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).

President Obama works out a compromise with Republicans to extend the Bush tax rates (which have been our tax rates for the past 7 years). However, rather than make an attempt to sell this to the American people and to a Democratic Congress, he publically berates Republicans for forcing him to compromise. Those to the left of the President and those on the far right have risen up in opposition to this first real compromise of the Obama administration. Republican Senator (and TEA party favorite) Jim DeMint does not want to sign on to legislation which adds to our debt; and many on the left, hate letting the rich get away with only paying 35% in federal taxes. Bernie Sanders, Independent Senator and admitted socialist, at age 69, launched a filibuster which lasted for 8½ hours.

In Indonesia, the President inaccurately states that the national motto is "E Pluribus Unum." 42 members from the bipartisan prayer caucus send a letter to the President informing him that the motto of the United States is actually “In God We Trust.”

In an unprecedented press conference, President Obama leaves so that he doesn’t keep the first lady waiting, while President Clinton fields questions, as if he is in charge.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is still thinking about invoking the 1917 Espionage Act against Julian Assange. Senators Joe Lieberman and Dianne Feinstein support this, and leftist Naomi Wolf says that they are “engaged in acts of serious aggression against their own constituents, and the American people in general.”

The Dream Act passes in the House but is stalled in the Senate; the Repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is dead in the Senate.

Thousands of student demonstrators threaten the lives of Prince Charles and Camilla, who find their car trapped in the middle of a group of them.

A long-standing church destroyed at 911 has had to file a multi-million dollar suit against the Port Authority and other agencies for blocking its reconstruction. Too bad it is not a mosque.

The organization Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), recently completed the training of 2,200 TSA officers. The two-month training course highlighted "the diversity of Muslims around the world from cultural dress to language and tenets," and MPAC taught them how to properly handle a Quran and discussed the different ways Muslim women and men choose to cover or dress. MPAC's Edina Lekovic once described Osama bin Laden as a "great Mujahid" and a "freedom fighter and philanthropist." No, this is not a joke.

Former Baywatch gal carefully examined by the TSA. Look, I am a normal male. I would have done it too. Who can blame them?

Reverend Al Sharpton calls for Rush Limbaugh to be taken off the public airwaves for his racist comments.

As negotiators from nearly 200 countries met in Cancun to strategize ways to keep the planet from getting hotter, the temperature in the seaside Mexican city plunged to a 100-year record low of 54° F.

One of the latest proposals is to have FNMA and FHLMC simply give people new mortgages which reflect the appraised value of their homes, if they are currently under water. Taxpayers will graciously pick up the difference. Problem solved. Okay, that final statement was sarcasm.

Missing from Barbara Walter’s most fascinating people list: Marco Rubio, Chris Christie and Alan Greys on.

President Jimmy Carter concerning our troops in Afghanistan): “I don't think we have the capability or the will to actually prevail militarily over the Taliban. That seems to me to be an almost hopeless case.”

More brilliance from Jimmy Carter: “The richer people in America are getting richer and richer. The poorer people in America are getting poorer and poorer. And that is a case in almost every country on Earth. And it's also the issue between rich countries and poor countries. The rich countries are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.” This is, by the way, an ideological position not based in truth. The poor in America have improved their lot as have the poor in the world.

President Obama speaking to news reporters: “This is a big, diverse country. Not everybody agrees with us.” [Emphasis mine]

President Obama, who seems to love analogies, no matter how weird: "I've said before that I felt that the middle-class tax cuts were being held hostage to the high-end tax cuts. I think it's tempting not to negotiate with hostage takers, unless the hostage gets harmed. Then people will question the wisdom of that strategy. In this case, the hostage was the American people, and I was not willing to see them get harmed."

Naomi Wolf: “This week, Senators Joe Lieberman and Dianne Feinstein engaged in acts of serious aggression against their own constituents, and the American people in general. They both invoked the 1917 Espionage Act and urged its use in going after Julian Assange. ”

Frank Rich: “Obama is suffering Stockholm Syndrome” (which is the gist of his 12/4/2010 column).

While Joy Behar was discussing what Sarah Palin reads with Barbara Walters, Palin had answered that she reads C.S. Lewis for "divine inspiration," Behar then asked "Aren't those children's books?" C.S. Lewis wrote both theological and children’s books.

Chris Matthews on Chris Christie: "I saw him the other day and I was amazed by it, he must be 300 plus, and that's something he's just gotta deal with because you're not going to say, `I'm going to cut the budget,' well, how about starting with supper?"

Van Jones, former green jobs czar: "We can't just leave the federal government in the hands of our enemies and expect to go make a lot of progress. So, even if we can't get everything done that we want to get done out of D.C., we certainly can't let other people have the level of control in D.C.

But also, you can see right now, .D.C. can't do much by itself. You ought to have that bottom-up movement. And that's what's been missing is that bottom-up sense of movement to get the best out of D.C. And what's stopping that is the inside-out piece...So I would argue that it's the inside-out transformation that will ignite the bottom-up transformation that will make the top-down transformation work."

Obama's FCC Commissioner Mignon Cliburn: "I can't think of a more significant overarching civil rights issue than this..that every nappy headed child have the ability to connect [to the internet] worldwide"

After banning any new South L.A. fast food places, council member Jan Perry explains: "This is not an attempt to control people as to what they can put into their mouths. This is an attempt to diversify their food options."

Janeane Garofalo, from May 27, 2009: "The British empire is the original douchebag empire, where sh*tty Americans and sh*tty Australians come from. . .What politics does shine a big light on is human frailty. And I think what conservatism has shined a light on also is human frailty. What does it mean to be a conservative or a Republican anymore? I'm not quite sure, but it clearly shows you've got a lot of frailty - you've got a lot of flaw. That you're arrogant as f**k about that and you're belligerent and you have very little self-awareness. But what does it mean to be the type of journalist who kowtows to a conservative? . . . To be a modern-day Republican or conservative, to be a George Bush type of Republican or conservative, to be a Hannity type - it's a character flaw. It's a character flaw or it also could be neurological. . . .I'm not joking at all. Limbic brain - seat of your emotions - something's not working, whether it's your private life or your literal neural anatomy, something is not working. . . . It is, I think, a neurological issue. It is also the party now . . . for racists, for sexists, for homophobes, for closet queens. Whatever, again, is wrong with you, because a tent full of hate has elastic walls."

Claire McCaskill walks back her pitchfork quote from last week ("I don't know how anyone can keep a straight face and say they are for deficit reduction while they insist on a permanent tax cut for the wealthiest Americans, completely unpaid for. If they think it's OK to raise taxes for the embattled middle class because . . . (Democrats) don't give more money to millionaires, it really is time for people in America to take up pitchforks."): "Ah, it's just a Missouri term. There really isn't a pitchfork army."

From the Ed Schultz program, which is promoted as"Where America Comes to Talk."

CALLER: Couple points I'd like to make, I have to disagree with you on a couple things. First thing is, you said that conservative Republicans are trying to destroy the country, which I think is totally absurd. And the second thing is, you said that tax cuts won't create jobs and there's two points I'd like to make on that. And the first thing is, raising taxes definitely won't create jobs. And in the past, other presidents have cut taxes and created jobs, the most recently was George Bush (who) created, you know, 24 straight quarters of positive job growth after he cut taxes.

SCHULTZ: Wrong. See ya, Darren. I can't reason with you folks. Kevin in Asheville, you're on the Ed Schultz radio show, thanks for calling ...

From Huffington Post:

Berlusca

"Hi. I'm Barack Obama. I'm not the real President but I play one on tv."

Insightful

Our best hope turned out to be totally ignorant regarding the history of certain facts and it doesn't seem possible he actually had a top notch education. There appears to be a grave concern at this point that he actually might have a serious brain disorder.

MichaelC

Exactly right, and exceedingly strange when you consider the fact that President Obama considers himself a scholar. The conclusion is that he has to believe what he's saying is true, which suggests more about his mindset than his ignorance of history.

TexasTreader

We all thought Obama was supposed to be so much smarter than Sarah Palin but there's just no evidence to support that.

mary896

I'm a progressive democrat who is disgusted and dejected. The president can begin the lashings now because I'm not shutting up.

Peter Combs

as time goes on he gets more like Biden. gaff after gaff

Kitten Kramer

Mr. President you are losing it. Time to regroup and be quiet for a long time.

NOBSJUSTFACTS

He either needs Seroquel or a freaking vacation in A SPA FOR A MONTH. He seems to becoming unhinged - heck who wouldn't but still, you signed up for the job, show some back bone man good god.

JoeMomma

He's a sellout. And to this day he doesn't get it. I suppose when he leaves office in 2 years he still won't get it. Believe in something Barack. Anything. And then fight for it. Chicago politics is overrated.

BocaMom

This is why we Democrats can't keep the White House, let alone Congress in 2012.

Jerry Lammers

This President is so lost, its hardly worth the effort to criticize his policies and pronouncements.

picaman

Watching this administration celebrate its Pyhrric victories just saddens me. We could do so much better than this. This is not the guy I voted for.

PedroGonzalez

Lets admit it to ourselves. If Bush set the house on fire Obama has poured gasoline on it.

lillibette

We lost our home and all our retirement savings in this recession. My husband found a job, out of our home state, making 1/2 of the income he made before. NO THANK YOU, we've already given our votes to you Barack, we have no more to give.

PedroGonzalez

.a genius in all 57 states.

Taken from:

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2010/12/more-huffpo-bas.html

Dana Perino on Obama’s hostage speech: “What he looked like was a sore loser.”

Newt Gingrich: “You have a private first class who downloads a quarter million documents, and the system doesn't say, `Oh, you may be over extended?' I mean, this is a system so stupid that it ought to be a scandal of the first order. This administration is so shallow and so amateurish about national security that it is painful and dangerous.”

Future Speaker of the House John Boehner: "I'm going to cut my budget, my leadership budget five percent. I'm going to cut all the leadership budgets by five percent. I'm going to cut every committee's budget by five percent. And every member is going to see a five percent reduction in their allowance. All together that's $25-$30 million and it likely would be one of the first votes we cast."

Frank Luntz: “In all of my time doing focus groups, this year has been the most contentious, the loudest, and this [particular group] may be the worst yet. I just hope that this isn’t a sign of things to come.”

Charles Krauthammer: "When you get praise from President Clinton and you are from my side of the aisle that means that my career is done, I mean, I'm toast. Maybe NPR will take me"

Reason TV’s great moments in unintended consequences (3 minutes and it is excellent):

So you understand the ruling class elite, which is vile, whether Republicans or Democrats:

Dr. Gary Becker explains the 1983–2008 economic growth, and what happened to make that suddenly go away:

Seth Meyers: “A new book called Columbus, the Untold Story claims that Christopher Columbus is not Italian but actually the son of an exiled Polish king. That would certainly explain why he missed India by 15,000 miles.”

1) Do you recall how many people called Republicans and TEA party adherents racists because they disagreed with President Obama? Right now, many of the Democrats are expressing displeasure with our president; are they also a bunch of racists?

2) Do you recall back in the old days when the Republican party was designated as the party of no and that they never compromised? They came to a compromise this week with President Obama, and I have never heard so much caterwauling in my life, from both the press and their guests.

3) I am disappointed with FoxNews. Only on Glenn Beck did I hear a reasonable rundown of the so-called rape charges against Assange. Although I heard many opinions about the Obama-Republican tax cut deal, I never once saw it outlined or summarized on the news.

$1.5 trillion will be the new record Obama deficit under the Obama-Republican tax cut compromise which was just reached. Perhaps both sides did not notice the previous election?

Job vacancies are up 37% this year, the highest that they have been in the past 2 years.

Of the 598 released or transferred detainees from Club Gitmo, 150 (25%) have returned to the battlefield.

If the Bush tax rates expire, then the lowest current rate of 10% would rise to 15%. Households affected by this "new, higher rate" would see their tax bills rise by 50%. The rate on higher incomes would rise from 35% to 39.6%, a 13% increase.

There are now 222 companies with healthcare waivers (doubling those with waivers over the past 3 weeks).

McDonald’s profit in a year is about $4 billion; GE’s profit over a year is around %6 billion. These are rounding errors when it comes to federal government spending. I recently heard a pundit justify a $4.5 billion school food bill as nothing, comparatively speaking.

Top Democratic fundraisers and lobbyists with links to the White House are behind a proposed wind farm in Texas that stands to get $450 million in stimulus money, even though a Chinese company would operate the farm and its turbines would be built in China.

Are you better off or worse off than you were 2 years ago when Obama took office?

Muslims in Indonesia, Egypt, Nigeria and Jordan were among the most enthusiastic, with more than three-quarters of poll respondents in those countries reporting positive views of Islam's influence in politics: either that Islam had a large role in politics, and that was a good thing, or that it played a small role, and that was bad.

According to this same survey, majorities in Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan and Nigeria would favor changing current laws to allow stoning as a punishment for adultery, hand amputation for theft and death for those who convert from Islam to another religion.

In watching ABC’s Sunday show, it sounded as if almost everyone and almost every study supported a repeat of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell; and yet, it fails to pass in the Senate? By the way, did you notice how quickly that was proposed and shot down? Is there any reason why Democrats did not do this in one day when they held a super-majority in the Senate? Why isn’t the press asking this question?

I was so tired of angry rhetoric stories on the part of Republicans and TEA party supporters; and then, that week long set of stories when a Republican called out, “You lie” during a presidential address. So, how much news will the media make of “F___ the president” said recently by an unnamed Democrat? Will it even be reported by some news stations?

Joe Lieberman and Dianne Feinstein call for an indictment against Julian Assange.

I must say, I am still flummoxed by the Obama-Republican tax deal. Although I do not believe that this deal is anywhere near as bad as Charles Krauthammer claims that it is (one of the few times I disagree with Charles), I think Obama got a pretty damn good deal, from his perspective. He managed to get a whole bunch of tax credits as well as an extension of unemployment insurance, and, for his first real compromise, he did an impressive job. I don’t know what the Republicans were thinking to agree to stuff which runs up the deficit, unless they simply planned not to fund this later on (which would have made them look petty, so I don’t think that was the case).

What amazes me is, Democrats are throwing a hissy fit over this, when they ought to be cheering Obama behind closed doors, at the very least. If they fill up this bill with a lot of pork, then that will at least give Republicans cover by which they can vote against this bill.

When Obama spoke about the compromise that he had reached with the Republicans, he did not sound like the President of the United States, he sounded like a party hack. Is there anyone who checks him for his ideas and his messaging before giving a speech like this? Does this man even know who the American people are?

If Dems add pork to the Bush tax cut compromise, I am hoping the enough Republicans will vote against this compromise to sink it.

I said that history would be very favorable to Bush and not so much to Obama. It has taken less time than I expected; December Gallup approval ratings for President Bush are a point higher than those for President Obama.

I said that unemployment reaches 10% and Obama’s popularity will drop below 40%. We are essentially there right now. However, a actual 10% unemployment will have a dramatic effect on his popularity, which will drop by 2–3 points almost overnight.

The Dream Act is not going anywhere. It was just thrown out there to appease Hispanics.

The newly elected republicans misread the election results, and think that, if they cut $100.000 from the federal budget, that they are doing good.

The biggest battle in the lame duck session of Congress may well be over whether or not to extend the Bush administration's tax cuts, which are scheduled to expire in January. The fact that this decision has been left until late in the eleventh hour, even though the expiration date has been known for years, tells us a lot about the utter irresponsibility of Congress.

Neither businesses nor individuals nor the Internal Revenue Service will know what to do until this issue is resolved. In a stalled economy, we do not need this prolonged uncertainty that can paralyze both consumer spending and investment spending.

Republicans want the current tax rates to continue and Democrats want only the current tax rates for people earning less than "the rich"-- variously defined-- to continue, with everyone making more than some specified income to have their tax rates rise next year.

What makes predicting the outcome of this battle very iffy is that Republicans won a big majority in the House of Representatives in the recent election, but the tax cuts are scheduled to expire before the new members of Congress are sworn in-- and the Democrats have a big majority in both Houses of Congress in the lame duck session, where this issue will be decided.

Theoretically, the Democrats could win, hands down, since they have the votes. But Congressional Democrats are well aware of how they lost big in the recent election, and some Democrats don't want to gamble their own jobs in the next election by going the class warfare route.

Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats can afford to have all the tax rates go up in January because they couldn't get together and pass a bill to prevent that from happening. But the nature of that bill matters, not just for politicians but-- far more important-- for the economy.

Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, now a professor at Berkeley, has made the case for the liberal Democrats' position in an article in the November 28th issue of the San Francisco Chronicle titled "Extend benefits for jobless, not tax cuts for the rich."

Professor Reich points out that both Republicans and some conservative Democrats say that we cannot afford another extension of unemployment benefits because the deficit is already too large. Then he adds: "But wait. These are the same members of Congress who say we should extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy."

Reich advocates "extending unemployment benefits for struggling families without a breadwinner" because "These families need the money. The rich don't."

This is the Democrats' argument in a nutshell. It seems very persuasive on the surface, however shaky it is underneath. But cuts in tax rates do not mean cuts in tax revenues, as Reich assumes. How the tax-rate battle in Congress turns out may depend on how well the Republicans answer such arguments.

These are not new arguments on either side. They go back more than 80 years. Over that long span of time, there have been many sharp cuts in tax rates under Presidents Calvin Coolidge, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. So we don't need to argue in a vacuum. There is a track record.

What does that record say? It says, loud and clear, that cuts in tax rates do not mean cuts in tax revenues. In all four of these administrations, of both parties, so-called "tax cuts for the rich" led to increased tax revenues-- with people earning high incomes paying not only a larger sum total of tax revenues, but even a higher proportion of all tax revenues.

Most important of all, these tax rate reductions spurred economic activity, which we definitely need today.

These are the facts. But facts do not "speak for themselves." In terms of facts, the Republicans have the stronger case. But that doesn't matter, unless they make the case, which they show little sign of doing.

Democrats already understand the need for articulation. Robert Reich is only one of many articulate Democratic spokesmen. But where are the articulate Republicans? Do they even understand how crucial articulation is? The outcome of this lame duck session of Congress may answer that question.

Guess who said the following: "It is incredible that a system of taxation which permits a man with an income of $1,000,000 a year to pay not one cent to his Government should remain unaltered."

Not even close. It was Andrew Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury under conservative Republican President Calvin Coolidge.

What was Mellon's point? That high tax rates do not necessarily result in high tax revenues to the government. "It is time to face the facts," he said. Merely having high tax rates on large incomes will not bring in more tax revenues to the treasury, because of "the flight of capital away from taxable investments."

This was all said in 1924, in Mellon's book, "Taxation: The People's Business." Yet here we are, more than 80 years later, still not facing those facts.

It is not just a question of what Andrew Mellon said. It is a question of hard facts, easily checked in official documents available to all-- and ignored all these years.

Internal Revenue Service data show that there were 206 people who reported annual incomes of one million dollars or more in 1916. But, as the tax rate on high incomes skyrocketed under the Woodrow Wilson administration, that number plummeted to just 21 people reporting a million dollars a year in income five years later.

What happened to all those millionaires? Did they flee the country? Were they stricken with fatal diseases? Did they meet with foul play?

Not to worry. Right after Congress enacted the cuts in tax rates that Mellon had been urging, there were suddenly 207 people reporting taxable incomes of a million dollars or more in 1925. As Casey Stengel used to say, "You could look it up." It is on page 21 of an Internal Revenue publication titled "Statistics of Income from Returns of Net Income for 1925."

Where had all the income of those millionaires been hiding? In tax-exempt securities like state and local bonds, among other places. Mellon had urged Congress to end tax exemptions for such securities, even before he got them to cut tax rates. But he succeeded only with the latter, and only after a political struggle with those who made the same kinds of arguments that are still being made today by those who cry out against "tax cuts for the rich."

Still, one out of two is not bad, when it comes to getting Congress to do something that makes sense economically, rather than something that looks good politically.

The government, which collected less than $50 million in taxes on capital gains in 1924, suddenly collected well over $100 million in capital gains taxes in 1925. At lower tax rates, it no longer made sense to keep so much invested in tax-exempt securities, when more money could be made by investing in the economy.

As for "the rich"-- who really were rich in those days, when $100,000 was worth more than a million dollars is worth today-- those in the highest income brackets paid 30 percent of all taxes in 1920 and 65 percent of all taxes by 1929, after "tax cuts for the rich."

How can that be? Because high tax rates on paper, that many people avoid, often does not bring in as much tax revenue as lower tax rates that more people actually pay, after it is safe to come out of tax shelters and earn higher rates of taxable income.

The investors do this because it makes them better off, on net balance, even after they pay more money in taxes on incomes that have gone up. More important, the economy benefits when there is more investment in things that create more jobs and rising output.

None of this was unique to the 1920s. The same scenario played out again in later years, during the Kennedy, Reagan and Bush 43 administrations.

But economic success is not the same as political success. As former House Majority Leader Dick Armey put it, "Demagoguery beats data."

As long as the voters keep buying the "tax cuts for the rich" demagoguery, politicians will keep selling it. And it will keep selling as long as it goes unanswered. The question is whether today's Republicans understand that as well as Andrew Mellon did back in the 1920s.

Let's face it, politics is largely the art of deception, and political rhetoric is largely the art of misstating issues. A classic example is the current debate over whether to give money to the unemployed by extending how long unemployment benefits will be provided, or instead to give "tax cuts to the rich."

First of all, nobody's taxes-- whether rich or poor-- is going to be cut in this lame duck session of Congress. The only real issue is whether our current tax rates will go up in January, whether for everybody or nobody or somewhere in between.

The most we can hope for is that tax rates will not go up. So the next time you hear some politician or media talking head say "tax cuts for the rich," that will just tell you whether they are serious about facts or just addicted to talking points.

Not only are the so-called "tax cuts" not really tax cuts, most of the people called "rich" are not really rich. Rich means having a lot of wealth. But income taxes don't touch wealth. No wonder some billionaires are saying it's OK to raise income taxes. They would still be billionaires if taxes took 100 percent of their current income.

What those who are arguing against "tax cuts for the rich" are promoting is raising the tax rates on families making $250,000 a year and up. A husband and wife making $125,000 a year each are not rich. If they have a kid going to one of the many colleges charging $30,000 a year (in after-tax money) for tuition alone, they are not likely to feel anywhere close to being rich.

Many people earning an annual income of $125,000 a year do so only after years of earning a lot less than that before eventually working their way up to that level. For politicians to step in at that point and confiscate what they have invested years of working to achieve is a little much.

It also takes a lot of brass to talk about taxing "millionaires and billionaires" when most of the people whose taxes the liberals want to raise are neither. Why is so much deception necessary, if your case is good?

Those who own their own small businesses have usually reached their peak earnings many years after having started their business, and often operating with very low income, or even operating at a loss, when their businesses first got started.

Again, having politicians step in with an extra tax at that point, when later incomes compensate earlier sacrifices, is sheer brass-- especially when real millionaires and billionaires have their wealth safely stowed in tax shelters.

Another fashionable political and media deception is making a parallel between giving money to the unemployed versus giving money to "the rich."

When you refrain from raising someone's taxes, you are not "giving" them anything. Even if you were actually cutting their tax rate-- which is out of the question today-- you would still not be "giving" them anything, but only allowing them to keep more of what they have earned.

Is the government doing any of us a big favor by not taking even more of what we have worked for? Is it not an insult to our intelligence to say that the government is "giving" us something by not taxing it away?

With unemployment compensation, however, you are in fact giving someone something. "Extending unemployment benefits" always sounds good politically-- especially if you do not ask the basic question: "For how long should they be extended?" A year? Two years? No limit?

Studies have shown what common sense should have told us without studies: The longer the unemployment benefits are available, the longer people stay unemployed.

If I were fired tomorrow, should I be able to live off the government until such time as I find another job that is exactly the same, making the same or higher pay? What if I am offered another job that uses some of the same skills but doesn't pay quite as much? Should I be allowed to keep on living off the government?

With the government making it more expensive for employers to hire workers, and at the same time subsidizing unemployed workers longer and longer, you can have as much unemployment as you are willing to pay for, for as long as you are willing to pay for it.

Many of you have contacted me about the bipartisan tax deal reached between President Obama and Republican leaders. I've carefully reviewed the legislation and I wanted to explain to you why I cannot support it. First, I do not want to see anyone's taxes go up and I have been fighting for years to permanently extend all the tax rates. I disagree with the President that we cannot afford to extend these rates for everyone. It's the people's money and we should not raise taxes on hardworking American families.

For starters, it includes approximately $200 billion in new deficit spending and stimulus gimmicks. That's a lot of money that will have to be borrowed from China and repaid by our children and grandchildren. If we're going to increase spending on new programs, we must reduce other spending to pay for it.

The bill also only extends rates for two years. We don't have a temporary economy so we shouldn't have temporary tax rates. Individuals and businesses make decisions looking at the long-term and we're not going to create jobs without giving people certainty as to what their taxes will be in future.

The bill also fails to extend all of the tax rates. It actually increases the death tax from its current rate of zero percent all the way up to 35 percent. One economic study shows that this tax increase alone will kill over 800,000 jobs over the next ten years.

Finally, the bill now includes dozens of earmarks for special interests, including ethanol subsidies, tax breaks for film and television producers, give aways for Puerto Rican rum manufacturers, favors for auto racing track owners, and a hand out for businesses in American Samoa.

The President called Republicans "hostage takers" this week but he should be pointing his figure squarely at himself. We've known for years that these tax rates were going to expire but he did nothing about it until the last minute. Now Americans are being told they have to accept hundreds of billions in new spending and stimulus gimmicks, an increase the death tax, and a bunch of unnecessary earmarks or their taxes will go up.

I'm not going to be bullied into voting for things that will hurt our country because politicians in Washington ignored the problem until it was a crisis.

Many of you fought hard to elect new leaders to the Senate this year with the expectation that they would fight deficit spending, tax hikes, and backroom deals. I take that commitment very seriously and I'm prepared to vote against this bill even if I'm the only one in the Senate to do so.

I appreciate the efforts made by my party's leaders to negotiate this deal but I believe Americans deserve much better. This deal should be rejected and then fixed. We can easily extend these tax rates without increasing spending once the new crop of Republican senators, including Pat Toomey, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and Ron Johnson, are sworn in. The President has already conceded that taxes cannot go up and we'll have more Republicans in Congress in a few weeks to fight for a better deal.

Thank you for supporting the principles of freedom and for your continued encouragement. I will continue to do my very best to be your voice in the United States Senate.

Of the 6 billion people on Earth, 2 billion try to survive on a few dollars a day. They don't build businesses, or if they do, they don't expand them.

Unlike people in the United States, Europe and Asian countries like Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, etc., they don't lift themselves out of poverty.

Why not? What's the difference between them and us? Hernando de Soto taught me that the biggest difference may be property rights.

I first met de Soto maybe 15 years ago. It was at one of those lunches where people sit around wondering how to end poverty. I go to these things because it bugs me that much of the world hasn't yet figured out what gave us Americans the power to prosper.

I go, but I'm skeptical. There sits de Soto, president of the Institute for Liberty and Democracy in Peru, and he starts pulling pictures out showing slum dwellings built on top of each other. I wondered what they meant.

As de Soto explained: "These pictures show that roughly 4 billion people in the world actually build their homes and own their businesses outside the legal system. ... Because of the lack of rule of law (and) the definition of who owns what, and because they don't have addresses, they can't get credit (for investment loans)."

"To get an address, somebody's got to recognize that that's where you live. That means ... you've a got mailing address. ... When you make a deal with someone, you can be identified. But until property is defined by law, people can't ... specialize and create wealth. The day they get title (is) the day that the businesses in their homes, the sewing machines, the cotton gins, the car repair shop finally gets recognized. They can start expanding."

That's the road to prosperity. But first they need to be recognized by someone in local authority who says, "This is yours." They need the rule of law. But many places in the developing world barely have law. So enterprising people take a risk. They work a deal with the guy on the first floor, and they build their house on the second floor.

"Probably the guy on the first floor, who had the guts to squat and make a deal with somebody from government who decided to look the other way, has got an invisible property right. It's not very different from when you Americans started going west, (but) Americans at that time were absolutely conscious of what the rule of law was about," de Soto said.

Americans marked off property, courts recognized that property, and the people got deeds that meant everyone knew their property was theirs. They could then buy and sell and borrow against it as they saw fit.

This idea of a deed protecting property seems simple, but it's powerful. Commerce between total strangers wouldn't happen otherwise. It applies to more than just skyscrapers and factories. It applies to stock markets, which only work because of deed-like paperwork that we trust because we have the rule of law.

Is de Soto saying that if the developing world had the rule of law they could become as rich as we are?

"Oh, yes. Of course. But let me tell you, bringing in the rule of law is no easy thing."

De Soto started his work in Peru, as an economic adviser to the president, trying to establish property rights there. He was successful enough that leaders of 23 countries, including Russia, Libya, Egypt, Honduras and the Philippines, now pay him to teach them about property rights. Those leaders at least get that they're doing something wrong.

"They get it easier than a North American," he said, "because the people who brought the rule of law and property rights to the United States (lived) in the 18th and 19th centuries. They were your great-great-great-great-granddaddies."

De Soto says we've forgotten what made us prosperous. "But (leaders in the developing world) see that they're pot-poor relative to your wealth." They are beginning to grasp the importance of private property.

Let's not settle for the big-government status quo, which is what the president's deficit commission offers.

The publication of the findings of the president's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform was indeed, as the report was titled, "A Moment of Truth." The report shows we're much closer to the budgetary breaking point than previously assumed. The Medicare Trust Fund will be insolvent by 2017. As early as 2025, federal revenue will barely be enough to pay for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and interest on our national debt. With spending structurally outpacing revenue, something clearly needs to be done to avert national bankruptcy.

Speaking with WSJ's Jerry Seib, Congressman Paul Ryan (R, WI) insisted that the deal between Republicans and the White House on the Bush Tax Cuts was not a second stimulus and that the agreement would promote growth despite adding to the deficit.

The commission itself calculates that, even if all of its recommendations are implemented, the federal budget will continue to balloon-to an estimated $5 trillion in 2020, from an already unprecedented $3.5 trillion today. The commission makes only a limited effort to cut spending below the current trend set by the Obama administration.

Among the few areas of spending it does single out for cuts is defense-the one area where we shouldn't be cutting corners at a time of war. Worst of all, the commission's proposals institutionalize the current administration's new big spending commitments, including ObamaCare. Not only does it leave ObamaCare intact, but its proposals would lead to a public option being introduced by the backdoor, with the chairmen's report suggesting a second look at a government-run health-care program if costs continue to soar.

It also implicitly endorses the use of "death panel"-like rationing by way of the new Independent Payments Advisory Board-making bureaucrats, not medical professionals, the ultimate arbiters of what types of treatment will (and especially will not) be reimbursed under Medicare.

The commission's recommendations are a disappointment. That doesn't mean, though, that the commission's work was a wasted effort. For one thing, it has exposed the large and unsustainable deficits that the Obama administration has created through its reckless "spend now, tax later" policies. It also establishes a clear bipartisan consensus on the need to fundamentally reform our entitlement programs. We need a better plan to build on these conclusions with common-sense reforms to tackle our long-term funding crisis in a sustainable way.

In my view, a better plan is the Roadmap for America's Future produced by Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wisc.). The Roadmap offers a reliable path to long-term solvency for our entitlement programs, and it does so by encouraging personal responsibility and independence.

On health care, it would replace ObamaCare with a new system in which people are given greater control over their own health-care spending. It achieves this partly through creating medical savings accounts and a new health-care tax credit-the only tax credit that would be left in a radically simplified new income tax system that people can opt into if they wish.

The Roadmap would also replace our high and anticompetitive corporate income tax with a business consumption tax of just 8.5%. The overall tax burden would be limited to 19% of GDP (compared to 21% under the deficit commission's proposals). Beyond that, Rep. Ryan proposes fundamental reform of Medicare for those under 55 by turning the current benefit into a voucher with which people can purchase their own care.

On Social Security, as with Medicare, the Roadmap honors our commitments to those who are already receiving benefits by guaranteeing all existing rights to people over the age of 55. Those below that age are offered a choice: They can remain in the traditional government-run system or direct a portion of their payroll taxes to personal accounts, owned by them, managed by the Social Security Administration and guaranteed by the federal government. Under the Roadmap's proposals, they can pass these savings onto their heirs. The current Medicaid system, the majority of which is paid for by the federal government but administered by the states, would be replaced by a block-grant system that would reward economizing states.

Together these reforms help to secure our entitlement programs for the 21st century. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Roadmap would lead to lower deficits and a much lower federal debt. The CBO estimates that under current spending plans, our federal debt would rise to 87% of GDP by 2020, to 223% by 2040, and to 433% by 2060. Under Rep. Ryan's Roadmap, the CBO estimates that debt would rise much more slowly, peaking at 99% in 2040 and then dropping back to 77% by 2060.

Put simply: Our country is on the path toward bankruptcy. We must turn around before it's too late, and the Roadmap offers a clear plan for doing so. But it does more than just fend off disaster. CBO calculations show that the Roadmap would also help create a "much more favorable macroeconomic outlook" for the next half-century. The CBO estimates that under the Roadmap, by 2058 per-person GDP would be around 70% higher than the current trend.

Is Rep. Ryan's Roadmap perfect? Of course not-no government plan ever is. But it's the best plan on the table at a time when doing nothing is no longer an option.

Let's not settle for the big-government status quo, which is what the president's commission offers. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to make these tough decisions so that they might inherit a prosperous and strong America like the one we were given.

More than 1000 international scientists dissent over man-made global warming claims

"Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!!" - NASA Scientist Dr. Leonard Weinstein who worked 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center and finished his career there as a Senior Research Scientist. Weinstein is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace.

"Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself - Climate is beyond our power to control. Earth doesn't care about governments or their legislation. You can't find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone's permission or explaining itself." - Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

"In essence, the jig is up. The whole thing is a fraud. And even the fraudsters that fudged data are admitting to temperature history that they used to say didn't happen. Perhaps what has doomed the Climategate fraudsters the most was their brazenness in fudging the data" - Dr. Christopher J. Kobus, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Oakland University, specializes in alternative energy, thermal transport phenomena, two-phase flow and fluid and thermal energy systems.

"Hundreds of billion dollars have been wasted with the attempt of imposing a Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory that is not supported by physical world evidences. AGW has been forcefully imposed by means of a barrage of scare stories and indoctrination that begins in the elementary school textbooks." - Brazilian Geologist Geraldo Luís Lino, who authored the 2009 book "The Global Warming Fraud: How a Natural Phenomenon Was Converted into a False World Emergency."

"Those who call themselves 'Green planet advocates' should be arguing for a CO2- fertilized atmosphere, not a CO2-starved atmosphere. Diversity increases when the planet was warm AND had high CO2 atmospheric content. Al Gore's personal behavior supports a green planet - his enormous energy use with his 4 homes and his bizjet, does indeed help make the planet greener. Kudos, Al for doing your part to save the planet." - Renowned engineer and aviation/space pioneer Burt Rutan, who was named "100 most influential people in the world, 2004" by Time Magazine and Newsweek called him "the man responsible for more innovations in modern aviation than any living engineer."

"We maintain there is no reason whatsoever to worry about man-made climate change, because there is no evidence whatsoever that such a thing is happening." - Greek Earth scientists Antonis Christofides and Nikos Mamassis of the National Technical University of Athens' Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering.

"The whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is completely unfounded. There appears to have been money gained by Michael Mann, Al Gore and UN IPCC's Rajendra Pachauri as a consequence of this deception, so it's fraud." - South African astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe, a member of the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa (ASSA) and the Astronomical Society of the Pacific and a Fellow of the British Institute of Physics.

Virginia Mayo/AP U.S. President Barack Obama speaks during a media conference at an EU-US summit in Lisbon on Saturday Nov. 20, 2010. EU and US leaders will look at ways in which they can work together on a growing range of security issues that affect citizens on both sides of the Atlantic, such as cyber attacks and cyber crime, as well as violent extremism and terrorism.

Barack Obama is only halfway through his term, but it's not too early to ask: What is the biggest whopper he has told as president? So far, the hands-down winner is:

"No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people. If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what."

Obama made that particular pledge in a speech to the American Medical Association in June 2009, but he said the same thing, with slight variations, dozens of times during the health care debate. And now, exactly eight months after he signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into law, we're seeing just how empty the president's promise was.

The New York Times reports there is a "growing frenzy of mergers" in the health care field in which hospitals and other care providers, pressured by the new law's provisions, are joining forces to save money. "Consumer advocates fear that the health care law could worsen some of the very problems it was meant to solve," the paper reports, "by reducing competition, driving up costs and creating incentives for doctors and hospitals to stint on care, in order to retain their cost-saving bonuses."

The Obama administration's answer to the problem will undoubtedly be more regulation. But the wave of mergers is just one of many signs of trouble with the new law.

For example, we know that the government's Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services has found that the new law will increase health care costs, rather than reduce them, in the coming decade. We know that cuts in Medicare, with the money saved going to pay for expanding coverage to the poor, will jeopardize seniors' access to care. We know the law will make it impossibly expensive for companies that currently offer bare-bones health coverage to low-income employees to keep doing so. We know several corporations are taking giant write-downs because the bill will increase the cost of providing prescription drug coverage to retired employees. And perhaps most important, we know the law offers an enormous incentive for employers who currently provide coverage to workers to stop doing so, sending those workers to buy coverage in government-subsidized health care exchanges.

In sum, what the law means for millions of Americans is: No matter what the president said, if you like the coverage you have now, you can't keep it.

And a lot of people do like their coverage. A new Gallup Poll found that when Americans are asked to assess the quality of their own health care, the results "are among the most positive Gallup has found over the past decade." A total of 82 percent of respondents rate their health care as excellent or good, while just 16 percent rate it as fair or poor."

The key question of health care reform has always been how to make things better for the 16 percent while not messing things up for the 82 percent. Obama decided to blow up the system for everyone.

In doing so, he has created not just well-founded anxiety in those who are skeptical of the new law but also unrealistic expectations in those who support it. "We just told millions of people that they can go to the exchanges in 2014 and buy insurance," writes Aaron Carroll, an Indiana University School of Medicine professor who blogs on health care issues at a site called the Incidental Economist. "There won't be any lifetime or annual limits. There won't be denials for pre-existing conditions. There won't be any surcharges for having such conditions. And it's going to be 'reasonably' priced."

Carroll talked to lots of insurance executives, and concluded it's just not going to happen. "I feel like many people think they will have choice of doctor, choice of hospital, and the ability to dictate care," he writes. "I'm not seeing how insurance companies will be able to offer such products at prices people can afford."

Is any of this a surprise? The fact is, the president knew or should have known that his health care scheme would have these effects. He paid a political price for his actions on Nov. 2. There might be more to pay on Nov. 6, 2012.

A new Gallup poll out on Wednesday says 66 percent of Americans believe President Obama did the right thing by not raising taxes on anyone, obviously a huge majority.

But if you read and listen to the liberal media, you wouldn't know that because their focus is on far-left dissent, people like Bernie Sanders, the socialist from Vermont.

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, I-VT.: What we are looking at is a real moral outrage, where Republicans are telling us that we have got to give huge tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires in order to get an extension of tax breaks for the middle class and unemployment compensation for two million unemployed workers. That is outrageous. We can and must fight for an agreement that's a lot better than that.

Now, I believe Mr. Sanders could not be elected anywhere but in Vermont. He is that far out there.

But The New York Times, the cable arm of NBC News and other far-left outlets feature and avidly promote the belief system held by Sen. Sanders and others like him.

But if you look at the stats, those people are very few. All the polls say just 20 percent of Americans identify themselves as liberal. And the far-left fringe is much less than that; I believe it's about eight percent. But those people have influence in some very powerful media operations. Therefore, they are in your face constantly, spouting unbelievable nonsense.

Sanders and others like him believe that the affluent do not have a right to their own assets, that the government has an obligation to spread private property around under the banner of taxation.

The original attempt of the federal tax was to fund the military and build infrastructure, things like that. But now the far left wants the money to impose "income equality."

I mean, Sanders wants a death tax for the wealthy that would take about half of a deceased American's estate, even though the assets have already been taxed. Sanders does this in the name of social justice. But if you really want to be honest about it, he is a thief. There is no fairness in seizing assets, is there?

So why are we listening to people like Bernie Sanders? You might say you are not, but President Obama is. He is very concerned about the far left turning on him. And when the President is concerned, we should be concerned.

"Talking Points" believes it is time to call these far-left people exactly what they are: harmful to America.

This is what political censorship looks like: FCC Commissioner wants to test 'public value' of every broadcast station

Frank Rich explain Obama’s most recent political decisions as a matter of suffering Stockholm Syndrome (Frank Rich was a strong supporter of the President):

Remember Shirley Sherrod who was told to resign her job because FoxNews might do a story on her that night; and she resigns and then is rehired in a different position? She will make, with her husband, a third of a million dollars from the Pigford settlement (the settlement given to Black farmers who could not get loans) and her company will get $13 million. The insanity of this settlement cannot be believed:

San Francisco is not the only crazy place in California. South LA has banned new stand-alone fast food eateries

The liberal use of the f-word by liberals concerning the President and his plans:

Obama’s FCC commissioner on every nappy headed kid having a right to the internet:

RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, I have a question. I have a whole unemployment stack here, but before I get to the unemployment news stack per se, I have a question. I'm still kind of reeling here over the theories and the philosophy that we got last week, and that is that unemployment benefits create robust economic activity. I'm still trying to get my arms around that, and not only that, unemployment benefits, if we fail to extend 'em, it's going to cost us 600,000 jobs. Now, my question, if unemployment benefits are so good for the economy, why hasn't it worked for the past 99 or 150 weeks? Look at all the people that have been on unemployment. We ought to have

just a rolling recovery going on. But of course we don't. It's absurd some of the things that are being said out there. Now, here is the unemployment stack, ladies and gentlemen, and the first story is from Ben Bernanke. Bernanke was on 60 Minutes last night. He said that unemployment might take five years to fall to a normal level and that fed purchases of Treasury securities beyond the $600 billion announced last month in a controversial move were possible. Might do it again. "At the rate we're going, it could be four, five years before we are back to a more normal unemployment rate" of about 5 to 6 percent. That's optimistic, considering other things that I have heard. We're not gonna get out of this as long as Obama's president, in other words. What he's basically saying here, as long as Obama's president, we are stuck.

And now from Business Insider: "Guess what? Unemployment is up again! That's right -- even though Wall Street is swimming in cash and the Obama administration is declaring that 'the recession is over', the U.S. unemployment rate has gone even higher. So are you enjoying the jobless recovery? The truth is that there should not be any talk of a 'recovery' as long as the 'official' unemployment rate remains at around 10 percent and the 'real' unemployment continues to hover around 17 percent. There are millions and millions of American families that are living every day in deep pain because of the lack of jobs. Meanwhile, there are all of these economic pundits that are declaring that we are just going to have to realize that chronic unemployment is the 'new normal' and that if other nations can handle high rates of unemployment then so can we."

Now, this piece says: "If you have never been unemployed, it can be hard to describe how soul-crushing it can be. As the bills pile up and the financial obligations mount, the pressure can be debilitating. ... The vast majority of Americans have at least one family member or close friend that is looking for work right now. Times are really, really tough and unfortunately the long-term outlook is very bleak. We should have compassion on those who are out of work right now, because soon many of us may join them." And then they have a link here, "25 unemployment statistics that are almost too depressing to read." It's a slideshow and I've got the link to it, Business Insider, but it's not good. It's typified here in a story at the UK Daily Mail Online: "No End in Sight to U.S. Economic Crisis as 'Scariest Jobs Chart Ever' Shows Post-Recession Unemployment is at its Worst Since World War Two -- As unemployment in the U.S. nears the dreaded 10 per cent mark, it is a chart to chill the bones of any job hunter."

Now, I can't describe the chart for you. Not even someone with the immense talents that I have can describe this thing. This looks like one of those computer model hurricane spaghetti things. But down at the very bottom -- they're all jumped together, all these different lines starting in 1948 to the present with unemployment rates at 7%, minus six, so forth and so on. Way, way down below everything is where we are now with the Obama regime. All of this, every day this news comes out, and it gets worse and worse and worse, and the fix for this becomes obvious, and yet any time the fix is mentioned, just doing the opposite of what we're doing, Democrats have a cow. Let's go to the audio sound bites. This is hilarious. Friday night, Sergeant Schultz had on his show Alan Grayson, the certifiably insane, soon to be former congressman from central Florida, and during a discussion about the House debate to extend the Bush tax cuts, Congressman Grayson mentioned me on the House floor last week. Sergeant Schultz said, "Why did you do that? It was very entertaining, but what was the mission there, congressman?"

GRAYSON: Because when you listen to these people talk about tax cuts for the rich and how it's gonna benefit the economy and create jobs, you have to realize it's a lie. It's just not true. They have a hidden agenda, they have a hidden motivation, and that's tax cuts for themselves. They should confess that the reason why they keep pushing tax breaks for the rich is because they want a tax cut. It's that simple.

RUSH: Now, what to do with this? "The only reason they keep pushing tax breaks for the rich is because they want a tax cut." In the first place, Congressman Grayson, you and it seems like all of your compatriots in the media -- Alan Grayson is worth $31 and a half million, by the way, that's his net worth, Alan Grayson, 31.3, $31.5 million. That's how much he has. And publicly he would probably say, "I don't want a tax cut, I'm willing to pay more." Well, then pay more, congressman, but keep your hands off everybody else's money. We're not talking about a tax cut. This is something that Jon Kyl tried to drill into Bob Schieffer's head yesterday on Slay the Nation. It's impossible to tell these Democrats and the media people we're not talking about a tax cut. We're talking about two things: maintaining current tax rates or a tax increase, pure and simple. Nobody is getting a tax cut. If Alan Grayson, if that idiot can end up with $31 and a half million, anybody can. It's one of the greatest motivational details that I've ever imparted to you. Grayson can do it, you can do it. But nobody's talking tax cuts here.

Why doesn't Grayson move to a state where he can pay state income tax if he is so high on all this? Leave Florida and go to the Bronx. He was born and raised in New York City, was born and raised in the Bronx. Alan, just head back there. If you're not paying enough taxes there are plenty of places in the country that will take you. Nobody is talking about a tax cut. We're simply talking about extending current tax rates as opposed to a tax increase, which you start talking people at 250 grand or more, you're talking about job creators. I don't think we have to do too big a sales job on this. I think most people have come to understand what this is all about, which is why Obama's gonna cave on this and it's why the Democrats, the left is livid. I mean there are stories today, we got sound bites, too. Krugman is ticked off. Everybody's ticked off on the Democrat side. Claire McCaskill's ticked off. They're all ticked off at Obama. And Mark Halperin at TIME Magazine -- do you remember when 9/11 happened? When 9/11 happened, there were actually a bunch of people, Democrats, who said, (paraphrasing) "Ah, damn it, why couldn't this have happened when Clinton was president? A chance for Bill Clinton to have some greatness, why did it have to be wasted on Bush?" Now, the bottom line on this is Clinton had his disaster. It was the Oklahoma City bombing.

Now, Halperin is writing, it's a piece today all about what does Obama have to do to come back? It doesn't matter if it's good for the country or not, Halperin says, hey, if there's another 9/11, Oklahoma City bombing, people might get killed, that might be what it takes to bring Obama back. To hell with what's good or bad for the country. Well, Claire McCaskill, I think she goes to the same school as Alan Grayson. She keeps saying they're giving money to millionaires and billionaires. This is their latest mantra. This is why I went through this whole little monologue last week about, oh, yeah, okay, so we extend the Bush tax cuts, Washington is gonna write people a check? Is that what's happening here, if we extend these Bush tax rates? This is pure demagoguery; it's pure lying, and it's not working.

Washington News: "White House, Congress Reportedly Near Deal To Extend All Bush-Era Tax Cuts -- Media reports, including stories on all three network newscasts, describe the White House and Congress as very close to a deal to extend -- albeit temporarily -- all Bush-era tax cuts. The potential deal is being cast as somewhat of a defeat for the President, and as a highly disheartening development for Democrats and liberal activists. ABC World News reported, 'The President is preparing to break one of his biggest campaign promises,' as 'it appears Republicans will get all the tax cuts extended.'" They're not tax cuts anymore. They're tax rates. "In a second story, ABC World News said the White House 'views this as the last best chance to get priorities passed, including extending unemployment benefits. But the flip side is, this is happening while Democrats still control Congress. The view of many in the left is, if the President has to move this far right now, it's going to be much farther next month,'" when the Republicans are in the majority.

"The CBS Evening News reported, 'Liberals have been begging President Obama not to cave to GOP demands,' but 'the White House is worried about losing twice' if no deal is reached all tax cuts expire: 'the economy could buckle, and the President would get the share of the blame.'" He already is starting to get the largest share of the blame. "On NBC Nightly News, CNBC's John Harwood said that 'it appears that they're headed toward a perhaps two-year extension of all of those tax rates.' The New York Times reports on its front page, 'Senior Democrats on Sunday said that they were resigned to defeat in the highly charged tax debate, and they voiced dismay.' ... The AP reports 'some Democrats continued to object to any plan that would continue Bush-era tax rates at the highest income levels.' Politico reports Republicans 'seemed more sanguine Sunday about the direction of the debate and the negotiations than did Democrats.' McClatchy reports, 'Despite talk of compromise, the rising level of partisan rancor in recent days remains a possible glitch. Congressional leaders surprised many rank-and-file members by insisting on votes last week on the tax cuts.'" It goes on and on and on about how Obama is caving, when he has the majority in the House of Representatives. And here's the Time piece: "What Obama Needs to Come Back: Nothing Short of Luck." Wait 'til you hear this piece.

Anyway, a lot of on the plate today, my friends, and we've got plenty of knives and forks, in fact pitchforks.

RUSH: I want to know: How was there a Great Depression, ladies and gentlemen, if 20% unemployment would be twice as good as 9%? And they had unemployment benefits back then. It was call "relief." Remember that? Well, you probably don't. But it was called "relief," and if all of these unemployment benefits are so great for the economy, how did we ever have a Great Depression? How did it happen? How? The two just don't go together. And I also have another question. Just last week the media was wringing its hands over the lack of compromise and wondering, "Will the Republicans compromise with Obama?"

Well, here's compromise taking place, and when Obama does it it's called "caving." Now, everybody loves compromise, I'm told. So, Obama is gonna compromise with the Republicans. We're gonna extend all Bush-era tax rates in exchange for Obama's extended unemployment benefits and his stupid little START treaty, and everybody's upset that Obama's caving. We thought the news media and the pundit class loved compromise. But you see, ladies and gentlemen, they don't because compromise doesn't mean compromise. "Compromise" means "Republicans cave in," and when the appearance is that Obama is caving in, "Why, we can't have that!"

RUSH: Okay, we're gonna go to the phones at 800-282-2882, and who we got? David in Buffalo, we're gonna start with you, sir. Nice to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Hey, I wanted to bring up that Bernanke interview on 60 Minutes yesterday.

CALLER: The point I wanted to make is we have Obama, Reid, and Pelosi making one point, which is that unemployment creates stimulus within the economy.

CALLER: Yet Bernanke yesterday was saying that we need to get people off of unemployment because they lose their skills, they get very complacent of doing nothing, and it's just poor all the way around in the long term.

RUSH: Well, it's exactly where Obama, Reid, and Pelosi want them: unskilled, doing nothing, and dependent.

RUSH: It helps the Democrats in the long term, in their minds, it helps them. Look at Mark Halperin's piece, it's not about what's good for the country, it's what's good for Obama, "Oh, my God, what could Obama do to come back, oh, no what can we do to help Obama? Nobody wants a catastrophe, but..." We have some of this Bernanke interview last night on 60 Minutes. Scott Pelley talked to him. Here's one bite. Pelley said, "We lost about eight million jobs from the peak, and I wonder how many years you think it will be before we get all those jobs back?"

BERNANKE: You're absolutely right. Between the peak and the end of last year we lost eight and a half million jobs. We've only gotten about a million of them back so far, and that doesn't even account the new people coming into the labor force. At the rate we're going it could be four or five years before we are back to a more normal unemployment rate, somewhere in the vicinity of say five or six percent.

RUSH: Folks, I hope he's right, but it's gonna be longer than that. The number of jobs that we would have to create a year if no new workers graduated from college, if people stopped growing up, if people stopped entering the job market, it would take -- well, figure it out, how many years at say 200,000 jobs a year, how many years would that take? Well, if you're gonna use eight million, 200,000 ... I'm not good at math in my head. Then you add people coming into the workforce to the people who have lost their job, we're not talking five or six years to get to five or six percent unemployment. We're talking ten to 15. Folks, this next presidential election and these next two years are gonna be crucial. We've got about six to ten years to reverse this before the mathematics becomes geometrically out of our control.

I mean even now the notion of paying down this debt, everybody knows you're not gonna pay down this debt, you're not gonna get rid of it, but you have to start attacking it, you have to start reducing it, you have to start cutting things, you have to. It's time to reprioritize 50-year-old programs that created and formed during entirely different economic times and entirely different purposes than those which they've evolved. I mean this is serious, serious stuff here. The length of time to get back to five or six percent, look, it just took two years to go from 4.7 unemployment to where we are at, two years, and we're looking at much, much longer than that to correct it. We gotta get rid of this guy politically, he's gotta lose and the Democrats have to lose significant power over the next couple of years.

RUSH: Friday afternoon in Washington on Capitol Hill, Senate Democrats held a press conference to talk about the extension of the Bush tax rates. It's the subject that won't go away. It's dividing the Democrat Party. Here's Claire McCaskill from Missouri. That's my home state. It should be pointed out that Claire McCaskill is worth (I saw this earlier) $19 million or so. She's in the top ten wealthiest people in the Senate, I believe. She ranks up there. Here is a portion of what she had to say.

MCCASKILL: They need to pull back the curtain and realize that you've got a Republican Party that's not worried about the people in the Tea Party. They're worried about people that can't decide which home to go to over the Christmas holidays.

RUSH: All right, now, two things about this. She may be right in one sense (chuckles), and that is certain elements of the Republican Party may not be all that happy with the Tea Party. But, "They're worried about people that can't decide which home to go to over the Christmas holidays"? Have you ever had more than one house? Snerdley, have you ever had more than one home? I mean to live in. Dawn, have been have you ever had more than one home? You ever have more than one home to live in? I mean different locations. You might own two on the same street 'cause you're trying to sell one, but you had two homes in different towns? (interruption) You haven't? Then you don't know how hard it is to decide which one to go to!

It can be a tough decision. There are a whole lot of variables involved here. She doesn't know what she's talking about. The Republicans don't care about that. She's misreading that. But she's got a bunch of homes, I'll guarantee you. I'll bet she spends a lot of time figuring where she's going to be and which one she's going to be in at what time. (interruption) Well, the price of jet fuel is a factor. Look, John Kerry has seven of 'em! John Kerry has got a home outside Pittsburgh, he's got a home in Boston, he's got a home in Washington, he's got a home out there in Sun Valley, Idaho. There are so many variables. Like half the time he probably does not want to be where his wife is gonna be.

I mean, they probably have kitchen table discussions -- dining room table -- saying, "Where we going to spend next weekend?" It can take 'em, I don't know, maybe an hour to figure it out, and they're Democrats. The more choices you have, the more time it takes you to make 'em. Who's she to start making fun of this? Republicans are more concerned about people have to choose which home they're gonna spend the holidays in? She's talking about herself! I'll lay you ten to one it's a big problem in her house. That's why it's even on her mind. I know these people left and right. Face the Nation. Jon Kyl was on with Bob Schieffer talking about tax cuts, Schieffer said, "Senator Kyl, is the Senate gonna get down to business and resolve this?"

KYL: I hope so. We can. We should. I would just make one point: Nobody's talking about tax cuts. We're talking about extending the rates --

RUSH: "What about you, Senator Kyl? Is temporary good enough on those upper-income extensions?"

KYL: We're talking about extending, for another period of time, the rates that have been in existence for the last decade essentially. Those tax rates helped our economy and job production. They did not create the problem that we have today. That was a problem created, as you know, by the crash of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the housing market, the so-called bubble. It had nothing to do with these tax rates.

RUSH: Exactly right, but it doesn't matter. That's not what Schieffer's point was. He's sitting there thinking, "I don't want to talk about that." Anyway, Claire McCaskill: $19.42 million net worth in 2008. Claire McCaskill. And do not illegal aliens have two homes? Illegal aliens have a home here and they have a home wherever they came from, and they aren't exactly rich, and they try to figure out which home (laughing) they're gonna spend Christmas in. Shouldn't we want people to have two homes, what with the housing crisis we've got today?

RUSH: Let's go to the State-Controlled Media. They're not happy out there. They're livid. Jake Tapper last night on ABC's World News Tonight.

TAPPER: President Obama had originally told voters taxes on income of more than $250,000 a year should increase. He gave in to Republicans on that. So the family of the average Wall Street banker paid more than $311,000 a year will keep $9,318, as opposed to the $8,012 the president wanted him to keep. Take LeBron James. He makes $14.5 million a year and will continue to keep more than $666,000 of that, as opposed to the president's original position of letting him keep just over $8,000 of that. The White House says President Obama would have gladly signed just the tax cut extensions for middle-class Americans, but the votes simply were not there and this is the best deal he could get.

RUSH: Now, this is why they're livid and fit to be tied, because that just can't be. What is their majority in the House? To say the votes are not there? The votes clearly are there. If Obama can't get the votes for ending the current tax rates for the wealthiest Americans, it's because the Democrats remember the election outcome. I cannot emphasize this enough. We are still in the lame duck here. The Democrats have a 100-seat majority in the House of Representatives. Obama just said the votes were not there to give him what he wanted, in a 100-seat majority, House of Representatives. Stop and think of that. If that's even true. But how do you like Jake Tapper's lingo, Obama was going to let LeBron James keep X, but now Obama's only going to let LeBron James keep Y. What is this "Obama letting" stuff? "Government is going to let." See, that furthers this notion that all money is Washington's and that whatever any of us end up with is what that allow us to have or to keep. It's a big bugaboo of mine. Words mean things, and that creates an image that just isn't true. Jake Tapper, November 3rd, 2010, remember, it was Tapper who wanted Obama to decide who was rich enough. It was Jake Tapper who wanted Obama to compromise on a number, like a million dollars in income. This was during a Q&A at a news conference back in November, the 3rd, right after the election.

TAPPER: They want all the Bush tax cuts extended. Are you willing to compromise on that, allow them to expire for everyone over a million dollars? Where are you willing to budge on that?

OBAMA: It is very important that we're not taking a whole bunch of money out of the system from people who are most likely to spend that money on goods, services, groceries --

RUSH: Another thing that bugs me. Only certain people spend money in ways that count? "It is very important that we're not taking a whole bunch of money out of the system from people who are most likely to spend that money on goods, services, groceries, buying a new winter coat for the kids." I'm starting to resent this. I'm starting to resent the fact that I don't spend my money in a way that's approving to Obama. This is fatuous. "People are more likely to spend that money on goods, services, groceries, buying a new winter coat --" I just bought a winter coat for me to use maybe twice a year. But I just bought one. Does that not count? Well, I'm not gonna get too personal here, but these are jackassian comments, folks. All of this, government, Obama, letting people keep, Obama deciding. He doesn't know the half of anything. Obama deciding whose spending money makes most sense? "That's right, Mr. Limbaugh, because people like you who don't need all the money you have, you just save it." Well, what happens then, you dolt? Okay, I save it, what does that mean? "That means you put it in a bank account, sir." No. Well, some is in a bank account, but then what happens? The bank spends it.

Whoever I give my money to spends it. If I buy stocks with it, somebody's going out there and buying stocks with it. You call that saving. What's wrong with buying stock? What's wrong with investing income? What if I buy some municipal bonds, they're in trouble out there, might be a stupid thing to do but I'm doing it. Might be a wise thing to do, who knows. But this notion that people who aren't going out and buying a bunch of bubble gum are not helping the economy. We gotta get a handle on this, folks, this is patently absurd that only the lower echelon of the middle class spending has any economic stimulus. Everything that people do with their money is spending it, one way or the other. The only time money is not in circulation is when the government takes it away from you. They're the ones who make all the spending errors with it. They are the ones who go into debt. They are the ones that can't be trusted with our money and they've got it turned around to say they make wiser decisions than we do. I thought we're supposed to be getting away from a consumerism economy anyway. I thought these socialists don't like that. I think they want Keynesian; they want the government spending all the money. What is all this talk about consumerism anyway? This stuff really hacks me off. It really hacks me off.

Here's F. Chuck Todd, another in a long line of ignoramuses in the media. Here's F. Chuck last night on NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams. And F. Chuck is bemoaning the lost revenue. Chuck, I want to know something, Chuck, do you have a wife? I see your wedding ring. Probably have kids. Do you have a car? You've got life insurance, homeowners insurance. Do you really spend your day worrying whether or not the government's got enough money when they've got a printing press, Chuck? Do you really bemoan the loss of revenue? Who does this? I don't doubt that he does. F. Chuck probably gets in depression fits over lost revenue. Good Lord. Here's the sound bite from F. Chuck Todd on the NBC Nightly News.

WILLIAMS: Americans have been wondering how lawmakers in Washington could possibly extend tax breaks for wealthy Americans while allowing benefits for jobless Americans to be cut off.

TODD: Now, Brian, how much of this costs the government? In lost revenue that they were projecting to have next year it's gonna cost approximately half a trillion dollars.

RUSH: Chuck, are you really worried about that? They've got a printing press. The government doesn't lose any money ever, Chuck. They're the one entity that never loses anything. They never do without, Chuck. Show me where a budget has been less one year than the next, full government budget. And Brian Williams, "Americans have been wondering how lawmakers in Washington can possibly extend tax breaks for wealthy Americans while allowing benefits for jobless Americans to be cut off." Americans are not wondering that, Brian. Some of the kook fringe leftists on the websites might be, but not in this context. "Americans have been wondering how lawmakers in Washington could possibly extend tax breaks for wealthy Americans." They're not. In fact a lot of the unemployment, those who want to work, are saying, "When's Washington gonna do something to stop punishing people who hire people?" These people pay no attention to election results, and why? Do they not read their own exit polls? And F. Chuck, how much did this cost the government? Chuck, do you really look at things this way, because nothing ever costs the government anything. Besides, F. Chuck, it's our money. Every dime is our money. It isn't theirs. We don't have tax problem, Chuck, we've got a spending problem.

We do not have a tax problem. Don't we want people to put money in banks so they can lend it? Isn't a tight credit market one of the biggest problems facing the economy? "Well, that's the rich, put their money in banks, that doesn't count, their spending doesn't count." Really? Here's Pelosi's statement, by the way. It's from her statement on the deal. "Any provision must be judged by two criteria: does it create jobs to grow our economy and does it add to the deficit?" Now, if that were really her criteria she would have never allowed any of the legislation they've rammed through Congress over the last four years, 'cause none of it grew the economy and none of it reduced the deficit. All right, Scarborough. Folks, I have to make an observation. Ninety percent -- jeez, it's even more than that -- 95% of our media reaction to this comes from some NBC outlet. The rest of it comes from CNN, some comes from, like Frank Rich was on Imus in the Morning. But Good Lord, MSNBC, you have to work to collect this amount of stupidity in one place every day, or ignorance or whatever. You have to make a concerted effort. Joe Scarborough today on Morning Joe said this about the deal to extend the Bush tax cuts.

SCARBOROUGH: After this you cannot say he's a socialist. That's what the right has been calling him, a socialist forever. This is income redistribution, but it's taking it back to the rich. I mean millionaires are getting tax cuts, billionaires are getting tax cuts. The estate tax, they're lowering the estate tax. They are giving payroll tax breaks for the next couple years. He's become a Jack Kemp Democrat.

RUSH: Joe, there is no redistribution of income to the rich. Where do you get this? Well, I know he's been hanging around Chuck Todd. You gotta allow for certain things he has to say over there to keep his job, but are there no limits? Redistribution to the rich? Who are we taking the money from, Joe? Who has the money now, Joe, that we're taking it from and giving it to the billionaires? Payroll tax, I mean that's a one-year holiday of 2%. But who we taking the money from? Joe, the estate tax is not a tax cut, it's an increase, it's zero. There is no estate tax right now. It's going up to 35 percent. There aren't any tax cuts. Technically speaking the estate tax right now is zero. Do you know how many families are trying to figure out -- well, never mind, I'm not gonna go there. Well, you know, a lot of end-of-life planning going on out there and time is dwindling here. By definition now, the estate tax of zero ends at midnight on December 31st.

RUSH: I got a quick question here for F. Chuck Todd. Chuck, have you calculated how much your salary from NBC costs the government? Chuck, have you ever sat around and run the numbers, and do you worry about it? Do you worry about the cost to government of your salary? I'm not just talking about your taxes, F. Chuck. Let's say... I'm just guessing. I don't know how much F. Chuck makes, but it's a news business. He's a star at NBC. Let's say F. Chuck is in there at... He does a lot of double duty. He works at NBC (which you really gotta pay the stars to do that) and then he's news director, bureau chief or whatever. Let's say F. Chuck is at $5 million. F. Chuck, do you ever wonder not just about that $5 million that you make, but the $14 million that Brian Williams makes, and Andrea Mitchell at whatever she makes?

How much is that costing government? Do you worry about it? Have you ever calculated how much it costs the government to let you keep any of what you earn, Chuck? At what point, Chuck, will you get upset at the government not letting you keep certain amount of money? Chuck, you make $5 million. Let's say the government wants $3 million of it. That's still costing the government $2 million the way I look at it, the way you do. F. Chuck is probably listening and saying, "The government doesn't pay me, NBC does!" No, no, no, Chuck. The way you think, all money is government's. Government allows NBC to pay you X.

What's it cost the government, Chuck, for you to earn anything? If you're going to run around and worry about this, I'm trying to illustrate absurdity here by being absurd. Because this is patently absurd, to start worrying about what it "costs" the government. And, Chuck, you know what Newsweek says I earn. I am not... We all play games here. F. Chuck, do you ever worry about what that's costing the government? 'Cause I don't. I have another audio sound bite. We'll squeeze one in here. Mark Halperin on MSNBC's Morning Joe today, question: "Shouldn't the Republicans be called out on their hypocrisy here when all the dust settles? Isn't that what we're gonna see, Mark?"

HALPERIN: The president cares about getting things done. He doesn't care about making the base happy. He doesn't care that much about getting reelected right now. He cares less about it than almost anyone I've ever covered. He wants to do the right thing.

RUSH: Now... (laughing) It was just yesterday that Halperin had a piece hoping for a catastrophe for this guy to get reelected, but he "doesn't care" about it. He doesn't care about getting reelected right now? He just cares about getting things done? This is the first legislative loss Obama has taken in two years. It's the first attempt to damage the country he's lost at. That's one way to look at this.

RUSH: Sheila Jackson Lee, fresh off asking NASA if the Mars Rover would run into the flag astronauts planted there, was on the Fox Business Network Bulls and Bears program, and David Asman, the cohost, said, "Do you think this agreement with Republicans is causing Obama to leave his principles behind?"

LEE: We're going to be unhappy about this seemingly unnecessary tax cut for the 2% of Americans. Many of us are unhappy. The extension of the unemployment benefits so needed by those who are unemployed, tax cuts for the middle-class, enough for us to say, we will do it this time, but it will be a real bloody fight. The real question is, what will the rich people -- let me not focus on people, but let's focus on corporations. What will they do for America? What jobs will they create with this tax benefit? What will the likes of Rush Limbo [sic] will get a big tax cut do to reinvest their dollars to help build America?

RUSH: What an idiot. In the first place she's now made me a corporation. "Let's not talk about people. Let's focus not on people, let's focus on corporations. What would the likes of Rush Limbaugh..." I wonder if I sent her just a daily activity list of all the people in my life and all the things they do and what they get paid, I wonder if it would have any impact? You always hold out hope. Would it open her eyes or her mind? Would a bright light get turned on somewhere in the brain, "Oh, yeah." Is she really this ignorant about how economic activity takes place? (imitating Lee) "What will the likes of Rush Limbo get a big tax cut do to invest their dollars to help build America?" Her point is that I won't build a highway or I will not rebuild a school or that I will not build a water treatment center, the great things that government does. That's what I believe that she is implying. I would if I needed one.

She does believe, just like Obama has said, that the wealthy will not build what's necessary for other people. They will not build roads and highways. They won't build runways. They won't refurbish schools. Government has to do this with money taken from people. The rich are selfish. I'm convinced that that's what she thinks and what she believes.

RUSH: Sheila Jackson Lee. You know, talking about money is a very uncouth thing to do. It's not classy at all. But, boy, would I... The idea that she wonders what I, people like me, do for the economy? All I can tell you is she would be stunned. She'd be absolutely stunned. Somebody needs to tell her. Somebody needs to ask Sheila Jackson Lee: "How many jobs were saved and created over the last ten years thanks to the Bush tax cuts?" Do you know that for 53 months in a row this country created jobs after the Bush tax cuts went into law, after they were signed into law? Fifty-three months in a row. The Democrats take over and we have lost jobs every month, and it's a significant number.

CALLER: Hello. At the beginning of the show you talked about, you had that woman, congresswoman or whatever saying how because of the tax increase, how many jobs have you created or saved or whatever. The thing is, with the amount of taxes you pay, and I mean you must pay a heck of a lot, we'll never know how many federal jobs you saved or created, 'cause that's where the money comes from.

RUSH: -- and she said, "Let me not focus on people, let's focus on corporations. What will the likes of Rush Limbaugh get a big tax cut do to reinvest their dollars to help build America?"

CALLER: Well, you probably pay for some of the roadwork I've seen over the years with the signs up that they have that cite, you know, your federal tax dollars at work to repair the bridges. I'm sure your tax dollars went to pay for that.

RUSH: My taxes for one day in New York City would pay Sheila Jackson Lee's taxes for the full year.

RUSH: (laughing) You know, I appreciate this. So few people ever thank me, period, and I don't mean just for paying taxes and so forth. I am so tempted, it's uncouth, it isn't classy to start talking about all this stuff, but, oh man, what do I do to reinvest in America? Good Lord. I'll not submit the list to her because she would just turn it around and find a way to use it against me. (interruption) Well, when did it become couth for a congresswoman to address a taxpayer? I guess now, I guess it's cool to be able to do it, it's okay. Hey, Snerdley, it goes with the territory. I am the titular head of the Republican Party, I am the power base. That's what she thinks, along with many people on her side of the aisle. Well, she's titular head of something. Not the Democrat Party.

RUSH: Ken in Las Vegas, I'm glad you waited, sir, you're next on the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Thank you, Rush. My pleasure to be on, longtime listener, I actually lived in Sacramento during the KFBK days --

CALLER: You had a caller last week that was challenging you on the number of employees that the show had and how you contributed that way, and I think you had a good case there where you could have made a better example of that saying that, how about if you take the show and say what kind of economic revenue does the show generate? All your affiliates, all the advertising, all of the dollar amounts nationally that are a direct result of your show, and really a direct result of one guy.

RUSH: Wait a minute, I remember the call but I didn't have a chance because it was this guy telling me all about my business. He was telling me --

CALLER: Exactly. And I think that the right answer to that and how you quiet these guys is to say, you know, an example of how the wealthy 1% can contribute is that your show is a perfect example and really one guy. And if you, in fact, go back to the KFBK days and add up all of the revenue that's been generated by all the advertising dollars, all the employees it took to generate all of that, and add 'em up over the last few decades, I'll bet the number is huge. And there's a good example of saying how the wealthy 1% can contribute to the economy. It's what you're generating and what your show is doing and how much money it generates not for you, but it puts people to work and how much money flows as a result of that across the country.

RUSH: It has been said by others, not me, it is said by others that I saved AM radio. Well, if that's true, how many jobs did that save or create? It has been said that I started the alternative media. How many jobs has that saved or created? How many pundits, how many bloggers, how many other talk show hosts? It's been said by others. I just use this as an example. I, of course, have never said it, but others have.

CALLER: Well, a good example of that would be a general contractor, let's say, it's not just what the revenue that that contracting firm generates or how many employees it has, but if he has a number of subcontractors, it's all the revenue that's pushed to the subcontractors, all the employment that they have, and it's all a result of that one general contractor, and I think you're in similar circumstance. I think that's how you quiet these guys down.

RUSH: It wouldn't quiet them down. It would make me a bigger target. No, it would, it would stun them. Just like the left really doesn't like Walmart. Walmart does a better job of servicing the poor than the government does, than the Democrats do, and the Democrats want to be known for doing that. I could ballpark a figure, an annual figure of the dollars generated throughout all the tentacles of this radio show, starting with the show itself, and then the people who are immediately employed by it, all the way down to our affiliates, the people who work there, local advertisers, national advertisers. It would be a big number. But I think to ballpark it even now would be to make me an even bigger target. It would just cause even more resentment. What you think would happen is that people like Sheila Jackson Lee would look at it and say, "Wow, I never knew, why, had no idea." And while they would say that, it would not please them. It would not please them whatsoever. They would say, "We really gotta get rid of this guy now. He's spreading tentacles way too deep in our society. If we don't get rid of him now, we're never gonna be able to get rid of him." Because they're not like us, folks. Obama, these people, they think differently than we do. They just do.

Everybody's tries to understand what makes a liberal a liberal. "Well, Rush, they don't really think, it's all emotional with them, they're angry." Whatever it is, they just think differently than we do. They think differently than we do about the country. They think differently than we do about the economy, and there's very little in common. And that's why compromising with these people, to me, is a waste of time. Defeating them is what is paramount. You know, how about the money that I earn that gets taxed to help these big blue liberal cities to fund themselves. When I put money in the banks, I need more than one, I put money in the banks and that money is used to lend money to people like Sheila Jackson Lee and her constituents and her voters. I mean I could sit here and make up a figure, like Obama, and claim to have saved or created over eight million jobs. I could do that. Who could say that I'm not doing so? Who could say the number is not accurate? The regime says, "We created or saved three and a half million jobs." And then you add jobs I intended to create or save, why, that adds another eight million. So 16 million jobs that I created or saved or intended to create or save. Well, Obama wants credit for the promises he tried to keep, right? He just said at his press conference he wants credit for the promises he tried to keep, so I saved or created eight million jobs and another eight million that I intended to save or create. Really tried. Total of 16 million. There you have it.

RUSH: Let me be even more truthful, ladies and gentlemen, if that's possible. I could say that I created Air America. I created and saved jobs at Air America. Would there be a Media Matters for America if it weren't for me? And they've got a huge staff over there, funded by George Soros. Media Matters was founded to discredit me and my reputation. They wouldn't exist. The left wouldn't exist without me. Would George Soros have bought those 100 reporters for NPR if it wasn't for me? My cigars alone save or create 400,000 jobs, many of them in the Dominican. If the government would stop taking my money I would create another eight million jobs. I'm up to 24 million jobs I've either created or saved (or intended to) and if it would stop taking my money, I could do another eight to 12 million. By the time I am done, we're gonna have to start importing more workers to fill all the jobs that I would create.

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee warns of "bloody fight" on tax cuts in two years (wasn’t it a month or so ago when Republicans were warned about their over-the-top rhetoric?):

RUSH: We continue to listen to disgruntled Democrats and others in the administration try to 'splain themselves. Back now to Ichabod Crane, this is Austan Goolsbee this morning on Fox News Channel, American Newsroom, talking to Bill Hemmer, and Hemmer said, "Do you agree with Larry Summers that we would be headed for a double-dip recession if these tax cuts were not extended?"

GOOLSBEE: I try to stay out of the prediction business, but I don't think there's any doubt by private forecasters or us internally that if you let the middle income tax cuts expire and ordinary Americans see their taxes go up $3000 or $4,000 starting January 1st, that will be a big blow to the economy.

HEMMER: You know Peter Orszag, a former colleague of yours there in Washington. Six months ago he was talking about extending the tax cuts for everyone. Was Peter Orszag right?

RUSH: I guess that's the answer. We don't know what else he said there, but I just want to remind you on Tuesday Obama said there's no way we're gonna have a double-dip recession, no way, we've already taken steps to prevent that. Then Summers comes out and says if we don't extend the rates we'll have a double-dip recession, then Obama comes out and says if we don't extend the rates we'll have a double-dip recession. And here's Goolsbee saying, well, yeah, internal, external forecasters are right on the money, we're gonna have one if we don't do this. And the guy twisting in the wind is Obama. He's the only one that's contradicted himself. Gary Ackerman, this is a New York congressman who's not happy. Late yesterday afternoon on MessNBC during a discussion about the tax rate compromise, the host, Dylan Ratigan, said, "What's about to happen here?"

ACKERMAN: Everybody's gonna get an earful. I think the vice president is gonna make the strongest case he can, and I think he's gonna be able to gauge the intensity of the members of the Democratic caucus who are saying, why should we take this vote? This isn't the DREAM Act. This is the Republican wet dream act. They get the Democrats to add to the deficit, they get all the benefits for their wealthiest friends in America to pay them off for their huge contributions that they made during the campaign and got an exemption from the US Supreme Court. The whole thing is an absolute absurdity.

RUSH: This guy is typical of the left. He's just livid. They get the Democrats to add to the deficit, they get all the benefits for their wealthiest friends. Meanwhile, nothing changes. It's what Vickie was just asking about. How can they say this? Because they're partisan ideologue Marxists and they're crazy and stupid. Nothing changes. And Ackerman's got himself tied into a knot. He's like a pretzel out there. Here's James Carville last night, CNN's John King USA, question: "If the liberals are so mad at him, have the conservatives overplayed that this guy is so far left? This guy is a socialist? This guy is way out there? The people who seem most mad at him are the people on the left."

CARVILLE: There's a strategy here -- I don't -- this is not -- if there's a strategy, where is it? It's just -- and -- and, by the way, the single biggest failed economic policy in history are the Bush tax cuts. Why are we extending something that demonstratively didn't work? It didn't grow incomes, that left us with our cupboard bare, it exploded the deficits and give us $4 trillion more in deficit. That's what I don't understand.

RUSH: So Carville sticking with the talking point the Democrats have banked on for ten years, that the Bush tax cuts are the worst thing ever. Now the regime's come along and basically said the current tax rates are gonna be a major shot in the arm, but only for two years, and they shouldn't have been passed ten years ago in the first place. I mean that that's the regime's position. And, you know, Carville, somebody who does have his head screwed on right most of the time is listening to this and pulling out what little hair he's got left saying, (imitating Carville) "It doesn't make any sense out there. The Bush tax cuts have destroyed everything, our cupboards are bare." Again, folks, the current tax rates, they say a major shot in the arm, in two years they gotta get rid of them then and they shoulda never been passed ten years ago in the first place.

Anthony Weiner was on Megyn Kelly's show on Fox yesterday and literally had a meltdown. They're talking about the estate tax. Megyn Kelly said: "On the estate tax, the argument from the other side is that it's a morally corrupt tax; that if I work all my life and I pay my taxes on my income and then I die and I want to pass on what would be great if it were a $5 million estate to my kids, why should I pay the government again? Why should there be a 35 percent, or 45 percent, or 55 percent tax on that again?"

WEINER: Megyn, Megyn, Megyn, you're gonna have to let me answer the question if we're gonna have a conversation that gets us anywhere.

WEINER: The only question here is not whether or not there should be a tax on that. The question is where the limit should be and how much should be --

KELLY: No, I'll ask the question you're not answering. Just tell me how is it fair?

WEINER: So the question is at what level should it be taxed? Some people around here think it should be higher, some people should be lower. This deal would basically say that for people who inherit money, that money gets taxed at a lower rate than if they worked 70 hours to earn it. That's just not fair.

RUSH: And I don't have time to play the final cut, but basically he makes the point here that everything you own is the property of the government. We'll play that bite for you when we have time.

RUSH: Megyn Kelly says, "They earn the money. If they want to pass it on to their children, why can't they?"

WEINER: Those people will be dead. The only people we're talking about are people who inherit money. Yes, some people get very lucky, are very lucky at the casino. Should we tax that at a lower rate than if you worked hard and earned it?

KELLY: Well, it's different from double taxation where one person earns it and pays taxes on it.

KELLY: I see a distinction between your analogy and the question I raised. In any event, I appreciate your thoughts on it.

RUSH: So because you're dead, you can't be said to have earned the money 'cause you're dead. That's his position. So it ought to go to Washington, because you're dead.

RUSH: I have a question for you. If, once you die, you don't have any rights to your money, then why should you be responsible for your debts? I mean, if you don't have any rights to your wealth because after you're dead you can't earn it, then after you're dead you can't go into debt. So why are your debts any of your responsibility? Somebody needs to ask Alan Grayson Jr. that question. This guy Weiner, he's a new Alan Grayson. We got Alan Grayson going batty on MSNBC last night.

RUSH: Back to the audio sound bites. Anthony Weiner I said is the new Alan Grayson. Weiner's staying in Congress. Grayson is going. Last night he was on The Last Word, Lawrence O'Donnell, PMSNBC. O'Donnell said, "Congressman, if you were to succeed at this and kill this bill, all the tax rates would increase January 1st. Do you know which bracket would actually be hit with the largest percentage increase?"

O'DONNELL: Wrong, Congressman! Stop there! It's the bottom tax bracket, not the top tax bracket. The bottom tax bracket would go from 10% to 15%. That is a 50% increase in the bottom income tax bracket, the one --

O'DONNELL: When you're out of office in January and the Republicans control the House, I want you to tell me what you would say to Floridians in your district who are now gonna be represented by a Republican. Tell me what you would say to them who are in the 10% bracket now, the lowest bracket, that their income tax rate goes up 50% to 15% on the first week in that first paycheck they get in January. Tell me what you would say to them about why you allowed that to happen.

RUSH: "Let's not talk that way. I won't lose my mind on your show. This is where the adults are. I'll save that for the floor of the House -- or, if you ask me about Limbaugh I'll be glad to lose my mind, but lets you and I act like adults here." How out of it do you have to be to be crazier than Lawrence O'Donnell? Here's Lawrence O'Donnell trying to help this guy. "Mr. Grayson, do you understand what you are proposing?"

The jobless recovery: 25 unemployment statistics that are almost too depressing to read

Three years after he led the charge to require consumers to ditch their comfortable old incandescent lights in favor of those twisty CFL bulbs, Rep. Fred Upton now wants to be the man to help undo that law as the next chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

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

This is one of my favorite lists; this is a list of things which global warming causes (right now, it causes over 800 things—most of these are linked):

100 things we can say goodbye to (or, hello to) because of Global Warming (all of these are linked). They are very serious about these things, by the way:

Conservative blog, but with an eye to the culture and pop culture (there is a lot of stuff here):

Conservative and pop culture blog (last I looked, there were some Beatles’ performances here):

Send this link to the young people you know (try the debt quiz; I only got 6 out of 10 right):

PA Pundits, whose motto is, “the relentless pursuit of common sense” (I used many of the quotations which they gathered)

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 #156	Kukis Digests and Opines on this Week’s News and Views	December 12, 2010