POLITICALPYRO CONTRIBUTORS

Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter reacts to former President George Bush’s speech he gave in opening his policy institution Thursday in which he described response to the crashing economy.

Olbermann Is the Obama Administrations Bukaki Queen…

Perusing the news today I came upon this piece of steamy excrement from across the pond.

Groups Ban Words That Might Offend
By STEVE PENDLEBURY, AOL News

(Aug. 25) — There’s a gentleman’s agreement among language masterminds at some public agencies in Britain that writing this sentence would put a black mark on your record.

Dozens of taxpayer-funded organizations have ordered workers not to use certain common terms because they might offend some people, according to London newspapers. The National Gallery warned that “gentleman’s agreement” is sexist. The same goes for “right-hand man.” (Could that be seen as a slap at southpaws, too?)

Britain’s South West Regional Development Agency is among those trying to rub out “black mark,” “black sheep” and other phrases that cast black in a negative light. Skills should be “perfected,” not “mastered,” according to the Learning and Skills Council. Newcastle University even has a problem with “master bedroom,” The Sunday Times of London reported.

Author Anthony Horowitz thinks the push for politically correct language has gone too far.

“A great deal of our modern language is based on traditions which have now gone but it would be silly — and extremely inconvenient — to replace them all,” Horowitz told the Times. “We know what these phrases mean and we can find out from where they were derived. Banning them is just unnecessary.”

But language constantly changes and author Rosalie Maggio sees nothing wrong with finding alternatives to these troublesome phrases.

“Almost all of them are cliches,” Maggio told AOL News. “They’re outdated. They have no more meaning.

“For me, language that is inclusive or unbiased is actually fresher,” said Maggio, whose books include ‘The Dictionary of Bias-Free Usage’ and ‘The Nonsexist Word Finder.’ “A ‘fireman’ could be a guy on a train. ‘Firefighter’ tells you — it’s an action verb. … It tells you what they do. A mail carrier carries mail. A firefighter fights fires.”

It’s not just the Brits. Americans argued over words such as “snowperson” and “personhole” decades ago, Maggio recalled, with talk radio whipping up the debate over political correctness.

“It brings back the ’80s to me,” writer/composer/satirist Christopher Cerf agreed. “I always thought this was a movement that became comical. And though it was well-intended at first, it probably did more harm than good in some ways because it made people make fun of sensitive speech instead of actually trying to be sensitive.

“There is insensitive speech, but I’m not sure that the example of a ‘gentleman’s agreement’ is really doing a whole lot of harm to the women’s movement,” Cerf said in an AOL News interview.

Cerf, who wrote ‘The Official Politically Correct Dictionary’ with Henry Beard, recalled the story of a Long Island feminist in the 1970s who tried to change her name from Ellen Donna Cooperman to Ellen Donna Cooperperson.

“And she’s a better person for it,” Cerf laughed. “Except that she forgot that ‘person’ has the word ’son’ in it.”

People can use whatever words they choose, said Maggio, but there’s no reason to fall back on ones that carry “unintended baggage.”

“As a writer, I don’t want stupid words like ’spokesperson.’ I think it’s awkward and lumpy,” she said. “How can you have really elegant English and have it be accurate and clear? You have to work a little bit.

“The right word is a lot of work.”

Here are more questions, and this time some good questions…..

While I’ve little interest in getting in the middle of the Obama birth
issue, Paul Hollrah over at FSM did so yesterday and believes the issue can be resolved by Obama answering one simple question:

What passport did he use when he was shuttling between
New York , Jakarta , and Karachi ?

So how did a young man who arrived in New York in early June 1981, without the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come up with the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later?

And once he was on a plane, shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi , what passport was he offering when he passed through Customs and Immigration?

The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions, they must have answers.

It makes the debate over Obama’s citizenship a rather short and simple one.

Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?
A : Yes, by his own admission.

Q: What passport did he travel under?

A: There are only three possibilities.
1) He traveled with a U.S. Passport,
2) He traveled with a British passport, or
3) He traveled with an Indonesia passport.

Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981?
A: No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department’s “no travel” list in 1981.

Conclusion: When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling either with a British passport or an Indonesian passport.

If he were traveling with a British passport that would provide proof that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims. And if he were traveling with an Indonesian passport that would tend to prove that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967.

Whatever the truth of the matter, the American people need to know how he managed to become a “natural born” American citizen between 1981 and 2008..

Given the destructive nature of his plans for America, as illustrated by his speech before Congress and the disastrous spending plan he has presented to Congress, the sooner we learn the truth of all this, the better.

If you don’t care that your President is not a natural born citizen and in violation of the Constitution of the United States of America, then delete this and go back into your “hope and change” cocoon.

Concerning Nancy Pelosi

Facts:

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s home House District includes San Francisco.
Star-Kist Tuna’s headquarters are in San Francisco, Pelosi’s home district.
Star-Kist is owned by Del Monte Foods and is a major contributor to Pelosi.
Star-Kist is the major employer in American Samoa employing 75% of the Samoan workforce.

Paul Pelosi, Nancy’s husband, owns $17 million dollars of Star-Kist stock.

In January, 2007 when the minimum wage was increased from $5.15 to $7.25, Pelosi had American Samoa exempted from the increase so Del Monte would not have to pay the higher wage. This would make Del Monte products less expensive than their competition’s.

When the huge bailout bill was passed, Pelosi added an earmark to the final bill adding $33 million dollars for an “economic development credit in American Samoa”.

Pelosi has called the Bush Administration “corrupt”.

Concerning Barry Soetoro

- missing items for background check

• Your Occidental College records
• Your Columbia College records
• Your Columbia Thesis paper
• Your Harvard College records
• Your Selective Service Registration
• Your medical records
• Your Illinois State Senate records
• Your Illinois State Senate schedule
• Your Law practice client list
• A Certified Copy of your original Birth certificate
• Your embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth
• Your Harvard Law Review articles that were published
• Your University of Chicago scholarly articles
• Your Record of baptism

aka - Barack Obama Denied National Security Clearance

Barack Obama cannot be Trusted with Classified Information

How can the President of the United States be denied a basic security clearance? How can the Commander and Chief of the most powerful military be denied access to classified information? Barack Obama would be denied the necessary security clearance for President if he was held to the same standard as everyone else. If you can’t pass a Secret level background investigation, which is required for many soldiers, you should not be eligible for the Presidency.

What is a Security Clearance?

Having served in the U.S. military, law enforcement, and as a civilian government contractor, I’ve had my fair share of background investigations. The United States government employs a multitier security clearance paradigm.

Confidential – Unauthorized disclosure could cause “damage to national security.”
Secret – Unauthorized disclosure could cause “serious damage to national security.”
Top Secret – Unauthorized disclosure could cause “exceptionally grave damage to national security.”

Each level of access requires a progressively more in-depth background investigation before the clearance is obtained. The President of the United States should be able to flawlessly pass the most extensive investigation and a polygraph test. Both are required for workers in some Special Access Programs classified Top Secret.

The purpose of the clearance is to determine an individual’s honesty, trustworthiness, reliability, financial responsibility, criminal activity, emotional stability, foreign influences, family associations, drug use, mental health, judicial proceedings, employment history, traits of character, and loyalty to the United States. This collective data is used to evaluate your ability and willingness to safeguard national secrets. Based on the facts about Barack Obama, he fails to satisfy the minimum requirements for even a basic secret clearance. His background investigation would have “Red Flags” shooting up in so many places; the issuing panel would deny him a clearance outright.

Obama’s Answers on the Security Clearance Application

Instead of going through all the Security Clearance Application questions, I’ll examine the questions that would deny Barack Obama a Secret Clearance.

List foreign national relatives whom you or your spouse are bound by affection, obligation, or close and continuing contact.

Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. of Kenya, and Lolo Soetoro, the Indonesian oil manager his mother married. These two foreign relatives would probably initiate a Defensive Security Services or Department of Defense investigation that would take roughly a year to explore. I’m not sure how many degrees of separation are involved, but Obama Sr. and Soetoro’s associations are not friendly to the United States. However, they are not the primary concern.

Barack Obama’s brother, his kin Abongo Obama, is a militant Muslim who has been quoted saying, “A black man must liberate himself from the poisons of European cultures and western values.” Obama’s paternal cousin, Raila Odinga is also a Muslim extremist who recently lost the Kenyan Presidential election to a Christian. How can such relations exist between the President of the United States and radical Muslims?

Have you ever been an officer or a member or made a contribution to an organization dedicated to the violent overthrow of the United States Government and which engages in illegal activities to that end, knowing that the organization engages in such activities with the specific intent to further such activities?

Have you ever knowingly engaged in any acts or activities designed to overthrow the United States Government by force?

These two questions go hand and hand. Having gone through the interview phase of the clearance process a number of times, I can’t image the look on the face of the investigator nor the sheer amount of time it would take to explain Barack Obama’s anti American ties.

Sen. Barack Obama served as a paid director alongside a confessed domestic terrorist and granted funding to a controversial Arab group that dubbed the creation of Israel as a “catastrophe.” The founder of the Arab group in question, Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, also has held a fundraiser for Obama. Khalidi is a harsh critic of Israel, has made statements supportive of Palestinian terror and reportedly has worked on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization while it was involved in anti western terrorism.

Barack Obama also served on the Wood’s Fund board with William Ayers, a member of the Weathermen terrorist group which sought to overthrow of the U.S. government and took responsibility for the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, of the Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972. Bill Ayers has killed hundreds of civilians, police officers, and was recently quoted saying, “I don’t regret setting bombs, I feel we didn’t do enough.”

I would deny a security clearance for anybody that even shook these men’s hands, never mind launching a campaign from Ayer’s living room.

Have you illegally used any controlled substance, for example, marijuana, cocaine, crack cocaine, hashish, narcotics (opium, morphine, codeine, heroin, etc.), amphetamines, depressants (barbiturates, methaqualone, tranquilizers, etc.), hallucinogenics (LSD, PCP, etc.), or prescription drugs?

Barack Obama has specifically admitted to using marijuana and cocaine in his book “Dreams From My Father.” He even confesses pursuing heroin, but was scared of the drug dealer. A clearance question such as this is used to test someone’s ethical fortitude to stand up for what is right, legally forbidden, and ultimately make correct decisions. Obama fails this test with his weakness to deny temptation.

Would anyone question your honesty?

Obama’s lies regarding his recollection of policies supported and the reality of what he actually did endorse are too numerous to count. However, these lies are unfortunately common in today’s politics. An article written in a conservative blog has outlined 26 more personal deceptions Obama has made to the American people. How can anyone trust this guy with confidence?

Barack Obama’s Patriotism and National Security

Obama during National Anthem

Although not a question on the Security Clearance application, “Are you a Patriotic American” should be.

The National Anthem is playing and Barack Obama is the only person on the stage not inclined to put their hand over their heart. The hand over the heart is symbolic of your respect and love for your country. Of all people, the President of the United States must be the most devote patriot in the nation. If you are not a patriot, how are you to provide unconditional national security? Three other instances come to mind that have me question how loyal he is to the U.S. and if he even loves this country.

Reverend Jeremiah Wright
I bet most of us have heard about Reverend Jeremaiah Wright’s radical anti American preaching and Barack Obama’s consistent attendance of this man’s sermons, but did you know Reverend Wright officiated Barack and Michelle’s wedding and even baptized their kids? It appears to me that Wright is a significantly influential person in the Obama family’s life. Do we want a President who has been barraged and apparently supports their religious leader’s lectures containing anti American propaganda, such as…

“We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye.”

“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost.”

“The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.”

“In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 911. White America and the western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just ‘disappeared’ as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns.”

“Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!…We [in the U.S.] believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God.”

“Barack knows what it means living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people. Hillary would never know that. Hillary ain’t never been called a nigger. Hillary has never had a people defined as a non-person.”

“Hillary is married to Bill, and Bill has been good to us. No he ain’t! Bill did us, just like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was riding dirty.”

“The Israelis have illegally occupied Palestinian territories for over 40 years now. Divestment has now hit the table again as a strategy to wake the business community and wake up Americans concerning the injustice and the racism under which the Palestinians have lived because of Zionism.”

“God Damn America”

- Reverend Jeremiah Wright

I don’t care that Obama now condemns Wright’s remarks. He never denounced the man before, and continued to attend Wright’s church for over 20 years.

Michelle Obama
Michelle ObamaThe person you marry is your closest confidant and Barack Obama has recently said that Michelle is one of the people he listens to and respects the most. Michelle has been quoted saying, “Our souls are broken in this nation”; “For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country”; and “…as a member of the black community, I am obligated to this community and will utilize all of my present and future resources to benefit the black community first and foremost” to name a few. As a President’s closest adviser and the country’s first lady, take pride in how far this nation has come, and work toward the benefit of all not just your ethnicity. Can this woman, with such animosity toward ancestral shortcomings, come into the present and forget about skin color? Isn’t that what Martin Luther King Jr. meant by, “…all men are created equal” and “…not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character?” Michelle’s narrow vision, obvious unwillingness to conform to unity and equality, and her desire to benefit the black community instead of the community at large is not first lady material.

Not visiting the troops
As a former enlisted soldier having been deployed twice and a current government contractor, Obama’s recent neglect to visit our country’s courageous troops is insulting. He had time to woo German citizens and play basketball, but opt out on supporting wounded soldiers. Retired Lt. Col. Joe Reypya had me nodding in approval when commenting on Obama’s decision, “”The most solemn duty of a commander in chief is to fulfill his responsibility to the men and women who serve this country in uniform. Barack Obama … broke that commitment, instead flitting from one European capital to the next…For a young man so apt at playing President, Barack Obama badly misjudged the important demands of the office he seeks. Visits with world leaders and speeches to cheering Europeans shouldn’t be a substitute for comforting injured American heroes.”

I could go on and on about how this man is not fit for office, but my point in this post is to express my opinion that the potential Commander and Chief of the United States could not receive a Nation Security Clearance to even hold a low level intelligence position within the government. How can he be President? Better yet, how is he even a Senator?

Could Barack Obama Get a Security Clearance?

Obama has been in the middle of two international communist networks – one in Hawaii and one in Chicago.

The Hawaii network included communists Frank Marshall Davis, who was Obama’s personal mentor; actor/singer Paul Robeson; and labor leader Harry Bridges. The network was judged a security threat to the United States and the subject of a congressional hearing on the “Scope of Soviet Activity in the United States.”

Obama covered up the true identity of Frank Marshall Davis in his book, Dreams From My Father.

The Hawaii communist network was organized directly by and from Moscow.

The Chicago network included identified communists and socialists, was committed to a communist victory in the Vietnam War, and took instructions from the communist Castro regime in Cuba.

In addition to communist terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, who were members of the communist terrorist Weather Underground, the Chicago network includes many veterans of the communist Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) who now proclaim themselves “Progressives for Obama.”

Bill Ayers, who helped launch Obama’s political career, has traveled to Venezuela on several occasions and is an enthusiastic backer of the brand of communism being practiced and promoted by Hugo Chavez.

It appears that Obama actually worked for Ayers in a Chicago educational reform program that dispensed millions of dollars of grants.

One of the leaders of “Progressives for Obama” is former SDS leader Tom Hayden, who wrote a letter to a communist Vietnamese official during the Vietnam War hoping for a “victory” over the U.S.

The SDS openly promoted communism, the regimes in Hanoi and Havana, and condemned alleged U.S. “imperialism.”

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), a group that included a convicted espionage agent for communist East Germany, backed and promoted Obama’s political career.
Illinois State Senator Alice Palmer, who picked Obama as her successor, has a record of involvement in communist front activities.

Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod, as well as Obama himself, have not explained why Ayers, Dohrn, then-State Senator Alice Palmer, and Dr. Quentin Young came together at the Ayers/Dohrn home to launch Obama’s political career.
Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley, a client of Axelrod, issued a controversial and misleading statement defending Obama’s relationship with communist terrorist Bill Ayers.

This a great piece… it should read, The Failing Media Narcissism, but the point is perfectly made.

Essay — May / June 2009
Newspaper Narcissism

Our pursuit of glory led us away from readers

By Walter Pincus

American journalism is in trouble, and the problem is not just financial. My profession is in distress because for more than a decade it has been chasing the false idols of fame and fortune. While engaged in those pursuits, it forgot its readers and the need to produce a commercial product that appealed to its mass audience, which in turn drew advertisers and thus paid for it all. While most corporate owners were seeking increased earnings, higher stock prices, and bigger salaries, editors and reporters focused more on winning prizes or making television appearances.

Some long-term reporting projects have been undertaken, and multiple-part series published, simply because they might win prizes. Over the past ten years, The Washington Post has won nineteen Pulitzer Prizes. But over that same period, we lost more than 120,000 readers. Why? My answer, unpopular among my colleagues, is that while many of these longer efforts were worthwhile, they took up space and resources that could have been used to give readers a wider selection of stories about what was going on, and that may have directly affected their lives. Readers have limited time to spend on newspapers. The number has been twenty-five minutes, on average, for more than thirty years. In short, we have left behind our readers in our chase after glory.

Editors have paid more attention to what gains them prestige among their journalistic peers than on subjects more related to the everyday lives of readers. For example, education affects everyone, yet I cannot name an outstanding American journalist on this subject. Food is an important subject, yet regular newspaper coverage of agriculture and the products we eat is almost nonexistent unless cases of food poisoning turn up. Did journalists adequately warn of the dangers of subprime mortgages? I don’t think so. (CJR’s answer to that question is on page 24.)

We have also failed our readers in the way we cover government. The First Amendment not only guaranteed freedom of the press from government interference, it also gave American journalists the opportunity—I believe the responsibility—to find and present facts on issues that require public attention. Our press is not protected in order to merely echo the views of government officials, opposition politicians, and so-called experts. Too often, though, that’s what occurs.

One of my basic concerns is that American journalism has turned away from its own hard-won expertise, and at the very time when readers are looking to us to explain the context of what is happening and what will happen next.

Most newspapers and the broadcast media have cut the number of reporters on beats. Meanwhile, young reporters are increasingly shifted from beat to beat, never having enough time to master complex subjects such as health care, public education, or environmental policies. As a result, more of their stories are based not on reportorial expertise, but on pronouncements by government sources or their critics.

Reporters are shifted around in part because of decreasing resources, and in part because within the profession, reporters are encouraged to become editors, editors to become publishers, and publishers of small papers pushed to manage bigger ones. This results in less expertise at the most important level—where reporters gather information.

Meanwhile, we have turned into a public-relations society. Much of the news Americans get each day was created to serve just that purpose—to be the news of the day. Many of our headlines come from events created by public relations—press conferences, speeches, press releases, canned reports, and, worst of all, snappy comments by “spokesmen” or “experts.” To serve as a counterpoint, we need reporters with expertise.

Consider the worst of recent examples. I believe the Bush administration sold the March 2003 invasion of Iraq to the American people beginning with a public-relations campaign that started in August 2002. Vice President Dick Cheney kicked it off with a series of speeches on the growing threat from Saddam Hussein, and it continued almost daily, with key members of the administration giving speeches, statements, or press conferences. The result was that the threat from Saddam Hussein—his alleged nuclear weapons, the idea that he would give chemical or biological weapons to terrorists—dominated news coverage right up to the time the first missiles hit Baghdad on March 19, 2003.

Manipulation of the media was taken to its highest form by George W. Bush’s administration. It built, however, on what went on before.

In 1922, Walter Lippmann, in his book Public Opinion, wrote:

The enormous discretion as to what facts and what impressions shall be reported is steadily convincing every organized group of people that whether it wishes to secure publicity or to avoid it, the exercise of discretion cannot be left to the reporter. It is safer to hire a press agent who stands between the group and the newspapers.

In 1968, Joe Alsop, discussing the Vietnam War, wrote that “facts influence events.” The increasing reports by war correspondents of U.S. failures in the war gradually undermined public support for the fighting. Five years later, facts presented by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein and published day after day in The Washington Post proved Alsop’s words in dramatic fashion. The Post’s newspaper stories led to the resignation of a president.

Watergate, I believe, was the high-water mark for newspapers as vehicles for bringing the public previously unknown information about serious matters. But I also think that, in many ways, it has been downhill ever since.

The celebrity of Woodward and Bernstein, along with financial rewards that accompanied Bob’s continued hard work, set new goals for others in the profession. At the same time, the impact an aroused press could have on government and politics was not missed by conservative supporters of the Nixon administration. Their response was twofold: demand more conservative columnists on newspaper op-ed pages and equal treatment in news columns for politicians and experts from “both sides” of issues. It was an informal way of applying the fairness doctrine, which was required of the electronic media, to print.

In 1981, at the beginning of the Reagan administration, Michael Deaver—one of the great public-relations men of our time—began to use early-morning “tech” sessions at the White House, which had been a way to help network producers plan the use of their camera crews each day, to shape the television news story for that evening. Deaver would say that President Reagan will appear in the Rose Garden to talk about his crime-prevention program and discuss it in terms of, say, Chicago and San Francisco. That would allow the networks to shoot B-roll. The president would appear in the Rose Garden as promised, make his statement, perhaps take a question or two, and vanish.

After a while, the network White House correspondents began to attend these sessions, and later print reporters began showing up, too. On days when the president went off to Camp David or his California ranch, Sam Donaldson, the ABC News White House correspondent, began his shouted questions to Reagan, and Reagan’s flip answers became the nightly news—and not just on television. The Washington Post, which prior to that time did not have a standing White House story each day (publishing one only when the president did something newsworthy), began to have similar daily coverage.

At the end of Reagan’s first year, David Broder, the Post’s political reporter, wrote a column about Reagan being among the least-involved presidents he had covered. In response, he got an onslaught of mail from people who said they saw Reagan every night on TV, working different issues. It was a triumph of public relations.

When President George H. W. Bush succeeded Reagan and occasionally drifted off the appointed subject, criticism began to appear that he “couldn’t stay on message.” When Bill Clinton did two, three, or four things in a day, critics went after him for “mixing up the daily message.” Being able to “stay on message” is now considered a presidential asset, perhaps even a requirement. Of course, the “message” is what the White House wants to present to the public.

These two elements on the editorial side of journalism—a move away from expertise and the growth of public relations in government—have been facilitated, in part, by the changing nature of newspaper ownership.

Newspapers across the U.S. were often begun by pamphleteers, political parties, or businessmen who wanted to get involved in local, state, or even national affairs. The founding editors of The New York Times started that newspaper as supporters of the Whig party and later switched to the Republican party. Adolph Ochs, who bought the Times in 1896, was helped in his negotiations by a letter from President Grover Cleveland, who wrote that Ochs’s management of The Chattanooga Times had “demonstrated such a faithful adherence to Democratic principles that I would be glad to see you in a larger sphere of usefulness.” The Washington Post’s publisher Phil Graham helped put Lyndon Johnson on the ticket with John F. Kennedy.

They used their presses to influence government, but that is what the founding fathers contemplated when they wrote the First Amendment. The idea was that citizens in a democracy were to read more than one paper or pamphlet, weigh all opinions and facts as presented, and make up their own minds.

Today, mainstream print and electronic media want to be neutral, presenting both or all sides as if they were refereeing a game in which only the players—the government and its opponents—can participate. They have increasingly become common carriers, transmitters of other people’s ideas and thoughts, irrespective of import, relevance, and at times even accuracy.

When is the last time you saw a major newspaper or television network set out its own agenda for candidates to take up? At a time when it is most needed, the media, and particularly newspapers, have lost their voices.

Beginning in the 1960s, papers large and small started being bought for large sums, first by newspaper chains, which in turn became controlled by outside financial interests. A few papers remained privately owned, but eventually almost all sold stock to the public. With that financial change came monopoly ownership, one newspaper per city or town, and the notion that the newspaper that survived should be neutral, presenting all points of view in each controversial story. As I said, the fairness doctrine has been transferred from radio and television to the newspaper. How ironic is it today, then, that there are dozens of competing electronic voices in almost every city, most of which now have only one newspaper.

The Graham and Sulzberger families’ ownership of The Washington Post and The New York Times is, I believe, a major reason why these newspapers continue to provide quality journalism. But even they and their editors are nervous when accused of showing favoritism or antipathy toward one party or another.

My post-Korean War generation entered journalism because we wanted to change the governmental system. Our role models were James Reston of The New York Times, whose column I proofread during the five months I was a copyboy at the Times; Edward R. Murrow; Richard Rovere, then writing the Washington Letter for The New Yorker; and even playwright Arthur Miller. They were among the journalists and writers who led the challenge to Senator Joe McCarthy’s red-baiting at a time when most mainstream journalists were being “objective” and reporting, uncritically, his accusations about Communist infiltration of government and his unproven allegations about individuals.

As a copyboy in 1954, fresh out of college, I delivered mail to Hanson Baldwin, then the Times’s highly respected military correspondent. When Baldwin wrote a news story or a piece of analysis, it was read in the Pentagon and in Congress. They had to read him because his years of coverage and his insights made him as expert as top generals and civilian defense officials. I didn’t know it then, but those days had a major influence on my approach to journalism.

I am a Democrat, and everyone knows it. No one is more aware of it than I am as I write stories for The Washington Post. I worked for Senator J. William Fulbright twice in the 1960s, when I was lucky to run two eighteen-month Foreign Relations Committee investigations for him. The first grew out of magazine articles I had written about lobbying in the U.S. by foreign governments. The second focused on military involvement in foreign policy, and grew out of discussions I had with Fulbright during my initial time with him. Those two sabbaticals were among the most important and enlightening years of my life, and influenced my view of reporting on government. They showed me how little I knew as a reporter about how government really worked.

Part of the explanation for this lack of knowledge is the emergence of the idea, among reporters in Washington and perhaps elsewhere, that we should avoid socializing or developing friendships with public officials—even those who are our peers. As a result of this artificial separation, public figures remain one-dimensional to many journalists; they have no wives, children, or lives outside their professional positions.

Not to me. After fifty years of living and working in Washington, I’ve had personal friends in Congress, on federal court benches, in high government positions, even in the White House. We should be measured by our work, not by what we say or do elsewhere. I certainly hope that as witnesses to wars, civil-rights riots, peace marches, famines, and terrorist events these past decades, we all have developed opinions which at times we may discuss or even argue about—or we just are not human.

Such experiences make us better observers and thus better reporters. With more and more PR peddled as news, journalists need the experience to sort out what really is news, and to deliver it in context.

As we’ve seen, fewer national and local newspapers are in the hands of fewer companies that in turn provide newspapers that are less appealing and relevant to people who have limited time to read them. And with the arrival of first the Internet and now the financial downturn, advertisers have panicked. The result is far less money to support serious journalism.

Although I have primarily been a reporter the past fifty years, I have also been a close observer of the financial side of the media business. In my college days, I bought stock in The New Yorker. I was an initial investor when Clay Felker started New York magazine, and when The New York Review of Books began. In 1970, I spent a couple of years unsuccessfully trying to start a national newspaper to be produced in Washington and printed on local presses in college cities across the country. From 1971 through 1975, I was executive editor of The New Republic, and put together a group that was to purchase the magazine after the 1976 presidential election, though we were outbid. I returned to The Washington Post in 1975 and today am a consultant to the company as well as a reporter for the newspaper.

I describe this background to justify talking about the finances of the newspaper business. In the early 1960s, Phillip Graham, at the time the president of The Washington Post Company, told me that the Post had just begun to turn a profit, but that he and Eugene Meyer, his father-in-law, who had originally purchased the paper, considered it a business much like a public utility. And as such, they thought making a profit of 7 percent would be a more than fair return on investment. This philosophy has guided me ever since.

Family-owned newspapers were the foundation of American journalism in the 1960s. Like the Post, most were started by businessmen who wanted a voice in their communities. Few were begun as the way to make a fortune. That began to change with the arrival of radio, and then television. The electronic media involved government licenses, which carried with them the requirement for delivery of public-affairs programming, starting with news. Newspapers became the obvious applicants, and many publishers suddenly became owners of local broadcast stations who stood to make a lot of money as network affiliates.

In the 1950s and 1960s, when newspapers made single-digit profits, radio and television affiliates could make up from 40 to 50 percent. Newspapers large and small started being swallowed by publicly owned corporations. With that trend came monopoly ownership. Gannett became the biggest. In 1977, as its purchasing of family papers moved into high gear, Gannett stock was around $8 a share. By 1990, it was at $75, and in 2004, it hit $90. At its height, Gannett produced earnings of more than 22 percent on its gross income, and set a standard that other newspaper corporations tried to emulate. When Knight-Ridder showed only a 14 percent profit, its major investors demanded it be sold.

I believe most corporate owners of newspapers made terrible business decisions over the past decade, thinking that the growing profits of the 1980s and early 1990s would continue. Chains paid excessive prices for family-owned papers and went deep into debt. The New York Times Company finds itself in trouble after paying $1 billion for The Boston Globe, over $2 billion to buy back its own stock at the height of its price, and another $600 million for a new building.

And now there is the economic downturn. In this environment, the Web has become both the threat and, to some, the savior. But I look at this differently than some in my profession. The Web has certainly taken an important chunk of classified advertising, but the broader threat seen by many is to me another sign of our own self-involvement. Journalists, probably more than any other group outside the financial community, are mesmerized by the Web. They closely watch it, so they believe others are doing the same.

Let me clarify that I am talking primarily about mass media—newspapers, television, and radio that traditionally have reached more than 80 percent of the American public. I am not talking about the thousands of Web sites and blogs that aggregate other people’s stories or present their own editorial material. They talk of thousands of unique visitors, but remember that these totals, often inferred rather than accurately measured, reflect monthly figures. When divided by thirty days in a month, they become smaller than individual newspaper circulations, which cumulatively sit at 110 million daily readers, even with recent losses.

Meanwhile, most consumers of online news do it from roughly 10 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. They are at work, and what they have time to see primarily are headlines. They don’t pay for what they see and probably won’t. And because the daily readership numbers are relatively small and the audience often geographically dispersed, the advertising hardly covers the cost of gathering the original stories. As Washington Post President Stephen P. Hills said recently, the Post newspaper is a $600 million business; its Web site is a $50 million business.

Nevertheless, there has been an outburst within the journalism community that the end is near. Serious people have proposed what in time will be considered absurd ideas—turn papers into nonprofit organizations; charge for each downloaded story; turn into Web-based publications; make Web aggregators, such as Google and Yahoo, pay for carrying newspaper stories.

NYTimes.com had some twenty million unique users for the month of October, making it the fifth-ranked news site on the Internet in terms of total visitors. The newspaper is sold to 800,000 readers a day, rising on Sunday to over 1 million. Without thinking, someone might say the Times Web site readership far exceeds the newspaper’s. But the definition of unique visitor is someone who within a month’s time visits the Web site more than once. It is not apples to apples, but by dividing the twenty million a month by thirty you get at best roughly 667,000 readers a day, which is short of the paper’s daily circulation.

I recognize that journalistically I am old-fashioned. I was going to say, an old fogey. But thanks to Microsoft Word, I have learned that a “fogey” is a reactionary. And Microsoft tells me its antonym is “activist,” which is a title I embrace. So I have to stand by Microsoft.

Like other industries caught up in today’s economic downturn, newspapers, which just a few years ago were rapidly expanding, have to reduce expenses, including staff. We also should look for other ways to use the materials we already collect and produce. The Post and other publications have taken first steps in joint ventures with network television news. I believe we will see a time when a major newspaper and a major television network jointly produce a daily news show.

But when it comes to editorial content, meaningful news about government, politics, and foreign policy is only one of the saleable elements. Good newspapers have to go back to delivering a daily product that our mass audiences want, and which provides to advertisers a unique means to reach consumers. Like supermarkets, newspapers must deliver quality in all departments.

Yet at the same time, owners, editors, and reporters should push issues they believe government is ignoring. They should do it factually and in articles short enough to read daily, but spread over time. That is how Americans absorb information—by repetition.

They should remember that “newsmakers” are intent on using the media to influence readers, listeners, and viewers to take up their ideas. The electronic and print media today probably have more power over public opinion—and thus government—than they had fifty years ago. But I fear they turn much of that power over to those who create news events to get coverage.

The press should play an activist role. That’s the reason a free press is important. Mine is a romantic and unfashionable view of journalism, but that is why many of us took up the profession in the first place.

Thanks 2 Walter Pincus @ Columbia Journalism Review

Obama official Kareem Dale confirms White House’s love for MSNBC

(UPDATED: A second video has been added below.)

For some inexplicable reason having to do with who knows what, a widespread impression has grown among many politics fans that MSNBC and its crowd of talkers — including Chris “Thrill Up My Leg” Matthews, Norah “The GOP Is Doomed to Die” O’Donnell and Ed “It’s Time to Grind Them Into the Ground” Schultz — are somewhat in favor of President Obama.

Well, actually in complete love with the Great Change Agent.

Now, thanks to the ubiquitous cameras of C-SPAN, comes official videoed word from Kareem Dale, special assistant to the president for arts and culture and a key White House adviser on disability policy.

At the 1:51 mark of this video, Dale candidly reveals the new administration’s reciprocal feelings. Hint: Apparently the new White House has a popular internal saying involving the words “love” and “MSNBC.”

(UPDATE: Courtesy of Washington writer Patrick Gavin we have a new video below showing the remarkably dissimilar treatment the White House press corps afforded George W. Bush and now Obama. Take a peek by scrolling down.)

— Andrew Malcolm

Speaking of love, click here for automatic Twitter alerts on each new Ticket item. Or follow us @latimestot

Thanks 2 Los Angles Times and Top of the Ticket ~ Blog

Pastor Manning rebukes the Germans: Seems that the Germans want to idolize the ‘Boy King’ and Manning is…. Manning.

Val has a new post over there at valswordlive:

Obama File 41 Obama Was a New Party Member-Documentary Evidence.

I thought I had posted enough info on this, but am still getting comments that express doubt Obama was and IS a member of the new party. (Val)

Obama File 41 Obama Was a New Party Member-Documentary Evidence

Check it out!

Seattle on Monday. Denver on Tuesday. Mesa AZ on Wednesday. Overland Park, Kansas today. What a week, huh? We got the anti-stimulus, anti-entitlement protest ball rolling — and now the movement, spurred further by CNBC host Rick Santelli’s call for a “Chicago Tea Party,” is really taking off.

David Hogberg at Investor’s Business Daily has a nice piece out today spotlighting the growing taxpayer revolt the rest of the MSM won’t cover. He interviewed our registered commenters Liberty Belle Keli Carender, who spearheaded the Seattle anti-pork protest, and HuskerGirl Amanda Grosserode, who organized today’s anti-stimulus demonstration against Democrat Rep. Dennis Moore in Overland Park, MS.

CONTINUED>>> CLICK HERE < <<

Here is how to organize your own Tea Party.
http://theconservativerevolution.com/freedomworks/how-to-organize-your-own-tea-party-protest/

Silent Majority to cease being silent and return control to where it belongs ….. to the Consent of the Governed
Every American Is Now a Criminal!

By Ron Ewart Saturday, February 21, 2009

imageYou think you are a law abiding citizen, don’t you? Think again! You have been, you are now, and you will continue to break the law for the rest of your life, because there are too many laws, with millions more laws to follow. Many of these laws are totally unconstitutional but have never been challenged in the courts. Sometimes you break the law without any knowledge of it, even though ignorance of the law is not an excuse, if you are caught. But worse, millions are breaking the law because they are convinced the laws are illegal, or just plain stupid. With more people intentionally breaking the law, eventually the rule of law breaks down, as does our Republic.

The examples of stupid laws would fill volumes. Examples of conflicting laws would fill even more volumes. Some (or is it most) lawmakers just aren’t very smart.

Since the final draft of the U. S. Constitution became the Supreme Law of the Land, legislators have been legislating, that is they have been passing law ….. after law ….. after law. Do you want to know why you are a criminal? Here is why. “The U.S. Code, which contains all federal statutes, occupies 56,009 single-spaced pages. Its 47 volumes take up nine feet of shelf space. An annotated version, which attempts to bring order out of chaos, is three feet long and has 230 hardcover volumes and 36 paperback supplements. Administrative lawmaking under statutes fill up the 207-volume Code of Federal Regulations, which spans 21 feet of shelf space and contains more than 134,488 pages of regulatory law. … Federal law is further augmented by more than 2,756 volumes of judicial precedent, taking up 160 yards (almost twice as long as a football field) of law-library shelving.”

This is just federal law and it is growing by the second. All of this law does not include the millions of state, county and city laws that have been passed since we won our freedom in our first revolution. State and local laws are also growing by the second. The Obama/Pelosi/Reid Stimulus package was over 1,000 pages of more law that no one read and it included more taxes and much more socialism. More so-called “stimulus” packages are on the way, requiring trillions more of our dollars that the government doesn’t own and must “steal” from us, by force, to “fix” the problem that they themselves created.

Too many laws create competing special interests who lobby the system to entrench their own little worlds, while the un-represented (that’s millions of Americans) are left out in the cold. We have become a government of cronies, in a world run by cronyism, in an atmosphere of corruption, Hell bent on driving America and Americans into unabashed socialism and the one-world-order.

Too many laws create victims who inadvertently violate one or more laws and spend their life’s savings trying to defend themselves against an intransigent, all-powerful and abusive government. Too many laws lead to powerful, entitled special interests and the innocent victims are left with no political power at all.

Interestingly, America contains an almost ghostly, silent majority …. mostly silent and heard from rarely, but it does exist. Most of this group are trying to live out their lives as best they can, earn a living and raise their children in a country they thought was the land of the free. You know, a government they could trust, a government that protects the unalienable, individual rights as granted to us by our creator and codified into law by our constitution, and a government that operates within the enumerated powers allowed them by that very same constitution.

Unfortunately, in the silent majority’s silence, their government, without the silent majority’s consent, assumed powers that far exceeded their constitutional powers. They passed laws to pander to (or buy off) special interest groups, or to increase their political powers and then levied ever-increasing taxes to pay for it all. Even as the regulations rose exponentially and as taxes became more burdensome, the silent majority, to their discredit, still remained silent. Their silence, their apathy and their disinterest in what government has been and is doing, has unknowingly turned each and everyone of them into criminals ….. law breakers, who can be subject to fines and imprisonment for violating laws they know nothing about.

America was founded on the principles of a Constitutional Republic. That is, a system of government by the rule of law, with the Constitution as the foundation of all law. What the Founders failed to realize, or maybe they did but didn’t account for it, was that lawmakers have but one goal in life, that is the passing of laws. The lawmakers very rarely consider repealing laws, or remove conflicting laws, upon which clever attorneys can twist to fit a particular case, which they do all too often. The net result is we have become enslaved by the passage of too many laws and we became unintentional law breakers of those laws ….. thus perpetual criminals whom have yet to be caught.

As the silent majority watches our government use our tax money and our children’s tax money to increase their pandering and buying off of special interest groups, as government pours our hard-earned money into banks and businesses, as they prop up people who have acted irresponsibly with more of our money that we earned responsibly, they are increasing their power over us and increasing the laws that control us ….. laws eliminating our individual rights, gun rights, property rights, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the sovereignty of states and the people under the 9th and 10th Amendments and equal protection under the law contained in the 14th Amendment. The 5th Amendment is all but null and void through the passing of draconian environmental regulation, along with government abuse of eminent domain.

However, the days of the silent majority being silent, must be over. Once we realize that, if the silent majority suddenly united as one in defiance of more laws and more of our money and our children’s money being stolen by the government, at the point of a gun, (just try not paying your taxes, even though Senator Harry Reid thinks our tax system is voluntary) to buy off banks, businesses and irresponsible individuals, we could turn America around in months. If the Consent of the Governed, that Silent Majority, “esplained” it to government to get out of the way, our economy would improve naturally, in a shorter period of time, based on sound economic and capitalistic principles, not government manipulated insanity.

So how does the American silent majority unite as one? It rallies around one simple idea or symbol and uses that idea or symbol as the rallying cry for freedom and liberty and the reduction of government power. In the coming weeks we will be releasing just such an idea, a symbol and some simple principles, around which the American Silent Majority can rally!

No, the war is hardly lost, it is just getting interesting, as more Americans of the silent majority, wake up to what their government has perpetrated upon them, over the last 80 to 100 years. They grow weary of too many laws that make them unintended criminals and angry with a government, at all levels, that has become helplessly and hopelessly out of control. It is way past time for the Silent Majority to cease being silent and return control to where it belongs ….. to the Consent of the Governed.

A dumbed-down population—aided by the election fraud group ACORN, Run on our banking system
Obama Destroying the USA to rebuild it in his own image?

By Sher Zieve Saturday, February 21, 2009

It’s amazing to me that so many talking heads who seem befuddled as to what Obama is actually attempting to accomplish with his bound-to-fail stimulus bill cannot seem to see the forest for the trees. To put it another way, they cannot grasp what’s actually happening to We-the-People at the hands of the developing ‘Obama Emperium’. Shall we take a look at the events leading up to today? By the way, I mean the actual events—not the lies manufactured by the mainstream media and other of his sycophants to make the secular messiah Obama ‘look good’. I say let’s do!

In September 2003, then President Bush proposed that oversight of Fannie Mae be tightened. Congressional Democrats balked at the idea and vigorously opposed and blocked it. Then, in a 2006 bill, Senate Republicans created a bill calling for oversight of the Democrat-run corrupt Fannie Mae (and its partner organization Freddie Mac) US mortgage giant. At that time, those who ran Fannie Mae (again—ALL Democrats) had already been caught in an $11 billion accounting scandal. Tragically—for all of us—this bill was shelved. Wimpy Republicans actually wanted bi-partisanship and Democrats refused. Despite their protestations to the contrary, Democrats do not want bi-partisanship. This is an historical message that the now-liberal Republican Party leadership refuses to learn from or even acknowledge. Note: At this time the Democrat/Leftist-created financial catastrophe of 2008-2009 could have been brought to light and prevented. However, it appears that dark forces were at work to purposefully bring forth said disaster.

In September 2007, Fannie Mae began (the truly intelligent said inevitable) its two month downward spiral that would culminate in its November crash. Then, in September (September again—weird) 2008 a strange one to two hour electronic run on US banks to the tune of $550 billion was affected before authorities were able to put a stop to it. One Democrat—Rep. Paul Kanjorski of Pennsylvania said that if authorities had not closed the banks, $5 ½ TRILLION would have been withdrawn from US banks, which would have caused the collapse of the US and within 24 hours the collapse of the world’s economic system. There are certainly those within our own government who know who and what were the perpetrators. But, no one is talking.

All of these deliberate actions brought forth the ammunition that the Left needed to make its contrived fake case that Communists and/or Fascists (they’re now called Democrats) needed to be placed in charge and the US (if not the world) and that freedom—including any and all free market capitalism—had to be dumped in favor of implementing dictatorial controls. The creation of the fake “stimulus package” is the seizing of control of the country’s financial resources and their redistribution to the power elite—not to you and me. The nationalization of banks is the seizure of the financial houses—for use by and of the governmental power elite—not for you and me. The “stimulus package”—which will result in the TOTAL theft of the country’s resources—was never meant to stimulate anything save the Democrat power brokers and their friends. A dumbed-down population—aided by the election fraud group ACORN—assisted in “electing” GL (‘great leader’) Obama to the office of the US presidency (an individual whose US citizenship is still highly suspect). And within less than a month, Obama has succeeded in pushing the USA (using the largely Democrat-created economic crisis) toward Socialism. By the way, we who have been paying our mortgages are now expected to subsidize those who have not. The “flakes” are being rewarded for their failure and the able are being punished. What a way to destroy a country!

I predict that any real socialistic endeavors will be bypassed in favor of pure Marxism-Stalin style. Obama has already begun his plan to clamp down on free-speech with his adherents’ resurrection of the inaptly named “Fairness Doctrine,” which is meant to shut down conservative and Christian speech. Only Obama-speak is now acceptable. Obama’s National Security Force—AKA Gestapo or Secret Police—is already being formed with his Defense Department Directive 1404.10 and according to Worldview Times “H.R. 645 that calls for no less than six federal camps to be built to house U.S. Citizens.”

This is only the tip of the iceberg, folks. Obama and his minions have accomplished these in only one month after seizing office. Can those of you who still have a working mind see where this is leading? Are there still people out there who do NOT want to live in a totalitarian state? I further predict that within the next 2 months, Obama’s Congressional adherents will arrange yet another “stimulus bill” in an attempt to confiscate the US’ remaining wealth. The stock market continues to tank while Obama continues to tell us this is his country and his victory. The rest of us are only the worker-serfs who are expected to produce for the powerful in D.C. and shut up while we’re doing it. Are any of you who were blind to Obama’s real plan beginning to see again?

This is a great story! The radio station America FM was doing one of its ‘Is Anyone Listening?’ bits this morning. The first question was, ‘Ever have a celebrity come up with the ‘Do you know who I am?’ routine?’

A woman called in and said that a few years ago, while visiting her cattle rancher uncle in Billings , MT , she had occasion to go to dinner at a restaurant that does not take reservations. The wait was about 45 minutes; many ranchers and their wives were waiting.

Ted Turner and his ex-wife Jane Fonda came in the restaurant and wanted a table. The hostess informed them that they’d have to wait 45 minutes. Jane Fonda asked the hostess, ‘Do you know who I am?’ The hostess answered, ‘Yes, but you’ll have to wait 45 minutes.’ Then Jane asked if the manager was in. When the manager came out, he asked, ‘May I help you?’ ‘Do you know who we are?’ both Ted and Jane asked; ‘Yes, but these folks have been waiting, and I can’t put you ahead of them.’

Then Ted asked to speak to the owner. The owner came out, and Jane again asked, ‘Do you know who I am?’ The owner answered, ‘Yes, I do. Do you know who I am? I am the owner of this restaurant and I am a Vietnam Veteran. Not only will you not get a table ahead of my friends and neighbors who have been waiting here, but you also will not be eating in my restaurant tonight or any other night. Good bye.’

Only in America , is this a great country, or what?

To all who received this, it is a true story and the name of the steak house is:

Sir Scott’s Oasis Steakhouse, 204 W. Main, Manhattan , MT 59741 , (406) 284-6929

If you ever get there, give this fellow a sharp salute, buy a steak, and tip the waitress. Keep passing this on. We should never forget the US national traitor.

OBAMA WANTS TO DESTROY AMERICA

While doing my job the other day, a co-worker and I began a conversation about our economy. Since the subject was brought up by my co-worker, I let them speak at length… with me just adding an occasional, yeah, uhuh, right… you get the idea. The basic premise that was being put forth by my co-worker is that ~deep breath~ Obama, has really at this point done nothing for the average American worker… now I stress WORKER and not potential or current governmental employee.

What he has done is implemented a bunch of government projects that in some cases end, and in others, produce things that only our government wants or has determined in the best interest of OUR country. You can not export clean air regulated by a government. You can not produce a product that other countries don’t want and for that matter, CARE ABOUT in the first place.

Prime example is nuclear energy. France is the leader in nuclear powered energy. WHY? Because it is cheaper, more efficient and yes… CLEANER than all other energy combined. But here, in the states, we care about the environment, and government regulations make it prohibitive for private industry to even TRY! TO EVEN TRY to produce a more efficient, cleaner way.

Now follow me if you can… If America could find a better way to produce nuclear power, that would be something that other countries would want, NOT GREENER CARS!

Its like the stupid freak n Superconducting Super Collider that they (United Stateds of Pork Gut Spending), started building out there in… what the hell what it… Waxahachie, Texas. After billions and billions of tax payer money and thousands of empty jobs the project was put on hold.

What am I saying… this is what I’m saying. America needs to be producing something other then government mandated jobs and start putting money back into the private sector for real long term job creation that will produce products that the rest of the world wants to buy. We do not need any more governmental regulations that mandate that government money should produce a government product that is only viable in freak’n America.

And another thing… I don’t want me or my children and their children and their children’s, children to own any house that is not theirs. I do not want to take part in a multi-billion dollar bailout of every ass that bought a house they know that they could not afford. Not my responsibility pal. I look at it like this… Every one of us who had enough common sense, and did not buy something beyond our means is being punished for being prudent, cautious… or knowing that 1+1 will never equal anything but 2.

Thats enuff for now….

Now its MANNING TIME!

787 Billion Dollar Voodoo Bill:

LET’S BRING THIS COMMUNIST DESTROYER OF AMERICA DOWN

TOGETHER WE CAN
For all of you who believe as I do, that Obama is a Communist, selected, tutored, groomed, packaged, and sold by his propaganda tool the MSM, I ask you to email me with information, and ideas on how together we can expose Obama for what he is and get him out of office before he does so much damage, it will take decades to recover.
My email is madaket6@yahoo.com my phone number is 601-649-5373.

The link below is a long read, but we all know Obama is long on words, but short on substance.
The “substance” you will find in Obama’s essay below from years ago, compared to the way he is
governing today, shows he has not changed his beliefs on Socialism.

Problems Facing Our Socialism
www.politico.com/static/PPM41_eastafrica.html - 12k

I was trying to put together something on George Soros, but Joy Tiz says it better than I will ever be able to. (Val)

George Soros: International Man of Misery

By Joy Tiz Wednesday, February 18, 2009

The term “euphemism” refers to the substitution of a vague or milder term for one that may be considered harsh, offensive or blunt.
Example:

George Soros is a “philanthropist”.

If by “philanthropist” we mean one who creates chaos, destruction and financial ruin for his own personal gain, it’s a perfect fit. Calling Soros a philanthropist is rather like referring to the Nazi block wardens as Neighborhood Watch.

Soros certainly gives lots of money away. But a philanthropist acts to improve the human condition. Soros acts solely to improve the Soros condition. Despite the lofty sounding rhetoric about an Open Society, Soros’ objective is to wreck the United States. Actually Soros never really defines his Open Society. The concept arose in the 1930s with the notion of a moral code based on “universal principles”. After tweaking the concept to suit his own purposes, Soros adopted his own version of an Open Society which would be one in which the US has no power.

Soros was born in Hungary in 1930 to non practicing Jewish parents. His father, a lawyer was able to hide their identities and young George was recruited by the Judenrat to hand out flyers deceptively directing Jews to turn themselves in for deportation to the death camps. Soros later said he found the work exhilarating. Later passing himself as an official’s godson, he accompanied his benefactor confiscating valuables from innocent Jews. (David Horowitz and Richard Poe, The Shadow Party. 2006).

Soros would later tell Steve Kroft on 60 Minutes that he had no remorse about what he had done.

In fact, Soros doesn’t have remorse for much, if anything. In The Shadow Party (David Horowitz and Richard Poe, 2006), Soros is quoted as saying that conscience clouds an investor’s judgment.

Soros amassed his fortune by speculating in the currency markets. He got a lot of attention for tanking the British pound in 1992. More than once, Soros has used his status as an investor to manipulate markets. According to Horowitz and Poe, the great patriot Soros likely sold short after 9/11 when the rest of the nation was being urged to take whatever they could afford and buy some shares of their favorite stocks. Lots of patriotic Americans did exactly that.

To further jeopardize our national security, Soros told CNN that the market would react negatively if the US were to invade Afghanistan knowing his words would cause a global market reaction. Soros has stuck his nose in governments all over the world claiming a philanthropic motive. Yet like day into night, once he’s done, the local economy is in a shambles and Soros is richer.

The Clinton administration allowed Soros to run wild in the dying Soviet Union. The results were entirely predictable. Working in tandem with Strobe Talbott, “Russian Policy Czar” they set about playing games with government funds. Soros reveled in having so much access to the Clintons and fancied himself part of the “Clinton Team”.

According to journalist Anne Williamson, Soros appeared before the House Banking Committee in September, 1999 attempting to explain to stunned congressmen exactly how so many US taxpayer dollars had evaporated in Russia. The Clintons managed to shut that scandal down quickly thanks to their expertise in scandal control.

Soros was actually convicted of insider trading in France. His opinion moves markets. He is one of the most powerful people in the world entirely due to his ability to get other people to part with their money. His tentacles are everywhere. He uses numerous foundations and associations to keep money flowing and spread around. It’s no secret that George Soros is fond of deceit and subterfuge. He is a radical in the mold of Saul Alinsky. For all of the nonsensical blathering he does about how he can make the world a better place, he has no real plan to do any such thing. Soros loses interest in a project after the demo phase is over. According to Horowitz and Poe, Soros candidly admits he finds destruction easier than creation.

Thus it makes perfect sense that Soros is the de facto head of the Democratic Party in America now that it is a foaming-at-the-mouth rabid left wing Democratic Party. As Horowitz and Poe put it: “Soros and his Shadow Party did not invent the politics of demagoguery and racial division. They are merely practicing and expanding the politics familiar on the Democratic Left.”

In 2004 Soros made it his personal mission to defeat George W Bush. Not only did Bush not share his moral relativism and radical ideology, Soros was outraged about Afghanistan and Iraq. Soros opposed Bush’s War on Terror and provides funding to pro terror groups. Worse still from Soros’ point of view, after enjoying easy access to the Clintons, Bush was not equally impressed and failed to seek out his wise counsel on foreign policy.

John Kerry’s loss in 2004 was gasoline on the fire. “This is the Sorosization of the Democratic Party”, say Rachel Ehrenfelt and Shawn MacComber (Frontpagemagazine.com. October 28, 2004). “As we will see, this idea of “scruples” being for the other guy has been central to Soros’ philosophy in business, philanthropy, and foreign policy”.

Although Soros had a mutually beneficial relationship with the Clintons, he knew enough to hedge his bets in 2008 and back more than one candidate. The type of revolution Soros wants requires a charismatic figure that can create a mass movement. Soros himself actually dislikes publicity. Good oratory skills and personal charisma are what he needs. Soros himself prefers to stay below the radar and work his subterfuge behind the scenes. After all, “Soros’ main concern is that somebody be elected who is indebted enough to him to pick up the phone when he calls” (Ehrenfeld and MacComber).

Just the other day, I attended a speech by Peggy Noonan. The topic was presidents. She told funny stories and shared her insights into Presidents Bush, Reagan, Clinton and Obama. Noonan talked about Clinton’s personal charisma, “it was impossible not to look at him”. And his speeches were well delivered but remarkably lacking in substance. Is anyone seeing a pattern here? Noonan sees Obama as more like Clinton than anyone else, not only in his policies, but his presentation.

Is it possible then that Bill Clinton was supposed to fulfill the role of George Soros’ cult leading Messiah but simply failed at it?

Soros can’t wreak his havoc alone. He needs his cult leader.

It’s important to understand that George Soros doesn’t want to “change” America. He wants to destroy it. America in its current state is anathema to Soros. The current Oval Office Occupant is not particularly fond of America either. His association with America hating radicals should be enough for most people but let’s not overlook the fact that his very first sit down interview after becoming president was to al Arabyia News Channel. Obama took the opportunity to share his views with the Muslim world that America has behaved very badly and we can be expected to change our ways so our relationship with Muslims will be like it was “twenty or thirty years ago”. This is a bit perplexing unless Obama either knows less about history than we thought or he longs for the days when Islamofascists led by Khomeini were holding 52 American hostages. I daresay the Muslim world was cheered to learn that our new president plans to take us back to the happy halcyon days of the Carter Administration. Soros is actually working toward a plan to completely overhaul the US Constitution.

When Soros gets hold of power in any government, he makes money. It is difficult to find examples of Soros invasions that leave the target country better off. But that is not Soros’ concern. Obama’s monstrous “Stimulus Bill” (euphemisms again) fits neatly into Soros’ paradigm. You can read Soros’ economy recovery plan on the Huffington Post (February 12, 2009).

For all the posturing Soros does about creating his Marxist Utopia there is no actual plan to create a new social order, an open one or otherwise. Soros, for all of his rambling hasn’t thought it through that far and he is not going to. His interest begins and ends with his potential to exploit whomever he can to grab money and power. He actually makes garden variety dopey liberals rather endearing by comparison. At least some of them believe in their unrealistic vision of socialism.

Keeping in mind that Soros will always act in ways that provide maximum benefit to Soros what are his plans for Obama? It’s clear he found the cult leader he needed. Obama is performing correctly with his daily catastrophizing and power grabbing. But what would benefit Soros more: a successful Obama presidency or a failed one? Success would give Soros four to eight years to work in the Shadows to destroy America and grab what spoils he can. But a failed presidency could offer even more. Obama and his Ministry of Propaganda have managed to create fear and panic in the population. His policies, if implemented cannot but lead to economic trouble and eventual shortages and rationing. Nobody knows more about how to destroy a currency than Soros. We have assumed that the peculiar short selling patterns and over hyped economic “collapse” were staged to get Obama elected. If an inept, inexperienced and radical president has his way, which Obama surely will, the net result is pretty predictable. Is that kind of social and economic chaos designed to open up a power vacuum that a guy like Soros just can’t resist?

imposing socialism on America
$65.5 Trillion in Debt

By Alan Caruba Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Yesterday, a man who has been President less than one month in office has signed a piece of legislation rammed through a Congress which probably not one single member has read. It spends billions on what most people of reasonable intelligence understand to be little more than “pork” projects designed to consolidate political power within the Democrat Party.

Why did the Democrats vote for it? Because they could. And because they are all essentially socialists who have now successfully imposed socialism on America.

Jerome R. Corsi, the author of “Obama Nation”, recently calculated that, “The total U.S. obligations, including Social Security and Medicare benefits to be paid in the future, effectively has placed the U.S. government in bankruptcy…” Total obligations exceed four times the annual U.S. gross domestic product (GDP), and the amount is more than the entire GDP of the world.

The nation, since the 1970s has veered from Richard Nixon who took the nation off the gold standard, to the far Left politics of Jimmy Carter who pleased no one, to the recession recovery engineered by Reagan. The caretaker administration of George H.W. Bush was replaced by the centrist political philosophy of Bill Clinton who would later take credit for Republican reforms instituted when the GOP regained control of Congress. What followed were two terms of George W. Bush which no more resembled conservatism than an elephant resembles a mouse.

We have arrived at the administration of Barack Hussein Obama, a man whose vital documents are not merely unavailable to Americans for examination, but who is waging a major legal battle to keep them that way. Do you think, perhaps, he has something to hide?

Throughout it all, from the days of Franklin Delano Roosevelt until the present, Americans have more than happily voted for either party offering a government program that would dole out money to them for any reason. FDR’s Social Security and Truman’s Medicare is now mostly paid for by swapping IOUs between various government agencies and departments. There’s little actual cash to keep these programs going.

It would be easier if we could just lay the blame on a particular President, but all have participated and Social Security is widely described as “the third rail” of politics. Credit Bush43 for trying to getting a program going that might actually allow people to have some control of the money taken from them to allegedly fund it.

So, since this is a republic and a democracy, the blame rests ultimately with the American people. We, Americans, voted for these people or at least for some of them.

In his second inaugural address on January 21, 1985, Ronald Reagan said, “An almost unbroken fifty years of deficit spending has finally brought us to a time of reckoning, We have come to a turning point, a moment for hard decisions. I have asked the Cabinet and my staff a question, and now I put the same question to all of you: If not us, who? And if not now, when? It must be done by all of us going forward with a program aimed at reaching a balanced budget. We can then begin reducing the national debt.”

The answer to Reagan’s question by way of George H.W. Bush was William Blythe Clinton who was voted into office by way of saying, “No, Ron, not now and not here.”

So we have all reached a point in our nation’s history where, sooner than we may believe, other nations are going to seriously question whether they want to buy the Treasury notes we want to sell in order to borrow more and more trillions.

A spokesperson for the Chinese government put it quite succinctly, “We hate you.” The U.S. dollar will shortly begin to resemble Zimbabwean money which is utterly worthless.

At the intense urging of President Obama the U.S. Congress has engaged in what can only be called either herd mentality or “magical thinking”; the belief that other nations will bail us out of our financial crisis when, in fact, we have created and spread it like a virus to the entire world.

Note that the Republican Party, with three notable exceptions, unanimously rejected the “stimulus” bill. Too late! They had eight years of the Bush Administration to not act like Democrats. Too late!

Neither Socialism, nor Communism work at all, but even Capitalism has its limits. The game is over.

Freedom of Choice, Fairness Doctrine, Rights of the Child
Obama and this congress offer Socialist, Marxist cogs in the change wheel!

By Dr. Laurie Roth Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Already we are seeing the Socialist, Marxist cogs in the change wheel manipulating away our freedoms and money. Congress and this President have wasted no time from the executive orders to the manipulative speeches and attachments on the ‘stimulus’ bill that insult and betray the American people.

Don’t you love the endless speeches and statements by Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Obama regarding the URGENT need to pass the stimulus bill or our country will go down in heaping flames? Naturally, we all understand the EXTREME emergency choices added to the bill such as $650 million for digital TV coupons; $99,600 for doorbells in Laurel, MS; $3,450,000 to ‘rehabilitate’ sidewalks in Alexandria, VA; $500,000 for a dog park in Chula Vista, CA; $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees; and how could we forget Nancy Pelosi’s favorite: $30 million to restore wetlands in the San Francisco Bay region of course to save the endangered salt marsh harvest mouse. There is too much ridiculous fat and nonsense that has been thrown into this rape bill to even mention here. If you want a longer list of the absurd, read Frank Salvato’s Feb 13th article at Thenewmediajournal.us.

What is the change agenda of this administration and democrats in congress? It is becoming vividly clear already the goal is socialism and Marxism. Freedoms have to boldly go while control has to dramatically grow in all areas for this to happen. Surely no one will notice. After all, half the country wanted change! The other half can be seduced and distracted into silence…….or can we?

Karl Marx said it first: Marx stated that Socialism is not a form of government but is a state, a policed and engineered state in which a nation takes on while in “Transition” from a Capitalist to a Communist society while the “Communist Utopia” is the ultimate desired outcome of the full transition; a world with no police, no property, no religion, no classes, even no need for government, no war…a fantasy land of everlasting harmony…”From Hitler, Socialism and the Racial Agenda” Justin Stamm, The Epoch Times.

What are the sucking sounds draining our freedoms and setting us up for this new world?

Freedom of speech must be controlled and severally dampened!

Watch the Fairness Doctrine reemerge with a different name and directly attack conservative and Christian talk radio. Senior FCC staff have already been having meetings with policy and legislative advisers to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman. They are pondering ways to create openings for the FCC to place the Fairness Doctrine back into existence without really calling it that. Freedom loving Waxman is also looking at controlling the Internet. I guess there is too much freedom of speech there as well.

The Fairness Doctrine crowd hides behind “diversity” and “freedom of speech” terms when in reality it is Government censorship and communist behavior at it’s finest. Liberals and progressives have always had the same freedoms to speak and do shows with all kinds of media. They already dominate in the media with NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS on and on. Then there is the endless domination with print media. It isn’t conservative Talk Radio’s fault that the liberal talk radio network has crashed and burned. It is however, most typical that the far left progressives can’t face their business failures but instead must try and murder the competition and promote a dictatorship heralding their opinions and side only.

On the larger Governmental level, this Government wants talk radio muted into silence because they and the Internet are the last real place for freedom of speech where the masses can actually be heard. Talk radio is a grass roots entertainment media where folks and their concerns can still be rallied and directed. That is most threatening to a Government that wants more control and socialism! Watch this fight unfold.

Another cog in this anti freedom train is nationalized health care.

We have seen the beginning of nationalized health care deceitfully attached to the stimulus bill with no national discussion on it. The critical part of this nightmare already is that the language changes the treatment terms in Medicaid and Medicare from what is thought of as safe and effective to “cost effective.” They model their new formula for figuring out this new conditional care on age and cost. They will divide the cost of treatment by the number of years the patient will likely benefit.

Do you all get it yet? That means you are in deep water if you are older!!! Is this not age discrimination and actual denial of needed health care and payment for our baby boomers? Beyond that, is this not another way to assert control over the country and economy by wiping out the greatest generation, the baby boomers who have fought to defend our freedom, constitution and country? Now that they finally enter retirement and need paid medical care, we will thank them for all their service by making life a costly, non-treatment oriented, living hell? Health care control will kill people!

Another freedom suckage sound is taking away parents rights?

Dr. Michael Farris of parentalrights.org recently came on my show and reminded us of the UNCRC, The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. Sen. Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton and others are supportive of this nightmare. Boxer has asked for a 60-day timeframe for review so the Senate can move toward ratification of the UNCRC. Not really hearing about this on the news, you may be wondering what is the big deal with securing children’s rights. As with the other freedom suck age attacks, this is not what it seems. If ratified, all states and parents across our land would have to submit to international law. Spanking would instantly become illegal. Give a love pat to your unruly child and you could lose your child. Making your children go to your church would be considered abuse if little Joey didn’t want it. The bottom line is that someone in Geneva would run your family, not you!!! Courtrooms would be filled and children would be yanked from wonderful, God-fearing homes.

Once again, you certainly don’t want children growing up with morals, guidelines and parents. The state…..excuse me…..the international community knows better! Parentalrights.org is trying to campaign for a constitutional amendment protecting parents rights from international meddling. I can’t believe anyone in our congress would be for such a betrayal to parents and frankly, children! We need you to help fight with this one!

What else has Obama been talking about with this congress that will suck away freedom?

FOCA, Freedom of Choice act. We can all scream and yell about abortion. To me it is murder at any age, but regardless as to how you deal with this issue, FOCA would force any Doctor anywhere along with even Catholic hospitals to give abortions. It would also trump all state laws rendering abortion or partial birth abortion illegal. Once again, we see a total disregard for states, rights, hospitals rights, Doctors rights, voters rights…..FOCA is evil and communist at its core!

There are too many cogs unraveling our freedoms to cover them all in this paper, but watch for more lies and increased taxes designed to stop global warming and control carbon emissions. Neither of which are real, but instead are excuses for Government control and stealing.

Finally, prepare for more manipulation, regulation, taxation and idiot rules to be thwarted on the gun industry. Watch for persecution against gun shops and gun shows. Further, we will see restrictive, protective devises on guns that are in homes, demonizing certain types of guns and using information like mental health records and medical records to keep people from being able to get guns. This push is already happening. Just research the voting record of Obama regarding guns and who he has appointed for attorney general, Eric Holder. This man is a living nightmare regarding gun control. Aggressive gun control always morphs into place when you are trying to manipulate a republic into a Marxist Government. Freedom doesn’t work but Big Government does.

It’s called Marxism and will eventually be communism if we don’t fight these freedom and constitutional encroachments to the best of our abilities! This is not the time for you to sit and watch. Call your congressperson and senator and follow the issues closely.

Flag this message
Fw: Re: A big first step — thank you
Tuesday, February 17, 2009 7:19 PM

My reply to Obama: Think i will get hacked again..
When you get your adversary really pissed of it’s easier to defeat him.
I’m just fighting mad, I want Obama insane with rage

From: marion valentine
Subject: Re: A big first step — thank you
To: info@barackobama.com
Date: Tuesday, February 17, 2009, 6:44 PM

By: Marion Valentine
February 12, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Change You can believe in.

CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE, BECAUSE IT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED
But some people are so mentally immature they need a NANNY to care for them. Some of us don’t.(Val)

“We cannot expect the Americans to jump from capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans small doses of socialism until they suddenly awake to find they have Communism.”— Soviet Leader Nikita Khrushchev, 1965

Most Americans have swallowed those “small doses” and are like hungry baby birds in the nest with their beaks open for the final dose. (VAL)

The demoralization process in the United States is basically completed already, for the last twenty-five years, actually it’s over-fulfilled because demoralization now reaches such areas where previously not even Comrade Andropov and all his experts would even dream of such a tremendous success, most of it is done by Americans to Americans, thanks to lack of moral standards.

*****As I mentioned before, exposure to true information does not matter anymore. A person who is demoralized is unable to access true information. The facts tell nothing to him. Even if I showered him with information, with authentic proof, with documents, with pictures — even if I take him by force to the Soviet Union and show him a concentration camp — he will refuse to believe it.******

The words above of Yuri Bezmenov a KGB agent who defected in 1978. Says in an interview recorded in 1984.(VAL)

I believe those words from years ago, because my eyes and ears tell me the events they forcast have already been fulfilled. Not many people believe Obama is a Communist. I DO (Val)

— On Tue, 2/17/09, President Barack Obama wrote:

From: President Barack Obama
Subject: A big first step — thank you
To: “Marion Valentine”
Date: Tuesday, February 17, 2009, 6:28 PM

Marion —

Today, I signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act into law.

This is a historic step — the first of many as we work together to climb out of this crisis — and I want to thank you for your resolve and your support.

You organized thousands of house meetings. You shared your ideas and personal stories. And you informed your friends and neighbors about the need for immediate action. You continue to be a powerful voice for change throughout the country.

The recovery plan will create or save 3.5 million jobs, provide tax cuts for working and middle-class families, and invest in health care and clean energy.

It’s a bold plan to address a huge problem, and it will require my vigilance and yours to make sure it’s done right.

I’ve assigned a team of managers to oversee the implementation of the recovery act. We are committed to making sure no dollar is wasted. But accountability begins with you.

That’s why my administration has created Recovery.gov, a new website where citizens can track every dollar spent and every job created. We’ll invite you and your neighbors to weigh in with comments and questions.

Our progress will also be measured by the tens of thousands of personal stories submitted by people who are struggling to make ends meet. If you haven’t already, you can read stories from families all across the country:

http://my.barackobama.com/yourstories

Your stories are the heart of this recovery plan, and that’s what I’ll focus on every day as President.

With your continued support, we’ll emerge a stronger and more prosperous nation.

Thank you,

President Barack Obama

My good buddy and tech guru that helps me tremendously with the computer and my web pages and blogs and so-forth sent me this yesterday. He must have picked it up from a local TV station or maybe the local paper in NE Indiana. Funny thing is I used to live in Elkhart,Indiana.

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT AT TOWN HALL
Concord Community High School
Elkhart, Indiana
February 9, 2009

Obama ~ “All right. Young lady right here — right here in the striped sweater.

Q Thank you. My question is, you have — my name is Tara. You have come to our county and asked us to trust you, but those that you have appointed to your Cabinet are not trustworthy and can’t handle their own budget and taxes.

Obama: No, no, no, this is a legitimate — this is a legitimate question.

Q So I’m one of those that thinks you need to have a beer with Sean Hannity. So tell me why, from my side, we can understand —

AUDIENCE: Boo!

Obama: No, that’s okay. That’s okay. No, no, look, I think it was a perfectly legitimate question.

First of all, I appoint — I’ve appointed hundreds of people, all of whom are outstanding Americans who are doing a great job. There are a couple who had problems before they came into my administration in terms of — in terms of their taxes. Look — and I think this is a legitimate criticism that people have made, because you can’t expect one set of folks to not pay their taxes when everybody else is paying theirs. So I think that’s a legitimate concern. (Applause.)

I will tell you that the individuals at issue here, I know them personally, and I think these were honest mistakes. And I made sure they were honest mistakes beforehand. And one of the things I discovered is if you’re not going to appoint anybody whose ever made a mistake in your [sic] life, then you’re not going to have anybody taking your job. So — (applause) —

But having said that, what I did acknowledge — and I said it publicly on just about every TV station — is something that you probably sometimes don’t hear from politicians, which is: I made a mistake. (Applause.) And that, because I don’t want to send the signal that they’re two sets of rules.

Now, understand, though, I think something that should also be mentioned is that we’ve set up an unprecedented set of ethics rules in my White House where we are not — we are not — everybody will acknowledge that we have set up the highest standard ever for lobbyists not working in the administration; people who work in my administration aren’t going to be able to go out the revolving door and start working for some lobbying firm and lobbying the White House. Republicans and Democrats have acknowledged that there’s a very high bar that we’ve set for ourselves. We have not been perfect, but we are changing the culture in Washington and it’s going to take some time.

Now, with respect to Sean Hannity, I didn’t know that he had invited me for a beer. (Laughter.) But I will take that under advisement. (Laughter.) Generally, his opinion of me does not seem to be very high — (laughter) — but I’m always good for a beer, so — (laughter and applause.)

All right. Well, let me — let me get this side of the room and then I’ll come back. I want to make sure I’m not looking too biased on one side here. That gentlemen right up there in the corner there — you, yes.”

Former President Claims He Could’ve Prevented Economic Crisis

This just in… … … … Terry Lanciotti says he could have created the Universe if the powers that be hadn’t got to it first… … … …

So let me understand this… … … … Bill Clinton could have prevented a Global Economic Meltdown… … … … This just in… … … … Marion Valentine Says he could have cured the common cold but… … … were all better off getting it…

This all makes me sick!

I need a reality check… Its MANNING TIME!