Oprah Fires 30, Me Hide?, Iran Planned to Bomb Israeli Ship

Preview for Sunday 032512

Hey folks,

Happy Sunday to ya. Glad you stopped by. Oh, seems I forgot to post the Email Link on Friday. Got this "You call it from the emails, yet you do not post an email link. How does that work?" First, uh, I got your Email? Second, I did forget to post the link. Sorry. I usually do. Like I do every Sunday, about this time I say this. If you want to be part of the OPNTalk, send in Articles, Comments, Complaints, or just say Hi, the Email as always is, opntalk@gmail.com. But I will try to remember next Friday. {Smile}

Last Sunday I asked you, "If a Show fails on a Network no one watches, does it make a noise?" I was talking about Oprah dropping Rosie O'Donnell, who was averaging fewer than 200,000 viewers, on a daily basis. So for fun I started asking people last Week, "Do you know where to find the OWN Network on your TV?" I asked 22 people. It doesn't matter if they had Cable, Dish, or Direct TV, It didn't matter who the Carrier was. Out of the 22 people I asked, ONE. Yes, 1. One person said Yes, and could tell me. She was also mad at me for calling Rosie a Fat Pig. Sorry. Just calling it like it is. {Smile} 1 out of 22. Any wonder WHY Oprah NOW fired 30 Employees? NO ONE IS WATCHING the Network. They do not even care enough to find out where it is on their TV.

This is another sign out there that most people in this Country are NOT Liberal Kooks. Rumor was back then that Oprah left her long time, Successful Talk Show, because she felt restrained and wanted to start her own Network to have more Freedom to be who she really is. She banked on Rosie being a Major Player and an Anchor For the Network. When that didn't work, they tried to tone down and modify Rosie. They tried to make her "Nice" again. Just failed big time because everyone know who and what Rosie is. Then if you watch the Shows, you get the idea of what Oprah is. There is not enough die hard Libs out there to make it work. This is why there is no Liberal Rush Limbaughs. Why no Liberal Radio works. But hey, they keep trying.

Anyway, coming right up?

Trayvon Martin Case Nothing To Do With "Stand Your Ground"
Stores All Over Country Pulling Pink Slime
Hummus, not Just Middle Eastern Anymore
DLA For Sunday 032512
IWA for Sunday 032512

All this as we dive into the Big Sunday Edition of the OPNTalk Blog. Of course I AM Pe,,,Oh yeah. That's another point I want to make. "You are real brave Online. Calling people idiots. Calling Rosie a 'fat pig.' Saying Liberals are stupid. I would like to see you say this stuff when you are not hiding behind a screen name."Signed BigThinker--- {Laughing} Me hiding? Hi, my name is Peter Carlock. I live in Sunny South Florida, Stuart to be more precise. I think, I may be wrong, but I THINK my Phone number is on my Profile. I sign EVERYTHING I write, WHEREEVER I write it. From Comment Sections on News Sights, fellow Blogs, WHATEVER. I do NOT sign it "BigThinker---" or "Fubar" or "Quicksilver" or anything else. So are you Male or Female? What's YOUR name? Where do YOU post from? {Laughing} Just saying.

Congrats to Rick Santorum who took Louisiana...Did you catch THIS?

According to Haaretz - Report: Iran planned to bomb Israeli ship in Suez Canal

Egyptian paper Al-Ahram reports that two Egyptian citizens received instructions from Iranian agents to attack an Israeli ship, and offered a third man 50 million Egyptian pounds to carry out the act. By Avi Issacharoff

The investigation of the two found that they had received their instructions from Iranian agents, and that the two asked a third person, by the name of Mohamed Zakri, to carry out the act in exchange for 50 million Egyptian pounds.

I know Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is paying attention. Are WE?

Going to fill my cup. Be right back.
Peter

Sources:
The Hollywood Reporter - Oprah Winfrey's OWN Lays Off 30 in Network Restructuring 2:31 PM PDT 3/19/2012 by Lacey Rose
Haaretz - Report: Iran planned to bomb Israeli ship in Suez Canal

NYT Israel Attack Bad For America

Complete and utter nonsense.

Hey folks,

By now you all know I am nothing less than an Expert on anything Iran or Ahmadinejad. I have been watching "Little Hitler" very closely for a LONG TIME. Over ten years both here and elsewhere, I have been sharing his Rise to power from the days in the 80 with the Hostage Crises, to today. From his early beginnings as a Terrorist, to his rise in power to President, to his quest for Nuclear Weapons that he intends on using on Israel to "Wipe them off the map."

I just send an Email to a Friend, who was talking about this on her Radio Show yesterday. Even I was amazed to see the volume of information I have posted over the years. Seriously, just type in Iran, Hitler, or Israel, in the Search Section of this Blog and you will see what I mean. From his rise, to all the apologists, to Obama and his clear, uh, lack of love for Israel.

We all know that Little Hitler is not going anywhere. We all know he IS and HAS been working on a Nuke. We all know he is going to USE it. We all know that Israel can not rely on this Administration to defend them. They are going to have to do whatever it takes to defend themselves, with or without help from Obama.

Now, YEARS after I started warning you that this was happening and what was about to happen, the World is starting to talk about it. Iran is getting closer to having a Nuke, and Israel is getting closer to striking out of Self Defense. Kinda hard to defend oneself if one is aglow from a Nuclear Explosion.

So, just like the Original Hitler, Ahmadinejad has his supporters. Just like the Original Hitler, all of Littler Hitler supporters are Libs. They want you to think that if Israel attacks Iran, it will cause World War Three. They might be right. However, if Iran Nukes Israel, THAT will cause World War Three and it will be after the fact of MORE Millions of Jews are dead. But NOW? NOW they what you to think that even if we attack Iran, it will not do much. I kid you not. According to the NYT - U.S. War Game Sees Perils of Israeli Strike Against Iran By MARK MAZZETTI and THOM SHANKER Published: March 19, 2012

WASHINGTON — A classified war simulation held this month to assess the repercussions of an Israeli attack on Iran forecasts that the strike would lead to a wider regional war, which could draw in the United States and leave hundreds of Americans dead, according to American officials.

The officials said the so-called war game was not designed as a rehearsal for American military action — and they emphasized that the exercise’s results were not the only possible outcome of a real-world conflict.

{Laughing} Yeah, just the one we want you to believe.. But get this..

The two-week war game, called Internal Look, played out a narrative in which the United States found it was pulled into the conflict after Iranian missiles struck a Navy warship in the Persian Gulf, killing about 200 Americans, according to officials with knowledge of the exercise. The United States then retaliated by carrying out its own strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.

Wait. You mean if Iran hits one of our Ships we would have to get involved? Wait. You mean we could lose lives in a WAR? 200 Americans? Is this before or AFTER MILLIONS of Jews are wipe out because of America's willingness to do NOTHING? But this next part is AMAZING to me. It really is. They go from saying World War will break out, but it really will not have that much effect on Iran anyway, so why bother?

The initial Israeli attack was assessed to have set back the Iranian nuclear program by roughly a year, and the subsequent American strikes did not slow the Iranian nuclear program by more than an additional two years. However, other Pentagon planners have said that America’s arsenal of long-range bombers, refueling aircraft and precision missiles could do far more damage to the Iranian nuclear program — if President Obama were to decide on a full-scale retaliation.

{Sigh}Folks, if we wanted to, we could wipe Iran off the Map. I'm thinking a few well placed Bombs of Israel is going to STOP Iran's Nuclear Program Indefinitely. Not a year. What kind of nonsense is this? Like I said, well, more on this in a second.

With the Israelis saying publicly that the window to prevent Iran from building a nuclear bomb is closing, American officials see an Israeli attack on Iran within the next year as a possibility. They have said privately that they believe that Israel would probably give the United States little or no warning should Israeli officials make the decision to strike Iranian nuclear sites.

Because they have no reason to TRUST us. Thank you Obama. It wraps up with this.

Israeli intelligence estimates, backed by academic studies, have cast doubt on the widespread assumption that a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities would set off a catastrophic set of events like a regional conflagration, widespread acts of terrorism and sky-high oil prices.

“A war is no picnic,” Defense Minister Ehud Barak told Israel Radio in November. But if Israel feels itself forced into action, the retaliation would be bearable, he said. “There will not be 100,000 dead or 10,000 dead or 1,000 dead. The state of Israel will not be destroyed.”

Shame on us for not doing more to help them NOW. Of course they want to go it alone. Not because they LOVE War, or HATE Iran, but because they are fighting for their very survival. Look, it really is simple. All this is by the New York Times is an attempt to say "See. Look at all this destruction, and chaos. After all, an Israeli or even an American Strike will not do much. Just delay the Iranians Nuclear Quest by a year or so. So why bother. Right?"

Truth is, Israel has the Right to exist. They have a RIGHT to defend themselves. We have a DUTY to assist them. They are not the aggressor here. They are fighting for their survival. It is too late AFTER a Nuclear Explosion to do much. It is TIME to stop Iran. Period. Oh, don't forget one little detail. After Israel, or at the same time as Israel, we are NEXT.
Peter

Iran, Israel, Britain, US, War Games?

So Iran is in The Strait of Hormuz.

Hey folks,

We know this. We know that they are threatening to shut it down, cutting off a MAJOR Oil Supply Route to the World. We know that WE have the U.S. Fifth Fleet that says it won't allow a Hormuz disruption.

Today we learn, well, January 6th, we learned that the US and ISRAEL are testing a NEW more powerful Missile Defense System. Its called “Austere Challenge 12”, and it is designed to improve Defence Systems. They will be testing multiple Israeli and US Air Defence Systems against incoming Missiles and Rockets. If all goes well, they would be able to destroy ANY Missile or Rocket LONG before it hits Israel.

Then Today, we also learned that WE are not alone. Britain is now getting into the Act. According to The Daily Telegraph - Royal Navy sends its mightiest ship to take on the Iranian show of force in the Gulf

The Daily Telegraph understands that HMS Daring has been fitted with new technology that will give it the ability to shoot down any missile in Iran's armoury. The £1 billion destroyer, which will leave Portsmouth next Wednesday, also carries the world's most sophisticated naval radar, capable of tracking multiple incoming threats from missiles to fighter jets.

Daring, with its crew of 190, will transit through the Suez Canal and enter the Gulf later this month to replace the Type 23 frigate currently on station

So we got US, Iran, Israel, and now our Friends {DISPITE OBAMA} across the Pond, will be joining in. Meanwhile Obama is giving our Tech and Secrets to the Russians, while telling us he will shrink the Military. No one has a CLUE what is going on in North Korea. And also thanks to Obama, because of all this, watch the Price of Gas go up to $4.00 Plus a Gallon.

As I keep telling you. We live in Dangerous Times in a Dangerous World. We NEED real Leadership. Someone that LOVES this Country and all her Freedoms that go with it. Someone who UNDERSTANDS that with CERTIAN Force, it can only be met with Force. Unfortunately, with some, they only understand Force and or the VIABLE Threat of.
Peter

Sources:
Financial Times - Iran, Israel and US plan Gulf exercises By James Blitz in London January 6, 2012 8:13 pm
The Daily Telegraph - Royal Navy sends its mightiest ship to take on the Iranian show of force in the Gulf

Israel Getting Ready, Iran Getting Ready, Is Obama Paying Attention?

Israel KNOWS that it's up to them to defend themselves.

Hey folks

It's true. As we have talked about many times, Obama is no friend of Israel. All his actions and even his own words proves it. We all know, including the IAEA, that Iran is working on a Nuclear Bomb. We all know that Iran WILL USE IT. There is no doubt in anyones's mind what is going on.

Because of Obama's obvious love for the Palestinians, and anything Islam, and his obvious disdain for Israel, Israel KNOWS that it's up to them to defend themselves.

They are not going to just sit back and wait to be Annihilated. Iran knows this as well. So as Israel gets ready, Iran is getting ready. According to YNet News - Iran conducts 4-day air defense drill Exercise in east Iran aimed at 'heightening level of preparedness amid possible threats to airspace, nuclear centers' Dudi Cohen Published: 11.18.11, 18:23 / Israel News

The Iranian army was set to launch an air defense drill Friday evening simulating an attack on the country's nuclear facilities, the Islamic Republic News Agency reported.

According to the regime's mouthpiece, the four-day drill will be held in eastern Iran and stress "the characteristics of the Islamic Republic's defense doctrine in the framework of the heightened air defense alert level."

The military exercise comes just six days after a blast at an army base outside Tehran left several members of the Revolutionary Guard dead, including a senior officer who was a key figure in Iran's missile program. Some western media outlets claimed Israel was behind the explosion.

The report said the drill will include the use of "missile systems, advanced anti-aircraft artillery and various radar systems, as well as "tactical maneuvers aimed at increasing the level of preparedness amid possible threats to the Islamic homeland's airspace, particularly with regards to the country's...nuclear centers."

Is Obama watching?

Last June the Revolutionary Guard conducted an extensive drill in northwest Iran, during which surface-to-surface missiles were launched.

The past few weeks have seen a stream of leaks from Israel regarding the possibility of a military strike on Iran, this after an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report said Tehran has been working toward building a nuclear weapon since 2003 despite sanctions imposed by the international community.

Israel recently test-launched a ballistic missile and conducted an aerial drill in Italy with the participation of IDF fighter pilots. The IDF also held a home front drill simulating a missile attack on the greater Tel Aviv area – a realistic scenario in case of an attack on Iran's nuclear sites.

Iran tends to conduct high-profile military exercises once every few months to showcase the country's technological and military innovations.

Meanwhile, governors of the UN nuclear watchdog approved a resolution on Friday voicing "increasing concern" about Iran's atomic work, cranking up international pressure on Tehran after a UN report said it appeared to have worked on designing an atom bomb.

So they TALK while Iran works. Tough Talk will NOT bring this situation to a close, but to a head. While they Talk Tough and while Obama speaks vain and empty Rhetoric, Little Hitler builds his Bomb, tests his Missiles, and looks forward to the big Boom.

Once again folks, Iran will not stop until they are stopped. All the Tough Talk, all the Sanctions, all the attempts to make nicey nice, mean NOTHING. Iran continues it's Nuclear quest. Time to end this NOW. Yes, by ANY Means necessary.
Peter

Sources:
YNet News - Iran conducts 4-day air defense drill Exercise in east Iran aimed at 'heightening level of preparedness amid possible threats to airspace, nuclear centers'
Reuters contributed to the report

DLA For Sunday 111311

FINALLY, Someone is starting to talk about this.

Hey folks,

Point to Romney. Big Point. That's right, he is talking about what our Leader NEEDS to talk about. Iran and Nukes. According to Reuters - Romney: I will not let Iran get nuclear weapons

(Reuters) - Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney laid down a foreign policy marker on Wednesday, saying that if elected he would not allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons.

An International Atomic Energy Agency report on Tuesday indicated Iran had worked to design nuclear bombs, testing Western powers anew in their standoff with Tehran, which insists it is developing a civilian nuclear program.

Which some of us have KNOWN about for a while. If you are a true OPNer, you already knew this as well. According to this:

"Si vis pacem, para bellum. That is a Latin phrase, but the ayatollahs will have no trouble understanding its meaning from a Romney administration: If you want peace, prepare for war," he wrote in an opinion article for The Wall Street Journal.

He said he would start his presidency by imposing a new round of "far tougher" economic sanctions on Iran "together with the world if we can, unilaterally if we must."

"I will back up American diplomacy with a very real and very credible military option," he said, by maintaining a regular naval presence in the Mediterranean and Gulf region and by increasing U.S. military assistance to Israel.

"These actions will send an unequivocal signal to Iran that the United States, acting in concert with allies, will never permit Iran to obtain nuclear weapons," Romney said.

You see this is the difference right here. "Pete, see. Even YOUR guy is calling for Sanctions." The difference is, I hope, With Romney, Iran and others, WILL understand that if the Sanctions don't work, use of Force is NEXT. They KNOW that with this Idiot in Office now? That is not the Case. Sanctions, who cares, uh, more Sanctions? Iran doesn't care about Sanctions. They DO understand Force. Then he said this:

"Sanctions clearly failed in their purpose. Iran is on the threshold of becoming a nuclear power. Only when the ayatollahs no longer have doubts about America's resolve will they abandon their nuclear ambitions," he wrote.Romney wrote.

Problem is, with THIS Administration, they would rather be FRIENDS with them. They talk tough, but what are they saying privately? It doesn't really matter what they are SAYING. Their actions speak Volumes. Both to our Enemies, and our Allies.

Now this doesn't put me solidly in Romney's Camp. But it is refreshing to hear that someone is finally paying attention. And SOMEONE that could very well make a difference.

Congratulations Mitt. For showing that you are able to see the TRUTH and what is right in front of all of us, and the Boldness to stand and speak it, you ARE the Winner of the Display of Logic Award for today, Sunday November 13, 2011.
Peter

Sources:
Reuters - Romney: I will not let Iran get nuclear weapons

Israel: Clock Ticking on Iran

Again, I don't blame them. I'm WITH them.

Hey folks,

According to the AP - Israeli president: Clock ticking on Iran

JERUSALEM (AP) -- Israel's president says the international community is closer to pursuing a military solution to the standoff over Iran's nuclear program than a diplomatic one.

The remarks by Shimon Peres to Israel's channel 2 TV Friday were unusual because he is known as a dove and optimist.

Peres said world leaders need to "fulfill their promises" to stop Iran "whatever it takes." He said, "There is a long menu as to what can be done." He did not elaborate.

That is a DIRECT message to Obama. SANCTIONS WILL NOT WORK. DIPLOMACY WILL NOT WORK. Little Hitler {Mahmoud Ahmadinejad} wants NOTHING from Israel or us, but our DEATH. There is no negotiating with someone who's starting point is YOU DIE. As we have discussed IN DEPTH here over the years, sanctions mean nothing to Little Hitler. He said so. He will not stop his Nuclear Quest. He said so. He will wipe Israel off the Map. He said so. Death to the "Great Satin" {America} He said so. Israel is watching, and they are listening. Our President? Not so much.

The interview comes days after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was reported to be seeking ministers' support for a strike against Iran.

Israel, the U.S. and other nations suspect Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons. Iran says its atomic program only has peaceful aims. Negotiations and sanctions have failed to resolve the standoff.

Again, I don't blame them. I'm WITH them. They need to do whatever it takes to defend themselves. We are their Ally. We NEED, not only to do whatever we need to do to help them, WE NEED TO PROTECT OURSELVES. Iran is a THREAT. A clear and present danger. They are going full speed ahead to acquire a Nuke. They have every intention of USING it. They will not stop until they ARE stopped. It is just that simple.
Peter

Sources:
AP - Israeli president: Clock ticking on Iran

US More Concerned About Israel Than Iran?

It's about time SOMEONE did something.

Hey folks,

This is both sad and pathetic. Typical with Obama and Crew, who we have already documented in depth here, is no friend of Israel. But they ARE our long time Ally and Friend. They fear that Israel may feel the need to defend themselves. Imagine THAT. They already know they can't rely on us. Not with Obama in the White House. So they may very well go it alone. I hope they do. I hope God is with them, because Obama will not be.

Look. I have watched Little Hitler {Mahmoud Ahmadinejad} rise to power. I have told you his intentions, because HE has told all of us them. I have documented PROOF of his intentions. His Words and HIS DEEDS. He is not hard to understand. He will not stop until SOMEONE stops him.

He wants to wipe Israel off the Map. He said so. He wants US to turn to Islam, or be destroy in a great fire. He SAID so. He HAS built Rockets that can carry Nukes. He has tested them. They can reach Israel, and other US interests. He IS BUILDING A NUCLEAR BOMB! He will USE it. He is also currently attempting to go to Space.

We also know that HE is supplying our enemies with weapons, funds, and intel. We KNOW that he was behind the Assassination Plot against the Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the U.S., Adel al-Jubeir, and bomb the Israeli and Saudi embassies in Washington, D.C. Yet? We do nothing.

It reminds me of the Clinton Years. Attack after attack. No response. Attack after attack. Nothing. Then 9-11. BOOM! For YEARS Little Hitler has been growing in power and technology. He is on a mission. Sanctions have NEVER worked. They will NOT work now. While we do nothing, and simply "Talk Tough," Little Hitler waves and smiles. Next thing we know? Maybe an even bigger BOOM! This time with a Mushroom Cloud accompanying it.

So Israel is getting concerned. I don't blame them. They are stated target ONE. They watch as we not only ignore Iran, but ASSIST the Muslim Brotherhood, topple Governments and take over Countries. Now WE are concerned about ISRAEL being concerned? According to YNet News.com - US fears uncoordinated Israeli strike on Iran By Alex Fishman Published: 10.31.11, 10:24

Washington concerned Israel will mount military operation against Islamic Republic, State Department official says. US consequently putting greater pressure on Security Council to impose harsher sanctions on Iran

It's about time SOMEONE did something.

Fearing an uncoordinated Israeli attack against Iran, the United States is working on several levels to pressure the UN's Security Council into imposing harsher sanctions on Iran, Yedioth Ahronoth reported Monday.

A senior US State Department official said there was growing concern among Obama administration officials ahead of an IAEA report set to be published in November indicating considerable progress in Tehran's development of its military nuclear program.

The US is concerned that the report may trigger Israeli actions against the Islamic Republic which may not necessarily be in line with US interests in the region.

I'm not. I'm WITH them. Get this.

The official said that Washington's reevaluation of an Israeli strike in Iran is based on various maneuvers Israel has performed in the past few years.

While we did NOTHING. They are the first ones to go. Thanks to Obama and Crew's LOVE for Islamofascism, and HIS actions over the Past few years, they have NO CHOICE. I called this a while back. I said THIS back on June 3rd 2009

Folks, if I were Israel, I would be fueling the Jets. I would be getting the Bombs in place. I would be mapping out my attack. If I were Israel, listening to what Obama is saying, watching what Obama is doing, I would be getting the feeling that Obama is more friendly toward Ahmadinejad, and Islamic Terrorists, than he is with a long standing Ally, Israel.

I would not be feeling all that comfortable that the new American President has my back and I would be preparing to do whatever it takes to keep my Country, and my people safe. With or without America.

This is what they are doing. Make no mistake about it. They HAVE to. What? What is Obama going to say after the big cloud dissipates? "Uh, Sorry?" AFTER Israel is wiped off the Map, and we are next, THEN Obama MAY do something? Yeah, he probably would. Invite them to a BBQ. Also, check this out. WHY?

Washington is therefore pressing China and Russia who are currently opposed to the publication of the IAEA report. The report may cause embarrassment to both countries who are strongly against harsher sanctions on Iran.

According to the US official, it is possible that the report, coupled with the exposure of the US evaluation of Israeli potential to strike Iran, will encourage Russia and China to support the US initiative to aggravate penal measures against Tehran.

Why would they be opposed to the release? Because, I'm just guessing here, MAYBE, it tells the TRUTH? That Little Hitler, if he doesn't already have Nukes, IS closer than anyone "thought?" THIS report in the New York Times, would also be a concern for me if I were Israel.

On Saturday, the New York Times reported that the United States plans to bolster its military presence in the Gulf after the withdrawal of its troops from Iraq.

Citing unnamed officials and diplomats, the newspaper said the repositioning could include new combat forces in Kuwait able to respond to a collapse of security in Iraq or a military confrontation with Iran.

Uh, what does that mean? Are we going there to help Israel? Or Protect Iran? Obama said we would not back Israel if they attacked Iran's Nuclear Facilities. So would we actually fight AGAINST them? With Obama, THAT would not be outside the realm of concern.

I said this before. We NEED a Leader in this Country that understands REALITY. We need one that will take a TRUE Apology Tour. One that will apologize to, and reassure our FRIENDS and ALLIES, that we are BACK. That America is BACK. We need someone strong enough to tell our Enemies. WE ARE BACK. You are with us, or against us. If you even think about attacking us, or our friends, have no doubt you will face the Pure and Unadulterated POWER of the American Military. If you are with us, we will help you in anyway we can. We need a TRUE leader back to make us a shining city on the Hill once again. We need a Leader that will fix our problems and be ready for anything. We need our Allies to TRUST us again. And we need our Enemies to FEAR us again. It is no more complicated than that.
Peter

Sources:
YNet News.com - US fears uncoordinated Israeli strike on Iran

Ahmadinejad Blasts Capitalism, Threatens War

Also Threatens "War Without Boarders"

Hey folks,

And we did not even get up and walk out. No, the US Delegation sat there and listened to this Idiot. Most likely by orders of OUR Dictator Wannabe, whom rumor has it, wants to try to make nice nice with Little Hitler again.

That's right. Capitalism is to blame. Sounds a lot like the LWL does it not? But then he threaten a War. Not kidding.

He said that Iran is on the brink of becoming a nuclear power, and warned Israel and the U.S. against attacking its nuclear facilities.

Asked about the possibility of a U.S.-supported Israeli air strike against Iran, the fiery Iranian leader said an attack would be considered an act of war, and suggested the U.S. is unprepared for the consequences. Such a war "would know no boundaries," Ahmedinejad said. "War is not just bombs."

Folks, I and a few others have been watching Little Hitler Rise to power for YEARS now. We have been warning you that he is on a quest to produce a Nuclear Bomb. One that he PLANS on USING to "Wipe Israel off the Map." HIS OWN WORDS. Meanwhile, Obama invites him to a Hot Dog BBQ at the White House and warns Israel to not even think about an attack.

Now we are where we are today. Little Hitler even closer than ever, more dangerous now the Rods are in place. Little Hitler NOW THREATENING A WAR. At least there is one in Congress that gets it. Yes Grahamisty himself. Sen. Graham says we need a Regime change.

"If you use military force against Iran, you've opened up Pandora's box," Graham told the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. "If you allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon, you've emptied Pandora's box. I'd rather open up Pandora's box than empty it."

Graham said he believes Ahmadinejad "was lying" when he said Sunday in New York, after arriving for the U.N. General Assembly session this week, that Iran isn't building a nuclear bomb.

"From my point of view, if we engage in military operations as a last resort, the United States should have in mind the goal of changing the regime," Graham said. "Not by invading (Iran), but by launching a military strike by air and sea."

Such an attack would be aimed not only at eliminating Iran's nuclear capabilities, Graham said, but at rendering Ahmadinejad's government powerless.

Iran is not the only place we need a Regime change. {Smile} I agree. We do not have to set ONE foot on Iranian soil to end the threat. The VERY REAL and PRESENT threat. Just get rid of those Nuclear Sites. Then, we need to get rid of Little Hitler himself.

We keep allowing this guy to be, he will not stop, until he gets what he wants. Sitting through this tripe, where he denied the Holocaust AGAIN, saying that it was "a historical event used to create a pretext for war." only gives this guy credibility.

This guy needs to be stopped. He needs to be stopped before the big BOOM! We need a President with the Gonads to DO something about it. We need to work with our ALLIES and STOP dealing with Terrorists and those that want us and our allies dead. We need to stop giving this guy credibility and hoping that he likes us. He has but one goal. So should we.
Peter

Sources:
ABC News - President Ahmedinejad Threatens U.S. With War 'Without Boundaries'
Iran Focus / McClatchy Newspapers - U.S. must consider military force against Iran, Sen. Graham says

Genuine Anger OK, Our Idiot Resigns

As well she should.

Hey folks,

Happy Thursday to you. Sorry for my absence yesterday, Doctors again. Today I have little time as well, as I have some urgent business to attend to right after I leave here. Then, the rest of my day will be spent with my Niece. Getting her a French Manicure, and whatever else she needs to get ready for Graduation. That's right, this little girl that I use to hold in one arm, is now 18 years old and about to Graduate into the real world. I would not miss this for anything.

So lets wrap a few things up. First, the "Ass" thing. You know, for the past two days, on ANY and EVERY Radio show I caught, Right or Lib, everyone is talking about Obama using the "Ass" word. Some of you want to know what I think of it. Short answer? I don't care.

Seriously. I have no problem with a President, TRULY pissed off for the well being of Americans, using a bit of PG-13 Language. The Left LOVE it, the Right is trying to condemn him for it. I don't get it. Let's say a President, comes out following an attack that killed 3000 Americans, and says something like "It's time to kick some one's Ass." I would stand and applaud. If a President, from day one, was on the ground of a major accident, that killed Americans, and threaten many more, and the destruction of Business and our way of life, getting his hands dirty, surrounding himself with experts, saying, "How do we stop this. Who is to blame. It's time to kick some Ass." I would stand and applaud.

But here is the thing. This is NOT genuine anger. This is SHOW. Lets see. Since this accident happened, Obama has taken TWO Vacations, hosted fund raisers, hosted ex-Rock Stars, and showed NO emotion whatsoever. So then we have this PR Stunt, that is all this interview with Lauer and Obama was. Here is the exchange everyone is talking about. Am I the only one that caught this? Seems like it. Here it is.

MR. LAUER: Critics are now talking about your style, which is the first time I've heard that in a long time. And they're saying here's a guy who likes to be known as cool and calm and collected, and this isn't the time for cool, calm and collected --

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Right.

MR. LAUER: -- that this is not the time to meet with experts and advisers. This is a time to spend more time in the Gulf and -- I never thought I'd say this to a president -- but kick some butt.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: (Chuckles.)

MR. LAUER: And I don't mean it to be funny.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: No. And I understand. And here's what -- I'm going to push back hard on this, because I think that this is just an idea that got in folks' heads and the media has run with it. I was down there a month ago, before most of these talking heads were even paying attention to the Gulf. A month ago I was meeting with fishermen down there standing in the rain talking about what a potential crisis this could be.

And I don't sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar. We talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers so I know whose ass to kick, right?

So, you know, this is not theater.

This is ALL Theater. All show. Obama was ALWAYS going to say "Kick Ass." It was scripted. Lauer said,"kick some butt" and Obama said he was trying to figure out "whose ass to kick." It was a soft ball underhand lob that Lauer pitched to Obama so Obama could knock it out of the park. Obama is good with set up and prearranged questions. He is great at delivering pre-written Speeches via Teleprompters. This whole interview was nothing more than PR. Lauer bringing up the Families and the 11 who died, in this case, makes me sick to my stomach. It was a swipe at BP and it was another set up for Obama to look tough. {Sigh} When was the last time ANYONE in the Mainstream Media talked about those that lost their lives and or their families?

No. I couldn't care less about Obama using the word "Ass." I have a problem with the fact he really doesn't care. I have a problem with the Mainstream Media selling out. I have a problem with the insane idea that we should cease all drilling. Thousands of jobs will be lost in some of the area's that will already be hurt by the spill itself. Yet, for politics sake, Obama will do anything. Even FAKE anger.

OK. Now for our Idiot. This past Sunday I awarded the Idiot of the Week to Helen Thomas from saying Jews are occupiers, and that they should go home to Poland and Germany. For that CLEAR anti-Semitic, Racist statement, I awarded this Twit, the Idiot Award. It didn't take long. Even Obama had to come out against this. So she was forced to say this.

"I deeply regret my comments I made last week regarding the Israelis and the Palestinians," Thomas said in a statement on her Web site. "They do not reflect my heart-felt belief that peace will come to the Middle East only when all parties recognize the need for mutual respect and tolerance. May that day come soon."

No. That is spin and BS. What she REALLY meant was what she REALLY said. "Jews go home."

Helen Thomas announced Monday that she is retiring, effective immediately, in the wake of a controversy over her comments on Israel, according to a report from her employer, Hearst News Service.

Good ridden Helen. I'm sad to see that you threw away such a long career because of your Bias attitude, and down right Hatred for the Jewish people. Do have to give her an A for Honesty though. She was asked what she thought, and boy did she tell us.

That's it for today. Got to run. See you all tomorrow for the Friday "From the Email Segment." See you then.
Peter

IWA For Sunday 060610

UNBELIEVABLE!

Hey folks,

I was wondering what prompted THIS. I saw this Photo of Barack and Helen Thomas on Drudge. Wasn't Helen Thomas one of the first MMD Reporters to give Obama a hard time? Seriously. She was asking him things off script. So why so cosy?

Then I clinked the LINK. OH. OK. Now this makes sense.



Congratulations Helen, you are without a DOUBT, THE Idiot of the Week. I agree, there is NO WAY that she can be taken seriously now. There is no way that anyone can even remotely claim she is unbiased. She is a TWIT.

We know that Obama is no friend of the Jews. We know that people like Obama believe in things like, "An enemy of my enemy, is my friend." We also know that Six Million Jews were killed in Germany and Poland. We know that Israel IS the State for the Jews. ISRAEL IS JEWISH. The Jews are not occupiers, they ARE HOME in Jerusalem. Could someone enlighten this Twit? Please, I'm begging. Someone PLEASE educate these Morons on HISTORY and TRUTH. {Sigh}

You know, she is also the First Place holder at this time for Idiot of the YEAR. I know, we are only in June, but seriously? To make a statement like this? Yeah.
Peter

Iran Happy, Israel To Blame, Israel Says Screw You

As well they should.

Hey folks,

This is just completely asinine. According to the BBC - Iran narrowly wins UN nuclear battle Page last updated at 13:23 GMT, Saturday, 29 May 2010 14:23 UK By Paul Reynolds World affairs correspondent, BBC News website

Israel was the big loser in the nuclear review conference in New York - and Iran the big winner.

The cause of nuclear non-proliferation was haltingly served in that the conference did reach a consensus, unlike the last time, and a number of watered-down measures were agreed to seek ways of strengthening the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). But overall, there was not the decisive strengthening that some states wanted.

Instead, governments rallied round one objective - the concept of a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East. This was first called for 15 years ago but until now neglected.

And what is anyone doing to ensure that Iran does not accomplish it's goal to create Nuclear Weapons with the INTENT to USE them against Israel and US?

To its annoyance, Israel found that the US did not block a proposal to hold a one-off conference in 2012 on setting up such a zone. In addition Israel was named for not being a party to the treaty and for not having its nuclear activities under international inspection. Being named like this is always regarded as a diplomatic defeat.

It will produce further soul-searching about the relationship between Israel and the US administration of President Barack Obama, which has often been tense and which will now be more so. Israel has already denounced the agreement as "hypocrisy".

As I keep telling you, Obama is no friend to Israel. He is too busy cosying up with our Enemies.

Mr Obama came out with a statement afterwards that spoke of the US being "strongly opposed" to efforts to "single out Israel" but he did not use the veto available to him.

Idiot. Why not use the Veto? Because he AGREES with those that hate us, and want Israel to just go away.

Whether the conference will be held is debatable (conditions are already being attached) and whether it will do anything practical is doubtful. Israel opposes any nuclear-free zone until there is a comprehensive peace. So does the US.

Obama could have Vetoed it. But didn't.

Iran prepared

Arab countries, led skilfully by Egypt, managed to manoeuvre the US into agreeing. Washington did not want to be blamed for wrecking the conference. It would have undone much of the goodwill that Mr Obama has engendered over the past year through his efforts to reduce the American stockpile of nuclear weapons and to reconfigure US nuclear policy.

On the other hand, Iran was not named, despite being in violation of instructions both from the IAEA, which administers the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and the Security Council that it should suspend the enrichment of uranium. Instead there were a couple of references to countries not being in compliance and since Iran is the only such state, Iran is meant. But it is not named. Iran would have blocked the necessary consensus if it had been.

{Sigh}

So it is no surprise that Israel said "Screw You." Is it? I would have. Also according to the BBC - Israel rejects Middle East nuclear talks plan
Israel says it will not take part in a conference aimed at achieving a nuclear-arms free Middle East, proposed at a UN meeting in New York.

Nearly 200 nations, signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), backed plans for the meeting in 2012.

In a document agreed at the talks, Israel was singled out for criticism.

Israel, which has not signed the NPT, dismissed the document as "deeply flawed" and "hypocritical".

"It ignores the realities of the Middle East and the real threats facing the region and the entire world," the Israeli government said in a statement quoted by the AFP news agency.

"Given the distorted nature of this resolution, Israel will not be able to take part in its implementation."

I really want you to think about this. You move into a neighborhood, the property of your Grandparents. A few years later, someone forms a Homeowners Association. I HATE Homeowner Associations. But they decide that your neighbor is rightfully owed your Property, and that YOU are the Problem, yet, they would love it if you came to the meeting and defended yourself.

Now you already know that your one neighbor that was your friend has moved out, replace by someone that is always siding with your other neighbor that wants you moved out and or dead, so they can have your property. They are even actively engaged in creating a method to eliminate you. No one is trying to stop them. You already know that the Homeowners Association's goal is against your betterment. So what do you do. You say "Screw you." Why bother?

The UN is anti-Semitic. Obama and Crew are anti-Semitic. No one seems real interesting in stopping Iran from Nuking up. So why bother? I'm with Israel on this one. Benjamin Netanyahu's main objective HAS to be for the People of Israel. Israel has to protect Israel, because it is clear that they can no longer rely on US. It really is just that simple.
Peter

Obama Attacking Israel

Israel is about to say SCREW YOU OBAMA.

Hey folks,

Rightfully so. I would. If I were Israel, I would say SCREW YOU OBAMA! I have documented this over the past few months. Plain and simple, Obama is no friend of Israel. So this one just ticks me off to no end, but is not a surprise either.

According to the AP - US harshly rebukes Israel on settlement plans I also want to make this PERFECTLY Clear. OBAMA harshly rebukes Israel on settlement plans, NOT the US. Most of us here are still FRIENDS with Israel. But here is the piece by MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press

WASHINGTON – Alarmed by Israeli plans to build new housing units in settlements and dimming prospects for American peace efforts, the Obama administration on Friday put out a rare and harsh public rebuke of its main Mideast ally.

The White House said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's settlement plans were "inconsistent" with commitments the Jewish state has made previously and harmful to U.S. attempts to lay the groundwork for a resumption in peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians.

That is because he wants to give EVERYTHING to the Palestinians. What about when Israel DID give up land and the Palestinians moved in and attacked Israel AFTER? Did they live up THEIR commitments?

"United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued settlement expansion and we urge that it stop," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said in a statement. "We are working to create a climate in which negotiations can take place, and such actions make it harder to create such a climate."

And, if I were Netanyahu, I would say SCREW YOU! Whatever happened to not dictating our will on others?

Netanyahu's aides, speaking on condition of anonymity Friday because the plans have not been formally announced, said any Israeli settlement freeze would not halt building the new units and or block completion of some 2,500 others currently under construction. They also said the freeze would not include east Jerusalem, which the Palestinians hope to make their future capital.

It's NOT THEIR LAND. Sorry Obama. They are also NOT American Black Slaves as you have compared them to.

The unusually blunt White House criticism reflected the administration's growing frustration with Netanyahu, whose decision would approve hundreds of new housing units in West Bank settlements before considering even a temporary freeze in construction, as President Barack Obama has requested.

SO WHAT? Who cares what Obama requested. What has he requested of the Palestinians? Oh yeah, please stop attacking Israel. Let ME give you their land. I forgot. But this does NOT "reflected the administration's growing frustration with Netanyahu," it shows that Obama is anti-Israel. He always has been.

The White House typically refrains from commenting on such moves until they are formally announced. But in this case, U.S. officials said they acted because Mideast peace envoy George Mitchell had already been briefed on the Israeli plans earlier in the week.

State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said Mitchell and the Israelis had been having "a very open dialogue" in "very intense discussions." He would not elaborate.

But one U.S. official familiar with Mitchell's Wednesday meeting in New York with Netanyahu envoy Yitzhak Molcho and Israeli Defense Ministry chief of staff Michael Herzog said the Israelis "told Mitchell they were going to do it and he told them they could expect a sharp response."

Folks, this really is downright scary. We have a President that wants to denounce our Allies and embrace our Enemies. It really is just that simple.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive diplomatic exchange, said the meeting had "not gone well."

The official added that the White House statement was released before a formal Israeli announcement of Netanyahu's plans because "we wanted to send a strong signal early on."

I hope they send one back. You know what it is.

Publicly, the State Department had described Mitchell's discussion with the Israeli delegation — which came after his talks with Netanyahu a week earlier in London — as a "good meeting."

The department said Mitchell would travel again to the Middle East next week to follow up. That trip is still on, officials said Friday.

"The process will continue," said one. The official also noted that the statement was not entirely negative and expressed appreciation for "Israel's stated intent to place limits on settlement activity."

"We are working with all parties — Israelis, Palestinians, and Arab states — on the steps they must take to achieve that objective," said Gibbs.

Netanyahu's refusal to bend on the settlement issue despite repeated U.S. appeals threatens to damage Obama's credibility in the Arab world. The administration is counting on Arab support for a resumption in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations but will not likely get it unless Netanyahu makes concessions on settlements.

So Israel has to be rebuked to make Muslims happy? IDIOTS!

The Palestinians have said they will not sit down for talks unless there is a settlement freeze and Arab leaders have made similar demands.

Folks, I repeat. We have a President that wants to denounce our Allies and embrace our Enemies. You want to compare someone to American Slaves? Start with the Jews. They have been oppressed longer than ANYONE in the History of the World. From the Roman Empire to the Holocaust to today. But I guess he would rather compare a bunch of terrorists to the American Slaves. In his warped mind, they better relate.

I warned you about this. Israel can no longer rely on the friendship it HAD with the US. They are pretty much on their own. Our President is more worried about keeping his credibility with Muslims, a lot of whom would rather see us destroyed, than he is worried about our greatest Ally ever, in the Middle East.
Peter

Israel Stepping Up Defense Because Of Obama

Mixed signals to say the least.

Hey folks,

In Prague, President Obama said this.

"Let me be clear: Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the United States, but to Iran's neighbors and our allies. As long as the threat from Iran persists, we intend to go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven."

OK. But then he goes on the rest of his world trip apologizing to everyone about everything, in essence, blaming America for all the ills of the world. Then he started affirming his unwavering stance of a two state solution for Israel and Palestine, saying that we are not at war with Islam, and declaring that the US and he, "will work with Muslims all around the world."

Of course he was getting some high praise by some of the Muslim World Leaders for this. Some of those same Muslim World Leaders want to wipe Israel off the map, and are actively engaged in seeking the ability to do just that. Then you have our elustrious President telling the world that he wants to get rid of our nukes and show the world that we truly are a leader. GREAT! Of course people like Russia and North Korea will applaud that. Makes us an easier target. "If he wants to see we have got rid of ours, we will take him out and show him some junk and claim we have no more. Snicker, snicker."

So Israel is starting to feel as if America is turning it's back on them. They are stepping up to best defend themselves. According to the AP - Israel tests system to shoot down Iranian missiles By MATTI FRIEDMAN, Associated Press Writer Matti Friedman, Associated Press Writer

JERUSALEM – Israel successfully tested an anti-missile system designed to protect the country against Iranian attack, the Defense Ministry said, perfecting technology developed in response to failures of similar systems during the 1991 Gulf War. The intercept of a dummy missile was the 17th test of the Arrow system, a U.S.-Israeli joint venture. Israeli defense officials said the interceptor was an upgraded Arrow II, designed to counter Iran's Shahab ballistic missile.

Israel has identified Iran as its biggest threat, citing the country's nuclear program and its development of long-range ballistic missiles. Those fears have been compounded by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's repeated calls for the destruction of the Jewish state.

And Obama wants to go have tea and sing Kumbaya with him.

Israel believes Iran is developing nuclear weapons that could pose a threat to its existence. Iran denies that and says its nuclear work is for peaceful purposes such as energy production. Israel has threatened military action, and Iran has said it would strike back, warning last month that Israel's own nuclear facilities were within missile range.

Iran's Shahab-3 missiles have a range of up to 1,250 miles (2,000 kilometers), putting Israel well within striking distance. Iranian officials were not available for comment on the Israeli test.

In a statement, the Defense Ministry said the interceptor shot down "a missile simulating a ballistic threat in especially challenging conditions." It called the test "an important step in the development program and the development of operational abilities to counter the growing threat of ballistic missiles in the region."

Defense Minister Ehud Barak watched Tuesday's intercept from a military helicopter, the ministry said. According to the Israeli Embassy in Washington, Pentagon representatives also were present.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has made the Iranian threat a top priority of his administration, congratulated defense officials for the successful test. "While we are for peace, we will know how to defend ourselves," he said.

Of course. Obama is sending them mixed signals to say the least. While he was on his little world tour, did he stop by? Nope. But he did visit with Muslims. Oh what does THIS mean anyway? Get this.

In an interview Tuesday with CNN, U.S. Vice President Joe Biden was asked how worried he is that Israel, under Netanyahu, will launch a strike to take out Iran's nuclear facilities.

"I don't believe that Prime Minister Netanyahu would do that," Biden said. "I think he would be ill-advised to do that. And so my level of concern is no different than it was a year ago."

Why? Why would he be "ill-advised" to take out the CLEAR threat to his country's very existence? Was that a threat? Did Vice President Biden just threaten Israel? Sure could be portrayed as such.

So I see this as nothing more than a logical step taken by Israel. They are starting to feel more and more like their long time ally, US, will not have their back if someone attacks them. Thank you Obama. Thank you Biden. I actually hope that if they DO find out Iran is closer than we all "think" or better said this way, if Israel finds out that Iran is closer than this Administration is willing to disclose, they DO take out Iran's Nuclear capability. Sad to say, I doubt Obama has the guts, or the willingness to do it himself. Even if they pose a REAL and pending danger.
Peter

Sources:
AP - Obama urges Iran to affirm peaceful nuclear energy
AP - Israel tests system to shoot down Iranian missiles

Transcript of Obama News Conference 0324009

As prepared by FNS











PRESIDENT OBAMA: Hello, everybody. Please have a seat.

Good evening. Now, before I take questions from the correspondents, I want to give everyone who’s watching tonight an update on the steps we’re taking to move this economy from recession to recovery, and ultimately to prosperity. Now, it’s important to remember that this crisis didn’t happen overnight and it didn’t result from any one action or decision. It took many years and many failures to lead us here. And it will take many months and many different solutions to lead us out. There are no quick fixes, and there are no silver bullets.

That’s why we’ve put in place a comprehensive strategy designed to attack this crisis on all fronts. It’s a strategy to create jobs, to help responsible homeowners, to restart lending, and to grow our economy over the long term. And we’re beginning to see signs of progress.

The first step we took was to pass a recovery plan to jump-start job creation and put money in people’s pockets. And this plan’s already saved the jobs of teachers and police officers. It’s creating construction jobs to rebuild roads and bridges. And yesterday I met with a man whose company is reopening a factory outside of Pittsburgh that’s rehiring workers to build some of the most energy-efficient windows in the world.

And this plan will provide a tax cut to 95 percent of all working families that will appear in people’s paychecks by April 1st.

The second step we took was to launch a plan to stabilize the housing market and help responsible homeowners stay in their homes. This plan’s one reason that mortgage interest rates are now at near- historic lows.

We’ve already seen a jump in refinancings of mortgages as homeowners take advantage of lower rates. And every American should know that up to 40 percent of all mortgages are now eligible for refinancing. This is the equivalent of another tax cut, and we’re also beginning to see signs of increased sales and stabilizing home prices for the first time in a very long time.

The third part of our strategy is to restart the flow of credit to families and businesses. To that end, we’ve launched a program designed to support the markets for more affordable auto loans, student loans and small-business loans -- a program that’s already securitized more of this lending in the last week than in the last four months combined.

Yesterday, Secretary Geithner announced a new plan that will partner government resources with private investment to buy up the assets that are preventing our banks from lending money. And we will continue to do whatever is necessary in the weeks ahead to ensure the banks Americans depend on have the money they need to lend, even if the economy gets worse.

Finally, the most critical part of our strategy is to ensure that we do not return to an economic cycle of bubble and bust in this country. We know that an economy built on reckless speculation, inflated home prices and maxed-out credit cards does not create lasting wealth. It creates the illusion of prosperity, and it’s endangered us all.

The budget I submitted to Congress will build our economic recovery on a stronger foundation so that we don’t face another crisis like this 10 or 20 years from now. We invest in the renewable sources of energy that will lead to new jobs, new businesses and less dependence on foreign oil. We invest in our schools and our teachers, so that our children have the skills they need to compete with any workers in the world.

We invest in reform that will bring down the cost of health care for families, businesses and our government.

And in this budget, we have -- we have to make the tough choices necessary to cut our deficit in half by the end of my first term, even under the most pessimistic estimates.

At the end of the day, the best way to bring our deficit down in the long run is not with a budget that continues the very same policies that have led us to a narrow prosperity and massive debt. It’s with a budget that leads to broad economic growth by moving from an era of borrow-and-spend to one where we save and invest.

And that’s why clean-energy jobs and businesses will do -- all across America. That’s what a highly skilled workforce can do all across America. That’s what an efficient health-care system that controls costs and entitlements like Medicare and Medicaid will do.

That’s why this budget is inseparable from this recovery, because it is what lays the foundation for a secure and lasting prosperity.

The road to that prosperity is still long, and we will hit our share of bumps and setbacks before it ends. But we must remember that we can get there if we travel that road as one nation, as one people.

You know, there was a lot of outrage and finger-pointing last week, and much of it is is understandable. I’m as angry as anybody about those bonuses that went to some of the very same individuals who brought our financial system to its knees, partly because it’s yet another symptom of the culture that led us to this point.

But one of the most important lessons to learn from this crisis is that our economy only works if we recognize that we’re all in this together, that we all have responsibilities to each other and to our country.

Bankers and executives on Wall Street need to realize that enriching themselves on the taxpayer’s dime is inexcusable, that the days of outsize rewards and reckless speculation that puts us all at risk have to be over. At the same time, the rest of us can’t afford to demonize every investor or entrepreneur who seeks to make a profit. That drive is what has always fueled our prosperity, and it is what will ultimately get these banks lending and our economy moving once more.

We’ll recover from this recession, but it will take time; it will take patience; and it will take an understanding that when we all work together, when each of us looks beyond our own short-term interest to the wider set of obligations we have towards each other, that’s when we succeed. That’s when we prosper. And that’s what is needed right now.

So let’s look towards the future with a renewed sense of common purpose, a renewed determination, and, most importantly, renewed confidence that a better day will come.

All right. With that, let me take some questions. And I’ve got a list here; let’s start off with Jennifer Loven, AP.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

Your Treasury secretary and the Fed chair have been -- were on Capitol Hill today, asking for this new authority that you want to regulate big, complex financial institutions. But given the problems that the financial bailout program has had so far -- banks not wanting to talk about how they’re spending the money, the AIG bonuses that you mentioned -- why do you think the public should sign on for another new, sweeping authority for the government to take over companies, essentially?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, keep in mind that it is precisely because of the lack of this authority that the AIG situation has gotten worse. Now, understand that AIG’s not a bank, it’s an insurance company. If it were a bank and it had effectively collapsed, then the FDIC could step in, as it does with a whole host of banks -- as it did with IndyMac -- and in a structured way renegotiate contracts, get rid of bad assets, strengthen capital requirements, resell it on the private marketplace.

So we’ve got a regular mechanism whereby we deal with FDIC-insured banks. We don’t have that same capacity with an institution like AIG, and that’s part of the reason why it has proved so problematic. I think a lot of people understandably say: Well, if we’re putting all this money in there, and if it’s such a big systemic risk to allow AIG to liquidate, why is it that we can’t restructure some of these contracts? Why can’t we do some of the things that need to be done in a more orderly way? And the reason is -- is because we have not obtained this authority.

We should have obtained it much earlier, so that any institution that poses a systemic risk that could bring down the financial system we can handle, and we can do it in an orderly fashion that quarantines it from other institutions. We don’t have that power right now. That’s what Secretary Geithner was talking about.

And I think that there’s going to be strong support from the American people and from Congress to provide that authority so that we don’t find ourselves in a situation where we’ve got to choose between either allowing an enormous institution like AIG, which is not just insuring other banks but is also insuring pension funds and potentially putting people’s 401(k)s at risk if it goes under -- that’s one choice -- and then the other choice is just to allow them to take taxpayer money without the kind of conditions that we’d like to see on it. So that’s why I think the authority’s so important.

QUESTION: But why should the public trust the government to handle that authority well?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, as I said before, if you look at how the FDIC has handled a situation like IndyBank, for example, it actually does these kinds of resolutions effectively when it’s got the tools to do it.

We don’t have the tools right now.

Okay. Chuck Todd.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. Some have compared this financial crisis to a war, and in times of war, past presidents have called for some form of sacrifice. Some of your programs, whether for Main Street or Wall Street, have actually cushioned the blow for those that were irresponsible during this -- during this economic period of prosperity or supposed prosperity that you were talking about.

Why, given this new era of responsibility that you’re asking for, why haven’t you asked for something specific that the public should be sacrificing to participate in this economic recovery?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, let me -- let me take that question in a couple -- couple of phases. First of all, it’s not true that we have not asked sacrifice from people who are getting taxpayer money. We have imposed some very stiff conditions. The only problem that we’ve had so far are contracts that were put in place before we took over.

But moving forward, anybody -- any bank, for example, that is receiving capital from the taxpayers is going to have to have some very strict conditions in terms of how it pays out its executives, how it pays out dividends, how it’s reporting its lending practices. So we want to make sure that there’s some stiff conditions in place.

With respect to the American people, I think folks are sacrificing left and right. They -- you’ve got a lot of parents who are cutting back on everything to make sure that their kids can still go to college. You’ve got workers who are deciding to cut an entire day and entire day’s worth of pay so that their fellow co-workers aren’t laid off. I think that across the board people are making adjustments, large and small, to accommodate the fact that we’re in very difficult times right now.

What I’ve said here in Washington is that we’ve got to make some tough choices. We got to make some tough budgetary choices. What we can’t do, though, is sacrifice long-term growth investments that are critical to the future. And that’s why my budget focuses on health care, energy, education -- the kinds of things that can build a foundation for long-term economic growth as opposed to the fleeting prosperity that we’ve seen over the last several years. I mean, when you have an economy in which the majority of growth is coming from the financial sector -- when AIG selling a derivative is counted as an increase in the gross domedic -- domestic product, then that’s not a model for sustainable economic growth.

And what we have to do is invest in those things that will allow the American people’s capacity for ingenuity and innovation, their ability to take risks but make sure that those risks are grounded in good products and good services that they believe they can market to the rest of the country, that those models of economic growth are what we’re promoting, and that’s what I think our budget does.

QUESTION: But you don’t think there should be a specific call to action that you want the American -- I mean, this is -- you’ve described this as an economic crisis like nothing we have seen since the Great Depression.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, as I said, the American people are making a host of sacrifices in their individual lives. We are going through an extraordinary crisis, but we believe that taken -- if you take the steps that we’ve already taken with respect to housing, with respect to small businesses, if you look at what we’re doing in terms of increasing liquidity in the financial system, that the steps that we’re taking can actually stabilize the economy and get it moving again.

What I’m looking from the American people to do is that they are going to be doing what they’ve always done, which is working hard, looking after their families, making sure that despite the economic hard times that they’re still contributing to their community, that they’re still participating in volunteer activities, that they are paying attention to the debates that are going on in Washington.

And the budgets that we’re putting forward and some of the decisions that we’re having to make are going to be tough decisions, and we’re going to need the support of the American people, and that’s part of why what I’ve tried to do is to be out front as much as possible, explaining in very clear terms exactly what we’re doing.

Jake?

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. Right now on Capitol Hill, Senate Democrats are writing a budget, and according to press accounts and their own statements, they’re not including the middle-class tax cut that you include in the stimulus. They’re talking about phasing that out. They’re not including the cap-and-trade that you have in your budget, and they’re not including other measures.

I know when you outlined your four priorities over the weekend, a number of these things were not in there. Will you sign a budget if it does not contain a middle-class tax cut, does not contain cap-and- trade?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, I’ve emphasized repeatedly what I expect out of this budget. I expect that there’s serious efforts at health care reform, and that we are driving down costs for families and businesses, and ultimately for the federal and state governments that are going to be broke if we continue on the current path.

I’ve said that we’ve got to have a serious energy policy that frees ourselves from dependence on foreign oil and makes clean energy the profitable kind of energy. We’ve got to invest in education, K through 12 and beyond, to upgrade the skills of the American worker so we can compete in -- in the international economy. And I’ve said that we’ve got to start driving our deficit numbers down.

Now, we never expected, when we printed out our budget, that they would simply Xerox it and vote on it. We assume that it has to go through the legislative process. I have not yet seen the final product coming out of the Senate or the House, and we’re in constant conversations with them. I am confident that the budget we put forward will have those principles in place.

When it comes to the middle-class tax cut, we already had that in the recovery. We know that that’s going to be in place for at least the next two years. We had identified a specific way to pay for it. If Congress has better ideas in terms of how to pay for it, then we’re happy to listen.

When it comes to cap-and-trade, the broader principle is that we’ve got to move to a new energy era. And that means moving away from polluting energy sources towards cleaner energy sources.

That is a potential engine for economic growth.

I think cap-and-trade is the best way, from my perspective, to achieve some of those gains, because what it does is it starts pricing the pollution that’s being sent into the atmosphere.

The way it’s structured, it has to take into account regional differences. It has to protect consumers from huge spikes in electricity prices. So there are a -- a lot of technical issues that are going to have to be sorted through.

Our point in the budget is, let’s get started now. We can’t wait. And my expectation is that the energy committees, or other relevant committees in both the House and the Senate, are going to be moving forward a strong energy package. It’ll be authorized. We’ll get it done. And I will sign it. Okay?

QUESTION: So is that a yes, sir? You’re willing to sign a budget that doesn’t have those two provisions?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: No; I -- what I said was -- is I haven’t seen yet what provisions are in there. The bottom line is -- is that I want to see health care, energy, education and serious efforts to reduce our budget deficit.

And there are going to be a lot of details that are still being worked out. But I have confidence that we’re going to be able to get a budget done that’s reflective of what needs to happen in order to make sure that America grows. Okay?

Chip Reid.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

At both of your town hall meetings in California last week, you said, quote, ”I didn’t run for president to pass on our problems to the next generation.”

But under your budget, the debt will increase $7 trillion over the next 10 years. The Congressional Budget Office says $9.3 trillion. And today on Capitol Hill, some Republicans called your budget, with all the spending on health care, education and environment, the most irresponsible budget in American history.

Isn’t that kind of debt exactly what you were talking about when you said passing on our problems to the next generation?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: First of all, I suspect that some of those Republican critics have a short memory, because as I recall, I’m inheriting a $1.3 trillion deficit, annual deficit, from them. That would be point number one.

Point number two. Both under our estimates and under the CBO estimates, both -- the most conservative estimates out there, we drive down the deficit over the first five years of our budget. The deficit is cut in half. And folks aren’t disputing that.

Where the dispute comes in is what happens in a whole bunch of out years. And the main difference between the budget that we presented and the budget that came out of Congressional Budget Office is assumptions about growth.

They’re assuming a growth rate of 2.2. We’re assuming a growth rate of 2.6. Those small differences end up adding up to a lot of money. Our assumptions are perfectly consistent with what blue chip forecasters out there are saying.

Now, none of us know exactly what’s going to happen six or eight or 10 years from now. Here’s what I do know: If we don’t tackle energy, if we don’t improve our education system, if we don’t drive down the costs of health care, if we’re not making serious investments in science and technology and our infrastructure, then we won’t grow 2.6 percent; we won’t grow 2.2 percent. We won’t grow.

And so what we’ve said is let’s make the investments that ensure that we meet our growth targets, that put us on a pathway to growth, as opposed to a situation in which we’re not making those investments and we still have trillion-dollar deficits.

And there’s a interesting reason why some of these critics haven’t put out their own budget. I mean, we haven’t seen an alternative budget out of them. And the reason is because they know that, in fact, the biggest driver of long-term deficits are the huge health care costs that we’ve got out here that we’re going to have to tackle.

And we -- that if we don’t deal with some of the structural problems in our deficit, ones that were here long before I got here, then we’re going to continue to see some of the problems in those out years.

And so what we’re trying to emphasize is let’s make sure that we’re making the investments that we need to grow, to meet those growth targets. At the same time, we’re still reducing the deficit by a couple of trillion dollars. We are cutting out wasteful spending in areas like Medicare. We’re -- we’re changing procurement practices when it comes to the Pentagon budget. We are looking at social- service programs and education programs that don’t work and eliminate them. And we will continue to go line-by-line through this budget, and where we find programs that don’t work we will eliminate them.

But it is -- it is going to be a(n) impossible task for us to balance our budget if we’re not taking on rising health care costs. And it’s going to be an impossible task to balance our budget or even approximate it if we are not boosting our growth rates. And -- and that’s why our budget focuses on the investments we need to make that happen.

QUESTION: But even under your budget -- as you said, over the next four or five years, you’re going to cut the deficit in half. Then, after that, six years in a row it goes up, up, up.

If you’re making all these long-term structural cuts --

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Right.

QUESTION: -- why does it continue to go up in the out years?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, look. It is going to take a whole host of adjustments, and we couldn’t reflect all of those adjustments in this budget. Let me give you an example. There’s been a lot of talk about entitlements and Medicare and Medicaid. The biggest problem we have long term is Medicare and Medicaid, but whatever reforms we initiate on that front -- and we’re very serious about working on a bipartisan basis to reduce those deficits -- or reduce those costs -- you’re not going to see those savings reflected until much later.

And so a -- a budget is a snapshot of what we can get done right now, understanding that eight, 10 years from now we will have had a whole series of new budgets. And we’re going to have to make additional adjustments. And once we get out of this current economic crisis, then it’s going to be absolutely important for us to take another look and say, ”Are we growing as fast as we need to grow? Are there further cuts that we need to make? What other adjustments are -- is it going to take for us to have a sustainable budget level?”

But keep in mind -- just to give one other example, as a percentage of gross domestic product, we are reducing non-Defense discretionary spending to its lowest level since the ’60s -- lower than it was under Reagan, lower than it was under Clinton, lower than it was under Bush or both Bushes.

And so if we’re growing, if we are doing what’s necessary to create new businesses and to expand the economy, and we are making sure that we’re eliminating some of these programs that aren’t working, then over time that gap can close.

But I’m -- look, I’m not going to lie to you. It is tough. As I said, that’s why the critics tend to criticize, but they don’t offer an alternative budget, because even if we were not doing health care, we were not doing energy, we were not doing education, they’d still have a whole bunch of problems in those out years, according to CBO projections. The only difference would -- is that we will not have invested in what’s necessary to make this economy grow.

Is Lourdes here, from Univision? (Let’s see ?).

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. Today your administration presented a plan to help curb the violence in Mexico and also to control any or prevent any spillover of the violence into the United States. Do you consider the situation now a national security threat?

And do you believe that it could require sending national troops to the border? Governor Perry of Texas has said that you still need more troops and more agents. How do you respond to that?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, first of all let’s focus on what we did today. It’s very significant. We are sending millions of dollars in additional equipment to provide more effective surveillance. We are providing hundreds of additional personnel that can help control the border, deal with customs issues. We are coordinating very effectively with the Mexican government and President Calderon, who has taken on a(n) extraordinarily difficult task dealing with these drug cartels that have gotten completely out of hand.

And so the steps that we’ve taken are designed to make sure that the border communities in the United States are protected and you’re not seeing a spillover of violence, and that we are helping the Mexican government deal with a very challenging situation.

Now, we are going to continue to monitor the situation. And if the steps that we’ve taken do not get the job done, then we will do more.

One last point that I want to make about this. As I said, President Calderon has been very courageous in taking on these drug cartels.

We’ve got to also take some steps. Even as he is doing more to deal with the drug cartels sending drugs into the United States, we need to do more to make sure that illegal guns and cash aren’t flowing back to these cartels. That’s part of what’s financing their operations. That’s part of what’s arming them. That’s what makes them so dangerous. And this is something that we take very seriously, and we’re going to continue to work on diligently in the months to come.

Kevin Baron, Stars and Stripes. Is Kevin here? There you go.

QUESTION: Mr. President, where do you plan to find savings in the Defense and Veterans Administration’s budgets when so many items that seem destined for the chopping block are politically untenable, perhaps?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I’m sorry, so many?

QUESTION: When so many items that may be destined for the chopping block seem politically untenable, from major weapons systems -- as you mentioned, procurement -- to wounded warrior care costs, or increased operations on Afghanistan, or the size of the military itself.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, a couple of -- a couple of points I want to make.

The budget that we’ve put forward reflects the largest increase in veterans funding in 30 years. That’s the right thing to do. Chuck asked earlier about sacrifices. I -- I don’t think anybody doubts the extraordinary sacrifices that men and women in uniform have already made. And when they come home, then they have earned the benefits that they receive.

And unfortunately, over the last several years, all too often the VA has been under-resourced when it comes to dealing with things like post-traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injury, dealing with some of the backlogs in admission to VA hospitals.

So there are a whole host of veterans’ issues that I think every American wants to see properly funded, and that’s what’s reflected in our budget. Where the savings should come in -- and I’ve been working with Secretary Gates on this and will be detailing it more in the weeks to come -- is how do we reform our procurement system so that it keeps America safe and we’re not wasting taxpayer dollars? And there is uniform acknowledgment that the procurement system right now doesn’t work. That’s not just my opinion; that’s John McCain’s opinion; that’s Carl Levin’s opinion.

There are a whole host of people who are students of the procurement process that will say if you’ve got a whole range of billion-dollar, multi-billion-dollar systems that are -- where we’re seeing cost overruns of 30 percent or 40 percent or 50 percent, and then still don’t perform the way they’re supposed to or are providing our troops with the kinds of tools that they need to succeed on their missions, then we’ve got a problem.

Now, I think everybody in this town knows that the politics of changing procurement is tough, because, you know, lobbyists are very active in this area. You know, contractors are very good at dispersing the jobs in plants in the Defense Department widely.

And so what we have to do is to go through this process very carefully, be more disciplined than we’ve been in the last several years. As I’ve said, we’ve already identified, potentially, $40 billion in savings, just by some of the procurement reforms that are pretty apparent to a lot of -- a lot of critics out there. And we are going to continue to find savings in a way that allows us to put the resources where they’re needed but to make sure that we’re not simply fattening defense contractors.

One last point. In order for us to get a handle on these costs, it’s also important that we are honest in what these costs are. And that’s why it was so important for us to acknowledge the true costs of the Iraq war and the Afghan war, because if -- if those costs are somehow off the books and we’re not thinking about them, then it’s hard for us to make some of the tough choices that need to be made.

Okay. Ed Henry. Where’s Ed? There he is.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. You spoke again at the top about your anger about AIG. You’ve been saying that for days now. But why is it that it seems Andrew Cuomo seems to be, in New York, getting more actual action on it? And when you and Secretary Geithner first learned about this, 10 days, two weeks ago, you didn’t go public immediately with that outrage. You waited a few days, and then you went public after you realized Secretary Geithner really had no legal avenue to stop it.

And more broadly -- I just want to follow up on Chip and Jake -- you’ve been very critical of President Bush doubling the national debt. And to be fair, it’s not just Republicans hitting you. Democrat Kent Conrad, as you know, said, quote, ”When I look at this budget, I see the debt doubling again.” You keep saying that you’ve inherited a big fiscal mess. Do you worry, though, that your daughters, not to mention the next president, will be inheriting an even bigger fiscal mess if the spending goes out of control?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Of course I do, Ed, which is why we’re doing everything we can to reduce that deficit. Look, if this were easy, then we would have already had it done and the budget would have been voted on and everybody could go home. This is hard. And the reason it’s hard is because we’ve accumulated a structural deficit that’s going to take a long time, and we’re not going to be able to do it next year or the year after or three years from now.

What we have to do is bend the curve on these deficit projections, and the best way for us to do that is to reduce health care costs. That’s not just my opinion; that’s the opinion of almost every single person who has looked at our long-term fiscal situation.

Now, how do we -- how are we going to reduce health care costs? Because the problem is not just in government-run programs, the problem is in the private sector as well. It’s experienced by families. It’s experienced by businesses. And so what we’ve said is, look, let’s invest in health information technologies, let’s invest in preventive care, let’s invest in mechanisms that look at who’s doing a better job controlling costs while producing good-quality outcomes in various states, and let’s reimburse on the basis of improved quality as opposed to simply how many procedures you’re doing. Let’s do a whole host of things, some of which cost money on the front end but offer the prospect of reducing costs on the back end.

Now, the alternative is to stand pat, and to simply say we are just going to not invest in health care; we’re not going to take on energy, we’ll wait until the next time that gas gets to $4 a gallon; we will not improve our schools, and we’ll allow China or India or other countries to lap our young people in terms of their performance; we will settle on lower growth rates, and we will continue to contract both as an economy and our ability to -- to provide a better life for our kids.

That I don’t think is the better option.

Now, have -- am I completely satisfied with all the work that needs to be done on deficits? No. That’s why I convened a fiscal responsibility summit, started in this room, to start looking at entitlements and to start looking at the big drivers of costs over the long term. Not all of those are reflected in our budget, partly because the savings we anticipate would be coming in years outside of the 10-year budget cycle that we’re talking about. Okay?

QUESTION: So on AIG, why did you wait -- why did you wait days to come out and express that outrage?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I --

QUESTION: It seems like the action is coming out of New York in the attorney general’s office. It took you days to come public with Secretary Geithner and say, look, we’re outraged. Why did it take so long?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, it took us a couple of days because I like to know what I’m talking about before I speak. (Laughter.) All right?

QUESTION: Secretary Geithner alluded --

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Major?

QUESTION: (Off mike.)

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Yeah.

QUESTION: Good evening, Mr. President. Thank you. Taking this economic debate a bit globally, senior Chinese officials have publicly expressed an interest in an international currency. This is described by Chinese specialists as a sign that they are less confident than they used to be in the value and the reliability of the U.S. dollar. European countries have resisted your calls to spend more on economic stimulus.

I wonder, sir, as a candidate who ran concerned about the image of the United States globally, how comfortable you are with the Chinese government, run by communists, less confident than they used to be in the U.S. dollar, and European governments, some of the center-left, some of them socialist, who say you’re asking them to spend too much?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, first of all, I haven’t asked them to do anything. What I’ve suggested is -- is that all of us are going to have to take steps in order to lift the economy. We don’t want a situation in which some countries are making extraordinary efforts and other countries aren’t, with the hope that somehow the countries that are making those important steps lift everybody up.

And so somebody’s got to take leadership. It’s not just me, by the way. I was with Kevin Rudd, prime minister of Australia, today, who was very forceful in suggesting that countries around the world, those with the capacity to do so, take the steps that are needed to fill this enormous hole in global demand. Gordon Brown, when he came to visit me, said the exact same thing.

So the goal at the G-20 summit, I think, is to do a couple of things. Number one, say to all countries: Let’s do what’s necessary in order to create jobs and to get the economy moving again. Let’s avoid steps that could result in protectionism, that would further contract global trade. Let’s focus on how are we going to move our regulatory process forward in order so that we do not see the kinds of systemic breakdowns that we’ve already seen.

And that -- that means not just dealing with banks, but also some of the other financial flows that are out here that are currently unregulated. We’ve got to update regulations that date back to the 1930s, and we’re going to have to do some coordination with other countries in order to accomplish that.

As far as confidence in the U.S. economy or the dollar, I would just point out that the dollar is extraordinarily strong right now. And the reason the dollar is strong right now is because investors consider the United States the strongest economy in the world, with the most stable political system in the world.

So you don’t have to take my word for it. I think that there is a great deal of confidence that ultimately, although we are going through a rough patch, that the prospects for the world economy are very, very strong.

And -- and last point I would make in terms of changing America’s image in the world, Garrett, I -- you know, I haven’t looked at the latest polling around the world, but I think the -- it’s -- I think it’s fair to say that the response that people have had to our administration and the steps we have taken are ones that are restoring a sense of confidence and the ability of the United States to assert global leadership.

QUESTION: Is there a need --

PRESIDENT OBAMA: That will just strengthen -- excuse me?

QUESTION: Is there a need for a global currency?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I don’t believe that there’s a need for a global currency.

Mike Allen, Politico. Hi, Mike.

QUESTION: Mr. President, are you -- (takes mic) -- thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Are you reconsidering your plan to cut the interest-rate deduction for mortgages and for charities? And do you regret having proposed that in the first place?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: No, I think it’s -- I think it’s the right thing to do.

Where we’ve got to make some difficult choices -- here’s what we did with respect to tax policy. What we said was that over the last decade, the average worker, the average family have seen their wages and incomes flat. Even at times where supposedly we were in the middle of an economic boom, as a practical matter their incomes didn’t go up. And so (what/well ?) we said -- let’s give them a tax cut. Let’s give them some relief, some help -- 95 percent of American families.

Now, for the top 5 percent, they’re the ones who typically saw huge gains in their income. I -- I fall in that category. And what we’ve said is, for those folks, let’s not renew the Bush tax cuts. So let’s go back to the rates that existed back in -- during the Clinton era, when wealthy people were still wealthy and doing just fine. And let’s look at the level at which people can itemize their deductions.

And what we’ve said is let’s go back to the rate that existed under Ronald Reagan.

People are still going to be able to make charitable contributions. It just means if you give $100 and you’re in this tax bracket, at a certain point, instead of being able to write off 36 (percent) or 39 percent, you’re writing off 28 percent. Now, if it’s really a charitable contribution, I’m assuming that that shouldn’t be the determining factor as to whether you’re giving that hundred dollars to the homeless shelter down the street.

And so this provision would effect about 1 percent of the American people. They would still get deductions. It’s just that they wouldn’t be able to write off 39 percent. In that sense, what it would do is it would equalize. When I give $100, I get the same amount of deduction as when some -- a bus driver who’s making $50,000 a year or $40,000 a year gives that same hundred dollars. Right now, he gets 28 percent -- he gets to write off 28 percent, I get to write off 39 percent. I don’t think that’s fair.

So I think this was a good idea. I think it is a realistic way for us to raise some revenue from people who benefitted enormously over the last several years. It’s not going to cripple them.

They’ll still be well-to-do. And, you know, ultimately if we’re going to tackle the serious problems that we’ve got, then in some cases those who are more fortunate are going to have to pay a little bit more.

QUESTION: It’s not the well-to-do people; it’s the charities. Given what you’ve just said --

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- are you confident that charities are wrong when they contend that this would discourage giving?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Yes. I am. I mean, if you look at the evidence -- there’s very little evidence that this has a significant impact on charitable giving. I’ll tell you what has a significant impact on charitable giving is a financial crisis and an economy that’s contracting. And so the most important thing that I can do for charitable giving is to fix the economy, to get banks lending again, to get businesses opening their doors again, to get people back to work again. Then I think charities will do just fine.

Kevin Chappell. Hi, Kevin.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. A recent report found that as a result of the economic downturn, one in 50 children are now homeless in America. With shelters at full capacity, tent cities are sprouting up across the country.

In passing your stimulus package, you said that help was on the way, but what would you say to these families, especially children, who are sleeping under bridges and in tents across the country?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, the first thing I’d say is that I’m heartbroken that any child in America is homeless.

And the most important thing that I can do on their behalf is to make sure their parents have a job. And that’s why the recovery package said, as a first priority, how are we going to save or create 3.5 million jobs? How can we prevent layoffs for teachers and police officers? How can we make sure that we are investing in the infrastructure for the future that can put people back to work right away? How do we make sure that when people do lose their jobs, that their unemployment insurance is extended, that they can keep their health care?

So there are a whole host of steps that we’ve done to provide a cushion for folks who have fallen on very hard times and to try to spur immediate projects that can put people back to work.

Now, in the meantime, we’ve got to work very closely with the states to monitor and to help people who are still falling through the cracks.

And, you know, the homeless problem was bad even when the economy was good. Part of the change in attitudes that I want to see here in Washington and all across the country is a belief that it is not acceptable for children and families to be without a roof over their heads in a country as wealthy as ours. And so we’re going to be initiating a range of programs as well to deal with homelessness.

One area in particular I want to focus on is the issue of veterans. The rate of homelessness among veterans is much, much higher than for non-veteran populations.

And so we’ve got -- a number of the increases that we’re looking for in our budget on veterans funding directly addresses the issue of homeless veterans. That, I think, can provide some real help.

Ann Compton. Hey, Ann.

QUESTION: Sir. (Soft laughter.)

PRESIDENT OBAMA: You sound surprised. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: I am surprised! (Chuckles.) Could I ask you about race?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: You may.

QUESTION: Yours is a rather historic presidency, and I’m just wondering whether in any of the policy debates that you’ve had within the White House, the issue of race has come up, or whether it has in the way you feel you’ve been perceived by other leaders or by the American people. Or have the last 64 days been a relatively color- blind time?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I -- I think that the last 64 days has been dominated by me trying to figure out how we’re going to fix the economy, and that’s -- affects black, brown and white. And you know, obviously, at the Inauguration I think that there was justifiable pride on the part of the country that we had taken a step to move us beyond some of the searing legacies of racial discrimination in this country, but that lasted about a day. And you know, right now the American people are judging me exactly the way I should be judged, and that is, are we taking the steps to improve liquidity in the financial markets, create jobs, get businesses to reopen, keep America safe?

And that’s what I’ve been spending my time thinking about.

Okay. Jon Ward, Washington Times. Where’s Jon?

QUESTION: Right here, sir.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: There you go.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

In your remarks on stem-cell research earlier this month, you talked about a majority consensus in determining whether or not this is the right thing to do, to federally fund embryonic stem-cell research. I’m just wondering, though, how much you personally wrestled with the morality or ethics of federally funding this kind of research, especially given the fact that science so far has shown a lot of progress with adult stem cells but not a lot with embryonic?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Okay. No, I -- I think it’s a -- I think it’s a legitimate question.

I -- I wrestle with these issues every day. As I mentioned to -- I think in an interview a couple of days ago, by the time an issue reaches my desk, it’s a hard issue. If it was an easy issue, somebody else would have solved it and it wouldn’t have reached me.

Look, I believe that it is very important for us to have strong moral guidelines, ethical guidelines, when it comes to stem-cell research or anything that touches on, you know, the issues of possible cloning or issues related to, you know, the human life sciences.

I think those issues are all critical, and I’ve said so before. I wrestle with it on stem cell; I wrestle with it on issues like abortion.

I think that the guidelines that we provided meet that ethical test. What we have said is that for embryos that are typically about to be discarded, for us to be able to use those in order to find cures for Parkinson’s or for Alzheimer’s or for, you know, all sorts of other debilitating diseases, juvenile diabetes, that -- that it is the right thing to do. And that’s not just my opinion. That is the opinion of a number of people who are also against abortion.

Now, I am glad to see progress is being made in adult stem cells. And if the science determines that we can completely avoid a set of ethical questions or political disputes, then that’s great. I have -- I have no investment in causing controversy. I’m happy to avoid it if that’s where the science leads us.

But what I don’t want to do is predetermine this based on a very rigid ideological approach. And that’s what I think is reflected in the executive order that I signed.

QUESTION: I meant to ask as a follow-up, though, do you think that scientific consensus is enough to tell us what we can and cannot do?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: No. I think there’s always an ethical and a moral element that has to be -- be a part of this. And so, as I said, I don’t take decisions like this lightly. They’re ones that I take seriously. And -- and I respect people who have different opinions on this issue.

But I think that this was the right thing to do and the ethical thing to do. And as I said before, my hope is, is that we can find a mechanism ultimately to cure these diseases in a way that gains a hundred percent consensus. And we certainty haven’t achieved that yet. But I think on balance this was the right step to take.

STAFF: Last question.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Okay. Stephen Collinson, AFP.

QUESTION: Mr. President, you came to office pledging to work for peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Yeah.

QUESTION: How realistic do you think those are hopes are now, given the likelihood of a prime minister who’s not fully signed up to a two- state solution and a foreign minister who’s been accused of insulting Arabs?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: It’s not easier than it was, but I think it’s just as necessary. We don’t yet know what the Israeli government is going to look like. And we don’t yet know what the future shape of Palestinian leadership is going to be comprised of.

What we do know is this; that the status quo is unsustainable. That it is critical for us to advance a two-state solution where Israelis and Palestinians can live side by side in their own states with peace and security. And by assigning George Mitchell the task of working as special envoy, what we’ve signaled is that we’re going to be serious from day one in trying to move the parties in a direction that acknowledges that reality. How effective these negotiations may be, I think we’re going to have to wait and see.

But, you know, we were here for Saint Patrick’s Day, and you’ll recall that we had what had been previously sworn enemies celebrating here in this very room; you know, leaders from the two sides in Northern Ireland that, you know, a couple of decades ago or even a decade ago people would have said could never achieve peace. And here they were, jointly appearing and talking about their commitment, even in the face of violent provocation.

And what that tells me is that if you stick to it, if you are persistent, then -- then these problems can be dealt with.

That whole philosophy of persistence, by the way, is one that I’m going to be emphasizing again and again in the months and years to come, as long as I am in this office. I’m a big believer in persistence. I think that when it comes to domestic affairs, if we keep on working at it, if we acknowledge that we make mistakes sometimes and that we don’t always have the right answer, and we’re inheriting very knotty problems, that we can pass health care, we can find better solutions to our energy challenges, we can teach our children more effectively, we can deal with a very real budget crisis that is not fully dealt with in my -- in my budget at this point, but makes progress.

I think when it comes to the banking system, you know, it was just a few days ago or weeks ago where people were certain that Secretary Geithner couldn’t deliver a plan. Today, the headlines all look like, well, all right, there’s a plan.

And I’m sure there’ll be more criticism and we’ll have to make more adjustments, but we’re moving in the right direction.

When it comes to Iran, you know, we did a video sending a message to the Iranian people and the leadership of the Islamic Republic of Iran. And some people said, ”Well, they did not immediately say they were eliminating nuclear weapons and stop funding terrorism.” Well, we didn’t expect that. We expect that we’re going to make steady progress on this front.

We haven’t immediately eliminated the influence of lobbyists in Washington. We have not immediately eliminated wasteful pork projects. And we’re not immediately going to get Middle East peace. We’ve been in office now a little over 60 days.

What I am confident about is that we’re moving in the right direction, and that the decisions we’re making are based on, how are we going to get this economy moving? How are we going to put Americans back to work? How are we going to make sure that our people are safe? And how are we going to create not just prosperity here but work with other countries for global peace and prosperity?

And we are going to stay with it as long as I'm in this office, and I think that -- you look back four years from now, I think, hopefully, people will judge that body of work and say, "This is a big ocean liner. It's not a speedboat. It doesn't turn around immediately. But we're in a better -- better place because of the decisions that we made."

All right? Thank you, everybody.