Wednesday, March 7, 2012

Re: Video: Inside the White House: The Kitchen Garden

Hey man, I'm feelin' da love.

I mean, c'mon, a First Lady planting a garden is HUGE news.
Unemployment, Iran, N. Korea, Syria and such are just so . . .
mundane.

Look! Its a carrot.

On Mar 7, 1:37 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Gee, Tommy.... all those gardeners, all those seeds, all the love and
> attention given.... that simple garden cost the taxpayers exactly how
> much?? Far cheaper to order the food brought in. BAD ECONOMICS!!!!
> Mrs. Roosevelt, to whom you try to make the comparison, did her own
> gardening....but then she didn't go on vacation 5 or 6 times a year
> and had the time to do so.
>
> On Mar 7, 9:09 am, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Video: Inside the White House: The Kitchen Garden
>
> > Watch here:
>
> >http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/inside-white-house
>
> > --
> > Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
> > Have a great day,
> > Tommy
>
> > --
> > Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
> > Have a great day,
> > Tommy

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Terrible News for Oxycontin Rush Fatblob, Loses Longtime Sponsor

Uh oh.

So ends the Palin is a public figure defense of Bill Maher

On Mar 7, 1:28 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just yesterday>>>>>
>
> Watching TV, you would never know that yesterday RFK Jr. compared U.S.
> Senator Inhofe to a "prostitute" and called him a "call girl." Where's
> the media outrage? Where are all the stories calling for his head?
> LIKE if you are tired of liberal double standards!
>
> C'mon Tommy ..... defend that!!!
>
> On Mar 6, 7:49 am, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > 'We Are Terminating Our Relationship with Rush Limbaugh': Satan
> > Radio Host Loses Longtime Sponsor
>
> > COLUMBUS, OH (The Borowitz Report) – Embattled radio host Rush
> > Limbaugh suffered another major desertion today as he lost the support
> > of one of his longtime sponsors, Satan.
>
> > The usually reclusive Prince of Darkness announced his decision at a
> > hastily called press conference in Columbus, Ohio, his unofficial
> > headquarters on Earth.
>
> > "Due to remarks of his that we consider unacceptable, we are
> > terminating our relationship with Rush Limbaugh," Satan said in a
> > tersely worded statement.
>
> > According to one advisor to the Lord of Misrule, Satan had stuck by
> > the radio host as long as possible but after he called a young woman a
> > slut on the air Mr. Limbaugh had become "radioactive."
>
> > "After a certain point, the association with Rush became problematic
> > for Satan's public image," the aide said.  "We went through a similar
> > thing last year with Rupert Murdoch."
>
> > Advertisers continued abandoning Mr. Limbaugh's program in droves
> > today, including companies who had sponsored it for years, like the
> > online dating site NaziMingle.com™.
>
> > The only good news for Mr. Limbaugh today came from GOP presidential
> > candidate Mitt Romney, who offered this muted statement of support:
> > "Look, I wouldn't have chosen the words he did.  But it's not like he
> > called her a poor person or something."
>
> > More:
> > Borowitzreport.com
>
> > --
> > Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
> > Have a great day,
> > Tommy
>
> > --
> > Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
> > Have a great day,
> > Tommy

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Video: Inside the White House: The Kitchen Garden

Gee, Tommy.... all those gardeners, all those seeds, all the love and
attention given.... that simple garden cost the taxpayers exactly how
much?? Far cheaper to order the food brought in. BAD ECONOMICS!!!!
Mrs. Roosevelt, to whom you try to make the comparison, did her own
gardening....but then she didn't go on vacation 5 or 6 times a year
and had the time to do so.

On Mar 7, 9:09 am, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Video: Inside the White House: The Kitchen Garden
>
> Watch here:
>
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/inside-white-house
>
> --
> Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
> Have a great day,
> Tommy
>
> --
> Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
> Have a great day,
> Tommy

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Terrible News for Oxycontin Rush Fatblob, Loses Longtime Sponsor

Just yesterday>>>>>

Watching TV, you would never know that yesterday RFK Jr. compared U.S.
Senator Inhofe to a "prostitute" and called him a "call girl." Where's
the media outrage? Where are all the stories calling for his head?
LIKE if you are tired of liberal double standards!

C'mon Tommy ..... defend that!!!


On Mar 6, 7:49 am, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 'We Are Terminating Our Relationship with Rush Limbaugh': Satan
> Radio Host Loses Longtime Sponsor
>
> COLUMBUS, OH (The Borowitz Report) – Embattled radio host Rush
> Limbaugh suffered another major desertion today as he lost the support
> of one of his longtime sponsors, Satan.
>
> The usually reclusive Prince of Darkness announced his decision at a
> hastily called press conference in Columbus, Ohio, his unofficial
> headquarters on Earth.
>
> "Due to remarks of his that we consider unacceptable, we are
> terminating our relationship with Rush Limbaugh," Satan said in a
> tersely worded statement.
>
> According to one advisor to the Lord of Misrule, Satan had stuck by
> the radio host as long as possible but after he called a young woman a
> slut on the air Mr. Limbaugh had become "radioactive."
>
> "After a certain point, the association with Rush became problematic
> for Satan's public image," the aide said.  "We went through a similar
> thing last year with Rupert Murdoch."
>
> Advertisers continued abandoning Mr. Limbaugh's program in droves
> today, including companies who had sponsored it for years, like the
> online dating site NaziMingle.com™.
>
> The only good news for Mr. Limbaugh today came from GOP presidential
> candidate Mitt Romney, who offered this muted statement of support:
> "Look, I wouldn't have chosen the words he did.  But it's not like he
> called her a poor person or something."
>
> More:
> Borowitzreport.com
>
> --
> Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
> Have a great day,
> Tommy
>
> --
> Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
> Have a great day,
> Tommy

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

A Biblical Case for Ron Paul on Four Issues of Importance to Christians

"However, on the four issues I have identified, which are or should be of great importance to Christians, there is only one man among the four remaining contenders whose approach approximates the Biblical approach – Ron Paul. The other three candidates will grow government, will launch more murderous wars, will ignore or be ineffective in dealing with the abortion issue, will continue the expansion of the government's involvement in education, and will do nothing about the monetary system that is systematically robbing you of purchasing power and giving it to investment banks. I therefore urge my Christian brothers to abandon Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich and support Ron Paul. Oh, and by the way, he can beat Obama."

A Biblical Case for Ron Paul on Four Issues of Importance to Christians
by Michael Eversden

In the debate among Christians about who should be the Republican nominee for president, the discussion is unfortunately informed more often by the Gospel According to O'Reilly and the Book of Limbaugh rather than the Bible. I have therefore undertaken in this article to apply Biblical principles to four issues that are under discussion in this year's presidential campaign, which are or should be important to Christians, including foreign policy, life, education, and monetary policy. I conclude that Ron Paul's positions are by far the most consistent with Biblical principles and indeed that the other candidates have decidedly unbiblical views on these issues.

Before proceeding, please note that I have entitled this article "A Biblical Case…" because I am sure there are other applicable Scriptures and perhaps other better Biblical arguments to make on this subject, but I offer the arguments below in an attempt to help my Christian brothers sort out to what extent the candidates conform to Biblical principles on the four issues that are addressed in this article.

  1. Foreign Policy
  2. Matthew 7:12 (ESV) – "So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets."
  3. Matthew 5:9 (ESV) – "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God."
  4. Romans 12:18 (ESV) – "If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all."
  5. Hebrews 12:14 (ESV) – "Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord."
  6. Duet. 5:17 (ESV) – "You shall not murder."
  7. A government is nothing more than a group of men who possess certain powers and authority over those residing in a certain geographical area. Relations between governments are essentially relations between groups of men. There is nothing in the Bible that exempts the groups of men known as governments from the commands of God.
  8. Therefore, applying the commands God gave, as quoted above, Christians should urge their government to do to other nations what they wish other nations would do to them. Christians in the U.S. no doubt would like their own country to be free from invasion, attack, assassinations, covert operations, or other violent and subversive interventions by other countries' governments, so they should advocate a foreign policy that will not involve invasion, attack, assassinations, covert operations or other violent and subversive operations by the US government in other countries, and they should support candidates for office who will oppose such unbiblical practices.
  9. Moreover, Christians should not advocate an interventionist foreign policy that will inevitably produce unjust wars, the killing of innocents, and the subversion and overthrow of other countries' governments, because to do so would be to thwart the command of the Apostle Paul in Romans 12:18 to live peaceably with all. Indeed, not only do interventionist actions violate Paul's command in themselves, but they also provoke violent responses and thus perpetuate conflict, as the United States has experienced a number of times. Such responses are known by a term the CIA coined: " blowback ". It illustrates the truth that violence begets more violence, and as Jesus said in Matthew 26:52 (NIV), "[A] ll who draw the sword will die by the sword."
  10. Furthermore, a foreign policy that advocates aggressive wars (that is, wars that involve the invasion of other countries and not the repelling of an invasion of the U.S.) is anathema to the Sixth Commandment, which prohibits murder. Wars of aggression are unjust (as the Nazi leaders learned from the Allies in the trials at Nuremburg), thus making the killing associated with them unjustified (even the killing of enemy combatants) and therefore murderous. Even just wars become unjust when the means by which the war is conducted are unjust, as in the killing of innocents.
  11. In addition, because rulers are not exempt from the commands of God, they too must abide by the law of the land in accordance with Romans 13. The law of the land in the U.S. is the Constitution, which gives limited powers to the executive branch and only allows for war in the event that Congress has issued a declaration of war. No war since WWII has been a declared war, which means that all wars since that time have been unconstitutional and illegal, in violation of Romans 13.
  12. To these arguments, one might object: What about all of the dictators and repressive governments in the world? Should we just sit back and do nothing about them? First, the U.S. government for decades has been a supporter, financially and otherwise, of repressive dictators throughout the world, including Saddam Hussein in Iraq in the 1980s, Hosni Mubarak in Egypt until he was overthrown in 2011, the Shah of Iran (whom the U.S. government installed after overthrowing the democratically elected Mossadegh), Pinochet in Chile, Noriega in Panama, Diem in Vietnam, and many others. If Christians are concerned about repressive dictators, then they should urge the U.S. government to stop supporting them.
  13. Second, if we were to operate on the principle that the U.S. must overthrow repressive dictators, there would be no end to war until our own country collapsed economically, because contrary to popular belief, wars destroy wealth, not only for those whose lives and property are destroyed, but also for those who pay for the destruction (e.g., U.S. taxpayers).
  14. Third, the best way to influence a country is through open and free trade, which leads to the exchange of ideas. As Ron Paul has said, "Ideas are very important to the shaping of society. In fact, they are more powerful than bombings or armies or guns. And this is because ideas are capable of spreading without limit. They are behind the choices we make. They can transform the world in a way that governments and armies cannot. Fighting for liberty with ideas makes more sense to me than fighting with guns or politics or political power. With ideas, we can make real change that lasts." China provides a great example of this principle. The U.S. opened relations with China in the early 1970s, and since that time, owing to trade and the consequent exchange of ideas, China has liberalized more and more, and the people of China have prospered. Of course, China is not yet a beacon of liberty, but the point is that it changed for the better without the use of sanctions or bombs. It is no longer Mao's China.

  15. The lesson is clear: The U.S. should stop installing and supporting repressive governments, stop overthrowing and attempting to overthrow other governments, and instead pursue peaceful commercial relations with other countries. (Note: This is precisely what George Washington's foreign policy was.)

  16. Ron Paul is the only candidate who advocates a Biblical and Constitutional foreign policy. He is not an isolationist. Rather, he advocates peaceful commercial relations with all and denies the right of the U.S. government to intervene in the political affairs of other countries. His foreign policy is essentially the Golden Rule given by Jesus in Matthew 7:12, as applied to governments (remember, governments are just groups of men). Moreover, Ron Paul would refuse to go to war without a declaration of war by Congress, thus upholding the Constitution and the idea that political leaders are not above the law.
  17. Every other candidate (including Obama) supports an interventionist foreign policy, which is to say they advocate aggressive wars and military operations (e.g., Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and the coming wars in Iran and Syria), assassinations, economic sanctions (which do nothing but harm the poor, destroy the middle class in the target country, and solidify support for the existing regime in the target country), as well as violent and subversive operations in other countries. Rick Santorum, for example, recently cheered the assassination (murder) of Iranian scientists, calling it a "a wonderful thing" and saying he hopes that the United States was involved in their killing, and he has been beating the war drums against Iran more and more each day. He also apparently has no problem assassinating (murdering) American citizens without due process of law, notwithstanding the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits it. Mitt Romney advocates imposing "crippling sanctions" on Iran, taking covert action to overthrow Iran's government, and even waging war against Iran to prevent it from doing something that the U.S. government and the Israeli government have already done hundreds of times over – obtain a nuclear weapon. Newt Gingrich agrees entirely with Romney's approach on Iran. Like Santorum, both Romney and Gingrich approve of the disregard Obama showed for Biblical prohibitions on murder and the Constitution's guaranty of due process when he ordered the assassination of an American citizen.
  18. (As an aside, Does any of the discussion about Iran's nuclear program sound familiar? The people who are beating the war drums against Iran for its supposed nuclear-weapons program are the very same people who lied the country into war against Iraq in 2003 on the false premise that Iraq possessed "weapons of mass destruction," notwithstanding abundant evidence at the time that no such weapons program existed. They led us into one crippling disaster, and hundreds of thousands of people lost their lives. Why should we follow them into the abyss this time?)
  19. Lastly, neither Santorum, Gingrich, nor Romney have any qualms about a president initiating war without a declaration of war from Congress. This means that they are willing to violate the Constitution that they would be sworn to uphold. Christians cannot support someone who would violate the law of the land without themselves violating Romans 13.
  20. Much more could be said about the immorality and illegality of the foreign policy of Santorum, Gingrich and Romney, and the disaster that would be unleashed on the world if one of them were to become president, but the reasons above are sufficient to show that none of the candidates other than Ron Paul can be said to comply with the Biblical mandates quoted above; indeed the other candidates advocate the exact opposite of those commands.
  21. What about Israel? Isn't Ron Paul's foreign policy against Israel's interests? Actually, Ron Paul's foreign policy would benefit Israel. First, he wants to end all foreign aid (because it is not authorized in the Constitution and is therefore illegal). Given that Israel's enemies receive seven times more foreign aid from the US than Israel, this would be a net benefit to Israel. Moreover, Ron Paul advocates allowing Israel greater sovereignty. Currently, Israel must obtain the permission of the United States government before implementing any plans to deal with the Palestinians internally or Israel's enemies externally. That is not sovereignty. Ron Paul would allow Israel to deal with internal and external matters without obtaining permission from the United States, and far from opposing Israel, he would advocate friendship and peaceful trade with it, as he would with any other country.
  22. For those who are not yet convinced about the foreign policy argument, please watch the following videos. The first is Ron Paul talking about a Biblical basis for foreign policy. The second is a striking video of Ron Paul's predictions in 2002 about the consequences at home and abroad of the prevailing U.S. interventionist foreign policy – and how they have largely come true.
  23. Christians, it is not sufficient to say that the world is a violent place, that there are wicked people who are intent on the destruction of the United States, and that our country must destroy them before they destroy it. That view ignores what the U.S. government has been doing in the world for the last 70 (or more) years, and it is more akin to the Golden Rule according to Boss Hogg ("Do unto others before they do unto you.") rather than the Golden Rule according to Jesus. If you are going to support an interventionist foreign policy, you must find Biblical support for it. I submit to you that there is none.

  24. Life
  25. Psalm 139:13 (ESV) – "You knitted me together in my mother's womb."
  26. Duet. 5:17 (ESV) – "You shall not murder."
  27. As an OB/GYN, Ron Paul delivered more than 4,000 babies and saved many lives by counseling women considering abortions not to abort their babies. He supports a bill called the Sanctity of Life Act, which would define life as beginning at conception.
  28. Since at least 2004, when the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency, Ron Paul has been introducing each year a bill known as the We The People Act, which would effectively overturn Roe v. Wade with a simple majority vote in Congress, by prohibiting federal courts from having jurisdiction over abortion-related cases and making federal-court decisions on that issue non-binding on state courts. This would return the issue to the states (which is where it should be under the Constitution), enabling individual states to prohibit abortions. How many thousands of lives would have been saved if the Republicans, who claim to be pro-life, would have passed this bill when they had the power to do so?

  29. Rick Santorum, by contrast, did not support the We The People Act, but he did VOTE FOR FUNDING FOR PLANNED PARENTHOOD, and he has supported rabidly pro-abortion candidates for office, including the notorious Arlen Specter and Christine Todd Whitman, while they were running against pro-life candidates. How can a person claim to be pro-life and still vote for and support those things? Moreover, how can a person claim to uphold the law of the land and vote to fund Planned Parenthood, when there is no authority in the Constitution to do so? This is lawlessness.
  30. Newt Gingrich has previously supported federal funding of abortions in cases of incest, rape, or to save the life of the mother. Even if you think abortion in such cases should be legal, there is no basis in the Constitution for providing federal funding for abortions. Gingrich also sponsored the Global Warming Prevention Act of 1989, which would have, among other things, eliminated the federal ban Ronald Reagan imposed against funding international groups that perform abortions.

  31. Mitt Romney is notorious for his conveniently timed flip-flops on abortion. As recently as 2002, when he was running for governor of Massachusetts, Romney signed a Planned Parenthood questionnaire stating that he supported a woman's so-called right to choose. Ted Kennedy summed up Romney well when he said that Romney wasn't pro-choice or anti-choice, he was multiple choice.
  32. Lastly, Christians should consider that a candidate's position on war is just as relevant to whether or not he is pro-life as his position on abortion is. War in the 21st Century inevitably involves the killing of innocent civilians. There is no way to drop bombs on a house in a neighborhood without killing innocent people. Moreover, in unjust aggressive wars like those that Santorum, Gingrich and Romney advocate, all of the killings are unjustified murders. Christian conservatives need to stop taking their marching orders from neo-conservative talk-radio hosts and start taking their orders from the Bible. We should take seriously the Bible's teaching on the value of life, including the lives of those in other countries, and we should evangelize people with Bibles, not bombs.

  33. Education

  34. Eph. 6:4 (ESV) – "Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord." (emphasis added)

  35. Deut. 6:6-7 – "And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. 7 You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise." (emphasis added).
  36. God gives children to their parents and charges their parents with the responsibility to raise and educate them (i.e., to bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord). Nowhere in Scripture is the government given any authority or responsibility to educate children.

  37. Ron Paul supports the biblical role of parents in educating their children and opposes the encroachment by the government in the parents' freedom to educate their children as they see fit. He believes that no country can remain free when the government has more influence over the knowledge and values transmitted to children than parents do. Ron Paul would uphold the law of the land on this issue – the Constitution – which gives no authority whatsoever to the federal government to meddle in matters of education. Ron Paul would work to eliminate the disastrous Department of Education, and he has also introduced legislation that would give homeschoolers a tax credit (not a welfare voucher with strings) of $5,000 per child for educational expenses. He also has promised to veto any bill that encroaches on homeschooling parents' rights. Homeschooling Christians will not find a greater friend in this campaign than Ron Paul.
  38. Rick Santorum, on the other hand, apparently does not have a problem with disregarding the Constitution when it comes to education, given that voted for the No Child Left Alone Behind Act, and he voted to double the size of the federal Department of Education. He also supports the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). As Wikipedia states, the IDEA act has grown in scope and form over the years, just like every other big-government program. If you want more of these types of programs and mandates, which will grow and metastasize, then Rick Santorum is your man. Santorum also has taken $100,000 in taxpayer money to pay for his children to take part in an online charter school, and he did so by claiming residency in Pennsylvania while he and his family actually lived in Virginia. That kind of practice sounds suspiciously unlike what an honest, small-government conservative would do.

  39. Newt Gingrich worked with Jimmy Carter to create the Federal Department of Education, notwithstanding the lack of any Constitutional authority for such a thing, and one of his noted accomplishments in the House was the dramatic increase in the department's budget that the Republicans passed. As for homeschooling, Newt's idea of "protect[ing] the rights of homeschooled children" is "ensuring they have the same access to taxpayer funded, extra-curricular educational opportunities as any public school student." What?! Who cares about that? We simply want to be left alone. Newt also proposes education welfare programs, including a "Pell Grant-style system" for grades K-12, which would get all participating schools – public, private, and homeschools – on the public dole and under government control. He also wants to make sure children are being adequately indoctrinated into the government's view of American history, which would have to be done by some sort of federal mandate or funding threat. More government, more government, more government.

  40. Mitt Romney, like Gingrich and Santorum, sees no difficulty in flouting the Constitution concerning education. He believes that the Federal Department of Education plays an "important role" in education, and he advocates more government involvement in education, such as standardized testing, merit pay programs for teachers (presumably directed in some way by the federal government), and taxpayer-funded "scholarships".
  41. The proposals and records of Santorum, Gingrich, and Romney show that they have little or no regard for the law of the land or for the fact that government has no Biblical authority to raise and indoctrinate children.

  42. Sound Money and Ending the Federal Reserve

Lev. 19:36 (ESV) – " You shall have just balances, just weights…"

Deut. 25:15 (ESV) – "A full and fair weight you shall have, a full and fair measure you shall have, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you."

Proverbs 11:1 (ESV) – "A false balance is an abomination to the Lord, but a just weight is his delight."

Micah 6:11 (ESV) – "Shall I acquit the man with wicked scales and with a bag of deceitful weights?"

Deut. 5:19 (ESV) – "[Y]ou shall not steal."

In Biblical times, weights and balances were what people used to measure how much goods were worth for purposes of purchases and sales. Using improperly weighted scales was a way to steal wealth and purchasing power from others. The modern equivalent to weights and balances would be money, and the modern equivalent to stealing purchasing power from others would be the use of paper money (1) that is unbacked by any real asset and (2) that can be and is created out of thin air for the benefit of those in power.

When government prints more money, there are then more dollars in the system chasing after the same amount of goods. Prices inevitably rise, thus robbing people of their purchasing power. However, because not everyone in society will immediately realize the fact that more money has been printed and the effect it will have, prices do not rise immediately or uniformly. In fact, it may take a while for the new money to work itself through the system. Those who receive the new money first benefit the most because the prices of goods and services will not have risen yet. These beneficiaries would include the federal government and investment bankers like Goldman Sachs. People at the end of the chain, like retirees and those on fixed incomes, receive no benefit and in fact lose purchasing power because of the rise in prices. In other words, with more money chasing the same goods, people on fixed incomes will find that their money will buy fewer goods. Thus, the fiat-money system transfers wealth (i.e., purchasing power) from the poor and middle class to the politicians and their financiers. Under this system, the U.S. dollar has lost more than 90% of its value since 1971, when Richard Nixon finally severed the dollar from the gold standard. This is a dishonest system, equivalent to unfair weights and measures.

Ron Paul is the only candidate who understands the immorality and unconstitutionality of this monetary system. In fact, he wrote a book against the system, called End the Fed. Ron Paul advocates a return to honest, sound, Constitutional money (i.e., money backed by gold and silver).

The other candidates generally do not even talk about monetary policy, but when they do, their statements show that they will largely perpetuate the status quo. Rick Santorum believes that we need inflation, that is, we need our purchasing power to be stolen from us. See this video at about 2:40. His views are taken apart by Tom Woods in this video.

Mitt Romney's biggest donor is Goldman Sachs, one of the chief beneficiaries of the fiat-money system.. Thus, he is unlikely to do anything about this immoral monetary system.

Newt Gingrich talks about auditing the Federal Reserve, which is good, but he does not go far enough. Auditing the Fed will reveal to some extent how much the Federal Reserve is used to enrich the Wall Street banks, but what we need is honest money. Gingrich has nothing to say about that.

Conclusion

In this article, I have not discussed the fact that Ron Paul is the only evangelical Christian in this race (Santorum and Gingrich are Catholics and Romney is a Mormon). Nor have I discussed Ron Paul's high moral character (e.g., honest, consistent, married to the same wife for 55 years vs. Gingrich's three wives and alleged open-marriage proposal, etc.). Much more could be said on those issues. However, on the four issues I have identified, which are or should be of great importance to Christians, there is only one man among the four remaining contenders whose approach approximates the Biblical approach – Ron Paul. The other three candidates will grow government, will launch more murderous wars, will ignore or be ineffective in dealing with the abortion issue, will continue the expansion of the government's involvement in education, and will do nothing about the monetary system that is systematically robbing you of purchasing power and giving it to investment banks. I therefore urge my Christian brothers to abandon Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich and support Ron Paul. Oh, and by the way, he can beat Obama.

http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/eversden1.1.1.html

Re: Why Buy the Cow?

You agree?

I must admit I am surprised.

Mr. Schiff is spot on.

On Mar 7, 10:20 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> "There is actually a name for our present system: fascism. While fascism and communism are both forms of socialism, at least the fascists are smart enough to know that if the means of production are nationalized, employees and owners won't work as hard, and the government will lose revenue."Why Buy the Cow?by Peter Schiff
> The communist revolutions in the 20th century sought to nationalize the wealth generated by privately held industries back to the "exploited" workers on whose backs the profits were supposedly derived. America has made the rejection of this idea and its support of free market principles the centerpiece of its economic narrative. However, as a result of our current and proposed tax policies towards corporate shareholders, our government collects a portion of industrial output that would inspire envy in even the most rabid Bolshevik.
> The purpose of a corporation is to generate profits for owners (all other functions are secondary to this goal). Public corporations distribute these profits through dividends. But as a result of America's system of double taxation, where income is taxed on the corporate level and then again on the personal level, government receives a much bigger share of corporate income than the owners themselves. I also address this topic inmy latest video blog.
> Suppose a publicly held U.S. corporation made one million dollars in income over the course of a year. Currently its profits would be taxed at a 35% level (for the purpose of this example I will not factor in the lower rate that is applied to its first $100K of profits), meaning that the company would have to pay $350,000 directly to the government (assuming it earned its income without special tax breaks). Of the $650,000 that remained, the typical dividend-paying corporation might distribute 40 percent to shareholders (this is known as the "payout ratio" and the actual average is slightly below 40%). So in this instance the company would pay $260,000 (40% of $650,000) to shareholders. The remaining $390,000 would typically be held as "retained earnings," and would be used to maintain and replace depreciating equipment, make capital investments, fund research and development, and expand operations. If the company did not make such investments it would be impossible for it to survive and its ability to perpetuate profit distributions would be limited.
> These retained earnings still represent assets to shareholders, but their primary purpose is to generate future profits and higher dividends. However, shareholders do not directly benefit from those retained earnings until future distributions are paid. Sure they can sell their shares at a gain, paying a capital gains tax in the process, but this merely transfers those deferred benefits to the new buyer.
> When received by shareholders, the $260,000 in dividends are taxed again at a rate of 15 percent (according to current law). As a result, shareholders receive just $221,000 of the million dollar profit. The $39,000 in dividend taxes are added to the $350,000 "off the top" corporate tax to bring the government's total take of the company's profits to just a shade under $390,000. In other words the government gets about 75% more cash flow from the company than the actual owners. Looked at in a slightly different way, the government gets about 65% of the non-retained earnings while shareholders, who put up the money and take all the risk, get 35%. Does this seem fair?
> This level of taxation puts American corporations at a noticeable disadvantage vis-à-vis companies in the countries against which we are most keenly competing. In China, the slicing of the pie is much more favorable to owners. There, corporations are taxed at a rate of 25% and dividends at 10%. Using these numbers (and the same payout ratio used for the US corporation), the Chinese government gets 51% of distributed corporate profits and shareholders get 49%. In Hong Kong (which is part of Communist China), the situation is even better. There, the corporate tax rate is 16% and the personal dividend rate is zero. If you do the math there, the government gets 33% and the shareholders get 67%.
> This comparison raises an interesting point. If shareholders in communist China are allowed to keep more of their earnings than shareholders in capitalist America, which nation is more communist and which more capitalist?
> Late last month the Obama Administration and Mitt Romney offered competing proposals on corporate tax reform that both politicians say would make US corporations more competitive. Romney's plan lowers the corporate tax rate to 25% while maintaining the dividend tax at 15%. This makes things slightly better, sending 54% of distributed earnings to the government and 46% to shareholders (not quite as generous as Communist China). Not surprisingly however the Obama plan will make things much more difficult.
> Although the President proposes lowering the corporate tax rate to 28% he also wants to scrap the dividend tax and instead tax the distributions as ordinary income. In practice, the vast majority of individual recipients of dividends fall into the higher end of the income spectrum. Which means a very large chunk of these dividends will be taxed at the highest personal rate of 39%. But Obama also wants to subject these high earners to a surtax to pay for his health care initiative, which means that many of the recipients will be taxed at a rate of 44% (this also accounts for the phase out of personal deductions for higher earners!) So for these high-income earners, using our current example, the new distribution split with the government under Obama's proposals will be about 70/30 in favor of the government. This is actually worse than the status quo.
> But it's actually much worse than that. The corporate income tax is just one of the veins that corporations open for government. Think about all the other taxes that corporations pay, such as the payroll taxes and sales taxes. Sure they pass those taxes on to their employees and customers, but the revenue flows 100% to the government with shareholders getting nothing but a bill for the cost of collection.
> Then there are all of the taxes paid directly by the employees themselves on their wages and salaries. Sure, this money belongs to employees and not shareholders, but if not for the profit-making activities of corporations, those wages and salaries, and resulting taxes, could not have been paid. And while employees derive benefits from those after tax distributions too, shareholders get nothing. When all of these channels are factored in, think about how much more the government derives in taxes from corporate activity than its owners receive in dividends. Who knows how high this figure is, but I'm sure the government's take is many multiples of what shareholders receive.
> Back in the 19th Century, America really was a capitalist country. We had no corporate tax and no personal income tax. Shareholders got 100% of distributed corporate income. As a result of this structure, US corporations grew rapidly and helped spark the fastest economic expansion the world had ever seen. But that was then, this is now.
> Given the current numbers, even if our leaders were dyed-in-the-wool Marxists, what would be their motivation to nationalize Fortune 500 companies? If they already receive the lion's share of profit distributions, what would be the point? Such a move risks upsetting the management structures and destroying the remaining profit motive. It would risk killing the goose that lays the golden egg. If government nationalized a company, it would also have to manage it. Does anyone think bureaucrats would make better decisions than private owners? What's worse, if those decisions produced losses rather than profits, the government would have to absorb them. Under the current systems, the government gets the lion's share of the profits, but private shareholders are stuck with 100% of the losses.
> There is actually a name for our present system: fascism. While fascism and communism are both forms of socialism, at least the fascists are smart enough to know that if the means of production are nationalized, employees and owners won't work as hard, and the government will lose revenue.
> It's a shame that the country that was once the beacon of freedom and economic liberty no longer has the ability to recognize what capitalism actually looks like. Unless corporate owners are appropriately rewarded for their risks, US corporations will not regain their lost dominance, Americans will not regain their lost liberty, and our standard of living will continue to fall. As it stands now, the United States has become a people of the government, by the government and, most importantly, for the government.http://lewrockwell.com/schiff/schiff153.html

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Terrible News for Oxycontin Rush Fatblob, Loses Longtime Sponsor

Ya kinda gotta demonstrate that those are lies. Its kinda how it
works outside of Disney World.

On Mar 7, 10:24 am, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Grand Old Little Kiethie-
>
> Here are your slutty little lies:
>
> "Have ya'll noticed that far left socialist elitist extremists are so
> focused on attackking Rush Limbaugh, over comments regarding some
> daffy
> bitch who appeared before a congressional committee advocating that
> the
> American Public pay for her birth control needs; meanwhile,  the
> issues of
> the Obama Administration's mishandling of the economy; the Obama
> Administration's push for socialized medicine,  (when we cannot afford
> such
> a boondoggle);  the Obama Administration's push for higher fuel costs
> and
> the failure to approve the Keystone Pipeline,  amongst other pressing
> national and international concerns, are pushed aside, and not
> discussed."
>
> Actually, great big Repugnant lies!
>
> On Mar 7, 9:51 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Uhm......Tom?  What is it in my message that you believe to be a "slutty
> > little lie"?   What I wrote is factual,  and I believe undisputed, but I am
> > all ears, and open minded.  Please show and demonstrate how I am wrong or
> > misplaced.
>
> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Stop the sluty lies, Little Keithie.
>
> > > You are wrong again.
>
> > > On Mar 6, 10:47 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Have ya'll noticed that far left socialist elitist extremists are so
> > > > focused on attackking Rush Limbaugh, over comments regarding some daffy
> > > > bitch who appeared before a congressional committee advocating that the
> > > > American Public pay for her birth control needs; meanwhile,  the issues
> > > of
> > > > the Obama Administration's mishandling of the economy; the Obama
> > > > Administration's push for socialized medicine,  (when we cannot afford
> > > such
> > > > a boondoggle);  the Obama Administration's push for higher fuel costs and
> > > > the failure to approve the Keystone Pipeline,  amongst other pressing
> > > > national and international concerns, are pushed aside, and not discussed.
>
> > > > How convenient.
>
> > > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > 'We Are Terminating Our Relationship with Rush Limbaugh': Satan
> > > > > Radio Host Loses Longtime Sponsor
>
> > > > > COLUMBUS, OH (The Borowitz Report) – Embattled radio host Rush
> > > > > Limbaugh suffered another major desertion today as he lost the support
> > > > > of one of his longtime sponsors, Satan.
>
> > > > > The usually reclusive Prince of Darkness announced his decision at a
> > > > > hastily called press conference in Columbus, Ohio, his unofficial
> > > > > headquarters on Earth.
>
> > > > > "Due to remarks of his that we consider unacceptable, we are
> > > > > terminating our relationship with Rush Limbaugh," Satan said in a
> > > > > tersely worded statement.
>
> > > > > According to one advisor to the Lord of Misrule, Satan had stuck by
> > > > > the radio host as long as possible but after he called a young woman a
> > > > > slut on the air Mr. Limbaugh had become "radioactive."
>
> > > > > "After a certain point, the association with Rush became problematic
> > > > > for Satan's public image," the aide said.  "We went through a similar
> > > > > thing last year with Rupert Murdoch."
>
> > > > > Advertisers continued abandoning Mr. Limbaugh's program in droves
> > > > > today, including companies who had sponsored it for years, like the
> > > > > online dating site NaziMingle.com™.
>
> > > > > The only good news for Mr. Limbaugh today came from GOP presidential
> > > > > candidate Mitt Romney, who offered this muted statement of support:
> > > > > "Look, I wouldn't have chosen the words he did.  But it's not like he
> > > > > called her a poor person or something."
>
> > > > > More:
> > > > > Borowitzreport.com
>
> > > > > --
> > > > > Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
> > > > > Have a great day,
> > > > > Tommy
>
> > > > > --
> > > > > Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
> > > > > Have a great day,
> > > > > Tommy
>
> > > > > --
> > > > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > > > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > --
> > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Terrible News for Oxycontin Rush Fatblob, Loses Longtime Sponsor

Grand Old Little Kiethie-

Here are your slutty little lies:

"Have ya'll noticed that far left socialist elitist extremists are so
focused on attackking Rush Limbaugh, over comments regarding some
daffy
bitch who appeared before a congressional committee advocating that
the
American Public pay for her birth control needs; meanwhile, the
issues of
the Obama Administration's mishandling of the economy; the Obama
Administration's push for socialized medicine, (when we cannot afford
such
a boondoggle); the Obama Administration's push for higher fuel costs
and
the failure to approve the Keystone Pipeline, amongst other pressing
national and international concerns, are pushed aside, and not
discussed."


Actually, great big Repugnant lies!


On Mar 7, 9:51 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Uhm......Tom?  What is it in my message that you believe to be a "slutty
> little lie"?   What I wrote is factual,  and I believe undisputed, but I am
> all ears, and open minded.  Please show and demonstrate how I am wrong or
> misplaced.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Stop the sluty lies, Little Keithie.
>
> > You are wrong again.
>
> > On Mar 6, 10:47 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Have ya'll noticed that far left socialist elitist extremists are so
> > > focused on attackking Rush Limbaugh, over comments regarding some daffy
> > > bitch who appeared before a congressional committee advocating that the
> > > American Public pay for her birth control needs; meanwhile,  the issues
> > of
> > > the Obama Administration's mishandling of the economy; the Obama
> > > Administration's push for socialized medicine,  (when we cannot afford
> > such
> > > a boondoggle);  the Obama Administration's push for higher fuel costs and
> > > the failure to approve the Keystone Pipeline,  amongst other pressing
> > > national and international concerns, are pushed aside, and not discussed.
>
> > > How convenient.
>
> > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > 'We Are Terminating Our Relationship with Rush Limbaugh': Satan
> > > > Radio Host Loses Longtime Sponsor
>
> > > > COLUMBUS, OH (The Borowitz Report) – Embattled radio host Rush
> > > > Limbaugh suffered another major desertion today as he lost the support
> > > > of one of his longtime sponsors, Satan.
>
> > > > The usually reclusive Prince of Darkness announced his decision at a
> > > > hastily called press conference in Columbus, Ohio, his unofficial
> > > > headquarters on Earth.
>
> > > > "Due to remarks of his that we consider unacceptable, we are
> > > > terminating our relationship with Rush Limbaugh," Satan said in a
> > > > tersely worded statement.
>
> > > > According to one advisor to the Lord of Misrule, Satan had stuck by
> > > > the radio host as long as possible but after he called a young woman a
> > > > slut on the air Mr. Limbaugh had become "radioactive."
>
> > > > "After a certain point, the association with Rush became problematic
> > > > for Satan's public image," the aide said.  "We went through a similar
> > > > thing last year with Rupert Murdoch."
>
> > > > Advertisers continued abandoning Mr. Limbaugh's program in droves
> > > > today, including companies who had sponsored it for years, like the
> > > > online dating site NaziMingle.com™.
>
> > > > The only good news for Mr. Limbaugh today came from GOP presidential
> > > > candidate Mitt Romney, who offered this muted statement of support:
> > > > "Look, I wouldn't have chosen the words he did.  But it's not like he
> > > > called her a poor person or something."
>
> > > > More:
> > > > Borowitzreport.com
>
> > > > --
> > > > Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
> > > > Have a great day,
> > > > Tommy
>
> > > > --
> > > > Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
> > > > Have a great day,
> > > > Tommy
>
> > > > --
> > > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Video: Inside the White House: The Kitchen Garden

Video: Inside the White House: The Kitchen Garden

Watch here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/inside-white-house

--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy

--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: With No Super Tuesday Knockout Punch, a Bruising GOP Battle Plods On

Have you forgotten 2008 already?

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Terrible News for Oxycontin Rush Fatblob, Loses Longtime Sponsor

Uhm......Tom?  What is it in my message that you believe to be a "slutty little lie"?   What I wrote is factual,  and I believe undisputed, but I am all ears, and open minded.  Please show and demonstrate how I am wrong or misplaced.
 


 
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Tommy News <tommysnews@gmail.com> wrote:
Stop the sluty lies, Little Keithie.

You are wrong again.

On Mar 6, 10:47 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Have ya'll noticed that far left socialist elitist extremists are so
> focused on attackking Rush Limbaugh, over comments regarding some daffy
> bitch who appeared before a congressional committee advocating that the
> American Public pay for her birth control needs; meanwhile,  the issues of
> the Obama Administration's mishandling of the economy; the Obama
> Administration's push for socialized medicine,  (when we cannot afford such
> a boondoggle);  the Obama Administration's push for higher fuel costs and
> the failure to approve the Keystone Pipeline,  amongst other pressing
> national and international concerns, are pushed aside, and not discussed.
>
> How convenient.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 'We Are Terminating Our Relationship with Rush Limbaugh': Satan
> > Radio Host Loses Longtime Sponsor
>
> > COLUMBUS, OH (The Borowitz Report) – Embattled radio host Rush
> > Limbaugh suffered another major desertion today as he lost the support
> > of one of his longtime sponsors, Satan.
>
> > The usually reclusive Prince of Darkness announced his decision at a
> > hastily called press conference in Columbus, Ohio, his unofficial
> > headquarters on Earth.
>
> > "Due to remarks of his that we consider unacceptable, we are
> > terminating our relationship with Rush Limbaugh," Satan said in a
> > tersely worded statement.
>
> > According to one advisor to the Lord of Misrule, Satan had stuck by
> > the radio host as long as possible but after he called a young woman a
> > slut on the air Mr. Limbaugh had become "radioactive."
>
> > "After a certain point, the association with Rush became problematic
> > for Satan's public image," the aide said.  "We went through a similar
> > thing last year with Rupert Murdoch."
>
> > Advertisers continued abandoning Mr. Limbaugh's program in droves
> > today, including companies who had sponsored it for years, like the
> > online dating site NaziMingle.com™.
>
> > The only good news for Mr. Limbaugh today came from GOP presidential
> > candidate Mitt Romney, who offered this muted statement of support:
> > "Look, I wouldn't have chosen the words he did.  But it's not like he
> > called her a poor person or something."
>
> > More:
> > Borowitzreport.com
>
> > --
> > Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
> > Have a great day,
> > Tommy
>
> > --
> > Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
> > Have a great day,
> > Tommy
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Transcript of President Obama's Tuesday Press Conference

Press Conference by the President
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

March 06, 2012 1:15 P.M. EST


THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon, everybody. Now, I understand there
are some political contests going on tonight, but I thought I'd start
the day off by taking a few questions, which I'm sure will not be
political in nature. (Laughter.) Before I do, I want to make a few
announcements about some steps we're taking to help responsible
homeowners who've been struggling through this housing crisis.

We've clearly seen some positive economic news over the last few
months. Businesses have created about 3.7 million new jobs over the
last two years. Manufacturers are hiring for the first time since the
1990s. The auto industry is back and hiring more than 200,000 people
over the last few years. Confidence is up. And the economy is getting
stronger.

But there are still millions of Americans who can't find a job. There
are millions more who are having a tough time making the rent or the
mortgage, paying for gas or groceries. So our job in Washington isn't
to sit back and do nothing. And it's certainly not to stand in the
way of this recovery. Right now we've got to do everything we can to
speed it up.

Now, Congress did the right thing when they passed part of my jobs
plan and prevented a tax hike on 160 million working Americans this
year. And that was a good first step. But it's not enough. They
can't just stop there and wait for the next election to come around.
There are a few things they can do right now that could make a real
difference in people's lives.

This Congress should, once and for all, end tax breaks for companies
that are shipping jobs overseas, and use that money to reward
companies that are creating jobs here in the United States. I've put
forward a proposal that does just that, and there's no reason why
Congress can't come together and start acting on it.

This Congress could hold a vote on the Buffett Rule so that we don't
have billionaires paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries.
That's just common sense. The vast majority of Americans believe it's
common sense. And if we're serious about paying down our deficit,
it's as good a place to start as any.

And finally, this Congress should pass my proposal to give every
responsible homeowner a chance to save an average of $3,000 a year by
refinancing their mortgage at historically low rates. No red tape. No
runaround from the banks. If you've been on time on your payments, if
you've done the right thing, if you've acted responsibly, you should
have a chance to save that money on your home -- perhaps to build up
your equity, or just to have more money in your pocket that you can
spend on businesses in your community. That would make a huge
difference for millions of American families.

Now, if Congress refuses to act, I've said that I'll continue to do
everything in my power to act without them. Last fall, we announced
an initiative that allows millions of responsible homeowners to
refinance at low interest rates. Today we're taking it a step further
-- we are cutting by more than half the refinancing fees that families
pay for loans ensured by the Federal Housing Administration. That's
going to save the typical family in that situation an extra $1,000 a
year, on top of the savings that they'd also receive from refinancing.
That would make refinancing even more attractive to more families.
It's like another tax cut that will put more money in people's
pockets. We're going to do this on our own. We don't need
congressional authorization to do it.

We're also taking a series of steps to help homeowners who have served
our country. It is unconscionable that members of our armed forces
and their families have been some of those who have been most
susceptible to losing their homes due to the actions of unscrupulous
banks and mortgage lenders. Over the last few years that happened --
a lot.

So as part of the landmark settlement we reached with some of the
nation's largest banks a few weeks ago, here's what we're going to do:
If you are a member of the armed forces whose home was wrongfully
foreclosed, you will be substantially compensated for what the bank
did to you and your family. If you are a member of the armed forces
with a high interest rate who was wrongfully denied the chance to
lower it while you were in active serve, which banks are required to
do by law, the banks will refund you the money you would have saved
along with a significant penalty.

The settlement will make sure that you aren't forced into foreclosure
just because you have a permanent change in station but can't sell
your home because you owe more than it's worth. Some of the money
will also go into a fund that guarantees loans on favorable terms to
our veterans, and there will be more foreclosure protections for every
man and woman who is currently serving this country in harm's way.

As I've said before, no amount of money is going to be enough to make
it right for a family who has had their piece of the American Dream
wrongfully taken away from them, and no action -- no matter how
meaningful -- will entirely heal our housing market on its own. This
is not something the government by itself can solve. But I'm not one
of those people who believe that we should just sit by and wait for
the housing market to hit bottom. There are real things that we can
do right now that would make a substantial difference in the lives of
innocent, responsible homeowners. That's true in housing, and that's
true in any number of different areas when it comes to ensuring that
this recovery touches as many lives as possible. That's going to be
my top priority as long as I hold this office, and I will do
everything I can to make that progress.

So with that I'm going to take some questions, and I will start with
Mike Viqueira.

Q Yes, sir. On the Middle East and as it relates to American
politics, a little less than a year ago Moammar Qaddafi gave a speech,
and he said he was going to send his forces to Benghazi, he was going
to rout opponents from their bedrooms and he was going to shoot them.
You frequently cited that speech as a justification for NATO, the
no-fly zone and military action against Libya. In Syria, Bashar al
Assad is killing people. There's a massacre underway. And your
critics here in the United States, including, most notably, John
McCain, said you should start air strikes now.

And on Iran, Mitt Romney, on Sunday, went so far as to say that if you
are re-elected, Iran will get a bomb and the world will change. How
do you respond to those criticisms?

THE PRESIDENT: All right, Mike, you've asked a couple of questions
there, so let me -- let's start with the Iran situation since that's
been the topic in the news for the last few days.

When I came into office, Iran was unified, on the move, had made
substantial progress on its nuclear program, and the world was divided
in terms of how to deal with it. What we've been able to do over the
last three years is mobilize unprecedented, crippling sanctions on
Iran. Iran is feeling the bite of these sanctions in a substantial
way. The world is unified; Iran is politically isolated.

And what I have said is, is that we will not countenance Iran getting
a nuclear weapon. My policy is not containment; my policy is to
prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon -- because if they get a
nuclear weapon that could trigger an arms race in the region, it would
undermine our non-proliferation goals, it could potentially fall into
the hands of terrorists. And we've been in close consultation with
all our allies, including Israel, in moving this strategy forward.

At this stage, it is my belief that we have a window of opportunity
where this can still be resolved diplomatically. That's not just my
view. That's the view of our top intelligence officials; it's the
view of top Israeli intelligence officials. And, as a consequence, we
are going to continue to apply the pressure even as we provide a door
for the Iranian regime to walk through where they could rejoin the
community of nations by giving assurances to the international
community that they're meeting their obligations and they are not
pursuing a nuclear weapon.

That's my track record. Now, what's said on the campaign trail --
those folks don't have a lot of responsibilities. They're not
Commander-in-Chief. And when I see the casualness with which some of
these folks talk about war, I'm reminded of the costs involved in war.
I'm reminded that the decision that I have to make in terms of
sending our young men and women into battle, and the impacts that has
on their lives, the impact it has on our national security, the impact
it has on our economy.

This is not a game. There's nothing casual about it. And when I see
some of these folks who have a lot of bluster and a lot of big talk,
but when you actually ask them specifically what they would do, it
turns out they repeat the things that we've been doing over the last
three years, it indicates to me that that's more about politics than
actually trying to solve a difficult problem.

Now, the one thing that we have not done is we haven't launched a war.
If some of these folks think that it's time to launch a war, they
should say so. And they should explain to the American people exactly
why they would do that and what the consequences would be. Everything
else is just talk.

Q That goes to Syria as well?

THE PRESIDENT: With respect to Syria, what's happening in Syria is
heartbreaking and outrageous, and what you've seen is the
international community mobilize against the Assad regime. And it's
not a question of when Assad leaves -- or if Assad leaves -- it's a
question of when. He has lost the legitimacy of his people. And the
actions that he's now taking against his own people is inexcusable,
and the world community has said so in a more or less unified voice.

On the other hand, for us to take military action unilaterally, as
some have suggested, or to think that somehow there is some simple
solution, I think is a mistake. What happened in Libya was we
mobilized the international community, had a U.N. Security Council
mandate, had the full cooperation of the region, Arab states, and we
knew that we could execute very effectively in a relatively short
period of time. This is a much more complicated situation.

So what we've done is to work with key Arab states, key international
partners -- Hillary Clinton was in Tunisia -- to come together and to
mobilize and plan how do we support the opposition; how do we provide
humanitarian assistance; how do we continue the political isolation;
how do we continue the economic isolation. And we are going to
continue to work on this project with other countries. And it is my
belief that, ultimately, this dictator will fall, as dictators in the
past have fallen.

But the notion that the way to solve every one of these problems is to
deploy our military, that hasn't been true in the past and it won't be
true now. We've got to think through what we do through the lens of
what's going to be effective, but also what's critical for U.S.
security interests.

Jake Tapper.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. What kind of assurances did you give
Prime Minister Netanyahu about the role that the U.S. would play if
diplomacy and economic sanctions fail to work to convince Iran's
leaders to change their behavior, and Israel goes ahead and prepares
to strike a nuclear facility? What kind of assurances did you tell
him? And shouldn't we -- I recognize the difference between debate
and bluster -- but shouldn't we be having in this country a vigorous
debate about what could happen in the case of a Middle East war in a
way that, sadly, we did not do before going into Iraq?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think there's no doubt that those who are
suggesting, or proposing, or beating the drums of war should explain
clearly to the American people what they think the costs and benefits
would be.

I'm not one of those people -- because what I've said is, is that we
have a window through which we can resolve this issue peacefully. We
have put forward an international framework that is applying
unprecedented pressure. The Iranians just stated that they are
willing to return to the negotiating table. And we've got the
opportunity, even as we maintain that pressure, to see how it plays
out.

I'm not going to go into the details of my conversation with Prime
Minister Netanyahu. But what I said publicly doesn't differ greatly
from what I said privately. Israel is a sovereign nation that has to
make its own decisions about how best to preserve its security. And
as I said over the last several days, I am deeply mindful of the
historical precedents that weigh on any Prime Minister of Israel when
they think about the potential threats to Israel and the Jewish
homeland.

What I've also said is that because sanctions are starting to have
significant effect inside of Iran -- and that's not just my
assessment, that's, I think, a uniform assessment -- because the
sanctions are going to be even tougher in the coming months, because
they're now starting to affect their oil industry, their central bank,
and because we're now seeing noises about them returning to the
negotiating table, that it is deeply in everybody's interests -- the
United States, Israel and the world's -- to see if this can be
resolved in a peaceful fashion.

And so this notion that somehow we have a choice to make in the next
week or two weeks, or month or two months, is not borne out by the
facts. And the argument that we've made to the Israelis is that we
have made an unprecedented commitment to their security. There is an
unbreakable bond between our two countries, but one of the functions
of friends is to make sure that we provide honest and unvarnished
advice in terms of what is the best approach to achieve a common goal
-- particularly one in which we have a stake. This is not just an
issue of Israeli interest; this is an issue of U.S. interests. It's
also not just an issue of consequences for Israel if action is taken
prematurely. There are consequences to the United States as well.

And so I do think that any time we consider military action that the
American people understand there's going to be a price to pay.
Sometimes it's necessary. But we don't do it casually.

When I visit Walter Reed, when I sign letters to families that haven't
-- whose loved ones have not come home, I am reminded that there is a
cost. Sometimes we bear that cost. But we think it through. We
don't play politics with it. When we have in the past -- when we
haven't thought it through and it gets wrapped up in politics, we make
mistakes. And typically, it's not the folks who are popping off who
pay the price. It's these incredible men and women in uniform and
their families who pay the price.

And as a consequence, I think it's very important for us to take a
careful, thoughtful, sober approach to what is a real problem. And
that's what we've been doing over the last three years. That's what I
intend to keep doing.

Q Sir, I'm sorry, if I could just quickly follow up -- you didn't --

THE PRESIDENT: Jake --

Q You might not be beating the drums of war, but you did very
publicly say, we've got Israel's back. What does that mean?

THE PRESIDENT: What it means is, is that, historically, we have
always cooperated with Israel with respect to the defense of Israel,
just like we do with a whole range of other allies -- just like we do
with Great Britain, just like we do with Japan. And that broad
statement I think is confirmed when you look at what we've done over
the last three years on things like Iron Dome that prevents missiles
from raining down on their small towns along border regions of Israel,
that potentially land on schools or children or families. And we're
going to continue that unprecedented security -- security commitment.

It was not a military doctrine that we were laying out for any
particular military action. It was a restatement of our consistent
position that the security of Israel is something I deeply care about,
and that the deeds of my administration over the last three years
confirms how deeply we care about it. That's a commitment we've made.

Jackie. Where's Jackie? There you are.

Q With the news this morning that the U.S. and its allies are
returning to the table, are taking up Iran's offer to talk again, more
than a year after those talks broke up in frustration, is this
Israel's -- Iran's last chance to negotiate an end to this nuclear
question?

And you said three years ago -- nearly three years ago, in a similar
one-on-one meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu, that the time for
talk -- by the end of that year, 2009, you would be considering
whether Iran was negotiating in good faith. And you said at that time
that "we're not going to have talks forever." So here we are nearly
three years later. Is this it? And did you think you would be here
three years after those first talks?

THE PRESIDENT: You know, there is no doubt that over the last three
years when Iran has engaged in negotiations there has been hemming and
hawing and stalling and avoiding the issues in ways that the
international community has concluded were not serious. And my
expectations, given the consequences of inaction for them, the severe
sanctions that are now being applied, the huge toll it's taking on
their economy, the degree of isolation that they're feeling right now
-- which is unprecedented -- they understand that the world community
means business.

To resolve this issue will require Iran to come to the table and
discuss in a clear and forthright way how to prove to the
international community that the intentions of their nuclear program
are peaceful. They know how to do that. This is not a mystery. And
so it's going to be very important to make sure that, on an issue like
this -- there are complexities; it obviously has to be methodical. I
don't expect a breakthrough in a first meeting, but I think we will
have a pretty good sense fairly quickly as to how serious they are
about resolving the issue.

And there are steps that they can take that would send a signal to the
international community and that are verifiable, that would allow them
to be in compliance with international norms, in compliance with
international mandates, abiding by the non-proliferation treaty, and
provide the world an assurance that they're not pursuing a nuclear
weapon. They know how to do it, and the question is going to be
whether in these discussions they show themselves moving clearly in
that direction.

Ed Henry.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to follow up on Israel and
Iran because you have said repeatedly you have Israel's back. And so
I wonder why, three years in office, you have not visited Israel as
President. And related to Iran and Israel, you have expressed concern
about this loose talk of war, as you call it, driving up gas prices
further. Your critics will say on Capitol Hill that you want gas
prices to go higher because you have said before, that will wean the
American people off fossil fuels, onto renewable fuels. How do you
respond to that?

THE PRESIDENT: Ed, just from a political perspective, do you think
the President of the United States going into reelection wants gas
prices to go up higher? (Laughter.) Is that -- is there anybody here
who thinks that makes a lot of sense?

Look, here's the bottom line with respect to gas prices. I want gas
prices lower because they hurt families; because I meet folks every
day who have to drive a long way to get to work and them filling up
this gas tank gets more and more painful, and it's a tax out of their
pocketbooks, out of their paychecks, and a lot of folks are already
operating on the margins right now.

And it's not good for the overall economy, because when gas prices go
up, consumer spending oftentimes pulls back. And we're in the midst
right now of a recovery that is starting to build up steam, and we
don't want to reverse it.

What I have also said about gas prices is that there is no silver
bullet and the only way we're going to solve this problem over the
medium and long term is with an all-of-the-above strategy that says
we're going to increase production -- which has happened; we are going
to make sure that we are conserving energy -- that's why we doubled
fuel efficiency standards on cars, which will save consumers about
$1.7 trillion and take about 12 billion barrels of oil offline, which
will help to reduce prices -- and we're going develop clean energy
technologies that allow us to continue to use less oil.

And we've made progress. I mean, the good news is, 2010, first time
in a decade that our oil imports were actually below 50 percent, and
they have kept on going down. And we're going to keep on looking at
every strategy we can to, yes, reduce the amount of oil that we use,
while maintaining our living standards and maintaining our
productivity and maintaining our economic growth, and we're going to
do everything we can to make sure that consumers aren't hurt by it.

Now, there are some short-term steps that we're looking at with
respect to -- for example, there are certain potential bottlenecks in
refineries around the country that we've been concerned about. We're
concerned about what's happening in terms of production around the
world. It's not just what's happening in the Gulf. You've had, for
example, in Sudan, some oil that's been taken offline that's helping
to restrict supply.

So we're going to look at a whole range of measures -- including, by
the way, making sure that my Attorney General is paying attention to
potential speculation in the oil markets. I've asked him to
reconstitute a task force that's examining that.

But we go through this every year. We've gone through this for 30
years. And if we are going to be competitive, successful, and make
sure families are protected over the long term, then we've got to make
sure that we've got a set of options that reduce our overall
dependence on oil.

And with respect to Israel, I am not the first President who has been
unable, because of a whole range of issues, not to visit Israel as
President in their first term. I visited Israel twice as senator,
once right before I became President. The measure of my commitment to
Israel is not measured by a single visit. The measure of my
commitment to Israel is seen in the actions that I've taken as
President of the United States. And it is indisputable that I've had
Israel's back over the last three years.

Aamer Madhani.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Do you believe Rush Limbaugh's apology
to the Georgetown law student was sufficient and heartfelt? Do you
agree with the decision of the growing number of sponsors that have
decided to drop his show or stop supporting his show? And has there
been a double standard on this issue? Liberal commentators have made
similarly provocative or distasteful statements and there hasn't been
such an outrage.

THE PRESIDENT: I'm not going to comment on what sponsors decide to
do. I'm not going to comment on either the economics or the politics
of it. I don't know what's in Rush Limbaugh's heart, so I'm not going
to comment on the sincerity of his apology. What I can comment on is
the fact that all decent folks can agree that the remarks that were
made don't have any place in the public discourse.

And the reason I called Ms. Fluke is because I thought about Malia and
Sasha, and one of the things I want them to do as they get older is to
engage in issues they care about, even ones I may not agree with them
on. I want them to be able to speak their mind in a civil and
thoughtful way. And I don't want them attacked or called horrible
names because they're being good citizens. And I wanted Sandra to
know that I thought her parents should be proud of her, and that we
want to send a message to all our young people that being part of a
democracy involves argument and disagreements and debate, and we want
you to be engaged, and there's a way to do it that doesn't involve you
being demeaned and insulted, particularly when you're a private
citizen.

Jessica Yellin.

Q Bill Mahr apologized for what he said about -- (inaudible) --
should apologize for what they said about that?

THE PRESIDENT: Jessica.

Q Thank you, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.

Q Top Democrats have said that Republicans on a similar issue are
engaged in a war on women. Some top Republicans say it's more like
Democrats are engaged in a war for the women's vote. As you talk
about loose talk of war in another arena and women are -- this could
raise concerns among women, do you agree with the chair of your
Democratic National Committee that there is a war on women?
THE PRESIDENT: Here is what I think. Women are going to make up
their own mind in this election about who is advancing the issues that
they care most deeply about. And one of the things I've learned being
married to Michelle is I don't need to tell her what it is that she
thinks is important.

And there are millions of strong women around the country who are
going to make their own determination about a whole range of issues.
It's not going to be narrowly focused just on contraception. It's not
going to be driven by one statement by one radio announcer. It is
going to be driven by their view of what's most likely to make sure
they can help support their families, make their mortgage payments;
who's got a plan to ensure that middle-class families are secure over
the long term; what's most likely to result in their kids being able
to get the education they need to compete.

And I believe that Democrats have a better story to tell to women
about how we're going to solidify the middle class and grow this
economy, make sure everybody has a fair shot, everybody is doing their
fair share, and we got a fair set of rules of the road that everybody
has to follow.

So I'm not somebody who believes that women are going to be
single-issue voters. They never have been. But I do think that we've
got a strong story to tell when it comes to women.

Q Would you prefer this language be changed?

THE PRESIDENT: Jessica, as you know, if I start being in the business
of arbitrating --

Q You talk about civility.

THE PRESIDENT: And what I do is I practice it. And so I'm going to
try to lead by example in this situation, as opposed to commenting on
every single comment that's made by either politicians or pundits. I
would be very busy. I would not have time to do my job. That's your
job, to comment on what's said by politicians and pundits.

All right. Lori Montenegro.

Q Mr. President, thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: There you go.

Q Mr. President, polls are showing that Latino voters seem to be
favoring your reelection over a Republican alternative. Yet some of
them are still disappointed, others have said, about a promise that
you've made on immigration reform that has yet to come to pass. If
you are reelected, what would be your strategy, what would you do
different to get immigration reform passed through the Congress,
especially if both houses continue as they are right now, which is
split?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, just substantively, every American
should want immigration reform. We've got a system that's broken.
We've got a system in which you have millions of families here in this
country who are living in the shadows, worried about deportation.
You've got American workers that are being undercut because those
undocumented workers can be hired and the minimum wage laws may not be
observed, overtime laws may not be observed.

You've got incredibly talented people who want to start businesses in
this country or to work in this country, and we should want those
folks here in the United States. But right now, the legal immigration
system is so tangled up that it becomes very difficult for them to put
down roots here.

So we can be a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. And it is
not just a Hispanic issue -- this is an issue for everybody. This is
an American issue that we need to fix.

Now, when I came into office I said I am going to push to get this
done. We didn't get it done. And the reason we haven't gotten it
done is because what used to be a bipartisan agreement that we should
fix this ended up becoming a partisan issue.

I give a lot of credit to my predecessor, George Bush, and his
political advisors who said this should not be just something the
Democrats support; the Republican Party is invested in this as well.
That was good advice then; it would be good advice now.

And my hope is, is that after this election, the Latino community will
have sent a strong message that they want a bipartisan effort to pass
comprehensive immigration reform that involves making sure we've got
tough border security -- and this administration has done more for
border security than just about anybody -- that we are making sure
that companies aren't able to take advantage of undocumented workers;
that we've got strong laws in place; and that we've got a path so that
all those folks whose kids often are U.S. citizens, who are working
with us, living with us and in our communities, and not breaking the
law, and trying to do their best to raise their families, that they've
got a chance to be a fuller part of our community.

So, what do I think will change?

Q What would you do differently?

THE PRESIDENT: What I will do -- look, we're going to be putting
forward, as we've done before, a framework, a proposal, legislation
that can move it -- move the ball forward and actually get this thing
done.

But ultimately, I can't vote for Republicans. They're going to have
to come to the conclusion that this is good for the country and that
this is something that they themselves think is important. And
depending on how Congress turns out, we'll see how many Republican
votes we need to get it done.

Norah O'Donnell. How are you?

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Today is Super Tuesday, so I wonder if
you might weigh in on some of your potential Republican opponents.
Mitt Romney has criticized you on Iran and said, "Hope is not a
foreign policy." He also said that you are "America's most feckless
President since Carter." What would you like to say to Mr. Romney?

THE PRESIDENT: Good luck tonight. (Laughter.)

Q No, really.

THE PRESIDENT: Really. (Laughter.)

Lynn, since you've been hollering and you're from my hometown, make it
a good one.

Q My question is about the switch of the G8 summit from Chicago to
Camp David. A reason given from the White House is that now you
wanted a more intimate summit. People of Chicago would like to know
what do you know now that you did not know when you booked hometown
Chicago for the G8 that led to the switch? And what role did security
threats possibly play in the decision?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, keep in mind, Lynn, we're still going to be
showing up with a whole bunch of world leaders. We've got this NATO
summit. Typically what's happened is, is that we try to attach the G8
summit to the NATO summit so that the leaders in the G8 summit don't
have to travel twice to whatever location. So last year, in France,
we combined a G8 with a NATO summit. We'll do so again.

I have to say, this was an idea that was brought to me after the
initial organizing of the NATO summit. Somebody pointed out that I
hadn't had any of my counterparts, who I've worked with now for three
years, up to Camp David. G8 tends to be a more informal setting in
which we talk about a wide range of issues in a pretty intimate way.
And the thinking was that people would enjoy being in a more casual
backdrop. I think the weather should be good that time of year. It
will give me a chance to spend time with Mr. Putin, the new Russian
President. And from there, we will then fly to Chicago.

I always have confidence in Chicago being able to handle security
issues. Whether it's Taste of Chicago or Lollapalooza -- (laughter)
-- or Bull's championships, we know how to deal with a crowd. And I'm
sure that your new mayor will be quite attentive to detail in making
sure that everything goes off well.

All right? Okay. Go ahead, last one, last question.

Q Thank you. Mr. President, just to continue on that -- when the
NATO leaders gather in Chicago in May, do you expect that they'll be
able to agree on a transition strategy? And are you concerned at all
that the Koran burning and the episodes that have followed since then
threaten your ability to negotiate with partners?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, keep in mind that the transition policy was in
place and established at Lisbon, and we've been following that
strategy that calls for us turning over increasing responsibility to
Afghans and a full transition so that our combat role is over by the
end of 2014. And our coalition partners have agreed to it. They are
sticking with it. That continues to be the plan.

What we are now going to be doing over the next -- at this NATO
meeting and planning for the next two years, is to make sure that that
transition is not a cliff, but that there are benchmarks and steps
that are taken along the way, in the same way that we reduced our role
in Iraq so that it is gradual, Afghan capacity is built, the
partnering with Afghan security forces is effective, that we are
putting in place the kinds of support structures that are needed in
order for the overall strategy to be effective.

Now, yes, the situation with the Koran burning concerns me. I think
that it is an indication of the challenges in that environment, and
it's an indication that now is the time for us to transition.

Obviously, the violence directed at our people is unacceptable. And
President Karzai acknowledged that. But what is also true is
President Karzai I think is eager for more responsibility on the
Afghan side. We're going to be able to find a mechanism whereby
Afghans understand their sovereignty is being respected and that
they're going to be taking a greater and greater role in their own
security. That I think is in the interest of Afghans. It's also in
our interests. And I'm confident we can execute, but it's not going
to be a smooth path. There are going to be bumps along the road just
as there were in Iraq.

Q Well, are these bumps along the road, or are you seeing a
deterioration in the relationship, based on the Koran burning itself,
the violence that has followed, that inhibits your ability to work out
things like how to hand off the detention center?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I -- none of this stuff is easy, and it never has
been. And obviously, the most recent riots or protests against the
Koran burning were tragic, but remember, this happened a while back
when a pastor in Florida threatened to burn a Koran. In Iraq, as we
were making this transition, there were constant crises that would pop
up and tragic events that would take place and there would be
occasional setbacks.

But what I've tried to do is to set a course, make sure that up and
down the chain of command everybody knows what our broader strategy
is. And one of the incredible things about our military is that when
they know what our objective is, what our goal is, regardless of the
obstacles that they meet along the way, they get the job done.

And I think that President Karzai understands that we are interested
in a strategic partnership with the Afghan people and the Afghan
government. We are not interested in staying there any longer than is
necessary to assure that al Qaeda is not operating there, and that
there is sufficient stability that it doesn't end up being a
free-for-all after ISAF has left.

And so we share interests here. It will require negotiations, and
there will be time where things don't look as smooth as I'd like.
That's kind of the deal internationally on a whole range of these
issues.

All right? Thank you guys.

Oh, can I just make one other comment? I want to publicly express
condolences to the family of Donald Payne, Congressman from New Jersey
-- a wonderful man; did great work, both domestically and
internationally. He was a friend of mine. And so my heart goes out
to his family and to his colleagues.

All right.

END
1:59 P.M. EST

More:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/06/press-conference-president

--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy

--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.