WILL ENOUGH IN THE JEWISH COMMUNITY STICK BY OBAMA?

How well might Barry "Almighty" be faring with those who make up the American Jewish community? Well, that is a question that continues to be asked and one that has been pretty extensively examined over the past few months. And as the election draws nearer, you can pretty much count on the fact that the Jewish vote will be one, among many, that contenders on both sides of the isle will be vying for. I continue to find it as being more than a little odd that for some bizarre reason, Barry won 78 percent of the Jewish vote in 2008, and many of those you get paid to speculate, are wondering what 2012, especially in light Barry’s idiotic call for a return to 1967 borders and developments in the Middle East, may hold. After every election I can never figure out what this death wish is that so many in the Jewish community seem to have. And they demonstrate that fact by their willingness to vote for Democrat candidates who possess such a very obvious disdain for the state of Israel and question its very existence.

Recently, Accuracy in Media’s Benjamin Johnson took the time to interview several of the attendees of the Republican Jewish Coalition Conference in Washington D.C. Now in what may yet prove unfortunate for Barry, is the fact that none of those asked had too many accolades to offer the president, but having said that, I doubt very many of these individuals, asked for the opinion, might have actually voted for Barry the first time around. Listed here are just some of the highlights from their assessment of Barry’s presidency: 1) “Barack Obama is an absolute train wreck.” 2) “I think President Obama threw Israel under the bus — long ago. Not just recently.” 3) “I think that he’s a con man.” 3) “He’s certainly no friend to Israel.” 4) “I don‘t see him doing anything that’s going to make the world a safer place.” 5) “For an American president to tell Israel what it’s borders should be, is really incomprehensible.” And 6) “Certainly, he’s up there with Jimmy Carter."


Among the comments provided to, and filmed by, AIM, were some very strong words from the Hon. Sam Fox, the U.S. ambassador to Belgium from 2007 until 2009. Mr. Fox proceeded to hammer away at Barry on a number of fronts, lamenting his leadership skills and claiming that his presidency could endanger the nation’s very existence. “He has never held a job in his life. He’s never been trained for a job. He doesn't have any idea what he’s doing and you can see that reflected in everything he does,” Fox said. But none of this should come as a surprise to anyone. Mr. Fox goes on, “Regulation after regulation after regulation — strangling business. I can go on forever. If we get Obama for five more years, we may not have a country.” But wasn't this exactly what Barry campaigned on, his desire was to "fundamentally transform" this country. And if he is reelected, God forbid, we are sure to see much more of the same.


This is not the first time the Jewish allegiance to Barry and the Democrats has been shown to be potentially shaky. Those who seem to have the biggest problem with Barry are these Republicans, but we really don't know how it is that the more liberal in the Jewish community may feel about him and his abilities. However, in July, a Gallup poll was released did showcase that there was a reduction, however slight, in support for Barry among those in the Jewish community as a whole. In June, supposedly 60 percent of Jewish Americans gave the president a favorable rating. This was down from 68 percent in May and 64 percent in April. Still, 60 percent of American Jews think this guy is doing just a bang up job. While this may not have been any sort of a bombshell finding, it is an indicator, of sorts, since in 2009 Obama held an 83 percent approval rating among Jews. Clearly, there has been a notable decline.


Still, in what continues to be nothing more than an act of pure fiction, as well as a demonstration of a logic that I just don't understand, the state controlled media has contended, or at least pondered, that Barry may be one of the most friendly U.S. presidents to Israel in recent memory. In September, New York Magazine even went so far as to wonder, a kin to calling "BJ" Clinton the first black president, whether Barry is “the first Jewish president.” Additionally, the Jewish Forward more recently selected Barry to appear among the paper’s annual list of the most influential Jews (he was one of the non-Jews that the media outlet selects each year). Despite these honors, Barry has apparently felt the need to attempt to solidify the Jewish vote, causing some to wonder if his campaign is sensing that there might be some level of vulnerability. We'll see, I guess, but it remains a mystery to me why it is that so many Jews support this guy.


Finally, earlier this month we were all witness to what can only be described as Barry’s imbecilic, and rather arrogant, self-congratulatory statements regarding his work to help make Israel more secure that were reported by several news outlets. Never shy about giving himself credit for things he either hasn't done, or have been done by others, “I try not to pat myself too much on the back, but this administration has done more for the security of the state of Israel than any previous administration,” he said. I'm thinkin that we’ll have to wait until November 2012 to see if American Jews do, indeed, agree with this assessment. Clearly, those at the Republican Jewish Coalition Conference did not, but just how big of a segment of the Jewish community are they. Until then, I suppose, Barry will likely continue to try and nab as much support from American Jews as he can, and doing so by saying whatever it is he thinks he can get away with.

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ...THE GIFT THAT KEEPS ON GIVING...



With her feet firmly planted in what can only be described as being some alternate Democrat universe,  Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the current DNC chair and well known dim bulb, has once again denied the fact that unemployment has gone up precipitously since Barry "Almighty" first came struttin into the Oval Office. She said to contnue to make such a claim is to distort the facts.  In fact unemployment has now dropped below 9 percent and it's continuing to drop.  But as we have seen on any number of occasions, this administration has a tendency to play pretty loose with the numbers.   However, this imbecilic bimbo made the claim yet again that the narrative that the unemployment rate has been going up since Barry took office, just doesn't work any longer, because it hasn't.  "Unemployment is nearing riht around where it was when President Obama took office, and it's dropping."  Anyway, that's her story and she's stickin to it.  And even though she may wish to deny it, the fact is that real unemployment still rests quite comfortably in double-digits.

OBAMA SAYS HE'S READY FOR ANYBODY...

According to our "Dear Beloved Leader," Barry "Almighty," “it doesn’t really matter” who it eventually turns out that the Republicans nominate to run against him. Barry declared that he is ready, willing and able to take on either Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney and ask voters to contrast his vision with that being offered by the GOP nominee. In what's been described as being an at-times feisty interview, with CBS’s “60 Minutes,” or as feisty as things get can over at CBS when it comes to Barry, Barry suggested there is very little difference between the two front-runners for the nomination. “The core philosophy that they’re expressing is the same,” he told Steve Kroft in an interview conducted in two parts last week and aired Sunday night. “And the contrast in visions between where I want to take the country and… where they say they want to take the country is going to be stark.” Barry predicted “a good debate” and a clear choice for the voters. This is one area where I can wholeheartedly agree with Barry, the differences between him and any of the Republicans vying to be his appointment would be very stark indeed. After all, choice that we will have available for us to vote for will consist of one man who believes in doing nothing more than to shred our Constitution running against a Republican candidate who believes in abiding by it. An the level of ignorance possessed by many Americans will be the determining factor regarding his idiotic rhetoric being able to gain some level of traction.

Pressed by Mr. Kroft, or again as much as one could expect to come from someone associated with CBS, to explain Gingrich’s recent surge in the polls, Barry attributed it to the former speaker’s longevity in what was sort of a round about accusation. “He's somebody who's been around a long time, and is good on TV, is good in debates.” Despite his repeated insistences that he is not closely following the debates, Barry also made sure to cast Romney as a politician, a theme often heard by Romney’s Republican opponents. “Mitt Romney has shown himself to be somebody who's good at politics, as well. He's had a lot of practice at it,” he said, adding that he expects the GOP fight for the nomination to be protracted. “I think that they will be going at it for a while,” he said. “When the Republican Party has decided who its nominee is going to be, then we'll have plenty of time to worry about it.” He boiled down the 2012 campaign to a single question to be answered by the voters: “Do they see a more compelling vision coming out from the other side?” Sounding ever the devoted socialist, he characterized the Republican vision as being about nothing more that more tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations and “gutting” regulations. “If the American people think that that’s a recipe for success and… a majority are persuaded by that, then I’m going to lose.” Like all that Barry has done has succeeded in anything other than to make matters very much worse.


Barry also happy to bring up his rather twisted vision of how things should be when Kroft asked him if it was not his job as president to find solutions no matter how much the other party fights him. “It is my job to put forward a vision of the country that benefits the vast majority of Americans,” he said. “It is my job to make sure that my party is behind those initiatives, even if sometimes it's breaking some china and going against some of the dogmas of our party in the past. We've done that on things like education reform. And it's my job to rally the American people around that vision.” And he left no doubt that the vision he will champion during the upcoming campaign was the one reflected in last week’s speech in Kansas in which he decried income inequality and the decline in the middle class. Barry strongly disputed Kroft’s suggestion that his speech was either socialistic or promoting class warfare. “Everybody’s concerned about inequality,” he said, adding that he will continue to ask, “What's happened to the bargain? What’s happened to the American deal that says, you know, we are focused on building a strong middle class?” Anyone who thinks that Barry desires anything the would even remotely resemble a strong middle class is ignoring completely the facts regarding what this guy has gotten away with courtesy of his party's control of Congress and his perpetual end runs around Congress when he didn't get his way. It has been what equates to as a nonstop assault on the middle class.


The accusations that he continues advocating class warfare, Barry said, reflects the debasement of today’s politics. But, again, who is that insists on the using of such tactics. That's essentially all he has been spewing for months. And he tried to defend himself by saying, “Our politics has gotten to the point where we can't have an honest conversation about the greatest income inequality since the 1920s. And we can't have an honest conversation about the irresponsibility that resulted in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, without somebody saying that somehow we're being divisive.” Instead, he insisted, he is just “being honest” in raising the issue. Honest? You have got to be kidding me, there isn't an honest bone anywhere in this guy. Barry was asked if he and first lady Michelle Obama had ever considered not running for a second term. Barry joked that his wife had often reminded him that “You volunteered for this thing.” But he said they had never doubted that he would run in 2012. “Not because our quality of life might not be better if I were not president. Not because Michelle is so enamored with me being president. But because we both think that what we're doing is really important for a lot of people out there.” Well, what's he doing in destroying the country, and the only people to whom that's important, are those to comprise the Democrat Party. The amount of damage that he has done, has really served to benefit no one except the Democrat Party.


Barry continues to bemoan the "effects" of "gridlock" and whines about it incessantly, but, like it or not, that's how our system was devised. And you would think that someone who is said to have once "taught" the Constitution, would know that. Now, I suppose if we lived in that ever elusive perfect world where both parties possess the same level of desire to do what's best for the country, that would be one thing. But not when we have a Democrat Party interested only in amassing more power, at the detriment of the country at large. We need look back no further than the methods and tactics used by the Democrats to prove that point. They used all manner of trickery to successfully shove down the throats of the American people their decades old "wet dream," government run health care. During the first two years of this disastrous administration we witnessed first hand what results from one party rule as Democrats were essentially running the whole show. We saw our unemployment rate jump from 7.6 percent to up over 10 percent, gasoline going from $1.83 to over $4, numerous outright seizures by the government of huge sectors of our "private" economy and a mind-numbing amount of debt being accrued to the point where our credit rating was reduced for the first time in our history. Now we have some adult supervision on the scene who has made it a point to try to reel in some of the insanity that has taken place. As a result Barry and his merry band of Democrats are now squealing like stuck pigs.

MIGHT HOLLYWOOD NOW BE REAPING WHAT IT SOWS?

The word is out, that many these days are not taking advantage of the product put out by those in tinsel town. Why should it come as that much of a surprise to anyone, except of course, those who comprise the Hollywood elite who continue to take such pleasure in slandering our country on nearly a daily basis, that folks are now choosing not to waste their hard earned money going to see their movies? Now I’m sure they choose to rationalize things much differently and in a way that would in no way portray them as being culpable in the fact that Hollywood's holidays are off to a dreadful start. The fact is that fewer people went to the movies during the last two weekends than during the box-office hush that followed the Sept. 11 attacks 10 years ago. And ya know, I just can’t bring myself to feel sorry for any of these narcissistic movie people. I do feel that there is a certain amount of justice now being served here, proven by the fact that domestic revenues tumbling to a 2011 low of about $77 million this past weekend, when the star-filled, holiday-themed romance "New Year's Eve" debuted at No. 1 with an anemic $13.7 million, according to studio estimates Sunday.



Those that should know, say it was the worst weekend in more than three years, since the weekend after Labor Day in 2008, when revenues amounted to $67.6 million, and nothing could make me happier. And it comes after an $81 million total a week earlier that had been this year's previous low. "It's unbelievable how bad it is," said Hollywood.com analyst Paul Dergarabedian. Only an estimated 19.8 million people went to the movies the last two weekends. The two lowest-grossing back-to-back weekends of the last decade came amid the nation's shock after the 2001 terrorist attacks, when one of the last things on people's minds was catching a film. Only 22.3 million people went to the movies those weekends right after Sept. 11 - 2.5 million more than over the last two weekends. While a couple of bad weekends don't make a trend, domestic revenues have been lagging throughout 2011, a year in which many studio executives expected to do record business. Revenues this year are at $9.57 billion, about 4 percent below last year's, according to Hollywood.com. Revenues this past weekend are down 17 percent compared to the same period last year, when business totaled $91.8 million.


Next weekend begins Hollywood's big end-of-year blockbuster frenzy, with the debuts of many movies that are already being described as potential blockbusters. We shall see. Studio bosses generally try to use bad movies as an excuse for bad weekends. Yet while critics trashed "New Year's Eve" and "The Sitter," a lineup of well-reviewed, seemingly must-see family films that include "The Muppets," "Arthur Christmas" and "Hugo" so far have done only a modest business at best. Those in Hollywood have always insisted that they offer “inexpensive” entertainment when compared to concerts, sports events and other costlier options. But many moviegoers, including myself, complain about escalating ticket prices, particularly the extra few dollars it costs to see 3-D films, and they now have more entertainment alternatives than ever with their portable devices and big-screen home theaters. "I still want to think that our business is product driven, but we're about to find out, because we've got some major films coming," said Chris Aronson, head of distribution at 20th Century Fox. He adds, "There's a lot of good stuff coming, and I think audiences are going to be primed." Again, we’ll see.


There is today, I think, a vast disconnect between those who make the movies and most of us who go to watch movies. It gets so tiresome listening to loudmouths like George Clooney, Matt Damon, Sean Penn, Tom Hanks and the like, who feel that they are somehow entitled to go about the slamming of our country. And yet, those of us who love our country are still expected to cover the cost of going to watch these “talented” hypocrites. For myself, my wife and my daughter to go to the movies, it’s a $60 night out, and it today’s economy that’s kind of hard to justify. And it’s not just actors, but directors like Steven Spielberg as well, who go around lauding the accomplishments of such dictators as Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. These losers perceive themselves as being “artists” and, as such, uniquely qualified to criticize. They see themselves as being on a much higher plain than we who are only mere mortals. The entertainment value that once drew us all into movie theaters has decreased over time with it now having been nearly completely lost. Oft times it seems as if those who are making movies today are intent on trying to lecture to us or to provide us with some important or valuable lesson. There always seems to have to be some hidden message contained. Honestly, going to the movies just isn’t fun anymore, and therefore not worth the cost.

“CAPTAIN” OBAMA…GUILTY OF DERELICTION OF DUTY?

Barry “Almighty” said fixing the economy is going to take more than one term and may even take more than one president, that according to excerpts from a Communist Broadcasting System (CBS) “60 Minutes” interview to air tomorrow, Sunday.  Facing an 8.6 unemployment rate, down from 9 percent in October, Barry makes the claim that he “didn’t overpromise” regarding his being able to “fix” the economy. “I didn’t overpromise. And I didn’t underestimate how tough this was gonna be.” Barry said. But why has it really been, as Barry says, so tough? Perhaps because of the fact that Barry has resisted, and quite emphatically so, the taking of any meaningful steps that would have actually resulted in both the creating of jobs, and therefore the strengthening of our economy. He has done nothing more than to lie to us every step of the way regarding his possessing any desire whatsoever to actually “fix” our anemic economy. With even the most cursory of glances at the polices which he has put into place, it becomes very obvious, very quickly, that that has never been his intention. To Barry, it has all been perceived as being nothing more than a crisis not to be allowed to go wasted.


When this guy first took his place in the Oval Office the price of gas was at $1.83 a gallon and unemployment was sitting at 7.6 percent. Now had he chosen to do so, he could have taken the right steps at that time and we would not be in the spot we are today with nearly 9 percent unemployment and nearly 4 dollar a gallon gas. And had he so decided, his reelection would now be a no-brainer. But instead of following in the example of Reagan, taking measures that we know work to improve a struggling economy, he chose to follow in the steps of Jimmy Carter, only a Carter on steroids. His first priority was to work to massively increase the size of the federal bureaucracy and against the will of the American people I might add. He also allowed the Democrat congressional leadership to write what was referred to, then and now, as being a “stimulus” for our flagging economy, but was actually nothing more than a Democrat wish list and a method by which Barry could use to repay those who helped him get elected. And the Democrat propaganda continues to this days about how the “stimulus” worked and the proof lies in the many jobs the were “saved” through the implementation of this faux “stimulus.”


He has said on any number of other occasions that individual Americans who are struggling have “every reason to be impatient” but that turning structural problems in the economy around is going to take time. “I always believed that this was a long-term project,” Barry said. “It was gonna take more than a year. It was gonna take more than two years. It was gonna take more than one term. Probably takes more than one president.” Ok, I think the majority of the American people are very much past being merely impatient with Barry. And besides, I don’t really think it’s impatience that most people are feeling. I thinks it’s more a sense of frustration, dissolution and, in some cases, even anger. They’ve watched a president who has very obviously has absolutely no interest, whatsoever, in doing what needs to be done, and who seems to be intent on “using” the economic problems, that he himself has exacerbated, as a means to his own end. When I hear Barry refer to this as being a “long-term project” I can’t help but wonder exactly what it is that he might be talking about. Is he talking about “fixing” the economy, or he is referring to his ongoing efforts to “fundamentally transform” this country?


Barry’s words come in the face of new poll numbers that said just 41 percent of Americans believe he deserves to be elected to a second term. Still, he said the unemployment rate could drop to 8 percent before the general election in November. “I think it’s possible,” Barry said, “But — I’m not in the job of prognosticating on the economy. I’m in the job of putting in place the tools that allow the economy to thrive and Americans to succeed.” In the interview, Barry laughingly compared himself to a ship captain in a storm. No matter how well the ship is being steered, he said, if it’s rocking back and forth, people will blame the captain.” “People are going say, ‘You know what? A good captain would have had us in some smooth waters and sunny skies, at this point,’” he said. Adding, “And I don’t control the weather. What I can control are the policies we‘re putting in place to make a difference in people’s lives.” So Barry actually views his smug self as being the “captain?” Is that hilarious, or what? That’s a rather strange analogy, maybe there is some similarity with the captain of the “Titanic,” the only difference is that in this case he sees the iceberg coming and chooses to do nothing more than to increase the ship’s speed toward it.

HOLDER WOULD RATHER ATTACK THOSE ASKING THE QUESTIONS THAN SIMPLY TELL THE TRUTH...

Rep. Darrell Issa is one of my favorites in the House. And I just loved it when the fireworks broke out in Congress today as he warned Attorney General Eric Holder that he could be held in contempt of Congress for his failure to cooperate with an investigation into the debacle referred to as the Fast and Furious program, in which the Barry "Almighty" administration allowed guns to "walk" into Mexico, where they then ended up in the hands of Mexican drug lords. The little bit of theater which occurred came at the end of a House Judiciary committee hearing that lasted nearly seven hours including recesses. Things kind of exploded when Issa compared Holder's stonewalling to the Nixon era to which Holder responded to by comparing Issa's tactics to those of Sen. Joe McCarthy. I think Mr. Issa was much closer to the mark than was Mr. Holder.



Mr. Issa, who chairs the House Oversight and Government Reform committee that is investigating the Fast and Furious program, pressed Holder on whether he would comply with a subpoena request to release documents crucial to the probe. The California congressman noted that if Holder did not cooperate or give a good reason for not providing the documents, he risked being held in contempt of Congress. Holder said he would consider the request, and respond as prior Attorneys General had. Issa responded by comparing Holder to John Mitchell, a pointed reference to one of President Nixon's Attorneys General, who was implicated in the Watergate scandal. Holder quickly fired back by doing his best to invoke the McCarthy-era line, "Have you no shame?" To which Issa retorted, "Have YOU no shame?”


If Mr. Holder was going to attempt to some how disparage Mr. Issa by conjuring up the specter of Sen. McCarthy, then he might want to work on getting the quote correct. The actual line, uttered to McCarthy during a 1954 hearing by Army counsel Joseph Nye Welch, was, "Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?" Holder is about as inept as his boss is arrogant together these two sleazy characters make quite the dynamic duo. Both are great at your typical sophomoric name calling as a means of trying to diminish, in some way, those who are demanding that they accept some level of accountability regarding their unethical behavior. But as I have said on any number of occasions, these clowns see themselves as above the law and able to do whatever it is that they see fit without fear of reprisal.

MR. HOLDER DEFINES FOR US THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LYING VERSUS MISLEADING...

It was earlier this week, I think, during a hearing on Capitol Hill concerning the government sponsored "Fast and Furious" debacle, that our stellar Attorney General, Mr. Eric "I'm not a Racist" Holder was asked whether he had lied to Congress about the ongoing, and some would saying rapidly expanding, Fast & Furious gun-running scandal. Mr. Holder, a man about as qualified for his job as Barry is qualified for his, is probably the worst attorney general since that disaster, Janet Reno. Anyway, it was Rep. James Sensenbrenner who asked Mr. Holder what was a very straight forward question. And that question was, “Tell me what's the difference between lying and misleading Congress, in this context?"



Now, apparently thinking himself to be so much smarter than those whom he was sitting in front of, Mr. Holder's arrogant response, was both typical and eerily reminiscent of the way old "BJ" Clinton went about defining "is." Here's how the esteemed Mr. Holder chose to respond to what was a very simple question: “Well, if you want to have this legal conversation, it all has to do with your state of mind and whether or not you had the requisite intent to come up with something that would be considered perjury or a lie," Holder said. "The information that was provided by the February 4th letter was gleaned by the people who drafted the letter after they interacted with people who they thought were in the best position to have the information."


Such is the caliber of sleazy behavior that, while it has quickly become something we have come to expect from this very corrupt administration, is something that cannot be tolerated nor allowed to go unchallenged. This entire bunch of Chicago hacks seems to think that they are not only above the law but are also free to completely ignore the dictates of Congress as well as the constraints placed upon them by our Constitution. They also seem to be under the misguided impression that they can simply ride roughshod over our political system and that they are somehow to be considered as being immune to any and all criticism directed at them regarding the repeated recklessness of their, if not outright illegal, highly unethical actions.

OBAMA HAS THE ENEMIES OF AMERICA RUNNIN SCARED...NOT!!

Barry "Almighty", our "Fearless Leader" and that ardent defender of our Homeland, when asked to respond to recent Republican allegations that he habitually engages in a type foreign policy that is detrimental to America and of which the primary ingredient is a Neville Chamberlain, Warren Christopher, Jimmy Carter level of appeasement, he chose to respond by saying, "Ask Osama bin Laden, and the 22 out of 30 top al Qaeda leaders who have been taken off the field whether I engage in appeasement — or whoever is left out there, ask them about that." Right, big, bad Barry has the terrorists shakin in their sandals. What a load of crap. And just how long does he intend on milking that cow, anyway? And oh by the way, the last time I heard, the number of those wishing to do harm to this country was up, way up!

THE NEEDS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FORCED TO TAKE A BACK SEAT TO POLITICS…AGAIN!



Ya know, we have a president who spends a great deal of time going on and on about all that he inherited from his predecessor, that screw up George W. Bush. But one thing he inherited that he doesn't do much talking about is the price of gas. When Barry first strutted his cool self into the Oval Office, gas was sitting at $1.83 a gallon. And now at my local outlet store it's sitting at $3.17 after having gone up three cent in the last few days. And what does Barry do when he has the opportunity to something about that? You know like drill for more oil here at home or, how about this, allow a pipeline to be built from Canada to Texas. Well, once again he puts politics above all else in choosing to side, once again, with the environmental wackos over the interests of the American people. American people who are already struggling in an economy that Barry has only succeeded in making much worse than it was when he came into office. The much hyped bumper sticker slogan of "Hope and Change" hasn't quite panned out the way that the many brain-dead Barry supporters who voted for this thug thought it would. They were so eager to buy into all of the hype that they happily swallowed his nonsense which was essentially the political equivalent to the "Kool Aid" that Jim Jones served up to his many followers. Now we're all paying the price for it.

So now we have Barry who, even though he essentially punted regarding the making of any sort a decision on the Keystone XL oil pipeline until after the presidential election, nevertheless continuing to insist that his administration has gone "all in" when it comes to domestic energy production. What a crock! He really thinks we're that stupid? His imbecilic Secretary of the Interior, that clueless dolt, Ken Salazar, has proven himself to be a good little soldier, as he acts as the proverbial cork in the bottle when it comes to drilling here at home. But he's only doing what he’s told to do by his boss. Barry has also flatly refused any give-and-take with Republicans to speed up the pipeline project. You see, compromise is not something to be expected from this rabid egomaniac, that's something to be left to the other team. The president's idiotic, as well as patently “all in” comment, on Wednesday, made with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper standing at his side, prompted a retort from House Speaker John Boehner: “All in?” Boehner asked. "To date, the president hasn’t urged Senate Democrats to approve any of the House-passed bills that would create new jobs by expanding American energy production. Instead, he’s actively blocked job-creating energy production and imposed a moratorium that closes off some of the most promising energy resources in the world."


Speaker Boehner listed four specific energy bills, out of a total for more than 20 total bills, that have already been passed by the House and remain very firmly stuck in the Democrat-led Senate: "The Obama administration is 'all in' alright – all in on blocking American energy production that would help create new jobs and lower prices.” Boehner also criticized Barry for delaying the Keystone XL pipeline, which, if completed, would bring crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta to the Texas Gulf Coast, creating some 20,000 American jobs in the process. Barry continues to disparage the Republicans in Congress at every opportunity, but chooses to ignore the members of his own party who are actually the guilty ones when it comes to identifying the cause of what has been described as being "gridlock." Environmentalist wackos, a key Barry constituency, strenuously oppose the pipeline, but labor unions, another key Barry constituency, strongly support it. So when it came time to make some sort of decision, Barry simply chose to delay the politically sensitive issue of the pipeline until after the election, and he continues to oppose recent Congressional action to speed up the project. By doing so, it becomes very obvious very quickly that Barry is, quite simply, only trying to have it both ways. This is not how most Americans define "leadership."


Barry was asked on Wednesday if he would possibly consider moving up the pipeline project if Republicans agree to extend the payroll tax cut but he flatly rejected the idea of any such a deal. A very smug Barry said, "First of all, any effort to try to tie Keystone to the payroll tax cut I will reject. Barry said the warning applies to issues beyond Keystone: "Efforts to tie a whole bunch of other issues to something that they should be doing anyway will be rejected by me," he declared. "A whole bunch of other issues?" Man, get this guy away from his teleprompter and all of the fanciful rhetoric evaporates pretty quickly. It's hard word being a fraud, at least a convincing one. Later in his prepared remarks which he proceeded to read from his ever-present teleprompter, Barry noted that the Keystone XL pipeline "is very important to Canada." But, he added, "It's important for us to make sure that all the questions regarding the project are properly understood, especially its impact on our environment and the health and safety of the American people." Really, Barry? Look it's a fact that for three years how, the State Department has been conducting a thorough environmental assessment of the pipeline, and it was supposed to make a final decision on the project by the end of 2011. Now we're told we need to wait until "after" the election so that Barry can avoid having to make a decision that might result in some unpleasant political consequences before the next election.


On Nov. 10, following all of the anti-Keystone protests in Washington, our illustrious State Department announced it would be looking at "alternative routes" for the pipeline that would result in taking it around the supposedly “environmentally sensitive” Nebraska Sand Hills area. Let's be real here for second, if you listen to any of these pathetic liberal loons long enough you very quickly realize that to their rather bizarre little way of thinking there is not a spot in the entire country that is not in one way or another considered as being, "environmentally sensitive." And it's all nothing more than a bunch of unadulterated CRAP! Democrats are determined that we literally starve ourselves of energy instead of tapping into our own vast energy reserves, and for no other reason than because of bogus science. Barry, on that very same day, issued a statement supporting the State Department’s decision to delay the politically difficult decision until 2013. Now there's a big surprise! And then as recently as this past Wednesday, in response to a reporter’s question about the Keystone XL pipeline, Barry babbled on about something being "a big project with big consequences. We’ve seen Democrats and Republicans express concerns about it. And it is my job as President of the United States to make sure that a process is followed that examines all the options, looks at all the consequences before a decision is made." Blah, blah, blah!!!!


And then in what has to be one of the most disingenuous, if not dishonest, statements yet uttered by our "Fearless Leader," he said, "Now, that process is moving forward. The State Department is making sure that it crosses all its t’s and dots all its i’s before making a final determination. And I think it’s worth noting, for those who want to try to politicize this issue, that when it comes to domestic energy production, we have gone all in, because our belief is, is that we’re going to have to do a whole range of things to make sure that U.S. energy independence exists for a long time to come." Moving forward? How exactly do doing nothing equate in any way to "moving forward?" Prime Minister Harper's response to the idiotic comments of our own president, was to say that his position on the Keystone XL issue "is very well known." (After the Nov. 10 announcement that the pipeline would be delayed, Harper told Obama he would look to Asian markets, China, for Canadian oil.) So once again the American people are being left high and dry by Mr. Hope and Change, once again force to take it in the short while China, yes CHINA, is left to be the primary beneficiary of Barry unwillingness to make any sort of a decision prior to the election. This is nothing but sheer insanity! Every thing boils down to politics with this loser.

RICK PERRY'S LATEST CAMPAIGN AD

Call me what you will, I still like Rick.

DEMOCRATS CONTINUE THEIR ASSAULT ON VOTER IDENTIFICATION…

Well folks, it seems that once again we have a Democrat and former chair of the Congressional Black Caucus out in front charging Republicans with “turning the clock back to the days of Jim Crow” in a speech on Wednesday. And just what is it that this nimrod is once again busily accusing those evil old Republicans of being up to now? Sounding ever more like that proverbial broken record, this evil deed that the Republicans are trying to get away with is (drum roll) nothing other than the mandating that individuals be required to identify themselves before they are permitted to vote. Man, imagine that! And you thought it was something so much more sinister. So anyway the Democrat to whom I am referring is none other than the mentally deficient, Rep. Barbara Lee. Now this is not the first time that we’ve heard from this crackpot regarding this topic. But in her latest speech on the House floor she made the claim that the GOP is trying to deny blacks the right to vote, saying “it’s no coincidence that a disproportionate number of these affected voters come from communities of color as well as the poor, the elderly and students.”

In what can only be described as being the typical over the top rhetoric spewed by those of her rather questionable intellect, this half-baked loser said, “Having been born and raised in Texas, this certainly looks like a poll tax to me, which those of us remember as a way to prevent African Americans from voting. These voter ID laws have a partisan agenda: seeking to disenfranchise and deny specific populations of voters before they have the opportunity to elect their representatives in government.” Lee is a current member of that unique little clique commonly referred to as the Congressional Black Caucus and even served as its chair from 2009 to 2011. She makes the unsubstantiated claim that voter ID laws would prevent 1 in 4 blacks from voting, and 1 in 5 Hispanics and Asian Americans. She said that such laws are nothing more than a return to same level of voter suppression seen in the 2000 presidential election. So I can only assume that she must consider all of those whom she claims will be prevented from voting are just flat out too stupid to be able to obtain suitable identification.


As a perfect example of just how far into the toilet the Democrat Party has now finally sunk, she went on to say, “I came to this floor years ago, after the stolen presidential elections in Florida and Ohio, to protest the results of those two elections that were filled with voter suppression.” Adding, “It worked for Republicans before, and so legislators in 42 states in this map of shame have doubled down on these strategies to make it harder for certain communities to vote.” Map of shame? Where does this dunce come up with the stuff, late night television? The stellar Ms. Lee is just the latest in a long line of unscrupulous Democrats doing there best to invoke Jim Crow as an analogy. Over the summer we heard from both former president “BJ” Clinton and from, probably the dumbest bimbo on the entire planet, Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz as they enthusiastically accused Republicans of trying to incite a return to such laws. Lee herself also used the comparison last year when discussing Arizona’s immigration law. And I think it very safe to say that we will continue to here drivel until the election.


I recently had a little personal experience that demonstrates the sheer insanity of the Democrat argument being perpetrated by Ms. Lee and other in her corrupt little circle of friends. It was just last night that my wife and I went to a local Walmart to pick up some Christmas gifts that she had place on their layaway. So when we got up to the counter what do you think was the very first thing that they made her do, before they handed over her purchases? Yup, you guessed it, show some proof of identification. Would Ms. Lee and her fellow Democrats be willing to accuse Walmart’s policy as being one that prevent blakcs from taking advantage of their layaway program? If not then I can only assume that Ms. Lee and her cadre of pathetically corrupt Democrats, don’t view voting as being anywhere near as important as being able to pick up something from Walmart’s layaway. Go figure. The Democrat premise here doesn’t even begin to hold water. It’s a joke and these simpletons should be laughed off of whatever platform they choose to advocate this nonsense.

OBAMA: AND THE LIES JUST KEEP COMING...

It is Barry's belief that a limited government that preserves free markets simply doesn't work. And not only that, he goes on to say that it has never worked. Well, that's going to come as a pretty big surprise to a whole lot of people. Now what do you suppose could be his rationale for making such an ridiculous claim that is both ridiculous in nature as well as being patently false ? What we have here, in the person of our president, is a devout socialist, a disciple of a political philosophy based on social ownership of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy. He's done a lot of bragging, of late, about his record but you'd be hard pressed to ever hear him talk all that much about it. Instead, he chooses to rail against a do nothing Congress, a Congress of which his party had complete control for the first two years of what has been a disastrous, and we can only hope, first and last term. And, of course, he chose to spew his typical incendiary style rhetoric about the inequality of an economic system that has made possible for the citizens of this country, the ability to enjoy the highest standard of living on the planet and a lifestyle that is the envy of many around the globe.

He made this most recent, and very enthusiastic, assertion regarding how it is that our free market system has been such an abysmal failure, in a speech delivered at, of all places, Osawatomie High School in Osawatomie, Kansas, on Tuesday. Barry "Almighty" chose that spot to argue that while a limited government that preserves free markets "speaks to our rugged individualism" as Americans, such a system "doesn't work" and "has never worked" and that Americans must now look to a much more activist government that not only taxes more and spends more but also regulates more if they wish to preserve the middle class in any meaningful way. Oh really? So we must learn to rely on government and to appreciate all that it does for us? To prove the fallacy in that way of thinking, one needs to do nothing more than to simply go up to any recent, or not so recent, immigrant from Eastern Europe. Ask them under which system they would prefer to live. I sincerely doubt that you'll find all that many who would side with Barry in his assessment of the role of government or many who would choose to return to live under the oppressive system from which they made their escape.


"'[T]here is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let’s respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. 'The market will take care of everything,' they tell us," said Barry "Almighty." "If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes--especially for the wealthy--our economy will grow stronger. Sure, they say, there will be winners and losers," Barry droned. "But if the winners do really well, then jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everybody else. And, they argue, even if prosperity doesn’t trickle down, well, that’s the price of liberty." How can the man who calls himself our president take it upon himself to describe the economic engine that has essentially powered the entire planet since the Industrial Revolution, as having never worked? Granted, it ain’t workin too good right now, but that’s because of HIM and his cockamamie socialist economic policies. Reagan reduced government regulations and the economy boomed all the way to "BJ" Clinton. Polices put in place by Barry are responsible for unemployment going from 7.6% up to 10% and the price of a gallon of gas going from $1.83 up to nearly $4.00.


"Now, it’s a simple theory," said our "Dear Beloved Leader." "And we have to admit, it’s one that speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government. That’s in America’s DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. But here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It has never worked. It didn’t work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression," added Barry. "It’s not what led to the incredible postwar booms of the ‘50s and ‘60s. And it didn’t work when we tried it during the last decade. I mean, understand, it’s not as if we haven’t tried this theory.” What utter and complete nonsense, and to hear such blatant lies coming from our president who is so far out of touch with reality is more than a little frightening. To possess such a perverted perspective of things literally flies in the face of history. An actually, what fit quite nicely on a bumper sticker was that "Hope and Change" crap. It’s policies like those that Barry favors that ultimately extended the Great Depression far longer than if the free market system would have simply been allowed to flourish unfettered without the massive government intervention instituted by Democrat icon, FDR.


"Remember in those years, in 2001 and 2003, Congress passed two of the most expensive tax cuts for the wealthy in history," said Barry. "And what did it get us? The slowest job growth in half a century. Massive deficits that have made it much harder to pay for the investments that built this country and provided the basic security that helped millions of Americans reach and stay in the middle class things like education and infrastructure, science and technology, Medicare and Social Security.” Barry forgets the Reagan tax cuts that were responsible for creating nearly 20 years of prosperity, or maybe he simply chooses to ignore them and their results. And he also seem to be totally oblivious to the terrorist attacks of September 11th and if they might not have had at least a little something to do with the sluggish economic growth during that period of time. And since Barry is such a big fan of “what if’s”, you know what if he hadn’t spent $1 Trillion on a bogus stimulus, how many jobs wouldn’t have been saved, what if those tax cuts hadn’t taken place back in 2001 and 2003? How much more badly would an economy, already struggling after those attacks, been hurt? We'll never know.


"Remember that in those same years, thanks to some of the same folks who are now running Congress, we had weak regulation, we had little oversight, and what did it get us?" crowed Barry. "Insurance companies that jacked up people’s premiums with impunity and denied care to patients who were sick, mortgage lenders that tricked families into buying homes they couldn’t afford, a financial sector where irresponsibility and lack of basic oversight nearly destroyed our entire economy. "We simply cannot return to this brand of 'you’re on your own' economics if we’re serious about rebuilding the middle class in this country," said Barry. Barry's distortion of the facts should really come as no surprise here. He is easily the most corrupt, the most dishonest and therefore the most destructive president in modern history. More so than even Jimmy "The Jerk Off" Carter. However, the said fact of the matter is, and something that far to many Americans fail to grasp, the fact that Barry has no interest whatsoever in "rebuilding the middle class," his primary focus has always been on ways that he can permanently destroy it. His goal since day one has been the complete eradication of what remains of the "middle class."


So the question, I suppose, that we're all going to need to be asking ourselves as this very crucial election grows closer, is do we, the American people, want a more activist government that not only taxes us more and spends more, but also regulates more? Can we, with all of the evidence to the contrary that is literally staring us in the face, see that as being beneficial, in any way, to our way of life? Or do we, instead, prefer a government that essentially gets out of our way, and allows us to either succeed or fail based on nothing more than our own abilities? Do we really need the government to act as our training wheels? It is Socialism, as both an economic and political philosophy, that does not work and has never worked anywhere it has ever been tried. It's only outcome has been poverty and abject misery. And the proof of that is everywhere. Where is the old Soviet Union today? Look anywhere in Europe, is that the socialist utopia that is Barry envisions and wishes for the rest of us to be able to "enjoy?" Do we really want to be Greece? The American people are going to need to WAKE UP before it's too late. This country will not survive another four years with this man in the Oval Office. It just won't.

HOW DIFFERENT IT IS WHEN THE SHOE IS ON THE OTHER FOOT…

As they say, turnabout is fair play. And today we saw they perfect example of that. But because Senate Republicans filibustered the nomination of Caitlin Halligan to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, today we are now risking “chaos,” that according to that proverbial piece of dog squeeze, Sen. Chuckie Schumer, Democrat from New York. On the Senate floor, Schumer recalled a move in 2005 when a bipartisan “Gang of 14” senators came to an agreement aimed at preventing filibusters of judicial nominees except under extraordinary circumstances. But when exactly was that Schumer and his fellow Democrat scum abided by that agreement?



“It seems to me that a vote against this nominee is a vote that declares the Gang of 14 agreement null and void,” Little “Chuckie” Schumer whined. “If Republicans are going to suddenly junk that 6 year armistice it could risk throwing the senate into chaos on judicial nominees.” It just never ceases to amaze me that whenever their own tactics are used against them, Democrats turn into what is nothing more than a bunch of pathetic crybabies. Later “Chuckie” added, “The defeat of Caitlin Halligan would throw into chaos nominations at the circuit court into chaos for a long, long time.” Tuesday’s roll call vote on cutting off debate was 54 to 45, six short of the 60 votes necessary to break a filibuster.


Ms. Halligan faced stiff criticism from some Republicans regarding her past record on such things as gun rights as well as pro-choice issues. In remarks on the Senate floor, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) expressed his reservations on Halligan, a former New York state solicitor general. “Ms. Halligan’s record strongly suggests that she wouldn’t view a seat on the U.S. appeals court as an opportunity to adjudicate, even-handedly, disputes between parties based on the law, but instead as an opportunity to put her thumb on the scale in favor of whatever individual or group or cause she happens to believe in,” McConnell said. We do not need any more judges who refuse to interpret, and instead strive to rewrite, our Constitution.

NOTHING MORE THAN ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO ENCOURAGE VOTER FRAUD...

In what is nothing more than a blatant attempt to do the dirty work of their Democrat Party task masters, the group which likes to refer to itself as being largest civil rights group in America, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), is now taking it upon itself to petition the UN over what it claims is a concerted effort to disenfranchise black and Latino voters ahead of next year's presidential election. The organization will this week present what it identifies as evidence to the UN high commissioner on human rights of what it regards as a conscious attempt to "block the vote" on the part of state legislatures across the US. Next March the NAACP will send a delegation of legal experts to Geneva to enlist the support of the UN human rights council. And the rationale for all of this nonsense? Well, it seems that the NAACP contends that America in the throes of a consciously conceived and well orchestrated move to strip black and other ethnic minority groups of the right to vote. William Barber, a member of the association's national board, in his over-the-top rhetoric, said it was the "most vicious, coordinated and sinister attack to narrow participation in our democracy since the early 20th century". I think that's more than a stretch. But as we all know when it comes to Democrats, regardless of color, the truth is always considered something that's expendable.



So in its concocted little report, Defending Democracy: Confronting Modern Barriers to Voting Rights in America, the NAACP departs on a mission, of sorts, to explore ways to create the impression of what it describes as voter suppression measures that it says are now taking place particularly in southern and western states. Fourteen states have passed a total of 25 measures that it claims will unfairly restrict the right to vote, among black and Hispanic voters in particular. The new measures that this group seems to find so offensive are measures focused – not coincidentally, the association insists – in states with the fastest growing black populations (Florida, Georgia, Texas and North Carolina) and Latino populations (South Carolina, Alabama and Tennessee). The NAACP sees this as a cynical backlash to the surge in ethnic minority voting that was evident in 2008. In that year, black and Hispanic voters turned out in record numbers, partly in a wave of enthusiasm for Barry "Almighty." More than 2 million extra black voters turned out over 2004, an increase of 15%. Among Hispanics, the upturn was even more pronounced. Two million additional voters attended the polls – a rise of 28% on the previous presidential election. But the question remains, out of those supposed two million additional voters, how many were fraudulent? How many individuals were permitted to vote more than once? How many dead voters voted? How many pets voted? All for Democrats!


According to this stellar group of racists, the claim continues to be made that the scale of the assault on voting rights that they see, is on the increase and unprecedented, at least according to those identified as being experts on electoral law. Some outfit called, The Brennan Center for Justice, based at New York University law school, supposedly estimates that the new measures could bar as many as 5 million eligible voters from taking part in choosing the occupant of the White House next year. That number should be considered as being highly suspect because after even a cursory check into its source, this Brennen Center for Justice, very quickly reveals that it's data may be based much more on politics than on any actual facts. One big red flag is the fact that this organization is currently headed by Michael Waldman who just so happens to be the former Director of speechwriting for old "Slick Willie" Clinton from 1995–1999. The Brennan Center for Justice itself was founded in 1995 by both the family and former law clerks of Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan. Brennan, though appointed by Republican Dwight Eisenhower, was one of those liberal Democrats who believed that the Constitution is a "living" document and it's that notion that figures prominently into the center’s work. Brennan, himself was known for his rather outspoken progressive views, including opposition to the death penalty and support for abortion rights.


One very obvious fact here is that in this particular instance the NAACP is doing nothing more than to perform as an extension, or a proxy, of the Democrat Party. Thus, what is therefore providing some, if not most, of the motivation here for these bizarre accusations being made by the NAACP, is the fact that of 14 the states that have currently embarked on such measures are those who happen to hold two-thirds of the electoral college votes needed to win the presidency. Or to put another way, of the 12 battleground states that will determine the outcome of the presidential race, five have already cut back on voting rights and two more are in discussions about following suit. The claims being made are that ethnic minority groups are not the only sections of society at risk of losing their voting rights. And again, we find this leftist/progressive Brennan Center warning us that young voters and students, older voters and poor income groups are also vulnerable. The NAACP claims voting rights are being whittled away at every stage of the electoral process. First of all, they claim that the registration of new voters is being impeded in several states by moves to block voter registration drives that have historically proved to be an important way of bringing black and Hispanic people to the poll. But what seems to be of very little concern to these folks is how routinely our soldiers are disenfranchised. But hey, most of them vote Republican.


Four states – Florida, Iowa, Kentucky and Virginia – continue to withhold the vote from anyone convicted of a criminal offence, and rightly so. In Florida, offenders who have completed their sentences have to wait at least five years before they can even apply to restore their right to register to vote. Across the US, more than 5 million Americans are denied the right to vote on grounds that they were convicted of a felony, 4 million of whom have fully completed their sentence and almost half of whom are black or Hispanic. That's too bad. These individuals made a very conscious decision to become felons and therefore made a decision to relinquish their right to vote. No one held a gun to their head forcing them to commit a crime, they did that of their own free will. Other measures have rightly reduced the ease of early voting, a convenience that supposedly is disproportionately heavily used by African-Americans. Even more importantly, 34 states have introduced a requirement that voters carry photo ID cards on the day of the election itself. There is nothing in any of these measure that has been specifically designed to "prevent" anyone from voting. Benjamin Jealous, the NAACP's president, spewing the typical party line, said the moves amounted to "a massive attempt at state-sponsored voter suppression." He added that the association will be urging the UN "to look at what is a coordinated campaign to disenfranchise persons of color."


Look, as I have said on any number of previous occasions, all that is being required of those who wish to vote is that they be able to provide some proof of identification. It is not some concerted effort designed specifically to prevent someone from voting, only to ensure that individuals are who they say they are at the time of voting, and that they only vote once. It is an attempt to curb the problem of voter fraud that we now have occuring with increasing regularity, with all instances being found to be committed by one political party, the Democrat Party. But I can't help but wonder if what the NAACP is saying here is that blacks and Hispanics are simply too stupid to figure out how to get a proper form of identification? I can only assume that that must be the case. Voting is the most important privilege we Americans possess and these sleaze bags in the NAACP, dancing on the strings pulled by their masters in the Democrat Party, are doing all they can to diminish it. Voter fraud to these people is something that's viewed as being a very productive means to an end. That end being, of course, victory at the ballot box. While these same individuals are always the first to accuse the other side of cheating, that's really nothing more than a diversionary tactic designed to deflect the public's attention away from their own election shenanigans. It's all an exercise involving a very sinister slight of hand intended to rob from the American people their right to chose who it is that they wish to have govern them.

CHRIS “MR. THRILL UP MY LEG” MATTHEWS, AT IT AGAIN…

Well folks, our old friend Chris Matthews is at it yet again, busily blasting conservatives while showing unabashed affection for one of his all time heroes Barry “Almighty.” On Monday’s episode of “Soft-ball,” Matthews seized on what he calls Republicans’ “reign of terror,“ asserting that Republicans ”don’t like democratic government“ but do like to ”tear down statues“ rather than ”put them up.” When asked by guest David Corn why, if one doesn’t care about government at all, would he or she not vote for Michele Bachmann or Herman Cain, Matthews blazed: “I think this is the reign of terror. Anyway, I don’t think they like government or leadership or politics– really politics. They don’t like democratic government. They don’t like having a leader. They like to bring down- these are guys who tear down statues. They don’t put them up." By his making such inane statements as he professess himself to be a journalist, demonstates better than I ever could the fact that he's nothing but a fraud.

Then during the same broadcast, old Chris quickly switched gears from tearing down Republican lawmakers and presidential candidates to admiring the Commander in Chief to the point of being nauseating. Oddly enough, just a few short weeks ago our friend Chris bashed Barry for having “the worst kind of a notion of the presidency,” a tirade, of sorts, that left many thinking that perhaps the bloom had fallen off the rose for our buddy Chris, at least where his affections for the president are concerned. But alas, that was not to be so. Because the man who once said that Barry sent a “thrill up his leg” (a statement he will surely never live down), wore his heart on his sleeve yet again, stating that Barry’s “smile’s worth a million bucks.” I fail to understand how it is that anyone can take this clown seriously. He very rarely, if ever, makes any sense whatsoever, constantly spewing all manner of nonsense that borders on gibberish. And with a quick glance at his ratings we see that there isn't really that big of an audience for his brand of gibberish/journalism.

"OLD STRETCH" PELOSI IS JUST CHOMPING AT THE BIT….

And now from that living example of what happens from having too much botox, we now have someone desperate to unceremoniously insert herself into the process of our deciding who it is that will be the Republican eventually selected as the party’s candidate to face off against Barry “Almighty.” And just who might that someone be? Why, none other than our illustrious House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, also fondly referred to as the "Wicked Witch of the West." Ms. Pelosi has now come out and made it quite clear that for the time being she will be holding back some less than flattering information on Republican Newt Gingrich for release at what she feels will be the best possible time. Information that could detract from his presidential campaign, this according to a report published Monday. Being barely able to control herself, old "Stretch” said, “One of these days we’ll have a conversation about Newt Gingrich.” She went on to say that, "When the time is right…I know a lot about him. I served on the investigative committee that investigated him, four of us locked in a room in an undisclosed location for a year. A thousand pages of his stuff." So old Nancy seems to be barely able to restrain herself from doing what it is that she does best.

Democrats, being ever the pathetic sleaze-bags that they are, and very well versed in the fine art of the politics of personal destruction, have suggested if Gingrich does end up as the Republican nominee, it would prove to be very beneficial to the Democrat Party. One such pathetic advocate of such a theory, is soon-to-retire Bawney Fwank, who said, " He would be the best thing to happen to Democrats since Barry Goldwater." Old "Stretch" Pelosi stated that Fwank "spoke for a lot" of Democrats. "I like Barney Franks quote the best, where he said "I never thought I'd live such a good life that I would see Newt Gingrich be the nominee of the Republican Party,'" she said. And then of course we have, adding his voice to the chorus, that perpetual whiner, Rep. James "I'm a racist" Clyburn, who also served with Gingrich and now holds a newly invented position of power as the "assistant" minority leader in the House. A position that was essentially made up for him in order to keep him from playing the race card against his fellow Democrats. He charged Gingrich with lacking the temperament to be president. "He tends to fly off the handle. He will say almost anything in order to get a charge. I'm sure that he's not serious when he says a lot of these things," Clyburn said on MSNBC.


So in responding to Pelosi's thinly veiled threat, Newt said that a threat from ex-Speaker Pelosi to disclose information she learned while serving on an ethics committee investigating him during his time as Speaker of the House would "totally abuse the ethics process" and violate rules of the House of Representatives. "I want to thank Speaker Pelosi for what I regard as an early Christmas gift," Gingrich said at a press conference in Manhattan Monday. But this should come as no surprise as this is the way Democrats operate. They view the rules, any rules, as simply not applying to them. Gingrich denounced the threat from Pelosi, who is now the minority leader in the House, as "a fundamental violation of the rules of the House," and said that if Pelosi were to disclose details of the investigation, it would expose the "tainted ethics process the House was engaged in." He also called for the House to condemn Pelosi if she were to reveal anything from the ethics probe. But the likelihood of such a thing actually taking place is most likely pretty remote. It’s simply much easier to let this loudmouth get away which her blatant disregard for the applicable rules at the detriment of the entire system. The fact is that anything Gingrich might have been guilty of, pales in comparison when placed in the context of all of the shadiness perpetrated by Ms. Pelosi.


In her responding to Gingrich's comments, old Nancy chose to return volley through some idiotic spokesman who said that the ex-Speaker was "clearly referring to the extensive amount of information that is in the public record, including the comprehensive committee report with which the public may not be fully aware." Oh really, so that's what the old bitch, whose face is stretched so damn tight it should split, was referring to. Gee, you could have fooled me, because it sounded so much different to me the first time around. It sounded remarkably like a threat that she had something new that she was planning to release, something not in the public record, and at just the right time. We know that Gingrich agreed to a $300,000 fine and admitted that he submitted inaccurate statements to the ethics committee, but he maintained Monday that the majority of the charges brought "were repudiated as false." Gingrich went on to say that Pelosi's suggestion that she would reveal information from the investigation only served to underscore the fact that the ethics charges were nothing if not politically motivated. "It tells you how capriciously political the committee was," Gingrich said. And there is a lot of validity to his rebuttal. Democrat are skill practitioners of scorched earth tactics.

HATRED OF ISRAEL APPEARS FIRMLY ENTRENCHED IN THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION...

In doing nothing more than to make very clear the general sentiment of the current administration, our U.S. ambassador to Belgium, a Mr. Howard Gutman, recently told a conference hosted by the European Jewish Union that Israel is the one to blame for growing anti-Semitism harbored by people of Muslim faith. He has since come under fire for those recent comments he made where he appeared to be blaming Israel for, of all things, anti-Semitism among Muslims. Gutman made the remarks last Wednesday at a Jewish conference on anti-Semitism, and reportedly went so far as to apologize to the audience in advance if his words were not to their liking, that according to Israeli news site YNet News. The typical level of arrogance that we've some to expect from everyone involved in the current administration.

“A distinction should be made between traditional anti-Semitism, which should be condemned and Muslim hatred for Jews, which stems from the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians,” Gutman reportedly said, according to the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth. “He also argued that an Israeli-Palestinian peace treaty will significantly diminish Muslim anti-Semitism.” What kind of alternate universe is this moron living in. There is only one thing that is going to "diminish" Muslim anti-Semitism, and that would be the complete eradication of the Jewish state, which the current administration seems to be in favor of. YNet said legal experts in the audience were “visibly stunned” by Gutman’s comments, and the next speaker gave a “scathing rebuttal” to his remarks.” Rightly so!


Realistically speaking, the fact that this guy would make such an assessment of things, should really come as no big surprise to anyone. Especially after finding out that this imbecile Gutman, was some sleazy Washington D.C. attorney before being appointed, as well as a major fundraiser for Barry "Almighty’s" 2008 campaign. He bundled $500,000 for Barry, according to OpenSecrets.org, personally giving at least $2,300 to Barry's campaign. In return for his enthusiastic support, Barry nominated Gutman to his current post in 2009. Barry's administration has now sought to distance itself from Gutman’s remarks Sunday, with White House spokesman Tommy Vietor telling ABC News, “We condemn anti-Semitism in all its forms and believe there is never any justification for prejudice against the Jewish people or Israel."


Gutman, who is, amazingly enough, himself Jewish, issued his own version of an apology "if" his comments were taken the wrong way, according to YNet. The wrong way? What the Hell is the right way? “I strongly condemn anti-Semitism in all its forms. I deeply regret if my comments were taken the wrong way. My own personal history and that of my family is testimony to the salience of this issue and my continued commitment to combating anti-Semitism,” Gutman said. Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich reacted to Gutman’s remarks in a message on Twitter Saturday, writing “Pres Obama should fire his ambassador to Brussels for being so wrong about anti-Semitism.” While I can't very well argue with that opinion, I think it misses the larger point.


Because while I too think it's right to say that this guy should be fired, the point to be making here is that he should have never been appointed to his current position in the first place. And but for the fact that he was responsible for directing a substantial amount of cash to the Barry's 2008 campaign he, most likely, never would have been. When we're talking about those who are chosen to represent this country in foreign lands, and as essentially being the face of America, the job should not go to those whose only claim to fame is they're having raised a certain amount of cash for the individual now appointing them. And obviously, this guy's rather skewed opinions when it comes to Israel, created very little if any hesitation regarding his appointment, outweighed by the amount of money he was able to direct to Barry.

THE OBAMA’S HEAD OUT ON YET ANOTHER VACATION…

With the stress of the job once again become too much to bear, and never one to shy away from taking full advantage of the perks of his office, the presidential clan is once again departing on yet another extended vacation. At a time when most Americans are lucky to get even a few weeks of holiday every year, it seems our esteemed “Dear Beloved Leader” gets a little more freedom in the matter. So it is then that Barry “Almighty” has announced his Christmas vacation back to the Asian province of Hawaii, and this time for a staggering 17 days. Barry, who visited the Asian island just two short weeks ago for an economic summit, will head back to Honolulu on Saturday December 17 and remain there until Monday January 2.

Barry, who we’re told was apparently raised in Hawaii until he was six, will be joined on this little trip by his wife Michelle, who is great at telling the rest of us how to live, and their two daughters, Malia, 13, and Sasha, 10. The White House travel office announced the president has no public events scheduled for the trip, but I think it safe to say that if an opportunity to raise some campaign cash arises it will be taken advantage of. The President's family covers the cost of a private beach front residence in Kailua, Oahu, for their vacation - a ‘Winter White House’ that costs up to $3,500 a day, or $75,000 a month. But guess what, it’s the local and federal taxpayers who will get to help pay the bill for travel and security. What a deal!


Last year the trip ran up a total cost of more than $1 million, at least according to the Hawaii Reporter. Barry announced this next trip during a campaign fundraiser on Oahu's Leeward Coast during his stay on the island last month. ‘It is great to be home, great to feel that Aloha spirit,’ he said. ‘And Michelle and the girls will be back shortly for Christmas vacation, as we do every year. We'll see if Washington gets its business done, so I can get here as well. But that's always a challenge.’ Ya right, what a freakin crock. This guy isn’t known for putting anything ahead of his many vacations. I seem to remember our state-controlled media being all over Bush every time he went on anything that could even remotely be call a vacation, but nary a peep when it’s Barry.


It follows an 11-day stay in Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts, earlier this year, which is also believed to have cost the U.S. taxpayer millions. Next week, the president will be saving a few cents by hosting a meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper.  Barry will speak with Harper at the White House about economic competitiveness, security and key global issues. Harper has urged Barry to support an oil pipeline from western Canada to the U.S. Gulf Coast. But Barry’s administration said last month it was delaying a decision on the project until after the next election, the excuse being so that it can study new potential routes that would avoid environmentally sensitive areas in the Midwest. Once again he chooses politics over getting people back to work.


So while we have millions of Americans forced to go through yet another Christmas without a job, we have a president demonstrating what can only be described as a rarely seen level of callousness and disregard for what those Americans are going through in this holiday season. Americans for whom he professes to care so much about. They say actions speak much louder than words, and his willingness to take such an extravagant vacation speaks literally volumes regarding how it is that he really feels about those being made to suffer through yet another Christmas. He is a most shallow individual and a narcissist to the extreme. He’s not to be bothered with the petty problems of the little people, even though he is the primary reason for their being made to struggle.

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL TAKES INSANITY TO A WHOLE NEW LEVEL...

Well it seems as if that little odd assortment of psychopaths fondly referred to as Amnesty International, is now drawing some a little bit fire for its continued calls for the arrest of former President George W. Bush for his administration’s use of waterboarding. The most recent call comes as the former president tours Africa promoting AIDS and cancer awareness, or so Fox News is reporting. This self-described "human rights organization" said "there is enough evidence in the public domain" to justify Ethiopia, Tanzania or Zambia arresting Bush on charges of committing "crimes under international law." is that not about the stupidest thing you've ever heard? You have to wonder, isn't there a more productive use of their time?



Anyway, according to Fox, some nut by the name of Matt Pollard, who is apparently the "senior legal adviser" for the American branch of this group of loons, said. "All countries to which George W. Bush travels have an obligation to bring him to justice for his role in torture." What Pollard is alluding to as being torture is the Bush administration’s use of the waterboarding that was used to successfully garner much needed information from three crazy terrorists. "They've been trying to get any country where President Bush and Vice President Cheney visit to harass them wherever they go," former Justice Department attorney John Yoo said of Amnesty's actions. And yet they face to repercussions for their reprehensible actions.


Former Bush advisor Brad Blakeman told Fox News that the Amnesty International campaign “could be taken as a call for violence against the president." Yoo, who provided the administration with the legal justification for their interrogation methods, called the campaign nothing more than a blatant form of harassment. Amnesty International also called for Bush to be arrested when he visited Canada back in October. And as amazing as it may sound, Barry "Almighty" has actually praised Mr. Bush for his work on AIDS, calling it “one of his greatest legacies,” Fox also reported. The type of behavior being demonstrated by this odd ball group makes very clear that they are far from deserving of whatever level of credibility it possesses.