Have you seen the economic figure, the third quarter GDP number?

It’s 4.9% July through September! Can you believe the disconnect between the reporting about a recession and this figure?

“Gross domestic product rose at an unrevised 4.9% annual rate, quicker than its solid, 3.8% performance in the second quarter, the Commerce Department said.”

Now, if the media, were a drug company and they got its information about its products so consistently wrong, they would be out of business. They would be sued out of business!

Imagine the media as a drug company. They get everything wrong; they put stuff in their drugs that kills you or harms you or makes you sick, and there’s no accountability. If they were a drug company, they’d be out of business.

It’s the only business I know, the Media, that can be consistently wrong about its product and stay in business! It can be consistently wrong about its customers and tell its customers that they’re stupid, and still stay in business.

They are constantly trying to drive down the morale of the people about their own country. It’s a sick mentality that these people in the Media have.

Anyway, despite this 4.9% growth figure in the third quarter, it’s enormous.

It should be celebrated! People ought to be happy about this.

We’re going to hear no end to the stories about foreclosures by people who took out loans on terms they couldn’t afford, as if the majority of us do that. Ninety-four percent of all people in this country are paying their mortgages and yet it’s been made to look like the housing market is crashing; people are being forced out of their homes, and it’s like a soup-line mentality out there.

I’m getting bored of pointing this out… <sigh>

It’s a disgrace.

By the way, what happened to all those front-page stories with those retired Clinton generals about how we couldn’t win this war?

Where are those retired Clinton generals?

I haven’t seen ’em on TV in a while, have you?

Shouldn’t they be brought back on TV by the Media, and asked, “What do you mean, coming on TV and lying to us like that?” and, “How can you be so wrong?”

If I were a Clinton general, I’d say, “Don’t talk to me about wrong. When have you gotten anything right?”

You know, Nancy Pelosi, folks, bragged about her first 100 days.

I’ll tell you what, the next 265 days really sucked!

This budget? Nobody knows what’s in it.

There are 11,000 earmarks in this! Nobody has read the whole thing. Nobody knows what’s in it. In fact, the president has assigned somebody over there to go through the whole thing, but he’s going to sign it.

He got to sign it because he got his money for Iraq in this, and he excoriated members of Congress for all these earmarks, but I’ll tell you, 3,000 of these earmarks are Republicans, the other eight or nine are Democrat earmarks thrown in at the last minute.

There are too many pages in this thing, too little time, which means by simple deduction that some people know some of the things but nobody knows all the things.

You could probably petition the government for your $100 million grant soon- who knows?

They’d say, “Oh, it’s probably in there. We’ll give it to you,” if you’re some scientist or whatnot. The money being bandied about here is just incomprehensible, and they’re going to have to do it all over again pretty soon because it’s just a continuing resolution.

Nancy Pelosi said, “It takes a woman to clean up the House.”

If this is cleaning up, bring back dirty!

Everybody who votes for the budget is personally responsible for it! These guys get to act like spectators. If Congress thinks a company should be responsible for their accounting statements, shouldn’t they be responsible for their spending?

After all, it’s our money.
Well, it was, until they took it.

In 1999 Hillary Clinton, running for the Senate, promised to do three things for New York residents: fix health care, improve education, and provide economic development to upstate New York. She embarked on a “listening tour” to learn firsthand how to deliver on those promises.

Reuters:
Since 2000 — the year that Hillary Clinton became Senator Clinton — upstate New York has lost one out of every five manufacturing jobs. And the declines are likely to continue in that sector as far as the eye can see.

The problems in the economy of upstate New York are so bad that jobseekers are getting out; in Buffalo, over 34,000 households have departed — just, gone! — since Hillary Clinton took over. In Rochester, jobs in the manufacturing sector fell by more than 30 percent. True, jobs in New York’s service sector have grown slightly, but Democrats always say that only means the good, high-paying manufacturing jobs are being lost to “hamburger-flipper” jobs.

In news story, AP reports that New York farmers are experiencing hardships. Mrs. Clinton’s state lost 600 farms in 2005-2006 alone.

Now, remember, she promised to fix education in Arkansas. Instead, her programs drove that state’s performance to record lows. Now, in New York, her promise to fix the upstate economy have residents fleeing In mass.

I got a “tour” for you, folks.

Travel the road of Mrs. Clinton’s so-called “experience”, and you’ll find a long and winding road of failures.

Let’s draw some analogies, shall we? Terrorism is spreading, just as communism did. They’re not spreading exactly the same way, but Islamofascism is on the move just as the communists were, in Africa, in Asia, in Iran (which is a non-Arab state), in the Philippines, and within our own country — and I think, actually, this is a little bit more dangerous in many ways, as it is a religion-based ideology and, as such, is above criticism.

You can’t criticize the fundamental aspects of militant Islam because it’s their religion.

Witnesss the cartoon fiasco that the Dutch endured and that inflamed, ostensibly, much of the world. Of course, the world media sides with this. “Oh, yes, we must all have religious freedom and nobody can say that anybody’s religion is extreme, is a faith-based belief system” and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, but because it’s a religious-based ideology it can hole up in churches, mosques or what have you.

You know, in the old days when we have arguments about communism, many communists in this country — and they were here — they ran and hid. The worst thing in the world was to be called a communist. It was harmful, and that’s why the McCarthy era was what it was, why it roused so many and ruffled so many feathers.

But, in this case, it’s a religion, and you can’t argue with a religion. You really can’t argue.

They’re articles of faith and so forth. What you have here is an ideology that is bent on world domination as best it can, that hides behind a religion in practically every way it can.

It’s very smart, by the way, in doing this. I don’t think this is happenstance or coincidental.

These guys are also, I think, more dangerous than the old communists were because the communists operated out of nation states. Now, they funded terrorism, and they established little base camps around the world like Cuba and Nicaragua, but their mission there was to always have nuclear weapons pointed at us and to foment disruption and unrest in other parts of the hemisphere.

But these Islamofascists, I think, are even more dangerous because it only takes a handful of them to unleash all kinds of hell, and they don’t have to conquer countries to do it. They just have to move in, just have to move in and establish a neighborhood. Just have to establish a mosque.

They don’t have to go in with guns blazing and take over Nicaragua or Cuba or anything of the sort. More reason to fight this wherever it is, is simply because we are fighting through satellites as well directly. Iraq, Israel, Somalia, et cetera. Nobody wants to really call this what it is. It is a world war against Islamofascism and it has many fronts all over the world.

These clowns are trying to take over Africa as we speak, Indonesia, and they’re making inroads, and of course they do it, as I say, as a religion.

It’s not a perfect comparison here, folks, and I’m not trying to say that this is a flawless analogy, but there are similarities which ought not be ignored — and I think it’s important to point this out.

I think it might be easier for some people to wrap their brains around what we’re fighting and how we’re fighting it, if, for example, there’s some way to analogize it. It’s not conventional in any way, this war, and it’s not nation states. Look at what we’re having: arguments here over whether terrorists who are no more than enemy combatants have constitutional rights as though they were American citizens! It’s silly.

That Hamdan decision from the US Supreme Court was an absolute mistake. It may be a cloud with a silver lining given the congressional action, hopefully, that will follow it. You know, Mr. Buckley is opposed to the Iraq war. He doesn’t think we should have gone. He doesn’t think it’s been a success. In fact, it’s a huge failure. But he supported the Vietnam War, and he supported the Vietnam War not because it would defeat the Soviets or the Chinese, but because it was part of the war against the Soviets — and to the old cold warriors, the Soviet Union was enemy #1, and it was. I mean, they were not wrong. But the failure to see what has replaced it and to be consistent in opposing what has replaced it is a little perplexing.

The North Vietnamese never had weapons of mass destruction. They never sought to assassinate an American president. But it was a righteous effort by us to stop the spread of communism.

That was our objective. We might have goofed up in not understanding the vagaries of nationalism and pride on the part of Vietnamese people, the north Vietnamese people. We might have made some mistakes in that area, but the intentions were honorable. We were trying to stop the spread of communism which tortured its people, set up political internment camps, slaughtered millions.

Again, don’t misunderstand. I’m not saying that the old commies and the current terrorists are exactly the same, but I’m saying that there are strong similarities which have to be understood and distinctions that make them more and not less dangerous.

The communists killed tens of millions. They conquered large areas. They had large standing armies. The terrorists don’t have large standing armies, obviously, and they don’t need them. We’re in the era now where they can get hold of weapons of mass destruction and they don’t need large standing armies. They don’t need nation states behind them, although they do.

My only point here, is that we have to fight this enemy directly and through allies: Israel, Iraq, tribal leaders in Somalia.

Their fight is our fight.

I don’t want to be confusing to anybody. I’m drawing this parallel in a limited sense.

It’s not us against this enemy. It’s the world against this enemy. So when Israel or most Iraqis or most Somalians fight the Islamofascists, that is our war, too. We can’t step back from it.

We’ve already declared it, in fact, a war on terror.
It’s time to take it seriously.

I have just a couple more thoughts on this…

This enemy, the Islamofascists, like the communists attack where they can. They attack in different ways. They’re more nimble. In many ways, they’re more dangerous, because it doesn’t take much anymore to blow up cities with millions of people, not nearly as much as it did back when the Cold War was at its peak. But let’s not forget — and I don’t want you to think I have — Stalin and Mao did, in fact, kill tens of millions of their own citizens. They were dangerous guys. The Cambodian communists killed around three million — and the list goes on.

There’s no question in my mind that if this enemy could do that, they would, and when they can, they will.

Comprising Terrorist…. oxymoron, they win – all others die…