Yesterday, the man who calls the Holocaust a lie spoke from this podium. To those who refused to come here and to those who left this room in protest, I commend you. You stood up for moral clarity and you brought honor to your countries.

But to those who gave this Holocaust-denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people, the Jewish people, and decent people everywhere: Have you no shame? Have you no decency?

A mere six decades after the Holocaust, you give legitimacy to a man who denies that the murder of six million Jews took place and pledges to wipe out the Jewish state.

What a disgrace! What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations!

Two of every three practicing physicians oppose the medical overhaul plan under consideration in Washington, and hundreds of thousands would think about shutting down their practices or retiring early if it were adopted, a new IBD/TIPP Poll has found.

The poll contradicts the claims of not only the White House, but also doctors’ own lobby — the powerful American Medical Association — both of which suggest the medical profession is behind the proposed overhaul.

It also calls into question whether an overhaul is even doable; 72% of the doctors polled disagree with the administration’s claim that the government can cover 47 million more people with better-quality care at lower cost.

Two-thirds, or 65%, of doctors say they oppose the proposed government expansion plan. This contradicts the administration’s claims that doctors are part of an “unprecedented coalition” supporting a medical overhaul.

Four of nine doctors, or 45%, said they “would consider leaving their practice or taking an early retirement” if Congress passes the plan the Democratic majority and White House have in mind.

Do I think that 45% of physicians would quit if Obamacare is implemented?  No, at least not right away.  But there would be a gradual loss not only of quantity but also quality of those delivering medical care in America.  Four years of college, four years of medical school, four years of resident training and perhaps one to three additional years of fellowship training is standard training for a medical degree.  Then there are the specialty board exams.  So we have at least 12 years of post-secondary schooling, perhaps $100,000 or more in tuition and educational debt for what?   Does anyone really think that the best and brightest minds are going to be attracted to medicine to receive mediocre pay and take orders from some cost cutting bean counter?  I don’t think so.  Such is not the nature of the human psyche.  We will see a migration of care to so called “mid-level” providers (Physician Assistants and Nurse Practitioners.)  And what about waiting times. 

Does anyone think that more patients, less pay and less control over a doctor’s practice is going to improve access to medical care?  It is the curse that has awaited every other government run healthcare in the world.

And Maureen Dowd, that charmer at the NY Times, also sees racial undertones to Joe Wilson’s outburst (”You Lie!”) at Barack Obama’s recent speech before a joint session of congress. She writes:

Surrounded by middle-aged white guys — a sepia snapshot of the days when such pols ran Washington like their own men’s club — Joe Wilson yelled “You lie!” at a president who didn’t.

But, fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!

Forget that Wilson didn’t say that.  If you are a liberal and you know that racists are lurking but you cannot find evidence for it in their words or actions, just make something up.  Liberals love to inject their own biases and prejudices into others who disagree with them.  For those like Dowd, blind to the failures of this “affirmative action” president, slander of an ideologic opponent is both understandable and required.  To admit Obama wrong on some major policy position would require one to rethink his qualifications to hold office.  Instead, it is intellectually easier and emotionally more comfortable to dismiss critics as “racists.”  She has some inkling that Obama is not up to the task.  But this notion is too painful for the far left to ponder.  So to insert unspoken words into others expressions takes care of the discomfort.  Classic liberal debate tactics include name calling and denigration of one’s opponents when one cannot defeat their claims intellectually.  That’s what Carter and Dowd have done. 

And perhaps more disturbing is the soft bigotry of the left toward blacks.  This continued idea that blacks need liberal white patronage to succeed.  It is the notion that blacks need to be protected from “bad, bigoted” whites (conservatives) by “good, post racial”  whites (liberals) like Dowd and Carter.

Funny how those liberals who seek to create a “post-racial” America under this “post-racial” president create the most racial tension with their rhetoric and actions.    

“Idolatry is committed, not merely by setting up false gods, but also by setting up false devils; by making men afraid of war or alcohol, or economic law, when they should be afraid of spiritual corruption and cowardice.” - ILN 9/11/09

Many of the neighborhoods in Rotterdam are captive to the darkest, most violent form of Islamism. Pim Fortuyn’s house stands out like a pearl in a sea of chador and niqab. It is at number 11 Burgerplein, behind the train station. Every now and then someone comes to put flowers in front of the home of the professor who was murdered in Amsterdam on May 6, 2002. Someone else leaves a card: “In Holland everything is tolerated, except for the truth.” A millionaire named Chris Tummesen bought Pim Fortuyn’s house so that it would remain intact. The evening before his murder Pim was nervous,  and had said on television that a climate of demonization had been created against him and his ideas. And his fears came true, when he was shot in the head five times by Volkert van der Graaf, a militant of the animal rights left, scrawny, head shaved, eyes dark, dressed like an environmental purist in a handmade shirt, sandals, and goat’s wool socks, a strict vegetarian, “a guy impatient to change the world,” his friends say.

Not long ago in downtown Rotterdam, funerary photos of Geert Wilders were placed under a tree, with a candle to commemorate his upcoming death. Today Wilders is the most popular politician in the city. He is the heir of Fortuyn, the homosexual, Catholic, ex-Markist professor who had formed his own party to save the country from Islamization. At his funeral, only the absence of Queen Beatrice kept the farewell to the “divine Pim” from becoming a funeral fit for a king. Before his death they made a monster of him (one Dutch minister called him an “untermensch,” an inferior man in Nazi parlance), afterward they idolized him. The prostitutes of Amsterdam left a wreath of flowers in his honor beneath the National Monument in Dam Square, a memorial to the victims of World War II.

Three months ago, “The Economist,” a weekly publication far from Wilders’ anti-Islamic ideas, spoke of Rotterdam as a “Eurabian nightmare.” For most of the Dutch who live there, Islamism is now a threat greater than the Delta Plan, the complicated system of dikes that prevents flooding from the sea, like the flood in 1953 that killed two thousand people. The picturesque town of Schiedam, part of the greater Rotterdam area, has always been a jewel in the Dutch imagination. Then the fairy tale glow faded, when in the newspapers three years ago it became the city of Farid A., the Islamist who made death threats against Wilders and Somali dissident Ayaan Hirsi Ali. For six years, Wilders has lived under 24-hour police protection.

Muslim lawyers in Rotterdam also want to change the rules of the courtroom, asking to be allowed to remain seated when the judge enters. They recognize Allah alone. The lawyer Mohammed Enait recently refused to stand when the magistrates enter the courtroom, saying that “Islam teaches that all men are equal.” The court of Rotterdam has recognized Enait’s right to remain seated: “There is no legal obligation requiring Muslim lawyers to stand in front of the court, insofar as this action is in contrast with the dictates of the Islamic faith.” Enait, the head of the legal office Jairam Advocaten, has explained that “he considers all men equal, and does not acknowledge any form of deference toward anyone.” All men, but not all women. Enait is well known for his refusal to shake hands with women, and has repeatedly said he would prefer them to wear the burqa. And there are many burqas on the streets of Rotterdam.

Secularism and tolerance are such wonderful liberal attributes, don’t you agree?

The Obama administration today unveiled program details of a $3.4 trillion federal budget for the fiscal year beginning in October, a proposal that includes substantial increases for a number of domestic priorities as well as a plan to trim or eliminate 121 programs for a savings of $17 billion.

In a statement delivered at the White House after the budget details were released, President Obama defended the cuts from critics on both sides — those he said would fight to preserve the targeted programs and others who consider the reductions insignificant.

"We can no longer afford to spend as if deficits don’t matter and waste is not our problem," he said. "We can no longer afford to leave the hard choices for the next budget, the next administration — or the next generation."

Spend 3.4 trillion.  Cut the budget by 17 billion.  Do the math. Less that 1/2 of 1%.  How is spending into trillions of dollars in debt consistent with the president’s words?  Maybe he thought that we wouldn’t notice that he was spending trillions?

And to add insult to the lie, guess where the budget "cuts" are being made?

About half of the trims would come from curbing defense programs that have been identified by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates as expendable. They include ending production of the F-22 fighter plane — thus saving $2.9 billion next year — and canceling a new $13 billion presidential helicopter fleet, which would save about $750 million in fiscal 2010.

In a letter to Congress accompanying the new budget documents, Obama said his proposals make "long-overdue investments and reforms" in education, health care and renewable sources of energy while "beginning to rein in unsustainable deficits and debt." He said the proposed program cuts "are just the next phase of a larger and longer effort needed to change how Washington does business and put our fiscal house in order."

Obama promised to "transform" America.  Those were dangerous words and we are now seeing the "hopeless change" so integral to Obama’s election.

And from the New York Times:

The Obama administration will call for increased oversight of executive pay at all banks, Wall Street firms and possibly other companies as part of a sweeping plan to overhaul financial regulation, government officials said.

The outlines of the plan are expected to be unveiled this week in preparation for President Obama’s first foreign summit meeting in early April.

Increasing oversight of executive pay has been under consideration for some time, but the decision was made in recent days as public fury over bonuses has spilled into the regulatory effort.

From the Financial Times (London):

Bankers on Wall Street and in Europe have struck back against moves by US lawmakers to slap punitive taxes on bonuses paid to high earners at bailed-out institutions.

Senior executives on both sides of the Atlantic on Friday warned of an exodus of talent from some of the biggest names in US finance, saying the “anti-American” measures smacked of “a McCarthy witch-hunt” that would send the country “back to the stone age”.

There were fears that the backlash triggered by AIG’s payment of $165m in bonuses to executives responsible for losses that forced a $170bn taxpayer-funded rescue would have devastating consequences for the largest banks.

“Finance is one of America’s great industries, and they’re destroying it,” said one banker at a firm that has accepted public money. “This happened out of haste and anger over AIG, but we’re not like AIG.”

I must say, however, that in some regards, Wall St. is paying for their "outrage" over Bush and Republicans with their support of Obama and the Democrats in the last election cycle.  According to opensecrets.com, Wall St. went for Obama in a big way.  Securities and Investment firms gave 57% of their PAC and individual campaign contributions to Democrats.

Wall Street types are supposed to be smart.  What were they thinking the radicals would do once in power?  Did they think that the demagoguery about "Big Business" was just talk? 

"We want and expect a full briefing," said Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, D-Conn. "And we also want answers regarding where the Fed has been on conditions for these types of bonuses since the rescue effort first began.

Just one problem with his supposed outrage.  He is responsible for the bonuses being paid.  It is his mistake and the Dems own this scandal.

While the Senate was constructing the $787 billion stimulus last month, Dodd added an executive-compensation restriction to the bill. The provision, now called “the Dodd Amendment” by the Obama Administration provides an “exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009” — which exempts the very AIG bonuses Dodd and others are now seeking to tax.

Dodd’s original amendment did not include that exemption, and the Connecticut Senator denied inserting the provision.

“I can’t point a finger at someone who was responsible for putting those dates in,” Dodd told FOX.  “I can tell you this much, when my language left the senate, it did not include it. When it came back, it did.” 

“Because of negotiations with the Treasury Department and the bill Conferees, several modifications were made,” Dodd Spokesperson Kate Szostak in a response to FOX Business. 

The provision excluding those bonus payments made it into the final version of the bill, and is law.

Separately, Sen. Dodd was AIG’s largest single recipient of campaign donations during the 2008 election cycle with $103,100, according to opensecrets.org.  Also, one of AIG Financial Products’ largest offices is based in Connecticut.

So let’s get this strait:  Dodd takes big campaign money from AIG, writes into the stimulus package an agreement that contractual bonuses could be paid, didn’t read or notice that something in the bill got changed (yea, right) and is now outraged that those bonuses were in fact paid.  He now seeks to recover the bonuses through unfair and punitive taxation of the bonuses. 

Think that he’ll return the campaign money as a gesture of good faith?  Don’t hold your breath.

Michelle Malkin has more.

WASHINGTON (AP) - From tiny embryonic cells to the large-scale physics of global warming, President Barrack Obama urged researchers on Monday to follow science and not ideology as he abolished contentious Bush-era restraints on stem-cell research. "Our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values," Obama declared as he signed documents changing U.S. science policy and removing what some researchers have said were shackles on their work.

"It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda - and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology," Obama said.

You can be sure that the only political agendas that will not be served by the "scientific data" will be conservative, religious or moral.  Besides, if Obama really means it, where would this leave AlGore?

What do you think?