So, no matter how long it takes, Obama is going to take credit for the recovery? But, many experts believe that the economy would EVENTUALLY recover without all the bailouts so, is it all just a waste?

And what about this new health care plan? How is that going to help the economy? How is incurring more government debt and increasing government run programs going to help young graduates and small businesses? How is cap and trade going to increase jobs?

What is the Government thinking??? I wish Ron Paul were here!!!


All of a sudden, Congress is paying close attention to Ron Paul.

The feisty congressman from Texas, whose insurgent "Ron Paul Revolution" presidential campaign rankled Republican leaders last year, now has the GOP House leadership on his side -- backing a measure that generated paltry support when he first introduced it 26 years ago.

"In the past, I never got much support, but I think it's the financial crisis obviously that's drawing so much attention to it, and people want to know more about the Federal Reserve."

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/letters-to-the-editor/2009/06/25/ron-paul-and-auditing-the-federal-reserve.html

Whew! That should help. But, we're going to need a lot more than just one guy with common sense in Washington.


Mitt Romney: ""I think [we] have to stand up and make it very, very clear that we run the risk as a nation of having the entire world lose confidence in the currency of the United States and that would lead to something worse than a recession -- that would lead to an extraordinary slowdown globally that would hurt us more than any other."

"When the stimulus bill is wrong, when it wastes money and threatens the viability of our currency long-term, you have to stand up and say 'no.' When a health care plan says we're going to have the government take over health care which is roughly a fifth of our economy, [we] are going to have to say 'no' to that."

"The president's plan makes an enormous error by saying we're going to put government into the insurance business. We got everyone in Massachusetts insured and we did it without putting government into the insurance business. We said instead we're going to help people get private free enterprise kind of insurance they can buy from a number of different companies."

He said the system led to plunging premiums while offering a healthy choice of options for consumers.

"It's working well. We got 440,000 more people insured than when the plan was put in place, it costs less than 2 percent of the state budget -- it's a plan that's working, it's a good model," he said.

Romney also took issue with the climate change bill that passed the House of Representatives last week, saying it was corrupted by special interests.

"It's a lobbyists' delight and as a result it's a lousy piece of legislation. It should not have been passed, it's going to cost the American consumers a lot of money, it's going to cost us a lot of jobs. Yeah we'll create jobs making windmills and solar panels and that's wonderful, but were going to lose a lot of other jobs ... that are creating products that use energy," he said.


Of all the years of wasteful government spending, why now!!!???

I'm in the process of switching health insurance and I just got a quote yesterday. It'll cost me $130 a month to have a HDHP with a $2500.00 Anual deductable and I pay 0% for preventative care. In conjunction with a Health Savings Plan, that's a heck of deal!!! There's nothing wrong with Health insurance! That's less than the combined cost of my cable internet and my mobile phone bill. I don't know the statistics, but I'm willing to bet that most people in this country without health insurance, CHOOSE NOT TO HAVE ANY because they'd rather drive their nice car or have an iPhone or HD TV or whatever.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS COUNTRY? WHY IS IT THAT WE EXPECT EVERYTHING FOR FREE AND ARE WILLING TO LET POLITICIANS DRIVE THE US OF A INTO THE GROUND TO GET IT!?

I didn't realize that condemning the government for using violence against peaceful protestors was the same thing as a vote to "kill Iranians" or invade, or anything else that could be construed as jingoistic.

Here's the full text of the resolution (which was also passed in the Senate by unanimous voice vote):

Expressing support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law, and for other purposes.

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) expresses its support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law;

(2) condemns the ongoing violence against demonstrators by the Government of Iran and pro-government militias, as well as the ongoing government suppression of independent electronic communication through interference with the Internet and cellphones; and

(3) affirms the universality of individual rights and the importance of democratic and fair elections.

Wait ... I just checked. Clinton wasn't impeached

You must not have checked very well, because Bill Clinton was formally impeached by the House of Representatives on December 19 - 1998 in HR 611 with the charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. As far as I can determine, Bill Clinton was never once charged by congress with having 'sex' with Monica Lewinsky. All charges and impeachement articles stemmed from his rather famous lies under oath.

Neolibs try to minimize the reality, but if George Bush was brought into a hearing and lied under oath about so much as whether he chewed his fingernails they would want him impeached and/or prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The whole Scooter Libby charges were the same exact thing. Libby lied under oath about the Plame thing & got convicted for perjury even though he had committed no crime. That's the thing about perjury. It doesn't matter what you lie about. It just matters that you lied under oath.

Unless you're a Democrat...

Top 10 Reasons to Oppose the Stimulus

As with medicine, the first rule of law making should be first, do no harm. The "stimulus" bill fails this test spectacularly. Among so many other reasons to tell your U.S. Representative and Senators in Washington to oppose the stimulus, the Top 10 are:

1. The Stimulus Will Not Work

Our history is replete with examples of "stimulus" spending failing to move our economy toward prosperity--Bush just tried it, Ford tried it. Even Christina Romer, Obama's Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers agrees. Romer wrote in a study, "Our estimates suggest that fiscal actions contributed only moderately to recoveries." The New Deal didn't end the Great Depression and Obama's stimulus package won't end this recession. In fact, two UCLA economists published a study in 2004 finding FDR's similar New Deal policies prolonged the Great Depression by seven years.

It fails because you don't increase economic output by taking a dollar from one person and giving to another. The idea of "stimulus" spending falls for the " broken window fallacy"--the allure of what is seen versus what is not seen. We will see the jobs created by the government spending. What we won't see are the jobs lost because consumers have less money to spend because the government got the money its spending from us--the only place it can get money.

2. The Stimulus follows the same plan that ruined Japan's economy

Japan, after a dramatic market crash and a drop in real estate prices responded with government spending not unlike what the US Congress is considering today. In fact, they had 10 stimulus bills between 1992 and 2000, spending billions on infrastructure construction, building bridges, roads, and airports as well as pouring money into biotech and telecommunications. While many countries enjoyed booming economies and falling unemployment during this time, Japan had a lost decade, seeing its unemployment more than double. They spent double the US level of GDP on infrastructure, and now have a lousy economy and have one of the highest national debts in the world.

After 10 stimulus packages, Japan has gone from having the second biggest economy in the world by a long shot, to being well behind the new number two, China, and is close to falling behind India. We do not want to follow their lead.

3. The Stimulus is full of Wasteful Projects

While we were told the stimulus bill would focus on rebuilding America's infrastructure--mainly the roads and bridges--only 5% of the current bill goes to such projects. The rest of the bill goes to pet projects like:
* $400,000,000.00 for researching sexually transmitted diseases
* $200,000,000.00 to force the military to buy environmentally-friendly electric cars
* $34,000,000.00 to renovate the Department of Commerce headquarters
* $75,000,000.00 for a program to end smoking which, if successful will bankrupt the State Children's Health Program Democrats are about to pass (SCHIP) that is paid for by cigarette taxes
* $650,000,000.00 for digital TV coupons
* $50,000,000.00 for the National Endowment for the Arts

These programs are just the 2008 version of the " midnight basketball" program that derailed Bill Clinton's attempt to ram through a "stimulus" bill in 1992. Despite that bill failing, the economy quickly recovered and the economic boom of the 1990s began.

4. The Government Can't Afford the Stimulus

President Bush pushed the government deep into a $1.2 trillion deficit this year, the third time he has set a record for biggest deficit ever, and President Obama's stimulus bill follows his lead, piling on more debt. The deficit in 2008 amounted to about 8 percent of GDP. The entire debt is about 35 percent of GDP.

Even for those who do still believe in Keynesianism, it is important to remember his theory didn't start with the government already over a trillion dollars in the hole, he was generally operating from balanced budgets.

5. We Can't afford the Stimulus

How much is $825 billion? The Heritage Foundation has calculated that that comes to over $10,000 per American family. To further put that in context, on average, families annually spend:
* $2,230 on apparel and services
* $3,595 on health care
* $4,322 on food at home
* $11,657 on shelter

6. The Stimulus is Bigger Than the Economic Output of Most Countries

If this bill were a country, it'd be the 15th largest country in world, ranking between Australia and Mexico. It is bigger than the economies of Saudi Arabia and Iran combined. In fact, the $875 billion it calls for is more than all the cash in the United States.

7. Central Planning like the Stimulus Doesn't Work, Ask the USSR

If centrally planned government spending on a grand scale produced economic growth, the Soviet Union would have won the Cold War. If government spending on a grand scale produced economic growth we would be in the middle of the Bush Boom right now. It doesn't. Working, saving, and investing leads to economic output and increases in productivity lead to growth.

As economics professor Steven Horwitz said, "The stimulus plans assume consumption is the source of growth. It is not. It is the consequence of said growth."

8. Remember the $750 Billion Bailout from this Fall?

It was just a couple months ago when we were told if we would just quickly hand over $750 billion to the Treasury Secretary to bailout his friends on Wall Street, he would make the economy all better. That didn't work, and neither will an additional $825 billion.

9. This Money Doesn't Grow on Trees

And this has nothing to do with paper money being made of cotton and linen. The only way the government gets money is through taxing, borrowing, or printing--that is, it has to take it out of the economy in order to put it back into the economy. If government borrows the money for the stimulus, then it will either have to print money later or raise taxes to pay it back. If it raises taxes to pay for the stimulus, it will, in effect, be robbing Peter to pay Paul - probably with interest. If it prints the money, inflation decreases the value of the dollar for every American - robbing Paul to pay Paul.

10. Economists do NOT Agree this is a Good Idea

No matter how many times supporters of the bill say it, economists do not all agree this bill is a good idea. In fact, hundreds of economists have come out against it, including Noble Laureates, who signed a letter the Cato Institute ran as a full page ad in several major newspapers opposing the stimulus. Still more economists submitted statements to the US House of Representatives opposing the stimulus proposal.

And this only scratches the surface, there are so many more reasons to oppose the stimulus.

In order to even out the information you posted I had two choices: Either add information about Palin's achievements after she took office, or delete the info you posted about Obama's achievements. I chose the latter. I didn't want to waste my time. It's obvious to me that your mind is closed.

How does my political affiliation have anything to do with whether or not I post on your profile?


In reply to this comment by rougy:
I told you not to talk to me on my profile any more, didn't I?

Doesn't matter, though. You're a conservative Republican and you're going to do whatever you want, huh? That's very typical you you, Deedub, and people like you. You don't give a shit about anyone.

I asked you not to argue this stuff with me on my privete profile. Doesn't matter, you're going to send me another message telling me how "skewed" my argument is.

So, who's the one who had to delete information about Barack Obama in order to make it seem like he only had as much experience as Sarah Palin?

You did. You are the one who skewed the info.

By the way, there are several videos on the Sift that are claiming essentially what I am claiming.

Why don't you post there? Go there and defend all of Palin's experience!

I'd rather you didn't continue this asinine conversation on my profile.

I'd ask you again not to respond and to keep these arguments on the boards, but hey, you're a conservative republican and what I want just doesn't fucking matter, does it?

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
Wow. I must have hit a nerve.

Take a chill pill.

I was not trying to convince anyone that Palin is the best choice for the republican ticket. I don't think McCain and Palin are the best candiates to lead our Nation. I was simply attacking your skewed and unfair argument. I'm sorry if that hurt your feelings.


In reply to this comment by rougy:
You are so full of shit it's sad. Typical of the American Con, you completely ignore what is relevant and embrace whatever triffle you think proves your point.

You're an asshole, man. I'd appreciate it if you'd keep this shit to the posts instead of dirtying my profile with your stupidity.

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
You didn't supply a summary of Palin's achievements. If you remove the summary of what Obama has done since being elected it turns into this:

Palin served two terms on the Wasilla, Alaska City Council from 1992 to 1996, and was elected mayor of Wasilla in 1996. In 2002, she was elected Governor of Alaska.

Obama was elected to, and seved in the Illinois State Senate from 1997-2004. He was elected to serve in the US House of Representatives in 2000.

In short: Palin has exactly 5 more years of experience in government, and 6 more years of experience in an executive position. It comes across a lot differently when you write it out in non-propoganda format.

I told you not to talk to me on my profile any more, didn't I?

Doesn't matter, though. You're a conservative Republican and you're going to do whatever you want, huh? That's very typical you you, Deedub, and people like you. You don't give a shit about anyone.

I asked you not to argue this stuff with me on my privete profile. Doesn't matter, you're going to send me another message telling me how "skewed" my argument is.

So, who's the one who had to delete information about Barack Obama in order to make it seem like he only had as much experience as Sarah Palin?

You did. You are the one who skewed the info.

By the way, there are several videos on the Sift that are claiming essentially what I am claiming.

Why don't you post there? Go there and defend all of Palin's experience!

I'd rather you didn't continue this asinine conversation on my profile.

I'd ask you again not to respond and to keep these arguments on the boards, but hey, you're a conservative republican and what I want just doesn't fucking matter, does it?

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
Wow. I must have hit a nerve.

Take a chill pill.

I was not trying to convince anyone that Palin is the best choice for the republican ticket. I don't think McCain and Palin are the best candiates to lead our Nation. I was simply attacking your skewed and unfair argument. I'm sorry if that hurt your feelings.


In reply to this comment by rougy:
You are so full of shit it's sad. Typical of the American Con, you completely ignore what is relevant and embrace whatever triffle you think proves your point.

You're an asshole, man. I'd appreciate it if you'd keep this shit to the posts instead of dirtying my profile with your stupidity.

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
You didn't supply a summary of Palin's achievements. If you remove the summary of what Obama has done since being elected it turns into this:

Palin served two terms on the Wasilla, Alaska City Council from 1992 to 1996, and was elected mayor of Wasilla in 1996. In 2002, she was elected Governor of Alaska.

Obama was elected to, and seved in the Illinois State Senate from 1997-2004. He was elected to serve in the US House of Representatives in 2000.

In short: Palin has exactly 5 more years of experience in government, and 6 more years of experience in an executive position. It comes across a lot differently when you write it out in non-propoganda format.

There is a rumour that SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU ASSHATS.

Does it matter who was pregnant ever? Who cares if her doctor told her she can fly home? Who cares if her daughter is/was knocked up. Who cares who stayed home from school for how long. They are all losing arguments.

SHE IS THE MOST UNDER-QUALIFIED PERSON EVER NOMINATED. period.

She is another "Brownie" or "Goodling" and a signal that cronyism and religious pedigree have already destroyed this country if we are at the point where this is the GOP VP pick.

For fucks sake, Dan Quayle has a law degree and was elected twice to the U.S. House of Representatives and twice to the goddamn Senate. She got 2nd place in a beauty pageant in a state where the total population was under 500,000. And the media has nothing else to say about her than her PTA leadership. I mean come on.

You are so full of shit it's sad. Typical of the American Con, you completely ignore what is relevant and embrace whatever triffle you think proves your point.

You're an asshole, man. I'd appreciate it if you'd keep this shit to the posts instead of dirtying my profile with your stupidity.

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
You didn't supply a summary of Palin's achievements. If you remove the summary of what Obama has done since being elected it turns into this:

Palin served two terms on the Wasilla, Alaska City Council from 1992 to 1996, and was elected mayor of Wasilla in 1996. In 2002, she was elected Governor of Alaska.

Obama was elected to, and seved in the Illinois State Senate from 1997-2004. He was elected to serve in the US House of Representatives in 2000.

In short: Palin has exactly 5 more years of experience in government, and 6 more years of experience in an executive position. It comes across a lot differently when you write it out in non-propoganda format.






In reply to this comment by rougy:
There is really no comparison between Palin's experience and Obama's.

I cut this from the center of Metafilter, but I think it's pretty accurate:

From wikipedia:

Palin's experience: After being selected as the runner up in the 1984 Miss Alaska contest, Palin served two terms on the Wasilla, Alaska City Council from 1992 to 1996, was elected mayor of Wasilla in 1996, and ran unsuccessfully for Lieutenant Governor in 2002.

After charging ethical violations by state Republican Party leaders, she won election in 2006 by first defeating the incumbent governor in the Republican primary, then a former Democratic Alaskan governor in the general election.

Obama's experience: A graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he served as president of the Harvard Law Review, Obama worked as a community organizer and practiced as a civil rights attorney before serving in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004. He taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004. Following an unsuccessful bid for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2000, he announced his campaign for the U.S. Senate in January 2003. After a primary victory in March 2004, Obama delivered the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in July 2004. He was elected to the Senate in November 2004 with 70% of the vote.

As a member of the Democratic minority in the 109th Congress, he helped create legislation to control conventional weapons and to promote greater public accountability in the use of federal funds. He also made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. During the 110th Congress, he helped create legislation regarding lobbying and electoral fraud, climate change, nuclear terrorism, and care for returned U.S. military personnel. After announcing his presidential campaign in February 2007, Obama emphasized withdrawing American troops from Iraq, energy independence, decreasing the influence of lobbyists, and promoting universal health care as top national priorities.

Who sounds more qualified to be President?

@ roughy: If you remove the summary of what Obama has done since being elected it turns into this:

Palin served two terms on the Wasilla, Alaska City Council from 1992 to 1996, and was elected mayor of Wasilla in 1996. In 2002, she was elected Governor of Alaska.

Obama was elected to, and seved in the Illinois State Senate from 1997-2004. He was elected to serve in the US House of Representatives in 2000.

In short: Palin has exactly 5 more years of experience in government, and 6 more years of experience in an executive position. It sounds a lot different when you don't write it out in non-propoganda format.

There is really no comparison between Palin's experience and Obama's.

I cut this from the center of Metafilter, but I think it's pretty accurate:

From wikipedia:

Palin's experience: After being selected as the runner up in the 1984 Miss Alaska contest, Palin served two terms on the Wasilla, Alaska City Council from 1992 to 1996, was elected mayor of Wasilla in 1996, and ran unsuccessfully for Lieutenant Governor in 2002.

After charging ethical violations by state Republican Party leaders, she won election in 2006 by first defeating the incumbent governor in the Republican primary, then a former Democratic Alaskan governor in the general election.

Obama's experience: A graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he served as president of the Harvard Law Review, Obama worked as a community organizer and practiced as a civil rights attorney before serving in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004. He taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004. Following an unsuccessful bid for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2000, he announced his campaign for the U.S. Senate in January 2003. After a primary victory in March 2004, Obama delivered the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in July 2004. He was elected to the Senate in November 2004 with 70% of the vote.

As a member of the Democratic minority in the 109th Congress, he helped create legislation to control conventional weapons and to promote greater public accountability in the use of federal funds. He also made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. During the 110th Congress, he helped create legislation regarding lobbying and electoral fraud, climate change, nuclear terrorism, and care for returned U.S. military personnel. After announcing his presidential campaign in February 2007, Obama emphasized withdrawing American troops from Iraq, energy independence, decreasing the influence of lobbyists, and promoting universal health care as top national priorities.

Who sounds more qualified to be President?

>> ^Constitutional_Patriot:
In my opinion it seems that they are building up to this anyway....
Remember that secret meeting the house of representatives had on March 13, 2007 that Dennis Kucinich refused to attend because of his opposition to the content?
It's been leaked that the meeting referred to impending martial law, handling opposition to the government in the event of an uprising, safehavens for congress people in such event, what will happen to Americans that may oppose the "rule of law" from the Federal govt and the "unavoidable" merger between countries of the North American continent.


Wow, I would like to think that what the esteemed Constitutional_Patriot has said in that comment is not possible, but I know better.

Its not the fact that this could happen its the fact that there is even talk about this possibly happening.

This is indeed scary.

>> ^Constitutional_Patriot:
In my opinion it seems that they are building up to this anyway....
Remember that secret meeting the house of representatives had on March 13, 2007 that Dennis Kucinich refused to attend because of his opposition to the content?
It's been leaked that the meeting referred to impending martial law, handling opposition to the government in the event of an uprising, safehavens for congress people in such event, what will happen to Americans that may oppose the "rule of law" from the Federal govt and the "unavoidable" merger between countries of the North American continent.


Refusing to attend THAT? Inconceivable! He should have attended with a hidden recorder.

In my opinion it seems that they are building up to this anyway....

Remember that secret meeting the house of representatives had on March 13, 2007 that Dennis Kucinich refused to attend because of his opposition to the content?

It's been leaked that the meeting referred to impending martial law, handling opposition to the government in the event of an uprising, safehavens for congress people in such event, what will happen to Americans that may oppose the "rule of law" from the Federal govt and the "unavoidable" merger between countries of the North American continent.

I'm going to cut this off when the World Socialist website goes heavy into the socialism:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jun2008/impe-j12.shtml

"House Democrats kill resolution to impeach Bush
By Patrick Martin
12 June 2008

In a display of parliamentary maneuvering that combined cynicism and cowardice, Democratic members of the US House of Representatives voted unanimously to kill an impeachment resolution against President Bush introduced by Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio.

Kucinich himself participated fully in the farce. He introduced the resolution Monday and read out the 35 articles of impeachment for crimes ranging from the lying pretexts given to the American people for the war in Iraq to torture at the US detention camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and illegal domestic spying. Then he moved to send the resolution to the House Judiciary Committee, whose chairman John Conyers has long rejected any effort to hold Bush constitutionally accountable.

The 251-166 margin of the vote, held on a roll call Wednesday, saw all 227 Democrats—including Kucinich and his lone co-sponsor, Robert Wexler of Florida—joined by 24 Republicans move to dispose of the resolution. Voting against were 166 Republicans, who sought to force a debate on impeachment for the purpose of embarrassing the Democratic Party leadership.

After Kucinich introduced the measure Monday and spent more than four hours reading the entire text into the Congressional Record, House Republicans utilized a parliamentary provision to force the clerk of the House to read the text out loud all over again on Tuesday, consuming another four hours and keeping the House in session until after midnight. The purpose was to rub the Democrats’ noses in their own refusal to take action to back up their occasional bursts of anti-Bush demagogy.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ruled out any impeachment of Bush as soon as the Democrats won control of Congress in November 2006. Impeachment resolutions against Cheney were introduced in May and November of 2007 and killed each time by the Democrats, in the same fashion as the Bush impeachment resolution Wednesday.

There is no question that, unlike Bill Clinton, who was impeached for lying about a private sexual encounter, George W. Bush is guilty of offenses that meet the “high crimes and misdemeanors” standard set by the US Constitution.

The adamant opposition to impeachment proceedings on the part of Pelosi, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, and the rest of the Democratic leadership does not stem from a belief that such proceedings would be unpopular. According to public opinion polls, a majority of the American people and an overwhelming majority of Democratic voters favor Bush’s impeachment and removal from office.

A public vote in the House of Representatives would, however, find a clear majority of the Democrats in Congress siding with Bush against the sentiments of their own constituents. The Democratic leadership seeks to block any vote to conceal as much as possible their role as the last line of defense for the Bush administration.

The Democratic leadership opposes impeachment not on legal, but on political and class grounds. They are well aware that the adoption of an impeachment resolution against Bush and Cheney, regardless of the outcome of a Senate trial, would deal a major blow against the White House as an institution and undermine the legitimacy of all Bush’s actions as “commander-in-chief,” especially in the war in Iraq.

It would also inevitably raise the question of who in Congress was complicit with Bush’s criminal conduct over the past seven years—tarring Democrats as well as Republicans, since a majority of Senate Democrats and a large number of House Democrats voted for the Iraq war resolution in 2002. Many other actions listed in Kucinich’s articles of impeachment were given near-unanimous support by the Democrats.

More fundamentally, the Democratic Party is a bourgeois party and it seeks to uphold the authority of the bourgeois state..."

bourgeois, stop.

Still some valid points though - rare you'll see me agreeing with that site, but there you go.

O'Reilly calls this a meeting of "Far-Left loons". I find it odd that he calls himself a centrist on his radio show however he would never think of insulting the NeoCons this way. He's a patsy.. he's part of the deception machine that has been uncovered spreading propaganda. He's doing "his job".

For one, This meeting was centered on non-partisan issues.. a VERY serious one at that. Truth in mainstream media, truth in journalism and integrity of information dissemination and distribution. If any pundit would call such a meeting with these intentions crazy, it would be because that pundit engages in non-truth in reporting journalism and lack of integrity.

Secondly, Seeing as this issue has even been debated in the House of Representatives and inserted related constraints regarding these issues from a legislative spending perspective in the FY2009 budget then more debating and scrutiny needs to take place regarding disseminating information that is fed to the public when an alterior agenda that affects this nation as a whole is clearly present. (this may fall into the category of a Clear and Present Danger to the American people.)

Thirdly, we have to ask ourself: "Did Bill O'Reilly participate in the campaign that the current administration funded in order to propagate support for the war in Iraq initially in order to facilitate regime-change via 9/11 as a mass-psychological catalyst or 'New Pearl Harbor'?"

Keep in mind that this war - like the past few other wars were engaged in an Unconstitutional manner. What good are Checks and Balances when Congress and the Attorney General (which is appointed incorrectly in my opinion - I feel that the President should not be able to appoint this position as it is a conflict of interests if the AG participates in "playing politics" as we have seen with Gonzales and now with Mukasey (This is the same judge that presided over the Larry Silverman Twin towers attack / Bldg 7 Collapse insurance trials: http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/04/29/attacks.insurance/index.html)) - when these governing branches ignore the Constitutional law to suit the objectives of a think tank that has formulated it's own global strategy using the full powers of the Executive branch and non-governmental policy-making institutions to impose it's will.

This clearly illuminates several failures in the system that needs immediate correction. Proper Checks and Balances have been seriously comprimised. This includes those in the mainstream media which are supposed to help by being the watchdogs of the system they are reporting on. When corruptive collusion takes place within any branches of our governing system then we ALL lose.