Transcript And Video Of Benjamin Netanyahu Proving The Case For Preemptive War Against Iran In AIPAC Speech

Link: http://ironicsurrealism.com/2012/03/05/transcript-israeli-prime-minister-benjamin-netanyahus-speech-at-aipac-2012/

Thank you for the warm reception. It could be heard as far away as Jerusalem – the eternal and united capital of Israel.

More than two thirds of the Congress is in attendance here tonight.

I deeply appreciate your being here.

Last May when I addressed the Congress, you stood up to applaud the state of Israel. Now I ask the 13,000 friends of IL here to stand up and applaud you,
the representatives of the American people. Democrats and Republicans alike, we applaud your unwavering commitment to Israel.

I want to recognize Yossi Peled who is here tonight. Yossi was born in Belgium. His parents hid him with a Christian family during World War II. His father, and many other members of his family, were murdered at Auschwitz. His mother survived the Holocaust, returned to reclaim Yossi, and brought him to Israel. He became one of Israel’s bravest and greatest generals. And today, Yossi Peled serves as a minister in my government.

Yossi’s life is the story of the Jewish people – the story of a powerless and stateless people who became a strong and proud nation able to defend itself.

And ladies and gentlemen, Israel must always reserve the right to defend itself.

I’d like to talk to you about a subject no one has been talking about recently….Iran.

Every day, I open the papers and read about these redlines and these timelines. I read about what Israel has decided to do or what Israel might do.

Well, I’m not going to talk to you about what Israel will do or will not do. I never talk about that. But I do want to talk to you about the dangers of a nuclear-armed Iran. I want to explain why Iran must never be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.

President Obama has reiterated his commitment to prevent this from happening. He stated clearly that all options remain on the table, and that American policy is not containment.

Well, Israel has the same policy. We are determined to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. We leave all options on the table. Ad containment is definitely not an option.

The Jewish state will not allow those seeking our destruction to possess the means to achieve that goal. A nuclear armed Iran must be stopped.

Amazingly, some people refuse to acknowledge that Iran’s goal is to develop nuclear weapons. You see, Iran claims that it’s enriching uranium to develop medical research. Yeah, right. A country that builds underground nuclear facilities, develops intercontinental ballistic missiles, manufactures thousands of centrifuges, and absorbs crippling sanctions – is doing all that in order to advance…medical research. So you see, when that Iranian ICBM is flying through the air to a location near you, you’ve got nothing to worry about. It’s only carrying medical isotopes.

Ladies and Gentlemen, If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then what is it? That’s right, it’s a duck –but this duck is a nuclear duck. And it’s time the world started calling a duck a duck.

Fortunately, President Obama and most world leaders understand that the idea that Iran’s goal is not to develop nuclear weapons is ridiculous. Yet incredibly, some are prepared to accept an idea only slightly less preposterous: That we should accept a world in which the Ayatollahs have atomic bombs.

Sure, they say, Iran is cruel, but it’s not crazy. It’s detestable but it’s deterrable.

Responsible leaders should not bet the security of their countries on the belief that the world’s most dangerous regime won’t use the world’s most dangerous weapons. And I promise you that as Prime Minister, I will never gamble with the security of Israel.

From the beginning, the Ayatollah regime has broken every international rule and flouted every norm. It has seized embassies, targeted diplomats and sent its own children through mine fields. It hangs gays and stones women. It supports Assad’s brutal slaughter of the Syrian people. Iran is the world’s foremost sponsor of terror. It sponsors Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza and terrorists throughout the Middle East, Africa, and South America. Iran’s proxies have dispatched hundreds of suicide bombers, planted thousands of roadside bombs, and fired over twenty thousand missiles at civilians. Through terror from the skies and terror on the ground, Iran is responsible for the murder of hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans.

In 1983, Iran’s proxy Hezbollah blew up the Marine barracks in Lebanon, killing 240 American servicemen. In the last decade, its been responsible for murdering and maiming American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. Just a few months ago, it tried to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador in a restaurant just a few blocks from here. The assassins didn’t care that several Senators and members of Congress would have been murdered in the process.

Iran accuses the American government of orchestrating 9/11, and it denies the Holocaust. Iran brazenly calls for Israel’s destruction, and they work for its destruction – each day, every day. This is how Iran behaves today, without nuclear weapons. Think of how they will behave tomorrow, with nuclear weapons. Iran will be even more reckless and far more dangerous.

There’s been plenty of talk recently about the costs of stopping Iran. I think it’s time to talk about the costs of not stopping Iran.

A nuclear-armed Iran would dramatically increase terrorism by giving terrorists a nuclear umbrella. That means that Iran’s terror proxies like Hezbollah, Hamas will be emboldened to attack America, Israel, and others because they will be backed by a power with atomic weapons.

A nuclear-armed Iran could choke off the world’s oil supply and make real its threat to close the Straits of Hormouz. If you’re worried about the price of oil today, imagine how high oil prices will be when a nuclear-armed Iran starts blackmailing the world.

If Iran gets nuclear weapons, this would set off a mad dash by Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt and others to acquire nuclear weapons of their own. The world’s most volatile region would become a nuclear tinderbox waiting to go off.

And the worst nightmare of all, Iran could threaten all of us with nuclear terrorism. It could put a nuclear device in a ship heading to any port or in a truck parked in any city. Think about what it would mean to have nuclear weapons in the hands of radicals who lead millions in chants of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel.” For the sake of our prosperity, for the sake of our security, for the sake of our children, Iran must not be allowed to get nuclear weapons!

The best outcome would be if Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program peacefully. No one would be happier than me and the people of Israel if Iran actually dismantled its program. But so far, that hasn’t happened.

For fifteen years, I’ve been warning that a nuclear-armed Iran is a grave danger to my country and to the peace and security of the world. For the last decade, the international community has tried diplomacy. It hasn’t worked. For six years, the international community has applied sanctions. That hasn’t worked either. I appreciate President Obama’s recent efforts to impose even tougher sanctions against Iran. Those sanctions are hurting Iran’s economy. But unfortunately, Iran’s nuclear march goes on.

Israel has waited patiently for the international community to resolve this issue.

We’ve waited for diplomacy to work. We’ve waited for sanctions to work. None of us can afford to wait much longer.

As Prime Minister of Israel, I will never let my people live under the shadow of annihilation.

Some commentators would have you believe that stopping Iran from getting the bomb is more dangerous than letting Iran have the bomb. They say that a military confrontation with Iran would undermine the efforts already underway, that it would be ineffective, and that it would provoke even more vindictive action by Iran.

I’ve heard these arguments before. In fact, I’ve read them before.

In my desk, I have copies of an exchange of letters between the World Jewish Congress and the US War Department. The year was 1944. The World Jewish Congress implored the American government to bomb Auschwitz. The reply came five days later. I want to read it to you.

“Such an operation could be executed only by diverting considerable air support essential to the success of our forces elsewhere…..and in any case would be of such doubtful efficacy that it would not warrant the use of our resources….”

And here’s the most remarkable sentence of all. And I quote:

“Such an effort might provoke even more vindictive action by the Germans.”

Think about that – “even more vindictive action” — than the Holocaust.

My Friends, 2012 is not 1944. The American government today is different. You heard it in President Obama’s speech yesterday.

But here’s my point.

The Jewish people are also different. Today we have a state of our own. The purpose of the Jewish state is to secure the Jewish future.

That is why Israel must always have the ability to defend itself, by itself, against any threat.

We deeply appreciate the great alliance between our two countries.

But when it comes to Israel’s survival, we must always remain the masters of our fate.

Israel’s fate is to continue to be the forward position of freedom in the Middle East. The only place where minorities enjoy full civil rights; The only place where Arabs enjoy full civil rights. The only place where Christians are free to practice their faith; The only place where real judges protect the rule of law; And as Prime Minister of Israel, I will never allow anything to threaten Israel’s democratic way of life. And most especially, I will never tolerate any discrimination against women.

This week, we will read how one woman changed Jewish history. In Synagogues throughout the world, the Jewish people will celebrate the festival of Purim. We will read how some 2,500 years ago, a Persian anti-Semite tried to annihilate the Jewish people. We will read how his plot was foiled by one courageous woman – Esther.

In every generation, there are those who wish to destroy the Jewish people. We are blessed to live in an age when there is a Jewish state capable of defending the Jewish people. And we are doubly blessed to have so many friends like you, Jews and non-Jews alike, who love the State of Israel and support its right to defend itself.

Thank you for your friendship, Thank you for your courage, Thank you for standing up for the one and only Jewish state.

Even White House Finds Claim Hillarious: Obama Created Over 2.1 Million Private Sector Jobs. (Laughter.)

This is just one of those priceless moments that the mainstream media will somehow “not find newsworthy” in their continually biased coverage.  For whatever reason, I STILL have the footage in my head from all the times the mainstream media played and replayed the footage of George Bush going to the wrong door after an event in China along with the mocking of his having “no exit strategy.”  It would be nice if these “journalists” were even a tiny fraction as “objective” as they continually self-righteously profess themselves to be.

As Conservative Christian Onward Points out:

 Obama Deliberately Lies, Claims he Created 2.1 Million Jobs (Laughter)
Posted on June 21, 2011 at 3:44 PM

We all know Obama’s a deliberate liar. However, last night at a Democratic fundraiser (because more than a year prior to the election, our president should be fundraising more than trying to find solutions to problems) he spread the lie again. Once again he claimed the that his administration created (rolls eyes) 2.1 million jobs:

“As a consequence of that swift, decisive, and sometimes difficult period, we were able to take an economy that was shrinking by about 6 percent and create an economy that is now growing, and has grown steadily now over many consecutive quarters. Over the last 15 months we’ve created over 2.1 million private sector jobs.”

Now even if his number is correct and the stimulus did create 2.1 million, that’s a cost of $390,952 per job. Not a very efficient means of “recovery,” especially considering the fact we’re still not recovering sufficiently. However, a study released by the nonpartisan CBO earlier this month reveals that the most Obama could possibly claim he created is 700,000 jobs. That’s means that it cost more than $1.8 million per job.

Clearly when jobs are costing so much and adding so much to our debt, they are destroying more than they create. That fact is made evident by the fact that, according to the Department of Labor, we have lost 1.9 million since the stimulus. How can Obama claim he’s created over 2 million jobs, when he’s had a net loss of nearly 2 million? You’d have to be one sick liar to believe that.

But what’s truly hilarious isn’t his erroneous lie, but the fact that if you look at the White House’s own transcripts, including those shown on Obama’s best friend (teleprompter) and on closed captioning at home, you’ll see that Obama’s asinine lies here are followed by laughter.

And they should be followed by laughter because such a claim is laughably false when the CBO deliberately contradicts Obama’s deliberate lies as does the BLS which shows he’s destroyed 1.9 million jobs. Put bluntly, Obama is lying to you once again.

References:

Cover, Matt. “1.9 Million Fewer Americans Have Jobs Today Than When Obama Signed Stimulus.” CNSNews.com. 14 June 2011. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/after-28-months-stimulus-spending-19-mil. 21 June 2011.

“Remarks by the President at a DNC Event.” WhiteHouse.gov. 20 June 2011. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/06/20/remarks-president-dnc-event-0. 21 June 2011.

It’s only a matter of time before Obama’s ridiculous claim of “we’ve created over 2.1 million private sector jobs” will go the way of all those “shovel-ready jobs” he previously said he’d created.

Obama is a shameless liar.  It’s about time that fact got pointed out by his own White House transcript.

Nancy Pelosi Blown Away Over Her Demagoguery Of Bush (When Unemployment Was 5% And Gas Was $3/Gal)

The following comes from CBS’ “Face the Nation” Sunday, June 5, 2011:

BOB SCHIEFFER: You know, the unemployment figures came out and they were worse thanexpected.

REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: Yes.

BOB SCHIEFFER: As you know. Unemployment actually ticked up to 9.1 percent but this wasjust part of the story.

REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: Hm.

BOB SCHIEFFER: A series of numbers that have been really, really bad lately, the number ofnew jobs created–

REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: Hm.

BOB SCHIEFFER: –fifty-four thousand, far fewer than expected. Home prices hit a new low inthe first quarter of the year. Home sales are down again. Consumer confidence is down. And gas and food prices are up. I have to say, congresswoman, many of the experts thought therecovery would be well underway by now.

REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: Mm-Hm.

BOB SCHIEFFER: But it looks like we’re going backwards now, that– that we may be on the verge of a double-dip recession here. Do you– do you fear that’s what’s happened?

REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: Well, I think we have to take a careful look at those figures to see. The unemployment numbers are obviously very disturbing. Are they an anomalyas some people suggest, because of the disasters in the South and the Midwest and the rest or is this something systemic that– that we have to accommodate in a different way? But all of ittranslates into hardship for America’s middle class and they’re feeling it very, very severely.

BOB SCHIEFFER: You know Mitt Romney launched his presidential campaign in New Hampshire. And he said basically the President has made the economy worse. Here’s– let’sjust listen to what he said.

GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY: This is now his economy. And what he has done has failed the American people. And the borrowing and the spending and the 1.6 trillion dollar deficit, these–these numbers are his, they’re on his back and it’s why he’s going to lose.

BOB SCHIEFFER: So are you and the Democrats going to have to come up to an answer tothat?

REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: Well first of all, I don’t stipulate to that set of facts thatGovernor Romney just said. Mitt Romney has said because the fact is that this deficit came to us largely from President Bush. But it’s no use going there. We have to go forward. It’s a question of what — what is the President and what are those who aspire to be President going todo about the future to create jobs, good paying jobs. What are they going to do about theeducation of our children, the security of our seniors, the strengthening of the middle class,reducing the deficit– reducing the deficit?

BOB SCHIEFFER: But the President has been there two-and-a-half years.

REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: Mm-Hm.

BOB SCHIEFFER: I mean, why hadn’t he done that yet?

REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI (overlapping): Well, he’s done a great deal of it.

BOB SCHIEFFER: What’s happened?

REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: I think if he hadn’t taken the actions he did that thesituation would be worse. He pulled us from the brink of a financial crisis, from an economiccrisis. And now we have to dig out of a deep– a– a deep debt. And– and we have to also makeit clear that we’re not getting into this situation again.

BOB SCHIEFFER: You were talking in a kind of a different way when unemployment went to five percent under George Bush. What you said then that Americans are struggling with skyrocketing energy prices, gas is only three dollars a gallon then. And you said this morning,this is January 4, 2008, “This morning’s jobs report confirms what most Americans already knew–President Bush’s economic policies have failed our country’s middle class.” I mean, aren’t Republicans entitled to say, you know, if then gas was three dollars and unemploymentwas five percent and– and– and the President has failed the American people, don’t they have a right to say that this President has failed the American people?

REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: Well, if you want to go into the past, we can talk about the past all you want. The public wants to know about the future. What are you going to do to create jobs, good-paying jobs in our country?

BOB SCHIEFFER (overlapping): Well, what are you going to do?

REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI: Well, as I said what the President has done has improved the situation from where it may have been.

My question at this point would have been, “Has he improved it to 5% unemployment and three buck-a-gallon gas like it was when you were demonizing President Bush for being a failure?”

I also would have either repeated my question about how the Republicans had every right to lay into Obama as a failed president with unemployment at 9.1% and regular gas at $3.85 a gallon???  And when she didn’t bother to answer it a second time, I would have stated for the record that she refused to answer the question.

But they don’t let me handle such interviews.  Probably because I also would have reached across the table and grabbed her plastic face about the second time after she said “Hm” to the evidence of the devastating failure to the nation her president has been – with most of it occuring under HER House leadership.

Unemployment was 7.2% the day Obama assumed the presidency.  It’s been over 10%, and now 9.1% and heading upward.  2010 was the worst year in housing – EVER.  And 2011 is predicted to be the NEW worst year ever – and yet 2011 got  off to such a terrible start that it is incredibly even WORSE than “worst.”  The NEW news is that Obama’s bold leadership has resulted in the worst housing market since the Great Depression.  So it’s rather difficult to agree with Pelosi’s perspective on THOSE two most major of fronts.

In Fiscal Year 2007, Republicans passed their last budget before Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats took over Congress.  It had a deficit for $161 billion – which Republicans have openly admitted was way too much.

And then the Democrats got their shot.  Their Fiscal Year 2008 budget ran a deficit of $459 billion.  Nearly THREE TIMES that of Republicans.  Then there was their doozy of a Fiscal Year 2009 budget, which ran a deficit of a mind-boggling $1.42 TRILLION.  Which had never before been seen in the history of the human race – until they topped it the very next year with their Fiscal Year 2010 budget deficit of $1.6 TRILLION.  And then they didn’t even BOTHER to try to pass a budget for Fiscal Year 2011 – which was THEIR responsibility.  To the extent that the Republicans and Obama are fighting over the budget, it is ENTIRELY the Democrats’ fault.  We should have already had a budget for this year, because they should have already passed one last year.

Oh, yeah, President Obama – the man Nancy Pelosi so lavishly praises above – had his own budget which he submitted for approval in the Democrat-controlled Senate.  And how did messiah’s budget do in the Democrat-controlled environment?  It was such a despicable piece of garbage that it failed 97-0 with not ONE SINGLE DEMOCRAT voting for it.

That’s not just bad.  It is a disgrace.  President Obama is a disgrace to America.

So between the Democrats not even bothering to pass a budget for 2011 and Obama submitting the worst budget in history, who you gonna blame???

Obviously, Republicans.  Because we live in a world that all too largely consists of propaganda.

Oh, by the way, the conversation between Schieffer and Pelosi turned to Medicare.  Pelosi was talking out of one of her plastic holes and of course demagoguing Republicans.  And Schieffer broke in and asked:

“Don’t you– let me just interrupt you. Don’t you have to, though, give some plan or some idea of how you’re going to reform Medicare because we all know it can’t sustain as it is?”

Because, you see, Medicare is just like spending, and just like the budgets that Democrats didn’t bother to pass.

MEDICARE IS GOING TO GO BANKRUPT BY 2017 AT THE VERY EARLIEST (I say “earliest” because just recently they were saying it would be going bankrupt by 2019; are they going to revise the demise date forward again?).

AND DEMOCRATS HAVE NO PLAN TO FIX IT.

Even Bill Clinton said to Rep. Paul Ryan of his fellow Democrats’ “Mediscare” tactic, “I hope Democrats don’t use this as an excuse to do nothing.”  To which Rep. Paul Ryan responded, “My guess is it’s going to sink into paralysis is what’s going to  happen. And you know the math. It’s just, I mean, we knew we were  putting ourselves out there. You gotta start this. You gotta get out  there. You gotta get this thing moving.”

It’s going to be just like the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fiasco.  Republicans tried REPEATEDLY to reform these two housing mortgage goliaths for YEARS before they finally imploded the American economy in 2008.  Democrats fiercely resisted every single attempt.  As (again) even Bill Clinton acknowledged.  They blocked any chance to save the U.S. economy from the disaster that their policies had created years before – going back even into the Carter administration.

Democrats created the last mother of all crises (the housing mortgage market meltdown of 2008).  And they are already hard at work creating the next one (the impending Medicare implosion).

And only YOU can stop them.

[I feel like Smokey Bear pointing my bear paw and saying, “Only YOU can prevent Democrats.”  But there it is.]

NPR Once Again Demonstrates How Pathologically Biased And Hostile To Conservatives It Is

NPR.  I think it stands for Nitwitted Propagandist Roaches.  It sure seems like it, anyway.

According to surveys, NPR is one of the gold standards of mainstream media objectivity.  But if you could get inside these leftwing ideologues’ heads for just a few minutes, you would find that they couldn’t be more biased and unfair toward conservatives, Republicans and the Tea Party.

March 08, 2011
NPR exec: tea party is ‘scary,’ ‘racist’ 

[Youtube video link]

James O’Keefe, master of the video sting, targets NPR this time, in a pretty damaging interview with Ron Schiller, NPR’s senior vice president for development, and Betsy Liley, senior director of institutional giving.

O’Keefe’s compatriots, Shaughn Adeleye and Simon Templar, posed as members of a Muslim group with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood that wants to give NPR $5 million in light of the recent Republican threats to defund public broadcasting.

In the course of a lunch at Café Milano, Schiller presents himself as a liberal who thinks the tea party is “scary” and that there are not enough Muslim voices on the American airwaves, nodding as his lunchmates say they are glad NPR allows Hamas’s and Hezbollah’s views to be heard.

He claims the Republican party has been “hijacked” by the tea party, and when one of his lunch partner’s suggests that they’re “radical, racist, Islamaphobic, Tea Party people,” Schiller says, they’re “not just Islamaphobic, but really xenophobic, I mean basically they are, they believe in sort of white, middle-America gun-toting. I mean, it’s scary. They’re seriously racist, racist people.”

He also veers pretty wildly off the script that NPR CEO Vivian Schiller clung to during her address to the National Press Club Monday, saying “it is very clear that in the long run we would be better off without federal funding.” Vivian Schiller (no relation) was very careful to make the point Monday that while federal funding is only about 10 percent of NPR’s budget, it’s essential.

It was announced yesterday that Ron Schiller is leaving NPR to take a job at the Aspen Institute.

He came to NPR from the world of university fundraising and became NPR’s top fundraising official in late 2009, not long before discussions began for the $1.8 million gift from George Soros’s Open Society Foundations that, along with the Juan Williams firing, helped make NPR such a potent political target for Republicans.

I’ve reached out to NPR for comment and will update when I hear back.

UPDATE: NPR media reporter David Folkenflik tweets NPR’s comment: “We are appalled by the comments made by Ron Schiller in the video, which are contrary to what NPR stands for.”

UPDATE: The full NPR statement from Dana Davis Rehm, senior vice president of Marketing, Communications & External Relations:

“The fraudulent organization represented in this video repeatedly pressed us to accept a $5 million check, with no strings attached, which we repeatedly refused to accept. We are appalled by the comments made by Ron Schiller in the video, which are contrary to what NPR stands for. Mr. Schiller announced last week that he is leaving NPR for another job.”

Oh, that’s right.  The REAL bad guys in this story are the people who demonstrated just how completely corrupt and dishonest you rat bastard taxpayer-dollar shakedown artists at NPR are.

Keep in mind, the people that NPR is on film demonizing at present constitute most of the American people.  But according to liberal orthodoxy, conservatives, Republicans and Tea Party people are supposed to be forced to subsidize an organization that couldn’t be more unfair to them.

Are you seriously so demented and so depraved that you believe that these people could give conservatives a fair shake?

If you said yes, you just failed the moral IQ test; you are a truly stupid and immoral human being.  You cannot see the world as it is because you are too depraved.

Bottom line: given that NPR is supposedly “objective,” and yet we now know just who these hard-core leftwing zealots are, let’s just realize that the entire mainstream media is basically one leftwing propaganda machine.

Here’s Ron Schiller in all of his bigoted, hateful, biased, propagandist “glory” via a transcript:

This an undercover video is  by filmmaker, James O’Keefe of Acorn Video Expose fame, who hired two men to pose as members of an Islam organization linked closely to the Muslim Brotherhood.  In the video, the men were discussing their wish to make a $5 million donation to NPR over dinner with Schiller.

It was at that dinner that Schiller is caught on video making claims, his comments fully transcribed below from the video on the left sidebar,  that has landed him and NPR in the middle of yet another public funding scandal:

RON SCHILLER (President, NPR Foundation): I think what we all believe is that if we don’t have Muslim voices in our schools, on the air – I mean it’s the same thing we faced as a nation when we didn’t have female voices.

The current Republican party, particularly the Tea Party, is fanatically involved in people’s personal lives and very fundamental Christian. I wouldn’t even call it Christian; it’s this weird evangelical kind of move.

The current Republican party is not really the Republican party, it’s been hijacked by this group; that is, not just Islamaphobic but really xenophobic. I mean, basically, they are, they believe in sort of white, middle American, gun toting  — I mean, it’s scary. They’re seriously racist, racist people.

Now, I’ll talk personally –  as opposed to wearing my NPR hat. It feels to me that there is a real anti-intellectual move on the part of a significant part of the Republican party. In my personal opinion, liberals today might be more educated, fair and balanced than conservatives.

Well, to me, this [Egypt] is representative of the thing that I, uh, I guess I am most disturbed by and disappointed by in this country; which is that the educated, so-called ‘elite’ in this country is too small a percentage of the population, so that you have this very large, uneducated part of the population, that, that carries these ideas.

It’s, it’s much more about this type of anti-intellectualism than it is about a political. A university, also by definition, is considered in this country to be liberal, ah, even though it’s not at all liberal. It’s liberal because it’s intellectual — pursuit of knowledge and that is traditionally something that Democrats have funded and Republicans have not funded.

So, particularly Republicans play off of the belief among the general population that most of our funding comes from the Government. Very little of our funding comes from the Government; but, they act as though all of it comes from the Government.

 It’s about 10% of the total station economy.  The total station economy is about $800 million a year; and about $90 million comes from the Federal Government.

Well, frankly, it is very clear that we would be better off in the long run without Federal funding. And the challenge right now is that if we lost it altogether, we would have a lot of stations go dark.

Speaking to why he felt that way: I think for independence, number one. Number two is that our job would be a lot easier if people weren’t confused — because we get Federal funding, a lot of Americans, a lot of philanthropists  actually think we get most of our money from the Federal government; even though NPR, as you know gets 1% and the station economy, as a whole, gets 10%.

NPR would definitely survive and most of the stations would survive.

Speaking of Zionist influence at NPR: I don’t actually find it at NPR; the zionist or pro-Israel even among funders. No. I mean it’s there in those who own newspapers, obviously; but no one owns NPR. So I, actually, I don’t find it … Right, because I think they are really looking for a fair point of view and many Jewish organizations are not. And frankly, many organizations, I’m sure there are Muslim organizations that are not looking for a fair point of view. They’re looking for a very particular point of view and that’s fine. We’re not one of them. I’m gathering that you’re not, actually.

And even around the Juan Williams issue, we had a very long discussion and they all agreed in the end — well of course you had to fire [Juan Williams]; but why they won’t say that?  [shaking his head] In all of the uproar, for example around Juan Williams, what NPR did, I’m very proud of and what NPR stood for is non-racist, non-bigoted, straightforward  telling of the news.

Our feeling is that if a person expresses his or her opinion, which anyone is entitled to in a free society, they are compromised as a journalist. They can no longer fairly report.  And the question that we asked internally was – Can Juan Williams, when he makes a statement like he made, can he report to the Muslim population and be believed? And the answer is no. He lost all credibility and that breaks your basic ethics as a journalist.  (To be continued.. TheProjectVeritas.com)

But hey, I’m sure National Propaganda Radio is every bit as fair in its coverage to the violent, unfair, ignorant, uneducated, anti-intellectual, xenophobic, seriously racist racist Republicans as they would be to the superior and enlightened Democrats.  In fact, it’s very difficult to discern any difference in Schiller’s views toward Republicans and Democrats, unless you look really, really hard.

I remember talking to a liberal professor a couple years back.  He literally compared allowing coverage of the conservative point-of-view to allowing a serious discussion about a “flat earth.”  On his view, it was idiotic to even allow conservatives to have a voice in any discussion.

And the most incredible thing of all was that after saying all of this, he made the astounding claim that his liberal point of view was “tolerant” and “open-minded.”

What this professor said was what most “journalists” think.  It just never occurs to them that conservatives might even possibly have a valid point, let alone think it’s necessary to cover the “flat earther” conservative position.  And these are our “gatekeepers” who get to decide what “all the news that’s fit to print” is.  And how to slant it.

All that said, obviously, conservatives should be forced to pay for propgandists who hate them and hate everything they stand for.

Wouldn’t it be nice if one day soon, liberals are forced to fund Rush Limbaugh with their tax dollars???

CNN Digs Furiously But Fails To Find Single Egyptian Willing To Give Obama Credit For Protests (Not That Reality Stops Them)

This was something else.  Anybody who thinks that the American mainstream media has any objectivity in it whatsoever should have to explain this.

From Yahoo Answers:

Did you have LOL at that CNN reporter digging for Egyptians to praise Obama for the revolution but couldn’t?
find any??? They all were like “Obama did nothing, we would have done this no mater who was President of your country” others were like “Obama did nothing in this revolution, if anything he just switched sides.” Then at the end the reporter gave up and signed off like, “It’s clear to say Egyptians have grown so excited now that Obama has thrown his support behind their cause” LOL it was pathetic

And one of the comments was:

I did! He tried over and over and over to find even one Egyptian who would praise the liberal messiah but found none. They could care less about him. He’s just as irrelevant there as he is here.

Someone else said:

That’s liberal journalism at its finest. lol First Obama tried to take credit for telling Mubarak to leave and when no one bought that the journalists have to jump in and try and save him.

Rush Limbaugh has a lot more to say about this (of course!).

I haven’t found the Youtube of this Nic Robertson piece yet.  I can imagine CNN hopes no one EVER finds it.  But when I do, I’ll post it here as an update.

What I DID find was the CNN transcript of this “breaking news” report.  Look the following over, read what Rush says about it, and then you tell me if Rush Limbaugh is mischaracterizing it in any way, shape or form:

CNN Breaking News, Aired February 11, 2011 – 15:00  ET

HALA GORANI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Are you able to — I don’t know if those in the square are aware that President Obama spoke about them and told the world, Egyptians have inspired us today.

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, let me, let me — Hala, let me to talk to a couple of people who are with me right now.

Ahmed (ph), you have been down here on the square for many days. The United States, the international community just listened to President Obama say that he will support, America will support Egypt if it wants help and assistance and hopes that there will be a good transition for jobs for the young people.

What would your message be for President Obama?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Actually, we’re very sad from Obama’s actions that he sometimes support the government, sometimes support the people.

We cannot actually (INAUDIBLE) his support. He serves for his own purposes. And for the youth, and we and the Egyptian people seek for our freedom and democracy. Any democratic country should seek for the best for the people, not for its own purpose.

ROBERTSON: And right now, President Obama is saying that he will give Egypt and the young people of Egypt whatever assistance they want if they want it and if they ask for it. Do you need assistance from the United States?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: For sure at the start of our revolution to build up the country again from the (INAUDIBLE) by the bad people here. We surely would need support for the first time, first year at least. But then I think we will be a country that depends on itself, and even should give support to other countries.

ROBERTSON: Thank you very much.

Just one moment again.

Mustafa (ph) — Mustafa is joining me now.

Mustafa, you’ve been a doctor in the hospital here. We have just heard President Obama say that he wants to extend support and assistance to Egypt and Egyptians if they want any, and he hopes that there are more jobs for young people in the future.

What is your message for President Obama?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, my message for President Obama is just, we started this revolution without any outside help, and we are going to finish it also without any outside help.

Of course, I’m thanking him for his spiritual support, but we don’t need any other extra support from him. I just want to say that this is just the beginning of the revolution. If everyone stayed for the next six months until the next presidential election, with this spirit (INAUDIBLE) here in the square, that means we are going to finish the road the right way.

We have seen everyone here in the street for the last two weeks. It was just marvelous. Everyone is doing (INAUDIBLE) job, doctors, workers, even little children who cleans the street. Everyone was supported by their own feelings. So, we can continue, and this is just the beginning.

ROBERTSON: And President Obama, especially important, said it was important that it went — had been peaceful mostly so far, and that it’s important that it continues peacefully, this revolution. Can it continue peacefully, do you think?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, that only depends on who is going to — who is going to be in charge here. The military is in charge. The military is having to use assistance from the Egyptian people.

So I think if the military kept being in charge for only the next six months, that would be great. Other than that, it’s going to be chaos. There’s one thing I’m afraid of is that, yes, in Tahrir Square, everything was perfect. But we lack leadership. I’m sorry to say this, but that’s the truth. We lack leadership. And right now, we need to develop some leadership, which is going to take us to the road of democracy for the next six months.

ROBERTSON: Where are you going to find those leaders? You’re young people. You came together through the Internet. You’ve been inspired. You’ve shown solidarity, support here. But where do you find those leaders?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, I’m afraid we have to find them. They are available, but for the last decades, there was no political scene in Egypt, so every leadership was demolished. So, that’s the problem we’re having right now. And that’s why we need this conditional six- month period for anticipation that this is only a transitional period.

ROBERTSON: Are you pleased that President Obama has come out however now and said he supports this change and supports the people and supports the young people and what they have done?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, actually, President Obama’s views were kind of conflicting during the last weeks.

But now that he’s saying that he is supporting the change, that’s a good thing after all. I’m sure that, after all, he’s pro-democracy. After all, he just can’t be pro anything else.

ROBERTSON: Mustafa, thank you so much.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK.

ROBERTSON: And, hopefully, no more casualties in your clinic —

(CROSSTALK)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you.

ROBERTSON: So, Hala, the view from here is one of very happy now to hear that President Obama has swung s behind the people here.

“The view from here” that Nic Robertson is talking about is the view of a man with his head shoved as far up his own ass as it can possibly go.  Sorry to be crude, but I’m just saying.

Do I even need to ask the question if CNN would be out furiously digging for Egytians willing to praise the president if that president’s name were, oh, George Bush?  Or name your Republican?  Rather, you know that the mainstream media would be crawling around like cockroaches searching for any scene that denounced Bush.  It’s the script.  It’s what CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC et al do for a living day in and day out.

Joseph Goebbels must be furious with CNN as his corpse spins demonically in the grave.  They are not good at their propaganda craft, even in spite of all their years of practice.  Rather, CNN has drank so much of its own Kool Aid that they just blithely assumed that the Egyptian people would be as eager to give Obama credit for the uprising as the mainstream media was.  And then they put a couple of people in front of the camera, trusting in their progressive liberal assbackward view of the world that these men would sing a beautiful operatic sonnet about how magnificent Obama is, and they’re like, “Why are you wasting our time asking us questions about this useless turd?”

If Goebbels’ “news media” had done a story on, say, how the people of Poland loved and welcomed their new fuhrer, they would have known that the people of Poland despised their new fuhrer.  And so as they grabbed some poor Pole out of the crowd, there might have been a few kidney punches to encourage him to tell the world how wonderful the Fuhrer is and all that.  But again, CNN just guzzled down their own Kool Aid and just ASSUMED that surely the people of Egypt must adore the Hussein as much as CNN does.  And what they say happens when you “ass-sume” remains true.  Because those Egyptian people rather clearly made a real ass out of CNN.

The Antichrist, the beast, is coming.  And the mainstream media will adore him even more than it adores Barack Obama.

P.S. For all the mainstream media’s glorified depiction of the Egyptian uprising as a bunch of George Washington’s heroically fighting for freedom while gratefully singing praises to Barack Obama for making the whole thing possible, the actual reality continues to be a very different thing.  Case in point: the female CBS reporter who was badly beaten and sexually assaulted in front of Egyptian women and members of the Egyptian military.

The Untold Story Of How A Man And His Gun Saved The Day During Tucson Shooting

One of the most heroic stories during the horrific shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and many others is the story of Joe Zamudio:

Joe Zamudio was buying a pack of cigarettes nearby when the first shots were fired. “I ran out the doors and there is a man running and he says, ‘Shooter. Shooter. Get down,'” says Zamudio.

John Blackstone: “You heard the shots and you went running toward the shots?”

Zamudio: “I know. That’s pretty crazy, huh?”

Well, certainly pretty incredible, anyway.  Just imagine yourself running – completely unarmed – toward a mass-murdering shooter.

Would you do that?  I sure don’t think I would.

Ah, but it turns out that neither did Zamudio.  Pay particular attention beginning at 4:39 in the Youtube video:

A transcript of the most relevant moment of the interview:

Ed Shultz: “Did you ever think of drawing your firearm or did you make the determination that you didn’t have to?”

Joe Zamudio: “Sir, when I came through the door I had my hand on the butt of my pistol and I clicked the safety off.  I was ready to kill him.  But I didn’t have to do that and I was very blessed that I didn’t have to go to that place.”

Schultz:  “You would have used that firearm?”

Zamudio:  “You’re damn right!”

And pardon my saying so, but damn right he was damn right.

But it’s important to recognize that Joe Zamudio did NOT run unarmed toward a killer who was gunning unarmed people down.  Joe Zamudio was armed himself.  Rather than being a helpless target, Joe Zamudio was a warrior who ran toward a shooting scene because he knew that he could fight the slimebag on his own terms.

Had he not been so armed, the events would almost certainly have been very different – and far more tragic.

It’s still not clear exactly what happened immediately before Joe Zamudio ran onto the scene and put the forces of light over the top in a deadly battle with the forces of darkness.

The man who started the takedown of monster Jared Loughner was a 74 year-old retired Army colonel named Bill Badger (and thank God for a soldier to have been in the right place at the right time) who had been shot in the head and bleeding heavily.  Somehow even though seriously wounded he managed to grab Loughner by the wrist and took the killer down to the ground.

Here’s the basic account from the Washington Post:

TUCSON, Ariz. — Three people helped subdue a gunman accused of attempting to assassinate Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killing six people at a political event in Arizona.

Pima Co. Sheriff Clarence Dupnik says Patricia Maisch (MAYSH) was waiting in line with her husband to get a photo with Giffords. When the shooting started, she ran up to the suspect and grabbed the empty magazine, then grabbed a full magazine as he was loading it into the gun.

Two men helped subdue the suspect – Roger Sulzgeber (SULZ-gay-ber), who was also in line, and Joseph Zimudie (Zah-MOO-die), who was at a nearby Walgreens and heard the shooting.

Maisch says she believes the two men got to the gun the same time she got to the magazine.

And here’s the account of 61 year-old heroine Patricia Maisch:

Ms Maisch told Channel 4 News that she had been waiting in line to meet the Congresswoman when she heard what she realised was a gunshot.

“In that split second I had to make a decision whether to run or to lay down on the ground,” she told our Washington Correspondent, Sarah Smith.

“I decided I would be a target if I ran because the gunman was now just steps from me and I lay down.”

A teenage girl next to her – being shielded by her mother – was shot three times.

“I was laying there on the concrete wondering how bad it was going to be and how it was going to hurt,” she said.

“And, instead of a gunshot , the shooter was now on the ground just on top of me nearly – and there were two gentlemen on top of him.

Somebody said ‘get the gun’, and I was already up on my knees and over his waist. The gun was out of my reach, but he was reaching into his pocket with his left hand and pulling out a magazine, which fell on the sidewalk.

“I managed to get the magazine before he could get it. I got it secure in my hand.”

While Ms Maisch knelt on the gunman’s legs and ankles to stop him flailing, she noticed that one of the men also helping hold him down was bleeding from a head wound

You get a sense of just how critical the moment was that Joe Zamudio sprinted onto the scene.  Patricia Maisch was lying on the ground waiting to die when all of a sudden a heroic struggle began to take place.

But just how long was a seriously wounded and bleeding 74 year-old man going to be able to take on and control a 22 year-old psychopath?  Not very.

Had Joe Zamudio not arrived at the moment he did, a terrible and tragic scene would have been at least TWICE as terrible and tragic.  Police were still minutes away.

And Joe Zamudio was able to race toward the gunfire when everyone else was literally running away from it because he was armed.  With a gun.

Now, allow me to digress for a moment to point out that most mainstream media accounts make out Patricia Maisch to be the hero who disarmed the shooter.  Why?  Well, because the colonel is a military man – and the left despises the military.  And Joe Zamudio (more about what the left says about him in a moment) was carrying a gun.  Which means he’s clearly a villain.

This is what we’ve got from ABC’s “The View” regarding what they think about Joe Zamudio – a guy who only selflessly raced from safety to confront a killer, turn the tide and saved a whole bunch of lives:

“Looks like white trash, talks like white trash and for all intents and purposes, IS WHITE TRASH. This thug said he “carries” a gun and unlocked the safety and was “ready to kill” (in his words). He later went on to say he was “blessed” that he didn’t have to. Can we say oxymoron here? Sickening.”

You and I have a very different notion of what is “sickening,” you slimeball.  Tag, you’re it.

I took a screenshot of ABC’s website, because you know this is going to be taken down – liberals and “moral courage” go together like peanut butter and spinach – and liberals will be denying that, yes, they really ARE this amazingly vile and loathsome:

[Click on image to enlarge]

How many times do I have to say this?  If you are a liberal, you ought to be ashamed.  Just ashamed.

And the above gets right to the heart of why I got into blogging: because while I haven’t had to display the courage of Joe Zamudio, I’ll be damned if I’m going to do nothing and allow depraved moral idiot liberal slimeballs like our example above to spew his filth.

The mainstream media leftists are going to tell this story in their own image, but the fact of the matter is that if it hadn’t been for that “white trash” “thug” Joe Zamudio and his gun, no rational mind even wants to think about how many more innocent people would have been murdered or terribly wounded.

There’s an interesting thing about such shootings involving crazed psychos: the degree of carnage is directly related to how long it takes before another gun shows up. The cities and states with the most restrictive gun control laws have the highest levels of gun violence because criminals don’t care about laws.

Listen To Mark Levin Utterly Destory Gloria Allred Over Her Despicable Exploitation Of Her Illegal Client

Two things come out of this radio interview of Gloria Allred by Mark Levin:

1) The peculiar form of mental retardation that is endemic in even the most brilliant liberals.  Listen to Gloria Allred repeatedly use every form of rhetorical jujitsu in order to make herself some kind of offended victim instead of just answering the damn question.  It is simply amazing, and frankly demented, how a liberal can go on a program and talk and talk and talk all the while complaining that she isn’t being allowed to talk.

Add to that the fact that Gloria Allred bizarrely becomes self-righteously indignant and refuses to use the term “illegal alien” even though Mark Levin spoke as a lawyer himself and was using “illegal alien” as a recognized legal term, which any lawyer worth cat feces would recognize.

2) The fact that Gloria Allred deliberately put this woman, who is, yes, AN ILLEGAL ALIEN, in direct legal jeopardy just so that Gloria Allred can pursue an ideological vendetta against a candidate for governor.

Now, two things should happen.

1) Gloria Allred’s client should be criminally prosecuted because of her fraudulent criminal falsification of documents in order to illegally obtain a job.  Then, after serving time in jail, she should be deported as a criminal illegal alien.  And why should these things happen?  Because Gloria Allred revealed the criminal activities of her client just to political attack a Republican candidate for governor.  Had Gloria Allred NOT revealed the criminal activities of her client, her client would have been able to get another $23-an-hour housekeeping position.

2) Gloria Allred should be disbarred for exploiting a client rather than representing that client’s best legal interest.  As attorney Mark Levin points out:

“When you represent a client, you have to make sure you are not exposing that client in other ways.  So I’m asking you: are you aware that your client forged or falsified a Social Security document?  Yes or no.”  Levin goes on to say, “I am accusing you of putting your client in legal jeopardy.  How do you respond?”

Gloria Allred “responds” by saying, “You know, even though my client is a housekeeper, and some people don’t respect a housekeeper, I happen to respect housekeepers.”

At this point, Levin impatiently says: “Aren’t you swell.  Now answer my question.”

Gloria Allred stupidly says, “I’m answering your question” [which she clearly isn’t].

Levin now explodes:

“You put your client in legal jeopardy!  I don’t need a lecture from a liberal about housekeepers!  I asked you about your client, and the legal jeopardy that your client is in now.”

And Allred proceeds to go on yet another morally insane lecture in which she self-righteously presents herself as standing up for the truth, and how Mark Levin – who is practically screaming for Gloria Allred to stop grandstanding and provide the facts – is afraid of the facts.  She mentions that her client – who was paid an incredible $23 an hour to do a menial job – was not reimbursed for all of her travel expenses.

Levin asks, “So you are aware that she falsified and forged a Social Security document.”

Allred pathetically says, “You want to attack a housekeeper.  You don’t want to deal with…”

Levin interrupts the – excuse my language – lower-lip-high bullshit.  And says:

“No, no.  I want to deal with YOU.  I want to deal with you as a fellow member of the Bar.  My question: 42 United States Code 408A18.  It’s a federal felony to forge or falsify a Social Security document.  And you’re telling me that your client came forward and said, “Okay.  Expose me to possible deportation.  Expose me to up to five years in prison,  I want my travel money?”

And Allred again self-righteously and pompously states that she would never tell anyone the conversation she had with her client.  Because it’s attorney-client privilege.  Which Gloria Allred apparently interprets as being allowed to destroy her client’s life at will and use her client’s destruction to advance liberal political partisan politics.

Levin says:

“It is absurd for you to say that you filed a complaint because she didn’t get reimbursed for her travel or what have you.  Yesterday, as a matter of fact, you filed it.  And you and the immigration attorney have exposed your client in my humble opinion to very, very serious matters which could cost her her liberty.  And your answer is that I don’t like housekeepers!  It’s you who apparently don’t like housekeepers.”

Gloria Allred repeatedly states that Mark Levin is afraid of the facts, and doesn’t want to deal with the facts – even though Levin is determined to get to them, and even though Allred is equally determined to whine about anything and everything BUT the facts.

And Gloria Allred refuses to disclose whether she is being paid by a third party – say, for example, the Jerry Brown for Governor campaign.

And what are the facts?  Other than the fact that Gloria Allred would be willing to watch her client get tortured and then burned alive if her screams and her ashes would help keep a Republican from being elected governor?

Meg Whitman relied on an employment agency that guaranteed to her that the housekeeper they sent was in the country legally.  She has a copy of Nicandra Diaz Santillan’s Social Security card and her California Driver’s license – which both indicate that Santillan was a legal resident.

In other words, it wasn’t that Whitman didn’t bother to check her housekeeper’s legal status: it was that she CLEARLY DID CHECK HER HOUSEKEEPER’S LEGAL STATUS, and an examination of the official state documentation provided by Santillan showed that Santillan was in fact legal.

So who is the criminal here?  It most certainly was not Meg Whitman; it was CRIMINAL ILLEGAL ALIEN Nicandra Diaz Santillan.  It was Santillan who committed felonies by using fraud to criminally obtain official government documents.

In exposing these facts about her client, Gloria Allred is all but guaranteeing that said client will be criminally prosecuted for multiple felonies, and then deported as a CRIMINAL ILLEGAL ALIEN.

And why does Gloria Allred destroy her client’s future?  Because she thought she had a “gotcha” document in the form of a letter sent by the Social Security Administration.  The letter was allegedly signed by gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman’s husband (Dr. Griffith Harsh), who had written on the letter, “Nicky (i.e., ILLEGAL ALIEN Nicandra Diaz Santillan who had criminally falsified her documents to get the job in the Whitman household), please look into this.”  And given the letter to the ILLEGAL ALIEN housekeeper.  And, of course, “Nicky” (did I mention she’s a criminal illegal alien) sat on the letter.  Until giving it to Gloria Allred.

Now, why does Meg Whitman’s husband write, “Nicky, please look into this”?  Because he was duped by a criminal.  He had no idea that this housekeeper had criminally falsified documents including a bogus Social Security Number in order to get the job which she had held for three years prior to the letter.

The letter, which Gloria Allred says proves that Meg Whitman knew she was employing an ILLEGAL ALIEN, in fact only proves that Meg Whitman’s HUSBAND (i.e. NOT Meg Whitman) was in fact ignorant that “Nicky” was an ILLEGAL ALIEN.  There is absolutely no evidence that Meg Whitman had ever seen the letter, or that her husband had informed her about it.

Which is to say husband Dr. Griffith Harsh assumed it was a minor paperwork issue BECAUSE HE TRUSTED A CRIMINAL ILLEGAL ALIEN WHO HAD SWINDLED THE COUPLE.

Here’s what Dr. Harsh says:

“While I honestly do not recall receiving this letter as it was sent to me seven years ago, I can say it is possible that I would’ve scratched a follow up note on a letter like this, which is a request for information to make certain Nicky received her Social Security benefits and W-2 tax refund for withheld wages,” he said. “Since we believed her to be legal, I would have had no reason to suspect that she would not have filled it in and done what was needed to secure her benefits.’‘

Harsh also wrote: “The essential fact remains the same, neither Meg nor I believed there was a problem with Nicky’s legal status and I certainly don’t recall ever discussing it with my wife, nor did I ever show her any letter about it. The facts of this matter are very clear: Ms. Diaz broke the law and lied to us and to the employment agency. When she confessed her deception to us last year, we ended her employment immediately.”

So much for the “smoking gun.”  It actually proves that the Dr. Harsh and Meg Whitman did NOT know that their housekeeper was in fact an ILLEGAL ALIEN.

Apparently, the heart of Gloria Allred’s case is that Meg Whitman should have known that all Hispanics are liars and criminals.  And even if a Hispanic has come from a legitimate employment agency, and even if that Hispanic has documents, that Meg Whitman should have realized that simply to be Hispanic is to be both a liar and a criminal.

So everyone should immediately fire any Hispanic under employment.  Because having documents means nothing.  You know that “those kind” will criminally produce fraudulent documents and then lie about it.

Liberals don’t give a leaping damn about Hispanics.  They would destroy them in a heartbeat if they voted Republican.  Just as Gloria Allred will destroy Nicandra Diaz Santillan in order to illegitimately demonize Meg Whitman.

And, as I’ve said over and over again, the quintessential element of a liberal is massive hypocrisy.  The same liberals who have done everything they can to cynically aggrandize themselves to criminal illegal aliens – including making it impossible to verify their illegal status – are now trying to crucify a Republican political candidate for not being able to do what liberals have spent years trying to keep them from doing.  All the while condemning as racist anyone even trying to do it to begin with.

I will always wonder how liberals’ heads don’t simply explode from trying to contain all the massive contradictions.

As a final note, if the media were even remotely fair in its coverage of this Glorai Allred political stunt, they would be asking the other gubernatorial candidate a question: given that Jerry Brown is the California Attorney General, why hasn’t he arrested Nicandra Diaz Santillan?

Obama AG Eric Holder Never Bothered To Read Arizona Law But Demonized It Anyway

This is how you can know that an issue has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with facts or principles or justice, and everything to do with political opportunism and blatant demagoguery.

Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder repeatedly appeared on national television to denounce and demonize the new Arizona anti-illegal immigration law, but never bothered to read the ten-page law for himself (a total of sixteen pages, counting all footnotes and addendums!).

Instead he relied upon mainstream media accounts.  Which is another way of saying, instead he relied upon leftwing propaganda, to make his determinations.

Apparently, the highest law enforcement official in the land will arrest you on the basis of some liberal loon’s opinion.  That is beyond incompetent; it’s dangerous.

Youtube video of Holder admitting he hadn’t read the law he demonized and threatened to use the full weight and power of the federal government to attack:

Here is a transcript of that encounter:

REPRESENTATIVE TED POE, (R-TEXAS): So Arizona, since the federal government totally fails to secure the border desperately then passed laws to protect its own people. The law is supported by 70 percent of the people in Arizona, 60 percent of all Americans, and 50 percent of all Hispanics according to the Wall Street Journal/NBC poll done just this week. And I understand that you may file a lawsuit against the law. Seems to me the Administration ought to be enforcing border security and immigration laws and not challenge them, and that the Administration is on the wrong side of the American people. Have you read the Arizona law?

ERIC HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL: I have not had a chance to, I’ve glanced at it. I have not read it.

POE: It’s ten pages. It’s a lot shorter than the healthcare bill which was 2,000 pages long. I’ll give you my copy of it if you would like to have a copy. Even though you haven’t read the law, do you have an opinion as to whether it’s Constitutional?

HOLDER: I have not really, I have not been briefed yet.

Later during his questioning, Poe further challenged the Attorney General:

POE: You have some concerns about the statute. It’s hard for me to understand how you would have concerns about something being un-Constitutional if you haven’t even read the law. Seems like you wouldn’t make a judgment about whether it violates civil rights statutes, whether it violates federal preemption concepts if you hadn’t read the law. So, can you help me out there a little bit, how you can make a judgment call on that, but you haven’t read the law and determined whether it’s Constitutional or not?

Holder’s response will even FURTHER amaze most Americans on both sides of the aisle:

HOLDER: Well, what I’ve said is that I’ve not made up my mind. I’ve only made, made the comments that I’ve made on the basis of things that I’ve been able to glean by reading newspaper accounts, obviously, looking at television, talking to people who are on the review panel, on the review team that are looking at the law. But I’ve not reached any conclusions as yet with regard to. I’ve just expressed concerns on the basis of what I’ve heard about the law. But I’m not in the position to say at this point, not having read the law, not having had the chance to interact with people doing the review, exactly what my position is.

Eric Holder relied on wildly inaccurate and biased news reports, and then went out and made several wildly inaccurate and biased statements to the press.

On April 28 Holder stated that the Arizona law is an “unfortunate one that I fear is subject to potential abuse” (video).   On May 9, Attorney General Holder was on Meet the Press and said the Arizona law “has the possibility of leading to racial profiling.” And on May 11, he said “I certainly think it’s divisive. I don’t think there is any question about that” (video).

And none of those demonic denunciations were based on the actual facts.  Eric Holder is reading the muckraking journalists and deciding to go to war on their urgings.

Meanwhile, the same Eric Holder who denounced and demonized Arizona refused – even after several requests – to acknowledge that radical jihadist Islam was even among the factors contributing to the terrorist attacks we’ve seen.  Which have ALL had radical Islam as the primary motive.

I just wish that Eric Holder had a tiny fraction of the respect for the rights of the citizens of Arizona that he has demonstrated for the radical jihadist Muslim terrorists who would gleefully murder every single one of us if they could.  Just a tiny fraction would do.

The only thing that there isn’t any question about is that Barack Obama’s attorney general is shockingly incompetent and partisan.  This is not about law, but about the rabid pursuit of political power and demagoguery of the worst kind.

Here is the entire text of the Arizona law (SB 1070).  I defy anyone to actually cite a passage that is racist, or which actively endorses any racist policy.

Obama’s Mentor/Pastor For 23 Years A Confirmed Marxist

Remember this poster?

I don’t know (or frankly care) what you thought about the “Obama as Joker” motif, but the label at the bottom is shockingly real.

We voted a Marxist into the White House.  Our greatest Democrat president of the last fifty years, John F. Kennedy, along with our greatest Republican president of the last fifty years, Ronald Reagan, are both rolling in their graves right now.  They dedicated themselves to fighting Marxism.  John F. Kennedy was actually murdered by a Marxist assassin.  And yet, tragically, the country these two great men left behind actually invited a Marxist into the White House.

During the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama said, “Judge me by the people with whom I surround myself.”

Obama has surrounded himself with all sorts of incredibly radical and extremist figures (see here for a small sample), but none was more of a sustained influence on him than the man whom Obama chose to be his pastor and spiritual mentor for 23 years – the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

This is from Jeremiah Wright’s September 17, 2009 speech honoring the socialist Monthly Review. As Jeremiah Wright puts it, Monthly Review offers what it calls “no-nonsense Marxism.”

Jeremiah Wright knew where he was and why he was there.  He delivered his speech from prepared written remarks.  He praised the self-acknowledged-socialist Monthly Review as “a forum for commentary and analysis from a specifically socialist perspective.”  He lauded the publication for its “no-nonsense Marxism.”

He said, “You dispel all the negative images we have been programmed to conjure up with just the mention of that word socialism or Marxism.”

Wright salutes and praises “six decades of dedicated [Marxist] service.”

The man who Barack Hussein Obama chose to follow for 23 years, to be his teacher, his mentor, his spiritual guide -the man he chose to marry him to his wife and baptize his children – expressed his view of the United States of America as follows:

“the land of the greed and the home of the slave.”

Which of course reminds us of the fact that Barack Obama sat in a church whose pastor said things like:

“No, no, no.  Not God bless America; God damn America.”

Take a tour of how Barack Obama’s pastor for 23 years routinely preached evil of America and Americans.

Are you aware that that’s how your new president thinks of you?

Barack Hussein Obama’s spiritual leader and mentor for 23 years says of Marxist ideology went on to say to an audience of socialists:

“Thank you for fulfilling the invaluable purpose … [of] offering insights that force your readers to wrestle with reality in some new and exciting ways, moving us inch by inch from a herd mentality to a place where we have to come to grips with the uncomfortable truths with our world.”

This “moving us inch-by-inch” thing is frightening.  What kind of place are we being led to?  Well, let’s find out.  The man who introduced Jeremiah Wright was Robert W. McChesney, who wrote an article entitled, “Journalism, Democracy, and Class Struggle,” in which he declared, “Our job is to make media reform part of our broader struggle for democracy, social justice, and, dare we say it, socialism.”

And of course Obama has surrounded himself with radical Marxists who in his administration who are working to do that very thing.  There’s Obama’s Communications Director Anita Dunn, who in addition to being a demagogue warring against a free press is also an admitted follower of Maoist communist ideology.  There’s Obama’s FCC Diversity Czar Mark Lloyd who praised Venezuelan socialist dictator Hugo Chavez, and praised Chavez’ seizure and control of the media.  There’s Obama’s manufacturing czar Ron Bloom, who called the free market “nonsense” and said, “We kind of agree with Mao.”  We can add Obama’s former Green Jobs Czar Van Jones, who was not only an admitted communist, but a man who held all kinds of frightening extremist positions.

And there’s Obama himself who wrote in his Dreams of My Father book:

“To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully.  The more politically active black students.  The foreign students.  The Chicanos. The Marxist Professors and the structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.”

And before Obama surrounded himself with all those Marxist professors, he was mentored in Hawaii by communist Frank Marshall Davis.  And after those Marxist professors, Obama chose to go to Jeremiah Wright’s black liberation theology (i.e. Marxist) church.

At some point if you are not a complete fool you seriously need to ask yourself WHY Barack Hussein Obama chose to  spend 23 years in a Marxist “black liberation” church that preached anti-white racist hatred and anti-Americanism.  As I pointed out back in March of last year:

Liberation theology was developed in the early 1970s to pave the way for the communist Sandinistas to infiltrate – and subsequently dominate – Nicaraguan society. The Sandinistas understood full well that they had no hope of installing a Marxist regime in a country that was well over 90% Roman Catholic unless they could successfully subsume Catholicism into their cause of Marxism. And the wedding of Marxism with Christianity was brought about in a clear effort of the former to crush the latter.

Where are these people leading us?  Toward their ideology, toward Marxism.  Inch-by-inch whenever necessary; yard-by-yard whenever possible.  But there is one direction this “change” is heading.

McChesney co-authored an article in Monthly Review entitled, “A New New Deal Under Obama?”  And he said about Obama’s New Deal, “In the end, there is no real answer but to remove brick by brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles.”

The goal of these Marxists radicals is to overthrow the capitalist free market system that has made America the greatest, most powerful, and most free nation on earth and impose a socialist system in its place.  Think Cloward-Piven strategy, the strategy for forcing political change through orchestrated crisis:

This was an example of what are commonly called Trojan Horse movements — mass movements whose outward purpose seems to be providing material help to the downtrodden, but whose real objective is to draft poor people into service as revolutionary foot soldiers; to mobilize poor people en masse to overwhelm government agencies with a flood of demands beyond the capacity of those agencies to meet. The flood of demands was calculated to break the budget, jam the bureaucratic gears into gridlock, and bring the system crashing down. Fear, turmoil, violence and economic collapse would accompany such a breakdown — providing perfect conditions for fostering radical change. That was the theory.

Let’s take a moment to learn about what two men who have regularly visited the Obama White House have said.

George Soros is a terrible and evil man.  He has been such ever since he was a Nazi collaborator during his youth.  Given the fact that “NAZI” was merely an abbreviated form of “Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei” (National Socialist German Workers Party), it was never far for him to go to embrace the liberal socialism of his fellow fascists.

George Soros – the money behind many liberal organizations such as MoveOn.org – has visited the Obama White House four times.  And what is the message he is communicating to Obama?  Something very much like this:

But the system we have now has actually broken down, only we haven’t quite recognized it and so you need to create a new one and this is the time to do it.

It’s like Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel says: “Never let a serious crisis go to waste.  What I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things you couldn’t do before.”

And the fact that your ideological brethren have deliberately created the crisis is really besides the point.  What matters is “change.”

Andrew Stern, the president of the historically thuggish (and see here) SEIU (Service Employees International Union) that gave $60 million to buy the Obama presidency, has been at the White House 22 times.  When he visits Obama, he has  stuff like this to say:

ANDY STERN: And we are beginning. We have offices now in Australia and Switzerland and London and South America and Africa. We’ve been working with unions around the world. And what we’re working towards is building a global organization because “Workers of the world, unite!” — it’s not just a slogan anymore. It’s a way we’re going to have to do our work.

That little slogan “Workers of the world, unite!” comes directly from The Communist Manifesto. Stern is quite the  fan of Marxism.

STERN: We’re trying to use the power of persuasion. And if that doesn’t work, we’re going to use the persuasion of power because there are governments and there are opportunities to change laws that affect these companies. And I’m not naive. We’re ready to strike.

This White House visitor sounds like a union thug.

From Chicago Public Radio, WBEZ, February 20, 2007:

NARRATOR: It started last summer with the so-called Big Box Ordinance. Labor wanted it. Business didn’t.

STERN: We took names. We watched how they voted. We know where they live.

NARRATOR: In October, Andy Stern, the president of the Service Employees International Union:

STERN: There are opportunities in America to share better in the wealth, to rebalance the power. And unions and government are part of the solution.

We know that Obama is on the same page as Stern regarding spreading the wealth around.  I mean, after all, our first Marxist president is already on the record wanting to spread the wealth around.

Obama is still with SEIU.  He vowed to “paint the nation purple,” the colors of SEIU.  Stern’s quoting Karl Marx, promising to use thuggish “persuasion of power tactics,” and using the power of government to impose the hardcore union agenda on the country, doesn’t frighten Obama away.  Quite the opposite.  And Obama is still supporting the ACORN agenda (just a little more quietly since it became public that this leftwing organization is so vile it was actually willing to help a prostitute cheat the tax system to buy a house in order to import underage illegal immigrant girls to start a brothel).

We are at a crisis point in which we could literally implode under the massive weight of our own debt.  But instead of slowing down our deficit spending, Obama is actually stomping on the accelerator and increasing our speed as we hurtle off the cliff.  Because his people have a plan to take rapid political advantage of the ensuing chaos and fear.

Under Obama, even the former communists in Russia who used to write the propaganda for the Soviets are shaking their heads in amazement over how quickly we are speeding toward our societal demise.

Interview With Tim Geithner, Poster Boy For An Administration That Has No Clue

From NBC’s “Meet the Press,” with David Gregory interviewing Treasury Secretary ‘Turbo Tax’ Timothy Geithner.

SEC’Y GEITHNER:  You know, what the government did was to step in and make sure we’re providing the tax cuts and investments necessary to arrest the crisis, get credit markets starting to open up again.  And we did that, that plan worked.  But we’ve got a ways to go before…

GREGORY:  But that’s a big question, whether or not–yes, you have growth for the first time in four quarters.  But is any of this growth sustainable without government intervention?

SEC’Y GEITHNER:  It will be, it will be.  But what the government has to do in a crisis is to provide a bridge until the economy can repair itself and businesses are confident enough to start to invest again.  And again, you’re starting to see it again.  Businesses now, I think they’ll say–you talk to people across the country, they’ll say that they feel that things are more stable now and for the first time they see orders starting to pick up.  And what’ll happen is they’ll start to invest again, they’ll start to bring people back onto their payroll and this will get more momentum.

GREGORY:  But that happened hasn’t yet–hasn’t happened yet.  We’ll get into that a little bit more in just a minute.

The question about consumer spending that really drove the market down on Friday, it’s off, biggest level that it’s been off in nine months.  Again, people are not consuming.

SEC’Y GEITHNER:  There’s nothing new in those numbers on Friday.  They were in the GDP report.  No incremental news in those numbers.  So again, the overall picture for the economy is that consumers are a little more confident now, confident enough to start to spend again, investments starting to spend again. You know, there was another number on Friday that showed business confidence, in the Chicago survey, showing a little more optimism about the future, too. And–but, you know, again, this is a tough economy still, it’s going to take some time.  But we’re committed to making sure we’re reinforcing this progress we’ve seen.

But that is just a load of baloney, as Gregory pointed out.  Here’s a link to an AP article bearing the title, “Consumer Spending At Lowest In 9 Months.”  And the opening paragraph of that article begins with the words, “Consumer spending plunged in September by the largest amount in nine months.” [I used a different article because I know how articles that don’t pitch the Obama line tend to get deleted].

Seriously, exactly which part of that does Mr. Boy Genius Tim Geithner – who was so brilliant that we desperately needed him even though he was too incompetent or dishonest (or both!) to know how to pay his own taxes – fail to understand?  Consumers AREN’T “a little more confident,” Turbo Tax; they’re a LOT LESS confident!

The “growth” in GDP was almost entirely fueled by government spending.  That is a trend toward utter catastrophe and Zimbabwe-like hyperinflation, rather than anything positive.  It is absolutely unsustainable.  It is a terrible sign of artificially-generated growth by debt-fueled spending, rather than a sign for any kind of hope.

When our Treasury Secretary has his head so buried up Obama’s butt that he can’t understand simple realities, we are in a giant load of trouble.  And the anvil is being cued to drop as we speak.

Let’s go on.  Maybe Geithner and the Obama administration have some kind of solution, some kind of plan to help get us out of the problem they don’t even understand exists in the first place:

GREGORY:  Do we need another cash for clunkers program to stimulate the economy?

SEC’Y GEITHNER:  I don’t think at the moment–well, let me start this way, David.  About half of the money in the Recovery Act, tax cuts and investments, are still ahead of us.  So there’s a lot of force still moving its way through the system now, and you’re going to see that continue to provide support for the economy going forward.

I interrupt at this point to point out that the Obama administration is literally refuting itself here  Geithner says the stimulus is going to creating beneficial impact.  But Obama’s chair for his Council for Economic Advisers claimed the exact opposite, saying:

“By mid-2010, fiscal stimulus will likely be contributing little to further growth.”

So which is it?

And pardon me while I mockingly laugh at an administration that is publicly literally talking out of both sides of their mouth at the same time.

In any event, when Geithner confidently declares that the stimulus that never really did squat in the first place is going to continue to continue to produce wonderful changes in the first place, you don’t have to go any farther than another key Obama official to see that that just isn’t true.

I’ve also got to point out that it is increasingly obvious that the cash for clunkers program was an unmitigated disaster.  First of all, it is now a documented fact that all the cash for clunkers program did was spur people to buy cars they were already going to buy within a matter of a few months anyway.  All the government did was move 4th quarter car sales into the 3rd quarter.  Second, we now know that the best and most impartial evidence demonstrates that the taxpayers forked out a whopping $20,000 for every car sold under the program.

In other words, it was an even bigger disaster than Republicans predicted it would be when they overwhelmingly opposed the program.

But we continue with Gregory and Geithner:

GREGORY:  Could you have had more impact if more of that money were paid out? You still have about $500 billion of the stimulus that has not been paid out yet.  How long will it take to get paid out?

SEC’Y GEITHER: Actually, I–again, it was designed to pay out over two years, because we knew it was going to take a long time to repair the damage we started with earlier this year.  So it was designed to pay out over this period of time.  And I think it’s actually delivering better results sooner than we would expect.  I think we’re seeing better outcomes in the financial sector, in the economy than many of us would’ve thought when we sat there with the president in Chicago at the end of last year.

GREGORY:  Right.  Well, but that’s not exactly true, because the president’s team said you’d keep unemployment to 8 percent if you didn’t have the stimulus, so.

SEC’Y GEITHNER:  No.  No, you’re right, the unemployment is worse than almost everybody expected.  But growth is back a little more quickly, a little stronger than people thought, and growth is a necessary condition.  With growth jobs will come, but growth has to come first.  But just look at the financial sector.  You know, you’ve had banks repaying money with interest. Taxpayers are getting substantial earnings on this big investment in the financial system, and that’s delivering good, good returns for the American taxpayer.

Again, Geithner is utterly filled with fecal matter.

“Unemployment is worse than almost anybody thought”?  That was basically Vice President Biden’s line back in July.  And it was utterly idiotic when Biden said it back then.  Apparently, the Obama administration only has ears that hear liberals’ prognostications.  Republicans widely predicted the stimulus would utterly fail to create jobs.  That was why virtually every single one of them voted against it.  All kinds of economists said it would fail.  But they suffered from the flaw of not being liberals.

When high-level officials like Biden and Geithner say things like, “almost everybody was just shocked,” it shows how utterly insulated and ignorant these clowns who are running our government truly are.

Basically, 47% of the country didn’t vote for Obama.  And the 47% were the ones who turned out to be right.

The Obama administration consists on a bunch of weasels who are trying to dodge their central economic claim.  They said their massive stimulus (which actually cost taxpayers $3.27 TRILLION, by the way) would prevent unemployment from reaching 8%.  They were wrong.  Everything they thought was wrong.  And now “everybody” but them should be held responsible for their failure.

GREGORY:  Let’s talk about claims of success about jobs.  The White House says 640,000 jobs have been created or saved by the $800 billion stimulus.  There are Republicans who say the number is bogus, that it’s just PR.  John Boehner, leader of the Republicans in the House, as you well know, circulated a quote from an economist at Carnegie, Carnegie Mellon University, and I’ll put it up on the screen and you can look at it:  “One can search economic textbooks forever without finding a concept called `jobs saved.’ It doesn’t exist for good reason:  how can anyone know that his or her job has been saved?” You’ve got a lot of experience in the economy.  Is this PR or fact?

SEC’Y GEITHNER:  This is fact.  Again, at–when the president took office, this economy was falling at the rate of 6.5 percent at an annual rate per year, fastest rate in decades.  We were losing three-quarters of a million jobs a month.  Now, the pace of job loss has slowed dramatically, the economy’s now growing again.  It’s growing not just because the effects of the Recovery Act.  Many people opposed the Recovery Act, said it wasn’t going to work.  It’s working, it’s delivering what it should result–what it should, it should produce.  Value of Americans’ savings are up almost 35 percent since the beginning of the year.  Interest rates down.  These are substantially powerful returns on the Recovery Act, and they are delivering what they were designed to deliver.

GREGORY:  OK.  What is a saved job?  How do you measure that?

SEC’Y GEITHNER:  A, a saved–well…

GREGORY:  It’s not something an economist recognizes as an actual fact.

Thank you, David Gregory.  You must work for Fox News, given the fact that the White House has been demonizing Fox News as a propaganda outlet due to the fact that it presents the facts rather than Obama’s propaganda.

The Associated Press joined Fox News in Barry Obama’s doghouse by pointing out the fact that the administration was playing all kinds of ridiculous shenanigans with their job claims.

And we can go back months into the past and see that the Obama administration has stubbornly insisted as stating as fact what was months ago revealed to be blathering nonsense:

Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX): “The administration, including the vice president, has claimed that stimulus policies have added 150,000 new jobs to the level of employment. We see this cited almost daily by the administration. Can you substantiate that claim?”

Mr. Keith Hall, Commissioner Of Bureau Of Labor Statistics: “No. That would be a very difficult thing for anybody to substantiate.”

“Created or saved” is a meaningless superficial category created by meaningless superficial people to advance a meaningless superficial agenda.

It doesn’t matter how deceitful the Obama’s bogus claims are, because they are liars without shame and they don’t give a damn about reality.  And they can’t solve the unemployment problem because they can’t get past their own propaganda.

Gregory goes on a little later and points out:

GREGORY:  Right.  But my, but my point is that this should not be overstated, the impact of the stimulus should not be overstated.  Here’s the facts about how many jobs have been lost since the stimulus:  2.7 million.  And you’ve got 14 states who have double-digit unemployment.  You can look at the top five, with Michigan at the top with 15.3 percent unemployment.  So you say it could’ve been a lot of worse.

SEC’Y GEITHNER:  David…

GREGORY:  A, it’s still very bad, and B, the stimulus has had only a minimal effect.

SEC’Y GEITHNER:  Actually–no, no, I wouldn’t say that.  I said actually, even those numbers understate it, because there’s lots of people who are underemployed, working less they would like.  So again, this is a very tough economy.  It’s only been three initial months of positive growth.  It’s going to take some time for unemployment to come down and for jobs to get created again.  And that’s why it’s important to–for people to recognize that we have a responsibility to keep working at this so we’re reinforcing the recovery.

GREGORY:  How high will unemployment go, do you think?

SEC’Y GEITHNER:  Don’t know for sure, but it’s likely still rising and it, it probably going to rise further before it starts to come down again.

GREGORY:  Double digits?

SEC’Y GEITHNER:  Most economists think we’ll probably get there, and–but again, the economists think–and, you know, there’s a lot of uncertainty in this.  Economists don’t know that, don’t know that much about the future, David.  But they say that they think we’ll start to see net jobs created at the beginning of the year, sometime around the beginning of the year, in the first quarter sometime.

I have to begin by correcting David Gregory.  He said that Obama had lost 2.7 million jobs since he passed his stimulus.  ABC News, reporting facts from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, had a very different number:

Approximately 3.3 million jobs have been lost since the stimulus act passed, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

But what are 600,000 jobs between friends?

And when Geither says that “most economists think we’ll get [to double digit unemployment], realize that we are going to get there VERY SOON.  Geithner is talking about the wonderful effect the stimulus has had on employment even as the unemployment rate is expected to climb to at least 10% when the Bureau of Labor Statistics figures for October come out.

And respected economic analysts such as Meredith Whitney – who accurately predicted the 2008 economic crash when most of her fellows were whistling a very different tune – has gone on the record predicting unemployment rates of 13% or higher in our future.

Okay.  Things are bad and they’re going to get a lot worse.  But the Obama adminstration has some kind of plan, right?  I mean, RIGHT?

Nope.  Beyond “Blame Bush,” they’ve got NOTHING.

GREGORY:  What should the administration be going specifically to reduce unemployment at this point?

SEC’Y GEITHNER:  The most important thing is to get growth growing again at a strong pace.

GREGORY:  Right.  But what can the government…

SEC’Y GEITHNER:  That’s the most…

GREGORY:  …what should the government be doing?

SEC’Y GEITHNER:  The government’s doing exactly what it should be doing. It’s, it’s making sure that there are tax cuts to business and families, investments in improving infrastructure, creating incentives for businesses to spend again, relief for state and local governments and getting this financial system back on its feet.

Gregory could have pointed out that the government ISN’T actually doing ANY of these things.  Tax cuts?  They plan tax increases.  What the Obama administration calls “tax cuts” have been “redistribution of wealth” as the government takes money away from producers and hands it to non-producers.  And to small businesses?  Are you joking? Geithner claims that stimulus investments have imporoved infrastructure.  The problem is and always has been that not enough of the stimulus program ever went to infrastructure in the first place.  And what exactly what incentives has Obama provided for businesses to spend again?  The fact is, Obama is trying to force businesses to spend more on healthcare, more on job-killing minimum wages, more on electricity, all of which will result in them having a lot LESS to spend on anything else.

That’s okay though, I suppose.  Geithner would have spent the rest of his time quibbling over details and pumping sunshine if Gregory had stopped him at his last paragraph.

What Gregory did was continued to push Geithner for SOMETHING that Obama could offer as an economic solution.  Something.  Anything.  And Geithner had nothing.

GREGORY:  But do you need more stimulus?

SEC’Y GEITHNER:  I don’t think we need to make that judgment yet, David. Again, there’s–about half of the money committed by the Congress is still working its way through the system by design.  It was designed to work over two years.  So we’re not in a position yet where we need to make a choice about whether it’s going to take more than that…

GREGORY:  Right.

[Please go back to what I demonstrated earlier, i.e., that Obama’s own chair for the Council of Economic Advisers actually said the precise opposite.]

We now continue the documentary about the fact that Tim Geithner and Barry Obama have absolutely no clue whatsoever how to fix the economy.

SEC’Y GEITHNER:  …to bring growth back.  And again, that’s only a bridge. You’re not going to get real recovery until it’s led by the private sector, by businesses.

GREGORY:  So I want to be clear, additional stimulus you don’t think is needed right now.

SEC’Y GEITHNER:  Not, not yet.  Now, Congress is looking at extending unemployment insurance, some other targeted programs that would expire without additional action.  You’ve heard Congress today–you heard–saw Congress this week start to talk about extending the first-time homebuyer tax credit, some other measures.  We think those will be helpful things for the economy as a whole, and they’ll also provide some added support.

GREGORY:  Let me talk about the deficit and the debt.  These are alarming numbers, you said they are.  Let’s look at the deficit since Inauguration Day: $1.2 trillion, now $1.4 trillion; it’s up 17 percent.  The overall debt, Inauguration Day:  $10.6 trillion, now $11.9 trillion.  What’s it going to be a year from now?

SEC’Y GEITHNER:  Well, it’s going to have to come down.  Now it’s too high, and I think everybody understands this.  You know, we’ve got these two central imperatives:  restore growth, create jobs.  But make sure people understand we’re going to have to bring those fiscal deficits down as growth recovers. First growth, though.  Without growth, you can’t fix those long-term fiscal problems.  But you’re not going to have a recovery that’s going to be strong enough unless people are confident we’re going to have the will to go back to live within our means.

GREGORY:  How do you bring it down, though?  Do taxes have to go up?

SEC’Y GEITHNER:  Well, we’re going to have to do–we’re going to have to make some hard choices.  The–but we’re not really at the point yet, David, we’re going to know what’s going to be the best path forward.  The president’s very committed to bring down these deficits, and he’s very committed to doing so in a way that’s not going to add to the burden on people, people making less than $250,000 a year.

GREGORY:  But wait a minute, though, what are hard–I mean, I think a lot of people, it’s fair to say, what are hard choices?  I mean, what hard choices have been made so far?  Are you going to raise taxes?

SEC’Y GEITHNER:  We’re going to have to bring our resources and our expenditures more into balance.

GREGORY:  So it’s possible.

SEC’Y GEITHNER:  Well, again, the president’s committed to make sure we get this economy back on track.  We’re bringing down this deficit over time.  And to do so…

GREGORY:  Mr. Secretary, you talked about hard choices, so why can’t you give a straight answer to whether taxes have to come up…

SEC’Y GEITHNER:  Because…

GREGORY:  …when you have a deficit this big?

SEC’Y GEITHNER:  Because, David, right now we’re focused on getting growth back on track, OK, and we’re not at the point yet we have to decide exactly what it’s going to take.  And I just want to say this very clearly.  He was committed in the campaign to make–he said in the campaign and he is committed to make sure we do this in a way that is not going to add to the burden on people making less than $250,000 a year.  Now, it’s going to be hard to do that, but he’s committed to doing that and we can do that.

GREGORY:  You can do it, but it’s still a chance that you’d have to raise taxes and go back on that if you’ve got a debt this big.

SEC’Y GEITHNER:  We’re going to have to do it in a way that’s going to help to meet that test, meet that commitment, the commitment he made, to do it in a way that’s fair to Americans and make sure we do it in a way that’s going to allow–provide for growth and recovery going forward.  But we can do this. You know, this is not beyond our capacity as a country to do.

GREGORY:  But…

SEC’Y GEITHNER:  But first things first.

GREGORY:  Right.

SEC’Y GEITHNER:  And unless we have a recovery, our long-term debts are going to be worse.  Now, you didn’t raise health care yet, but what’s happening on health care now is very encouraging.  Because if you look at what independent analysts say now, if you look at these bills moving their way through the Congress, they will make a substantial difference in reducing the rate of growth in healthcare costs over the long term and they will help bring down those long-term deficits.

GREGORY:  But there is going to be a heavy burden on the middle-class through, through health care by taxes going up, by premiums going up.  It will affect the middle-class.

SEC’Y GEITHNER:  You know, I, I, I don’t think that’s the way to look at it. The–our tax–our healthcare system today imposes enormous burdens not just on businesses, but on families.  There are very high hidden costs to our current system.  And the best way to add to our long-term deficits, and the best way to add to those burdens is not reform health care today.

GREGORY:  But it doesn’t answer the question about premiums going up with an individual mandate and taxes going up on so-called Cadillac plans and other parts of this bill as they’re moving their way through the process that would increase taxes.

SEC’Y GEITHNER:  Right.  Again, I don’t think that’s the right way to think about it.  I think you have to look at the entire system today and the cost that presents.  And if you look at those…

GREGORY:  Well, why isn’t that the right way to look at it if that’s the reality of what the legislation would do?

SEC’Y GEITHNER:  No.

GREGORY:  How else should it be looked at?

SEC’Y GEITHNER:  Well…

GREGORY:  Yes, there are, there are ballooning costs with the existing system, but the remedy still includes tax cuts–tax hikes, does it not?

SEC’Y GEITHNER:  No.  What the, what the bills moving through Congress do, and these are very important, they expand coverage, they will make care more affordable and they will reduce the rate of growth in healthcare costs.  And in that sense they’re going to provide a more fair system, so families are not going to live with the fear that if they lose their job they’re going to lose health care, they’re going to be denied healthcare coverage and they’re going to be able to afford a basic package of care that’s going to make sure they can provide for their families.

GREGORY:  Just a couple of minutes left…

Gregory turned the discussion to bonuses to AIG executives.

I’m not even going to begin to get into the terrible calamity that Obamacare will be if it passes.  Costs will go up massively.  People will pay more and get less.  There will be rationing.  A lot of people will unnecessarily die early deaths of medical neglect.

In what may be the most frightening thing of all to those who value liberty, the phrase “shall” granting the government sweeping powers and responsibilities appears a whopping 3,425 times.  That’s three thousand, four hundred and twenty-five times the government forces you to do something.  This is legislation that will give the government an all-encompassing mandate to dominate our lives.

And about the taxes Gregory mentioned?  Here’s a fun little trivia fact you can know about the 1,990 page health care bill:

According to that group, along with the word “shall” being used 3,425 times in the legislation, the word “tax” was used 87 times, “taxable” used 62 times, “excise tax” used ten times, “taxes” used 15 times, “fee” used 59 times, and “penalty” used 113 times. They also provided a list of 13 specific tax hikes contained within the bill, and even were so kind to include page numbers.

You want taxes?  Then you’ll LOVE H.R. 3692:

October 29th, 2009 by Legislative Staff

1. SMALL BUSINESS SURTAX (Sec. 551, p. 336) – $460.5 BILLION
   
2. EMPLOYER MANDATE TAX* (Secs. 511-512, p. 308) – $135.0 BILLION
   
3. INDIVIDUAL MANDATE TAX* (Sec. 501, p. 296) – $33 BILLION
   
4. MEDICAL DEVICE TAX* (Sec. 552, p. 339) – $20 BILLION
   
5. $2,500 ANNUAL CAP ON FSAs* (Sec. 532, p. 325) – $13.3 BILLION
   
6. PROHIBITION ON PRE-TAX PURCHASES OF OVER-THE-COUNTER DRUGS THROUGH HSAs, FSAs, and HRSs* – (Sec. 1802, p. 1162) – $2.0 BILLION
   
7. TAX ON HEALTH INSURANCE POLICIES TO FUND COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH TRUST FUND* (Sec. 1802, p. 1162) – $2.0 BILLION
   
8. 20% PENALTY ON CERTAIN HAS DISTRIBUTIONS* (Sec. 533, p. 326) – $1.3 BILLION
   
9. OTHER TAX HIKES AND INCREASED COMPLIANCE COSTS ON U.S. JOB CREATORS – $56.4 BILLION
   • IRS reporting on payments to certain businesses (Sec. 553, p. 344) – $17.1 BILLION
     
   • Delay implementation of worldwide interest allocation rules (Sec. 554, p. 345) – $26.1 BILLION
     
   • Override U.S. Treaties on certain payments by “insourcing” businesses (Sec. 561, p. 346) – $7.5 BILLION
     
   • Codify economic substance doctrine and impose penalties (Sec. 562, p. 349) – $5.7 BILLION
10. OTHER REVENUE-RAISING PROVISIONS – $3.0 BILLION

TOTAL TAX INCREASES: $729.5 BILLION

*Violates President Obama’s pledge to avoid tax increases on Americans earning less than $250,000

My point in bringing this to you was simply to point out that if you have ever seen a circus that featured a bunch of clowns wildly driving around and crashing into each other in little clown cars or tricycles, you pretty much understand what it looks like inside the White House.

These people have no clue.

And the new United States of America under Obama, launched with such great fanfare, is – like the Titanic – on a collision course with a giant iceberg.