This isn't an April Fools joke by Time, but they are trying to fool as many people as possible though.

Unfortunately, this is real to them. Their next edition will have the story about "Why Obama LOVES Reagan". I know the left urgently needs to try and present Obama as moving to the center, but they need to try a different illusion then this. I have to laugh at how stupid the people at Time take people for. Obama likes Reagan as much as Jesse Jackson was truly Bill Clinton's "spiritual adviser" after the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke. Only an idiot would believe either. This is what the real Time Magazine cover should be if they were honest.

Liberal radio talk show host John Sylvester demonstrates the liberal's new tone in "civility" towards the Lt. Governor of Wisconsin.

Enter the Wisconsin mascot who I guess represents liberal civility. Mr John Sylvester is a liberal talk show host from Madison, yes liberal talk show hosts are still around. They have very few listeners , but they're still surviving somehow. Before the era of civility, liberals and liberal talk show host would go to the extreme in their attempts to personally attack and defame any conservative or person who doesn't agree with their way of thinking. That was then before the era of civility, and this is now during the era of civility. So how would a liberal radio talk show host who doesn't agree with the Lt Governor of Wisconsin Rebecca Kleefisch voice his opposition to her under the"rules of civility"? I'm glad some of you may have asked that question. This is how he voices his opposition in a "civil" manner. He makes fun of her having colon cancer, and then proceed to make crude sexual jokes about her.



I wonder why Mr. Sylvester apologized for his civility towards Ms. Klleefisch? Take note everyone. Mr Sylvester could be a role model in helping other liberals adopt the new tone in civility in our country going forward, don't you think?

Rachael Madcow is upset, because CNN actually reported the news in covering Michelle Bauchman's Tea Party response to Obama's SOTU speech.

A few weeks ago, I created a video mocking MSNBC for it's flat out "FAKE" journalist integrity. One person I made sure to highlight was Rachael Maddow. When the now departed Keith Olberman was suspended from MSBNC a few months ago for violating MSNBC's "ethics", because he donated money to a congressional candidate, Rachael Madcow used the opportunity to capitalize on Olberman's suspension to use it to some how show that MSNBC "is a news operation".



Well the person who supposedly represents a "news operation" is upset that CNN actually covered a real news story, imagine that. After Obama's SOTU speech, Congressman Paul Ryan gave the Republican response. I have to give Ryan credit. He hit on most of the main themes that needed to be addressed. What erked Rachel was that CNN decided to cover Michelle Bauchman's Tea Party response to Obama's speech.



Though CNN was the only network to cover it, it was still news. Frankly, it was a pleasure watching Michelle rather then watching the pathetic excuse of the Fox News "All Stars" sit around and gleefully gush over Obama's platitude laden speech. I know why CNN decided to cover Bauchman's response. CNN finally figured out that the Tea Party is indeed relevant, and people were going to watch if Michelle was given airtime. CNN simply wanted the ratings. For Rachael to get her boxers all wrinkled up only shows how politically bias she is. It's funny yet odd though. I can understand Rachael taking shots at Fox News but CNN? I know Michelle Bauchman is the second most hated conservative woman just after Sarah Palin but come on Rachael. Can you try and pretend to be what you say MSNBC is, a news operation?

A fantasy debate :Reagan vs Obama

The latest con job by Obama is him trying to come off echoing the late Ronald Wilson Reagan. Obama is no Reagan, and he will never even come remotely close to setting a political tone that President Reagan was famous for doiing, so the pretender in chief might as well quit while he is behind in his attempts. I've said as well as others that the presidency of Barack Obama is really nothing more then the second term of Jimmy Carter. So far, he has lived up to being just that. If anyone would like to see a contrast in style, substance and visions of America, all anyone has to do is watch the 1980 debate Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. Since Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama share the same progressive ideology on virtually every issue, there really isn't any difference between the two. I still wish I could witness a debate between Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama. It wouldn't be an easy moment in time for Obama. You think the guy stutters now when he doesn't have his teleprompter to read from, imagine Obama having to try and defend against the fierce and direct attacks by Reagan on Obama's support of the failed and flawed principals of liberalism. That debate will never happen, but this might be close second.

Keith Olbermann is gone but not forgotten.

I can't believe how much press Keith Olbermann's firing or "resignation" is getting.



He didn't get this much attention when he was doing his lowly rated show "Countdown "on MSNBC. Keith did his last show Friday. I have my suspicions on why he was suddenly shown the door. It just happened that Olby's last day this past Friday was on the day that Comcast completed it's purchase of NBC Universal from General Electric. MSNBC is owned by NBC. I just wonder could it be possible that Comcast actually cares about it's businesses making a profit rather then pushing an agenda like GE did? GE was contempt with it's far out left wing kooks on MSNBC spewing their insanity and not making any money for the MSNBC division. The executives at General Electric are liberals who love the Chi-Coms and as long as Olby and the crew at MSNBC reported their "version"of the news from their liberal perspective, all was right with MSNBC. I guess there is a new sheriff in town, and this sheriff cares about the financial bottom line. Olby's four year thirty million dollar contract was set to end next year. I'm sure the advertising execs at MSNBC were giving deep discounts to advertisers so they would buy ad time on Olbermann's show, due to it's pathetic ratings. It's easy to see how non existent a return on investment paying him that kind of a salary was. In other words, he simply wasn't nowhere near worth what he was getting paid. Olby provided me with some great material over the years. I goof on Chris Matthews the most, however Olbermann was a close second. I just have to wonder will there be more house cleaning going on over at MSNBC. The next person's head that needs to be on the corporate chopping block is Chris Matthews. Matthews is pulling down several million dollars a year in salary as well with very few viewers to show for it. So it only makes sense to fire Matthews next if Comcast is serious about turning around the money pit known as MSNBC and actually making it a real news organization instead of the progressive running gag that it currently is. I wish I could personally thank Keith Olbermann. He played a part in unknowingly exposing just how mentally screwed up liberals are on a nightly basis. Cya Olby, you'll be missed.

Did you all know that Obamacare is the Civil Rights Act of the 21st century?

So I guess if you support the appeal of Obamacare, you must be a racist. That's not me saying that of course. I'm not mentally screwed up to utter such foolishness. Those were the words of Congressman James Clyburn of South Carolina. For this human piece of garbage to pimp the name of Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights movement on an issue that has nothing at all to do with the the Civil Rights era or Kings legacy is beyond vile. The Civil Rights era has become nothing more then a play thing to people like Clyburn and liberals.



If the ends justify the means, it' s alright in their eyes to exploit it for maximum political gain. These people have no shame. Clyburn has no credibility at all. That is why nobody believed him, when he said that a tea party person spat on him and claimed he was called a racist name last year at a tea party rally in Washington D.C. Congressman Clyburn is an embarrassment to himself. I would say that he is an embarrassment to the people he represent in his district, but they keep voting him back into office. So the people he represent are embarrassments to themselves as well. The talking point theme must have been handed down by the Democratic National Committee, because I see a pattern forming. Here's that far left whack job loon Ed Schultz on MSNBC copying the exact theme Clyburn used about Obamacare, the Civil Rights era and racism. I wonder what Ed meant, when he said "The Republicans basically, as I see it, have a pre-civil rights attitude when it comes to health care"?

Who are the real traitors and sellouts among blacks? Part 1:Abortion

I've been thinking about this question for awhile now. "Who really are the traitors and sellouts in the black community"? As a conservative who is black, I hear it often among clueless black and dopey white liberals. I normally just think to myself let them talk themselves to death, and I'll bury them in their own confusion. It always tends to work. Even with me doing so, the question still seems to persist. Abortion is religious to liberals. This is one issue that the left will fight almost to the death in protecting. I heard a story this morning on the radio about the number of black unborn children who are aborted every year nationally, it was sad and sickening to hear. These children were basically snuffed out, because they were deemed a hindrance to the "lifestyle" of their "mother". The loose and do whatever lifestyle that is promoted constantly by liberals in pop culture and society plays a part in this.. Anyways, Margret Sanger was the founder of the abortion mill known as Planned Parenthood. Their name "Planned Parenthood" is an oxymoron actually in their case. Here's a shocking statistic. 78% of Planned Parenthood "clinics" are in minority areas. Blacks only make up 12% of the American population. So why are such an overwhelming majority of PP clinics located in minority areas? That is a good question isn't it? Margaret Sanger was a racist who believed in eugenics, believing that other races are inferior to whites. She said back in 1939 "We don't want the word to get out that we want to exterminate the negro population". No doubt the Klan supported her "life's mission". Maybe Obama can nominate Sanger for a Noble Peace prize or something similar.



It's no big secret that the second black president supports killing unborn black babies but of course he would never be called a "sellout" or a "traitor"only blacks who support saving them are, go figure.



Here's a very simple lead along anyone can follow that will lead to the logical conclusion of how abortions actually hurt blacks as a whole. The more black children that are aborted by PP, the fewer blacks are born. The fewer blacks that are born, the less the population of blacks there are. The less the population of blacks there are, the less money black communities will get from the state and federal levels when the census count take place every ten years. Also, those districts that are mostly blacks will have lesser representation in congress due to their population shrinking. As I said before, I tend to think these things through to their logical conclusion. So who are the real sellouts and traitors again? Is it black conservatives who value the lives of unborn black children or is it people like Barack Obama, Margaret Sanger white & blacks who support killing unborn black children? When the facts are laid on the table, the answer is obvious. I'm sure liberals regardless of race are going to read this and are going to try and make the issue about me more so then what I am saying. I know how the game works. I just have one question. It is the same question I stated several times. The question is, "Why are the overwhelming majority of planned parenthood clinics located in the communities of people who only make up 12% of the population of the United States of America"?

Governor LePage of Maine stands up to the NAACP and dares them to use the race card.

Once upon a time, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored people played a pivotal role in pushing for civil rights and equality for blacks during the post slavery era. Today however, the organization has become merely shell of it's former prominence. It has become nothing more then a hyper partisan liberal auxillary, political whore of the Democratic Party disguised as a civil rights organization. Whenever the NAACP would criticize Republicans and conservatives over "illusionary" charges of racism, the republicans rarely if ever fought back. They believed as they do today that by doing so, the NAACP will just come out and use the situation to "validate" it's claim, because it would be painted that republicans and conservatives are "attacking" the NAACP thus blacks in general. Well I read a fascinating story yesterday about the republican governor of Maine Paul LePage not bowing down to the alter of the NAACP in Portland Maine. The NAACP invited Governor LePage to several events and LePage declined. LePage stated that the NACCP is a "special interest" group, and he doesn't deal with special interest groups. As much as the Portland NAACP would love to brand Governor LePage as a republican racist, they can't do it. Governor LePage has an adopted son who happens to be Jamaican.The biggest controversy in this saga in Portland Maine is that Governor LePage told the Portland Maine NAACP that if they don't like his decision, "they can "kiss his ass". I applaud Governor LePage for not allowing himself to be bullied into following the script of the PM NAACP. Of course, this isn't siting well with the NAACP's keen folk in the media. This has now become a national story. I wish I knew why that is. Maybe the media will try and find a connection between Governor LePage and Sarah Palin, who knows. I wonder if Sharpton and Jackson are on stand by? I'm starting to see a small trend forming. Democratic special interest groups are finally being stood up against. Governor Chris Christie is going after the unions in New Jersey and now Governor LePage with the NAACP.

A detailed look into Jared Laughner and the exploitation of the Arizona Shootings.

The Chronicles of Palin: The shooter, the targets and the "real" reason liberals are outraged.

I've said this since the first day I posted my first post on this blog. "Liberals always have an ulterior motive behind everything they do". One would have to question why liberals are so desperately hell bent in trying to connect the Arizona shooting to Sarah Palin, when it has been proven that there was no connection. It is so ridiculous, but it also reminds me of when liberals tried to blame Sarah for her daughter Bristol getting pregnant. I still have to laugh at that one. As I said, if you know how liberals think and plot, you can easily figure out their real motives. Liberals claim they want Palin to run, but they always contradict themselves by doing everything humanly possible to make it impossible for her to run for president. Rule #1, never believe what a liberal says as being the truth, believe the opposite instead. It's tasteless that these people would use such a tragedy to go after Palin, but I know the reason why. Nobody has brought up what I am about to say. It's odd, because the reason is as big as day and makes complete sense. This sudden target "controversy" of Palin by liberals all has to do with February 6th, 2011. If you all haven't noticed. Sarah Palin won't be doing a second season of her hit show "Sarah Palin's Alaska". The Learning Channel wanted a second season from her, and Palin claimed she liked doing the show. With that said, why wouldn't she do a second season then? It's obvious the reason why. Liberals, political party bosses in both parties know why, and the media knows why. February 6th is the beginning of the year countdown to the "2012 Iowa Caucus". This is the time potential GOP candidates are setting up exploratory committees to test the water or fund raising for a primary run.

Liberals know that a "crisis is a terrible thing to waste" when it comes to the massacare in Arizona.

It's tragic what happened yesterday in Arizona to U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and six others who were attending a town hall event at a supermarket in Tuscon. Six people were shot dead by a deranged man by the name of Jared Lee Loughner, twenty two. Congresswoman Gifford was shot in the head. She survived and is in intensive condition. She underwent a brain operation yesterday. It is a miracle that she is even alive. She was shot at point blank range. When I heard about the shootings on the radio around 4pm yesterday, one thought immediately popped in my head. I thought to myself the media and left wing kooks are going to immediately come out and and claim that the shooter was a right wing, tea party extremist. Dam if I wasn't proven right yet again. It started with posts on twitter by the tin foilers and then it went over to the Daily Kos and then to liberal blog sites. It just showed how shameless and mental these people are, but it didn't really come as no surprise to me. Even though there is no humor what so ever in this massacre, I witnessed just how unhinged these nut balls are in their warped attempt to try and change reality to somehow link the shootings to of all people Sarah Palin!! They claim that Palin has "blood on her hands". Back during the summer, Sarah's Political Action Committee aka Sarah Pac displayed targets of certain house seats to win in the midterms. The media and the kooks have just become unglued and are actually trying to make a connection between Mr. Loughner's mental instability and the Sarah Pac cross hair ad. Only an absolute dumb ass could even remotely connect the two. Because Congresswoman Gifford was one of the targets for conservatives to target and DEFEAT IN THE MID TERM ELECTIONS, the kooks are grasping at straws in trying to bend reality in their favor. Palin nor any talk show host whether nationally or locally has ever advocated violence against any political opponent, and liberals know this. To them of course, it simply doesn't matter about the facts. It is all about the "seriousness of the charge", and that is what is at play right now in all of this. Political rhetoric as the talking points suggest had absolutely nothing to do with the shootings Saturday. Once again, it comes down to merely the "seriousness of the charge" more so then even having any evidence to warrant the charge in the first place. This is why I have absolutely zero trust of the so called mainstream media. I believe it will back fire on liberals and their hordes in the "media".

Should Palin supporters join forces with anti Palin trolls in order to help Sarah win the Republican nomination?

Based on the headline, some of you are probably thinking I must have fallen a whacked my head on something. I assure you all, I am just fine and haven't taken leave of my senses. I can across a very intriguing story from the Alaska Dispatch. It appears that a liberal blogger wants to help create a liberal version of Rush Limbaugh's infamous 2008 Operation Chaos. This version would have liberals go and vote in the 2012 GOP primaries for Sarah Palin. I think the idea is brilliant actually. If this plan doesn't represent the ultimate form of bipartisanship, then I don't know what does. Liberals claim they want Sarah as the GOP nominee, so this would be their perfect opportunity to "put up or shut up" in their claim. Of course, liberals will live to regret their action come election night. The anti Palin kooks for some odd reason believe that their superficial tabloid attacks will be more then enough to trump the real mess that our country is going through under the leadership of Barry O. I say use the useful idiots for all they are worth. The fact of the matter is that they couldn't stop George Bush from becoming a two term president, what makes them think they can stop Palin? If my memory serves me right, I believe that Al Gore was their "brilliant" guy. They thought he was by far intellectually superior to that clueless cowboy from Texas. Well, we all know how that turned out. In other words, their track record is officially 0-2. I truly believe that liberals had a huge role in helping John McCain win the nomination in 2008. I have yet to find a conservative or even a Republican who admitted to voting for McCain in the primaries. Even though Limbaugh coined the tactic of primary cross over sabotage voting as Operation Chaos, the tactic really isn't nothing new in politics. It would be interesting to hear what pro Palin supporters think about possibly joining forces and creating one of the most unholiest political alliances in recent memory. I frankly believe if the ends justify the means in this case, it's warranted. For right now, only a single clueless liberal blogger is pushing this idea, but will it catch on?

Nothing more pleasing to the nation then a little pre spring cleaning in the House of Representives.

Starting today at 12 noon, the adults are going to be in charge of the House of Representatives.

Why don't liberals ever refer to MSNBC as "Faux News".

First off, I wish everybody had a great New Years. As oil continues to make it's trek towards one hundred dollars a barrel and gasoline predicted to pass the four dollar mark this summer or sooner, I don't see this year being all that "happy", but at least we all had one night to celebrate. Today, I was surfing on youtube. I came across a clip of Chris Matthews talking about how his chocolate stud puppy Barry gave him that tingle up his leg. While I was watching, I started to remember that the liberal kooks refer to Fox News as "Faux News". Whenever I challenged these mental screwballs to provide any evidence to support their bumper sticker slogan about the news content of Fox News being "faux", they always come up short. Well I decided to put together my second video project to shed a light on what Faux News is all about. I hope you all like it. Correction, I know liberals won't like it. The truth always cut deep.