ONE OF MY FAVORITES IN CONGRESS…

Ya know, to my way of thinkin, there just doesn’t seem to be all all that many members of Congress who are actually there to serve anyone other themselves. Their main priority, it would seem, is to gain some level of personal wealth for themselves essentially at the expense of those who sent them there. But every once and a while, there comes along someone who is actually deserving of the respect that so many of those in Congress seem to think that they are automatically entitled to. True, it doesn’t happen all that often, but, every now and again, it does. And as it just so happens, we have one of those folks serving in the House as we speak. Now granted, I suppose there could be more than this one fella, and probably is, but I know that there is at least one. And just who might it be that I am referring to? None other than former Army Lieutenant Colonel and current Representative for Florida’s 22nd Congressional District, Allen West. He’s never been shy about speaking his mind and, more often than not, he’s right on the money with what he’s saying. I can’t think of an instance where I’ve been in opposition to anything he has said. The problem is, that he’s an army of one, and we need many, many more like him if we are ever going to be able crawl out of this hole that Barry has only managed to make much, much deeper. And if we can’t count on the Republicans to take the tough measures, who is left.

It was very recently that he provided us with yet another example of no nonsense approach. It came about as he was talking about the deal to extend the payroll tax cut brokered by House leadership and the White House. Rep. West, a Tea Party favorite, as well as a personal favorite of mine, in displaying a mixture of disappointment, anger and a little resentment, said that the GOP House leadership had caved in to Senate GOP leaders. He described the scenario as being “sold us down the road” for “pathetic politics” in the form of a two-month extension. “I was very upset about what happened with this payroll tax cut extension,” West told WMAL radio station in Baltimore, Friday morning. “We developed a good piece of legislation that took care of us for one year. It was paid for and would not decimate social security, unemployment insurance and also a two-year 'doc fix' and then, all of the sudden -- I get back from D.C. on a Wednesday -- the next day, on a Thursday, we have a conference call and we’re told were going to accept the Senate, what, two-month extension, which is absolutely pathetic policy.” Adding, “We can’t do tax policy that way.” And he’s 100 percent correct! What amount of sense did a two month extension make? It made no sense, and our squishy House leadership simply threw up the white flag of surrender because it was politically expedient.


Rep. West went on to say that when the House Republican members get back to Washington on January 17 they plan to have “some serious discussions” about getting “on the same sheet of music” because, he said, the House leadership did them a disservice by caving in to Senate Republican leadership by passing the two-month payroll tax cut extension in December. “(W)e really felt that our leadership did not stand against the Senate Republican leadership, who kind of sold us down the road with 40 members of the Senate GOP voted for this, you know, pathetic politics. It was not policy,” West added. “And now we are going to start this Kabuki dance all over again.” Asked whether there would be an attempt to unseat House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), West avoided answering the question. “Well I’m not going to speculate about that,” he said. “I think that right now the most important thing that we need to focus on is, how do we rectify this economic situation and now the national security situation?” Under the deal, the Social Security payroll tax for most employees will stay at 4.2 percent of wages through the end of February. Had this deal not been struck, the pay roll tax would have returned to 6.2 percent. Also as part of this deal, the federal government will continue to pay out unemployment insurance claims through February, which is ridiculous. We're paying people not to work!


I’ve never really been thrilled with the so-called leadership “style” of John Boehner. It seems that he continually outmaneuvered by slimy Democrats and this is not the time to be going weak kneed. Last November provided the Republican with what can only be described as being mandate of epic proportions and all they have managed to do is to squander it. More often than not they play right into the hands of the most corrupt president in my lifetime. And the Senate leadership is no better, but right the focus of my ire is limp-wristed leadership in the House who seems to be ore interested in getting re-elected the next time around than they do is preventing our country from going over the cliff. Rep. West sidestepped the question of whether or not he would challenge Speaker Boehner, but, personally, I can't think of a better man to be Speaker, esepecially at this very cricial time. At least I think we, the American people, would be much better served if he were to be in some position of leadership. While beating Barry must remain a very high priority for freedom loving Americans, just as important is gaining control of the Senate and building on our majority in the House. And if we fail in our efforts to send Barry packing, we'll still have the leadership issue to deal with. Both Boehner and McConnell over in the Senate are going to need to be replaced is any significant headway is to be made, especially if Barry is re-elected.

LIBERAL BIAS REMAINS VERY MUCH ALIVE AND WELL IN THE STATE-CONTROLLED MEDIA...

It should come as no surprise that when Little George "Stephy" Stephanopoulos, that former "BJ" Clinton retread who now fancies himself a "journalist," was provided with an opportunity, he was far more aggressive in pursuing the issue of government involvement in contraception when he questioned Republican presidential candidates in a debate Saturday night in New Hampshire than he was back in January 2009 when he questioned then-House Speaker Nancy "Queen of Botox" Pelosi on ABC News’s “This Week.” Now I know that we all remember the fact that this little dweeb, before going to work for ABC, worked as the "communications director" for "BJ" Clinton’s presidential campaign and later in the frat house that was the "Slick Willie" White House. Therefore we know where his allegiances lie.

So it was then, that back on Jan. 25, 2009, as Congress was preparing to pass Barry "Almighty’s" bogus "stimulus" bill, which the Congressional Budget Office now says cost the U.S. taxpayer $825 billion, that then-Speaker Pelosi on appeared on the program, “This Week.” Little Stephy, who then hosted the show, asked old "Stretch" Pelsoi about the proposed "stimulus" including what he called “hundreds of millions of dollars” for family planning. “How is that stimulus?” he asked. Pelosi gave one of her standard nonsensical answers in which she concluded: “One of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the state and to the federal government, too.” Ok, and that non-answer would make sense to whom exactly? I can only assume that, apparently, it made perfect sense to Little Stephy.


Little Stephy then saw fit to expend very little energy in putting forth any effort, whatsoever, in pressing old "Stretch" regarding her rather pathetic response, nothing new there, choosing to ask her all of one, and only one, follow-up question. And what was that lone follow up question? Stephy asked, “So, no apologies for that?” to which old "Stretch" Pelosi responded by saying, “No apologies. No. We have to deal with the consequences of the downturn to our economy.” And then without any interference from Little Stephy, Pelosi proceeded to launch into talking about Food Stamps and unemployment insurance. Stephy’s and Pelosi’s entire discussion about the “hundreds of millions” in Barry's bogus stimulus that would go to fund contraception lasted a little more than one hundred words.


How different things were last Saturday night when we were a witness to a far different scene that took place at the Republican presidential debate in New Hampshire. It was there that we saw just how much of a double standard really exists when Little Stephy brought up former Sen. Rick Santorum’s argument that the 1965 Supreme Court case of Griswold v. Connecticut had been wrongly decided. It was that decision which said there was a “right to privacy” in the Constitution that prevented states from prohibiting contraceptives. The “right to privacy” the court created in that case was the justification used by the court just eight years later--in Roe v. Wade--to declare there was, surprise, surprise, a constitutional right to abortion after all. Who knew?


Without mentioning the link between the contraception case and the abortion case, Little Stephy proceeded to ask Gov. Romney if he agreed with Santorum’s assessment of the contraception case. What ensued was a discussion of the contraception issue, stoked by approximately 15 interjections and follow-ups by Little Stephy, the exchanged lasted roughly 1,000 words and that was expanded to include Rep. Ron Paul and Santorum. So what required only the briefest of discussions with flaming liberal, Pelosi, was expanded by a factor of 10 when being discussed with those who are conservative. I suppose that Little Stephy sees this as being perfectly fair and would be rather indignant regarding any accusations that it was not.


What follows is a transcript of the contraception discussion from the Jan. 25, 2009 edition of ABC News’s “This Week:”


Little Stephy, ABC News: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?
Nancy "Queen Botox"Pelosi: Well, the family planning services reduce costs. It reduces costs. The states are in a terrible fiscal budget crisis now. And part of it, what we do for children's health or education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the state and to the federal government, too.
Stephy: So, no apologies for that?
Pelosi: No apologies. No. We have to deal with the consequences of the downturn of our economy.


End of story. Now fast forward two short years and have Republicans now being asked the question and, well see for yourself. And here we have a transcript of the contraception "discussion" from the Jan. 7, 2012 Republican presidential debate broadcast on ABC:


Stephy: Back in Manchester. Governor Romney, I want to go straight to you.  Senator Santorum has been very clear in his belief that the Supreme Court was wrong when it decided that a right to privacy was embedded in the Constitution. And following from that, he believes that states have the right to ban contraception. Now I should add that he said he’s not recommending that states do that—
Santorum: No, I said --let’s be clear—
Stephy: Absolutely. I’m giving you your due—
Santorum: I’m talking about--we’re talking about the 10th Amendment and the right of states to act.
Stephy: But I do want to get to that core question.
Santorum: OK.
Stephy: Governor Romney, do you believe that states have the right to ban contraception? Or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?
Romney: George, this is an unusual topic that you’re raising. States have a right to ban contraception? I can’t imagine a state banning contraception. I can’t imagine the circumstances where a state would want to do so, and if I were a governor of a state or—
Stephy: Well, the Supreme Court has ruled—
Romney: --or a--or a legislature of a state. I would totally and completely oppose any effort to ban contraception. So you’re asking, given the fact that there’s no state that wants to do so, and I don’t know of any candidate that wants to do so, you’re asking could it constitutionally be done? We can ask our constitutionalist here.
Stephy: I’m sure Congressman Paul—
Romney: OK, come on--come on back—
Stephy: --asking you, do you believe that states have that right or not?
Romney: George, I--I don’t know whether a state has a right to ban contraception. No state wants to. I mean, the idea of you putting forward things that states might want to do that no--no state wants to do and asking me whether they could do it or not is kind of a silly thing, I think.
Stephy: Hold on a second. Governor, you went to Harvard Law School. You know very well this is based on—
Romney: Has the Supreme Court--has the Supreme Court decided that states do not have the right to provide contraception? I—
Stephy: Yes, they have. In 1965, Griswold v. Connecticut.
Romney: The--I believe in the--that the law of the land is as spoken by the Supreme Court, and that if we disagree with the Supreme Court--and occasionally I do--then we have a process under the Constitution to change that decision. And it’s --it’s known as the amendment process. And--and where we have--for instance, right now we’re having issues that relate to same-sex marriage. My view is: We should have a federal amendment of the Constitution defining marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. But I know of --of no reason to talk about contraception in this regard.
Stephy: But you’ve got the Supreme Court decision finding a right to privacy in the Constitution.
Romney: I don’t believe they decided that correctly. In my view, Roe v. Wade was improperly decided. It was based upon that same principle. And in my view, if we had justices like Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia, and more justices like that, they might well decide to return this issue to states as opposed to saying it’s in the federal Constitution. And by the way, if the people say it should be in the federal Constitution, then instead of having unelected judges stuff it in there when it’s not there, we should allow the people to express their own views through amendment and add it to the Constitution. But this idea that justice—
Stephy: But should that be done in this case?
Romney: Pardon?
Stephy: Should that be done in this case?
Romney: Should this be done in the case, this case to allow states to ban contraception? No. States don’t want to ban contraception. So why would we try and put it in the Constitution?  With regards to gay marriage, I’ve told you, that’s when I would amend the Constitution. Contraception, it’s working just fine, just leave it alone.
Stephy: I understand that. But you’ve given two answers to the question. Do you believe that the Supreme Court should overturn it or not?
Stephy: Do I believe the Supreme Court should overturn—
Romney: Do I believe the Supreme Court should overturn Roe v. Wade? Yes, I do.
Paul: He mentioned my name.
Stephy: Go ahead then.
Paul: I didn’t know whether I got time when it was favorable or not. But thank you. No, I think the Fourth Amendment is very clear. It is explicit in our privacy. You can’t go into anybody’s house and look at what they have or their papers or any private things without a search warrant.
This is why the Patriot Act is wrong, because you have a right of privacy by the Fourth Amendment. As far as selling contraceptives, the Interstate Commerce Clause protects this because the Interstate Commerce Clause was originally written not to impede trade between the states, but it was written to facilitate trade between the states. So if it’s not illegal to import birth control pills from one state to the next, it would be legal to sell birth control pills in that state.
Stephy: Senator Santorum?
Santorum: What’s the question?
Stephy: On the right to privacy and the response to Congressman Paul.
Santorum: Well, Congressman Paul is talking about privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment, which I agree with him in. I don’t necessarily agree that the Patriot Act violates that. But I do agree with--obviously we have a right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment. But that’s not what the Griswold decision nor the Roe v. Wade decision were about. They created through a penumbra of rights a new right to privacy that was not in the Constitution. And what I’ve--and that’s, again, I sort of agree with Governor Romney’s assessment, legal assessment-- it created a right through boot-strapping, through creating something that wasn’t there. I believe it should be overturned. I am for overturning Roe versus Wade. I do not believe that we have a right in this country, in the Constitution, to take a human life. I don’t think that’s--I don’t think our founders envisioned that. I don’t think the writing of the Constitution anywhere enables that.


So you be the judge, what exactly do you think that Little Stephy might have been up to here? As far as I'm concerned, it was all pretty transparent and anyone who was truly paying attention should be able to see that as well. Little Stephy was just doing what he and his many comrades in the state-controlled media feel that they have every right to do, that being, whatever is necessary, and by any means necessary, to sway public opinion in such a way as to ensure that the "correct" candidate gets elected. This little dweeb is just one more faux journalist out there doing his level best, like just about everyone else on Barry's state-controlled media cheerleading squad, to paint all of the GOP candidates as being nothing more than "extreme." The best thing the American people could do for themselves is to simply ignore all of the Stephy clones out there.

TEBOW'S GAME WINNING PASS...JUST IN CASE MORONS LIKE MAHER MISSED IT...

WAY TO, TEBOW!!

LIES, LIES AND EVEN MORE LIES…

Funny thing, kinda. What I mean by that is the fact that the 8.5 percent unemployment rate announced this past Friday is remarkably close to the rate forecasted by Barry, way back in 2009, if his $825-billion stimulus package was not passed and sent to him for signing. Besides funding myriad government projects and more public employees, the so-called “stimulus” was supposed to keep unemployment below 8 percent. So, what exactly did the spending of nearly a trillion dollars get us? And even at that, knowing as we do the ease with which this administration demonstrates a willingness to manipulate numbers, how do we know this 8.5 is anywhere near accurate? What we do know, and with some degree of certainty, is that the real unemployment figure still remains very firmly in double-digits, and in the very high double-digits for minorities. But don’t expect to hearing or reading about that in the state-controlled media, because such facts are nowhere to be seen. Such information could be considered as being detrimental to Barry’s re-election. How different things would be if he were a Republican.

Anyway, I’m sure you all remember how we were all told that without the implementation of Barry’s magical “stimulus,” unemployment was projected to rise to 8.8 percent by the fourth quarter of 2010. That number came to us courtesy of a report generated by Christina Romer, then the chairwoman of the Council of Economic Advisors, and Jared Bernstein, then the chief economist for Vice President “Slow Joe” Biden. “In the absence of stimulus, the economy could lose another 3 to 4 million more [jobs],” said the January 2009 reports coming out of the Obama administration. “Thus, we are working to counter a potential total job loss of at least 5 million. As Figure 1 shows, even with the large prototypical package, the unemployment rate in 2010Q4 is predicted to be approximately 7.0%, which is well below the approximately 8.8% that would result in the absence of a plan.” Well we can now fully recognize that as nothing more than a work of pure fiction. It was a con job perpetrated against the American people, and nothing more. But do enough people really care that their president has so little respect for them?


The present 8.5 percent, if we can believe it, is the lowest rate since February 2009, when Barry “Almighty” first came diddy-boppin into the Oval Office in January of that same years with a 7.8 percent unemployment rate he “inherited” from George W. Bush. However, the unemployment rate has steadily risen since Barry has been in office. “Obviously, we have a lot more work to do,” Barry said on Friday. “But it is important for the American people to recognize we’ve now added 3.2 million new private sector jobs over the last 22 months, nearly 2 million new jobs last year alone. So after shedding jobs for more than a decade, the manufacturing sector is also adding jobs two years in a row now. So we’re making progress. We’re moving in the right direction.” Okay, time for a reality check here, because the truth tells a very different story. You see, since Barry “Almighty” took office, over 1.7 million jobs have been lost. The “official” unemployment rate has remained above 8 percent for 35 months, and the average duration of unemployment has increased from 19.9 weeks to 40.8 weeks, at least according to Barry’s Bureau of Labor Statistics.


What’s important for the American people to recognize, is the fact that they have been continually lied to by the man who promised them “Hope and Change.” His dishonesty is surpassed only by the level of his narcissism. And I suppose in some sense it can be considered as being sad, because so many people really did believe all those things he said. But sadder still is the fact that many people, a great number, really don’t care about all of the dishonesty. Because what’s most important to them is they’re continuing ability to get their free money from the government. And it is those people who Barry is relying on to assist him in his re-election effort. And if you can believe some recent polling data it wold appear that those people may be willing to accept any level of dishonesty or corruption as long as that check keeps on coming. To see what the American people have now been reduced to is what forms the basis for the loathing that I have for Barack Hussein Obama. It has been his efforts to “fundamentally transform” our nation that have brought us to the brink of financial and economic collapse. We cannot afford another four years of this guy.

FILE THIS ONE UNDER…DEMOCRAT HYPOCRISY…

Imagine for a moment that you’ve got a clogged drain. And let’s say you live a block from a little convenience store that you know will have the liquid drain cleaner that you need to remedy your little problem, so you ask junior to hop on his bike and go pick you up a bottle. Junior says sure, hops on his bike and takes off in the direction of the store. But about fifteen minutes later he comes back empty handed and comes into the house with a rather strange look on his face and says, “Sorry, but the man at the store said that he needed to see some ID.” Does that sound like a joke? Well folks, it’s not a joke, at least in Barry “Almighty’s” home state. You see, the great socialist state of Illinois now has a new law that took effect on January 1 that requires all people who purchase drain cleaners or any caustic substances to provide a government issued photo ID. And now, as required by law, retailers must ask for identification from those buying drain cleaners and maintain extensive records of which caustic products have been purchased, in what amounts, and by whom. Gee, has anyone notified our esteemed Attorney General yet?



This silly law came into being after two Illinois women, one of which was stupid, were burned by acid attacks back in 2008. Keep in mind that one of these women later admitted to burning herself with acid, but the law was still pushed through the system. And so it is then, that because of ONE random crime, where acid was used to burn a victim, thousands of people will be now forced to show identification when they purchase drain cleaners. And think about the countless hours of business time that will be spent filling out, maintaining and monitoring the government mandated forms associated with each and every purchase. Additionally, any person carrying caustic chemicals can be charged with a Class 4 felony in Illinois, which can carry fines up to $25,000 and 1-3 years in jail. The Illinois drain cleaner law is just one of the 40,000 new laws that took effect in the new year. For the record, the 40,000 new laws are a 29% increase over the previous year. Is that not incredible? I find it hard to believe that 40,000 new laws came into being just last week. And let’s not forget, that each one has the potential to rob from us a little bit more of our individual freedom.


Included in this rather massive influx of new laws there are actually a few that do make sense, and that are actually needed. You see, those are the ones intended to strengthen election security and protect the integrity of each vote in the upcoming elections. What these laws do, that the Democrats, including our “Dear Beloved Leader,” Barack Hussein Obama, don’t like is the demand that all voters, yes ALL VOTERS, not just blacks or kids or old folks, show a photo ID before entering the voting booth. This time around Kansas, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Texas will require voters to prove their identities at the ballot box, bringing the total number of states that require some form of voter identification to 30. A fact that has caused what can only be called a conniption by just about every congressional Democrat as well as those proverbial clowns, race-baiters and faux preachers, Al “Bull Horn” Sharpton and Jesse “The Extortionist” Jackson. Such complaints make very obvious the hypocrisy possessed by those on the left because it is they who are the primary practitioners and therefore the primary beneficiaries, of voter fraud.

WE ARE IN DESPERATE NEED OF “CHANGE” IN 2012…

Since practically day one following the passage of what was then referred to as the “Affordable Care Act,” and ever since as Obamacare, there has been of cause for concern, scandal even, that “several” businesses have been granted “waivers” that excuse them from having to participate in the intrusive federal program. And we now finally have the final number of just how many businesses are now considered as being exempt from having to participate. Roughly 1,200, yup you heard right, 1200, companies have received waivers from part of the healthcare reform law, the Health and Human Services Department (HHS) said Friday. Is that not freakin incredible?

“Friday marks the last time HHS will have to update the total number of waivers, putting to rest a recurring political firestorm. The department had been updating its waiver totals every month, prompting monthly attacks from the GOP,” or writes Sam Baker of The Hill.  Naturally, Republican opposition to the bill seized on the granting of these waivers as an opportunity to further their argument that the healthcare law is “unworkable.”  So how does the HHS justify handing out these waivers? Well, as being typical behavior from this, the most corrupt administration in my life, they fabricate their justification. The department argues that the waivers show that the law provides “flexibility.” Flexibility?


No you might wonder, as I found myself doing, just who it is that gets to choose when the law is “flexible,” and when it isn’t. “All told, 1,231 companies applied for and received waivers from the law’s restrictions on annual benefit caps,” Mr. Baker writes. “The law requires plans to gradually raise their benefit limits, and all annual limits will become illegal in 2014. Companies that received waivers can keep their caps intact until 2014.” When added together, the healthcare waivers excuse roughly 4 million people, or about 3 percent of the population, from having to participate, that according to HHS. And these rest of us are saddled with this meddling into our private lives.


But what’s even more a little unsettling, but is something that should come as no shock to anyone who has been paying attention, is the fact that the vast majority of the granted waivers were handed out to Barry’s labor union supporters. “Documents released in a classic Friday afternoon news dump show that labor unions representing 543,812 workers received waivers from President Barack Obama‘s signature legislation,” writes Paul Conner of the Daily Caller. “By contrast, private employers with a total of 69,813 employees, many of whom work for small businesses, were granted waivers.” So roughly 7 out of every 8 workers receiving a waiver, belong to one of Barry’s favorite core constituencies, unions.


Because of the backlash and public outcry brought about by the issuance of these waivers, HHS announced last summer that it would stop accepting applications for one-year waivers and would simply grant or deny waivers all the way through the end of 2013, again that according to The Hill. The total of 1,231 includes all of the waiver requests HHS has granted, including companies that only applied for a three-year waiver, companies that got a one-year waiver and an extension, and companies that received a one-year waiver but did not ask for an extension. A total of 96 waiver requests were denied by HHS. Again, why the healthcare law couldn’t be flexible for those 96 requests is anyone’s guess.


All this Obamacare is but one glaring example, on a very long list of many, of the level of corruption that exists and lengths this president will go to pander select groups as we march toward November 2012. There is an excellent book by Phil Kerpen, entitled “Democracy Denied,” in which the author outlines very clearly Barry’s attempts to circumvent Congress. Whether it’s through the EPA, the FCC, his corrupt Attorney General or his many Czars, Barry is determined to advance his agenda, whether the American people want it or not. The next election becomes more crucial with each passing day and far too many people simply are not paying sufficient attention. And to not pay attention may prove to be the most costly mistake any of us can make.

PELOSI IS OBVIOUSLY SUFFERING FROM SOME FORM OF MENTAL DISORDER...

It's either that, or all that botox is finally taking its toll on what's left of her liberal pea-sized brain. Look, I'm sure we all remember when the queen of botox, Nancy Pelosi, rather infamously stated back in 2009: “[E]very month we do not have an economic recovery package, 500 million Americans lose their jobs”? At the time, a few critics dared to point out the fact that Pelosi’s numbers were, at best, questionable and at worst sim,ply a lie. Because if her calculations were correct, and taking into consideration the time she made this claim, America stood to lose 6 billion jobs in 2009 alone. Obviously, this is impossible, hence, Pelosi’s dire prediction was disproved pretty quickly. It’s no secret that, last time the U.S. Census Bureau checked, the U.S. has a population of about 312 million people (and of course not all of them have jobs). So you have to ask yourself, why does she keep saying such idiotic stuff that’s so easy to disprove? It's like she just makes all this crap up and still expects people to believe it because it's she that saying it. And that seems to be a condition that is runs rampant among all Democrats including our, not so stellar, president. He too feels that he can go out on the campaign trail, make shit up as he goes along, and we will just soak it all up because it’s coming from he who views himself as our “Dear Beloved Leader.”

Now, it once again appears as if old Nancy's calculations might be more than a little, off-base. At issue is a statement coming from Pelosi’s office that went after House Republicans for passing legislation that would “allegedly ‘destroy 2 million jobs,’“ and claimed that ”the Obamacare repeal bill alone would ‘destroy more than 300,000 jobs,’” or so reports Joel Gehrke of the Washington Examiner. I can only assume that Ms. Pelosi must, therefore, spend a goodly amount of time in some weird alternate universe where such things make sense. Now according to her little statement, Republicans have held the House majority for more than 230 days and here is their record:
1. Have failed to pass a single piece of legislation to create jobs.
2. Have actually voted to pass legislation that would destroy nearly 2 million jobs including:
3. Passed the “So Be It” spending bill to slash investments in our economic future like education, college aid, life-saving medical research, infrastructure, and clean energy, and cut 700,000 jobs.
4. Passed a budget that would cost Americans 1.7 million jobs by 2014, with 900,000 jobs lost next year, according to Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics.
5. Passed GOP Patients’ Rights Repeal bill puts insurance companies back in charge of health care and repeals the Affordable Care Act, thereby destroying more than 300,000 jobs.
6. Have voted 10 times against Democratic initiatives or efforts to consider Democratic initiatives to create jobs, including:
7. The China Currency bill that could help create about 1 million American manufacturing jobs.
8. An American jobs effort to end government contracts rewarding corporations that ship American jobs overseas.
9. A Build America Bonds proposal that leverages public dollars to strengthen the private sector, growing our economy by rebuilding America’s schools, hospitals, and transit projects.


But let’s go back to the insane “300,000″ jobs claim for a second, if we can, because there are more than a few points that need to be made here. First of all, her idiotic claim that jobs would be destroyed assumes that “Obamacare” would actually create jobs, something that flies directly in the face of what CBO director Douglas Elmendorf said during a 2010 House Budget Committee hearing. Second, even if “Obamacare” is the jobs creator she claims it is, the jobs that would stem from the bill would go to the public sector. Public sector growth and private sector growth are two very different things. Third, maybe Pelosi should hedge her bets and let House Republicans have their way on this one. Although it would mean axing “Obamacare,” and Democrats could still lay claim to having created at least 100,000 new jobs. How so? The Minority Leader herself said that the passage of “Obamacare” would “immediately” create “at least 400,000 jobs”: Therefore, if Republicans actually repeal the act, and it cuts a little over 300,000 non-existent jobs as Pelosi claim, Democrats can still claim that they created at least 100,000 non-existent jobs. Which is something Barry has been doing practically since day one with all of his "saved jobs" nonsense.


Never one not to make the most of any opportunity to slander the opposition, the esteemed Ms. Pelosi’s toxic criticisms continued. “One year ago the Republican majority was sworn into office,” she said during some silly press brief. ”Since that time we have seen no major job agenda put forward. We have seen a budget that would break the Medicare guarantee. This is just in opposition to everything this country needs.” You know, upon hearing such dishonest drivel, I think it very safe to say that old Ms. Pelosi is absolutely certifiable, and is someone who would be much more comfortable in a padded room somewhere. I mean she is so obviously delusional having now officially gone round the bend and yet she maintains her position in Congress. She has reduced herself to being nothing more than a sick joke, deserving of nothing but disdain. It is she and her party who have been, and continue to be, the speed bump on the way of improving things in this country, not the Republicans. Democrats are great when it comes to rewriting history or placing the blame for their inaction on the opposition party. The facts tell a very different story from the one that Pelosi would have us all believe. The truth is of very little importance to the Democrats among who, perception always trumps reality.

IT'S JIMMY CARTER ALL OVER AGAIN…ONLY THIS TIME, IT'S WORSE…

Doing his best impersonation of a Jimmy Carter on steroids, Barry "Almighty" recently announced what he calls a new, leaner military approach to our national defense. So it is then, I can only surmise, that at a time when the world is growing more dangerous on nearly a daily basis, Barry feels that it an excellent time for the U.S. military to now begin to steadily shrink the size of our Army and Marine Corps, reduce forces in Europe and probably make further cuts to the nation’s nuclear arsenal. This is the idiotic plan that was announced by our stellar Commander-in-Chief on Thursday in a preview of how he intends to "transform," there's that word again, the armed forces after a decade of war. The downsizing of the Pentagon, described as being prompted by the country’s dire fiscal problems, means that the military will depend more on coalitions with allies and avoid the large-scale counterinsurgency and nation-building operations that have marked the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But is this really the most effective way to address those aforementioned self-inflected "dire fiscal problems" or, would it, perhaps, make a bit more sense to reel in the costs of some of our of control entitlement programs. It would seem to me that there nothing that should be considered as being more paramount than the defense of the nation.

The strategy review was unveiled by Barry "Almighty" during one of his rare visits to the Pentagon, where he was flanked by Defense Secretary, and "BJ" Clinton retread, Leon Panetta, the Joint Chiefs and other officials who sought to project an image of undiminished military power even as they work to prepare themselves for an era of austerity that will necessitate a more restrained use of military force and more modest foreign policy goals. “Yes, our military will be leaner, but the world must know the United States is going to maintain our military superiority with armed forces that are agile, flexible and ready for the full range of contingencies and threats,” our appeasement oriented president said. What a crock! This is yet one more example of his words saying one thing and his pathetically ignorant actions saying something entirely different. Just how does he plan on maintaining any sort of "military superiority" with a military dramatically reduced in size? The list of potential adversaries in the coming years continues to grow in number, with many now salivating over the fact that we are continuing efforts that make us a very tempting target. And I think as time marches on, more and more of them will be pushing the envelope to see just how far it is that they can go in exerting their rather sinister influence.


Some Republican lawmakers ripped Barry’s "new and improved" military strategy geared on austerity, saying it would weaken, considerably, America’s standing in the world. “This is a lead-from-behind strategy for a left-behind America,” said Rep. Howard P. “Buck” McKeon (Calif.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. And Rep. McKeon is exactly right, but leading from behind is what Barry does best. And let's be real here, the weakening of American has been one of Barry's primary objectives since he first came diddy-boppin into the Oval Office on the fateful, and very dark, day back in January 2009. Republican contenders to run against Obama in November have also heightened their criticism of his national security record. But with the GOP reluctant to endorse higher taxes, some Republican candidates and legislators have said the defense budget should not be exempt from further cuts. In contrast to past Pentagon reviews, the new strategy offers some clear "guidance" to the military services about which missions to eliminate and which areas of the sprawling defense establishment to scale back. But should it really be left up to a bunch of leftist bureaucratic bean counters, who, by the way, also possess a deep-seated loathing of all things military, to decide such things? I would say no!


While this brilliant new strategy does not formally reject the idea that U.S. military forces will be called on in the future to bring order to fractured societies in the developing world, it does suggest that any stability operations similar to those conducted during the past decade in Iraq and Afghanistan will be of short duration and have far more limited goals. “Nowhere in the document does it say we’re not going to fight land wars. It doesn’t say we’re never going to do stability operations,” said Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “It’s a matter of scope and scale, time, risk, reversibility.” Barry insisted that any cuts to the military will not come at the expense of an expanding U.S. presence in Asia, which he dubbed a “critical region.” To pay for those increases, the strategy suggests a need for significant cuts to the size of U.S. military ground forces in Europe, which has been a major Army operation for decades. Frankly, I've never been a big defender of having substantial numbers of troops in Europe, primarily because I've never felt that the effort, nor the cost, is properly appreciated by the recipients of our generosity. You know, that cast of usual suspects who routinely take great pleasure in being a very substantial thorn in our side. Maybe it is time for them to start ponying up a little more of the cost of their own defense.


And continuing their typical attempts at being vague about specifics, top Barry "Almighty" administration officials revealed few details about which weapons programs will be cut and how many troops will be pared. In the past decade, the Army has grown to about 570,000 troops, up from 482,000 before the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Current plans call for the Army to shrink to about 520,000 troops, although senior Army leaders said they expect their forces to be cut even further. This supposed 'strategy" document also foreshadows cutbacks in the size of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, stating: “It is possible that our deterrence goals can be achieved with a smaller nuclear force.” Naturally, defense officials declined to elaborate, but they did say they would offer more specific information when they release next year’s proposed Pentagon budget. The United States has about 5,000 nuclear warheads in its arsenal. The New START nuclear pact with Russia, ratified by the Senate 71-26 in December 2010, mandates that each country reduce the number of nuclear weapons deployed on long-range missiles and bombers to 1,550. Republicans who voted for that debacle were Sens. Lamar Alexander, Robert Bennett, Scott Brown, Thad Cochran, Susan Collins, Bob Corker, Judd Gregg, Johnny Isakson, Mike Johanns, Richard Lugar, Lisa Murkowski, Olympia Snowe, and lastly George Voinovich.


And something I think worth mentioning here, is the fact that there has already been at least one specific example that very clearly demonstrates the foolhardiness, and pure recklessness, of Barry's moronic decision to slash our military comes to us courtesy of China's version of a state-controlled media. It stated that China should respond to Washington’s new “leaner, meaner” national defense strategy by “unit[ing] with all possible forces” and “strengthen[ing] its long-range strike abilities” to deter the United States. The Chinese government has yet to officially react to the strategy, which involves a shift to smaller and more agile military deployments focusing on the Asia-Pacific and Middle East. The document," Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense," refers to potential attempts by “sophisticated adversaries,” using capabilities including electronic warfare, missiles and air defenses, to deny U.S. forces access to and freedom to operate in certain areas. “States such as China and Iran will continue to pursue asymmetric means to counter our power projection capabilities,” it says. Let's face it, sensing weakness, both have already challenged U.S. freedom of navigation in the South China Sea and the Persian Gulf’s Strait of Hormuz, two of the world’s most vital waterways. And yet such things seem to be of very little concern to Barry.


This whole cockamamie notion is, quite simply, not an example of good headwork. But it is what Barry has always been determined to do. For whatever reason, he seeks to make this country much more vulnerable to our enemies, strange behavior for a president, to say the least. Appeasement never works, it didn't work for Carter in the 70's and it won't work for Barry in a world that is even a more dangerous place than it was in Carter's time. Now is not the time for America to essentially abdicate its leadership responsibly. We simply cannot afford to. Sure it will remain costly, but just stop and think about the alternatives. Try to imagine a world where a country like Communist Red China is in the lead role. It's not a pretty scenario, by any stretch of the imagination. I fail to understand people like our president who simply cannot bring themselves to recognize the fact that America is, in fact, a force for good in the world, and far from being the world's policeman, fills the requirement of the world's stabilizer. As that old saying goes, nature abhors a vacuum, and with Barry now reducing the level of American influence all across the globe, just such a vacuum is being created, and it's begging to be filled. An when looking at the list of possible candidates willing to take up that little task, there are some very unsavory characters who would love nothing more than to step up. Characters who thrive on chaos and therefore have very little interest in maintaining any level of stability in the world.

POLITICAL ANALYSIS BY MEGHAN MCCAIN....

This bitch is as stupid as her father is old.  And I'm supposed to care what she thinks, why exactly?

MORE INCOHERENT PABULUM FROM DEBBIE "WIZZERMAN" SCHULTZ...

Demonstrating all the intelligence of your average ice cube, we once again have Ms. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, esteemed chair of the Democratic National Committee, who, in talking about the events that took place in Iowa on Tuesday, described the days events in her own, rather unique and inimitable, way, “I think it was pretty bad night, actually, for Mitt Romney – a great night for us.” Every time this bitch opens her freakin pie hole, all I want to do is to stuff a sock into it. If I was a Democrat, which I thankfully am not, having successfully avoided the required lobotomy, I would be embarrassed to have this moron as the face of my party. But Democrats, being the brain dead zombies that they are, apparently have absolutely no problem with it. Go figure!

Anyway, in speaking to the folks over there at Fox & Friends on Wednesday morning, Debbie the moron, offered up the Democrats’ spin on the Iowa caucus results. “For Mitt Romney, it’s really a tough situation for him, because when is a quote-unquote ‘win’ a loss? When he’s spent six years and more than $4 million running for the second time trying to win the state of Iowa and you spent the most and only beat the person who spent the least by 8 votes. That demonstrates just how little support there is on the Republican side and how little enthusiasm there is for Mitt Romney’s candidacy. And he’s limping into New Hampshire, and I think he’s really damaged.” Brilliant insight, don't you think? Where does she come up with this stuff?


Anyway Schultz also went to tell those watching Fox & Friends that as the Republican candidates “close up shop today” and leave Iowa, Democrats will “continue to expand our outreach and our operation here – and like in every battleground state, run an effective grassroots campaign.” Anybody other than me have the urge to run to the bathroom and puke? And I suppose it can go without saying that the chairman of the Republican Party pretty much dismissed Schultz’s remarks: “When you’re dealing with a president whose numbers are in the toilet, I guess you’re spinning all the time,” Reince Priebus told Fox & Friends Wednesday morning. Which I think sums things up pretty well. Over the course of the last few months, Ms. Schultz has made some pretty outrageous claims.


It was in a midnight statement that Ms. Schultz also chose to describe the Iowa caucuses as being a very successful “test run” for Democrats by saying, "We knew that the Iowa caucus was an opportunity to test our campaign organization and expand our volunteer base as we move toward November, and we're overwhelmed with the results," she said in a midnight statement. Adding, "Not only did 25,000 Iowans come out tonight to talk about the president's record and vision to restore security to the middle class, but 7,500 Iowans pledged to volunteer and work for his reelection, underscoring their commitment to continuing the change the country has seen under President Obama's leadership.” Leadership? You gotta be kiddin me, right?


Also in her midnight statement, Schultz bashed Romney as a "candidate who supports Tea Party policies" and who won’t fight for the middle class. On Wednesday morning, she continued with that same imbecilic theme: “You’ll definitely see us (Democrats) at every opportunity helping Iowa and Americans understand that Mitt Romney has very little conviction. That the conviction that he has is to boost corporate America and the wealthiest, most fortunate Americans.” She called Romney a flip-flopper on abortion who is now “running to the right as far as possible.” She also said Mitt Romney “isn’t being truthful” in comparing his own record on job creation to the president’s. Look, all our "president" has succeeded in doing, is to lose jobs, over 2 million of them.


I think if we know anything about Ms. Wasserman Schultz, it's that she will say just about anything to anybody in her attempt to portray Barry as being something other than the socialist failure that he is. And I guess, although for the life of me I can't understand why, she seems to be under the misguided impression that just because she says it, we'll be stupid enough to believe it. This bitch has some real issues, as do most Democrats, with being able to tell the truth. Whenever you see any of those people on television they spend their entire time on camera trying to prevent the other person from speaking, as if what they have to say is the only thing worthy of being listened to. Besides being rude, it very clearly demonstrates a certain lack of character.

HAS NEWT NOW DECIDED IT'S MORE IMPORTANT TO TAKE DOWN ROMNEY THAN TO BE PRESIDENT?

So, making good on his threat, Newt Gingrich has released a new television add just today, Thursday, essentially calling out Mitt Romney by name, a first, and painting the former Massachusetts governor’s economic plans as timid compared with his own. While the ad does not rise to the level of those slashing attacks similar to the anti-Gingrich ads run by a “super PAC” financed by Mr. Romney’s supporters, it does go further than any previous effort by Mr. Gingrich, who has been struggling to win over New Hampshire voters, to undercut an opponent. Vindictiveness is not normally a quality that one looks for in a presidential candidate, and frankly haven't we been witness to enough of that from the current occupier of the Oval Office? I can't help but wonder how this new strategy will work out. It might cause some to ponder just what his priorities are, the White House or a little revenge on a competitor. If it were me, I think that I would try to appear to be above that sort of thing, to perhaps turn the other cheek.

In the new ad, as quotes critical of Mr. Romney from The Wall Street Journal and Forbes appear on screen, a narrator says: “Romney’s economic plan? Timid. Parts of it virtually identical to Obama’s failed policy. Timid won’t create jobs and timid certainly won’t defeat Barack Obama. “Newt Gingrich’s bold leadership balanced the budget, reformed welfare, helped create millions of new jobs. The Gingrich jobs plan: a powerful plan for growing our economy and creating new jobs.’’ The Gingrich campaign said the ad would begin running Thursday on TV stations in New Hampshire and South Carolina, but would not disclose how much was being spent. Mr. Gingrich needs to replenish his war chest after his debilitating, disappointing battle in Iowa. Speaking in Plymouth, N.H., on Thursday morning, Mr. Gingrich echoed the ad almost verbatim: “So you’ve got to decide.” he told about 100 people at an old train depot transformed into a senior center. “I will defend free enterprise. I won’t be timid about it. I will be bold, just as Reagan was bold.”


I think old Newt need to tread lightly here, or this little attempt at payback may blow up in his face. I just don't think that this is the type of behavior that's goingto captivate very many people, or persuade anyone to vote for him. Politics as we have all heard is a very rough and tumble "profession." And, as it has also been said, if can't handle the heat stay out of the kitchen. So what is see this as being is nothing short of a tantrum that is very liable to have some far reaching consequences. I mean, I can already see Barry sitting in the Oval Office, feet up on his desk with that perpetual smug smile on his face. I think that maybe someone with a little sanity iver there on the Newt team, should grab him up by the short hairs and have a real heart to heart. But if nothng else, I think it safe to say that he's most likely to be too stubborn to take the advice, he seems to be pretty settled on this new stategy. But in doing so, I think he's loosing sight of the bigger picture. Buy hey, maybe I'm wrong, I've been wrong before.

TEAM OBAMA RAMPS UP THE RHETORIC...

Using pretty much the only tactic that they have left available to them, and for no other reason than their candidate obviously has no real record on which he can run, Team Barry "Almighty," on early Wednesday, sought to portray the nation's first Republican nomination battle as a victory for "extremist" candidates. Extremist candidates? Really? Ya know, this argument would be funny if it weren't so serious, because the real fact of the matter here, is that our current president has already proven himself to be the most "extreme" candidate in the race no matter which Republican eventually gets the nomination. Might this name calling be the perfect example of the desperation coming from Team Barry? Barry has claimed great pride in his record of "accomplishments," and yet all we have seen so far, for the most part, is sophomoric name calling.

The Iowa caucuses, which as we all remember, saw former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney barely edge out former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum by eight votes, have now been described by some as being the event that launched the battle to deny, their word not mine, Barry "Almighty" his much hoped-for second term. Actually what it is, is a battle to reclaim our country. Because Barry desires another four years for no other reason than it would enable him to complete the wholesale destruction of this country that began on January 20, 2009 and has continued largely unhindered ever since. Even the election of 2010 did very little to divert him from his stated goal, the "fundamental transformation" of this country. The will of the people means very little to Barry because, you see, he knows what's best for us even if we don't.


In keeping with its previous line of attack, the Barry's campaign manager, some lefty named Jim Messina, said in a statement that the "extremist Tea Party agenda won a clear victory" shortly after the results were announced early Wednesday. "No matter who the Republicans nominate, we'll be running against someone who has embraced that agenda in order to win -- vowing to let Wall Street write its own rules, end Medicare as we know it, roll back gay rights, leave the troops in Iraq indefinitely, restrict a woman's right to choose, and gut Social Security to pay for more tax cuts for millionaires and corporations." This is the typical modus operandi of these pathetic sleaze bags. Tell a lie often enough and loud enough, and have repeated in the state controlled media enough, and maybe, just maybe enough people will come to believe it as being true.


And apparently Mr. Messina also felt the need to warn of "unprecedented" spending by outside groups on campaign ads and urged Barry's supporters to step up donations and on-the-ground organizing ahead of the November vote. "Watching the circus on TV, it's tempting to think it's almost funny -- but this is not a joke. We've got to be ready," Messina said. Ok folk, let's get real here, shall we. I think most of us understand that if there is to be an "unprecedented" amount of spending to take place, it can, most assuredly, be expected to come from Barry. After all, he was able to successfully purchase the 2008 election, why should he not expect to be able to do the same thing this time around as well. We are the ones that must prepare ourselves. We are the ones who must contribute what we can in the form of money and/or time to our candidate.


I get a little uneasy when I see so many on the left who seem to be only too happy in their attempt to portray Barry as being weighed down by the sputtering economy and lingering high unemployment, and their continuing to blame things on Bush. But I sometimes wonder if they might be overplaying their hand as they claim he faces a tough reelection battle with whomever eventual GOP nominee is. And I'm more than just a little suspicious that they might be trying to lull into having some sense of false security, especially when they start saying that their guy is in trouble and should be easy for us beat. There is just so much riding on this election, it will be absolutely crucial. Therefore, we must be ready for every eventuality, as we cannot afford to allow ourselves to be caught off guard.


Lastly, we can ill afford to take anything for granted between now and Election Day. One thing that very clearly demonstrates the volatility of the current GOP field is the fact that while Romney has been a frontrunner for months, nearly all of the other candidates have at one point or another cycled to the front of the pack as wavering Republicans have sought a more conservative alternative. Most recently we saw how Rick Santorum, an ardent social conservative strongly opposed to abortion and gay marriage and who had lingered in the second tier of candidates up until just a few days ago, was nearly able to defeat Romney in Iowa after running an intense campaign in the heartland state. No at this point there is no such thing as a sure thing. And when the dust finally settles we must be willing to get behind our candidate no matter who it is.

IS RICK PERRY RIDING OFF INTO THE SUNSET?

He for whom I had such high hopes may now be, courtesy of his poor showing in Iowa and some pretty serious self-inflicted wounds, removing himself from the battlefield and returning back to the place he calls home. While Gov. Rick Perry said on Tuesday that he will be heading back home to Texas, "to determine whether there is a path forward" for his White House bid after he finished a distant fifth in yesterday's Iowa caucuses, there may now be some second thoughts taking place. "I have decided to return to Texas, assess the results of tonight's caucus to determine whether there is a path forward for myself in this race," Perry, told supports, but a day later on Twitter he proclaimed that it's on to South Carolina. In his in Tuesday night speech Gov. Perry told supporters that he appreciated their hard work but that he needed to consider whether there was a viable strategy for him to restart his campaign in South Carolina. But in a tweet today from his offical Twitter account, he insinuated that he may be heading to South Carolina to complete after all.



Before Perry spoke, his advisers had attempted to paint the first contest in the South as the real start to his strategy and braced for a lackluster performance in the Iowa caucuses, which typically thins out the field of presidential hopefuls. Perry entered the race in August to great fanfare only to later take a very steep nosedive after what can only be described as a couple of disastrous debate performances. He had originally planned, and apparent may still, to make South Carolina his final stand, but the events he scheduled there for Wednesday have now been put on hold while he headed to Austin to, as he said, "reassess his campaign." "With a little prayer and reflection, I'm going to decide the best path forward," he said. "But I want to tell you, there's been no greater joy in my life than to be able to share with the people of Iowa and this country that there is a model to take this country forward and it is in the great state of Texas." As much as would like it to be otherwise, I think the best thing for him to do now is to bow out gracefully, and to now choose to support the candidate whom he feels offers the best opportunity to defeat Barry. After all that is the prime objective here.


Perry, who described himself as a reluctant White House hopeful, began the day acknowledging his campaign's challenges. He badly trailed his rivals in pre-caucus polls; the final Des Moines Register poll released Saturday night had him at just 11 percent support and trailing the four rivals who would, in the end, best him. His rivals had the advantage of several months or more to organize their campaigns. His entry in August came the same day his rivals competed in the Ames straw poll, an early test vote that lets each candidate's political machine have a trial run. Perry bypassed it and instead made a splash, announcing his candidacy in South Carolina and overshadowing the straw poll winner, Michele Bachmann. Hindsight being 20/20, might that have been a misstep right out of the box? Some are likely to describe it as such. Speaking for myself, I have never run for president and therefore am not qualified to say what is, or is not, a winning strategy. All I know is that we must focus on selecting a candidate that's capable of defeating Barry, and then we need to coalesce behind that candidate offering whatever support we can.


The lack of on-the-ground organizing was probably the downfall for Gov. Perry in Iowa, as it never really came together in the short months of his campaign. Instead, he chose to lean on television ads and glossy mailers, a bus tour that took him to rural towns where he could practice the hand-to-hand style of campaigning at which he excels. Even before Iowans met Tuesday night at churches and schools to signal their preferences, Perry was downplaying the role of the traditional lead-off states. "The idea that one or two states is going to decide who the next nominee for the Republican Party is just, you know, that's not reality," Perry told CNN. Well, I suppose one could argue that while that assessment may be correct, the outcome in one or two states can dramatically alter the field of candidates, which is something that has now taken place in Iowa. But what now seems to be uncertain is that even though Perry's team has now supposedly put a hold on events in South Carolina, will he be continuing on. I think he's making things extremely difficult for himself, but what do I know?


I can still say that I like Rick Perry but I think, at least in this point In time, that his chances for success have become remote. Having said that, I do think he is deserving of a prominent position in any new Republican administration, if that would be something he would be open to. I mean, after all, he has done something right in Texas and I think that the skills he does possess would prove to be very beneficial to any Republican administration. We need to get this country turned around before it's too late and it is going to require the best people available. We can ill afford to have any grudges leftover once it has been decided who our candidate will be. Any remaining hatchets will need to be buried and we will all have to unite behind that one candidate as we set about defeating one of the worst, if not the worst, president in our history. There has been a lot of unnecessary nastiness throughout this campaign, but we are going to have to put all that behind us and focus on the country. In the end there can be only one, and it has to be the best one. And as much as I hate to say it, I just don't think that Gov. Perry is the one. I wish he were.

MORE OF WHAT WE'VE COME TO EXPECT FROM THOSE MORONS OVER AT MSNBC...

I'm pretty sure that the dozen or so viewers of his program are very well aware of the fact that, former Republican Florida congressman and current host over there in the loony land of MSNBC, Joe Scarborough has been very vocal in his opinions regarding the 2012 Republican presidential primary and its candidates. I'm also sure that those who watch him will remember that it was just two weeks ago that he said in commenting on the surge of Texas Rep. Ron Paul in national polls, that "there is always a strain of anti-Semitism" among some of his supporters at events. However, it was just a week prior to the Anti-Semitism statement that Scarborough said if then front-runner former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich was able to secure the Republican nomination, he would take "a long look" at voting for Ron Paul on a third-party ticket. So excuse me if I'm more that just a little confused here. And then in November, Scarborough shot defiant "told you so" type words at conservative bloggers as the presidential campaign of Texas Gov. Rick Perry looked to be collapsing, lambasting those who doubted his prediction that the success of both Bachmann and Perry campaigns would not last. And if truth be told, both Perry and Bachmann have long been favorite targets of MSNBC’s anointed 'conservative" commentator. He's as much of a screwball as the rest of them out there in the far reaches of loon fringe that is MSNBC.

What follows is Scarborough’s latest observation: “There will be blood” among conservatives if Mitt Romney seems to be easily securing the nomination after Iowa and New Hampshire wins: Newsbusters transcript of Scarborough’s juicier remarks:


“JOE SCARBOROUGH: I will tell you this. I know this sounds crazy, but if I’m just looking at the field right now: keep your head down, don’t blow yourself up in Iowa, because there‘s going to be a lot of teeth gnashing and weeping after the guy that’s got a 24% ceiling wins Iowa and the conservatives split. Cause everybody’s going to start looking and saying OK, who is the conservative? We are not going to allow a guy that has the 24% of the moderates in the Republican party voting for him, while this conservative party pushes another, let’s say, Gerald Ford to the finish line. By the way, I need to explain this. This isn’t necessarily what I feel. I need to explain this. I’m telling you, as I predicted, crazy never wins in the Republican party, and it doesn’t.
   But the Republican party, just like I said when Newt Gingrich was at 38, 39% wasn’t going to stand for that, they’re not going to stand for the guy who has a 24% ceiling walking away with their nomination. Anybody who thinks it’s going to be over after Iowa and New Hampshire, if Romney wins, does not understand the conservative base. There will be blood if Mitt Romney seems like the guy who’s going to walk away with it . . . So, Mark Halperin, do you think it’s over if Mitt Romney wins out?


MARK HALPERIN: I think it is, Joe. I know you think it won’t. And I do think there will be this spasm of conservative angst, of saying it can’t over, he’s not the right person.


SCARBOROUGH: They should have thought of this before!


HALPERIN: They should have thought of it before. I mean, if he wins Iowa I think he will roll out of New Hampshire and I think he’ll be in a strong position in South Carolina. Willie and I were talking, as we like to say, off air, about the notion of people dropping out. I don‘t think anybody’s going to drop out. I think even Michell Bachmann will go, try to fight on in South Carolina. It’s perfect for Mitt Romney to have a crowded field in South Carolina."


Personally, when looking at Romney, I think it important to put things in their proper perspective. What I mean by that is that when he was the Governor of Massachusetts, he was elected to represent and lead the people of that state. It was THEY wanted a health care mandate. THEY wanted what has been dubbed ‘RomneyCare’. And for anyone to now throw that out there and used as fodder by imbecilic pundits like Scarborough, or as proof that he is just like Barry, is ridiculous. Romney was representing the citizens of his state and did what the majority of them asked him to do…create a health care system for them. He may not have been thrilled to do it, but he should be proud that he was able to get it done. Most folks forget that he was threatened with a huge loss of Medicaid funds if he did not reduce the number of uninsured folks seeking medical care in his state. Also remember that the state legislature amended his plan and added more people to it as well as removing the high deductible plan option. If you also look at the conservative actions he took to reduce the $3 billion deficit he had handed to him when he was sworn in, you would applaud them! He cut spending, he closed tax loopholes, and in the end, closed with over $700 million surplus. So when he says States should decide for themselves, he is spot on with the Founding Fathers..thats what Mass. wanted and that's what they got.

MAN, IS THIS GUY, MAHER, CLEVER, OR WHAT?

Ya right, he's too clever by about half. Douche bag and supposed comedian, Bill "Dumber than a shit house rat" Maher, is, apparently, determined in his efforts to continue to spread his anti-Tim Tebow sentiment to anyone who may be willing to listen to the ranting of this asshole. He took things a step further on New Year’s Eve when he took to Twitter, that resource of choice for liberals who are looking for a way to easily demonstrate their obvious lack of intelligence, to once again poke jabs at the Denver Broncos quarterback. Is this really the best that this guy can do? I mean you'd think that a loser who views himself as being a creative genius could do better.

Little Billy Maher posted two back-to-back tweets featuring the now infamous “Tebowing” stance. The first tweet, which read, “TREEbowing Happy New Year everybody and thanks for the 600,000 who joined me on twitter in 2011,” featured a link to a picture of Maher Tebowing in a tree (hence the “TREEbowing” reference). In the picture attached to his second tweet, Maher is photographed Tebowing next to a man he claims looks like the now-deceased North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il, And something that, I suppose, should come as no big surprise is the fact that the brilliant Mr. Maher misspelled the former leader’s name. Imagine that.


These most recent images and tweets follow a previous Christmas Eve Twitter message from Maher that gained a great deal of attention. Following the Denver Broncos’ loss to the Buffalo Bills, a game in which the final score was 40-14, Maher wrote, “Wow, Jesus just f**ked #Tim Tebow bad! And on Xmas Eve! Somewhere in hell Satan is tebowing, saying to Hitler “Hey, Buffalo’s killing them.” This sparked responses from FOX News’ Eric Bolling in particular. Bolling in choosing to respond, took to the social media platform to respond to the offensive tweet, called Maher “disgusting vile trash.” Something that I'm sure brought a wry smile to Maher.


So it would seem that Maher is far from being done regarding his efforts to drum up anti-Tebow controversy so we are likely to witness even more of type of drivel coming from someone who is probably the least funny of anyone who refers to themselves as being a comedian. Actually what he is, is a self absorbed mental midget who is apparently so desperate for a laugh that he'll stoop to just about anything to get one. What does it say about a guy who thinks it normal to resort to such idiotic behavior for no other reason than to get a laugh? When the only way you can get a laugh is when it's at the expense of someone else, I think it becomes time to find a new vocation.

ELLEN BARKIN: RUDE, CRUDE AND SOCIALLY UNACCEPTIBLE…

I’ve never actually met anyone like any of those current Hollywood types who seem to relish, and so enthusiastically so, exposing to the world just how ignorant they really are, and how little brain power is actually required in order to attain some level of success in their chose profession. And today with the advent of such social networks as Twitter, they now have a whole new avenue available to them which they are apparently eager to use, and on a pretty regular basis, to reveal to the entire world their rather limited IQs. The most recent exercise in stupidity comes to us from yet another one of those Hollywood morons who seem to think that anyone outside their rather bizarre little circle of friends, gives a rats behind about what they think, about anything. So it was then that, well passed her prime actress, Ellen Barkin, sought to bring in 2012 with what amounted to nothing more than yet another imbecilic rant on Twitter, this time against an NYPD officer whom she claims aggressively 'shoved' her out of the way.


This supposed “movie star” then went on to accuse 'goose-stepping' New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg that he was 'the violence in the city'. Barkin, who I’m told is best known for her roles in those well known classics, Sea of Love and Switch, said she saw people from the Occupy Wall Street movement being arrested for no reason. Hmm, imagine that, no reason. She said that all she was trying to make her way to a young girl they had 'thrown' in a police van when she was then 'threatened' and 'shoved' by an officer. She tweeted: 'Just threatened on my street by NYPD,cop shoved me, both hands,onto sidewalk..Is it a crime 2 stand in the street in NY?WTF is going on here?' The 57-year-old hag also posted: 'I have never been afraid of a NY policeman until last nite. What I saw was random & senseless arrests and unnecessarily threatening behavior.' So, I guess we’re just supposed to believe this “movie star” when she says that that big, bad police officer gave her a “shove.” Gee, I guess he didn’t realize just who it was that he was “shoving.”


That any of these Occupy Wall Street malcontents were ever arrested for “no reason” is simply laughable. Because after seeing some of these miscreants in action, I doubt very seriously that ever took place! Something a little closer to the truth is that fact that most of these losers were cut an inordinate amount of slack by any number of liberal politicians, from the president on down, all across the country. So Ms. Barkin’s faux outrage and her eagerness to run to the defense of these union subsidized anarchists, would appear to be nothing more than some twisted form of attention seeking behavior. Because, quite frankly, I just don’t see any other way to explain why anyone would make such idiotic, and plainly baseless, accusations and to so strenuously defend such a pathetic group as the Occupy Wall Street crowd. I mean what better way is there for someone who is so desperate to attract attention to themselves than to defend the indefensible? She’s only using these people to gain a little exposure in front of the nearest television camera.

RON PAUL SAYS HE'S "PRETTY MAINSTREAM"...



Ok, I have just one question here.  What is the objective regarding the 2012 election?  I thought it was to defeat Barack Hussein Obama.  In that end, do we want a candiate who says he's "pretty mainstream" and "pretty electable?"  I'm just not seeing Paul as being the guy to take down Barry. And quite honestly, I think he's a nut.