OBAMA REFERS TO THE “ENGLISH” EMBASSY…

Let's see, first there was the fact that we have 58 states, then we all found out that after all these years Hawaii is actually part of Asia, we have Navy "corpse"men, and still this “bonehead”, to use Whoopi Goldberg’s word, is perceived as being some sort of genius. And now our brilliant president, Barry "Almighty," seems to be more than a bit confused about the distinction, that most if not all grade schoolers recognize, between Great Britain and England, as the Heritage Foundation’s Nile Gardiner recently observed in his blog at The Foundry. That little incident came about while speaking during a news conference on Tuesday about Iranian protesters’ storming the British Embassy in Tehran. Barry referred to the diplomatic outpost as the “English embassy” in Iran rather than its correct name, the British Embassy.

Imagine the level of ridicule that would spring forth from the state-controlled media complex in this country were the offender in this instance was any conservative Republican. But because it came from “Our Dear Beloved Leader,” Barry “Almighty” it was quickly shoved under the carpet with nary a word being mentioned. But see that’s the way the system is designed to work. Just ask guys like Chris “Mr. Thrill up my leg” Matthews. Today’s media complex has essentially morphed into what is nothing more than the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party. They see it as being their mission in life to do all that they can to portray, in the most favorite light possible, the cockamamie liberal policies that are literally strangling this country. Since day one Barry and the media have had a very symbiotic relationship.


Just so we’re very clear here, England is part of Great Britain. Scotland and Wales make up the rest of island. But those territories are just part of the entire United Kingdom. Northern Ireland and several other small islands make up the rest of the UK. During the news conference, Barry condemned the takeover of the British Embassy, but as has been noted by others, he has been rather tardy in the past in criticizing, what can only be described as being, the barbarous acts of the Iranian government and has even extended his hand in friendship at times. “This has been a presidency that has significantly downgraded traditional US alliances, from Britain and Israel to eastern and central Europe, while appeasing brutal enemies like Iran as well as strategic adversaries such as Russia,” Gardiner writes in his blog. And in that assessment, he is spot on.

OBAMA, THE NEW JIMMY CARTER…ONLY WORSE!

I'm nowhere near being willing to say that we're going to win this thing in 2012, only because I know what corrupt Democrats are capable of at election time. Having said that, Barry does seem to be offering us some help here, if only we’re smart enough to properly take advantage of it. It’s been a slow, steady decline but Barry "Almighty's" job approval rating has now finally dipped below that of Jimmy "The Bonehead" Carter, earning Barry the worst approval rating of any president at this stage of his term in modern history. And this fact should come as a big surprise to anyone, why exactly? He does nothing but to perpetually whine about the horrible hand he inherited and yet has done nothing but to make matters so much worse. And it would at least appear that he has done so on purpose. After all, what self respecting economist can look at what Barry has done and claim that any of it was done to improve the economy.

So according to Gallup's daily presidential job approval index Barry‘s job approval rating is now resting quite comfortably at 43 percent compared to Carter’s 51 percent. US News adds: "Back in 1979, Carter was far below Obama until the Iran hostage crisis, eerily being duplicated in Tehran today with Iranian protesters storming the British embassy. The early days of the crisis helped Carter’s ratings, though his failure to win the release of captured Americans, coupled with a bad economy, led to his defeat by Ronald Reagan in 1980." Barry, like Carter before him, has routinely demonstrated the fact that he very clearly has no love for this country. He has made that blatantly obvious through his willingness to demean it and apologize for it at every opportunity and to do whatever he can to weaken us, economically and internationally, as a nation.


According to Gallup, here are the job approval numbers for other presidents at this stage of their terms, a year before the re-election campaign:
– Harry S. Truman: 54 percent.
– Dwight Eisenhower: 78 percent.
– Lyndon B. Johnson: 44 percent.
– Richard M. Nixon: 50 percent.
– Ronald Reagan: 54 percent.
– George H.W. Bush: 52 percent.
– Bill Clinton: 51 percent.
– George W. Bush: 55 percent.


And something that you, at least, would think would make matters worse for Barry, while still not being something that we should rely on too heavily at this point, is the fact that Gallup reports that Barry’s overall job approval rating ranks among the worst in American political history, averaging just 49 percent. Now, it is a fact that only three former presidents have had a worse average rating at this stage: Carter, Ford, and Harry S. Truman. It's also worth noting that no president in history, except the unpopular Truman, won re-election with such ratings. And, as US News points out, Truman did so by running an anti-Congress campaign that Team Barry is now using as its model. Strangely, the current climate in Iran is eerily reminiscent to what it was when Carter was president and Barry's willingness to remain hands off may not bode well for his re-election chances.


The worst thing that we could do would be to start to counting our chickens before they're hatched. We cannot afford to start getting over confident regarding our chances in 2012. That is a trap that we simply cannot afford to allow ourselves to fall into, because to do so would be at our own peril, potentially threatening whatever chance we may have of getting Barry out of office. We should all be very much aware of the depths to which Democrats will sink in their attempts to achieve electoral victory. And their many allies in the state-controlled media are only too happy to offer up whatever assistance they can. Character assassination though the tactical use of lies, innuendo, rumors and unsubstantiated accusations is the primary tool of their rather unique trade. The politics of personal destruction is the Democrat weapon of choice as they have no record on which they can run.

GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE ASKS A VERY BASIC QUESTION...

And what exactly are we paying him for? To come up with ever more creative ways to rob us of our freedom? To go on his many lavish vacations that most people can only dream about? To play golf a couple of times a week while millions of Americans are out of work? From where I’m sitting he should be handing back his nearly three years of salary because he sure hasn’t earned it!

WHO IS THE BIGGEST JERK IN HOLLYWOOD?

These days it's getting harder and harder to tell who it is that's the biggest jerk in Hollywood. There is no shortage of contenders all vying for the title of, "Hollywood's Biggest Jerk." Is it Tom Hanks, George Clooney, Matt Damon, Robin Williams, that fat slob of a loser, Alec Baldwin or, is it, the biggest bimbo on the entire planet, Gwyneth Paltrow? It seems as if there is no one left in that once very patriotic area of the country. You know guys like James Stewart, John Wayne, Glenn Ford or even Clark Gable. It's because of the so-called "movie stars" of today that I see very few movies these days. Why should I fork over 10 bucks for a ticket to watch someone who routinely slanders my country? These same people, who were it not for the God given talent that they possess, and were they to live anywhere but in America, would be doing nothing more than selling pencils on the street. Most of these imbeciles barely made it out of high school and yet they're supposed to be considered as geniuses because that can act. The wimpy celebrities that we have today Tweet about the organic oats they eat for breakfast, about their latest romantic trysts and break-ups, and then we have actors like the previously mentioned Alec Baldwin, who, consumed by his rather twisted political philosophy, goes about the viciously bashing of conservatives.

Many of you may recall Baldwin’s last Twitter rant, and many more of you may not, having paid very little attention to the ravings of this overweight lunatic, in which he told conservative author and pundit Michelle Malkin to "give someone a pedicure, chink." Which only foes to show you that racial sensitivity is a concept completely foreign to the ”30 Rock” star. This guy hasn't got the IQ of your average ice cube and yet he feels that he is somehow in the position to lecture those of us who love our country. The latest round of the bizarre rants from this guy were targeted at George W. Bush, Dick Cheney — who Baldwin affectionately dubs “Dick Strangelove” — Mark Levin, Free Republic readers, and everyone he considers “dumb*ss hillbillies“ and ”right wing trash.” These holier than thou, sanctimonious assholes like Baldwin and the rest of the Hollywood gang feel like they are so much smarter than the rest of us, as they go about their many attempts to convince us of the error or our ways. They are the enlightened ones who walk among us, actually they don't see themselves as being so much among us, as they do as being well above us. Baldwin's idiotic behavior should come as no surprise, after all if he could scream at his then 11-year old daughter, calling her a "rude, thoughtless little pig," bashing conservatives might not come as a shock.


We, the little people, are viewed as only being good for one thing, the shelling out of our hard earned money to buy a ticket to one of their movies where they read words other people have written or buy one of their music cds created by someone who could make me sound good as they sing songs written by someone else. These people are nothing but frauds of the highest order. They fly around in their private jets, live in mega mansions and presume to tell us how we must drive around in "Smart" cars, keep our thermostats at 68 degrees this winter and make sure we hang our laundry on the line outside, all in an effort to somehow save a planet that's doing just fine. They are blatant hypocrites with an over-inflated sense of importance as well as a sense of entitlement that's completely off the charts. It's people like these who are the reason I no longer watch any of the growing number of silly awards shows. It gets to the point of being nauseating to watch these self congratulatory narcissist's as they repeatedly slam our country. These days about the only actual awards show that I watch is usually the Country Music Awards. I can be entertained without being offended by inappropriate language or near nudity. And I can actually feel good about rooting for someone to win without feeling I needed to take a shower after because of feeling so dirty.

AND NOW, MORE FROM THAT PROVERBIAL BUFFOON, COLON POWELL...

Colon Powell apparently thinks he knows precisely who it is that's to blame for all the very divisive political tone currently taking place in Washington. And just who is that old Colon sees as being the primary culprit responsible for all of the hate and discontent taking place in our nation's capital? Well, during an interview that took place this past Sunday with that imbecile Christiane Amanpour on her silly little TV show, old Colon saw fit to blame the media as well as, of all things, the Tea Party for the divisive political tone in Washington. The Tea Party, is he serious? Not surprisingly, however, neither the class warfare stoked by his good buddy, Barry "Almighty" and his Party nor the resulting Occupy Wall Street movement was mentioned anywhere during this seven minute interview. Here's how the whole silly little exchange went down:

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, HOST: What about this tone in the country right now? It's still very divisive. It's still very sort of brash, some say poisonous. I mean, you can barely get anything done on Capitol Hill, just behind me there. What needs to be done, to actually improve the tone and the ability of people to work together?


COLON POWELL: The tone is not -- is not good right now, and our political system here in Washington, particularly up on The Hill -- Congress -- has become very, very tense in that two sides, Republicans and Democrats, are focusing more and more on their extreme left and extreme right. And we have to come back toward the center in order to compromise.


A story I like to tell is our Founding Fathers were able to sit in Philadelphia and make some of the greatest compromises known to man -- tough, tough issues. But they did it. Why? Because they were there to create a country, where we have a Congress now that can't even pass an appropriation bill, and we're running this country on a continuing resolution which is -- what else are they here for but to pass appropriations bills?


And so we have got to find a way to start coming back together. And let me say this directly. The media has to help us. The media loves this game, where everybody is on the extreme. It makes for great television. It makes for great chatter. It makes for great talk shows all day long with commentators commenting on commentators about the latest little mini-flap up on Capitol Hill. So what we have to do is sort of take some of the heat out of our political life in terms of the coverage of it, so these folks can get to work quietly.


AMANPOUR: I get your point about heat and light, but what about the fact that, in fact, it is one of the political parties, although -- or rather the big political influence, which is the Tea Party, which quotes left and right the Founding Fathers? They say compromise is a dirty word, and they try to point to the Founding Fathers and the Constitution.


POWELL: They compromised -- the Founding Fathers compromised on slavery. They had to in order to create a country. They compromised on the composition of the Senate, of the House, of the Supreme Court, of a president -- what are the president's powers? Can you imagine more difficult compromises today? Compromise is how this country was founded, and unless two people in disagreement with each other don't find a way to reach out to one another and make compromises, you don't get a consensus that allows you to move forward. But the Tea Party point of view of no compromise whatsoever is not a point of view that will eventually produce a presidential candidate who will win.


AMANPOUR: General Powell, thank you very much indeed.


POWELL: Thank you, dear.


Now don't get me wrong, I very much agree with old Colon's regarding the role that the state controlled media has played in the widening of the political divide in this country. However, although the question was asked by Amanpour, any discussion of the Tea Party's involvement in the current tone should most certainly have included the Occupy Wall Street movement and what its participants both overt and covert are doing. This is particularly important given the press's adoration for a group so antagonistic to the most successful members of the society. And even if Ms. Amanpour neglected to include that at part of her question then old Colon, if he really wanted to be perceived as doing more than simply criticizing from the sidelines, he should have included it as part of his answer. But he didn't.


Neither did he bring up something else that was also glaringly absent in this segment. That being the fact of how we have a president and a political Party who are very purposely stoking the flames of class envy that fits quite nicely into exacerbating the current caustic environment. When the supposed "leader" of the nation continually talks about the rich not paying their "fair share," and in a way that so obviously defies any knowledge of the current tax code as well as who's actually paying most of the costs associated with the federal government, this has as much to do with the divisive tone as does anything else, if not more. Not at all surprisingly, this wasn't addressed by Amanpour or Powell. Exactly why might that be? That's a rhetorical question, by the way. We all know the answer.

"BJ" CLINTON, WHAT IS IT GOING TO TAKE FOR US TO FINALLY RID OURSELVES OF THIS GUY?

I simply cannot be only person in this country who wishes that this lying sack of human excrement, "Slick Willie" Clinton, would just ride very quietly off into the sunset. Can I? From his apparent "coming out" and praising someone described as being his former nemesis, to saying he thinks he needs to be paying more taxes, to thinking that his hag of a wife will play some contributing role after 2012, to his critique of the "super-committee," he has an opinion on just about everything, and is happy to express it to anyone willing to listen. But I'm curious, are there still enough people, outside the ranks of imbecilic Democrats, who really care what this slime ball thinks about anything? Ever since he stood in front of the American people, looked us all dead in the eye and shook that bony old finger, after only God knows where it had been, and LIED to us, I've had no use for this man. And oh by the way, just how many military secrets did he hand over to Communist China? That act alone was impeachable. And now he's supposed to be revered as being some senior statesman? The truth is, he's nothing more than a living, breathing, piece of dog squeeze!



On the topic of Newt Gingrich, “It’s not any traditional charisma,” said "Slick Wille," who was recently busy out pimping his supposed new best-seller, "Back to Work: Why We Need Smart Government for a Strong Economy," in a recent interview. Who besides flaming liberals are going to buy about the benefits of government? Anyway, instead, Clinton believes that Gingrich is emerging because “he thinks about this stuff all the time.” "Slick Willie's" praise for his one-time rival, whose willingness to interrupt normal government functions temporarily in 1995 and 1996 contributed ultimately to balancing the federal budget, came in a recent interview. It was back in a September that Clinton had predicted that Gingrich, who at the time was polling in the single digits, would make a comeback. “He’s articulate and he tries to think of a conservative version of an idea that will solve a legitimate problem,” Clinton said in an interview just this week explaining the Gingrich resurgence. But I can't help but wonder why "BJ" would choose to dabble in the Republican nominating process. Is he trying to somehow affect the outcome?


"Slick" continued: “For example, I watched the national security debate last night. And Newt said two things that would make an independent voter say, ‘Well, I gotta consider that.’ “He said, ‘OK, I don’t want to legitimize immigrants who came here undocumented, illegally.’ On the other hand, a lot of those people have been here for years, they worked hard, they paid taxes, they’ve got kids in the schools, they’re not criminals, we’re going to have a hard time sending them all home, there’s millions of them. So, I’d like to have a process where they could be here legally but not have a path to citizenship. That sort of splits the difference between the immigration reforms proposed by President Bush and President Obama, which would give a path to citizenship, and would be a version of what President Reagan did.” "Slick" said that he was impressed that Gingrich devised a “red card” system that would be used to stop normalizing the immigration status of illegals if efforts to control the border proved ineffective. “That was a thoughtful response,” "Slick" said. We must be thoughtful.


"Slick Wille" has said that he also credits Gingrich for innovative thinking in his plan to give workers an option to invest their Social Security retirement funds privately. Gingrich said there should be a guarantee, so that, if markets nose-dive, workers would not receive less than they would have received under the old Social Security system. “See, that’s a new wrinkle on this,” "Slick" said, crediting Gingrich for thinking out of the box. “So he’s always . . . I think he’s doing well just because he’s thinking, and people are hungry for ideas that make some sense.” He stopped short of predicting that Gingrich would win the nomination. So what are we to make of this nicey-nicey talk about Gingrich? Is it real or is it make believe? Anytime you bring old "Slick Willie" into the mix you can never be too sure. One thing you can say about him, is that he is a very convincing liar. He has raised lying to an art form, there are very few that are seen as being as capable at lying as is old "Slick." However, there is one other person would does comes to mind as being as skilled a liar as is old "Slick." And that would, of course, be his "wife."


On the subject of taxes, old "BJ" says that he stands by the many comments that he has made saying he doesn't support tax increases and spending cuts at this moment in the midst of the nation's economic crisis. But he does agree, no big surprise here, with Barry "Almighty's" proposal to raise taxes on the nation's wealthier citizens. “I favor people in my income group, the top 1 percent or a fraction of it, paying more not because I want to punish success, but because I think the only way to balance the budget is through economic growth, spending restraint, and new revenues,” he said. "Slick" emphasized that timing is everything when it comes to raising taxes. Barry, he said, "doesn't propose to raise any taxes before 2013. And he is assuming that the economy will have recovered sufficiently in 2012 to do that." What, pray tell, is he basing that assumption on? That would be a policy he agrees with, he said. I don't believe I have yet heard anyone say that if you want to pay more taxes, you can't. So what's stopping old "Slick" from paying more in taxes?


On the topic of increasing taxes on the wealthy, old "Slick" spewed the typical liberal gibberish saying that, "We're in the best position to chip in. In other words, to me we ought to do it because we should be trying to create an economy of shared prosperity with a growing middle class and declining poverty — not because I want to punish people who are successful or I think they're bad." "And so I think we'll actually benefit from broader prosperity, from having a more vibrant small-business community, from having more middle class wages going up, and stronger families, and especially reversing this big increase in poverty through work, having poor people work their way into the middle class," he said. And in spewing yet another bit of liberal propaganda, "Slick" remains a supporter of the notion that it would be a mistake to cut discretionary spending in a bid to reduce the deficit, because it would have a negative impact on the nation's future. Guys like "Slick" are living out there lives in some alternate universe where you can just spend and spend and spend some more and face no consequences.


On the topic of his Saul Alinsky worshiper of a "wife," old "Slick" revealed that he has discussed with his wife, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, her plans after she leaves Barry's administration. The old battle ax has stated publicly that she plans to step down at the end of Barry's first term, even if he wins re-election in 2012. Can we really trust her when she says that she unsure whether she'll seek out a new role in public life or remain just a private citizen? "Slick" said that he has discussed the matter with her "a little bit." "I think she wants, and she has said publicly, to continue a lot of the work that she's done, she did as a private citizen, as first lady, as senator and as secretary of state," "BJ" said. "Around the world, she's done an enormous amount of good in, you now, the so-called soft power areas, empowering women and girls, helping them, giving them access to capital, helping them make a living, promoting better healthcare practices." Then "Slick" added, "I think she will have a major role to play in the nongovernmental world. That's what she plans to do, and I think she'll do it well."


And finally on the topic of the failed "super committee," old "BJ," in what appeared to an attempt to be seen as being objective, acted as if he were placing an equal amount of blame on both the Democrats and the Republicans for being so caught up in their differences that they failed to recognize opportunities to agree on common-sense ways to reduce the budget deficit. He said both sides in the recent standoff may have concluded that they would be better off waiting until after the election to find areas of agreement. "Now, in my book," he said, "I outlined a whole bunch of cuts they could make in that budget, and savings they could achieve based on a 1,000-plus page report by the Government Accounting Office that outlines duplicative programs and things of that kind. But if you do it all, you could maybe get up to a $100 billion a year, if you included collecting a third of the taxes that are owed today but not paid.” Liberals like "BJ" will spout all kinds of things in their effort to avoid cutting spending. Because the actual cutting of spending goes completely against their entire warped philosophy.


However, old "Slick" noted that he is very concerned that “the default position which allows the Republicans to hold firm on taxes, and the Democrats to hold firm on Social Security and Medicare, ignores that there are some options that would not be particularly painful for either side." "Slick," who was pretty much forced into balancing the budget after suffering a head-on collision with fiscal hawks and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, did designate some areas that he thinks should not be cut. He described discretionary spending, which is only 15 percent of the total budget, as "our future." Cutting those programs would hurt Americans down the road, he said. He also contended that it is a mistake to cut foreign aid, which is only 1 percent of the budget. "That's why Bob Gates, who was President Bush's secretary of defense, pleaded with the Congress not to cut it, because he said, 'Making more friends and fewer enemies is always cheaper than going to war.' And that needs to be part of our national security spending," "BJ" said. Gates may have been appointed by Bush, but he was in no way a conservative.


At some point I can only hope that America's fascination with old "Slick Willie" will eventually begin to wane and finally get to the point where no one, any longer, gives a rat's ass what he, our first black president, has to say about anything. He is nothing more than a self-promoting opportunist who is absolutely addicted to being in the spotlight. He insists on injecting himself into whatever conversations are taking place regarding the most important topics is at the time. As if he would ever have anything intelligent, or relevant, to add to any conversation of substance. There is only one person in this world that this sleazy character cares about. And that person is William Jefferson Clinton. He, almost as much as Barry "Almighty," is quite literally thrilled with the sound of his own voice, and he considers himself as being on a higher plain than those of us who are mere mortals. The arrogance of these egomaniacs like Clinton, suffer from what can only be describes as delusions of grandeur. They purport to have all of the answers, but more often than not they're not even asking the right questions.

AND NOW FOR SOME BRILLIANT POLITICAL ANALYSIS…

In what I’m sure is something that you’ve all been waiting for, and with bated breath I might add, is something that comes to us in the form of what can only be described as a brilliant piece of insight from one of the foremost political experts in the country. And just who is it that I’m referring to? Why, it’s none other than Whoopi Goldberg, compatriot of that other leftwing loon, Joy-less Behar, of "The View." Ha, had ya goin didn’t I? Anyway, it seems that the politically astute Ms. Goldberg was asked if she had to assign a one-word description to Michele Bachmann what would it be. So what do you think that one word was that this political genius chose to use? This expert in American politics whose opinion is sought by millions chose…"bonehead." Yup, that’s right. "That's what I would say. Oh, stop. Oh, please. Listen, I’m sorry. She looks fantastic, I have to say she's gorgeous. But she's not presidential material. I'm sorry, she's not. I'm just saying. This is my opinion," Goldberg said. I can’t help but wonder what one word this moron would use to describe her hero, Barry "Almighty." So after giving it much thought, I have a few suggestions for Ms. Goldberg: corrupt, socialist, naïve, unethical, dishonest, liar, unpatriotic, Muslim, deceitful, traitorous, disgraceful, unscrupulous, I could go on but you get the point.

OK, I WAS WRONG, THEY ARE JUST LIKE THE TEA PARTY…NOT!

In what is yet another very clear indicator that these pathetic sleaze balls that make up these various Occupy crowds are nothing but a bunch of lazy malcontents with way too much time on their hands, word now comes that Occupy Wall Street-inspired protesters are eyeing a new target...Target. And dozens of other companies as well. In what is nothing more than one more attempt by the left in this country to drive our economy a little further into the ditch, a campaign under the name "Occupy Black Friday" is busy trying to enlist supporters to boycott just about every major retailer, and quite a few mid-sized ones, the day after Thanksgiving. And in their effort to cause as much of a disturbance as possible, these "protesters" are casting a pretty wide net and urging as many people as possible to demonstrate against the nation's top retail stores. "The idea is simple, hit the corporations that corrupt and control American politics where it hurts, their profits," the group's Facebook page reads, describing Black Friday as the "one day where the mega-corporations blatantly dictate our actions." Ya know, every time these morons open their mouths, be it in front of a television camera or anonymously on some website, they prove better than I ever could just how ignorant and uninformed they really are.

But the retailers are closely monitoring this so-called mini-movement, as they have a lot riding on the volume of sales. And they warn that a blanket boycott has the potential to end up hurting local communities. "Retailers, regardless of their size, are an important part of the community, and they employ friends and neighbors of that community across the country," said Joseph LaRocca, a senior adviser to the National Retail Federation specializing in loss prevention. He said retailers have security plans in place and will "work through" any protests and disruptions that occur this weekend. While warning that boycotts could hurt workers, LaRocca said that retailers are preparing for a "very busy day" and weekend, and that it doesn't yet appear the Occupy Black Friday push will turn into a massive boycott. As of Tuesday afternoon, the group's Facebook page had about 1,250 simpleton supporters. Brian Dodge, spokesman with the Retail Industry Leaders Association, said his group is monitoring the protest to see whether it grows in popularity going into the weekend. "At this point, we're not sure" what kind of impact it will have, he said. "Retailers, they prepare for lots of contingencies every day and certainly on Black Friday." It's just one more thing that retailers, who may already be struggling, to waste valuable resources on.


Some retailers have earned the ire of customers and workers for planning to open at midnight after Thanksgiving. But the Occupy-inspired protest does not appear to be based on any particular policy of the targeted stores other than the fact that their profits are substantial enough to place them in the top 100 list. The planned boycott comes as unemployment hovers at 9 percent and the economy struggles to crawl out of recession. On Tuesday, the Commerce Department revised its third-quarter estimates to show the economy grew at just a 2 percent rate between July and September, instead of the 2.5 percent rate initially estimated. Retail sales have been on the rise lately, and companies are hoping Black Friday will be the jolt the industry needs. According to a study conducted for the National Retail Federation, as many as 152 million people are planning to hit the stores this weekend -- up from 138 million people who said as much last year. A post on the Occupy Black Friday website claims the campaign is not an attempt to punish "small businesses or hardworking people." "We must make a distinction between the businesses that are in the pockets of Wall Street and the businesses that serve our local communities," the site said. This holier than though attiude espoused by this bunch of losers really ticks me off.


According to the little cadre of miscreants over there at Occupy Black Friday, these so-called "offenders" are identifed place such as Whole Foods, Trader Joe's, Burlington Coat Factory and GameStop. The group is urging people to take their pick, either "occupy" the stores, or boycott them. "Any holiday shopping we do this day will be at independent shops to support local economies and the 99% as a whole!" the group's Facebook page says. Is this not some of the most idiotic drivel you've ever heard in your entire life? And these are the same lowlifes who garner a substantial amount of support from the Democrats in Congress as well as our stellar president, Barry "Almighty" in their attempt to further sabotage our very fragile economy. And we also have some imbecile by the name of Tony Boicourt, who is I guess the co-founder of the Facebook page, who has said that he's urging people to boycott 'mega retailers,' which oftentimes only hire seasonal workers during the holidays. "If everyone were to just start buying local, or American, more jobs would be created here helping the U.S. economy rather than creating mass jobs in other countries that these huge retailers use for cheap manufacturing," Boicourt wrote in an email to FoxNews.com. Does this idiotic realize how stupide he sounds? Apparently not.

DEMOCRATS, WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, HURL THE RACE CARD…

Some sleazy, supposed Democratic “strategist,” Tad Devine, Tad?, an adviser to the losing Al Gore and John Kerry presidential campaigns, has come out and accused Mitt Romney’s campaign of invoking the controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright in a recent ad. This moron, Devine, said Wednesday that he was “shocked” to see what he believed was imagery of an African-American church in an ad released Tuesday by Romney’s campaign team and airing in New Hampshire. The ad, Romney’s first of the campaign, is “clearly an attempt to bring back Rev. Wright and race,” Devine tweeted. Ok let’s be honest here, Wright, beyond being a very sick and twisted individual, is a blatant racist in whose congregation Barry “Almighty”, and family, were very much a part of for 20 years. And I think it is a real reach for this guy as he attempts to convince us that this ad has anything to do with race.

In the ad, a series of images including those of a foreclosed home and empty businesses flash by as text criticizes Barry’s economic record. But at two points, the imagery cuts to well-dressed African-American women walking down a large hallway, and pans over a predominantly black audience. “It appears to be a congregation of African-American people,” Devine told The Hill. “In the first scene there are no white people at all, in the second ... it is all African Americans except possibly one person, [whose race] you can’t really tell.” Of course Devine jumps to the natural conclusion for any liberal, saying he believes these images were selected intentionally to invoke race and the controversy involving Wright, the president’s former pastor. I think the connection that is actually being attempted here, is that this is the caliber of individual that Barry chooses to associate with.


This Devine fella goes on to say, “As someone who does this for a living, there is absolutely no way that’s not intentional.” And speaking like your typical Democrat when their own tactics are used against them, this moron continued, “There is no other rational explanation for that scene other than to suggest a racial reference, and most likely invoke Jeremiah Wright.” I’m sure we all remember the ad used against George W. Bush the central theme of which was the murder of James Byrd, a black man. There, unlike the Romney ad, the connection that was intended to be made was very clear and unmistakable. It is Democrats like this perpetual loser Devine who are ALWAYS the ones to bring race into elections. So while the Romney campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment, I’d be telling guys like Devine to go screw themselves.


While there is no explicit link to an African-American church congregation or Wright, unlike the previously mention Democrat ad where race was the primary point, Devine said there is no way the campaign couldn’t have recognized the imagery it was selecting, and the connotations it carried. Obviously thinking like your typical Democrat “strategist,” he rationalized that Romney might have selected the racial imagery to help with voters in South Carolina, where the former Massachusetts governor trailed Newt Gingrich 31 percent to 16 percent in a recent The Polling Company poll. “I would speculate that Gov. Romney and his campaign are concerned that they’re losing South Carolina so badly right now they’re using every tool in the toolbox, including the most pernicious tool in American politics, and that’s race and racial imagery,” Devine said. Something that is used by Democrats often and with a very specific purpose.


It was during the 2008 presidential election the antics of Wright, who was Obama’s pastor at Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ, were pretty much ignore by the state-controlled media until forced into start talking about by many of those on Talk Radio. Finally the faux preacher was denounced for his many inflammatory statements, including contending that the Sept. 11 attacks were proof that “America’s chickens [were] coming home to roost.” Barry initially responded to the Wright controversy in typical Barry fashion, sloughing it off as inconsequential, and by discussing the political culture of black churches, in a Philadelphia speech titled “A More Perfect Union.” Barry was eventually force to throw wring under the bus just to rid himself of a growing dilemma. Wright, who has since retired as senior pastor of the church, later accused “them Jews” in the Barry administration of keeping him away from the president.


I think there is a hint if desperation in the air, and it is getting to the point where anything to be used in political ads against Barry is going to be accused of being racist in nature. For the last three years everyone who has opposed what Barry the socialist is attempting do have been accused of doing do for purely racist reasons. And now, courtesy of this dolt Devine, we’re seeing that the presidential campaign will be the same way. Every commercial, very speech that come from any of the Republicans now vying for the opportunity to be Barry’s next opponent will be accused of having some sort of racial overtones. Because, in reality, it’s all the Democrats have. Barry has said on any number of occasions that he is proud of his record as president and would compare it to anyone’s. But if that’s the case, why not just do it. Why is the focus already on attempts to destroy potential rivals through what is nothing more character assassination?

MR. BILL LOOMAN, AN AMERICAN WHOSE FINALLY HAD ENOUGH…

There was a recent report coming out of Georgia that claimed a business owner there has been posting, what was described as being, “controversial” signs on his company’s trucks.  So just what did these supposed “controversial” signs say? Well, it was something very clear and very straight foward, “New Company Policy: We are not hiring until Obama is gone.” And just what do you think might have been his rationale for doing so? That too was pretty clear and straight forward as well. “Can’t afford it,” explained the employer, Bill Looman, this past Tuesday evening in a recent local news report. “I’ve got people that I want to hire now, but I just can’t afford it. And I don‘t foresee that I’ll be able to afford it unless some things change in D.C.” And in making the prediction he is 100 percent accurate.

Looman‘s says he put the signs on his company’s trucks and posted pictures of them to his personal Facebook page six months ago. When he originally did that, he said that he received mostly positive reaction from people, “about 20-to-one positive.” However, one of those pictures went viral on Monday and the reaction was enormous. In fact, the reaction was so huge that Mr. Looman had to disconnect his phones because of the non-stop calls, and he‘s had to temporarily shut down his company’s website “because of all the traffic crashing the system,” local news, 11Alive reports. And that should really come as no surprise, because there are literally millions of people feeling the same frustration as Mr. Looman. Millions of people who would be doing exactly the same thing if the opportunity presented itself.


Mr. Looman made it perfectly clear, he is not refusing to hire for the simple reason of trying to make some petty political point, it’s much more serious than that. It’s because of the very simple reason that he doesn’t believe he can hire anyone because of the poor economy that he says the Obama administration has helped to create, adds the 11Alive report. “The way the economy’s running, and the way my business has been hampered by the economy, and the policies of the people in power, I felt that it was necessary to voice my opinion, and predict that I wouldn’t be able to do any hiring,” he said. As far as I know we Americans are still permitted to voice our opinions, Barry hasn’t yet managed to squelch our First Amendment. Frankly I’m amazed that Barry hasn’t sent his stellar Attorney General down to Georgia.


Apparently, someone, probably some Al “Bull Horn” Sharpton clone, really didn’t like the signs. Looman was reported to the FBI as a threat to national security. The accusation started with the FBI, went through the Department of Homeland Security, and ended with Secret Service Agents interviewing him. “The Secret Service left here, they were in a good mood and laughing,” Looman said. “I got the feeling they thought it was kind of ridiculous, and a waste of their time.” Despite the visit from the Secret Service, as well as the flood of calls and Internet traffic, Mr. Looman refuses to take the signs down. “I just spent 10 years in the Marine Corps protecting the rights of people… the First Amendment, and the Second Amendment and the [rest of the] Bill of Rights,” he said. “Lord knows they’re calling me at 2 in the morning, all night long, and voicing their opinion. And I respect their right to do that. I’m getting a reaction, a lot of it’s negative, now. But a lot of people are waking up.”


Mr. Looman is doing the rest of a tremendous favor and doing so for no other reason than because he loves his country. Like I said earlier, there are millions of Bill Loomans’s out there, but you’ll not find one protesting as members of the pathetic group garnering the majority of the news coverage of late. He’s actually trying to do something, not like all of those complaining parasitic malcontents taking part in these Occupy Wall Street riots. I see him, perhaps, as a toned down version of Peter Finch from the movie, “Network.” But where Mr. Finch’s character was “mad as Hell,” I sense that Mr. Loomis has simply become very frustrated. And that frustration is mounting with each passing day within millions of Americans, and I think that Mr. Looman serves as an inspiration to a good deal of them. And lastly, as being someone who spent 24 years in the military, I would like to thank Mr. Bill Looman for his service to his country.

WHEN IT COMES TO OBAMA’S “STIMULUS”…TRUTH IS STRANGER THAN FICTION…

In what many view as being both a serious blow to the administration of our “Dear Beloved Leader,” Barry “Almighty,” as well as a vindication, of sorts, regarding their claims that Barry’s bogus “stimulus” plan was just that, comes a new report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The report concludes that Barry’s much bragged about economic “stimulus” plan created far fewer jobs than expected and “crowds out” private investment. The new report the CBO released on Tuesday finds that the much ballyhooed American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, a.k.a. “stimulus,” may have boosted the economy in the short run by supposedly “sustaining” some 700,000 jobs at its peak in 2010 but “will reduce output slightly in the long run, by between 0 and 0.2 percent after 2016.”

The report estimates that the total number of jobs the plan produced was far fewer than the 3.5 million the Barry “Almighty” administration predicted during the peak of the massive amount of wasteful spending. The CBO estimates that the stimulus is responsible for “sustaining” between 600,000 to 1.8 million jobs during this quarter, which lowered the nation’s unemployment rate by a whopping, 1 percent. In July, the conservative Weekly Standard estimated that Barry’s bogus “stimulus” package cost taxpayers $278,000 for every job it created. It goes without saying, that there was no immediate comment from the White House on the CBO report, but officials have insisted in the past that the economy would have fallen into a depression without the jobs act. But there’s no way to prove it.


In September, White House press secretary Jay “Dim Bulb” Carney even went so far as to call the results absolutely “uncontestable.” He made the claim that the infrastructure projects that the act created “were very well managed, came in on budget or under budget and led to the creation of many, many jobs” that would not have been created otherwise. CBO, supposedly a nonpartisan agency, has re-evaluated the stimulus every three months with varying estimates of the total price tag, from $787 billion, up to $862 billion and now $825 billion. The agency also has changed its model for the spending's impact on the economy, and in what should come as no surprise is the fact that the new calculations show that the act did less than originally projected.


At the peak of spending from July through September 2010, the American economy sustained between 700,000 and 3.6 million jobs, which lowered the unemployed rate between four-tenths of a percent to 2 percent. An opinion piece in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution acknowledges that the stimulus failed to keep unemployment below 8 percent, as the Barry’s administration had promised if the “stimulus” was passed. However the discrepancy, or the excuse for the failure of the so-called “stimulus,” was blamed on a greater decline in the gross domestic product than previously estimated. “In short, in early 2009 we thought the economy had fallen off a ladder,” the article in says. “In reality, it had fallen off a six-story building.”


So the sad fact of the matter is that once again, we the American people were sold a bill of goods by a corrupt president who has a distinct problem when it comes to telling the truth, and the very corrupt political party of which he is a member. We have been lied to since day one of this administration, and there appears to be no let up in sight. In fact, with the election just around the corner, we can only expect the lies spewing from our defective president to increase in both number and intensity. The man has no record on which he can run, his only hope is to slander any potential rival to the degree that the American people will turn to him in default. This we cannot allow to have happen. We must be prepared to counter the lies, providing proof of just how much destruction has been wrought by Barry “Almighty.”

ANOTHER OBVIOUS ACT OF DEMOCRAT SABOTAGE, AND NOTHING MORE...

Despite all of the feigned outrage that we've seen coming from such liberal luminaries as the esteemed senior Senator from Massachusetts, John Kerry-Heinz, who I believe spent a very brief, and very rewarding for him personally, time in Vietnam, the collapse of the supposed super-committee is exactly what the Democrats on that stellar little panel intended to have happen. And as loudly as they may proclaim that that is not so, it is, nonetheless, very accurate to describe the tactics employed by these patently dishonest individuals as being nothing short of a blatant act of sabotage, and for no other reason than pure politics. So it should now come as no big surprise that, as predicted by some analysts, the total failure of the Congressional super-committee has been greeted by various Democrat politicians as “good news.” Because as always, it's all about politics and achieving victory at all costs. Democrats love to describe themselves as being the protectors of the little guy and the ardent defenders of liberty, but in all actually, nothing could be further from the truth.

One Democrat, in particular, was quite pleased with this most recent turn of events. It just so happens that, like Kerry-Heinz, he too is from that bastion of left wing lunacy known as the state of Massachusetts. “Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said the congressional super committee‘s failure Monday to come to an agreement on spending reforms was ’good news’ because it will help to end the Bush-era tax cuts and give Democrats more bargaining power in budget negotiations,” reports The Hill. This pathetic waste of skin is one of the most unethical and dishonest creeps on Capitol Hill, as well as one of the primary players in the cast of characters responsible for our country being in the shape that it's in. He vigorously opposed any and all measures that would have helped to prevent the financial meltdown that occurred in 2008. And he remains very much of a roadblock in getting this country back onto any semblance, whatsoever, of sound financial and economic footing. That's because he and his fellow Democrats, including Barry, desire nothing more than to make matters much worse.


Anyway, as most informed people should know by now, the super-committee has officially failed to reach any sort of constructive agreement, mainly because the Democrats on the committee remained intransigent regarding their demand for $1 Trillion in increased tax revenue. Therefore $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts have now been set into motion, set to take effect in 2013 through sequestration. However, several “hawks” in Congress are vowing to undo half of the cuts because many of them deeply gouge defense spending. For instance, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) said that he was readying a bill that would prevent the defense cuts. Now you would think that the need for protecting the country would be something that both Republicans and Democrats could agree on. But not so! Because in order for that to ever happen it would require both political parties to possess the same love of country. Unfortunately, those in the Democrat Party possess a deep seething hatred of this country, seeing no need to "waste" money on defending it.


And of course our favorite gay caballero, Bawney Fwank, has always been a very enthusiastic promoter of any and all defense cuts, to the point of being extreme. So he's now made it abundantly clear that he thinks “that gives Democrats the upper hand.” What a guy! As proof for that rationale he cites Barry's idiotic threat Monday to veto attempts to avoid the cuts altogether. “The people who want to say ‘no’ have more leverage,” Fwank said in a telephone interview. “Every showdown until now, the right wing had more leverage. They tended to benefit more from gridlock. Now, thanks to sequestration and the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, gridlock is bad for the right wing. So they are now going to be forced to deal.” As with all Democrats, everything reverts back to politics. They can never be honest with the American people, and the American people are too stupid to recognize the level of deceit that's being used against them. And until enough us are able to recognize the fact that we are constantly being lied to by these crooks, there isn't going to much chance of anything improving.


So old limp-wristed Bawney has also said that the super-committee’s inability to produce a plan, far from being a failure that could be attributed to Congress, was, rather, a reflection of the country’s “peak divisions.” So what solution does Bawney think would be appropriate? Well, apparently Bawney thinks that Democrats should offer to extend the Bush tax cuts for the middle class while ending them for the wealthy, because that could then count “as savings against the automatic cuts.” “And if you don’t like it,” Bawney said with a "cheshire cat" like grin on his face, “well, then we’ll just sit back, see sequestration and the taxes go up on everybody.” This guy, like most Democrats, is essentially nothing more than the equivalent of toxic pond scum. He and his party have made it quite clear, and for some time now, that they are very focused in their efforts to destroy this country and to permanently install themselves as the ones possessing all of the power. With Democrats it's always about acquiring and then maintaining political power, and if the country is made to suffer in the process, so what!


There are those on the right who are able to see through what the Democrats are doing here. One such person is conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh, who is absolutely convinced that the super-committee acted exactly as it was supposed to: “So the inside-the-Beltway crowd is still wringing its hands today over the fact that there was no budget deal. The super committee failed to come to an agreement, and I’m blue in the face telling you that it behaved exactly as it was supposed to behave,” Limbaugh said on his show on Tuesday. “It ended up doing exactly what it was supposed to do, and you’re blue in the face hearing it. They were not supposed to come to an agreement." And I find it very difficult, if not impossible to disagree with Mr. Limbaugh's assessment of the situation. Personally, I don’t see how you can view what has transpired any other way. The central theme of the entire Democrat Party strategy is to never compromise, and to accuse the opposition as being the one to blame for the lack of any serious progress being made.


Rush said, "There was not supposed to be any kind of a deal. And, lo and behold, Obama held a five-minute press availability today. What did he do? He went out and blamed the Republicans. Mission accomplished!" And with that I can wholeheartedly agree! That was the whole point of this stupid little exercise. "Do-nothing Congress! A super committee that couldn’t even come up with budget cuts and tax increases,‘ that won’t be implemented even ’til 2013,'” Limbaugh said. “‘They couldn’t even do that!’ And right on cue, there’s Obama in front of the microphones and the cameras this morning saying, ‘Yep,’ and blaming the Republicans for it.'” That's what this whole circus was about, dreaming up any number of new ways to place the blame on Republicans. Because it's the only hope that these scumbags have of being able to win. They do nothing but lie, then have their lies echoed by their allies in the state-controlled media and then keep their fingers crossed that they can keep everybody fooled until after the next election. It's worked repeatedly for them in the past and they feel confident it will work for them again.

OK, NOW I’VE HEARD EVERYTHING…



Some little group referring to itself as the Women for Women International has chosen to honor former president “Slick Willie” Clinton as its 2011 “Champion of Peace.” "President Clinton's support of women and girls through Clinton Global Initiative has single-handedly shifted the discussion from a marginal to a central discussion essential to world stability and success,” Women for Women founder, some bimbo by the name of Zainab Salbi, said in presenting the award to old “Slick Willie” during the group’s annual gala dinner Nov. 17 in New York City. Droning on Ms. Salbi said, “History shall always know that it was his commitment that shifted the issue and gave it much-needed attention.” Adding, “I, and all the women I work with, are grateful, grateful and grateful for his leadership.”

In accepting the award, “Slick Willie” quipped that he is thankful to women for offsetting men’s mistakes. On what was supposed to be a serious note, he advocated empowerment for women and “the liberation of men” from their traditional role as aggressors. "What [we're] trying to do here is change the behavior of history," Clinton said. "If we do it together, we'll still make some mistakes, but we'll still be stumbling in the right direction." Apparently, Women for Women International was organized to provide female survivors of war, civil strife, and other conflicts with the tools and resources to move from crisis and poverty to stability and self-sufficiency, thereby promoting viable civil societies. What? And the best candidate they could find to bestow this little honor of theirs was, “Slick Willie?”


According to the group’s website, the organization, now in its 18th year, which is an amazing fact in and of itself, has helped more than 316,000 “socially excluded women,” in eight different war-torn countries, including Afghanistan, Bosnia, Congo, Iraq, and South Sudan. Sorry, but by they’re selecting “Slick Willie” as the winner of their silly little award, they rob from themselves any level of credibility that they might otherwise enjoy. They also demonstrate an obvious lack of seriousness regarding their supposed mission. I mean here is a guy with a long history of not only mistreating women at nearly every opportunity, but who has also been unfaithful to his wife on a very public level. He is a serial sexual harasser who has a very low opinion of women.

GUTLESS REPUBLICANS NO BETTER THAN CORRUPT DEMOCRATS…



So much for doing whatever is necessary regardless of the political consequences. Isn't that what Speaker Boehner said not all that long ago? My, my, what a difference a year makes. Because as we are now hearing from Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), he tells us not to expect that Congress to be acting anytime soon to cut off funding for Obamacare or Planned Parenthood. That's because our stellar House Republican leadership is afraid of the threat of a showdown with Senate Democrats and the president. They’re afraid that Republicans would be blamed for any ensuing government shutdown. Isn't there an old saying that says, "No guts no glory." Why is it that we are constantly saddled with these spineless cowards? They insist upon putting their political careers above what actually best for the country.

Rep. King said the House GOP leadership have essentially provided themselves with a fall back. He says that if asked, they would essentially do nothing more than to take the coward's way out, saying that they did pass a repeal of Obamacare, and would blame the Senate, which didn’t take up the measure. But King also said something that should really come as no big surprise, saying that House Republicans “didn’t use the leverage that we should have used.” Adding in an interview, “We didn’t bring up the maximum leverage because the decision was made by leadership to avoid the prospect of a showdown with the president or Harry Reid that could result in a potential shutdown of government.” So I guess it's just better to keep the bus headed toward the cliff with no attempt, whatsoever, to reach for the brake.


Rep. King went on to say, “And that rationale – and it wasn’t my rationale – is what brings us to this point -- that we’re still funding Obamacare to the tune of $23.6 billion dollars in the first two years, we’re trying to find $1.2 trillion in cuts, there’s $1.379 trillion in cuts that are there automatically if we just cut off the existing programs within Obamacare and resolve the problem with the Super-committee,” he said. “Well, it isn’t going to happen because of the threat of a showdown being a threat of a potential shutdown and they’re afraid that Republicans will be blamed -- same situation with Planned Parenthood,” he told the news organization, CNSNews.com. So just because of the possibility of a potential threat, our spineless leadership chooses, instead, to simply back down. Does this make any sense to anybody?


Rep. King believes that those who were in Congress in 1995 when the government was shut down “got a certain lesson from that, that the president would always win when it was a confrontation between House Republicans and the president.” “I don’t agree,” he added. King said the situation brings to mind American author Mark Twain. “It was Mark Twain that wrote the story about how once the cat sits on a hot stove lid, he will never sit on a hot stove lid again, and then he pauses and writes, he will never sit on a cold one, either. I think we have a cold stove lid here,” King said. And I could not agree more! Because back in 1995 we were in a far different place than where we now find ourselves. We are now in a much more precarious situation. Our credit rating has been downgraded for the first time in our history, and we are now officially broke.


The Iowa congressman would not completely rule out the possibility of the House leadership changing its mind, but, he said, the chances are remote to say the least. “Well, there’s always a possibility, but I think it would have to come from some type of public calamity that would move people similar to the way that the ACORN tapes moved people and we shut off the funding to ACORN,” King also told CNSNews.com. “Short of that, I don’t think there’s going to be a rational thought process that thinks this through and decides the right thing to do is to cut off the funding to Obamacare and cut off the funding to Planned Parenthood.” This is not leadership by any nearly anyone's definition. And until we can manage to acquire some bona fide leaders with the requisite stiffness of spine, we're going to continue to get royally screwed!


Our congressional leaders, at least in the House, seem to have what can only be described as being a rather uncanny ability to always shoot themselves in both feet. The last I saw, nearly 75% of Americans now oppose Obamacare. Therefore, Republicans would have had the support of the American people in cutting off funding for Obamacare. Rep. King said. “I think the American public would have sided with us, and if we had held our ground on shutting off the funding to Obamacare in particular, as well as funding Planned Parenthood, because it puts the president and Harry Reid and the Democrats in the position of having to defend Obamacare as more important than all of the rest of the functions of government combined.” Adding, “They will not win that argument, but we were not as a body willing to make it in a place where we had a chance to succeed legislatively."


In fact, Rep. King went so far as to say that he remains confident that there are still enough votes in the House to repeal funding for Obamacare and Planned Parenthood. “If the repeal of Obamacare went up on the floor, every Republican would vote for the repeal of it. Cutting all funding, same thing, especially if it was written by the Speaker or the Majority Leader, and of course, we don’t expect that will happen.” Congress last week passed a continuing resolution enabling the government to continue operations for another month. It contained funding for both the Affordable Care Act and for Planned Parenthood. So my question to our supposed House leadership would be, "WHY?" So once again, during this reign of Barry "Almighty," the American people are left to simply bend over and spread 'em. Personally I'm getting pretty tired of taking it in the shorts for no other reason than because our Republican "leadership" in Congress is comprised of a bunch of cowards.

A MUST READ AS WE PREPARE FOR THE COMING ELECTION...

This is an absolute must read as we prepare ourselves for the coming election. It lays out very clearly the rationale for ensuring that Barry "Almighty" is limited to one term. It is frightening what this man is doing unbeknownst to the American people. He is determined in his efforts to assist those who he views as being his political allies by not only circumventing Congress, but the will of the American people as well. There is something very sinister at work here. Much of what our president is busy trying to accomplish is shrouded in darkness and this book brings everything out into the light.

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ONCE MORE GET THE SHAFT…

Ok, it’s now become common knowledge that the “bipartisan” congressional super-committee tasked with finding at least $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction has failed. It was announced on Monday that this group cannot reach agreement by the Wednesday deadline, and far from being an unexpected admission that it has failed in its efforts. Accusations are now flying in every direction in an effort to place blame and to win what is sure to be a ongoing propaganda war in the court of public opinion. That dolt John Kerry Heinz, who I believe spent a very brief, yet very personally rewarding, time in Vietnam, was one of the first to make the rounds busily shaking his bony old finger at the Republicans. But while old John was busy accusing the Republicans, there was considerable evidence being presented by others that what had actually occurred was nothing more than yet another blatant act of Democrat sabotage.



The news that this group of supposed adults weren’t able to put the differences aside and have the courage to do what we all know is necessary, came late Monday afternoon in a written statement from the 12-member Joint Committee, despite last-second discussions in closed-door meetings. The committee, in the end, could not resolve the fact that Republicans would not go as far as Democrats wanted on allowing more revenue raisers, and Democrats were completely unwilling to move on entitlement reforms. Intense messaging by both political parties on who was more to blame is surely to go on for days, if not months. The super panel was created with extraordinary, fast-track powers this summer under the law agreed to by Republicans and Democrats during the debt ceiling crisis. That same law now says its failure will trigger $1.2 trillion in automatic cuts over 10 years, starting in 2013.


There is a chance, however remote, that Congress will somehow try to alter these cuts, or even sidestep them entirely. While some lawmakers were already saying they will immediately begin work on legislation to block those automatic cuts to the defense budget, there looms over the horizon the threat of a presidential veto. Meanwhile, the nation’s debt crisis will continue, unabated, with the deficit now standing at about $15 trillion. And I very much doubt that it was a coincidence that the committee chose to wait until the financial markets closed for the day before making its announcement. The Dow Jones industrial average had already tumbled by more than 300 points earlier in the day partly in anticipation of the acknowledgement of failure. The lack of a super committee agreement also shifts concern to several important temporary tax breaks and other items set to expire at the end of December.


So in the end here, I think it very safe to say that both sides chose politics above the American people. Having said that, I am much more inclined to agree with those whose philosophy it is that what we have here is a spending problem not a revenue problem. Therefore, at least from my perspective, the main emphasis for getting ourselves out of this Democrat inspired fiscal and economic mess, should be placed on the reduction of spending.   But the Democrats, demonstrating what can only be described as a reckless disregard for the consequences of their actions, were willing to make only token reductions in entitlements, when serious reductions are what’s necessary. They were never serious about taking the steps needed, and then they have the gall to now be going around and accusing the Republicans of being the primary reason for the failure of the committee to come to any sort of an agreement.

MORE RAMBLINGS FROM THAT PERPETUAL DIM BULB, JOHN KERRY HEINZ...

Yet another pompous old gasbag, Senator John Kerry Heinz, who I believe spent a very brief, yet very personally rewarding, time in Vietnam, said this morning that he still has some hope that an eleventh hour agreement can be reached by the deficit-reduction super-committee. But, he said, “it depends entirely on the willingness to compromise” by Republicans. Appearing on MSNBC’s silly “Morning Joe,” the Massachusetts Democrat blamed the GOP for the apparent failure of the 12-member, bipartisan panel to fulfill its charge of producing a plan to reduce federal spending by at least $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years. Which, in the big scheme of things, is merely a drop in a very big bucket. These Democrats always attempt to portray themselves as being so accommodating, as being the protector of the little guy, when it's just the opposite that's true. Guys like Kerry are only out to permanently enslave the little guy.

In repeating the same old Democrat mantra, Kerry said that it is the stubborn refusal by those partisan Republicans to give any ground on tax increases for the nation’s wealthiest to help offset spending cuts that has behind the holdup in making any kind of real progress. “If they’d just lay that aside we could have an agreement today,” he said. Kerry, lying through his what I imagine is a very expensive set of choppers, said that the Democrats on the panel, along with Barry "Almighty," have been the only ones, thus far, to offer a plan that included cuts to Medicare and other so-called “sacred-cow” programs. “We put a reasonable amount, with painful cuts on the table,” Kerry said. Right, and we all know how it is that the Democrats define "reasonable." It's much like the same way they define "compromise." It's always the other side who must be made to relinquish their principles and to desert their constituents.


Old horse face Kerry went on to add that he believes Republicans are willing to do nothing to help resolve the nation’s economic problems until after the 2012 elections in hopes of winning the presidency and a majority of seats in both chambers of Congress. The attitude is, “if we just wait until 2012 . . . we can get it all,” Kerry continued. Kerry said if the super-committee fails to reach a compromise by Thanksgiving Day, then various plans will likely be offered in Congress in an effort to avoid 1.2 trillion in automatic cuts in defense spending and other programs that are to be triggered if no agreement is reached. Ya know, it just never ceases to amaze how these sleazy, winning at all costs, Democrats squeal like stuck pigs when their own tactics are used against them. And with their many allies in the media it's always very easy for them to remain blameless as they accuse the other side of being the ones at fault.


The ensuing fight between Democrats and Republicans over those plans, he said, “will define” the 2012 election. Well I suppose on that count old John may just be right. And it will come down to what the American people want to do about our current Democrat inspired fiscal and economic disaster. Do they wish us to continue on with our maddening rate of spending and to further subsidize it by ever higher taxes, or do they wish us to lower the amount of spending and reduce taxes, thus leaving more money in the pockets of the American people who can then use it to fuel some semblance of an actual economic recovery. The choice will be theirs. Will the American people be gullible enough to believe the utter nonsense coming from the likes of John Kerry Heinz. Or, will they be willing to look past the idiotic rhetoric and realize that they are being told nothing more than a Democrat fairytale? I suppose, only time will tell.

OK, WHAT'S OLD CHRIS "MR. THRILL UP MY LEG" MATTHEWS REALLY UP TO?

Has liberal MSNBC Hardball host Chris "Mr. Tingles" Matthews, best known for throwing all manner of childish jabs at Republicans during his silly little television show, gone mad or has he, maybe, seen the light? Or is it, instead, all part of some grand scheme or concerted effort by those on the left to convince Barry that before we get much closer to the election, he should simply abdicate and turn over the reins of power over to Hillary? But for whatever the reason, the liberal commentator has become increasingly critical, even hostile, of Barry "Almighty," the same man whose words were said to give him that "thrill up my leg." Matthews has an upcoming book, which has been described by some as being a beatification of John F. Kennedy, but during an interview on Weekends with Alex Witt, Matthews went on what can only be described as a rant criticizing Barry, and the “little kids with propellers on their heads” who are advising him. So what the Hell was Mr. Matthews really expecting to have happen?



Mr. Matthews "seems" to want us to believe that he is dissatisfied with Barry on quite a number of points. “What are we trying to do in this administration? Why does he want a second term? Would he tell us? What’s he going to do in the second term? More of this? Is this it? Is this as good as it gets? Where are we going? Are we going to do something the second term? He has yet to tell us. He has not said one thing about what he would do in the second term. He never tells us what he is going to do with reforming our healthcare systems, Medicare, Medicaid, how is going to reform Social Security. Is he going to deal with long-term debt? How? Is he going to reform the tax system? How? Just tell us. Why are we in this fight with him? Just tell us, Commander, give us our orders and tell us where we’re going, give us the mission. And he hasn’t done it." I'd say Matthews hasn't been paying attention. Most of us know what this administration is trying to do. And that would be to destroy this country.


Continuing on his little journey into the realm of the mentally challenged, Matthews went on to say, "And I think it’s the people around him, too many people around, they’re little kids with propellers on their heads. They’re all virtual. Politics, this social networking, I get these e-mails, you probably get them. I’m tired of getting them. Stop giving them to me. I want to meet people. Their idea of running a campaign is a virtual universe of sending e-mails around to people. No it’s not. It’s meetings with people, it’s forging alliances. It’s White House meetings and dinner parties that go on till midnight, and he should be sitting late at night now with senators and members of Congress and governors working together on how they‘re going to win this political fight that’s coming." Personally, with his being such a devout liberal, I don't see what he's got to complain about. What has Barry done that Matthews has not been in total agreement with? This guy has been a liberal's dream. He's Carter on steroids!


Matthews went on to express his skepticism that the Obamas really want to be in the White House. “Don’t you feel, I think everybody feels an absence of communication from the time he’s been elected. And it’s not about not being left-wing enough or too left. That’s not his problem. It’s connection. And Mrs. Obama, she’s an amazing asset. And what has she done? Obesity? How about connecting with the American people about being Americans? I don‘t think she’s, I don‘t think she’s happy. I don’t think they like being in the White House. The American people can tell that. They don’t seem thrilled at the fact the American people have selected them as our first family. I don’t sense the gratitude, the happiness level, the thrill of being president. Bill Clinton loved being president every minute and you knew it." While I suppose it can be said that "BJ" did love being president, it was for far different reasons than, say a Reagan or even a Bush, loved being president. I really don't think I need to expound on that topic.


On one point I can totally agree with Matthews. I don't think the Obamas really want to be in the White House. They view it as being small potatoes, as being beneath their dignity. I think they very quickly just became board with it all. Both of the Obamas suffer from what can easily be described as delusions of grandeur. Their opinions of themselves far exceed the opinion that many Americans have of them. On most occasions Barry, as well as Mrs. Barry, seem to be more than a little anoided by the fact that people don't just simply agree with what they're saying with no questions asked. And Barry, being as thrilled with the sound of his own voice as he is, just loves giving speeches. And while they both absolutely love the perks that come with the office, they view the actual day to day rigors of the office as being more than just a little mundane. It's like they're simply going through the motions, except of course when either on one of the many vacations or when Barry is on the golf course.