wow_happens28' on 'Cancer' thank you -
9 “Anti-Cancer” Fruits To Include In Your Diet

https://www.naturalblaze.com/2020/02/9-anti-cancer-fruits-to-include-in-your-diet.html


Natural Virus Remedies
3,042 views•Feb 11, 2020

Dogs + Ebola: What Every Owner Needs to Know From the American Kennel...
Dogs + Ebola What Every Owner Needs to Know

(PRWeb October 15, 2014)

Read the full story at http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/10/prweb12249630.htm

Today 04:14 AM

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/10/prweb12249630.htm

The Left-Wing Lie Machine Takes A Mortal Blow

by Karl Denninger
Posted 2013-04-24 09:43

Oh the irony!

U.S. authorities were on their way to a mountainous region in southern Russia to interview the parents of the Boston Marathon bombing suspects, as more details emerged about the brothers' recent activities in the U.S., including word of where the deadly explosives may have been purchased and that the family relied on welfare for at least some of their time here.
http://tinyurl.com/clwlvbf

The brothers hated America.

They loved, however, "transitional assistance benefits" -- in other words, welfare.

That's right folks -- we paid these clowns to live while they were radicalizing themselves and declaring that America was "the great Satan" and worthy of bombing.

How's it feel in those liberal bastions this morning? You now have hard proof that your political policies and "redistribution" factually funded these clowns while they made their plans to blow up runners at the Marathon.

Take a bow, liberals, to the fruits of your policy.

It gets better.

The elder brother bought fireworks -- a lot of them too ($400 worth) -- in February. That's not exactly a time when most people shoot off fireworks, is it? Even better, he bought fireworks that are full of both lift and bursting charges which are typically black-powder compounds -- exactly the sort of explosive that was identified in the bombs.

The Fibbies have said that he didn't buy enough to make the bombs, but that's just one sale they know of. This particular fireworks dealer scanned the guy's driver license, but unless something has changed recently this is pretty uncommon. I've bought plenty of fireworks and the only thing most of the places I've gone to have wanted is my money. How many more fireworks stores did these two visit?

There goes the "mad bomber uses GUN SUPPLIES" argument too!

It gets even better -- a majority of Bostonians apparently figured out that the cops would be happy to come by and sweep up the mess after the terrorists got done with them. See, the majority seem to have responded that they'd have preferred to have a gun during such an event.

Naw, go figure -- you have a couple of madmen on the loose who have proved they'll walk up to cops and shoot them, and the people would like to have a fighting chance at self-defense?

One by one this incident is taking the bogus arguments used for years by the lying left and demolishing them. The terrorists were not "Jesus-loving, bible-banging right-wing freaks" -- they were Muslims. The terrorists were not native-born Americans, they were immigrants that we coddled and allowed to remain in the country despite one of them committing a disqualifying crime. We not only ignored the older brother's domestic violence we funded them with welfare, literally paying them to live while they hated us and ultimately decided to try to kill us all. The guns the terrorists bought were not purchased through some "loophole" since there wasn't one that was possible given the state's laws on firearms, proving that a criminal doesn't give a damn about laws whether they pertain to guns or anything else. Massachusetts has factually had a near-doubling of murders since passing its "strict" gun control, about 60 a year, while the mad bombers managed to kill four, meaning that the bombers did less damage than one month's butcher bill from Massachusetts liberal gun-banning law, drawing a clear picture on exactly how destructive said laws have been to the life and liberty of Massachusetts residents.

Those on the left have run out of both arguments and excuses and this incident runs the flag all the way up the pole on that account.

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=220087

Obama's Sequester Math: $300 Billion In New Revenues Called 'Spending Cuts'
Fri, Mar 01 2013 00:00:00 E A14_ISSUES



Posted 02/28/2013 07:01 PM ET

Budget: When President Obama put out his "balanced" plan to avoid the automatic sequester cuts, no one noticed. Which is probably just as well for Obama, given how embarrassingly unbalanced it is.

Last week, New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote about how Obama "hasn't actually come up with a proposal to avert sequestration, let alone one that is politically plausible."

Turns out, Obama did have one, although Brooks can be excused for not knowing it, since the administration hasn't exactly been promoting this so-called plan.

That, too, is understandable, since it isn't a plan at all, just a list of numbers with little to back them up.

There are no details, for example, about the $200 billion in cuts to defense and domestic discretionary programs, other than that Obama wants them split evenly.

And while he offers $400 billion in "health savings," 30% are lumped in a bucket labeled "other."

Worse, Obama's "balanced" plan actually counts hundreds of billions of new revenues from taxes, fees and rebates as "spending reductions." Examples:

• His plan to "strengthen" unemployment insurance is labeled as a cut, but it's really a $50 billion tax hike.

• The $35 billion from the federal worker retirement programs involves boosting worker contributions.

• Most of the $35 billion in Medicare savings comes from charging wealthy seniors more.

• The $140 billion in "reduced payments to drug companies" are in fact rebates Obama wants drugmakers to pay Uncle Sam for selling drugs to poor seniors.

• Then there's the $45 billion in spectrum fees and asset sales that Obama lists as spending reductions.

Viewed correctly, it turns out that more than $300 billion — about a third — of Obama's proposed "spending cuts" are actually revenue increases.

As a result, instead of $1.2 trillion in spending cuts called for by the sequester over the next decade, Obama would add more than $1 trillion in revenues, while cutting outlays only about $600 billion. And much of those aren't real cuts, but tiny reductions in projected spending growth over the next decade.

And in the end, his plan, such as it is, will do nothing to forestall the nation's oncoming debt crisis.

After four years, Obama's unseriousness as a president continues to surprise us.



Read More At IBD: Obama's Sequester Math: $300 Billion In New Revenues Called 'Spending Cuts' - Investors.com http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/022813-646267-obama-labels-new-revenues-as-spending-cuts.htm#ixzz2MIt3Bcmb

"C'mon you saying menstrual cramps are making you post?"

Sorry I was mistaken. I thought you had some relevant point to make about the article and not some off handed personal attack.

I'm thinking about your pain..duress..C'mon you saying menstrual cramps are making you post?? Despite the air of disillusionment that hovers over the Obama candidacy like a toxic smog, Democrats still insist that their man will win, while simultaneously conveying the distinct impression that they won’t feel entirely shocked if he doesn’t.

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=81103740&txt2find=win

Exactly how does that have anything to do with my post about the spending crisis?

It hurts huh.. Here comes the landslide
Voters have figured out that President Obama has no message, no agenda and not even much of an explanation for what he has done over the past four years. His campaign is based entirely on persuading people that Mitt Romney is a uniquely bad man, entirely dedicated to the rich, ignorant of the problems of the average person. As long as he could run his negative ads, the campaign at least kept voters away from the Romney bandwagon. But once we all met Mitt Romney for three 90-minute debates, we got to know him — and to like him. He was not the monster Obama depicted, but a reasonable person for whom we could vote.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=81066883&txt2find=win

Just a reminder: this is a spending crisis, not a revenue crisis
We’re hearing a lot of nostalgia for the Clinton era in this debate over the upcoming fiscal cliff. Democrats argue that we need to return to the Clinton-era tax rates in order to get back to Clinton-era budget stability, but that argument utterly founders on the facts — and I’m not the only one to notice that. Michael Barone points out a few inconvenient truths in today’s New York Post about revenues and tax rates from the Clinton era to show that the current fiscal crisis comes from the other side of the ledger:

Over that period of nearly three-quarters of a century, federal receipts have never exceeded 20.9 percent of gross domestic product. That was the number for the war year 1944.

The highest number since was the 20.6 percent of GDP in 2000, the climax of the dotcom boom. In the Obama years, federal receipts have hovered at 15 percent of GDP.

That’s just because tax rates are too low, Obama backers reply. Just raise the rates on high earners, and the problem will be solved.

Actually, high earners don’t make enough money to close the current budget deficit. You’d need to raise taxes on middle-income earners too.

But we have had higher income tax rates in most of the years since World War II. What history and Table B-79 show is that even much higher rates — like the 91 percent marginal rate on top earners imposed from the 1940s to the 1960s — have never produced federal receipts higher than 20 percent of GDP.

Why is that? As the late Jack Kemp liked to say, when you tax something, you get less of it. When the government took 91 percent of what the law defined as adjusted gross income over a certain amount, not many people had adjusted gross income over that amount.
Let’s say, though, that a return to Clinton-era tax rates would produce 20.6% of GDP in federal revenue. We’d still have massive deficits, because we’re spending twenty-five percent of GDP at the federal level. In order to return to the Clinton era, I argue in my column for The Fiscal Times, we’d have to undo the spending spree that took place in both the Bush and Obama presidencies:

In his eight years as President, Clinton reduced federal spending to 18.2 percent of GDP from 22.1 percent, thanks in large part to a Republican-controlled Congress that forced the issue. Defense spending as a portion of GDP declined by 1.8 points, but non-defense spending dropped by 2.2 points. Clinton and the Republicans in Congress cut spending on domestic discretionary programs as well as entitlement spending through welfare reform.

What followed afterward is instructive to the real problem of our current trillion-dollar trajectory of deficit spending. George Bush increased federal spending as a share of GDP by 2.6 points in two terms, and it wasn’t just spent on defense; the increase was split evenly between defense and non-defense spending, a remarkable statistic considering the two wars waged in those eight years.

Barack Obama managed to hike it 3.5 points in just one term, with 3.2 points going to non-defense spending. Under Obama, federal spending now exceeds 25 percent of GDP, and his has been the biggest increase of any of his predecessors over the last 60 years – even for two-term Presidents.

The real debate over deficits isn’t over whether to go back to Clinton-era tax rates. It’s how to get back to Clinton-era spending levels, and then create a tax system that will adequately fund it. The 18.2 percent level of federal spending is one piece of Clinton-era nostalgia worth recalling – as well as the bipartisanship that eventually produced it.
The column should have included a link to the analysis provided by Cato’s Steve Hanke in his fact-check of the roundtable on Meet the Press this week. Professor Hanke (Johns Hopkins University) developed this table from OMB source data, which clearly shows how, when, and where we dug ourselves into this debt and deficit trap. Here’s a hint — it didn’t come from defense spending on wars:



George Will lays out what Clinton-era policies would look like today had they been continued, or reimposed:

Democrats insist that the manufactured unpleasantness due Jan. 1 is a crisis of insufficient revenue. But Jeffrey Dorfman, a University of Georgia economics professor, thinks arithmetic says otherwise. Writing for RealClearMarkets, he says that possible tax increases and spending cuts would reduce the current deficit by less than a third, leaving a deficit larger than any run by any president not named Obama.

At the end of the Clinton administration, when the budget was balanced (largely by revenue generated by commercialization of the Internet), annual federal spending was $1.94 trillion and revenue was $2.10 trillion. “Adjusting for inflation and population growth since the start of 2001,” Dorfman writes, “today’s equivalents would be $2.77 trillion and $3.00 trillion,” and a $230 billion surplus.

What is to blame for today’s huge imbalance? The George W. Bush tax cuts? The recession? Obama’s spending? Dorfman answers yes, yes and yes — but that “spending is the main culprit” because: Today federal revenue is $2.67 trillion (slightly less than “the Clinton equivalent”) and spending is $3.76 trillion, so we are spending $987 billion more than we would be if we had just increased Bill Clinton’s last budget for inflation and population growth.
We cannot continue to spend at this rate, not without massively confiscatory tax rates across the broad spectrum of earners. We have to cut spending dramatically in order to even get close to balance, and reverse the free-spending trend of the last twelve years. Nothing else will work, and massive confiscation will end up crashing the economy and making the deficit situation even worse.

If we go back to Clinton-era tax rates, we have to go back to Clinton-era spending rates too in order to solve the problem. That means entitlement reform and serious cuts in spending now as well as in the long term. Everything else is simply hobby-horse riding.

Will anyone get serious about addressing the real cause of the crisis? David Harsanyi hasn’t seen any reason for optimism from either side yet:

The “fiscal cliff” deal House Republicans and President Barack Obama are debatingcan be called many things — the “avoiding a political nightmare” deal or a “Yes, Mr. Obama, may I have another” deal — but please let’s stop referring to it as a “deficit reduction” deal. We’ve yet to see a serious proposal on debt.

Actually, by proposing a tax increase for spending with no real corresponding cuts, the president has been arguing for growing deficits. And with a priority on “fairness” over prosperity, any chance of easing the $16 trillion national debt through an economic boom in the near future is improbable. …

But all of Obama’s pro-debt expansion policies don’t excuse Republicans for calling their own proposala “credible” $2.2 trillion plan on “deficit reduction.” Even if we were to concede for a moment that the plan would cut the debt, by the time we realized $2.2 trillion in savings, the Congressional Budget Office projects that debt as a share of GDP will have reached 100 percent. By 2035, we’re looking at 200 percent.

Or put it this way: The entire Republican plan would only pay down the $220 billion in net interest the United States owes on its debt every year. Well, if by some miracle that interest stayed at $220 billion. Which it won’t.

The Republicans’ offer also contains $800 billion in new “revenue” garnered from tax reform — partially from closing loopholes on the wealthy — which surrenders to the notion that “revenue” rather than “spending” drives the deficit.
I’d trade some revenue for a serious effort to solve the actual drivers of the crisis. So far, I haven’t seen one yet, either — with the exception of Simpson-Bowles, which for all its flaws actually gets the US moving in the right direction, and the Paul Ryan plan, which has no chance of even getting another hearing in the Senate. Republicans should present Simpson-Bowles in toto and dare Democrats to vote against it.
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/12/06/just-a-reminder-this-is-a-spending-crisis-not-a-revenue-crisis/

My God, The Stupid Is Dissipating!

by Karl Denninger
Posted 2012-12-06 20:46

I'll be damned.

LANSING, Mich. – Republicans rushed right-to-work legislation through the Michigan Legislature Thursday, drawing raucous protests from hundreds of union supporters, some of whom were pepper-sprayed by police when they tried to storm the Senate chamber.

With six-vote margins in both chambers, the House and Senate approved measures prohibiting private unions from requiring that nonunion employees pay fees. The Senate was debating a similar bill, with Democrats denouncing it as an attack on worker rights and the GOP sponsor insisting it would boost the economy and jobs. Separate legislation dealing with public-sector unions was expected to come later.
http://tinyurl.com/c2395p5

Michigan has been a closed-shop state since.... pretty much forever.

This is a major win for employees and the right to work under individually-negotiated wages and terms.

Labor unions have literally destroyed thousands of businesses in Michigan over the last few decades. It is perfectly fine for people to band together and decide to form a union, but it is inherently evil to then decide to effectively force others to do so in order to work in a given business -- that is literal slavery -- to the union.

That this bill now appears to be headed toward the status of "Law" in Michigan is a watershed that I never thought I'd see in my years on the planet.

Even better, there is a possibility that the GM bailout, which I argued at the time was utterly unlawful as the government ignored bondholder seniority, might be unwound. Apparently unknown to the Judge in the bankruptcy there was a quiet little "lockup agreement" ( http://tinyurl.com/atqdc6t ) that was negotiated on the eve of the bankruptcy but apparently was not disclosed to the judge.

That's a serious no-no when you go into bankruptcy, and the Judge has the power to unwind the entire deal, re-opening the bankruptcy. That could expose GM to roughly $30 billion in liabilities it evaded through the process and force return of the bailout funds.

Needless to say GM doesn't have the money.

Let's hope the Judge does the right thing and in fact re-opens the case.

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=214649

73% of New Jobs Created in Last 5 Months Are in Government
Seventy-three percent of the new civilian jobs created in the United States over the last five months are in government, according to official data published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

In June, a total of 142,415,000 people were employed in the U.S, according to the BLS, including 19,938,000 who were employed by federal, state and local governments.

By November, according to data BLS released today, the total number of people employed had climbed to 143,262,000, an overall increase of 847,000 in the six months since June.

In the same five-month period since June, the number of people employed by government increased by 621,000 to 20,559,000. These 621,000 new government jobs created in the last five months equal 73.3 percent of the 847,000 new jobs created overall.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/73-new-jobs-created-last-5-months-are-government

Hey, Fat Cat Unions: Pay Your “Fair Share”


Message for wealth-bashing millionaire actor Ed Asner: Man up and take responsibility for lying to America’s schoolchildren.
Confronted by a producer for Fox News Channel’s “The Sean Hannity Show” this week, the left-wing celebrity claimed he couldn’t remember “a thing (he) said” on a vile propaganda video produced and published by the California Federation of Teachers. Asner narrated the unforgettable eight-minute anti-capitalist screed geared toward children.
Think Occupy Wall Street meets Sesame Street. “Things go downhill in a happy and prosperous land after the rich decide they don’t want to pay taxes anymore,” Asner warbles in a folksy grandpa voice. After education reform journalist Kyle Olson of EAGNews.org blew the whistle on the film’s vulgar cartoon depiction of a “rich” man urinating on the “poor,” the teachers union whitewashed the animated images from the video.
While the Occupy-cheerleading teachers have to concoct such fantasy scenes, informed Americans remember that it was the Occupiers themselves who openly defecated in the streets. What’s even more grossly comical is the sight of pampered Asner shilling for the “progressive” war on prosperity while ignoring Big Labor’s own self-serving evasion of their “fair share” in taxes.
The California Federation of Teachers, an AFL-CIO affiliate that rakes in an estimated $22 million in coerced dues, enjoys nonprofit, tax-exempt 501(c)(5) status. So does CFT’s larger counterpart, the California Teachers Association, which collects a whopping $300 million in annual dues. While they burn through mountains of dues lobbying for everyone else to pay higher taxes, these Democratic partisan heavies pay nothing in either federal or state income taxes. Zero, zip, nada. In theory, the unions are entitled to this special status because their “primary” purpose is to “secure better working conditions, wages and similar benefits” for their members.
In practice, of course, the unions are Democratic Party front groups that shovel hundreds of millions of dollars to liberal causes and candidates — against the will of their rank-and-file members and often without their knowledge.
Mark Levin’s ever-vigilant Landmark Legal Foundation has pressured the Internal Revenue Service for more than a decade to force national teachers unions to file proper federal reporting and IRS statements regarding their hidden political expenditures. (The overwhelmingly Democratic donations are not tax-exempt.) As a result of Landmark’s investigative work, the Wisconsin Education Association admitted in 2006 that it had failed to pay more than $171,000 in federal taxes on Democratic political expenditures.
Given the immense difficulty that dissenting teachers across the country have had in challenging the abuse of their dues for political purposes, it’s clear this is the tip of Big Labor’s tax-evasion iceberg.
In addition, the national parent organizations of the CFT and CTA also benefit from widespread property tax exemptions on their ownership of lavish real estate used for union brass vacations and retreats. Fox Business Network reporter Elizabeth MacDonald’s investigation of IRS records earlier this year shed light on several tax-sheltered, union-owned luxury hotels, golf courses and country clubs — including the “swanky” AFL-CIO-owned Westin Diplomat resort in Florida and the UAW’s $33 million lakeside resort and golf club in Onaway, Mich.
“What the documents don’t show,” FBN noted, “is whether union members like teachers, firemen and cops get invited to these junkets — or even approve of or know about the use of their dues to outright buy and run resorts, or spend on junkets, among other things.”
Then there’s the Obamacare Cadillac tax exemption for unions. Delivered behind closed doors and out of sight of C-SPAN cameras, the Obama White House cut a lucrative sweetheart deal with AFL-CIO, Service Employees International Union and other labor groups to shield them from the federal health care mandate’s steep 40 percent excise tax on high-cost health care plans. The 90 percent of Americans who don’t belong to unions and participate in these plans must pay their “fair share” beginning in 2013.
But Big Labor’s cozy Cadillac tax escape clause is effective until 2018. Even after that deadline, union dental and vision plans will remain exempt. The cost? $60 billion in foregone tax revenue.
Who are the greedy, selfish, filthy-rich tax evaders pissing on the poor and politically unconnected now
http://michellemalkin.com/

Thank you

Forbidden Knowledge - History of the Khazar Empire -
[Lecture by Jack Otto]

Obama donates 7 Alaskan/American Islands to Putin for Zero Dollars ?

http://article.wn.com/view/2012/05/23/Obama_donates_7_Alaskan_American_Islands_to_Putin_for_Zero_D/

Please read the following to see what is happening.
Why is he getting away with all of this I hear he is going to
give away all the ‘RED’ states to help in his re-election. ?

Obama Donates 7 Alaskan Islands to Putin for Zero dollars
This is what our beloved president Obama has done in 2012
for America so far this year. I am sure there will be more
to come along these lines.
This president needs to be -
http://www.petition2congress.com/6251/we-people-demand-full-scale-investigati

http://www.pakalertpress.com/2012/05/23/obama-donates-7-alaskanamerican-islands-to-putin-for-zero-dollars/

is that the truth ?


http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/obama-donates-7-alaska-islands-to-putin-for-zero-dollars/question-2738333/?feed=2331637&new=1&scroll=1
please, pass it along >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
TIA

Ps.
Russian nuclear bombers test U.S. air defenses in arctic war
games during chilly Obama-Putin summit

BY: Bill Gertz - June 26, 2012 5:00 am
http://freebeacon.com/the-bear-at-the-door/

Syria The New Tripwire For WWIII

http://www.rense.com/general83/syr.htm

This also places a tripwire for World War III
in place in the Middle East.
Any attack on Iran will also involve a war with Syria and
Lebanon.
This will now involve Russian military forces in direct
support of the Iranian/Syrian alliance.
Russia is a major nuclear power with the power to destroy
every American and NATO city.
George Bush agreed to sell Israel 1,000 very advanced
American bunker buster bombs for use in the coming war with
Iran, Syria, and Lebanon.

history often repeat itself -
The neo-cons banksters cult 666-king pin -
http://doreenellenbelldotan.info/AdolfRothschildHitler.htm

666-king-pin - care most about his $500 trillion + +

Malignant Narcissist Management Skills

Muslims Taking Over U.S. Government - Michele Bachmann

The Criminal in Thief on Bush and executive privilege.

“With respect to the ‘core’ of executive privilege, the Supreme Court has not resolved this question, and reasonable people have debated it. My view is that executive privilege generally depends on the involvement of the president and the White House.”

Bacrock Osama

Hope and change.

FFCLSOS

POTUS!

Don't think he will he is a great speaker!

POS

Radical

Truth

NDAA.

Dazed and confused

From a Black Conservative.

When will Obama crack in public?

By Mychal Massie

At a time when many Americans can barely afford Burger King and a movie, Obama boasts of spending a billion dollars on his re-election campaign. Questioned at a recent appearance about the spiraling fuel costs, Obama said, "Get used to it" – and with an insouciant grin and chortle, he told another person at the event, who complained about the effect high fuel prices were having on his family, to "get a more fuel-efficient car."

The Obamas behave as if they were sharecroppers living in a trailer and hit the Powerball, but instead of getting new tires for their trailer and a new pickup truck, they moved to Washington . And instead of making possum pie, with goats and chickens in the front yard, they're spending and living large at taxpayer expense – opulent vacations, gala balls, resplendent dinners and exclusive command performances at the White House, grand date nights, golf, basketball, more golf, exclusive resorts and still more golf.

Expensive, ill-fitting and ill-chosen wigs and fashions hardly befit the first lady of the United States. The Obamas have behaved in every way but presidential – which is why it's so offensive when we hear Obama say, in order "to restore fiscal responsibility, we all need to share in the sacrifice – but we don't have to sacrifice the America we believe in."

The American people have been sacrificing; it is he and his family who are behaving as if they've never had two nickels to rub together – and now, having hit the mother lode, they're going to spend away their feelings of inadequacy at the taxpayers' expense.

Obama continues to exhibit behavior that, at best, can be described as mobocratic and, at worst, reveals a deeply damaged individual. In a February 2010 column, I asked, "Is Obama unraveling? "I wrote that it was beginning to appear the growing mistrust of him and contempt for his policies was beginning to have a destabilizing effect on him.

At that time, I wrote that not having things go one's way can be a bitter pill, but reasonable people don't behave as he was behaving. He had insulted Republicans at their luncheon, where he had been an invited guest. I had speculated that was, in part, what had led him to falsely accuse Supreme Court justices before Congress, the nation and the world, during the 2010 State of the Union address.

It appeared, at that time, as if he were "fraying around the emotional edges. "That behavior has not abated – it has become more pronounced. While addressing the nation, after being forced to explain the validity of his unilateral aggression with Libya , America witnessed a petulant individual scowling and scolding the public for daring to insist he explain his actions.

But during an afternoon speech to address the budget/debt, he took his scornful, unstable despotic behavior to depths that should give the nation cause for concern. Displaying a dark psychopathy more representative of an episode of "The Tudors" television series, he invited Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., to sit in the front row during his speech and then proceeded to berate both Ryan and Ryan's budget-cutting plan. Even liberal Democrats were put off by the act. MSNBC's Joe Scarborough questioned the sanity of Obama's actions.

Today, criticism is coming from all sides. A senior Democrat lawmaker said, "I have been very disappointed in [Obama], to the point where I'm embarrassed that I endorsed him. It's so bad that some of us are thinking, is there some way we can replace him? How do you get rid of this guy?" ("Democrats' Disgust with Obama," The Daily Beast, April 15, 2011)

Steve McCann wrote: Obama's speech "was chock full of lies, deceit and crass fear-mongering. It must be said that [he] is the most dishonest, deceitful and mendacious person in a position of power I have ever witnessed" ("The Mendacity of Barack Obama, "AmericanThinker.com , April 15, 2011).

McCann continued: "[His] performance was the culmination of four years of outright lies and narcissism that have been largely ignored by the media, including some in the conservative press and political class who are loath to call [him] what he is in the bluntest of terms: a liar and a fraud. That he relies on his skin color to intimidate, either outright or by insinuation [against] those who oppose his radical agenda only add to his audacity. It is apparent that he has gotten away with his character flaws his entire life, aided and abetted by sycophants around him."

With these being among the kinder rebukes being directed at Obama, and with people becoming less intimidated by his willingness to use race as a bludgeon, with falling poll numbers in every meaningful category and an increasingly aggressive tea-party opposition – how much longer before he cracks completely?

The coming months of political life are not going to be pleasant for Obama. Possessed by a self-perceived palatine mindset, that in his mind places him above criticism, how long before he cracks in public? Can America risk a man with a documented track record of lying and misrepresenting truth as a basic way of life, who is becoming increasingly more contumelious?

Liberals seem unable to absorb what he is doing to our country and will probably continue to vote for him.

Just imagine what he will do to America if he gets another term.

Didn't do well today KATX but mine stock went into the toilet!

Oops my bad ;)~

Now you are hurting my feelings. LOL

NH

I certainly wouldn't invite you to a party!

Pretty damn scary to me. Think about it. And remember, 5 TRILLION of it is from OBUMMER!!!! The other 10 is split between many Presidents. He has done his share and more.

NH

That's damned depressing!

People have no idea just how far in debt this country is.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Now look at this. The 15.77 trillion in debt can never be paid back in our lifetime:

If we save ONE BILLION per DAY, that is 365 BILLION per year.

15.77 TRILLION DEBT divided by 365 BILLION DOLLARS saved per YEAR will give you the answer of 43.2 yrs WITHOUT INTEREST to repay the 15.77 trillion. That is only if we stop deficit spending TODAY!!!!

I have been saying for over 20 years that this country is finished as we know it, or as we have known it. Obama has increased the debt by 5 trillion dollars. The problem is certainly not all caused by Obama, it has been going for many years, and getting worse every year.

Just for shits and giggles, walk down the street and ask people how many millions in a billlion and how many billions in a trillion, and best yet, how many millions in a trillion. There will be fewer than 25% that will be able to answer you correctly. Make sure you have the correct answer before you ask others. LOL

NH

Send a message.

WE don't want either of your TRASH!!

Just don't vote....write in Mickey Mouse?

Really? It's your conditioned thinking that's unrealistic.

Just say no.

Simple.

Read it. Read this.

Nice to post but unrealistic

How bout a "no" vote.

Herpes or syphilis?

How bout neither.

Here Benz read this

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/514laI6nP1L._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg

I can vote either way. No joke ....undecided!

Well said!

Quickly

I wanted Obama to be Bolder
But...I do understand the State of affairs he was handed

If Romney gets in
He will finsh the destruction Bush accomplished...


I lean conservative
But
Greed...............

What's your view?

Well while you are here....I hope you don't mind....your view on the Presidental race?

Agreed,,,always expect the Unexpected there..Lolzzz.

Its the usual Pink BS...
Lots of confusion Blah Blah

Not sure how it will play out
Katx is pretty well exposed now

You Know Da Game............

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Hey buddy KATX interesting...never saw that coming!