<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xml:base="http://www.glennbeck.com/"	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Is the White House asking private companies to break the law?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/10/05/is-the-white-house-asking-private-companies-to-break-the-law/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/10/05/is-the-white-house-asking-private-companies-to-break-the-law/</link>
	<description>The Fusion of Entertainment and Enlightenment</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 18:24:00 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/10/05/is-the-white-house-asking-private-companies-to-break-the-law/#comment-173310</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Oct 2012 04:41:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=38787#comment-173310</guid>
		<description>Excellent points, all. You very correctly point out the different levels and reasoning behind the levels of liberalism. I think that there is a much higher level of ignorance at the national level than what people realize. I watched so many interviews with people at the Democratic National Convention who didn&#039;t have the slightest fragment of a clue about any of the issues and they are DELEGATES forming the planks of the Demcrat party platform. I did the same thing with the Republican National Convention and I couldn&#039;t find a single interview that was comparable. I am independent, but I couldn&#039;t help but notice the difference. It is vast, and, frankly, scary. The general consensus among Democrats seems to be that they blindly support anything that Obama wants and especially those things that result in theft from one group to give to another.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Excellent points, all. You very correctly point out the different levels and reasoning behind the levels of liberalism. I think that there is a much higher level of ignorance at the national level than what people realize. I watched so many interviews with people at the Democratic National Convention who didn&#8217;t have the slightest fragment of a clue about any of the issues and they are DELEGATES forming the planks of the Demcrat party platform. I did the same thing with the Republican National Convention and I couldn&#8217;t find a single interview that was comparable. I am independent, but I couldn&#8217;t help but notice the difference. It is vast, and, frankly, scary. The general consensus among Democrats seems to be that they blindly support anything that Obama wants and especially those things that result in theft from one group to give to another.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/10/05/is-the-white-house-asking-private-companies-to-break-the-law/#comment-173214</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Oct 2012 23:42:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=38787#comment-173214</guid>
		<description>Excellent points, all. You very correctly point out the different levels and reasoning behind the levels of liberalism. I think that there is a much higher level of ignorance at the national level than what people realize. I watched so many interviews with people at the Democratic National Convention who didn&#039;t have the slightest fragment of a clue about any of the issues and they are DELEGATES forming the planks of the Demcrat party platform. I did the same thing with the Republican National Convention and I couldn&#039;t find a single interview that was comparable. I am independent, but I couldn&#039;t help but notice the difference. It is vast, and, frankly, scary. The general consensus among Democrats seems to be that they blindly support anything that Obama wants and especially those things that result in theft from one group to give to another.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Excellent points, all. You very correctly point out the different levels and reasoning behind the levels of liberalism. I think that there is a much higher level of ignorance at the national level than what people realize. I watched so many interviews with people at the Democratic National Convention who didn&#8217;t have the slightest fragment of a clue about any of the issues and they are DELEGATES forming the planks of the Demcrat party platform. I did the same thing with the Republican National Convention and I couldn&#8217;t find a single interview that was comparable. I am independent, but I couldn&#8217;t help but notice the difference. It is vast, and, frankly, scary. The general consensus among Democrats seems to be that they blindly support anything that Obama wants and especially those things that result in theft from one group to give to another.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MarsBarsTru7</title>
		<link>http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/10/05/is-the-white-house-asking-private-companies-to-break-the-law/#comment-173109</link>
		<dc:creator>MarsBarsTru7</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Oct 2012 05:34:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=38787#comment-173109</guid>
		<description>Aaaah, but you fail to see what the people at the top consider success. 

You say that &quot;they&quot; support the ideology regardless of the results. You&#039;re not incorrect, when &quot;they&quot; refers to the useful idiots making up the masses of liberal votes. They&#039;re sold this mind-numbing concept of equality that taken to its logical conclusion would have the whole of humanity behaving like a gigantic ant colony. They&#039;re the bottom tier of what makes up &quot;the left&quot;. 

The next step up are the political organizers that are the fanatics, that are educated (indoctrinated) and understand the theories behind their ideologies conceptually and truly believe they&#039;ll work. They believe it with a religious fervor, ironically enough, all the while typically deriding religion for contradicting what they see as inevitable.

Then there are the political movers and shakers, the Secular Progressives (the SPs), who believe in the greatness of mankind, with a vague notion of but strict adherence to secular humanism as the goal. They want to create a utopia and they&#039;re willing to do or say anything to make it happen, firmly believing that collectivism is THE answer. They&#039;ll tell the fanatics organizers and the zombie useful idiot masses anything that is effective in getting them to follow policy and to keep them from breaking free from the illusion of control. But, even at this level, these people still answer to a higher power.

Tell me, do Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, George Soros, Bloomberg, the Rockefellers... Do any of these people suffer one whit from tanking everything for everyone else? Do you know what they all have in common besides copious amounts of wealth? All of them, every single one of them, is on record supporting population control, either through the funding of &quot;charities&quot; that just happen to fund sterilization research, disease vaccination research that continually uses third world populations as unwitting guinea pigs, sexual &quot;education&quot; that vilifies reproduction, and free birth control. The insidious nature of the influence of elite wealth, especially the &quot;old money&quot; wealth in the world, to get the rest of the world to do its bidding is staggering. 

If you really want to go down the rabbit hole, look at the nature of these people, look at their lineage, look at their charities, and then see the picture for what it is.

Tip of the iceberg: Gates - The family has been wealthy for generations and has been strong supporters of eugenics for generations. Buffett - His previous wife (deceased) was well known to be a eugenics proponent and Buffett originally started his &quot;charity&quot; work at the behest of his wife. Buffett has personally spent billions over the course of his lifetime on population control agendas through his &quot;charity&quot; work. In the late &#039;90s there were a few occasions when it was reported in magazines such a Forbes, that Buffett had made comments advocating investment in population control that both startled and made other investor and various associates uncomfortable. So much so that Buffett had to drop his charity work for a few years as &quot;proof&quot; that he misspoke and to regain their confidence. Gore - Al Gore&#039;s father was a segregationist and advocated massive nuclear bombing campaigns against the N. Korean/Chinese armies the U.S. faced in the Korean War. He was also friends/associates with Armand Hammer who was a socialist with Soviet ties. Al Gore Jr. is the most outspoken proponent of widespread &quot;carbon controls&quot; in America. He is the face for the carbon-rationing movement. Al Sr. and Al Jr. have both made statements about the importance of &quot;population management&quot;. Both saw government as the vehicle to achieving these ends. Rockefeller - &quot;The negative impact of population growth on all of our planetary ecosystems is becoming appallingly evident.&quot; Just one statement among many.

The blatant truth staring us all in the face that no one seems to want to talk about is that the majority of the wealthy elite are convinced that the world is overpopulated and they&#039;re determined to put things into motion to both reduce and maintain a low human population on Earth. Their contributions to politics reflect this. 

So, does it seem that typical liberals fail and adhere to their ideologies despite the facts of failure staring them in the face? Yes. But they&#039;re not the ones running things. The ones running things could care less about failures that lead to the deaths or hardship of the masses. And I&#039;ve listened to enough speeches by Gates, Buffett, and Soros in my lifetime, between college and personal research to know that they do think of us as &quot;the masses&quot;. They are not interested in &quot;humanism&quot; in any way we&#039;d recognized. They&#039;re interested in human management, including population control.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Aaaah, but you fail to see what the people at the top consider success. </p>
<p>You say that &#8220;they&#8221; support the ideology regardless of the results. You&#8217;re not incorrect, when &#8220;they&#8221; refers to the useful idiots making up the masses of liberal votes. They&#8217;re sold this mind-numbing concept of equality that taken to its logical conclusion would have the whole of humanity behaving like a gigantic ant colony. They&#8217;re the bottom tier of what makes up &#8220;the left&#8221;. </p>
<p>The next step up are the political organizers that are the fanatics, that are educated (indoctrinated) and understand the theories behind their ideologies conceptually and truly believe they&#8217;ll work. They believe it with a religious fervor, ironically enough, all the while typically deriding religion for contradicting what they see as inevitable.</p>
<p>Then there are the political movers and shakers, the Secular Progressives (the SPs), who believe in the greatness of mankind, with a vague notion of but strict adherence to secular humanism as the goal. They want to create a utopia and they&#8217;re willing to do or say anything to make it happen, firmly believing that collectivism is THE answer. They&#8217;ll tell the fanatics organizers and the zombie useful idiot masses anything that is effective in getting them to follow policy and to keep them from breaking free from the illusion of control. But, even at this level, these people still answer to a higher power.</p>
<p>Tell me, do Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, George Soros, Bloomberg, the Rockefellers&#8230; Do any of these people suffer one whit from tanking everything for everyone else? Do you know what they all have in common besides copious amounts of wealth? All of them, every single one of them, is on record supporting population control, either through the funding of &#8220;charities&#8221; that just happen to fund sterilization research, disease vaccination research that continually uses third world populations as unwitting guinea pigs, sexual &#8220;education&#8221; that vilifies reproduction, and free birth control. The insidious nature of the influence of elite wealth, especially the &#8220;old money&#8221; wealth in the world, to get the rest of the world to do its bidding is staggering. </p>
<p>If you really want to go down the rabbit hole, look at the nature of these people, look at their lineage, look at their charities, and then see the picture for what it is.</p>
<p>Tip of the iceberg: Gates &#8211; The family has been wealthy for generations and has been strong supporters of eugenics for generations. Buffett &#8211; His previous wife (deceased) was well known to be a eugenics proponent and Buffett originally started his &#8220;charity&#8221; work at the behest of his wife. Buffett has personally spent billions over the course of his lifetime on population control agendas through his &#8220;charity&#8221; work. In the late &#8217;90s there were a few occasions when it was reported in magazines such a Forbes, that Buffett had made comments advocating investment in population control that both startled and made other investor and various associates uncomfortable. So much so that Buffett had to drop his charity work for a few years as &#8220;proof&#8221; that he misspoke and to regain their confidence. Gore &#8211; Al Gore&#8217;s father was a segregationist and advocated massive nuclear bombing campaigns against the N. Korean/Chinese armies the U.S. faced in the Korean War. He was also friends/associates with Armand Hammer who was a socialist with Soviet ties. Al Gore Jr. is the most outspoken proponent of widespread &#8220;carbon controls&#8221; in America. He is the face for the carbon-rationing movement. Al Sr. and Al Jr. have both made statements about the importance of &#8220;population management&#8221;. Both saw government as the vehicle to achieving these ends. Rockefeller &#8211; &#8220;The negative impact of population growth on all of our planetary ecosystems is becoming appallingly evident.&#8221; Just one statement among many.</p>
<p>The blatant truth staring us all in the face that no one seems to want to talk about is that the majority of the wealthy elite are convinced that the world is overpopulated and they&#8217;re determined to put things into motion to both reduce and maintain a low human population on Earth. Their contributions to politics reflect this. </p>
<p>So, does it seem that typical liberals fail and adhere to their ideologies despite the facts of failure staring them in the face? Yes. But they&#8217;re not the ones running things. The ones running things could care less about failures that lead to the deaths or hardship of the masses. And I&#8217;ve listened to enough speeches by Gates, Buffett, and Soros in my lifetime, between college and personal research to know that they do think of us as &#8220;the masses&#8221;. They are not interested in &#8220;humanism&#8221; in any way we&#8217;d recognized. They&#8217;re interested in human management, including population control.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/10/05/is-the-white-house-asking-private-companies-to-break-the-law/#comment-173030</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2012 22:51:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=38787#comment-173030</guid>
		<description>It really is ridiculous, isn&#039;t it. Sometimes, it is such a headache being conservative. It requires thought, study and factual understanding. All you need to be a liberal is a big mouth and a vacuous head and you can say anything, attack anyone, take, take, take and there is literally no chance that you will be called hypocritical, because when the end justifies the means, there IS NO hypocrisy. It simply is not possible because they&#039;re on the right side spouting the right ideology. Isn&#039;t it hilarious, though, to see someone like Al Gore criticize anyone for hypocrisy? This is a guy who spouts his know-nothing pseudoscience that&#039;s chock FULL of lies, exaggerations, and science performed more by vote than by fact. Where was that when I was getting a PhD in molecular biology?! Yet, nobody on the left criticizes Al Gore for living in a home that is nearly 30,000 square feet, he has a large private jet, he has made billions off his carbon offset company and uses it to launder his income. Yet, he feels perfectly natural lecturing the world to &quot;use less&quot; and conserve energy, and if that&#039;s not feasible, then pay a carbon offset company for carbon credits...so what that he owns a company whose only product is....nothing. He is making vast sums of money for nothing. But he is an expert on energy and conservation...or at least on how NOT to conserve. But because he is a liberal, not a soul on the left calls him a hypocrite. That is why I have nothing but scorn for liberals. They are mindless automatons who value ideology over factual results from the real world application of that ideology. Literally, even if a program (like education spending) has the exact opposite effect, they never abandon it and try something else. They actually look perplexed when you show the facts to them because they don&#039;t care. It&#039;s not the results that matter, only that you are on the correct side. Moron is what they call them where I come from!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It really is ridiculous, isn&#8217;t it. Sometimes, it is such a headache being conservative. It requires thought, study and factual understanding. All you need to be a liberal is a big mouth and a vacuous head and you can say anything, attack anyone, take, take, take and there is literally no chance that you will be called hypocritical, because when the end justifies the means, there IS NO hypocrisy. It simply is not possible because they&#8217;re on the right side spouting the right ideology. Isn&#8217;t it hilarious, though, to see someone like Al Gore criticize anyone for hypocrisy? This is a guy who spouts his know-nothing pseudoscience that&#8217;s chock FULL of lies, exaggerations, and science performed more by vote than by fact. Where was that when I was getting a PhD in molecular biology?! Yet, nobody on the left criticizes Al Gore for living in a home that is nearly 30,000 square feet, he has a large private jet, he has made billions off his carbon offset company and uses it to launder his income. Yet, he feels perfectly natural lecturing the world to &#8220;use less&#8221; and conserve energy, and if that&#8217;s not feasible, then pay a carbon offset company for carbon credits&#8230;so what that he owns a company whose only product is&#8230;.nothing. He is making vast sums of money for nothing. But he is an expert on energy and conservation&#8230;or at least on how NOT to conserve. But because he is a liberal, not a soul on the left calls him a hypocrite. That is why I have nothing but scorn for liberals. They are mindless automatons who value ideology over factual results from the real world application of that ideology. Literally, even if a program (like education spending) has the exact opposite effect, they never abandon it and try something else. They actually look perplexed when you show the facts to them because they don&#8217;t care. It&#8217;s not the results that matter, only that you are on the correct side. Moron is what they call them where I come from!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MarsBarsTru7</title>
		<link>http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/10/05/is-the-white-house-asking-private-companies-to-break-the-law/#comment-172966</link>
		<dc:creator>MarsBarsTru7</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2012 15:50:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=38787#comment-172966</guid>
		<description>The corruption in the Democratic Party is so thorough, so pervasive, that it essentially functions as a politically-based crime syndicate. 

Do you remember back in 2008, before the crash, how they were showing tent cities popping up around the country, and then right after the crash they increased like crazy. It&#039;s funny how all that disappeared from the national news right after Obama took office. Well, local news channels have shown them from time to time. They&#039;re still out there. And now you have OWS on top of it. 

But all this is ignoring the biggest and most obvious crimes. The AIG bailout - more than 80% of House Democrats were invested in AIG and Nancy Pelosi&#039;s husband worked for them and had nearly 60% of their wealth invested in AIG. Nancy Pelosi securing the lion&#039;s share of waivers for businesses in her voting district to allow them to avoid having to adhere to Obamacare. Barney Frank&#039;s handling of Fannie and Freddie. Rangel&#039;s numbers fudging. The investment in Brazil&#039;s state-controlled oil company that George Soros made a huge chunk of money off of. Dodd&#039;s involvement in the real estate crisis, including procuring favoritism for political and business friends. One-word example: Solyndra. Al Gore, Obama, and multiple Democrats (handful of Repubs) making tons of money off the subsidized &quot;energy industry&quot;. The government takeover of GM and Chrysler (to a lesser degree). GM getting regular tax and regulatory breaks, and continued subsidies in their business above and beyond the bailout. GE getting bailout money and a virtual 0% tax rate after using NBC to openly campaign for Obama. Obama taking such direct control over GM that he directly manipulated who is in charge of the company. Three word example: Fast and Furious...

I&#039;m really am just thinking of these things off the top of my head. I could keep going and going and going. I&#039;m getting depressed just thinking about it though. Time to look for the positives in the day. Like: Hey, did you know that the CDC says that the extra high gas prices are good for reducing the likelihood of the spread of a dangerous outbreak and that it has reduced the number of teen deaths related to drinking and driving? And they really mean it. It has nothing to do with increased pay, budgets, and appointments by Obama. There&#039;s no bias there. That&#039;s real science for you. So, taking that into consideration there&#039;s only one thing left to say - Yay high gas prices! ($4.59/g just down the street)
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The corruption in the Democratic Party is so thorough, so pervasive, that it essentially functions as a politically-based crime syndicate. </p>
<p>Do you remember back in 2008, before the crash, how they were showing tent cities popping up around the country, and then right after the crash they increased like crazy. It&#8217;s funny how all that disappeared from the national news right after Obama took office. Well, local news channels have shown them from time to time. They&#8217;re still out there. And now you have OWS on top of it. </p>
<p>But all this is ignoring the biggest and most obvious crimes. The AIG bailout &#8211; more than 80% of House Democrats were invested in AIG and Nancy Pelosi&#8217;s husband worked for them and had nearly 60% of their wealth invested in AIG. Nancy Pelosi securing the lion&#8217;s share of waivers for businesses in her voting district to allow them to avoid having to adhere to Obamacare. Barney Frank&#8217;s handling of Fannie and Freddie. Rangel&#8217;s numbers fudging. The investment in Brazil&#8217;s state-controlled oil company that George Soros made a huge chunk of money off of. Dodd&#8217;s involvement in the real estate crisis, including procuring favoritism for political and business friends. One-word example: Solyndra. Al Gore, Obama, and multiple Democrats (handful of Repubs) making tons of money off the subsidized &#8220;energy industry&#8221;. The government takeover of GM and Chrysler (to a lesser degree). GM getting regular tax and regulatory breaks, and continued subsidies in their business above and beyond the bailout. GE getting bailout money and a virtual 0% tax rate after using NBC to openly campaign for Obama. Obama taking such direct control over GM that he directly manipulated who is in charge of the company. Three word example: Fast and Furious&#8230;</p>
<p>I&#8217;m really am just thinking of these things off the top of my head. I could keep going and going and going. I&#8217;m getting depressed just thinking about it though. Time to look for the positives in the day. Like: Hey, did you know that the CDC says that the extra high gas prices are good for reducing the likelihood of the spread of a dangerous outbreak and that it has reduced the number of teen deaths related to drinking and driving? And they really mean it. It has nothing to do with increased pay, budgets, and appointments by Obama. There&#8217;s no bias there. That&#8217;s real science for you. So, taking that into consideration there&#8217;s only one thing left to say &#8211; Yay high gas prices! ($4.59/g just down the street)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SoThere</title>
		<link>http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/10/05/is-the-white-house-asking-private-companies-to-break-the-law/#comment-172803</link>
		<dc:creator>SoThere</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Oct 2012 18:06:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=38787#comment-172803</guid>
		<description>This idiot&#039;s not going anywhere.  He&#039;s sick.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This idiot&#8217;s not going anywhere.  He&#8217;s sick.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/10/05/is-the-white-house-asking-private-companies-to-break-the-law/#comment-172776</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Oct 2012 15:49:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=38787#comment-172776</guid>
		<description>Sounds like we need to just ignore this guy. He gives off a strong vibe of a schizophrenic off meds. I was very interested that he has threatened Glenn.  Hopefully, that is something that Glenn will take very seriously. After you enlightened us on who he really is, it becomes clear that the best thing any of us can do is to not reply to him so the attention goes away. He&#039;ll end up going elsewhere because he&#039;s not in this because he sincerely feels this way, he&#039;s here because of a sociopathic need for attention...even negative attention. It&#039;s almost Freudian/Jungian psychosexual pathology, most likely resulting poor potty training.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sounds like we need to just ignore this guy. He gives off a strong vibe of a schizophrenic off meds. I was very interested that he has threatened Glenn.  Hopefully, that is something that Glenn will take very seriously. After you enlightened us on who he really is, it becomes clear that the best thing any of us can do is to not reply to him so the attention goes away. He&#8217;ll end up going elsewhere because he&#8217;s not in this because he sincerely feels this way, he&#8217;s here because of a sociopathic need for attention&#8230;even negative attention. It&#8217;s almost Freudian/Jungian psychosexual pathology, most likely resulting poor potty training.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SoThere</title>
		<link>http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/10/05/is-the-white-house-asking-private-companies-to-break-the-law/#comment-172647</link>
		<dc:creator>SoThere</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Oct 2012 01:32:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=38787#comment-172647</guid>
		<description>I know quite a bit about him. Yes, I&#039;m right on the mark.

He made a big mistake the day he threatened me and started smearing my wife and children. I had my people check the idiot out.  He thinks he&#039;s anonymous here but  not to me.  I visit his area a couple times a year in my travels.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I know quite a bit about him. Yes, I&#8217;m right on the mark.</p>
<p>He made a big mistake the day he threatened me and started smearing my wife and children. I had my people check the idiot out.  He thinks he&#8217;s anonymous here but  not to me.  I visit his area a couple times a year in my travels.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/10/05/is-the-white-house-asking-private-companies-to-break-the-law/#comment-172642</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Oct 2012 01:24:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=38787#comment-172642</guid>
		<description>Good call.  I&#039;m still laughing!  You seem to know a lot about him that hits the mark!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good call.  I&#8217;m still laughing!  You seem to know a lot about him that hits the mark!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/10/05/is-the-white-house-asking-private-companies-to-break-the-law/#comment-172388</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Oct 2012 15:44:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=38787#comment-172388</guid>
		<description>A couple of years ago, I was laid off from work. This lady I know told me about a job fair where i could apply for local jobs that were funded by the stimulus package. They were local jobs, thirty in all for our county. These were temporary jobs only lasting for three months. In essense, the government paid a worker to work at no cost to the employee for three months. I guess they would get a chance to work and maybe get further employment. Anyway the local businesses like the hardware store had a free employee for three months. Then the job was gone. I had a thought what if Obama had this same coordinated program all over the country right before the election? What affect would that have on the unemployment numbers? What would be real numbers, but they would not be actual real jobs, just temporary.  I am wondering when part time or temporary jobs can be shown.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A couple of years ago, I was laid off from work. This lady I know told me about a job fair where i could apply for local jobs that were funded by the stimulus package. They were local jobs, thirty in all for our county. These were temporary jobs only lasting for three months. In essense, the government paid a worker to work at no cost to the employee for three months. I guess they would get a chance to work and maybe get further employment. Anyway the local businesses like the hardware store had a free employee for three months. Then the job was gone. I had a thought what if Obama had this same coordinated program all over the country right before the election? What affect would that have on the unemployment numbers? What would be real numbers, but they would not be actual real jobs, just temporary.  I am wondering when part time or temporary jobs can be shown.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
