Never Forget These Media "Darlings" (?) --
A Guide for the Individual
in the United States of America


Victor Edward Swanson,

The Hologlobe Press
Postal Box 5263
Cheboygan, Michigan  49721

copyright 2012

February 3, 2012
(Version 52)

    Since the 2007, many things have happened in the country that have made a lot of Americans angry, and I note some here.  Such main media entities as The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, and MSNBC have promoted Barack Obama and have not been critical of anything about Barack Obama (other main media entities could be listed in this sentence); for instance, during the election campaign season of 2007 and 2008, the entities did not clearly report to the public the ties that Barack Obama had to communists (such as William Ayres, who was a former member of terrorist group of the 1960s known, for one, as The Weathermen) and people who could be called "radicals" (such as Reverend Jeremiah Wright).  Staffers at main media entities have put heavy attacks on Republicans, such as Sarah Palin (the governor of Alaska); actually, since 2001, staffers at main media entities did what might be considered continual character assassination of U.S. President George Bush, such as by trying to show he was dumb.  During the election-campaign season--particularly around October 12, 2008, members of the main media entities listed in this paragraph attacked the character of a man known as "Joe the Plumber," who had asked Barack Obama a question about taxes and had been given an answer from Barack Obama that dealt with spreading "the wealth around...."   Barack Obama has appointed to federal-government jobs or surrounded himself with people who have defective histories; for example, Tim Geithner is a known tax cheat and is the head the U.S. Treasury Department (which has the Internal Revenue Service as a unit).  Barack Obama and most of the Democrats in the U.S. Congress have pushed through laws that have had big price tags, such as nearly 800-billion dollars (without interest included), which have put a big debt burden on generations to come; generally speaking, the members of the U.S. Congress did not read the bill that became the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (signed into law on February 17, 2009), and the members of the main media listed in this paragraph promoted the bill (which would become the act), though none had read the bill, which really had nothing to do with stimulating the economy, though it--when it was yet a bill--was promoted as a "stimulus" bill by Barack Obama, mostly Democrats in the U.S. Congress, and staffers of the main media entities noted within this paragraph (some of the nonsense features of the law are the feature that sets up the beginnings of a national-health-care system and the feature that provides money to groups like ACORN (which has been involved in illegal voter registration in the past)).  One of the first main laws that Barack Obama signed into law was a law that allowed the children of illegal immigrants to get free medical care.  Barack Obama announced a program on February 18, 2009, in which people who were defaulting on home mortgage loans or had homes that were in foreclosure or nearly in foreclosure would be saved from losing their homes by the federal government; most of the loans were sub-prime loans that the federal government (tied in to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae) pushed the mortgage-loan-lending entities, such as banks, to issue--the loans were those that should not have been issued (see my document entitled THOUGHTS AND PIECES OF LOGIC for the individual woman and the individual man, which can be reached through this link: Logic).  Although Barack Obama has never really promoted the greatness of the U.S.A. through speeches or whatever, and, in fact, he has put down the structure of the U.S. Constitution (he has noted that it is a "flawed" document), the main media entities have taken no notice, and the main media listed in this paragraph has allowed Barack Obama to get away with lying about the conditiion of the  U.S.A. economy, as he did during his first news conference, which took place on February 9, 2009.

    Before providing sections on individuals, I have this section about the media in general.  On Thursday, March 11, 2010, Barack Obama was still working on passing a national-health-care bill, and, of course, his work involved pressuring the U.S. Congress, especially the U.S. House of Representatives, to finish their work--whatever that would be.  It became public knowledge on March 11, 2010, that the Democrats, especially the chairman of the "Rules Committee" of the U.S. House of Representatives, Louise Slaughter (a Democrat related to New York), had come up with a plan to pass a national-health-care bill, and that plan would include what was informally called the "Slaughter Solution"; it had already been known that Democrats in the U.S. Congress might use what is called the "budget reconciliation" process to pass a national-health-care bill through the U.S. Congress.  It was then clear--on March 11, 2010--that using the "budget reconciliation" process would be controversial, if not unprecedented, and on March 11,  2010, some well-educated persons, such as Mark R. Levin (who is a respected nationally known attorney, had worked in the Ronald Reagan administration, is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host, and is a founder of the Landmark Legal Foundation) reported how using the "Slaughter Solution" would clearly go against principles of The U.S. Constitution, and if the "Slaughter Process" were used, the country would have a "constitutional" crisis.  In essence, the "Slaughter Solution" was an idea in which the U.S. House of Representatives would sort of pretend to pass the existing health-care bill in the U.S. Senate by passing a rule change or resolution that said that the U.S. House of Representatives "deemed" that is had passed the health-care bill of the U.S. Senate, though the U.S. House of Representatives had not officially voted and passed the the health-care bill of the U.S. Senate.  A rule of the U.S. Congress is--Both Houses of the U.S. Congress must vote on each actual bill, and that rule is a part of The U.S. Constitution (Article 1, Section 7).
    On Sunday, March 14, 2010, I watched the political talk shows of the main broadcast networks--Face the Nation (of CBS-TV and hosted on this day by Bob Schieffer), Fox News Sunday (of Fox TV and hosted by Chris Wallace), Meet the Press with David Gregory (of NBC-TV and hosted this day by Tom Brokaw as a substitute host), and This Week (of ABC-TV and hosted this day by Jake Tapper).  If you were to put the four shows together into one show, you would find that very little was said about the "Slaughter Solution."  One program that brought out the subject of the "Slaughter Solution" clearly was Fox News Sunday, such as when Chris Wallace asked U.S. Representative Christopher Van Hollen (a Democrat related to Maryland) whether or not the "Slaughter Solution" might be used, and Christopher Van Hollen did not rule about the option, and that means Christopher Van Hollen did not rule out the possibility that the Democrats in the U.S. Congress would use a procedure--any procedure--to pass a national-health-care bill.  Jake Tapper did say to David Axelrod early in the This Week program: "House Democrats are talking about using a procedural maneuver to pass the Senate bill in the House and then the fixes without ever actually having a vote on the Senate Bill... [a video statement that had been made by U.S. Representative Lynn Woolsey (a Democrat related to California) was played]...Can the President support a procedure where the members of the House pass the Senate bill without ever voting for the Senate bill?"; David Axelrod never answered the question, but David Axelrod did give this answer, "Well, I, look, I think everybody's going to be on the record, ah, by the end of this week, ah, on, ah, on these matters.  And, ah, of course, in answer to Congresswoman Woolsey, ah, the President's proposal, ah, is not the Senate with the cor, with the corrections that have been made, with the improvements that have been made..."  David Axelrod also appeared Meet the Press, and Tom Brokaw around the opening of his interview with David Axelrod, who was then the Senior White House adviser for Barack Obama, said, "...I think it'll be helpful to the American public if we give them a kind of a road map that we can expect in the days and maybe even weeks ahead from a procedural point of view, because...pretty confusing, even Congressional parliamentarians were having a hard time explaining this one.  So, let us take you through now what we can expect.  First, the House will be voting on the Senate bill, which was approved in December.  The House will then also vote on a package of changes via reconciliation.  That's a procedure that they can get passed on a majority vote--mostly to do with budget items.  The President then would sign the Senate health bill if it gets passed.  The Senate passes the House's package of changes from reconciliation with a simple majority vote.  And then the President would sign the reconciliation bill....."; later in the program, Karl Rove, who had been a senior advisor to U.S. President George W. Bush, said, "And isn't that amazing?  We're asking people of the U.S. Ho, House of Representatives not to vote on the bill, but to vote on a place holder--in the final terms of this huge measure affecting one-sixth of our economy will be defined later perhaps in a, ah, in a bill in the Senate designed to circumvent the normal order of business...." (and his statement was said in response to Tom Brokaw's statement of: "But the fact of the matter is we don't know the exact definition of the final bill, because it will go through this complicated process, get to reconciliation, some of the cost will be addressed there.").
     Around March 2010, polls showed that about sixty percent of the American public do not want the health-care plan of the U.S. Senate, and Karl Rove (the author of Courage and Consequences: My Life as a Conservative in the Fight) noted on Meet the Press and U.S. Representative Eric Cantor (a Republican related to Virginia) noted on Fox News Sunday that about sixty percent of the American people or about six in ten of the American people do not want the national-health-care plan being pushed by Barack Obama on the country, having learned what had been contained in all the health-care bills proposed since early in 2009, which includes the health-care bill that had been passed by the U.S. Senate in December 2009, which was the only bill that was alive at the time.
    I now talk about the round-table discussion segments of Fox News Sunday (of Fox TV), Meet the Press with David Gregory (of NBC-TV), and This Week (of ABC-TV).  While Chris Wallace hosted the panel discussion of Fox News Sunday, no one brought up the subject of the "Slaughter Solution" (and the panel was John Podesta, Mara Liasson, Bill Kristol, and Dana Perino), and I must report that Chris Wallace did not bring up the subject.  The panel for This Week was made up of Anita Dunn, Ed Gillespie, Cokie Roberts, and George Will, and Ed Gillespie at one point in the discussion said, "...But the contortions they [the Democrats] are going through to get this bill done tells you everything about it.  Ah, the fact is they're going to abandon their formerly principled opposition to using reconciliation for things like health care, which they opposed when President Clinton was President.  They wouldn't use, ah, reconciliation for the Medicare reform bill when President Bush was President.  Now, they're going to use it for this, and now they're going to take it down to fifty-one votes to get it passed.  And then they're going to use this 'deeming rule' in the, ah, in the House maybe to snea.  So, they're going to ram it through the Senate and try to sneak it through the House.  That tells you everything about where the public is on this bill."; Jake Tapper would moments later say after a few words given by Cokie Roberts, "No. Ed was referring to the 'deeming resolution.'  That's when the House, the House doesn't actually vote on the Senate bill.  It's deemed to be part of the rule when they introduce the fixes to the Senate, the Senate bill...."   Tom Brokaw hosted the panel discussion for Meet the Press with David Gregory, and the two panelists were David Brooks (a writer for The New York Times) and Tom Friedman (a writer for The New York Times), and both writers are, in reality, liberals, who work for the highly liberal The New York Times, and during the discussion, no one brought up the subject of the "Slaughter Solution."   (Face the Nation did not have a round-table segment, and Bob Schieffer never mentioned or never brought up the "Slaughter Solution" during the entire program, even to Robert Gibbs, the White House press spokesman, who was the first guest on the program.)
    Incidentally, the whole process of passing a national-health-care bill has been and is loaded with defective ideas, and, for example, there was talk, such as on Face the Nation, that one way to get the national-health-care system set up is to pass the U.S. Senate bill through the House of Representatives and then pass a "corrections" bill, and that idea was passed along to viewers by Robert Gibbs--instead of passing a good or adequate bill to begin with, Barack Obama is supposedly--supposedly--working to to pass a bad bill and then pass a "corrections" bill (but history shows that Barack Obama is a perpetual liar, as can be seen in my document entitled Nonsense Statements and Quotations of Barack Obama, which can be reached by using the link at the end of this document, and I say that no one can trust Barack Obama to push for a "corrections" bill, and, anyway--What would be good corrections and why are not so-called good corrections existing in a bill now?).
    Let me report clearly--No one on the four Sunday shows talked about in this section really gave evidence why the "Slaughter Solution" was against The U.S. Constitution (at least Mark R. Levin had pointed out the badness of the "Slaughter Solution" for the country on March 11, 2010, and March 12, 2010, during his nationally syndicated radio show, The Mark Levin Show).
    "For the record, " I pass along some segments of This Week with David Gregory.  Early in the program, David Axelrod said: "...It's been a long and arduous debate.  It's a tough issue, ah, for members of Congress, because there's enormous lobbying campaign, ah, going on on the other side.  Dah, ah, a lobbyist from the insurance industry descending on Capitol Hill like locusts, ah, and, and, dah, trying to pressure people to vote, ah, against, dah, this bill.  There's a lot of pressure on people.  But I believe that we'll be there at the end of the day."  Later in the program, Jake Tapper hinted that the polls show that, generally speaking, the American people are not supportive of the national-health-care bill being proposed, and David Axelrod said, "The polls are split, Jake!...."  [David Axelrod lied!]  David Axelrod later said, "...Well, well, I believe it is going to happen this week.  I think we're goin' have vote. And the American people are entitled to an up or down vote.  We don't want to see, ah, procedural, ah, ah, gimmicks used to try and prevent an up or down vote on this issue.  We've had a lot debate, Jake.  It's gone on for a year.  The plan the President has, ah, embraced and put forward that takes ideas...."  [Jake Tapper did not note that Barack Obama has yet to put forth a full health-care bill, and, really, the Republicans have been kept out of the process to put together health-care bills in the U.S. Congress, though, as I know, the Republicans have publicly presented ideas about what needs to be done to help the heath-care industry in the country, such as through Web sites.]
    I add these facts "for the record."  The opening guest for This Week was David Axelrod, and the opening guest for Meet the Press was David Axelrod, who supports and practices highly liberal ideologies, and, of course, David Axelrod was trying to persuade the public during the two programs on the idea that Barack Obama's push for a national-health-care system was a good idea and that the health-care bill was good.  Cokie Roberts said at one point in the discussion segment on This Week, "...The truth is the public is divided on this bill.  And when you go, when you go into questions about, ah, how, how they feel about particular aspects of it, there's a lot they like.  Ah, the Democrats have calculated--I think correctly--that they, ah, that they have nothing more to lose on the, ah, question, on the whole sort of process questions.  The Republicans are going to characterize this as a bill passed by a corrupt Congress that has tickle parties, that has, you know, does things in the dead of night on Christmas Eve...."  [Cokie Roberts passed along nonsense, as did David Axelrod.]
    Note: On Sunday, March 14, 2010, The Detroit News (a newspaper based in Detroit, Michigan) covered the idea of the "Slaughter Solution" on the "Opinions" page through an editorial entitled "Slaughtering the rules" ("Slaughtering the rules."  The Detroit News, 14 March 2010, p. 27A.), and the Detroit Free Press, which is a "liberal" or left-wing newspaper based in Detroit, did not cover the "Slaughter Solution," though I believe the topic was and is so important that it should be in the minds of Americans.
    Incidentally, Anita Dunn is a very close associate of Barack Obama's and praises Mao Tse-Tung (of China), who killed millions of Chinese, and she was, as I have already noted in this documenet, one of the panelists in the round-table discussion for This Week, and to me, she looked as if she was in panic mode and harried during the discussion, and it looked to me as if she was working hard in her attempts to pass along nonsense and lies (and you should see the "Anita Dunn" section of my document entitled Political Lessons for the Individual Woman and the Individual Man in the United States of America, which can be reached by using the link at the end of this document, to learn more about Anita Dunn).
    For a person to even think about using the "Slaughter Solution" shows the person is probably anti-The U.S. Constitution or is willing to find ways to circumvent The U.S. Constitution, and a news person's not bringing up the subject of the "Slaughter Solution" or not making make it clear to the public that the "Slaughter Solution" is being proposed shows that that news person is defective (you are urged to read the "Andrea Mitchell" section of this document to see a statement made by Andrea Mitchell, a staffer of NBC News and MSNBC, on March 12, 2010, and it shows how bad a news person can be and how bad for the country members of the main media can be).
    Now, you have some information about what the main media in the United States of America is as a whole today, and you have an idea who is willing to look in the other direction in regards to violating The U.S. Constitution.

    Mitch Albom -- This man is a writer, such as for the Detroit Free Press (covering sports and providing commentary), an author of several books (one of which is Tuesdays with Morrie), and the main host of a radio show known as The Mitch Albom Program, which, for example, is heard on weekday afternoons (as it has been since 1996 or so) on WJR-AM, Detroit, Michigan, where this man is based.  Since 2008, Mitch Albom has been a man who has publicly supported Barack Obama and the ways of Barack Obama's, such as communism, has put down publicly (in writing and on the air) "Joe the Plumber," who in October 2008 helped expose to the public Barack Obama's ties to believing in socialism, put down the "tea-party movement" (and, in turn, "conservatism," which is the basic theme of the founding documents of the United States of America), and disagreed openly with the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court case of January 2010 called Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which if it had not been ruled in the way that it was would have allowed the government to bans some books and DVDs in the country.  And, here, I show a bit more of what Mitch Albom is--a low-level thinker and a promoter of "enslavism" (which you can learn about by reading my document entitled Conservatives and The United States Constitution Versus Enslavers and Enslavism (Communism, Sharia, Socialism, et cetera), which can be reached by using this link: Enslave.)
    To make sure you understand the theme of this section of this document, I must talk about WJR-AM as it was in December 2010 (which describes what it had been for many years as a rule).  This radio station, which is based in Detroit, Michigan, has a talk-and-news format.  In the mornings on weekdays, Paul W. Smith, a somewhat liberal man, hosts The Paul W. Smith Show.  From 9:00 a.m. to noon on weekdays, Frank Beckmann, another station employee, hosts the The Frank Beckmann Program, and this man has a good conservative mind, as can be seen by his promoting The United States Constitution and putting down, for example, the manmade-climate-change idea.  From noon to 3:00 p.m. on weekdays, the station carries the nationally syndicated radio program called The Rush Limbaugh Program, which is hosted by the conservative and individual-promoting  or common-man-promoting Rush Limbaugh.  From 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., the station airs the nationally syndicated program called The Sean Hannity Show, which is hosted by Sean Hannity, a soft conservative.  From 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, Mitch Albom does his radio show from the studios of WJR-AM.  From 7:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, the station airs various programs, such as The Big Story (and what these programs are is useless information for you to know about now).  And from 8:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. on weekdays, WJR-AM plays--on a delayed basis--the three nationally syndicated hours of The Mark Levin Show, which is hosted by the man who wrote Men in Black (which is a book about the U.S. Supreme Court) and Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto (which is a book about "conservatism"), and Mark R. Levin is a good man and a smart man, being, for example, a constitutional lawyer and the head of an entity known as the Landmark Legal Foundation, which, in essence, is taking on the Barack Obama administration in court, such as in relation to the bad law known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, which Mark R. Levin wants to have completely repealed, which I say is a good idea.
    If you look at what I have presented in the previous paragraph, you will see that, for the most part, Mitch Albom is the main "liberal" hosting a radio show on WJR-AM and his program is surrounded mostly by programs with non-liberals, all of whom that are heard from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. in talk shows, I can attest, pass along truthful information and use facts to defeat the lies of liberals, especially hardline liberals, such as Barack Obama.  Over the last several years, Mitch Albom through his radio program has put down Rush Limbaugh and the hosts of the other syndicated radio shows aired on the station, and he has even hinted that the others are pushing lies, and he has even hinted that only he tells the truth.  Also, on the air, Mitch Albom has also put down or degraded Frank Beckmann, a true member of WJR-AM and a much more informed man about many subjects than Mitch Albom is.
    In late December 2010, I heard several times a promotional announcement on WJR-AM that was designed to get people to tune into The Mitch Albom Show, and one line in it made me think and made me think more poorly of Mitch Albom.  During a portion of the announcement, an announcer says: "...The Mitch Albom Show, the only one that's not a figment of someone's imagination."  To me, that statement is clearly an attack on the other radio shows aired on the station, and the statement even tries to hint that the other programs present made-up information (and that is not true, since the program do not present made-up information, as I have found by doing backup research about much of the information presented in the other programs, as can been seen in the documents that I make available at the Web site for The Hologlobe Press).
    Let me talk about some of Mitch Albom's books, which are not high-level-thought pieces.  In the case of Tuesdays with Morrie, what people got was a story about Mitch Albom and his time spent in visits with a man name Morrie Schwartz, and, really, the piece is really nothing more than a piece that tells of Mitch Albom's times listening to Morrie, events that can be liked to what can happen when you sit around in a living room an listen to another person speak about gossip and the person's past, such as what the person did in life or did not do, which has little useful value in the scope of the world.  The Five People You Meet in Heaven is low-level story about people's lives and how a life can affect others--it was fiction (not real).  And For One More Day dealt with a spirit of a dead woman visiting her son, a suicidal drunk, and that is more low-level thought and nothing more than fiction, and, really, fiction for the most part is throwaway fluff thought, and a person who writes fiction need not be a smart person.
    You should see a common theme in Mitch Albom's work--dead persons and spirits--and you should see the pieces--since they got published and made into TV-movies--were mostly designed to promote Mitch Albom and were not designed to make the world better or expose the real lies of bad people for what they are.
    All the books by Mitch Albom shown in this section do not deal with such high-level-thought themes--important-to-life themes--as economics (particularly about how "capitalism" works and works well and how socialism is defective economics), climatology (such as the specific topic of why the manmade-global-climate-change idea is nonsense, especially when tied to "Climategate," the November 2009 revelation that pseudo scientists or dishonorable scientists have pushed and are yet pushing bad data about climate temperatures on the people of the world), or conservatism and the governmental structure of the country and how conservatism is a political idea that is designed to block those who would like to be dictators in the country, such as Barack Obama.
    Yes, Mitch Albom is a liberal or a Democrat or a "progressive," and Mitch Albom's condoning the use of "the only one that's not a figment of someone's imagination" shows one again that Mitch Albom is man whose nature is defective and is a man who should not be listened to.  (By the way, in the past, I have even heard Mitch Albom say, while sounding a bit disturbed, that people should listen only to him and that only he knows what is right, as if he were the smartest man in the world.)
    Special note: I am surprise that the management of WJR-AM would allow "the only one that's not a figment of someone's imagination" to be used at all.
    Note: To learn more about Mitch Albom, you are urged to see the "Mitch Albom" section of my document entitled Political Lessons for the Individual Woman and the Individual Man in the United States of America, which can be reached by using this Lessons link, and you are urged to see my document entitled T.H.A.T. #55, which can be reached by using this T.H.A.T. #55 link, and you should see the document entitled Film and Television Production Tax Credits: The Bad Side of the Issue, which can be reached by using this link: Tax Credits.
    See: The "Michael Moore" section.

    Christiane Amanpour (the host of This Week with Christine Amanpour):
    On Sunday, August 8, 2010, this woman became the regular host for This Week (fully known as This Week with Christiane Amanpour), which is broadcast by and on ABC-TV every Sunday morning.  On Sunday, October 17, 2010, while doing the show, Christiane Amanpour, who had been born in London, England, and has an accent tied to England, said, "When you said 'great Republican narrative,' I mean, there's been a long and venerable tradition of conservatism in this country.  You can go back to at least Ronald Reagan, William F. Buckley, all of that sort of intellectual conservatism that lasted about thirty years, and people are saying it's really gone to the extreme.  People are looking at the 'tea party' and saying this is not conservatism as we knew it, but it's an extreme...."  What this woman was doing was trying to put forth and defend the argument that "conservatism" is a somewhat recent political idea and is an extreme political idea.  I make clear that "conservatism" is really the basis of the United States of America and The U.S. Constitution, and the United States of America is a country in which the people--the citizens--own the country, and it is not a country in which the country owns the people, which is what communists, socialists, and the like--defined by me as "enslavists" or "enslavers"--want.  Since she discounts conservatism, she must discount "The Bill of Rights" of The U.S. Constitution, and you now know more about this woman, what she stands for, and what the main media is made up of.

    Joy Behar (a comedienne, the host of The Joy Behar Show, and a co-host of The View):
    On Tuesday, October 26, 2010, Joy Behar made these statements about Sharron Angle, a Republican running against Harry Reid for U.S. Senator in Nevada, on The View, which is a weekday program on ABC-TV: "...Yikes!  It's like a Hitler youth commercial...." [which was said in reference to a Sharron Angle commercial] and "...I'd like to see her do this ad in the South Bronx.  Come here, bitch!  Come here to New York and do it!...."
    On Tuesday, September 29, 2009, The Joy Behar Show debuted on the network known as HLN, and the show was designed as a regular weekday show for the prime-time day part.  On January 3, 2011, the show was still being shown on HLN, and it was a time when Republicans and "Tea-Party" people around the country were trying to have the politicians follow The United States Constitution, which the Democrats, especially Barack Obama, had been trying to forget and void for years and were trying to forget and void then.  On January 3, 2011, Joy Behar showed herself to be a person who thinks following The United States Constitution is a joke, such as through what she asked a guest--Bill Press, a radio-show host--on that day:   "...Do you think this Constitution-loving is getting out of hand?  I mean, this is a nod to the 'Tea Party.'  What's this about exactly?...This is the first time a lot of Congressmen will have heard about it, read it...." The United States Constitution is no joke, being a document that was put together by a group of men in the 1700s to create The United States of America and give people protections against would-be political tyrants, and the document is something that the members of the U.S. Congress must uphold and swear to uphold, and can be seen, for example, when on January 5, 2011, U.S. House of Representative John Dingell (a Democrat related Michigan) read the oath of office to John Boehner (a Republican related to Ohio): "...If the gentleman from Ohio will please raise his right hand.  Do you solemnly swear or affirm that you will support The Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic, that you will bare true faith and and allegiance to the same, that you take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which you are about to enter, so help you God?"  Around the time that Joy Behar made the statement that I present in this paragraph, Joy Behar and her guest were chuckling and laughing, but you should see Joy Behar is not a funny woman, since she supports "enslavism," the political ideology in which people do not have power against what politicians can do to them or have power to stop what politicians can do to them.  Cuba, North Korea, Russia, China, The Ivory Coast, and Venezuela are only some of the many countries in the world--countries where citizens live under horrible politicans--that do not have a document like The United States Constitution, which gives citizens protections against enslavers and bad people.  Yes, it seems Joy Behar wants people in this country to live with a government structure that allows politicians to have much more power over the people and maybe be like tyrants, not the way that the Founders of the country planned for those who would follow them as citizens of the United States of America.
    See: "Dahlia Lithwick" and  "Rob Reiner."

    David Brooks (an often seen "pundit" on television):
    This man professes to be a "conservative," but he is not, and he works as a columnist, writing material for The New York Times, and he regularly appears on, for one, PBS NewsHour (which was known as NewsHour with Jim Lehrer till early December 2009), which is a weeknight news show on PBS.
    On Sunday, November 15, 2009, David Brooks was on This Week with George Stephanopoulos and made a comment about Sarah Palin, whose new book was set to be publicly released on Tuesday, November 17, 2009: "...Yes, she's a joke.  Ah, I mean, I just can't take her seriously.  We've got serious problems in the country.  Barack Obama's trying to handle war.  We just had a guy elected Virginia governor, who's probably the model for the future of the Republican Party, Bob McDonald--pretty serious guy, pragmatic, calm, kind of boring.  The idea that this potential talk-show host is considered seriously for the Republican nomination--believe me, it'll never happen.  Voters--Republican primary voters--are just not gonna elect...."  [Here, David Brooks attactkd two "conservatives"--Bob McDonald (who was called "boring") and Sarah Palin--and this attack shows that David Brooks is not a "conservative," and a person could deduce David Brooks is really a Democrat, a liberal, a socalist, or something worse.]
    On January 4, 2010, The New York Times published on the Internet an article written by David Brooks, and the article shows how defective David Brook is as a thinker, and, in fact, the article shows how much of an arrogant elitist David Brooks is and how much he looks down on many other people.  David Brooks was born in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and is a graduate of the University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, and, by the way, the Chicago area is, generally speaking, a very liberal area or left-wing area of the country and is where Barack Obama is most recently from, and, now, here is a portion of the article (which was entitled "The Tea Party Teens"): "...Every single idea associated with the educated class has grown more unpopular over the past year.  The educated class believes in global warming, so public skepticism about global warming is on the rise.  The educated class supports abortion rights, so public opinion is shifting against them.  The educated class supports gun control, so opposition to gun control is mounting.  The story is the same in foreign affairs.  The educated class is internationalist, so isolationist sentiment is now at an all-time high, according to a Pew Research Center survey.  The educational class believes in multilateral action, so the numbers of Americans who believe we should 'go our own way' has risen sharply.  A year ago, the Obama supporters were the passionate ones.  Now the tea party brigades have all the intensity.  The tea party movement is a large, fractious confederation of Americans who are defined by what they are against.  They are against the concentrated power of the educated class...."  I ask, "Who is in the educated class?"  Even without getting an answer to the question, I know, for example, if the educated class were smart, it would not support the "global-warming" idea {or, what is meant, the "manmade-global-warming" idea), which is a hoax, and if the educated class were smart, it would not support gun control, because a country in which the citizens do not have easy access to guns and weapons can be enslaved easily by government.  The article shows that David Brooks thinks the uneducated--all those who are not considered a part of the "educated class" or are not, as he thinks, the educated people of the country--are rebelling against the educated (those who are in the know and are right in his eyes).  Let me comment more specifically about some of the ideas in the quoted material from David Brooks--Certainly, I am against the types of global warming and gun control as meant in the article, and I am not rebelling against the "educated class" as hinted at in the article (whatever the "educated class" is), but I am rebelling against the bad ideas of people who are professed to be educated and are not and against the political ideas that will hurt this country, such as the idea of putting the United States of America under the rules of a single international communist country that is related to a United Nations climate-change treaty.  And the last two lines of the piece written by David Brooks were: "...Personally, I'm not a fan of this movement [the tea-party movement].  But I certainly see its potential to shape the coming decade."   The two lines from David Brooks show he is not as educated as he thinks he is or he is lying, since the tea-party movement is a movement that is against communism, socialism, Marxism, and Barack Obama and Barack Obama's defective associates, and, without a doubt, the tea-party members are not rebelling against the "educated class" as a thing to simply rebel against some entity.  I also ask, "Why is David Brooks against the tea-party movement?"  I think David Brooks could be against the tea-party movement because David Brooks is not a "conservative" and is really a Marxist, a communist, a socialist, or one of those people in the "educated class," and David Brooks sees, when the tea-party people rebel against the "educated class," they are rebelling against him and his ideas, which, I say, are bad ideas.  (You should see my document entitled "CAP AND TRADE" and Carbon Dioxide Facts and Nonsense, a link to which exists at the end of this document, and you should see my document entitled THE CRUD AROUND BARACK OBAMA: My Rule--"Like Minds Get Together", which shows the many tax cheats, sexual deviants, communists, Maoists, and crooks who are working closely on a day-to-day basis with Barack Obama and which can be reached by using the link at the end of this document.)
    David Brooks showed more why he is dangerous to you and the country through an appearance he made on Meet the Press on Sunday, January 31, 2010.  Study one statement of his that viewers were exposed to on the show: "...The only thing that I'd caution Republicans about is distrust of government is not anti-government.  People want government to work.  They just don't believe in it.  So I think Republicans are doing what Democrats have, have done and what Republicans have done before, which is over-reading the ideological mandate.  They think gov, that people are,...distrust government, therefore they want big slashing, they can get away just saying we want big tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts.  We can go back to that old song...."  David Brooks pushed the idea that the American people want big government, which is what communists, liberals, socialists, Marxists, et cetera want. David Brooks pushed propaganda!
    It was in an article that David Brooks wrote entitled "The Great Divorce" for The New York Times for January 30, 2012 (Brooks, David.  "The Great Divorce."  The New York Times, 30 January 2012.), that really showed the nature--the evil nature--of  David Brooks.  One theme in the article was a book called Coming Apart (which was from the hand of Charles Murray), and the end of the article was: "...I doubt Murray would agree, but we need a National Service Program.  We need a program that would force members of the upper tribe and the lower tribe to life together, if only for a few years.  We need a program in which people from both tribes work together to spread out the values, practices and institutions that lead to achievement.  If we could jam the tribes together, we' have a better elite and a better mass."  David Brooks sees groups of people and not individuals, and he talks in ideas related to "the masses," "tribes," and "elites," as Karl Marx and his associated had, though the United States of America is not a caste system, and the ideas are all those pushed by "enslavists" (such as communists), and when you read the statement, you come to realize David Brooks is pushing for a federal government that can use violence to make people do what it wants, such as leave their homes and be forced to live with others (as happened in China under the control of Mao, who was a killer of millions of Chinese).  In truth, through the article, David Brooks showed off an evil mind, which contains defective thoughts and ways of life.

    Eleanor Clift (a a regularly seen left-wing "pundit" on television):
    This woman is a writer at Newsweek magazine and a regular panelist on The McLaughlin Group, a weekly political talk show on PBS-affiliated stations.
    Generally speaking, The McLaughlin Group is aired on PBS-affiliated stations on Fridays (Friday evenings) or Sundays (afternoons), and on Friday, February 5, 2010, I saw the program, and here is one statement made by Eleanor Clift: "I can't give you an exact percentage.  I'm sure you know the answer, or you wouldn't be asking the question.  But it is minimal.  This President has added an minimal amount of spending.  And, in case you haven't noticed, the Republicans are also gearing up for election, and they're making, ah, deficit and scaring people about the deficit their main election issue.  This President has put in place a set of issues that mimic what Franklin Roosevelt did to get us out of the Great Depression.  Ah, he's got to stick with his beliefs.  Those are the right, ah, decisions that he's made and that government spending is necessary.  There is a difference between the short-term deficit spending we're doing now and the long-term structural debt...."  Every time I watch The McLaughlin Group, I find Eleanor Clift teaching nonsense.   First, at the end of George W. Bush's term as the U.S. President, the federal deficit was 454.8-billion dollars, and at the end of the Barack Obama's first year as the U.S. President, the federal deficit was 1,420-billion dollars.  Eleanor Clift is a liar and is untrustworthy, as shown by her saying that Barack Obama has only increased the debt minimally.  Second, in T.H.A.T. #59, I show that Franklin D. Roosevelt's spending policies of the 1930s and early 1940s did not get the country out of the Great Depression of the 1930s and early 1940s (and you can reach T.H.A.T. #59 by using this link: T.H.A.T. #59).  Eleanor Clift lied again.  Eleanor Clift is a dangerous woman, being either stupid or evil.

    Anderson Cooper (the host of Anderson Cooper 360 of CNN):
    Here is something that he said on January 20, 2009, or January 1, 2009 (the material was aquired from The Mark Levin Show on Thurday, April 16, 2009): "...many of them saying that Caroline Kennedy is not gonnu try to go to the Senate and, ah, do over also for President Barack Obama retaking the oath of Chief Justice Roberts with reporters present readministrating the, readministrating, adminstering the oath, excuse me, getting the words right, unlike me this time, launched a high profile bid to be named Secretary of named, ah, to the Secretary of State Clinton's old Senate seat but can do, can continue to work her sor, ser, sources....  Breaking news, conflicting reports some say Caroline Kennedy now says she doesn't want Hillary Clinton's Senate seat.  Others say that is not true--they're not sure where that story came from.  We're gonna try to figure out fact from fiction.  Obama made the dancing look easy last night.  We cannot exactly same...the same for the vice presi...."  [Is not Anderson Cooper such a wonderful speaker?]

    Katie Couric (the host of CBS Evening News with Katie Couric):
    One of the big events of Katie Couric's history is the clear attack interview that she had with Sarah Palin (the governor of Alaska) while Sarah Palin was running as the Republican candidate for the office of Vice President of the United States of America in 2008, and the interview was aired by CBS-TV on September 25, 2008, and Katie Couric never did use the same type of attack style in any interview with Barack Obama during the campaign season.  On Monday, August 23, 2010, Katie Couric made this commentary statement related to the building of a mosque/cultural center in New York City, New York) on The CBS Evening News: "...Among the protesters near Ground Zero this weekend, a woman held a sign that read--'Unmasked the Mosque.'  It had a cartoon sketch of President Obama on it, and the implied message needed no interpretation.  In speaking out about Islamic group's right to build a center there, the President had given another shred of evidence to a growing conspiracy theory that he is Muslim.  He is not!  The Pew Research Center found eighteen percent of Americans believe that, and a whopping forty-three percent are not sure what religion he is.  For the record, he's Christian.  It might be Islamophobia, Obamaphobia, or both, but when loud speakers are blaring 'Born in the U.S.A.' and sign say 'No Clubhouse for terrorists,' it's clear we aren't just talking about a mosque anymore.  There is a debate to be had about the sensitivity of building this center so close to Ground Zero, but we cannot let fear and rage tear down the towers of core American values...."  You can see that Katie Couric's statement is a propaganda statement, as noted, for one, in her push to say that Barack Obama is a "Christian" without providing real evidence that Barack Obama is a "Christian," and if you hear the Katie Couric's statement, you will hear how she--through her delivery--worked hard to sell the idea that Barack Obama is a "Christian," and notice how Katie Couric pushed the idea that protesters had "Islamophobia" or "Obamaphobia," and the entire statement shows that Katie Couric, once a real cheerleader in school, is a Marxist/propagandist cheerleader for Barack Obama.  [You are urged to see my document entitled Sharia Law, Shariah-Compliant Finance, Radical Islam, and Barack Obama to learn more about the Barack Obama-mosque story, and the document can be reached by using this link: Sharia.]

    Sam Donaldson (a reporter and commentator who has worked for, for example, ABC-TV):
    On the morning of Wednesday, September 16, 2009--during the the eight o'clock hour--Sam Donaldson did a weekly telephone interview with Paul W. Smith, who was hosting The Paul W. Smith Show on WJR-AM (Detroit, Michigan), and they talked for five minutes on several subjects, and here is some of what was said during the interview:
    Paul W. Smith: "...Good morning, Sam."
    Sam Donaldson: "Good morning, Paul W."
    Paul W. Smith: "We are in, ah, Frankfurt, at the Frankfurt Motor Show., but keeping an eye on things that are going on back there.  If there's something on your mind you want to weigh in to, you're certainly welcome to do so.  Couple of things that have come to my mind is that former President Jimmy Carter has said that United States Representative Joe Wilson's outburst to President Barack Obama during the speech to Congress at last week was an act, to quote him 'Well, an act based in racism....'
    They talked over each other.
    Sam Donaldson: "...called Joe Wilson a racist, but he did say that a lot of the opposition to this President is based on, ah, race, the fact that he [Barack Obama] is a black man, and I think I can't quantify it, but I think Jimmy Carter's on to something.  I talked to people--they don't just say me, 'I don't like President Obama's health-care plan' or 'I don't like this, that or the other, but I do like them and I do like this....'   No!  They say, 'I don't like him, and I don't like anything he does!'  And that's got to be based on something other than a calm, rational look at his policy."
    Paul W. Smith: "Well, I think its based on people thinking that he's as close to a communist as any President we've ever had in office in the United States of America--certainly, as close to a socialist or somebody who is following a belief that has been used and failed in other countries that we don't want to be, ah, having, ah, be used and failing in our country."
    Sam Donaldson: "You know, you're, you're right, Paul W.  A lot of people say that.  Now, here's a President that added more stimulus to the Bush stimulus.  He followed the, ah, Paulson-Bernanke-George W. Bush plan to save the economy...."
    Paul W. Smith: "Adding...."
    They talked over each other again.
    Paul W. Smith: "Adding to a earlier mistake does not make it, ah, ah...."
    Sam Donaldson: "Well, he's [Barack Obama's] now asked for the Patriot Act, including three provisions that the people on the left hate, be renewed.  He's asked to re, continue the policies toward our prisons in Guantanamo that George W. Bush did!  And people don't say, 'Well, I like that part of him but I like the other.' [Sam Donaldson sounded somewhat angry and perturbed.]  They just say, 'He's a commie!'  Well, Paul W., that's not rational!  And I think it's based on something--whether it's Jimmy Carter's analysis or someone else's."
    Paul W. Smith: "I just, I just, I don't want to believe it's based on racism.  I...."
    They talked over each other once again.
    Sam Donaldson: "...made great progress in this country.  We're not there, yet!  Anyone who thinks we're there...."
    And that ends what I wish to present.
    I now have comments to make.  What 'people' did Sam Donaldson talk with?  A person's saying that the person does not like someone does not go right to "race" or "racism."  And, I say, "Sam, given all the hundreds of thousands of protesters who have become visible, you should see many, many people do not like all the spending that Barack Obama is leading, and many, many, people do not like having a communist, Marxist, or dictator in charge of the country, and Barack Obama is a Marxist, communist, and dictator, and many, many people do not want a national-health-care plan like those the have been presented in federal bills recently, and many, many people do not like the federal government taking over car companies and financial institutions, et cetera.   You should see Sam Donaldson is another crap in the media.
    For further reading, you should see the "Joe Wilson" section of my document entitled Patriots of the U.S.A. and the Counter Counter Revolution and the "Jimmy Carter" section of my document entitled Political Lessons for the Individual Woman and the Individual Man in the United States of America.

    Janeane Garofalo (an actress who has worked on Saturday Night Live and 24):
    On Thursday, April 16, 2009, Janeane Garfalo was one of the guests on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, which is a weeknight show on MSNBC, and here is most of the exchange that the two had:
    Keith Olbermann: "...On a more serious note, we're now joined by actor and activist Janeane Garofalo.  Good to see, ya."
    Janeane Garofalo: "Thank you.  You know there's nothing more interesting than seeing a bunch of racists become confused and angry at a speech their not quite certain what to think. It sounds right to them, and then, then it doesn't make sense, which, let's, let's be very honest about what this is about.  It's not about bashing Democrats, it's not about taxes--they have no idea about what the Boston Tea Party was about..."
    Keith Olbermann: "That's right."
    Janeane Garofalo: "...they don't know their history at all--this about hating a black man in the White House, this is racism straight up.  That is nothing but a bunch of tea-bagging Rednecks, and they, and, and there is no way around that.  And you know you can tell these type of right-wingers anything, and they'll believe it, except the truth.  You tell the truth, and they become--it's like showing Frankenstein's monster fire--they become confused and angry and highly volatile."
    Keith Olbermann: "Uh-hum."
    "Janeane Garofalo: "That guy caused in them feelings that they don't know, 'cause their limbic brain--we've discussed this before--the limbic brain inside a right-winger or a Republican or a conservative, or, or your average white-power activist.  The limbic brain is much larger in their, in their head space than in a reasonable person, and it's pushing against the frontal lobe, so the synapses are misfiring.  Is Bernie Goldberg listening?"
    Keith Olbermann: He said something that is unclear for this piece of writing.
    Janeane Garofalo: "...'cause Bernie might not have heard this when I said this the first time.
    Keith Olbermann: He laughed.
    Janeane Garofalo: "So, Bernie, this is for you.  It is, it is, ah, a neurological problem that we're dealing with."
    Keith Olbermann: "Well, what do you do about it, though?  I mean, our, our friend in Pensacola, there, played them like a, like a three-dollar fiddle...."
    Janeane Garofalo: "Yes."
    Keith Olbermann: "...and, and led them right down the garden path with nothing but facts, and then they went--Wait a minute, that doesn't sound like a Rush Limbaugh."
    Janeane Garofalo: "Right."
    Keith Olbermann: "You can't, you can't get them to make the last leap to 'What are we all doing here?  Howard Johnson is wrong.'  Ah, you know, how do you, how do you, how do you break through that?"
    Janeane Garofalo: "I don't think you do for most of them.  This is a patho, it's almost pathological or elevated to a philosophy or a lifestyle.  And again this is about racism.  It could be any issue, any port in the storm.  These guys hate that a black guy is in the White House, but they, they immigrant bash, they...taxes and tea bags, and, like I said, most of them couldn't probably tell you thing one about taxation without representation, the Boston Tea Party, the British Imperialism, whatever the history lesson has to be.  But these people--all white--from....there's some people with Stockholm syndrome."
    Keith Olbermann: "...Or, I didn't see them.  They were in the back, they weren't near the camera, which is bad, bad strategy on the part..."
    Janeane Garofalo: "Right."
    Keith Olbermann: "...of the people who were staging this at Fox."
    Janeane Garofalo: "Truth!  And Fox News loves to film this anti-intellectualism, because that's their bread and butter.  If you have a cerebral electorate, Fox News goes down the toilet, you know, very, very fast.  But it is sick and sad seeing Neil Cavuto doing, they've been doing this for years, that's why Roger Rails [Roger Ailes] and Rupert Murdock started this venture [Fox] is to disinform and to...and dumb down a certain segment of the electorate.  But what is really--I didn't know there were so many racists left--I didn't know that.  I, I, you know, as I said the Republicans hype and the conservative movement has crystalized into the white-power movement."
    Keith Olbermann: "Is that not a bad long-term political strategy?  Because, even though--your point is--you know, terrifying that there are that many racists left..."
    Janeane Garofalo: "Right."
    Keith Olbermann: "...the, the flip side of it is--there aren't that many racists left."
    Janeane Garofalo: "...They're the minority.  I mean, literally, tens of people showed up to the, this thing...."
    Keith Olbermann: "But if you steer your television network or your political party towards a bunch of guys who are just looking for a reason to yell at the black president..."
    Janeane Garofalo: "Yes."
    Keith Olbermann: "...eventually you will marginalize yourself out of business, won't you?  Or."
    Janeane Garofalo: "Oh, no, no, there''s what, here's what the right-wing has in, in, in there's no shortage of nasural, natural resources of ignorance, apathy, hate, fear."
    Keith Olbermann: "Uh-hum."
    Janeane Garofalo: "There, as long as those things are in the collective conscience and unconscience, the Republicans will have some votes, Fox News will have some viewers.  But what  else have they got?  If they didn't do that, who, who, who's gonna watch?  You know, they've got, they, they have tackled that illusive clam dema, clan, clan,--I said 'clam'--you know, the clam demo, the eighteen to thirty-five clam demo.  Klan, Klan demo--with a K--demo.  But, you know, eh, eh, who else is Fox talking to?  I mean what is it urban older white guys?"
    Keith Olbermann: "Yea."
    Janeane Garofalo: "And, and, and the, the girl friend, and, you know, the women who suffer from Stockholm syndrome...there's a lot of Stockholm syndrome is what I'm saying ultimately.  What else do you want, what else you...what do you want to know?"
    Keith Olbermann: "What happens if somebody who's at one of these things hurts somebody?"
    Janeane Garofalo: "Oh,...that is, ah, an unfortuate by-product since the dawn of time of a volatile group like this of, of the limbic brain.  Violence unfortuately may or may not ensue.  It always, it, it's, like I said,...the Republican Party now depends on immigrant bashing and hating the black guy in the White House.  Will people act on that?  It's not new.  But, you know, ah, Fox doesn't mind  fomenting [fermenting] it.  I'm sure Fox doesn't fomenting [fermenting] it.  Michele Bachmann doesn't mind fomenting [fermenting] it.  Glenn Beck doesn't mind fomenting [fermenting] it."
    Keith Olberann: "Lou Dobbs."
    Janeane Garofalo: "Lou Dobbs--oh, man--he sure does mind.  This is, this is...what have they got, if they don't have this?  You know what I mean?  It's, it's like an identity...of the worst kind."
    Keith Olbermann: "...peace in our time."
    Janeane Garofalo: "Is Bernie still listening?"
    You should easy see how Janeane Garofalo is "race-baiting," pushing a division of blacks and whites, and she does it with anger in her voice.  Blacks and whites and others took place in the "tea parties" of Wednesday, April 15, 2009, and one place where that was clearly evident was at the tea party at Atlanta, Georgia, which was attended by Sean Hannity, who did has Hannity television show live from the event on that day.  In truth, Janeane Garofalo had no evidence that people who took part in the tea parties were "racists," she simply made accusations.  Janeano Garofalo is a dangerous woman and spews nonsense and hate.  In addition, what is her nonsense about the "limbic brain" and "synapses are misfiring" crap?  What figures and data does she have on the number of racists?  Why expertise does she have about the subjects talked about?   And notice how she brings up "collective," which is a term that a Marxist would use.

    Charles Gibson (a television reporter and once the host of World News with Charles Gibson):
    Like Katie Couric, Charles Gibson did a clear attack-type interview with Sarah Palin, and that interview, which was really a two-part presentation, was shown on September 11, 2008, and September 12, 2008, on ABC-TV, and Charles Gibson never did any attack-type interview with Barack Obama.

    Danny Glover (an film actor):
    This man is an actor, and one of the movies he is known for being in is Lethal Weapon (actually, he was one of the featured actors is all the Lethal Weapon franchise movies).  On May 5, 2010, Al Sharpton interviewed Danny Glover on The Al Sharpton Show, which is a somewhat nationally syndicated radio show (at the time, it was carried on only eighteen radio stations, most of which were located east of the Mississippi River).  During the interview, Danny Glover showed more evidence that he is a hard-left socialist and is a defective thinker.  Examine the text of a portion of the interview:
    Reverend Al Sharpton: "...How is America perceived, ah, at this point with these new kinds of draconian laws, this fight over health care.  I mean, I, I, I'm tryin' to get people a sense of in many ways as much as we claimed to be so advanced, we are really, ah, behind on many of the human-rights fronts."
    Danny Glover: "Well, we, we, we exercise this idea of this 'exceptionalism,' so, and, and that's unfortunate, you know, because you see 'exceptionalism' happening in other places of the world.  The fact that you have, ah, ah, a, a, ah, a president of a country, Bolivia, whose first language is not Spanish who is a, a shepherd of the Mother Earth and talks about Mother Earth in poetic ways and everything else.  You see that happening.  You see women to women, ah...only one woman elected to be president of her nation in Latin America. This 'exceptionalism' happens is, is a certain 'exceptionalism' that is often, we, we of claimed ownership to, but other with the world, other people around the world have usurped us, you know, have moved passed us, have gone on and say, 'We're going to create dynamic democracies, we're going to create democracies of women have a voice...."
    Generally speaking, actors, like poets, are not true thinkers, since they deal most of their lives with fiction, and Danny Glover is a good example that shows why actors should be little followed and given little regard for what they say.
    Note: "America exceptionalism" deals with a number of ideas, one of which is the idea that America has become great since it was founded because Americans have been free to be individuals and create things and do things while being unhindered by a centralized government, as happens in dead countries, such as Cuba and North Korea.

    David Gregory (the host of Meet the Press on NBC-TV):
    Since December 14, 2008, David Gregory has been the regular host of the long-running weekly series known as Meet the Press, which is shown on NBC-TV on Sundays.  On Monday, May 24, 2010, David Gregory appeared as a guest on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, which is shown on late-night television on NBC-TV on weekdays, and at one point, David Gregory said, "...The 'tea party' in this incarnation.  This is not, ah, new idea, you know, a new idea that you had deficit hawks...after the Bush administration, they were really concerned about their own party and, and too much government spending.  And then with President Obama and health care and expansion of government.  And the other big thing was the bailout package.  It was the TARP the really got them animated.  It, it's so interesting because there's all this railing against the Obama administration.  What they're really upset about is TARP, and that was under President Bush...."  Here, an educated person, such as a person who has read the many documents at the Web site of The Hologlobe Press that deal with Barack Obama, can see that David Gregory is a liar or is stupid.  Americans who oppose Barack Obama, such as those who are involved in the tea-party movement, are not mostly upset about TARP (which was the late-2008 federal-government bailout program), they are upset about the combined nonsense that includes, for example, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act, and the government take over of banks and car companies, and the poor handling of the oil-rig disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.
    David Gregory is a "race baiter," as is, for example, Ed Schultz, another leftist media man.  On May 15, 2011, David Gregory hosted yet another edition of Meet the Press, and David Gregory made a statement to Newt Gingrich: "First, you gave a speech in Georgia with language a lot of people think can be coded with racially tinged language calling the President--the first black President--a, a 'food-stamp' president.  What did you mean?  What was the point?"   Newt answered with: "...That's bizarre.  That's, this kind of automatic pr, reference to racism.  This is the President of the United States.  President of the United States has to be held accountable.  And the idea that.   And what I said is factually true--forty-seven-million Americans are on food stamps!  One out of every six Americans is on food stamps. And to hide behind the charge of racism!  I have, I have never said anything about President Obama that is racist...."  A person can see David Gregory did not put forth true evidence that Newt Gingrich showed racism, and, in fact, a good journalist using commonsense would not have brought up the subject to begin with, lacking concrete information or story facts, but David Gregory purposely took the time to imply a possible act of racism to stir up in viewers--especially true believers that whites are racists--heightened emotions about racism, and it can be said that David Gregory offered up a false premise--which is that all the people on food stamps are "blacks"--and then tried to tie it to Newt Gingrich's words so that viewers could take the defective logic puzzle and conclude Newt Gingrich must be racist, and David Gregory's doing that--nothing more than a "character assassination" incident--was done to instill in minds a reason to take up violence for no good reason or for a reason based on a lie, and that shows the thinking of an evil man.
    See: "Jay Leno" and "Ed Schultz."

    Savannah Guthrie (a reporter, such as NBC-TV):
    The United States of America was created in the 1700s as a country in which the citizens--"the people"--were the owners and elected or hired people of the citizenry to be employees of the government, and the purpose of the government was to provide necessary services for the citizenry, such as protection against foreign invaders or other countries.  In essence, the federal government is defined through a document entitled The United States Constitution, but, really, the document not only sets up the main structure of the federal government but also is a special political blocking document--a document that blocks and restricts the employees of the government from becoming dictators and enslavers of the citizenry, which is something that some people, such as Barack Obama, dislike.  There are many people in the main media who dislike The United States Constitution, because the document can block people from being dictators or can block the people in the government from ruling the country as if the citizens are owned by the government and can be used at will and from being able to make rules on a whim, such as by changing rules from day to day.  This section of this document shows Savannah Guthrie is a person who has little regard for The United States Constitution, and, beyond that, it shows that a person she interviewed on The Daily Countdown (a show seen regularly on MSNBC) on December 30, 2010, has little regard for the The United States Constitution, and that other person is Ezra Klein, a writer at a newspaper called The Washington Post.  Look at one portion of the interview:
    Savannah Guthrie: "...This is what's gonna happen.  Um, when Republicans take over next week, they're gonna do something that apparently has never been done in the two-hundred-and-twenty-one-year history of the House of Representatives, they are going to read The Constitution aloud.  Is this a gimmick?"
    Ezra Klein: "Yes.  It's a gimmick.  I mean, you could say two things about it--one, is that it has no binding power on anything, and, two, the issue of The Constitution is not that people don't read the text and think they're following.  The issue of The Constitution is that the text is confusing, because it was written more than a hundred years ago, and what people believe it says differs from person to person and differs depending on what they want to get done.  So, I wouldn't expect much coming out of this...."
    What these two persons are can be said in a number of ways.  These are bad people, since they promote "enslavism" and support "enslavism" (and you are urged to see my document entitled Conservatives and The United States Constitution Versus Enslavers and Enslavism (Communism, Sharia, Socialism, et cetera), which can be reached by using this link: Enslavism), and, here, I say that, in essence, "enslavism" is a political ideology in which a few persons--elites and such--rule the many without restrictions imposed on them by the many.  And these two persons can also be defined as people who are ignorant about what The United States Constitution is and can be defined as people who are stupid about the ways of life and the ways of life of people.
    Certainly, to evaluate what both persons fully are, I would have to conduct many days of interrogation and study, and, in the end, I would call them what I call them now--dangerous people and people who have to be discounted and made useless.

    Tom Hanks (a television and film actor):
    From the fall of 1980 to the fall of 1982, Tom Hanks appeared as a regular character in the television series entitled Bosom Buddies, which was shown on ABC-TV, and, over the years, since the days of Bosom Buddies, Tom Hanks has become a big-name theatrical-movie star.  Tom Hanks is a man who supports Barack Obama fully and publicly, and, in fact, after Barack Obama had been the U.S. President for about thirteen months, Tom Hanks was yet publicly showing his support  for Barack Obama.  On Friday, March 5, 2010, Tom Hanks appeared on Morning Joe, which is a weekday program shown by MSNBC, and, generally speaking, at one point on the show, Tom Hanks said: "I think the President of the United States is doing as spectacular job in the face of a brand of, of, ah, ah, ah, of insanity that doesn't make any sense....  Does anybody want anything to get done in this country?  I saw, I, I saw somebody's, somebody's ad from somewhere.  Essentially, she was saying, 'I made sure nothing happened when I was...I made sure absolutely nothing went forward, I made sure nothing was giving, nothing moved forward, no nothing was passed--I made sure nothing happened for the people of this state that I come from.'...  '...against everything.  Let, let GM fail.  Make sure no one can get, get ta the hospital, if their kid has a temperature of a hundred...."  (I had to use "threedots" edting tool, since his words were drowned  out by others or hard to hear.)  Tom Hanks is a man whose product--movies, television shows, et cetera--should be boycotted, since Tom Hanks supports a Barack Obama, who dislikes the United States of America.

    John King (CNN anchor and reporter):
    U.S. President Bill Clinton was impeached and lost at least for a short while his license to practice law because of an extramarital affair, which he had lied about for days and days and days, and, basically, many persons in the main media seemed to work hard avoid telling the story.  On Thursday, January 19, 2012, CNN presented a U.S. presidential debate with Republicans, such as Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich, who had recently been made the big story in the news because of statements made by the first wife of New Gingrich's to ABC News about Newt Gingrich's marriage to her.  The first question posed at the debate was posed by John King, and John King directed the question to Newt Gingrich: "...Mr. Speaker, I want to start with that this evening.  As you know, your ex-wife gave an interview to ABC News, another interview with The Washington Post, and this story has gone viral on the Internet.  In it, she says that you came to her in 1999, at a time when you were having an affair, she says you asked her, Sir, to enter into an open marriage.  Would you like to take some time to respond to that?"  At this time, U.S. President Barack Obama was in violation of The U.S. Constitution, and his track record was a collage of bad things, such as endless lies and dictatorial and communistic practices, which, for one, had the country in an extra 5,000-billion dollars in debt.  Newt Gingrich answered John King with: "No!  But I will.  I think, I think, the destructive, viscous, negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country, harder to attract decent people to run for public office, and I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that...."  Whether or not the event involving Newt Gingrich happened in 1999 is no matter, and what matters is the question and when it was asked showed off the nature of a man--John King--and the nature of a news network.  Newt Grigrich also answered with: "...Let me be quite clear.  Let me be quite clear.  The story is false.  Every personal friend I have who knew us in that period says the story was false. We offered several of them to ABC to prove it was false.  They weren't interested, because they would like to attack any Republican...." and "...I'm tired of the elite media protecting Barack Obama by attacking Republicans!...."  and "...Every person in here knows personal pain.  Every person in here has had someone close to them go through painful things.  To take an ex-wife and make it two days before a primary a significant question of a presidential campaign is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine...."

    Jay Leno (the host of The Tonight Show with Jay Leno):
    Jay Leno has become one the most-watched television talk-show hosts in television history, gaining that reputation by being the host of the first The Tonight Show with Jay Leno (shown on NBC-TV on the late-night day-part period of weekdays from May 1992 to May 2009).  On September 14, 2009, Jay Leno began to host a prime-time series entitled The Jay Leno Show on NBC-TV, and on that series, Jay Leno showed off more of his "liberal" political stance, such as by hosting numerous left-wing-leaning guests during the first week or so of the series, such as Michael Moore (the communist and documentarian, who had made a number of misleading documentaries), and I say that one of the reasons that the series quickly died in ratings is the series did feature many left-wing guests.  On March 1, 2010, The Tonight Show with Jay Leno returned to late-night television, airing on NBC-TV on weekdays again.  On Monday, May 24, 2010, Jay Leno showed more of his left-wing personality, such as by putting down Americans who are involved in the tea-party movement, which is made up of people opposed to Barack Obama's work of turning the country into a communist-like country (Barack Obama is indeed at least a communist), and one thing Jay Leno said on that day was, "...Well, ah, to me, PB is a perfect example.  The PB seems to have done this on their own.  They don't pay attention.  They essentially make their own rules, because the pay off everybody.  That's what the 'tea party' wants.  Look, they do, that's unregulated, and look what happened...."  Jay Leno was referring to the oil-rig disaster of the Gulf of Mexico, which began on April 20, 2010, and through the quotation presented, you can see that Jay Leno implied that Americans involved in the tea-party movement want no regulation, and that is nonsense, and, really, the oil industry is highly, highly regulated, but even when many regulations exists, accidents can happen (since that way of life).
    See: "David Gregory" and "Bill Maher."

    David Letterman (a television talk-show host):
    This man is the host of Late Night with David Letterman, which is a late-night show seen on CBS-TV on weeknights, and his supposed to be a comedian..
    On Monday, June 8, 2009, David Letterman offered this comment on his show: "...One awkward moment, though, during the game--maybe you heard about it, maybe you saw in on one of the highlight reels--one awkward moment for Sarah Palin at the Yankee game, during the seventh inning, her daughter was knocked-up Alex Rodriguez.  You'd see how that'd be awkward...."  [Sarah Palin was the Republican candidate for Vice President of the United States of America in 2008, and David Letterman put out a joke about her daughter being involved with sexual intercourse at a baseball game with a basefall player, and that was considered funny.]
    On Monday, June 8, 2009, David Letterman also offered this comment: "...The category tonight--Top Ten Highlights of Sarah Palin's trip to New York City...Number Two--Bought makeup a Bloomingdale's to update her slutty flight-attendant look...."
    On October 1, 2009, David Letterman made this statement related to affairs during his show: "...The creepy stuff was that I have had sex with women who work for me on this show.  Now, my response to that is, 'Yes, I have!'"  The audience laughed loudly, and some words spoke by David Letterman were hard to hear.  "...and, and would it be embarrassing if it were made public?  Perhaps it would?  Perhaps it would?"  The audience laughed some more, and more words from David Letterman was drowned out.  "...especially for the women!"  The audience laughed more.  "But that's a decision for them to make, if they want to come public and talk about the relationships, if I want to got public and talk about the relationships.  But what you don't want is a guy saying, 'I, I know you had sex with women...I, I would like two-million dollars, or I'm going to make trouble for you.'"  [Yes, David Letterman was a boss, and David Letterman had sexual relations with staffers, and David Letterman made jokes about it, and the whole event was related to an extortion plot.]

    Dahlia Lithwick (a writer and reporter):
    On Tuesday, January 4, 2011, Dahlia Lithwick was a guest on The Rachel Maddow Show of MSNBC, and, at the time, she was a senior editor and legal correspondent at  There was a guest host on the show--Chris Hayes--and, at one point, the topic of discussion was The United States Constitution and the plan by the Republicans in the U.S House of Representatives to read The United States Constitution on the floor of The House on Thursday, January 6, 2011.  While on the topic, Chris Hayes and Dahlia Lithwich degraded people who support having a document that is The United States Constitution and follow the rules and ways that exist within the document.  During the discussion, Chris Hayes wondered whether or not the Republicans had a "constitutional fetish," and Dahlia Lithwick said: "...I think so.  I think, you know, the way some people rub Buddha, and they think the magic will come off.  I think there's a long-standing tradition in this country--we're awfully religious about The Constitution.  I think there is a sort of fetishization here that is of a peace with some sort of need for a religious document that is immutable and perfect in every way...."  On this day, Dahlia Lithwick showed herself to be a woman who disregards The United States Constitution, which is a document that is designed to block and retrict people who would be dictators in the country and enslave the people--all people--in the United States of America, and that makes her an evil person and a person who it is easily seen supports slavery for many people.
    See: "Joy Behar."

    Bill Maher (a comedian):
    This man is a hard-left political comedian and talk-show host.  On January 7, 1997, Bill Maher began to host a five-day-a-week late-night talk show entitled Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher on ABC-TV, and he also hosted some special editions off the series, such as a few prime-time editions, and this series was seen for the last time on Saturday, June 29, 2002, and, by the way, two of the guests on the final episode were Ann Coulter and Arianna Huffington, and it was comments that Bill Maher had made about the attacks on September 11, 2001 that had helped lead to ABC-TV's giving up on his series.  On Friday, February 21, 2003, Bill Maher showed up on a weekly series for HBO entitled Real Time with Bill Maher, and the series is still being used by HBO.
    On Monday, February 15, 2010, people who regularly listen to The Mark Levin Show, a nationally syndicated radio show hosted by Mark R. Levin, heard this statement that Bill Maher had made recently as an audio clip: "You know, you have to understand the tea bagger mind set.  They have this, this nostalgia for this America that they think was stolen from this, that used to be, that was better--it's really the 1950s, Okay?  That's what they think was Shangri-La, and, you know, what they never get is that it's kind of insulting to a lot of Americans to pine for this era, 'cause it wasn't that good for a lot of people.  It was good if you were a white man.  It wasn't that good if you were Mexican or black or Jewish or disabled or gay or a woman...."  You are urged to read over the quoted text well.  Notice how defective Bill Maher's mind is.  Bill Maher put down tea-party people, calling them "tea baggers," the meaning of which I will not discuss here (since children may read this document), and, really, since the citizens of the United States of America have ties to places all over the world, Bill Maher put down who might informally call themselves Ukrainians, Poles, Swedes, Indians, French, Japanese, Chinese, Italians, Hawaiians, et cetera.  Tea-party people are not wishing for the 1950s--they are wishing for a time when The U.S. Constitution was upheld by a U.S. President, which Barack Obama is not doing.  Barack Obama is, for example, a Marxist and communist, and Bill Maher shows that he supports the ways of Barack Obama, and that means Bill Maher is dangerous to the person who upholds the ways of The U.S. Constitution, and it looks as if Bill Maher wants a day and age with the United States of America is like a communist country or something else that is bad for the individual.  (Incidentally, did Bill Maher's statement make you laugh?  When the audio clip was being played, I heard laughter from whatever type of audience that Bill Maher had.)
    On Monday, September 13, 2010, Jay Leno had Bill Maher as one of the guests on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, and some statements were made that showed not only Bill Maher's defectiveness as a man but also Jay Leno's defectiveness as a man.  You must understand it is not uncommon for a guest on Jay Leno's show to provide questions that Jay Leno might think about asking the guest or provide topics that Jay Leno might cover with the guest, and that is especially true when a comedian is a guest, since the comedian is providing the "straight-man lines" to Jay Leno for jokes that the comedian has in mind.  Look at what Jay Leno and Bill Maher talked about at one point:
    Jay Leno: "How do you think this 'tea-party' will affect the mid-term elections?"
    Bill Maher: "Ah, the tea party.  The nativist bed wetters who somehow control our national dialogue, yes.  I call them the 'pee party,' Jay,...."
    Jay Leno: "'Pee party'?"
    Bill Maher: "...because they're always peeing in their pants about something.  They're just.  They're afraid of a mosque being built in New York.  They're afraid of guns.  You know, they think Obama, who like ever other ***beep*** Democrat has never said a single word about gun control, but, they're, they're very sure that he and his negro army are coming after, coming after their guns.  You know what?  If you think he's comin' after your guns, you need to get out of our chat room and have your house tested for lead.  He's not coming after your guns or your Bible or your fishing pole or your chewing tobacco...."
    Tea-party people have become quite aware that the country is  under assault from within from communists, socialists, and people with defective minds--especially Barack Obama.  Here, in the banter section, you see what Bill Maher thinks about people who wish to have a country run under the ways of The U.S. Constitution, which is a document designed to block tyrants from running the country and make it hard to people to turn the country from turning into a ant-type society. And since Jay Leno found the words spoken by Bill Maher to be humorous, Jay Leno showed what he believes in.  Both men seem to think that Barack Obama's work to enslave people under him, which is being done, is funny!
    See: "Jay Leno."

    Chris Matthews (a television show host):
    This Chris Matthews was the host of a television show called Hardball on MSNBC around February 2008, and he was known as a Liberal commentator or "pundit."  On Tuesday, February 12, 2009, Chris Matthews made a statement that showed his bias in covering political matters (he was a Democrat or a clear supporter of the Democratic Party), and it happened through a comment that he made after Barack Obama had made a speech (the day was the day for election primaries around the country).  Here was his statement: "You know it's, it's part of reporting this case, ah, this election.  The feeling most people get when they hear a Barack Obama speech--I felt this thrill going up my leg.  I mean I don't have that too often...."
    This is a statement that was made by Chris Matthews on Wednesday, September 23, 2009: "...But at some point, if we have violence in this country against our President of any form or attempt, people are going to pay for it--the people who have encouraged the craziness.  And I get feeling, at some point, the responsible grownups like people who've [been] elected to office [for] twenty or thirty years who know what it's like to be responsible office holders must be saying to themselves, 'I don't want to be one of the people that's responsible if one of these loony toons gets a gun and does something.'...."
    Around Monday, October 12, 2009, people were hearing all types of comments from people who were trying to make Rush Limbaugh look bad by putting out false information, all of which was designed to show Rush Limbaugh had made racial comments in 1998 (around October 12, 2009, Rush Limbaugh was a member of a group of investors who were trying to buy an National Football League team), and Chris Matthews made a comment on MSNBC: "Did you ever see Live and Let Die with Yaphet Kotto as the bad guy--Mister Big.  Ah,...the ending, he had this big CO2 pellet in his face, and he blew up.  I have to tell you, Rush Limbaugh is beginning to look more and more like Mister Big.  And at some points, somebody's going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head, and he's going to explode like a giant blimp.  That day may come...."  (You show see the "Reverend Jesse Jackson" section of my document entitled Political Lessons for the Individual Woman and the Individual Man in the United States of America, a link to which is at the end of this document).
    On Wednesday, January 27, 2010, Barack Obama made a State of the Union address, and Chris Matthews made this comments about it, such as: "...I was thinking about who he was tonight, and, dah, it's interesting he is post-racial by all appearances.  Ah, you know, I forgot he was black tonight for an hour.  I was watching, I said, 'Wait a minute!  He's an African-American guy in front of, of a bunch of other white people, and here he is President of the United States, and we've completely forgotten that tonight.'...."
    Without a doubt, on the Hardball program of May 17, 2010, Chris Matthews showed himself for what he truly is--a man with a highly ill mind.  During on portion of the program the subject was the oil-rig disaster and leak of the Gulf of Mexico, and Chris Matthews said, for example: "...Really?  You know, I have a suspicion...and I go back to it again.  I don't think they're [British Petroleum] doing their best.  I don't think they're, the government's doing its best.  Why doesn't the President go in there and nationalize an industry and get the job done for the people.  There's a national interest in this, not just a BP interest.  We're letting BP fix a national problem...." and "...In China, it's a more brutal society, a more brutal society...but they execute people for this--major industrial leaders that commit crimes like this, failure like this.  This is a serious, serious problem.  It is not over.  It continues to destroy a part of our planet basically, part of our habitat, our American habitat, and everybody just sits and watches television every night...." and "...Everybody says, 'Capitalism is great.  Unbridled free enterprise is great.' Look at it!.... Through Chris Matthews' words, you can see a man who seems to uphold the idea of a communist nation and brutal communist nation--China--in which people are executed, and Chris Matthews shows socialism or communism or fascism!

    Andrea Mitchell (a television reporter):
    By March 2010, this woman had been a staffer with NBC News and MSNBC for at least several decades, and, today, although she might call herself a "reporter" or a "journalist," I describe her as a "propagandist," especially a propagandist for the Barack Obama administration, which good historians--those willing to tell the truth--will certainly defined her.  On March 11, 2010, it became public knowledge--except to people who only pay attention to such liberal main media entitles as NBC News and MSNBC--that Democrats of the U.S. House of Representatives were proposing to help pass a national-health-care bill through the U.S. Congress by using a procedure that they had recently invented and that was in clear violation of The U.S. Constitution, and the idea was informally called the "Slaughter Solution," and, in essence, the "Slaughter Solution" was going to have the U.S. House of Representatives vote on a rule change that would say that, if the rule change was passed, the U.S. House of Representatives deemed it had pass a U.S. Senate bill on health care, though it had not actually passed the bill.  On March 12, 2010, Andrea Mitchell, while talking with a U.S. Congressman, made a statement that should go down in history as a statement that should forever define her  "...The bottom line--What happens if you don't get health care for this President?  Is, this is really all or nothing for the defense of his power, he legacy.  He's put, he's invested so much time in this, in this first year.  You've got to get this for him!...."  Truly, this woman was more concerned about Barack Obama--the communist and more that is bad--and his defective policies, which are rooted in such ideologies as communism, socialism, and black radicalism, than in The U.S. Constitution, and for a person to support using the "Slaughter Solution" or for a person to uphold the using of the "Slaughter Solution" shows that the person is anti-The U.S. Constitution and must be considered an enemy of the United States of America, especially since it was clear on March 12, 2010, that Barack Obama had been purposely enacting policies that were designed to hurt the country morally and economically.  (You should see the "Andrea Mitchell" section of the document entitled Political Lessons for the Individual Woman and the Individual Man in the United States of America, which can be reached by using the link at the end of this document).

    Michael Moore (a filmmaker and a communist):
    This man is called a filmmaker, and he has made a number of documentaries, such as Sicko and Fahrenheit 9/11, which have been shown up by studious people as filled with misinformation and lies, and it is not surprising that Michael Moore's works are filled with lies since he is a communist, as he has noted in public, and this man is supported by politicians and left-wing media people, like former Governor of Michigan Jennifer Granholm and radio personality/writer Mitch Albom.  On March 2, 2011, Michael Moore was a guest on GRITtv with Laura Flanders (which gets carried on the Free Speech Network, which is carried by Dish and DirecTV), and one thing that Michael Moore said is: "...This country is not broke.  State of Wisconsin is not broke!  There is a ton of cash in this country--trillions of dollars of it.  But it's a finite amount.  There is only so much cash.  All right?  What's happened is that we've allowed a vast majority of that cash to be concentrated in the hands of just a few people, and they're not circulating the cash.  If you don't believe that, go try and get a loan right now.  They're sitting on the money.  They're using it for their own, they're putting it someplace else.  There's no interest in helping you with your life with that money.  We've allowed them to take that.  That's not theirs.  That's a national resource.  That's ours that, we've all have this.  We all benefit from this and or we all suffer as a result of not having it.  And, and I think that, that we need to, ah, go back to taxing these people at the proper rates.  Um, ah, they, ah, need, we need to see these jobs as something that we own, that we collectively own as Americans.  And you just can't steal our jobs and take them someplace else...."  When I heard the audio clip of Michael Moore's statement on The Mark Levin Show (a nationally syndicated radio show), which Mark Levin had obtained from Weasel Zippers, on March 2, 2011, I remembered a story that I had seen recently in the Detroit Free Press, and I went searching for the story, and I found that the Detroit Free Press published a story called "Michael Moore sues Weinsteins" on February 8, 2011 (Lopez, Angela, and Mark Stryker.  "Names+Faces: Michael Moore sues Weinsteins."  Detroit Free Press, 8 February 2011, p. 2D.), and the story showed that Michael Moore is suing Harvey and Bob Weinstein, because Michael Moore believes the Weinsteins have cheated him out of three-million dollars in earnings from the Fahrenheit 9/11, which Michael Moore had put together.  If you read the quotation from Michael Moore, you see Michael Moore pushed the nonsense of redistribution of wealth, and he pushed the nonsense that all the money in the country is controlled by only a few, though all that money really belongs to all of us, and it that were true, it would mean some of your money belongs to Michael Moore, and if you extend the logic out, you should see some of Michael Moore's money then belongs to you.  Michael Moore's "collectivism" idea is crap, but maybe you can convince Michael Moore to give you your portion of the three-million-or-so dollars that Michael Moore is hoping to get out of the Weinsteins.  Michael Moore's statement is filled with a lot of crap, and I shall show some of it, which will show you why this man cannot be trusted and why his films cannot be trusted.  There is not a finite amount of cash in the country--the amount has grown over the decades as people have produced things--"wealth"--such as art works, houses, jewelry, tools, furniture, et cetera, and the amount will very likely will grow in the future.  The money in the country is not concentrated in the hands of a few.  So-called "rich people" are not hoarding money, and they are not "sitting on it"; the money is invested in things, such as businesses, which provide jobs.  And there is not a "collective" ownership of everything in the country, as communists try to suggest and push, which is supposedly controlled or owned by the federal government; for example, you own things that Michael Moore has no ownership in, and you own things that I have no ownership in.
    On Saturday, March 5, 2011, Michael Moore spoke before protesters in Madison, Wisconsin; people had been protesting Governor Scott Walker's work to cut the spending in Wisconsin and to make other changes in government.  Michael Moore went in what could be described a rant in public on this day.  One thing that Michael Moore said or yelled is: "...So they have bought and paid for hundreds of politicians across the country to do their bidding for them.  But just in case that doesn't work, they've got their gated communities, they've got their luxury jet that's always fully fueled, the engines running, waiting for that day, waiting for that day that they hope never comes.  To help prevent that day when people, the people demand their country back, the wealthy have done two very smart things!  One number, they control the message.  By owning media, they have expertly convinced many Americans of few means to buy their version of the 'American dream' and vote for their politicians.  Their version of the 'dream' says that you to might be rich someday.  This is America where anything can happen, if you just apply yourself.  They have conveniently provided you with believable examples to show you how a poor boy can become a rich man, how, how a guy, how a child of a single mother in Hawaii can become President of the United States, and how a guy with a high-school education can become a successful filmmaker...."  I noted that the statement shows the workings of a man with an ill mind--filled with illogic and nonsense.  [I state that the "American dream" does not profess the main idea that a poor person can become a rich person, but it can happen and has happened!  The 'American dream" is only the idea that, in this country, a person--if the person does and works--is very likely to improve the self and the living standard of the self, unlike what happens in most countries of the world, such as one that has been praised in the past by Michael Moore--Cuba (a communist country).  Yes, Michael Moore is that filmmaker to which he referred, and he can be called rich, and, yet, he put down the rich.  What a sick mind that Michael Moore has.  By the way, Barack Obama, who is a communist and is praised by Michael Moore, is the U.S. President, so, if one of Michael Moore's ideas is applied to the world, Barack Obama has been bought and paid for by the rich--who would have to be rich Democrats or, really, communists and socialists--and the people who were listening to Michael Moore should revolt against Barack Obama.]
    Yes, the communist mind is easy to understand, and, generally speaking, one communist is like another, and that means Michael Moore is like Barack Obama since Michael Moore supports Barack Obama, and Barack Obama--a communist--is like Michael Moore.  Look at more of what is in Michael Moore's mind.  On Wednesday, March 9, 2011, Michael Moore was on The Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC, and Michael Moore said: "...I, I just want to say--anybody who lives within driving distance of, ah Madison, Wisconsin, right now, should make their way to the capitol.  I, I, I would love to see thousands of people there, right now, ah, there, in that capitol building, in that rotunda, out on the lawn.  Whatever it takes.  I mean, really, this, really, this is war!  This is a class war that's been leveled against the working people of this country.  And at some point, people are gonna have to stand up and say--not violently--this is enough, we're not taking it anymore.  And I think these actions that happened today in Wisconsin and in Michigan, where the governor and, and,well, the Senate in Michigan--the House has already passed it, a portion of this bill--they're, they're gonna get together now, hopefully, that's their plan.  The governor will sign it.  And, ah, they are stripping the democratic rights of the people of the state of Michigan.  They're, they literally, at point, the governor can dissolve a town--the elected officials of a town.  A month ago, if you or I on this show had said--You know, we think--Rachel and I think--that the government should have the ability to remove the elected mayor and city council of any town it feels like and put in one guy in charge of the town, what do you think would've, would've been written or said about us?  The fact that think that they can get away with this.  I mean you said it all in the last segment there.  That what happened three years ago in 2008.  Um, look what happened is they realized that they could get away with murder.  They realized that they could literally loot the Treasury.  They could play with people's pension funds on Wall Street   They could destroy the economy.  They could essentially do what they could to eliminate the middle class, and there would be no response from the people.  There would be no revolt.  People would just take it, and people took it.  People have been taking this now for thirty years, even since Reagan fired the air-traffic controllers.  And we should have stopped them then.  We should have, shouldn't have crossed those picket lines.  People shouldn't have flow those planes.  And once they saw that they could get away with that thirty years ago, bit by bit by bit right up until 2008, and that was that big enchilada for them.  And they got away with it.  People didn't do anything about it.  None of them went to jail.  None of them are in jail for this theft.  And, and so it comes now 2011.  Hey, why don't we just vote to take away people's democratic rights.  We could just eliminate the mayor of a town.  We could just, we could just dissolve, ah, a scool district.  We, ah, in Wisconsin, we could just take away the right of working people to sit down and talk across the table about the things that are of concern to them.  They think that they can get away with this.  They  honestly think that they can get away with this. And I don't think they will get away with it.  And I think that, tomorrow, people in Michigan are in that Lansing rotunda, packing that place.  On, ah, on Friday afternoon, the students--I just read this on the Internet--the students in Madison, Wisconsin, are calling for for--not only in Wisconsin--but a nationwide student walkout of high schoolers--last hour of school, two o'clock in the afternoon, wherever two o'clock is your, in your time zone, you walk out of that school and call the local media and blog about it and take pictures and get everybody organized.  There's gonna be a massive student walkout Friday afternoon.  Tomorrow, in Indiana, twenty-thousand people, you mentioned there.  Hopefully more at the state capitol.  This, this has to continue day after day after day.  And these governors have, are gonna have to step down.  They're gonna be recalled.  They're gonna be impeached.  They've broken the law.  There's no way they can get away with this...."  Michael Moore passed along a lot of lies and misinformation here, such as "this is a class that's been leveled against the working people in this country," especially since it has been Barack Obama who has been attacking what Barack Obama would call the "working class" (a term used by communists on a regular basis to promote class warfare and is in contrast to "the rich"), and, in essence, Michael Moore, through this statement, was inciting war or violence in the minds of students, as was done in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s when Adolph Hitler organized students into what can be called armies and even pitted young people against their parents.  Remember: Barack Obama has broken the law--big time--and evidence of that is in a number of my documents that exist on the Internet, such as A Little History of Barack Obama Events: A Show of Deconstruction, which can be reached by using this History link, and National Health Care and Mass Failure: The Reasons it is a Dead Issue, which can be reached by using this Health link.
    Note: For more information, you should see the document entitled Travel #58, which can be reached by using this link: Travel #58, and you should see the document entitled Film and Television Production Tax Credits: The Bad Side of the Issue, which can be reached by using this link: Tax Credits.

    Natalie Morales (a regular on Today):
    Today is a television show shown on NBC-TV on weekday mornings, and it is a highly liberal presentation when it gets to an topic that has any touch of politics, especially when Matt Lauer is the reporter or interviewer at the moment.  During the summer of 2010, Elena Kagan was a Solicitor General for the United States of America during the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission court case in the U.S. Supreme Court, and, at one point, Elena Kagan showed that she supports the banning of some books by the federal government, and then on Tuesday, June 29, 2010, Elena Kagan was being interviewed by U.S. Senators during the confirmation hearings focusing on whether or not she should become a U.S. Supreme Court Justice (Barack Obama had nominated her to become a U.S. Supreme Court Justice in May 2010), and during the interviewing process, Elena Kagan showed that she supports the idea of the federal government's having the ability to tell a person what to eat and what not to eat and, in turn, what to buy and not buy, which has not been allowed to happen since the country was founded (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 does have a provision that requires every person to buy health-care insurance, and if the act is not repealed in the near future, the provision will take affect and set a precedent, leading to most likely other laws that will have the government making laws that will tell a person what can and cannot be bought, which will also lead to the idea that the government will be able to tell people what they can and cannot be sold).  On Wednesday, June 30, 2010, Natalie Morales did the short newscast on Today at about 9:00 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time, and the only thing good that Natalie Morales could say about Elena Kagan's testimony on the previous day was that she was "praised for her sense of humor."  Sense of humor is very low on the list of qualities that a person who is a U.S. Supreme Court Justice should have; it is more important that a Justice would not be a person who supports banning books and who supports having the government tell people what they can and cannot buy, which, for a good man and smart man, violates The U.S,. Constitution.  Natalie Morales tried to make a really bad woman--Elena Kagan--look good.

    Terry Moran (a television news-show anchor and reporter):
    Nightline is a weeknight television show on the ABC-TV network; the show has been shown on ABC-TV since the 1970s.  On Tuesday, February 10, 2009, Terry Moran, one of the main hosts of the series, was shown in an interview segment with Barack Obama, and, around this date in history, the U.S. Congress was debating the creation of a "stimulus" bill, which, at the time, many persons, one of whom was me, knew was garbage, and, around this date, the federal government--under the guidance of Barack Obama (who was the president)--was setting the maximum income of some bank executives (at banks that had receive federal loans somewhat recently).  On this date, Terry Moran asked Barack Obama a truly garbage question, and Barack Obama gave an answer--Terry Moran's question showed how defective and useless Terry Moran is as a reporter for the individual, his having dangerous thoughts:
    Terry Moran: "...Why shouldn't you just fire the executives who wrecked these banks in the first place and tanked the world's financial system in the process?"
    It is not the job of any U.S. President, such as Barack Obama, to fire executives or employees of a company or a business--and it is something that should not begin to happen and become commonplace.  In this instance, the subject was the economic crash of 2008, and, in truth, the underlying cause of the event was troubles with Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and bad mortgage loans, which had become the underlying collateral of investments sold and insured in the marketplace.  More on this subject can be seen in the document entitled THOUGHTS AND PIECES OF LOGIC for the individual woman and the individual man, which can be reached at this link: Logic.  By the way, it is a very bad idea to have a federal government hiring and firing employees of any company, and, in fact, it is a dangerous idea.
    Terry Moran's suggesting the president should fire employees at companies is a sign of dangerous thinking on Terry Moran's part.

    Bill Moyers (a man who hosts programs on PBS, such as Bill Moyers Journal):
    For decades, Bill Moyers has been tied to programs on PBS, and he clearly a man who will distort the news and the ideas of right-wing politicians and will even allow lies to be presented on his programs (as I have discovered over years while tuning in to Bill Moyers Journal from time to time)..
    Let me report one big, big incident that shows why Bill Moyers is a man to be avoided, since he had cannot be trusted (there are many examples that could be presented).  On July 21, 2010, the U.S. Supreme issued a ruling about free speech, and the people in the media--the main media, such as those employed at MSNBC and NBC--who were attacking the U.S. Supreme Court for having made the decision were proclaiming that the process of democracy was now hurt, since corporations were able to spend more money on political advertising and the individual would lose out, having less of a voice in the political process now (even though, of course, people still have their votes or the vote and corporations do not vote).  Really, the U.S. Supreme case came down to the freedom of the person to speak out in such forms as DVDs and books and not be banned for speaking out in such forms as DVDs and books (as can be seen in my document entitled Fairness?: A Guide for the Individual Woman and the Individual Man in the United States of America, which can be reached by using the link at the end of this document).  I make it clear here--For one, if the U.S. Supreme Court had not ruled as it had, the Barack Obama administration would have had the ability to censor some of books, such as those with any mention of a political candidate sixty days before an election or thirty days before a primary.  With that in place, the federal government would have had the ability to blocks some books from being published or distributed, and that is the way of such people as communists, like Barack Obama, and other statists.  On July 1, 2010, Bill Moyers covered the U.S. Supreme Court decision, and, in fact, the first two guests were both left-wing people, and Bill Moyers challenged neither one on their lies.  One guest was Monica Youn (Brennan Ctr., NYU Law School), who said this at the open of the interview segment: "Well, corporations clearly won this decision.  I mean, essentially, what the court does is it awards monopoly power over the First Amendment to corporations.  Ah, you can think about this, ah, last couple of elections as, you know, the slow rise of the grassroots, and, as a result, the political parties for the first time have an incentive to start reaching out to small donors, to start cultivating grassroots organizing networks, and you saw what happened in the last election.  Now, what the Supreme Court has done here is really a power play.  It takes power away from the grassroots and puts it squarely back in the hands of corporate special interests.  It threatens to make these grassroots networks irrelevant--to say, you know, it's no longer going to be worthwhile for, you know, parties to look for fundraising opportunities--twenty dollars, a hundred dollars, even twenty-four hundred dollars at a time, if, if they can just have multi-million-dollar support directly from corporate treasuries."  Notice how Monica Youn did not take into consideration that some corporation can be called right-wing and some corporation can be left-wing.  Not all corporations are right-wing, as she seemed to push, and her presentation showed that she believes corporations are bad.  The other guest for this interview segment was a woman named Cephyr Teachout (Fordham Law School), and this woman, who has ties to Harvard University (which is a highly left-wing educational institution, to which Barack Obama has ties, too), said at the open of the interview: "This about power!  That's why people are responding, that's why people from the left and right are responding.  This decision means that, when you walk past a sign that says 'Goldman Sachs' or 'Ford,' what that represents has the same rights that you do, to speak, ah, to speak about politics and spend as much money as you want on a political campaign.  They are basically equal and treated as equal, even though you are the citizen.  That's why there's a really deep grassroots response.  There's a sense that power--political  power--is being taken away from the citizen, which is really a core idea of this country."  I make is clear for those not aware--The people have the vote in the United States of America, and corporations--from gas stations and auto-parts stores to newspapers and cable networks--do not have the power to vote.  Before the decision would be made by the U.S. Supreme Court on January 21, 2010, media companies were exempt from the rule that was dealt with in the case (which had come from the McCain-Feingold Act)--not being allowed to talk about candidates and their issues thirty days before a primary and sixty days before an election--so media companies, most of which are left-wing entities, were able to push left-wing politics all the time.  Because Bill Moyers seems to promote the banning of books and such by the federal government, Bill Moyers has shown himself to be a dangerous man and an evil man, and no more evidence needs to be presented about him.

    Rosie O'Donnell (actress/comedian/radio talk-show host):
    When the topic was the oil-rig disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, Rosie O'Donnell showed what a horrible woman she is and that she supports at least communism when she made this statement on her radio show on June 7, 2010: "...I say, 'Seize their assets, right now.'  Seize their assets today!  Take over the country.  I don't care.  Issue an Executive Order.  Say, 'BP--guess what?--call it "socialism," call it "communism," call it anything you want.'  Let's watch Rush Limbaugh explode on TV when he talks.  Seize the assets.  Take over BP...."  In the statement, Rosie O'Donnell did say "Take over the country."  Rosie O'Donnell may have wanted to say, 'Take over the company.'  However, Rosie O'Donnell may have let a subconscious thought escape, in which she would wish Barack Obama would take over the United States of America or all the businesses in the country and make the country a socialistic country of some type, such as a pure communistic country.  But, then again, BP is a company based in another country--England--and, maybe, Rosie O'Donnell wants Barack Obama to take over that other country.  (While Rosie O'Donnell was speaking, Janette Barber was making some comments, such as "Yeah" and "Right," but I leave Janette Barber's words unreported.)

    Keith Olbermann (who hosts Countdown on MSNBC):
    See: "Janeane Garofalo."

    Robert Redford (an actor):
    Since the 1970s, Robert Redford has been a well-known actor, and since the 1970s, Robert Redford has shown that he is no thinker and is an out-of-control environmentalist.  It was on Monday, June 21, 2010, when Robert Redford did an interview CNN with Anderson Cooper that focused on energy and energy policy, and in this section, I present three parts of Robert Redford's statements.  Here is one part: "...Look, I think of the reasons we're in this problem is because they have not only a failed energy policy but we have an energy policy, because of the way it was designed by who it was designed by--Cheney--ah, is sick and is dangerous, and any energy policy that's designed behind closed doors with oil, gas, and coal companies is bound to end up in a disaster of some sorts.  So I think we need a new energy policy.  I don't think it's next week or next year or any--it's now.  If we miss this opportunity, we're missing an incredible opportunity, and history will probably tell us that.  So, get rid of this energy policy.  It's a disaster...."  Here is another part of what Robert Redford said: "Well, I support the moratorium because I think there are so many disasters that have occurred in the past when we've been lied to about the fact that they would not happen.  They have happened!  Why have they happened?  Because of the collusion between government, Congress, and the big oil companies.  So, I think--we're not going to get rid of oil--I mean, we should accept that, I accept it.  I worked in an oil field as a kid.  But I think what we're asking for now is a new energy policy.  And I think that.  I'm totally sympathetic to the people in the Gulf, who have lost their jobs, their way of life, environmental des, devastation, so forth.  I understand the voices that want to not have a moratorium because they think it's going to help jobs.  But I think the first thing that should happen is that we gotta figure out--first of all, make sure BP pays every dime that owed to these people.  My heart goes out to the people in, on the Gulf.  And they need to be paid.  Right?  Obama has to push them to do it.  Second, we gotta figure out how it happened.  Why did this happen when we told over and over again it would happen."  And here is the third part: "It has.  Um, look, all that stuff has come out, and it's painfully obvious what's happened--the corruption that came with MMS as a result of Dick Cheney and how he engineered this whole thing.  Um, you gotta get rid of Cheney and every, all the horses he came in with.  You got to get rid of his energy policy.  It's bad for your health.  It's bad for our economy.  It's bad for our future.  And I think the administration has to set up, get tough, get quick, and be very clear about what, what they're prescribing.  I think they got to be very clear about why there should be some moratorium--like should Shell be allowed to drill up in the Alaskan refuge?  No!  Not yet!  We gotta get some facts in order first."  These statements were related to the oil-rig disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, and all of it is nonsense thought, and the statements that shows Robert Redford is an idiot.  First, Robert Redford is blaming the oil-rig explosion (of April 20, 2010) on Dick Cheney (a former Vice President of the United States of America), and that is nonsense.  By the way, Dick Cheney has nothing to do with energy policy today--he has not been associated with the federal government since January 2009.  Second, energy policy of the nation has come about through the workings of millions of persons since the 1700s, their doing things and their choosing to use oil or gas or whatever (at one time, such as in the 1800s, whale oil was important to Americans, such as to light rooms, and then oil from the ground became available).  Third, no one man set the energy policy of the country, and, certainly, energy policy was not designed behind closed doors.

    Rob Reiner (an actor and movie director/produce):
    From the 1970-1971 television season through the 1977-1978 television season, Rob Reiner played a regular character on All in the Family, which was broadcast by CBS-TV, and while Rob Reiner performed on that sitcom, he played "Mike" or what the character was often called by Archie Bunker (played by Carroll O'Connor")--"Meathead."  Since the 1970s, Rob Reiner--the person--has been a "Meathead," and one piece of proof is his appearance on Real Time with Bill Maher on Friday, October 22, 2010.  Let me show a comment that Rob "Meathead" Reiner made on that HBO-distributed program.  Here is the comment (and Bill Maher's statements that were said, in essence, over Rob Reiner's have been left out): "...You never get into a political discussion unless you bring the word 'Hitler' in.  Hitler, you have to have Hitler, so let's, let's put Hitler out there.  Here's Hitler!  He wasn't a majority guy.  But he was charismatic, and they were having bad economic times just like we are now.  People were out of work.  They needed jobs.  And a guy came along and rallied, and rallied the troops.  We' fear is that the 'tea party' gets a charismatic leader, because all they sellin' is fear and anger, and that's all Hitler so, sold.  I'm angry and I'm frightened and you should hate that guy over there!  And that's what they're doing...."  [By the way, the "I'm angry and I'm frightened and you should hate that guy over there!" was Rob Reiner's putting words in the mouths of "tea-party" people, or the "I'm"s did not refer to him.]  Yes, Rob "Meathead" Reiner tied the people who support The U.S. Constitution to a big-time killer--Adolph Hitler (of Germany, circa World War II).
    See: "Joy Behar."

    Susan Roesgen (a reporter for CNN):
    It was on Wednesday, April 15, 2009, that individuals--citizens of all races--took part in "tea parties" (the famous "Tea Party" for the country, which was a revolt related to taxes took place in 1773), and these tea parties were peaceful protests about the amount of taxes, the great amount of spending by the U.S. government (which was controlled by the Democratic Party), and the policies of Barack Obama, which people were finding were radical and socialistic and Marxist.  On this date, a tea party was held in Chicago, and this reporter was at the event.  What she did was interrupt a person that she had decided to interview (live), and she talked the interviewee down and directed the subject of the interview, and she did more.  Consider the exchange between the interviewee (a man named Norm) and Susan Roesgen, who was unaware about what were the reasons for the tea parties or who was trying to cover up what the real reasons were:
    Susan Roesgen: "...Ah, let's see 'Drop the Taxes....'"  (She was reading signs held up by people taking part in the event.)  "Okay, let's see, you're here with your two-year-old, and you're already dad.  Why are you here today, sir?"
    Norm: "I hear a president say [he is referring to Barack Obama] he believed in what Lincoln stood for.  Lincoln's primary thing was he believed that people had the right to liberty and had the right...."
    Susan Roesgen: (She interrupted him.)  "...Sir, what does that have to do with taxes?  What does this have to do with your taxes?"  (Norm was yet talking, but she was interrupting him and drowning him out.)  "Do you realize that you're eligible for a four-hundred dollar credit?..."
    Norm: "...finish my point.  Lincoln, Lincoln believed that people had the right to share in the fruits of their own labor and that government should not take it., and we have clearly gotten to that point."
    Susan Roesgen: "Wait!...Wait!...Do you know that the state of Lincoln gets fifty-billion dollars out of the 'stimulus'?  That's fifty-billions dollars for this state, sir!"  (She had an angry tone in her voice.)
    Norm: "Ma'am, ma'am, ma'am, ma'am, I, I, I...."
    Susan Roesgen: "...We'll more over here.  I think you get the general tenor of this, ah, it's anti-government, anti-CNN...highly promoted by the right-wing conservative network, Fox.  And since I can't really hear much more and I think, ah, it's not really family viewing...back to you...."
    That covers the important facts.  A few words of Norm and a few words of Susan Roesgen could not be understood.  In addition, there was a crowd around them.
    Notice how she attacked Fox and did other things that a reporter should not do, and, by the way, Norm was with his child, yet Susan Roesgen said that "it's not really family viewing."

    Brian Ross (a television news reporter):
    On Thursday, April 30, 2009, Brian Ross worked for ABC-TV (and, of course, Web sites affiliated with ABC-TV), and on this day, Brian Ross, Matthew Cole, and Joseph Rhee--in what is a terrible act of journalism, if not a dispicable act of journalism--released the names of two men working for the George W. Bush administration who were involved in matters related to "waterboarding," and, for instance, the reporters released photographs of the men and the names of the men over the Internet.

    Bob Schieffer (the host of Face the Nation):
    For decades, Bob Schieffer has been an employee of CBS-TV, and around April 2011, he was the host of Face the Nation, which is a weekly program that has existed since the 1950s.  On April 29, 2011, Bob Schieffer made comments about Donald Trump on The CBS Evening News with Katie Couric, and one thing that he said is: "...I wanna go on to what do, what, dah, ah, ah, Donald Trump said after he said this is out and everything.  He said, "We need to look at this grades and see if he, he was a good enough student to get into Harvard Law School."  That's just code for saying he got into law school because he's black!  Ah, this is an, an ugly strain of racism that's running through this whole thing...."  To say that asking for a man's papers related to birth or school grades is tied to racism is nonsense, especially when the man is running for the office of the U.S. presidency or is a man who is the U.S. President who has blocked efforts to have the papers in the public eye.  Bob Schieffer is a race baiter!  (Notice: Bob Schieffer also spoke in a sloppy manner.  By the way, Barack Obama is a communist and socialist, and Barack Obama is a perfect type of person for Harvard Law School to accept as a student, no matter what the grades of the person have been, since it is a breeding ground for communists, socialists, Marxists, et cetera.)

    Ed Schultz (host of The Ed Show):
    Marxists, communists, leftists, et cetera who are a part of the media are quite willing use "racism" in their attacks on people who stand up for The United States Constitution or the ways of the "conservative."  On Tuesday, May 17, 2011, Ed Schultz was hosting his program called The Ed Show on MSNBC, and he was focusing an oral attack on Newt Gingrich (a Republican) and Newt Gingrich's recent statement about Barack Obama being a "food-stamp President," which was tied to the fact that at no time in the past have so many people in America been on food stamps (the figure is about forty-seven-million persons) and another Newt Gingrich statement, and at one point during the talk, Ed Schultz said: "...What a slap in the face.  Last August, John Richardson of Esquire reported Newt told a group of businessmen--'The more angry we get, the worse it is for Obama.  I don't care how many three-point-jump shots he makes'."  I suppose that's not a racial slur either or a insinuation in any way shape or form, Newt?  The Newster has a habit of, you know, walking up to the waters edge of racism without really saying it, but everybody knows what he's thinking...."  Yes, Ed Schultz worked hard to make it seem that Newt Gingrich is racist against "blacks"--especially the first black U.S. President, though the first black U.S. President is a hard-line leftist and enslavist, a type of person who follows ideologies that enslave persons of all colors and races.
    See: "David Gregory."

    George Stephanopoulos (the host of This Week with George Stephanopoulos of ABC-TV):
    This entry was made on Sunday, April 26, 2009.  There comes a time when a person becomes smart enough to understand when another person is lying.  Since March 24, 2009, a book entitled Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto (which was written by Mark R. Levin and is about how government is becoming oppressive on the individual citizen in the country) has been the number-one book on the best-selling charts for books and has sold around one-million copies, and on April 14, 2009, the govenor of Texas, Rick Perry, made a public statement about the federal government being too oppressive ("...I believe the federal government has become oppressive with the affairs of our state.  I believe it's become oppressive in its size, its intrusion in the lives of its citizens, and its interferrence with the affairs of our state.  I am here today to offer my unwavering support to the millions of Texans just like yourself that are tired of Washington, D.C., trying  to come down here and tell us how to run Texas..."), and I have come across people (such as a line worker and workers at grocery stories) who are angry with what is happening to the country because of Barack Obama.  On this day, George Stephanopoulos opened his This Week with George Stephanopoulos on ABC-TV with a political poll about Barack Obama that professed that 69 percent of the public approves of Barack Obama, and the first main segment then had George Stephanopoulos doing an interview with the president of Iran, who is a terrorist and promotes radical terrorism.  I do not believe the pole--something does not add up.  In addition, I think George Stephanopoulos used the pole not as a news story but as a propagana piece, trying to hype Barack Obama and the greatness of Barack Obama..
    By the way, remember: George Stephanopoulos was a press secretary for U.S. President Bill Clinton (a Democrat) in, roughly, the 1990s.

    Jon Stewart (a comedian who hosts The Daily Show):
    It was during the week of Monday, April 27, 2009, that Jon Stewart said that U.S. President Harry Truman was a "war criminal" for dropping the atomic bomb on Japan during World War II, and then on Thursday, April 30, 2009, Jon Stewart recinded his words, and, in essence, Jon Stewart is still a nitwit.

    Evan Thomas (an editor at Newsweek magazine):
    On Friday, June 5, 2009, Evan Thomas made comments while on MSNBC, and here is one comment: "...We were the good guys in 1984.  I felt that way, hadn't felt that way in recent years.  So Obama has really a different task.  Ah, we, we've [been] seen too often as the bad guys, and he, he's a very different job from, from--Reagan was all about America, and he [Reagan] talked about it.  Obama is we are above that now--we're not just parochial, we're not just chauvinistic, we're not just provincial.  We stand for something.  I mean, in a way, Obama is standing above the country, above the world.  He's sort of God!  He's, he's gonna bring all different sides together...."  [Notice the crap that this man spouts, such as the "sort of God!" part.  This man is to be avoided.]

    Helen Thomas (a well-known reporter covering the White House beat):
    This woman has been a reporter covering the White House for decades; for example, for much of the time between the 1950s and 1990s, she was a regular reporter in the White House for United Press International.  On Monday, May 31, 2010, a boat filled with people associated with Turkey tried to run through the Israeli blockade of the Gaza strip, and there was a fight on the ship, and nine persons were killed; the blockade had existed since 2007, and, really, the part of the blockade being charged was really part of an overall blockade being conducted by Israel and Egypt.  On Friday, June 4, 2010, an audio clip became available on the Internet that had comments recently made by Helen Thomas (I was able to hear the audio for the first time on The Sean Hannity Show, a nationally syndicated radio show, on that day, and I was able to record it, and, on the same day, a caller to The Sean Hannity Show noted that, in essence, the audio clip was his and the interviewer heard in the clip was a friend of his, a rabbi, and the caller noted that, for one, the audio was given to the BigJournalism Web site).  Here is the audio clip in text form:
    Interviewer: "Any comments on Israel?  We're asking everybody today.  Any comments...?"
    Helen Thomas: "Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine!"
    Interviewer: "Ooh....comment...."
    Helen Thomas: "Remember, these people are occupied, and it's their land.  Not German.  It's not Poland."
    Interviewer: "So, where should they go?  What should they do"
    Helen Thomas: "They'd go home."
    Interviewer: "Where's the home?"
    Helen Thomas: "Poland!...."
    The interviewer said something, but Helen Thomas kept talking.
    Helen Thomas: "...Germany!"
    Interviewer: "They should just go back to Poland and Germany?"
    Helen Thomas: "And, and America and everywhere else...."
    Yes, Helen Thomas promotes the idea of getting the Israelis out of the Middle East, which means, ultimately, Helen Thomas must promote the idea getting rid of Israel, which seems to be on the mind of Barack Obama, but Helen Thomas, who is Lebanese, will not be able to ask Barack Obama a question about Israel and the Middle East as a reporter anymore, since her job was ended on Monday, June 7, 2010.

    Others who have clearly supported Barack Obama have been Donna Brazile (who regularly appears as a liberal "pundit" on This Week with George Stephanopoulos); Contessa Brewer (of MSNBC); Tom Brokaw (of, at least, NBC-TV), who has supported some type of censorship of radio; Gwen Ifill (the host of Washington Week on PBS); Roland Martin (who has done work for CNN); Cokie Roberts (who has acted as a "pundit" for This Week on ABC-TV); Eugene Roberts (who has appeared regularly on MSNBC, which is a highly liberal television network); Charlie Rose (of Charlie Rose of PBS); Tavis Smiley (of Tavis Smiley of PBS); Juan Williams (who has regularly done work for National Public Radio, a liberal radio network); and Brian Williams (of NBC-TV).

    And the people who are listed are people who you can thank for the troubles that have befallen you and the United States of America--they kept quiet or they lied to you, and you should avoid them as sources of information, especially political news.

    Now let me cover topics that you should be in your mind:

    Two reporters (M.L. Elrick and Jim Schaefer) of the Detroit Free Press received a Pulitzer Prize on Monday, April 20, 2009 (Gallagher, John.  "FREE PRESS WINS ITS 9TH PULITZER: Reporting led to downfall of Detroit mayor."  Detroit Free Press, 21 April 2009, p. 1A.), and on Tuesday, April 21, 2009, I was able to catch and record a portion of a statement that was made by one of the reporters and was presented in a newscast on WJR-AM, and here is what I was able to record: "...We are grateful that, on a national level, our efforts are being recognized, because it's really important that, as jounalists, we get out there and do what we're supposed to do, which is keep people honest, watch our leaders, watch our elected officials.  If we're not going to do it, who is?"  That statement made me think how the Detroit Free Press presented nothing in newspaper articles in 2008 and 2009 to show readers what Barack Obama was and is, and that shows how useless the Detroit Free Press really is, and now the country has a bad president, as can be seen through such documents of mine as Nonsense Statements and Quotations of Barack Obama and Political Lessons for the Individual Woman and the Individual Man in the United States of  America.

    On Wednesday, April 29, 2009, Barack Obama went on the air in another press conference, and it was shown on, for example, ABC-TV, CBS-TV, and NBC-TV, and it was not shown on Fox TV, which choose to run an episode of Lie to Me as counter-programming material (of course, Barack Obama's news conferences and other public appearances of talk are lie-filled events or events in which the theme is "lie to me").  On this day, the press people, some of whom represented The Asociated Press and CBS-TV, asked useless questions and very easy questions, yet Barack Obama delivered drawn-out and "ah"-filled statements to the answers, and the question-and-answer session was boring.  People who watched or listened to the question-and-answer session discovered there was no question about the deep debt that Barack Obama is putting the country in and there was no question about the just-announced 6.1-percent decline in the Gross Domestic Product for the first quarter of the year, which is bad, and there were other troubling issues that the press did not bring up.  The press failed on this nght, and the press showed how it works to make Barack Obama look good.

    On Tuesday, July 20, 2010, I learned that a Web site entitled The Daily Caller (the main address to which is had information that showed how many in the main media avoided doing stories about Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the racist preacher, around 2008 when Barack Obama was running for the office of the U.S. President (Barack Obama was a member of the man's church for about twenty years, and you are urged to see my document entitled THE CRUD AROUND BARACK OBAMA: My Rule--"Like Minds Get Together", which can be reached by using this link: Crud).  To learn more about the subject focusing on the media's work to avoid talking about Reverend Jeremiah Wright, you should see the document entitled "Documents show media plotting to kill stories about Reverend Jeremiah Wright" (Strong, Jonathan.  "Documents show media plotting to kill stories about Reverend Jeremiah Wright."  The Daily Caller, 20 July 2010, 1:15 a.m. (updated 21 July 2010, 1:56 a.m.).).  Besides this story, I have found other stories about the journalism industry at The Daily Caller, and you are very likely to find other stories about the journalism industry when you go to the Web site for The Daily Caller.

    [Note: This document will be updated from time to time.]


"Christine Amanpour.", 9 October 2010.

"David Brooks.", 1 January 2010.

Brooks, David.  "The Tea Party Teens."  The New York Times, 4 January 2010, (on page A21 of The New York Times (for New York edition) for January 5, 2010).  (http://www.nytimes....)


Notes and more:

Note: On the Internet, this document is
Note: The first version of this document was posted on February 19, 2009.

Note: I urge you to read the document entitled Madness in a President and Other Matters of a Defective Mind, because it presents part of an interview between Frank Beckman (of WJR-AM, who was the interviewer) and Tom Lauria (an attorney with White and Case), who said the Barack Obama was going to use the White House press corps to ruin the reputation of some clients of Tom Lauria's, and that shows how scummy Barack Obama is, and it shows how the press corps is dangerous and in league with Barack Obama.

For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled Fairness?: A Guide
     for the Individual Woman and the
    Individual Man in the United States
    of America, which can be reached by
    using this link: Fairness.
For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled Political Lessons for
    the Individual Woman and the
    Individual Man in the United States
    of  America, which can be reached
    through this link: Lessons.
For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled Nonsense Statements
    and Quotations of Barack Obama,
    which can be reached through this
    link: Quotes.
For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled THOUGHTS AND
    PIECES OF LOGIC for the individual
    woman and the individual man, which
    can be reached through this link: Logic.
For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled Patriots of the U.S.A.
    and the Counter Counter Revolution,
    whic can be reached by using this link:
For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled "CAP AND TRADE"
    and Carbon Dioxide Facts and Nonsense,
    which can be reached by using this link:
For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled Lessons for Children
    about Politics and Dangerous People,
    which can be reached by using this link:
For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled National Health Care
    and Mass Failure: The Reasons it is a
    Dead Issue, which can be reached by
    using this link: Health.
For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled THE CRUD AROUND
    BARACK OBAMA: My Rule--"Like
    Minds Get Together", which can be
    reached by using this link: Crud.
For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled Enemies of the United
    States of America: Politicians Who Have
    Hurt You and Your Family by Voting
    "Yes" on Bad Federal Bills, which can be
    reached by using this link: Enemies.

To get to the main Web page of The
    Hologlobe Press, use this link:
For further reading, you should see the
    document known as T.H.A.T. #55,
     which can be reached at this link:
    T.H.AT. #55.

Note: He is an important book to read and tell others to read:

        Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto by Mark R. Levin (who hosts the weekday syndicated radio show called The Mark Levin Show)

Note: Here are three books that an individual can see to learn more about Barack Obama:

        The Case Against Barack Obama: The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media's Favorite Candidate by David Fresco.

        The Obama Nation by Jerome R. Corsi

        Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy by John Fund

Note: I have a Web page available at the Web site for The Hologlobe Press, and it is devoted to promoting books that I recommend that you see, and the Web page can be reached by using this link: Reading.

Note: I give a thank-you to The Mark Levin Show, The Rush Limbaugh Show, and