If you receive this and you hate it and you don’t want to ever read it no matter what...that is fine; email me back and you will be deleted from my list (which is almost at the maximum anyway).

I attempt to post a new issue each Sunday by 2 or 3 pm central standard time (I sometimes fail at this attempt).

I try to include factual material only, along with my opinions (it should be clear which is which). I make an attempt to include as much of this week’s news as I possibly can. The first set of columns are intentionally designed for a quick read.

I do not accept any advertising nor do I charge for this publication. I write this principally to blow off steam in a nation where its people seemed have collectively lost their minds.

And if you are a believer in Jesus Christ, always remember: We do not struggle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places (Eph. 6:12).

Tuesday was an election. It was not a surprise that a Republican won the governorship of Virginia, which has traditionally been a red state which has lately leaned a little toward purple. However, Chris Christie won the governor’s seat in New Jersey, despite President Obama making several appearances for Democrat Jon Corzine were for naught. Christie’s margin was more than the polls had predicted. Corzine also outspent Christie 4 to 1.

A SNAFU occurred in New York district 23. A so-called Republican panel appointed a far left Republican to run against a more conservative Democrat. A nerdy sort of guy, Hoffman—a virtual unknown a month prior to the election—runs on the Conservative Party ticket. As the polls shift more and more toward Hoffman, the Republican candidate drops out and throws her support to the Democrat, who wins. Had the votes cast for her been Hoffman’s, he would have won the election. She dropped out so suddenly, that her name still appeared on the ballot. This was considered a great win for Nancy Pelosi (and it was a good win for her).

Joe Biden stumps for the Democrat candidate in New Jersey; 165 supporters show up.

About 10,000 opponents to Obama-care and Pelosi-care show up at the Capitol to hear speakers and then to speak to their representatives in Congress.

House leader Nancy Pelosi holds everyone over to debate and possibly to vote on the House healthcare bill. The bill is passed late Saturday night.

California keeps out an additional 10% from workers in California as an interest-free loan to pay for government over-spending. Is anyone asking if this is legal?

Radical Muslim army Major Nidal Malik Hasa kills 12 and wounds 31 of his fellow soldiers at Fort Hood.

Planned Parenthood director quits the abortion business. Planned Parenthood goes to court to seek a restraining order against her and the Coalition for Life, which has been holding prayer vigils outside Planned Parenthood clinics which could be responsible for 7 others leaving Planned Parenthood.

Washington Times claims that donors of $30,400 or more to the Obama campaign had access to the White House. Robert Gibbs denies this allegation, saying that the revealing of the names of those who have come to the White House is proof of the transparency of the Obama administration.

The President and Mrs. Bush privately meet with the families of the fallen soldiers at Fort Hood.

It is the 30 year anniversary of the tearing down of the Berlin wall. Angela Merkel invited President Obama to Germany to celebrate this momentous celebration; Obama declines the invitation.

Mike Murphy tweet on MSNBC’s election coverage this week: “MSNBC even more unwatchable than usual tonight. Mistake to ever let Olbermann host election night. The mega-crazy gets in the way.”

Bill Kristol, “If you liked the government’s handling of the swine flu vaccine, you will love Obama-care.”

Sarah Palin, “The people who gave us Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac now want to run our health care. Think about that.”

Dennis Miller re: Nancy Pelosi: “This gal could lose a game of tic tac toe to an amoeba.”

Yousef Al Khattab, NY city resident, on CNN “I would like to see Israel wiped off the map; I would like to see a huge mushroom cloud over it.” Guess his religion.

Before making a somber and appropriate speech, which honored the dead at Fort Hood, President Obama first gave a shout out to "Dr. Joe Medicine Crow -- that Congressional Medal of Honor winner." Really.

This past week, an excelent sci-fi television show, V, premiered. I am not a big fan of sci-fi; however, I will admit to enjoying this one. In any case, the Scriptwriters are watching current events and the Obama campaign and using that as a subtext in this show; here are a couple of brief scenes first on O’Reilly and then on Hannity (the clips are not exactly the same):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21Di1xk2_Es

This is the entire first show of V:

http://video.tvguide.com/V/Pilot/2993706?autoplay=true

It is on early on Tuesday night. Some violence; no sex; but a lot of flirting with aliens. Probably okay for teens.

Here is a very unusual take that some children have when it comes to singing praises to Obama:

O’Reilly’s Talking Points for 11/06 and how the press blames Iraq and the army for the Fort Hood Massacre.

1) One of the fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives is, liberals want the government to do it and/or regulate it; conservatives want the free market to do it. One example is the healthcare debate. In order to control costs, conservatives have suggested giving everyone a yearly tax write off with which they can use to purchase healthcare insulant. Let everyone be responsible for his or her own healthcare insurance, and allow the markets to work. Liberal healthcare involves over 100 new governmental agencies associated with healthcare; government healthcare insurance option (subsidized by the government); along with mandates to buy insurance and price (not cost) controls. The first approach is by far the simplest and requires the least government involvement; the liberal approach is excessively expensive, will continue to increase in cost and in red tape.

2) Another example of liberals and conservatives approaching the same problem. When income tax, property taxes and state taxes are summed up, it is not unusual for a person to be paying 50–60% of his hard-earned money to the government. Since many small businesses file as individuals, government taxes away their very lifeblood. Conservative approach: dramatically reduce their taxes and let them make sound business decisions. The liberal approach: if we need jobs, then take some of this tax money and pay businesses to hire people.

3) The difference in the liberal and conservative approach is twofold (1) there is more freedom in the conservative approach and (2) if you pay someone to do something, they stop doing it when you stop paying them. Look at Cash for Clunkers...the government hands out money to people buying a new car, so people buy new cars. The government stops paying and people stop buying new cars.

4) How does this happen? Nancy Pelosi says that Republicans have held the Congressional seat in New York District 23 since the Civil War; Rep. Wasserman Shultz tells FoxNews that it has been 150 years since a Democrat held that seat. However, according to the Wikipedia entry for New_York's_23rd_congressional_district, 3 Democrats were representatives from that district between 1979–1993 and since 1900, and more Democrats have held this seat than Republicans.

5) Newt Gingrich was on Hannity, and when pressed on his support for Scozzafava, he said he does not blame conservatives for being mad at him.

6) Greta Van Susteren had a special on the Iran Hostage crisis, which was quite good. One of the things I did not realize, is that when the Iranians stormed the embassy, they pushed several women out in front of them as human shields. Do you really need more convincing that such Muslims are animals? The American way has been for soldiers to leave and deal with whatever they have to deal with, and generally overseas. At one time, wives, mothers and daughters were not expected to play a part here, other than to keep the home fires burning. Our soldiers fought to protect our women and to shield them from harm; and these Muslim animals use women as human shields.

7) After the Great Depression, we went from a 3% unemployment rate to approximately a 5% unemployment rate (which is considered to be full-employment). The buzz out there is that, 10% might become the new steady unemployment percentage. This is how it is in most of the socialist European nations.

111 new governmental agencies, regulators, committees, boards and offices created by the Pelosi-Obama healthcare bill.

31 is how many states have rejected same-sex marriage when it is on the ballot (Maine is #31).

237 millionaires in Congress. #1 is a Republican; #2–5 are Democrats, and all 5 are worth in excess of $200 million.

The NEA had its budget increased by a third. Will we see some good Obama-art from all of this money?

An additional $5 billion was set aside by Congress for community organizations. Their action to de-fund ACORN was only for 1 month. I don’t know if they extended that or not.

When we eliminate those who make too much money, those who are here illegally, those who are young and choose not to buy insurance, and those who are eligible for Medicaid, but choose not to buy it, we are left with 8–15 million people, who are genuinely poor and cannot afford a healthcare policy (they can still receive healthcare, however). For about $20–30 billion a year (a fraction of the cost of any of the healthcare bills), they could get the same medical coverage which I have. For about $50 billion, they could have good medical coverage. So, don’t be fooled into thinking that we need a $1.2 trillion healthcare bill, which is going to create over 100 new governmental agencies, which price tag will double or triple (as they all do), and which program will still leave many uncovered by healthcare insurance.

$2.5 billion loss reported by GM and it wants more cash before the end of the year from the government

Chrysler lost money too, but I cannot confirm the amount (I can find a dozen stories on the losses posted by Chrysler and GM last year, but not as many for this year)

Now that we know how well Obama and Congress can handle FHLMC, GM and Chrysler, should we give them control over $1.2 trillion and our healthcare system? In what world does this make sense?

31% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President

49% of U.S. voters now say it is at least somewhat likely that Republicans will win control of Congress next year.

37% think it's unlikely the GOP will take majority control away from the Democrats.

Although newspapers and certain television stations were quick to jump all over Rush Limbaugh for racist statements which he never made; they seem to be quite temperate when it comes to the Fort Hood Islamic killer. Most stories do not mention the words, Islamic or Muslim in the first 3 or 4 paragraphs when giving the details of this shooting.

Jim Pinkerton, when a part of the Reagan administration, said that the press pounded the White House almost daily for unemployment in excess of 10%. My bet is, there is barely a mention of it.

Worst drinking game: read about the shootings at Fort Hood and take a drink every time you spot the words Muslim, Islam, or radical Muslim.

Best drinking game: read about the shooting at Fort Hood and take a drink every time you read about post traumatic stress disorder or anything about our military men (and women) being on the edge (implications and synonyms are valid for taking a drink). Okay, probably too soon for this.

I cannot recall if I mentioned this before, but Obama put Hillary up as Secretary of State and then buried her under a pile of foreign country czars. The idea was to give her an important position and then to undercut that position as much as possible.

Explain what portion of the Pelosi healthcare bill that will reduce healthcare costs. [and, after they answer incorrectly]: I am asking about healthcare costs, not healthcare prices.

Do you honestly believe that most Americans want the healthcare bill which was passed by Congress?

If you think that Obama’s promises about healthcare are embodied in the House Healthcare Bill.

Obama will push through a bill called the Jobs Recovery Act (or something like that) where he will pay businesses to hire people. This will have very little effect on the economy.

Gallup has Obama approval at 54%; news services are not quick to run headlines about the 10% unemployment...but watch for Obama’s popularity to start falling again.

I was partially wrong here; not completely. I believe that Obama would use his announcement on Afghanistan to cover up the press on the recent elections (if it was a GOP sweep). It was not a GOP sweep and they were able to spin the results, even to the point of lying about how long NY district 23 had been controlled by a Democrat (over and over again, they said since the Civil War). It looks like he may announce it this week, if coverage on the House passed healthcare bill is bloody.

Way back a long time ago, I told you that the Stimulus Bill would not work, that is it just a lot of federal spending on projects that had been laying around—it was a virtual porkfest and a payback bill to those loyal to the Democratic party. However, I said that it would not improve the economy nor would it have a positive effect upon the job market.

Here is the short version: I believe that the Republican officials who chose Scozzafava and Scozzafava are all plants by he Democratic party.

Obama chose a the popular Republican Congressman from the New York district 23 and gave him a federal appointment, putting that seat up for grabs. Then the Democrats put up a normally liberal candidate (Bill Owens) and the Republican party put up Dede Scozzafava. Scozzafava is purported to be to the left of the Democrat in this race. Since then, Doug Hoffman, somewhat of a nobody, shut out of the Republican nomination, ran as an independent. Scozzafava finally dropped out of the race, and the next day, supported the Democratic candidate. So, where did she come from (she does live in this area)? How did she get the nod of the Republican committees which chose her? Is this attributable to Republican bumbling or was this a slick effort by the Democrats to put a liberal in office here? Were they able to infiltrate the Republican committee? Did Scozzafava just say all of the right things? And, most importantly, does Obama (or his staff) know Scozzafava? What I am proposing is, this series of events has been in the works for the past 10 months or so, and a part of Democratic strategy going as high as the White House?

The only thing which is known is, the SF Gateway said that Patrick Gaspard, who has a long history of working with ACORN-affiliated organizations, was behind the scenes persuading former GOP candidate Scozzafava to endorse democrat Bill Owens in the NY-23 race.

Republican Rep. Darrell Issa suggested yesterday that the Obama White House offered Scozzafava favors for endorsing Bill Owens.

Scozzafava had already taped robocalls in support of Bill Owens by Sunday night. Her husband, a top union official, was in talks months ago with Democratic operatives about her switching parties.

Here is where my paranoid thoughts come in...was Scozzafava a plant from the beginning? Was she already known high up in the White House as far back as Obama tapping the former Congressman for that district. Was this a slick move by the White House to infiltrate the Republican party and this particular district with a super-lib? Since Scozzafava already had the support of ACORN and SEIU, that did not just happen overnight, did it?

And the man who convinced her to support the Democrat, Patrick Gaspard, has already been fined $775,000 for election violations that included hiring rapists and burglars to register voters.

•In a review of Lewis's contacts list, which was leaked to RedState, Bertha Lewis has the office, cell phone, home number, and private personal email address of Patrick Gaspard.

•Patrick Gaspard holds Karl Rove's position in the White House and was Obama's Political Director during the campaign.

•In addition to Patrick, Bertha has Patrick's brother Michael in her rolodex. She lists Michael as working at the Advance Group.

•In other words, besides having Obama's political director's contact info, the political director's brother works for ACORN via its lobbying shop

In any case, this is a great story. It would make a fantastic book and a gripping movie.

If you know any writer who loves to do research and interviews, this is an incredible story of political intrigue, at the very least.

Let’s say a man dressed in a white hood walked into a Black church and killed a lot of people, we would be hearing about his racist motives before anything else was known.

Let’s say some skinhead came upon an openly gay man and beat him to death, his homophobic motives would be broadcast throughout the entire alphabet media.

Let’s say there is this guy who pickets abortion clinics and belongs to some anti-abortion organizations; and then, let’s say, he shoots an abortion doctor. Do you think the media would be confused about his motives?

But, if a Muslim shoots a dozen soldiers bound for Iraq, while crying out “Allahu Akbar” (Praise be to Allah), after this same man repeatedly said that the U.S. was wrong to go to Iraq and had tried to convert his own patients to Islam—in this case, we are not sure what his motives are. Even our president, who, when admittedly not knowing all of the details of another incident, said “The police acted stupidly;” in this situation, he more cautiously warns, “We can never fully know [the motives of the Ft. Hood shooter].”

Are you freaking kidding me? How can we right an enemy that we refuse to acknowledge even exists?

There are a few people who actually understand what happened here; it should be called SJS, for Sudden Jihadi Syndrome. I wish I could take credit for that name, but it comes from:

It is not a difficult mental condition to figure out. You take a Muslim who is becoming more and more radicalized by his religion; you add to the mix, some victimhood and difficult personal circumstances; and you have a ticking time bomb.

The tough question is, what do you do about it? As you know, we conservatives are against thought crimes. Most of us vociferously oppose hate legislation on the grounds that (1) it just isn’t right to prosecute someone for their thinking; (2) when a person commits a crime, adding his thought process to the mix makes the process more of a mess, unless you are determining motive; and (3) the application of hate crimes legislation often morphs to something completely different (e.g., lawsuits files against preachers who teach anti-homosexual passages in the Bible).

The second problem is, how far do you allow the law to go? Can we spy on an American citizen who is potentially seditious? 50 years ago, this would not even be a question. FDR, for instance, would have no problem with vigorously prosecuting enemies of the state. Today, however, we have become much more genteel about this.

To be frank, I have not thought this through, nor do I have an excellent, well-thought out solution. I do have a half-baked solution at this point: let’s bring back treason laws and define them carefully to include Jihadists, because they are here among us, they were born here, they are not all Arabic, and they are ticking time bombs. Surveillance and wiretapping restrictions would be relaxed to some degree when dealing with an enemy of the state. Furthermore, the term enemy of the state must be well-defined. It cannot simply be a news organization that the White House does not like or those from the United States military who may not care much for the direction our government is going in. This needs to be a member of an organization with whom we are at war; and we need to have a number of successive acts of aggression against us from that organization.

Obviously, we cannot prosecute someone for thoughts. If his language rises to the point of yelling fire in a crowded theater, that would be prosecutable offense. In an actual act of terror, along the lines of what Hasan did, his trial ought to be a military tribunal, there should be no execution, just life in prison, without the Koran (but with the option of having a Bible).

That may sound crazy, but the Koran does not make people peaceful, and my biggest problem with Gitmo is access to the Koran and prayer rugs.

And like I said, I am formulating these ideas as I write, so they are somewhat half-baked. Or we could ignore the problem and pretend it does not exist.

Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH), ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee today commented on the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) more detailed cost estimate of the manager's amendment to the House health reform bill :

"The CBO estimate released last night finally sheds light on the smoke and mirrors game the majority has been playing with the cost of their health care reform proposal. Over the first 10 years, this legislation builds in gross new spending of $1.7 trillion - and most of the new spending doesn't even start until 2014. Once that spending is fully phased in, the House Democratic bill rings up at more than $3 trillion over ten years.

"Additionally, this bill cuts critical Medicare and Medicaid funding by $628 billion, accounts for nearly $1.2 trillion in tax and fee increases and will explode the scope of government by putting the nation's health care system in the hands of Washington bureaucrats. The $3 trillion price tag defies common sense - we simply cannot add all this new spending to the government rolls and claim to control the deficit.

"If we continue to pile more and more debt on the next generation, they will never be able to get out from under it. The health care system needs reform, but this massive expansion of government, financed by our children and grandchildren, is the wrong way to proceed."

"Sudden Jihadi Syndrome" Strikes: Muslim Army Psychiatrist Kills 13 Soldiers at Texas

A Muslim army psychiatrist burst into a bout of Jihadi fit, shooting at soldiers lined up for signing for deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan, killing 12 and wounding 31. It appears to another perfect case of the familiar "Sudden Jihadi Syndrome" among Muslims...

We have heard too often from Muslim public relations czars in the West that Muslims are peaceful patriotic people. Muslim American citizens would tell you that they are patriotic; they love America; America is their home. President Obama would tell you that America is a Muslim nation, that Muslims have made great contributions to the making of America.

So, when a Jihadi attack occurs or a Jihadi terror plot is busted, the so-called moderate Muslims would go around shrilling that the entire Muslim community should not be maligned for the actions of a few bad apples.

While it is undeniable that most Muslims go about their business on most days like any other peaceful citizen, it also becomes clear that quite often an otherwise-most-peaceful Muslim give in to the teaching and the urge to carry out Jihad, his holy duty to Allah/Muhammad and his faith. This well-established pattern, the `Sudden Jihadi Syndrome', it seems, has struck in America once again.

Major Nidal Malik Hasan, shoot 13 soldiers dead, 31 wounded at texas army baseMajor Nidal Malik Hasan, 39, trained as army psychiatrist, had his day on Thursday, Nov. 5. Stricken by a bout of Sudden Jihadi Syndrome, he went on rampage of shooting and massacring his colleagues at the Fort Hood Army Base in Texas, killing 13 and wounding another 30.

While some papers, like Huffington Post, are trying to raise doubts as to whether Major Hasan is a Muslim at all, Hasan's cousin, told ABC News that he was "a pious lifelong Muslim".

Born in Virginia to Jordanian parents and single with no children, Hasan had worked at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington for 6 years before he was reassigned to Fort Hood July. In 2009, according to ABC News, he completed a fellowship in Disaster and Preventative Psychiatry at the Center for Traumatic Stress there.

One is left to wonder whether Hasan was a marginalized extremist, although some Muslim public relations and media mouthpiece may portray him as one to be so.

It was a perfect moment for Hasan to carry out his pious duty of Jihad, which according to Ghazzali, Muslims should do at least once a year, while Muhammad and his companions did it continuously while in Medina. And the moment was:

Army recruits had lined up to sign up for going to Iraq and Afghanistan; these are infidels readying themselves for defiling the Muslim lands and kill his Muslim brethren; there's no better way to do Jihad for his faith than taking these infidel murderers down; he took two handguns to work; and as the recruits lined up in columns to sign up, Hasan took his loaded handguns out in his two hands and started shooting into the column to soldiers to take down as many as possible.

The end-result of Jihad effort was astounding: 12 infidel soldiers dead; 30 others wounded. He has outperformed Muhammad's stellar performance at the famous victory at Badr, where there were 15 Muslim casualties against 49 opponents.

CAIR, the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations, the largest Islamic civil rights organization in America with numerous terror links, was quick in its public- diplomacy and damage-control effort, condemning the massacre and reaffirming Muslim patriotism toward America:

"We condemn this cowardly attack in the strongest terms possible. The attack was particularly heinous in that it targeted the all-volunteer army that protects our nation. American Muslims stand with our fellow citizens in offering both prayers for the victims and sincere condolences to the families of those killed or injured."

This brings me once again to the much-touted Muslims' love, loyalty and patriotism for kafir countries. In India, the Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Hind (The Board of Islamic Clerics of India) issued on October 30, 2009 as Fatwa (Resolution) in its annual meet prohibiting Muslims from singing the Indian national anthem (Vande Mataram), because it goes against Islam. Maulana Muizuddin of the board said, "We are Indian and will remain so forever without singing Vande Mataram", while Kamal Farouqi, another leaders of the board said: "We love the nation, but can't worship it."

The bottom-line is: even for Indian Muslims, Indian in flesh and blood and known to be moderate, loyalty to Islam must come ahead of any other obligation. So, it should not be difficult to understand the thickness of the loyalty of Muslim immigrants to countries like America and Britain, whose culture and lifestyle Muslims hate to the core of their heart, despite their (moderate's) vociferous affirmation of the same.

And, how about the obligation for carrying out the sacred command of Jihad, which I have shown in my book, Islamic Jihad, to be the heart of Islam?

Well, it would come at the right moment, when it is practical and winnable. India, 1947 was one such moment, and it was resounding success. Maj. Hasan found his perfect moment here at Fort Hood, and he executed it with spectacular success. Prophet Muhammad, sitting in heaven, might be feeling jealous as well as proud of him.

The good news is that, against initial report of Major Hasan being shot dead, he is in custody and we may look forward to getting into the working of the mind of this Sudden Jihadi.

I do not understand this. You are mocking muslims by talking about a so called "Jihadi Syndrome" it seems that the only thing that comes to everyone's mind when Jihad is mentioned is a bunch of Muslims going crazy and blowing people up.

In Islam saving one life is like saving all of humanity. If you want to study islam do not look at the MUSLIMS. just because someone has a muslim name or is born in a muslim family does not mean that they are MUSLIMS. A muslim is someone who sumbits to the will of God and a doer of peace.

Inaccurate knowledge on the part of the muslims about Islam (which is very sad) has led to them thinking killing non-muslims will guarantee a one way ticket to heaven. That is not true as far as what i know.

Let me give u an example. Suppose i buy the best car in the world but the one driving that car has no clue about how to drive it and he smashes the car into bits and pieces. will u say that the car is messed up. NO

Similarly if the one who practices Islam is making mistakes you cannot blame ISLAM for it.

Unemployment has hit double digits for the first time in more than a quarter-century, USA Today reports. The rate reached 10.2% in October, and President Obama says he's very, very concerned:

On Monday, Obama said the economy is starting to recover, but jobs are always a lagging indicator. He called higher employment "my administration's overriding focus."

"Having brought the economy back from the brink, the question is how are we going to make sure that people are getting back to work and able to support their families," Obama said. "It's not going to happen overnight, but we will not rest until we are succeeding in generating the jobs that this economy needs."

Well, they're not resting anyway. John Cassidy of The New Yorker explains what they are doing:

The U.S. government is making a costly and open-ended commitment to help provide health coverage for the vast majority of its citizens. I support this commitment, and I think the federal government's spending priorities should be altered to make it happen. But let's not pretend that it isn't a big deal, or that it will be self-financing, or that it will work out exactly as planned. It won't.

Many Democratic insiders know all this, or most of it. What is really unfolding, I suspect, is the scenario that many conservatives feared. The Obama Administration, like the Bush Administration before it (and many other Administrations before that) is creating a new entitlement program, which, once established, will be virtually impossible to rescind. At some point in the future, the fiscal consequences of the reform will have to be dealt with in a more meaningful way, but by then the principle of (near) universal coverage will be well established. Even a twenty-first-century Ronald Reagan will have great difficult overturning it.

That takes me back to where I began. Both in terms of the political calculus of the Democratic Party, and in terms of making the United States a more equitable society, expanding health-care coverage now and worrying later about its long-term consequences is an eminently defensible strategy. Putting on my amateur historian's cap, I might even claim that some subterfuge is historically necessary to get great reforms enacted. But as an economics reporter and commentator, I feel obliged to put on my green eyeshade and count the dollars.

So, to sum up, in the name of an abstraction ("making the United States a more equitable society") and because it fits their "political calculus," Obama and Nancy Pelosi are planning to impose upon the country a massively expensive burden that can never be lifted. And they're lying to us about it ("some subterfuge is historically necessary").

Thousands of Americans gathered outside the Capitol yesterday to protest this impending monstrosity, and for their trouble they earned mockery from New York Times reporter David Herszenhorn:

It's a generally older crowd, many in their 50s and 60s, predominantly, white, and many self-identified as Christians. They are fiercely conservative and deeply skeptical of the government, many of them adamantly opposed to abortion rights. . . .

Mr. Hershberger, like many of the demonstrators, repeated some of the most common conservative and Republican talking points heard repeatedly on Fox News. . . .

Ms. Garloch, like many in the crowd who while visibly angry. [sic] could not articulate the main problems in the health care system or how they should be solved.

Some of the same people warning of too much government spending also complained that Medicare does not provide sufficient coverage.

Well, that settles it, then. If you can't "articulate the main problems in the health care system or how they should be solved," shut up and let Dr. Obama and Nurse Pelosi give you your medicine.

It is far from an original observation that with unemployment at 10% and the voters just having rebuked their party, it requires amazing hubris and insensitivity for the president and the Democratic leadership to push ahead with this. But the situation is not necessarily hopeless. There may be enough Democrats with enough sense to put a stop to this.

"There are going to be a lot more tensions between the White House and Congress," Rep. Jim Cooper (D., Tenn.), tells the Los Angeles Times. "They've been under the surface so far--and they're going to come out in the open." In time for the vote, one hopes--for their sake and the country's.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D., W.Va.) tells the Washington Post: "The question is, do people think we're tending to the things they care about?" It's a rhetorical question: The Post adds that Rockefeller "said there was palpable concern among his colleagues Wednesday that the main agenda items Democrats are pursuing--health care and climate change--resonate very little with voters focused on finding or keeping jobs."

Sen. Rockefeller, you're playing our song. The country is counting on dissident Democrats to dissonate from their ideologically addled leadership. Andrew Jackson is supposed to have said that one man with courage makes a majority. A handful of Democrats who haven't taken leave of their senses have it in their power to save the country from a disaster--and maybe to preserve their own party's majorities in Congress.

Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times has a column purporting to debunk the claim that America's health-care system is the best in the world. But if you scratch the surface, you find that he is misleading his readers. Here's Kristof's claim:

Yet another study, cited in a recent report by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Urban Institute, looked at how well 19 developed countries succeeded in avoiding "preventable deaths," such as those where a disease could be cured or forestalled. What Senator [Richard] Shelby called "the best health care system" ranked in last place.

Among 19 countries included in a recent study of amenable mortality, the United States had the highest rate of deaths from conditions that could have been prevented or treated successfully. The extent to which differences across countries in the prevalence of particular conditions may explain the poor U.S. showing in the recent study is unknown, although studies in which it was possible to adjust for such differences found that the greatest part of regional differences in mortality for certain conditions were explained by differences in disease prevalence.

A recent study comparing the United States and 10 European countries found that the United States had a much higher prevalence of nine of 10 conditions, including cancer, heart disease, and stroke, in its population over age 50.

In other words, Americans are more likely to die of these diseases because they're more likely to get them, not because they are likely to get inferior treatment.

Longtime readers will recall that we caught Kristof playing similar games with statistics back in January 2005, when he claimed that the U.S. infant-mortality rate was worse than communist Cuba's and much worse than European rates. We pointed out that a central reason U.S. rates are high is that American physicians make heroic efforts to save extremely premature infants, who nonetheless have a mortality rate in excess of 50%. In other countries, these babies are simply discarded and not even counted in the statistics.

Almost five years later, Kristof acknowledges his error--sort of: "We rank 37th in infant mortality (partly because of many premature births)," he writes. He still presents the infant-mortality rate as if it were evidence that America's medical care is inferior, when in fact it is evidence that it is superior. This time there is no question that he knows better.

Back in 2005, we observed that Kristof "seems to think it's cute to cast America in a negative light." That hasn't changed. Here are the two closing paragraphs of yesterday's column:

In several columns, I've noted indignantly that we have worse health statistics than Slovenia. For example, I noted that an American child is twice as likely to die in its first year as a Slovenian child. The tone--worse than Slovenia!--gravely offended Slovenians. They resent having their fine universal health coverage compared with the notoriously dysfunctional American system.

As far as I can tell, every Slovenian has written to me. Twice. So, to all you Slovenians, I apologize profusely for the invidious comparison of our health systems. Yet I still don't see anything wrong with us Americans aspiring for health care every bit as good as yours.

Kristof is really good when he writes earnest, reported columns about Third World human-rights horrors. When he tries to play Maureen Dowd and ventures into comedy at America's expense, however, he just stinks up the place.

Ludwig von Mises explained how government-induced credit expansions led to imbalances in the economy.

Ludwig von Mises was snubbed by economists world-wide as he warned of a credit crisis in the 1920s. We ignore the great Austrian at our peril today.

Mises's ideas on business cycles were spelled out in his 1912 tome "Theorie des Geldes und der Umlaufsmittel" ("The Theory of Money and Credit"). Not surprisingly few people noticed, as it was published only in German and wasn't exactly a beach read at that.

Taking his cue from David Hume and David Ricardo, Mises explained how the banking system was endowed with the singular ability to expand credit and with it the money supply, and how this was magnified by government intervention. Left alone, interest rates would adjust such that only the amount of credit would be used as is voluntarily supplied and demanded. But when credit is force-fed beyond that (call it a credit gavage), grotesque things start to happen.

Government-imposed expansion of bank credit distorts our "time preferences," or our desire for saving versus consumption. Government-imposed interest rates artificially below rates demanded by savers leads to increased borrowing and capital investment beyond what savers will provide. This causes temporarily higher employment, wages and consumption.

Ordinarily, any random spikes in credit would be quickly absorbed by the system-the pricing errors corrected, the half-baked investments liquidated, like a supple tree yielding to the wind and then returning. But when the government holds rates artificially low in order to feed ever higher capital investment in otherwise unsound, unsustainable businesses, it creates the conditions for a crash. Everyone looks smart for a while, but eventually the whole monstrosity collapses under its own weight through a credit contraction or, worse, a banking collapse.

The system is dramatically susceptible to errors, both on the policy side and on the entrepreneurial side. Government expansion of credit takes a system otherwise capable of adjustment and resilience and transforms it into one with tremendous cyclical volatility.

"Theorie des Geldes" did not become the playbook for policy makers. The 1920s were marked by the brave new era of the Federal Reserve system promoting inflationary credit expansion and with it permanent prosperity. The nerve of this Doubting-Thomas, perma-bear, crazy Kraut! Sadly, poor Ludwig was very nearly alone in warning of the collapse to come from this credit expansion. In mid-1929, he stubbornly turned down a lucrative job offer from the Viennese bank Kreditanstalt, much to the annoyance of his fiancée, proclaiming "A great crash is coming, and I don't want my name in any way connected with it."

We all know what happened next. Pretty much right out of Mises's script, overleveraged banks (including Kreditanstalt) collapsed, businesses collapsed, employment collapsed. The brittle tree snapped. Following Mises's logic, was this a failure of capitalism, or a failure of hubris?

Mises's solution follows logically from his warnings. You can't fix what's broken by breaking it yet again. Stop the credit gavage. Stop inflating. Don't encourage consumption, but rather encourage saving and the repayment of debt. Let all the lame businesses fail-no bailouts. (You see where I'm going with this.) The distortions must be removed or else the precipice from which the system will inevitably fall will simply grow higher and higher.

Mises started getting some much-deserved respect once "Theorie des Geldes" was finally published in English in 1934. It is unfortunate that it required such a disaster for people to take heed of what was the one predictive, scholarly explanation of what was happening.

But then, just Mises's bad luck, along came John Maynard Keynes's tome "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money" in 1936. Keynes was dapper, fresh and sophisticated. He even wrote in English! And the guy had chutzpah, fearlessly fighting the battle against unemployment by running the currency printing press and draining the government's coffers.

He was the anti-Mises. So what if Keynes had lost his shirt in the stock-market crash. His book was peppered with fancy math (even Greek letters) and that meant rigor, modernity. To add insult to injury, Mises wasn't even refuted by Keynes and his ilk. He was ignored.

Fast forward 70-some years, during which we saw Keynesianism's repeated disappointments, the end of the gold standard, persistent inflation with intermittent inflationary recessions and banking crises, culminating in Alan Greenspan's "Great Moderation" and a subsequent catastrophic collapse in housing and banking. Where do we find ourselves? At a point of profound insight gained through economic logic, trial and error, and objective empiricism? Or right back where we started?

With interest rates at zero, monetary engines humming as never before, and a self-proclaimed Keynesian government, we are back again embracing the brave new era of government-sponsored prosperity and debt. And, more than ever, the system is piling uncertainties on top of uncertainties, turning an otherwise resilient economy into a brittle one.

How curious it is that the guy who wrote the script depicting our never ending story of government-induced credit expansion, inflation and collapse has remained so persistently forgotten. Must we sit through yet another performance of this tragic tale?

Mr. Spitznagel is the founder and chief investment officer of the hedge fund Universa Investments LP, based in Santa Monica, Calif.

Last night, elections were held in several states across the nation, and by most independent observations, the results served as a warning to liberals. Whether it was Republican victories in Virginia, New Jersey or even in typical liberal bastions like Westchester County, New York, the post-analysis was framed on what does this mean on Capitol Hill, and more importantly, what does this mean for the conservative movement. However, last night did not represent a new day for conservatives. On Monday, the same could have been said: the state of conservatism is strong.

The state of conservatism can be measured through its popularity, its policies and its people. Most observers would say Election Day 2008 was not a good day for conservatives. However, putting election results aside, President Obama campaigned as a centrist. Obama promised to address jobs, the economy, our national security and even hold teachers accountable for our children's education. Obama promised that most of America would receive a tax cut. He promised to win a "necessary" war in Afghanistan. These are conservative principles.

While many Americans knew he would skew left on health care, the environment and diplomacy, they also took him at his word on his conservative window dressing. Matching reality to rhetoric, President Obama has made Jimmy Carter look conservative, promoting job killing policy after job killing policy. He has taken over nine months and counting to make a basic strategic decision on troop levels in Afghanistan, endangering our troops and our mission. This reality versus rhetoric is reminding the nation that conservatism is not merely a talking point but a first principle.

The Pew Research Center released a poll in May 2009 that was conducted in March and April when President Obama was still hugely popular. The poll showed that the overwhelming trend is toward conservatism, and not merely among Republicans. The number of Independents calling themselves conservative was increasing to 33%, up from 26% in 2005. The number of Democrats calling themselves conservative was up to 8%. In this poll 37% described themselves as politically conservative; almost double the number identifying as liberal (19%). The values of these respondents demonstrated an increasing trend away from big government as the solution and towards local and community based approaches.

These results were in line with a Gallup poll in June that showed Conservatives were the single largest ideological group (40%) and more recently on October 26, when Gallup showed that Conservatives maintain a two to one advantage over liberals (40%-20%). Conservatism wasn't grounded in any one party or candidate. It was election neutral. In fact it was the only tri-partisan issue or philosophy overwhelming numbers of Americans seemed to agree on. The state of conservative popularity is strong.

This overwhelming conservative philosophy in America is the reason why failed liberal policies of the past are failing once again in 2009. President Obama promised jobs, but quickly learned that he can't create 7 million jobs in government alone, although he tried. As of now, President Obama is 7.6 million jobs short of his promise to the American people, and that number is unfortunately growing. Obama's response has been to support and liberal Cap and Trade bill that would kill millions of jobs. Obama signed a stimulus that not only hasn't created jobs, but actually slowed down economic activity. Obama supports a health care plan that imposes mandates on employers to help fund it. Employer mandates would put 5.2 million low wage workers at risk of unemployment, and put another 10.2 million at risk of lower wages or reduced benefits.

Conservatives have been offering alternatives throughout. Conservatives support a health care plan that eliminates imaginary barriers from true competition by allowing insurance to compete across state lines, by allowing consumers to take their insurance from job to job, by giving them the same tax breaks the federal government gives big corporations. Conservatives understand that states are the best incubators for this reform. Conservatives have argued for reforming Medicare and other entitlements rather than growing their membership while cutting their benefits. Conservatives have proposed real energy solutions for America that include zero-emissions nuclear energy. Conservatives have proposed job creation through small business incentives and tax cuts. Conservatives have argued for a strong missile defense, rather than a raw deal for our eastern European allies, and a strong national security strategy that supports our troops and America's leadership around the world. The state of conservative policies is strong.

And Conservatives have been seen and heard in 2009. They went to tea parties in April, town hall meetings in August, and to the U.S. Capitol in September. Pictures of multi-generational families spending the day together protesting big government expansion, increasing debt and deficits, and an apologetic footing by our President on the world stage. Conservatives have been re-energized to participate in the public policy process demanding transparency, dividing up 2,000 page bills among their friends and reading them, and pointing out where government has gone too far. The White House spent September 12 denying hundreds of thousands of conservatives were in their backyard. And last night, the White House promised again that they were paying no attention to the voices of the people. But conservatives are not universally being ignored, especially on Capitol Hill where conservative Republicans, Democrats and Independents are demanding bills be modified to represent the will of the people. The state of conservative people is strong.

Conservatives have a destiny. Conservatives can strengthen our economic and national security. Conservatives can offer real solutions to the nation's challenges, without robbing Peter to pay Paul. Conservatives can continue to learn about the issues that affect their families, their communities, their businesses, and with this knowledge, they can affect real change. The Heritage Foundation has never been stronger, with over a half million members and growing. We thank you, and we invite those still waiting, to sign up to become a member now. Your conservative destiny starts here.

In his first year in office, Barack Obama has visited more foreign countries than any other president. He's touched ground in 16 countries, easily outpacing Bill Clinton (three) and George W. Bush (eleven). It's an itinerary befitting a "citizen of the world."

But there's one stop Obama won't make. He has begged off going to Berlin next week to attend ceremonies commemorating the fall of the Berlin Wall. His schedule is reportedly too crowded. John F. Kennedy famously told Berliners, "Ich bin ein Berliner." On the 20th anniversary of the last century's most stirring triumph of freedom, Obama is telling them, "Ich bin beschäftigt" - i.e., I'm busy.

It doesn't have quite the same ring, does it? Obama's failure to go to Berlin is the most telling nonevent of his presidency. It's hard to imagine any other American president eschewing the occasion. Only Obama - with his dismissive view of the Cold War as a relic distorting our thinking and his attenuated commitment to America's exceptional role in the world - would spurn German president Angela Merkel's invitation to attend.

Obama famously made a speech in Berlin during last year's campaign, but at an event devoted to celebrating himself as the apotheosis of world hopefulness. He said of 1989, "a wall came down, a continent came together, and history proved that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one."

The line was typical Obama verbal soufflé, soaring but vulnerable to collapse upon the slightest jostling from logic or historical fact. The wall came down only after the free world resolutely stood against the Communist bloc. Rather than a warm-and-fuzzy exercise in global understanding, the Cold War was another iteration of the 20th century's long war between totalitarianism and Western liberalism. The West prevailed on the back of American strength.

But Obama doesn't think in such antiquated, triumphalist terms. Given to apologizing for his nation abroad, he resolutely downplays American leadership. "President Obama is applying the same tools to international diplomacy that he used as a community organizer on Chicago's South Side," the Washington Post notes, approaching "the world as a community of nations, more alike than different in outlook and interest." To the extent that the Cold War doesn't fit this unbelievably naïve worldview, it's an intellectual inconvenience.

Wouldn't Obama at least want to take the occasion to celebrate freedom and human rights - those most cherished liberal values? Not necessarily. He has mostly jettisoned them as foreign-policy goals in favor of a misbegotten realism that soft-pedals the crimes of nasty regimes around the world. During the Cold War, we undermined our enemies by shining a bright light on their repression. In Berlin, JFK called out the Communists on their "offense against humanity." Obama would utter such a phrase only with the greatest trepidation, lest it undermine a future opportunity for dialogue.

Pres. Ronald Reagan realized we could meet with the Soviets without conceding the legitimacy of their system. He always spoke up for the dissidents - even when it irked his negotiating partner, Mikhail Gorbachev. Whatever the hardheaded imperatives of geopolitics, we'd remain a beacon of liberty in the world.

Obama has relegated this aspirational aspect of American power to the back seat. For him, we are less an exceptional power than one among many, seeking deals with our peers in Beijing and Moscow. Why would Obama want to celebrate the refuseniks of the Eastern Bloc, when he won't even meet with the Dalai Lama in advance of his trip to China?

So Obama huddles with Merkel during her visit to Washington and leaves it at that. An American president will skip events marking the end of a struggle to which we, as a nation - under presidents of both parties - devoted blood and treasure for 50 years. For Barack Obama, 1989 is just another far-away year - and the Democratic party of such men as Harry S. Truman and JFK has never seemed more distant.

Okay, okay, I agree; code-pink is not filled with crazies. They have real heart-felt objectives and sensible policy approaches, given their personal convictions. Here, Code Pink member suggests that someone kidnap George and Laura Bush:

Brand new Congressman Owen from NY #23 breaks 4 promises during his first hour in Congress:

RUSH: President Obama, you gotta hear this, folks. He had a little press conference at the White House. Actually was meeting with his Economic Recovery Advisory Board and they let cameras in there. We have four sound bites. Here's the first. It's starting at 28 here, Mike. This is what Obama said today.

OBAMA: (camera shutters throughout) Need for us to make up a whole lot of job loss is going to require, I think, some bold, innovative action on our part and on Congress' part and on the private sector's part.

RUSH: Stop this a second! What the hell was the stimulus? Some bold, innovative action on our part, on Congress' part, on the private sector's part? Mr. President, you told us the stimulus would make sure that unemployment did not rise above 8%. What "bold, innovative action" are you talking about?

OBAMA: (camera shutters throughout) It's also gonna require that we look at new models for where future job growth is going to come from. Because one of the, I think, key understandings coming out of this past financial crisis is that a lot of our growth was debt driven -- credit cards maxed out, home equity loans being taken out to finance, uh, a lot of purchases. Businesses are going to be more cautious in terms of how they approach taking on a lot of debt. The government is going to have to get serious about reducing our debt levels.

RUSH: This is unbelievable. It's too late! It's too late! We've got a $1.42 trillion deficit for the budget year just finished. He says that growth was debt driven? Well, the GDP growth was certainly debt driven. It wasn't driven by any measurable activity on the consumer side or the business investment side. But this is just... This is remarkable. "We're going to need a new model. It's going to require we look at a new model." Mr. President, we have a model that works. It's the past 200 years. We have a model that works. Your "bold, innovative actions" are what is destroying the country. You're not building anything. You're not creating anything. You're not saving anything, Mr. President. You are destroying it -- and you are going to continue this destruction as you abandon 200-plus years of capitalism, freedom, and growth; and replace it with your whatever you want to call it.

RUSH: Hi. Welcome back. Rush Limbaugh, off to a rousing start here at the EIB Network. I want to take you back to, when was this? This was -- in January. This is from the Washington Post. Michael Fletcher. "President-elect Barack Obama, seeking to quiet concerns that his economic stimulus package would lead to an unsustainable expansion of the public workforce, said today that 90 percent of the 3 to 4 million jobs created or saved by his [stimulus] would be in the private sector. In his weekly radio address, Obama said that nearly a half-million of the new jobs would be created by investing in clean energy, while another 400,000 would be created by repairing schools, roads, bridges and other infrastructure. 'The jobs we create will be in businesses large and small across a wide range of industries,' Obama said. 'And they'll be the kind of jobs that won't just put people to work in the short term, but position our economy to lead the world in the long term.' ... Obama cited the report in underscoring the urgency of enacting a stimulus package. 'These numbers are a stark reminder that we simply cannot continue on our current path,' the president-elect said. 'If nothing is done, economists from across the spectrum tell us that this recession could linger for years and the unemployment rate could reach double digits.'" None of this has happened. None of it! Let's now go back to the audio sound bite. Here's the second clip we have of Obama this morning at the White House with his Economic Recovery Advisory Board.

OBAMA: (camera shutters throughout) How do we get what I call a post-bubble growth model, uh, one that is sustainable? That's what, uh, we're going to be discussing here today. Uh, as I said, we got experts from, uh, a wide range of business sectors, and what we're going to talk about is, are there mechanisms that we can, uh, start putting in place where, uhh, we -- we see the kind of growth that used to characterize the US economy --

OBAMA: -- export-driven growth, manufacturing growth, uh, growth that pays high wages, and provides, uhhhh, high living standards for a broad-based middle class.

RUSH: Well, then don't do anything. Cancel the stimulus, cut some taxes, and get out of the way. Incentivize growth. You are disincentivizing everything. This is unbelievable. Here again, this is from January: "President-elect Barack Obama, seeking to quiet concerns that his economic stimulus package would lead to an unsustainable expansion of the public workforce, said today [in January] that 90 percent of the 3 to 4 million jobs created or saved by his [stimulus] would be in the private sector. In his weekly radio address, Obama said that nearly a half-million of the new jobs would be created by investing in clean energy, while another 400,000 would be created by repairing schools, roads, bridges and other infrastructure. 'The jobs we create will be in businesses large and small..." He's clueless! He's dangerously in over his head. Nothing has worked. I actually submit that it has worked. I think they're getting exactly what they want out of this. They got more chaos, they got more angst, and now they have an excuse for saying, "Oh, we gotta do more! Oh, we gotta do more. So we gotta convene the Economic Recovery Advisory Board. We gotta go out there, we gotta do more." Here's another sound bite. Get this.

OBAMA: (camera shutters throughout) We're also in a era of fiscal constraint, which means that we gotta start finding some more creative, new approaches to, uh, financing, uh, these projects. So those are the discussions we're going to be having, uh, not just today, but, uh, in the weeks and months to come. This is my administration's overriding focus. Having, uh, brought the economy back from the brink, the question is: How are we gonna make sure that people are getting back to work, uh, and able to support their families? It's not going to happen overnight, but we will not rest until, uh, we are succeeding in generating the jobs that this economy needs.

RUSH: It's like Steve Wynn said: The government does not create jobs. The entire purpose of the stimulus bill was to create enough jobs in the private sector so that the $1 trillion would be paid back from the exploding private sector job base. That was sold as an "investment" in the private sector, an investment that would wipe out the deficit, not multiply it. How's that hope and change working for you, folks? This is just stunning. He said we're in a postbubble growth model and that we have fiscal constraint? Discussions we're going to be having not just today but in the weeks and months to come, as my administration's overriding focus, having brought the economy back from the brink. The question is how are we going to make sure the people getting back to work? Brought the economy back from the brink? The media is saying the recession is over, and yet you're convening the Economic Recovery Advisory Board to figure out how in the hell you're going to get people back to work? Breathtakingly dangerous, is what this is. And here, get this last one.

OBAMA: (camera shutters throughout) If somebody can show me, uh, a strategy that's gonna work, uh, then we are happy to, uh, consider it. And, uh --

OBAMA: -- I want to end by saying this. We anticipate that we're going to continue to see some job losses in the weeks and months to come. Uh, as I said before, there is a -- always a lag, uh, of several months between businesses starting to make profits again and investing again and them actually rehiring again.

RUSH: He promises unemployment is going to continue to rise, but he's opened to ideas. "Oh, yeah! If somebody can show me a strategy that's going to work, we're happy to consider it." I thought you had all the answers! I thought you "won." I thought you had all the answers. You don't listen to anybody else's ideas. Your too bloated of an ego will not allow anybody's ideas inside your skull. This is insulting. He tells us unemployment is going to continue to rise while saying the economy has been brought back from the brink and that the recession is over and we're going to head north on unemployment, past 10% -- and he's open to new ideas. We don't need any new ideas. We have an idea that has worked better than any idea in world history, Mr. President. It is called capitalism. It just so happens he doesn't believe in it. He doesn't like capitalism. Capitalism allows for too much freedom, my friends.

Stimulus money buys hot meals for seniors. Although that is nice and good, is that what we were told the stimulus was for?

RUSH: "'From our perspective we won last night,' Pelosi told reporters during a Wednesday morning photo opportunity. 'We had one race that we were engaged in, it was in northern New York, it was a race where a Republican has held the seat since the Civil War and we won that seat, so from our standpoint, no, a candidate was victorious who supports health care reform, and his remarks last night said this was a victory for health care reform and other initiatives for the American people. So from our standpoint we picked up votes last night,'" But yet, Nancy, you might have lost all the Blue Dogs. You know, I guarantee you a lot of Democrats are hearing footsteps today because of what happened in Virginia. Particularly Virginia, but New Jersey as well. These Blue Dogs... I heard Karl Rove. People are picking up on this now. Karl Rove last night said, "Pelosi wouldn't mind the Blue Dogs losing." Folks, this is a salient, salient point. Pelosi doesn't like the Blue Dogs being in the caucus 'cause they're not radical enough for her. They're not really dependable. She has to work too hard keeping them in line. She would love to get their votes on health care and send them home and be trounced so she doesn't have to deal with them. Think of it as "thinning the herd." That's exactly what she would love to do. So from her standpoint, it was a biiiiig win last night.

RUSH: Yeah, Maureen Dowd has a column about me today in the New York Times. I don't know: either Michael Douglas broke up with her again, or they raised taxes on bourbon. That's the only thing I can think of to explain to me why she's so snarky to me today.

RUSH: Do you believe, by the way...? Did you hear this? Angela Merkel invited President Obama to Germany for the anniversary of the falling of the Berlin Wall. He said I'm too busy. I guess he's working on Afghanistan, folks. I guess he's working too hard. He can't go. Now, folks, this is unprecedented. An American president not showing up at one of the most famous sites for the destruction of tyranny and the outbreak of freedom? Being invited by the chancellor, the leader of Germany, and not going? An American president, not showing up at a citadel of freedom and extolling the virtues of what happened there? I mean, hell, he should go even if he wants to praise Gorbachev for making it happen. You know, Reagan is there. Reagan is there in spirit. Reagan is there every day: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." I think one of the reasons Obama may not want to go is I think he probably fears he'd be upstaged by the memory of Ronald Reagan and whatever speechifying goes on will include mentions of Ronald Reagan. But it's just, to not go? To not go. I got other things on my mind? I got other things to do? I can't fit it into the schedule. If it's not about him, he's not showing up. But it's unprecedented. You know, Jack Kennedy would be there. Hell, for that matter even Jimmy Carter would go! They'd have all been there. But not Barack Obama, mmm, mmm, mmm!

RUSH: So I just checked the e-mail during the break here. You know, I just expressed a little shock, stunned amazement that our president is not going to accept the invitation, will not accept the invitation, Angela Merkel, to go to the anniversary of the falling of the Berlin Wall. I got a lot of e-mails from people, "Rush, Rush, Rush, Rush, Rush. Communists don't go celebrate their failures. Obama will be back when they rebuild the wall, and he'll autograph it."

RUSH: I think I've got an idea on how to get Obama to go to Germany. It's really not complicated at all. Angela Merkel should call him back and say, "Hey, President Obama, there's going to be an emergency meeting of the Olympic organizing committee to reconsider the choice of Brazil for the next Olympics.

CALLER: You are a gift from God, literally. It's my birthday and I can't believe I got through to you.

CALLER: Thank you. Listen, I have a theory on why Obama won't go to Berlin and I'd love your opinion.

CALLER: The man-child is throwing a temper tantrum because when he was running for office he wanted to speak at the Berlin Wall and they wouldn't let him because he hadn't accomplished anything.

RUSH: You know what? You may be right. He wanted to speak at the Brandenburg Gate.

RUSH: And, no, that's reserved for leaders who have achieved something, who are serving in office or something. So you know what? I think that does explain it. He's in a snit. He's in a snit. You wouldn't let me, so screw you. This is what I meant by man-child, immature, when I said all of this on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace this past Sunday. Yeah, Teresa, I have to say that you thought of something that I didn't and that is rare when that happens. You should be very proud.

Liberals would prefer no opposition. Behind the force field of political correctness, there should never be any disagreement once the liberal mind has decided that something is good for society. There can be no opposition to the "correct" way of thinking, and if you don't think "correctly," you are attacked.

Those who dare to disagree with liberal orthodoxy are punished sooner or later. Not even someone as powerful as Rush Limbaugh, whose dream of part ownership of the St. Louis Rams was shattered by a particularly insidious species of liberal intolerance, is immune.

This is personal to me -- very, very personal. I have watched the news, I have seen television, and I have heard different commentators talk about my friend, all the while knowing the things they say are lies. I am proud to be an American and proud of the United States of America, and again this makes it personal to me. I not only see Rush Limbaugh and the conservative movement in this action being attacked, but the entire foundation of what made America great.

Freedom is under attack, and we as Americans need to wake up and stop this madness in the greatest nation ever formed.

Let's talk about what seems to have happened to Rush Limbaugh. Here is a man who loves professional football almost as much as he loves America's traditions, values, and heritage of liberty. Rush has dedicated his life to the study of both football and America. He understands America and superbly communicates his understanding with millions every weekday. He understands the game of football, and has influenced it positively by being its biggest fan. Yet Rush has suffered attempts to destroy him with lies, misunderstandings and a direct effort to eliminate his influence in America...over the pretext of what? A game?

I truly believe that this is brought on by what I call the Minority Thought Pattern. Let's not mince words: the Minority Thought Pattern is the total disdain and hatred of what God has accomplished through the white male throughout history. Coming from an African-American, I know this will shock you.

I am not minimizing the accomplishments of women, African-Americans, immigrants, the religious, or anyone else who is part of America. But the white male was here on Plymouth Rock for God to use, and the Pilgrims had a great belief in that God. The nation built out of their efforts, reflecting their values (most especially their religious values), has become the light of liberty for the world and an obstacle to those power-hungry individuals who hate it.

It is critical to understand that not only minorities, but also many whites of both sexes have embraced the Minority Thought Pattern. You see, the minorities in this world do not have the power or the financial backing to accomplish the destruction of the great Judeo-Christian values that are the foundation of America's greatness.

Spike Lee attempts to change history by criticizing Clint Eastwood for not using black people in his movie about the raising of the flag at Iwo Jima, when in fact there were no black people at Iwo Jima.

The Minority Thought Pattern is the fuel for minorities, and especially African-Americans, to attack the very fabric that has given them the greatest opportunity to accomplish anything they so desire, including the opportunity for a people of slavery to rise and put a slave's descendant into the White House. (I am still trying to figure out what faction of his ancestry descended from slaves.)

The Minority Thought Pattern is aimed at destroying America, at rending the very fabric that makes America great. The Minority Thought Pattern denies the greatness, honor, bravery, courage, humility, and sacrifice that has brought us the power to be the greatest nation that has ever existed. The Minority Thought Pattern has a mission to undermine and redefine every characteristic of America, maintaining that it is a nation based on greed, cowardice, selfishness, and a lack of genuine humility. The Minority Thought Pattern is the reason for all the apologies to the rest of the world for how bad American is, coming even from our top leader.

The problem that America has always had is the lack of understanding of what a conquering nation does. When a nation conquers another it always forces the conquered to assimilate into the conqueror's culture and ways. We as Americans have always been the great melting pot of society and the world. We want everyone to become just like us.

The Minority Thought Pattern now wants a nineteen-burner stove with every pot separate and different, and that has given us multiculturalism today. Multiculturalism in its present form has already proven unworkable. Remember in the South the fight between blacks and whites with the concept of "separate but equal." Blacks realized that being "separate but equal" is not equality at all. Those separate pots are no different.

Who in this modern America decide what is right and wrong, what is politically correct or not? Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, George Soros, Moveon.org, the NFL, the Players Association, and the liberal thinkers and media? I ask, who are the bigots here? The Minority Thought Pattern is the great supporter of ignorant intellectualism. It is the foundation that destroys common sense.

RUSH: Well, I think it's actually about the fact that the NFL is about to lose its current collective bargaining agreement with the players.

And guess who happens to be the new executive director of the players association? A guy named DeMaurice Smith, who is Obama. He's part of his transition team. He has -- he has suggested that the Congress, the White House, might get involved in stop a player-owner lockout.

So I -- I think -- and he got involved in this, too, you know. He was out participating in the spreading of quotes I didn't say, warning Goodell and the owners what might -- I think this was a warning shot across the bow, saying to the NFL, "Look, we're going to be close to running this league, not you. We don't want this guy here."

And I think -- I don't -- I don't really take this personally, but I do think it was a bunch of cowardice all the way around.

This is a classic example of the Minority Thought Pattern at work, commingling guilty and fearful whites with a sense of rage and grievance from minorities. As result, the game that both Rush and I love has suffered. An American institution, founded by whites but open to and heavily populated by blacks today, is harmed.

This is extremely personal to me. It's about a friend. When I look at Rush, I don't see a white man; I see a friend. I don't see a talk show host (a very famous talk show host); I see a friend, and friendship overrides color and political stances. I don't see a controversial figure, but a man whose heart and thoughts I know, and a man who is not a racist.

I believe with all my heart that minorities, especially African-Americans, will never be free until they stop allowing people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to insist they adopt the mentality of victims. Likewise, they will not be free until they take the next bold step: start thanking God for America, and stop condemning the white male.

It is time for America to reject the Minority Thought Pattern and the hateful campaign against Rush Limbaugh.

Dr. Kenneth L. Hutcherson, a former NFL linebacker, is senior pastor of Antioch Bible Church in Kirkland, Washington.

Since there are some links you may want to go back to from time-to-time, I am going to begin a list of them here. This will be a list to which I will add links each week.

This website reveals a lot of information about politicians and their relationship to money. You can find out, among other things, how many earmarks that Harry Reid has been responsible for in any given year; or how much an individual Congressman’s wealth has increased or decreased since taking office.

This is an outstanding website which tells the truth about Obama-care and about what the mainstream media is hiding from you:

Politico.com is a fairly neutral site (or, at the very worst, just a little left of center). They have very good informative videos at:

On Obama (if you have not visited this site, you need to check it out). He is selling a DVD on this site as well called Media Malpractice; I have not viewed it yet, except pieces which I have seen played on tv and on the internet. It looks pretty good to me.

Conservative Review
Issue #100	Kukis Digests and Opines on this Week’s News and Views	November 8, 2009