The hearing focused on the piece of legislation that Henry went on his rant about. Called "The American Energy Initiative – Roadmap for America’s Energy Future," or H.R. 909, it is a comprehensive energy bill drafted by Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), who sits on the House Ways and Means Committee and who testified at the hearing. The Republican bill would increase oil exploration and development of oil and natural gas resources on the U.S. outer continental shelf and require the Department of Interior to meet leasing timelines. It also would repeal the ban on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The bill would amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to eliminate the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management and calls for radiological material to be stored in the Yucca Mountain nuclear repository in Nevada, unless the Nuclear Regulatory Commission "determines it is not a suitable location." The bill would also prohibit the president from "blocking or hindering spent nuclear fuel recycling activities." In addition, the legislation calls for the acceleration of plans for future nuclear energy plants. The bill proposes to put new federal leases and royalty revenues into a trust fund, which would be available for "alternative energy" sources through a competitive "reverse auction" process – a process Nunes said would reward the best and most effective clean-energy products. "The American people are looking to us for leadership," Nunes said in his prepared testimony. "They know intuitively that we are running out of time and they are worried about the futures of our country and our children. "They have given us the opportunity to offer solutions to this and other big problems," he said, adding that it was "time to act." Here, here! I think it pretty safe to assume that this plan is far too rational and makes far too much sense to expect a significant number of Democrats, if any, to sign on. Frankly, I'd be surprised if there were any Democrats in Congress with enough guts to do so.

Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), chairman of the committee’s Subcommittee on Energy and Power, called the legislation "a comprehensive plan to break this logjam and enhance both the amount and variety of domestic energy production."  But Waxman strenuously disagreed, sounding much like that same old broken record and harkening back to the bygone days of the Bush administration two-and-a-half years after Barack Hussein Obama took office and less than one year after the Republicans regained power in the House of Representatives. "H.R. 909’s roadmap doesn’t lead to the future," Waxman insisted. "It leads to the past." Waxman added that the plan’s problem was the same as it had always been and would lead to "huge amounts of carbon pollution that will drive uncontrolled climate change." Someone needs to clue this lunatic in, man made climate change has pretty much been shown to be an issue that was completely made up by those on the left. It's become their religion. And so, Democrats remain the ones busying themselves with stymieing all efforts to do what is necessary to bring down the price of gas and to make us more energy independent. Their idiocy continues to be based on nothing more than the imbecilic, and thoroughly disproven, theory that any supposed global warming that there may be, is man made. Meanwhile it is a fact that since "Mr. Hope and Change" first took office, there has been nothing put forward that can be said to have even remotely resembled a "comprehensive" energy plan. His only plan thus far seems to have been one that allows gas prices go through the roof in his effort to force people to drive less. What kind of an insane energy policy is that? I mean, short of earning him some browny points with the environmental wacko groups, this sort of energy policy accomplishes nothing more than to cause Americans to waste even more of what little disposable income they have left today. Waxman and his many liberal cohorts are determined to ruin this country and it is up to every freedom loving American to prevent them from accomplishing their goal. The first item on our things to do list has got to be the ridding ourselves of Barack Hussein Obama. He is the albatross around our collective neck. He is the single worst thing to happen to this country since Woodrow Wilson or perhaps FDR. Who says history does not repeat itself?

The former Massachusetts governor fielded questions on topics ranging from the debt ceiling to abortion on his first official day of campaigning for 2012 Republican primary nomination. Romney leads opinion polls in New Hampshire by a very comfortable margin, which should really come as a surprise to no one, and he is among the top contenders nationally to win the Republican contest to challenge Democrat Barry "Almighty." But now, besides having the obvious Romneycare cross to bear, he may now have ignited somewhat of a new source of concern for conservatives by his essentially choosing to side with the man-made global warming/climate change nuts. I must confess, though I have been a supporter of his in the past, and I was definitely leaning in his direction this time around. But my support for him is beginning to wane, a bit, at this point. If I wanted to vote for a supporter of man-made climate change, I’d be voting for Barry.

In taking his present stand in the way he has now chosen to address the issue of climate change and energy policy, Romney has veered away, somewhat, from the party's typical position regarding the issue. A position that consists of general skepticism on all matters dealing with any supposed "cause" of global warming. He has called on the United States to break its dependence on foreign oil and expand alternative energies including solar, wind, nuclear and clean coal. "I love solar and wind (power) but they don't drive cars. And we're not all going to drive Chevy Volts," he said, referring to electric cars. The United States cannot go it alone in any attempt to trim emissions levels and give a free pass to countries such as China and Brazil, Romney said. "It's not called American warming, it's called global warming," he said. Republicans in the U.S. Congress oppose cap-and-trade legislation to reduce carbon emissions and are generally cool to the idea that global warming is caused by human activity.

However, as Massachusetts governor in 2005, Romney did choose to back a carbon-trading pact among northeastern U.S. states. Software developer Michael Hillinger, 60, of Hanover, New Hampshire, posed the climate change question at the town hall. Romney's answer provided plenty of wiggle-room, Hillinger said, but "he is taking a more forthright stand than any of the other candidates." I find myself being in disagreement with Mr. Hillinger. It was at an event in Manchester last week, that former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, also running for president, said that climate change is "the newest excuse to take control of lives" by "left-wing intellectuals." And this is, I think, pretty much the general perception that much more closely resembles that of a substantial number of conservatives. So for Romney to come out and rather forcefully take a position that run completely counter to this does, I think, pose some serious risks. And besides, it doesn’t make much sense to me.

Anyway, during the Sixth Circuit arguments, Judge Jeffrey Sutton, who was nominated by George W. Bush, asked our Mr. Kaytal if, by chance, he might be able to name one, just one, Supreme Court case which considered the same question as the one posed by the new healthcare mandate, in which Congress used the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution as a tool to compel action. This bonehead Kaytal was forced to concede that the Supreme Court had "never been confronted directly" with the question, but he did cite the Heart of Atlanta Motel case as being a relevant example regarding the government's argument. In that particular 1964 civil rights case, the Court ruled that Congress could use its Commerce Clause power to bar discrimination by private businesses such as hotels and restaurants. "They’re in the business," Judge Sutton pushed back. "They’re told if you’re going to be in the business, this is what you have to do. In response to that law, they could have said, ‘We now exit the business.’ Individuals don’t have that option." But not one to give up easily, our determined Mr. Kaytal responded by noting that the there's a provision in the health care law that allows people to avoid the mandate. In what was a rather sarcastic tone, Mr. Kaytal stated, "If we’re going to play that game, I think that game can be played here as well, because after all, the minimum coverage provision only kicks in after people have earned a minimum amount of income." "So it’s a penalty on earning a certain amount of income and self insuring. It’s not just on self insuring on its own. So I guess one could say, just as the restaurant owner could depart the market in Heart of Atlanta Motel, someone doesn’t need to earn that much income. I think both are kind of fanciful and I think get at…" Judge Sutton interjected, "That wasn’t in a single speech given in Congress about this...the idea that the solution if you don’t like it is make a little less money."

The so-called "hardship exemption" in the health care law, that the esteemed Mr. Kaytal alluded to, is limited, and only applies to people who cannot obtain insurance for less than 8 percent of their income. So contrary to what this moron is saying, earning less isn't necessarily a solution, because it could then qualify the person for government-subsidized insurance which could make their contribution to premiums fall below the 8 percent threshold. Throughout the entire process of oral arguments, Mr. Kaytal struggled in his attempt to respond to the panel's concerns about what the limits of Congressional power would be if the courts ruled that they have the ability under the Commerce Clause to force individuals to purchase something. Sutton said it would it be "hard to see this limit" in Congressional power if the mandate is upheld, and he honed in on the word "regulate" in the Commerce clause, explaining that the word implies you're in a market. "You don’t put them in the market to regulate them," he said. During arguments before the Fourth Circuit last month, Kaytal also struggled with a judge's question about what to do with the word "regulate," to the point where the judge asked him to sit down to come up with an answer. Kaytal has now fallen back onto the Necessary and Proper clause, insisting that it gives broader leeway to Congress. Judge James Graham, a Reagan appointee, said, "I hear your arguments about the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause, and I’m having difficulty seeing how there is any limit to the power as you’re defining it." Kaytal responded by referencing United States v. Morrison, in which the Supreme Court struck down parts of the Violence Against Women Act, and United States v. Lopez, which struck down gun free school zones. In those cases, Kaytal responded, the Supreme Court set the limit that the Commerce Clause had to regulate economic activities. The health care market is unique, Kaytal insisted, because everybody will eventually participate. With the mandate, Kaytal said, "What Congress is regulating is not the failure to buy something. But failure to secure financing for something everyone is going to buy." Graham acknowledged Kaytal's arguments, yet reiterated that he was "having trouble seeing the limits." The problem with the "health care is unique" argument is that it just creates an opening for future Congresses to regulate all sorts of things by either a) arguing that a particular market is also special or b) finding a way to tie a given regulation to health care.

For instance, I'm told that the example that's come up most often is the idea of a law in which the government would force individuals to eat broccoli. During the Sixth Circuit argument, Mr. Kaytal said that such an example doesn't apply, because if you show up at a grocery store, nobody has to give you broccoli, whereas that is the case with health care and hospital emergency rooms. Yet that argument assumes that Congress would, or could, pass such a law as a regulation of the food market. And is that such a stretch to imagine? What if the law was made as part of a regulation of the health care market? It isn't difficult to see where that argument can go. The broccoli example is really a proxy for a much broader argument about whether the government can compel individuals to engage in healthy behavior, like eating more salad, or exercising daily. There's no doubt that a huge driver of our nation's health care costs are illnesses linked to bad behavior. It goes without saying that people who are overweight and out of shape cost more because they have increased risk of heart disease, diabetes, and so on. Those increased costs get passed on to all of us, because government pays for nearly half of the nation's health care expenses, a number that's set to grow under the new health care law. Is it really unrealistic to then believe that future Congresses, in looking for ways to control health care costs, could compel healthy behavior in some way? More pertinently, is there any reason why that would be unconstitutional under the precedent that would be set if the individual mandate is upheld? Scary questions, all! With most experts expecting the case to go before the Supreme Court, it seems the biggest obstacle for the Obama administration is figuring out where power would be limited if the mandate were upheld. Those challenging the law have made a clear and understandable limit by drawing a distinction between regulating activity and regulating inactivity. But simply saying the health care market is unique doesn't actually create a very clear or understandable limit to Congressional power.

Isn't it a shame that the courts in this country can no longer be relied upon to defend our Constitution? If that were the case this obvious power grab by the government coming at us in the form of Obamacare would have been struck down on it's first day in existence. Further more, this clown Kaytal, would have been laughed out of every courtroom in which he chose to appear. Activist judges of the liberal persuasion, who are appointed for their lifetime are permitting irreparable damage to take place and all for the sake of advancing a liberal agenda that shreds our Constitution that they have sworn to protect and defend. Every single American, including those that voted for our Dear Leader, Barry "Almighty," should be absolutely outraged by the fact that this administration feels that it is now in the position of being entitled to dictate what is expected of us and even feels that it is able to enforce those policies that it decrees upon us. We are in some very dark times, my friends, and if the 2012 election does not result in our being able to rid ourselves of this man, Barack Hussein Obama, we may very well not survive. To assume to be able to quite literally seize control of how the Ameircan people receive their healthcare, and to justify that action through any number of lies and obvious deceptions, clearly lays bare the rouge nature of the present administration. Clowns like this guy Kaytal who are sent out to defend the corrupt actions of this president must be stood up to, with the point being made crystal clear that they are now officially in breach of our Constitution. Obamacare cannot be allowed to stand. It must not be allowed to stand. It has to be stopped!

If you doubt the level of paranoia that exists, listen to the ravings of any of these folks whenever they decide to take the time to call into some radio talk show and attempt to give the host a "piece of their mind." It's almost comical as they try to articulate what it is that they see as being the reason behind their crappy existence. You can't help but shake your head. They have so completely bought into the talking points, hook, line and sinker, that they have reduced themselves to babbling idiots, and succeed in doing nothing more than proving just how ignorant of the facts they really are. They seem to be totally oblivious to what it is that forms the basis for them being where they are in their screwed up lives. That of course being themselves and the questionable choices that have made throughout their lives! They base everything on their rather skewed, and public education reinforced, view of this country's history. That and the nonstop propaganda that they allow themselves to be force-fed. They base everything on their claiming that back in the day it was all because those evil white folks who went over to the most violent, uneducated continent on the planet and kidnapped, murdered and enslaved its native people. One fact that they like to conveniently leave out is the fact that it was their fellow Africans who were very busy selling their countrymen into slavery. And I am not trying to excuse or erase the fact that whites were guilty of "purchasing" fellow human beings, but with all things being equal there is more than enough blame to go around regarding all of the participants in this dark period in our history. The argument made that because whites only care about themselves or other people when it benefits them, and therefore came up with the idea of bringing back a bunch of black people from Africa to do all their work, in today's world, just makes no sense. Then they say that all you need to do now is to fast forward a few hundred years to our current situation and you can very plainly see how the ruling white people of a few hundred years a ago, who only cared about themselves have ruined America today. While it is true that many blacks are poor, the bigger questions is, why. And instead of doing the things required to improve their lot in life, they, instead, insist on supporting those who are focused, most intently, on nothing more than the bringing down of everyone else to their pathetic level. Does that make any amount of sense? To anybody?

I think it fair to say that the perception of the general public is that there are many in the black community who view the U.S. taxpayer as being nothing more than the source of their perpetual gravy train. Unfortunately it has become the opinion of many of those same taxpayers that anytime you give a black person money they have a tendency to most likely use it for purposes which will do very little or nothing that brings about any benefit to his or her life. For example, take any public housing project in any city you wish to choose and then look at what its condition was like before these people moved in compared to what it looks like as little as a year later. That's a picture that's worth 1000 words. It's pretty common knowledge that blacks tend to a bit myopic in that they usually can only manage to focus on the short term, just long enough to get their next government check that will then furnish them with the necessary funds for making the next purchase of their favorite drug, drink or hooker. They also tend to care only about themselves and have this rather odd preference for choosing to use extreme and violent methods of showing their displeasure whenever the opportunity may present itself. It's a well known fact that the prison population in the United States is made up of over 50% blacks at a time when blacks make up less than 20% of the total population of the country. Blacks seem to have a predisposition to cause violence because they think they have ready made excuse that allows them to do so. That being, "white oppression." Each ghetto or troubled area of nearly any city in the United States consists primarily of blacks. Blacks have a higher tendency to kill, rape, and harm anybody who might get in their way, which is usually other blacks, but is sometimes whites. Black on black crime is an epidemic in this country. But having said that, even here where I live prominent members in the black community seem to very loudly advocate for not talking to the police even when you may have knowledge of a crime and who might have been the perpetrator. If you talk to the police you're nothing more that a squealer. And it is then these very same community "leaders" who complain when the police are either slow to respond or even refuse to enter the community due to safety concerns. What sense does any of that make, and how does it make the community safer?

Black Americans behave sometimes as if they are the most unintelligent ethnic group on the entire planet, and oddly enough, seeming to take some level of pleasure in this and quite content to have others maintain that impression of them. They see it as being some kind of twisted joke. Look at the way they talk, carry themselves and walk around with their underwear hanging out of their pants. It's all so very clownish. To call it attention seeking behavior is to do nothing more that offer an excuse for it. How does that in any way help create a positive impression. Yet it is always those who view this odd behavior as having negative connotations who are always the ones accused of being racist. The role models out there for young blacks are pretty few and far between, with them either being somewhat lacking in the area of possessing any amount of character, to say the least, or nonexistent altogether in being able to provide any positive impact whatsoever on the real lives of young blacks. Hence they are left to drift where they become susceptible to the usual negative influences from such unsavory characters as rappers, criminals and street gangs. But if you dare accuse any black person of attempting to emulate any of those previously mentioned, inevitably you will also be called a racist. Blacks are always eager to throw around the accusation of racism, a term that they insist upon defining as it existed dozens to hundreds of years ago, and they seem unwilling to recognize the progress that has been made. As well they fail to recognize the blatant racism exhibited against whites that seems to be coming more and more prevalent. And the fact that we now have a black president seems to have done nothing more than to accelerate this racist sentiment that blacks feel toward whites, and I'm not sure why. And it is something that our black president is prone to use as a political weapon in an effort to maintain his black support. Blacks view any and all accusations made against our president, or his highly destructive policies, are made for no other reason that because he is black. If they really loved this country they would see the damage that is being done by this man and would as well see that those speaking out against his policies are doing so only in an effort to save our country.

I have met so many black people over the course of my lifetime who absolutely HATE white people, for what "we" supposedly did to "them." Meet a black person on the street, or pretty much anywhere for that matter, and if looks could kill, you'd be dead. It's ingrained into them. Whites are the reason behind every single problem faced by those in the black community. Just ask them, that's what they'll tell you. And yet that's not being racist? To hate me for no other reason than because I'm white? I see and hear all kinds of crazy things like "Why do all white people hate all black people?" and I'm just like, what the hell? Because I don't hate black people, but if they don't want to be stereotyped, they shouldn't act like the stereotypical. I wish we could just get over this because, I am white and I don't hate any race, I wish we could all get along. Sadly however, those mentioned above as being leaders in the black community don't want us to get along, and they do everything in their power to foment racial hatred. My grandparents had nothing at all to do with slavery, Hell, they weren't even in this country then. And you cannot honestly tell me that when black people first became slaves, that if they were in the same position as white people, they would have done any different, and like I've said, Africans sold their own kind to the white people. Another thing, whites DIED in battle right along side of blacks during the Civil War to keep THEIR and OUR freedoms, so what the hell? I bet most black people don't even know if their grandparents were slaves or not... it doesn't seem like it anyway. Until the day comes that blacks in this country permit themselves to move beyond race there is very little likelihood tensions will be reduced. While racism toward blacks has become a fraction of what it once was, racism toward whites, I think it fair to say, is at an all time high. And blacks who try to alter that toxic mentality are considered as being no different that whites. It is folks like these who recognize the destructive force that racism is that suffer the most I think. What they want is to impress upon those in their community the importance of making good decisions and that by doing so anyone can be a success, no matter what the color of your skin. And all they get for their efforts is being called names and shunned by those who they are trying to help.

This 11-percentage point difference shows a more negative view of the president’s actions, or inaction, while in office among those individuals who have served or who currently serve in the U.S. military. While young members of the military and veterans are the most likely to provide to Barry the benefit of the doubt and therefore hand him positive approval ratings, there is still a substantial gap between these individuals and their peers in the general public. It was found that 44 percent of young people ages 18 to 29 (veteran or currently active duty) approve of the president’s job performance, with 58 percent of non-military youths stating the same. Let's face it, what was the high point of this pathetic Commander-in-Chief's Memorial Day? It was going out and playing his 70th round of golf. How do you spell pathetic? I spell it B-a-r-a-c-k O-b-a-m-a. No trips to Walter Reed, no trips to the battle field, nope only a trip to the nearest golf course. This guy stinks. Can anyone imagine the level of outcry that would now be taking place from our state controlled media, and the scumbag Democrats, if this guy were a Republican? Or worse, if it were Bush? There is no connection, or bond between this man and the Soldiers, Sailors, Airman and Marines who are currently under his command. How can there be when by detesting what it is that they do, which is to defend America, he detests them? You can see the distain that he has for these brave individuals in his face every time he's before a gathering of our military folks. He doesn't even try to hide it.

So now that we have House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan having had the courage to call for Medicare cutbacks in the budget, which the Republican-controlled House then approved, what do we see the Democrats proposing. Nothing except inflammatory and incendiary rhetoric that succeeds in doing nothing more than scaring our seniors and does nothing to ensure the survivability of a broken system. The program is destined to crash and burn, an event that will take place much sooner rather than later, but that is of very little concern to Democrats. Votes are what are important, nothing but votes. Those that actually possess some level of understanding and recognize what needs to take place here if we are to enable ourselves to crawl out this fiscal cesspool, all agree that entitlements such as Medicare must be reduced if we are to make any meaningful dent in our rapidly ballooning budget deficit. But Democrats, along with their many accomplices in the state controlled media, simply don't see it that way and have thus far been able, through the use of some very unsavory tactics, to exploit the fear of our seniors that their benefits are going to be slashed. "Medicare’s going to be a very important part of that overall message and a fundamental referendum for the 2012 election," Alixandria Lapp, executive director of the pro-Democratic House Majority PAC, told Politico. So the whole Democrat battle plan is to be based solely upon lies, stacked upon lies stacked upon more lies. In other words, same sh!t, different day. What seems to offer encouragement to the present batch of insidious Democrat Party tacticians, is that while the popular entitlement program wasn’t the sole issue behind Kathy Hochul's supposed upset victory in a New York special election Tuesday night, strategists in both parties say it was an important force. And for the first time since November, the idea that the nightmare scenario in which the Democrats might have a shot at winning back the House is no longer a laughing matter. The three-way race between Hochul, Republican Assemblywoman Jane Corwin and self-funding independent Jack Davis offers at best mixed omens for the 2012 campaign. Hochul drew a stronger-than-expected 47 percent of the vote, and Corwin won an anemic 42 percent. But the 9 percent Davis took as a third-party candidate prevented any candidate from getting a telling majority. A former Democrat running as a Tea Party standard bearer, Davis likely skewed the results against the GOP nominee.

What the above mentioned scenario should lay bare are the perils of having any third party candidate in the next presidential election, because it is something that would most assuredly hand to Barry "Almighty" something that this country would, in all likelihood, not survive. That being a second Barry "Almighty" term in office. To Hochul supporters, there was no question what turned the tide of the campaign. At the Democrat’s election night celebration in, of all places, a UAW hall in Amherst, an elated crowd chanted, "Medicare," over and over again as Hochul declared victory. "We had the issues on our side," Hochul told her supporters, asking rhetorically: "Did we not have the right issues on our side?" Hochul’s almost single-minded focus on entitlements accomplished a few key goals: It put her on the right side of seniors. It forced Corwin to fight the election on Democratic-friendly ground. Most of all, it gave Hochul a way of pushing back on the GOP’s popular fiscal conservative message, without losing the independent voters who loathe excessive government spending. So rather than defending the federal budget, Hochul cast the debate over spending entirely in terms of one of the most beloved major programs on the books. By focusing on Medicare, Democrats say, Hochul and other candidates can make a larger argument about Republican priorities and what the GOP is willing to cut in Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan’s much-touted budget plan. Look people, we're not going to be able to have it both ways here. Ok, speaking of priorities, which are the better ones. To attempt to bring some solvency to the system in the long run, or allow it to slam full speed into the ground in order to achieve some level of short term political gain. I dare anyone to look me in the eye and tell me that the Democrat priorities are the right ones for this country. "Republicans like to pretend that they are doing something noble, something fair — in the interest of asking all Americans to sacrifice," said Alixandria Lapp, executive director of the pro-Democratic House Majority PAC, which invested heavily in the race. "They’re not asking oil and gas companies to sacrifice. They’re not asking multimillionaires to sacrifice. Medicare’s going to be a very important part of that overall message and a fundamental referendum for the 2012 election." Buffalo, that well-known armpit of New York State, Mayor Byron Brown, a Democrat, told POLITICO that Hochul’s win "shows the Democratic message resonates with independents. I do think it changes the debate a bit." No, Mr. Brown, what it shows is that non-stop lies to old people too stupid to realize they're being lied to will work for unscrupulous Democrat politicians.

Republicans blasted out a flurry of statements from party leaders Tuesday night, all rejecting the idea that the debate over entitlements was the decisive factor in the New York race. Instead, the GOP pointed to Davis’s involvement and groused about Corwin’s unsteadiness on the campaign trail. But while top Republicans resisted calling the race an up-or-down vote on Medicare, some acknowledged that the GOP had spent the final weeks of the campaign with its back against a wall, having effectively lost control of the campaign narrative. "They were on defense the whole time on Medicare, not on offense on the deficit or Obamacare or anything else," said former Virginia Rep. Tom Davis, who chaired the National Republican Congressional Committee. "You can’t just sit there and be a punching bag on this issue, and that’s what they were." Former New York Rep. Tom Reynolds, himself a former NRCC chairman who held the 26th District seat until 2009, said Medicare "appears to have had an impact both with seniors and independent voters," adding: "Anyone who says this is all Medicare either hasn’t watched the race closely or is just spinning." "This race has a lot of complexities," he said, "which include Medicare but also include a $3 million candidate running on the Tea Party line." One Republican strategist who follows House races put the party’s position in grimmer terms, predicting: "Medicare will define 2012." "From Day One, our members need to be attacking their challenger for supporting the president’s Medicare-cutting health care bill and his plan to ration benefits for future seniors," the strategist wrote in an email. It's all about who can best articulate the benefits of their respective plan. One can safely argue the Democrats have no plan which is true, but if they can sufficiently scare people, apparently they won't need a plan. "Paul Ryan was wrong; leaders don’t change polls — scaring seniors changes polls, and we had better be prepared to do it as shamelessly as they did in this special if we want to retain the majority." It is time to crawl down into the gutter and go elbow to elbow, toe to toe with these sewer dwelling Democrats. The chance that the GOP could lose 24 seats next year, and with them, control of the House, still seems remote. But unlike a few months ago, it no longer seems like an impossibility. There are limits, of course, to the predictive value of a single special election, especially one featuring a third-party wild card. Democrats learned that in 2010, after a pair of 2009 upstate New York Democratic victories and a 2010 win in western Pennsylvania failed to forecast the conservative midterm wave. But as I mention, it does show the dangers that a third party candidate represents in any race.

So the Republican Party now has it's work cut out for it, and the path that needs to be taken has now been made very clear. The mission is to regain control of the narrative, don't wait for an opportunity to present itself to put forward your proposals, and to instead, make the opportunities happen. We need to circumvent those in the state controlled media as they are now firmly in the pocket of the Democrat Party and to be blunt, no longer serve any useful purpose. The argument is important, so to make only half hearted attempts at persuading people of the urgency of our self-inflicted financial predicament does nothing to advance the conservative cause, a cause which should have at its foundation the rescuing of America. Democrats must not be allowed to prevail here, the consequences are just to severe. It's time for a little backbone to appear in many of our more spineless Republicans. Before we can impress upon the American people that the Republican priorities are what's best for the country, our Republican members of Congress or going to need to at least appear to believe that is the case. We need to increase our level of intensity, of our passion, in our believing that it is our ideas which will bring us back from the brink, while those of the Democrats will result in nothing more than our being pushed over the edge. Victory will be ours if we commit ourselves to doing all that is necessary to achieve it. This is no time for wimps, the stakes are way too high.

As of May 20, 2011, the total public debt outstanding stood at $14.34 trillion, according to the Department of Treasury. Prompting House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), in a February 2011 speech at the annual National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) convention, to describe the U.S. fiscal state in this way: "Now surpassing $14.1 trillion, our national debt is on track to eclipse the size of our entire economy this year. In other words, we’re broke. Broke, going on bankrupt." Boehner continued: "Just as a bankrupt business has trouble creating jobs, so does a bankrupt country. ... Yes, this debt is a mortal threat to our country. It is also a moral threat. It is immoral to bind our children to as leeching and destructive a force as debt." "It is immoral to rob our children’s future and make them beholden to China," he said. "No society is worthy that treats its children so shabbily." Personally I find nothing to disagree with in that statement. I think that it sums things up pretty well regarding the quagmire, to use a liberal Democrat word, in which we now find ourselves. And to try to deny that which is so obvious is to deceived the American people regarding the dire straights that we are in here.

It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that what we have here is a pretty serious fiscal and economic mess, first created and made worse by decades of idiotic liberal/progressive policies. But for someone to look me in the eye and to deny that fact goes far beyond simply being dishonest, or excusing it as being your typical politics, it's being devious and insidious to the extreme. Hoyer is a liar as is anyone else, including our "community agitator" president, who attempts to downplay the seriousness of our present situation. To pretend that things are different than we know them to be, does nothing but to allow the situation to become worse, much worse. I detest being lied to, and to be talked down to by someone who is trying to do nothing more than to sell me a bill of goods. And that's all that this dim bulb Hoyer is attempting to do here. Even a blind man can see that we simply cannot go on spending the way we are, and yet that's exactly what Barry and the Democrats are advocating. It's NUTS! What kind of lunatic can see what is taking place in this country, with all of this crazy spending and say, hey no problem, everything is just fine.

Trumka, speaking in front of what I'm pretty sure must have been a very friendly and receptive crowd at the National Press Club luncheon on Friday, accused the Supreme Court of helping to break the American electoral system by ruling that corporations were covered by the First Amendment. Ah, there's that pesky old First Amendment mucking things up again, a First Amendment defined by guys like Trumka view as being something that is a privilege to be enjoyed by a select few more than a right to be enjoyed by all. These guys feel it is something that should be more selectively applied. Ya know, other that Vice President Cheney, it's just not very often that I find myself able to trust any guy with the name, "Dick." And this "Dick" is definitely no exception. Everyday we see more evidence that, except in the public sector, that unions have pretty much worn out their welcome over the years with fewer and fewer Americans wanting to join the ranks of union members. Because other than bilking their members through ever-increasing monthly dues, they really accomplish nothing other than accumulating substantial amounts of money that they then contribute to Democrat Party candidates. That and higher unemployment, at least in the private sector. Public sector jobs are the only ones that seem to be on the increase. And they make almost impossible to fire any public employee no matter how egregious the behavior might be. You know, like an air traffic controller taking a snooze at the most inopportune time. And of course for those union members in the public sector it's the taxpayer who really gets royally screwed being forced to cover outrageous wage and benefit packages through higher and higher taxes. It’s this little nightmare scenario that when combined with the rabid spending that has taken place over the course of the last two years, that forms the cornerstone regarding the cause for our present fiscal collapse.

What seems to cause guys like Trumka so much heartburn is the fact that the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling in Citizens United vs. the FEC lifted restrictions on companies, unions, and other organizations, allowing them to make independent expenditures in political campaigns. In other words, it leveled a playing field that previously had been very dangerously slanted in such a way as to provide unions, who hand over to Democrats astronomical amounts of money, with a very clear and distinct advantage. And, politically speaking, a very unfair advantage. Speaking on union involvement in federal elections, "Dick" Trumka said that the landmark decision put unions at a disadvantage. You can plainly see that lying obviously runs pretty deep out there on the lunatic left. "If you want to look at the system, the system is broken," he said. "The Supreme Court helped break it even more with Citizens United. The system needs to be changed so that average, ordinary Americans can have as strong a voice as ExxonMobil does in the Congress." This is the same old tired and worn-out broken record that we hear anytime we see a little fairness being applied to the system. These union cronies of the Democrat Party find it very difficult to survive in a system that has at its core even the slightest amount of fairness. They require special treatment. It's kind a funny, in a strange kind of way, how guys like Trumka perceive the system as being broken only when all participants in the political arena are treated the same. The system is working just fine only when it's the unions who enjoy a rather lopsided advantage in the whole process. The blatant hypocrisy of these anti-America miscreants is nothing short of astounding. If things don’t favor them and their disgusting tactics, they cry foul.

So despite what this left wing wack job may like you to believe, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United did nothing more than to allow corporations to spend an unlimited amount of money advocating for candidates and causes during elections, though they are still prohibited from giving directly to individual candidates. The ruling also allowed unlimited election spending by unions, which previously had been subject to the same limits as corporations. This clown Trumka said the entire campaign finance system needed an "overhaul," starting at the Supreme Court itself. "The campaign finance laws need to be changed, so I for one would be for an overhaul," he said. "I’d start at the Supreme Court probably because they believe that money equals free speech. That’s what their decision said." Now seriously, does that sound like a statement made by a rational human being, or the ravings of a certifiably insane crackpot. I'll let you decide. I mean, these union extremists have a rather skewed perception of things, in that the "only" ones who should be permitted to have their voices heard are, them. Trumka also said that the Founding Fathers did not intend for financial ability to equal someone’s ability to speak freely. He also called for a more "rational" system that would restore "government of the people." "We need to take on the system and change it and make it more rational so we can have again government of the people, by the people, and for the people," said Trumka. Oh that's just great, Trumka thinking he knows best about what it is that the Founding Fathers intended. I just love it when these leftists attempt to interpret our history or what our Founding Father might have intended. Talk about revisionists!

It was just earlier this year that the Barry "Almighty" administration leaked a draft executive order that would have restricted campaign financing by companies that contract with the government, requiring them to disclose on their contracting applications whether they or any of their top employees made political contributions and the amounts of those contributions. Funny thing though, unions were not included in this rather exclusive little order, even though many federal employees are unionized. And I'm sure we all remember the very un-presidential behavior Barry exhibited during his 2010 State of the Union address to Congress, when Barry "Almighty" put on full display his arrogance by essentially calling out the Supreme Court regarding its decision in Citizens United. "Last week [Jan. 21, 2010], the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections," Barry said. "Well, I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong." It was grossly inappropriate and a blatant lie that even had Justice Alito shaking his head. Our president is nothing short of disgusting. The sooner that we can manage to insert him back into the sewer from which he crawled out, the better off we will all be. It's really quite sad when the president of the United States has no appreciation, whatsoever, for our Constitution and what it stands for. We're going to have to be willing to vanquish this blight on our country in 2012 if we are to have any hope of being able to survive as a nation based on freedom and individual rights. Which is what, despite Mr. Trumka's rather idiotic interpretation, our Founding Fathers intended for us.

I’ve written on this topic before back in January, but back at that time I kinda got the idea that this whole notion was less something that might actually become a reality, than it was more a topic of discussion regarding something that Barry "Almighty" would like to use as a "tool" to cover the massive amount of debt he has created. The "chatter" regarding this little scheme has increased of late to the point that now has me asking, "So, how long before Uncle Sam comes for our private pensions to be used as a method to balance the public budget?" It’s very quickly becoming a reasonable question to ask. After all, it's much easier to confiscate the savings of the American people than it is to actually reduce our out of control spending. Right? Just ask our resident alarmist, "Little" Timmy "The Tax Cheat" Geithner who is busy ringing alarm bells all across Washington, D.C., warning of the disastrous outcome if an agreement to raise the debt ceiling is not made and soon. "A default would call into question, for the first time, the full faith and credit of the U.S. government," Geithner wrote in a letter Friday to Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo. Well, how else can one describe the irresponsible spending that has taken place over the course of the last two years. As has been said on any number of occasions, it is the fact that what we "do not have" is a revenue problem, what we " do have" is a spending problem! And therein lies the cause to our burgeoning debt "crisis." This is "NOT" brain surgery!

After weeks of Timmy making such warnings, nearly nonstop, the United States has now come up against its $1.43 trillion debt ceiling and near as I can tell the sky has not fallen, nor has the World stopped turning. In response, GOP leaders have made what is a very reasonable demand in that cuts in federal spending need to be made that would be equal to any increase in the limit while maintaining a strong line against tax increases. As Congress squares off over a debt ceiling vote, we’re told that Timmy and the Treasury Department has been busy scrambling to find cash in the "couch cushions" in and effort to temporarily tie things over. One of the ways they will work to scare up a little extra cash is by putting off saving for the retirements of federal workers, in effect, short-term "borrowing" from public pension funds. By suspending investments into the civil service retirement and disability fund, as well as putting off reinvestments into another big retirement bucket known as the G-Fund, Treasury could "claw back" up to $202 billion, at least according to estimates made by Reuters. That sounds like a lot, but it’s just 10 percent of the $2 trillion the agency says it needs to stay afloat until after Election Day 2012, and it will have to be put back. So once again it sounds like we're robbing Peter to pay Paul, the typical method for Democrats when it comes to doing the books.

Holding off public pension payments could be cast as prudent short-term scrambling to avoid a serious problem with U.S. Treasury holders. Taken another way, such moves could instead be seen as the first step toward an eventual tax or outright "seizure" of private savings in tax-favored retirement plans. That simply can happen here, you say? Well not that long ago I was willing to bet that we wouldn’t ever have to deal with socialized medicine in this country, but look at us now. The seizure of private pensions has happened in plenty of indebted countries, such as Argentina and Hungary, and it just happened last week in Ireland. Hungary seized $14 billion from private pensions, according to The Christian Science Monitor, while Bulgaria and Poland demanded partial government control of private savings. Earlier, Ireland dipped into state pension funds to bail out banks and, more recently, finding itself unable issue new debt, the Irish finance ministry announced it would tax private savings at a rate of 0.6 percent of assets over a four-year period, a decision it expects to raise $668.2 million per year. So with the precedent having now been set, in a sense, it’s not much of a stretch to imagine Barry now trying the same stunt here in America. And speaking of Ireland, it has now asked America for financial assistance even though we too are broke. So I guess we're simply expected to borrow more money from Communist China so that we can then lend it to the Irish in order to help them take care of their insolvency problem. Does this screwy little financial scenario make sense to anyone?

So what "deep pockets" could Treasury and Congress target next in the coming years to cover their excesses? Hold on to your hats, make that your wallets, folks, those so-called "deep pockets and/or wallets" are yours! Like you didn’t already know that, right? Despite reports that Americans are woefully unprepared for retirement, Americans with access to private 401(k) plans have been good about saving. Americans held $3.1 trillion in 401(k) plans as of Dec. 31, according to the Investment Company Institute. That makes for a very tempting target for Barry "Almighty" and the congressional Democrats. So the cash cow that could be used to subsidize our Barry "Almighty" created debt may be…YOU! Fidelity Investments, which manages 11 million participants in 16,500 employer-sponsored plans, says savings are at the highest level in years. The average account balance is at $74,900, up 12 percent from the previous year and at an all-time high, Fidelity told Bloomberg News. Vanguard Investments said of its 3.5 million participants' average account balances hit $79,077 recently. For long-term savers, the average was higher, Fidelity noted, at $191,000 for those who had saved for 10 continuous years and $233,800 for those over the age of 55 who had saved for 10 years consecutively. Now, I’m pretty sure those who make up Barry’s core constituency more often than not are busy spending more of their income on booze, drugs and hookers than they are on their retirement. So this potential scheme of Barry’s will, most likely, have very little effect, if any, on whether or not these folks support this blatant abuse of power. Also it remains a pretty sure bet that 99 percent of them will still vote for him. After all, he not robbing from them.

While those retirement savings are technically tax-free until their holders take distributions, the government could very easily force earlier distributions and then simply tax them more heavily. Currently, the "minimum required distributions" age is 70½. That affects all IRA-type funds except tax-free Roth IRAs, including SEP and Simple IRAs commonly used by small business owners. Potentially, the deal on Roth IRAs could be undone, too. Megan McArdle at "The Atlantic" believes both traditional IRAs are in danger due to normal tax increases and that tax-free Roth accounts eventually will be tapped, too. The government raised the income limits for conversions of Roth IRAs and fearful Americans responded. Conversions subsequently spiked fourfold in 2010, Fidelity Investments said in February. That means a short-term spike in tax collection as people pay for the conversions now but then tax-free growth for years to come, unless, of course, Uncle Sam gets desperate. And trust me when I say, Uncle Sam is going to get desperate, that’s a forgone conclusion because there is no desire whatsoever to curb our out of control spending. This binge that Barry has us on has got to be brought under control or the resulting hangover may prove to be terminal.

"I think that Congress is going to go after all of it," McArdle writes. "But Congress doesn't have to do anything special to get money out of traditional IRAs; it just has to raise income taxes. (401ks and traditional IRAs are taxed at ordinary income tax rates). Roth IRAs, on the other hand, represent a sizable pool of tax-free assets." The shear arrogance involved here not only of our president but of the Democrats in Congress as well, that they can somehow manipulate the system to steal from the American people money they have saved for their retirements is appalling. Congress might end the tax break on municipal bonds, too. As Jason Zweig at The Wall Street Journal points out, the muni bond tax break has been a perennial target of politicians over the years. Now, the idea of removing the tax break, a major support for retiree income, is on the table. We know that because the recent Barry deficit commission brought it up. The Congressional Budget Office figures killing the tax exemption would save $143 billion from 2012 to 2021. With us having accrued a debt of over $1.6 Trillion just this year, thanks to the rabid spending of Barack Hussein Obama, what does the "saving" of $143 billion really amount to in the big scheme of things other than the robbing from American their retirement savings.

It seems that something is going to have to give. Angel Gurria, Secretary General of the Paris-based Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), recently warned that the developed countries face a "Mount Everest" of debt that will take a generation to unload. Really? "We have unsustainable deficits throughout the OECD countries. And that includes the United States and includes Japan. That also includes the whole of Europe, practically the whole of Europe," Gurria told CNBC. Growth will continue, Gurria said, and countries will begin to address their individual problems, but the really tough decisions are still years away, he warned, as legions of workers in the biggest economies quit work and begin to draw promised pensions and health benefits. "We’re going to find ourselves in a very uncomfortable situation in two, three, four years' time. Then we’re going to have to come down from there, and by that time, we’re going to have the aging process come in. So, it’s going to take a generation to get out of this situation of the debt in the OECD countries." So if the "really" tough decisions are still supposed to be years away, doesn't it make sense to start toward a more rational fiscal policy now so that those decisions become a little less tough, or perhaps won't need to be made at all? This insane pace of spending that has been underway practically since day one by Barry "Almighty," has got to be reduced, and quickly!

So what is it that Barry and his socialist cadre of cheerleaders of his bogus economic revitalization policies see as being the solution to this ongoing scenario, at least here in America? This little band of malcontents comprised exclusively of uniquely worthless academics, bureaucrats, members of the state-controlled media and patently corrupt politicians. What they have in mind is the confiscating of all that money which you have been scrimping and saving all these years to put toward your retirement. What a deal, right? Because you see, this slime bag president of ours, and his rat pack in Congress, don’t have to worry about their retirements, because, thanks to your tax dollars, those are all covered. So in effect you’ll be paying for the retirement of all these corrupt politicians, just not your own. Ah, "Hope and Change," don’t ya just love it? One gain, proof that "change" just for the sake of change is not always what's needed.

This week the seventh meeting took place between Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and our "Supreme Leader," Barry "Almighty" since Barry took office, and the two men are now facing what can accurately be described as a turning point in their relationship. A relationship that, I think it fair to say, has never been warm. By all accounts, they do not trust each other and from Mr. Netanyahu point of view, with good reason. Barry has told aides and allies alike that he does not believe that Mr. Netanyahu will ever be willing to make the kind of big concessions that will lead to a peace deal. What Barry, like most progressives, fails to understand or realize, which is but one thing on a very long list of many, is the fact that the Palestinians aren't after concessions. Arafat squelched that myth a long time ago when he was literally handed everything that he supposedly wanted by then Prime Minister Ehud Barak. Miraculously, Arafat turned him down, and then promptly started an Intifada. Barak, touted as "Mr. Security," proceeded to withdraw unilaterally from South Lebanon, creating a vacuum very soon filled by Hezbollah, and then worked with Bill Clinton to prepare a complete withdrawal from virtually all of Judea and Samaria. Barak then proceeded to loss control of the government to Ariel Sharon in what was essentially a landslide.

Fast forward to today and for his part, Mr. Netanyahu has complained, and rightly so, that Imam Obama has now pushed Israel too far, a point driven home most recently during a furious phone call with Hitlary Clinton on Thursday morning. The call took place just hours before Barry’s anti-Israeli speech, which was specifically designed to undercut Mr. Netanyahu's visit. Barry's speech, a segment of which begins this post, was one which the prime minister reacted very angrily to, and deservedly so, regarding Barry’s asinine plan to endorse Israel’s pre-1967 borders for a future Palestinian Terrorist state. The boundaries that Barry endorsed Thursday as Israel’s future borders would leave the country, at its narrowest point, only nine miles wide between "Palestine" and the Mediterranean Sea. By declaring that the Palestinian terror state should border Jordan, Barry furthermore implied that Israel should not retain possession of the strategic Jordan Valley, the strip of land immediately to the west of the Jordan River. A succession of Israeli governments, both right and left, together with generations of top military officers, have argued that a military presence there is essential for the future security if Israel.

Sometimes inaccurately called the "1967 borders," the lines referred to by Barry, a fact that I'm sure he must be aware of, are actually the 1949 armistice lines that were in place up until the June 1967 Six Day War. By the time the fighting ended, Israel had captured the entire West Bank, including eastern parts of Jerusalem from Jordan; the Gaza Strip and Sinai Peninsula from Egypt; and the Golan Heights from Syria. The demonstrably indefensible boundaries held by Israel between 1948 and 1967 prompted Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban’s famous remark in 1969 to the effect that those borders evoked the Nazi extermination camp at Auschwitz. "I do not exaggerate when I say that it has for us something of a memory of Auschwitz," Eban was quoted as saying. "We shudder when we think of what would have awaited us in the circumstances of June, 1967, if we had been defeated; with Syrians on the mountain and we in the valley, with the Jordanian army in sight of the sea, with the Egyptians who hold our throat in their hands in Gaza. This is a situation which will never be repeated in history." This is the environment what Barry wants to return Israel to. His hated of the Jewish state could not be more obvious.

When it comes to these men being able to trust one another, I think very fair to say that of the two, Mr. Netanyahu has the much better reason not to trust Barry than Barry has to distrust Mr. Netanyahu. The last-minute furor highlights the discord as they head into what one Israeli official described as a "train wreck" coming their way, that being, a United Nations General Assembly vote on Palestinian statehood coming this September. Mr. Netanyahu, at least according to close associates, is desperate for Barry to use the diplomatic muscle of the United States to protect Israel from the vote, not only by vetoing it in the Security Council, but also by leaning hard on America’s European allies to get them to reject it as well. Apparently, Barry has indicated that he will certainly do the first, but as he has demonstrated so many times before, can you really take him at his word. THAT'S A BIG NO! Especially with he continuing propensity for telling rather outrageous lies. Besides, it still remains unclear how far Barry would be willing to go to in any effort to persuade Britain, France and other American allies to join the United States in rejecting the move, particularly as long as Mr. Netanyahu continues to resist endorsing the pre-1967 lines.

Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League and a friend of Mr. Netanyahu’s, recalled that after the first meeting between the two men, Mr. Netanyahu had told him that he had been impressed with Barry’s intellect, and that the American presidency "was his to lose." An impression that would indicate that Mr. Netanyahu made not be the judge of character that he thought he was. But things very quickly went downhill after Barry officially took office and, within months, called for a halt in Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank. Slamming the dictates of Barry, Mr. Netanyahu refused, handing the new president his first foreign policy humiliation when Barry had to abandon the demand in the face of Israel’s refusal to comply. Compounding the problem, Mr. Netanyahu delivered a fiery speech to a pro-Israel lobbying group in Washington declaring that "Jerusalem isn’t a settlement, it’s our capital." A furious White House promptly shoed just how childish it can be, by then denying Mr. Netanyahu all the trappings of a presidential meeting with Barry the next day, even refusing to allow photographers to take pictures of the two men in the Oval Office, as is usually the case for meetings with foreign leaders.

Things got so bad between the two leaders, Mr. Foxman recalled, that Mr. Netanyahu "told me, ‘Abe, I need two hours just alone to talk to him." Late last year, Mr. Netanyahu got his two hours at the White House with Barry, a meeting which, both American and Israeli officials say, helped clear the air. "The relationship now is very cordial," a senior White House official said. These clowns must have a very interesting definition for "cordial" because Barry's behavior toward Mr. Netanyahu has always been one of very thinly veiled disdain, an arrogance that has him coming off as someone trying to bully someone that is smaller and weaker. But the easing of tensions came to and end this spring when, Israeli and American officials said, Mr. Netanyahu got wind of Barry’s plans to make a major address on the Middle East, and alerted Republican leaders that he would like to address a joint meeting of Congress. That move was widely interpreted as an attempt to get out in front of Barry, by presenting an Israeli peace proposal that, while short of what the Palestinians want, would box in the president. House Speaker John Boehner issued the invitation, for late May. And we are all very well aware that Barry is notoriously thin-skinned.

So it was then that White House officials arranged Barry’s speech on Thursday to make sure that this time around Barry went first. "You get so many reports that Bibi is playing politics in your backyard that eventually you’ve got to draw the conclusion that there’s nothing there to work with this guy," said Daniel Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator who is now a fellow with the New American Foundation, referring to Mr. Netanyahu by his nickname. Administration officials said that they were determined not to allow Mr. Netanyahu to get out in front of Barry. In a statement after Mr. Barry’s speech on Thursday, Mr. Netanyahu’s office pointedly said that the prime minister would raise his concerns about Barry’s language about the pre-1967 borders during Friday’s meeting. "While there were many points in the president’s speech that we appreciate and welcome, there were other aspects, like the return to the 1967 borders, which depart from longstanding American policy, as well as Israeli policy, going back to 1967," Michael B. Oren, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, said in an interview.

Also now jumping onboard this crazy train and adding a little more fuel to what is now the sizeable fire created by the insane proposal advocated by Barry in his Mideast speech, was that imbecilic blast from the past, none other that former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. Apparent, Mr. Brzezinski is of the opinion that Barry's speech was far too "timid, adding that it cannot generate international support for the peace process. Old "Bonehead" Brzezinski also said Friday while on MSNBC’s "Morning Joe" that, left to themselves, the Israelis and the Palestinians will not resolve their decades-old issues. No sh!t there Sherlock! It doesn't take a rocket scientist to determine that when you've got one side that genuinely wants piece and the other side wanting nothing more than the annihilation of the other side, that peace is going to be a pretty hard commodity to come by. "I thought I heard a speech which was trying to initiate movement on the peace process, a peace process that is stalemated, but, a rather timid initiative in my mind, which as a result is not likely to mobilize the kind of support that is needed to move the process forward," said Brzezinski, who was Jimmy "Peanut Brain" Carter’s national security adviser during the 1978 Camp David Accords that led to an Israel-Egypt "peace treaty." "I think if we are going to have peace in the Middle East, we have to face two basic realities, fundamental realities: First of all, the parties to the conflict, the Israelis and the Palestinians, will never resolve it by themselves — the differences between them are just not bridgeable by themselves," Brzezinski said. "Secondly, the issue in the Middle East is not just security for Israel, or rights for the Palestinians — it’s also fundamental American national interest — and that has to guide American policy. "So, I approve of what the president did, but I wish he had gone further, because if he had, he would have been able to mobilize much more support from among the Israelis, the Palestinians and the international community," he said. So here we have someone who dates all the way back to the 70's and is someone that clearly reveals that this dangerous agenda toward Israel is far from being anything new.

So what I fail to understand is why it is that a very substantial number of those in the Jewish community continue to insist upon supporting people who exhibit this type of warped mentality. It just leaves me scratching my head. The one political party that has always been more than eager to throw Israel to the Arab wolves is the one party that a majority of Jews continue to reliably vote for. It simply makes no sense to me. Oddly enough, according to pollster John Zogby, despite the uproar over Barry's support for Palestinian demands that Israel return to its 1967 borders, he predicts that Barry won’t suffer significant defections from Jewish voters at the polls in 2012. Zogby noted that Democrats traditionally enjoy a 75 percent to 25 percent advantage in the Jewish vote. The lone exception was Ronald Reagan’s re-election bid in 1984. He says that it will take more than a little friction with the current leadership of Israel to change that dynamic. "Israel is extremely important to American Jews. But so are traditional liberal stances, particularly on social issues." So there you go, the Jews in this country are now cheerfully furnishing the rope with which Israel will get hung, or is that hanged. And they are apparently very happy to do so. Nice!

Sadly we now have a man who is supposed to be the leader of the free world but who has instead continually chosen to abdicate that responsibility. The most recent example of this is his very cheerfully throwing of one our staunchest allies on the planet firmly under the proverbial bus. This most pathetic of men, most disgusting of men, this man whom we elected, represents the complete opposite of all that this country has stood for, for over 230 years. He has repeatedly turned on our friends and kowtowed to our enemies, the whole time having a smile on his face. This cannot be allowed to stand, and this sad situation that we brought upon ourselves by electing this man is something that must be reversed in 18 months. His time in office will forever remain a stain on this country that will be a constant reminder of what voter ignorance can bring about. And it will be very difficult to get passed all that he has done to the reputation of our great country. He has committed, and continues to commit, crimes against freedom. We must purge ourselves of this malignancy in 2012, or risk becoming mired down in the sewage that will most assuredly be the legacy that Barry leaves behind for us.

In what was all nothing more than a silly attempt to convince Americans that their worries about his country’s rapid military growth and expansion are completely unwarranted, we had a top Chinese general coming to Washington on Wednesday saying that the communist nation’s defense clout lags decades behind that of the U.S., and that China very much wants there to be warmer relations between the two countries. Yeah, and if you believe that crap you're as stupid as these guys thinks you are. Look, these Communists are, and have been for quite some time now, committed to one thing, and thanks to Barry and the scumbag Democrats there are now whole lot closer to the achieving of their goal than they were before Barry assumed the duties of Commander-in-Chief. One of the most dangerous aspects of what has taken place is the fact that the Communists have assumed a huge portion of our debt, and having done so have managed to acquire for themselves a certain amount of very significant leverage.

Gen. Chen Bingde, the top commie general to whom I make reference, whose position in Beijing is roughly the equivalent our chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, used a 45-minute speech/sales job/con job at the National Defense University to play down any fears regarding Chinese intentions. "Although China’s defense and military development has come a long way in recent years, a gaping gap between you and us remains," Chen said through a Chinese interpreter. He added, "China never intends to challenge the U.S." Now look, if there is anything that we know about these soulless individuals, with any degree of certainty whatsoever, it's that they continually lie, and rather convincingly, about what their true intensions are. To risk taking what he has said with anything other than a grain of salt, would be very reckless on our part. Having said that, however, it would seem that Barry is only too willing to lend a helping hand to the nation who wishes to replace us by expediting our demise.

Our buddy Chen made a similar point later on while at a Pentagon news conference with his American counterpart, Navy Adm. Mike Mullen. As far as I'm concerned this guy Mullen is a dope, every time I see this clown I find myself wondering just how it was that he got that job. He strikes me as being just a bit too much of a politician, or put another way, nothing but a brown-noser. Anyway, Chen said, "I can tell you that China does not have the capability to challenge the United States" Adding that China’s wealth and military strength pales in comparison with that of the United States. He said China’s navy is 20 years behind the U.S. Navy. This is the same level of propaganda that you hear from Barry. What amount of technology have we "willingly" provided to this communist country going all the way back to "BJ" Clinton? And what valuable technology has been recently been provided to the communists by one of the most recent additions to the Barry administration, GE Chairman and CEO, Jeffrey Immelt? Because of such "opportunities," the Communist Chinese have attained the ability to make up for those 20 years in very short order.

Chen‘s remarks were in line with China’s strategy of countering U.S. fear of China as a military threat by emphasizing the limited scope of its military reach and advancing efforts to cooperate in areas like counterterrorism and anti-piracy. Chen said that he has invited Mullen to make his first visit to China as Joint Chiefs chairman. Chen and Mullen announced several agreements, including a plan for the U.S. and Chinese militaries to jointly conduct a humanitarian assistance and disaster relief exercise in 2012. They also agreed to use a special telephone link to maintain communication between their offices. This whole sideshow all nothing more than some sinister little charade put together by a nation that we quite simply cannot afford to trust. To do so is at our peril. It has it's eye on replacing America as the world's dominate player, and it has laid out for itself an agenda for accomplishing just that. And what's really kind of amazing is the fact that it is making significant progress with help from us.

This general told a group of reporters from our lap dog media, who, I might add, enthusiastically took onboard all that this Commie was telling them. He peddled such drivel as how it is that China’s recent boost of investment in military power is "compensatory in nature," making up for decades during which modernizing the Chinese economy was given the first priority. Washington often complains that China is too secretive about the purpose and exact scale of its military buildup. To illustrate his point that any fear of Red China is severely overblown and is not a threat, even to Taiwan, Chen noted that some Americans have called on China to remove or withdraw ballistic missiles positioned on its southeast coast, across from Taiwan. "I can tell you here responsibly that we only have garrison deployment across (from) Taiwan, and we do not have operational deployment, much less missiles stationed there," Chen said. Sure thing there General. Whatever you say! Does this guy really think that anyone, other than of course those warped individuals who reside inside the beltway, is going to believe anything that he says?

Chen, chief of the general staff of the People’s Liberation Army, is leading a delegation of eight Chinese generals on a weeklong visit to the United States. The "People's Liberation Army," now is that an oxymoron or what. It might be more appropriate to call it the "People's Extermination Army," because this army has absolutely nothing to with liberating anybody and everything to do with exterminating anyone who may voice even the slightest amount of dissent against the state. Any voice of opposition is squelched by guys like this general. They are the guardians of the never-ending oppression where the state has assumed total control over the populace. These people must be seen for what they are, a threat to this country on any number of levels. They are determined in there continuing effort to undermine us whenever and wherever the opportunity may present itself. All this faux good will, and the presenting of a willingness to work together is nothing more than PR campaign on the part of the Communist Chinese. We must not allow ourselves to fall into the trap that is so obviously being laid.