Ladies and gentlemen, enjoy the greatest president of our generation giving his Republican National Convention address in August 1984. The differences between Reagan and Obama are striking. How the country could change so much since his days in office is beyond me. This man won re-election by carrying 49 states out of the 50.




Obama is a Marxist with Proof – Part 12

In continuing with one of our original political themes on the blog, we will bring you another encounter with Tom Fife who was introduced to the name Barack Obama during 1992.

To read our previous articles in the series check out the following pages.

To view prior posts check out the following links:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8
Part 9
Part 10
Part 11

During the period of roughly February 1992 to mid 1994, I was making frequent trips to Moscow, Russia, in the process of starting a software development joint-venture company with some people from the Russian scientific community. One of the men in charge on the Russian side was named V. M.; he had a wife named T.M.

V. was a level-headed scientist while his wife was rather deeply committed to the losing Communist cause – a cause she obviously was not abandoning.

One evening, during a trip early in 1992, the American half of our venture were invited to V. & T.’s Moscow flat as we were about to return to the States. The party went well and we had the normal dinner discussions.

As the evening wore on, T. developed a decidedly rough anti-American edge – one her husband tried to quietly rein in.

The bottom line of the tirade she started against the United States went something like this:

“You Americans always like to think that you have the perfect government and your people are always so perfect. Well then, why haven’t you had a woman president by now? You had a chance to vote for a woman vice-president and you didn’t do it.”

The general response went something along the lines that you don’t vote for someone just because of their sex. Besides, you don’t vote for vice-president, but the president and vice-president as a ticket.

“Well, I think you are going to be surprised when you get a black president very soon.”

The consensus we expressed was that we didn’t think there was anything innately barring that. The right person at the right time and sure, America would try to vote for the right person, be he or she black or not.

“What if I told you that you will have a black president very soon and he will be a Communist?”

The out-of-the-blue remark was met by our stares. She continued, “Well, you will; and he will be a Communist.”

It was then that the husband unsuccessfully tried to change the subject; but she was on a roll and would have nothing of it. One of us asked, “It sounds like you know something we don’t know.”

“Yes, it is true. This is not some idle talk. He is already born and he is educated and being groomed to be president right now. You will be impressed to know that he has gone to the best schools of Presidents. He is what you call “Ivy League”. You don’t believe me, but he is real and I even know his name. His name is Barack. His mother is white and American and his father is black from Africa. That’s right, a chocolate baby! And he’s going to be your President.”

She became more and more smug as she presented her stream of detailed knowledge and predictions so matter-of-factly – as though all were foregone conclusions. “It’s all been thought out. His father is not an American black so he won’t have that social slave stigma. He is intelligent and he is half white and has been raised from the cradle to be an atheist and a Communist. He’s gone to the finest schools. He is being guided every step of the way and he will be irresistible to America.”

We sat there not knowing what to say. She was obviously very happy that the Communists were doing this and that it would somehow be a thumbing of their collective noses at America: they would give us a black president and he’d be a Communist to boot. She made it quite obvious that she thought that this was going to breathe new life into world Communism. From this and other conversations with her, she always asserted that Communism was far from dead.

She was full of little details about him that she was eager to relate. I thought that maybe she was trying to show off that this truly was a real person and not just hot air.

She rattled off a complete litany. He was from Hawaii. He went to school in California. He lived in Chicago. He was soon to be elected to the legislature. “Have no doubt: he is one of us, a Soviet.”

At one point, she related some sort of San Francisco connection, but I didn’t understand what the point was and don’t recall much about that. I was just left with the notion that she considered the city to be some sort of a center for their activity here.

Since I had dabbled in languages, I knew a smattering of Arabic. I made a comment: “If I remember correctly, ‘Barack’ comes from the Arabic word for ‘Blessing.’ That seems to be an odd name for an American.” She replied quickly, “Yes. It is ‘African’”, she insisted, “and he will be a blessing for world Communism. We will regain our strength and become the number one power in the world.”

She continued with something to the effect that America was at the same time the great hope and the great obstacle for Communism. America would have to be converted to Communism and Barack was going to pave the way.

So, what does this conversation from 1992 prove?

Well, it’s definitely anecdotal. It doesn’t prove that Obama has had Soviet Communist training nor that he was groomed to be the first black American president, but it does show one thing that I think is very important. It shows that Soviet Russian Communists knew of Barack from a very early date. It also shows that they truly believed among themselves that he was raised and groomed Communist to pave the way for their future. This report on Barack came personally to me from one of them long before America knew he existed.

Although I had never before heard of him, at the time of this conversation Obama was 30+ years old and was obviously tested enough that he was their anticipated rising star.

Tom Fife


The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday ruled that the health care reform law’s requirement that nearly all Americans buy insurance is unconstitutional, a striking blow to the legislation that increases the odds the Supreme Court will choose to review the law.

The suit was brought by 26 states — nearly all led by Republican governors and attorneys general — and the National Federation of Independent Business. The Department of Justice is expected to appeal.

The 2-1 ruling marks the first time a judge appointed by a Democrat has voted to strike down the mandate. Judge Frank Hull, who was nominated by former President Bill Clinton, joined Chief Judge Joel Dubina, who was appointed by George H.W. Bush, to strike down the mandate.

Judge Stanley Marcus, in a dissenting opinion, said the mandate is constitutional. He was also appointed by Clinton.

The panel partially upheld a ruling issued in January by Judge Roger Vinson, who struck down the entire health reform law. However, the 11th Circuit said that the rest of the legislation can stand even if the mandate is unconstitutional.

The panel also said that the law’s expansion of Medicaid is constitutional, ruling against the states.

The Department of Justice won’t say yet whether it will appeal to the Supreme Court or ask the entire 11th Circuit to review the decision.

The majority of the panel said they couldn’t uphold the mandate because there would be no limit to Congress’s powers if they did. Opponents of the law have frequently argued that if Congress can require people to buy insurance, they can force people to do anything else, such as buy broccoli or a gym membership for their health benefits. Vinson cited this broccoli argument in his sweeping ruling striking down the entire law.

“We have not found any generally applicable, judicially enforceable limiting principle that would permit us to uphold the mandate without obliterating the boundaries inherent in the system of enumerated congressional powers,” Dubina and Hull wrote in an expansive, 200-page ruling. “‘Uniqueness’ is not a constitutional principle in any antecedent Supreme Court decision.”

The federal government argued that the law regulates only how people obtain health care — something all Americans will need at some point in their lives. They say the uniqueness of the market makes health care different than broccoli or gym purchases.

“People are seeking this good already,” Neal Katyal, the acting solicitor general, said during oral arguments. “It’s about the failure to pay, not the failure to buy.”

During oral arguments in Atlanta in June, the panel spent a significant amount of time discussing whether the mandate is “severable” from the rest of the law. Hull in particular asked the federal government three times where the line should be.

The ruling comes six weeks after the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the mandate in a similar suit, giving the health law a 1-1 record at the circuit level. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard two related cases in May, has not issued its rulings yet.

The White House downplayed the ruling, pointing to the 6th Circuit and lower courts that have upheld the law.

“There has been no shortage of court cases regarding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. Before today, four courts, including the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, examined the health reform law and found it constitutional,” Stephanie Cutter, a deputy senior adviser, wrote in a White House blog post. “Today’s ruling is one of many decisions on the Affordable Care Act that we will see in the weeks and months ahead. In the end, we are confident the act will ultimately be upheld as constitutional.”

The split rulings make the suit a strong contender to be taken up by the Supreme Court in the fall term.

The Thomas More Law Center, which lost the 6th Circuit ruling, has already filed its appeal.

In this case, the federal government will have 90 days to appeal to the Supreme Court — in a process called certiorari — or ask the entire 11th Circuit to review the ruling.

“I can’t think of any time a federal law was struck down — let alone a federal law of this scope — that the United States sought ‘certiorari’ and the cert was denied,” said Brad Joondeph, a University of Santa Clara law professor who follows the health law cases at

Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, who inherited the lawsuit from her predecessor, Bill McCollum, praised the ruling.

“Today we have prevailed in preventing Congress from infringing on the individual liberty protected by the U.S. Constitution,” she said in a statement.

Republican presidential candidates, who argue the mandate is unconstitutional, are already praising the ruling.

Rep. Michele Bachmann told reporters in Iowa that she had “helped to make that argument about the unconstitutionality of the individual mandate.”

“Effectively giving a national voice to those arguments — the court has listened to those arguments,” Bachmann said.

Marcus, who wrote the dissent, railed against the decision, calling it “wooden, formalistic and myopic.”

He said that Congress has shown time and again that it has power over the national health care markets, especially in its ability to set prices under Medicare, its regulatory authority over insurers and drugmakers and its ability to issue rules that cut across both how care is delivered and covered.

“Both the congressional intent to link the two and the empirical relation between the purchase of health insurance and the consumption of health care services are clear,” Marcus wrote.

The ruling is likely to worry not only supporters of the health law but also the insurance industry. The panel said all of the rest of the law — including its ban on insurers denying patients because of pre-existing conditions — can stand.

Insurers — and the federal government — have argued that the two must be tied together.

Insurers in particular have said that premiums would have to increase if they were required to accept everyone without the mandate.

“Throughout the health care reform debate there was broad agreement that enacting guarantee issue and community rating would cause significant disruption and skyrocketing costs unless all Americans have coverage,” said Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for America’s Health Insurance Plans. “States that have implemented these laws without covering everyone have seen a rise in insurance premiums, a reduction of individual insurance enrollment and no significant decrease in the number of uninsured.”



The U.S. will cut $100 million in American aid money to Palestinians in Gaza if the territory’s Hamas rulers continue with “unwarranted audits” of local American nonprofit organizations, a state department official said Friday.

The American threat came in response to a growing attempt by Hamas to exert control over the international organizations that support the many impoverished Palestinians among Gaza’s population of 1.5 million people.

This week, Hamas shut down the U.S.-financed International Medical Corps after it refused to submit to a Hamas audit.

The State Department informed Hamas on Thursday that aid worth $100 million would be halted if the International Medical Corps were not allowed to operate freely.

“If they are not allowed to reopen and operate then obviously we are looking at USAID to suspend all operations until the IMC is allowed to reopen,” said a state department official in Washington, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter. “These are unwarranted audits and amount to an increase in harassment of humanitarian relief staff.”

The U.S., which considers Hamas a terrorist organization, does not have direct contact with the group.



Dennis Rodman was the best rebounder in the NBA during his playing days. He was flamboyant off the court, but he worked his ass off while he was on the court. In a time of players relishing scoring as many points as they could, he rarely even looked for his own shot. He concentrated on rebounding the ball and playing tough physical defense.

Enjoy his HOF induction speech below…



President Obama may go down as the worst president of the current generation, and this includes Jimmy Carter’s horrendous stint as president.

Just look at what he is saying now. Aligning himself with a public fed up with economic uncertainty and Washington gridlock, President Barack Obama declared Thursday: “There is nothing wrong with our country. There is something wrong with our politics.”

Really, Mr. President!?!?!

It took you all of nearly 3 years in the highest office, 3 years in the US Senate and 8 years in the Illinois state senate to figure this out?

When Obama was elected president in 2008, your party controlled all three branches of government; the white house, the senate and the house of representatives. Not only did your party control all three branches, but the minority party didn’t have enough votes to stop any bill from being signed into law.

Obama and the lying Democrat politicians are now trying to blame our credit rating downgrade on the tea party republicans. This is an outright lie and those people perpetuating this lie should be voted out of office. Apparently those on the left believe the American public is dumb enough to believe what comes out of their mouths, and unfortunately that is probably true with a lot of people.

Lets look at the indisputable facts and you can decide what is the truth on your own. If you choose not to believe what it written over the next few paragraphs, I urge you to do your own research from valid sources.

Fact number 1: The Obama administration and Congress had not passed a single budget for nearly three years. This goes all the way back to the time the Democrats controlled all 3 branches of our government. The Democrats could have passed anything that they wanted to pass. They simply chose not to.

Fact number 2: In fairness to Obama, he did put forth one budget during this time which he sent over to the Senate for a vote. The Senate, which was controlled by the Democratic party, voted the president’s bill down by a whopping 97-0 vote. You may want to read that last sentence more than once. Not 1 single senator voted for the president’s bill. Not a single one.

Fact number 3: When Obama was elected he put forth and passed a so-called stimulus bill of nearly 1 trillion dollars which was supposedly made up of shovel ready projects. In passing this bill, Obama said unemployment would peak at 8% and then go down. Take a look at the graph below which was created by the Obama administration which depicts their prediction of unemployment with and without his stimulus bill passing.

obama unemployment graph projection

Fact number 4: The S&P specifically said that we needed to produce 4 trillion dollars in cut otherwise we would risk losing our triple A credit status. The congress only passed a little over 2 trillion in so-called savings during the debt debate, with most of the savings in the outter years. In reality there was no savings at all. What they are considering cuts are in fact nothing more than slight decreases in projected spending. Each and every year the government bakes an 8% increase into several programs. At previous current projections, we are expected to spend 46 trillion dollars over the next decade. Congress got together and shaved a miniscule 2 trillion off this projected amount. WE ARE STILL SET TO SPEND 44 TRILLION DOLLARS OVER THE NEXT DECADE!!! You wonder why the S&P downgraded our credit rating? It wasn’t because of the tea party. It was due to the ridiculous projected spending over the next several years.

Fact number 5: When Obama took office in 2008, the national debt stood at $10.6 trillion dollars. Today our debt current stands at $14.6 trillion dollars. That is a whopping $4 trillion dollar increase in less than 3 years.

Fact number 6: Obama has given tax breaks to nearly everyone. He even gave tax dollars to those who haven’t paid any federal income tax. Suffice it to say, tax cuts for you and I do not create the necessary jobs. In order to truly stimulate the economy, the politics have to be more business friendly. The only reason people start businesses is to make a profit. If a businessman does not think he can start a company that will produce a profit due to health care mandates and increased regulations on his business, he will probably decide the risk to reward ratio isn’t in his favor, thus he won’t even try to start up a new business.

Fact number 7: Nowadays, Obama is all about compromise and both parties working together to solve the nation’s current crisis. Why wasn’t he about compromise when his party controlled all 3 chambers of government during his first 2 years in office? Why did Obama push through his unconstitutional health care mandate when it received NO votes from members of the republican party? The democrats still hold 2 of the 3 branches of government, so they still hold the leverage.

There are many additional facts which I have not included in this article. I wanted to highlight just a few things that I deem really important on this debate.

What is broken with American politics? It is the political system that is broke. Until we get rid of the career politicians, we will always have problems with our government. We need politicians who are not worried about winning their next election. It takes money to win elections. With money, comes lobbyists and wealthy donors who will expect your cooperation in the future. If a politician is worried about being voted out of office, will he do what he knows is right for the citizens every time he places a vote, or will he do what the lobbyists and wealthy want him to do for their interests? He needs money to campaign for re-election, so odds are he will do whatever the donors ask him to do.

We need term limits on all of our politicians. Until politicians are forced to leave office, we can never expect them to always vote what they feel is in the best interest of the citizens. Hell, maybe we treat congress the same way jurors are selected. Draw people’s name out of hats and send them to Congress for 1 year. Write bills in common sense language which can be no more than 1 page in length.

Do away with the federal income tax and institute a flat sales tax with no loopholes. If someone is on welfare and they have the ability to work, gather them up and make them clean our roadways or do some other job that would benefit everyone. The only people who should be able to receive government assistance without producing any type of work are the disabled.

If each state has to balance their budget each year, why can’t the federal government do the same?

The problem with US politics is that someone whose public sector accomplishments only consist of his time being a community organizer can rise up through the political system and become president of the greatest nation on earth only because he is a great speaker with some financial heavyweight backers.

Hopefully, the American people have seen the destruction his socialistic policies are having on our world today and they will not make the mistake of voting him into office for a second term.

With the globalization of today’s world, you simply can not take from the rich and spread the money around to the poor. The wealthy can move their monies to more business friendly areas and not be affected by policy changes which aim to strip them of more of their money.

Look at what happened in Maryland when the governor raised taxes on the wealthy. Instead of receiving $106 million more in revenue after the tax was hiked, the actual amount millionaires paid decreased by $257 million. So, what happened you may ask? The millionaires fled the state.

You increase revenues or taxes not by soaking the wealthy, but by growing the economy and having more people paying taxes into the system.

One day people will understand this and hopefully stop buying into the class warfare rhetoric that all leftist Democrats rely upon to get reelected into office each year.



For those of you who are still deluded enough to continue to believe Barack Obama is a moderate Democrat, realize that as soon as the debt limit deal is passed in the Senate on August 2, 2011, he will have been the president over the two largest debt limit increases in the history of the United States.

For those of you who still think you can tax and spend your way to prosperity, I urge you to look at the facts before your eyes. Unemployment remains as high as it was pre-stimulus. The unemployment rate stands at 9.2% and there appears to be no end in sight to the amount of money these politicians want to spend to try to stimulate the economy.

Is it too much to hope that these politicians will eventually realize their faulty thinking that a bigger government is what is best for the citizens of America. The private sector is the engine that creates jobs. History has proven this time and time again, and those of you who wish to argue with history, simply show your lack of intelligence.

Obama will go down as one of the most anti-business presidents in the history of the United States. If you are a businessman and vote this guy back into office and he wins, then you deserve whatever fate your business suffers.

The bill to increase the federal debt limit that has been put before Congress today would increase that limit by up to $2.4 trillion, which would be the largest increase in the debt limit in U.S. history by a margin of half a trillion dollars, according to records published by the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Research Service.

In fact, according to records published by the Congressional Research Service, if the current bill is passed and the debt limit is increased by $2.4 trillion, the two largest debt-limit increases in U.S. history would come in back-to-back years, both during the presidency of Barack Obama.

Up until now, the largest increase in the debt limit was the $1.9 trillion increase passed by Congress and signed by President Obama on Feb. 12, 2010. That law increased the debt limit from $12.394 trillion to $14.294 trillion.

Up until now, the second largest historical increase in the debt limit was enacted on March 27, 2003, when President George W. Bush signed a law that lifted the limit by $984 billion—from $6.400 trillion to $7.384 trillion.

The third largest historical increase in the debt limit was enacted on Nov. 5, 1990, when the senior President George Bush signed a law that lifted the limit by $915 billion—from $3.230 trillion to $4.145 trillion.

Prior to Sept. 28, 1987, the Treasury did not have the legal authority to run a national debt of $2.4 trillion—let alone increase the debt limit by that amount. On that date, President Reagan signed a law lifting the debt limit by $448 billion—from $2.352 trillion to $2.8 trillion.

The total debt of the federal government did not hit $2.4 trillion until November 1987, according to the U.S. Treasury Department. According to Treasury’s Monthly Statements of the Public Debt, the national debt equaled $2.3848 trillion at the end of October 1987 and $2.409572 trillion by the end of November 1987.



Kentucky Senator Rand Paul issued an open letter explaining why he is against the debt deal that just passed the House of Representatives. What the politicians don’t tell you, and this on both sides of the aisle, is that the cuts in spending are not in fact cuts at all. They are considering a cut to be a reduction in a baseline increase in the spending in the future. This baseline projected the government to spend 10 more trillion dollars over the next decade, and they have agreed to slow the rate of growth by cutting over 2 trillion off this projected amount. This is simply madness…only in Congress is a lower projected increase in spending considered a cut.

Read Rand Paul’s open letter below for more details…

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today Sen. Rand Paul issued an open letter on the subject of the debt ceiling compromise facing the Senate. Below is that letter.

To paraphrase Jim DeMint: When you’re speeding toward the edge of a cliff, you don’t set the cruise control. You stop the car.

The current deal to raise the debt ceiling doesn’t stop us from going over the fiscal cliff. At best, it slows us from going over it at 80 mph to going over it at 60 mph.

This plan never balances. The President called for a “balanced approach.” But the American people are calling for a balanced budget.

This deal does nothing to fix the overreaches of both parties over the past few years: Obamacare, TARP, trillion-dollar wars, runaway entitlement spending. They are all cemented into place with this deal, and their legacy will be trillions of dollars in new debt.

The deal that is pending before us now:

· Adds at least $7 trillion to our debt over the next 10 years. The deal purports to “cut” $2.5 trillion, but the “cut” is from a baseline that adds $10 trillion to the debt. This deal, even if all targets are met and the Super Committee wields its mandate – the BEST case scenario is still $7 trillion more in debt over the next 10 years. That is sickening.

· Never, ever balances.

· The Super Committee’s mandate is to add $7 trillion in new debt. Let’s be clear: $2.5 trillion in reductions off a nearly $10 trillion,10-year debt is still $7 trillion in debt. The Super Committee limits the Constitutional check of the filibuster by expediting passage of bills with a simple majority. The Super Committee is not precluded from any issue therefore the filibuster could be rendered most. In addition, the plan harms the possible passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment. Since the goal is never to balance, having the BBA as a “trigger” ensures that the Committee will simply report its $7 trillion in new debt and never move to a BBA vote.

· Cuts too slowly. Even if you believe cutting $2.5 trillion out of $10 trillion is a good compromise, surely we can start cutting quickly, say $200 billion-$300 billion per year, right? Wrong. This plan so badly backloads the alleged savings that the cuts are simply meaningless. Why do we believe that the goal of $2.5 trillion over 10 years (that’s an average of $250 billion per year) will EVER be met if the first two years cuts are $20 billion and $50 billion. There is simply no path in this bill even to the meager savings they are alleging will take place.

Buried in the details of this bill there also appears to be the automatic Debt increase as proposed a few weeks ago. Second half of the debt ceiling is increased by President automatically and can only be stopped by two-thirds of Congress. This shifts the Constitutional check on borrowing from Congress to the President and makes it easier to raise the debt ceiling. This would cede debt ceiling to the President, and none of the triggers in this deal include withholding the second limit increase.

Debt agencies have clearly stated the type of so-called cuts envisioned in this plan result in our AAA bond rating being downgraded. Ironically then, the only way to avoid our debt from downgrading and the resulting economic problems that stem from that is for this bill or the resulting Super Committee to fail, so that a Balanced Budget Amendment can save our country.

This plan does not solve our problem. Not even close. I cannot abide the destruction of our economy, therefore I vigorously oppose this deal and I urge my colleagues and the American people to do the same.


Rand Paul, M.D.

U.S. Senator


Vice President Joe Biden joined House Democrats in lashing tea party Republicans Monday, accusing them of having “acted like terrorists” in the fight over raising the nation’s debt limit, according to several sources in the room.

Biden was agreeing with a line of argument made by Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) at a two-hour, closed-door Democratic Caucus meeting.

“We have negotiated with terrorists,” an angry Doyle said, according to sources in the room. “This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.”

Biden, driven by his Democratic allies’ misgivings about the debt-limit deal, responded: “They have acted like terrorists.”

Biden’s office initially declined to comment about what the vice president said inside the closed-door session, but after POLITICO published the remarks, spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff said: “The word was used by several members of Congress. The vice president does not believe it’s an appropriate term in political discourse.”

Biden later denied he used that term in an interview with CBS.

“I did not use the terrorism word,” Biden told CBS Evening News anchor and managing editor Scott Pelley.

Earlier in the day, Biden told Senate Democrats that Republican leaders have “guns to their heads” in trying to negotiate deals.

The vice president’s hot rhetoric about tea party Republicans underscored the tense moment on Capitol Hill as four party leaders in both chambers work to round up the needed votes in an abbreviated time frame. The bill would raise the debt limit by as much as $2.4 trillion through the end of next year and reduce the deficit by an equal amount over the next decade.

Democrats had no shortage of colorful phrases in wake of the deal.

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) called it a “Satan sandwich,” and Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) called seemed to enjoy the heat analogy, saying: “the Tea Partiers and the GOP have made their slash and burn lunacy clear, and while I do not love this compromise, my vote is a hose to stop the burning. The arsonists must be stopped.

The deal was consummated Sunday night, the text of the bill was posted in the wee hours of Monday morning, and the House was expected to vote first on it Monday afternoon or evening. But there are still plenty of concerns in both parties and in both chambers.

Liberal Democrats have had the most averse reaction to the plan, which ensures between $2.1 trillion and $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade without requiring any of it to come from tax increases.

Biden told Democratic lawmakers that the deal would take away the tea party’s “weapon of mass destruction” — the threat of a default on U.S. debt obligations.

“They have no compunction about blowing up the economy to get what they want,” Doyle told POLITICO after the meeting.

~Boo Sexy Lingerie

Click Here to Earn Massive Wealth Online!