Goodbye Sesame Street

With Republicans back in charge of the House of Representatives, funding for NPR and PBS is in grave danger. Again.

The Republicans just released their budget proposal, and it zeroes out funding for both NPR and PBS--the worst proposal in more than a decade.

We need to tell Republicans that cutting off funding was unacceptable last time they were in charge, and it's unacceptable now.

(cut and paste) moveon.org petition

Sounds like a pretty good petition to me. Did you sign doodle?

not hardly. lol

Following is a CNN article about the GOP proposed budget release yesterday, in case anyone wants to take a look. The second link contains the budget PDF document. Enjoy!!

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/11/house-republicans-unveil-dramati...

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/02/11/program.cuts.pdf

I thought state run media was bad....isnt that what the news sez?

Having actually purchased Sesame Street products with my own money, I'm pretty sure they can survive in the free market without Uncle Sam's welfare.

Of course, if everyone that loves NPR and PBS donates their own money during their fund-raisers, they'll stay on the air anyway.

This is how our country manages to keep multiple Christian media outlets, Christians actually send their own money straight to those outlets without having Uncle Sam collect it, take his "cut," and pass on a little bit.

Of course, this will require our left to start paying for the media they prefer the way the right does. I guess we'll see if Public Radio and Television can draw the private dollars that Air America couldn't...

So, there it is, Mike. You love public media? Then donate to it!!!

If it worked as simple as you want people to believe MrsSmith you might have a point. Naturally, it doesn't. Christian media doesn't stay on the air solely based on donations. It wouldn't last or even be on the air anymore if it did do this.

Christian broadcasting has a lobbying group, NPR that is constantly lobbying the federal government for airtime. There are groups that write grants (that would be receiving money from the federal government) to help fun Christian broadcasting. They also sell air time to sponsors as a way to raise money. Then, of course, some of them sell their companies to larger organizations. For instance, CBN founder Pat Robertson sold the majority of the Family Channel to ABC years ago. The channel used to primarily show religious shows, now the only truly religious show you see on that channel is the 700 Club.

Again, though, thanks for pushing the myth that people on the left don't donate, it isn't a tired myth at all.

I think MrsSmith has a valid point you are trying to evade. Will not public television have exactly the same opportunity to do all of the things you say are what keeps Christian television afloat? Will there be laws that prohibit them from doing this? Or is it just that Christian television has a more engaged and aggressive viewer/programmer? Is it this drive that public television can't compete with?

If it isn't a myth that the left doesn't donate, why then do left themed stations fail without government support?

I have a serious question for anybody. I realize I could dig through and find this out, but I figured someone might already know the answer. Under what department does the NPR grants/budgeting fall under?

The difference, at this point, between public television and christian television is that to this point public television hasn't had to depend on donations to keep them afloat.

There is no law keeping public television from doing this, but there are federal laws that do keep Christian television on. In the decade of the 2000s there was a successful effort to classify Christian television as education in order to keep them on the air.

Your last question doesn't really have any basis in fact. There has only been one national left themed station and it was solely a radio network. I suppose had Air America gone through the same ventures as the Christian networks, advertising, donations, federal grants, and getting federal laws protecting it from being prevented from being aired it would have also been successful.

Wish I could live like the captian. Pay cash for a car, pay cash for a house, never have to take out a loan or go into debt, no credit cards, that would be nice.

Personally, I think that since religious organizations seem to enjoy getting themselves involved in politics so much. I think that there tax free status should be pulled. They operate like any other business and should pay taxes as such.

@Geezer Thanks for the links! There seems to be quite a bit here I agree with. The increase in funding for science is always welcome.

NPR and PBS were created by the leftists to further their political agendas. They are controlled and run by our government which wants to grow and grow and grow.

If Sesame Street is worthwhile to enough people, it will make it on cable TV. If the content is not valuable to sufficient numbers, then it will fail. I don't want my tax dollars going for it. If I want it, I can donate to it, but why should I be forced to support programming I disagree with?

Mike, I think you fear Americans having too much freedom. You are afraid of us being able to decide what we want to do with our own money, instead of having the government confiscate it and give it to things we disagree with. We might not support your favorite stuff, and then, you would have to support it with your own money.

Mike, our country has multiple Christian groups that broadcast on radio, and the vast majority are listener supported. This works because, while the left may occasionally donate, the right donates a higher percentage of their income on a regular basis.

I'm sure Air America could have been broadcast anywhere. The reason they weren't is because the few people that wanted to listen weren't about to help keep them on the air with their own money.

Last time I looked, Rush didn't need any government help to stay on the air...he just needed the government to back off and leave his freedom of speech intact.

Maybe NPR and CBS could get Rush on for an hour a day...that should bring in a lot of funding!!

And with that Boomer62, you nailed what a leftist is. One who hates other people having freedom.

So, nobody knows? bah, I hate doing my own research.

Sir Didymus: I ask NPR what government department the NPR grants/budgeting fall under, but so far I haven't got an answer.

Following is a link which explains the differences between the CPB, PBS, and NPR.

http://www.cpb.org/aboutpb/faq/cpbpbsnpr.html

The federal CPB budget is shown under the Education Department - related Agencies. Page 16 of the following PDF document.

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/02/11/program.cuts.pdf

I love how Mrs. Smith talks a lot.. ( way to much to be exact ) and says thimgs that may or may not be true but never has any proven facts to back her statements... Just says what she feels and thinks she is always right..

I'm Out..

And a special treat for Ocho..

Just Say'in!

Mrs Smith, I laughed out loud when you suggested NPR put Rush on for an hour a day! Not because it wouldn't work to solve their financial crisis, but because it reveals the elephant in the room so well. That NPR is liberal-driven media, lol.

"NPR is liberal-driven media". Care to offer any proof of this Boomer? I suspect not since you consider everything you disagree with to be leftist.

Oh, here we go with the taken freedoms away meme. Could you point out in the Constitution where it states that no taxes can be issued? You claim that you have the freedom to do with your money what you want without having to pay taxes, but I don't seem to remember that freedom in the Constitution.

This can also be addressed to Chunky, but can you list the freedoms that supposed "leftists", or to be more clear liberals have taken away from you? Please use actual freedoms, please. I know that seems like a large request but I would be very interested in knowing.

"Mike, our country has multiple Christian groups that broadcast on radio, and the vast majority are listener supported."

Care to list the VAST majority MrsSmith? Is this a fact or just an opinion?

"This works because, while the left may occasionally donate, the right donates a higher percentage of their income on a regular basis."

Would you care to back up this claim? You could very well be right, but I would like to see some evidence of this claim.

"Last time I looked, Rush didn't need any government help to stay on the air...he just needed the government to back off and leave his freedom of speech intact."

Can you please inform us, MrsSmith of the last time, or anytime for that matter, that the government has violated Limbaugh's freedom of speech? You are absolutely right though, Limbaugh only needs a contract from Clear Channel Communications which makes a large percentage of its money from advertising, not donations.

Heres a graphic representation of the budget.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/newsgraphics/2011/0119-budget/index.html?hp

We need to cut from the big boxes here to make a difference, not the smaller ones.

Mike, can you find any Christian stations on the air that are supported by government funding? Come on, how many Christian stations need the government support that NPR has? OK, how about one Christian station that is NOT supported by donations? (here I'm going to cheat a little, because I actually know of one. can you find it?)

As for backing up my claims on donations, one excellent source is the book, "Who Really Cares," bu Arthur Brooks. But I believe I've pointed that book out to you before, obviously must be one of those factual things that don't fit your worldview, right?

Our government has not yet interfered extensively with Rush's freedom of speech, though the threat of the "Fairness" Doctrine and the removal of his show from American Forces Radio are still discussed. This in no way negates the point that Rush does not have government funding to keep his show on the air.

As for funding with advertising instead of tax money, NPR and PBS can certainly do that, also, though I still think their best bet for remaining viable is to branch out and let some of those "much feared" conservatives speak. It will greatly increase their audience and their income. :-)

@MrsSmith Jersey show has quite an audience. That doesn't necessarily mean that it is quality programming though, now does it?

drivel, drivel, drivel.

Typical liberal reasoning. Republicans want to defund something useful, so they are evil.

Trouble is...we simply can no longer afford to fund everything we feel is useful. We simply can't even pay our bills, we are even financing the inerest on this debt.

And so the brightest of all liberal cheerleaders picks the sappiest topic to depict repulicans as evil rich monsters. What a shock.

Shame on you Mike. Obama himself said he would tackle entitlements during his campaign. To date he has not even muttered the word. Now he has a republican House he can allow to take the fall for him and score political points for doing something we al know has to happen...one way or another.

You know it and I know it. Now Obama is positioning himself to capitalize politically...sometghing he has admonished others for doing, by sitting around on his golf cart while the big boys make all the tough decisions.

@Damu, Jersey Shore has nothing to do with Sesame Street, government funding, or ways to save Public Media. What's your point?

Michael, if our government subsidized Rush Limbaugh's radio program, I think you would be somewhat upset having money confiscated from you through taxes going to that programming. I think you would be right in that just as I am when they do it with NPR and PBS. And I would not be surprised or upset if you told me Rush has a conservative agenda! So why all the protest over my calling NPR liberal driven?

For proof that this is true, I offer the fact that you listen to it. I can only stand about 30 seconds of "All Things Considered"; I mean the way they stoop in condescending tones to tell me how it really is, and how I should react to the news grates on any real thinking person.

I wouldn't worry about it mike, Im sure that some other network would be thrilled to pick up Sesame Street, or any other NPR/PBS program that is fair and unbiased.

Sir Didymus: I finely got my answer from NPR today, this is what they emailed me after I asked this question.

"What government department does the NPR grants/budgeting fall under?"

Thank you for contacting NPR.

NPR (National Public Radio) is a private, self-supporting nonprofit media company with hundreds of independent radio stations as members, also known as "member stations."

NPR receives no direct federal funding for general support.

NPR supports its operations through a combination of membership dues and programming fees from stations, contributions from private foundations and corporations, and revenue from the sales of transcripts, books, CDs, and other merchandise. A very small percentage - between 1-2 percent of NPR's annual budget - comes from competitive grants sought by NPR from federally funded organizations, such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National Science Foundation and the National Endowment for the Arts.

The public radio system in the U.S. includes more than 760 local, independent stations of varying formats, whose licenses are owned either by colleges and universities, community foundations, or other organizations. The strength of public radio's vital community service lies in its unique collaboration between local public radio stations and national program producers, such as NPR. NPR member stations are autonomous entities and are not owned or operated by NPR, nor does NPR fund member stations. Instead, station revenues come from a variety of other sources. For instance, the appropriation from Congress accounts for only about 14 percent of the cost of operating local public radio stations, and the remaining 86 percent must be raised from a variety of sources, most importantly contributions from listeners.

For information on how you can support your local NPR member station, please visit www.npr.org/stations. Here, you will find contact information for public radio in your community.

Thank you for listening, and for your continued support of public broadcasting. For the latest news and information, visit NPR.org.

Sincerely,

NPR Services

202-513-3232

www.npr.org

@MrsSmith Just pointing out the fallacy with equating viewer ship to to actual content.

now I'm really confused! Michael states that if the Republicans get their way, Sesame Street, NPR, CPB ad nauseum will be terminated by funding cuts. Now Keda's response (I am old enough, I may be completely bamboozled) indicates that those entities receive little, to no DIRECT federal funding. Someone PLEASE educate me!!!

Thank you Keda! I really didn't see that one coming, believe it or not.

Sorry Mike, looks like your blog is not that noteworthy. Better luck next time!

Okay Boomer and CPB a quick question. Since both of you apparently believe that only "leftists" hate freedoms (or are scared of them) and want to take them away, has there ever been a time in our storied past where a Republican or Conservative (in Congress or the White House) has ever worked to take freedoms away from Americans?

IF they say no (which I very much doubt), then you will come back with your litany of abuses by conservatives. Michael, Michael, Michael BOTH SIDES ARE GUILTY!!! It all depends on what is expedient, given the circumstance, for EITHER side. I believe you are taking yourself WAY too seriously.

P.S. btw, I am very doubtful that you will ever change a conservative viewpoint and also just as doubtful that any conservative will ever change your liberal viewpoint. Lets just keep butting heads all the time. LOL

It's a simple question, I only have one answer in mind. FDR imprisoned Japanese-Americans and he is the liberal bastion. I am just asking for one example from the Republican or Conservative side.

I believe we lost a bunch of freedom with the Patriot Act; passed by a Democratic-controlled Congress and signed by a Republican president. Both parties love to take your freedom, Mike.

Every time the goverment passes a law, you lose some freedom or some money, usually both. (I am not counting silly resolutions passed for various causes and groups by Congress designating "Southern Fried Food Day" et al.)

Mr. Hendricks,

Are you saying only "leftists" infringe upon freedom? That is what your example seems to indicate, if you can only think of times that liberals have done so.

How about going way back to one of the original conservatives in John Adams and the Alien and Sedition Acts.

although he may not be considered a "modern" Republican, didnt Abraham Lincoln, at one time and mabye for only a short while, suspend Habeas Corpus? Maybe I'm remembering my history incorrectly. Enlighten me!

Bye, Bye, Big Bird.

Ciao, Count.

Sayonara, Snuffleupagus.

Thanks for the humorous topic, Mike. I couldn't help but get a good laugh from the Republicans vs. Sesame Street theme you're trying to convey. Just when I thought I'd seen it all. Lol

Boomer, it's weird I asked for one example and you give me the Patriot Act. Now while it is a great example of how both parties can affect our freedoms, your history is off. The Democrats did not control Congress. Both parties had 50 members in the Senate for an even split, Jim Jeffords (Republican) switched to become an Independent but vote with the Democrats, giving the Democrats a 50-49-1 advantage. The House was controlled by the Republicans 222-210 at the beginning of that particular Congress with two absent seats. So your example in which a Congress controlled by Democrats in this case is just flat out wrong.

doodle bug, that was the example I was actually looking for thank you.

Its...

I was giving an example from my political side of the spectrum to show that both sides are guilty of this. I'm sorry that you missed that point.

The recent votes extending the patriot act have been pretty interesting. Having a majority of the dems vote against it while many from the tea party and the majority of republicans have voted for the extension. I'm curious what your guys's thoughts are on this?

@Captain Are you being serious there?

Damu, doesn't captain's rants on the Democratic Party and supporting islamic terrorism sound a whole lot like that of a certain network circa 2004?

@Captain Any idea how many terrorists have been caught using the Patriot Act? Any idea how many innocent Americans have had their privacy trampled upon because of it?

Actually captain if you look at the figures the majority of the patriot acts usage has nothing to do with terrorism. Its all about drugs. The majority of the taps they get using the patriot act are not Terrorism related.

The patriot act doesn't make us any safer. Just like the recent TSA actions don't either. They just allow Uncle Sam to see what we average Americans are up to.

Yeah Captianobvious! Everybody knows that there are no drugs coming out of the middle east, and that drug cartels are fuzzy cuddly people and never stoop to "terrorist" tactics, just ask mexico. Plus alot of drugs come out of south and central america. The taliban dont be there! And we don't have any home grown terrorists! So there goes the meth trade. Nothing at all to do with homeland security.

@Captain Actually, I support individual freedom of choice. I find it quite interesting that the party that pushes individual responsibility so dramatically. Also supports the continued locking up of so many individual citizens based on crime that has no victim.

If you don't want to support terrorism, remove the artificial inflated market created by the drug war. You kill funding to many terrorist organizations, along with the Cartels in the south. This is a fairly obvious, yet overlooked answer.

obvious, do you have any real answers or just continued attempted scare tactics and attempting to bully people into statements they have not made?

I think Damu has posed a very good question to you, how many terrorists has the Patriot Act stopped? Can you answer that?

LOL I'm fairly confidant that nobody that reads this blog has any idea how many terrorists or terrorist acts the Patriot Act has stopped. I'm going to guess that is a ridiculous question. It is awfully hard to disprove or prove a negative. Cmon, does anyone really think about what they post anymore?

A special session to defund NPR? This is what the Republicans were swept into the House to do? Seriously? What about jobs? What about the deficit? Clearly defunding one organization is not going to fix the deficit problem.

This is almost as ludicrous as the special session to demand that a brain dead woman should be kept alive because a physician watched a 30 second tape of her and was able to diagnose her as not being brain dead.

"Clearly defunding one organization is not going to fix the deficit problem."

True, but it is a start, if the government was careful about how it spends money in all cases, there probably wouldn't be a problem. However, your question just leads to a logical response. If we don't defund any organizations and do as we have done in the past will that fix the deficit problem?

If we stopped all the wars and conflicts we are currently involved in wouldn't you agree that would largely fix the problem and then no cuts would be needed?

Well, it would help the budget problems tremendously, but I'm afraid I can't get on board with the "no cuts needed". I think that even without the massive costs of the wars, there should be an effort to reduce government spending. After all there are areas other than defense that spending could be reigned in as well.

Do you disagree with my premise that any cuts have to start somewhere?

Also you didn't answer my question at all.

SW,

I find it delightful that mike doesn't see that if we ended all wars and conflicts it would A) "fix the budget" and B) not be a cut.

I wonder if he thinks we would then just continue to back down from all conflict? He must also want to stop most humanitarian help to any 3rd world country. Because most of those could be considerd "conflicts" I am sure that backing away from terrorists would work like a charm. Just ask France.

But I guess that it would save NPR. Because according to mike it can't stand on its own merits.

Besides, I am suprised that mike would like to pull back militarily. Isn't that how he lost his teaching job?

Because most of those could be considerd "conflicts".

Is this a statement or an opinion?

"I am sure that backing away from terrorists would work like a charm."

Your pal, sinco, has been demanding we pull out of Afghanistan for months now. Funny how only when I say that we need to pull out of all wars and conflicts you suddenly decide that my solution would be the same as backing away from terrorists.

But I forget, for you, it's redundant to call people out from your side of the spectrum. You just wait until someone from the other side of the spectrum to make the exact same statement, THEN it's a problem for you.

SW, obviously I thought I had answered your question as to the cuts have to start somewhere and I answered that they should start at stopping the wars and conflicts.

As for your original question: "If we don't defund any organizations and do as we have done in the past will that fix the deficit problem?"

I never suggested not defunding any organization. I questioned calling a special session to defund one, and only one, particular organization. I believe a special session (if you really need to call one in the first place) should be reserved for actual important government issues, not NPR.

Mike,

What bad behavior am I condoning from sinco? You are comparing apples to oranges. And, yes it is an opinion. What about Coalition stuff? isnt that conflict? Should we abandon our allies?

Mike,

I'm sorry when you said: "Clearly defunding one organization is not going to fix the deficit problem." I foolishly thought that is what you were talking about and that your statement meant that you were arguing that defunding one organization (NPR in this case) wouldn't fix the deficit.

"I believe a special session (if you really need to call one in the first place) should be reserved for actual important government issues"

Do you not think fixing the deficit to be an actual important government issue?

Here is the communication disconnect with you Mike:

"SW, obviously I thought I had answered your question as to the cuts have to start somewhere and I answered that they should start at stopping the wars and conflicts."

You see, you obviously think you are answering questions. I see it now all of those times I thought you were running away from questions, the problem was just you weren't answering the questions that people ask. I think you either try to twist or spin the questions into something they weren't or perhaps have a comprehension problem. Either would explain why you never seem to answer the questions but instead answer questions that weren't asked. I thought you were doing it to try to avoid looking more foolish. If however, there is a comprehension problem, let me know and I will never again say anything about your intelligence, I would never condone belittling a person with a disability. Please let me know.

How in the world is it apples to oranges? He's been demanding for months that we get out of Afghanistan and you said nothing. I suggest the same thing and you have me advocating we run away from terrorists.

You just can't help yourself SW, taking peoples comments out of context and making it appear they have said something they haven't?

I never said that fixing the deficit wasn't important yet here you are posing as a question which is your favorite mode whether or not I believe it is.

What I said was that defunding one program is not important enough to call a special session, especially one that once it's funding is cut has no huge gains on fixing the deficit.

I do have to question though what your infatuation is with always questioning people's intelligence or whether they are handicapped just because they don't tow the line and believe exactly what you believe. Is it really that hard for you to have a simple debate without constantly questioning people about how smart they are? Does it make you feel better to make fun of people you see as being dumber than you are (whether or not it's true)?

I would have though you would have agreed that calling a special session and spending your money to do so to cut the spending on one program was extremely wasteful. Do you or do you not agree with that?

Bah, entire post lost.

"yet here you are posing as a question which is your favorite mode whether or not I believe it is."

If I don't ask questions how am I to know what you think? I feel you have a habit of deciding you know what I or others think and assign thought to us without verifying them. I try to avoid that, although I'm sure I mess up sometimes too. That's why it bothers me when you don't answer the questions I ask, because I am counting on those answers to form an opinion.

"What I said was that defunding one program is not important enough to call a special session, especially one that once it's funding is cut has no huge gains on fixing the deficit"

This is factually incorrect, it may have been what you thought but it is not what you said. See above about my questions of what you think vs. what you say.

"I would have though you would have agreed that calling a special session and spending your money to do so to cut the spending on one program was extremely wasteful. Do you or do you not agree with that?"

It depends on what the cost of the special session vs. the cost of the program to be cut. I don't know what the costs involved in this case are, do you? If it would cost more to have the special session than would be saved by cutting the program then I would agree. Unless there is no other way to cut the funding to the program.

"I feel you have a habit of deciding you know what I or others think and assign thought to us without verifying them. I try to avoid that, although I'm sure I mess up sometimes too. That's why it bothers me when you don't answer the questions I ask, because I am counting on those answers to form an opinion."

Wow that is some heavy spin there, especially the assigning what others think line. That's you to a tee and you are projecting it on me hoping no one will notice.

You already have formed your opinion which you have stated all over these blogs. For one you think my blog is a waste of space yet you continue posting on it. You consider me to intellectually inferior to yourself which you take every opportunity in just about every post to mention. You think I practice what I preach against which you typically call to attention by calling me names.

"What I said was that defunding one program is not important enough to call a special session, especially one that once it's funding is cut has no huge gains on fixing the deficit"

This is factually incorrect, it may have been what you thought but it is not what you said. See above about my questions of what you think vs. what you say."

Once again either you are not reading my posts or you are reading too much or too little into what I have posted. I did say that to begin with. I don't see the point of calling a special session to defund only one program.

So spending taxpayer money by calling a special session to defund only one program doesn't bother you. You finish by saying unless there is no other way to cut the funding. There is, it's called a regular session of Congress.

Mike,

Surely you see that there is a difference between "all wars and conflicts" and one specific case?

But, to be fair, (I can do that, unlike some people) I will address ochocinco.

Ochocinco,

I am afraid that if we pull out of Afganistan before we clean up the mess, (some of which we probably stirred up) We will have just left a breeding ground. I am welcoming honest debate on this subject Ocho. I understand and share your concern with the fate of our forces there, but I feel that the responsibility that we have taken on must be satisfactorily resolved. Ground troops manning the lines might not be the best idea, but we have entered into an implied agreement with the Afghan people. This is my opinion, not fact. I would hate to come across as claiming facts that are not supportable.

Sincerely,

Sir Didymus

Mike,

So when did you become an isolationalist and want to pull out of the U.N?

I am sure that you are going to make a statement about me being "nicer" to Ochocinco, but to be honest, he has not attacked me on the outset like you have.

Oh, and also his demands for withdrawing from Afghanistan make more sense than withdrawing from all conflict.

And he seems more rational than you. And stands by his opinion, rather than listing it as fact.

"Once again either you are not reading my posts or you are reading too much or too little into what I have posted. I did say that to begin with. I don't see the point of calling a special session to defund only one program."

Can you point out where you said that specifically, as I may have mentioned your initial post seemed to question if that was what Republicans were elected to do, not that you don't see the point of a special session.

"So spending taxpayer money by calling a special session to defund only one program doesn't bother you. You finish by saying unless there is no other way to cut the funding. There is, it's called a regular session of Congress."

Well then it would bother me then wouldn't it? Is this a comprehension issue for you?

"You already have formed your opinion which you have stated all over these blogs. For one you think my blog is a waste of space yet you continue posting on it. You consider me to intellectually inferior to yourself which you take every opportunity in just about every post to mention. You think I practice what I preach against which you typically call to attention by calling me names."

I don't think your blog is a waste of space, it is for wasting time.

Perhaps.

Yes.

Please explain how my asking questions is assigning thoughts. You've mentioned this often over time but never support it. If I don't ask questions how would I know what you think? I love answering questions, feel free to ask any you like.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Upm9LnuCBUM&feature=related

The Greatest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXEuEUQIP3Q

The Greatest saving Mr. Rogers and Sesame Street.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Fk8SOGBEow

His best song in my opinion.

So, goodbye (for now) Sesame Street. You will no longer be allowed to teach the American children. You are being outlawed in the United States.

Did your statement above prove to be correct or incorrect?

It proved to wrong but the other part you neglected to mentioned wasn't. The House apparently determined NOR to be so vitally important that they called a special session to defund it.

Tell me, what else have they done since their monumentous victory.

You stated it as a matter of fact. You blamed people for it and it never happened.

Why is that not a lie?

As far as the Republican victory goes business has responded. The political risk of working in the US has decreased. The fear of the massive tax increases is off the table for now and the punitive tax proposals that would have killed most business is a distant memory. Therefore, hiring is back. Equipment orders are rising and business expansions (after 2 years of bunker mentality) are creeping back.

So the fact that the economy was already improving before November is not important? Is this one of those times where you ignore the facts that don't help you in order to see what you believe to be fact?

"You stated it as a matter of fact." No, it was my opinion and I was wrong on half of what I said. It is not a lie because you are attempting to add value to what I said. I never made a statement of fact, it was my opinion.

But let's talk about your supposed "evidence" that is rolling in about Obama. You made the statement that the evidence was rolling in that he was not born in American yet you refuse (by your silence) to state what the evidence is. Nevermind the fact that officials in Hawaii have publicly stated that they have seen Obama's birth certificate, nevermind that Obama went through the official channels to have it released and under Hawaii law what was released was the proper and correct documentation.

Nothing is ever to going to convince you though that Obama was born in Hawaii is it? You will continue saying that the evidence is mounting that he wasn't but will never actually say what the evidence is. I guess you actually believe that this is one of the greatest cons ever mastered. It is a con that started nearly 50 years ago, because back when Obama was born they apparently knew he was going to run for and eventually win the presidency and they had to start the cover-up from the start.

So, where is the evidence?

Mike- I think Obama was born in Hawaii. I just want to know why he refuses to show his birth certificate. You have one. I have one. Therefore Barry must have one.

Yes and if you paid any attention or did your own research you would know that it is Hawaii law to not release the actual birth certificates and only release the the certificate of live birth. It's not up to Obama to release his birth certificate, after all even the President isn't above the law.

I don't believe you think Obama was born in Hawaii otherwise why would you make the slanderous statement of the evidence piling up that Obama was not born here? For someone who professes to hate fringe elements you seem to be sticking to this one quite hard.