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).

Attorney General Eric Holder has determined to try 5 terrorists of Guantanamo Bay in normal criminal court. Critics say that this is an end-run to go after the Bush administration. Holder’s decision is supported by Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy (among others) and the A.C.L.U.

Balloon boy’s mother and father copped a plea this week. He pled to a felony (something like, influencing an official) and she to a misdemeanor, with the hopes that the wife will not be deported to Japan.

When in Japan, Obama was asked if America’s dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the right decision; President Obama twice evaded the question. Remember what his former pastor said about this? Maybe Obama was listening to that sermon.

World leaders meeting in Singapore have decided to punt on reaching any firm agreement at next month's global warming conference in Copenhagen.

Former Congressman William Jefferson, the New Orleans Democrat with bribery cash hidden in his freezer, was sentenced Friday to 13 years in prison, the longest-ever for a Member of Congress on a corruption charge .

Shirts with pictures of Obama in a Chairman Mao suit have been sold in China by Chinese entrepreneurs.

Former President George W. Bush is establishing a think tank (the Bush Institute) next year.

“The Department of Homeland Security will now refer to illegal immigrants as newly arrived asylum seekers; and the illegals here will now be called ‘newly registered Democratic voters.’” said Jodi Miller.

Pat Brown, a criminologist who profiles killers, said (on CNN), "A lot of people are jumping to the conclusion because this man spouted violent Islamic ideology that this is a terrorist attack...He was simply a lone guy who had issues, problems, psychopathic behaviors that escalated to the point where he wanted to get back at society, and he took it out on his workmates like most of them do."

S E Cupp about the upcoming unemployment seminar President Obama will host: “Unemployment is not a college lecture. Tell an unemployed machinest that Obama is holding a job summit and see how excited he is.”

When told that disgraced former governor Elliot Spitzer was invited to speak at Harvard about ethics, madam Kristin David, in a letter, wrote, "For nearly 5 years, I supplied Mr. Spitzer with high priced escorts while he was both Attorney General and Governor. For this crime, I served four months on Rikers Island, had all of my assets confiscated and am now considered a sex offender on 5 years probation. Mr. Spitzer broke both state and federal laws and walked away free....I am greatly intrigued as to what Mr. Spitzer could contribute to an ethical discussion when as Chief Executive Law Enforcement Officer of NY he broke numerous laws for which he has yet to be punished. As Attorney General he went around arresting and making examples out of the same escort agencies he was frequenting."

Nancy “Santa Claus” Pelosi said, “I’m hopeful that we will have the [healthcare] bill as a Christmas present for the American people.” How is something which we pay for a present?

Bernard McGuirk on Carrie Prejohn, “With the way she has been pummeled, you’d think she burned down an orphanage.”

Greg Outfield, “I lived under socialized healthcare in Britain for 3 years and you don’t die in the streets, you die in the hospital.”

Calvin Coolidge said, “They criticize me for harping on the obvious; if all the folks in the United States would do the few simple things they know they ought to do, most of our big problems would take care of themselves.”

Federal Judge appointee David Hamilton said, "Judge S. Hugh Dillin of this court has said that part of our job here as judges is to write a series of footnotes to the Constitution. We all do that every year in cases large and small."

“Women make 75¢ to a man’s dollar; figures don’t lie” Meghan McCain said, about some figures which misrepresent the truth.

“Let me get this straight—the army does not want openly gays but they will tolerate a Muslim extremist?” letter to O’Reilly.

"Do you realize Barack Obama is tougher on insurance companies than he is on the 9/11 mastermind?" Rush Limbaugh.

“hitler and obama are nothing alike. hitler managed to get the olympics” internet posting.

This is an example of why the Glenn Beck show is garnering so many new viewers (this is this past Friday’s show):

Excellent talking points on trying the Gitmo detainees in a criminal court (choose 11/13 video):

Bill O’Reilly debates two Democratic Congressmen about the upcoming criminal trial of Gitmo detainees (ignore the title of this YouTube posting; somehow, MediaMatters thinks that this puts O’Reilly in a bad light).

Unfortunately, I was unable to find the O’Reilly interview with Karl Rove concerning this topic. In the first 10 minutes of his show, O’Reilly gave us an excellent balance of views about bringing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to New York City for trial.

O’Reilly interviews Abby Johnson, the former Planned Parenthood director, who left this organization after seeing an ultrasound abortion.

Newt Gingrich suggests a second contract with America (which, apparently, Michael Steele is working on) (video and story):

Sarah Palin interview on FoxNews this Wednesday; Rush will interview her this Tuesday; and I think it is Monday (?) for her interview on Oprah.

1) I have personally never heard a Republican politician or a conservative pundit extol the virtues of the overspending of a Republican (and then Democratic Congress) under George Bush. However, I have heard dozens of people justify Obama’s spending. Either they point to George Bush and say, “He spent too much” (ignoring the fact that his worst over-spending took place with a Democratic Congress); or they will say, “Bush ruined everything, and it is going to take a lot of money to get us out of this hole.” As Obama’s first significant legislation, he pushed through a spending bill (called the Stimulus Bill or the Economic Recovery Act) to end all stimulus bills. I suspect if you added up every stimulus bill in the past, that their total would be far less than what Obama spent in this one bill.

2) So far, the only semi-reasonable argument I have heard in favor of trying KSM and the 4 other terrorists in a criminal court is to show the world how great and open our justice system is. In my opinion, our enemies must think we are the dumbest bunch of doofuses to walk the earth. On the negative side, it is not clear that you can apply all of our rights to these terrorists, simply because some of them were exposed to enhanced interrogation, none of them were mirandized, they did nor receive a speedy trial, and our normal laws of evidence would exclude about 99% of the evidence which we have against these terrorists.

3) Cal Thomas asks, how do you find a jury of peers for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? If there is but one Muslim in the jury, this can result in a hung jury.

4) As has been pointed out, this trial is going to be used as propaganda and a recruiting tool overseas. If you are an Obama fan, this does not mean that you have to support his every decision. At least go with Tim Kane on this one.

5) The House healthcare bill is large enough and complex enough to allow government to have a lot of leeway when it comes to the application and interpretation of this bill. Certain passages are intentionally vague enough to allow for government abuse.

6) While looking for Betsy McGaughey’s site (the gal who does excellent work on healthcare), I noticed that in the top 10 links, her website was not among them, but 7 clearly negative articles about Betsy were among the top 7, along with her Wikipedia entry.

7) If you don’t think there is a problem with a government-sponsored press, remember what happened to Humana a few weeks ago—they sent out a letter of information about the healthcare bills before Congress, and they were told, in no uncertain terms, that they could not do that anymore, because they had Medicare patients. A free press means free of the government.

8) When President Obama was giving shout-outs right before announcing what happened at Fort Hood, this simply reveals how amateurish he is and that he does not have a grasp of the magnitude of this incident.

9) Greed cuts both ways. Certainly, some rich Wall Street types are greedy; however, someone who says, in so many words, “You have too much money; the government needs to take it away from you and give it to me” is also greedy.

10) Have you felt that the government has done a good job with the H1N1 virus vaccine? Expect them to do far worse if they take over the entire healthcare sector. It is much larger and much more complex.

11) Although I favor the death penalty, I am one of the few conservatives who would rather that most terrorists rot away in jail in solitary confinement. They want to be martyrs; let them fade into obscurity, and live out their lives alone with only their hatred to keep them warm.

12) President Clinton called the TEA party demonstrators tea baggers, as did several hosts of MSNBC and CNN. At what point has it become acceptable to use homosexual slurs against people with whom you disagree? If there is an organization called Freedom Against Government, will its adherents be called fags, fag-boys, etc,? How can someone claim to support gay and lesbian causes, on the one hand, and yet use gay slurs on the other?

13) Did you know that FoxNews commentator Kimberly Guilfoyle was married to San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom when she served as an Assistant District Attorney at the San Francisco District? Finding this out, knocked my socks off even more than hearing that Adam Colmes and Monica Crowley are in-laws.

14) One of the reasons we were not successful in Vietnam was LBJ’s insistence that he give the orders to bomb even an outhouse in Vietnam. Is Obama going to be the same kind of president, trying to out-think our generals on the ground, despite the fact that he has no military experience whatsoever?

15) Mark Lamont Hill, one of the most confused liberals I have ever watched on television, called for military action against Iran, since all diplomatic actions have not worked. Did I see this broadcast in a parallel universe?

16) Remember all the bad press the Presidential candidate John Edwards got for his $400 haircut? Turns out that it was Obama’s people who exposed this.

17) Mort Kondrake, moderate Democrat from FoxNews, said that he was on Air Force One, and that they are all concerned about the unemployment numbers and that they have no idea what to do about it.

60% believe that a military investigation is warranted and that this is a terrorist action;

50% think that is it not the government’s responsibility to provide healthcare;

CNN, even today, continues to portray Major Hasan as some crazy loner guy rather than as a terrorist.

Although the sentence given to former Democrat Congressman William Jefferson was longest given to any congressman for a corruption charge, CBS evening news did not report this story; ABC reported the story, but did not mention Jefferson’s party affiliation; and NBC (surprisingly) stated the facts.

Surely Saturday Night Live can do something with these real exchange between a newsman and Nancy Pelosi:

News reporter, Shomari Stone, asked, "Do you think it's fair to send people to jail for not buying health insurance?"

PELOSI: For a long time now people who haven't had health care or provided it have placed the burden on others. Everybody is paying the price for uncompensated care. I don't need to tell you that in a hospital. And so what this is is to say we all have to do our part and that is the point of the bill.

STONE: But, Madam Speaker, I'm just trying to understand. If you don't buy health insurance, you go to jail? You didn't answer my question.

PELOSI: There -- there is, uh, uh -- there is -- I think the legislation is very fair in this respect.

Recall that it was Jake Tapper who first asked the president whether jail time for those who did not purchase healthcare insurance was appropriate.

President Obama answered, "What I think is appropriate is that in the same way that everybody has to get auto insurance and if you don't, you're subject to some penalty, that in this situation, if you have the ability to buy insurance, it's affordable and you choose not to do so, forcing you and me and everybody else to subsidize you, you know, there's a thousand dollar hidden tax that families all across America are -- are burdened by because of the fact that people don't have health insurance, you know, there's nothing wrong with a penalty."

I am trying to figure out why Eric Holder (and, ultimately, Obama) have chosen to try terrorists in a criminal court. I have come up with several possibilities: (1) it is simply their political persuasion to treat terrorists as simple law breakers and not as enemy combatants, a chief difference between most liberal Democrats and most conservative Republicans. (2) Holder may want to make some kind of name for himself by prosecuting these terrorists. (3) Perhaps they want to make the Democratic party seem tough on terrorism (although they hesitate to call it terrorism, Holder is still pushing for the death penalty). (4) The Democrats are losing on the healthcare front. Perhaps this will occupy some FoxNews times slots and some columns in the news, so that healthcare is not scrutinized as carefully.

Democratic Senator Jim Webb, for saying the following, "I have never disputed the constitutional authority of the President to convene Article III courts in cases of international terrorism. However, I remain very concerned about the wisdom of doing so. Those who have committed acts of international terrorism are enemy combatants, just as certainly as the Japanese pilots who killed thousands of Americans at Pearl Harbor. It will be disruptive, costly, and potentially counterproductive to try them as criminals in our civilian courts.”

Obama’s memorial speech with regards to those slain at Fort Hood struck the right note. Even Charles Krauthammer complimented him.

In the past, you have said that the Guantanamo Bay prison caused many people to become terrorists. Do you think that the Gitmo trial in New York might be used in the same way?

Follow up question: so, you really don’t think that Arabic news services won’t distort KSM’s trial?

If you don’t think that Obama has a plan for his reelection which has nothing to do with his personal achievements as president.

Palin’s appearance on Oprah this week will break viewing records, including Obama appearances on Oprah.

How can Obama possibly win the 2012 elections? He will do immigration reform in 2010, which will include legal status and voting privileges (from Rush Limbaugh).

Expect more lone wolf terrorist attacks and more homegrown terrorists. Terrorists first figured out that there was an advantage to functioning apart from government guidance (although they might receive government funding); and terrorist cells seem to be more and more independent. It is part of an overall ideology, but anyone can take part in this war against the Great Satan. Since Obama has decided to pursue these matters as crimes, these acts will escalate, and in many instances, there will be the barest of ties between the person or persons committing the act of terror, and some larger organization elsewhere.

There are serious bills out there right now for the government to help out the press financially.

I told you that Obama has no clue as to how business works or how to create jobs, and that his default position is to somehow get government involved. Therefore, his so-called stimulus bill has been a tremendous failure. Even the White House is putting out job numbers which are clearly false, according to the Boston Globe article.

Although predicted by someone else, I listed it under News Before it Happens: Anita Dunn, who appreciates the musings of both Chairman Mao and Mother Teresa, will step down from the Obama administration, but her husband will become a part of his administration.

President Obama will cause nearly irreparable economic harm to our nation; as well as allow our enemies at least a 4 year free reign where he does nothing about it.

Kennedy knew it; Reagan knew it; and George Bush knew it—if you lower the capital gains tax and reduce taxes on the wealthy, that will spur economic growth and higher tax revenues.

Now, Democrats want to institute dozens of new programs and government agencies and quasi-governmental agencies, so the question was posed to Steve Forbes (on the Michael Medved show), why doesn’t every Democrat support lower taxes and tax cuts for the rich? This would give them more money for their social programs.

Our president, when on the campaign trail, was asked a similar question by Charles Gibson, and he had the following exchange with then candidate Obama:

GIBSON: All right. You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton," which was 28 percent. It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent.

But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.

GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.

So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year -- $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That's not fair.

Rush Limbaugh has answered this question in weeks past, as did Steve Forbes this past week.

Again, the question: why don’t Democrats support a reduction of the capital gains rate and taxes on the rich, if the end result means more money in government’s pocket?

1) Fairness or economic justice. You can hear this when talking to almost every liberal—some people just make too much money and it is not right. Some hedge fund manager is making more money in a minute, than some people make in their entire lifetimes; or some business CEO is making 1000X more money than the lowest paid person in his company. Or, so-and-so has been materially blessed by living in this country and being given the freedom to make all of this money, so he needs to return a reasonable percentage to the government (50%? 60%?—by the way, liberals, as a rule, will never give you a percentage). Or, the one I heard the other day on the radio; he’s making $100 million—no one needs that much money!

To the liberal mind, there are those who make too much money, and their money needs to be taken and given to those who don’t make as much.

The Bible calls this coveting; the 10^th commandment reads: You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's (Ex. 20:17).

2) Second reason is power. The picture which is painted for us is, the AMA and AARP support Obama healthcare because Obama has explained to them, in a back room, how this is a better system. Nonsense! What happens is, there are trade-offs. “You support my healthcare plan and I will give you this.” The more money the government controls, the more power they have. You have heard of all these tax breaks for oil companies and insurance companies, and these are trade-offs which they have received for supporting this or that legislation (or, they are just out and out bribes in exchange for political support).

A corollary to power is control. What we find in the House healthcare bill are loads of controls. One of the stats which I read is, the word shall is found 3424 times in the healthcare bill. This is the government telling you what to do; It is the government telling insurance companies what to do; it is the government telling doctors, nurses and other healthcare workers what to do. It is control.

These are two of the cornerstones of the new Democratic party (I call it the new Democratic party, because John Kennedy would not be a Democrat today): (1) covetousness toward what rich people make and (2) power and control.

One of the themes which I have observed is how many liberal Democrats live in this world which does not exist. They push policies and ideas which may sound great to others, but which just cannot work.

One of these is the big uproar over harsh interrogation. As we have seen from the released CIA memos, that harsh interrogation was very strictly regulated, and the toughest methods were saved for those who had real intel that we could use. Only 3 different terrorists were every water boarded, which indicates to me, great restraint. Calling these methods torture when they aren’t; or claiming that this will not produce reliable information (which is demonstratively false) indicates a distinct disconnect from reality and the fact that we have been at war with extremist Muslims as far back as the Reagan administration.

Closely related to this is bringing Gitmo prisoners to New York for a criminal trial. Somehow, allies and enemies alike are supposed to view this open and free system and have their hearts transformed. To me, it just seems silly. You cannot take people whose actions and apprehension do not fit a criminal mold and put them into a criminal trial. It is putting a square peg into a round hole, and saying everyone is going to watch us do this and respect us for it. Miranda rights were not read to these men, they were not given a quick and speedy trial, they were not charged immediately; they have been jailed without legal representation; evidence was not gathered according to evidentiary rules; some confessions appear to have been coerced, etc. etc. This is a perfect case to be tried in a military court; but in no way does this represent a criminal action followed by appropriate police action.

Closing down the Guantanamo Bay prison was turned out to be much harder than it appeared to be at first. Various people may agree that Gitmo sends a bad message to friend and foe alike (not me; I think it is an excellent idea); but there is no reasonable alternative—not in the real world, and President Obama is finding this out.

The healthcare bill is also an excellent example of being detached from reality. Somehow, we are going to add an additional 30 million to the healthcare rolls, and this is not going to increase cost or result in fewer services, longer waits and even healthcare rationing. It just does not jive. These things are not complementary, but they act against one another. More insurance regulations results in higher healthcare costs. Adding people to a full system stresses that system.

As I have pointed out many times before, when Obama and his talking heads are trying to sell this healthcare bill (which they have never read), they speak in glowing generalities of simultaneous inclusions of contradictory things (e.g., lower costs or bending the cost curve down and more regulations and restrictions). I’ve seen Obama on many occasions trying to sell his bill; and, if I believed him and his contradictory statements, I would be one of his biggest supporters. However, I am able to distinguish between imaginary world policies and the real world.

On the other hand, when critics of Obama-care speak, they quote chapter and verse in the bill, and explain the problems with the bill itself. In almost every article you read or speaker that you hear, who talks about health care, they go to page so-and-so, and to this or that paragraph, and deal with what has actually been written and passed by the House.

Obama’s statements about a world without nuclear weapons are also unrealistic. Nuclear weaponry has, if anything, deterred warfare. We have them, we’ve used them, and we might use them again. Plus, we have missiles designed to shoot down other attacking missiles. For these reasons, and because of God’s grace, we have not seen a full-scale world war since Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is a good thing. The idea of reducing our nuclear arsenal makes absolutely no sense—not in a real world with real world enemies who would love to see as many Americans die as possible.

It is a constant struggle between what really is in this world, and what could be in some imaginary world. The more one attempts to impose imaginary world standards or policies, the more dangerous things become for all of us who live in the real world.

Now, bear in mind, some of these Representatives may have voted no simply for political reasons, and not because they believed the Pelosi healthcare bill to be a bad thing.

The health bill that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is bringing to a vote (H.R. 3962) is 1,990 pages. Here are some of the details you need to know.

• Sec. 202 (p. 91-92) of the bill requires you to enroll in a "qualified plan." If you get your insurance at work, your employer will have a "grace period" to switch you to a "qualified plan," meaning a plan designed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If you buy your own insurance, there's no grace period. You'll have to enroll in a qualified plan as soon as any term in your contract changes, such as the co-pay, deductible or benefit.

• Sec. 224 (p. 118) provides that 18 months after the bill becomes law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what a "qualified plan" covers and how much you'll be legally required to pay for it. That's like a banker telling you to sign the loan agreement now, then filling in the interest rate and repayment terms 18 months later.

On Nov. 2, the Congressional Budget Office estimated what the plans will likely cost. An individual earning $44,000 before taxes who purchases his own insurance will have to pay a $5,300 premium and an estimated $2,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, for a total of $7,300 a year, which is 17% of his pre-tax income. A family earning $102,100 a year before taxes will have to pay a $15,000 premium plus an estimated $5,300 out-of-pocket, for a $20,300 total, or 20% of its pre-tax income. Individuals and families earning less than these amounts will be eligible for subsidies paid directly to their insurer.

• Sec. 303 (pp. 167-168) makes it clear that, although the "qualified plan" is not yet designed, it will be of the "one size fits all" variety. The bill claims to offer choice—basic, enhanced and premium levels—but the benefits are the same. Only the co-pays and deductibles differ. You will have to enroll in the same plan, whether the government is paying for it or you and your employer are footing the bill.

• Sec. 59b (pp. 297-299) says that when you file your taxes, you must include proof that you are in a qualified plan. If not, you will be fined thousands of dollars. Illegal immigrants are exempt from this requirement.

• Sec. 412 (p. 272) says that employers must provide a "qualified plan" for their employees and pay 72.5% of the cost, and a smaller share of family coverage, or incur an 8% payroll tax. Small businesses, with payrolls from $500,000 to $750,000, are fined less.

In addition to reducing future Medicare funding by an estimated $500 billion, the bill fundamentally changes how Medicare pays doctors and hospitals, permitting the government to dictate treatment decisions.

• Sec. 1302 (pp. 672-692) moves Medicare from a fee-for-service payment system, in which patients choose which doctors to see and doctors are paid for each service they provide, toward what's called a "medical home."

The medical home is this decade's version of HMO-restrictions on care. A primary-care provider manages access to costly specialists and diagnostic tests for a flat monthly fee. The bill specifies that patients may have to settle for a nurse practitioner rather than a physician as the primary-care provider. Medical homes begin with demonstration projects, but the HHS secretary is authorized to "disseminate this approach rapidly on a national basis."

A December 2008 Congressional Budget Office report noted that "medical homes" were likely to resemble the unpopular gatekeepers of 20 years ago if cost control was a priority.

• Sec. 1114 (pp. 391-393) replaces physicians with physician assistants in overseeing care for hospice patients.

• Secs. 1158-1160 (pp. 499-520) initiates programs to reduce payments for patient care to what it costs in the lowest cost regions of the country. This will reduce payments for care (and by implication the standard of care) for hospital patients in higher cost areas such as New York and Florida.

• Sec. 1161 (pp. 520-545) cuts payments to Medicare Advantage plans (used by 20% of seniors). Advantage plans have warned this will result in reductions in optional benefits such as vision and dental care.

• Sec. 1402 (p. 756) says that the results of comparative effectiveness research conducted by the government will be delivered to doctors electronically to guide their use of "medical items and services."

While the bill will slash Medicare funding, it will also direct billions of dollars to numerous inner-city social work and diversity programs with vague standards of accountability.

• Sec. 399V (p. 1422) provides for grants to community "entities" with no required qualifications except having "documented community activity and experience with community healthcare workers" to "educate, guide, and provide experiential learning opportunities" aimed at drug abuse, poor nutrition, smoking and obesity. "Each community health worker program receiving funds under the grant will provide services in the cultural context most appropriate for the individual served by the program."

These programs will "enhance the capacity of individuals to utilize health services and health related social services under Federal, State and local programs by assisting individuals in establishing eligibility . . . and in receiving services and other benefits" including transportation and translation services.

• Sec. 222 (p. 617) provides reimbursement for culturally and linguistically appropriate services. This program will train health-care workers to inform Medicare beneficiaries of their "right" to have an interpreter at all times and with no co-pays for language services.

• Secs. 2521 and 2533 (pp. 1379 and 1437) establishes racial and ethnic preferences in awarding grants for training nurses and creating secondary-school health science programs. For example, grants for nursing schools should "give preference to programs that provide for improving the diversity of new nurse graduates to reflect changes in the demographics of the patient population." And secondary-school grants should go to schools "graduating students from disadvantaged backgrounds including racial and ethnic minorities."

• Sec. 305 (p. 189) Provides for automatic Medicaid enrollment of newborns who do not otherwise have insurance.

Ms. McCaughey is chairman of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and a former Lt. Governor of New York state

# Creates a public health insurance option and a national exchange for the uninsured and small businesses to purchase health insurance. The Secretary of Health and Human Services would negotiate rates with doctors and hospitals on reimbursement rates.

# The bill includes mandates for individuals to purchase and businesses to provide health insurance or pay a fine. Individual penalty is 2.5 percent of gross income unless they get a waiver. Businesses that don't offer insurance pay a fine equal to 8 percent of their payroll. Businesses with a payroll of less than $500,000 are exempt from the mandate.

# Insurance companies are prohibited from denying coverage based on a pre-existing condition. There are caps on deductibles and annual out of pocket spending is capped at $5000.

# Allows individuals up to 27-years-old to stay on their parent's health insurance

# Expands Medicaid from 100 percent to 150 percent of the Federal Poverty Level.

# Provides tax subsidies for individuals between 150 and 400 percent (sliding scale) of the Federal Poverty Level. There are also tax subsidies for small businesses.

# As amended, it prohibits federal funds from covering abortions. Women would need to purchase riders to insurance purchased on the exchange if they wanted that coverage.

# The bill taxes individuals making more than $500,000 and $1 million for couples. It is a 5.4 percent tax.

# Reduces overpayments to doctors who treat Medicare Advantage patients. It is estimated they are paid 14 percent more than doctors who treat Medicare patients.

While Massachusetts recipients of federal stimulus money collectively report 12,374 jobs saved or created, a Globe review shows that number is wildly exaggerated. Organizations that received stimulus money miscounted jobs, filed erroneous figures, or claimed jobs for work that has not yet started.

The Globe's finding is based on the federal government's just-released accounts of stimulus spending at the end of October. It lists the nearly $4 billion in stimulus awards made to an array of Massachusetts government agencies, universities, hospitals, private businesses, and nonprofit organizations, and notes how many jobs each created or saved.

But in interviews with recipients, the Globe found that several openly acknowledged creating far fewer jobs than they have been credited for.

One of the largest reported jobs figures comes from Bridgewater State College, which is listed as using $77,181 in stimulus money for 160 full-time work-study jobs for students. But Bridgewater State spokesman Bryan Baldwin said the college made a mistake and the actual number of new jobs was "almost nothing.'' Bridgewater has submitted a correction, but it is not yet reflected in the report.

In other cases, federal money that recipients already receive annually - subsidies for affordable housing, for example - was reclassified this year as stimulus spending, and the existing jobs already supported by those programs were credited to stimulus spending. Some of these recipients said they did not even know the money they were getting was classified as stimulus funds until September, when federal officials told them they had to file reports.

"There were no jobs created. It was just shuffling around of the funds,'' said Susan Kelly, director of property management for Boston Land Co., which reported retaining 26 jobs with $2.7 million in rental subsidies for its affordable housing developments in Waltham. "It's hard to figure out if you did the paperwork right. We never asked for this.''

The federal stimulus report for Massachusetts has so many errors, missing data, or estimates instead of actual job counts that it may be impossible to accurately tally how many people have been employed by the massive infusion of federal money. Massachusetts is expected to receive an estimated $1 billion more in stimulus contracts, grants, and loans.

The stimulus bill - a $787 billion package of tax breaks, expanded government benefits, and infrastructure improvements - was signed into law in February by President Obama, who said it would create and save jobs by preserving local government services and spurring short- and long-term economic development.

To be sure, the legislation has accomplished an important goal: funding public services facing the ax after the recession created gaping shortfalls in state and local government budgets. So Worcester and Lynn, for example, were able to keep police officers targeted for layoffs, schools across the state lost far fewer teachers, and community agencies preserved staff in the face of mounting demands for social services.

The president also said the legislation demanded an unprecedented level of accounting from recipients, who report on the uses of the money and the jobs via a massive online system, www.Recovery.gov.

Recipients said they found the reporting system confusing, leading them to submit information erroneously, and leaving them unable to correct mistakes in their reports. Additionally, the government files are massive and unwieldy. Reports do not distinguish between newly created positions and those that were "retained.''

"We see $15 million construction projects with no jobs, and a $900 shoe sale that created nine jobs. Both are obviously wrong,'' said Michael Balsam, chief solutions officer for Onvia, a Seattle data company tracking the stimulus spending. "There were a lot of recipients that did not report. Those that did report have some data challenges - wrong data or missing data.''

Cheryl Arvidson, assistant director of communications for the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, the federal government's oversight panel for the stimulus money, acknowledged the problems recipients are having reporting job counts.

"Some people are going to be confused. Some people are manually entering data. We figured there would be innocent mistakes,'' Arvidson said. "We anticipate that as we go forward . . . the data quality will be increasingly improved. We knew there was going to be a shake-out.''

Some of the errors are striking: The community action agency based in Greenfield reported 90 full-time jobs associated with the $245,000 it got for its preschool Head Start program. That averages out to just $2,700 per full-time job. The agency said it used the money to give roughly 150 staffers cost-of-living raises. The figure reported on the federal report was a mistake, a result of a staffer's misunderstanding of the filing instructions, said executive director Jane Sanders.

Several other Head Start agencies also reported using stimulus funds for pay raises and claimed jobs for it.

At Bridgewater State, Baldwin said the college mistakenly counted part-time student jobs as full time.

Some agencies that received stimulus money reported jobs for work that had not started. The Greater Lawrence Family Health Center reported 30 construction jobs "have been created,'' even though it hadn't begun construction on a $1.5 million renovation and expansion. Grant administrator Beth Melnikas said the health center does expect to hire 30 workers.

There was often variance among recipients of the same source of funding. Some did not report any positions retained; others did. Some used different methods and got different results.

For example, the City of Waltham said a $630,500 solar panel installation on the roof of City Hall created 10 jobs - even though the work had yet to begin. Revere spent $485,500 in stimulus funds to install solar panels on the roof of a city school. Revere's job count? 64.

The city's project consultants used a different formula than the one the federal government recommended.

"If not for this stimulus money, we would not have done the solar panel roof,'' said Revere Mayor Thomas G. Ambrosino. "A lot went into this.''

Another source of confusion over the job counting is because Congress this year labeled as stimulus initiatives several longstanding programs, such as student work-study and low-income rental subsidies, that it otherwise regularly funds in annual appropriations bills. In some cases Congress increased the funding amount, too, so the stimulus legislation was a vehicle for expanding government support for people in need.

Regardless of its label, the recipients treated the funding as business as usual. Only in September, when government officials told them they had to report on their stimulus spending, did they confront the issue of how to account for jobs associated with the money they received.

Massachusetts property owners received $75.5 million in rental subsidies from the stimulus bill, for a reported total of 437 jobs. Recipients of 27 of the 87 contracts reported zero jobs. The others, meanwhile, simply reported the number of employees working at the property. If they received two contracts, for a larger property, they reported the employee figure twice.

For example, Plumley Village East in Worcester listed 23 jobs for each of its two contracts for a total of 46 jobs, even though it has only 23 employees working throughout the complex.

"There was some confusion about what they were really looking for,'' said Karen Kelleher, general counsel for Community Builders Inc., which runs Plumley Village.

Those overstated jobs are going to disappear from future counts. The Obama administration has recently determined the rental subsidies don't have to be reported under the stimulus bill.

One of those property owners, meanwhile, is frustrated by his experience with the legislation. Robert Ercolini manages a 201-unit affordable housing development in Plymouth. After being notified his annual rental subsidies were classified as stimulus spending, Ercolini renewed a request to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development for more than $1 million to fix up the property, reasoning he would be creating jobs by hiring contractors. He was refused.

"After HUD denied me money to make needed improvements and actually create jobs,'' Ercolini said, "it's really funny to find out in September that I've been receiving stimulus funds all along and they want to know how many jobs we've saved or created.''

I review the nominations for the federal judiciary carefully and hope to be able to support most of the President's nominees. I write to set forth my concerns about the nomination of Judge David Hamilton to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and to explain why promoting Judge Hamilton is not warranted.

In more than a few instances, Judge Hamilton, has used his position as a district court judge to drive a political agenda. Judge Hamilton stated in a 2003 speech that the role of a judge includes writing footnotes to the Constitution: "Judge S. Hugh Dillin of this court has said that part of our job here as judges is to write a series of footnotes to the Constitution. We all do that every year in cases large and small." In explaining this statement to Senator Hatch, Judge Hamilton wrote that he believes the Framers intended judges to amend the Constitution through evolving case law. "Both the process of case-by-case adjudication and the Article V amendment processes are constitutionally legitimate, and were both, in my view, expected by the Framers, provided that case-by-case interpretation follows the usual methods of legal reasoning and interpretation." This view evidences an activist judicial philosophy. Judges are not given the power to amend the Constitution or write footnotes to it.

Unfortunately, this is not an isolated comment. Judge Hamilton has also written that empathy should factor into the judicial decision making process. In a response to a follow-up question after his hearing, Judge Hamilton stated: "Federal judges take an oath to administer justice without respect to persons, and to do equal right to the poor and to the rich. Empathy - to be distinguished from sympathy - is important in fulfilling that oath. Empathy is the ability to understand the world from another person's point of view. A judge needs to empathize with all parties in the case - plaintiff and defendant, crime victim and accused defendant - so that the judge can better understand how the parties came to be before the court and how legal rules affect those parties and others in similar situations." This view was, in essence, rightly rejected by Associate Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor during her confirmation hearing.

Unfortunately Judge Hamilton's activism has not been restricted to his speeches. In Hinrichs v. Bosma, 400 F. Supp. 2d 1103 (S.D. Ind. 2005), Judge Hamilton prohibited prayers in the Indiana House of Representatives that expressly mentioned Jesus Christ as violative of the Establishment Clause, yet he allowed prayers which mentioned Allah. The Seventh Circuit reversed his ruling.

In Grossbaum v. Indianapolis-Marion County Building Authority, 870 F. Supp. 1450 (S.D. Ind. 1994), Judge Hamilton denied a Rabbi's plea to allow a Menorah to be part of the Indianapolis Municipal Building's holiday display. The Seventh Circuit unanimously reversed, finding that Judge Hamilton failed to acknowledge the Rabbi's right to display the Menorah as symbolic religious speech protected by the First Amendment.

Judge Hamilton's problematic rulings are not limited to religious cases. Lawyers in the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary describe Judge Hamilton as one of the most lenient judges in his district in criminal matters. His rulings on the bench have lived up to that reputation. In United States v. Rinehart, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19498 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 2, 2007), Judge Hamilton used his opinion to request clemency for a police officer who pled guilty to two counts of producing child pornography. The 32-year-old officer had engaged in "consensual" sex with two teenagers and videotaped his activities.

In United States v. Woolsey, 535 F.3d 540 (7th Cir. 2008), the Seventh Circuit faulted Judge Hamilton for disregarding an earlier conviction in order to avoid imposing a life sentence on a repeat offender. In reversing the decision, the Seventh Circuit reminded Judge Hamilton he was not free to ignore prior convictions regardless of whether he deemed the penalty for recidivists inappropriate.

Judge Hamilton's most determidly activists decisions might be his series of rulings in A Woman's Choice v. Newman, 904 F. Supp. 1434 (S.D. Ind. 1995). Through his rulings in this case, Judge Hamilton succeeded in blocking the enforcement of an Indiana informed consent law for 7 years. In reversing, the Seventh Circuit noted that Judge Hamilton had abused his judicial discretion:

[F]or seven years Indiana has been prevented from enforcing a statute materially identical to a law held valid by the Supreme Court in Casey, by this court in Karlin, and by the Fifth Circuit in Barnes. No court anywhere in the country (other than one district judge in Indiana [meaning Hamilton]) has held any similar law invalid in the years since Casey . . . Indiana (like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin) is entitled to put its law into effect and have that law judged by its own consequences.

These cases give every indication that Judge Hamilton abused his lifetime appointment to block the carrying out of a state law for 7 years, depriving the people of Indiana of their domestic and constitutional rights until being slapped down by the appellate courts. In addition to delay, his rulings harmed the people of Indiana in effecting their lawful will. The people of Indiana were unnecessarily caused to expend great sums of money to overcome his obstructionism.

This is not the type of service that should be rewarded with a promotion. Indeed, this is one of those extraordinary circumstances where the President should be informed that his nominee is not qualified. That is why every Republican member of the Judiciary Committee voted against reporting Judge Hamilton favorably.

As we weigh the decision on whether to support moving forward with the nomination of Judge Hamilton, I hope you will thoroughly review his record and cases as I have. After doing so, I believe that you will also find that promoting him to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals is unwarranted. Please call on me or my staff for more information.

First of all, here’s the memo (after reading this story, you will come back and read this memo):

It is a typical Washington process that many political appointees are able to take jobs within the civil service once their political appointment expires - usually at the conclusion of one administration. What often happens as well is Congressional staffers, before an election or shortly thereafter, will move over to the Executive Branch placed into the civil service, in effect, by appointment.

So, for example, when George Bush became President in 2001, a number of Clinton political appointees became civil service employees. As a result, they became subject to civil service hiring and firing rules, which meant they could no longer be replaced simply for having been a Democratic appointee.

Barack Obama is changing that. He intends to purge all Republicans from the federal bureaucracy retroactive to five years ago.

Under his new rules, made retroactive for five years, the Office of Personnel Management will examine civil service employees who got their start as political appointees in the Bush administration and terminate those employees. The order is retroactive to 2004, that moment when a number of Republican congressional staffers and others sought to embed into the second Bush administration right after the election.

Beginning January 1, 2010, agencies must seek prior approval from OPM before they can appoint a current or recent political appointee to a competitive or non-political excepted service position at any level under the provisions of title 5, United States Code. OPM will review these proposed appointments to ensure they comply with merit system principles and applicable civil service laws. I have delegated decisionmaking authority over these matters to career Senior Executives at OPM to avoid any hint of political influence.

The memorandum goes on to apply this change to civil servants who were political appointees in the last five years, in effect freezing these employees out of other positions, denying them promotions, and forcing them out of their jobs.

No one is allowed to stand in the way of Barack Obama's agenda, including his own bureaucracy. This is what happens in third world kleptocracies and totalitarian regimes.

Just for perspective: remember the Democrats threatened to throw Bush administration people in jail for firing United States Attorneys who happened to be Democrats. In that case, it was clear as crystal that U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President and he can fire them whenever he wants. In this case, these people are now civil service employees who do not serve at the pleasure of the President and cannot be fired just because they are Republicans. in fact, the law is very clear on that point.

UPDATE: Media Matters and the left came out quickly to deny this one. That in and of itself means we hit the nail on the head. But because it is painfully obvious the guys at Media Matters are ignorant about what's happening and just feel the need to viscerally defend everything Obama does, let's explain this.

The administration is going to review the merit qualifications of political appointees. What that means is that if the administration finds any irregularities in moving a political appointee into the merit based system, including not being the best pick for the job when they were put into the job five years ago, the administration can freeze them out and given them the boot. In every political system, political appointees are placed into the civil service based on who they know, regardless of their overall merit for the job. It just happens. So now the Obama administration will look at every minor technicality as a way to boot Republicans. And the Republicans will not be able to sue until after they have made their way through the administrative process, including administrative law judge types appointed by Obama. And then it'll typically be an appeal with a record already built up under Obama appointees unfavorable to the terminated employee.

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: I would agree. I think it was a very sober speech. It was respectful to the fallen and he did have that reference that we saw to the element of jihadism in this attack.

KRAUTHAMMER: He never uses the word. The War on Terror is over, and all this stuff. But there is no escaping it. It seems he didn't jump to a conclusion, but he has reached a conclusion or two, that if someone yells "Allah Akbar" as he shoots up a room, there might be an element of jihadism involved.

KRAUTHAMMER: I thought the statement he made today, although it was indirect, about murdering in the name of god indicated that. It is pretty obvious. You really have to be obtuse to deny it, and he didn't want to be obtuse.

I will tell you who was. General Casey's speech had one reference to the actual attack. He spoke of it as unimaginable. Well, he ought to imagine it. It has already happened.

And except for that single reference to the violence that is unimaginable, he could have been speaking about a bus accident, which it wasn't. It wasn't a tragedy. It was a murder, a mass murder.

I recall a conversation I had with a young coworker in the latter weeks of Obama's campaign for president. Joe the plumber had just exposed the redistributionist bent of the candidate, and I expressed my assessment of Mr. Obama as a not-so-closeted socialist. My coworker then quite earnestly asked, "What's so wrong with socialism?"

I initially assumed he must be joking, although his face gave no indication. I stared at him dumbfounded, only later realizing I must have looked like a palsied old man -- my mouth working wordlessly, the incomprehension as evident on my face as the sincerity on his. It eventually dawned on me that he really didn't know what was wrong with socialism. I began reciting the litany of horrors: the crimes of the Holocaust, the purges of the Soviets, the thuggery and inhuman brutality of the statist regimes of the last century. The Nazis, for crissake! How could he not know about the evil of the Nazis? He listened to all of this, nodding his understanding as he recognized some of the events I described, but I could still see a question behind his eyes. While he had been taught of the existence of these atrocities, he had not been clued into the one commonality they shared. They were all perpetrated by the adherents of various forms of socialism. Indeed, such crimes were the only outcome possible.

In the late 1930s, the noted economist Friedrich Von Hayek wrote his landmark pamphlet "Road to Serfdom," laying bare the diseased skeleton of socialist/utopian thought that had permeated academia and the salons of his day. With an economy of words that showcased the significance of his conclusion, he pointed out the Achilles heel of collectivist dogma: for a planned economy to succeed, there must be central planners, who by necessity will insist on universal commitment to their plan.

How do you attain total commitment to a goal from a free people? Well, you don't. Some percentage will always disagree, even if only for the sake of being contrary or out of a desire to be left alone. When considering a program as comprehensive as a government-planned economy, there are undoubtedly countless points of contention, such as how we will choose the planners, how we will order our priorities when assigning them importance within the plan, how we will allocate resources when competing interests have legitimate claims, who will make these decisions, and perhaps more pertinent to our discussion, how those decisions will be enforced. A rift forming on even one of these issues is enough to bring the gears of this progressive endeavor grinding to a halt. This fatal flaw in the collectivist design cannot be reengineered. It is an error so critical that the entire ideology must be scrapped.

Von Hayek accurately foretold the fate that would befall dissenters from the plan. They simply could not be allowed to get in the way. Opposition would soon be treated as subversion, with debate shriveling to non-existence under the glare of the state. Those who refused compliance would first be marginalized, then dehumanized, and finally (failing re-education) eliminated. Collectivism and individualism cannot long share the same bed. They are political oil and water, and neither can compromise its position without eventually succumbing to the other. The history of the twentieth century is littered with the remains of those who became "enemies of the state" for merely drawing attention to this flaw. As Von Hayek predicted, the socialist vision would not be achieved without bloodshed.

So this is the challenge we face. My young coworker had no frame of reference by which to judge the events unfolding around him. He had been presented with only the intentions of socialism, not the inevitable results. He had been given the whitewashed fantasy of the Left, who never saw a failure that couldn't be rationalized -- or better yet, blamed on others. Our job, then, is to teach the lessons of history to those who fail to see the danger. We have to provide that all-important perspective to a generation that has been denied it. We have to do this one at a time, conversation by conversation. Tell your friends the truth; don't assume they know it. Become the person your friends and family consult when the subject turns to politics.

I successfully informed my coworker of the irreparable crack in the foundation of socialist thinking, and he is now aware of the need to burrow beneath the surface of politics to find the roots from which the tree springs. We can't wait until the tree bears fruit to determine its worth. Fruit bears seeds, and seeds scatter. Better to tear it out as a single sapling now than to hew down an entire forest of diseased wood after it has poisoned the ground.

The Left will not willingly lay claim to the true legacy of socialism, so we will have to hang it around their necks. They have grown accustomed to shedding responsibility for the damage they have done, and are adept at shifting the blame. Traditional means of holding them to account are failing. Fellow travelers in the academy and media will not challenge even their most egregious lies, so howling about bias will gain us nothing.

If you doubt the effectiveness of the Left's methods, ask any ten people under the age of forty whether Hitler and the Nazis were a product of left-wing or right-wing ideology. The obstacle we face will become painfully clear. It is not enough that you know the truth. You alone are not likely to singlehandedly shape the outcome of an election. Everyone has to know the truth. We have to reclaim our younger generations from the wolf in sheep's clothing, or it won't be long before the wolf no longer needs the disguise.

In Britain, it is proposed that everyone be assigned a unique ID, and this card would be used to buy gas and anything else associated with carbon emissions. Once they reach their limit, they have to buy carbon credits in order to have a larger footprint. Please, please, please give the first card to Al Gore or John Edwards.

For those who would jump on the bandwagon to criticize Betsy McGaughey, take a look at her credentials first:

Not all young people are drinking the Obama kool-aid; Hannah Giles, 20 and former faux prostitute, is calling conservative troops to action:

Here is an editorial which supports government assistance, at least in the short term, of our ailing press:

A new study by the Culture and Media Institute, a conservative group, says the following: 85 percent of network evening news stories on Fort Hood did not mention the word "terror." In fact, in 48 reports, ABC, CBS and NBC referenced terrorism just seven times. Only 29 percent of the evening news reports even mentioned Major Hasan was a Muslim. Of those mentions, 50 percent defended Islam. And before the president's speech at Fort Hood, 93 percent of the network evening news stories ignored any discussion about a terror connection. But after the president said that extremist views were involved, all three networks began to report a possible connection to terrorism.

RUSH: Now, you gotta hear this sound bite. Mark Halperin from TIME Magazine (he's their editor-at-large) was on with Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, Washington, on her MSNBC show. And she said, "Mark, you recently traveled outside of Milwaukee under the radar. Sarah Palin went to Milwaukee. Nobody knew it. No cameras that most people know about. What kind of crowd? What was the excitement there for Sarah Palin in Milwaukee?"

HALPERIN: This was like a Friday night, I think, one week ago. They showed up really early. I got there three hours early, and I was not the first person in line, by any means. The line stretched over half a mile, and they love her. I've never seen anything like this in my career. The gap between... We say casually, "She has support amongst the grassroots." She truly does, and we'll see it on the book tour next week. People at the grassroots love her personally. They want her to run for president. The gap between that and what people in this city say, people we know say about her prospects couldn't be wider.

RUSH: Now, in this sound bite, Mark Halperin swerves, stumbles upon the truth. Sarah Palin represents the disconnect between Washington and the rest of the country. Now, I don't want to take anything away from Sarah Palin, but 4,000 people who paid 30 bucks. He's never seen anything like that? He's never seen anything like that? Has a never been to a Sean Hannity freedom concert? Does he not know what happens out there when conservatives get together and rally? Has he never been to a Rush to Excellence Tour stop? Has he never heard about one of those? Two thousand in Washington! It was capacity. Right where he lives. Ditto Detroit, all over the country. I don't do them very often, but, you know, Hannity, Levin, the guys are out there. Beck goes out and draws crowds all over.

And Sarah Palin, I'm not taking anything away from her, because he's right: This book tour starts next week and Washington is going to be stunned. The one thing he's really right about is they don't get it. They haven't the slightest clue how disconnected they are from the base of this country. They have no idea in Washington how disconnected they, in the media are from not just grassroots people, but the people who make this country work. Why do conservative books sell so well? Do they ignore that? No, they don't ignore it, because over at the Huffing and Puffington Post, they want the New York Times to set up a conservative-only list because the lib books are getting shellacked.

There are two reasons that a Democrat is in the White House today. Well, maybe three, but I'll focus on two of them. We had the wrong candidate in 2008, and we had a Democrat candidate who just pulled the biggest scam on the people -- the innocent people; the people that are not actively, daily involved in politics. He pulled the biggest scam on them ever, making them think that he was something never before seen: A messiah that was going to come and get rid of all the angst, get rid of all the arguments, get rid of all the partisanship. We're going to lower the sea levels. We're going to be loved and we're going to have jobs!

Everybody is going to be rich and there's not going to be any poverty and so forth. And of course who wouldn't want all that? And you have some guy with some supposed skill at oratory, that's actually reading a prompter who was able to make that pitch. The third reason is, the Bush administration just refused to defend itself. I mentioned that to Governor Palin in my interview with her yesterday after this show for the newsletter, because we were talking about this. In her book she has the same question that I've always had: How do you respond and when do you respond to baseless, totally fabricated, made-up criticism? You know, we had a discussion about it, and she said something. I don't remember specifically what it was.

My reaction to it was, "We weren't helped by the fact that we had all kinds of people in this country willing to go to the mattresses over this, but the administration and leader of the party just did not want to get political, because Bush felt that it was lowering the prestige of the office to respond to all these attacks and critiques," and so therefore all the lies were allowed to stand. The media and the Democrat party did a pretty good job of ginning up even more people who hate this country, who think this country is guilty. Because people at the highest levels of the Republican Party were not refuting it. Their strategy was, "The story will last a day and move on to other things." But if it takes 4,000 people at a Sarah Palin rally for these guys to understand their disconnect, so be it -- and she is going to set records with her book sales. I think she probably already has.

RUSH: Mark Halperin was blown away by Sarah Palin in Milwaukee a week ago: 4,000 people paid 30 bucks each to see her. They weren't any cameras there so the Drive-Bys didn't know about it. So I thought to myself, "Okay, what is it that impresses about this? Is it the 4,000 people or is it that they paid 30 bucks?" And I started to ask myself, "Wait a minute, now. Did he not see the tea parties that happened in Washington where he lives? Did he not see those?" And I ran the question by Snerdley. "Oh, they didn't see those. They didn't see these town halls, didn't see the tea parties. They don't watch Fox. They watch MSNBC, CNN, but they don't watch Fox. The only thing they saw at the tea parties was a picture of a guy outside carrying a gun," and I guess that's true. It is a huge disconnect.

RUSH: Get this headline: "White House to Begin Push on Immigration Overhaul in 2010." Now, this is a story from the New York Times from November the 14th, 2009, which must mean this is going to run in tomorrow's paper. I as a powerful, influential member of the media have an advanced copy. "The Obama administration will insist on measures to give legal status to an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants as it pushes early next year for legislation to overhaul the immigration system, according to Janet Napolitano," who is going to say this today or has said it today. "In an address at the Center for American Progress, a liberal policy..." liberal policy? This is John Podesta's radical leftist, corrupt place!

"...Ms. Napolitano sought to dispel any notions that the administration with health care, energy, and other issues crowding the agenda might postpone the most contentious piece of an immigration overhaul until after midterm elections next November. Laying out the administration's bottom line she said they will argue for a three-legged stool that includes enacting tougher enforcement laws against illegals and the people who hire them and streamlining the system for legal immigration also what she called 'a tough and fair pathway to earned legal status.'" Can we say the word "amnesty"? This is exactly what this is going to be: Obama to give amnesty to 12 million illegals by 2010, according to the New York Times.

RUSH: Montclair, Virginia, Angela, hi, great to have you with us on the program.

CALLER: Great to talk to you. The public option, it throws a red flag for me because of the word "public." Have we forgotten about public housing, public schools?

RUSH: You know what? It's a great point, and you remind me I had a story in the stack either yesterday or the day before that I didn't get to. Some public housing project somewhere in this country, there is an infestation of bedbugs. But you're right, public housing, look at it!

CALLER: Well, also, I would be horrified if President Obama suddenly appeared on TV and said, "because there's homeless people and because greedy real estate agents want to make a profit, that all of us should move into public housing." I think it's pretty much the same thing. And also, if this thing passes, will health care be chaotic in the urban areas and neglected just like the public schools? Or will people buy their homes based on public care in their area like they do now for public schools? It's just so much that I'm thinking about here with this public option. I just couldn't imagine it being forced on us like this.

RUSH: I appreciate your thinking, but you don't need to go -- those are all great points, don't misunderstand, but all you need to think about when you hear "public option" is lines, rationed care, meaning you won't get what you want or need, likely, and lines, and doctors who are not being paid sufficiently to motivate them to even want to see you, and lines.

CALLER: Well, also, Rush, if you don't mind my saying, I'm hearing more and more as we get closer to 2012, Fox News and other places are always suggesting, you know, who would you like to see run in 2012 on the GOP ticket and then they give us a list of names. Now, I don't like that. I think they're trying to force something down our throat and if I had my way, Mitch Daniels, the governor of Indiana, would be the one that I would want to run. And I wish people would get off these same names over and over again and they're picking our options for us, and I remember you talking about how we should not allow them to pick who we want to run. And some of our own people are doing it, so --

RUSH: Well, I think in the case of Fox and those presidential polls, they're just putting names up there of people who have run before or who have stated a desire to.

CALLER: Well, they should let us fill in the blank. They shouldn't do it. I don't like it. But in any case, thank you, Rush, for allowing me to say my peace.

RUSH: All right, Angela, thanks much for the call. Grab audio sound bite number 20 since she brought up the public option. This is last night on CNBC and the Kudlow Report. Larry Kudlow spoke to Julian Epstein who is a Democrat strategist about whether the health care reform package will be passed in the Senate by the end of the year. Kudlow said, "Do you think that [Dingy] Harry can get a vote before the year-end holiday recess?"

EPSTEIN: If I were advising him I would say yes and I would tell him to try to do it. I think this is a good sell. This would be a popular bill. The reason you don't want to wait until January or February is because it's an election year. Any of us who have worked on Capitol Hill know that every time you get an election year, it gets much harder to get something passed.

RUSH: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Wait a minute. He just said here it's a good sell, it's a popular bill, why wouldn't you want to do it in an election year? I mean if everybody wants it and if it's that popular, why not put this vote off until say September of next year and really soar to a massive landslide victory in the House and Senate? Why wouldn't you do that?

RUSH: Before I get into this disgusting travesty perpetrated here by Barack Obama, who, you notice how this guy is always out of the country when bad news hits? Unemployment 9.4%, flies off somewhere, 9.7%, flies off somewhere, 10.2%, flies off somewhere, sends Holder out there today to announce they're bringing the Gitmo detainees up here for trial, he's over there in Japan. They asked him about it over there and he pulled a Bill Clinton, Janet Reno. When the Waco invasion happened, asked Clinton about it, (imitating Clinton) "Yeah, I don't know anything about that. You gotta talk to the attorney general, Janet Reno. You need to go over her office and ask her about it. I'm sitting here stupefied as you are." Obama was asked, "What about this business of bringing these people up here to try them in New York?" (imitating Obama) "Ah, the attorney general made that decision."

Now, this trial business, folks, I went to the National Review Online Corner blog to see what my good friend Andy McCarthy thinks of this, 'cause there's no better source. He tried the blind sheik. He was in the US attorney's office at the Southern District of New York in Manhattan. He learned everything there is to know about militant Islam. He tried the blind sheik. He was on the team that convicted him. And he is not surprised by this. Nevertheless, is appalled by this decision. This summer he writes -- and I remember this, he theorized that the attorney general, Eric Holder -- and, by the way, did you see in the press conference today when Holder was making the announcement, they went to questions and all the media people were referring to him as General Holder. Did they ever refer to Alberto Gonzales as General Gonzales? General Holder?

Anyway, this past summer McCarthy theorized "that Attorney General Eric Holder -- and his boss -- had a hidden agenda in ordering a re-investigation of the CIA for six-year-old alleged interrogation excesses that had already been scrutinized by non-partisan DOJ prosecutors who had found no basis for prosecution." Do you remember when they brought this back up and it outraged everybody, prosecuting the people who had put their lives on the line to keep us safe. "The continuing investigations of Bush-era counterterrorism policies (i.e., the policies that kept us safe from more domestic terror attacks), coupled with the Holder Justice Department's obsession to disclose classified national-defense information from that period, enable Holder to give the hard Left the 'reckoning' that he and Obama promised during the 2008 campaign." And I've got some audio sound bites that will back up what I'm about to say here.

"It would be too politically explosive for Obama/Holder to do the dirty work of charging Bush administration officials; but as new revelations from investigations and declassifications are churned out, Leftist lawyers use them to urge European and international tribunals to bring 'torture' and 'war crimes' indictments. Thus, administration cooperation gives Obama's base the reckoning it demands but Obama gets to deny responsibility for any actual prosecutions." Now, we mentioned this to you last summer, that that was the objective of this. They don't want their fingerprints on it. Again, this is banana republic type stuff. This is Marxist type stuff. You go after your predecessors and you put them in jail or you do what you can to embarrass them, discredit them, and ruin their lives. And that's what is on tap here.

"Today's announcement that KSM and other top al-Qaeda terrorists will be transferred to Manhattan federal court for civilian trials neatly fits this hidden agenda." Folks, stop and think of what's going to happen here. "Nothing results in more disclosures of government intelligence than civilian trials. They are a banquet of information, not just at the discovery stage but in the trial process itself, where witnesses -- intelligence sources -- must expose themselves and their secrets." But it's even worse than this. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his confederates have no defense. They have admitted this! They asked to be executed and martyred last December. They wanted to go meet Allah and the 73 virgins. They have no defense. What's going to end up on trial here -- and this is the insidious part -- what's going to end up on trial here is the United States, the CIA, and our interrogation techniques. All of this is being done to satisfy the rabid, radical, far left that hates this country; that hates George W. Bush; that hates the US military.

By the way, the Obama administration and Eric Holder are not doing this just to placate their left. They're in on this, too. They're the ones that kept talking about torture, torture is worse than the actual hijacking and taking down of the twin towers. That's worse in these people's perverted, polluted, corrupt minds. "Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his confederates wanted to plead guilty and have their martyrs' execution last December, when they were being handled by military commission. As I said at the time, we could and should have accommodated them. The Obama administration could still accommodate them. After all, the president has not pulled the plug on all military commissions." See, this is another part of the hideous nature of what happened today. The terrorist, Nashiri, the bomber of the USS Cole, is not going to be brought here for trial. He's going to face a military commission. Why? What is the difference here?

They want this show in New York. They want the United States on trial. Folks, this trial may not start for four years. It may not start for two years. Do you realize these guys are going to be given lawyers, they have no defense; they've admitted it; they wanted to be executed. So what's going to be put on trial is not these guys. Your country is going to be on trial, and your country will likely be found guilty. I saw a former federal prosecutor being interviewed on Fox today and he said, "I wouldn't worry, there's no judge, these judges, they're lifetime appointments, and they have full independence, but no judge, no judge wants to be responsible for any decision that lets these guys go scot-free." You do not know who's on the federal judiciary any more, sir. We've got judges in this country who have gone on record saying these guys should be released. If you don't think they can find a judge somewhere that would be happy to find this country guilty, you don't know the American left.

Every bit of intelligence that was used to track these guys down, the world is gonna know about it. The people who did it are going to have to testify. They are going to be the ones asked about the legality of what they did. Folks, the people running this country do not like it as it was founded and constituted. In their mind this country is guilty. Obama was asked about the A-bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki today. First president in history to duck the question, to not say that it was the right thing to do. He ducked it, he ran for cover, he was asked twice. He's the first president to go around the world apologizing for this country, and now he's even ducking responsibility for making the decision to bring these terrorists up to New York for this trial.

RUSH: Andy McCarthy again here. "So: We are now going to have a trial that never had to happen for defendants who have no defense." That is key to understand what's happening here, folks. They have no defense. They have asked to be executed. They have admitted doing this. They take great pride in having blown up the World Trade Center. And as I said when defendants have no defense for their action there's only one thing for their lawyers to do, and that's put the government on trial in hopes of getting the jury and the media spun up over government errors, government abuses, government incompetence. That's what's going to happen at this trial. It will be a soapbox. Folks, it's going to be a soapbox for Al-Qaeda's case against America!

And if you don't think that they can't find some pro bono ACLU lawyers to go in there and make the case that the United States of America is guilty, you have another think coming. And since that will be their defense, quote, unquote, "that the government of the United States is corrupt, unfair, unjust, and guilty;" the defendants and their lawyers will demand every bit of information they can get about the interrogations, the renditions, secret prisoners, undercover operations targeting Muslims and mosques -- and, depending on what judge catches the case, they're likely to be given a lot of it! Because "fairness," you see, has become the new foundation of the new America; fairness as defined by a bunch of radical leftists.

"The administration will be able to claim that the judge, not the administration, is responsible for the exposure of our defense secrets." There won't be any fingerprints on Holder; there won't be any fingerprints of Obama's attached on this. It's all going to fall on the judge. The judge is going to take the heat and depending on who the judge is, he might enjoy it. I mean there are a bunch of radical leftists on our federal bench as we sit here today. And this circus is going to be played out for all to see. Holder said, "Oh, yeah! We're going to have TV cameras on this, all of this." In the middle of a war we are going to televise to the world exactly how a bunch of leftists lawyers and terrorists think the country sucks.

And before it's all over, their lawyers are going to end up making the case that these guys had cause for hijacking airplanes and bringing down the twin towers. At some point, that's where this goes. We're going to have so much sympathy for the discrimination against people from the "religion of peace" that they were driven to this, why, our association with Israel. And before it's all said and done you're going to find some whack nut jobs on the Upper West Side of Manhattan that are going to be on this jury and who are going to end up thinking, "You know what? We did deserve it. Now we know why they don't like them and maybe we can set the record straight here and grandfathered in peace if we just admit this was our fault." McCarthy: "It will provide endless fodder for the transnational Left to press its case that actions taken in America's defense are violations of international law," and this is going to be destroy the CIA. It will destroy the CIA, exposing virtually everything they've done and the people who did it. It's not good, folks.

RUSH: Folks, in a federal court, all bets are off. All these pro bono, leftist lawyers are going to line up to volunteer their time to defend these guys. They'll use every legal maneuver they can come up with to drag the CIA officers who conducted the interrogations before the jury. They'll put the CIA on trial, along with the rest of the country. And it's going to be televised all over the world. And it's just something that need not happen. It is like everything else happening from this administration: By design, and on purpose, with a specific motive. Let's go to the audio sound bites. This morning in Tokyo, Obama and Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama held a press conference. An American reporter says, "President Obama, how can you assure the American people that a trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian court in New York will be safe and secure but also not result in an innocent verdict for him?"

OBAMA: With respect to, uh, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, I believe that the attorney general's going to be making an announcement this morning in the United States, this evening here. I don't want to preempt his news conference. This is a prosecutorial decision as well as a national security decision. Uh, here's the thing that I will say. I am absolutely convinced that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be subject to the most exacting, uhhh, demands of justice. The American people insist on it, my administration will insist on it. Uhh, and I'm sure we'll have additional things to say, uh, after the attorney general's press conference.

RUSH: All right. So defer it and pass it on to Holder and let Holder take the whole show on this thing. Now, remember during the actual Iraq war when George W. Bush was president, the very fact we went to Iraq they said was going to create more terrorists. "It's going to create even more hatred for the United States of America," and we have no business doing this. This is a personal war for Bush and all we're going to do is create more terrorists," and then that torture, that waterboarding? "Oh, man when that gets out and flushing the Koran in the toilet," which didn't happen, "Oh, yeah! That's going to create more terrorists! That's really going to create more terrorists." Now, they said they're going to go for the death penalty here.

Is executing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed somehow not going to create more terrorists? Al-Qaeda's going to say, "Oh, well, they gave him a fair trial. It's cool." Is that what Al-Qaeda is going to say? "You win this one, infidels!" Is that what they're going to say? And the Arab Street, that's not going to be "inflamed," either? They won't "use this as a recruiting tool"? Execution won't be "unilateral" and "damage our reputation in the world community" or any of the other BS standards liberals invent and then decide they only apply to Republican presidents? Do you realize what...? Try this. There have been all kinds of people on television today being asked, "Boy, bringing them in New York, doesn't that make New York a bigger terrorist target?"

And they all say, "Well, no, no. New York's always a terrorist target. Look at '93. We tried those guys in 1993 and nothing happened." What do you mean nothing happened! You ever heard of 9/11? We tried these guys and convicted the blind sheik in 1993, and nothing happened, except 9/11. The security in New York, the inability to get around -- and they're going to still do the military tribunals for the guy that bombed the USS Cole. All right. You'll have to excuse me here, folks. My audio feed is going in and out with lots of statistic. I don't know why and I've been trying to fix it during the week. Let's go to something I have a transcript for. Bill Hemmer, Fox News Channel's American Newsroom, the co-anchor Bill Hemmer interviewing Joe Sestak. Sestak is a Democrat from Pennsylvania. Hemmer says, "Do you stand by the decision to try Mohammed in civilian court. Why?"

SESTAK: I will support this decision of the president to bring these individuals to trial. I am a strong believer that we need anti-terrorist types of efforts, including holding those accountable. I also believe you don't break the ideals of not bringing people into their day in court.

RUSH: So Sestak says, "I will support this decision to bring these individuals to trial. I'm a strong believer we need to anti-terrorist types of efforts. ... [Y]ou don't break the ideals of not bringing people into their day in court." Let me give you a name: Nidal Hasan. Because the FBI was involved, they were treating Nidal Hasan as a criminal, and so with much tighter regulations. "First Amendment violations? Oh, we couldn't really connect the dots here because our Constitution doesn't permit us to connect the dots." But the guy was a terrorist. He was acting out terrorism. He was preparing for it! Everybody in the line knew it but because it was not being looked at as a terrorist act, an act of war; it was being looked at as your run-of-the-mill, average, ordinary, everyday crime. And so the guy couldn't be stopped. Same thing is going to happen here. "Bring these people to court, give them their day in court. We have to make sure American values and ideals carry the day so the rest of the world will look up to us and not hate us and so forth." We are in the process of destroying American ideals. We are in the process of subordinating America's greatness, America's exceptionalism -- and, my friends, it is not by accident. Bill Hemmer then says to Joe Sestak (Democrat-Pennsylvania), "Some of the evidence will not be brought up in the case. You are now taking a chance that they are brought to the US and set free. Is this decision made to appease the left?"

SESTAK: Absolutely not! This is to make sure that we stand up for our ideals. We tortured somebody! I got it. We also know that there's other means of getting evidence. No one knows yet if we don't have that evidence. I have no doubt, bringing him forward, he's going to be prosecuted and the keys thrown away.

RUSH: "We tortured somebody." This is precisely being done to appease the left. Precisely, to give them their day of reckoning but it's also much more than that. It is yet another internal assault on the fabric, the traditions, the institutions that have made this country great. We're the bad guys. The terrorists are the victims. It's about torture. Three thousand people died at the hands of this man, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Nineteen others flew the planes. Now we have to pay the price because we waterboarded, which is not and has not been found to be explicitly torture. It's a complicated thing. This is going to make sure we stand up for our ideals? We tortured somebody? We also know that there are other means? No one knows yet if we don't have that evidence? "I have no doubt bringing him forward he's going to be prosecuted, the keys thrown away forever." "You could also do that at a military tribunal." Hemmer is exactly right about that. One more here. Hemmer finally says, "You mentioned the word 'torture.' Is that the administration's way of laying that at the foot of the Bush administration?"

SESTAK: I do believe that what they did was wrong because most studies have shown that it does not give you evidence as readily or as credible as other means have brought them forth in the past. What I do know is this, is that all those years that I defended this nation, I didn't defend just people, I defended our ideals. We don't have to bend our ideals to defend them. So bring them into New York City where they struck us! I have strong confidence in our judicial system that the evidence will be brought to bear.

RUSH: This guy a dangerous, left-wing radical ideologue. They don't have a defense. Evidence? These guys have confessed. They have asked to be executed. Last December, almost a year ago, they wanted to be fried. They wanted their martyrdom. Now, we could still do it. So, the evidence will be brought to bear? The only evidence that's going to be brought to bear... The prosecutors will lay it out. I mean but then the government, the United States itself will end up being on trial, 'cause these guys do not have a defense. Now, my friends, before we go to the break here, what we're doing here is this: We are turning 200 years of history on its head. We are treating terrorists like common criminals. We are conferring constitutional rights on them. We are denying ourselves the ability to interrogate and detain as they will lawyer up from now on, and because the policy was changed in the middle of the war.

Treating terrorists as criminal defendants and not war criminals. It's hard to know how this due process issue is gonna work. This "undermines our national security" is to soft-pedal it. It does war worse than undermine national security. But it is the bottom line. Obama says this is a prosecutorial national security decision? How does this help our national security, bringing these guys to New York for a trial that could go on months, perhaps into years? And, by the way, this decision was made by Obama, not Holder. Holder is carrying out Obama's policies. Holder is Obama. Jeremiah Wright is Obama. Bill Ayers is Obama. Valerie Jarrett is Obama. Van Jones is Obama. And again, whether he's being naive and just doesn't understand and hasn't been properly educated or whether it's diabolical and on purpose, it doesn't matter. The end result is the same.

RUSH: This is Eric Holder today announcing the decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his buddies in New York City.

HOLDER: After eight years of delay, those allegedly responsible for the attacks of September the 11th will finally face justice. They will be brought to New York, to New York to answer for their alleged crimes in a courthouse just blocks away from where the twin towers once stood. I am confident in the ability of our courts to provide these defendants a fair trial just as they have for over 200 years. The alleged 9/11 conspirators will stand trial in our justice system before an impartial jury under long established rules and procedures.

RUSH: Yada yada yada. Confident in the ability of our courts to provide these defendants a fair trial just as they have for over 200 years? It gets better, though. Another portion of Holder's remarks.

HOLDER: For the many Americans who lost friends and relatives in the attacks of September the 11th, 2001, and on the USS Cole, nothing can bring back those loved ones. Today's announcement marks a significant step forward in our efforts to close Guantanamo and to bring to justice those individuals who have conspired to attack our nation and our interests abroad. For over 200 years, our nation has relied on a faithful adherence to the rule of law, to bring criminals to justice and provide accountability to victims. Once again, we will ask our legal system in two venues to rise to that challenge.

RUSH: Close Guantanamo. We are going to get involved here to bring forward our effort to close Guantanamo. Why? Because we are guilty; because we committed torture; the United States needs to get its comeuppance, and Barack Obama, through Eric Holder, is going to make sure that it happens. So a question after this announcement, a reporter said, "Mr. Attorney General, some critics have already spoken out saying it's a very bad decision. Congressman Peter King has been quoted as saying this makes New York more of a target. How do you respond to that?"

HOLDER: New York has a long history of trying these kinds of cases. The person who bombed the World Trade Center I guess in 1993 was tried there. The blind sheik was tried there. New York has a hardened system. We have talked to the Marshals Service there. An analysis was done about the capabilities that exist in New York and I'm quite confident that we can safely hold people there, that we can protect the people who surround the courthouse area and bring these cases successfully. So I don't think that that criticism is factually based.

RUSH: Now, this is what I was talking about a moment ago. This is the defense that all these people are making, "Oh, no, no, no, no, New York, why, New York is always a target of terrorism, why, look at 1993, World Trade Center bombing, New York is hardened for that." Yeah, 1993 came before 9/11. We tried these guys in 1993, that would be Omar Abdel Rahman and his buds, and then 9/11 happens. They're making New York an even larger terrorist target. These guys want to be martyred, folks. It is their religion. They want to be martyred. What could be better than to be martyred by their own people in the process of the United States ostensibly carrying out its wonderful system of justice?

I just was reminded here that in the first Holder sound bite he said they're being brought to New York to answer for their "alleged crimes." They confessed! Alleged crimes? Impartial jury? Who in the hell has not heard of 9/11? Well, maybe in New York it's possible by now. I don't know.

Huffington Post calls for a separate NY Times Bestseller list for conservative books:

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 #101	Kukis Digests and Opines on this Week’s News and Views	November 15, 2009