OBAMA SWEARS HIS ALLEGIANCE TO...UNIONS...

Surprised?  You shouldn't be!

AL GORE, PROOF YOU DON'T NEED TO BE ALL THAT BRIGHT…JUST PATENTLY DISHONEST...

A rather pompous Al Gore, in what was a very obvious attempt effort to energize apparently devoted followers of his cockamamie theory that continues to make him very rich, on Friday refuted claims that global warming is a myth, going so far as to say that 97 to 98 percent of the worlds’ scientists now attest to its veracity. That may, however, be more than a slight exaggeration of the fact, on the part of old Al. Gore was the keynote speaker at the inauguration of Hampshire College President, Jonathan Lash Friday. The theme of Lash’s inauguration was “Educating for Change: critical thinking in a critical time.” What a bunch of hogwash, I don't think I'd be sending any of my kids to this treatment facility, thinly disguised as a supposed institution of higher learning. Not that I'd likely be able to afford it anyway. This Hampshire College is just the tip of the iceberg here and should be considered as being far from the only college out there where our children are being subjected to a theory that can only be described as lunacy and far from being proven.

For those of you who may never have heard of this particular little institution, Hampshire College, at least according to Wikipedia, is a private liberal arts college located, where else but in, Massachusetts. It first opened its doors back in 1970 with its mission being to serve as an experiment in alternative education, in association with four other colleges in there in Pioneer Valley. Together they are now known as the Five Colleges, or the Five College Area. The college is widely known for its alternative curriculum, focus on portfolios rather than distribution requirements, and reliance on narrative evaluations instead of grades and GPAs. It is known particularly for facilitating the study of film, music, theater and the visual arts. In some fields, it is among the top undergraduate institutions in percentage of graduates who enroll in graduate school. Fifty-six percent of its alumni have at least one graduate degree and it is ranked 30th among all US colleges in the percentage of its graduates who go on to attain a doctorate degree. Or, so says Wikipedia.

Al was introduced by Hampshire alumnus Gary Hirshberg, co-founder of some New Hampshire-based outfit by the name Stonyfield Farm, who took the opportunity to announce a $1 million donation to the college for, of all things, its commitment to the environment. After being introduced by this like-minded goof, Gore went on to blather for about 20 minutes, which I'm sure must have seemed like much longer, before the more than 2,000 people who were said to have packed the tent on the campus lawn. His speech ranged from the telling of stories about growing up in Nashville, Tenn., at a time of the civil rights movement to need to addressing injustice wherever it might be found. He actually spent just a few minutes addressing the environment and global warming. I'm thinking that that was the case probably because he was standing in front of a crowd fellow travelers, so to speak, who therefore needed very little, if any, convincing that the doom and gloom that Al is known for preaching about, is actually taking place.

In Gore's commencement speech, our stellar former vice president told the graduates that global warming is “the most serious challenge our civilization has ever faced.” Now I suppose if you bought into this whole line of climate change malarkey, you would think that after watching old Al propagate this drivel for the last number of years, and in the rather convincing nature that he goes about doing so, that he must be a pretty smart guy. But apparently, such is not the case. You see, as an undergraduate at Harvard University in the late 1960s, Gore, one of the most prominent spokesmen on climate change today, earned a “D” in Natural Sciences. Gore’s transcript documents that during his sophomore year at Harvard he earned a "D" in Natural Sciences 6 (Man’s Place in Nature). Also, as a senior at Harvard, he earned a C-plus in Natural Sciences 118. Oddly enough that weak amount of brain power didn't hinder Gore, along with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, from being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.

And I'm sure most of us can remember back 2007 when our old buddy Al, together with that U.N Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, won the Nobel Prize, and those who decide such things made it quite obvious just how detached from reality they really are. And there was that joke of a movie, “An Inconvenient Truth,” a film about his campaign to re-educate people about global warming, and that "won" two Oscars in 2006. Since then many have contested the veracity of the claims that climate change is caused by humans. Al said that some claim environmental change is caused by sunspots or volcanoes.” Adding, "That’s not true. It’s an urgent problem that requires urgent attention and must be addressed.” Gore told those students who were present, “You will have the opportunity to do things greater than you can possibly imagine," Gore said. "And now is the time. We need an American spring this spring. We need to occupy democracy.” As might be expected, Al's remarks drew wild applause.

Then in his official remarks following his assuming his new position as the sixth president of Hampshire College, Lash also spoke about his supposed concern for the environment. “I think what we are doing to our earth is stupid, wrong, short-sighted and completely unnecessary,” Lash, who, which it should come as no surprise, describes himself as being a "card-carrying greenie," said. Lash went so far as to refer to this time as belonging to something referred to as the Anthropocene era, which some scientists are calling some new geologic era. “Part of my role at Hampshire will be to be relentless and ambitious about what our community can do to live, and prepare our students to thrive in the Anthropocene," Lash said. "How can we link our farm and our food, our curriculum and our operations, our understanding of culture and art, and our notion of humankind's place on earth to make a difference in the course of events.” Is this an institute of higher learning or is it instead is it another facility more concerned with the brainwashing "students"?

Ok, and for those of you like me who think all of this is nothing more than an scheme to destroy my country and don't really go along with all of this global warming mumbo-jumbo, you may not be familiar with the analogy that is being made here by this nut. Neither was I, but according to Wikipedia, again not the ideal source for seeking accurate information but convenient for now, the Anthropocene is a recent and informal geologic chronological term that serves to mark the evidence and extent of human activities that have had a significant global impact on the Earth's ecosystems. The term was coined by some kook ecologist by the name Eugene F. Stoermer but has been widely popularized by the another Nobel Prize winning nut job, atmospheric chemist, Paul Crutzen, who, it just so happens, regards the influence of human behavior on the Earth's atmosphere in recent centuries as so significant as to constitute a new geological era for its lithosphere. So, it's nonsense based on nothing more that more nonsense.

This moron Lash outlined seven ways in which the college is addressing these issues, including a climate action project to make the college operations “climate neutral” in 10 years. Another project is a major upgrade of the Robert Crown Center that will result in a major reduction of carbon dioxide emissions and hundreds of thousands of dollars in energy savings. And with money from Hirschberg, he said the college is undertaking a “comprehensive program seeking transitions in the way Hampshire feeds itself, uses its farm, operates its campus…and defines its culture.” What a bunch of idiotic pabulum. I can't help but wonder who it is exactly that would subject their children to such a twisted institution as this in the first place? And what kind of little mind-numbed robots come out the other end after having graduated from this place? It's institutions like this that are poisoning the minds of future generations. Generations that we are going to need to rely on to clean up the mess being created by sleaze balls like Gore. And it is going to take generations.

LESLEY STAHL INTERROGATES JOSE RODRIGUEZ...

Showing the depth to which she and the Communist Broadcasting System (CBS) are in the tank for our "Dear Beloved Leader", Barack Hussein Obama, Ms. Stahl goes after a man who, I think it can rightly be said, saved countless American lives. 

INTRODUCING THE NEW COMEDY TEAM OF, OBAMA AND CARNEY...

Doing their best to be the next Laurel and Hardy, Abbott and Costello or Lewis and Martin, we now have Obama and Carney. Otherwise known as Dumb and Dumber.

THE REAL “WAR ON WOMEN” AND WHO’S ACTUALLY WAGING IT!

First of all, I am not about to dispute the fact that there is now currently underway in this country, a dedicated war going on against women. What I do take exception with, is all of the baseless accusations currently being hurled around that this war is actually being waged by Republicans, because nothing could be further from the truth. Those who are on the front lines in this continuing battle and who are working to essentially enslave women to government today, are those very same slimy characters who have creeping out from the same dark shadows for decades. And they are all proud members of the Democrat Party. What we’re now witnessing is yet another example of that which we always see as we near an election. Loudmouthed Democrats doing their best to distract attention away from their damaging policies by going out and accusing the opposition of behaving as they themselves do as they try to hoodwink women voters.

As much as Barry tries to convince women otherwise, the cold hard facts here is that there is an agenda underway here that has women coming out on the short end of the stick especially when it comes to being employed. There’s a trend that continued through March when women, again, lost out in the jobs market, and it’s according to an analysis of the latest government figures. Male participation in the workforce was up 14,000 while female participation fell 177,000, and that’s according to the labor department’s latest figures. "This recovery has not been great for women," said Betsey Stevenson, assistant professor of business and public policy at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton business school. Women are more likely to work in government positions, especially as teachers or clerical workers, areas that have been cut heavily since the beginning of the recession. They are also more likely to work in retail, a sector that cut jobs in March.

According to the latest government figures, supposedly 120,000 jobs were added to the US economy in March, and that was half of what was supposed to have been added in February. The figure was far lower than what had been expected. Employment rose in manufacturing, food services and drinking places, and healthcare, but was down in retail trade, again, at least according to the labor department. Retail trade employment fell by 34,000 in March. "I am concerned about what is happening with female unemployment," said Stevenson. She said it was clear that men were finding jobs much more quickly than are women at the moment, but it was not yet clear that a definite trend had been established. Men were laid off first in the recession as manufacturing jobs were hit and they are now finding jobs at a faster pace. "The question now is what are we going to see going forward," said Stevenson.

Sectors like healthcare, which added 26,000 jobs last month, have always been areas traditionally dominated by women in the workforce. But we’re now slowly beginning to see that change as men have increasingly retrained and are now competing for jobs with women in those same sectors, said Stevenson. "The healthcare sector is 75% women and yet men got more than half the gains," she said. Healthcare continued to add jobs through the recession as manufacturing continued to decline. Stevenson said it was right that men retrained for jobs in growing sectors. But it was now leading to concern about the future trends. In March the unemployment rate for women was 8.1% and for men 8.3%. In March 2011 the rate was 8% for women and 10.2% for men. So you do the math. While it may be too early to say we have a trend, things definitely don’t appear to be looking good for working women.

So Barry “Almighty’s” desperate quest for re-election has now led Democrats to embrace some rather cynical and even offensive tactics. Most recently we have seen them, first work toward creating the myth that it’s the Republicans who have begun a "war on women", and then to leave no stone unturned as they work to perpetuate that myth. It's time for the insulting and disingenuous rhetoric to end. Contrary to how the Democrats are desperate to portray them, the Republican Party is absolutely committed to the policies and priorities that improve the lives of women. Barry's economic policies stand in stark contrast to what the Republicans are trying to do, having taken us in the wrong the direction. In the Barry economy, women are decidedly worse off. The recent jobs report from the Labor Department had some alarming facts. The number of women employed in America declined last month as many dropped out of the work force, giving up on looking for work altogether.

Of the million or so jobs that have now been lost since Barry first strutted his cool self into the Oval Office, a very significant percentage of them were held by women. And the fact that women are now having a much more difficult time re-entering the workforce, many are now falling victim to a potential trend that, quite simply, is unsustainable. All across America, women are feeling the pain of Barry’s weak, and getting weaker, economy, not only in the job market but at the kitchen table as well. Wives are worried about shrinking wages and rising prices as they try to make ends meet. Mothers fear for their children's futures as the national debt skyrockets and a college education is rapidly becoming unaffordable for most. Businesswomen are frustrated by the regulations and economic policies that make hiring impossible. Fewer women are working, and more are now living in poverty. All thanks to Barry and the Democrats.

So it's no surprise then, that Democrats have become more than a little desperate to avoid any discussion regarding Barry record, or lack of, as the election grows closer. They are attempting to this by the ginning up of some perceived injustice being perpetrated against women by those evil Republicans. However, unlike Barry “Almighty”, Republicans want to enact policies that will truly jump start job creation and build a sustainable economic recovery—lower taxes, efficient government, lower deficits, less debt, and responsible regulation. That's what right for women, and right for all of America. No matter what the claims we continue to hear from Barry, you can pretty much forget that official 8.2% unemployment rate. Instead you need to be taking a long, hard look at what’s known as the U6 rate, which tracks not only those out of work but those who’ve essentially given up looking for work. That rate stands at about 14.5%.

While many economists go over the rather disappointing job numbers released Friday, just 120,000 jobs supposedly added in March, well below expectations, some continue to point out that it’s the U6 data that people should be focused on. I think it quite safe to say that the official figure used by the Labor Department is being manipulated in that it “leaves out a lot of people who’ve just given up,” said Aparna Mathur, a resident scholar and economist at the American Enterprise Institute. The U6 number is derived from a household survey that includes people who are actually unemployed as well as those who haven’t looked for work in over four weeks, Mathur explained. “If you’re unemployed and you haven’t been looking for work in the previous four weeks than you’re not considered part of the official unemployed,” she said. The U6 rate, meanwhile, “includes all of those people who are too discouraged to look for work."

The 120,000 jobs that were supposedly added in March was the smallest increase since October and effectively killed any momentum that might have been growing in the labor markets since late last year. The slowdown in employment growth last month likely reflected the fading boost from unseasonably warm winter weather. Despite the falloff in March, the “official” unemployment rate fell to 8.2% from 8.3%. Analysts said the drop in the unemployment rate is directly tied to Americans who have given up looking for work and are no longer counted in the official unemployment figures. One of the biggest obstacles to an economic recovery has been solving the problem of the long-term unemployed. According to a recent report from RBC Global Asset Management, the ranks of the long-term unemployed, or those out of work for 27 weeks or more, have soared to 7 million, up from 1 million in 2007 ahead of the onset of the financial crisis.

Mathur said about 43% of the 12.8 million Americans officially labeled out of work fall into the category of the long-term unemployed, “which is huge, we’ve never seen those kinds of numbers in any recession,” she said. And women make up the larger percentage of those long-term unemployed. And yet Barry seems to imply that the biggest problems facing women today is not their inability to find work but is, instead, their ability to have sex and to not have to worry about getting pregnant. Or, if they do get pregnant they should have their abortion paid for if they wish to have one. So I guess I’m finding myself in a place where I would like to hope that more women are concerned about their being able to get a job more than they are concerned about having risk free sex. So I’ll be on pins and needles until election time, waiting to see if a sufficient number of women will vote in such a manner as to prove that their brain is in fact in their head and not between their legs.

LATEST DEMOCRAT PLOY TO GARNER CASH…

It would seem that these days the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is finding ever more creative ways to attract donations from supporters. The latest comes in the form of an email letter from “raving nut job” James Carville, which is asking for $1.2 million in donations from backers to stem Karl Rove's American Crossroads ads attacking Democratic candidates. In typical loon fashion the email talks of the White House being bought. But that’s what happened last time, this time, we must stop Barry from doing it again.  The letter reads as follows:

"Dear Karl,
"I saw you poured $1.2 million into mudslinging TV ads in five battleground states. Bad news, though: My side’s grassroots supporters just matched you, dollar for dollar. So if you thought you were gonna buy yourself the White House and Senate with all that money, tough biscuits.
"Sorry about you wasting all that cash. Maybe just go to Vegas next time?
Love,
James"

The email then asks supporters to make the donations by May 1, and the money would be matched by Democratic Senators. It then goes on to say:
"How much fun would it be if, in between opening up those big checks from his Big Oil and Wall Street pals, Karl got that note? More importantly, how huge would it be if folks like you matched his ad buy and stopped him from taking the four seats Republicans need to run the Senate?
"After all, Rove and his pals aren’t spending all this money just to get the frequent flier miles. They’re trying to buy the White House and the Senate so they can end Medicare as we know it, turn back the clock on women’s rights, and throw the middle class under the bus.
"Their agenda stinks – but your grassroots support can fight it. And if you can match Karl’s ad buy, we can neutralize the special interests and protect President Obama and our majority."

Sadly, if it’s anyone’s agenda that needs to be stopped dead in its tracks, it’s that of Barry and the Democrats. Can you possibly imagine the horrors that would ensue for the next four years with a completely unfettered Barry “Almighty” at the helm? Such a thought should terrify every freedom loving American. This next election should be considered by us, those who love our country, as being our last stand against the likes of individuals like, Carville and Barry, who hate our country and are out to destroy it.

IF THERE’S A WAR ON WOMEN, IT’S BEING WAGED BY DEMOCRATS…

For quite some time now, I've heard countless political pundits on both ends of the political spectrum, describe this next elections as being everything from crucial to pivotal and one that will most assuredly determine the future of this country. Many compare it to the election of 1980 because the philosophies of two likely candidates could not be more different. But as far as I'm concerned, what this next election will undoubtedly prove, and very clearly indicate, is just how far round the bend the American people have finally progressed. As well, to will demonstrate just how gullible they are when it comes to believing anything that comes from any member of the Democrat Party. Because nowhere else on the planet will you find members of a political party than can be viewed as being more prolific liars. But there is one thing of little doubt, the fate of the country is very much at stake here. We are, quite literally, hanging by a thread. A thread the Democrats seem quite determined to cut and they are looking to women to assist them in that little endeavor. The question is, will they succeed?

Which brings me to one of the Democrat Party's more skilled exaggerators of fact and creators of all things fiction, Nancy "Too Much Botox" Pelosi. The esteemed Ms. Pelosi recently was quite busy making more of her typical idiotic claims regarding how it is that women’s health care remains an “old favorite target” of Republicans whenever it comes to budget cuts, adding that while the GOP wants “to protect subsidies for big oil,” Democrats want to “prevent breast cancer” and “immunize our children.” Babbling on in a way that only she can do at a Capitol Hill press conference on Thursday she said, in speaking about Republicans in Congress, “Their priority is to protect the subsidies for Big Oil.” And then of course speaking of her fellow Democrats she said, “Our priority is to prevent breast cancer, cervical cancer, to immunize our children, so that they are healthy.” Yup, that's a Democrat priority, by golly. Come on, are there really enough brain dead females in this country who are actually willing to go along with this rather obvious, and rather transparent, attempt at political chicanery?

And as usual old Nancy proceeded to level the same old tired and worn-out charge that those evil Republicans continue to view Obamacare as being nothing more than a slush fund for the administration. “It may be a slush fund to him [House Speaker Boehner], but it’s survival to women,” she said. “It’s survival to women. And that just goes to show you what a luxury he thinks it is to have good health for women. We do not agree.” Are there enough women who are really stupid enough to believe any of this drivel? Aren't any of these women ever going to be having kids, and aren't they going to want those kids to grow up in a country that offers them the greatest chance to achieve some level of success and to maintain some freedom of choice? Or are they going to want their kids to grow up smothered under a mountain of debt created by Nancy and others in her political party? If women truly do care more about their kids than they do for themselves they will not be voting for Democrats. So I'll guess we'll find out what's uppermost in the minds of women come November.

Pelosi began her little rant here by working to tie in the political battle over interest rates on federally backed student loans with her mythical assault on women's health. These interest rates currently are 3.4 percent but are scheduled to rise to 6.8 percent in July unless Congress agrees to extend the current rate. Republicans have said they are open to extending the lower rate if it is paid for with spending cuts. However, Pelosi blathered on saying, “In our budget that we have put forth, we stop that increase, the Republican budget does not. As recently as last week, 100 percent of the Republicans voted for that increase in the Ryan budget. And now, and they were saying they were really growing tired of this whole issue of the interest on student loans and thought that was that.” She continued, “Thankfully, our president went out, made the pitch to the American people with such clarity that the Republicans are now changing their mind and coming back and saying, ‘okay, we won’t have it go from 3.4 to 6.8, but in order to pay for it we’re going to make an assault on women’s health,’” Pelosi said.

Never being one who is the least bit shy about telling all manner of lies, old Nancy went on to say, “And pay for this with prevention initiatives that are in effect right now for childhood immunization, for screening for breast cancer, for cervical cancer and for initiatives to reduce birth defects, a large part of what the Centers for Disease Control does in terms of prevention.” Adding, “We will not support a bill that robs Peter to pay Paul, which ostensibly supports a middle-class initiative on making those very same people pay for it,” Pelosi added. “I don’t know what it is that the Republicans have against the idea that there’s a positive role that we can do in a public-private way to make America healthier. That a women’s health is central to the health of her family, they consider it a slush fund to pay for women’s health. We consider it an absolute necessity and that’s the difference here.” Man I gotta tell ya, I thought it pretty humorous when Nancy said that Democrats would not be in favor of robbing Peter to pay Paul. I thought that was the typical Democrat budgetary process.

Pelosi stated that House Democrats will be "whipping against" the $5.9 Billion Republican package to extend the student loan rate, which is set for a vote on Friday. The Republican bill pays for the extension in the student loan rate at 3.4 percent with $17 billion in cuts to a Prevention and Public Health Fund created by the President’s health care law. Old Nancy continued the typical Democrat mantra alleging that House Republicans are protecting “Big Oil” subsidies at the expense of their “favorite target” of women’s health as a way to pay for the extension of the loan rate. When asked if the student loan debate was political posturing in an era of $1 trillion deficits, Pelosi said, “I don’t see it as any posturing, $6 billion is $6 billion.” “We say, ‘okay, we want to pay for it,’ and we can pay for it by going to subsidies for big oil and gas,” she said. I swear, dishonesty as well as blatant hypocrisy just oozes from every pore of this bitches old, saggy body. She just makes shit up as she goes along. It doesn't matter that she has no facts to back up what she says.

Pelosi continued: “And what we see here is what are the priorities of the parties in Washington, D.C.? We say big oil and gas get subsidies to have incentives to drill so that they can make probably $1 trillion dollars over the next 10 years. Certainly, we could spare some of that money for the student loan -- reducing the student loan interest.” “The Republicans say, ‘No! Leave the subsidies for big oil intact and let’s take it out of our old favorite target: women’s health,’” she said. “And that’s just wrong.” “But it is what we come here to do, to debate priorities,” Pelosi said. “Their priority is to protect the subsidies for big oil, our priority is to prevent breast cancer, cervical cancer, to immunize our children, so that they are healthy. And if they think that it’s a good economy, a good economic measure, fiscal measure, to stop immunization because it’s largely for poor children, that’s really very harmful to the health of all of our children.” “It’s important to all of us that poor children get immunized, but everybody has to get immunized,” she said.

I just think it's so sad that in this country we no longer possess anything that can be said to even remotely resemble a media could rightfully be called a watchdog, guarding "We the People" against an ever more intrusive federal government. Instead, the majority of today's faux journalists gladly hop aboard the Democrat bullshit express and loudly trumpet absurdities of every stripe, such as there being some GOP assault on women's health, as being fact. If there's one thing that I've learned from many years of watching how it is that these sleazy Democrats like Nancy operate, it's that the things that they most loudly accuse the Republicans of doing, upon closer inspection, usually turn out to be the very same things that we find being done by Democrats. Ya know, maybe it's because Democrats just aren't as bright as conservatives that they continue to fall for this little tripe or maybe, because of the fact they're liberal parasites and perfectly content with mooching off the rest of us, it simply isn't important enough for them to worry about. Either way, until enough people are able recognize this ridiculous charade for what it is, scumbags like Pelosi will continue to work it as long as it continues to work for them.

OBAMA, BRILLIANT MILITARY MASTERMIND? AH, NOT SO MUCH…

Well, well, well, what do we have here? You see, it seems that Time magazine, not a publication that I usually spend any time reading these days, has gotten hold of a memo written by then-CIA head, and Clinton retread, Leon Panetta, after he received orders from Barry’s team to green light the bin Laden mission. Here’s the text, which summarized the situation: "Received phone call from Tom Donilon who stated that the President made a decision with regard to AC1 [Abbottabad Compound 1]. The decision is to proceed with the assault. The timing, operational decision making and control are in Admiral McRaven’s hands. The approval is provided on the risk profile presented to the President. Any additional risks are to be brought back to the President for his consideration. The direction is to go in and get bin Laden and if he is not there, to get out. Those instructions were conveyed to Admiral McRaven at approximately 10:45 am." What we see here is a memo written in typical Barry-speak and came with a ready made exit built in for our "Fearless Leader" just in case events should take an unexpected turn to the south. This guy is such a piece of work.

Anyway, the memo describes the scenario that forms the basis for what was referred to as being Barry's famed “gutsy call.” Here’s how Tom " The Douche Bag" Hanks narrated it in Barry’s campaign film, “The Road We’ve Traveled”:
HANKS: Intelligence reports locating Osama Bin Laden were promising, but inconclusive, and there was internal debate as to what the President should do.

VICE PRESIDENT "SLOW JOE" BIDEN: We sat down in the Situation Room, the entire national security apparatus was in that room, and the President turns to every principal in the room, every secretary, “What do you recommend I do?” And they say, “Well, forty-nine percent chance he’s there, fifty-one … it’s a close call, Mr. President.” As he walked out the room, it dawned on me, he’s all alone. This is his decision. If he was wrong, his Presidency was done. Over.

However, a funny thing seems to have happened here in desctibing this entire scenario. You see, the memo doesn’t show any gutsy call. It doesn’t show a president willing to take the blame for a mission gone wrong. What it does shows is a CYA maneuver by the White House. The memo puts all control of the evolution in the hands of Admiral McRaven – the “timing, operational decision making and control” are all up to Adm. McRaven. So the notion that Barry and his team were walking through every stage of the operation is more that a little incorrect. It's a LIE! The hero here was McRaven, not Barry. And had the mission gone wrong, McRaven surely would have been thrown under the bus, hung out to dry and sent packing. The memo is crystal clear on that point. It says that the decision has been made based solely on the “risk profile presented to the President.” If any other risks – no matter how minute – arose, they were “to be brought back to the President for his consideration.” This is ludicrous. It is wiggle room. It was Barry’s way of carving out space for himself in case the mission went bad. If it did, he’d say that there were additional risks of which he hadn’t been informed; he’d been kept in the dark by his military leaders.

Finally, this memo is unclear on just what the mission was. Was it to capture Bin Laden or to kill him? The White House itself was unable to decide what the mission was in the hours after the Bin Laden kill, and actually switched its language. The memo shows why: McRaven was instructed to “get” Bin Laden, whatever that meant. Now while the case can be made that Barry did make the right call to give the green light to the mission, it was made in typical Barry fashion. I say that because it's obvious that he did it in such a way that he could, if needed, very easily shift the blame to others if things went wrong. And as is usual for him, he was pretty quick to claim full credit for it, even though he really did nothing more than to give some vague nod, while putting his top military officials at risk of taking the hit in case of a bad turn. This is our joke of a Commander-in-Chief. For him, those in the military serve no other purpose than to be used whenever the opportunity presents itself to enhance this pathetic president's supposed military prowess. He is a disgusting human being and undeserving of any amount of respect. I'm so glad that I retired before this guy would have been my Commander-in-Chief.

MUST SEE VIDEO, "IF I WANTED AMERICA TO FAIL"...

"SLOW JOE" BIDEN SAYS OBAMA HAS A BIG "STICK"...

EARTH TO JANET, EARTH TO JANET…COME IN JANET...PLEASE….

You know, I about choked when I heard our stellar Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano actually tell senators on Wednesday that Barry "Almighty’s" “most serious” efforts to secure the southwest border in U.S. history have yielded “striking” results. Man I gotta tell ya, this bitch must have one strange definition for what she perceives as being "striking". Because even to my untrained eye it's pretty easy to see that whatever results there are, they are pretty far from being striking, no matter you define the word. If Barry and his cadre there in his administration actually gave a squat about securing our border we wouldn't now have the state of Arizona being forced to go before the Supreme Court to defend its immigration law. A law I might add, which does nothing more than echo federal policies. So, like so many other followers of her twisted political persuasion, in making her idiotic claim old Janet was doing nothing more than talking out her ass.

Old Janet made her imbecilic comments in written testimony that was then submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday during a hearing on DHS oversight. “Simply put, the Obama administration has undertaken the most serious and sustained actions to secure the Southwest border in our nation’s history,” testified Napolitano. Now I'm sure if she suffering from delusions, lying through her teeth, or actually perceives what she's saying as being accurate. She did go on to say, “We have increased the number of Border Patrol agents nationwide from approximately 10,000 in 2004 to more than 21,000 today with nearly 18,500 ‘boots on the ground’ along the Southwest border." Adding that, “Working in coordination with state and other federal agencies, we have deployed a quarter of all ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] operational personnel to the Southwest border region –the most ever – to dismantle criminal organizations along the border."

And if all that wasn't enough BS, she continued by saying, “The results of these comprehensive and coordinated efforts have been striking. Border Patrol apprehensions—a key indicator of illegal immigration—have decreased 53 percent in the last three years and are less than 20 percent of what they were at their peak,” she later added. “Indeed, illegal immigration attempts have not been this low since 1971.” Demonstrating just how out of touch with reality she really is, Napolitano asserted that border communities are among the safest in the country despite the Department of Justice recently reporting that in 2011, southwest border communities were home to 80 percent of criminal cases in U.S. Magistrate Courts. “Violent crime in U.S. border communities has also remained flat or fallen over the past decade, and statistics have shown that some of the safest communities in America are along the border,” the DHS leader stated. Since it was a written statement it's impossible to determine if it was all said with a straight face.

Her final claim what that, “From Fiscal Years 2009 to 2011, DHS also seized 74 percent more currency, 41 percent more drugs, and 159 percent more weapons along the Southwest border as compared to Fiscal Years 2006 to 2008.” She mentioned how ICE, which is charged with arresting and removing illegal aliens inside the country, is now prioritizing the arrest of certain criminal aliens, an approach that critics have said will lead to “stealth amnesty” of those aliens who are not arrested. “To further deter individuals from illegally crossing our Southwest border, we also directed ICE to prioritize the apprehension of recent border crossers and repeat immigration violators, and to support and supplement Border Patrol operations,” said Napolitano. “Between Fiscal Years 2009 and 2011, ICE made over 30,936 criminal arrests along the Southwest border, including 19,563 arrests of drug smugglers and 4,151 arrests of human smugglers,” she added. Like our unemployment numbers, all which Janet uttered is nothing more than a work of pure fiction generated with the November election in mind. It's all nothing more than a fairytale.

SHARPTON PURPOSELY LIES IN DESCRIBING GEORGE ZIMMERMAN AS A RACIST...



You know, since day one of this little drama that continues to be played out down in Florida, all manner of accusations have been swirling around an event that resulted in a dead black teen and the man accused of shooting him in cold blood. Accusations that have coming from everyone ranging from our president right on down to those swimming around in the racist gutter. And all while very few of the actual facts in the case are still to be known by anyone including our stellar president. When the Trayvon Martin case first started garnering national attention, there were many who thought they knew who George Zimmerman as being some overzealous racist with a vendetta against young black men who was on a mission to assert power with his gun.

But then after all manner of insidious and toxic rhetoric had been thrown around, some of the actual details from this incident slowly began to emerge, such as picture of Zimmerman's bloody head, that could, in fact, actually bolster his self-defense claim. Even the Communist News Network (CNN) backtracked, going so far as to say that the tape it once suggested showed Zimmerman uttering a racist slur was actually him most likely saying it was “cold.” And now, Reuters has put together a pretty detailed profile of Mr. Zimmerman which would seem to suggest that he was nothing more than a concerned citizen trying to help fix his community and those in it reeling from recent crime. He was, apparently, a compassionate neighbor not the lunatic with a gun out looking for a black teen to shoot as old "Bull Horn" Sharpton would have us believe.

“During the time Zimmerman was in hiding, his detractors defined him as a vigilante who had decided Martin was suspicious merely because he was black,” Reuters reports. “After Zimmerman was finally arrested on a charge of second-degree murder more than six weeks after the shooting, prosecutors portrayed him as a violent and angry man who disregarded authority by pursuing the 17-year-old." Quite possibly a charge, if you listen to Alan Dershowitz, that could be based more on politics than on any of the evidence in the case. Reuters went on to say, “But a more nuanced portrait of Zimmerman has emerged from a Reuters investigation into Zimmerman’s past and a series of incidents in the community in the months preceding the Martin shooting."

So what does this profile that Reuters assembled really show us? Well, for starters, it was an animal control officer who first told Zimmerman he should get a gun after a pit bull was menacing him and his wife. His friends, however, never even knew he had a firearm until about two months ago. And, Reuters says, “He was raised in a racially integrated household and himself has black roots through an Afro-Peruvian great-grandfather – the father of the maternal grandmother who helped raise him.” So, after hearing Mr. Zimmerman being described with some of the most vile words being used, Business Insider has put together some chronological bullet points highlighting some of the article’s most important points:

1. Zimmerman grew up in a mixed-race household
2. He was an altar boy at his Catholic church from age 7-17
3. He is bilingual
4. After he finished high school, he studied for and got an insurance license
5. In 2004, Zimmerman and a black friend opened an Allstate insurance office (which soon failed)
6. Zimmerman’s 2005 arrest for “resisting arrest, violence, and battery of an officer” occurred after he shoved an under-cover alcohol control agent at a bar when the agent was trying to arrest an underage friend of his
7. Zimmerman married his wife, Shellie, in 2007. They rented a house in Twin Lakes. Twin Lakes is about 50% white, 20% Hispanic, and 20% black.
8. In 2009, Zimmerman enrolled in Seminole State College
9. In the fall of 2009, a pit bull broke free twice and once cornered Shellie in the Zimmermans’ yard. George Zimmerman asked a police officer whether he should buy pepper spray. The cop told him pepper spray wasn’t fast enough and recommended that he get a gun.
10. By the summer of 2011, Twin Lakes “was experiencing a rash of burglaries and break-ins.” In several of the cases, witnesses said the robbers were young black men
11. In July 2011, a black teenager stole a bicycle off the Zimmermans’ porch
12. In August of 2011, a neighbor of the Zimmermans, Olivia Bertalan, was home during the day when two young black men entered her house. She hid in a room upstairs and called the police. When the police arrived, the two men, who had been trying to take a TV, fled. One of them ran through the Zimmermans’ yard.
13. After the break-in, George Zimmerman stopped by the Bertalans and gave Olivia a card with his name and number on it. He told her to visit his wife Shellie if she felt unsafe.
14. The police recommended that Bertalan get a dog. She moved away instead. Zimmerman got a second dog–a Rottweiler.
15. In September, several concerned residents of the neighborhood, including Zimmerman, asked the neighborhood association to create a neighborhood watch. Zimmerman was asked to run it.
16. In the next month, two more houses in the neighborhood were robbed.
17. A community newsletter reminded residents to report any crimes to the police and then call “George Zimmerman, our captain.”
18. On February 2, 2012, Zimmerman spotted a young black man looking into the windows of a neighbor’s empty house. He called the police and said “I don‘t know what he’s doing. I don’t want to approach him, personally.” The police sent a car, but by the time they arrived, the man was gone.
19. On February 6th, another house was burglarized. Witnesses said two of the robbers were black teenagers. One, who had prior burglary convictions, was soon caught with a laptop stolen from the house.
20. Two weeks later, Zimmerman spotted Travyon Martin and called the police. The last time he had done this, the suspect got away. This time, he disregarded police instructions and followed. A few minutes later, Martin was dead.

So, is it possible that George Zimmerman is the angry out of control racist that Al "Bull Horn" Sharpton has painted him as being? Ok, I suppose it is, possible, but I think knowing as we do the tendency that old Al has of jumping to conclusions, especially if he thinks there's something to be gained personally, I just don't see it. And Business Insider wonders, “doesn’t it make you feel a bit differently about Zimmerman?” I'd have to say the answer to that is a resounding and every enthusiastic, YES. He is not the evil stalker that a certain group of racist individuals would like us all to believe that he is. There has been a lynch mob mentality in play here, assisted along by our racist president, since this story first broke. Sadly, America seems to be "changing", and not necessarily for the better.

SO, THE UNEMPLOYED WILL VOTE FOR OBAMA? REALLY?...

"We're headed in the right direction. Unemployment continues to drop and those people who are unemployed, they're not going to be voting for the party who wants to cut their benefits, cut access to food stamps, cut job training," Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-PA) said on MSNBC's Al Sharpton program.

"The idea that Republicans are trying to help those who are unemployed is nonsense and I think that on this election day, those who have a job can credit the administration for stabilizing our economy and those who don't know that this administration is trying to put them to work," he said.

ANOTHER LYING DEMOCRAT "DESCRIBES" THE TEA PARTY...

MORE DRIVEL FROM LOON DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ...

AN EPA THAT'S OUT OF CONTROL...

MORE INANE RAMBLINGS FROM STENY HOYER...

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) demonstrated yet again that he resides in some bizarre alternate universe were morons reign supreme when he made the idiotic claim that Republicans are asking the middle class to pay the price for the fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush Administration, where much was spent and little was paid for, Tuesday, on Capitol Hill. For him to actually make such an insane statement, and expect anyone but one of his fellow Democrats to believe it, is laughable. Fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush administration? Really? That's pretty amazing since it's the last three years, when put altogether, that pretty much provide the perfect definition of what constitutes fiscal irresponsibility. Let's get real here, does this moron really expect anyone to seriously believe that all of the spending that has been taking place and the huge amount of debt that has been incurred in just 3 years is actually a demonstration of fiscal responsibility?

Whining as only he can do, Hoyer said, "Republicans are suggesting an increase of additional tax that would be perceived correctly as a 5 percent cut in pay of federal employees," when speaking on House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) plan, of which he called "Tea Party inspired." He went on to say, "Although they don’t want to tax millionaires, they want to cut the take home pay of federal employees by decreasing by 5 percent their contributions to the federal employee retirement system and the civil servant retirement system." Adding, "So they continue to go down a path of asking middle income and lower income people to pay the price for the fiscal irresponsibility that was pursued in the last decade under the Bush Administration where much was spent and little was paid for. They continue to ask middle class working people to pay that bill." Steny's comments came during his weekly pen-and-pad briefing with reporters.

As has been previously reported by numerous sources, in less than four years since Barry "Almighty" took office, the debt of the federal government has increased by more than $5 trillion, $5,027,761,476,484.56 to be exact. Under two full terms of President George W. Bush, that would be 8 years, the federal debt increased by $4.8 trillion or $4,899,100,310,608.44 to be exact. Now while I make no attempt to excuse Bush, it is a fact that the $5 trillion additional debt added during Barry's 39 month reign is more than the federal government accumulated in the first 219 years of our Republic's existence. Barry "Almighty" has also presided over four straight years of trillion dollar deficits. I think it pretty safe to say that old Steny possess a rather strange idea of what defines fisal responsibility, I mean if most households followed this example how long would it be before someone came knocking on the door? This is all nothing but more hot air from Hoyer.

THE APPARENT RACIST PRIORITIES OF OUR JUSTICE DEPARTMENT...

Let's see, we have Black Panthers being permitted to stand outside a polling place in military garb and it's no big deal, and more recently a black movie director putting on Twitter the address of George Zimmerman, black panthers can put a bounty on, and making al manner of death threats against, George Zimmerman, a gang of blacks beating up a innocent white guy sitting on his porch, putting him the hospital, and where is Eric Holder. Where else but down in Jacksonville, Florida where he's now suing the city claiming its use of written tests to determine promotions in the city's fire department is too tough for blacks to pass. Gotta make it easier! The lawsuit followed what is said to be a more than two-year investigation examining Jacksonville's record of promoting African-Americans for the ranks of lieutenant, captain, district chief and engineer dating back to 2004. So somehow we're supposed to believe this has been going on for 8 years?

Evidently Justice Department involvement became necessary after a separate lawsuit was filed last year by two dozen Jacksonville firefighters challenging the city's promotional process. In other words, they saw an opportunity here to use accusations of racism as a way to worm out a promotion when they obviously don't deserve it. Ya know, I'd love to be in the position of where it matters not if your actually qualified for a job only that you're entitled to it because of your race. In the lawsuit, the firefighters alleged union officials unfairly shared exam questions with white workers but not with black workers ahead of the test. "This complaint should send a clear message to all public employers that employment practices that have the effect of excluding qualified candidates on account of race will not be tolerated," Thomas Perez, a U.S. assistant attorney general for civil rights, said in a statement.

A spokesman for the Jacksonville mayor's office declined to comment. By the way, just in case you may not be aware, Jacksonville now has a black mayor. The supposed complaint, or that which the Justice Department alleges as being the rationale for the lawsuit, is that the exams are "not job related for the positions in question." The complaint said use of the tests "has resulted in a disparate impact upon black candidates" because African-Americans pass the examinations at significantly lower rates than white candidates. And we're just supposed to assume that the reason can be said to be discrimination? The Justice Department said black employees who do pass the tests rarely are promoted since their scores are generally lower than white workers. "At best, these tests measure only a slice of what is necessary to be a supervisor, but they stand in the way of qualified African-Americans advancing in the fire department," the statement said.

Look, I don't know about anybody else, but do we really want to make the test so damn easy to pass that when your house is on fire we have to wonder if the guys showing up actually know how to put it out? Has anyone ever stopped to consider that maybe blacks don't bother to study for the test? I mean if they know all they have to do is to scream racism in order to achieve the same result, where's the incentive to study. Why not just take the test and when you do lousy just accuse those who created it of being racist, and writing the test in such a way as to make it "difficult" for your typical black firefighter to pass. Isn't this all just a little silly? And what if it was the other way around, with blacks doing better on the tests that whites? Would there be the same level on concern? Would our stellar Justice Department still be suing the city? I very much doubt it. Because, after all, in the eyes of those presently in charge, that would be as it should be.

MEXICO VS. THE U.S. ON IMMIGRATION, WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE...

Oddly enough, it seems that while Mexico is entitled to enforce their Constitution, we here in the U.S., are not to be afforded that same luxury. The reason I even mention this is because of the fact that the Mexican Constitution strictly defines the rights of citizens as well as the denial of many rights to non-citizens. The General Law on Population, which spells out the country’s immigration policy, should cause all Americans, including congressional Democrats, to ask: Why is our southern neighbor pushing us to water down our immigration laws and policies when its own immigration restrictions are the toughest on the continent? If a felony is a crime punishable by more than a year in prison, Mexican law makes it a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico. And yet if the United States were ever to implement the same policy, Mexico would, no doubt, strongly denounce it as being a manifestation of American bigotry.

Mexico’s main immigration law welcomes only foreigners deemed useful to Mexican society:
_ Foreigners are admitted into Mexico “according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress.” (Article 32)
_ Immigration officials must “ensure (that) immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance” and that of their dependents. (Article 34)
_ Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence has upset “the equilibrium of the national demographics,” if they are deemed detrimental to “economic or national interests,” if they are not good citizens in their own country, if they have broken Mexican laws, or if “they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy.” (Article 37)
_ The secretary of governance may “suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest.” (Article 38)
Mexican authorities keep track of every person in the country:
_ Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request: i.e., help in the arrest of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)
_ A National Population Registry tracks every “individual who comprises (sic) the population of the country,” verifying each individual’s identity. (Articles 85 and 86)
_ A national Catalogue of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), assigning each a tracking number. (Article 91)
Foreigners with fake papers or who enter the country under false pretenses may be imprisoned:
_ Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)
_ Foreigners who sign government documents “with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses” are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)
Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:
_ Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)
_ Deported foreigners who try to re-enter Mexico without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)
_ Foreigners who violate terms of their visa may be sentenced for up to six years in prison. (Articles 119, 120, and 121) Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa (as by working without a permit) can also be imprisoned.
Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says:
_ “A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of 300 to 5,000 pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally.” (Article 123)_ Foreigners with immigration problems may be deported, rather than imprisoned. (Article 125)
_ Foreigners who “(make attempts) against national sovereignty or security” will be deported. (Article 126)
Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are considered criminals:
_ A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)
_ Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)

After even a cursory review of Mexico immigration policy, what becomes more than a little obvious here is the fact that it runs completely counter to what Mexican leaders, as well as Democrats in this country, have been demanding of the United States for years. And I'm a little curious, if this type of approach is perfectly acceptable for Mexico then why is not for the U.S.? Why is it that we continue to be condemned through all manner of rhetoric when all that we wish to do is to apply the same restrictions as Mexico does? The stark contrast between Mexico’s immigration practices and how it preaches to the U.S. about our immigration policy clearly reveals the Mexican government’s agenda here: which is to have a one-way immigration relationship with the United States. That, by anyone's definition, is not, to use Barry's favorite word, a very fair arrangement.

According to the Mexican Constitution foreign-born, naturalized Mexican citizens may not become federal lawmakers (Article 55), cabinet secretaries (Article 91) or supreme court justices (Article 95). The president of Mexico, like the president of the United States, constitutionally must be a citizen by birth, but Article 82 of the Mexican constitution mandates that the president’s parents also be Mexican-born citizens, thus according secondary status to Mexican-born citizens born of immigrants. The Mexican constitution forbids immigrants and naturalized citizens to become members of the clergy. Article 130 says, “To practice the ministry of any denomination in the United Mexican States it is necessary to be a Mexican by birth.” Well, imagine placing such restrictions on someone for no other reason than because they are from another country. Quick, somebody call the ACLU!

The Mexican Constitution actually goes so far as to actually single out “undesirable aliens.” Article 11 guarantees federal protection against “undesirable aliens resident in the country.” The Mexican constitution provides the right of private individuals to make citizen’s arrests. Article 16 states, “in cases of flagrante delicto, any person may arrest the offender and his accomplices, turning them over without delay to the nearest authorities.” Therefore, the Mexican Constitution appears to grant Mexican citizens the right to arrest illegal aliens and hand them over to police for prosecution. Imagine the uproar had Arizona attempted to enact something like that! Frankly, I see absolutely nothing wrong with Mexico's policy, I would just like the U.S. to be able to enjoy playing by the same rules. But yet if we do we're somehow deemed as acting completely improper.

The Mexican Constitution also very clearly states that foreigners may be expelled for any reason and without due process. According to Article 33, “the Federal Executive shall have the exclusive power to compel any foreigner whose remaining he may deem inexpedient to abandon the national territory immediately and without the necessity of previous legal action.” So like I said, what's wrong with this picture? Why is it okay for Mexico to possess what most Democrats would most definitely describe as being a draconian immigration policy if we were to attempt to put into place the same type of restrictions? Why is it that we here in the U.S. are forced to let in every stray who is able to get here. And not only that, but to provide to them all manner of benefit typically enjoyed by our citizens or those who chose to come here legally?

None of this makes any sense. And it's but one more idiotic example of just how screwy things have gotten because we refuse to take a tough stand regarding who it is that we allow to enter our country. The Democrat Party is determined in its efforts to expand, and by any means necessary, its voter base and long ago made the conscious decision to make those U.S. citizens who have the misfortune to live on our border-states expendable. The United States is not to take any measure designed to restrict the flow of illegals into this country, as such action may offend those who have a tendency to vote for Democrats. Such action shows just how low the Democrats are willing to go and how transparent they are as they go about their trolling for votes. Therefore, from the Democrat perspective I can only assume that any American lives lost along our border are to be considered as being insignificant.

DEMOCRATS AND THEIR USEFUL HISPANIC IDIOTS...

As if we needed any further proof that these pathetic Democrats feel that they are somehow entitled to run roughshod over the rest of us, we now find out that they are readying plans to force a floor vote on legislation that would essentially invalidate Arizona’s "controversial" immigration statute should the Supreme Court uphold the law later this summer. And who else should be behind the plan by our old friend, Chuckie "A Few Sandwiches Short of a Picnic" Schumer. Our favorite sleazy DEMOCRAT from New York, will announce the Democrat fallback legislation at a hearing on the Arizona law Tuesday, a day before the Supreme Court is to begin hearing oral arguments in a suit to determine whether Arizona had the authority to enact the 2010 state law which actually does nothing more than to enforce Federal law. But hey, that matters very little to Chuckie and his fellow psychopaths because their sole purpose here is to garner for themselves some more voters. Voters that they can work to get attached to the government teat and therefore firmly in the Democrat camp whether they're here legally or not. You see. Democrats aren't really bothered all that much when it comes to having anything to do with making people actually obey our laws. Because, as we've seen so many time, they rarely do themselves.

While this little piece of Democrat legislation will ultimately have little or no chance of passing in a stalemated Senate or being approved by a GOP-held House, it would most likely aid slimy Democrats like Chuckie in their attempt to push their electoral advantage with Latino voters just as the presidential campaign heats up in July. Which I guess begs the question, just how stupid are Latinos anyway? I mean really. Why is it so important that people who are breaking our laws by being here and yet should somehow be permitted to stay here? If it's that important to them, then maybe they should all go, especially if they're going to possess so little regard for our laws! Anyway this supposed scheme is designed to allow Democrats a route by which they can then express their displeasure with the Arizona law if the court allows it to stand, and it would then force Republicans to take a clear position on the law during the height of the presidential campaign. The immigration law is deeply unpopular with Latino voters, who could be key to the outcome of the presidential and Senate races in several Western states. Like I said, if these people support the breaking of our laws, they don’t deserve to remain here whether they're here legally or not. Either they are with us, or they are against us.

“If the court upholds the Arizona law, Congress can make it clear that what Arizona is doing goes beyond what the federal government and what Congress ever intended,” old Chuckie said in a recent interview. He went so far as to actually call the Arizona law an “assault on the domain of the federal government” that Congress will need to address if the court allows it to stand. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on immigration, old Chuckie will hold a hearing Tuesday to discuss the impact of the Arizona law. The state senator who wrote the statute will appear, as will a number of those who oppose the law. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R), the law’s chief proponent, was invited, and rightfully so, declined to attend. Why should she subject herself to what most assured be and opportunity for Democrats to do a little grandstanding. Ya know, old Chuckie is about as full of shit as one man can be. Most rational thinking people are able to recognize what Chuckie is trying to pull off here, so he's not really fooling anybody. And he's not near a clever as he seems to think he is. He is, as well as the people like him, the root cause of why this country is currently in the mess that it is. And you would think that even Latino voters would be able to figure that out. But, I guess not.

I'm sure we all recall how it was that the Barry "Almighty" administration chose to sue to prevent implementation of the Arizona law, which included a provision requiring local law enforcement to actually check the immigration status of anyone stopped or arrested who they "suspect" is in the country illegally. The argument was that the Constitution gives the federal government jurisdiction over immigration laws and that the state’s statue interferes with federal efforts. In response, federal courts have blocked key portions of the law from going into effect. Arizona appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that the state has the power to pass the legislation because Washington has failed, in any meaningful way, to deal with the illegal-immigration problem. And that's because the Democrats are pretty much in charge of Washington right now, and the problem is being experienced by a state with a Republican governor and are therefore of little concern, especially when it involves potential voters that the Democrats are busy trying to entice. And again, if Latinos can be so easily persuaded into allowing others to break our laws for no other reason because of their heritage, then they have very clearly demonstrated that they are not worthy of remaining in this country either.

In what is very clearly nothing more than another blatant attempt by Democrats in their continuing efforts to re-write our Constitution, Old Chuckie says that while he believes that the court will side with the federal government, nonetheless, he is prepared to act if it does not. Because if it does choose to come down on the side of Arizona he is standing at the ready to propose a new law that would require federal approval for all new state immigration laws, essentially blocking implementation of Arizona’s law and others like it that have passed elsewhere. According to old Chuckie, his legislation would also bar states from imposing their own penalties, beyond federal sanctions, for employers who hire illegal immigrants. Some business leaders have said they are concerned new state rules on hiring could lead to a patchwork of conflicting employment rules across the country. Well look there's are really simply solution here. All that really needs to happen is for the federal government to actually start enforcing laws that are currently on the books. Such action would serve two purposes. It would free up states to spend money on other important issues and it would most likely result in more deportations. But until Washington decides to enforce federal laws, states are left with no alternative.

Presumed Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has said the he opposes the federal lawsuit filed by the Barry "Almighty" administration to block the Arizona law. But he has also been working to improve his image with Hispanic voters, who, at least according to the latest NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll, now seem to favor Barry "Almighty" by more than 40 points. Those numbers come after Romney took a hard line on immigration during the Republican primary season, opposing the Dream Act, which would provide a path to citizenship for some young adults brought to the country illegally by their parents as children, and indicating that he supports making life in America tough enough for illegal immigrants that they voluntarily “self-deport.” His campaign has protested that his February comments describing the Arizona law as a “model” for the nation were misinterpreted. At the risk of repeating myself here, if these people are so much in favor of allowing people to break our laws for no other reason than because they're Hispanic, then maybe it's time to significantly reduce our Hispanic population by sending them all back to where it was that they came from. There is no excuse to advocate the breaking or our laws.

It would seem to me that Hispanics in this country have an important decision to make. Is it important for them to be considered as being Americans, or are they simply here for no other reason than to simply take advantage of our generosity as a nation? If they truly do wish to be recognized as Americans, then they should take it upon themselves to be more willing to force politician to abide by our Constitution by recognizing the fact that those who are here illegally do not deserve to remain here. If they view the breaking of our laws to be only a trivial thing then, try as they might, they are not Americans but instead are people who merely reside here. The sad fact of matter is that what it means to be an American has now become so diluted to the point that it really doesn't mean as much as it once did. Therefore there isn't much concern over the point that these people are actually violating our laws by being in this country. It's considered as being no big deal. Well, it is a big deal, and anyone who refuses to see it that way is nothing more than a parasite and not deserving of being called American. And I can only assume that that isn't important to them. Frankly, I'm getting really tired of people coming here and essentially doing nothing more than to simply take up space and mooch of the system. 

SNL MEMBER DISAGREES WITH OBAMA ON TAXES...

WHEN THE REDISTRIBUTION SHOE IS ON THE OTHER FOOT...

ALLEN WEST, A MAN WORTH LISTENING TO...

COMMUNIST PARTY USA LAYS OUT ITS AGENDA...

This past weekend there was an event that took place that many Americans might not be aware of. And just what might event have been? Well it just so happened that it makrked the Communist Party USA opening its national conference in New York and the many speakers present were far from shy about laying out their plans for the United States of America. In what constituted a very clear step-by-step and slightly underhanded scheme for achieving its objective, Sam Webb, the party’s chair, opened his remarks by saying that the upcoming elections are only be part of “a grander design [that] will connect the dots between our immediate and longer-range political task.” “To put it differently,” he went on to say, “we hope to connect the struggle at the ballot box today with the struggle for socialism tomorrow.” This sick mentality cannot go ignored.

Webb continued to rant about the supposed “catastrophe” that would befall humanity if we did not begin living in a more environmentally friendly manner, before declaring socialism to be “imperative…to preserve peace and our planet, expand democracy, eliminate gross racial, gender, and other forms of inequality, and to provide a secure life for the billions living on this earth.” But how, exactly, does the party propose to transform America’s system of governing? The first step, at least according to People’s World, where the official Communist Party USA Twitter page directs readers, is to defeat right-wing “extremism” (presumably at the aforementioned ballot box). One such Republican ikely marked for defeat is Rep. Allen West of Florida, who has been criticized for noting that there are likely 80 members of Congress who may be Communists. Probably a low estimate.

Rather than deny the charge, Communist Party Vice-Chairman Libero Della Piana proudly declared: “Is he saying that he would not support the democratic right of the people to elect communists to Congress if that was, in fact, what they wanted to do at some point in the future?” Webb seems to believe that once Republicans are successfully subdued, communists will then join with workers in an “anti-corporate” struggle. “[But] this stage of struggle doesn’t supplant capitalism,” he explained. Rather, it “brings the socialist stage closer as tens of millions become convinced in the course of the struggle that capitalism doesn’t work for them.” I’m curious which “workers” that he might be referring to. Who besides the majority of overpaid and under worked union members come anywhere near to supporting the anti-American pabulum being spewed here?

Finally, according to Webb, after a shift among the “core forces” for social change, the Communist Party and other leftist organizations will finally succeed in becoming “the people’s government.” In this stage, Webb explained, it is important to “control the movement of capital, [institute] a tax policy that weighs heavily on the wealthy, and [place] under democratic control sectors of the economy, such as finance, that are a threat to the peoples’ government and a socialist revolution.” Sound the least bit familiar? Like maybe what’s been going on for the last three years? While many have long-dismissed the Communist Party and other leftist organizations as fringe political movements, their influence among vocal groups like Occupy Wall Street has granted them more consideration in recent months. “We are still too small,” Webb said, “but the good news is that we’re growing."

I have to ask, what is the allure for moving this country in the direction of socialism and ultimately toward communism? Where is it, exactly, that communism has ever been put into practice where the result has been that which was espoused by its supporters? Or even close to it? The evidence literally surrounds us that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that all it has ever accomplished is nothing but abject misery and rampant poverty for all but the elite. Millions upon millions of people have been murdered at the hand of those who wished to advance the cause of communism. While I am not claiming that such a thing is possible here, yet, it does make quite clear that following those who tout the benefits of communism is very dangerous. And yet millions of Americans continue to allow themselves to be convinced into acting as willing accomplices to the likes of Barry “Almighty”.

A LETTER TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE…

First let me say that this “letter” is directed primarily at those Americans who remain very firm believers in the illusion that Barack Hussein Obama is some sort savior or who may actually view him as being some sort of messianic figure. Because, oddly enough, what he is is the antithesis of both. I fail to understand how it is that so many of you, who are now so loudly singing his praises, have apparently never even stopped to even consider what will happen when if he is permitted to achieve that which is his ultimate goal here. That goal is, of course, the complete collapse of this country. An event that, I might add, you seem to be enthusiastically endorsing. There has been underway over the course of the last three years, a blatant and purposeful attempt by Barry to “fundamentally transform” this country. To make it into something that bares little resemblance to what was originally created.

Many of you side with Barry as he desperately seeks to advance his spread the wealth mantra, claiming to do so all in the name of “fairness”. And few seem to question his tactics of doing so, even though He seeks to accomplish this through various methods courtesy of his coercive use of taxes to harass or promote all manner of animosity toward those who have worked hard all of their lives. The top 1 percent of tax payers in this country pay nearly 40 percent of all taxes paid. The bottom 50 percent pays absolutely nothing. Now I realize that those of you in that bottom 50 percent are in no hurry to be asked to cough up your fair share, but don’t you think it at least a little hypocritical to asked those who already do, to pay more. Why shouldn’t every single working American be asked to pony up that amount considered as being his or her fair amount.

And I can’t help but wonder just how many of you may have ever actually stopped and asked yourself which country, anywhere on the planet, simply allows people to walk across its borders and take up residence illegally? I mean, does that really make sense to anybody? And yet we in this country are just supposed to turn a blind eye, in fact we’re expected to, to those who break our laws by crossing our border illegally. Would you prefer that we put into place the immigration laws of, say, Mexico? Actually I think that would be an outstanding idea. You should check them out. We are a sovereign nation, and as such are entitled to determine who is and who is not allowed to enter our country. It is pure insanity to allow people to come into our country, pretty much at will. And yet that’s exactly what Barry wants.

Or how about the fact that millions more of Americans than ever before are now on the receiving end of some sort of government “entitlement”? Who would have ever thought that here in the United States of America we would have over 40 million Americans, or one out of every seven, on food stamps. The cost of food stamps has increased in recent years as more people are being forced onto the program, which will continue to expand through at least 2014, according to a Congressional Budget Office report. From 2007-2011 spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program increased 135 percent to reach a cost of $78 billion last year alone, the report reveals. In the four year period CBO highlighted, the number of Americans on food stamps increased by 70 percent. And what about the millions of Americans who remain unemployed because of Barry’s policies?

In the area of foreign policy Barry has been an abysmal failure. As Barry has, and continues to, turn his back on many of our trusted allies, while getting rather uncomfortably cozy with those countries who only mean our country harm. From day one he had instituted a policy of endless apologies, appeasement in general and the repeated throwing of Israel under the bus. We have, and undeniably so, the worst Secretary of State since the days of Warren Christopher. There is very little that can be judged as being positive about the direction of this nation’s foreign policy. The World is a very big place that grows more dangerous every day, and yet many of you choose to side with Barry as he continues to ignore the very critical nature of the important leadership role America performs. We must remember how it is the nature abhors a vacuum. If America refuses to lead, who will?

And I guess I can only assume that all of those who are so firmly in the Barry camp fully support his energy policy or, should I say, his lack of an energy policy. Now I suppose every nut job out there has swallowed hook, line and sinker all of the bogus global warming/climate change drivel to the detriment of the rest of us and at the expense of ignoring all of the obvious facts against the entire theory. Many of you see it as being perfectly acceptable that we sit atop vast energy reserves of oil, coal and natural gas here at home. Even as Barry takes the price of gas over 4 dollars a gallon in some places and makes it ever more expensive for us to heat and cool our homes. And I can only guess that many of you actually like watching your food bill increase with each visit to the grocery store. Because I gotta tell ya, between buying gas and food I’m going broke.

The indicators that his is a failed presidency are there and they are many. And they are many and they are very obvious. To ignore them goes beyond simply being willfully ignorant, it is reckless and dangerous. And I didn’t even touch on the economic matters such as unemployment, Barry outright seizure of our healthcare that, while it may be struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, has already been set into motion. And yet so many Americans seem perfectly content to allow Barry 4 more years to complete that which he has already made significant progress on. That being the destruction of this country as it was originally designed by our Founders. In this coming election we need to put all of our pettiness aside and focus on the survival of the country, because that is what’s at stake here. Against the loss of our country everything else pales in comparison.