The administration of United States President Barack Hussein Obama (peace be upon him) has formally re-established diplomatic ties with the horde of barbarians known as Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood.

An anonymous senior government official told Reuters News that:

The political landscape in Egypt has changed, and is changing … it is in our interests to engage with all of the parties that are competing for parliament or the presidency.

The Muslim Brotherhood has been rising in power in Egypt since the departure of former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

Evidently, Obama and his State Department have decided that a relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood would be in the U.S. government’s best interest.

According to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, speaking in a press conference on Thursday morning, the U.S. has had “limited contact” with the Muslim Brotherhood:

We believe, given the changing political landscape in Egypt, that it is in the interests of the United States to engage with all parties that are peaceful and committed to nonviolence that intend to compete for the parliament and the presidency.

The Obama administration attempted to explain their position further in an e-mail to Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi of The Israel Project, per the website, jewishjournal.com:

It’s important to remember that the Muslim Brotherhood is neither a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization nor designated under various counterterrorism executive orders or proclamations,” Danielle Borrin, the White House liaison to Jewish groups, wrote Thursday to Mizrahi, the founder of The Israel Project. “There is no legal bar for such meetings. The State Department is continuing the approach of limited contact with the Muslim Brotherhood that has existed since 2006.”

Mizrahi had e-mailed Borrin earlier in the day asking about administration contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood, which is affiliated with Hamas, the terrorist group controlling the Gaza Strip, and opposes the 1979 Israel-Egypt peace accords.

The Israel Project was among a number of Jewish groups and Republicans in Congress who had pressed the Obama administration to cut off the Muslim Brotherhood in the aftermath of the revolution that in January swept from power Egypt’s pro-American dictatorship.

Borrin said such engagement was consistent with a policy of reaching out to all parties participating in the effort to launch a democracy in Egypt.

“The political landscape in Egypt is continuing to change, and it is in our interests to engage with all of the parties that are competing for parliament or the presidency,” she wrote to Mizrahi.

So, just who is this “politically conservative” (according to the WH) group that our government is courting?

Per David Horowitz’s discoverthenetworks.org:

Founded in 1928 by the Egyptian schoolteacher/activist Hasan al-Banna (a devout admirer of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis), the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) — a Sunni entity — is one of the oldest, largest and most influential Islamist organizations in the world. While Egypt historically has been the center of the Brotherhood’s operations, the group today is active in more than 70 countries (some estimates range as high as 100+). Islam expert Robert Spencer has called MB “the parent organization of Hamas and al Qaeda.” In 2003, Richard Clarke – the chief counterterrorism advisor on the U.S. National Security Council during both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations – told a Senate committee that Hamas, al Qaeda, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad were all “descendants of the membership and ideology of the Muslim Brothers.”

MB was established in accordance with al-Banna’s proclamation that Islam should be “given hegemony over all matters of life.” Toward that end, the Brotherhood seeks to establish an Islamic caliphate, or kingdom — first spanning all of the present-day Muslim world, and eventually the entire globe. The organization further aspires to dismantle all non-Islamic governments wherever they currently exist, and to make Islamic Law (Shari’a) the sole basis of jurisprudence everywhere on earth. This purpose is encapsulated in the Brotherhood’s militant credo: “God is our objective, the Koran is our Constitution, the Prophet is our leader, struggle [jihad] is our way, and death for the sake of God is the highest of our aspirations.”

Consistent with the foregoing credo, MB since its founding has supported the use of armed struggle, or jihad, against non-Muslim “infidels.” As al-Banna himself wrote: “Jihad is an obligation from Allah on every Muslim and cannot be ignored nor evaded.” Added al-Banna: “It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.”

…In January 2011, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak’s hold on power was threatened by massive swarms of protesters rioting in the streets of Cairo and Alexandria to express their opposition to his government. There was much speculation that the Muslim Brotherhood stood a strong chance of filling the power vacuum that Mubarak would leave behind if he were to step down from the presidency. In a television interview, MB deputy leader Rashad al-Bayoumi declared:

“After President Mubarak steps down and a provisional government is formed, there is a need to dissolve the [1979] peace treaty with Israel.”

In early February, Muhammad Ghannem, a leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, told the Iranian news network Al-Alam that “the people [of Egypt] should be prepared for war against Israel,” emphasizing that “the Egyptian people are prepared for anything to get rid of this regime.” That objective was entirely consistent with former MB Supreme Guide Muhammad Mahdi Othman Akef’s 2007 assertion that his organization had never recognized Israel and never would: “Our lexicon does not include anything called ‘Israel.’ The [only thing] we acknowledge is the existence of Zionist gangs that have occupied Arab lands and deported the residents. If they want to live among us, it will have to be as [residents of] Palestine.”

And our nation’s leadership is trying to cozy up to these thugs? 

To borrow from the vocabulary of America’s greatest ally, whom our own government in now turning against: 

What a bunch of schmucks.

Everyone remembers the story of the vainglorious ruler who was conned into buying a set of invisible robes from a conman posing as a tailor, right?

The Emperor proudly paraded down the main street of his kingdom, awash in his own glory and righteousness, until a little boy innocently announced what everybody else was afraid to say:

The Emperor has no clothes!

Well, yesterday, that fairy tale come to life before the eyes of the limited audience of the cable news channel, MSNBC, the darling of Liberals and the present administration.

Mark Halperin of Time magazine was the unwitting truth-teller in this present-day adaption of the classic fairy tale.

Per politico.com:

The incident took place during the “Morning Joe” show, when host Joe Scarborough asked Halperin what he thought of Obama’s press conference and Halperin questioned whether the seven-second delay was in effect so he could give his real opinion — apparently thinking it would be bleeped out before hitting the air. Scarborough told Halperin to go for it because they would use the delay to prevent whatever he said from being broadcast. “You fall down, I’m going to catch you,” Scarborough told Halperin.

At that point, Halperin said he thought Obama had been “kind of a dick.” Scarborough then expressed amazement that Halperin had actually said that and told him he had only been joking about using the seven-second delay.

“Delay that. Delay that. What are you doing? I can’t believe … don’t do that. Did we delay that?” Scarborough said.

“I was just joking,” Scarborough said to Halperin.

“Catch me now, I’m falling,” Halperin responded.

Just minutes later, Halperin quickly apologized on the air to the president and viewers for his choice of words. “Joking aside, this is an absolute apology. I shouldn’t have said it. I apologize to the president and the viewers who heard me say that,” Halperin said.

“We’re going to have a meeting after the show,” Scarborough said.

According to Scarborough, there had been a mishap with the seven-second delay button — a new executive producer apparently didn’t know how it worked. “You are supposed to know how to do the job,” Scarborough said of his producer. “I would tell you what I think of him, but he doesn’t know what button to push.”

Later in the show, Halperin again apologized, saying, “I can’t explain why I did it. It’s inappropriate, disrespectful. I’ve already apologized, and I will again to the president. I’m sorry, I’m sorry to the viewers …It is disrespectful, what I said was disrespectful to the president and the office, but it also lowers our discourse

The administration immediately called their loyal propaganda warriors at MSNBC, angry that they had strayed from the Reservation.

Later yesterday, in his daily briefing, White House press secretary Jay Carney announced that he had been to one to call Mark Halperin’s bosses at MSNBC:

The comment that was made was inappropriate. It would be inappropriate to say that about either president of either party.

Carney claimed that he didn’t have a comment on what action the network took against Halperin. However, he told reporters that

on behalf of the White House, I expressed that sentiment to executives at the network.

A couple of hours after Carney’s daily press briefing, MSNBC issued the following statement:

Mark Halperin’s comments this morning were completely inappropriate and unacceptable. We apologize to the president, the White House and all of our viewers. We strive for a high level of discourse, and comments like these have no place on our air. Therefore, Mark will be suspended indefinitely from his role as an analyst.

Halperin also issued a statement to go along with that of MSNBC, saying:

I completely agree with everything in MSNBC’s statement about my remark. I believe that the step they are taking in response is totally appropriate. Again, I want to offer a heartfelt and profound apology to the president, to my MSNBC colleagues and to the viewers. My remark was unacceptable, and I deeply regret it.

And, to put a cherry of top of this cake of apologies to the Emperor…err..I mean the president…Time issued a statement later Thursday, labeling Halperin’s comments inappropriate and in no way reflective of Time’s views.

Time magazine did not suspend Halperin but, instead announced:

We have issued a warning to him that such behavior is unacceptable” and noted that he had “appropriately” apologized.

Here’s the video, presented so that you might decided for yourselves if a suspension was warranted.

Halperin’s suspension from MSNBC is the third in the last year for the news channel.  He joins the recently fired Keith Olbermann and present, unwatched program host Ed Schultz on their Wall of Shame.

Granted, the playground epithet that Halperin used to described Obama was rude and unseemly, however accurate it was.  And the reaction of MSNBC and Time would be appropriate, if it wasn’t so hypocritical.

You see, they had no problem during the two terms of President George W. Bush, calling the former president everything but a child of God.  And now they’re going to demand a suspension and apology from Halperin for doing the same thing to their president?

All of this angst and apoplexy only serves to point out the biggest, and most important difference in the actions of Halperin and MSNBC, and the little boy in the original story, so many years ago:

He never apologized.

Hypocricy…thy name is Liberal.

Rule Number 12 in the Progressives’ Bible, Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky, states:

Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

Yesterday, during a rare morning press conference, President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) did just that. Continuing his administration’s ongoing domestic strategy of Class Warfare, he said America’s economoic problems all come down to the battle between taking care of America’s children and flying corporate jets.

Huh?

You read correctly.

Obama had to come up with something to try to win the ongoing battle with Congress concerning raising the Debt Ceiling. Evidently, this was the best that he and his staff could come up with.

You see, Obama, in pandering to his base, tried to make his argument as simplistic as possible, i.e.:

Democrats love kids – Republicans love corporate jets.

Democrats good – Republicans eeeevil.

This was a very obvious and somewhat pitiful attempt by Obama and his party to put the Republicans on the defensive after they have portrayed Obama as a tax-raiser and Big-Government Power Broker.

In reality, it appeared that the president was the one playing defense yesterday, and with good reason, per rasmussenreports.com:

A generic Republican candidate now holds a four-point lead over President Obama in a hypothetical 2012 election matchup. It’s the fifth week in a row that the GOP candidate has been ahead and the widest gap between the candidates to date.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds a generic Republican candidate earns support from 46% of Likely U.S. Voters, while the president picks up 42% of the vote. Three percent (3%) prefer some other candidate, and nine percent (9%) are undecided.

Last week, the Republican held a 45% to 43% advantage. In weekly surveys since the beginning of May, support for Obama has ranged from 42% to 45%, while the Republican has earned 43% to 46% of the vote.

During the press conference, Obama, in a pedantic tone,  brought up the death of Osama bin Laden, in order to poke at Congress to get back to work:

I’ve been doing Afghanistan, bin Laden and the Greek crisis. You stay here. Let’s get it done.

Yeah, boys, git ‘er done.  Meanwhile, Scooter, Moochelle, and the kids will be on vay-cay, per boston.com:

For the first family, their Vineyard haven is taking on the flavor of a summer White House. President Obama, for the third straight year, is planning to return to Martha’s Vineyard for vacation this summer, according to a White House official.

The Obamas are scheduled to spend seven to 10 days on the island in mid- to late August, according to the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of security concerns.

Arrangements for White House staff members and Secret Service personnel who travel with the Obamas have been made.

But, I digress…

Continuing his theme of attacking republicans as eeeevil Corporate Fat Cats yesterday, Obama proclaimed:

If we do not have revenues, that means there are a bunch of kids out there who do not have college scholarships. [It] might compromise the National Weather Services. It means we might not be funding critical medical research. It means food inspection might be compromised. I’ve said to Republican leaders, You go talk to your constituents and ask them, ‘Are you willing to compromise your kids’ safety so some corporate-jet owner can get a tax break?’

Obama used the corporate jet attack at least 4 times before he even took a second question.

That’s pretty funny, considering this excerpt from the Associated Press from 2009:

Just a few months after lawmakers scolded auto executives for flying to Washington in private jets, Congress approved a tax break in the stimulus package to help businesses buy their own planes.

The incentive — first used to help plane makers recover from the 2001 terror attacks — sharply reduces the up front tax bill for companies who buy assets like business planes

Evidently, like Obama’s promises, the stimulus bill had an expiration date, also.

Obama’s rhetoric during yesterday’s presser was noticably sharper than it has been.

Normally, the former collegiate Constitutional Law Guest Lecturer and his handlers have been very careful to portray Obama as a amicable, middle-of-the-road leader, who just happens to be smarter than you and me.

For instance, when asked about New York’s new gay marriage law yesterday, he replied that it was a states-rights issue, saying:

Each community is going to be different. Each state is going to be different.

Regarding the ongoing budget and debt ceiling battle going on in Congress, Obama remarked:

The question now is, are we going to step up and get this done?

Call me naive. but my expectation is leaders are going to lead.

Obama’s problem, as a sitting president going into this campaign cycle, is one brought about by the following harsh reality: He has been president since January 2009. He owns this economy.

He knows it. His handlers know it. His political party knows it.

However, the American people are having to live with it.

Yesterday, President Barack Hussein Obama spoke at Alco Davenport Works, an aluminum factory in Bettendorf, Iowa. Before a captive crowd of factory workers, after years of apologizing for America’s mistakes to anybody who would listen, he’s turned into a nephew of Uncle Sam, during his re-election bid.

The Iowa visit was meant as a distraction from the recent surge in unemployment, which brought the jobless rate back up to 9.1 percent. The new numbers will be released on July 8th.

In his speech , Obama told the workers that innovation and adaptation will help the manufacturing sector and the entire U.S. economy rebound with more gusto. He also scolded a divided Washington to stop bickering and rally together like a team.

Pot…meet kettle.

Iowa being the home of the first presidential caucuses, Obama was sure to make an allusion to his re-election bid. Reminiscing about his win here in 2008, Obama said:

We’ve got some history together. And together we’re going to make some more history for years to come.

Make no mistake, Obama is under fire from all corners because of his horrible economic policy. Hope is diminishing and people don’t even have any change anymore.

The strategy of Obama and his advisers is to focus attention on American manufacturing as an example of American business making a comeback. That’s why he chose the setting of Alcoa Davenport Works. The aluminum for the wings of the presidential jet Air Force One.

According to the president, the plant has re-hired the workers it laid off during the recent recession and is eying an expansion ,and is an example of American resilience. Obama told the workers:

You had to up your game. And that’s what we’ve got to do as a country as a whole. I want the cars and planes and wind turbines of the future to bear the proud stamp that says ‘Made in America.’

The president said that the country has the workers, companies and industries to mount a stronger economic recovery:

We are still the United States of America.

The White House believes that an upsurge in the U.S. manufacturing industry will create jobs and keep America competitive in the global marketplace. So, Last week, Obama unveiled a $500 million joint effort by industry, universities and the federal government in an effort reposition the United States as a leader in cutting-edge manufacturing.

When Obama referred to a divided Washington, he was alluding to the fight he and his party is waging with the Republicans over raising America’s debt limit. According to Obama and his administration, the debt limit must be raised by Aug. 2 or the government will face a catastrophic default on its obligations.

The president did not specifically bring up the debt limit battle, but instead called on the country and its leaders to start

…thinking like a team, instead of turning on each other.

I promise you. if you we continue to adapt and we continue to innovate and we work together to compete around the world, America will come back stronger than before.

Of course, Obama’s appearance in Iowa just happens to be coinciding with the visits of Republicans seeking their party’s presidential nomination and criticizing his economic leadership.

According to Matt Strawn, the chairman of the Iowa Republican Party, that’s not a surprise:

There’s a famous political saying that ‘no politician comes to Iowa by accident.’ I’m sure part of this is a political calculation.

A few miles away from the site of the president’s speech, in the small town of Pella,Iowa,  former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin attended the premiere of the Roger Bannon Documentary about her, The Undefeated.

On Fox News last night, during the Greta Van Susteren show, On the Record, reporter Griff Jenkins interviewed Gov. Palin . Here is an excerpt:

JENKINS: I spoke to a veteran, and he told me that he needs you to get into the presidential race. Will you answer his request?

PALIN: I appreciate his request and encouragement. I know what he’s talking about. He’s talking about someone who encapsulates American values and is understanding of the need to protect our constitution and the people like our veterans.

It is a tough decision, a big decision to decide whether to run for office or not. I’m still contemplating. I can’t say enough about a veteran and somebody who poses a question like that coming from a veteran.

JENKINS: Your daughter Bristol said you made a decision. Can you tell us what it is?

PALIN: I texted her and said, “Honey what did you say this morning on a news program?” She said mom you have to watch. You know how they make everything out of context. I said you remember: “What we say on the fishing boat stays on the fishing boat.”

JENKINS: She said you definitely made a decision.

PALIN: I’m still thinking about the decision. A lot goes into such a life changing decision. So I’m still thinking about it.

So, “no politician comes to Iowa by accident”?  Hmmmm.

Do you remember when the White House and the power of the presidency and administration and all of its history and ambiance stood for something special and dignified?  Well, that ship has sailed.

Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State, announced yesterday that her Department played an instrumental role in “sealing the deal” for Madonna-wannabe Lady Gaga to perform at a gay pride rally in Rome, Italy.

Beeming with pride, Clinton cited a letter that David Thorne, the U.S. ambassador to Italy, sent to Lady Gaga urging her to participate in the event. Madam Secretary said:

And then there is the work that our embassy team in Rome has been doing. Two weeks ago they played an instrumental role in bringing Lady Gaga to Italy for a Euro Pride concert.

Now as many of you know Lady Gaga is Italian American and a strong supporter of LGBT rights. And the organizers of the Euro Pride event desperately wanted her to perform and a letter to her from Ambassador Thorne was instrumental in sealing the deal.

What will our Administration’s Muslim allies think about this?

Secretary Clinton’s announcement was made at the State Department during a celebration of LGBT Pride Month, co-hosted by the department and Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies (GLIFAA), a group that, per its website, “represents lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) personnel and their families in the U.S. Department of State, U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), Foreign Commercial Service, Foreign Agricultural Service, and other foreign affairs agencies and offices in the U.S. Government.”

To quote Dana Carvey’s Church Lady:  Well, now…isn’t that…special?

Lady Gaga performed at a rally at the ancient Circus Maximus in Rome, Italy on June 11th. The rally followed a gay pride march through the city of Rome.

Gaga made the news earlier this year when she released her song “Judas” in early May. In the video, Gaga is a Mary Magdalene figure–in a motorcycle gang—who becomes enamored with Judas.

According to billboard.com:

The video opens with a motorcycle gang cruising down a freeway, as Gaga clutches onto a Jesus-like figure who wears a golden crown of thorns.

Lyrics include:

Oh, I’m in love with Judas, Judas. In the most Biblical sense I am beyond repentance. Fame hooker, prostitute wench, vomits her mind.

And our tax money is supporting this?  The Obama Administration has alienated all of our allies and embraced our enemies.  The Mid-East is ablaze in Islamic Revolution, and their focus is a Gay pride Rally in Italy?

Am I missing something here?

This comes a month after the Obamas hosted a poetry ceremony at the White House featuring rapper and actor Common.

Common, a friend of Obama’s former pastor of 20 years, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose real name is Lonnie Rashid Lynn, Jr., has been a staunch defender of the racially-oriented pastor, and also has unleashed rapping attacks on former President George W. Bush.

While Common is not identified as a gangsta rapper, some of his songs and poems do feature violent imagery. For instance, in one poem, he called for the metaphorical burning of President George W. Bush — a “burning Bush.”

Obama more than likely met Common at Trinity United Church of Christ. Wright retired as pastor there in 2008, the same year that Obama ended his relationship with Wright after videos of his racially-charged, anti-American sermons became a campaign issue.

As you may remember, in the sermons, Wright called the U.S. government racist and in the days after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, he proclaimed that “America’s chickens are coming home to roost” after it dropped atomic bombs on Japan and “supported state terrorism against Palestinians and black South Africans.”

At first, Obama stood behind Wright but later disowned him for the purposes of political expediency.

Common, however, still stands behind Wright, as he told the Electronic Urban Report in 2008:

He never really was against white people or another race. It was more against an establishment that was oppressing people. I think we all can see that this country has problems and a lot of it starts in the political system.

According to the rapper, during the 2008 presidential race, Wright’s sermons were filled with love, not hate:

What I picked up from the pews…was messages of love. Anything that was going on against that love he would acknowledge and expose. He’s been a preacher that’s helped raise one of the greatest political figures in the world, and hopefully, the next president. He’s also raised one of the greatest rappers in the world.

In a 2007 poem titled “A Letter to the Law,” Common pontificated against the U.S. invasion of Iraq while urban areas were being neglected:

Seeing a fiend being hung/With that happening, why they messing with Saddam?

Burn a Bush cos’ for peace he no push no button/Killing over oil and grease/no weapons of destruction.

Classy.

Speaking of class, it looks like Obama has filmed a campaign ad for his re-election drive at the place he “stays”…the People’s House.

Per Jim Geraghty at NRO the following ad shot for Obama’s re-election campaign, appears to have originated in the White House.

In the video, Obama promotes a “Dinner With Barack” raffle. To participate in the contest you need to donate at least $5 to the president’s re-election campaign and your name will be raffled off to enjoy a dinner with the President, airfare and accommodations included. In a new web video, Obama announced Vice President Joe Biden will also be attending the dinner.

If that’s true, it would be a possible violation of Federal Election Commission Laws.

It’s already a violation of the dignity of the office.  But, that’s nothing new.

Dignity has not exactly been a byword for this administration.

Imagine this…you have a son playing for the U.S. Soccer team. You travel to Los Angeles to watch him in a game against Mexico.

You walk into the Rose Bowl…and it’s as if you suddenly entered a stadium in Mexico City. You and the rest of the American fans are vastly outnumbered. The American Team’s goalkeeper is being bombarded with a chanted obscenity.  And when the National Anthem is played, it is dishonored with the blowing of air horns and bouncing of beach balls.

Estimates are, that there were about 80,000 Mexico fans among the announced crowd of 93,420.

They cheered their team on to a 4-2 victory over our country’s soccer team that night.

According to coach Bob Bradley:

Obviously … the support that Mexico has on the night like tonight makes it a home game for them. It’s part of something we have to deal with on the night.

The atmosphere was overwhelming. The night was filled with air horns and “Ole” chants, backed up with a roar from the crowd that sounded like a low flying jet that began at the “tailgate” party in the parking lot hours before the game and continued for hours afterward.

The Mexican fans continued the celebration throughout the postgame trophy ceremony, booing the U.S. team one final time, as they were announced.

According to one fan:

We’re not booing the country, we’re booing the team. There is a big difference.

Yeah, right.

Do you remember, how, right before the Christmas Holidays, the Senate tried to pass the Drean Act, but failed in their attempt?  No worries.  President Barack Hussein Obama passed it by Executive Order last Friday, once again bypassing the wishes of the American people and ruling by diktat.

From Greg Guignat, the Conservative reporter for the Phoenix edition of examiner.com:

The Obama administration memo from the John Morton, Director of I.C.E. (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) directs I.C.E. agents now to use “prosecutorial discretion”with regard to enforcing immigration laws.

Director Morton says that Obama Administration policy directs border patrol agents not to enforce immigration laws: “When ICE favorably exercises prosecutorial discretion, it essentially decides not to assert the full scope of the enforcement authority available to the agency.”

You read that right. According to the Obama administration “favorable” enforcement means NOT enforcing the law!

According to one of the first press reports to break this important story, the new Obama policy is cut and dry: “federal immigration officials do not have to deport illegal aliens if they are enrolled in any type of education program, if their family members have volunteered for U.S. military service, or even if they are pregnant or nursing.”

Per whitehouse.gov, the original DREAM Act contained the following qualifiers:

Young people must meet several requirements in order to qualify for the conditional status it will provide them. These requirements include entering the country when they were under 16 years old, proving they have continuously lived in the U.S. for at least 5 years and graduated from a U.S. high school or obtained a GED; demonstrating their good moral character; proving they have not committed any crimes that would make them inadmissible to the country. Only then can they obtain a conditional status for a limited period of time.

After their six year conditional status, these same individuals will need to meet additional requirements to move on to the next phase of this process. Specifically, they must have attended college or served in the U.S. military for at least 2 years, and once again, pass criminal background checks, and demonstrate good moral character. If young people are unable to fulfill these requirements, they will lose their legal status and be subject to deportation.

Only applies to individuals who entered the U.S. as children. According to DREAM Act’s provisions, beneficiaries must have entered the United States when they were under 16 years old.

Whitehouse.gov lists the following reasons as to why the original DREAM Act would have been good for America:

The DREAM Act will contribute to our military’s recruitment efforts and readiness.

The DREAM Act will make our country more competitive in the global economy.

The DREAM Act will have important economic benefits.

The DREAM Act will allow our immigration and border security experts to focus on those who pose a serious threat to our nation’s security.

Even with all those supposedly wonderful things that the DREAM Act would do, the Democratically-controlled Senate failed to pass it, as reported on latimes.com:

The Senate rejected a path to citizenship for some illegal immigrants on Saturday, a defeat that pushes any effort to reform immigration into the next Congress where conservatives will have even more influence.

In a 55-41 vote, senators failed to advance the Dream Act, which would have provided a way to legalize those immigrants who arrived in the United States illegally as children and who attend college or serve in the military. Three Republican senators voted for cloture, but 60 votes were need to advance the measure. Five Democrats voted no.

The Senate’s failure was a result of the American people filling their Senators’ voice and e-mails, expressing their opposition, in no uncertain terms.

Now, the President of the United States has overruled the American people and bypassed our system of checks and balances once again.

All for the sake of gaining new Democratic voters.

The cadence of explosions that you heard yesterday was not the 4th of July coming early.  It was Liberal and Fiscal Conservative heads everywhere imploding as the announcement came out that former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin will visit Iowa on Tuesday to attend the premiere of a movie about her career.

Along with her husband, Todd, Palin will attend the premiere of the movie, The Undefeated, at a historic theater in the small town of Pella, outside Des Moines.

The two-hour movie is the work of conservative filmmaker Stephen Bannon.

Bannon was first approached by Palin and her staff after last November’s midterm elections and asked to produce a series of videos that would highlight the former governor’s record in Alaska.

With editorial control and using his own money, Bannon produced a feature-length film that follows Gov. Palin’s rise to power in Alaska, her reform efforts as governor and her dramatic entrance onto the national political stage as Senator John McCain’s running mate in 2008.

With the assistance of Gov. Palin and her team, Bannon was granted access to key Palin allies in Alaska and a treasure trove of rarely seen footage, including images dating back to Palin’s time on the Wasilla City Council, her first political office.

Gov. Palin issued the following statement about the trip:

We are very excited to visit historic Pella and its opera house and look forward to seeing the finished film for the first time with fellow Americans from the heartland.

The Main Stream Media and Political Pundits everywhere are beside themselves with angst and worry, because they simply cannot figure out with the Arctic Fox is going to do next.

Gov. Palin has not yet announced whether she’ll seek the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. However, If that were her plans, she would want to compete in Iowa, where her brand of Regan Conservatism would have strong appeal.

She will arrive in Iowa the day after Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., launches her campaign Monday in Iowa.

Add this little tidbit of news into the political mix:

Alcoa announced today [last Thursday] that U.S. President Barack Obama will tour its Davenport, Iowa, facility, one of the most advanced manufacturing plants in the world, on Tuesday June 28. Originally opened in 1948, the plant employs 2,000 people, and is a focal point of the global aluminum industry, generating approximately 25 percent of its revenues through exports.

Bettendorf, Iowa is about 150 miles to the East of Pella.

To paraphrase one Palin supporter:

 Looks like the GAME IS ON!

Former Massachusetts Governor and the man responsible for state-run healthcare in Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, and Minnesota congresswoman Michele Bachmann are presently tied for the lead, going into the Iowa Caucus, according to a poll taken by Des Moines, Iowa’s newspaper of record, the Register.

Romney, proclaimed to be the national front-runner by the Political Elite of both political parties and the Main Stream Media, attracted support from 23 percent of likely Republican caucus-goers.  Bachmann, who will not officially kick off her campaign in Iowa until tomorrow, is right there with him, with 22 percent.

Here’s the kicker: today on realclearpolitics.com, Gov. Palin is listed as being in Third Place among the potential Republican nominees going into the Iowa Caucus, and she hasn’t even declared…yet!

Herman Cain, the former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, a Tea Party favorite who has never held public office before, comes in after Palin, with 10 percent.

The other candidates in the Republican Primary don’t even break 10 %: former U.S. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and Texas Rep. Ron Paul, 7 percent each; former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, 6 percent; former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, 4 percent; and former Utah Gov. and ambassador to China Jon Huntsman, 2 percent.

Thet’s pretty sad, considering former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty has spent 26 days in Iowa campaigning, hired the finest Iowa campaign operatives that money could buy, and was the first major candidate to air television ads in Iowa.

By the way, the Des Moines Register’s Iowa Poll has been used in the past as an indicator of political viability in the National Elections. The Iowa caucuses are scheduled for Feb. 6.

It’s still early, though. In fact, 69 percent of those polled by the Register said they could still be persuaded to support a candidate other than their first choice.

The poll, which was conducted by Selzer & Co. Inc. of Des Moines, was based on telephone interviews with 400 likely Republican caucus-goers June 19 to 22. The margin of error is plus or minus 4.9 percentage points.

Back on December 7th, 2010, former Pennsylvania Senator and now candidate for the Republican Nomination, Rick Santorum, said the following about Gov. Palin, in an interview with thehill.com:

“If she decides to get into the race, she will take a lot of air out of the room, that’s for sure,” Santorum said Monday during a swing through South Carolina.

He called the former Alaska governor a “larger-than-life figure,” but said that could cause her problems when campaigning in small, early primary states such as South Carolina and Iowa.

“She is such a media star, I would think it’s hard for her to have normal interactions” with voters, he said. “I have my own challenges and that’s getting the crowd. Her problem isn’t getting the crowd, it’s sort of having more real time with people. I get plenty of real time and that lower profile works for me in a way that I can go do things that are just going to be harder for her.”

Santorum added, “It’s not that she can’t do it, everybody has their own challenges.”

Well, Senator, it doesn’t seem that she’s having any difficulty getting her message out to the people so far…and she’s not even running, yet.

Perhaps, you should invest in an oxygen mask.

Yesterday, GOP negotiators did their impression of Popeye, the Sailor Man, when, in the midst of trying to broker a major deficit-reduction deal, they declared in unison:

I’ve had all I can stands, I can’t stands no more!

The Republicans then proceeded to walk out on Democrats at the negotiating table, leaving it up to President Barack Hussein Obama and House Speaker John Boehner, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to resolve the toughest issues.

Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) and Sen. Jon Kyl (D-AZ), both left the bi-partisan talks yesterday, saying that the Democrats’ demand that the budget deal include tax increases was to blame.

According to Sen. Kyl,  it’s going to take those in the highest levels of power to break the impasse between the two political parties.

The goal of the talks, led by Vice-President Joe Biden, was to strike a budget deal which the Democrats hoped would ease the way for Congress to raise the government’s $14.29 trillion debt limit.

According to Treasury Department officials,without the ability to borrow additional money, the government is going to run out of cash to pay its bills by Aug. 2. They also have said that defaulting on any U.S. obligations could trigger another financial crisis and recession.

Biden’s group has canceled its scheduled meeting for today.

Now, it’s up to the Big Dogs.

Rep. Cantor told the Wall Street Journal:

We’ve reached the point where the dynamic needs to change.  It is up to the president to come in and talk to the speaker. We’ve reached the end of this phase.

The Obama White house and their Congressional minions have, publicly anyway, expressed optimism that talks between the three leaders can reach a satisfactory agreement.

According to Rep. Cantor, the Biden-led group had come up with more than $2 trillion in spending cuts over the next ten years.   A Democratic official close to the talks said the total was only about $1.2 trillion (of course).

Vice-President Biden remarked that:

As all of us at the table said at the outset, the goal of these talks was to report our findings back to our respective leaders. The next phase is in the hands of those leaders, who need to determine the scope of an agreement that can tackle the problem and attract bipartisan support. For now the talks are in abeyance as we await that guidance.

The Democrats seem to gotten the notion, from someone, possibly Karl Marx, that the answer to fixing Obama’s rotten economy is to raise taxes.  Therefore. they are adamant about getting rid of the tax cuts put in place by President George W. Bush.

How would getting rid of the Bush tax cuts affect average Americans?  Eric Fox, posting on forbes.com, breaks it down for us:

The two major tax-cutting bills from the Bush era were the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act (EGTRRA) of 2001, and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003.

These two laws cut taxes across the board for earned income, long-term capital gains and dividends. The legislation also expanded the child tax credit and made dozens of other changes and adjustments to the tax code, involving exemptions, deductions and the marriage penalty.

EGTRRA created six tax rate brackets–10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33% and 35%, based on income levels. If no extension is passed and signed into law, then the pre-2001 tax rates will go back into effect starting in tax year 2011. The 10% bracket would disappear, and those taxpayers would move up to the 15% bracket, which would apply to all incomes below $34,550. The other tax rates would increase to 28%, 31%, 36% and 39.6% for the highest earners making more than $379,650.

One major provision that will expire at the end of 2010 is the child tax credit, which EGTRRA doubled from $500 to $1,000 per child. Unless Congress votes to extend the child tax credit, the maximum amount will revert back to $500 for tax year 2011, and the number of families eligible for that amount will be much less as tougher eligibility standards that existed prior to EGTRRA will go back into effect.

The maximum tax rate on long-term capital gains and qualified dividends were also reduced to 15%, with lower income filers facing a 0% tax rate. The sunset provisions would move the capital gains rate back to a maximum of 20%, and qualified dividends would resume being taxed at the regular tax rate of the filer, or as high as 39.6%.

…President Obama has asked Congress to extend and make permanent the 10%, 15% and 25% tax rates. The 28% bracket would be recalculated to include individuals with income less than $200,000 and married filers with income less than $250,000. The “rich” would be out of luck under the proposal, with the 33% and 35% brackets expiring at the end of 2010, and the former 36% and 39.6% tax rates going back into effect.

Obama is also seeking to make permanent the long-term capital gain rates of 0% and 15%, but tax capital gains at a rate of 20% for those taxpayers that fall into the 36% and 39.6% brackets. None of this has been decided yet, and passage is not certain due to the politics of Washington in general–and during an election year in particular.

President Obama and the Democrats seem to be looking for a panacea to their problem of keeping unfulfilled promisethat they made to their base of all the things that they would do for them, and give to them, once Obama ascended to the throne, with a vibrant economy being one of those promises.

Unfortunately, the Obama Administration does not want to accept the fact that the business of America is business, and raising Americans’ tax burden is only going to continue to dig a economic hole that our great-grandchildren will still be trying to dig out of.

Last night, President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) formally addressed the American people for the sixth time since he ascended to the throne of the Regime. He announced a withdrawal of American Troops in Afghanistan, which he euphemistically referred to as drawdown, to be completed by 2014.

He began his address with his usual Don’t blame me, I inherited this mess approach:

By the time I took office, the war in Afghanistan had entered its seventh year. But Al Qaeda’s leaders had escaped into Pakistan and were plotting new attacks, while the Taliban had regrouped and gone on the offensive. Without a new strategy and decisive action, our military commanders warned that we could face a resurgent Al Qaeda, and a Taliban taking over large parts of Afghanistan.

By the way, don’t try to count the number of I’s in this speech. I lost count.

For this reason, in one of the most difficult decisions that I’ve made as President, I ordered an additional 30,000 American troops into Afghanistan. When I announced this surge at West Point, we set clear objectives: to refocus on Al Qaeda; reverse the Taliban’s momentum; and train Afghan Security Forces to defend their own country. I also made it clear that our commitment would not be open-ended, and that we would begin to drawdown our forces this July.

Tonight, I can tell you that we are fulfilling that commitment. Thanks to our men and women in uniform, our civilian personnel, and our many coalition partners, we are meeting our goals. As a result, starting next month, we will be able to remove 10,000 of our troops from Afghanistan by the end of this year, and we will bring home a total of 33,000 troops by next summer, fully recovering the surge I announced at West Point. After this initial reduction, our troops will continue coming home at a steady pace as Afghan Security forces move into the lead. Our mission will change from combat to support. By 2014, this process of transition will be complete, and the Afghan people will be responsible for their own security.

We are starting this drawdown from a position of strength. Al Qaeda is under more pressure than at any time since 9/11. Together with the Pakistanis, we have taken out more than half of Al Qaeda’s leadership. And thanks to our intelligence professionals and Special Forces, we killed Usama bin Laden, the only leader that Al Qaeda had ever known. This was a victory for all who have served since 9/11. One soldier summed it up well. “The message,” he said, “is we don’t forget. You will be held accountable, no matter how long it takes.”

Here comes the part of the speech that piqued my interest. Evidently, our CIC actually is naive enough to believe that we can negotiate with the Taliban:

We do know that peace cannot come to a land that has known so much war without a political settlement. So as we strengthen the Afghan government and Security Forces, America will join initiatives that reconcile the Afghan people, including the Taliban. Our position on these talks is clear: they must be led by the Afghan government, and those who want to be a part of a peaceful Afghanistan must break from Al Qaeda, abandon violence, and abide by the Afghan Constitution. But, in part because of our military effort, we have reason to believe that progress can be made.

The goal that we seek is achievable, and can be expressed simply: no safe-haven from which Al Qaeda or its affiliates can launch attacks against our homeland, or our allies. We will not try to make Afghanistan a perfect place. We will not police its streets or patrol its mountains indefinitely. That is the responsibility of the Afghan government, which must step up its ability to protect its people; and move from an economy shaped by war to one that can sustain a lasting peace. What we can do, and will do, is build a partnership with the Afghan people that endures – one that ensures that we will be able to continue targeting terrorists and supporting a sovereign Afghan government.

What happens after the last American Troops pull out of Afghanistan? Well, just like the last guy at the Sports Bar, we get stuck with the check.

It is estimated that the yearly bill for the US to sustain the Afghan security forces, after we withdraw, will be $6bn to $8bn a year, a figure that has caused a massive political freak-out in Washington and among those in charge of NATO’s end of the deal.

However, we don’t have to worry about the Afghan regime collapsing.  Even after we give the keys to the Afghan Government at the end of 2014, there will still be a significant foreign military presence.

Which countries will make up that force, where it will be based, and who will control it, is currently the subject of negotiations between the Afghan and US governments.

Considering who is presently in charge of our end of the negotiations, we’re destined to get the raw end of the deal.

Tonight, at 7:00 p.m. Central, Americans will have the honor and privilege of, once again, viewing the President of our country, Barack Hussein  Obama, as he comes into our living rooms, against the  advice of the Pentagon, to  announce the withdrawal of up to 30,000 troops from Afghanistan by November next year, just  in time for the US presidential election.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 31% of Likely U.S. Voters think it is at least somewhat likely that the United States will remove its remaining 50,000 troops from Iraq by the end of this year as scheduled, and that includes just three percent (3%) who say it’s Very Likely.  Sixty-five percent (65%) believe a full troop withdrawal from Iraq by year’s end is unlikely, with 21% who say it’s Not At All Likely.