Obama calls Republicans 'enemies'

Remember when Obama was above the fray...........

Not anymore. President Obama has become just like the Washington that he vowed to change when running for President in 2008.

On a  Hispanic radio station, Obama urged Latinos to vote Democrat in order to prevail over our 'enemies' meaning to prevail over 'Republican enemies.' He later admitted that calling Republicans enemies was a poor choice of words.

If you thought calling Republicans enemies was over the top, Obama gave a speech recently at a political event and told the crowd that Republicans can join Democrats if they like but they have to "get in the back seat."

Could you imagine if a Republican during the 2008 campaign told Obama to "get in the back seat?" There would be massive protests and total mayhem.

Not so with Obama. He gets a free pass. At least though we can now say that Obama is not above the political rhetoric that has plagued Washington for years. He is now part of the problem.

Obama calls Republicans 'enemies'

The Feinstein Disappointment

As President Obama prepares to welcome Israeli Prime-minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House on Tuesday in an another attempt to repair strained relations with the Israeli leader, Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) is urging Obama to pressure Israel to stop so-called settlement activity in East Jerusalem.

Feinstein, who was not one of  the seventy six Senators who signed a letter urging President Obama to ease tensions with Israel in April, is now formulating a letter calling on the Obama Administration to ante up the pressure on the Israeli government.

It remains unclear whether Feinstein will be able to obtain co-signatories in an election year where Jewish support for the Obama Administration and the Democrat Party is at an all time low. Feinstein's letter would only add fuel to the fire.

In a letter to her constituents last month, Feinstein wrote "I have grave concerns about the expansion of Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, and I believe that this issue is a major stumbling block to a peace agreement. In my view, settlement activity should be halted until an agreement is reached.”

The  indisputable fact remains that the Arabs vowed to destroy the State of  Israel and the Jewish people long before the 1967 war when Israel captured Jerusalem. There were homicide bombings which killed innocent Israelis long before Israel controlled Judea and Samaria.  The Arabs were even eager to kill Jews before Israel became a state.

Feinstein is unwilling to accept the reality that even if Israel stopped all so-called settlement activity tomorrow, the Palestinian Authority will never give up on their desire to rid the Middle East of the Jewish people.

Despite the fact the Prime-Minister Netanyahu instituted  a 10 month moratorium on so-called settlement activity in the West Bank  at Obama's urging which is due to expire soon, the Palestinian Authority has been very reluctant to pursue peace and never misses an opportunity to blame the stalemate on Israel without making any concessions of their own.

While the Palestinian Authority remains indifferent to the notion of peace, it should also be duly noted that they openly glorify terrorists, brainwash  their children to kill Jews, and form alliances with Hamas and other terrorist organizations operating in the Gaza region. 

Feinstein's views on Middle East peace are clearly not logical. She is either delusional or has succumbed to her radical leftist ideology which is hostile to the Jewish state.

Indeed, it is mind boggling that Feinstein has no qualms with the Palestinian Authority naming a square after a terrorist who murdered a dozen Israelis. Yet, she has a conniption when Israel builds bathrooms in a Jewish neighborhood in Jerusalem.

The senior Senator from California  is a big disappointment.

The Feinstein Disappointment

Ed Koch on the offensive again

 [Ed. note: The following is an editorial written by the former Mayor of New York City Ed Koch]


Koch: Obama Speaks Softly And Carries No Stick At All

We are at war with radical Islam, and that war will go on for many years.

For me, the question is this: Will the secular Western civilization shared by America and Europe, which allows us to enjoy life and its creature comforts, still be standing at the end of that war? Or will radical Islam, with an aggressive culture that treasures martyrdom and death over life, prevail?

The vast majority of Muslims, of course, are peace-loving. The fanaticism found among the Wahhabists of Saudi Arabia is not found in many of the countries where a billion, 400 million Muslims live. Nevertheless, we know that radical Islamists want to convert us to their faith, either voluntarily or, if necessary, by force. Among the Islamist radicals there is a special hatred of Jews and Hindus and, to a lesser extent, of Christians. The hatred of Jews is such that some of the leaders of radical groups have called for the killing of Jewish civilians all over the world. For some, the Muslim rule is to permit Jews and Christians - as monotheists - to practice their religions, provided that they accept the supremacy of Islam and pay a poll tax - so described by Bernard Lewis, America's foremost scholar on Islam.

Mr. Lewis states: "This tolerance is limited to monotheists and recipients of what Islam recognizes as a revelation. It does not apply in any circumstance to those who are seen as polytheists and idolaters. For them the rule was indeed conversion or death, though the latter was rarely enforced and in the past was often commuted to enslavement. The Wahhabi demand, as far as I know, is not that Christians and Jews convert to Islam, but that they accept the supremacy of Islam and the rule of the Muslim state. On that condition, they may continue in the practice of their religion."

All this is by way of preface to a current controversy here in New York City concerning the construction of a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero at the World Trade Center site where near 3,000 people lost their lives in acts of terror perpetrated by 19 Muslim hijackers, 15 of whom were from Saudi Arabia, who deliberately flew two planes into the twin towers.

There are those who, understandably but nevertheless in error, object to the construction of this mosque, believing its presence would insult the memory of the victims of the terror. In my opinion, and I believe the opinion of many others, including the local community planning board and the local elected political leaders, it would sully the good name of the United States and New York City were the members of the mosque, which is permissible under existing zoning laws, prohibited from constructing it. While no one can be sure what activities will take place there, that is true of any religious institution. It also follows that none may violate the law with impunity.

What distinguishes the United States is our pluralism and tolerance for minority groups, religions of every persuasion and acceptance of the rights of those with policies and philosophies different than the prevailing views of the majority, provided they are non-violent and observe the law.

Having said that, and believing in our tolerance for others, I also believe we must be willing to defend our people and country against all attacks that are violent - tantamount to war - as well as those attacks that are unfair and intended to humble and denigrate our nation. It is infuriating to see Turkey, an actual NATO ally, and Brazil, a neighbor and trade partner here in the Western hemisphere, collude with Iran, which has said through its president that it wants the US to disappear and makes clear every day its enmity and threats directed at us and our ally, Israel. It is infuriating that North Korea threatens the world with its nuclear and missile arsenal and sinks a South Korean destroyer with a torpedo that an examining commission found to have North Korean markings, and no immediate military retaliatory action is taken, out of fear of consequences.

If Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the US Congress had failed to assist in the defense of Great Britain in its war with Germany, and Great Britain had gone down to defeat because early on we refused to become Great Britain's supplier of ships and other war materials out of fear of the consequences, we here in the US might be speaking German today instead of English. We would certainly no longer be the great and sovereign nation we are.

Have we lost the will to stand up to the bullies of the world? The administration points with pride to the fact that it is proceeding with sanctions against Iran at the Security Council and that it succeeded in bringing Russia and China to the point where they too have agreed to vote for sanctions. To accomplish this, however, the US had to agree to Russia's delivering arms to Iran, e.g., an anti-aircraft system that would be used to shoot down US and Israeli planes that might in the future seek to eliminate Iran's nuclear facilities. With respect to China and getting its consent to vote with us, we dropped sanction measures that would have crippled Iran's banking and financial institutions and prohibited the sale of gasoline to Iran, which has no conversion facilities, which would have devastated its economy.

Some will say that pointing out these failures of will is jingoistic. I believe these failures to stand up for allies and most importantly to stand up for ourselves is why we are taken less seriously by nations throughout the world than should be the case. When others fully respected us, we were able to keep the world at peace. We are losing that ability with each passing day, as we demonstrate our unwillingness to teach the bullies of the world the lessons they deserve.

Speak softly and carry a big stick, Teddy Roosevelt said. President Obama speaks apologetically and carries no stick at all. No wonder North Korea torpedoed that South Korean warship, something they would not have done in all probability if China had not quietly approved. No wonder Brazil and Turkey thumb their noses at us. We have become a laughingstock.

Ed Koch on the offensive again

Republican Group: GOP will take over the House

In an exclusive interview with Kauffmans Commentary, the  Senior Administrator of the Young Republican Network Ira Geiger stated that the GOP will likely take over the House in the 2010 elections.

         YRN's Ira Geiger pictured with New Jersey's Lt. Governor

Geiger is less certain about the Republicans' chances of  gaining control of the U.S. Senate. At the current moment, Geiger believes that the Republican party has a 50% chance of regaining the Senate.

According to Geiger, the prospect of the GOP gaining control of the Senate all depends on whether the Republican Party can win Senate seats in New York, Connecticut,  California, and  possibly Wisconsin and Washington. Republican Senate candidates in Delaware, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois, Arkansas, Nevada, and Colorado are all expected to win in November which means that the Republicans will pick up eight seats and would only need to win  at least three more seats to win back the U.S. Senate assuming that the Republicans can retain Florida and Ohio.

Ira Geiger also told Kauffmans Commentary that he believes young Republicans between the ages of 18 to 40 will have a greater influence in this year's election than in previous elections. "People have woken up. They took 2008 for granted," explained Geiger.  He also reported that he has received emails from Democrats who are now supporting Republican candidates which is a new phenomena.

Geiger has been active in Republican politics for many years and has worked on the former Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich's gubernatorial campaign in 2006 and most recently on Chris Christie's successful gubernatorial campaign in New Jersey.

The Young Republican Network was originally  founded after the 2008 election. It currently serves as a grassroots website which reaches out to young professionals, students, entrepreneurs, and young business leaders informing them of the different Republican campaigns in the 2010 election cycle.

An estimated 25,000 people a day log onto the Young Republican Network's website to learn about the Republican candidates who are running in this year's election.

Republican Group: GOP will take over the House

Jewish Support for Obama Eroding

BREAKING NEWS

President Obama's assault on Israel is costing him votes in the Jewish community.

The McLaughlin Group recently conducted a Poll in the Jewish community asking the participants whether they would (a) vote for President Obama again or (b) whether they consider voting for someone else. 42% said they would vote for Obama and 46% said they would consider voting for someone else. 12% said they did not know or refused to answer.

A further breakdown on the poll results can be seen here.

This is a significant development  because the Jewish community has been loyal supporters of  Democrats and they are credited for helping Barack Obama become President in 2008. A whopping 78% of Jewish voters or perhaps more by some people's accounts voted for Obama.

If Obama loses Jewish support as this poll suggest he will, Obama will have a tough time getting re-elected in 2012.

Jewish Support for Obama Eroding

Call the DNC Today

President Obama has scored a victory in his campaign to isolate Israel.

Prime-Minister Netanyahu has reportedly caved into Obama's unrelenting pressure and has agreed to halt all East Jerusalem construction.

The President thinks that he can pressure Israel and still expect our votes in the 2010 and 2012 elections.

For too long, our politicians have grown to think that they can do whatever they want because we will still vote for them anyway. It is time that our elected officials be told once and for all that there will be significant  political consequences if the establishment in Washington turns a blind eye to the views and opinions of the electorate by implementing policies which contradict our beliefs and sensitivities.

In terms of President Obama's pressuring of Israel, our grassroots campaign must continue to remind. President Obama that the American people will not allow his administration to discredit the State of Israel.

Please pick up the phone and call the Democratic National Committee at 202-863-8000 during regular business hours at your earliest convenience.

When the staff member answers your call, kindly tell that person in the most respectful terms that you are dissatisfied with the manner in which the President is pressuring Israel and that if he continues to mistreat Israel or its Prime-Minister, the President and the Democrat Party will loose support in the 2010 and 2012 elections.

Get your friends to call. The more calls that we get, the greater impact that we will have in changing the President's policies on Israel.

Call the DNC Today

Obama Disagrees with Schumer

Senator Chuck Schmuer (D-NY) is the first Democrat Senator to openly and publicly take issue with President Obama's policies on Israel. Politico.com reported on Schumer's spat with the administration last week.

Senator Schumer in a radio interview on the Nachum Segal show in New York told Segal that Obama's isolation of the State of Israel, after the Netanyahu government announced the building of homes in East Jerusalem during Biden's visit to the region, "has to stop" calling it "counterproductive and a "kerfuffle."  

"Israel apologized and when Biden left, and Biden is the best friend of Israel in the administration [and] everything was fine. But then what happened is the next day Hillary Clinton called up Netanyahu and talked very tough to him, and worse they made it public through this spokesperson, a guy named Crowley. And Crowley said something I have never heard before, which is, the relationship of Israel and the United States depends on the pace of the negotiations."

As  a result of the State Department's harsh critique of the State of Israel, Schumer said "I called up Rahm Emanuel and I called up the White House and I said, 'If you don’t retract that statement you are going to hear me publicly blast you on this.'"

While the State Department has since backed down from its condemnatory remarks of Israel, Schumer claims that there is a battle currently going on within the administration. One side supports  Israel and the other side is content with pursuing the administration's current policies of isolating  Israel.

Schumer warns that if the administration does not change its policies on Israel, he will "take it to the next step."

The White House has since weighed in on Schumer's comments. Obama's Spokesman Robert Gibbs stated "I don’t think it is a stretch to say we don’t agree with what Senator Schumer said.”

I am not exactly sure who Obama is fooling.  But it is known in Washington and certainly within a significant proportion of Jewish community that President Obama is not a friend of the State of Israel's.

Obama Disagrees with Schumer

Senators sign letter to Obama

76 Senators signed  a letter to President Obama urging him to ease recent tensions with the State of Israel.

The letter stated: "We  write to urge you to do everything possible to ensure that recent tensions between the U.S. and Israeli administrations over the untimely announcement of future housing construction in East Jerusalem do not derail Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations or harm U.S.-Israel relations. We also urge you to reaffirm the unbreakable bonds that tie the United States and Israel together and to diligently work to defuse current tensions.  The Israeli governments and U.S. governments will undoubtedly, at times, disagree over policy decisions.  But disagreements should not adversely affect our  national interests."

The letter can be seen in full here.

Of the 76 Senators who signed the letter, most who signed the letter were Republican with a significant amount of Democrat Senators not signing including Harry Reid and John Kerry.

Here are a list of the Senators who did not sign the letter.

1)Max Baucus (D- MT)
2)Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
3)Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
4)Robert Byrd (D-WV)
5)Bob Corker (R-TN)
6)Chris Dodd (D-CT)
7)Byron Dorgan (D-ND)
8)Richard Durbin (D-IL)
9)Michael Enzi (R-WY)
10)Diane Feinstein (D-CA)
11)Judd Gregg (R-NH)
12)Tom Harkin (D-IA)
13)Edward Kaufman (D-DE)
14)John Kerry (D-MA)
15 Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
16)Richard Lugar (R-IN)
17)Claire McCaskill(D-MO)
18)Jack Reed (D-RI)
19)Harry Reid (D-NV)
20)John Rockefeller(D-WV)
21)Bernard Sanders (I-VT)
22)Mark Udall (D-CO)
23)Tom Udall (D-NM)
24)Jim Webb (D-VA)

[Ed. Note] If you are a constituent of any of the above Senators who did not sign the letter and want to voice your displeasure to them for not doing so, contact their Washington DC offices via phone or fax.  The more calls or faxes that they get, the quicker they will get the message that supporting Israel is a requirement for getting re-elected in the next election.

Senators sign letter to Obama

The Future of Jewish Democrats

Non-Jewish Republicans and even Jewish Republicans constantly ponder the question, why do Jews flock to the Democrat party? What is it that they like about the Democrat party? (Ed. note: Orthodox Jews traditionally are Republican)  After all, the Democrat party has moved so far to the left and is the home to Michael Moore, Jimmy Carter, Al Sharpton, Dennis Kucinich, and other radical environmentalists who espouse anti-Israel views.

If Israel is such a major issue for the Jewish community as it rightfully should be, why would Jews back the Democrats? The truth is that there was a time when Democrats were Pro-Israel (LBJ, Harry Truman, JFK, RFK, Scoop Jackson)  And there was a time when Republicans were not so friendly to the Jews (Pat Buchanan, Bush I, James Baker etc.)

The main answer to these legitimate questions is that social issues predominantly drives the Jewish connection to the Democrat party as most secular Jews are pro-choice, against the dominance of religion in society, for gun control, and  therefore can not be single issue "Israel voters" even though Israel is an issue that concerns them.
( Please note that there is no attempt here to disparage secular Jews; this is merely an attempt to explain their reasoning for backing the Democrats despite all indications for them not to do so. Certainly, everyone is entitled to their own opinion no matter how misguided it may be)

However, slowly but surely, many Jewish Democrats are finally realizing that the Democrat Party is no longer  their home.  We started seeing a Jewish trend towards the Republicans with the Reagan administration's close ties to the Jewish state. As President George W. Bush became known as  one of the most Pro-Israel Presidents in U.S. history, more Jewish Democrats voted for Bush II in 2004 although Kerry still got the bulk of the Jewish vote.

Surprisingly, 80% of Jews voted for Obama in 2008 despite his 20 year association with a radical anti-semitic preacher named Jeremiah Wright. 

However, for the first time, the iceberg may have fallen over causing tons of Jewish Democrats to start packing towards red country.

It would have to take a radical guy like Barack Obama to shift the Jewish voting patterns. Jewish voters are  finally realizing that Obama is so entrenched with the Muslim world that he is willing to sell out Israel and the lives of more than six million Jews living in Israel in order to appease the Iranians.

Just a few observations which leads me to believe that we will be seeing significantly more Jewish voters electing Republicans in 2010 and 2012.

The Former Mayor of  New York, Ed Koch, a well known Jewish Democrat who usually has a good pulse on the views of the American Jewish community recently came out against Obama.  Koch endorsed Bush II in 2004 and then went back to the Democrats in 2008 endorsing Obama. He now says that he is "getting off the Obama train because of Obama's mistreatment of the State of Israel.  You rarely hear such a prominent Democrat in New York politics so vocally express his disgust for a Democrat President. 

It takes the radical views of Barack Obama to spur Koch to do just that and I would imagine he's bringing a lot of Jewish Democrats with him off the train.

Another observation which many people do not yet know about and is a breaking development.

Kauffmans Commentary recently sponsored an "Israel Deserves Respect" Petition to President Obama.  Kcom recieved quite a few responses from former Obama supporters who are outraged at the manner in which Obama disrespected Prime-minister Netanyahu when he visited the White House last March.  Some of these former Obama suppporters were Jewish Americans who are now regretting their vote.

This is only the beginning of the  Republican tent opening a little larger to welcome disenfranchised Jewish voters running away from Barack Obama and the Democrats. Stay tuned for more articles on this topic.

If you are reading this article and are a Jewish Democrat, let me know what you think. Will you be voting for Barack Obama in 2012? 

The Future of Jewish Democrats

Democrat Ed Koch Blasts Obama

Democrat Ed Koch Blasts Obama

Bleak future for the dems

Here is a tentative  list of the top Democrats so far not running in the 2010 elections

1) Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut
2) Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota
3) Sen. Roland Burris of Illinois ( Well he did not have much of a shot anyway)
4) Arkansas Congressman Marion Berry
5)Arkansas Rep. Vic Snyder
6) Rep. Bart Gordon of Tennessee
7)Rep. Dennis Moore of Kansas
8)Rep. John Tanner of Tenessee
9)Rep. Brian Baird of Washington
10)Sen. Ted Kaufman of Delaware
11)And, now Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana

And for all of the resignations, there are several Democrats who are running like Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas who are in danger of losing their seats to Republicans.

2010 is not looking like it will be a good year for the Democrats. The Republicans surely know what its like to not have a good year after President Obama was elected in 2008. But 2010 may end up being a recovery year for the Republicans.

Bleak future for the dems

The End of Obama Health Care

If anyone ever tells you that one election does not count, tell them about now Senator Scott Brown. With his induction into the U.S. Senate effective February 4, 2010, the Democrats no longer have filibuster proof power and the Republicans will have enough votes to block Obama's health care plan from passing should it come to that. All it took was the people of Massachusetts to change the course of history.

See below to watch the historic moment when President Obama's lifelong dream to push health care down the American people's throats came to standstill.

The End of Obama Health Care

Al Qaeda Months Away From Another Attack

CIA Director Leon Panetta believes that Al Qaeda could attack America within the next three to six months.  Very scary prediction. But its reality. America in its vast amount of territory is exposed to the threat of terrorism every day. Panetta told the Senate Intelligence Committee "the biggest threat is not so much that we face an attack like 9/11. It is that Al Qaeda is adapting its methods in ways that often times make it difficult to detect."

He further elaborated that  the terrorist organization is recruiting in-country recruits or homegrown terrorists to carry out attacks as well.  The Director of the National Intelligence  Dennis Blair has also warned that  the terrorists could launch cyber computer-related attacks on the U.S. which could cripple the economy since technology has become the epicenter of business production. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration has requested that funding to combat cyber attacks be decreased.

The major concern is that with the focus on the economy and health care, people are forgetting that terrorism is still a very dominant force in the world and a very real threat. Thankfully, we have not had a successful terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11 which is a relief but also a deficit at the same time because when everything is going well people let their guard down. I am afraid that an overwhelming amount of the American people do not fully realize how serious is the threat of terrorism.

Obama and the Democrats  have a propensity to speak in localized instead of widespread regional terms when describing how Al Qaeda is the only organization that attacked the U.S. on 9/11 and therefore is the main entity that poses a threat to U.S. security. (This gives people the incorrect impression that the threat to the U.S. is based in Afghanistan when it extends way beyond a single country)  Yes, Al Qaeda is leading worldwide Jihad attacks. But, Al Qaeda is hardly alone. ( Hamas is now debating whether to attack Israelis and Jews outside of Israel).  In fact, the threat largely emanates from a vast radical Islamic network spread all over the world in many different countries, in the Middle East, in Europe, even in America. This radical network composed of various terrorist organizations fervently  believes that the "Infidel" (anyone who does not believe in their radical ideology which includes Jews, Christians and moderate Muslims)  must be killed. They will fight until the end of days until every last "Infidel" is annihilated.

This demented philosophy largely  means that Western civilization will have to engage in an embattled conflict with radical Islam for many years to come perhaps until the end of time and that's not an exaggeration by any stretch of the imagination.   It also means that people can not expect that the focus on preserving national security will disappear or become less important simply because our political leaders attend to domestic matters. Even though we have a lot of legitimate highly significant needs and concerns that must be attended to, (i.e. the economy, employment, health care) national security must remain our top priority requiring our foremost attention.

If we forget that we are still fighting a war on terror as serious as in the days after 9/11 and instead shift gears to focusing on the economy for example, we will not have to worry about the economy because we the "Infidels" will not be here to have an economy.

Al Qaeda Months Away From Another Attack

Obama's Advisers in Denial

President Obama's advisers are in obvious denial. Senior Adviser David Axelrod stated on MSNBC  that the voters choice of Scott Brown had nothing to do with disapproval of the President's policies. 

It had everything to do with rejecting President Obama's policies.   You have to have serious liberal discontent with the Democrats for the people of Massachusetts to vote in a Republican instead of their fellow Democrat.  To state otherwise, is ignoring reality. 

Just like the Republicans failed to answer their wake up call in 2006, we could be seeing a similar situation with the Democrats. History tends to repeat itself.

If Obama continues promoting his health care policies and massive spending initiatives in a time of economic downturn,  the Republicans will gain several seats in the House and in the Senate in November of 2010.

Obama's Advisers in Denial

Not so fast Harry Reid

According to Lindsey Graham(R-SC), the Democrats buyout deal of  Ben Nelson over the weekend could prompt a constitutional challenge. In a stunning turn of events, the Democrats were able to garner the last holdout vote on the Democrat side, giving the Dems the 60 vote majority to pass health care, by cajoling Ben Nelson to change his mind and vote in favor of the health care bill. Why, all of a sudden,  did Ben Nelson change his mind? Remember, he was very adamant in opposing the bill in recent weeks because of provisions in the bill which funded abortion.  The answer to Ben Nelson's rather sudden change of heart: Money and lots of it.

Harry Reid & Co. in a secret backroom deal exempted Ben Nelson and the State of Nebraska from paying for  Medicare.   Every other state is still required to pay their share for Medicare. But, not Nebraska. It certainly renews the American people's distrust of the political establishment in Washington to know that our Senators have no conviction and can be bought out if prodded with money. Who else has been bought out to change their vote on this bill or any other bill in the history of policymaking in this country? Too many to even ponder.

But, the American people still have a voice even if it appears otherwise sometimes. And, if  Lindsey Graham is correct, Harry Reid and the Democrats may have a lawsuit to contend with by angry Americans in 51 other states who do not want to see Nebraska exempted from paying Medicare while everyone else is expected to pay their share.

Good luck defending yourselves Harry Reid and Ben Nelson.

Not so fast Harry Reid