This is the definition of Political "Bait and Switch" as cited by Wikipedia

In lawmaking, "caption bills" that propose minor changes in law with simplistic titles (the bait) are introduced to the legislature with the ultimate objective of substantially changing the wording (the switch) at a later date in order to try to smooth the passage of a controversial or major amendment. Rule changes are also proposed (the bait) to meet legal requirements for public notice and mandated public hearings, then different rules are proposed at a final meeting (the switch), thus bypassing the objective of public notice and public discussion on the actual rules voted upon. While legal, the political objective is to get legislation or rules passed without anticipated negative community review.

What do you think?

Solyndra LLC’s workers making solar-power panels in a California factory subsidized by U.S. taxpayers showed “the promise of clean energy isn’t just an article of faith,” President Barack Obama said on a visit to the company in May 2010.

Two months before Obama’s visit, accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP warned that Solyndra, the recipient of $535 million in federal loan guarantees, had financial troubles deep enough to “raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern.”

+

With each passing day, the so-called "mainstream media" - known here as the "Democrat-media complex" - proves it can no longer be trusted to provide Americans with objective news, especially in the arena of Presidential politics.

+

Not since Ronald Reagan has a Republican candidate for president evoked such outright fear and loathing from the mainstream media and the far-left.

On July 3, 2008 -- the day before Independence Day -- Barack Obama said that adding $4 trillion in debt was irresponsible and "unpatriotic.

Obama: The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents - #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back -- $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic.

Should a member of Congress tell American citizens "Go Straight to Hell"?

Is this what Americans can expect from our Democratic Representatives?

What do you think?

Dangit: So Far, No Dirt on Perry

Foes of Rick Perry have tried for years to find dirt on the Texas governor, running down rumors he's gay or has messed around, and they have come up empty handed so often that some are urging the national Democrats to find another avenue to hit the surging GOP presidential candidate on.

Just this week, political gadfly, critic, and Ron Paul backer Robert Morrow ran an ad in a Texas weekly newspaper seeking "stripper...escort...or 'young hottie' " who had been with Perry. The headline on the ad, splashed around the Internet: "Have You Ever Had Sex With Rick Perry?" [See a slideshow of who's in and who's out in 2012.]

Such searches are a "waste of time," says one Democratic operative who's been involved in previous efforts to build an opposition research file on the Republican. "Perry has been vetted to the max. And the press in Texas is no pussycat. They looked into everything too and found nothing," added the operative.

"The fact is that there is just no evidence of these moral problems," says the operative.

What do you think, the two governors, one of the state of New Jersey andd the other from the state of Texas.

They both are charismatic.

They both are  believers in Christ and not ashamed of it.

They both want to stop the irresponsible spending in goverment.

They are two men cut from the same cloth, I like them both.

I believe both Gov Rick Perry + Gov Chris Christi would make an excellent US President.

They are very similar in their passion for their God + Country.

I would vote for either Gov for President.

I believe Gov Rick Perry will be the next 2012 President of the United States.

A three-judge panel of the 11^th Circuit Court of Appeals has now weighed in and two of the judges, one Republican and one Democratic appointee, ruled unconstitutional the health care legislation’s mandate requiring people to have health insurance.  That’s the good news....

Although as a presidential candidate, Barack Obama criticized the mandate; now the Obama Justice Department says the mandate is absolutely necessary to make the law work.  It’s just one of many Obama flip-flops in his long and sordid drive to control virtually every part of the U.S. health care system.

Another of the important flip-flops playing a role in the 11^th Circuit’s decision is whether the mandate is a tax.  In the fall of 2009, the president told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos in a televised interview that the mandate absolutely was not a tax.  Now, of course, the Justice Department claims it absolutely is.

A federal appeals court struck down a key part of President Obama's national healthcare law Friday, ruling that Congress does not have the power to require all Americans to buy health insurance.

In a 2-1 decision, judges in Atlanta said this mandate is "unprecedented" and unlike any commercial regulation upheld in the past.

Even during the Great Depression or World War II, "Congress never sought to require the purchase of wheat or war bonds, force a higher savings rate or greater consumption of American goods," the judges said. Although Congress may regulate those who buy insurance, it may not regulate those who "have not entered the insurance market and have no intention of doing so."

The decision by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals is a victory for 26 states, led by Florida, which challenged the law as unconstitutional. However, the judges agreed that the rest of the law beyond the mandate is constitutional.

The decision now sets the stage for a Supreme Court ruling in the next year that could determine the fate of the huge healthcare reform law.

In June, an appeals court in Ohio upheld the law in a 2-1 decision.

//

Republicans retained majority control of the Wisconsin Senate in a recall election that was spurred by Republican Gov. Scott Walker's agenda of cutting unionized state workers' rights.

The recall election also helps to determine whether the Republican party in Wisconsin, led by Walker, will regain momentum or has suffered a major setback since it swept into power in 2010. Both republicans and Democrats were testing messages ahead of the 2012 presidential race, in which Wisconsin is expected to be an important swing state.

In a new sign of President Obama's troubles with his Democratic base, liberal bloggers and activists are buzzing over a new essay that is profoundly critical of Obama's supposed betrayal of liberal ideals.

The article is "What Happened to Obama?" by Emory University psychology professor Drew Westen.  Writing in Sunday's New York Times, Westen argues that Obama's "deep-seated aversion to conflict and his profound failure to understand bully dynamics" -- by that, Westen means the political tactics of the Republican party -- have resulted not just in Obama's failing to achieve economic recovery and significant reforms but in his setting back the cause of recovery and reform for "at least a generation."

...Why has Obama been such a disappointment?  Westen comes up with a few theories that sound strikingly familiar to Obama's critics on the right.  Perhaps Obama "is simply not up to the task" of being president.  Perhaps the Democrats who were so dazzled by his campaign speeches should have noticed "some disquieting aspects of his biography."  Among those disquieting aspects: "that he had accomplished very little before he ran for president, having never run a business or a state; that he had a singularly unremarkable career as a law professor, publishing nothing in 12 years at the University of Chicago other than an autobiography; and that, before joining the United States Senate, he had voted 'present' (instead of 'yea' or 'nay') 130 times, sometimes dodging difficult issues."  Go to any conservative blog, and you'll find many similar critiques, dating to well before the 2008 election.

Read more: http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/liberals-buzz-over-brutal-takedown-obama#ixzz1URwBTRnk

C. Boyden Gray makes the case that Media Matters should not be granted tax-exempt status in the Washington Times:

"

David Brock, the conservative turned liberal advocate, has recently garnered a considerable amount of press coverage for his attacks on Fox News for, among many other things, allegedly taking over leadership of the Republican Party. What the news coverage has ignored is his use of tax-free funds for his organization, Media Matters for America (MMA), for these attacks — a form of government support for activities that clearly do not merit tax-exempt status and that as a result infringe on Fox News’ First Amendment rights."

NYPD: Suspects Spoke Of Dressing As Hasidic Jews To Do Job

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — Less than two weeks after the death of Osama bin Laden, authorities arrested two men allegedly plotting to blow up area synagogues and possibly The Empire State Building.

The men — both residents of Queens –  are U.S. residents of Algerian and Moroccan descent. They were identified by authorities as Ahmed Ferhani, 26, and Mohammed Mehdi Mamdouh, 20.

Detectives from the NYPD Intelligence Division arrested the men around 6 p.m. Wednesday evening.

“If you listen to the rhetoric, if you listen to the tapes in this case, it’s quite clear that there was a vehement anti-Semitic viewpoint on the part of these individuals,” Kelly said. “On the same day after Mamdouh said, ‘I hate Jews,’ Ferhani replied, ‘I want to kill them.’”

In normal times, the officials who uncovered the intelligence that led us to Osama bin Laden would get a medal. In the Obama administration, they have been given subpoenas.

On his second day in office, Obama shut down the CIA’s high-value interrogation program. His Justice Department then reopened criminal investigations into the conduct of CIA interrogators — inquiries that had been closed years before by career prosecutors who concluded that there were no crimes to prosecute. In a speech at the National Archives, Obama eviscerated the men and women of the CIA, accusing them of “torture” and declaring that their work “did not advance our war and counterterrorism efforts — they undermined them.”

Now, it turns out that the very CIA interrogators whose lives Obama turned upside down played a critical role in what the president rightly calls “the most significant achievement to date in our nation’s effort to defeat al Qaeda.”

It is time for a public apology.

Former United States Solicitor General Paul Clement announced recently that he will be leaving the Atlanta based law firm King and Spalding after the firm pulled out of a contract to defend the Constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act following pressure from radical homosexual groups. The announcement also follows the decision of the Obama administration to no longer defend the Constitutionality of DOMA in court.

I could not agree more with the statement of Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council: “It is a shocking revelation that King & Spalding would rather lose their most brilliant and talented Supreme Court lawyer than confront a smear campaign by homosexual activists.”

This is a critical meeting that did not receive much Press, Rep Sue Myrick was critical of our Federal Government for not having a strategy or foreign policy for groups like the Muslim Brotherhood.

U.S Representative Sue Myrick (NC), Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism,HUMINT,Analysis, and Counter Intelligence (THAC I) stated in hearing on 4/13/2011 that...

"The Federal Government does not have a comprehensive or consistent strategy for dealing with the Muslim Brotherhood AND its affiliated groups in America; nor does it have a strategy for dealing with the Brotherhood in Egypt, or the Greater Mideast! We need to examine closely whether its true goal is setting up a worldwide Regime is still in place!"

UPDATE: Here’s the full press release from the House Sub-Committee on Terrorism, HUMINT, Analysis, and Counterintelligence

Hearing to Examine Burgeoning Political and Religious Entities in the Middle East

THACI Subcommittee Chair, Sue Myrick Announces Open Hearing

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Representative Sue Myrick (NC), Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, HUMINT, Analysis, and Counterintelligence (THACI) today announced the first in a series of Subcommittee hearings. The THACI Subcommittee hearing on Wednesday, April 13th, which will be open to the public, will examine the unfolding political landscape in the Middle East and the kinds of governments that may take root.“As governments are shaken in the Arab spring, intelligence agencies across the world are studying what kind of governments would follow in a new geo-political landscape across the Middle East,” said Rep. Myrick.

“With this open hearing, I seek to encourage a conversation about rising political and religious entities, including the Muslim Brotherhood, to help assist analysts across the world struggling to understand what comes next in the Middle East,” Rep. Myrick said.

“Additionally, this hearing will address how our government is and should be dealing with organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood.”

This is Senator Obama voicing his concern over raising the Debt Ceiling in 2006. This statement states increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally + leadership means that "the buck stops here."? Why is it different in 2001?

Is a debt problem in 2006 "bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren" and it is not with Trillion debt in 2011?

Why is it in 2006 Senator Obama states "It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies"? Why does he not think it is risky borrowing almost half of every dollar US spends?

Senator Obama's statement

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."

End of statement by Senator Obama

What do you think?

Why did President Obama change his statements on "America's debt problem and it being a failure of leadership + Americans deserve better"?

Why was Raising Debt Limit "a failure of leadership" in 2006 + not when we owe $14 Trillion?

Vote in the Poll and comment.

State says political advocacy group illegally paid to register new voters

"LAS VEGAS — Nevada authorities filed criminal charges Monday against the political advocacy group ACORN and two former employees, alleging they illegally paid canvassers to sign up new voters during last year's presidential campaign.

House Republicans unveiled a budget proposal Tuesday that they claimed would avert a debt-driven "economic collapse" by cutting more than $6 trillion over the next decade.

The proposal, unveiled by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., would overhaul two major entitlement programs and impose caps on government spending, with the goal of stabilizing and eventually paying down the debt. It is literally trillions of dollars apart from the budget President Obama released earlier in the year, and its release marks the start of what is expected to be a drag-out budget fight in Congress.

"Our goal here is to leave our children and our grandchildren with a debt-free nation," Ryan said Tuesday. The congressman had tough words for Obama's 10-year budget plan, accusing the White House of speeding up the country's "descent into a debt crisis" by growing government.

Article in part + Video
"Be proud, Washington's 7th District, as your congressman, Jim McDermott, expresses his exasperation of "silly stuff" like "reading the Constitution."

One other note on McDermott: a friend recently visited Washington as part of a group of representatives of foreign governments, and the event organizers traditionally invite a member of Congress to speak to the group. Usually, the member offers the generic "welcome to Washington, it's wonderful you're here to see our system of democracy in action, together we can work to solve our common challenges" kumbaya-style remarks. McDermott was the representative who spoke to them, and my friend said he had never heard such a strikingly partisan and nasty diatribe, blaming his Congressional Republican counterparts for every problem under the sun, domestically and abroad."

For months, Democrats have been accusing Republicans of pushing Congress toward a government shutdown that could be catastrophic for the economy.

But now one prominent Democrat says a government shutdown would be "the best thing in the world" for his party.

"From a partisan point of view, I think it would be the best thing in the world to have a shutdown," Sen. Howard Dean said Tuesday at a National Journal Insider Conference's panel.

That's because, Dean said, Republicans would be blamed for it.

"If I was head of DNC, I would be quietly rooting for it," Dean said. "I know who's going to get blamed. We've been down this road before."

This is the Lawyer for the Teachers Union, he publicly states what his NEA Union is all about, Money and Power.

Article in part and link

"General Counsel Bob Chanin explains to NEA convention why Big Labor is so powerful:

"Despite what some among us would like to believe it is not because of our creative ideas; it is not because of the merit of our positions; it is not because we care about children; and it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child."
"The NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power. And we have power because there are more than 3.2 million people who are willing to pay us hundreds of million of dollars in dues each year because they believe that we are the unions that can most effectively represent them; the union that can protect their rights and advance their interests as education employees."

End of Article in part and link

There were schools that were closed in Wisconsin when Teachers called en-mass for a "sick out" or work stoppage to protest for their Union.

Many parents were now faced with an emergency of what they were going to do, their child was to be in school and was not sick, the parent could not get a sick note to be away from their employment to care for their child.

Who is responsible for the loss of wages or loss of employment of the parents who had the emergency of those teachers who called in "sick" to protest for their Union.

Will there be any law suits if some of these parents lost their jobs or their children were compromised for the irresponsible actions of the fraud "sick out"?

Who would be responsible if any of these parents who were inconvenienced or may have lost wages or maybe a job due to the teachers who closed schools in Wisconsin?

These teachers in Wisconsin cannot strike, it is against the law.

They just called in "sick" and closed the schools.

How many children were left to fend for themselves, or parents, or single Moms who did not have any options but to lose wages or possibly a new job for these teachers who fraudulently called in sick and closed their schools to protest for their Union?

Who would have legal responsibility?

The Teachers or their Union?

What do you think?

There are many Teachers who are breaking their Teacher contract by not showing up for work (closing some schools) and using fraudulent doctors notes which states they are sick. It is in their Contract they cannot fraudulently claim to be sick to be available to protest in the streets.

These teachers are being paid sick leave to protest in the street, they are paid with Tax Dollars, Federal, State, your Tax Dollars.

Some teachers have brought their students to protest with them.

There is video evidence of columnist like Josiah Cantrell who was advised at WI Union Headquarters where to go for a fraudulent doctor's note to get paid sick leave and protest against Governor Walker.

There were several licensed doctors and other nursing staff in the midst of the screaming protestors who helped develop ailment excuses and fraudulent doctors notes so these State employees can be paid sick leave while they protest for their Union.

What do you think; should these State employees be paid with Tax Dollars under fraudulent sick notes while they scream and waive furiously in a Union Protest?

I think it is an abuse of Tax Dollars and their should be an Investigation into the State employees who are being paid under false documentation, they are obviously not sick as they are screaming, some waiving scandalous Vitriol and running with no physical impairments.

I recall a case where an employee claimed to be ill and receiving Worker's Compensation Benefits until they posted a picture of themselves on a Social Network showing themselves in a nightclub dancing lively and drinking. This person was then denied benefits and brought up on charges for fraud.

Is this Right, these Teachers are expecting to be paid for sick leave while they are yukking it up for the media to protest for their Union?

Is it fraud of Tax Dollars and their Teacher contract to not work and receive sick pay while they protest for their Union benefits?

What does this behavior teach their students?

Should this be a serious issue to fraudulently be paid sick leave to physically protest in the streets for the media?

What do you think?

Video and article link for reference.

http://www.uncoverage.net/2011/02/prosecute-the-wisconsin-doctors-and-teachers-who-colluded-on-sick-passes/

Sen Pam Galloway and Physician Investigating sick notes from doctors at WI protest.

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2677352/posts

Governor Mitch Daniels is one of 21 Republican governors who sent a letter today to U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

In the letter, the governors said "We wish states had been given more opportunity to provide input when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was being drafted. We believe in its current form the law will force our health care system down a path sure to lead to higher costs and the disruption or discontinuation of millions of Americans' insurance plans."

partial copy of letter to HHS Sebillius

"The Honorable Kathleen Sebelius
Secretary
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
200 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, DC 20201
Dear Secretary Sebelius;

Many of us believe the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) should be repealed by Congress if the courts do not strike it down first.

But, with no assurance of either outcome, we face the decision of whether to participate in the bill by operating state exchanges, or to let the federal government take on that task, if the bill remains in effect in 2014.

In addition to its constitutional infringements, we believe the system proposed by the PPACA is seriously flawed, favors dependency over personal responsibility, and will ultimately destroy the private insurance market."

End of partial letter

Is Dem Rep Moran a Moron?

I think he is more than just a Moron, I think this man should be put up as Treasonous for his propaganda and inflammatory "Racist" remarks on a ARAB Television network? Do we not have to deal with the treacherous inflammatory hatred for Americans without one of our Democrat Representatives flame baiting our enemies?

How irresponsible is this man? I cannot fathom the depth of these egregious comments to a people who only have limited information of our politics. This is a personal opinion and he is using his public office to claim we American's are racist because we voted against Pres Obama's policies.

I am against President Obama's policies.

I have consistently stated President Obama is an attractive man with a beautiful smile, he is a great orator and has a lovely wife and family.

My opinion of our President has nothing to do with his person, I have a multi racial family.

This Democrat is harming US publicly and politically with the World. The statements he made on an Arab network could cost US a great price with those who are looking to harm US.

In this volatile political position with those in the Arab countries, to use his Political office to make these statements is tantamount to Treason.

I think he should be reprimanded in Congress, or just get rid of him.

Dem Rep Jim Moran has compromised US and our security. Do we not have enough misinformation in other countries without this imbecile?

Dem Rep Moran the Moron should be reprimanded for his compromising our relations with our Arab neighbors. He used his office to promote bias and politics at the cost of our National Security. This man is not worthy of public office.

God help US and save US from this man.

This morning Cairo fills with protestors calling for President Hosni Mubarak to get out. The army stays back as the group gets larger as the morning moves on. There are tens of thousands in Cairo. The Egyptian Army stands by peaceably. The number of protestors have risen dramatically in the Square.

The people are chanting "Go Mubarak" + "Down with Mubarak".

There is a Captain standing on top of an Armored Personnel Carrier entreating the population to go by peaceably. There is a man standing on the APC waving an Egyptian Flag.

They want their President gone.

The peoples have no love for the police, the people were beaten by undercover cops with sticks. The people have made the police stand back.

The Army Camptain has applause from the people as he speaks. The people have fiercely spoken they want their President gone.

Who will the Egyptian Army stand by, the Egyptian people or Pres Hosni Mubarak?

What do you think and why?

RWB News: "We have to pass it so you can see whats in it" is what Nancy Pelosi told the American people about Obamacare.

First we had 212 Unions and Corporations — UPDATE: 700 Unions and Corporations — that supported Obamacare as the Democrats rammed it down America's throat, but now that they have "seen what was in it," they received waivers from Team Obama excepting them from participating in the disastrous program.

Looks like another person has finally "seen what was in it," and it is Chief Actuary Richard Foster. His office is responsible for independent long-range cost estimates, told the House Budget Committee that two of the central promises of President Barack Obama's health-care overhaul law are unlikely to be fulfilled….and this guy is Medicare's independent economic expert?

The two 'false promises' (lies) you ask? Many people will not be able to keep the health care they already have, even if they like it, and Obamacare will not bring down the cost of health care…. Really? Wow, what a surprise? Then why in the h**l did we pass it in the first place?

The AP Reports and Megyn Kelly broke it on Fox News(Video):

The AP Reports and Megyn Kelly broke it on Fox News(Video):

WASHINGTON – Two of the central promises of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul are unlikely to be fulfilled, Medicare's independent economic expert told Congress on Wednesday.

President Obama has appointed Chairman Jeffrey Imman to be the Economic advisor. He has a full time job as Chairman of GE. The US had secretly Bailed Out GE, it is the most commonly held stock by members of Congress?

President Obama officially appointed Chairman Immelt to the position while he toured a GE plant in Schenectady, New York. Immelt will head the new President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, which Obama has signed into creation during the tour.

Jeffrey Immelt, the CEO and chairman of General Electric, is named as chair of the new economic recovery board, according to the White House.

President Obama said his "experience at GE and his understanding of the vital role the private sector plays in creating jobs and making America competitive makes him up to the challenge of leading this new Council."

The new board will replace the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board that was created in 2009 and is set to shut down on Feb. 6, 2011. It will "focus on finding new ways to promote growth by investing in American business to encourage hiring, to educate and train our workers to compete globally, and to attract the best jobs and businesses to the United States."

What? The Fedeal Gov had to bail GE out? Should this guy be advising US Economically when the company he ran failed?

The Federal Gov Secretly bailed out GE, the GE stock is the most commony held stock by members of Congress?

Do you think we should have this Chairman of GE who is already the Boss of GE full time as the head of an Economic Recovery Board? This man was the Chairman since 2001, the company had to be Bailed Out? How good is his advice for US?

What do you think?

Cited articles for reference for Poll.

http://www.examiner.com/libertarian-in-national/fed-secretly-bailed-out-ge-most-commonly-held-stock-by-members-of-congress

http://www.wjimam.com/rssItem.asp?feedid=114&itemid=29624109

PENSACOLA, Fla. -- Six more states joined a lawsuit in Florida against President Obama's health care overhaul on Tuesday, meaning more than half of the country is challenging the law.

The six additional states, all with Republican attorneys general, joined Florida and 19 others in the legal action, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi said.

"It sends a strong message that more than half of the states consider the health care law unconstitutional and are willing to fight it in court," she said in a statement.

I am from a large family. One of my female family members were tragically murdered while she was trying to make a living to raise her five children. She had been strangled, bludgeoned with a Sport Trophy and then her throat was cut.

The shooting of a Congresswoman and those others by the madman shooter in Arizona brought the senseless loss of life by a madman back like a flash, this madman was someone who did not care about another human being or the sacredness of their life. Our family, like the Arizona victim's family will never be the same.

Murder is murder, for those of us survivors of the victims of a senseless taking of a life.

The man did not come to justice for many years who commited the heinous act against our loved one. The police never stopped pursuing the murderer and even those who had retired never for our family member or her death. It took many years and their persistence finally put the killer in jail.

The laws of our land is that as an American you are innocent until "proven" guilty. We were told that to bring this case to court they would have to follow the laws of evidence and this murderer has rights. We understood and finally Justice was served, the man who took a life was in jail and off the streets.

The Sheriff of that county may have been an elected official but he was there to protect and to serve no matter what political party you may be supported by.

I have held an office and been an elected official. I have never known any Sheriff who used political rants in a review of a murder scene, let alone when he did not know the name of the shooter.

To use a tragedy of loss of life for political rants does not serve justice or those survivors or victims. We now know the shooter was thrown out of his Pima Arizona College for his scary and threatening behavior. We now know he had an obsession with Congresswoman Giffords and kept a letter from her in 2007, many years prior to the Tea Party or before Sarah Palin came upon the national political scene as a Vice Presidential Candidate in 2008. We know he has a video calling his college a "Genocide" in America. We now know he had said the students there were "tortured" and they "illiterate". His friend stated he never watched the news, he did not listen to talk radio and he was registered as an "Independent" and did not even Vote. Laughner had girl students go to the school and asked them to remove him. He also had a site which displayed his favorite books to be Hitler's "Mein Kamph" and also the book "The Communist Manifesto". The shooter also did not want the words "In God We Trust" printed on US money. The shooter had a shrine with a "skull" in his back yard. These books and his choice of literature is certainly not consistent with the members of the Tea Party or those on the Right.

Should political opinions be used without substantiation in our legal investigations and reporting to the Press?

Jeff Fuller, a victim of the shooter in Arizona has taken a picture of a member of the Tea Party in a public forum and said "You're Dead". Fuller is known as a "Liberal" and he has been arrested for his threat.

What do you think?

On Saturday afternoon, with his friend Gabby Giffords in surgery fighting for her life, Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik railed against the tense partisan politics - "the anger, the hatred, the bigotry" - that prompted the mass murders outside Tucson, in his view.

And, jarring as such claims may be, we understood. Or tried to understand, despite the spectacle of a lawman - an official whose very job it is to dispassionately gather facts and to maintain order and calm - tying the attack on Rep. Giffords and others to political speech in Arizona, which he considers prejudiced and bigoted. There is no evidence that the state's politics in any way contributed to this atrocity.

Dupnik took up his cause again on Monday. And, in response, we have to say at last . . . enough. Enough attacks, sheriff. Enough vitriol. It is well past time for the sheriff of Pima County to get a grip on his emotions and remember his duty.

The news is that another White House Staffer, Paul Volcker, Economic Advisor is calling it quits.

He is the one who stunned a room of top American and Chinese banker officials stating "there is no short term way to fix high unemployment" is leaving the Obama White House too.

We now know the WH Press Secretary Robert Gibbs is leaving in February. Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel left to run for Chicago position. Senior Advisor Axelrod is leaving. Larry Sommers went back to Harvard.

There are Sixteen people gone from a twos years ago.

There are Eighteen people gone from a year ago.

There seems to be a cleaning out of the White House at the same time there is a cleaning out of the House in Congress.

Is this a good thing for the White House now?

You Vote.

John Boehner takes the Speaker's gavel from Nancy Pelosi today, and the transfer represents much more than a change in partisan control. It marks perhaps the sharpest ideological shift in the House in 80 years, and it could set the stage for a meaningful two-year debate over the role of government and the real sources of economic prosperity.

Some revelations about the Obama administration detailed in the new epilogue to the upcoming paperback release of Jonathan Alter's bestseller, "The Promise," probably won't please too many folks at the White House. Alter claims that a dysfunctional relationship between top White House aides hurt the administration's policy on job creation, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was almost dropped from financial reform legislation and was only reinstated after complaints by Elizabeth Warren, and Bill Clinton continually grumbles about being disrespected by the administration.

The Obama administration's perceived failure to take laser-like aim at the unemployment crisis was partly due to the dysfunctional relationship between White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, top economic adviser Larry Summers and senior adviser David Axelrod, specifically the intransigence of Summers, according to Alter:

Steven Rattner, the financier and former White House car czar, has agreed to pay $10 million to the state of New York as part of a settlement of a bitterly fought lawsuit filed by Attorney General Andrew Cuomo.

Cuomo, soon to be the governor of New York, last month sued Rattner alleging he paid kickbacks to obtain $150 million in pension-fund investments for Quadrangle Group, the private-equity firm co-founded by Rattner

In a news release today, Cuomo's office said the $10 million is a "restitution to the State of New York." Rattner also will be "banned from appearing in any capacity before any public pension fund within the State of New York for five years."

President Obama is sidestepping the Senate to directly fill the No. 2 position at the Justice Department and appoint four U.S. ambassadors whose nominations had been stalled or blocked by lawmakers for months.

Senators had blocked or refused to consider the confirmations of the nominees for various reasons, including questions about their qualifications. But in the most high-profile case, that of the new envoy to Syria, Robert Ford, a number of senators objected because they believed sending an ambassador to the country would reward it for bad behavior.

In the nomination fight over Mr. Cole, Democrats in the Senate tried to confirm the former Justice Department official by unanimous consent but Republicans objected, expressing concerns about his approach to terrorism cases and his work for troubled insurer American International Group.

ATLANTA, GA (WABE) - This week, party switching once again dominated Georgia politics. However, some view Ashley Bell's move from the Democratic to Republican Party as the most significant switch of them all. Bell, a Hall County Commissioner, is African-American.

Bell made it official this week. But the Gainesville native says he's always been conservative.

"As I saw the party become more liberal, I became less involved in the Democratic Party," said Bell.

Bell held Democratic leadership positions on the state and national level. But he stopped actively participating two years ago when he was elected to the Hall County Commission. In that position, Bell says his fiscally conservative approach clashed with Democrats.

"I had to make the decision that if I'm going to be arguing with Democrats at some point I realized I might as well do it as a Republican," said Bell.

Bell admits his switch raised eye brows in both parties because he's black.

"Some folks in the Democratic Party are more upset with me about switching because of my race and I think some people in the Republican Party may be more excited about me switching because of my race," said Bell."

Democrat House/Senate/White House and STILL no Budget as required by Law.

Two years to work on expiring Bush Tax Cuts, NO Bipartisan again, Pelosi not working for Economy, push Green bills or else?

Two years of Speaker Pelosi pushing through Unread Unconstitutional health care, Unread Jobless Stimulus strong armed Left Democrat agenda, now NO work at all, NO working with President Obama, the Left Agenda that was Voted out in this Medterm Election, the "shellacking".

Should this woman be PAID for making an Unworking House? Should she be Impeached? We need a Bipartisan working House and Senate.

It is about the Economy and no jobs, not about the green bill? More arm twisting from Pelosi and the Democrats, STILL NO jobs.

Should we pay for this woman to mess with US, should she be Impeached by the new House.

Dem Majority Speaker of the House is causing division and claims NO Bipartisan government, it is more of the last two years.

Should we continue to pay for the small percentage of the Left to run the House.

Should Nancy Pelosi be paid for pushing our government to a screaming mess House with cursing the "F" word at Pres Obama?

I think she should be Impeached.

We the People deserve more for our money.

I think it is significant that the Left and their Democrats Rep Nancy Pelosi and Rep Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have turned on their President when the people wanted Bipartisan agreement? Pres Obama responded and worked forward on an agreement.

Should the small faction of the Left make the policy for the President?

I see vitriol treatment of the President when they say "No" Bipartisan effort, just push through the "Left" agenda...

What do you think? Does the small percentage of "Lefts" make the decision for all of US?

We see their true face of the Left, Pelosi + Reid snarling at the President when he tries to work with those who the people voted into office.

I think the President is trying to make progress with those who the people put into their seats.

Is the "Left" + Democrats Majority House Leader Pelosi and Senate House Leader Harry Reid right in dumping their fellow Democrat President?

I do not think so. We see just how willing these vitriol noise makers act when you want to work Bipartisan for the best of the people.

I think the President tried to make an agreement of Bipartisan effort and he should be commended.

What do you think?

President Obama states in press today to push through the Start Treaty thru Lame Duck Session, NOW.

Should we Stop pushing through important Legislature?

Should we push through a significant Treaty about Nuclear Power with Russia Now in a Lame Duck Session?

We have No Budget which should have been passed by law.

The Bush Tax Cuts have not been decided.

We do not have time to do the necessities...

Should we just push through another significant National Security Treaty on Nuclear Weapons with Russia without Reading and Debate?

What do you think?

In one of the biggest Senate races in the nation, Republican Mark Kirk on Tuesday won the seat once held by President Barack Obama, a highly sought after prize for the GOP.

In a battle centering on character more than ideology, Kirk, a five-term House member, beat Illinois state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias in a race that had been deadlocked in the polls most of the year. Kirk squeaked through with about three points with 97 percent of precincts reporting, but not all mail ballots had been counted.

Giannoulias called Kirk to concede and congratulate his rival, and thanked supporters gathered in a ballroom at the Fairmont Hotel in Chicago "for believing in me."

Article in part and link
"Rangel, first elected in 1970 and now 80 years old, apparently is without a lawyer. He and his defense team parted company a few months after he complained in an August speech on the House floor that he could no longer afford legal bills that had reached nearly $2 million.The ethics investigation goes back to at least July 2008. Only former Rep. James Traficant, D-Ohio, who was expelled from the House after a criminal conviction, has faced a similar trial since current House ethics procedures were adopted two decades ago.
Key charges portray Rangel as a veteran congressman who thought he could ignore rules on disclosing his assets, and improperly used official resources to raise money for a college center that was a monument to his career.

Rangel was charged by an investigative panel of four Democrats and four Republicans with 13 counts of violating House rules.

If Rangel is found to have violated rules, the ethics committee would meet to decide punishment. It could end the case with a critical report, or recommend a House vote expressing displeasure with Rangel's conduct.Rangel has acknowledged ethical lapses; he's argued he did not intend to break the rules.Rangel has acknowledged ethical lapses; he's argued he did not intend to break the rules.
—A House gift ban and restrictions on solicitations. Rangel is accused of using congressional staff, letterhead and workspace to seek donations for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at the City College of New York. The requests usually went to charitable arms of businesses with issues before Congress, including Rangel's Ways and Means Committee.
—A U.S. government code of ethics. Several allegations fall under this code, among them: Accepting favors (the Rangel Center donations) that could be construed as influencing Rangel's congressional duties; acceptance of a rent-subsidized New York apartment used as a campaign office, when the lease said it was for residential use only; and failure to report taxable income.
—The Ethics in Government Act and a companion House rule requiring "full and complete" public reports of a congressman's income, assets and liabilities each year. Rangel is charged with a pattern of submitting incomplete and inaccurate disclosure statements. He only filed amended reports covering 1998 to 2007 after the investigative ethics panel began looking into his disclosures. He belatedly reported at least $600,000 in assets.

End of Article in part

Vince Clem, the Spokesman for this Fusion Center states "these fuse information" and this man does not deny "it is dicey".
These centers are not overseen by the US government?
Funded by the government?
There is also 11,000 acres for Unrest Centers, built all over the nation.
Congressman on video denies these camps.
Fusion Center is command center.
Executive Orders + HR 645 allows 9 picked Governors to take over country by Marticial Law, Council of Governors take control.
There is video of "Residential Centers", political dissidents and for whole families. Barb wire and double fences.
Only the elite make the decisions?
Should this Tax Dollar expenditures Constitutional
HR 645 gives Head of Homeland Security to run camps?
What?
Vote these bums out.

Stop Government Tax Dollar Funding for Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood Got $349.6 Million in Tax Dollars, Performed 324,008 Abortions, Paid Its President $385,163, Should our Tax Dollars pay directly or indirectly for this mass Abortion business?

Stop Government Tax Dollar Funding for NPR, the NON governmental National Public Radio. Funding of NPR directly or indirectly is $3.3 Million or argued up to 23%.

Article in part and link for percentage of funding from direct and indirect funding

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=220205

NPR apologist Norah O'Donnell also tossed out the 1 percent to 3 percent range, and AP reporter Brett Zongker reported, "Federal grants provide less than 2 percent – or $3.3 million – of NPR's $166 million annual budget."

Browning estimates that NPR's 900 member stations receive approximately 41 percent of their funding directly or indirectly from taxpayers, primarily through tax deductions, grants from government-funded universities, and direct grants by federal, state and local governments.

The member stations are responsible for nearly half of NPR's total annual revenues, according to NPR. Because roughly 40 percent of the member stations' revenues come indirectly or directly from taxpayers, Browning concludes that at least 20 percent of NPR's total budget comes from taxpayers. In addition, 10 percent of NPR's budget comes from "Grants and Contributions." Browning estimates conservatively that one third of this category, or 3 percent of the total, comes from taxes.

"This brings our total of taxpayer support for the entire NPR budget to around 23 percent," writes Browning.

End of Article in part and link

ACORN has been consistently been investigated for Voter Fraud, IRS violations, Should our Tax Dollars continue to Fund this Non Governmental fraud distressed agency?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/special-editorial-reports/ACORN-got-53-million-in-federal-funds-since-94-now-eligible-for-up-to-8-billion-more-44406217.html

ACORN got $53 million in federal funds since 94, now eligible for up to $8 billion moreAt least $53 million in federal funds have gone to ACORN activists since 1994, and the controversial group could get up to $8.5 billion more tax dollars despite being under investigation for voter registration fraud in a dozen states.The economic stimulus bill enacted in February contains $3 billion that the non-profit activist group known more formally as the Association for Community Organizations for Reform Now could receive, and 2010 federal budget contains another $5.5 billion that could also find its way into the group’s coffers.

End of Article and link

To continue to Fund with Tax Dollars we do not have for ACORN, this fraud infested agency when we are not fiscally sound?

We should not AND cannot afford to fund with Tax Dollars these private Planned Parenthood and NON governmental NPR.
I also think that we should follow the State of Texas and have the States start their own form of Social Security. Texas has been very successful with this option. The Federal Government needs to help the States run a form of their own.

Article in part and link

ERS administers retirement, health and other insurance benefits, TexFlex, a tax-savings flexible benefit program, and 401(k) and 457 investment accounts as part of the Texa$aver Program. We also manage and invest the ERS Trust for the sole benefit of retirement system members.

http://www.ers.state.tx.us/home/default.aspx

With the Social Security Amendments of 1950, Congress created Section 218 of the Social Security Act (42 USC 418). Effective January 1, 1951, federal law allowed states to enter into voluntary agreements with the Social Security Administration (SSA) for Social Security coverage for their state and local governments. Upon execution of a federal-state agreement, a state then could enter into voluntary agreements with their political subdivisions to provide desired coverage. The State of Texas entered into a federal-state agreement with the Social Security Administration effective January 1, 1951.

The Texas Legislature delegated the responsibility for the administration of the Texas Social Security Program for state and local governments with the Department of Public Welfare beginning in 1951. Then administrative responsibilities were transferred to the Employees Retirement System of Texas in 1975.

http://www.ers.state.tx.us/section_218/resources.aspx

End of Article in part and links

Texas is not Bankrupt like California and other states (Illinois), the unemployment is lower than the National Average as well, we need some Fiscal Responsibility.

These are some ways to cut our Tax Dollars and put US back into Fiscal Responsibility. What are your ideas?

The Democratic controlled House has already broke the law, there is NO Federal Budget.

Should House Democrat Majority Leader Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats be throwing a Party?

One of the most important and legal requirements to running our government is the Budget.

Is it good the Democrats did not follow the law? We still do not have a Budget?

Should the Democrat controlled House and Senate not put through a Budget as required by Law? Are they above the Law?

Lawrence O'Donnell Calls Himself a "Socialist" See Video

Article in part Lawrence O'Donnell shows his true colors

""Glenn, unlike you, I am not a progressive. I am not a liberal who is so afraid of the word that I had to change my name to progressive. Liberals amuse me. I am a socialist. I live to the extreme left, the extreme left of you mere liberals, okay? However, I know this about my country. Liberals are 20 percent of the electorate. Conservatives are 41 percent of the electorate, okay?...You can sit there and pretend that liberals should run more liberal in conservative districts. You love the loss of the Blue Dogs. The only way, the only way you have a chairman Barney Frank, there's only one way, that's by electing Blue Dogs. It's the only way. That's the only way you have a Speaker Pelosi."

Former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi still has a job for now as Congresswoman. Pelosi is throwing a party while those who voted with her for her back room deals and signed on to Unread Obamacare at her request are in Grief Counselling.

Should Pelosi be throwing a party?

What do you think?

Democrats receive packet and grief counseling on losing their jobs in Washington.

Article in part and link

"But one of the staffers was described as a "counselor" to help with the emotional aspect of the loss — and a section in the packet each staffer was given dealt with the stages of grief (for instance, Stage One being anger, and so on).

"It was like it was about death," the staffer said. "It was bizarre." The staffer did say the portions about the benefits and résumé writing were instructive."

End of Article in part and link

Wow, We spend Millions for Pres Obama for Goodwill Tour and Press Secretary Gibbs sticks his foot in the door and threatens to pull President Obama out of the meeting in the meeting in India? So Sad.

Article in part and link

"Press Secretary Robert Gibbs is known for sparring with White House reporters, making for what often seems an antagonistic mood in the press briefing room.But during President Obama's trip to India, Gibbs assumed the role of press advocate and threatened to pull Obama out of bilateral talks with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh because three U.S. reporters were blocked from covering the meeting.

"At one point, Gibbs literally had his foot lodged in the closing front door, asking if the Indian security officials pushing hard to shut it were going to break his foot," Wilson continued. "More angry words ensued, and after Gibbs convinced them, through high volume and repetition, that he was serious" about pulling Obama, the press secretary had the security retinue's full attention."

End of Article in part and link to Video

How good is this rant for US, Some "Goodwill" Tour, Millions spent and Obama Administration Gibbs screaming for more Press?

I thought our Government is to be Of The People, For The People, and By The People?

What do you think?

Are our Representatives who have been voted into office to Represent the Will of the People?

The Midterm Elections were a Tsunami against the Big Government and the Irresponsible spending.

Should the American people sit in the back of Obama's Bus?

Should President Obama respect the Will of the People, he states he knows what is best or does he decide what is best for US?

Is our government now for the President and by the President? OR The US government isOf The People, For the People, and By the People?

Should Pres Obama start listening to the Will of the People?

What do you think?

President Obama stated after he "took full responsibility" for the GOP "shellacking" he also stated...

"I think people started looking at all this and it felt as if government was getting much more intrusive into people's lives than they were accustomed to," Obama said.

"Now, the reason was, it was an emergency situation. But I think it's understandable that folks said to themselves, 'You know, maybe this is the agenda as opposed to a response to an emergency.' "

End of Statements from Pres Obama in defense of the job loss of Democrats in Mid Term Elections and promise to now work with the GOP.

OK, time for Change, Emergency is over, time to Move on and Replace and Repeal all the Emergency measures that the majority of Americans feel is "too intrusive" for the government into their lives.

Pres Obama stated "he didn't change the tone in Washington" and the back room deals,arm twisting and bribes to push through his policies. There were no "hands across the aisle" to compromise to push into law health care, Cap and Trade, etc. Republicans were told who did not sign on to his Obamacare "that is what Elections are for". The people blatantly showed by the Midterm Elections they knew what they are for and fired most of the Democrats who signed onto these unfavorable policies.

The majority of Americans are not in favor of the intrusive and Bankrupting policies of this Administration pushed through by the Democrats. The health reform was and is too intrusive to the point of being a law that is Unconstitutional as it uses the Federal Government"s power to collect money in Taxes to Mandate Individuals to "Buy" health care or be Penalized and this is to be collected as a Tax by the Internal Revenue Service. Pres Obama had previously vigorously denied he was going to Raise Taxes for those making under $250,000 a year, this health care Tax is ALL encompassing, all will Taxed and Penalized for non compliance by the IRS.

OK, time for Change, + Move on + Replace and Repeal.

Would this be the best way for Pres Obama to help his existing Democrats to keep their jobs?

Would this be the best way for Pres Obama to stop saying "NO" to the Republican Party and the majority of Americans who disapprove of the intrusive government policies of Obamacare and Cap and Trade?

I think so, Repeal and Replace as "Emergency" is over. The Unwanted Unread 2000 + monstrosity of government legislating your doctor and your health decisions that is a NEW TAX for all Americans should be Repealed as the Will of the People?

Pres Obama said he "would not" "Tax" anyone making under $250,000 or more, keep your promise and listen to the people who chose to do "what elections are for" and vote out those who promoted these intrusive government bankrupting and Unread Democrat policies.

Let U.S. have good Change, stop the spending we cannot afford Obamacare. Stop Big government and raising Taxes with Obamacare which will Bankrupt US. Stop Big instrusive government.

Pres Obama, the Midterm elections show We the People will hold their Representatives feet to the fire. The Representatives put into office by Vote are to be Publlic Servants, not dictators or those who feel they know better than those who gave them the priviledge to govern.

Pres Obama lamented for the loss of jobs for the Democrats who lost their jobs for signing on to his policies.OK, time for Change, the Will of We the People has been overwhelming. Largest change from Dem to Republican since the Forties.

Obamacare is a Tax.

All Americans are paying higher Taxes, this means those who make under $250,000.

With Obamacare, you are Mandated and Taxed Individually with Penalty for Non Compliance on your Individual Tax Return.

Did not Obama promise NO Higher Taxes?

Obamacare is Taxes and Penalties collected by the IRS.

President Obama said that his Obamacare was not a Tax.

That was misinformation and the Court has defined the Mandate for Americans to pay for Obamacare that is to be collected by the IRS has to be a Tax.

If this mandated IRS Tax which is without precedent and which had been misrepresented by the Obama Administration is Unconstitutional be Repealed?

1. Should this Unread Unwanted 2000 + page monstrosity be kept if it has no basis precedent or basis in Tax Law?

Article in part and link

"Barack Obama's trip to India next month will be the biggest by any US President - with a staggering 40 aircraft and six armoured cars.

Barack Obama's trip to India next month will be the biggest by any US President - with a staggering 40 aircraft and six armoured cars.Forty aircraft - including the Air Force One military plane - and six heavily armoured cars will follow the president around the country.The entourage will be the biggest ever in terms of logistics and manpower for any US president.

The president himself will be ferried around in a black Cadillac - dubbed 'Barack Mobile' - which has its own built in communications centre - to enable Obama to be in touch with the White House, US vice president and the US strategic command

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1325075/Obama-India-visit-Biggest-US-President-40-planes-6-armoured-cars.html#ixzz14IKKevRX

End of Article in part and link

This Principal said they had done "no wrong" when their school took students to Vote and gave them the list for Democrats only...
This is not the first incident of Democrats and Ethics complaint.

Article in part and link

"Principal suspended in voting controversy
"Hughes students bused to polls given only sample Democratic ballots"

"Hughes High School principal Virginia Rhodes was suspended for two weeks Friday, pending an investigation into the circumstances surrounding an Oct. 13 field trip where 31 students were taken to the Hamilton County Board of Elections to vote and allegedly only given sample ballots for the Democratic Party."

End of Article in part and link

In a close election race against former Hewlett-Packard executive Carly Fiorina, California Democrat Sen. Barbara Boxer is facing new ethics complaints over asking teachers to send their students to work for her campaign.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/10/27/boxer-faces-ethics-complaint-for-telling-teachers-to-send-students-to-work-for-campaign/#ixzz13kSHv6YR

President Obama challenged + "it is what elections are for" as a response to those Representatives and their constituents who opposed his Obamacare. President Obama stated the Elections will speak against his policies, sign on or bust.

President Obama stated he would Campaign for those who signed onto his agenda. Former Republican Arlen Specter thought he would save his seat if he turned Democrat; he lost.

How many Democrats are without a job due to the Obamacrat or Bust?

Democrats who voted for the Trillion Dollar Stimulus, Unconstitutional Obamacare, Cap and Trade have lost their jobs.

Is it all about Obama now?

Joy Behar, the Joker from "The View" has repeated called Sharron Angle the "B" word on "The View".

This is not the first woman she has publicly called this female dog name; Behar disagreed with a political position of Michelle Malkin and called her publicly the "B" word.

How sad is this..... I am surprised that a former professional like Barb Walters would sit next this foul mouthed Shrew.

When Behar called Republican Candidate running against Democrat Harry Reid the "B" word the first two times, the classy Sharron Angle sent Behar flowers and thanked her as she received over a Hundred Thousand Dollars from those appalled at the nasty politics of this Democrat Liberal.

Republican Sharron Angle has more class in her little fingernail than the Non Joy Behar has in her over sized filthy mouth.

Should the network and supporters of "The View" Tame this Shrew and give her the boot?

Should women be insulted?

What do you think?

This is a Video of Planned Parenthood and their opinions trump Science.
These Planned Parenthood speakers say that Science is only an opinion.
Planned Parenthood believes the biological facts are up to debate.
Our Tax Dollars are being sent to these scholars?

My husband is a Fan of Clint Eastwood.

Who is more creditable, Jon Stewart the comedian or Clint Eastwood?

Clint Eastwood has openly stated he is not a Fan of President Obama and the people he chose to surround him.

What do you think?

Article in part and link

"The former mayor of Carmel is "not a fan" of President Barack Obama.

Eastwood, though, is laying low compared to others in Hollywood who don't support Obama. Kelsey Grammer recently launched RightNetwork, for example, and Jon Voight has been speaking at Tea Party rallies.

Clint Eastwood told Katie Couric during a CBSNews.com interview that the president is doing what he can to stay in the position, but that he's not actually "governing."

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/clint-eastwood-not-fan-president-32164

End of Article in part and link

What do you think?

President Clinton lost the Codes for our National Security for months.
President Carter sent these Codes in his suit that went to the cleaners.
Is this the most culpable negligence you have ever heard?
The World Trade Center Towers were bombed while Pres Clinton was in office.

Article in part and link

Gen. Hugh Shelton, who served under Clinton as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, tells the story in his just-published memoir, "Without Hesitation: The Odyssey of an American Warrior."
"At one point during the Clinton administration," Shelton writes, "the codes were actually missing for months. [...] That's a big deal -- a gargantuan deal."

End of Article in part and link

This is a video where Democrat Harry Reid is fighting for his Seat in the Senate, he is also the Democrat Majority Leader.
He said he saved the world single handed,
Video of Harry Reid whining.

Article in part and linkFrom FNC (For best effect, press play on the video below so you can listen as you read Harry's heartfelt words): Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is having a heck of a time trying to get re-elected, in part, he says, because people don't want to know that he prevented a worldwide depression.

Should our President state he knows best for US, America you are just "not thinking Right" because you are hardwired that way when you are scared?

What do you think? Should our President mock US when Americans are angry?

Is this Arrogant?

Please Vote and comment.

Article in part and link.

At a Saturday-evening fundraiser held in the home of a wealthy Massachusetts hospital executive, President Obama suggested Democrats are having difficulties in midterm campaigning because Americans simply aren't thinking clearly. Seeking to explain his party's troubles, the president focused not on controversial legislation like national health care and the stimulus but on evolutionary psychology. "Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now, and facts and science and argument do not seem to be winning the day all the time, is because we're hard-wired not to always think clearly when we're scared," Obama told the assembled Democrats, who paid $15,200 a person to attend. "And the country is scared."

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Obama-Dems-are-in-trouble-because-Americans-arent-thinking-clearly-105130709.html#ixzz13H5UMXpJ

Socialist Billionaire George Soros donated $1.8 Million to National Publlic Broadcasting with the instruction to NPR to hire 50 Pundits to promote in US State News to promote his Socialist views.

This donation of Socialist George Soros was made the same day that NPR News Analyst Juan Williams was fired for saying since 9/11 he had experienced anxiety about Muslims in garb at Airports/planes in a piece on the Fox News O'Reilly Factor?

Should this Foreign Socialist Billionaire be pulling strings in our News and promoting his agenda in the pretense of News for US?

What do you think?

The challenge of Obamacare is Unconstitutional is proceeding, a U.S. judge ruled.

Article in part

A U.S judge ruled on Monday that the state of Virgina could proceed with its challenge to President Barack Obama's landmark healthcaare law, a setbback that will force the White House to defend its reforms in the middle of a tough congressional election campaign.

the opening salvo of the legal fight, U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson refused to dismiss the state's lawsuit, which argued the requirement that its residents must have health insurance is unconstitutional and conflicts with state law.

"This lawsuit is not about healthcare, it's about our freedom and about standing up and calling on the federal government to follow the ultimate law of the land -- the Constitution," said Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli.

Virginia also argued that because the Constitution does not allow the government to force a person to purchase something, therefore the federal government also would be powerless to levy a penalty or tax for failing to buy healthcare coverage.
End of Article in part

Obamacare is now promoted as a Tax/Penalty; can Americans be mandated to pay for Obamacare and be Taxed or Penalized?

Senators question using Tax Dollars for campaign purposes to try to promote the health care? We are in Unsustainable Debt, should we spend our Tax Dollars for propaganda?

Article in part and link

Sens. Coburn, Barrasso, Burr, McCain & Thune Send Letter to Sec. Sebelius Questioning HHS Campaign Ad

Senators Coburn, Barrasso, Burr, McCain and Thune sent the following letter to Secretary Sebelius today expressing their concern regarding the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) television ad campaign touting the benefits of the new health care law for senior.

Excerpts:

"We request that you cease the ad campaign immediately and reimburse the U.S. Treasury for any expenditure of taxpayer funds related to this effort. We also request you provide documentation outlining which HHS account these funds came from.

"We believe this ad is a clear violation of the spirit of federal laws that prohibit the use of taxpayer dollars for campaign purposes … We can debate the relative merits of the new law, but co-opting public funds during a recession, to make a political, poll-tested argument about the new law, is wrong.

The job of the Executive Branch, quite simply, is to execute and implement the law, not re-litigate a political debate. Using the power of the state and the Treasury to advance the agenda of one political party is an abuse that should not be tolerated, regardless of which party is in power."

End of Article in part

We are in Unsustainable debt, should our Tax Dollars be spent for propaganda to promote the Obamacare?

Another Democrat with Ethics charges.
The Trials for CA Dem Rep Maxine Waters and Dem Charlie Rangel will be held at the same time?
Article in part and link

"A House panel is preparing to accuse Rep. Maxine Waters of at least one ethics violation in her efforts to help a bank with ties to her husband, and the longtime Los Angeles Democrat plans to fight the charges in a House trial, according to a source familiar with the case.

The allegations were presented Friday to Waters, the source said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is confidential.

Waters, an outspoken legislator who has held elective office in Sacramento or Washington for more than three decades, could not be reached Friday night.
The findings on the investigation into Waters by the Office of Congressional Ethics are expected to be made public on Monday.

That office, an independent watchdog created by Congress, referred the matter to the House Ethics Committee. The committee turned the matter over to a panel of two Democratic and two Republican lawmakers who have been conducting their own probe for months."

End of Article in part and link

This probe on Democrat Rep Waters has been ongoing for months.

Two Trials?

Democrats afraid of Scandal of Dem Charlie Rangle and his Ethics Investigation and Trial.
Should he just make a Deal and keep his job, or should he resign?
What would be best for the Election for his fellow Dems?

Article in part and link

Increasingly impatient House Democratic leaders are prodding Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) to make a deal with the ethics committee before charges against him are unveiled on Thursday, top Democratic officials told POLITICO.

Fellow Democrats told POLITICO that they believe he's dragging his feet in a futile effort at total vindication. Democrats worry that his stubbornness could add to their losses in November by helping Republicans, who have vowed to build a "culture of corruption" narrative using ads, mailings and talking points.

A senior Democratic aide said leaders will insist that Rangel resolve the accusations before the August break. The leaders calculate that the political consequences could be grave if the matter drags on and are considering public with their demand if Rangel does not act on his own.
End of Article in part and link

Democrats are running afraid of this Rep Charlie Rangel and the Bipartisan Panel's Investigation of his Ethic's Violations.

What do you think, just keep him in his seat, who cares make a deal?

Ms Sherrod stated on the News she was told repeatedly that the White House wants her to resign, Now!

The White House said they did not initiate her to resign, are they shaming this poor woman again and that she is lying AGAIN?

Wow.

Is Obama doing the same things that Bush did?

You vote.

Please vote and comment, is Obama's actions in his Year + of Presidency the same as Bush ?

Lousiana has been impacted catastrophically.

Bush = Katrina

Obama = BP Oil Spill

Bush did not cause the Hurricane Katrina, but his leadership was in question in his response to the disaster, slow response and helping those Americans in need.

Obama did not cause the BP Oil Spill, but his leadership is in question in his response to the disaster, slow response and failing in helping those Americans in need.

Please vote and comment

I think it is curious that those who are espousing the green dream are those who use the most amounts of oil products, like the millionaire Al Gore. hmm

Do you think those who want the NO drilling and loss of jobs for petroleum products should stop using the products they say they are so vehemently against?

Is this hypocrisy from these Environmentalists, should they practice what they preach?

Ride a bike.

Use no planes.

Turn off the air conditioning.

What do you think?

Those Environmentalists use as much or more petroleum products as anyone else, should they have the same footprint on this planet and inhibit the use by others?

Should these green preachers practice what they preach?

You Vote.

This is an article that President Obama promised Tax Dollar Funding to Brazil to drill for oil in deep waters.

Article in part

You read that headline correctly. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration is financing oil exploration off Brazil.

The U.S. is going to lend billions of dollars to Brazil's state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil's Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro. Brazil's planning minister confirmed that White House National Security Adviser James Jones met this month with Brazilian officials to talk about the loan.

The U.S. Export-Import Bank tells us it has issued a "preliminary commitment" letter to Petrobras in the amount of $2 billion and has discussed with Brazil the possibility of increasing that amount. Ex-Im Bank says it has not decided whether the money will come in the form of a direct loan or loan guarantees. Either way, this corporate foreign aid may strike some readers as odd, given that the U.S. Treasury seems desperate for cash and Petrobras is one of the largest corporations in the Americas.

But look on the bright side. If President Obama has embraced offshore drilling in Brazil, why not in the old U.S.A.? The land of the sorta free and the home of the heavily indebted has enormous offshore oil deposits, and last year ahead of the November elections, with gasoline at $4 a gallon, Congress let a ban on offshore drilling expire.

End of Article in part and link

President Obama declared "War" on the BP Oil Spill.

How well is the President's War on the BP Oil Spill going?

You Vote.

Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan stated the Scientific information on Partial Birth Abortion "would be disasterous" while in the Clinton Administration and the Pro Abortion agenda of this Administration. Elena Kagan chose NOT to disseminate the Scientific information from the physicians and chose to disseminate information that was not consistent with the doctors report.

Elena Kagan is now being asked for her sworn testimony on her prior use of her law history, Elena Kagan has never been a Judge. While testifying, she was asked about her statement of the Scientific information being "disasterous" and that she did not disseminate the information as the physicians had reported. Nominee Kagan's testimony during the questioning was not consistent with her history in advising during the Clinton Administration.

Should a Supreme Court Judge be consistent and impartial with the interpretation of the law and Scientific information OR should they follow the politics?

Should a Supreme Court Nominee be consistent in statements during the questioning of her Nomination to the Court and her factual history of work history?

AUL is asking for an Investigation in the inconsistencies of Elena Kagan during her Clinton advising days, the testimony during her Nominee questioning is inconsistent with the facts and actions of her previous history.

What do you think?

Article and link for AUL asking for Investigation of Kagan's inconsistencies in her testimony and the historical documents while she was advising President Clinton.

ICYMI: In Senate testimony, AUL calls for investigation into discrepancies in Kagan testimony

Testifying for a second time since 2009 regarding a Supreme Court nominee’s suitability, Dr. Yoest urged the committee to officially investigate “discrepancies that have arisen this week” regarding actions Kagan took while working for then President Clinton on the Partial Birth Abortion (PBA) ban legislation.

Kagan appears to have personally lobbied the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists to change their medical findings on PBA to favor the position taken by the Clinton White House. Her actions to mute the voices of the doctors on the issue of abortion were a concern for both Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) who questioned Dr. Yoest extensively on abortion, which Sessions called “an intense social issue and moral issue.”

This Article is from an Award winning author in the United Kingdom.
How brilliant is the firing of our General McCrystal when the Talliban is celebrating?

Article in part and link
I've been reading the Rolling Stone magazine piece that brought down General McChrystal and feel very unnerved by it. I know that the consensus dictated that, after remarks made largely by members of McChrystal's team, the General simply had to go. But a number of things occur to me.
Firstly, is America sure it has enough top generals and is doing so well in Afghanistan and Iraq that it can simply dispose of any general tripped up in such a – pretty sneaky – way by the media? I tend not to have much sympathy for politicians caught like this. They spend their life politicking. But generals, though it's helpful if they are politically savvy, have another rather important job on the side.
Secondly, it isn't at all clear to me that this isn't a shot in the foot for the coalition in Afghanistan. The Daily Beast is already reporting here that Taliban commanders are welcoming the sacking as a victory for them.

Thirdly, as with the Japanese in World War II who insisted their naval commanders had to go down with their ships, I'm not sure that a huge and valuable source of knowledge isn't lost irretrievably when commanders are forced to go down with a story.
Anyhow – it appears to be uniformly agreed that a few comments in a nightclub couldn't have been swept up or excused, and so the President accepted the NATO commander's resignation. The fact that General Petraeus has taken over the vacant role is, however, cause for gratitude. Not least because for a moment I feared it might prove the next step in the remarkable career rise of Danny Alexander.
End of Article in part and link

Article in part and link

"Emanuel, now Obama's chief of staff, wanted Blagojevich to know the list of Senate candidates "acceptable" to Obama, according to testimony Thursday in Blagojevich's corruption trial.

End of Article in part and link

I thought the White House stated there was no contact with Blago?

This article states Obama's Chief of Staff did trade favors with the Impeached Governor of Illinois.

Article in part and link

President Barack Obama's chief of staff, then a congressman in Illinois, apparently attempted to trade favors with embattled Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich while he was in office, according to newly disclosed e-mails obtained by The Associated Press.
End of Article in part and link

An English Teacher once said to our class "Humor is the intellectual perception of incongruity"

I thought of this definition of humor over the years.

I love a quick wit, someone who takes an incident and can make it funny or draw something from it.

Jay Leno said on his Late Night show...

JAY LENO: The sad part is, environmentalists say, that if this leak continues unabated, some species might become endangered -- like Democrats.

Is this funny because it has Truth to the analogy?

I laughed out loud.

You Vote.

Is this the best our Country can expect from our Democratic Party?

This man is accused of a Felony for showing porn pictures to a female student.

Alvin Greene won the Democrat Party Election and the majority of votes, he is unemployed and said he spent $10,000.00 for his campaign money BUT said he had no money to pay for an attorney for his defense in Felony charge?

What do you think, is this the best we can get from the Democratic Party?

Article in part and link

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/09/alvin-greene-felony-charg_n_606599.html

COLUMBIA, S.C. � A day after an unemployed veteran charged with a felony shocked South Carolina's Democratic establishment by winning the U.S. Senate primary, party officials were still scratching their heads: What happened?

Alvin Greene, 32, didn't raise any money. He didn't have a website. And his opponent was a relatively better-known former legislator, Vic Rawl, who was already preparing for the general election.

End of Article in part and link

Wow, what do you think?

Here is more strong armed politics from Democrat Congressman Etheridge.
He is shown assaulting a student physically who is asking him questions.
Wow, is this the change and new politics?
The arrogance of the Democrats and their strong armed politics in video.
Article in part and link

WASHINGTON DC - An edited video is being circulated that shows US Congressman Bob Etheridge grabbing a student who is asking him questions on a sidewalk in Washington.
Representative Etheridge (D-NC) is running against Republican challenger Renee Elmers in a bid to keep his seat in the 2nd Congressional District, which includes parts of the Triangle area around Raleigh. According to various media reports, the video was made as Congressman Etheridge left a fundraiser for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
End of Article in part and link

I guess his leaving the Nancy Pelosi Fund raiser gave him the arm twisting agenda for his confrontation with this student. Wow.
Nancy Pelosi and this Democrat are two of a kind.

This student should file charges.

There is much debate on the violence on one of the six boats who ran the blockade in International waters while they were boarded by the Israel Seals.

From a legal perspective, culpability describes the degree of blameworthiness in a commission of a crime or offense.

How much culpable responsibility do these ships have if they knowingly knew that the waters they entered were under Blockade by Israel. If these ships knew that there was a Israel Blockade and they intentionally entered with the intent to run the blockade and intentionally did not respond to the contacts from Israel to stop and be searched, how much of the culpable blameworthiness should these ships have in what happened the night the Israel Seals boarded their ships.

I think it is significant that ONLY ONE of the boats had any violence. If there were six boats and the Israel Seals were combative, why were there only injuries and incidents on one boat?

Were these do gooders aware there was a Blockade where they have chosen to enter by Israel? If these peoples were aware that they were "running the blockade" when they continued through these waters without responding to the contacts by Israel to stop actually culpable and intentionally evoking violence with Israel.

How culpable are these activists in their actions if they chose to run a blockade of Israel?

There are some pretty important facts, ONLY ONE of the six boats that were boarded had violence ensued when boarded. If these Israel Seals were bent on physical harm to these ships, why were no one on any of the other boats harmed?

If these activists knew of this blockade and knowingly chose to ignore the contacts of Israel when they continued through the waters to Gaza, what culpability do they have in their actions by law?

Are these actions of the six Flotilla boats culpable for what happened when Israel Seals boarded their boats?

Article in part and link on culpability in law.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/culpability

From a legal perspective, culpabilitydescribes the degree of one's blameworthiness in the commission of a crime or offense. Except for strict liability crimes, the type and severity of punishment often follow the degree of culpability.

Modern crimes codes in the United States usually make distinct four degrees of culpability.

Legal definitions are:

1. A person acts intentionally with respect to a material element of an offence when:
   1. if the element involves the nature of his conduct or a result thereof, it is his conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result; and
   2. if the element involves the attendant circumstances, he is aware of the existence of such circumstances or he believes or hopes that they exist.
2. A person acts knowingly with respect to a material element of an offense when:
   1. if the element involves the nature of his conduct or the attendant circumstances, he is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that such circumstances exist; and
   2. if the element involves a result of his conduct, he is aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result.
3. A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and intent of the actor's conduct and the circumstances known to him, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the actor's situation.
4. A person acts negligently with respect to a material element of an offense when he should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the actor's failure to perceive it, considering the nature and intent of his conduct and the circumstances known to him, involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor's situation.

(The above has been quoted verbatim from the Pennsylvania Crimes Code. That in turn derives from the American Law Institute's Model Penal Code, which is the basis for large portions of the criminal codes in most states. The only difference is that the MPC uses "purposely" instead of "intentionally".)

In short:

• A person causes a result purposely/intentionally if the result is his/her goal in doing the action that causes it,
• A person causes a result knowingly if he/she knows that the result is virtually certain to occur from the action he/she undertakes,
• A person causes a result recklessly if he/she is aware of and disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk of the result occurring from the action, and
• A person causes a result negligently if there is a substantial and unjustifiable risk he/she is unaware of but very much should be aware of.

The first two types of culpability are each a subset of the following. Thus if someone acts purposely, they also act knowingly. If someone acts knowingly, they also act recklessly.

End of encyclopedia on culpability

An e-mail from Rep. Darrell Issa's (R-Calif.) campaign suggested Wednesday that the controversy over Rep. Joe Sestak's (D-Pa.) alleged administration job offer could be President Barack Obama's Watergate scandal.

In an e-mail with the subject line "The Sestak Affair - Obama's Watergate?", the ranking member on the Oversight and Government Reform committee focused on "long-standing questions" about the offer Sestak says was made to him to urge him to drop out of the Pennsylvania Democratic Senate primary.
The campaign e-mail says the allegations would amount to three felony charges of bribery and corruption.

This is an article ten years in review after Watergate, where President Nixon won a landslide Victory in his election and within a year he faced Impeachment and resigned.
This started as a Third Rate robbery but cleaned the White House out.
Article in part
by Walter Karp

"In which a President fails to fulfill his constitutional duty to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." And a reluctant Congress acts.
The Watergate crisis had begun in June 1972 as a "third-rate burglary" of the Democratic National Committee headquarters in Washington's Watergate building complex. By late March 1973 the burglary and subsequent efforts to obstruct its investigation had been laid at the door of the White House. By late June, Americans were asking themselves whether their President had or had not ordered the payment of "hush money" to silence a Watergate burglar. Investigated by a special Senate committee headed by Sam Ervin of North Carolina, the scandal continued to deepen and ramify during the summer of 1973. By March 1974 the third-rate burglary of 1972 had grown into an unprecedented constitutional crisis.
By then it was clear beyond doubt that President Richard M. Nixon stood at the center of a junto of henchmen without parallel in our history. One of Nixon's attorneys general, John Mitchell, was indicted for obstructing justice in Washington and for impeding a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation in New York. Another, Richard Kleindienst, had criminally misled the Senate Judiciary Committee in the President's interest. The acting director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, L. Patrick Gray, had burned incriminating White House documents at the behest of a presidential aide. Bob Haldeman, the President's chief of staff, John Ehrlichman, the President's chief domestic adviser, and Charles Colson, the President's special counsel, all had been indicted for obstructing justice in the investigation of the Watergate burglary. John Dean, the President's legal counsel and chief accuser, had already pleaded guilty to the same charge. Dwight Chapin, the President's appointments secretary, faced trial for lying to a grand jury about political sabotage carried out during the 1972 elections. Ehrlichman and two other White House aides were under indictment for conspiring to break into a psychiatrist's office and steal confidential information about one of his former patients, Daniel Ellsberg. By March 1974 some twenty-eight presidential aides or election officials had been indicted for crimes carried out in the President's interest. Never before in American history had a President so signally failed to fulfill his constitutional duty to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."
It also had been clear for many months that the thirty-seventh President of the United States did not feel bound by his constitutional duties. He insisted that the requirements of national security, as he and he alone saw fit to define it, released him from the most fundamental legal and constitutional constraints. In the name of "national security," the President had created a secret band of private detectives, paid with private funds, to carry out political espionage at the urging of the White House. In the name of "national security," the President had approved the warrantless wiretapping of news reporters. In the name of "national security," he had approved a secret plan for massive, illegal surveillance of American citizens. He had encouraged his aides' efforts to use the Internal Revenue Service to harass political "enemies"—prominent Americans who endangered "national security" by publicly criticizing the President's Vietnam War policies.
End of Article in part

Former President had won by a landslide in his election, a year after he said "I am not a crook" but had to resign.

How could a Third Rate Burglary Impeach a President?

This is the Article from the Philadelphia newspaper stating ...

Article in part and link

"Rep. Joe Sestak (D., Pa.) said yesterday that the White House offered him a federal job in an effort to dissuade him from challenging Sen. Arlen Specter in the state's Democratic primary."

The disclosure came during an afternoon taping of Larry Kane: Voice of Reason, a Sunday news-analysis show on the Comcast Network. Sestak would not elaborate on the circumstances and seemed chagrined after blurting out "yes" to veteran news anchor Kane's direct question.

"Was it secretary of the Navy?" Kane asked.

"No comment," Sestak said.

"Was it [the job] high-ranking?" Kane asked. Sestak said yes, but added that he would "never leave" the Senate race for a deal.

A White House spokesman this morning strongly denied Sestak had been offered yesterday. Before the spokesman issued the denial a senior Pennsylvania Democrat yesterday said Whitye House officials there were angered by Sestak's account."

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/home_top_stories/20100219_Sestak_says_federal_job_was_offered_to_quit_race.html#axzz0pOf8DDGW

End of Article in part and link from Feb 19,2010

You vote, why did the White House spokesman "strongly" deny Sestak had been offered a job?

This is May, 2010 and NOW the White House is saying there was a job offer, what do you think?

Was this an offer of value to get out of the Race? Is this offer from the White House against the law?

Should the FBI investigate this like the former Governor of Illinois "sell" the Obama Senate seat?

What?

We still have no information on how the catastrophic tragedy that killed 11 people on the BP Oil Rig in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico.

We still cannot get concrete information of the amount of oil that has spilled into the Gulf of Mexico.

We still have not heard whether this could be something more than an accident.

There have been offers of private help to stop the oil from damaging our Federal Waters, why is BP not accepting help?

Why can no one tell US what to expect and how much oil is polluting our waters.

Should we have more information on the Oil Spill?

What do you think.

This man states HE IS advocating for Revolution, he wants a peaceful Revolution to Socialism in our Country. He is an avowed Socialist.
Article in part and link

Here's something you won't see every day: A man declaring himself an avowed socialist and calling for revolution, a la Latin America, after calling for a revolt against "racist white people"– on Fox News. The man is Santee High School teacher Ron Gochez, and he is an Arizona schoolteacher accused of inciting armed rebellion. As a response to the bad press, Fox News' Griff Jenkins gave him an extensive interview to clear up his name and ideology.

End of Article in part and link

Bennett showed tears, lost.

SALT LAKE CITY – Republican Sen. Bob Bennett was thrown out of office Saturday by delegates at the Utah GOP convention in a stunning defeat for a once-popular three-term incumbent who fell victim to a growing conservative movement nationwide.
"The political atmosphere obviously has been toxic, and it's very clear that some of the votes that I have cast have added to the toxic environment," Bennett told reporters, choking back tears.

"Looking back on them, with one or two very minor exceptions, I wouldn't have cast any of them any differently, even if I had known at the time they were going to cost me my career."

"Don't take a chance on a newcomer," Bennett had pleaded in his brief speech to the delegates before the second round of voting began. "There's too much at stake."

"The bailout bothers me. That in and of itself is unforgivable in my opinion," said delegate Scott White, a 58-year-old general contractor from Taylorsville.

Bennett, 76, initially faced seven Republican opponents who said he wasn't conservative enough for ultraconservative Utah. Lee, 38, and Bridgewater, 49, campaigned largely by saying they're better suited to rein in government spending than Bennett.
Bennett was under fire for voting to bail out Wall Street, co-sponsoring a bipartisan bill mandating health insurance coverage and for aggressively pursuing earmarks. He tried to reassure delegates Saturday, before any voting, that he is a fiscal conservative.

"I think he's lost touch," said delegate Gary Crofts. "I'm excited to get a new person in there and fire things up a little."

+President Obama has decided to fly over the Gulf of Mexico and the oil Catastrophe heading for the in-battled State of Louisiana and the Federal Waters of the Gulf of Mexico.

President Obama took the time to fly to his home State of Illinois to campaign for Bank Reform, President Obama also took the time to introduce a fellow Democrat Candidate whose family lost their Bank to the FDIC?

What should be the Top Priorities of the President of the United States?

My Father in Law and his family were in the commercial fishing industry and owned fish markets to raise their families.

The oil spill is ready to devastate the Environment and the State of Louisiana and experts project for decades to come? The Environment and Jobs and businesses?

Is campaigning por a Dempocrat Canidate of a fallen Bank a pripority when Lopuisana is being devastated again after Katrina?

Article about Chicago Governor asking for President Obama to testify for him in his defense of trying to sell Senator Obama's vacated seat.

Article in part

Defense Motion To Subpoena President Barack Obama Contained Sealed Information That Was Visible In Some Electronic Formats
The judge presiding over the corruption case against former Gov. Rod Blagojevich summoned attorneys to his courtroom Thursday evening after information in the case that was supposed to remain under seal was released to the public.

Blagojevich's attorneys had filed a motion Thursday asking to have President Obama give testimony for the ex-governor's corruption trial.

The filing contained several paragraphs that had been blacked out -- or redacted -- because the information had been sealed by court order. However, in the electronic version of the motion, computer users have been able to copy and paste the blacked out portions into a separate document and read the passages as an unredacted version.

Zagel held a 6 p.m. hearing to meet with attorneys. Assistant U.S. attorneys handling the case and defense attorney Sheldon Sorosky appeared in court Thursday evening, but Zagel held the hearing in out of public view.

Parties in the case declined to comment on the matter afterward.

Read The Motion
Read The Unredacted Version

Blagojevich has pleaded not guilty to charges that accuse him of scheming to sell or trade the Senate seat left vacant by Obama's election as president.

The motion filed Thursday says Obama was interviewed for two hours by prosecutors and FBI agents regarding the Blagojevich case, and the defense filed a motion asking for all transcripts, notes and reports from that interview. But the defense never received the documents, the motion said.

The motion also claims that prosecutors say Blagojevich met a labor union official whom the governor believed to be in contact with President Obama, and told the official he would appoint a certain candidate to the vacant Senate seat. In exchange, Blagojevich expected to be named secretary of Health and Human Services, the motion says prosecutors claim.

But Obama has said he was "confident that no representatives of mine would have any part of any deals related to this seat," the motion says.

"President Obama has direct knowledge to allegations made in the indictment. In addition, President Obama's public statements contradict other witness statements, specifically those made by labor union official and Senate Candidate B," the motion said.

At one point, White House adviser Valerie Jarrett was interested in filling Obama's former seat, and prosecutors allege Blagojevich tried to leverage that interest into campaign cash, or a job for himself. Blagojevich has denied the charge.

Jarrett, who has been indentified in various media reports as Senate Candidate B, also was interviewed by the FBI in December 2008.

The labor union official is expected to be a prosecution witness, and since his story is contradicted by Obama's public statement, Blagojevich's defense team wants to subpoena Obama.

"They think he could say something that will bolster the former governor's position that he did nothing wrong," CBS 2 Legal Analyst Irv Miller said.

That's the simple reason behind the motion filed today, less than two months before Blagojevich is set to stand trial for allegedly trying to sell then-Senator Obama's Senate seat for political and monetary gain.

One item in the motion reads: "There are two conflicting stories and the defense has the right to admit evidence that contradicts the government's claims. Only President Obama can do this."

No one answered the door at the ex-governor's Northwest side home and his attorneys did not return calls for comment.

But the motion states that, in December 2009, the defense asked prosecutors for all notes, transcripts and information pertaining to the F.B.I.'s interview of Mr. Obama. Blagojevich's team still hasn't received it, prompting Thursday's filing.

"The defense is saying the president knows what was going on, the president knows that this was just typical horse-trading, typical politics as usual," Miller said. "And that's why they want him on the stand, to tell the jury that."

It would be unusual, but not unprecedented, for a sitting president to testify in a court case.

"History is replete with cases in which presidents have been subpoenaed or have provided evidence in federal cases," the motion said, followed by a list of presidents who had been deposed or testified in civil or criminal cases.

Miller cited a U.S. Supreme Court ruling from Paula Jones' case against then-president Bill Clinton. In that opinion, justices stated, "the president, like other officials, is subject to the same laws that apply to all citizens."

Miller said that ultimately, it will be up to the judge to decide whether the president must provide testimony in the Blagojevich case.

"The justice department is going to oppose it," Miller said.

If Zagel allows Obama's testimony, don't expect to see him in a Chicago courtroom during the Blagojevich trial. The president's deposition would be taken, under oath, in the White House, according to Miller. So, at the very most, the jury would see his statement on video

Blagojevich's trial is set to begin in about six weeks.

A pretrial hearing in the Blagojevich case has been scheduled for next week. It's not known if the judge will rule on this then or at a later date.

A spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office, Randall Samborn, had no comment on the 11-page motion. A White House spokesperson also declined comment on the filing.

CBS 2's Dana Kozlov, Political Producer Ed Marshall, The Associated Press and the Sun-Times Media Wire contributed to this report.

I have read so many Article in defense of our a President, these articles state his critics are Racists, or Haters, or it is Fox News, it is misinformation.....

Should this President step down and let someone step up to the plate to take ownership and do the job as our President and our Commander in Chief?

We have people lining the streets, politicians melting down after being abused.

We need someone who can do the job.

What do you think?

Bart Stupak has decided to retire.
Article in part

Michigan Rep. Bart Stupak, the congressman who led anti-abortion rights Democrats in the House during health care negotiations, will retire this year, CBS News has learned. He is expected to announce his plans later today.

Had Stupak sought re-election, he would have faced challengers from both the left and the right backed by interest groups angered by Stupak's health care vote.

That prompted the conservative Tea Party Express to launch a $250,000 ad campaign against Stupak this week. The group also scheduled a handful of stops on its bus tour in Stupak's district. "
End of Article in part

Why is he retiring?

Our Country is more divided than ever.

Is it the responsibility of our President to pull US together?

Is that what good Leadership is?

President Obama in an interview said his Poll ratings are down not because of him and his health care, it was bad Press?

You Vote.

The constitutional challenges to ObamaCare have come quickly, and the media are portraying them mostly as hopeless gestures—the political equivalent of Civil War re-enactors. Discussion over: You lost, deal with it.

The press corps never dismissed the legal challenges to the war on terror so easily, but then liberals have long treated property rights and any limits on federal power to regulate commerce as 18th-century anachronisms. In fact, the legal challenges to ObamaCare are serious and carry enormous implications for the future of American liberty.

The most important legal challenge turns on the "individual mandate"—the new requirement that almost every U.S. citizen must buy government-approved health insurance. Failure to comply will be punished by an annual tax penalty that by 2016 will rise to $750 or 2% of income, whichever is higher. President Obama opposed this kind of coercion as a candidate but has become a convert. He even argued in a September interview that "I absolutely reject that notion" that this tax is a tax, because it is supposedly for your own good.

Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum and 13 other state AGs—including Louisiana Democrat Buddy Caldwell—claim this is an unprecedented exercise of state power. Never before has Congress required people to buy a private product to qualify as a law-abiding citizen.

End of Article in part

This Article is in the Wall Street Journal

Do you agree?

Even the New York Times has seen the handwriting on the Wall.
Article in part

The legislative wrangling over the health care reform bill that became law last week has not translated into improved poll ratings for any of the principal participants.

In the latest CBS News Poll, 44 percent approve of how President Obama is handling his job, down from 49 percent in a poll taken just before the health care bill passed in the House of Representatives. Mr. Obama received a 41 percent disapproval rating in both surveys.

The public is particularly unhappy with Mr. Obama's management of health care. Only a third, 34 percent, approve of the president's handling of health care, down from 41 percent before the health care bill passed. Fifty-five percent disapprove, including a majority of Republicans and independents. While most Democrats approve of how Mr. Obama is handling health care, almost a third disapprove.

The public's impression of both Democratic Congressional leaders — Representative Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, and Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader of the Senate — has become increasingly negative. According to the latest USA Today/Gallup poll, Mr. Reid is better known since the last time Gallup asked about him in November 2008. His favorable rating is now 29 percent, basically unchanged from the earlier poll when 27 percent had a favorable view. But his negative number has increased from 30 percent in 2008 to 45 percent in the latest poll.

End of Article in Part

We the people, US is waking up...

The True Journalist, The New York Daily News + Pope not at Fault
Article excerpts in part...

"It has become an increasingly prevailing belief that as a cardinal, before he ascended to the papacy, Pope Benedict enabled a pedophile priest to do enormous harm. This is false...

Again, and with certainty: This is false.

There is much to criticize in the Catholic Church's abysmal failure for decades to take action against priests who engaged in sexual abuse. That history tends to lend credence to reports that the hierarchy has either turned a blind eye or engaged in coverups.

There is much to criticize in the Catholic Church's abysmal failure for decades to take action against priests who engaged in sexual abuse. That history tends to lend credence to reports that the hierarchy has either turned a blind eye or engaged in coverups.

While the Murphy case does exemplify the church at its worst, the grievous sins in this matter cannot be laid to Pope Benedict.

While the Murphy case does exemplify the church at its worst, the grievous sins in this matter cannot be laid to Pope Benedict.

While the Murphy case does exemplify the church at its worst, the grievous sins in this matter cannot be laid to Pope Benedict.

For 24 years starting in 1950, Murphy served as a priest at a school for deaf boys in Milwaukee. He was first accused of molesting students in the 1950s, and he was trailed by similar accounts until the church forced him onto "temporary sick leave." His superiors did not report Murphy to the police or take further internal action.

Those crimes, dating back half a century, took place decades before Ratzinger rose to high church positions in Europe. He could not have ignored repeated warnings, nor could he have looked away. He not on the scene at all.

Murphy next surfaces in 1996, 22 years after his last reported offense. Amid the scandals that swamped the church, some of Murphy's victims pressed the archbishop of Milwaukee to take action. He wrote to Ratzinger, who had by then risen to head the Vatican's Congregation for the Defense of the Faith....

What exactly did then-Cardinal Ratzinger do wrong? His office approved the trial and waived the statue of limitations. Those are not the makings of a coverup.

End of Excerpts of Article in parts

This is the Truth.
'
Finally Good Journalism.

Those crimes, dating back half a century, took place decades before Ratzinger rose to high church positions in Europe. He could not have ignored repeated warnings, nor could he have looked away. He not on the scene at all.

Murphy next surfaces in 1996, 22 years after his last reported offense. Amid the scandals that swamped the church, some of Murphy's victims pressed the archbishop of Milwaukee to take action. He wrote to Ratzinger, who had by then risen to head the Vatican's Congregation for the Defense of the Faith.