY HOPE

The "Fat One" has spoken.  And we all know what a political genius this guy is, Right?

YET ANOTHER ROGUE BILLIONAIRE DETERMINED TO STIR UP TROUBLE...

What is it with these guys who think that just because they've managed to amass great wealth they are somehow entitled to go around meddling in things that are really none of their concern. Such is the case regarding yet another billionaire bozo, some guy who Business Insider has now dubbed as being “George Soros lite.” This guy's name is Nicolas Berggruen, and he's a billionaire who just goes roaming around the globe, living out of various five-star hotels, and is someone who, apparently, has nothing better to with his time than to go about working to alter, and not necessarily for the better, the way Western governments operate. I guess everybody needs a hobby, but it would be much better for all concerned if this ass would just take up stamp collecting. Bloomberg’s Jeremy Kahn describes the roots of his rather nomadic existence this way: "…in 2000, Berggruen sold his houses, put his art collection in storage and gave away or sold most of his possessions, including his car. He says his decision to live a rootless existence wasn’t a means of dodging taxes; he says he pays them in the U.S." Look, this is just one more guy with a lot of money who views the world as being as his own personal little board game, and we're all nothing more than pieces on the board.

This Berggruen fella, from what I've read, made his billions by growing a $250,000 trust fund that his daddy, some wealthy art connoisseur, gave him, and is now, courtesy of those billions, being compared to that other billionaire boob, George Soros, because of some of his rather skewed to leftist policy positions, his supposed passion for politics and his urge for what is being called, a more "integrated" Europe. Plus, this very generous billionaire has, of course, devoted substantial funds to support many loony left wing causes and Democrat politicians in this country, yet another fact that makes a comparison between him and Soros all the more obvious and very much worth exploring. The Wall Street Journal’s Stacy Meichtry reports that Berggruen grew up in Paris, but has German roots. He spent his teenage years writing “utopian” constitutions and “occasionally clashed with authority figures.” Yup, just the kinda guy we want sticking his nose in where it isn't wanted or needed. It's individuals like this who represent a very real threat to the rest of us, they are a menace in the truest sense of the word. So somehow we're gonna need to devise some method of preventing them from inserting themselves into the political process in such as way that they are then affect some manner of influence over our elected officials.


These days he keeps himself busy by, along with trying to influence the political process in any number of countries, buying up debt-saddled companies and then turning them around to where they are making a profit. But it's his little hobby regarding his rather shady political involvements that are what we should really be concerned about. You see, he has already spent $100,000 to create a little thing called the Nicolas Berggruen Institute. Here’s more on the group: "The Nicolas Berggruen Institute is dedicated to exploring new ideas of good governance. The NBI is an independent, non-partisan think tank and consultancy engaged in the comparative study and design of systems of governance suited to the new and complex challenges of the 21st century. Our efforts seek to integrate the new possibilities of the information age with the best practices of efficient, decisive and meritocratic administration in Asia with the democratic accountability of the West. The knowledge society both enables and requires intelligent community, intelligent democracy and intelligent governance." It's always guys like this who think that their ideas are so much better than everyone else’s for no other reason than because they've been able to make a lot of money.


And apparently he’s supposed to be poised to make some major impact and if so, I doubt very seriously, that it will be one which most of us would view as being beneficial. The Institute’s "Council for the Future of Europe" has former Spanish and German heads of state and economic figureheads like Joseph Stiglitz on board. Berggruen even has connections to such pop culture elites as that idiotic bimbo Paris Hilton and famed Hollywood moron, Leonardo DiCaprio. Mr. Kahn writes: "Now, Berggruen is moving even farther afield in a quest to save the West from sinking into chaos. He says the stock market swoons of 2011, the brinkmanship in Washington over the debt ceiling and the euro-zone debt debacle are symptoms of the same underlying problem. “What you really have is a deep, deep governance crisis in the West,” he says." Ok, so I guess he figures that he's got all of the answers because he's rich. He seems to think that he's just so much smarter than us lowly nine-to-fivers who want nothing more than to be left alone by our government and to have our country left alone as well, and allowed to work things out on our own minus any outside interference from any passing rogue billionaire. Why can't he simply be satisfied with buying up broken companies and fixing them? What's this need to dabble in the business of sovereign nations?


When it comes to centralization, Berggruen and his group believe that it‘s necessary to bring together Europe’s political systems — this includes centralizing financial policies. He advocates greater powers for the European Central Bank and the European Financial Stability Facility so that the debt of private banks can be restructured and the debt crisis can be more readily relieved. But, unfortunately, it’s not just Europe that Berggruen is concerned with. It was reported that he would give $20 million to the State of California to assist in restructuring its political system. Additionally, he previously donated $250,000 to oppose a 2010 measure that would have suspended California’s global warming law (Proposition 23). The measure was inevitably defeated. All of this is nothing more that him sticking his toe in to test the waters and most definitely be viewed as what is the precursor for what is sure to be his increasing his involvement in the internal workings of this country. He should be seen, as is Soros, as being the threat that he is, not as some harmless benefactor out to do some good. Like his fellow billionaire, Soros, his guy, very clearly, as some ulterior motives here and that fact most certainly does not bode well for the future of this country.


In addition to his doing his best to achieve some level of impact on governance in the West and in California specifically, he’s also been known to fund the candidacies of such liberal imbeciles as New York’s Chuckie Schumer and even Barry "Almighty." Now I think it very safe to say that considering his rather painfully obvious penchant for liberal Democratic ideals, just like Soros, Berggruen is most definitely worthy of continued examination and possibly even some closer scrutiny. And even though it has been noted that he is including Republican Condoleeza Rice in his California plans, that fact should provide very little comfort to those who worry that his agenda will mirror the extremism often observed in Soros’ exploits. Look, Rice is no conservative, she never really has been. She was a weak Secretary of State who undermined George W. Bush on any number of occasions, so I would not put too much stock in the fact that her name has been mentioned anywhere in connection with Berggruen. Ya know, it's really bad enough that we have to keep a very well trained eye on any number of corrupt politicians, but when guys like Soros, and now this guy Berggruen, insert themselves into the mix, and for no other reason than that they might be able to purchase for themselves a member of Congress or two, or even perhaps a president, that should cause all of us some very serious concern.

GOOD NEWS FROM HERE IN FLORIDA...

Finally, an opportunity has now been presented to us that would allow us to rid ourselves of that flaming doofus, Bill Nelson, as our senior Senator here in Florida. This guy is just another "Party above everything else" dirt bag liberal who needs to be sent packing and November 2012 sounds like the perfect time to me. It's all because, thankfully, we have now have someone who many feel will prove to be a very viable candidate. Even though he had initially declined to enter U.S. Senate race, Florida Congressman Connie Mack has now apparently changed his mind. "Connie Mack is running for the U.S. Senate. He is making calls. He is assembling a team. And he will have more to announce about the run in the weeks ahead," David James, a senior adviser, told The Miami Herald.

Mr. Mack, A Republican from Fort Myers, had said he did not plan to run after two of his former colleagues from the Florida House, Adam Hasner and Mike Haridopolos, had thrown their hats into the race. However, things can change pretty rapidly in the world of politics. And part of that change was the fact that Mr. Haridopolos has since dropped out and none of the others, who were potential candidates, never really "caught fire," as the Herald reports. Besides Mr. Hasner, the other potentials were former Sen. George LeMieux, former gubernatorial candidate Mike McCalister and former Ruths Chris steakhouse chief Craig Miller. I'll be honest, I had hoped Jeb Bush would throw his hat into the ring, but I am completely happy with Connie Mack and I actually think he may prove to be a better candidate then Jeb.


All recent polling data shows that the incumbent Democratic Senator Bill Nelson and would have easily defeated any of those on the present list of candidates. That was, of course, before Mr. Mack came onto the scene. So I'm glad that Mr. Mack is now willing to step up to the plate, he is sorely needed. "Mack brings a big name to the campaign," the Herald said. "His father was a U.S. Senator from Florida. Mack, as a sitting congressman, can tap vast resources in D.C. Right now, though he has about $300,000 in campaign cash. His wife, Mary Bono Mack, is also a member of Congress and was married to 70s singer-turned-congressman Sonny Bono before his death. She, too, can help with fundraising." Those of us looking to dump Nelson are going to need to rally around our new candidate if we are to be successful in our endeavor.


The bottom line here is that Nelson has consistently proven himself to be nothing but a rabid ideologue since he was first elected to the House back in 1978 and to the Senate in 2000, and he has been a very enthusiastic supporter of Barry "Almighty," both very good reasons for getting rid of him. He was, and remains so, an ardent supporter of Obamacare and he's part of the reason that we are now so far into debt that our grand kids will be working to pay it off. As a devoted Democrat he is in favor of the further weakening of our national security and our ability to fight the terrorists trying to kill us, and for the increasing of the Democrat voter base through the allowing millions of illegal aliens to magically become U.S. citizens. Republicans will need to gain control of the Senate this next time around if there is to be any hope of being able to drag us back from the cliff on which Barry has us perched.

CEO PETER SCHIFF TAKES ON OCCUPY WALL STREET NUTS!

The audio on this is a little hard to hear every once and a while. But you can hear well enough how Mr. Schiff successfully makes his points.

OBAMA SAYS HE'S JUST GETTING WARMED UP, LOTS OF UNFINISHED BUSINESS LEFT...

Oh goodie, now doesn't that just give you a big warm and fuzzy. So, in what should now send a very cold chill down the back of every single patriotic American, is the mere thought of that which has now been identified as being the central theme of Barry's re-election campaign. What is that, you ask? Well, it's Barry's claim that there is still much unfinished business that remains in urgent need of being addressed. So it is then, that as he now goes about the business of raising significant campaign funds and appealing for votes, Barry "Almighty" continues to frame his 2012 re-election campaign as being one that is essentially about the creating of an opportunity that would allow him to complete that unfinished business. Also, it's about presenting a very clear choice between his ideas and those of his potential rivals who he likes to whine and complain about as being no different than those "obstructionist" congressional Republicans who, he says, are desperate to thwart his efforts no matter what. This entire cockamamie message is designed to allow Barry a means to "highlight" what he sees as being his "accomplishments" and to also allow him lump Republican presidential candidates in with unpopular legislators. Time and again Barry reminds his campaign backers that the 2012 election will be more difficult than the last. And, aware that some Democrats are less enthusiastic about him than they were three years ago, he is using every opportunity to enumerate his "achievements," from health care to financial regulatory changes to the repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy for gay service members.

Lately, Obama has been busy telling audiences that he has been marking off the list of campaign promises that he made back in 2008. "We're through about 60 percent of it," he told a group of about 100 donors in Denver Tuesday. "Which isn't bad for three years." "There's still a lot of people hurting and there's still a lot of work to do," he continued. "And that 40 percent that's not done, I'm going to need you, because I need five more years." God, what a nightmare scenario that is! I can only hope that enough people come to the realization that this country simply cannot survive another four years of having this "community agitator" in the Oval Office. Hell, at the rate we're going I wouldn't be willing to bet that we'll even survive intact until the 2012 election. Anyway, Denver was the last stop in Barry's three-day swing that also took him to Las Vegas, Los Angeles and San Francisco, a fundraising-rich tour that let him spend some time hobnobbing with top Los Angeles celebrities and to get some media attention in the battleground states of Nevada and Colorado. During a quick stop in San Francisco Tuesday afternoon, Barry sought to draw distinction between his economic plans and those of his Republican rivals, who he, as part of his continuing theme, said are only interested in cutting taxes for the wealthy and eliminating regulations. "It's not as if we haven't tried what they're selling. We have. And it didn't work," he told a 200-person crowd, each of whom paid a minimum of $5,000 to attend. If I recall, it was just such an idea that worked pretty well when Reagan and, to a certain extent, Bush tried it.


But as his poll numbers continue to sag and enthusiasm among even his more hardcore supporters waning, Barry "Almighty" has worked to remind backers that his administration has had, what Barry views as being, some pretty significant accomplishments. From yanking control of healthcare away from the American people and handing it to the federal government, the seizing control of two car companies and a large chunk of our financial sector and student loan program, to ending the military's ban on gay service members, such are those things he views as being his significant "accomplishments." But he acknowledged that change hasn't always been easy to come by. "It's not as trendy to be an Obama supporter as it was back in 2008," he said. "We've had setbacks, we've had disappointments. I've made mistakes on occasion." The Western tour was one of Barry's busiest donor outreach trips to date during this election season. In Los Angeles, he turned to lefty celebrities, including actor Will Smith and basketball legend Earvin "Mr. HIV" Johnson, to bring in some big money for the brother, and then he mingled with such washed up losers as Melanie Griffith and Antonio Banderas over canapés at the couple's home. Left wing, wack job celebrities are a tried-and-true fundraising draw, particularly if you happen to be a left wing, wack job Democratic president like Barry "Almighty." Both the president and the stars enjoy the basking in their reflected fame and the endorsement of stars can be a useful asset especially when focusing on the less intelligent segment of voters.


So as he travels around country collecting money, he has also been actively promoting the charade that is his $447 Billion bogus jobs/stimulus bill. The bill now been broken up into its component parts which says he says was done because it must have been too complicated for the Republicans to understand. Despite his endless blaming of the Republicans for its lack of passage, it must remain too complicated for Democrats because it has still been unable to successfully navigate through the Democrat controlled Senate. In the meantime, Barry continues in his effort to circumvent Congress and simply rule by decree, as he focuses on steps his administration can take without the nuisance of congressional approval, including an initiative announced Tuesday to offer millions of student loan borrowers the ability to lower their payments and consolidate their loans. Earlier this week, the administration unilaterally created new rules to allow homeowners who are deeply underwater on their mortgages to refinance at lower rates. Because if his policies, we now have more people than ever receiving some form or another of government subsistence, we are farther in debt than we have ever been and, for the first time in our nation's history, our credit rating has been reduced. Since Barry first took office 2.4 million people have lost their job and yet for the first two full years of his term, the only mention of jobs came about when he wanted us to go along with his first attempt at a stimulus, when he promised unemployment would never go above 8 percent. Upon passage of that same stimulus it shot up to over 10 percent and has never been below 9 percent. So what is there that now exists that would provide the necessary impetus for passage of what is essentially nothing more than a second stimulus?

THESE MORONS INSIST UPON ALIENATING THOSE ON WHOM THEY RELY FOR THEIR LIVING...

There seems to be what I can only describe as being a growing malignancy, of sorts, rapidly taking shape out there in Tinsel Town. These loudmouthed perverts used to keep a bit of a lower profile, keeping there rather lunatic notions a little closer to their chests. But they now seem to be quite comfortable in letting their leftist tendencies get the better of them, especially with the socialist we now have in the Oval Office. And recent events would indicate that apparently one fat, beat looking bitch begets another fat, beat lookin bitch. First Kathy Bates came crawlin outta the woodwork showing us all what a freakin genius she is by spewing all kind of gibberish and then right behind her came yet another imbecile, Bette "The Skank" Midler. Ms. Skank apparently has not only a soft spot in her heart for the new occupants of Zuccotti Park, but also a rather soft spot in her head. Because since these protesters, as well as many innocent bystanders, are becoming plagued by increasingly problematic hygiene issues, old "Skank" Midler has decided to come to the rescue, or at least she is offering to buy the protesters much needed porta-potties.

Yup, old "Skank" Midler announced that little idea to yet another fat, beat lookin bitch, one of the resident morons on "The View," Joy "Bimbo" Behar on Tuesday. Skank said that she would purchase portable toilets for the occupiers, as she is happy to see young activists, “saying things that have to be said.”Apparently the toilet discussion came about because of protests from the lower Manhattan community that the protesters are sullying the place up. When "Bimbo" Behar brought the issue up, old "Skank" Midler suggested the families “send some down because toilets are cheap, porta-potties are cheap.” So cheap, in fact, that she offered to send them down herself–and tried to get "Bimbo" Behar to go halfsies on the donation (Behar refused to be involved in any such plot). I'm not sure just how low your IQ has to be before you're able to even watch an entire show of "The View," but it certainly has to be down in single-digits. Let's face, there ain't a whole of brainpower present there on the set. But hey, you know, I guess as long as somebody watching, it's worth keeping on.


Then I guess in what was supposed to be a more serious note, "Skank" Midler commented that, having lived through the protests of the 1960s, which, for her generation, “was just something that you did,” it was inspiring to see young people protesting again. “The point is,” despite politics, she argued, “that they have organized themselves and they are saying things that have to be said.” She also chided the right for being “so old school” as to call the protesters “hippies”– “fifty years have passed, get a new line than ‘dirty hippie.’” And of course old "Skank" Midler couldn't let the opportunity to go by without saying a few words about Texas governor Rick Perry and his recent questionable comments about Barry’s birth certificate. “I don’t think Rick Perry is sure of where he was born!” she joked. Midler then lamented the “shame” she felt over the “indignity” an American president, had to suffer when he was reduced to furnishing the nation with his birth certificate. Wasn't this bitch our there joining in the Hollywood chorus calling Bush every name in the book?


And then of course we have yet another Hollywood loudmouth, one who quite frankly, I used to like. But it will now be cold day in Hell before I decide chuck out the cost of a ticket to see another one of his movies. I mean, just when I thought all of the attacks, whether they are serious statements or bad attempts at even worse jokes, against Sarah Palin and her family seemed to have reached an unprecedented climax, someone new always seems willing to up the ante. And so it was on October 22, that "actor" Orlando Jones tweeted the following little message: "Libyan Rebels kill Gaddafi, if American liberals want respect they better stop listening to Aretha & kill Sarah Palin (:" While it took many people a few days to realize that this was posted to the Twitterverse, commentators and political spectators are just now delving into commentary on the matter. As far as I know, Jones still hadn’t opted to delete the micro-message (then again, there are so many screen captures of it, doing so would be fruitless at this juncture). Instead, he’s been defending it. On October 23, just one day after Jones sent the message, he apparently began responding to angry Tweeps who were less than content with his tweet (which he describes as “inane” and characterizes as a joke). Right, everything is always a joke with jerks.


So, I go back to my original question. Who is it, exactly, among us, those of us who rely so heavily on others to willingly fork over their hard earned money so they we may, in turn, enjoy a good living, that can afford to then insult those doing the forking over? And I'm not talking only about those in the entertainment business. Maybe it's something in the water out there, I really can't explain the level of outright insanity that has now gripped the place any other way. We now have all manner of lunatic residing there, from Tom Hanks and Matt Damon, to Sean Penn and Roseanne Barr to Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman. And of course we can never forget that other fat slob, and perpetual gasbag, Alec Baldwin. The list of Hollywood luminaries goes on and on. Now, apparently, we can also permanently affix to that list, the afore mention cows Midler and Bates and a imbecilic black guy, Jones. To be perfectly frank, I see very few movies these days, essentially because I've been forced to pay ever escalating costs for food, gas and energy. But also, I just don't feel comfortable shelling out the cost of a ticket or of a CD, if it will in any way contribute to these Hollywood liberals being able to continue in their efforts to ruin my country.

WASSERMAN SCHULZ IS THE POSTER CHILD FOR THE MENTALLY DEFICIENT

IT'S HOLLYWOOD VERSUS AMERICA...

So why do you suppose it is that I would have now taken it upon myself to institute my own little personal boycott regarding going to see movies made in Hollywood these days? Well, first and foremost is the whole notion that I just don't see why it is that I should, courtesy of ever-escalating ticket prices, partake in what is essentially nothing more than money laundering regarding funds going to Democrat politicians. I pay huge ticket prices so that folks like Tom Hanks, Matt Damon and the like, can then fork over ridiculously exorbitant amounts of money, money that comes from the movies that we see, to leftist politicians like Barry. Such was the case just this week where individuals such as Will Smith, Melanie Griffith along with hubby Antonio Banderas forked over big bucks for the privilege of nothing more than an opportunity to dine with Barry "Almighty." Barry knows where the money is, as well as where the leftist mentality is the most pervasive, and he has now waded well into the domain inhabited by this self-absorbed crowd of phonies, most of which barely made it through high school. So on Monday of this week he struck out on a California fundraising circuit in one of his busiest, and most lucrative, donor outreach trips to date. Smith, together with others in attendance, all gathered at the home of producer James Lassiter and his wife, Mai. About 40 contributors, including actress Hilary Duff, contributed $35,800 each for a cozy little dinner and a chance to chat with the president. Barry, ever the narcissist and very comfortable in the company of fellow narcissists, was eager to reinvigorate his supporters, ticking off what he sees as being his administration’s accomplishments.

This little Lassiter dinner get together, and a larger affair at the home of Griffith and Banderas that followed, was all part of a three-day expedition through fundraising-rich Nevada, California and Colorado for the purpose of mining as much in the way campaign contributions as possible. California, that haven for left wing lunatics, is his biggest donor state and Barry was able to raise about $1 million in the Los Angeles area alone during the past two fundraising quarters, at least according to an Associated Press review of contributions above $200. And in what has to considered, at least by any sane person, as being a laughable attempt to pay homage to Barry "Almighty," it was at Banderas‘ and Griffith’s house, that the entrance path was lined with rose petals and votive candles. It was also while there that Barry told about 120 mostly Latino contributors that he has kept a list of his campaign promises and that, at least by his count, he has accomplished about 60 percent of them. “I’m pretty confident we can get the other 40 percent done in the next five years,” he said to loud applause. The Griffith-Banderas event was the first Latino fundraiser for Barry’s candidacy, with donors coughing up at least $5,000 per person to attend the gathering of elites. It featured such guests as actress Eva Longoria, George Lopez, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, and mayors Antonio Villaraigosa of Los Angeles and Julian Castro of San Antonio. All well to do Hispanics who must possess very little love for this country if they are in favor of allowing those who are here illegally, to remain here. And yet, they expect the rest of us to continue to fork over our hard earned money, in such a way that allows them to then support politicians such as Barry.


Now I'm pretty sure that it can go without saying that it was from this Hispanic crowd that Barry drew the loudest applause when he vowed to tackle an overhaul of immigration laws, a promise from back in 2008 that has gone unfulfilled in the face of Republican opposition. Continuing to test what I'm sure will be a recurring re-election theme, Barry is also telling donors that the country is suffering from an economic crisis and political crisis. Of course, he neglected to mention the fact that most of what has now occurred is of his own making, being a direct result of the policies that he implemented. Although, I suspect that this crowd would care little about such a trivial matter as that. “People are crying out for action,” Barry said. Pointing to elements of his $447 billion jobs plan that was rejected by Republican lawmakers, a disgruntled Barry said they likely would linger as campaign issues in 2012. “This is the fight that we’re going to have right now, and I suspect this is the fight that we’re going to have to have over the next year,” Barry told about 240 donors at a fundraising event earlier Monday at the Bellagio hotel and casino in Las Vegas. “The Republicans in Congress and the Republican candidates for president have made their agenda very clear" Barry whined. But again, Barry is being more than just a little disingenuous by the fact that he very conveniently leaves out the fact that his supposed $447 Billion miracle cure has not yet managed to make it through the Democrat controlled Senate. But that fact did little to dampen his Las Vegas fundraiser which attracted about 240 people who paid from $1,000 to $35,800 toward Barry’s re-election campaign and to the Democratic National Committee (DNC).


Some of the other entertainment luminaries gathered at the afore mention Lassiter home in Hancock Park included Troy Carter, the manager of Grammy award winner, and certified freak, Lady Gaga. The singer herself was a guest at another fundraiser last month at the Atherton home of Facebook chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg. Such are the people who apparently possess the same vision for America as does Barry himself, but not one shared by the majority of freedom loving American's. These entertainment types continue to disparage America whenever provided with the slightest opportunity to do so, and, yet, they still expect those of us who take offense at such pompous behavior, to continue to shuck out big bucks in order to see one of their idiotic movies or to purchase their music. They perceive themselves as being "artists" and, therefore, existing on a much higher level than the rest of us, we who are only mere mortals. They see themselves as being much more enlightened, and as such they deem themselves as being someone who is not only worthy of being listened to, but that should be listened to. Despite the fact that like I said, most of these clowns barely made it through public school, and earn their livelihood by pretending to be someone else by either reading, or singing, words written by someone other than themselves, and they insist that they know what's best for the rest of us. For the most part, they're really not very bright, just rich. And therefore they feel a sense of entitlement in being able to tell the rest of us how we're supposed to go about living our trivial little. Theirs is the philosophy that's nothing more than do as I say, not as I do.

"SLOW JOE" TELLING ANYONE WHO'LL LISTEN, THE STIMULUS DID WORK!

Never one to say die, our esteemed vice president, old "Slow Joe" Biden continues to mount an ardent defense, as he insisted, yet again, that the first stimulus worked just as advertised. He did so as he went about promoting what is essentially the second stimulus now being proposed by Barry under the innocuous sounding title of, (drum roll) the "American Jobs Act." This second stimulus, having been designed pretty much by that same cast of characters responsible for the first "stimulus,", will most certainly have the same results. But that won't stop "Slow Joe" from lauding it as having been an unrivaled success. Asked Sunday while on CNN's, 'State of the Union', why Americans should support another plan when the first stimulus did not come anywhere near delivering on the promise of keeping unemployment below 8 percent, Biden chose to perpetuate the nonsense that the first round actually had created jobs and that the economy would have been worse without it. But no one has been able to provide anything in the way of solid proof that that is in fact the case. And if you chose to believe that premise, then I'm quite sure that he has some prime ocean front property in Arizona that he'd let you have real cheap!

“No look, here’s the deal. Nobody can look you in the eye and tell you that the recovery act and that stimulus did not create jobs and did not do very good things for the economy,” old "Slow Joe" said on CNN. “The problem was in the beginning, the economists said that in fact we wouldn’t go above 8 percent because they didn’t know until this last quarter that the economy shrunk, in the last term of the Bush administration, almost 9 percent,” he continued. Ok, again with the blame Bush crap. It's been three years since Bush, and still these losers can't man up and accept some level of blame for making matters worse, much worse. “Everybody thought it was more like five and a half percent. And so, the point was, we were all operating off of what the blue chips were looking at and the numbers were wrong. The fact is, if we hadn’t had that stimulus, we would be in a position now where we would be in a double dip recession some time ago.” And again, what does "Slow Joe" have to offer up as being proof of this continuing theory that remains so popular on the left? Not a damn thing. We're just supposed to take it on faith that things would now be worse had the stimulus not been passed.


The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, better known as the "stimulus," had a price tag of $862 billion according to the Congressional Budget Office. Since it was passed, the nation has lost 1.5 million jobs and unemployment has remained well above 8 percent for nearly three years now. One very obvious indicator of what an abysmal failure this "stimulus" actually was, is the fact that real unemployment is now actually resting quite comfortably well into double-digits. That despite the fact that it is generally accepted to be slightly over 9 percent. At the time this thing was being voted on many were out there sounding the alarm and claiming that this "stimulus" was, in fact, never designed to provide any kind of real economic stimulus. What it was in all actuality, was nothing more than a Democrat slush fund designed to cover the funding for all those things that the Democrats felt that they had been denied during the Bush administration. And judging by the results, or lack thereof, I'd say that assessment has been proven to be pretty accurate. So with that being the case, what's the incentive for anyone to support some new version of something that has already been proven not to work?

CONGRESS? I DON'T NEED NO STINKIN CONGRESS, I'M "THE ONE!"

And so it is that Barry "Almighty" will announce this week a series of actions he intends to take that he claims will help the economy and that, apparently, will not require pesky congressional approval, including an initiative to make it easier for homeowners to refinance their mortgages, this according to some "un-named" White House official. The actions come as Barry continues to face stiff resistance from not only Republicans, but from a good number of Democrats as well, regarding passage of his bogus $447 Billion "jobs" package he has urged Congress to pass "right now." So being ever the industrious little "community agitator" that he is, Barry went in search of a workaround, and by golly, it would seem that he found one.

The first of the initiatives will be unveiled during Barry's three-day campaign trip to the western states beginning just today. He will discuss the changes in mortgage rules at a stop in Nevada, which has one of the hardest-hit housing markets in the country. The Barry "Almighty" administration has been working with the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), the regulator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to find ways to make it easier for borrowers to switch to cheaper loans even if they have little to no equity in their homes. Look, isn't this just more of the same silly nonsense that got us into this mess in the first place? Somehow it how sounds strangely familiar to me and I'm sure will be blamed on the GOP when it fails.


The FHFA intends to loosen the terms of the two-year-old Home Affordable Refinance Program (HARP), which helps borrowers who have been making mortgage payments on time but who have not been able to refinance as their home values have dropped. Loosening terms? The Wall Street Journal reported that the changes should boost refinancing because they will let banks avoid the risk of any "buy-back" on a HARP mortgage as long as borrowers have made their last six mortgage payments and they prove that they have a job or another source of passive income. This just does not sound like a very good idea to me. We're letting people off the hook who, most likely, knowingly bought a house they couldn't afford.


The FHFA is also set to reduce loan fees that Fannie and Freddie charge and waive fees on borrowers that refinance into loans with shorter terms, the Journal said. Also, on Wednesday at a stopover in Denver, Barry will announce a new student loan initiative. "The only way we can truly attack our economic challenges is with bold, bipartisan action in Congress," White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer told The New York Times. "The president will continue to pressure Congressional Republicans to put country before party and pass the American Jobs Act, but he believes we cannot wait, so he will act where they won't." If he truly wants this thing passed, then he needs to be pressuring those in his own party.


The very simple truth here is that Barry can apply as much pressure as he chooses to Congressional Republicans but until he's able to garner enough Democrat support for his "job" bill, it's not likely to have all that much impact. I mean, he continues to insist that the fault for this thing not moving forward rests entirely on the GOP. He say they're behaving as nothing more than "obstructionists" when it comes to his "American Jobs Act," and for purely political reasons. But, as usual whenever Barry is speaking, that's not exactly an accurate statement. Because you see, the Republicans are not the cause for his legislation not making much headway toward passage. That would be Barry's own Democrats in "Dingy" Harry's Senate.

OCCUPY WALL STREET AIN’T NO TEA PARTY…

Anybody who thinks the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations in New York, Washington, Los Angeles and elsewhere across the country sprang up spontaneously, either hasn't been paying attention, is dumb as a post, is a scum sucking Democrat, or more specifically, is a member of Team Obama 2012. Aided and abetted by all manner of endless gee-whiz coverage from the liberal state-controlled media conglomerate, what the Occupy Wall Street movement actually represents is nothing more than a carefully planned and well executed campaign by left-wing activists to take American politics "to the street." The aim, of all this continuing, and very fawning, coverage is nothing more than an obvious attempt to assign to this “movement,” some level of undeserved credibility. There are continuing attempts being made from within the media, and without, to compare these malcontents to those who comprise the Tea Party. But no such similarities exist. Because the objective for this supposed “movement,” is nothing less than to bring about the end of American democracy and replace it with something that can only be described as a mobocracy, which in itself, makes it about as different from the Tea Party movement as is possible. There are those now choosing to expose this “movement” to a little closer scrutiny, and in the process some interesting connections that coming to the fore. We find there are major left-wing activist groups and labor unions pump money, media and volunteers into the movement and are integrating the street demonstrations with their own programs.



There are any number of Democrats, as well as Democrat supported organizations, desperate to describe this movement as being completely spontaneous and as “grass roots” in nature. MoveOn.org which is just one example, put out a recent email fundraising appeal earlier this week that said "in addition to providing all the support we can to #OccupyWallStreet, at MoveOn we're scrambling to launch a huge campaign to make Wall Street pay. We're organizing mass meetings in hundreds of cities ... And we're helping organize two major national days of protest in November." Grass roots? Spontaneous? No, I don’t think so. Also among those offering up support to this “movement” are any number of unions seeking to reap some political advantage from it, such labor organizations as the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, Communications Workers of America, United Auto Workers, and the Writers Guild of America, East. Such obvious and politically motivated involvement can be made to very easily contradict the idiotic efforts being made by everyone from “BJ” Clinton to Barry “Almighty” himself. Supporters are only to happy to make the claim that these people have legitimate grievances and are, unlike those described as “Tea Baggers,” taking part in something that is uniquely American. Additionally they repeatedly make the claim that these “protesters” are using tactics that are no different that those used by the Tea Party folks.


A question asked by many since the demonstrators first occupied New York's Zuccotti Park is why is that Mayor Michael “Mr. Mom” Bloomberg has taken such a hands-off approach regarding the whole ridiculous exercise in stupidity. Well, I think the answer to that is pretty obvious. He’s just another Democrat and therefore is willing to take the chance that these people can be used in such a way as to eliminate the Tea Party “effect” and that the dimwit “radicals” involved this “movement” can be harnessed in such a way as to improve Democrat chances of victory in 2012. However, the official explanation for the mayor’s rather lackluster approach to the whole thing is the blatant fabrication that attempts to convince us that Mayor Bloomberg's hands are tied by the fact that the park is privately owned. But there’s a little more to that story too, because, you see, Zuccotti Park is owned by Brookfield Properties, one of the directors of which happens to be Bloomberg's girlfriend, at least according to the Atlantic Wire. Then there is also the fact that Brookfield Properties is a subsidiary of Brookfield Asset Managers, which has another subsidiary, the Brookfield Renewable Power Co. The latter owns Granite Wind Power Co. in New Hampshire. Granite recently received a $167 million loan guarantee from the Department of Energy under Barry “Almighty's” economic stimulus program. And who is it that is among BAM's stockholders, none other than George Soros. My, my it sure is a small world, isn't it!


Helping to prove that this so-called “grassroots movement” has no resemblance to the Tea Party, is the fact that the list of infamous activists involved, either actively or from the sidelines, in the Occupy movement reads like a Who's Who of the Radical American Left. Former Students for a Democratic Society Weather Underground bomber, and very close associate of Barry “Almighty,” Bill Ayers posted the initial statement of the Occupy demonstrators on his blog. Wade Rathke, an ACORN founder and former SDSer, praised the movement and helped organize the Occupy New Orleans demonstrations. Another former ACORN leader, Maude Hurd, is a leader of the Occupy Boston demonstrators, who have been particularly aggressive in confronting local authorities. Then there's Service Employees International Union's (SEIU) Stephen Lerner, a frequent Barry White House visitor and yet another former ACORN leader, who is among the chief Occupy organizers. One of Lerner's favorite tactics is to organize "home visits" by demonstrators at the private residences of targeted corporate executives and government officials. During a conference of left-wing activists earlier this month, Lerner promised to "terrify Washington" with such tactics. We wonder if he discussed any these matters with the community organizer-in-chief during one of those many White House visits. All this and we’re still expected to believe that this group of radical rabble rousers, these anarchists, are all part of a movement that just spontaneously sprung up all on its own with no outside interference. I may have been born at night, but it wasn’t last night.

OBAMA, NOTHING MORE THAN A BYSTANDER IN QADHAFI’S DEATH…



As hard as he may try to make the claim that he’s entitle to take some level of credit for this, which he is already attempting to do, Barry, and therefore America, led from behind in this one and thus deserve very little credit for the outcome. Whether the outcome was right or not. The death of Libyan strongman Muammar Qadhafi, while seen as a very good thing for the people of Libya, it remains to be seen if it will be good for the world at large. But it will, apparently, serve to have some impact on the race for president . It is, as we speak, already being used in an attempt to sharpened the “contrast” between what are being referred to as Barry’s recent “successes” on the foreign policy front and what is being referred to the scattershot criticism offered by his Republican challengers. “Successes” I might add, if were talking about nothing more than the death of three muslim thugs, that Barry actually had very little, if anything, to do with. But like always, you can bet your bottom dollar that he’ll be there to take credit for the entire operation. Qadhafi’s death came seven months after Barry, content to essentially ride shotgun on this one, and European leaders launched a military campaign, eventually headed up by NATO, and aimed at preventing the Libyan leader from massacring his own people. The NATO effort eventually became closely integrated with “rebel” forces in Libya and carried out thousands of air strikes aimed at protecting them from Qadhafi’s regime and his loyalists. Republican presidential hopefuls have criticized Barry, and rightly so, arguing that he acted too slowly and deferred to much control to U.S. allies, then after he had finally decided to enter into conflict he ramped up the effort without adequate explanation.

But now with the death of the Qadhafi, following the triumph of “rebel forces,” has Barry and his team thought about what comes next, as the Democrats were so quick to blame Bush for supposedly not doing. The identity of these “rebel forces,” or from whom it is that they’ll be receiving the majority of their backing is still remarkably uncertain. Will they be a friend of America, or just one more Middle Eastern enemy on what is already a rapidly growing list, thanks to Barry. But that, using Barry’s typical way of dealing with things, is a worry for another day, because with the successful overthrowing of the Libyan government, Barry can now bask in the adulation and the political spotlight and be confident that it is now once again safe to be back out front. So patting himself on the back he has declared success in a statement in the Rose Garden. “Today, we can definitively say that the Qadhafi regime has come to an end,” he said, adding that “we achieved our objectives.” Even old “Slow Joe” Biden, speaking in New Hampshire, argued that the decision to tackle the problem through NATO, with the U.S. in a supporting role, was a wise one. “NATO got it right. NATO got it right,” he said. “America spent $2 billion total and didn’t lose a single life.” So is this criteria that America is now supposed to use in justifying its relinquishing of its natural leadership position in the world to others with questionable motives?


After enduring years of Republican attacks for a feckless and weak foreign policy, Barry seems to be under the impression that if he can create the perception that he’s scored a few “hits,” he can wipe out his nearly endless list of misses. His “hits” come courtesy of others, with one coming from SEAL Team 6, another courtesy of a drone strike and, lastly, one by NATO forces, all in recent months. It was in May that U.S. Navy SEALs killed Al Qaeda mastermind Osama bin Laden in a daring nighttime raid inside Pakistan. And just last month later it was a U.S. drone strike in Yemen that killed Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born Islamic militant viewed as a key recruiter of terror operatives for Al Qaeda affiliates. There have been many foreign policy experts as well who have also come out and said that Barry’s ability to claim credit for Qadhafi’s downfall or the broader NATO success is very limited because of the posture Barry chose to take here. The U.S. was not at the forefront of this one, especially when it came to those pressing for military action in Libya. Barry insisted on dragging his feet, on dithering as is his standard mode of decision making. “They’re into the situation because the French and the British talked the United States into getting involved,” said Les Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations. “They had a stranglehold over us because they’re helping us in Afghanistan, which is not their favorite war.”


While Barry has been hit repeatedly for “leading from behind,” the claim has been made that even the limited U.S. role in Libya required some level of assertive executive action on his part. But while the White House claimed some vindication for the president’s approach, it took care to keep the spotlight on the Libyan rebels. “The president views this as a victory for the Libyan people,” White House press secretary Jay “Dim Bulb” Carney said. “We believe — the president believes that the actions taken by his administration and by NATO have helped the Libyan people reach this day and that they now have an opportunity to secure a much brighter and more democratic future and that was the goal all along.” Libyans “own what happened and they should be rightly proud of what they accomplished,” Carney said. Personally, I’m in agreement with the statement made by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who also traveled to Libya, and told Fox News on Thursday that Europeans were at the forefront of the effort and deserve most of the credit. “Ultimately, this is about the freedom and liberty of the Libyan people. But let’s give credit where credit is due: it’s the French and British that led on this fight and probably even led on the strike that led to Qadhafi’s capture or, you know, to his death,” the Republican Senator from Florida said. Rubio added that Barry “did the right things, he just took too long to do it and didn’t do enough of it.”


Look, even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and again. And were it not for the military members for which this Commander in Chief has such disdain, two of these nuts would never have been found. Ever the whiner, Carney began the administration’s whining session by suggesting that many of the criticisms leveled at Barry were vague and opportunistic. Well if there’s anyone who knows about vague and opportunistic criticisms and accusations it would be those who make up the Barry “Almighty” Team. Of course, that’s not to say what is being said of Barry is in any way vague or opportunistic, it’s simply the truth. And with this guy Barry, the truth pretty much has the same effect as does holy water on the Devil. And Barry doing his best to disparage his competition doesn’t make their accusations any less true or accurate. And the louder we hear him complain, I think the confident we can become in knowing that the accusations being made are hitting pretty close to the truth. Barry is the epitome of the political opportunist and no one, be it our brave soldiers or what remains of our allies, is above being taken advantage of. If Barry perceives a political advantage is there to be had, then he’ll make sure that he’s there to own it, fully. The only rules that need to be followed are those “he” deems as needing to be followed.

PERCHANCE A LOOMING DILEMMA FOR THE BLACK COMMUNITY??

I'm not sure what was meant to be accomplished by the release of a recent poll that shows for the second straight week, that Barry "Almighty’s" job approval has dropped to a new low among blacks, but none the less it's out there. This poll by the way, comes to us via Gallup. According to this poll, in the week that ended on October 16, Barry's approval was sitting at 79 percent among blacks. That was down from the previous low of 80 percent in the week that ended on October 9. In the week that ended on October 2, Barry’s approval among blacks had been 85 percent. Barry’s highest approval among blacks was 96 percent, a level he achieved in five different weeks back in 2009. But what is even more revealing is the fact that 79 percent of blacks still support Barry, because that remains a very significant number. Despite the fact that Barry has succeeded in only making things worse, blacks continue to stick with him.

But really, when looked at in the big scheme of things, whatever the percent of support is at this time, really matters very little. It wouldn't matter even if Barry was sitting there with a 10 percent approval among blacks. Here's why. Those who make up the black community are the only group in this entire country who, as they are bussed off to the polls, base who it is that they vote for solely on the matter of race. They're the only ones who can get away with such a thing. If I was to say my reason for voting for a specific candidate for no other reason that because he, or she, is white, I'd be called a racist. But not so if you're black and voting for a black candidate for no other reason that because he, or she, is black. That's seen as being perfectly acceptable, even expected. So blacks are permitted to be racist in the voting preferences and that's just fine, but that voting methodology extends to no one else.


But this coming election has the potential to put the black community in a bit of a quandary. I've heard it said, but have seen much evidence to the contrary, that blacks are generally conservative folks by nature, being regular church goers and all. But yet, they are one of the most, if not "the" most, reliable voting block for liberal Democrats. Having said that, there is a chance, however remote, that the conservative black man currently running for president could be the Republican nominee. That event could lay the ground work for what would prove to be an excellent litmus test for proving the theory that blacks tend to be conservative in nature. If the blacks were presented with a choice between a black candidate who is truly conservative running against a black candidate who is nothing if not a rabid socialist, for whom would they decide to vote?


Now we all know with a great deal of certainty who it is that the Al Sharptons, the Jesse Jacksons and the Jeremiah Wrights of the black community would very enthusiastically vote for. But what of those in the black community who are now forced to live out their meager lives surviving on the scraps provided to them by the Democrat Party. Suppose just for a second, such a thing were actually to take place, that a black conservative would be presented with the opportunity to be elected president. Might there be someone in the black community who would then be willing to take that first step in the convincing of as many others as possible that to vote for such a candidate is an opportunity too important to simply let go by? Would there even be enough of those who would be willing to listen? Now that would be a decision that could prove to be quite enlightening.