Common sense has been lost over the years. In fact, the loss of our commons sense may be attributed to the tremendous, and very dangerous, division we have in our country. I believe that in order to end the divide we created in this country, it must begin by embracing an old rule: common sense. Here are some current examples of our lack of common sense.

Common Sense #1: A few years back, Senator Trent Lott attend a birthday party for Senator Strom Thurmond. Mr. Lott said some words at that event that were taken to believe Lott may have agreed with Thurmond’s racists years of past. Even though Mr. Lott made numerous statements that he didn’t agree with Thurmond, and that’s not what he said but also apologized, both Republicans and Democrats agreed he should relinquish his position. Common Sense? Both parties said their decision came together and was bipartisan. Fast forward.

How about Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood's hasty "stop driving" your Toyota retraction on Wednesday? A day earlier, Education Secretary Arne Duncan expressed regret for saying that Hurricane Katrina "was the best thing that happened to the education system in New Orleans." White House chief of staff, Raum Emanuel has said he was sorry for telling liberal activists it was “retarded” for them to run ads attacking fellow democrats. And we all know the extreme racist comments said about president Obama by senator (D) Harry Reid who happens to be the house leader just like Lott was when Lot attended Thurmond’s birthday party. After Reid made comments about Obama’s “light skin” and his “Negro dialogue,” nothing was done to Reid. In fact, none of the above received their comeuppance. If you carry over the same common sense rule with Lott, all should have been removed like Lott and by both parties. Common sense to remove these politicians? Absolutely! Were they removed? Nope!  Not from our liberal democrats. An apology sufficed for everyone except the one given by Republican, Trent Lott. Oh, I didn’t even mention the KKK democrat senator Byrd yet. Maybe later perhaps.

Common Sense #2: On September 9, 2009, Senator Joe Wilson shouted out “you lie” during one of Obama’s many health care speeches. Regardless if Wilson was correct or not, was it common sense to apologize for that remark since political etiquette says all senators and congressman attending Presidential speeches are not to shout out anything at our sitting president? Yes. Fast forward to Obama’s State of the Union Address and we get a very different picture with common sense. "With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections," said Obama, a constitutional lawyer. “I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests or, worse, by foreign entities.” Obama then went on to urge Congress to pass a new law to help correct the problem. Common sense to bash the Supreme’s on national TV and especially with a lie (I guess Joe was right after all)? Nope!! Commons sense to apologize? Yes. Did Obama apologize? Nope!

Common Sense #3: Bush became the first President to push spending to 3% of GDP. The liberal democrats went ballistic as soon as the MSM started their daily headline news stories attacking Bush for his spending. Common sense to go after a president for his spending even though, as the chart proves, much of the spending (01 and 02) was to build up our military after 9/11 and after Clinton cut our military nearly in half? Yes. Now Obama increases spending to 20% GDP while also quadrupling our deficit and increasing our national debt. This spending by Obama and the democrats makes Bush’s spending look like a kid’s paper route. But yet our liberals say nothing and still blame Bush. Common sense to continue to blast President Bush’s spending while Obama and his regime get a free pass for their spending that will take our nation from one of the lowest debt to GDP, to number one or two in a few short years? Nope. Common sense would be for our liberal democrats, and the MSM, to go after Obama and the democrats for their trying to bankrupt America. Have they? Nope!

Common sense is lacking from our democrats in Washington. Especially when it doesn’t fit their agenda.

I was going through some old emails and came across this one sent to me last March by my good friend, Steve. The irony of this is that we have no current news coming out of Iraq with regard to how the Iraqis feel. Ten months ago, as this article from the liberal MSM proves, the vast majority of Iraqis say they are safe and overwhelmingly support democracy.  But what I find even more interesting is we have no clue as to what the Iraqis think about us today and their new found democracy. Perhaps because these polls from the liberal MSM didn't quite go their way? Has anyone found any polling from the Iraqi people? Would  love to see what they say now.

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, March 16, 2009 4:20 PM PT

In most ways, the news from Iraq couldn't be better. People there feel more secure, and are more committed to democracy, than ever. Is it possible that President Bush was right after all?

A poll of average Iraqis conducted by ABC News, the BBC and Japan's NHK shows significant progress on virtually all fronts. Yet, we've heard nary a peep about it from anyone.

Some 85% of respondents said their neighborhood security was "good," vs. 62% a year ago and just 43% in August of 2007. And 52% said security had gotten better in the last year — during the Bush-Petraeus "surge," which was widely ridiculed at the time as an unnecessary escalation of the Iraq War.

Support for democracy jumped to 64%, a 21-percentage-point gain since 2007, according to a report on CNSNews.com. As for how Iraqis felt about the general state of affairs in Iraq, 58% called it "very good" or "quite good," up significantly from 43% last year and 22% in 2007.

When asked what their concerns are today, Iraqis sound a lot like Americans: Jobs and prices are at the top of their list — not war, not security, not terrorism.

In short, it sounds like we not only won the war, but the peace as well. And for those who cast a skeptical eye on the idea that any Islamic country could ever be democratized, it turns out the former President Bush is winning that debate too.

With President Obama in the middle of withdrawing troops from Iraq on a schedule that looks suspiciously identical to the one that Bush had in place, it's safe to say that Obama increasingly sees the wisdom of what his predecessor tried to do in Iraq.

Maybe the rest of us should as well.

It's become de rigueur to deride Bush's "failed" policies in Iraq. No one speaks well of them — except, maybe, Iraqis.

But here are the facts, stark as they are: During his vicious 20-year reign, Saddam Hussein — remember him? — killed an estimated 5% of Iraq's population. That works out to about 5,000 people a month slaughtered by the regime.

You might disagree that Bush was right to depose this murderous thug. But in doing so, you would then have to defend the deaths of thousands of innocents.

For those who say Bush went to war in Iraq under false pretenses — you know, "Bush lied, people died" — there's this: He made a lengthy, nuanced defense of his decision to get rid of Saddam. It was reflected in Congress' own resolution in late 2002, which cited 23 reasons for removing Saddam from power.

The ideas that it was all about oil or that Congress was bamboozled on WMD are both false.

Bush, Congress and our foreign allies all saw the same intelligence, and all came to the same conclusion: Saddam had a nuclear weapons program, and intended to build one as soon as he was able. That was, and remained, true.

After being bashed relentlessly in the media and on the campaign trail, President Bush left the White House with his approval ratings low and little, except his dignity, intact.

If he is to have a Truman-like reprieve in the public eye, it will surely come as we all start to realize that on Iraq, contrary to popular and elite opinion, Bush got it right. Mission accomplished.

Can someone explain, with facts and honesty, why president Obama keeps making the claim in his weekly address that we must “rein in the budget deficits we've been accumulating for far too long - deficits that won't just burden our children and grandchildren, but could damage our markets, drive up our interest rates, and jeopardize our recovery right now."  He keeps talking about the deficit and the spending by our government and how it will hurt our nation and our children. Isn’t Obama the government? Yet Obama and the democrats are demanding that Washington increase our debt by another $1.9 trillion. That puts or national debt to $14.3 trillion. Yet last February Obama announced his plans to cut the nation’s projected annual deficit in half by the end of his first term. How can that be when he nearly quadrupled the deficit?

President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008 but Obama ups that to $1 trillion. Bush began a string of expensive finan­cial bailouts but Obama and the democrats are increasing that spending at an alarming rate. President Bush raised spending to 3% of GDP. Obama has gone to 20% of GDP.

However, the most confusing part is the rhetoric and the constant blaming, from the liberals, that everything is President Bush’s fault. When Bush left office he raised our debt by $4.9 trillion. Obama, with his new debt increase, increased our national debt by nearly as much as Bush ($4 trillion) and yet Obama and the democrats did this in one year! Bush did it in eight! Yet Obama still goes on TV and says “we must reign in the spending.” But not just yet, as he repeated last Wed at his annual address. Obama told the nation he’ll start this reduced spending in 2011. That type of thinking is what gets families and individuals in trouble with their own finances: let’s put it off for later.

I think the SOTUA puts Obama at close to 500 interviews and or speeches since elected. Not sure if anyone keeps tabs, but I would wager that’s a record for any president in his first year. Maybe combined!

I couldn’t help wonder if Obama was going to try, again, to bamboozle the American public into thinking that he is no longer an ultra-liberal (voted the most liberal senator in Washington before he was president) and moving to the center. You do recall all those campaign promises that leaned to the right such as “transparency, ethical Washington, C-Span, lower taxes, no more pork or lobbyists” and much much more. No sense in beating a dead horse. Unless that horse is the Phoenix. Which seemed to rise from the ashes on Wednesday night! However, Obama’s second chance to confuse and deceive, just as he did during 2008, may not have worked this time. That’s because his rhetoric, that sounded like he was moving to the middle, didn’t last long since he contradicted himself all too often (should of asked Dick Morris how he got Clinton to make the change back in 1994). And someone needs to let the democrats know, and the person who wrote Obama’s speech (did it seem to you too that Obama’s speech was written at the last minute?), that though most Americans don’t recall much by the time the next elections arrive, they do when you speak for only an hour.

To tell us, again, that Obama wants bipartisanship going forward is just more of his “I’m in deep doo-doo” talk since a few minutes later be bashed the Supreme Court, with an outright lie, and then tried to blame the democrats lack of getting anything done on the Republicans. How can the minority in Washington get blamed? The majorities are in charge, Mr. Obama, and it’s your liberal democrats that own the majority. And to show how unfit you are to be our president, you had a rare opportunity to do what you wanted since the democrats had a super majority for your first year in office. That’s more than “the first hundred days.” Remember that Mr. president?

Yesterday in Baghdad, Ali Hassan al-Majid was executed. Does anyone know who this man was and what very critical role he played in Iraq? Maybe our younger bloggers could chime in and give us their answer. FYI: I doubt any of this man’s past is in our schools history books.

I think he can. However, will hell freeze over by the time that happens? Will America let another democrat super majority in by the time that happens? I don’t know but I will let you decide. From the facts below, I will derive my opinion as it should yours. That’s if you can take your party politics out of it. Will see.

The first issue is Obama’s many campaign lies. Nobody trusts a lying president except those that drank the Kool Aid. That was so so evident from the trouncing of democrats in the most democratic states. As reported in today’s Wall Street Journal, President Obama carried Massachusetts by 26 points on Nov. 4, 2008. Fifteen months later, on Jan. 19, 2010, the eve of the first anniversary of his inauguration, his party's candidate lost Massachusetts by five points. That's a 31-point shift. Mr. Obama won Virginia by six points in 2008. A year later, on Nov. 2, 2009, his party's candidate for governor lost by 18 points—a 25 point shift. Mr. Obama won New Jersey in 2008 by 16 points. In 2009 his party's incumbent governor lost re-election by four points—a 20-point shift. In each race, the president's party lost independent voters, who in 2008 voted like Democrats and in 2010 voted like Republicans.

In watching the exit poll (only one) in Massachusetts, a group of independent voters said they lost trust in Obama and the lies are what hurt him. Obama can win the hearts of all by admitting his lies (just say “mistakes”) and give us a new plan to back his promises. Like President Bush, his ideas may not suit everyone, but at least he would be honest and have conviction like Bush.

The next move is to remove the corruption in his office, in Congress, and in the Senate. Pronto! Here are just a few examples: Congress rushed to confirm Attorney General, Eric Holder, whose law firm we later find out represents seventeen Gitmo Terrorists. That not good and only shows Chicago style good ole boy corruption. Remove Hillary since it’s no secret we have one of the most corrupt American woman as Secretary of State. We’ve got a Tax cheat for Treasury Secretary who did not properly file his own taxes and a Tax cheat nominee for Chief Performance Officer who withdrew under those charges. We have a Commerce Secretary nominee who also withdrew due to corruption charges and then a Labor Secretary nominee who withdrew under charges of unethical conduct. I can go on and on. But you get the idea.

After all that, go on prime-time TV and give another speech (I know, Obama gave158 interviews and 411 speeches in his first year according to CBS News' Mark Knoller. That's most likely more than any previous president — and maybe more than all of them put together.) but tell us that Obamacare is scrubbed for now with an emphasis on the fact it will come up later. But this time any bill will only come from the entire House and Senate and not from the democrats behind closed door, corrupt secret deals and will never be written again by lobbyists or special interest groups. Then, tell us how our politicians will work day and night getting the US back on track economically (jobs first) and how we will put forth a full court press on fighting terrorism.

Start with admitting your lies and mistakes, Mr. Obama, and then follow the above and you will win my approval and millions more.

Can Obama do all this and make good on his campaign promise for “hope and change?” You tell me!

Last April, president Obama introduce a new unit to interrogate high value terror detainees called High-Value Interrogation Group (HIG).  Sounds great on paper since HIG will extract information from terror suspects in the post-9/11era. Too bad Obama’s people refused to use HIG on Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

White House counterterrorism chief, John Brennan, wrote a damning report on Obama’s staff failure to “connect the dots.” On Wednesday, Dennis Blair sent a similar report. However, Blair’s report (not to be confused with the liberal reporter Jason Blair from the NY Times where Blair was caught lying in his articles about President Bush which ended with the termination of the Times board and putting the NY Times close to bankruptcy) said the handing over of Abdulmutallab to the civilian justice system all but shut the door on any chance to interrogate him thoroughly thanks to Obama and his cronies. Even from using some college hazing type interrogation. More importantly, they failed to use Obama’s newly created HIG which Blair said was “to make a decision on whether a certain person who's detained should be treated as a case for federal prosecution or for some of the other means. We did not invoke the HIG in this case; we should have.” Frankly, we were thinking more of overseas people and you know, we didn't put it in action here” Mr. Blair said. Now the only way to get information from Abdulmutallab, since his newly appointed lawyer at our taxpayer expense has already said to keep quiet, is to hope we get information. However, by the time that arrives, assuming his lawyer will allow him to give us much needed information to stop more terrorist attacks on our fellow Americans - which is obvious Obama and his liberal sheep could care two “you know what” about - any leads will be stale.

Way to go Obama and our democrats. Way to go!

Thanks John for the email:

The United States Center for Contagious Disease Control has issued a level 1 warning about a new virulent strain that has been quickly spreading. The disease is contracted through dangerously high-risk behavior.

The disease is called Gonorrhea Lectim, and is pronounced "gonna re-elect them."

Research has confirmed that most victims contracted this dangerous and destructive disease after having been screwed in November 2008.

Naturalists and epidemiologists are amazed at how destructive this disease has become and have further learned that it is easily cured....by simply voting out all incumbents!

In spite of the perils, Pelosi, Reid and Obama are working in secret legislation to place Gonorrhea Lectim on the endangered species list to assure its survival.

Last night America showed us they are tired of the lies and corruption from Obama, Reid, Pelosi and the rest of the liberal democrats in Washington. So what does democrat senator Harry Reid do next?  Insult the Massachusetts voters, who rose to the occasion, after he said he will only allow Brown in when the votes are certified and delivered properly. And if that doesn’t work, Reid and the democrats are trying a new strategy that will take only 51 votes to pass the unwanted Obamacare. All after a state, which voted overwhelmingly for Obama, decided enough from the corrupt liberals who ran Massachusetts.

Even though the Brown victory is an enormous signal to those in Washington who desperately want to socialize America, the other message to Obama and his corrupt liberal cronies is to get our economy back in shape instead of pandering over their own selfish, socialistic ideologies. Will they listen going forward? From the recent victories by Republicans and the collapse in the polls for Obama, I doubt it. Our latest group of democrats from Obama on down don’t seem to be the brightest idiots in the village.

The lies and corruption with Obamacre is absolutely alarming. Once again, zero reporting from the MSM. And how many liberals still believe that our MSM isn’t bias? Not too many judging by the complete collapse in votes, trust, and confidence in Obama and the democrats. And if you are still hiding in a cave or behind CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, Milwaukee JS, and or the NY Times, just to name a few, this will send you in the right direction. That’s only if you’re an honest American who isn’t drunk on the Kool-Aid! Oh by the way, I just read the latest poll. One year ago this month Obama had a disapproval rating of only 16%. Today, his disapproval is at 44%.

The below article comes to me from the “Morning Bell.” However, before you read the article, here's some breaking news that shows more of the corrupt Chicago style politics Obama, Reid, and Pelosi use. One of their top economists brought in only to crunch the Obamacare numbers was caught with a conflict of interest. And a big one! Jonathan Gruber, an MIT economist, has been among the foremost promoters of Obamacare thanks to the $400,000 in consulting contracts with the Administration that weren't disclosed in the many stories in which he was cited as an independent authority. Why is this braking news? His work figured heavily into a recent piece by Ron Brownstein that the Administration promoted as an antidote to skepticism about Obama care’s cost control. Obama and White House budget director Peter Orszag has also relied on Mr. Gruber and other economists endorsing the Senate bill. And as Orszag reported Gruber’s findings, as did the MSM and some of our liberals’ right here, Orszag never reported that Gruber was paid and paid very well to support Obamacare. Conflict? Yes, Transparency? No! There’s more so read on.

Behind Closed Doors, Unions Win, You Lose 1/14/09

Yesterday, President Barack Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and nine other lawmakers met face-to-face for seven hours to resolve differences between the House and Senate health care bills. At the same time these talks were going on, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, Service Employees International Union President Andy Stern and United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger met with other Obama administration officials in a separate room in the White House. This all comes after these same labor leaders met personally with Speaker Pelosi yesterday, and after they met face-to-face with President Obama in the White House on Monday. Despite then-candidate Barack Obama's explicit promises to the American people, absolutely none of these meetings were open to the public or televised on C-SPAN. In fact, Politico reports: "Those involved in the talks sought to keep details of their progress under wraps."

And just what deals were Big Labor, the leftist majorities in Congress and the Obama administration making behind closed doors? How to pay for President Obama's likely $1 trillion health care plan without raising taxes on one of the President's most loyal constituencies: labor unions. Specifically, Big Labor reportedly has struck a deal with health care negotiators to exempt union members from the 40% excise tax on high-priced health insurance premiums. By some estimates, the tax would hit one in four union members. Now Big Labor will get all of the big government health care spending they always wanted, but they will not have to pay for it.

And Obamacare's Big Labor handouts don't end there. The legislation also sets aside $5 billion to subsidize the costs of employer health benefits for early retirees. As Heritage fellow James Sherk notes, few nonunion employers, of course, pay pension and health benefits for workers to retire at 55. And then there's the small business exemption from the employer mandate for businesses with less than 50 employees. At first this applied to all small businesses, but after aggressive lobbying by Big Labor, non-unionized construction businesses were unexempted. Big Labor lobbyists explicitly admitted they wanted to use Obamacare's job-killing employer mandates as a competitive advantage to drive non-unionized firms out of business.

So where does the White House and Congress propose to regain the revenue lost from exempting unions from the health care excise tax? The people who fund job creation: investors. The Obama administration wants to apply the Medicare payroll tax not just to wages but to capital gains, and for the first time ever, to dividends and other forms of investment income. This tax will hit seniors the hardest since many of them live off their dividend and interest income, in addition to their pension and Social Security checks. But it also hurts us all since high taxes on capital gains, dividends, interest and business income increase the cost of capital, thus depressing investment at the very time the economy needs new investment to grow and create jobs.

Big Labor's high wages and inflexible work rules have already bankrupted our nation's once proud automobile industry. Across the country, their early retirement and exorbitant pensions are bankrupting states. The health insurance excise tax was once the signature health care spending cost cutter of Obama's entire health care plan. Now it has been gutted at the altar of Big Labor power. The big loser in all of these cases is you, the American taxpayer.

http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/hostedemail/email.htm?h=9ddc0eaca3ca11c625b4de9b16238ced&CID=5613877594&ch=731C1AA5A664AF45C5BDE9E4F66063A0

CNN News: Civil rights activist Jesse Jackson called for his resignation, and former Vice President Al Gore told CNN that the comment was "racist." Gore said in an interview on CNN's "Inside Politics” the senator should apologize for his comments or face censure by the Senate. "It is not a small thing ... That's the definition of a racist comment," Gore said.

"I'm very concerned and very upset that anybody that would issue such a statement would be in the leadership of this nation or the Senate," said Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.), the newly elected chairman of the black caucus. "We're still trying to resolve exactly what action we will take."

Are these comments from senators and ex VP’s about the recent racist comments Senate Majority leader Harry Reid made about president Obama? Nope! These are the comments made when Trent Lott was forced out as Majority leader while making comments after attending Strom Thurmond’s birthday party and saying a few kind words about him. So where are these same politicians and the liberal lame stream media after Harry Reid described Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign as a "light-skinned" African-American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one?" Nowhere to be found. Has Reid received his comeuppance or any back lashing from Gore, Jackson, and Cummings? Nope! Double standard and liberal hypocrisy? Yup!

This morning it was reported that Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner (D), will be under investigation for telling AIG to fudge numbers for TARP. This is the same guy that failed to pay $34,000 of federal taxes during his employment at the International Monetary Fund despite receiving extra compensation and explanatory brochures that described his tax liabilities.  

Just recently, three prominent democrats decided to not seek reelection. All of these resigning democrats, whom enjoyed autonomy with easy election victories from very democratic districts, knew the current corruption in Washington, and their own corruption, would not allow them to win the 2010 elections. As do all the polls. However, Sen. Dodd (D) was the most corrupt. At least so far. From his corruption with Fannie, Freddie, Countrywide and AIG, Dodd was the most obvious loser for the upcoming elections. Even Arlen Specter had to change parties because he too knew he was losing to a Republican. At least Specter was honest to admit this.

As of this writing, the democrats in Washington are meeting again and in private with no C-Span, as promised dozens of times by Obama, no debating with Republicans, as Obama, Pelosi, and Reid all promised dozens of times during their campaign promises for the “most ethical house and senate ever,” and zero transparency. Another Obama/democrat campaign lie. From what Americans just witnessed with Nelson and the other corrupt democrats over Obamacare; Obama, Reid and Pelosi look like Pinocchio.

However, all the lies and corruption didn’t give us the hope or the change we were promised. As an independent I didn’t vote for Obama. But when he won, I “hoped” his campaign promises, even half of those promises, would hold true. They didn’t. Our world is not safer under Obama. We have a weaker family structure and much weaker family values. A more divided country ever with more terrorist attacks in 09 on US soil than any other year after 9/11.

Obama and the liberal democrats in and out of Washington get an F- because they are all a threat to our freedom, our liberties, and our economy. That is all the proof one needs.

As of Jan,9 some liberal group took down the video. However, I found others that saved this most powerful video but not on youtube format. Here's the URL. If other liberal or anti-American groups try to take down this video again, I will keep finding more that have been saved. No wonder Obama and the democrats want to take away conservative talk radio and control the internet.

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/america-rising-an-open-letter-to-democrat-politiciansflv/691322936?flv=1

At first I was going to give Obama a grade of D only because he didn’t completely collapse with the war on terror. However, with the recent fiasco from our Homeland Security - that just so happens to be a direct reflection of Obama’s true belief on how to fight Islam terrorists - and the recent passing of our defense spending bill that was loaded with pork (I know, you liberals are scrambling to find out what this is all about since our MSM refuses to report any of this), he and his regime could have received a D. However, the comments from the White House and Janet Napolitano that the “system is working” after the failed (and by luck only) terrorist attack last week, only points to the fact that Obama deserves no better than an F-. Plain and simple.

The other issue that made me drop Obama’s grade point average happened the other day while watching some balanced news that replayed another of the many Obama campaign lies. Obama said, "If a project doesn't support our troops, we will not fund it. If a system doesn't perform, we will terminate it. And if Congress sends me a defense bill loaded with that kind of pork, I will veto it.” Obama is not only a narcissist, but is now known on main street to be a pathological liar. The recent defense spending bill, that Obama so happily approved and didn’t veto, was loaded with guess what? Come on I’ll give you three guesses. PORK! And that’s just one of many failed campaign promise that Obama and the democrats used to garner votes from the politically ignorant and the many anti-Americans we have in the US. Add in the anti-Constitutional Obamacare and his lies and broken promises not only with that bill but the spending bill as well and you have the making of an F-. Oops, forgot Obama’s promise to end the wasteful spending. Another campaign promise thrown under the bus. 2010 elections can’t come soon enough. And what about the deficit that Obama and the democrats promised to end? In one year Obama and his democrats have doubled the deficit and his plans are to quadruple it in only a few short years. But yet these same democrats, along with Obama, want us to believe that the government takeover of healthcare will reduce the deficit and lower costs. Too bad the CBO and nearly every private study don’t show any deficit or cost savings.

But the number one reason Obama get’s an F-, and why I believe we are a sheepish and politically ignorant society, comes from Obama’s campaign rhetoric and his ignorant philosophy that many Americans couldn’t decipher: Obama constantly pointed out what a great nation we live in but after many of his campaign speeches he said, let’s change America! “Hope and Change.”

Oh, by the way, even if this were the typical liberal way of pass/fail, Obama and the democrats still would get a fail.

America didn’t have liberals bashing our Constitution? One of our ultra liberal-hardballer bloggers talks about everyone deserves a second chance with their mistakes. That is very true and in most cases I agree. Can I assume our local liberal blogger meant only after punishment? Not according to some liberal judges and politicians! But what liberals want is not just a second chance, but a third, fourth, etc and in many cases, like O’Reilly points out on FOX News from time to time, no fault freedom by liberal appointed judges who let child rapist off with as little as six months to zero jail time. Their response? Jail will not rehabilitate them. So off to killing and raping more children. How can any Christian be a liberal is beyond me.

This video of Ted Nugent, and the examples of liberals trying to take away our right to our freedom and our right to defend ourselves from these criminals that liberalism let out of jail or refuse to put in jail, says it all. Our liberal democrats in Washington are trying to tell me where how and if I can defend myself from thugs like the ones Nugent points out. What a disgrace

Obama and our democrats finally admitted that the failed terrorist attack on Northwest Flight 253 was: a terrorist attack. Funny, this is the same group that refuses to say the words “war on terror.” It’s all too obvious that Obama’s campaign agenda for tea and biscuits, along with some fancy rhetoric with terrorist and terrorist leaders, don’t mean we stopped fighting the “war on terror.” But to a liberal democrat it does!

The Christmas day bomb attack by Umar Farouk Abdulmuntallab failed only due to luck. Not Homeland Security leader Janet Napolitano’s comment that the “system worked.” In fact, the system failed and failed miserably since Obama and the democrats took over. If the “system worked” then how did this guy get a visa when we was on Homeland Securities list of those with terrorist connections and his father warned the U.S. that his son might be a terrorist? Obama’s failed policies with the war on terror, Homeland Security, and the safety of all Americans, can no longer be allowed to continue. We can’t count on lady luck much longer. Statistics show that Obama’s first year as our leader was the most active year since 2001 for terrorist incidents on our own soil. Terrorists don’t seem to like us any more now since Obama promised the use of fancy campaign talking points to get peace from Islam terrorists.

To make matters worse for the Obama administration and our safety, Abdulmuntallab now has to have his Miranda rights read to him and will have an attorney present as we try to get voluntary information out of this guy. And despite the fact Abdulmuntallab said terrorist cells in Yemen are behind this cowardly terrorist attack, Obama and the democrats are releasing more terrorist from Gitmo to Yemen. Catching on why I keep pointing out why we are a nation of idiots?

However, what is more disturbing and why I know we are a nation of idiots when it comes to liberalism, is the great article by Thomas Sowell pointing out where Obama's pals at Homeland Security said they are worried about terrorists like? Well, here’s a copy of Sowell’s great, great story.

Are You an ‘Extremist’?
By Thomas Sowell

While the rest of us may be worried about violent Mexican drug gangs on our border, or about terrorists who are going to be released from Guantanamo, the director of homeland security is worried about “right-wing extremists.” Just who are these right-wing extremists?

According to an official document of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, right-wing extremists include “groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.” They also include those “rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority.”

If you fit in to any of these categories, you may not have realized that you are considered a threat to national security. But apparently the Obama administration has its eye on you.

According to the same official document, the Department of Homeland Security “has no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence.” But somehow they just know that you right-wingers are itching to unleash terror somewhere, somehow.

So-called honor killings by Muslims in the United States, including the recent beheading of his wife by a leader of one of the American Muslim organizations, does not seem to arouse any concern from the Department of Homeland Security.

When it comes to the thuggery of ACORN ­ its members’ harassing the homes of bankers, and even the home of former senator Phil Gramm when he opposed things that ACORN favored ­ the Department of Homeland Security apparently sees no evil, hears no evil, and speaks no evil.

Maybe they are too busy worrying about right-wing “extremists” who don’t like abortions or illegal immigration, or who favor the division of power between the state and federal governments established by the Constitution.

In one sense, the Department of Homeland Security paper is silly. In another sense, it can be sinister as a revealing and disturbing sign of the preoccupations and priorities of this administration ­ and their willingness to witch-hunt and demonize those who dare to disagree with them.

Reportedly, the FBI and the Defense Department are cooperating with the Department of Homeland Security in investigations of returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan. That people who have put their lives on the line for this country are made the target of what is called the Vigilant Eagle program suggests that this administration might be more of a threat than the people they are investigating.

All this activity takes on a more sinister aspect against the background of one of the statements of Barack Obama during last year’s election campaign that got remarkably little attention in the media. He suggested the creation of a federal police force, comparable in size to the military.

Why such an organization? For what purpose?

Since there are state and local police forces all across the country, an FBI to investigate federal crimes, and a Department of Justice to prosecute those who commit them, as well as a Defense Department with military forces, just what role would a federal police force play?

Maybe it was just one of those bright ideas that get floated during an election campaign. Yet there was no grassroots demand for any such federal police nor any media clamor for it, so there was not even any political reason to suggest such a thing.

What would be different about a new federal police force, as compared with existing law-enforcement and military forces? It would be a creation of the Obama administration, run by people appointed from top to bottom by that administration ­ and without the conflicting loyalties of those steeped in existing military traditions and law-enforcement traditions.

In short, a federal police force could become President Obama’s personal domestic political army, his own storm troopers.

Perhaps there will never be such a federal police force. But the targeting of individuals and groups who believe in some of the fundamental values on which this country was founded, and people who have demonstrated their patriotism by volunteering for military service, suggests that this potential for political abuse is worth watching, as Obama tries to remake America to fit his vision.


­ Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the  Hoover Institution. © 2009 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

The cornerstone of Obama, Reid, Pelosi and the democrats campaign was honesty, integrity, transparency, no more lobbyists, no more earmarks, and no more partisan Washington politics as we know it today. Those were the words used and the campaign promises by all the above with Obama leading the way. And what do we have today? The most corrupt, dishonest, partisan, lobbying, earmark, pork politics in Washington from our most dishonest president and his regime ever. And I mean ever.

If Obamacare is such a great deal for America, than how come it is the most unpopular major bill in history? How come the only way to pass this is to buy out democrats so to vote for this very unpopular healthcare bill?

Senator Ben Nelson leads the way with dishonesty and corruption. In order for him to vote “yes” for Obamacare, he sold out his integrity, scruples, ethics and his honesty and now we the tax payers have to pay for Nebraska’s Medicare for life. Yes, life! Democrat senator Max Baucus, one of the chief authors of this corrupt anti-Constitutional bill, passed his own corrupt needs for Montana by adding in the bill (more pork that Obama, Reid, and Pelosi said would never be in any bill again) asbestos payments to his state residents. Now, many other democrats are lining up for their own “let’s make a dope deal” for them and their states. We know what the democrat in Louisiana got: $200-300 million for her vote while democrat senator Dodd got $100 million for a new hospital.  And there is much, much more. Why doesn’t it occur to these corrupt, liberal democrat idiots, and the many that voted for these dishonest jerks, as to what is good for American first, and then their corrupt selves last?

If this bill is so good for America, why is the support so poor and why does it take these corrupt politicians to be bought out? Can any liberal explain this to me please?

This map says it all. Take note of when the democrats took over our country and when Obama was elected. Too bad it doesn't go to the full 10% unemployment. But I'm sure you get the picture. Unless of course you are a liberal who doesn't let the facts or the truth get in your way!

Liberal hardballers, socialists, and those that have no healthcare are the largest groups lobbying for Obamacare. Toss in those that are healthcare eligible, but refuse to pay for it, and you have a recipe for disaster. Getting Obamacare passed will insure democrats’ control of America for a long, long time since the poor, needy, and the immigrants will have to vote democrat so to get their free entitlements. But what about the facts and how about the truth that the liberal democrats refuse and I mean absolutely refuse to address? I wonder if any democrat in Washington even cares what is good for America. Yet they have the golden opportunity to make good with healthcare reform because, like me, the vast majority know we need a fix. But not to the tune of complete socialized medicine. And a bill that not even the democrats know what’s in it!

Now we see the unions, that paid millions into Obama and the democrats’ coffers for their 09 campaign, are upset over the 40% excise tax for high cost insurance plans. Their actions caught, again, White House healthcare pundits in more lies. When big labor complained about this 40% tax on insurance plans, since unions have the biggest and best plans, the Deputy Economic Director told the unions not to worry since this tax will only affect 3% of the nation’s plans. But how can this be? Budget Director, Peter Orszag, tells us that Obamacare cost control will come from this added tax. So how the heck can only 3% of our nation’s high-end insurance plans make up the added tax for cost savings Obama and the democrats keep telling us? Which democrat is lying this time?

Dr. Coburn, a physician and now a Republican senator from Oklahoma, did read the bill in its entirety and found many flaws and more important, lies from Reid, Pelosi, and those who wrote these bills. From his 12-16-09 op-ed piece: For instance, the Reid bill (in sections 3403 and 2021) explicitly empowers Medicare to deny treatment based on cost. An Independent Medicare Advisory Board created by the bill—composed of permanent, unelected and, therefore, unaccountable members—will greatly expand the rationing practices that already occur in the program. Medicare, for example, has limited cancer patients' access to Epogen, a costly but vital drug that stimulates red blood cell production. It has limited the use of virtual, and safer, colonoscopies due to cost concerns. And Medicare refuses medical claims at twice the rate of the largest private insurers. And yet Reid and the other democrat stand on the podium and in front of the lying liberal media and say this isn’t true. Despite the fact it’s in the Reid/Obamacare health bill. Did these democrats not read their own bill that they are voting for and defending in public? I ask where the media outrage is over these liberal lies.

Dr. Coburn finds more lies from Reid: Section 6301 of the Reid bill creates new comparative effectiveness research (CER) programs. CER panels have been used as rationing commissions in other countries such as the U.K., where 15,000 cancer patients die prematurely every year according to the National Cancer Intelligence Network. CER panels here could effectively dictate coverage options and ration care for plans that participate in the state insurance exchanges created by the bill.

Additionally, the Reid bill depends on the recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force in no fewer than 14 places. This task force was responsible for advising women under 50 to not undergo annual mammograms. The administration claims the task force recommendations do not carry the force of law, but the Reid bill itself contradicts them in section 2713. The bill explicitly states, on page 17, that health insurance plans "shall provide coverage for" services approved by the task force. This chilling provision represents the government stepping between doctors and patients. When the government asserts the power to provide care, it also asserts the power to deny care.

If the bill expands Medicaid eligibility to 133% of the poverty level, that too will lead to rationing. Because Washington bureaucrats have created a system that underpays doctors, 40% of doctors already restrict access to Medicaid patients, and therefore ration care.

We see every day where Americans are getting fed up with the lies, distortions of the facts, and the plain old demagoguery by our liberal democrats in Washington. Obamacare is now below 40% approval. Another reason why he and his cronies are falling in the polls and at record clips.

Maybe if our democrats where a tad more honest we might get a bill passed. If not, they have only themselves to blame again.

For the full story:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703514404574588842779569168.html

If Obama wants job growth in the US, he better get up to speed with what is needed for our small businesses to grow those jobs. During the Bush administration’s record fifty four straight months of job growth it was found that nearly 100% of those record gains came from the small business owner. Though I appreciate Obama’s rhetoric to get the banks to loosen credit and lend more to small businesses, that’s not what is ailing our economy when it comes to employment. The National Federation of Independent Business says the problem is the lack of customers, not a lack of credit. A recent NFIB report shows that only 14% of the nation’s small business owners are reporting problems getting loans and 10% not getting a loan at all. In fact, the Federal Reserve report also shows demand for small business loans remains very weak.

But what is even more discouraging are the policies Obama and his democrats have inflicted on the small business owner which are the real culprits. And the fact - equally important – that more than 90% of Obama’s administrations prior experience was in the public sector. Obama’s regime is the lowest presidential cabinet with any kind of private business or private job experience dating back to T. Roosevelt. That’s nineteen administrations!

Obama keeps telling us that he wants job growth and small businesses to take some risk and hire but he and his administration keep taking away the rewards if a business owner takes on those risks. You can keep blaming the banks for just so long. But when our nations small business owners don’t hire or expand  due to fear over Washington’s issues like higher taxes, out of control spending (another huge campaign lie by Obama and the democrats), and the cost of healthcare reform, you can’t blame them or our lending practices. Not this time Mr. president! Not this time.