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).

The Religion of Peace celebrated the week before Christmas with 45 separate attacks that killed nearly 200 people. They continued their post-Christmas celebration, with 28 more attacks that took the lives of nearly 300 people. The spreading of Islamic Christmas cheer over these 2 weeks occurred in 9 different countries (10, if you include the attempted bombing in the United States).

Co-founder and CEO John Mackey is voluntarily giving up his chairmanship, a position he's held since the Austin, Texas, company's inception in 1978, according to a Thursday filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Mackey will remain on the board. This is because of the blowback that Whole Foods has received because Mackey had the temerity to offer up a free market solution to today’s health care problems, using Whole Foods’ healthcare plans as an example of a logical approach to health care.

John Kerry has made a request to go to Iran and negotiate with the present thugs in charge of that country.

“I'd like to point out is that the system worked,” proclaimed Janet Napolitano after a radicalized Islamist with explosives strapped to his body got onto a plane destined for the United States. The name of this terrorist was on a terror list and his father called the US embassy to warn about his son. She told Jake Tapper, “The system has worked very smoothly over the past several days.”

"No secretary of homeland security would sit here and say that a system worked prior to this incident which allowed this individual to get on this plane," Napolitano said on Fox and Friends the next day.

With respect to the Farouk Abdulmutallab not being detained or given a second look, despite being on a terrorist watch list, Mark Steyn commented, “If you go to Amazon.com and order the book, How to Construct a Bomb in your Underpants and then go back to Amazon.com 10 years later, they will immediately offer up the book 101 Ways to Satisfy 72 Virgins as something that you might be interested in reading. Millions of people have purchased books from Amazon.com and Amazon is able to keep track of who they are and what their interests are. Maybe we should put Amazon.com in charge of our terrorist lists.” (statement reconstructed from memory).

Criminal defense attorney and friend of Obama Tamara Holder: “There is no such word an enemy combatant anymore; President Obama has dispelled that word.”

A man whose name is on a terrorist list, gets onto a plan paying cash for a one-way ticket, without luggage, whose father has warned us about, and whose British visa was revoked. And the Homeland Security Director tells us, “The system has worked very smoothly over the past several days.”

For those of you who enjoy an intellectual ecstatic experience, Walter E. Williams guest hosted for Rush Limbaugh this past week, and he had Thomas Sowell on his program (as he often does), and they discussed economics, freedom and capitalism. As far as I am concerned, it doesn’t get any better than this (besides which, Walter is hilarious):

Daniel Hannan questions the idea of bailouts and stimulating the economy (this is fantastic and only 1 minute; the second is about 3.5 minutes):

Bill Kristol points out that Al qaeda ought to be seen as victorious over Obama and the United States:

1) There is a moral and values difference between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives understand that government is a necessary evil, that it will cost money, and that there are some things which government must collect taxes to do (e.g., maintain a military, police force, and build roads). However, liberals see government as an arbiter of economic justice. In the liberal’s thinking, I personally cannot be trusted with most of the money that I make. I personally will not make the correct moral choices if I am left with most of my money. Government needs to take a large chunk of my money and distribute it in such a way to make things more fair (as our President said, to spread the wealth around). Government is capable of making better moral choices with my money than I am, and therefore, government should be

allowed to collect whatever funds necessary (50–90% of my income) in order to make this world a better place (i.e., to provide food, shelter, clothing and medical care for all people and to protect us from worldwide destruction from such things as global warming). On the far left, there is really no limit as to how much of my money that government is legitimately allowed to take from me. Also, on the far left, there is no limit as to how much control the government has over my life—which is for my own good, of course; and, more importantly, for the good of society. Most conservatives can understand and allow for taxes to be somewhere between 5–30%. Most moderates and many liberals allow that to go as high as 50% (most of who do not realize that a huge number of Americans already pay 50% or more in taxes right now). The far left does not really recognize there being any sort of a limit; whatever society requires, society should provide by way of taxes—up to 100% of what we earn.

2) Someone made the observation that, if you look upon our country as being something extraordinary; and you look upon our constitution and history with some reverence; and that the opinions of the founding fathers are meaningful today, then you are probably a conservative. If you think our country is no better or worse than any other country; that our constitution is, at best, something which limits our potential; that the history of the United States is one of oppression and lies, and that those founding fathers might have been important way back then, but they are barely relevant today; then you are probably a liberal.

3) So far, we have had a Stimulus Bill which did not stimulate the economy. Just because the healthcare bill has the word healthcare attached to it, does not make it a good or a necessary bill.

4) Most of you know just how well our government protects us from terrorists, having maintained a terrorist’s visa to American, despite the British revoking his visa to Great Britain and despite his name being on a terrorist list. Do you really want these people in charge of your healthcare?

5) It is pointed out that Israel does not have the same kinds of problems with their airlines as we do. They profile. Also, some people get a quick walk through with the proper background check having been done earlier.

6) Several people have observed that the previous administration would have taken this would-be underwear bomber, ship him to Gitmo, and ask him a few questions—perhaps applying a little bit of pressure. In this administration, you give him Miranda rights, emphasizing that you don’t have to talk, we will get you a lawyer for free, and you now have the same rights as all Americans. Which approach makes the most sense to you?

7) At this point in time, there is a reasonable chance that the Iranian people could overthrow their government, which would possibly solve the most serious problem that the United States faces—nuclear weapons in the hands of a madman. We have a significant number of troops on both sides of Iran, as well as arms and equipment. A smart president who has foreign policy experience could possibly help to destabilize the current Iranian regime and install a power structure with moderates who do not hate the United States. Unfortunately, we elected hope and change Barrack Obama, who has no clue how to finesse a situation like this. In his opinion, the U.S. ought not to have an aggressive foreign policy. What is at stake? Literally millions of lives hang in the balance of what occurs in Iran over the next year or two.

50% of Americans believe the country will still be in recession at the end of 2010

While many economists say the recession is over, 71% of all adults say it is not.

79% of U.S. voters now think it is likely there will be another terrorist attack in the United States in the next year.

That's a 30-point jump from the end of August when just 49% of Americans felt that way.

The current level of concern is even higher than it was in the summer of 2007 when 70% considered an attack likely.

Can you imagine if Bush or his homeland security director claiming that everything worked fine, when it didn’t? How would the press treat that? Remember Hurricane Katrina? Hurricane Ike has left damage behind like Katrina did—damage which is still not all fixed—and most people don’t even remember Ike (unless you lived through it).

If this is still news when SNL comes back on the air, I suspect that they will do this skit. It will be a line of Arab terrorists looking to board a plane bound for the United States, and they are waved through, will little old ladies are wand’ed and patted down. “No passport? No problem. Go right through.” “You’re on the terrorist watch list? You have a kind and honest face; enjoy the flight.”

Or, Seth and Amy can do a “really” segment on Abdulmutallab. “He’s on a terrorist watch list, and you don’t revoke his visa—really?” “He pays cash for a one-way ticket to the United States, and you let him fly? Really” “Even the Brits, who have a nation filled with crazy Arabs, revoked this guy’s visa, and that does not set off a red flag? Really?” “You want to take over healthcare, because you are doing such a good job with the terrorist situation—really?”

Do you understand the phrase, “The buck stops here”? Do you know who had that phrase on his desk and how what he meant by it?

If you believe that the healthcare bill before Congress is going to make things better.

If you think the system worked, with regards to the failed attempt of the underwear bomber (surely no one thinks that, right?).

Homegrown terrorists in the United States to be the story of the next few years (from FoxNews Watch). Despite the press’s Obama slant, this will get reasonably good coverage in the alphabet media (although it is unclear whether much will be said about homeland security and its failures).

Look for there to be increased terrorist attacks against the United States—principally abroad, but several here at home as well.

I believe there will be a coordinate terrorist attack within the U.S. which will be at least partially successful (several acts of terrorism occurring in several key cities simultaneously).

Speaking of which, since Obama is an ideologue and an amateur, he is not going to know how to deal with homegrown terrorism or terrorism in the United States. Recall that his choice for Homeland Security Director is Janet Napolitano, whose first act of note was to highlight right wing terrorism and to warn that returning vets may get sucked into right wing terrorist groups. She had some experience in dealing with border incursions, which is why Obama chose her (not realizing that Islam is unrelenting, even against him). I think that she will be replaced, but I don’t know if there sweeping changes as President Bush instituted. Furthermore, Obama has neutered the CIA and CIA interrogation, so that there will be preventable attacks which will occur.

There ought to be a lot of heads in Homeland Security that roll because of their failure to keep Farouk Abdulmutallab from entering into the United States. However, I don’t think that there will be more than one firing, and that will be Napolitano after Obama dithers on this decision for a few weeks.

Congress will not give President Obama enough money to move the terrorists from Club Gitmo to Illinois.

There are several characteristics which mark President Obama’s character and presidency: he has a difficult time making an executive decision, he likes to give speeches and receive adoration, he is dramatically arrogant, extremely ideological and first and foremost, an amateur in the executive realm. These things will continue to mark his presidency for the next 3 years. Obama does have some ability to grow and change, as I think we have observed in his foreign policy; he has approached it as his ideology dictated, and has gotten nothing for that approach; as a result, he has begun to take more of a hard-lined approach in Afghanistan. I can see him becoming slightly more hawkish and offering up fewer apologies for the arrogance of America. However, I do not see him growing in the economic realm in the same way.

These same characteristics (particularly the amateurish nature of the Obama regime) will be made manifest whenever the White House delivers their message, whether through Gibbs or through their talking heads. Just like Napolitano coming out and telling us one day that the system worked (and Gibbs backing her up on this), and then saying just the opposite the next day. Expect more statements like that and more poor decisions (like trying Gitmo prisoners as criminals).

The Wall Street Journal Report predicted that, if the Gitmo prisoners are brought to Illinois, that the crazy far left will go even crazier, marching in the streets, for better food and the chance to for these prisoners to follow their religion more freely when in prison (which things will be restricted more than at Guantanamo Bay). They also claim that Obama and Holder will proclaim this as great American ideals for these protestors to be out there with these ideals.

The same report predicted that Obama will replace Justice Ginsberg with a Justice Wood.

That's the view of U.S. Senators Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and John McCain, R-Ariz., based on a new oversight report on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, or economic stimulus bill.

The Coburn-McCain report "Stimulus Checkup - A closer look at 100 projects funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act" examines how $7 billion in stimulus funds have been wasted, mismanaged or directed toward silly and shortsighted projects.

"Across America families are making hard choices every day between competing priorities. Unfortunately, politicians in Washington refuse to make the same choices. The stimulus program is falling short of expectations because politicians in Washington - both Republicans and Democrats - can't say no to new spending, however wasteful or silly," Coburn said.

"No family in America would support many of the programs we've highlighted, such a duplicative $350 million broadband map or a $5 million eco-friendly energy project for a near-empty shopping mall. Our national debt has doubled over the past ten years because Washington can't set priorities. Wasteful project after wasteful projects has piled up, creating a mountain of debt for future generations. With just over $200 billion stimulus dollars spent already we hope this report will encourage the administration to spend remaining stimulus funds more wisely."

"Americans deserve to know how their government is spending the so-called stimulus funds," said McCain. "With unemployment at 10 percent and an escalating national debt, we cannot afford to spend taxpayer dollars on projects that don't create jobs or promote real and sustainable economic growth. This report shows that much of the stimulus bill has been a failure."

Nine months after Congress passed a $787 billion economic stimulus package the rolls of the unemployed have grown by millions and, by any measure, more jobs have been lost than created.

In fact, three million Americans have lost their jobs and the percentage of people who are without work has risen to 10 percent.

Also, Coburn said an effort to strip federal funding for abortions from Sen. Harry Reid's health care bill fell short.

The Senate defeated an amendment by U.S. Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., that would have removed a provision from Reid's health reform bill that will force taxpayers to finance abortion. The Senate defeated the Nelson amendment by a vote of 54 to 45, retaining the Reid language allowing taxpayer funding of abortion.

"I'm disappointed my colleagues voted to preserve this radical provision that will, for the first time, force taxpayers to fund other American's abortions with public funds. This provision is an affront to not just the millions of Americans who oppose abortion, but those who believe it is wrong to force anyone to fund abortion with public funds," Coburn said. "I commend Senator Nelson for offering this amendment. I hope those who voted against his amendment will rethink their position and realize they are on the wrong side of history, justice and common sense."

Broadband Map That May be Obsolete by the Time it's Complete ($350 million): $350 million was awarded to states from the Department of Commerce to build a map of its broadband Internet infrastructure, though it duplicates existing maps. Rather than spend $350 million on the project, one firm said it could map the whole nation for $3.5 million - one percent of the cost. Or, anyone with a computer could Google it - for free.

Empty Mall Gets Energy Award ($5 million): $5 million was awarded to the Oak Ridge Mall in Tennessee to provide geothermal heat - only the mall has few stores and customers.

Fossil Research in Argentina ($1.57 million): Researchers from Penn State will travel to Argentina to dig up plant fossils.

Anti-Capitalist Puppet Shows ($50,000): Puppet theatres with socialist, anti-capitalist messages were paid $50,000 to put on puppet shows.

Free Rides on Baltimore Water Taxi ($1.6 million): A program to offer free rides on the water taxi as a means of relieving road congestion got money despite it doing little to stop people from traveling in cars.

Digital Television Ad Campaign ($6 million): An ad agency was hired for $6 million one month before the switch to digital television - and reported creating three jobs with the money.

California Computer System ($60 million): In 2002, California got $66 million to upgrade its computers for the unemployment insurance program. It spent the money on other things and just got another $60 million in stimulus for the same project.

Non-Competitive Contracts ($7.8 billion): Half of all stimulus contracts awarded as of the fall were not subject to full competition.

Mice, Alcohol and Drugs ($38,000): Studying the impact of alcohol and methamphetamines on mice and rats.

Tourist Railroad ($2 million): The Virginia & Truckee tourist railroad in Nevada will get more than $2 million for an extension.

U.S. officials investigating how Abdulmutallab boarded Flight 253 as more missed red flags surface

by Richard Sisk, James Gordon Meek and Larry Mcshane (NY Daily News staff writers)

A handful of missed clues and miscommunication allowed Umar Farouk Abdulmatallab to board and attempt to bomb Northwest Flight 253 on Christmas Day.

One of the earliest signs of something amiss was when Abdulmutallab's student visa was denied renewal by British officials in May 2009.

In November 2009, Abdulmutallab's father Alhaji Umaru Mutallab (above) warned the U.S. Embassy in Abuja that his son spoke of "sacrificing himself."

Shortly before Thanksgiving, a concerned Nigerian banker warned the local U.S. Embassy about his missing son's ties to Yemeni radicals and a possible terrorist threat.

It wasn't until Christmas that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab resurfaced - in seat 19A of a Detroit-bound airliner, his underwear loaded with enough explosives to kill all 289 people aboard.

The 35 days between were rife with missed clues, missteps and miscommunication as authorities - in a 9/11 repeat - failed to connect the terrorist dots surrounding the Al Qaeda-trained bomber.

The pieces in this evil puzzle were evident in hindsight. Yet no one noticed as the 23-year-old terrorist slipped easily through the cracks, and stepped effortlessly aboard Northwest Airlines Flight 253.

"Somebody screwed up big time," said Sen. Kit Bond of Missouri, the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The first sign of something amiss came months earlier, when British officials - convinced his application was bogus - refused to renew Abdulmutallab's student visa in May 2009.

Three months later, the native Nigerian left London and returned to Yemen - a growing Al Qaeda stronghold where Abdulmutallab had lived in 2004-05.

He was purportedly attending classes at the Institute for the Arabic Language, although officials believe that was a cover story.

At about the same time, U.S. intelligence picked up chatter about an Al Qaeda terrorist plot centered in Yemen. A recruit identified only as "The Nigerian" was deeply involved.

There were also intercepted conversations between Abdulmutallab and at least one Al Qaeda member - reportedly extremist Yemeni American cleric Anwar al-Aulaqi.

On Nov. 19, the young man's father entered the U.S. Embassy in Abuja to voice his concerns. MSNBC reported the father cited a letter where the son spoke of "sacrificing himself."

The next day, embassy officials shared the information with all U.S. diplomatic officials and the State Department.

"Information at post suggests subject may be involved with Yemen-based extremists," the understated cable advised.

Yet Abdulmutallab's name was buried in a vast surveillance database of 550,000 names. Despite the fears of his father, the son's name never joined the no-fly list of about 4,000 people.

No one moved to revoke Abdulmutallab's U.S. tourist visa, valid through June 2010. And no one made the connection between the Nigerian and the Yemeni plot discussed in August.

The British visa rejection was never discovered; it remains unclear why this information never traveled between security agencies of the two allies.

The Nigerian, with his valid U.S. visa, appeared Dec. 16 at an airport in Ghana. He paid $2,381 cash for a round-trip ticket from Lagos, Nigeria, to Detroit.

The cash purchase was another potential warning sign. More blatant was a Dec. 21 online video where an Al Qaeda terrorist in Yemen warned, "We are carrying a bomb to hit the enemies of God."

When Abdulmutallab reached Murtala Muhammed International Airport in Nigeria on Christmas Eve, the world traveler brought no luggage - just a small carry-on bag.

Yet the terror suspect, who spent a mere 27 minutes at the airport, never received any extra attention from the $2-an-hour security guards.

They missed the 6-inch-long plastic container sewn into his underwear, loaded with the powerful powder explosive PETN.

Just one month before the failure, the Transportation Security Administration gave a passing security grade to the Lagos airport.

Abdulmutallab remained similarly anonymous during a three-hour layover in Amsterdam, clearing a security check that included a hand baggage scan and a metal detector.

Officials later confirmed that if his name was placed on a different list, Abdulmutallab would have faced additional preboarding attention at both airports.

Instead, he was one of the 289 people aboard the plane as it headed to Michigan on Christmas day. He grabbed the window seat for the long flight.

Abdulmutallab was finally stopped by the last line of defense - his fellow passengers.

He remains locked up as U.S. officials investigate exactly what went wrong, who was responsible - and how so many signs were ignored.

President Obama and the Democrat led Congress end 2009 with holiday spending spree

In his "jobs speech", President Obama implicitly acknowledged that last February's $1.2 trillion stimulus package has failed. Then he demanded another one in order to bolster his plan to "spend our way out of this recession." But given the failure of the first stimulus highlighted by wasteful spending unearthed in the Coburn-McCain report, as well as the stifling deficits the Obama administration is already running, more government spending will mean more debt, more waste and more unemployment.

Titled "Stimulus Checkup," the Coburn-McCain report exposes 100 projects paid for by February's $787B stimulus package they claim already wasted at least $7 billion, and the stimulus is only 15% spent. Some of the most egregious items include; $5 million for alternative energy in a mostly empty shopping mall in Tennessee, and $1.6 million for fossil research in Argentina for Penn State University. A dinner cruise company based in Chicago received nearly $1 million in funds to combat terrorism, and $100,000 was spent for a socially conscious puppet shows in Minnesota. The State University of New York at Buffalo won $390,000 to study young adults who drink malt liquor and smoke marijuana, and the National Institutes of Health got $219,000 in funds to study whether female college students are more likely to "hook up" after drinking alcohol. (dah!) There's even $30,000 to study how methamphetamines affect the sex drive of female rats, and $50,000 for a global warming field trip to Copenhagen for 11 students. The Coburn/McCain report shows insult to injury for the millions of American workers who aren't involved in one of the Left's pet causes or who do not have high-powered friends in the Democratic Party.

In response to the senators' report, White House spokesman Liz Oxhorn said, "In the end, even if there are a few unwise projects, it is only a handful out of the over 50,000 projects that have been approved to date." But those other 49,000 plus projects haven't exactly succeeded either. Obama sold the first stimulus by warning that the unemployment rate could reach 9 percent without a large infusion of money. Unemployment is now circling 10 percent, with his large infusion, and the November

unemployment report showed 15.4 million unemployed Americans (that's a 3 million increase since the $787 billion stimulus was passed), with another 9.2 under-employed, part-time workers.

The worst part of Obama's new stimulus is that he wants to pay for it with leftover or repaid TARP funds. A recent Treasury Department report shows it expects to get back $200 billion in taxpayer approved bank bailout funds faster than expected. But, as Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) said from the floor of the House on Tuesday, "To use money from the TARP fund in the manner that is being discussed by the White House and congressional Democrats would be a violation of the law, and it would betray the trust of the American taxpayer."

Anticipating a tough sell to congressional Republicans, Obama invited House GOP leaders to an arm-twisting session at the White House. But Republicans were having none of it, and House Minority Whip Eric Cantor gave Obama an alternative plan to create jobs that would add nothing to the deficit. Cantor's proposal would halt stifling business regulations, approve pending trade agreements and freeze domestic discretionary funding, among other measures. Those are all welcome ideas, but were not welcomed by the Obama administration.

The national debt stands at $12 trillion. The federal government ran a $1.8 trillion deficit in 2009 (more than triple last year's deficit), and the 2010 deficit is expected to be even higher. Polls show a majority of Americans oppose the Democrat's health care reform plan and cap-and-trade legislation in most part because of their catastrophic costs.

Aside from the stimulus package, the government found a few other 2009 "investments" to give them the appearance of caring about your pain just a little to much. They chose to spend $3B on the cash for clunkers program that helped people buy 690,000 new automobiles. After discounting those who were going to buy a car anyway, but took advantage of the $4000 "clunker" discount (565,000), the program ended up spending $24,000 per incentivized vehicle (125,000). Then they chose to spend $10B on a first time home buyer tax credit program that, after discounting those who wre not first timers and thise would have bought a house anyway (80%), but took advantage of the $8000 tax credit, the program ended up spending $75,000 per house.

The governments horrendous $75B mortgage mitigation program that was supposed to help people (of merit) who's home was about to be foreclosed. As of mid-December, some 759,000 homeowners had received some loan modifications on a trial basis typically lasting three to five months. But only about 31,000 had received permanent modifications. So far, the program is only 25% utilized, and at last record, ended up spending about $871,000 per saved mortgage. Average price of those homes? $178,000 (WTF!!?)

This is your money people!! This is the reason for future tax increased and yet another reason for spending cuts (both the easy and the painful).

President Obama signed a mammoth omnibus spending bill variously described as costing $447 billion or $1.1 trillion, depending on whether "mandatory" spending for programs such as Medicare and Social Security were included in the tabulation. The spending package will keep much of the federal government running through next September. Now, when government revenues are low, you would think the federal government would be downsizing and taking waste-cutting measures, much the same as the state governments have, but dozens of federal agencies received average budget increases of 10 percent. The $787 billion spending bill passed in the spring was supposed to address the recessionary needs of the country over the next couple years. So there is no reason for additional spending in the "budget bills" other than marginal adjustments for inflation. Some critics of the bill noted that thousands of earmarks were included. Earmarks the President himself vowed would no longer be allowed. According to the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense, the spending bill features more than 5,200 disclosed lawmaker earmarks worth $3.9 billion. Republicans are playing this up to highlight the Democrats' willingness to keep spending even as our government nears the federal debt limit. The $3.9 billion in earmarks comprises less than one-half of one percent of the total cost of the bill. I guess $4 billion is little more than a "rounding error" or "pocket change", but it's your pocket change!! The 10% increase over last years bill amounts to $50 billion. Is that pocket change too!!?

"It is business as usual, spending money like a drunken sailor, and the bar is still open," declared Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) during debate on the bill.

President Obama signed into law legislation that provides $636.3 billion for the U.S. military operations in fiscal 2010, including $128.3 billion split pretty evenly between the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The defense bill was the last of 12 annual spending bills to be sent to the president. The "defense bill" also carried about $13.3 billion in "non-defense" spending, most of it for temporary extensions of several domestic programs Congress claims they didn't have time to consider separately. Truth is, some are highly contentious programs that would not have passed unless tied to troop funding. Others are embarrassing fixes to previous legislation that they hope goes unnoticed buried in billions of dollars of defense spending.

Lawmakers extended through February a package of emergency unemployment and health-care benefits, a stopgap provision to ensure that unemployment benefits aren't cut off over the holidays. (got elections next year) They had been part of this year's poorly thought through $787 billion economic-stimulus package. Those benefits include health-insurance subsidies for laid-off workers under the federal COBRA program. The benefit had been slated to expire at the end of this month. Lawmakers also temporarily reauthorized portions of the anti-terror USA Patriot Act and provided funding for Medicare to forestall (for two months) a scheduled 21 percent cut in payments to doctors who treat patients in the government health program for the elderly(doc fix). It appears congress has made several mistakes in previous legislation and needs to spends money, every couple months, to "kick the can down the road" a couple more months.

The bill includes about $11 billion more spending than the fiscal 2009 bill, according to the Senate Appropriations Committee. The funding for fiscal 2010 brings to more than $1 trillion the money approved since Sept. 11 for the wars, veterans' care, embassy protection and enhanced domestic security. That includes $748 billion for spending related to the war in Iraq and $300 billion for Afghanistan. (an absolute bargain when compared to $1 trillion of failed, socialist, stimulus spending, just this year!!)

The issue of unspent bank bailout funds (TARP) also arose, and Republicans are pushing for unspent funds, and loans repaid by the banks already, to be used exclusively for debt reduction, while Democrats want to spend it on job creation programs they somehow forgot to write into the $787 billion stimulus package. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to reuse the funds that "bailed out Wall Street" and use them to "save main street". That's pretty good spin, Miss Robin Hood, but those are our tax dollars, not Wall Street dollars! After initial White House and Treasury Department resistance, the administration appears now committed to leveraging TARP funds.

1). the funds could allow the White House to "pay" for the jobs legislation without resorting to offsetting tax increases or spending cuts.

President Obama is now asking Congress to use unspent TARP funds to finance a one-year jobs package that could cost upwards of $100 billion. The Treasury Department expects to recover all but $42 billion of the $370 billion it loaned to ailing companies during the financial crisis last year, with the portion loaned to banks showing a slight profit, according to a Treasury report.

The officials said the government could ultimately lose another $100 billion from the bailout program, if big banks need more loans or if the $700 billion TARP fund is extended to help small businesses or to avert home foreclosures..

No, the $550 billion balance, which they are portraying as a "savings," is burning a hole in their pocket, so much so that they've extended the program until Oct. 3, 2010, to give them time to spend the leftovers. More spending for cash-strapped states; more funds for road, bridge and other infrastructure projects; aid to small businesses in the form of tax credits or direct loans; more spending for green-friendly private-sector and public-sector weatherization projects. Other items could be added to the package, White House officials said. No final price tag has been determined, they said.

Congressional Republicans argue a section of the TARP law directs unspent funds and repaid loans to debt reduction. Congressional Democrats dispute this interpretation.

"It's an outrage," said Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., ranking member of the Budget Committee. "It's an absolute outrage. And you know who pays the bills? Our kids. It's not right. It's not fair and it's not appropriate." Gregg said the White House and congressional Democrats see the TARP funds as a trough of unspent money, not one-time only loans given in dire circumstances to stabilize a financial system on the brink of failure. Gregg said TARP funds should fulfill that limited purpose or pay down the federal debt, now just over $12 trillion.

"They see this pool of money coming back in... doing what it was supposed to do which was stabilize the financial institutions (and) then come back to the taxpayers to negate the cost," Gregg said. "That's what we all agreed on. But a bunch of guys are here and (have) said 'Oh let's go out and spend it. We got this money. Let's spend it.'"

Brendan Daly, spokesman for Pelosi, told Fox that Democrats believe they can use unspent TARP funds - totaling $226 billion - for other purposes without changing existing law.

The Treasury Department has said it's permissible to "recycle" TARP funds that haven't been used or have been repaid by once-distressed banks. The only funds off limits, according to Treasury, are profits and dividends banks paid to the government as part of their loan agreements. (taxpayers hoodwinking again) It now appears the entire $700 billion loan program is lost forever to the Democrats insatiable appetite for spending. Their true goal is to boost aid to states and municipalities to preserve unionized government jobs, and fund tens of billions in infrastructure projects to keep unionized construction workers employed, if only temporarily.

Democrats state they are focusing on using government spending to strengthen the economy and create jobs, which they claim would have the byproduct of boosting federal tax revenue and reducing the deficit.

Where the new "stimulus" differs from the failed last stimulus is in its "help" for small businesses: government-backed loans and tax credits. This is a wise choice of stimulus, but consider the predicament of business owners and entrepreneurs. Obamacare figures to raise their costs dramatically. Cap-and-trade and government regulation of carbon dioxide would raise their energy and compliance costs. Big Labor's "card-check" bill still threatens to raise labor costs while reducing productivity and the quality of their products and services. States and municipalities, facing unprecedented fiscal crises, may raise "soak-the-rich" business taxes. Add to that, hyperinflation could be around the corner. With all of their economic trepidation, why would employers want to go more deeply into debt to hire people they might have to lay off next year? And why would they add to their payroll for the sake of a tax credit that would be funded, albeit indirectly, by taxes on their steadily shrinking profits?

President Obama signed a bill to raise the federal debt ceiling by $290 billion, to $12.4 trillion. The previous debt ceiling was $12.1 trillion and was set to be topped on Dec. 31. Failure to increase the $12.1 trillion debt limit to cover federal borrowing could have lead to a technical government default. But the $290 billion will only be enough to allow the Treasury Department to borrow money to fund government operations and programs until mid-February. The government piled up a record $1.4 trillion deficit in 2009 to counter a meltdown in financial markets and it's failed attempt help bring the nation out of its worst economy in seven decades.

Senate Democrats voted to raise the limit and Republicans voted against doing so, with one defection on each side, Sens. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) and George Voinovich (R-Ohio).

"I would not support raising the debt ceiling because Congress has not adopted a credible process to restrain spending and eliminate red ink," Bayh said a statement after the vote.

Democrats had originally planned to pass an unprecedented increase of almost $2 trillion to avoid another vote before next year's midterm elections. But that plan fell apart amid opposition from about a dozen Senate Democratic moderates, who refuse to support a debt-limit increase unless it is accompanied by legislation to establish a new bipartisan task force to come up with a plan to curb the deficit. Top Democrats in the House and Senate, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, are strongly opposed to the idea of an independent commission, arguing that the concept relinquishes too much Congressional authority. (authority she abuses regularly) Given that resistance, one compromise being discussed is a deficit reduction commission that would be created by executive order. It would still make recommendations to the House and Senate, but they would be subject to revision by Congress. (who will just say no) Pelosi, meanwhile, is supporting demands of moderate House Democrats, who are demanding a "pay-as-you-go" budget law aimed at ensuring that new tax cuts or new spending programs don't increase deficits in exchange for their votes for the next debt increase. The Senate is generally opposed to the idea, even though it was the law of the land for more than a decade. The Senate will return to the issue when it reconvenes in January.

With the increased spending and more red ink provoking new Congressional alarm, a group of Democratic deficit hawks insist that Congress and the White House agree to new efforts to rein in the deficit or they would block a large increase in the debt limit. Unable to strike a larger $1.8 trillion deal with the White House and the Congressional leadership, the lawmakers said they would support only a short-term increase in the debt limit to allow more time for negotiation and for Mr. Obama to present his own deficit-reduction strategy in his State of the Union address. "We are not going to give up the leverage we have now," said Senator Kent Conrad, a North Dakota Democrat who leads the Budget Committee and is an author of the plan to create an independent deficit-cutting commission to examine the long-term fiscal outlook and propose a new budgetary framework that would be subject to an un-amendable, "take it or leave it" vote in both chambers. "There are a number of us who feel very strongly that this is the moment we can get some kind of concession," said Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat of Missouri and one of a group of lawmakers who met in the Capitol to plot strategy. She and others said they wanted a vote on a new proposal to create a bipartisan, independent commission to stop itself from ruining the nation's finances. Modeled on a commission that closed military bases such as the Presidio and Treasure Island in San Francisco, the budget commission would be composed of 10 Democrats and eight Republicans now serving in Congress, plus the Treasury secretary and one other administration official. Others want an agreement by Congress to follow "pay as you go" rules when considering legislation. Leadership aides say both sides are beginning to bend, especially after a furious round of saber-rattling over raising the federal debt ceiling that led Democrats in both chambers to conclude that, in the absence of a compromise, they faced mutually assured destruction. Both chambers now have until mid-February to reach agreement to avoid a situation wherein the U.S. would go beyond its debt limit and face the prospect of defaulting on its debts. Conrad secured pledges from at least a dozen senators to reject any debt limit increase without a commission bill attached, and conservative Blue Dog Democrats warned that they would do the same without a Senate concession to accept pay-go legislation. Pelosi hinted at the discussions and expressed a new-found openness to consider a commission - along with certain unspecified conditions. "There is talk of putting a commission together to review entitlements, the impact on our budget. We will look at that and see where we can come to agreement on that." "We will come to terms on a commission - by the way, one that can pass the Senate," Pelosi said. Many expect the compromise to contain a commission on entitlement spending, to address what many believe is a looming fiscal and budgetary catastrophe resulting from drastic gaps between future entitlement program liabilities and projected federal revenues, and a "pay-go" rule for discretionary spending.

Top Democrats say their focus last year had to be on job creation,(Really!!?, how'd that work out for ya??) but Mr. Obama and his aides say they intend to focus on deficit reduction this year and will propose a restrained budget. Lawrence H. Summers, the president's chief economic adviser, said Mr. Obama was receptive to new ideas for reducing the deficit. But Mr. Summers would not commit to White House backing for a commission with the ability to make recommendations to Congress for an up-or-down vote. "What's fundamentally important is that we find a solution that works," Mr. Summers said. "And the president will be open, is open, to any approach that offers the prospect of controlling the budget deficit."

The deficit this year shattered records at $1.8 trillion and the Obama budgets call for about $9 trillion in deficits over the next decade. In the past year, the public debt has shot up from 41 percent to 52 percent of the gross domestic product and is headed to a previously unthinkable 85 percent in eight years. Democrats have increased discretionary spending (minus entitlements such as Medicare) by 8 percent this year, on top of the stimulus. The Peterson-Pew Commission, composed of former members of Congress and budget experts, warned that the federal budget has reached a danger zone much faster than anticipated even a year ago. Like a homeowner swimming in mortgage debt, the government's bills are growing faster than its income, to the point where overseas investors holding U.S. debt could be spooked at any moment. Recession-caused tax revenue shortfalls, and record government spending this year on a $787 billion stimulus and a $700 billion bank rescue have raised the debt very rapidly, to nervous-making levels.

The Peterson-Pew panel called for immediate action to stabilize the debt at 60 percent of national income (still way above its historic range under 40 percent). The commissioners said swift action is needed to reassure investors, invoking funding panics that have recently hit Dubai, Greece and the United Kingdom. Still, Democratic leaders in Congress and the Obama administration contend that joblessness is the more important problem now. Christina Romer, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers (and dumbest economist on earth) said it would be "suicidal" to cut spending with the unemployment rate above 10 percent. Economic growth is the best remedy to the deficit, they argue. "The number one thing you need to do to improve the economy and improve the deficit is put people back to work"

The Democrats' unflinching and unprecedented reliance on more spending that's frightening the American people who understand that trillion dollar deficits and an ever-higher debt ceiling are a disastrous combination. This is like someone who has maxed out his credit cards asking his bank to raise the limits so he can keep on charging, rather than living within his means. As ordinary Americans tighten their belts and cut up their credit cards, it's time for the Democrat controlled Congress and the Obama administration to do the same. The practice of throwing good tax money after bad public policy must end.

It would be beneficial if the Democrats would consider alternative methods of job creation other than massive federal spending. If the U.S. government would reduce taxes and regulations and extricate our nation from trade pacts that force American industry overseas, a great deal of job creation could take place without increasing the federal deficit one cent. Strict adherence to the U.S. Constitution is the simplest way to limit the size and scope of government, which has the byproduct of removing limits on the marketplace to create the jobs that are needed.

If we continue spending and borrowing at this pace, we are headed for a debt-driven crisis. Foreign creditors, such as China, have begun lecturing the Obama administration on its unsustainable fiscal policies. This government is $12 trillion in debt - Divided among the U.S. population, the debt amounts to $38,974.34 for every man, woman and child in this country. The federal government will borrow 43 cents for every dollar that it spends this fiscal year. After just three years of Democratic control in the House, the national debt has increased by 39 percent. Interest payments on the national debt are becoming one of our major budget expenses. Today, the "daily" interest burden on our national debt is $600 million! Rather than continuing to borrow and spend even more, we should tighten our belt and spend less.

This new stimulus is aimed at accelerating job growth and laying a foundation for economic

growth and funding "shovel-ready" projects. You may be asking - isn't that what the first two economic stimulus packages passed under President Bush and Obama were for? The answer is yes. Did they work? No! Were they costly? Outrageously costly! Americans are not buying into the "third times is a charm" mentality. Nor should they be when a host of new economic numbers proves otherwise. Despite repeated stimulus and bailout attempts, unemployment has climbed to 10 percent in the past several months. Our national debt hit another record high - $12 frickin trillion! - Americans know that more stimulus spending means more deficit spending and another contribution to a ballooning federal debt that will be placed on the backs of our grandchildren and financed by countries like China. As such, Americans have spent the past several months raising their voices against a job-threatening and deficit-bloating government takeover of health care, a "cap and trade" national energy tax, and an ever-increasing limit on the national credit card. Yet, Congress and the Administration keep spending money without setting priorities or reducing waste.

"In the space of a single fiscal year, 2009, the debt soared from 41 percent of the gross domestic product to 53 percent. This sum, which does not include what the government has borrowed from its own trust funds, is on track to rise to a crushing 85 percent of the economy by 2018."

The Chinese, Japanese and Arabs still buying that debt will begin to suspect they are holding onto paper on which the United States will default, or will cheapen by inflating its currency - as the Germans did in 1923 to avoid paying war reparations.

When they do, they will stop buying U.S. debt and start dumping. The Fed will then have to raise interest rates to attract borrowers, throwing the economy into a tailspin.

Slash funding for wasteful, abusive, and duplicative spending. The Commission on the Accountability and Review of Federal Agencies Act, H.R. 1802, would establish a bipartisan commission to review federal agencies and programs in an effort to eliminate wasteful spending on duplicative, inefficient or outdated programs. CARFA would make recommendations to Congress and to the President for changes to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of taxpayer dollars.

Constitutionally require Congress to balance the federal budget each year. The Balanced Budget Amendment, H.J. Res 1, will force Congress to enact fiscally responsible spending measures, reduce the deficit, and ensure that the money our citizens work so hard to earn is not spent on wasteful spending and programs.

The bill requires that Congress not spend more than it receives in revenues, requires the President to submit a balanced budget to Congress, and requires a 3/5 majority vote to increase the debt limit. This common-sense solution is already implemented in many states across our country, including Virginia. A Constitutional amendment will force Congress to eliminate unnecessary and wasteful spending and make the decisions necessary to balance the budget and eliminate the federal deficit.

(an exception for defense needs in times of war or "across-the-board" tax reductions in times of recession needs to be implemented)

Institute process and entitlement reforms that take a long-range budget view. The SAFE Commission Act, H.R. 1557, would establish a Commission that would review federal spending and develop legislation designed to address the unsustainable imbalance between long-term federal spending commitments and projected revenues; increases in net national savings to provide for domestic investment and economic growth; the implications of foreign ownership of federally issued debt instruments; and revision of the budget process to place greater emphasis on long-term fiscal issues.

Economists on the left and right are increasingly calling for a European-style value-added tax, similar to a national sales tax, as the only feasible way to pay for the government. Conservatives say a broad-based consumption tax is preferable to the overloaded income tax, paid mostly by upper-income groups. Liberals prefer a value-added tax to slashing government services.

Creating fiscal discipline in Washington is a first and necessary step on the road to economic recovery. Americans should demand nothing less from their government than a clear commitment to take control of our fiscal future. Our leaders are in no way elected to represent future generations of Americans. When they pile up needless debt beyond what their current constituents will ever be able to pay off, forcing it to be payed by future generations, is equivalent to taxation without representation. We elect the government we deserve. When we "vote ignorant" of the issues, simple minded, Socialist Democrats gain control of Congress and the Whitehouse. This is a call out to all Americans that still have backbone remaining. It's time you act! It's time you are heard! Speak up...Speak out...Protest... and, damn it VOTE THIS FALL!

Here are 100 things which the Stimulus Bill has paid for (this is a pdf of the official report):

Whole Foods CEO John Mackey is stepping down; his sin? He suggested a free market solution to the health care situation:

Rush Limbaugh on the medical care which he received when suffering chest pains in Hawaii:

RUSH: We talked yesterday, just as the program was ending we got the news, Stephen Hayes, at the Weekly Standard on his blog mentioned that terrorist detainees in Afghanistan are being read their Miranda rights. This signals a huge shift once again that fighting terrorism is a criminal enterprise. It brings back the old days of the way the Clinton administration went about it. But when you start Mirandizing noncitizens, especially foreign enemy combatants on the battlefield, when you start Mirandizing them, you are granting them constitutional rights when they are not citizens. Now, if you can do that, if you can grant a constitutional right and Mirandize a foreign terrorist, enemy combatant, then I guess you can automatically grant citizenship to people who are not citizens, couldn't you?

Andy McCarthy has written much about this at National Review Online, and he actually goes back and says one of the people that can be blamed for this is Senator McCain. I don't have his story right in front of me, but Senator McCain supported -- back when McCain was on his anti-torture bandwagon and was trying to curry favor with people on the left to get their votes by agreeing that the US tortured people. One of the ways that McCain sought to prevent torture and make it illegal, which it always has been anyway, was to make it possible for what the Obama administration is doing. And they did this on the quiet. It took a member of Congress finding this out. Sarah Palin warned of this in her acceptance speech at St. Paul, the Republican convention, last September.

PALIN: Al-Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America, and he's worried that someone won't read 'em their rights.

RUSH: It's exactly right. Now, Obama, on March 22nd, this year, on 60 Minutes, said this.

OBAMA: Now, do these folks deserve Miranda rights? Do they deserve to be treated like a shoplifter down the block? Of course not.

RUSH: Well, there you have it, there's Barack Obama, March 22nd, "No, they don't deserve Miranda rights." They're getting 'em. They are being Mirandized in Afghanistan today. So once again it's not what Obama says; it's how he says it that appeals to people. Yesterday this all came up at the afternoon press briefing with the most brilliant and articulate press secretary we've ever had, according to several in the government-run media. Major Garrett of Fox News said, "Do you know if it's true or untrue that Miranda rights are read to terrorists in Afghanistan?"

GIBBS: I have no reason to -- to disbelieve a member of Congress, but I don't know any of the circumstances that are involved around it.

REPORTER: Would it come as a surprise to the White House that that's what would be happening?

RUSH: Not a surprise. Yet your boss said on March 22nd that they don't deserve Miranda rights. And Gibbs says, yes, he's not surprised to him that it's happening, but that he didn't know it. So they aren't denying it. And of course it requires us to go back and find Obama saying that they don't deserve Miranda rights on 60 Minutes in March because government-controlled media is not going to do it.

RUSH: Now, these Miranda rights for terrorists: When can we expect congressional hearings on this policy? Nobody knew it was happening. The president's press secretary didn't know it was happening. When will there be congressional hearings? And I have another question. If we are going to Mirandize enemy combatants on the field of battle -- we are in a war in Afghanistan, folks. We're not there in a "police action." We're there in a war. If we're going to Mirandize terrorists, the enemy combatants, does that mean they don't have to say anything until they get a lawyer, and if they can't afford a lawyer, are we going to appoint one for them? I mean, isn't that part of the Miranda rights? So where are the congressional hearings on this?

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 is indispensable: the Wall Street Journal’s guide to Obama-care (all of their pertinent articles arranged by date—send one a day to your liberal friends):

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574441193211542788.html

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 #108	Kukis Digests and Opines on this Week’s News and Views	January 3, 2010