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).

There continue to be American fighting and deaths in Iraq, despite our conflict having been ended there.

Establishment Republican candidate Lisa Murkowski, who was defeated in the Alaskan primary, is going to have a write-in campaign for the Senate seat.

Jon Stewart is now organizing a “Million moderate rally at the Capitol.” This is not just a bit; they have submitted a permit applicator. Former Clinton aides are involved in the organization.

The NAACP has come out and proclaimed that arrests for possession of marijuana to be a civil rights issue and therefore, ought to be legalized.

Christine O’Donnell, TEA party candidate, defeats establishment candidate Mike Castle in the Republican Delaware primary.

"What I believe the American people deserve is a tax cut for the middle class," said Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who is not offering any sort of tax cuts for the middle class.

Bill Mahr: “Isn’t it Obama’s problem that he does everything half-assed? He’s only half Black. If he was fully Black [not half-laughing] I am telling you, he would be a better president.”

President Obama, speaking 2 days prior to Constitution Day: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are crated equal. [Long Pause] Endowed with certain inalienable [sic] rights: life and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The preamble to the Constitution actually reads: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Jim Wallis: “Beck...doesn't understand Christian theology very well...Jesus was a liberation theologian practitioner.”

Jesse Jackson: “English is a great language, but Jesus did not speak English.”

Howard Dean teaching political pivoting to European liberal students: “Don’t let them set the agenda. We always do this on the left. We’re too damned honest. We think we have to answer the question. We don’t ever have to answer the question. You can anser the question that they should have asked you.”

Michael Moore: “Why don't we have words for people like Gingrich and Palin? You know, because they're essentially our mullahs, you know, our Taliban. We don't ever really refer to them as, but we should start calling them Cleric Gingrich and Mullah Taliban Palin, or whatever. See how that, see how that fits. Because I think that their, their level of bigotry is so un-American, and, I just, I just. [...]. Hey, how about that McDonald's two blocks from Ground Zero, Bill? That's killed, that's killed more people than the nineteen hijackers.”

Keith Olbermann: “For the second time in three days, a hardline GOP stalwart managed to get fed up with the nonsensical, virulent, uneducated hatred pushed by one of these flip Tea Party types, and he called BS on it. The first was Karl Rove wigging out over the lump of dumb and judgmental that is Christine O'Donnell.”

Chris Coons will be running against Christine O’Donnell. Harry Reid remarked: “I'm going to be very honest with you - Chris Coons, everybody knows him in the Democratic caucus. He's my pet. He's my favorite candidate.”

White House Office of Science and Technology Director John P. Holden: "A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States."

Headline in yesterday's Washington Post: "Was politics behind the government`s decision to preserve the UAW's pensions?"

Michael Pence: “I am a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order.”

Republican Jim DeMint on the strategy of electing O’Donnell rather than Castle: “I don't want the majority back [in the Senate] if we don't believe anything”

Sarah Palin to the Republican establishment: “They had better buck up or stay in the truck.”

Chris Christie: “Any...Republican nominee should be supported by the Republican party; that’s why we have primaries; people get to decide who they want to be the nominee of our part [y].”

Brent Bozell: “The left has only one weapon left, and that is character assassination.”

Mary Katherine Hamm’s response to Michael Moore saying there ought to be a mosque build at ground zero: “[Michael Moore’ deomstrates once again that he really has his finger on the pulse of America.”

Jodi Miller: “Vice President Biden spoke out in defense of this administrations record-breaking spending, Biden said that, without all that spending, American wouldn’t have enjoyed recovery summer.”

Charles Krauthammer: “The Tea Party has distinguished itself in being almost exclusively about governance, the reach of governance, taxation, economic issues. It is not the social conservatives. In fact, that is what distinguishes it. And I think the other element that is being missed here is it arose spontaneously as a reaction to an extremely aggressive, extremely ambitious left liberal administration.”

Alan LaRue, a pastor of a nondenominational church in Angola, Indiana, who is concerned of looking at fiscal issues alone: "I think the economy is important, but if the other values go down, what do we have?"

Betsy McCaughney: “The government can’t force you to get a colonoscopy, but they can force you to pay for one, so it feels about the same.”

Andrew Breitbart called a homosexual and spit upon during an anti-hate rally; possibly an off-day for those who don’t hate. The discourse is pretty difficult to understand.

Jodi Miller: “Fidel Castro recently said that the Cuban model of government doesn’t work. Castro then cited President Obama and Congressional Democrats as proof.”

1) Again, I am hear media figures and politicians blame the media for making an issue out of the mosque and thereby causing the mosque demonstrations. There were very large anti-Ground Zero mosque demonstrations which the news media first chose to ignore completely. Because this information got out (just like the TEA party demonstrations), they were forced to cover it.

2) It has been pointed out that the primary thing that a Senator does is vote. They might be nutty, they might be normal, they might have a lot of weirdness in their past; but, when it comes right down to it, mostly they vote (with the exception of a couple dozen who are good orators and debaters). When you choose your Senator or Representative, you are not choosing a leader, most of the time, but just a vote. Therefore, forget the personal stuff and vote for those representatives who most reflect your views and who have shown themselves to be honest enough in the past to vote their rhetoric.

3) Along a similar vein—and I should have put this in the Future News section earlier, Democrat candidates for Congress will focus on the individuals in their race—if they can find one thing wrong with a candidate—he is too tan or he smokes—they are going to beat the hell out of that drum. Smart Republicans are going to focus on the national issues—here is what my opponent would vote for and here is what I would vote for. Whoever wins is the person able to focus the people on one side or the other of these 2 approaches. Personal issues are only important insofar as, they say they will vote one way, but will actually vote just the opposite (for instance, they portray themselves as fiscal conservatives, when they are not).

4) Being critical of Islam does not make a person Islamophobic. Objection to a mosque near Ground Zero is not Islamophobia.

5) Likely Republican Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has said that the Republican establishment needs to respect the decision of the people of Delaware. That is, they selected Christine O’Donnell as their Republican candidate, and therefore, we ought to stand behind her. That is the nature of a primary in a Democracy.

6) There is a lot about economics which is simple to understand. The more that people work in the private sector, the more that they produce (and the more stuff that gets spread around in an economy, whether we are talking about refrigerators, energy, new ideas, or art and literature). When people get a handout from Uncle Sam and simply sit at home, they don’t produce a thing.

7) Brit Hume observed that we do not see large numbers of Muslims rising up and condemning various acts of violence which are being committed each and every day. There are, to be sure, a handful of moderate Muslims who make their feelings known; but there are no large marches or demonstrations of Muslims carrying signs like, “The USA is okay.” “Use persuasion, not bombs.” Now, if one cartoonist suggests let’s all draw a picture of Mohammed, she finds herself threatened and she has to go underground. Furthermore, Muslims riot over this and people die. But there are no large demonstrations of Muslims saying, “Look, this is no big deal.”

8) I have ragged on Democrats for not making it possible to figure out what party they are with; however, John Dennis, who appears to be running against Nancy Pelosi, seems to have no “R’s” on his website (after some deep searching, I did indeed confirm that he is a Republican).

9) Some simple arithmetic makes it clear that the White House is lying to us. The message being put out there is, we cannot give the rich these tax breaks (i.e., continue with the Bush tax cuts) because they are unpaid for and we need that money to pay down the deficit. They estimate that amount to be $70 billion each year. Our deficit has been between $1.3 and 1.4 trillion each year. This is not even 6% of the deficit. If all of the Bush tax cuts were allowed to expire, we are talking at the most, a third of the deficit. So, even if the Bush tax cuts were allowed to expire, Obama’s deficits would still be over twice Bush’s highest deficits. The problem is spending not income from taxpayers.

The “cost” of retaining the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy: $700 billion over 10 years.

The “cost” of retaining the Bush tax cuts for the middle class: $3.7 trillion over 10 years.

Recently, $11 million from the Stimulus Law created 55 jobs—that $2 million per job.

So, how many times have you heard “Bush tax cuts for the rich”? If the Bush tax cuts expire, a typical family of four with a household income of $50,000 a year would have to pay $2,900 more in taxes in 2011, according to a new analysis by Deloitte Tax LLP, a tax consulting firm. The same family making $100,000 a year would see its taxes rise by $4,500.

The news media is all in favor of building a Ground Zero mosque. This is why you did not hear that Imam Rauf founding one of his organizations with a 9/11 truther (someone who believes that the United States government was wholly are partially involved in the 9/11 attacks).

Mississippi Representative Gene Taylor is the first Democrat candidate to sign a pledge to repeal Obamacare.

Obama tax cuts for the Middle class = not letting the Bush tax cuts for those who make less than $250,000 not expire. There are no actual tax cuts. Obama’s position will also raise taxes on a huge number of Americans and small businesses.

Global climate disruption is the new name for climate change (which I guess was not serious-sounding enough) which was a temporary new name for global warming. White House science adviser John Holdren said in Oslo last week that this ought to be our new phrase.

If you were paying attention, we just observed some very cool political chess this past week. President Obama mentions John Boehner's name about 8 times during a speech. Most of America does not know who Boehner is (he is the leader of the minority party-the Republicans-in the House). Readers of Flopping Aces probably know this, but most of America has no idea. Probably a third of our voting population does not even know which party is in power in the House and the Senate.

Anyway, so Obama gets Boehner's name out there. He knows that these elections are going to be nationalized, so he needs a face to put on the Republican party, so that he can demonize that face (ala, Saul Alinksy).

Then, almost simultaneously, Boehner is pressed on television about tax cuts for the rich (remember, the news media, for the most part, is an arm of the Democratic party). The principled position is for Boehner to say, "We should not let the Bush tax cuts expire for rich or poor; they should remain in place for all Americans, and that is what we as Republicans will hold out for." But, he did not say that exactly, because this was all a set up was to make Boehner known as the head the Republican party, and then to get a quote from him that could be played and replayed in order to make it look as if the thrust of the Republican party is to get tax cuts for the rich.

Instead, to the surprise of many people, Boehner immediately capitulated and said, "We will take whatever tax cuts we can get for the American people, rich or poor. If we can only get some tax cuts, then that is what we will do." (Not an exact quote). Now, if you are a strong conservative, when you saw this, you probably yelled at the TV and though that Boehner was selling out the principles of conservatism. Wrong. This whole thing was a trap, and Boehner deftly avoided stepping into it.

Calling out Boehner’s name 8 or 10 times in a speech and then hoping that the NY Times criticizing Boehner smoking and having a serious tan is going to rally the people against Republicans.

I really think that there is something to these 3 Senate races where 3 Republicans are attempting to sabotage a Republican win. See the story on Republican traitors below.

These are not missing; this is a sampling of the pro-Democrat headlines which are out there in the alphabet media:

When Christine O’Donnell, TEA party candidate defeated establishment candidate Mike Castle in the Republican Delaware primary, it caused no little stir in the conservative world. Charles Krauthammer, Karl Rove and Michael Medved seemed to be on one side; Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and Jim DeMint on the other. Karl Rove enumerated O’Donnell’s personal weaknesses, which was an accurate appraisal of the uphill battle that she faces, and something I do not fault Rove for doing. In fact, Krauthammer, Rove and Medved almost convinced me that Castle should have been elected rather than O’Donnell. After all, he would certainly defeat the Democratic candidate, whereas, O’Donnell may not.

I was almost convinced until the aftermath of that primary. Mike Castle spoke to President Obama and Vice President Biden on the phone after his loss, but not to O’Donnell. As of this writing, he has not called to respectfully congratulate O’Donnell, the winner of the primary. To me, that is weird. What is this Republican doing? What exactly does he have to say to Obama and to Biden? Maybe the people of Delaware hurt his feelings, but he should have manned up, congratulated his opponent, and then gone out to campaign for her. After all, what is most important? Conservative values or his hurt feelings? It is possible that his actions could keep O’Donnell from winning the election and that could be the 51^st seat in the Senate. He knows this; he is not a stupid man; he is politically savvy, which is why he is a lifelong politician. To me, this is quite intriguing.

Along the same lines, TEA party candidate Joe Miller defeated the establishment Republican candidate Lisa Murkowski in the Alaskan Republican primary. Now, Murkowski is moving ahead on a write-in candidacy, which has not a chance of succeeding, but it could keep Miller, a Republican, from taking the Alaskan Senate seat. Now, a conservative or, for that matter, even a loyal Republican, understands, if you run 2 right of center candidates, they will both lose to the left of center candidate. Yet, she is running. This could be that precious 51^st seat in the Senate.

But who could forget Charlie Crist, who lost to Marco Rubio in the primary, and now is running as an independent?

What appears to be the case is, we have 3 establishment Republican senators, who lost their bid in the primary, and seem intent on doing that which will cause the Republican candidate to be defeated. I do not recall anything like this happening before—3 Senate races which could determine the control of the Senate, and 3 Republicans appear to be intentionally sabotaging a Republican takeover.

Is this simply a coincidence? Is this simply ego and power lust? Or have these Republicans been bought and paid for by the other side? Could this be the ultimate in dirty tricks politics?

Maybe I messed up. I forgot about Mike Pence when naming off the top Republican candidates.

Lobbyists all over Washington are privately complaining about getting undue pressure to contribute to House Democrats, who are frantically dialing for dollars to save their House majority. One of those insiders has now made available a fascinating tape showing how at least one member may be stepping over ethical lines in securing money.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi started the unseemly treasure hunt in August when she and other top leaders wrote members saying: "We need to know your commitment is to maintaining a strong Democratic majority now" and pleading with them to call "to let us know what you are able to do and when." Chris Van Hollen, the head of the party's House campaign committee, has written members asking each to raise $30,000 for the committee. Other members have been told privately that their chances of getting or keeping plum committee assignments partly hinge on their ability to bring money in.

BigGovernment.com has opened a window on some of the fundraising tactics being used. Eleanor Holmes Norton, the delegate representing Washington D.C. in the House, called a lobbyist earlier this month and, after not reaching him, left a revealing voice mail. Her voice message notes that the lobbyist had contributed to other members of the Transportation and Infrastructure committee that Ms. Norton is a senior member of and drops hints that she has the power to give or deny favors. "We particularly, uh, need, uh, contributions, particularly those of us who have the seniority and chairmanships and are in a position to raise the funds," she tells the lobbyist.

She then details her role overseeing a large economic development project in Washington D.C. that was financed by stimulus bill spending. Ms. Norton apparently believes the lobbyist has an interest in the project and says she is "frankly surprised" that he hasn't contributed to her in the past.

Ms. Norton's office didn't respond to several requests for comment yesterday, leaving open the question of whether she crossed ethical lines that prohibit members from linking contributions to the performance of their official duties. At least one House member I spoke with says Ms. Norton is in clear violation of House rules and should be hauled up before the Ethics Committee.

The sleazy scramble for cash initiated by Speaker Pelosi is a far cry from her pledge to run the "most ethical and honest Congress in history" when Democrats won control in 2006. Just last February, when asked at a news conference about that quote, she interrupted a reporter and said "And we are."

Thankfully, voters will have the final say this November on whether or not they believe the accuracy of that statement.

Efforts to tame America's ballooning budget deficit could soon confront a daunting reality: Nearly half of all Americans live in a household in which someone receives government benefits, more than at any time in history.

At the same time, the fraction of American households not paying federal income taxes has also grown-to an estimated 45% in 2010, from 39% five years ago, according to the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan research organization.

A little more than half don't earn enough to be taxed; the rest take so many credits and deductions they don't owe anything. Most still get hit with Medicare and Social Security payroll taxes, but 13% of all U.S. households pay neither federal income nor payroll taxes.

"We have a very large share of the American population that is getting checks from the government," says Keith Hennessey, an economic adviser to President George W. Bush and now a fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution, "and an increasingly smaller portion of the population that's paying for it."

The dimensions of the budget hole were underscored Monday, when the Treasury reported that the government ran a $1.26 trillion deficit for the first 11 months of the fiscal year, on pace to be the second-biggest on record.

Yet even as Americans express concern over the deficit in opinion polls, many oppose benefit cuts, particularly with the economy on an uneven footing. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll conducted late last month found 61% of voters were "enthusiastic" or "comfortable" with congressional candidates who support cutting federal spending in general. But 56% expressed the same enthusiasm for candidates who voted to extend unemployment benefits.

As recently as the early 1980s, about 30% of Americans lived in households in which an individual was receiving Social Security, subsidized housing, jobless benefits or other government-provided benefits. By the third quarter of 2008, 44% were, according to the most recent Census Bureau data.

That number has undoubtedly gone up, as the recession has hammered incomes. Some 41.3 million people were on food stamps as of June 2010, for instance, up 45% from June 2008. With unemployment high and federal jobless benefits now available for up to 99 weeks, 9.7 million unemployed workers were receiving checks in late August 2010, more than twice as many as the 4.2 million in August 2008.

Still more Americans-19 million by 2019, according to the Congressional Budget Office-will get federal aid to buy health insurance when legislation passed this year is implemented.

The expanding federal safety net has helped shelter many families from the worst of the downturn. Charlene A. Mueller-Holden doesn't fit the stereotype of a person on benefits. Laid off from J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. in January 2008, Ms. Mueller-Holden, 38, drew unemployment for 99 weeks.

The Newark, Del., resident knocked $40 a month off her mortgage payments through the federal Making Home Affordable Program, designed to keep people in their homes by helping them modify or refinance their mortgages. But when her unemployment benefits ran out, Ms. Mueller-Holden and her husband, a government employee, couldn't afford the $1,008 monthly payments.

She turned to the Delaware State Housing Authority which, under a federally subsidized program aimed at helping families with children stay in their homes, gave her $1,000 a month for five months toward mortgage payments. She and her two sons ate lunch for free at the local school this summer, and she has applied for free lunch for one of her sons who will be a first grader this year.

Ms. Mueller-Holden's family earned too little to pay federal taxes last year, and received an extension on their state taxes. "Quite frankly, I don't care about the deficit," says Ms. Mueller-Holden. "It's going to take years upon years upon years to pay this all back," she says, so it's better to focus on job growth now and deal with the deficit later.

Government data don't show how many of the households receiving government benefits also escape federal taxes. But there is certainly some overlap between the two groups, since many benefits are aimed at those earning too little to pay income taxes and at people who don't have jobs, and who thus don't pay payroll taxes.

Cutting spending on these "entitlements" is widely seen as an inevitable ingredient in any credible deficit-reduction program. Yet despite occasional bouts of belt-tightening in Washington and bursts of discussion about restraining big government, the trend toward more Americans receiving government benefits of one sort or another has continued for more than 70 years-and shows no sign of abating.

An aging population is adding to the ranks of Americans receiving government benefits, and will continue to do so as more of the large baby-boom generation, those born between 1946 and 1964, become eligible. Today, an estimated 47.4 million people are enrolled in Medicare, up 38% from 1990. By 2030, the number is projected to be 80.4 million.

The difficulty of restraining benefits when so much of the population depends on them is now on view across Europe, where efforts to rein in deficits are forcing governments to cut popular entitlements. European countries have traditionally provided far more generous welfare benefits than the U.S. has, including monthly allowances for children regardless of income, free college tuition and universal health care. Public retirement programs are also bigger, since the combination of aging populations and low birth rates means fewer workers are paying into the system.

In recent months, political leaders in Europe have struggled to convince voters that change is necessary. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has exempted pensions from her government's planned budget cuts, reflecting the growing power of the retiree vote. French President Nicolas Sarkozy is facing mass protests, including a national strike week, as he tries to raise France's minimum retirement age from 60 to 62. Greece's government had to face down demonstrations this year when it slashed pension benefits, as it was forced to do to get bailout money from other European countries and the International Monetary Fund.

Still, Europe does offer examples that change is possible. Germany slashed benefits for the long-term unemployed in 2004, a step that analysts credit with prompting more Germans to get jobs as well as improving the country's budget balance. Cuts to entitlements are politically possible, says Daniel Gros, director of the Center for European Policy Studies, a nonpartisan think tank in Brussels, "but societies need some time to get used to the idea."

The U.S. government first offered large-scale assistance during Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal. The Social Security Act, passed in 1935, created the popular retirement program as well as unemployment compensation, the early stages of what became known as "welfare" and assistance to the blind and elderly. In the 1940s, the G.I. Bill offered unemployment benefits, education assistance and loans to veterans. That same decade, Washington began offering free or reduced-price lunches to children from low-income families and, a decade later, monthly benefits to the disabled.

Lyndon Johnson's Great Society programs brought food stamps plus Medicare and Medicaid. In the 1970s, Supplemental Security Income was created on top of routine Social Security benefits for the poorest of the elderly and disabled, and so-called Section 8 vouchers began subsidizing rental housing. The earned-income tax credit was launched in 1975 to offer extra cash to low-wage workers, and grew in the 1990s to become one of the government's principle antipoverty programs.

Benefits for children were expanded in 1997 with the State Children's Health Insurance Program during the Clinton administration-and were expanded again in 2009. Shortly after President Barack Obama took office, Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the stimulus bill, which among other things extended unemployment compensation and offered incentives for states to cover more workers.

All this is expensive. Payments to individuals-a budget category that includes all federal benefit programs plus retirement benefits for federal workers-will cost $2.4 trillion this year, up 79%, adjusted for inflation, from a decade earlier when the economy was stronger. That represents 64.3% of all federal outlays, the highest percentage in the 70 years the government has been measuring it. The figure was 46.7% in 1990 and 26.2% in 1960.

When the economy recovers, some-but not all-current recipients of federal aid are likely to lose their benefits, which some say is reason enough to keep them going for now.

Robert Letherman, a real estate developer in Elkhart, Ind., says he has struggled through the recession like many others, but doesn't qualify for government assistance.

"If there became an expectation that government was going to provide over half of the population's well-being to a significant degree without requiring anything of the recipients, there would be reason for concern," says Robert Reischauer, a former Congressional Budget Office director and now president of the Urban Institute, a liberal-leaning think tank in Washington, D.C. "I don't think that's where we are or where we're headed."

The public appears divided on what to do. A new Allstate/National Journal poll found that 35% of voters want the government to make sure future retirees receive all the benefits they've been promised even if it means raising taxes. Another 34% said the government should make retirement programs "financially sustainable" by making some cuts to those benefits and raising some taxes, and 22% said they'd be willing to see benefits cut to restrain the programs' rising costs.

The call for restraining benefits resonates with voters like Robert Letherman. "You name it, someone is lining up to get bailed out, or a handout, courtesy of the hard-working American taxpayer," says Mr. Letherman, 39, a real-estate developer in Elkhart, Ind.

Mr. Letherman says he has struggled through the recession like many others, but doesn't qualify for government assistance. His income has declined 40% since 2007. Some $4 million in development projects percolating in the spring of 2007 have since been shelved.

He supports helping people in need, says Mr. Letherman, but believes many people game the system. Extended unemployment benefits, for example, give some Americans an excuse not to go back to work, he says. If it were up to him, government would be half the size it is now.

He favors eliminating pensions for all government workers, excluding military and intelligence personnel, and would impose a nationwide sales tax to pay off the country's debt. "If we continue down the path of deficit spending, the great recession of 2008 will be nothing compared to what we will face in five, 10, 20 years," he says.

Cutting federal benefits while the economy is still weak would be a mistake, some analysts say, because it could hinder recovery by giving consumers less money to spend.

Paul Hester has relied on government benefits since he lost his job in June 2009. The 54-year-old microbiologist has a master's degree and was earning a salary of $50,000 at the Indiana State Department of Health. He says he regularly looks for jobs, but has landed only two interviews in the past year.

Influenced by the credit wariness of parents who lived through the Great Depression, the Indianapolis resident has always been thrifty. He once watched his dad walk into a dealership, "plop down $10,000 in cash and buy a car." Mr. Hester has one credit card, and before he was unemployed, he tried to pay it off every month.

He lives on $375 a week in unemployment checks and his health-insurance premiums are subsidized by the federal government under a provision in the fiscal stimulus enacted by Congress in February 2009. His daughter, a college sophomore, pays for part of her schooling with Pell Grants, a federal program for low-income students that is set to expand because of new legislation that increased the number and size of grants.

"I don't like taking government money," says Mr. Hester, but "what else is there?"

Here is what (CBS') Mr. (Steve) Kroft's research has turned up. Bit of a read, but it took 4 months to put it together.

"The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States ." George Soros

"George Soros is an evil man. He's anti-God, anti-family, anti-American, and anti-good." He killed and robbed his own Jewish people.

If George Soros isn't the world's preeminent "malignant messianic narcissist," he'll do until Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot are reincarnated.

What we have in Soros, is a multi-billionaire atheist, with skewed moral values, and a sociopath's lack of conscience. He considers himself to be an elitist world class philosopher, despises the American Way and just loves to do social engineering (change cultures).

György Schwartz, better known to the world as George Soros, was born August 12, 1930 in Hungary . Soros' father, Tivadar, was a fervent practitioner of the Esperanto a language invented in 1887, and designed to be the first global language, free of any national identity.

The Schwartz's, who were non-practicing Jews, changed the family name to Soros, in order to facilitate assimilation into the gentile population, as the Nazis spread into Hungary during the 1930s.

When Hitler's henchman Adolf Eichmann arrived in Hungary , to oversee the murder of that country's Jews, George Soros ended up with a man whose job was confiscating property from the Jewish population. Soros went with him on his rounds.

"70% of Mr. Soros's fellow Jews in Hungary , nearly a half-million human beings, were annihilated in that year, yet he gives no sign that this put any damper on his elation, either at the time or indeed in retrospect."

During an interview with "Sixty Minute's" Steve Kroft, Soros was asked about his "best year:"

KROFT: My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted godson.

KROFT: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from your fellow Jews, friends and neighbors.

KROFT: I mean, that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?

In his article, Muravchik describes how Soros has admitted to having "carried some rather potent messianic fantasies with me from childhood, which I felt I had to control, otherwise they might get me in trouble."

Be that as it may. After WWII, Soros attended the London School of Economics, where he fell under the thrall of fellow atheist and Hungarian, Karl Popper, one of his professors. Popper was a mentor to Soros until Popper's death in 1994. Two of Popper's most influential teachings concerned "the open society," and Fallibilism.

Fallibilism is the philosophical doctrine that all claims of knowledge could, in principle, be mistaken. (Then again, I could be wrong about that.)

The "open society" basically refers to a "test and evaluate" approach to social engineering. Regarding "open society" Roy Childs writes, "Since the Second World War, most of the Western democracies have followed Popper's advice about piecemeal social engineering and democratic social reform, and it has gotten them into a grand mess."

In 1956 Soros moved to New York City , where he worked on Wall Street, and started amassing his fortune. He specialized in hedge funds and currency speculation.

Soros is absolutely ruthless, amoral, and clever in his business dealings, and quickly made his fortune. By the 1980s he was well on his way to becoming the global powerhouse that he is today.

In an article Kyle-Anne Shiver wrote for "The American Thinker" she says, "Soros made his first billion in 1992 by shorting the British pound with leveraged billions in financial bets, and became known as the man who broke the Bank of England . He broke it on the backs of hard-working British citizens who immediately saw their homes severely devalued and their life savings cut drastically, almost overnight."

In 1994 Soros crowed in "The New Republic " that "the former Soviet Empire is now called the Soros Empire." The Russia-gate scandal in 1999, which almost collapsed the Russian economy, was labeled by Rep. Jim Leach, then head of the House Banking Committee, to be "one of the greatest social robberies in human history." The "Soros Empire" indeed.

In 1997 Soros almost destroyed the economies of Thailand and Malaysia . At the time, Malaysia 's Prime Minister, Mahathir Mohamad, called Soros "a villain, and a moron." Thai activist Weng Tojirakarn said, "We regard George Soros as a kind of Dracula. He sucks the blood from the people."

The website Greek National Pride reports, "[Soros] was part of the full court press that dismantled Yugoslavia and caused trouble in Georgia , Ukraine and Myanmar [ Burma ]. Calling himself a philanthropist, Soros' role is to tighten the ideological stranglehold of globalization and the New World Order while promoting his own financial gain. He is without conscience; a capitalist who functions with absolute amorality."

France has upheld an earlier conviction against Soros, for felony insider trading. Soros was fined 2.9 million dollars.

Recently, his native Hungary fined Soros 2.2 million dollars for "illegal market manipulation." Elizabeth Crum writes that "The Hungarian economy has been in a state of transition as the country seeks to become more financially stable and westernized. [Soros'] deliberately driving down the share price of its largest bank put Hungary's economy into a wicked tailspin, one from which it is still trying to recover.

My point here is that Soros is a planetary parasite. His grasp, greed, and gluttony have a global reach.

But what about America ? Soros told Australia 's national newspaper "The Australian" " America , as the centre of the globalised financial markets, was sucking up the savings of the world. This is now over. The game is out," he said, adding that the time has come for "a very serious adjustment" in American's consumption habits. He implied that he was the one with the power to bring this about."

Soros: "World financial crisis was "stimulating" and "in a way, the culmination of my life's work."

Obama has recently promised 10 billion of our tax dollars to Brazil, in order to give them a leg-up in expanding their offshore oil fields. Obama's largesse towards Brazil, came shortly after his political financial backer, George Soros, invested heavily in Brazilian oil (Petrobras).

Tait Trussel writes, "The Petrobras loan may be a windfall for Soros and Brazil , but it is a bad deal for the U.S. The American Petroleum Institute estimates that oil exploration in the U.S. could create 160,000 new, well-paying jobs, as well as $1.7 trillion in revenues to federal, state, and local governments, all while fostering greater energy security and independence."

A blog you might want to keep an eye on is SorosWatch.com. Their mission: "This blog is dedicated to all who have suffered due to the ruthless financial pursuits of George Soros. Your stories are many and varied, but the theme is the same: the destructive power of greed without conscience. We pledge to tirelessly watch Soros wherever he goes and to print the truth in the hope that he will one day be made to stop preying upon the world's poor, that justice will be served."

Back to America . Soros has been actively working to destroy America from the inside out for some years now. People have been warning us. Two years ago news sources reported that "Soros [is] an extremist who wants open borders, a one-world foreign policy, legalized drugs, euthanasia, and on and on. This is off-the-chart dangerous."

In 1997 Rachel Ehrenfeld wrote, "Soros uses his philanthropy to change or more accurately deconstruct the moral values and attitudes of the Western world, and particularly of the American people. His "open society" is not about freedom; it is about license. His vision rejects the notion of ordered liberty, in favor of a PROGRESSIVE ideology of rights and entitlements."

Perhaps the most important of these "whistle blowers" are David Horowitz and Richard Poe. Their book "The Shadow Party" outlines in detail how Soros hijacked the Democratic Party, and now owns it lock, stock, and barrel.

Soros has been packing the Democratic Party with radicals, and ousting moderate Democrats for years.

The Shadow Party became the Shadow Government, which became the Obama Administration.

DiscoverTheNetworks.org (another good source) writes, "By his [Soros'] own admission, he helped engineer coups in Slovakia , Croatia , Georgia , and Yugoslavia . When Soros targets a country for "regime change," he begins by creating a shadow government , a fully formed government-in-exile, ready to assume power when the opportunity arises. The Shadow Party he has built in America greatly resembles those he has created in other countries prior to instigating a coup."

November 2008 edition of the German magazine "Der Spiegel," in which Soros gives his opinion on what the next POTUS (President of the U.S. ) should do after taking office. "I think we need a large stimulus package." Soros thought that around 600 billion would be about right.

Soros also said that "I think Obama presents us a great opportunity to finally deal with global warming and energy dependence. The U.S. needs a cap and trade system with auctioning of licenses for emissions rights."

Although Soros doesn't (yet) own the Republican Party, like he does the Democrats, make no mistake, his tentacles are spread throughout the Republican Party as well.

Soros is a partner in the Carlyle Group where he has invested more than 100 million dollars. According to an article by "The Baltimore Chronicle's" Alice Cherbonnier, the Carlye Group is run by "a veritable who's who of former Republican leaders," from CIA man Frank Carlucci, to CIA head [and ex-President] George Bush, Sr.

In late 2006, Soros bought about 2 million shares of Halliburton, Dick Cheney's old stomping grounds.

When the Democrats and Republicans held their conventions in 2000, Soros held Shadow Party conventions in the same cities, at the same time.

In 2008, Soros donated $5,000,000,000 to the Democratic National Committee, DNC, to insure Obama's win and wins for many other Alinsky trained Radical Rules Anti-American Socialist. George has been contributing a $ billion plus to the DNC since Clinton came on the scene.

Soros has dirtied both sides of the aisle, trust me. And if that weren't bad enough, he has long held connections with the CIA.

And I mustn't forget to mention Soros' involvement with the MSM (Main Stream Media), the entertainment industry (e.g. he owns 2.6 million shares of Time Warner), and the various political advertising organizations he funnels millions to. In short, George Soros controls or influence most of the MSM. Little wonder they ignore the TEA PARTY, Soro's NEMESIS.

As Matthew Vadum writes, "The liberal billionaire-turned-philanthropist has been buying up media properties for years in order to drive home his message to the American public that they are too materialistic, too wasteful, too selfish, and too stupid to decide for themselves how to run their own lives."

Richard Poe writes, "Soros' private philanthropy, totaling nearly $5 billion, continues undermining America 's traditional Western values. His giving has provided funding of abortion rights, atheism, drug legalization, sex education, euthanasia, feminism, gun control, globalization, mass immigration, gay marriage and other radical experiments in social engineering."

Some of the many NGOs (None Government Organizations) that Soros funds with his billions are: MoveOn.org, the Apollo Alliance , Media Matters for America , the Tides Foundation, the ACLU, ACORN, PDIA (Project on Death In America ), La Raza, and many more. For a more complete list, with brief descriptions of the NGOs, go toDiscoverTheNetworks.org.

Poe continues, "Through his global web of Open Society Institutes and Open Society Foundations, Soros has spent 25 years recruiting, training, indoctrinating and installing a network of loyal operatives in 50 countries, placing them in positions of influence and power in media, government, finance and academia."

Without Soro's money, would the Saul Alinsky's Chicago machine still be rolling? Would SEIU, ACORN, and La Raza still be pursuing their nefarious activities? Would Big Money and lobbyists still be corrupting government? Would our college campuses still be retirement homes for 1960s radicals?

America stands at the brink of an abyss, and that fact is directly attributable to Soros. Soros has vigorously, cleverly, and insidiously planned the ruination of America and his puppet, Barak Obama is leading the way.

The words of Patrick Henry are apropos: "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!"

These days, Patrick Henry's sentiment is more than just some quaint hyperbole from long ago. It's a slow burning, but intense, glow that fires our courage and heart.

Leave it to a Democratic-controlled Congress and a Democratic White House to enact policies to hurt the working man. Thanks to the "Law of Unintended Consequences" recent shifts in public policy have resulted in some surprising consequences for small investors.

Due to increased regulation and added bureaucracy, the costs of doing business (for investment firms especially) have been rising of late. One result is that many firms have taken steps to avoid small investors. Firms simply can't create sufficient revenue from such small accounts to justify the increased costs of catering to that market segment.

According to a recent Bloomberg article, Meredith Whitney predicts that Wall Street firms will likely cut approximately 80,000 jobs over the next year and a half. This comes on top of the fact that banks have shed more than 300,000 jobs worldwide since 2008 (Yalman Onaran, Wall Street Firms to Cut 80,000 Jobs in 18 Months, Whitney Says). While the statistics for potential layoffs aren't yet public, it's generally safe to say that a good number will come from customer service departments.

A 2009 article from the Wall Street Journal went even further, revealing several changes in Wall Street ritual that encourage the desertion of small accounts. Apparently the standard practice at Merrill Lynch these days is not to pay brokers for accounts less than $100,000 (Evelyn Juan, Firms Push Call Centers).

Meanwhile, the same article also presents small examples of changes in firm policy that aren't particularly friendly to the less affluent. Case in point: Bank of America used to assign personal bankers to clients with more than $100,000 in assets with the bank; that minimum has since been raised to $500,000.

The irony, of course, is that the entire reason (read: justification, not logic) for added regulation was to protect small investors. Instead, it seems, these folks will be pushed out of the markets altogether. And it's all thanks to the Democratic powers-that-be, supposed advocates of the working man.

Don't think that the Democrat Congress and the Obama White House don't know what they're doing. They do; it's standard operating procedure. On the one hand they sing the praises of the American working man, going so far as to pass a wildly unpopular Healthcare Bill as a blue collar pick-me-up. On the other they are trying, directly and indirectly, to evict small investors from the world's financial markets.

In the mind of the Democrat politician small investors obviously lack the education or expertise to handle their own healthcare, much less operate motor vehicles at a safe speed. If so, they must also be simply too stupid to make decisions about investments, too easily tricked or fooled. Like defenseless snail darters, they must be protected.

But all the D.C. Democrats, it seems, forgot about one small, under-represented group: financial firms. In an industry so saturated with regulation that even small firms typically employ a small platoon of compliance consultants and attorneys, the success of any new policy is predicated entirely on the consent of the governed - namely investment firms and their associated persons.

Just as the regulatory body for brokerage firms (FINRA) has been recently reaching beyond its jurisdiction to scold firms over outside operations, the government seems to have forgotten who pays the bills. Take the case of FINRA, which is funded entirely by securities firms, acting almost like a union.

As is the case of any new tax, the immediate reaction of the taxed is to look for methods of avoidance. When new regulations are enacted and firms are placed under increased scrutiny, their initial reaction is rarely full compliance, as regulators intend. Instead, it is to seek out cost-effective solutions; a balance of cost and compliance.

In the same way, the US government ought to know by now that policy enacted without the support of those affected will be met with resistance or subterfuge. Maybe one day politicians might finally learn not to bite the hand that feeds them.

At a backyard town-hall meeting in Fairfax, Va., Monday, President Obama explained why Christine O'Donnell was going to beat Mike Castle in the GOP's Delaware Senate primary:

"They saw the Recovery Act," he said. "They saw TARP. They saw the auto bailout. And they look at these and think, 'God, all these huge numbers adding up.' So they're right to be concerned about that."

Of course Mr. Obama was speaking generally about the public mood. Let's call it his "generic" explanation for the current voter impulse to wipe out GOP incumbents now and Democrats in November.

And the president didn't mention the two $3 trillion-plus budgets passed on his watch or the trillion-dollar health-care entitlement. They, the voters, are not "concerned" about Uncle Sam's spending floating toward the moon. They are enraged, furious, crazed and desperate.

Pennsylvania's shrewd Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell, scripting the new conventional wisdom, says the tea party movement supporting Christine O'Donnell, Sharron Angle in Nevada and Joe Miller in Alaska proves the GOP is in the grip of crazies. With luck, none of his audience will wake up from this delusion before November.

Back in April, the New York Times/CBS did a poll of tea party supporters. When asked, "What should be the goal of the Tea Party movement," 45% said, "Reduce federal government." That is, cut spending. Everything else was in single digits.

I'm convinced that beneath all the economic turbulence in the land is anxiety that's been building for years as public spending has continued to grow. What was a chronic "concern" has exploded this year into a broad public movement-in Washington, California, New York, New Jersey and indeed across Europe. This isn't "concern," Mr. President. It's a crisis.

Daniel Henninger says that a chronic voter 'concern' has now exploded into a broad public movement.

Look at the astonishing numbers in the Rasmussen poll released last week. Nearly seven in 10 respondents (68%) want a smaller government, lower taxes and fewer services. The party breakdown: GOP, 88%; Democrats, 44%; and Other, 74%. In short, the independent voters who decide national elections have moved into the anti-spending column. I don't think they'll leave any time soon.

In a note on last week's poll, Rasmussen points out that the only time it recorded a higher shrink-the-government number, at 70%, was in August 2006. That was just ahead of the famous off-year election in which Republican voters withheld support for their party's free-spending members in Congress.

The Obama White House holds that the spending concerns Mr. Obama cited Monday-the stimulus, TARP, the auto bailout-were necessary. Whatever any individual merit in this stuff, it hit most voters at a moment when nearly any big government outlays were going to be written off as "more spending." When Mr. Obama said the health bill was "paid for," naturally polls showed that no one believed him. Why should they?

I called Scott Rasmussen this week to discuss the roots of the anti-spending mood, and he suggested that the American electorate's desire for pushback against the growth in federal spending dates at least to 1992 and Ross Perot's third-party presidential bid, which drew 18.9% of the popular vote. Indeed, Mr. Rasmussen argues, you can find evidence of the turn in Jimmy Carter's "efficiency in government" efforts.

Until Barack Obama, the only Democrats who had a chance of winning the presidency were Southern governors with a reputation for fiscal moderation. But after Bill Clinton won the White House in 1992, he immediately tried to pass the mammoth health-care entitlement known as HillaryCare. After 17 acrimonious months, it died in August 1994. That November, voters gave control of the House to the GOP for the first time in 40 years. It was about more than Newt Gingrich's charm.

So this year the Democrats, who control Congress because of voter disgust with the Republicans in 2006, passed a health-care entitlement. And this year voters will transfer power back to the Republicans.

The most important and startling number in American politics today is Congress's approval rating: 23%. This is a no-confidence vote. The second branch of government is losing the country. Surely it's about the spending. What else? That Congress hasn't spent enough?

If voters give control of the House to the GOP, the party desperately needs to establish credibility on spending. Absent that, little else is possible. Independent voters now know that the national Democratic Party, hopelessly joined to the public-sector unions, will never stabilize public outlays.

In a sense, the GOP's impending victory is meaningless, a win by default. If the Republican rookies entering Congress next year don't do something identifiably real to stop the federal-spending balloon, voters two years from now will start throwing the GOP under the bus. Absent action, the political rage and cynicism on offer in 2012 could make this year's tea parties look like, well, a tea party.

[Personally, I had no problems with what Karl said, but thought I ought to post this anyway]

John Tillman, CEO of the Illinois Policy Institute, offers his thoughts on the GOP spat over Christine O'Donnell's victory in Delaware. It's a refreshing read.

Tuesday night, I happened to be watching live when Karl Rove fulminated on the Christine O'Donnell win in the Delaware GOP Senate primary. You can see the full video here but I've provided a transcript (from Fox News) of some of the key passages below. Among the things Rove said:

• "This is the inexplicable (emphasis added) one because Christine O'Donnell has come on here at the - very end of the campaign. There's a huge turnout tonight in Delaware. The total was estimated to be 30,000 people going into the primary and has come out 56,000. She has dealt a defeat to one of the state's longest, best-known, thought to be most-beloved political figures, a former governor and nine-term Republican Congressman in Mike Castle."

• "One thing that Christine O'Donnell is now going to have to answer in the general election that she didn't have to answer in the primary is her own checkered background..I've met her. I got to tell you, I wasn't frankly impressed as her abilities as a candidate."

• "And again, these serious questions about how does she make her living? Why did she mislead voters about her college education? How come it took nearly two decades to pay her college bills so she could get her college degree? How did she make a living? Why did she sue a well-known and well thought of conservative think tank?"

• "What a stunning message her win is for America and especially for independent voters, to say nothing of the message to the GOP establishment. A candidate with little past success in politics, with few resources, with no name ID and with reasonable questions about her background that will need to be addressed, defeats one of the state's longest, best-known, thought to be most-beloved political figures, a former governor and nine-term Republican Congressman in Mike Castle."

• "Not only did she beat him, she nearly doubled the expected voter turnout. What this means is that this victory for Christine O'Donnell is not about Christine O'Donnell. It means that even in a blue state like Delaware with a reputation for moderate Republicans, the issues animating voters are not partisan anymore. They go to the core of common-sense American values and common-sense principles. Regardless of how you feel about her stance on various social issues, those were not the drivers in this victory. She won because she repudiated the establishment of her own party and she repudiated the spendthrift habits of both Democrats and Republicans."

• "Her message was simple and will appeal to independents and disaffected Democrats: stop spending more than you take in; stop running up the debt on our children and grandchildren; stop running the Washington favor and bailout factory. That simple message nearly doubled turnout and defeated an icon."

• "If the GOP establishment wants to win new converts from independents and disaffected Democrats, instead of vilifying candidates like Christine O'Donnell with all her flaws, they will embrace her message that motivated voters tonight in Delaware and are likely to motivate voters on November 2nd and for years to come. We must recognize that this is the principled, commons sense path back for the Republican Party. We should all take our medicine, learn the lessons and cheer her on now till November. Even if she loses on November 2nd, we should make sure the lessons of tonight stay with us for good."

What happened in Delaware (and Virginia, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Alaska, etc.) is not about the candidates.it is about the American people re-asserting their right to self-governance rather than ceding it to the political establishments of either party. It is quite explicable and wonderfully encouraging and exciting.

This fact marks our political age: The pendulum is swinging faster and in shorter arcs than it ever has in our lifetimes. Few foresaw the earthquake of 2008 in 2006. No board-certified political

professional predicted, on Election Day 2008, what happened in 2009-10 (New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts) and has been happening, and will happen, since then. It all moves so quickly now, it all turns on a dime.

But at this moment we are witnessing a shift that will likely have some enduring political impact. Another way of saying that: The past few years, a lot of people in politics have wondered about the possibility of a third party. Would it be possible to organize one? While they were wondering, a virtual third party was being born. And nobody organized it.

Here is Jonathan Rauch in National Journal on the tea party's innovative, broad-based network: "In the expansive dominion of the Tea Party Patriots, which extends to thousands of local groups and literally countless activists," there is no chain of command, no hierarchy. Individuals "move the movement." Popular issues gain traction and are emphasized, unpopular ones die. "In American politics, radical decentralization has never been tried on such a large scale."

Here are pollsters Scott Rasmussen and Doug Schoen in the Washington Examiner: "The Tea Party has become one of the most powerful and extraordinary movements in American political history." "It is as popular as both the Democratic and Republican parties." "Over half of the electorate now say they favor the Tea Party movement, around 35 percent say they support the movement, 20 to 25 percent self-identify as members of the movement."

So far, the tea party is not a wing of the GOP but a critique of it. This was demonstrated in spectacular fashion when GOP operatives dismissed tea party-backed Christine O'Donnell in Delaware. The Republican establishment is "the reason we even have the Tea Party movement," shot back columnist and tea party enthusiast Andrea Tantaros in the New York Daily News. It was the Bush administration that "ran up deficits" and gave us "open borders" and "Medicare Part D and busted budgets."

Everyone has an explanation for the tea party that is actually not an explanation but a description. They're "angry." They're "antiestablishment," "populist," "anti-elite." All to varying degrees true. But as a network television executive said this week, "They should be fed up. Our institutions have failed."

I see two central reasons for the tea party's rise. The first is the yardstick, and the second is the clock. First, the yardstick. Imagine that over at the 36-inch end you've got pure liberal thinking-more and larger government programs, a bigger government that costs more in the many ways that cost can be calculated. Over at the other end you've got conservative thinking-a government that is growing smaller and less demanding and is less expensive. You assume that when the two major parties are negotiating bills in Washington, they sort of lay down the yardstick and begin negotiations at the 18-inch line. Each party pulls in the direction it wants, and the dominant party moves the government a few inches in their direction.

But if you look at the past half century or so you have to think: How come even when Republicans are in charge, even when they're dominant, government has always gotten larger and more expensive? It's always grown! It's as if something inexorable in our political reality-with those who think in liberal terms dominating the establishment, the media, the academy-has always tilted the starting point in negotiations away from 18 inches, and always toward liberalism, toward the 36-inch point.

Democrats on the Hill or in the White House try to pull it up to 30, Republicans try to pull it back to 25. A deal is struck at 28. Washington Republicans call it victory: "Hey, it coulda been 29!" But regular conservative-minded or Republican voters see yet another loss. They could live with 18. They'd like eight. Instead it's 28.

For conservatives on the ground, it has often felt as if Democrats (and moderate Republicans) were always saying, "We should spend a trillion dollars," and the Republican Party would respond, "No, too costly. How about $700 billion?" Conservatives on the ground are thinking, "How about nothing? How about we don't spend more money but finally start cutting."

What they want is representatives who'll begin the negotiations at 18 inches and tug the final bill toward five inches. And they believe tea party candidates will do that.

The second thing is the clock. Here is a great virtue of the tea party: They know what time it is. It's getting late. If we don't get the size and cost of government in line now, we won't be able to. We're teetering on the brink of some vast, dark new world-states and cities on the brink of bankruptcy, the federal government too. The issue isn't "big spending" anymore. It's ruinous spending that they fear will end America as we know it, as they promised it to their children.

So there's a sense that dramatic action is needed, and a sense of profound urgency. Add drama to urgency and you get the victory of a tea party-backed candidate.

That is the context. Local tea parties seem-so far-not to be falling in love with the particular talents or background of their candidates. It's more detached than that. They don't say their candidates will be reflective, skilled in negotiations, a great senator, a Paul Douglas or Pat Moynihan or a sturdy Scoop Jackson. These qualities are not what they think are urgently needed. What they want is someone who will walk in, put her foot on the conservative end of the yardstick, and make everything slip down in that direction.

Nobody knows how all this will play out, but we are seeing something big-something homegrown, broad-based and independent. In part it is a rising up of those who truly believe America is imperiled and truly mean to save her. The dangers, both present and potential, are obvious.

A movement like this can help a nation by acting as a corrective, or it can descend into a corrosive populism that celebrates unknowingness as authenticity, that confuses showiness with seriousness and vulgarity with true conviction. Parts could become swept by a desire just to tear down, to destroy.

But establishments exist for a reason. It is true that the party establishment is compromised, and by many things, but one of them is experience. They've lived through a lot, seen a lot, know the national terrain. They know how things work. They know the history. I wonder if tea party members know how fragile are the institutions that help keep the country together.

One difference so far between the tea party and the great wave of conservatives that elected Ronald Reagan in 1980 is the latter was a true coalition-not only North and South, East and West but right-wingers, intellectuals who were former leftists, and former Democrats. When they won presidential landslides in 1980, '84 and '88, they brought the center with them. That in the end is how you win. Will the center join arms and work with the tea party? That's a great question of 2012.

Once again, Tuesday night the Tea Party flexed its muscles, as Christine O'Donnell in Delaware and Carl Paladino in New York both came from far behind to win their respective races. Ms. O'Donnell is running for the Senate; Mr. Paladino for governor.

Immediately after those victories, the left-wing media began viciously attacking both people, pulling up old tape of Ms. O'Donnell talking about sex and defining Mr. Paladino as a nut. The liberal press also put forth that neither could win in the general election. That's what passes for reporting these days.

But there is no question that some Tea Party-supported candidates are causing angst among some establishment Republicans. Karl Rove, for example, is not a big fan of Ms. O'Donnell's:

KARL ROVE, FORMER SENIOR BUSH ADVISER: There is just a lot of nutty things that she has been saying that just simply don't add up to.

SEAN HANNITY, HOST, "HANNITY": Sounds like you don't support her, but I will tell you, I think.

ROVE: I'm for the Republican, but I got to tell you, we were looking at eight to nine seats in the Senate. We're now looking at seven to eight in my opinion. This is not a race we're going to be able to win.

CHRISTINE O'DONNELL, DELAWARE SENATE CANDIDATE: He's one of the so-called experts whose credibility was hurt last night because he was here in Delaware meeting with a lot of the Tea Party folks, asking them not to get behind me. And their response was, you're asking us to put party power over principles. You obviously don't understand what's going on in the country this year.

"Talking Points" is not going to get in the middle of the Rove-O'Donnell brawl. That would not be prudent.

But both have a point. Ms. O'Donnell is absolutely correct in saying that many Republican voters are fed up with the establishment. They want new people to represent them. But Mr. Rove is also right when he says it is likely Ms. O'Donnell will not win in Delaware, a liberal state.

There is a huge difference between primaries and general elections, and independents will play a very big role this year.

One of the problems with being a newcomer in national politics is that you have to learn fast. We asked Ms. O'Donnell to appear with us, but her campaign was afraid to put her on here. That's unfortunate but understandable. This is a tough forum, and Ms. O'Donnell's handlers do not want her to make any mistakes.

But there are less than two months before the general election, so Ms. O'Donnell and other Tea Party candidates are going to have to get schooled and fast.

The truth is there are not enough Tea Party people to put any candidate into office. As we said, independents will make the call.

So Karl Rove is his usual astute self when he warns that just because you're an outsider doesn't mean you're going to get a seat at the table.

This year Republicans have a chance to take the menu away from the Democrats, but they have to win almost everywhere in order to do that.

With Christine O'Donnell becoming the Republican nominee to take Joe Biden's Senate seat, the race in Delaware becomes a national story with two interesting candidates.

First, Ms. O'Donnell. What Karl Rove and others are concerned about is that the 41-year-old activist has never really had a job in the private sector. In the past year or so she made less than $6,000 in income. It also took Ms. O'Donnell about 20 years to get her bachelor's degree from Fairleigh Dickinson University. She says it was because she couldn't pay the tuition. For most of her life, Christine O'Donnell has been involved with conservative politics, but along the way she has had major trouble with the IRS, and her home was foreclosed.

Now, to be fair to Ms. O'Donnell, she did run against Vice President Biden in 2008, so her public service must be commended.

Also, "Talking Points" is not criticizing Ms. O'Donnell. Her record is her record, and voters must decide for themselves.

But the truth is that she will be running purely on conservative ideology, not accomplishment.

On the other side, we have 47-year-old Chris Coons, the Democratic nominee. He's a lawyer who graduated from Yale. He is currently a county executive in Delaware and the father of three children.

Coons is also about as far left as they come. He gets a perfect 100 percent rating from NARAL for example, and in his youth he described himself as a Marxist. Somebody tell Glenn Beck.

So the voters of Delaware have a clear ideological choice to make: a far-right woman vs. a far-left guy. Whether personal achievement enters into the vote is an unknown.

Right now, America is not in any mood for more far-left politicians, so Ms. O'Donnell's campaign cannot be counted out. I mean, even the folks in Delaware have to know a guy like Coons will burn tax money as fast as he can, and with the country approaching bankruptcy, that is a frightening proposition.

On the other side, Ms. O'Donnell can be counted on to vote conservative down the line and to uphold Tea Party values: small government and lower taxes.

In most years, neither candidate would have been nominated. But this year is different. This year the voters are throwing the bums out all over the place, and new people, even with dubious backgrounds, have a chance.

Right now, a poll in Delaware says Coons leads O'Donnell 53-42, but that is not insurmountable for the Republican. If she hammers away at the far-left posture of Mr. Coons, she will make inroads, unless there's more stuff in her background that diverts attention.

The contributions of government motors (remember, they are being kept afloat by our tax dollars, and yet, they are able to make political donations; how convenient):

Obama's Palace Guards: Desperate Maher, Colbert & Jon Stewart Go All In to Save the Democrats:

If you are high-profile enough, and you quote the Koran, to show how radical it is, you too may be charged with a hate crime.

Anita Dunn, formerly of the Obama administration, is apparently spearheading several pro-Obamacare sites and ads on the internet:

[If you think that Rush is just a shill for the Republicans, then you do not understand what is going on, on the right side of the aisle]

RUSH: I have a message for Scott Brown here in just a second, the Senator from Massachusetts. And, by the way, folks, ahem, I'm coming down with a bit of a head cold today. Every time I give up tobacco products it happens. When I'm smoking cigars, I never, ever got a cold. I got the flu sometimes, but I never, ever got a cold. I could feel it in the upper bronchial tract last night. I woke up in bed, sore throat. Now, I sound very hoarse to me. It won't sound that way to you because of the magic of compression of the broadcast -- (interruption) What? I do sound a little hoarse? Well, those people listening on the radio will not know it because of the magic of compression. Anyway, we're here, 800-282-2882 is the number, and the e-mail address, ElRushbo@eibnet.com.

Did you see -- $950,000. Christine O'Donnell started the day yesterday with what, $50,000? She started the day with $50,000 yesterday. Right before the broadcast started today she's at $950,000 in Internet website donations. She's gonna go over a million dollars today, probably the next couple of minutes or so. It was fascinating. This started yesterday when the Republican Senatorial Committee, the news was out they weren't gonna support her, she was on her own. I said, "Okay, fine. If everybody in this audience sends her a dollar..." That's all I said and you couldn't get on the website for a while. We crashed it; couldn't get in. Now $950,000. Rasmussen has her down 11. I thought she was down 25. I thought she couldn't win. She's down 11 points. Now, given the vicious attacks on O'Donnell by the partisan political operatives in the media and the partisan political operatives on the Republican Party side and given the supposedly overwhelming liberal mind-set of Delaware voters how is it possible Christine O'Donnell is this close? She's only 11 points down.

Now, I'm going to tell you what the campaign against her is going to be. I can tell you right now. I'll get to it in just a second. I know exactly what they're going to do. I know these people 'cause I know their playbook. Look at me as a defensive coordinator of the conservative movement. I know exactly what these clowns are going to do. I know how to game plan for them. They're basically going to go after social issues. They're gonna say that Christine O'Donnell represents the new Republican Party, wants to take away your Social Security, you watch. Republicans want to take away your Social Security and make sure that you can't have abortions, may even go out there and say that Christine O'Donnell was against masturbation, who knows. But it's gonna focus on social issues. That's where they think that they're going to pick up moderate Republicans and independent Republicans who don't like the moral majority people that are in the conservative movement.

Now, there was a piece, an attack on Jim DeMint in Politico, because DeMint was one of the first to endorse Christine O'Donnell, so of course the long knives are coming out. And in this story, listen to this: "Behind closed doors Wednesday, Republican senators tried to assess the damage. Several senators at the lunch, including Scott Brown of Massachusetts, raised concerns that the party has sent a message that it had no room for moderates, even from left-leaning states, according to people familiar with the exchanges. And others expressed frustration that the GOP had essentially given away a pivotal seat that Castle could have won." Now, this is Politico. Let's assume the reporting here is accurate. We'll take it here that Brown said what he said. (imitating Brown) "Oh, my God, my God, no more room for moderates in the Senate. No more room for moderates in the Republican Party." And frustration the Republican Party has essentially given away a pivotal seat that Castle could have won. Look at how parochial these guys are. There's no reporting of their concern for the country's future. There's no reporting of these Republican senators talking about the threat that the Obama agenda poses to the country, all of this incessant bankrupt spending.

Now, they may have talked about it, but it certainly isn't reported. What's reported is that these guys are going, "Oh, woe is us, oh, woe is us. Coulda had a Castle seat, coulda won it, coulda been a contender." And Scott Brown going on and on and on, "There's no more room for moderates." Mr. Brown, let me tell you something. Look around you in the Senate. You are surrounded by moderate Republicans, Mr. Brown. You're surrounded by 'em. Not only where you live but in the Senate, surrounded by 'em. You got moderate Republicans in Maine. After this election you're still going to be surrounded by moderate Republicans in the Senate. What are you talking about? No more room for moderate Republicans in the Senate? The question is whether there is room for Reagan conservatives anymore in the Republican Party. That's the question. That's what this is all about. These guys are whining and moaning already, "Oh, my God, (crying) may not be any room for moderates." For crying out loud, we're surrounded by 'em in the US Senate. By the way, Mr. Brown, with all due respect, if it weren't for conservatives and Tea Party activists nationwide raising money for you, you wouldn't be in the Senate. What is this, "Oh, my gosh, oh, my gosh, there's not enough room for moderates." Plenty of them. It's Reagan conservatives that are the target here.

Jonathan Chait is a hate merchant. Jonathan Chait, he's at the New Republic, he wrote a piece: "Why I hate George W. Bush," some years ago and was lauded for it. Here's what Jonathan Chait wrote, blog post at the New Republic: "Now, most elite Republicans understand that the red meat fed to the base isn't exactly right. It's useful to scare the daylights out of the activists, but writers for the Standard and the Journal editorial page understand that 'freedom,' as most people understand the term, is not really at risk. They understand as well that politics is a little more complicated than 'if Republicans stay true to conservatism, they cannot lose.' But the conservative base is not in on the joke. And so Republican elites found themselves with just a few frantic days to undo the toxic and intoxicating effects of 20 months of relentless propaganda. Vote for the man who compromised with evil! The true conservative can't always win! They couldn't do it. I won't say that the Republican base strategy has been a total failure. But it is nice to see it blow up in the face of the establishment from time to time."

Now, let me translate this for you. This is ruling class talk. Jonathan Chait, New Republic, hate merchant, big lib, is winking at us. He said, look, these guys, you know, our counterparts over at the Wall Street Journal editorial page and the Weekly Standard, National Review, you know, all these conservatives, these Republicans, they understand that there's no freedom at risk here. Obama's not the destroying the country, they know this, but their base has to be indulged. The fringe kook conservative base, which feels that freedom is threatened, that Obama is destroying the country. The Republicans regretfully understand they have to indulge and entertain that base and so they throw us a bone now and then. And then sometimes they go too far and one of their fringe kooks actually wins something, as in Christine O'Donnell and Chait's happy to see the guys at the Wall Street Journal, the National Review and the Weekly Standard have it thrown in their face. So they're all in on the gag, see. They're all in on the joke. All these inside-the-Beltway people, "Look, those stupid Americans, those stupid right-wingers, those extremist kooks, do they really think freedom's threatened? Do they really think Obama wants to take away freedom? Ha. What a bunch of rubes."

And our friends over on the Republican media side, they gotta indulge it, I mean that's their audience, that's their subscribers, that's the people that donate, so, yeah, they gotta write pieces now and then that entertain these yokels like us, folks. But at the end of the day, it's all hocus-pocus. The Republicans know that freedom is not threatened and Obama's not destroying anything, but we love seeing the Republicans have it blow up in their face now and then. And then Mike Murphy, who is a Republican campaign consultant, at one point he worked for McCain, he describes himself as a conservative. You've seen him on television. He's a ruling class guy, a Republican consultant. Mike Murphy is basically saying, "All right, fine, you guys think that she can win?" -- oh, and by the way, did you know that Mike Castle called Obama or the other way around? Mike Castle talked with Obama and Biden last night, he still hasn't called Christine O'Donnell.

Michelle Malkin: "It's been 24 hours since Delaware GOP Senate primary winner Christine O'Donnell dethroned nine-term Soros Republican incumbent Mike Castle. As of tonight, he still hadn't placed an obligatory call to congratulate her. ... Even more intriguingly, the paper tweets that Castle's lines of communication worked quite smoothly when he took calls from ... President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden," and they called him. They called Mike Castle to commiserate. "Oh, we coulda made beautiful music together, Mike. Having you with us on cap and trade and amnesty for illegals and so forth, we're sorry it didn't work out but, you know, sometimes you Republicans, you gotta entertain your base out there, they really think I want to take away your freedom. Ha-ha-ha-ha."

Here's Mike Murphy: "Civil War in the GOP?" He's got a peacemaker proposal. "So I must say -- speaking only for myself -- that I'm not thrilled by the Delaware result. I'm a conservative, but I can do basic math. To me the whole thing looks like it came right out of Harry Reid's dream journal. I think the primary voters decided, and it is their decision to make, to toss away a sure-thing GOP Senate pick-up for, well, I'm not sure what. I can say that with a GOP majority now a longer shot, heads are exploding throughout the GOP Senate caucus." And they are, if the Politico story is right. "That said, let me make a suggestion to the snarling combatants in the GOP's looming civil war. Let's settle the argument once and for all. I think the architects of the O'Donnell putsch, namely S.C. Senator Jim DeMint and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, should both temporarily move to Delaware full time and personally lead the O'Donnell campaign. Control it, direct it, and own it. Show that Georgetown cocktail party addicted and hapless GOP establishment how it's really done. I've got my notebook out, and I'm ready to learn. Call me a peacemaker."

So here's Murphy, who also feels personally affronted, he feels personally insulted by O'Donnell's victory. It was a sure thing for Castle, but now it's, "Okay, okay, you guys know more than we do? You conservatives know more than we professionals? You conservatives know more than we inside the Beltway ruling class? Okay, DeMint, Palin, move to Delaware. You run the campaign. If we're so out of touch with America, you show us how it's done." Mike Murphy is one of our guys. That is one of our guys. "Okay, Palin, okay, DeMint, get yourselves to Delaware. I'll sit here in my cocktail party." Apparently that really bugs these people when you tell 'em they're trying to get their invitation list for the cocktail parties maintained and shorn up. So anyway there you have it. Jonathan Chait, "Hey, you know, Weekly Standard, National Review, Wall Street Journal, they know, they know freedom's not at stake. They know freedom as we know it is not going to be lost but they also know they gotta entertain their kooks." How come they're not coming after me? (interruption) Well, because I'm probably not mentioning their names personally, you know, I just refer to it as the pseudo-GOP intellectual media bunch. I don't name names.

RUSH: From Politico, Democrats may make O'Donnell an issue. "The results of a series of brutal Republican primaries present embattled Democrats with an opportunity but also a balancing act. While they're eager to highlight some of the views of the tea-party-backed candidates who have emerged -- especially newly minted Delaware Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell -- they're in the midst of a new attempt to paint a broad national contrast with Republican economic policy and fear that message could be diluted. ... 'It is a little bit a matter of which ammo you use, and there's a couple of different ways to go,' Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine ["The Eye"] told Politico, saying the two go hand in hand. 'It's all elements of painting the same choice.' ... But many of the candidates' vulnerabilities aren't on straightforward economic issues.

"O'Donnell's greatest problem may be her trail of debt and lawsuits. ... The tension was on display Wednesday within Kaine's own DNC, which after days of promising a laserlike focus on House Minority Leader John Boehner and his support for extending tax cuts for the rich," they got sidetracked here thinking they have to go after O'Donnell. Now, here's what's going to happen. I'm the defensive coordinator here for our side. The media, as you well know, will be right in there helping the Democrat Party's national messaging. And what they're going to say is that the Republicans are a party full of Christine O'Donnells and there's no room for moderates anymore in the Republican Party. This is what her election means, then they're going to quote Scott Brown from The Politico story lamenting it.

"Oh, no! There's no more room for moderates in the Republican Party," and then they're going to say that Christine O'Donnell and the Republicans want to take away your Social Security, and they're gonna really hyper-up the social issues side, the implicit message will be: "The Republicans are about to elect a slate of hard social rightists -- I mean, big-time moralists -- to the Congress." And you can find this in Atlantic magazine, Marc Ambinder. It's what they're going to do. The liberal journalist here is admitting media bias, admitting that the media is going to join the Democrat Party in this. And the way they're going to go about this is to go back to page 35 of the playbook: "Republicans are gonna take away your Social Security, and a bunch of Moral Majority type people are gonna end up running things and you're not gonna be able to masturbate, you're not going to be able to have adoption, whatever."

They're going to go after you left and right on this. That's what they're going to do. Mark my words. "Almost half the country..." This is AP. "Almost half the country opposes tax increases for the richest Americans, according to a poll suggesting that congressional Democrats are taking some risk by backing President Barack Obama's plan to boost levies on the wealthy." Now, this, folks... This is a profound thing. We're getting a very different tune here from the AP. This is the AP begging the Democrats to extend tax cuts for the rich. They went out and did a poll; half the country is against raising taxes on the rich. Now, this is a stunning thing to read in an article in the Associated Press. This shows just how worried the media complex is about the prospect of their Democrat masters losing control in Washington.

It's really what this is all about. They're going out and doing these polls and they're finding out, "You know, these guys, the American people, they don't want the rich taxed!" They're trying to send a message to the Democrats. Apparently the AP is so worried they're even willing to push for tax cuts for the rich if it will help the Democrats at the polls. This is near heresy. They're so concerned now, they are even willing to drop their class warfare for a day and tell the truth about all this! Listen to this: "Less than 50 days from elections that Republicans hope will hand them control of Congress, the Associated Press-GfK Poll is stuffed with encouraging signs for the GOP. Huge majorities call the economy sickly and say Congress is doing its job badly.

"By a 46 percent to 41 percent margin, people want Republicans steering the economy -- the first GOP edge on that runaway No. 1 concern of voters in the AP-GfK poll," ever! "And while Americans are evenly split over whether they prefer their district's Democratic or GOP congressional candidate, those likeliest to vote tilt toward the Republicans, 53 percent to 43 percent," and by the way, the enthusiasm gap here is huge. Even Michael Barone is writing about it, the enthusiasm for Republican voters. It's always up for the party out of power in midterm elections, but they have never seen anything like this, the enthusiasm Republican voters have. There's nothing -- and they're hoping Obama can go out there and do something to gin up identical enthusiasm on the left. But those days are over.

People are abandoning Obama in droves. There's nothing he can do. He can't go back and recapture this spirit that he had prior to being immaculated. He can't do it. So now this is... I'm telling you, when the AP comes out and says, "Warning! Warning! You better support tax cuts for the rich," that means now they're really, really worried that all this polling data that the Democrats gonna lose control in both houses is accurate.

RUSH: Snerdley, you asked me earlier, these Republican consultants, campaign consultants, Democrat campaign consultants, you asked me why aren't they coming after me. I said they hate me. I think the real answer to this is they just pretend I'm not here. They just pretend I don't exist. It's easier that way. You know Zev Chafets' book on me, the biography, An Army of One? The National Review didn't review it. The Weekly Standard didn't review it. Mike Murphy didn't review it. Scott Brown didn't review it. The Wall Street Journal didn't review it. They just pretend I'm not here. They just pretend I don't exist. I think that's how they deal with it. Well, Castle knows I exist but that's only because (laughing) -- they all know I exist. That's why I say they're pretending.

RUSH: That's an interesting point out there. By the way, I erred. The National Review did review the Zev Chafets book. The Weekly Standard didn't. None of the conservative columnists did, which didn't surprise me. I'm just answering Snerdley's question. They just pretend I don't exist. It's the easiest way to deal with me. I'm really not here.

RUSH: Elijah in Petersburg, Illinois, great to have you, sir, on the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Hey, Rush. Longtime listener, first-time caller, God bless the work you do.

CALLER: Hey, I just wanted to make a mention about the Mike Murphy piece. It just makes me realize that Christine O'Donnell's Delaware victory seems to help non-conservatives in the Republican Party expose themselves as such.

RUSH: Well, it is bringing 'em out of the woodwork and they're showing their anger, is that what you mean? They're identifying themselves as non-conservatives?

CALLER: Well, then I guess that's for the rest of us to decide. After listening to you read his article, it makes me think maybe not as much.

RUSH: Well, remember, now, these guys, as I say, they work in a very small, confined area. They work in 15 to 20% of the electorate. That's where they focus their efforts and I don't think very many of them actually use conservatism or principles as a way of getting those 15 to 20% to vote for their candidate. I think they used numbers-based stuff. You know, whatever it takes. Their job is to produce votes for people and raise money for people. I think that they kind of eschew the loyalty to principle or ideology because they think that's for the rubes. I mean my job is far more broad-based than just that, and they have to pay lip service to that. They look at their job as having far wider range of importance than just rallying people to a candidate based on conservatism. It's far more involved than just that. So every time a candidate wins on the basis of loyalty and principles and conservatism and so forth, that kind of smacks 'em upside the head.

RUSH: All right, we keep hearing, ladies and gentlemen -- and you heard it in the sound bites that we played from cable chat shows -- that you and I, Christine O'Donnell, conservatives are out of the mainstream, that we are out of the mainstream. Everybody is talking about and wondering what the October Surprise will be. By the way, did you see this? I can't describe -- I mean I can describe it. I can't show you on the radio, Dittocam. But the Democrats had a big, big announcement yesterday. You know what it was? They got a new logo. They've got a D inside a circle. Honestly. That is their new logo: A D inside the circle.

The circle is supposed to be an O, obviously, for Obama. It's pathetic. But we keep hearing these people are the mainstream and we're not. We're kooks, fringe, what have you.

Let's examine who is mainstream. Pick an issue. Pick an issue. Let's pick Obamacare. The mainstream of America, the majority, is against it. In fact, there's a Rasmussen poll out today: More Americans than ever before want it repealed. More Democrats are spending more money in campaign ads opposing Obamacare than they are spending money saying they voted for it. If the mainstream is the majority, and it is, the majority is dead set against Obamacare. The Tea Party is dead set against it. What's the mainstream? The liberals, the people who are in favor of it are not the mainstream. They are the minority. They're the fringe. We're being governed -- we're being ruled -- by, actually, very tiny minority.

How about borrowing and spending? How about stimulus, bailouts, all of that? Well, the mainstream of America is against that, no matter what poll you look at. Everybody's against it, or the vast majority is against it. Tea Party is opposed it. And one of the primary reasons the Tea Party exists is because of all this spending. People are rising up against it. But the liberals are the authors, they're all for it. They're in the minority. We are the mainstream. The stimulus that didn't work? I mean, it doesn't matter. Issue after issue, cap and trade, the mainstream is against it. The vast majority of Americans across the aisle, across the spectrum, are against it. The more the left makes in or out of the mainstream, the more they feed their base and their journalists but the more they make our case because it is they who are out of the mainstream.

Their judicial nominees are out of the mainstream. Their candidates are out of the mainstream. Their president is out of the mainstream.

RUSH: I mentioned the other day that we're losing the language, and this tax cut issue provides me an excellent illustration, a teachable moment as to how we're losing the language. In the news, and in this AP story I just put to the bottom of the stack here -- and look what's in the headline. "Nearly Half Oppose Tax Hikes for Rich."

Tax increases. You go through and it's, "Tax increases, tax increases, tax increases, tax increases" and "tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts." So in the news, we're debating tax cuts. In the real world, in real English, the issue is not tax cuts, but tax increases. The tax code is what it is. The income tax rates are what they are, and they are current, and they are in the tax code. If those tax rates expire and we go to the what the rates were prior to their imposition, then what we have is a tax increase. And yet the media is joining Obama in his incessant call for tax cuts for the middle class. Obama is going to cut nobody's taxes. If he goes along with this notion of not having the Bush tax cuts expire, we're just leaving the tax code as it is. Nobody's taxes are gonna get cut.

But Obama wants credit for cutting taxes, and the media is trying to help him do that. The left is saying they want to cut taxes for the middle class. But they're not offering tax cuts in real English. What they are saying is they don't want to raise taxes on the middle class right now. Right now. 'Til after the election. So in their own words, will rates go down next year? No, the rates are gonna stay the same. If nothing is done the rates will stay the same. There are no tax cuts on the table here, folks. If you hear the media talking about Obama's tax cuts, "Democrats are working hard to secure tax cuts for the middle class," there's no such thing being contemplated. There is no such thing. There is no tax cut on anybody's table right now.

All that's on the table is the current rates not expire. And if the current rates do expire on anybody, and the old rates which are higher go into effect, you have a tax increase. We are effectively talking about whether or not to increase taxes. Nobody is talking about cutting them. Except us. I, you, me, all of us know that we've got to cut taxes further, and we've gotta target the private sector, get out of its way. Get the obstacles and restrictions out of its way. Get rid of the capital gains tax for a period of time. Reduce the corporate tax down to 20% or whatever, and lower people's taxes. We keep hearing about, "The American people have to sacrifice in tough times like these." Well, the American people... What the hell is 10% unemployment, for crying out loud?

The American people are sacrificing! You know who doesn't sacrifice? You know the greatest repository of greed in the world is? It's in Washington, DC, and everybody who lives off the pile of money that piles in there every day. The greed is on every elected official. The greed is in every bureaucracy. The greed is in the Oval Office. The one bunch that never, ever sacrifices is in Washington. Never. And it's time they sacrificed. It's time the American people were allowed to keep more of what they earn so there's an incentive to go out and work and earn. But nobody is talking tax cuts. But they want you to believe that Obama is going to cut taxes for the middle class. He's not going to do that, anything of the sort. Tax cuts to Obama is like the cross to Dracula. So this is an illustration of how we are losing the language. Is the capital gains tax rate going to go down? No. Will the dividend tax rate go down? No. All these are going up! All of these rates are increasing. Nothing's going down, and yet you can't escape "Obama! Tax cuts! Middle class." This is how we've lost the language.

RUSH: Carroll, San Antonio, Texas, great to have you on the Rush Limbaugh program. Hi.

CALLER: How you doing? My comment was that I think it's a lot bigger than anti-establishment that's going on on both sides. I think what's really going on is that the American people, not directly knowing, but they are rejecting Keynesianism, because Keynesianism prevails in DC because it is a economic mind-set that allows for the growth of government on both sides, but Keynesianism doesn't really work with us regular folk out here. We can't spend more than what we take in --

RUSH: That's it. You know something, Carroll, I think for a caller, you've come close to hitting a bull's-eye today. Daniel Henninger in the Wall Street Journal today, his column is: "It's the Spending, Stupid." That's what Carroll means here by Keynesian. Keynesian economic theory is spend, spend, spend, government spend, that's how you stimulate a stagnant economy, spend, spend, spend, and spend some more. This is more control. Command control economy. You spend money on the stimulus, if it doesn't work, you didn't spend enough. You spend, spend, spend and Henninger points out and Carroll is pointing out here, the American people, they may not know Keynesian, some might pronounce it Keynesian if they saw it written, but they know what it is, spending, and they know that it's out of control, and they know it's destroying the future for their kids and grandkids. They know at some point some of this is going to have to be paid back. They know it. It is the spending and they also understand that because of all this debt that's being racked up, that freedom is imperiled as a result of it.

But even without that, how can these intelligentsia suggest that freedom is not really at risk here after they've read Obamacare? I mean just today New York City has announced further places you cannot smoke, and they're all outdoor places. You can't smoke in a park. You can't smoke at the beach. You can't smoke wherever. It would be easier for New York City to publish a list of where you can smoke. It would take one page. Now, we're talking about a legal product. We're talking about a product whose taxes fund health care for the children. And here's the do-gooder nanny governor, or mayor, "Can't smoke it here. Can't smoke it there. Can't smoke over there." This is not incidental, this is not insignificant. It's a legal product and yet they're telling us what we can't do and can't use it and where we can't use it. And, of course, a lot of nonsmokers will go along with it, oh, yeah, 'cause they hate smokers. I can prove it by using one of my e-cigarettes in a bar, in an elevator, you ought to see the panic. It's fun. Bring out the e-cig and people just freak.

I told you about in Hawaii a bar manager came over, "Mr. Limbaugh, smoking is not allowed." "I'm not smoking, it's an e-cigarette, it's water vapor and I blew it in his face." "Ah, smells like vanilla," he says. "That's right." He came back later, "Mr. Limbaugh, people don't like the sight of it. It's making them uncomfortable watching you pretend to smoke." I said, "That's their problem. I'm not hurting anybody. Why don't you go tell them to move?" Don't tell me we are not losing our freedoms. Don't tell me this is some abstract concept. Go read the health care bill. Obamacare. Go look at the financial regulatory reform bill. Folks, I joke about this, but I can't turn on outdoor lights eight months a year on property I own because state and county ordinances, which are multiple, threaten me with fines and imprisonment? In a couple years we're not going to be able to have a Thomas Edison light bulb in our house. Light bulbs! We're gonna lose American jobs on the basis of a hoax.

RUSH: Look at how far we have come, ladies and gentlemen. Look at how far we have come. When was it? What was the year? Rick Lazio debating Mrs. Clinton for the New York Senate, he left the podium and approached her podium, asked her to sign a joint pledge on campaign finance or some such thing, and all hell broke loose. And do you remember why all hell broke loose? Because a man dared approach a woman. You woulda thought it was in the NFL locker room. Why, Rick Lazio dared invade Hillary's turf, and he paid the price. You dirty, rotten slime, how dare you. Besides, don't you know this woman's got a knife? Now look how far we've come. You can throw the kitchen sink and the toilet bowl and its contents at Republican female candidates and no one is accused of picking on the girl. If you are a Republican you can attack a Republican woman left and right and not even the liberated pansies in the sportswriter media will come out and attack you. You can say about Christine O'Donnell whatever you want to say, and nobody accuses you of picking on the girl.

I think these establishment Republicans need to start pointing out who the unelectable Democrats are. What is this, our side always focused on who the unelectable on our side happen to be. And who the hell are they anyway to anoint or disanoint somebody is electable or not electable? I'm in charge of that. Who do these people think they are determining who can and can't be elected? I've always been in control of that. That's my purview, and nothing's changed. And I also tell you which Democrats can't be elected. I also tell you which of those are unelectable and shouldn't be. Nothing's changed. They asked O'Donnell about the Republican Senate campaign committee when the news was they weren't gonna help her. She said, "That's fine. They don't have a winning track record this season anyway." From what I hear, the woman's pretty quick on her feet, calling Castle an Obama Republican.

You know, things are so crazy, or maybe we should say they're so sane, so unpredictable this year, the voters in Washington, DC, even turned out their incumbent mayor, a clean, articulate black guy, Adrian Malik Fenty in the Democrat primary. I mean he's gone. That even happened to Marion Barry. But everybody keeps talking about Christine O'Donnell's low voter ID. In the show biz world we call it the Q factor, you know, name recognition. "Nobody knows who she is, Rush, she doesn't have a prayer." I'm in charge of whether or not she has a prayer. I'll tell you she not only has a prayer, she has a psalm of a chance. After this upset, after all this controversy, Christine O'Donnell is going to be the most famous politician in the state, right? So what is her voter ID going to be now? (interruption) As head of the party, am I going to condemn these attacks on Christine O'Donnell? I thought I had condemned these attacks. But, look, I'm no longer the head of the party. Boehner is. The White House has thrown me under the bus. (laughing) It's early. Actually, no, I'm back. I mean I'm all over 'em here in the sound bites, but, as you know, I'm reluctant to play sound bites mentioning me.

Somewhere they did the booty-licious thing on TV. No, I don't know if they did it on TV, I didn't see it, I don't know if -- (interruption). What TV station? What network? The Today Show this morning ripped me for saying she was booblicious? Showed various comments? The Wall Street Journal I know condemned me, some unsigned editorial condemned me. They said I was very close to being right two days ago when I talked about Ines Sainz, but yesterday I joined the little frat boy chorus as I broke it down, yo. By the way, I have printed this out. I look at a lot of sports media during the football season and I've often said on this program I'm amazed at how a real man can become such a pansy liberal, and they have to be raised that way. It has to be cultural. I look at these pansy sportswriters weighing in on this Ines Sainz situation, and there's no difference in what they're saying and what Gloria Steinem would say 20 years ago. There literally is no difference in how they're describing this New York Jets locker room situation with the Azteca TV reporter, there's no difference the way these guys are describing it in the sportswriter community from Gloria Steinem or Molly Yard. "I am outraged! Outraged!" Remember her? Faye Wattleton, all these NAGs. There's no difference. And they're fairly young guys, some of them are middle-aged but clearly the younger they are, the more lost cause they are, the more liberal they are, the more politically correct indoctrinated they have been, it's amazing.

There was a football website last night weighing in on this controversy. I'm reading it and it's one thing to say you don't approve of what went on there in the locker room, the way the Jets players might behave, but the way this was described, the only evidence that a man wrote it was the name, and that's not sexist. Did you hear what Clinton Portis said? Oh, the league is -- this all dovetails, folks, with the fact that we can dump all over a Republican woman. Republicans can throw the kitchen sink and the toilet at her, as happened last night on Fox. We can talk about her character rectitude, her honesty, how come it took her so long to go through college and all that, but let somebody talk about some realities of this Mexican TV reporter in a football locker room. Clinton Portis of the Washington Redskins has a guest appearance on a radio show in Washington I think every Tuesday. Clinton Portis, number 26, running back, good player, came out and said, (paraphrasing) "Come on, now. You put a woman like that, dressed like that in a locker room with 53 male athletes in the nude, you just know there's going to be a couple of them she's gonna want." He even went so far as to say, you know, she's going to be comparing packages. Well, the NFL had a cow. The NFL PR, you woulda thought Clinton Portis wanted to own the St. Louis Rams. He went out and apologized. I mean in a split second he went out and apologized.

And then there's some other player who tweeted something, you know, a couple lines in his Twitter account, not quite the same as what Clinton Portis said, but it was something along the same lines and within seconds this guy had reversed himself on his own Twitter account, with a re-tweet talking about how horrible it was, what happened to this woman in the Jets locker room. (laughing) No, nobody said Portis was wrong. He's not supposed to say it, just not supposed to say that. Nobody said Portis was wrong. They said we're not going to tolerate this kind of language. The locker room is a workplace, and we in the NFL are not gonna allow this kind of talk to occur about what goes on in the workplace. Now, I'm just asking honestly, Clinton Portis, is he wrong? What do you think? Let me just ask, as human beings, folks, men, women, children, grandchildren, grandmother, grandparent, football locker room, 53 sculpted bodies, except for the offensive and defensive linemen. Everybody else in there sculpted abs, six-pack, I mean they are Adonis's.

Okay, open the doors and here comes the reporter crew and then the reporter crew happens to be -- look, folks, I worked at the Kansas City Royals when this all started, when women in the locker room were admitted. I was there. I know what goes on in there and I'm not gonna get into great detail but I'll tell you this. The players didn't like it. The locker room, that's their escape. There are assigned times the media can get in there, pregame and postgame to get stories that you can't get anywhere else. But the door just being randomly available, open any time for somebody to walk in, no, it's a refuge. I remember some of the Royals players, they didn't make one effort to cover themselves. "Oh, you want in here? You want to see what goes on in here? Here, look, this is what goes on in here. Ah, ah, keep your eyes above my waist. You're talking to me. Keep your eyes above my waist. You're asking me question, you want to know about the game. Look at me in the eye when you ask me this question." I've seen it. Ladies and gentlemen, in advance of the outcry that will happen in mere moments, I want to apologize for my accurate recitation of what I witnessed.

RUSH: "Truth is the mother of all hatred." Do you know who said that? One of my all-time favorite poets -- and, if you remember, I don't like poetry. Most poetry is a bunch of pansy little rhyming. Just tell me straight out, will you? Don't make me go through these iambic pentameter stuff, just tell me. But this poet, ancient Roman poet Ausonius. "Truth is the mother of hatred." Think about it. What gets you in more trouble today than anything you can do other than breaking the law? What gets you in trouble? What you say. And if it happens to be true, if it violates political correctness? Why, what are you? You're a racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobic Islamophobic insurgent. Honest is a close second. Decimus Magnus Ausonius. He lived 310 to 395. So the guy lived -- even before medical advances. The guy lived to be 85 years old.

RUSH: Here's your National Football League where I was deemed unsuitable. Clinton Portis on the Mike Wise Show, WJFK Radio in Washington yesterday about Mexico's TV Azteca correspondent Ines Sainz.

PORTIS: You put women reporters in the locker room in position, uhhh, to see guys walking around naked and -- and... You know, you -- you sit in a locker room of 53 guys, and all of a sudden you see a nice woman in the locker room, uh, I -- I think men are going to take the time and look and want to say something to that woman. You put a woman and you give her a choice of 53 athletes, somebody gotta be appealing to her, you know?

PORTIS: Somebody's gotta spark her interest or -- or she's gonna want somebody, you know? I don't know what kind of woman won't. Uh, if you get to go in and look at 53 men's packages and --

PORTIS: -- and you (garbled) none of this is attractive and, you know, I know you're doing your job but at the same time you're saying, "Well, I'm going to keep my eye out if I see somebody worth talking to." I'm sure they do the same thing.

RUSH: I mean lickety-split the NFL PR guy, Greg Aiello, came out and said, "Well, this is totally unacceptable. The NFL doesn't tolerate this kind of thing. No way." Absolutely no way. And so Clinton apologized. And, by the way, I read Clinton's apology and it did not sound anything like what you just heard Clinton just say. Somebody wrote it. No, wasn't very polished. Oh, the apology, yeah. The apology was very polished. "You know, somebody gotta spark her interest, she gonna want somebody. I don't know what kind of woman won't. You get to go look at 53 men's packages." Nobody said he's wrong. They just said, "We're not going to tolerate this. We're not gonna have this in the National Football League."

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.

The anti-Jihad resistence (which appears to be a set of links to similar websites):

Mostly a liberal blogger, who says vicious things about most conservatives; and yet, says something sensible, e.g. posting many of the things which the healthcare bill does to us.

News Organization (I mention them because I have seen 2 honest stories on their website, which shocked and surprised me):

Even though this group leans left, if you need to know what happened each day, and you are a busy person, here is where you can find the day’s news given in 100 seconds:

Weatherman Underground 1969 “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.”

Janine Turner’s website (I’m serious; and the website is serious too). This is if you have an interest in real American history:

Judith Miller is one of the moderate and fairly level-headed voices for FoxNews:

This is an odd blog; conservativism, bikinis and whatever else posted by either a P.I. or the brother of a P.I.:

Info Wars, because there is a war on for your mind (this site may be a little crazy??):

The Magic Negro Watch (this is peppered with obscenities and angry conservative rhetoric):

Do you want to watch what is happening on our border? These are actual videos of observations cams along the border:

No matter what your political stripe, you will like this; evaluate your Congressman or Senator on the issues:

AC/DC economics (start with the oldest lessons first; economics in 60 second bites):

The Freedom Project (most a conservative news and opinion site which appears to concentrate on matters financial)

This appears to be a daily pork report, apparently as pork in Washington bills is discovered, it gets posted at Tom Coburg’s website:

Weekly poll, asking you to identify what we ought to cut in governmental spending:

This is an interesting site; it seems to be devoted to the debate of climate change:

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):

Obamacare class action suit (as of today, joining in on the suit costs you whatever you want to donate, if I understand the form correctly):

A Muslim apologetic site (they will write out letters to express your feelings, and all you have to do is sign them, and they will send them on):

Since this will be with us for a long time, the timeline of the BP gulf oil spill:

This is cool: a continuous timeline of the spill, with the daily info and the expansion of the oil, and the response:

Army Ranger Michael Behenna sentenced to 25 years in prison for 25 years for shooting Al Qaeda operative

Maybe the White House does not need to hold press conferences? It releases exclusive articles daily right here:

This is quite helpful; it is a list of all leftist groups, with links to background information on each of these groups (when I checked, 879 groups were listed). This is a fantastic resource.

In case you need to reference this, here are the photos of all those on the JournoList:

Are you tired of all the unfocused news and lame talking heads yelling at one another? Just grab a cup of coffee, sit back, and see what is really going on in the world:

Conservative New Media (it is so-so; I must admit to getting tired of seeing the interviewer high-fiving Carly Fiorina 3 or 4 times during an interview):

One of the more radical people from the right, calling for the impeachment of Obama:

The Center for Freedom and Prosperity, a free enterprise site (there are several videos on the flat tax):

This is a pretty radical site which alleges that Obama is a Marxist hell-bent in taking over our country:

1982 interview with Larry Grathwohl on Ayers' plan for American re-education camps and the need to kill millions

This is a news site which I just discovered; they gave 3 minute coverage to Obama’s healthcare summit and seemed to give a pretty decent overall view of it, without slanting one way or the other:

I have glanced through their website and it seems to be quite professional and reasonable. They have apparently been around since 1942.

This is fantastic; Florida (the Sunshine State) is now putting its state budget online:

Suzanne Somers s supposed to be older than Bill O’Reilly? He interviewed her this week, and she looked, well, hot. She is big into vitamins and human growth hormones.

The National Journal, which is a political journal (which, at first glance, seems to be pretty even-handed):

And I am hoping that most people see this as non-partisan: Citizens Against Government Waste:

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.

We watch FOX so you don't have to). Be clear on this; they do not want you to watch FoxNews.

Conservative Review
Issue #144	Kukis Digests and Opines on this Week’s News and Views	September 19, 2010