Why yes, yes we do…

• 

This billboard along Interstate 35 outside Wyoming, Minn., was one of the most-searched items on Google Tuesday, generating news articles and attention that most advertisers could only dream of. The creators of the ‘Miss Me Yet’ billboard want to remain anonymous.

Courtesy of Bob Collins/Minnesota Public Radio

Another forthcoming ban in Europe

I think it’s actually a good idea. I am pretty sure France doesn’t have a freedom of religion deal going on so I am in agreement with this ban. I think full covering of the face is a dangerous practice. Call me closed minded but in this day and age,  I agree. I also just read an article that stated that the full face covering was not a requirement of the Muslim faith.  Women can choose to cover their whole face but it is not required. France MPs’ report backs Muslim face veil ban

The full-face covering has inflamed passions in France A French parliamentary committee has recommended a partial ban on women wearing Islamic face veils. The committee’s near 200-page report has proposed a ban in hospitals, schools, government offices and on public transport. It also recommends that anyone showing visible signs of “radical religious practice” should be refused residence cards and citizenship. The interior ministry says just 1,900 women in France wear the full veils. A law may follow, but MPs are divided over what to do Gavin Hewitt BBC Europe editor Read more in Gavin Hewitt’s blog In its report, the committee said requiring women to cover their faces was against the French republican principles of secularism and equality. “The wearing of the full veil is a challenge to our republic. This is unacceptable. We must condemn this excess,” the report said. The commission called on parliament to adopt a formal resolution stating that the face veil was “contrary to the values of the republic” and proclaiming that “all of France is saying ‘no’ to the full veil”. Presenting the report to the French National Assembly, speaker Bernard Accoyer said the face veil had too many negative connotations. “It is the symbol of the repression of women, and… of extremist fundamentalism. Jacques Myard, French MP: “It is contrary to our social values” “This divisive approach is a denial of the equality between men and women and a rejection of co-existence side-by-side, without which our republic is nothing.” The report is expected to be followed by the drafting of a bill and a parliamentary debate on the issue. The BBC’s Hugh Schofield, in Paris, says the reasoning behind the report is to make it as impractical as possible for women in face veils to go about their daily business. There is also a fear that an outright ban would not only be difficult to implement but would be distasteful and could make France a target for terrorism, our correspondent says. France has an estimated five million Muslims – the largest such population in Western Europe. Months of debate The report follows months of public debate, including President Nicolas Sarkozy’s intervention, saying all-encompassing veils were “not welcome in France”. REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS Parliament should pass a resolution denouncing full Muslim face veils Ban the veil in all schools, hospitals, public transport and government offices Bar foreign women from obtaining asylum or French citizenship if they insist on veiling their faces in state buildings Take into account in asylum requests the coercion to wear the full veil as an indication of a wider context of persecution Create a national school of Islamic studies The Islamic veil across Europe However, he did not explicitly call for a ban, saying “no-one should feel stigmatised” by any eventual law. Opinion polls suggest a majority of French people support a full ban. However, the parliamentary deputies have recommended that – for now – restrictions should be limited. The committee suggests a ban inside public buildings, with those who defy the ban denied whatever services are on offer there – for example state benefits. There are several types of headscarves and veils for Muslim women – those that cover the face being the niqab and the burka. In France, the niqab is the version most commonly worn. The niqab usually leaves the eyes clear. It is worn with an accompanying headscarf and sometimes a separate eye veil. The burka covers the entire face and body with just a mesh screen to see through. Find out about different styles of Muslim headscarf In graphics The issue has divided France’s political parties. The Socialist opposition has come out officially against a ban, saying it would be difficult to enforce. It says it is opposed to full veils in principle, but some members have expressed fears about any ruling that could stigmatise Muslim women. Meanwhile, the head of Mr Sarkozy’s right-wing UMP party has already presented a bill in parliament supporting a full ban on grounds of security.

Thomas Sowell on Scott Brown

I like Thomas Sowell.   The points he brings up in this article are so relevant.

While it was a huge victory for republicans in Massachusetts,  it doesn’t mean that the majority can’t do anything,  because they still can ram anything through that they want.  It just makes it a tiny bit harder with the Scott Brown win.

http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2010/01/26/great_scott!

Some of the most melancholy letters and e-mails that are sent to me are from people who lament that there is nothing they can do about the bad policies that they see ruining this country. They don’t have any media outlet for their opinions and the letters they send to their Congressmen are either ignored or are answered by form letters with weasel words. They feel powerless.

Sometimes I remind them that the whole political establishment — both Democrats and Republicans, as well as the mainstream media — were behind amnesty for illegal immigrants, until the public opinion polls showed that the voters were not buying it. If politicians can’t do anything else right, they can count votes.

It was the same story with the government’s health care takeover legislation. The Democrats have such huge majorities in both houses of Congress that they could literally lock the Republicans out of the room where they were deciding what to do, set arbitrary deadlines for votes, and cut off debate in the Senate. The mainstream media was on board with this bill too. To hear the talking heads on TV, you would think it was a done deal.

Then Scott Brown got elected to the “Kennedy seat” in the Senate, showing that that seat was not the inheritance of any dynasty to pass on. Moreover, it showed that the voters were already fed up with the Obama administration, even in liberal Massachusetts, as well as in Virginia and New Jersey. The backtracking on health care began immediately. Politicians can count votes. Once again, the public was not helpless.

One seat did not deprive the Democrats of big majorities in Congress. But one seat was the difference between being able to shut off debate in the Senate and having to allow debate on what was in this massive legislation. From day one it was clear that concealing what was in this bill was the key to getting it passed.

That is why there had to be arbitrary deadlines– first to get it passed before the August 2009 recess, then before Labor Day, then before the Christmas recess.

The President could wait months before deciding to give a general the troops he asked for to fight the war in Afghanistan but there was never to be enough time for the health care bill to be exposed in the light of day to the usual Congressional hearings and debate. Moreover, despite all the haste, the health care program would not actually go into effect until after the 2012 presidential election. In other words, the public was not supposed to find out whether the government’s takeover of medical care actually made things better or worse until after it was too late.

Although even the members of Congress who voted on this massive legislation did not have time to read its thousands of pages, just the way it was being rushed through in the dark should have told us all we needed to know. For many voters, that turned out to be enough.

Even after Scott Brown came out of nowhere to make a stunning upset election victory, there were still some cute political tricks that could have been pulled to save the health care bill. But enough Democrats saw the handwriting on the wall that they were not going to risk their own re-election to save this bill that Barack Obama has been hell-bent to pass, even when polls showed repeatedly that the public didn’t want it.

President Obama’s desire to do something “historic” by succeeding, where previous presidents had failed, was perfectly consistent for a man consumed with his own ego satisfaction, rather than the welfare of the country or even of his own political party.

As for the public, it doesn’t matter if your Congressman answers your letter with a form letter, or doesn’t answer at all. What matters is that you let him know what you are for or against and, when enough people do that– whether in letters, in polls or in an election, politicians get the message, because they know their jobs depend on it.

As for what is likely to happen to health care, neither the bill passed by the House of Representatives nor the Senate bill can be expected to be enacted into law. Meanwhile, Obama’s reaction to his political setback has been to respond rhetorically and to call on the political operatives who helped engineer his successful election campaign in 2008. But the public did not know him then, and his rhetoric may not fool them again, now that they do.

Another winner chosen!!

I am so excited!! No really,  I am!!!

Seriously,  I just cannot believe that BO thinks that the people he is choosing for these positions are going to pass muster with the general public.  You know,  the people who actually elected him.  The people for whom HE works FOR??

Apparently he is not listening and will continue to not listen,  much to his very own detriment.  But,  so be it.

Here is the article about Dawn Johnsen.  Worth the read.

http://townhall.com/columnists/KenBlackwell/2010/01/26/obamas_dawn_johnsen_appointment?page=2

Dawn Johnsen is President Obama’s nominee to head the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). It’s arguably the most important office at DoJ. OLC sets policy for the entire federal government.

When not serving in government, Dawn Johnsen has spent her career promoting abortion-on-demand. She denies there is even such a thing as Partial-Birth Abortion. Even the term, she maintains, is “intentionally provocative.” She does not think that “progressives”—that’s PC-speak for liberal—should suggest that abortion is ever a tragedy.

Not for Dawn Johnsen Bill Clinton’s slippery formulation: “Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.” Dismiss for the moment that Bill and Hillary Clinton did everything they could in their eight years to promote abortion world-wide. The only places they made abortion rare were on the Moon and in Antarctica.

Even the Clintons’ basic premise was flawed. If abortion is “a fundamental constitutional right,” as they said in every official document, then why should it be rare? Is there any other fundamental constitutional right we want to be rare?

Hillary once said abortion is “wrong.” (Newsweek, 31 October 1994). Only once. But she pressed governments around the world to legalize it. That’s an odd way to deal with something you think is wrong.

Dawn Johnsen doesn’t think abortion is wrong at all. She is all for it. She drafted the five lethal Executive Orders that Bill Clinton signed within hours of taking the oath as President to promote easier access to abortion. Clinton struck down Ronald Reagan’s Mexico City Doctrine, allowing U.S. funds to go to Planned Parenthood and the UN Fund for Population. This order sluiced money to abortionists worldwide and even, as in China, to those who force women to have abortions.

Bill Clinton struck down Reagan’s order to Planned Parenthood to separate their so-called family planning activities from their abortion facilities. Under Bill Clinton—and up until the current day—teens can take devices and pills out one door and, when these fail, they are hustled back into the revolving door to the abortion center.

Johnsen goes much further in her pro-abortion militancy than even the Clintons, than even President Obama. She worked for years to strip the Catholic Church of its tax-exempt status. Why? Because the Catholic Church has never wavered in its outspoken defense of unborn children. Dawn Johnsen was part of the Abortion Rights Mobilization (ARM ) that fought a legal battle for eight years in the courts.

ARM’s assault on religious liberty and free speech was the brainchild of Lawrence Lader, the co-founder of NARAL, for whom Johnsen also worked. Lader said “abortion is central to everything in life and how we want to live it.” Johnsen’s record puts her very much in that camp. She has even likened pregnancy to slavery.

The Catholic Church would not be the only target if Johnsen is confirmed. Many Protestant churches and associations take pro-life stances. These include the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), and The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS). All of these church bodies could find themselves in the cross-hairs if Dawn Johnsen is confirmed.

We are very close to seeing a nationalized Health Care bill pass through Congress and sent to President Obama for signature. Sen. Bob Casey (D-Penn.) has signaled us that the final bill that is being “ping-ponged” back and forth between Speaker Pelosi’s office and Sen. Harry Reid’s will likely include federal funding for abortion-on-demand. That’s bad enough. But we can see that if churches object to funding for killing the unborn, they could be targeted by Dawn Johnsen at the Office of Legal Counsel.

Chief Justice John Marshall famously said in McCullough v. Maryland that “the power to tax is the power to destroy.” That’s what Dawn Johnsen tried to do for eight years to the Catholic Church in America. That’s what she could do to your church if she is confirmed by the Senate.

Fear of losing their tax-exempt status has for too long kept Christian pastors from speaking out on the grave moral issues of the day. It shouldn’t be, but it is so.

Because of Dawn Johnsen’s pro-abortion extremism, because she has sought to impose a “chilling effect” on religious free speech, because she has tried to destroy churches, this ACLU lawyer should be rejected by the U.S. Senate.

Robert Gibbs on FNC

It seems a truce has been called on Fox News by the White House.

Robert Gibbs,   the WH Press Secretary appeared on Chris Wallace’s  Sunday program.

I’m sure only because Scott Brown won and he wanted to assure us all that the WH is not worried about it.

Blah,  blah,  blah…………………..

It’s interesting to me  that about 33 percent of Democrats watch Fox News! Yet they call it Faux News,  Fox Noise, etc.  Yet they continue to watch the channel!!

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/state_of_the_news_media_2008/who_watches_what_party_lines_cable_news_91828.asp

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,583788,00.html

Transcript: Robert Gibbs on ‘FNS’

Sunday, January 24, 2010

The following is a rush transcript of the January 24, 2010, edition of “Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace.” This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

CHRIS WALLACE, ANCHOR: I’m Chris Wallace and this is “Fox News Sunday.” The political winds of change rattle Washington. In the wake of Scott Brown’s upset win, will President Obama be forced to reshape his agenda? We’ll ask one of his closest advisers, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, in a “Fox News Sunday” exclusive.

Then, Republicans celebrate their victory in Massachusetts but have their eye on a bigger prize in November. We’ll handicap GOP chances to cut into the Democratic majority with John Cornyn, chairman of the Republican Senate Campaign Committee.

And the Obama administration takes aim at Wall Street again. We’ll ask our Sunday regulars if this new populism is smart politics and good business, all right now on “Fox News Sunday.”

And hello again from Fox News in Washington. Joining us now, one of the president’s top advisers, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.

And, Robert, welcome back.

//

ROBERT GIBBS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Thanks for having me, Chris.

WALLACE: Let’s start with the effort to get Ben Bernanke a second term as chairman of the Federal Reserve. Do you now have the 60 votes you need for confirmation?

GIBBS: Well, I think you saw the chairman — statement from Judd Gregg, a Republican, and Chris Dodd, a Democrat, working together in bipartisan fashion to ensure stability in our financial system, by approving Ben Bernanke for a second term.

We believe he will be confirmed. I hope that you’ll ask Senator Cornyn and others in later segments to come out and support some of that stability in our financial system by ensuring the re-nomination of the Fed chairman.

WALLACE: You talk about stability. The Dow Jones lost 400 points this week. What does the president think the repercussions would be on Wall Street and markets around the world if Bernanke is not reconfirmed?

GIBBS: Well, Chris, I think the best way to not have to deal with any of those repercussions is to support Ben Bernanke for a second term.

There’s no doubt there’s anger and frustration in this country — we saw it manifest itself in Massachusetts — about the direction of our economy, about what’s happened with excessive risk-taking with big banks and the American people having to lend their hard-earned money to bail them out.

We have taken some extraordinary steps to try to get past that, to stabilize our financial system. And now it’s important to take the next steps to create an atmosphere where the private sector is hiring again, so we can put millions who have lost their jobs back to work. I think now would be a particularly bad time to send a signal to the international community and to our overall financial system by playing politics in any way with this upcoming vote.

WALLACE: You talk about that, but in recent weeks, and especially in the last few days, the president has taken a populist line, bashing Wall Street, calling for new restrictions on banks.

Do you worry that that may feed the mood against Bernanke, that it may have been fueling the drop in the market, and that it may scare businesses from hiring people?

GIBBS: No, not at all. Let’s — let’s — what you call “bashing the banks” the American taxpayers call two things, getting the money back that they lend…

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: … fat cats and…

GIBBS: Well…

WALLACE: … you know, the…

GIBBS: Right. Well, again, the American people lent big banks in this country an extraordinary amount of money after they took extraordinarily excessive and greedy risk-taking that nearly caused the absolute collapse of our financial system, OK? So the president has proposed ensuring that we recoup all of that money on behalf of taxpayers.

And then secondly, we don’t let banks, investment firms own a bank, able to get access to capital from the Federal Reserve and invest that money and make huge profits, not for their clients but for themselves.

You’ve seen — you saw on — when the president announced this, we had the SEC chairman from a Republican administration, Paul Volcker, the Fed chairman during part of the Reagan years.

There’s support for what the policy that the president outlined across the political spectrum from people on the left all the way to the Wall Street Journal. We haven’t had many of those over the past year or so.

I think we can work together to bring about financial reform and put some commonsense proposals on the table and pass them so that we never find themselves in a situation we did last — in September of 2008 where the American people are held hostage to a bank that’s too big to fail.

WALLACE: The president gives his state of the union speech on Wednesday night. Will he emphasize the populist line, fighting for the little guy, that we heard so much in his speech in Ohio on Friday?

GIBBS: Well, absolutely. The — what you’re going to hear from the president is the same thing you heard from him over the past several years.

And that is that for far too long people in this country felt like Washington was about the special interests and not about them. That’s why they’re frustrated.

That’s why they’re frustrated about the rising cost of health care, the rising cost of a college education. That’s why they’re frustrated that there aren’t more jobs in this country and that they feel like the banks are getting a better deal than — Wall Street’s doing better than Main Street.

WALLACE: But do — but didn’t your administration play into that in the health care bill when there were backroom deals being made — the “Louisiana purchase,” the “Cornhusker kickback,” big labor unions come in to talk about Cadillac plans and walk out with a billions-of- dollar exemption?

Haven’t you played into that idea that it’s an inside game?

GIBBS: Well, Chris, I will tell you this. I think one of — one of the things that we’ve seen, quite honestly, over the past several years is that there’s no doubt that there is a tension in this town between the process of getting something done and what that process produces. And I know that the president has certainly seen that.

And there’s no doubt that this health care bill has become a caricature of what’s actually in it. If you look at the exit polling out of Massachusetts, a state that has a health care plan very similar to the one the president proposed, it’s very popular. It was very popular among the electorate and sent Scott Brown to Washington to serve in the United States Senate.

The only difference between Massachusetts and the plan that the president has is the plan the president has puts in strong cost controls that protect families from watching their premiums skyrocket.

So I do think that the process has caused things like the health care plan to be caricatured when, in fact, they contain tax cuts for small business to provide coverage for employees, cost controls so that, as I said, families don’t see skyrocketing premiums, and checks on insurance companies that can’t discriminate against people with preexisting conditions.

WALLACE: I want to get back to health care in a second, but…

GIBBS: Sure.

WALLACE: … we keep hearing that the main emphasis in the state of the union is going to be the economy, putting people back to work.

The president is talking about a $175 billion jobs program, more tax credits, more spending for infrastructure and green energy jobs.

After the experience of the stimulus, does he really think that borrowing billions more, adding to the deficit, is going to cut employment and put people back to work this year?

GIBBS: Well, Chris, let’s take, for instance, the example you just used of the stimulus package. We had four quarters of economic regression in terms of growth, right?

Just last quarter, we finally saw the first positive economic job growth in more than a year, largely as a result of the recovery plan that’s put money back into our economy, that saved or created 1.5 million jobs.

WALLACE: You didn’t have job growth in the last quarter.

GIBBS: No, you had economic growth.

WALLACE: OK.

GIBBS: And you can’t…

WALLACE: But the job — you still lost 69,000 jobs.

GIBBS: Right, but, Chris, are you — can you imagine an economic scenario in which we’re adding jobs when the economy is retrenching? No. You have to have economic growth before you have job growth.

The recovery plan, in a transparent way, put money into the economy to invest in…

WALLACE: But what about the fact that…

GIBBS: … clean energy economy…

WALLACE: … there are 3 more million people out of work?

GIBBS: Well…

WALLACE: What about the fact that you said it wasn’t going to be any more than 8 percent unemployment and it’s now 10 percent?

GIBBS: Because, Chris, what we inherited when we walked in the door was an economic situation that was far worse than anybody ever knew.

Nobody ever went on Fox Business and thought we would lose 741,000 jobs in January of 2009. But if you look at where we have gone, from losing 741,000 jobs to on the verge of creating more jobs, we’ve made a tremendous amount of progress.

The hole we inherit and the hole that we have to fill is very, very deep.

WALLACE: You know there are a lot of…

GIBBS: And it’s going to take…

WALLACE: … people out there that are…

GIBBS: … a lot of…

WALLACE: …that are going to hear…

GIBBS: … a lot to fill that hole.

WALLACE: …”he’s still blaming Bush. He’s been president now for over a year.”

GIBBS: No, no, no. No, no, no. Look. The president — well, look. The scenario that he came in and took office and what existed in this country when he put his hand on the Bible is what it is, right?

Regardless of how we got there, that’s the situation the president was asked to deal with. He understood that. That’s why he ran for president, to make some very tough decisions.

Nobody wanted to help the banks, right? Nobody wanted to give money to stabilize the financial system. Nobody wanted to ensure that two auto companies in this country didn’t go out of business and go bankrupt and we lose several hundred thousand more jobs.

Those are tough decisions, based on where we were, that the president had to make. What the president will outline in the state of the union are several things, including continuing to take the steps that are necessary to provide an environment where the private sector once again can start hiring people.

WALLACE: As for health care, the president sent, I think it’s fair to say, mixed messages this week on the day after Scott Brown won in Massachusetts. On Wednesday, he said this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: I would advise that we try to move quickly to coalesce around those elements of the package that people agree on.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: But on Friday in Ohio he said you can’t just have insurance regulation reform, you also need mandates that everyone get insurance.

So let me ask you just a couple of specific…

GIBBS: Sure.

WALLACE: … I hope, quick questions and answers. Will the president push for comprehensive reform or a scaled-back package?

GIBBS: Well, right now, Chris, we’re working with leaders on Capitol Hill to try to figure out the best path forward. We have don’t know what that is quite yet.

But understand, Chris, the problems that existed in American health care that existed a year ago or a week ago continue today. And we know this, Chris. If we don’t do anything, premiums are going to go up. More people are going to lose their health insurance. They’ll be discriminated against by their insurance companies, and our deficit will get worse because we’re not dealing with the long-term costs of health care reform, so…

WALLACE: Does he agree — you talk about taking some time to figure this out. Does he agree with the statements from Speaker Pelosi and Senator Dodd this week that Congress should take a break, maybe a month or two months, before — focus on jobs and then come back to health care?

GIBBS: Well, Chris, we’ve always been focused on jobs. We — the president has been focused on jobs since the moment he walked into the Oval Office.

WALLACE: But Congress has been more focused on health care, certainly you’d agree. And the question is should Congress take a break for several months and focus on…

GIBBS: Well, again…

WALLACE: … jobs and leave health care for later?

GIBBS: … I think there’s — those discussions are happening right now to see whether or not we can get something done and when we can do it.

But I know the president, again, is convinced that the — health care is part of the economy. People have an anxiety that — “What happens if my child gets sick, right? I’m on the verge of possibly losing my job. I don’t have good health care, and if my child gets sick and I lose the health care that I have in my job, I could go bankrupt.”

That’s part of the anxiety that people are feeling every day and that’s the — part of the anxiety that we have to address.

WALLACE: Let’s turn to the message from Massachusetts on Tuesday night. Here was the president’s first reaction on Wednesday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office. People are angry and they’re frustrated, not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years, but what’s happened in the last eight years.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: But, Robert, Scott Brown had a clear platform, and let’s lay it out — stop health care, cut taxes, end backroom deals with special interest, and don’t give terrorists Miranda rights.

It wasn’t the same thing that swept Barack Obama into office. Scott Brown explicitly campaigned against the Obama agenda.

GIBBS: Well, that may be what he campaigned on, but that’s not why the voters of Massachusetts sent him to Washington. If you look at an exit poll that was done by the Washington Post…

WALLACE: Well, it wasn’t an exit poll, but it was a — I mean, they did a poll.

GIBBS: Well, they did a poll of voters that participated…

WALLACE: Right.

GIBBS: … as to why they voted, right. So more people voted to express their support for Barack Obama than to oppose him. His approval rating among that electorate was 61 percent.

Their enthusiasm for Republican policies among that electorate was — for Republicans was 40 percent…

WALLACE: But you’re not suggesting…

GIBBS: No, no.

WALLACE: … this was a…

GIBBS: No, no.

WALLACE: … mandate for Barack Obama?

GIBBS: Of course not. But I’m also not suggesting that what you said a minute ago meets the truth test either, and let’s…

WALLACE: You don’t think that…

GIBBS: No, no. Chris, hold on.

WALLACE: You don’t think that when they voted for…

GIBBS: Hold on, Chris. Chris, hold on.

WALLACE: … Scott Brown they were voting against Obama’s policies?

GIBBS: That’s not what they told pollsters. No. I think people are angry in this country — they were angry in Massachusetts — that we haven’t made more progress on the economy.

Let’s ask the question on health care. They asked specifically — now, again, this is somebody that you’re saying is all about stopping health care reform.

WALLACE: He said he was the 41st vote.

GIBBS: I understand, and I hope he doesn’t misread the electorate. Seventy percent of the voters in Massachusetts want him to work with Democrats on health care reform. Only 28 percent want to stop health care reform from happening.

Chris, if Republicans want to assume that the outcome of what happened in Massachusetts is a big endorsement of their policies, when 40 percent are enthusiastic about them and 58 percent are angry about them, then I hope they misread that election as badly as anybody could.

What people want in this country is they want to us focus on getting this economy moving again. They want us to work together. And the president has tried, and I hope that Republicans will try to work with the president.

But that kind of anger and dissatisfaction at the fact that Washington far too many times puts the special interests ahead of their interests — that anger still persists. That’s what people said in Massachusetts.

WALLACE: We — we’re beginning to run out of time, so I’ve got several more questions I…

GIBBS: Sure.

WALLACE: … want to ask you. The president has now asked 2008 campaign manager David Plouffe to come back. Is it just to work on the midterm elections, or will he advise the president on policy and legislative strategy?

GIBBS: Oh, no. David is — David is as smart as anybody that I’ve ever met and I think anybody’s ever seen in politics.

He will help supplement an already good political staff led by Patrick Gaspard in the White House in helping us watch the 2010 elections, the gubernatorial, the Senate and the House elections, that will obviously be important to the direction of the country.

WALLACE: So it’s almost exclusively political is what you’re saying.

GIBBS: Yeah, absolutely.

WALLACE: Osama bin Laden has apparently, because it — we say apparently because it hasn’t been authenticated yet — made a new tape…

GIBBS: Right.

WALLACE: … claiming responsibility for the Christmas Day attack. Two questions. One, your reaction to the fact that he’s still out there, and does the government think that bin Laden really had any role in the Christmas Day would-be bombing?

GIBBS: Well, I don’t want to get into the second question. I would say this. Obviously, we have — nobody’s had a chance to authenticate that tape.

I would say, again, you know, I think everybody in this world understands that this is somebody that has to pop up in our lives over an audiotape because he’s nothing but a cowardly, murderous thug and terrorist that will some day, hopefully soon, be brought to justice.

WALLACE: Minute left. Our top intelligence and homeland security officials told Congress this week that none of them were consulted beforehand on the decision to charge the Christmas Day bomber, Abdulmutallab, as a criminal defendant.

And we’ve now learned that he was read his Miranda rights on the day he was arrested, on Christmas Day, after just 50 minutes of interrogation. You said this week that it was Attorney General Holder who made that decision. Was the president informed before or after the decision was implemented?

GIBBS: Which decision?

WALLACE: The decision to charge Abdulmutallab as a criminal defendant and not treat him as an enemy combatant.

GIBBS: Well, Chris, the charges didn’t happen until several days later, and everybody…

WALLACE: Well, he was read his Miranda rights. Was the decision — was the president…

GIBBS: Right.

WALLACE: … told before or after…

GIBBS: That decision was made by the Justice Department and the FBI, with experienced FBI interrogators. But understand this, Chris. Make no mistake. Abdulmutallab was interrogated and valuable intelligence was gotten as a result of that interrogation.

WALLACE: But we now find out he was interrogated for 50 minutes. I mean, this is a guy who was…

GIBBS: No, no, no, no, no. No, no. That’s…

WALLACE: The reports are — no, the reports are that he was interrogated for 50 minutes. He was then drugged. They — because he had, obviously…

GIBBS: Right.

WALLACE: … you know, some injuries. They — when they came back, he was read his Miranda rights and he clammed up.

GIBBS: No. Again, he was interrogated. Valuable intelligence was gotten based on those interrogations. And I think the Department of Justice and the — made the right decision, as did those FBI agents.

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: And let me just press one last question. You really don’t think that if you’d interrogated him longer that you might have gotten more information, since we now know that Al Qaida in Yemen…

GIBBS: FBI — well, FBI interrogators believe they got valuable intelligence and were able to get all that they could out of him.

WALLACE: All they could.

GIBBS: Yeah.

WALLACE: Thank you very much. Thanks for coming in.

GIBBS: Chris, thanks for being here.

WALLACE: Always a pleasure. Don’t be a stranger.

GIBBS: Happy to do it.

WALLACE: Come back.

Content and Programming Copyright 2010 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2010 Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.

Talk about ignorant…

Oops,  now I am sounding like what I am going to post about.

Seriously,  one of the only ways for the left to fight is to call conservatives or republicans names.

Take George Bush for example.  All I hear about him from the left is “what an idiot,  he’s a moron,  he’s a liar,  he lied,”  etc ad nauseum.

All I hear from them is , “what a bunch of idiots.  They are so stupid, uneducated, bible reading, gun toting idiots.” etc ad nauseum.

When things aren’t  going there way,  they start with the name calling and denegrating the right.

Take the Scott Brown win.  When BO went to Massachusetts on Sunday, he mocked Scott Brown for driving a PICKUP TRUCK!!!  WHY?? There are a whole lot of people in the USA that drive pickup trucks!

Then there is Joy Behar making the comment that Palin followers don’t even read.  She can’t really be serious can she?? Does she not realize how many people she alienated with that senseless comment??

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/colleen-raezler/2009/12/29/joy-behar-sarah-palin-s-base-doesn-t-even-read

But,  the tables turn if anyone on the right says one word that doesn’t agree with the BO administration.  More name calling.  Racist, hater,  fear monger , war monger, tea baggers,  bigot , homophobe etc ad naseum.

But look here,  we have first amendment rights.  What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.  But no,  no one can say one work against BO.

Then there’s Mike Malloy.  He is totally off his rocker.  He was a bit miffed when Scott Brown won in Massachusetts.  Here’s what he had to say.  It is beyond awful that anyone would say this tripe about anyone.  He ought to be ashamed.  But somehow,   I don’t believe he is.

That’s ok,  these far left progressives can continue to mock conservatives,  our values and GOD.   One day they will surely see the light.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2010/01/20/malloy-rush-sean-glenn-bill-bombed-america-9-11



Malloy: Rush, Sean, Glenn, and Bill ‘Bombed’ America on 9/11

By Tim Graham
Wed, 01/20/2010 – 15:27 ET

Radical-left talk show host Mike Malloy went on a tear again on Tuesday night as election returns poured in from Massachusetts. Malloy was blunt about the voters. To him, they said: “We want a theocratic madman as our senator.”

But Malloy really started swinging as he noted the headline that Prince Alwaleed bin Talal of Saudi Arabia was having talks with Rupert Murdoch about News Corp investing in his Rotana Media company. That story led to this rant about conservative talkers being the real terrorists on 9/11 (Listen for yourself here):

You crazy sons-of-bitches, you right-wingers. Do you not understand that the people you hold up as heroes bombed your goddamn country? Do you not understand that Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly are as complicit of the September 11, 2001 terror attack as any one of those dumb-ass fifteen who came from Saudi Arabia? Don’t you get that?



I wonder if Rachel Maddow was still loving Malloy for his “dark thoughts.” Malloy was furious at the election results, but he insisted the political elite was completely, hopelessly “corporatist.” He insisted there was little to no difference between Scott Brown, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama:

The people of Massachusetts still said “No, we want a theocratic madman as our Senator.” Oh, okay. So what? What’s the difference between the new senator and Bill Clinton? Somebody tell me. I’m serious. There is not a bit of difference between them! And very little between Brown and Obama!

He lamented Obama would have Brown over “for a cup of goddamn coffee!” He said the Democratic Party died with FDR, but he couldn’t figure out which year that was.

What, ‘48? ‘47? ‘46. ‘46. No, ‘45. When did we drop the bomb? ‘44. I don’t know. I guess it was ‘44? Yeah, because Truman had to make the decision to drop the bomb. I guess it’s ‘45. That’s when the Democratic Party died. Come on. Come on. Bury the son of a bitch!

If you really want to work toward the ideals the Democratic Party put together in the Thirties, then start going to work for Democratic Socialist candidates, people like Bernie Sanders….The Democratic Party is as useless as teats on a bull.

—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2010/01/20/malloy-rush-sean-glenn-bill-bombed-america-9-11#ixzz0dOVXJS4w

Progressives vs democrats…

Do you know what a progressive is??  You should learn.

Do you know the difference between a democrat and a progressive?  You should learn.

Listen to BO speak and notice how many times he refers to “progressives”.

Hillary claims to be a “modern progressive”.

The democrats are hiding behind the progressive label,  except they are not hiding anymore.

At last the truth

I thought this was interesting given the climate in the mainstream media.

For someone to actually come out and say this is astonishing.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/mika-brzezinski-the-media-does-have-a-liberal-bias-thats-why-we-have-fox/

Mika Brzezinski: The Media Does Have A Liberal Bias — “That’s Why We Have Fox”

by Rachel Sklar | 1:38 pm, January 19th, 2010

MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski was a guest on Julie Menin’s Give & Take and she had a lot to say about the opinion media — that is to say, the media who pretend they’re not the opinion media. Said Brzezinski of the media establishment: “I will say what people aren’t saying: It’s got a liberal worldview.”

Brzezinski said that though “there are great people working at the networks,” who work hard to remain objective, they are mostly Democrats — and it shows. “The balance is not there within the objective mainstream media. It’s not. It is not.” Brzezinski drew a distinction between those well-intentioned, if biased, colleagues and the “cartoonish” figures on the right and the left of the cable news divide, saying that she and her colleagues at Morning Joe make an effort to avoid those one-dimensional characterizations: “We try to be transparent about who we are and where we come from, and what our worldview is and what our knowledge base is on every issue. And we are not trying to be anything more than what we are. And that is extremely honest.”

When asked by host Julie Menin if liberal bias was “seeping into the coverage” Brzezinski said emphatically that yes, it was, and suggested that journalists should declare their political affiliation — and who they voted for in the last election. “Come on, are you telling me that a reporter for a great news organization does not have opinions?” said Brzezinski. “Every reporter, every anchor, every human being that is a personality on television has opinions, and has a worldview and has a slant.” Brzezinski said that audiences would appreciation the media rejecting the pretense of objectivity and declaring bias, saying “We have [to] know that the viewer’s smart about that, and if you are fair and you are looking for the truth, you can be trusted. And you’ve got to be honest.

“The reason why we’ve got these extremes is a reaction to the “objective” mainstream media, that is so not objective when you have most of them being Democrats, or liberals, running it. That’s why we have Fox. Because it wasn’t honest. And because there was a reaction out there to this.”

<iframe src=”http://videos.mediaite.com/embed/player/?content=PP4K3J16HKLZCD75&widget_type_cid=svp” width=”420″ height=”442″ frameborder=”0″ marginheight=”0″ marginwidth=”0″ scrolling=”no” allowtransparency=”true”></iframe>

This is terrific!!

Scott Brown has won the Massachusetts senate seat most recently held by Ted Kennedy for so many years.

I mean Scott Brown has won unless the Democrats find a way to steal this election.

But Coakley has conceded!!

Now we move on to the man actually getting his seat without the left stalling.

New Jersey was just the beginning.  Massachusetts now!

I cannot wait to see what happens come November.  I can see the Republicans gaining a lot of seats.

People are finally waking up to what is happening in our once wonderful country.  People are finally seeing what the current administration is doing to our country.

I predict the health care  reform and cap&trade will not pass.  And that makes me very very happy!!!

Cheaters and hypocrites…WTG Ed Schultz

Way to go MSNBC.

Nice to know that you have people that work there that freely admit they would cheat and encourage people to cheat in elections.

Fantastic!!

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=122290

---

ELECTION 2010

MSNBC talk host: ‘Cheat to keep these bastards out’

On Senate race: ‘If I lived in Mass., I’d vote 10 times’

---

Posted: January 17, 2010
7:25 pm Eastern

By Drew Zahn
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Ed Schultz

MSNBC television and syndicated radio host Ed Schultz declared that he would stuff the ballot box in Massachusetts if he could to prevent Republican Scott Brown from upsetting Democrat Martha Coakley in the race to fill the state’s Senate seat formerly held by Edward M. Kennedy.

Whatever it takes to keep “the bastards” out of power.

“I tell you what, if I lived in Massachusetts I’d try to vote 10 times,” said Schultz on his Friday radio show. “I don’t know if they’d let me or not, but I’d try to. Yeah, that’s right. I’d cheat to keep these bastards out. I would. ‘Cause that’s exactly what they are.”

Learn why the Mainstream Media are dying. Get Joseph Farah’s “Stop the Presses: The Inside Story of the New Media Revolution.”

Schultz’s statement was broadcast on “The Ed Schultz Show,” which is aired weekdays, 12-3 p.m, as well as on satellite radio. His show’s website boasts Schultz is “the most listened-to progressive radio talk show host in America” and “the first progressive talker to hit 100 affiliates, both satellite networks and the Armed Forces Radio Network.”

His comments about cheating to turn the tide of an election, however, have already sparked heavy criticism.

Talk radio commentator Brian Maloney of The Radio Equalizer scoffed at Schultz’s statement by rephrasing it: “Who needs democracy when it leads to outcomes one might not like?”

Noel Sheppard of Newsbusters.com quipped, “Who says there’s liberal bias in the media?”

Sheppard also points out that Schultz’s comments came on the same day fellow MSNBC host Chris Matthews lamented that Democrat operatives couldn’t “buy” enough votes in Massachusetts to ensure Coakley’s victory:

“You know, in the old days – maybe I shouldn’t be harkening back to the old days – if the Democrats faced this kind of a disaster in the works, you’d go back to your ones, the people you were sure are going to vote Democrat, and you’d make sure they got to the polling place, you’d get them lunch, you’d get them a car,” Matthews said. “You’d make sure they got there, and in some cases you’d be buying people to get them, not officially buying them, but getting them there as block secretaries, as block captains, you’d be getting them there with street money – legitimate, but it’s a little bit old school.”

Commented Sheppard, “The good folks at General Electric and NBC must be thrilled to know that two of their on-air personalities are so biased in their political views that they publicly advocate cheating for their party to be victorious.”

WND contacted “The Ed Schultz Show” for clarification or comment on the host’s statement, but has yet to receive a reply.