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).

U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson strikes down the central element of Obamacare which requires citizens to purchase healthcare or face a fine. Essentially, Obamacare requires purchase of a health insurance policy, which most conservatives see as unconstitutional. Two previous court decisions have given Obamacare a pass.

President Obama signs tax bill which continues the Bush tax cuts for an additional 2 years.

The Dream Act fails in the Senate but the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell military policy has passed.

Venezuela assembly gives Chavez decree powers for 18 months; whatever he says becomes law.

TSA officers miss the loaded snub nose "baby" Glock pistol in the computer bag of Iranian-American businessman Farid Seif at a Houston airport and boarded an international flight.

Since the September 11 terror attacks, federal agencies have conducted random, covert "red team tests," where undercover agents try to see just how much they can get past security checks at major U.S. airports. The Department of Homeland Security closely guards these results as classified. However, according to one leaked report, undercover TSA agents testing security at a Newark airport terminal on one day in 2006 found that TSA screeners failed to detect concealed bombs and guns 20 out of 22 times. A 2007 government audit leaked to USA Today revealed that undercover agents were successful slipping simulated explosives and bomb parts through Los Angeles's LAX airport in 50 out of 70 attempts, and at Chicago's O'Hare airport agents made 75 attempts and succeeded in getting through undetected 45 times.

The Senate suddenly took up a 1924 page $1.27 trillion Omnibus Bill (different totals are given), crafted behind closed doors, which would have set much of the budget for the next year. It contained $8 billion in earmarks from Democrats and Republicans. It appears that earmarks from the latter had been around for awhile and were inserted to garner Republican support (although it is not entirely clear who exactly wrote various portions of this bill). Just as suddenly as this bill emerged, it was killed a few days later by the Senate leadership.

California regulators Thursday are expected to adopt the nation's most comprehensive carbon trading regime, creating a market-based way to lower greenhouse gas emissions at a time when similar efforts have stalled in Congress. The program is the centerpiece of the state's 2006 global warming law, which aims to slash carbon dioxide and other planet-heating pollution to 1990 levels by 2020. That would amount to a 15% cut from today's level.

President Obama gives a treat to 2^nd graders and reads portions of his book to them.

A recent study shows that underage girls on television are involved in sexual situations more often than adult women.

There is a plan on the government’s books for FNMA and FHLMC to bail out all homeowners who are underwater. Luckily, there are only a couple weeks of damage that this present Congress can do.

Apparently Attorney General Eric Holder is still thinking about Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks guy.

Homeland Security head Janet Napolitano says that the DHS will begin battling global warming as a homeland security Issue. I guess that border security and that pesky Muslim problem have both been solved?

Global warming new: England will probably have the coldest December on record this year.

There is a survey out there which claims that those who view FoxNews are stupid. What a surprise that George Soros turns out to be the one funding this survey.

Al Sharton wants to haul Rush Limbaugh in front of the FCC for his “racist remarks.”

Violent clashes have broken out between residents of the holy city of Medina on the day minority Shia Muslims commemorate the death of their most sacred saint.

Palestinians in the Golan Heights are now blaming the Israeli air force planes for breaking the sound barrier and stimulating the sex drive of a group of crocodiles on a local farm.

A Manhattan lawyer with ties to the Saudi royal family is sounding out officials and community leaders about a plan to move the controversial Ground Zero mosque to the very gay West Village.

A small-town bank in Perkins, Oklahoma said the Federal Reserve won't let it keep religious signs and symbols on display. Two Republicans came to their rescue, and the Federal Reserve backed off.

in a related story, Seattle lefties erect an “Atheist Tree”, which looks a lot like a Christmas tree.

Remember all of those discussions about the Healthcare Act, and whether or not there were death panels along with the rationing of healthcare and medicine? Some say yes and some say ridiculous. The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) just announced that it would ration the late-stage cancer drug Avastin for breast cancer patients.

Muslim groups in the town where the Stockholm suicide bomber lived have been handed more than £550,000 of taxpayers' money to combat extremism but have failed to tip off police about a single terror suspect.

An AP story tells us, “the big new tax law” [is] “the most significant new tax law in a decade...The package, signed Friday by President Barack Obama, will save taxpayers, on average, about $3,000 next year.” This is the 2-year extension of the Bush tax cuts that Obama signed.

CBS reporter Nancy Cordes described this legislation as: "an early holiday gift for every American taxpayer." Now, bear in mind that no one is getting any more money; this is a preservation of the tax rates which we have had for the past decade.

Chris Matthews, after showing a clip of the President at Friday's bill signing, spoke about the Commander-in-Chief's "cute smile we all love...That wonderful, boyish smile"

President Obama on unemployment benefits: “And economists say that not only is that good for those families, it's good for the entire economy. It's probably the biggest boost that we can give an economy because they're the folks most likely to spend the money with businesses and that gives them customers.”

When it comes to the eating habits of children, Michelle Obama says: "We can't just leave it up to the parents."

New York Representative Jerrold Nadler said on CBS's "Face the Nation.""The Republican block is saying, like a bunch of gangsters, it's a nice middle class tax cut - a pity something would happen to it."

Democratic Senator John Kerry (D-MA) said sarcastically of the idea of reading the entire omnibus bill before passing it: "Why would be have to read something? ...Lets just chew up the time of the United States Senate keeping everybody up all night reading a bill rather than working on it."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi: “President Obama’s was a job creator from day one, with the Recovery Act, and pulled us back from that recession.”

California Air Resources Board Chairwoman Mary D. Nichol says of there imminent California cap and trade system: "[It] will help drive innovation, create more green jobs and clean up our air and environment." She made no additional comments about the monkeys that were flying out of her butt.

Robert Gibbs asserted that the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell will “Strengthen our national security while upholding the basic equality upon which this nation was founded.”

David Aguilar, the deputy commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, said"At no point in history has the border been as secure as it is today."

A scrolling, 50-second graphic in Times Square reads: `Muslims for Love, Loyalty and Peace.' It also features the classic iconic Muslim pictures of a dove, an American flag and a peace sign.

Nushrat Qadir said her group wants to clear up misconceptions about Islam - for Muslims and non-Muslims alike. "I really would hope that people will remember and keep in mind that Islam is a religion of peace, its teachings are of peace and that's what it means, and that a few extremists do not represent all of us."

Omar al-Bashir, the Sudanese president, said the country would adopt an Islamic constitution if the south split away in next month's referendum. With regards to a woman being lashed by police in a video: "If she is lashed according to sharia law there is no investigation. Why are some people ashamed? This is sharia."

A writer for the Huffington Post was recently arrested for having sex with his adult daughter. Many HuffPo readers are apparently okay with this:

LakeLucilleLoon

Why do we care who he has relations with? As long as he and his daughter don't risk birth defect by procreating then consenting adults can do as they please. Many royals marry those very closely related, it's only in our modern society that we find this practice odd.

Manuel Royal

It's ridiculous that there's a law concerning this. If two (or more) parties are consenting adults, it's none of the government's business what kind of sex life they have.

kadene

He is probably just following the ancient patriarchs of our much revered Judeo-Christian culture!

LREKing

"Some things are simply always going to be appalling and thoroughly disgusting." To you, perhaps. Do you want to be the sole arbiter of morality for everyone else in the world? Whatever will we do when you pass on?

billy goat

This isn't far away from arresting gay people for congregating in bar ala 1969. As the recipient of much maligning as a gay person historically, I would take a long deep breath before condemning the actions of another. May be some of you should too.

LREKing

Yes, it may be illegal. But why? Because people find it distasteful? Isn't that the source of so much anti-gay sentiment?

From:

http://weaselzippers.us/2010/12/13/lefties-unsurprisingly-ok-with-incest-after-huff-po-writer-arrested-for-having-sex-with-his-daughter/

With comments on each:

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2010/12/incest-okay-wit.html

Feds, when shutting down the use of Christmas symbols at small bank in Perkins, OK, said that these symbols violated the discouragement clause of Regulation B of the bank regulations. According to the clause, ".the use of words, symbols, models and other forms of communication . express, imply or suggest a discriminatory preference or policy of exclusion."

The feds interpret that to mean, for example, a Jew or Muslin or atheist may be offended and believe they may be discriminated against at this bank. It is an appearance of discrimination.

"This is just ridiculous," said bank customer Jim Nyles. "This whole thing is just ridiculous. We all have regulatory bodies that govern us. But this is too much."

Charles Gasparino: “You’re telling me that when you tax a business, they’re still going to hire the same amount of people?”

Outstanding Stossel special called “Top Ten Promises Gone Wrong:” Outstanding special!

O’Reilly presents the blasphemy laws in Pakistan with Brigitte Gabriel and Zuhdi Jasser (and we are no longer talking about so-called radical Islam, but common laws which are enforced in Pakistan and other Muslim countries.

Russian Prime Minister Putin plays Blueberry Hill on the piano and then sings it (in English). This is the whole thing.

Although I was not too impressed with Glenn Beck’s shows this week, the 2 weeks previous were pretty good. Most of his shows are quite good for the first 30–40 minutes. I recommend the following 2 weeks of shows:

Swedish politician infiltrates Stockholm mosque (This is with subtitles, but it is short; under 3 minutes).

Condoleezza Rice smacks down Katie Couric's insulting, ignorant depiction of the Iraq War

5 female teens attack a teen couple on a Seattle, WA bus. Although the bus was full, only the driver does any thing (he stopped the buss and dialed 911). The 17 year-old who is attacked is 3 months pregnant. Video and story:

Jodi Miller: “According to a new poll, most Americans believe that we’re worse off under President Obama than we were under President Bush. This poll was conducted by the National Institute for the Study of the Completely Obvious.”

I hope this at least puts a smile on your face; the Nanny-of-the-Year awards (watch the video):

1) Our tax code and earmarks are 2 reasons why Washington is filled with lobbyists. This has, over the years, developed a symbiotic relationship between politicians and businesses. Businesses which are rewarded with favorable tax breaks, lenient regulations and/or with earmarks going to projects in which they are engaged, they turn around and help fund the politicians who are looking out for them. This is why we have huge farm subsidies and ethanol subsidies for decades past them being warranted.

2) Similarly, public unions, using millions of dollars of union dues—millions of dollars which were produced in the private sector and then taxed—support this or that candidate, and this or that candidate supports more benefits and higher salaries for public workers (which means more money for public unions and union heads).

4) In 1978, the governor of California approved of collective bargaining being given to public unions. Hmm, who would that governor be? And what is one of the main reasons that California is going broke today?

5) FDR opposed collective bargaining for public unions because this would violate state sovereignty. He knew that would happen—politicians pumping millions of public dollars into union pockets in exchange for votes—would be the logical result. FDR was certainly not my favorite president, but when you’re right, you’re right.

6) Democrats could have legitimately put the healthcare bill forward with taxing in order to pay for it. They chose not to and our President even argued that mandating people to buy healthcare was not a tax. In the courts, lawyers for the federal government are now arguing that the healthcare mandate is a tax.

7) We need a new name for the sort of socialism which President Obama and those on the far left believe in. The government, in a socialist economy is both totalitarian and it will seize as many pieces of the private sector as possible. So far, Obama has been mind-boggling in this regard, taking over one car company, telling another car company what to do, taking over nearly all of the mortgages in the United States as well as virtually all of the student loans. However, the takeover in healthcare is not possession of the hospitals, medical centers and doctors, but control over the medical sector. This is every bit as important as ownership, because, without passing any new laws, government agencies can create and enforce pretty much any sort of regulations which they find appropriate. Those in favor of such a governmental/economic system call this State Capitalism (although there is very little capitalism which remains). State Socialism or State Control of Capitalism are more accurate.

8) Just this week, I heard, for about the 97^th time a liberal Democrat fuming over Bush’s unfunded wars and his unfunded drug benefits. Most of these Democrats supported and voted for these things (it is often a sitting Congressman who complains about these things). Furthermore, in the past 2 years, any thing that George Bush did could have been rescinded by an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress—all they had to do have de-fund anything that Bush did.

9) Simply raising taxes does not pay for whatever things Congress wants to pay for. People and economics are not static. I might be willing to work for 80 hours a week if I am paying 20% in taxes; however, I would be less likely to work that many hours if this pushed me into a 40% tax bracket. There is a point at which tax confiscation slows and even shuts down productivity among the rich. Let me submit to you that is somewhere between 30–50% total tax liability (almost all rich people pay more than this now, all taxes combined).

10) As a conservative, this is easy for me to come up with a number. If total taxes are over 30% for anyone, they are too high. Most conservatives can do that. There is a number they have in mind. Now, ask a liberal if they can give you a number which is the maximum.

As many as 2,840 households that reported income of $1 million or more on their tax returns were paid a total of $18.6 million in unemployment benefits in 2008, including more than 800 households earning over $2 million, and 17 houses with incomes exceeding $10 million.

Since 2008, 8 million jobs in the private sector have been lost; 600,000 jobs have been gained in the public sector.

Planned Parenthood received $363 million in government grants and contracts from 2008 to 2009.

324,008 unborn human lives destroyed by Planned Parenthood in one year. 9,433 adoption referrals (that is less than 3%).

<6% The other seven people listed (General David Petraeus, Mark Zukerberg, Hillary Clinton, Conan O'Brien, Steve Jobs, LeBron James, Robert Gates)

16% percent minority of voters like the new health care law and think it should be implemented as is.

29% of voters predict Obama will be re-elected, (down from 44% who thought so a year ago).

You have no doubt heard about the terrible sexual abuse the some Catholic Priests have committed against children; but, how about a much greater epidemic in today’s schools? I am referring to more than just a few goofy women seducing teen boys who have reached puberty. In order to get rid of these sexual predators, often they are given glowing letters of recommendation to get them to go elsewhere.

The text from an AP story about Sarah Palin in Haiti: Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, center, has her hair done during a visit to a cholera treatment center set up by the NGO Samaritan's Purse in Cabaret, Haiti, Saturday Dec. 11, 2010. Apparently, AP did not think it important to mention that this was the Governor’s daughter doing this.

AP’s story entitled What will the big new tax law mean for you? by Stephen Ohlemacher reads as follows: “It's the most significant new tax law in a decade, but what does it mean for you? Big savings for millions of taxpayers, more if you have young children or attend college, a lot more if you're wealthy. The package, signed Friday by President Barack Obama, will save taxpayers, on average, about $3,000 next year.” This, by the way, is a 2-year extension of that evil Bush tax plan of tax breaks for the rich, along with some additional incentives—also known as tax incentives or as tax loopholes—thrown in (do what the government tells you, and you’ll get a few more dollars back from your fellow citizens).

CBS reporter Nancy Cordes described this legislation as: "an early holiday gift for every American taxpayer." Do you recall, over the past 10 years, the press praising President Bush for giving everyone a holiday gift year after year for that decade? Nope, prior to this, these were the Bush tax breaks for the rich. Now, Obama does not lower anyone’s taxes but preserves the tax rates which were about to go up, and CBS news tells us that this is “an early holiday gift.” They cannot even call it a Christmas gift!

ABC reports that the biggest lie of 2010 was that Republicans called Obamacare a government takeover. Remember Obama saying, “If you like your doctor, then you can keep your doctor”? Somehow, this didn’t rate.

Come on, now! Harry Reid comes up with a $1.3 trillion spending bill and then deep-sixes it the same week. There is nothing you can say about that?

Both Presidents Obama and Clinton came out in favor of the Bush tax cuts, which, only a year or so ago, were only tax cuts given to the rich.

The CIA, under Obama’s command, launched 3 separate airstrikes on Jihadists in Pakistan, killing 26.

Because President Obama came to an agreement on the tax cuts, I think, for the next couple years, he is going to compromise on a number of things (something I would not have predicted a couple of weeks ago). The strategy is to get reelected with a Democratic majority again. Therefore, he has to get the middle voting for him.

I have heard several conservative economists predict about 4% economic growth for 2011. For whatever reason, this is making me nervous.

I have to admit, I never saw Obama as agreeing to tax cuts for the rich. I figured him to be too much of an ideologue for that.

Hundreds die because of Jihad while NYC sign proclaims Islam is the religion of peace

Should the primary purpose of taxation be to support the government or maximize economic growth?

Sarah, Mitt and several tea party groups say the tax compromise with Barack Obama is a bad idea, sells out the GOP's anti-spending promises and, worst of all, helps you-know-who's re-election chances. But Newt, Mike and Tim think it's a decent deal. Far be it from me to interrupt the GOP's holiday spirit. Let us stipulate, however, that the furtive, ragged tax bill being let out the back door of a lame duck Congress proves-officially and conclusively-that tax policy in the United States has hit the wall.

A compelling, even frightening article in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal about a tax system that is a morass of extenders, extrusions, loopholes, credits and bubble-gum fixes ended with the story of a grievously ill cancer patient balancing the benefits of taking an experimental drug against the estate-tax benefits to his family of an early death.

Whether the tax rates in place for most of the past 10 years are extended for two more years this week or next month is politically interesting but doesn't get to the more important question we should be asking Govs. Palin, Romney, Pawlenty and the rest: What exactly do you think taxes are for?

Do we pay taxes to support federal, state and local government, to reduce the deficit, or just maybe for something else? It's possible this question hasn't come up in a serious way since it was first asked by a peasant in Robin Hood's Sherwood Forest. ...

The more serious question that lies beneath the disaffection with government is this: What balance between the private and public economies will best allow the U.S. to remain the world's pre-eminent economic (and military) power for the next generation? That premise matters to how one answers the question about taxation's purpose. Barack Obama won't say it, but a school of thought linked to his presidency no longer sees a justification or need for U.S. primacy. That posture would indeed make it easier to maintain the "parity" between taxes and outlays that Mr. Summers seeks on behalf of the public sector. ...

There is an alternative. A radical (in the best sense) 21st-century tax debate-such as over Bowles-Simpson's three stripped-down marginal rates, topping at 23%, and lower taxes on business-would challenge the conventional 100-year-old idea in the U.S. that the first purpose of a tax regime is to ensure the functioning of the state. In the hypercompetitive world we will inhabit for at least a generation, might not it be time to rewrite the textbook? To ensure American well-being, the pre-eminent purpose of a modern tax system should be to achieve the highest possible level of growth in the private economy with a competent, efficient state in a supporting role.

"The unchecked expansion of congressional power to the limits suggested by the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers. At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance-or crafting a scheme of universal health insurance coverage-it's about an individual's right to choose to participate." So wrote Judge Henry Hudson of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia yesterday in striking down Obamacare's individual mandate. Specifically, Judge Hudson found that Section 1501 of the act, which forces all Americans to buy government approved health insurance policies, "exceeds the Commerce Clause powers vested in Congress under Article 1."

The White House and their leftist allies were quick to try and minimize this body blow to Obamacare, arguing that 14 previous court challenges have been dismissed by the courts. This desperate spin doesn't even pass the laugh test. The 42-page decision is the first by a federal court this far along the litigation process and the first brought by a state (the case was filed by Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli). And soon Judge Roger Vinson of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida is expected to rule on an even larger challenge to Obamacare brought by 16 state attorneys general, four governors, two private citizens, and the National Federation of Independent Business.

In an early stage of that litigation, Judge Vinson wrote: "The individual mandate applies across the board. People have no choice and there is no way to avoid it. Those who fall under the individual mandate either comply with it, or they are penalized. It is not based on an activity that they make the choice to undertake. Rather, it is based solely on citizenship and on being alive."

Judge Hudson used very similar reasoning in rejecting the Obama Administration's claim that since "every individual in the United States will require health care at some point in their lifetime" the federal government has the power to force Americans to buy health insurance now. Hudson writes: "Of course, the same reasoning could apply to transportation, housing, or nutritional decisions. This broad definition of the economic activity subject to congressional regulation lacks logical limitation and is unsupported by Commerce Clause jurisprudence."

Judge Hudson then moved on to the Obama Administration's claim that the individual mandate was actually a tax that would therefore make it constitutional under the General Welfare Clause. Hudson wrote: "This Court's analysis begins with the unequivocal denials by the Executive and Legislative branches that the [individual mandate] was a tax." It was only when the Administration found itself before a judge, not in front of voters, that the White House conveniently shifted its rationale. Judge Hudson saw through this deception, identified the individual mandate as the penalty it is, and rejected the Obama Administration's mandate-as-tax claim.

It was not a total victory for Cuccinelli, however. Judge Hudson rejected Virginia's request to strike down the entire law. Despite claims by the President himself, and authors of the legislation like Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), Judge Hudson found that the Section 1501 was "severable" from the rest of the law and voided only that section and "directly-dependent provisions which make specific reference to 1501." Judge Vinson, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court will all be free to revisit this issue.

But whether or not courts will invalidate just Obamacare's individual mandate is rapidly becoming irrelevant. Obamacare simply may not survive that long. It is already collapsing under its own financial and bureaucratic weight. Just last week, Congress voted to stop reductions in Medicare payments to doctors by raiding future revenues from Obamacare's insurance subsidy program. The number of waivers the Obama Administration has to grant from Obamacare's unworkable regulations grows each day. Doctors are telling pollsters they will leave the medical profession in droves if Obamacare is implemented as planned by 2014. And according to the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll Obamacare is now more unpopular than ever, with only 43 percent approving the law and 52 percent opposed.

Dishonest Media Awards for 2010, with runners up (video and text). This is the result of 8000 people voting at a conservative website. Winners an runners up with text and video of each.

Tavis Smiley (4879 Votes)

Author Ayaan Hirsi Ali, talking about radical Muslims: "Somehow, the idea got into their minds that to kill other people is a great thing to do and that they would be rewarded in the hereafter."

Host Tavis Smiley: "But Christians do that every single day in this country."

Ali: "Do they blow people up every day?"

Smiley: "Yes. Oh, Christians, every day, people walk into post offices, they walk into schools, that's what Columbine is - I could do this all day long....There are folk in the Tea Party, for example, every day who are being recently arrested for making threats against elected officials, for calling people `nigger' as they walk into Capitol Hill, for spitting on people. That's within the political - that's within the body politic of this country."

- PBS's Tavis Smiley, May 25.

"It reminded me of a doctor who has this horrible burn victim come into the hospital, and he saves the guy's life - this is our economy - saves the guy's life, but the guy wakes up and he's got scars all over his face, and that's all he sees, that's all anybody sees. The guy's living, but he looks awful. And how - what's the doctor supposed to say? And that's what he's [Obama is] fighting, he's fighting an economy that just won't give him anything. He cannot get any traction on what he's accomplished."

"When he turns to solving problems through policy, he reveres facts, calling for data and then more data. He looks for historical analogues and reads voraciously. `This is someone who in law school worked with [Harvard professor] Larry Tribe on a paper on the legal implications of Einstein's theory of relativity,' said senior adviser David M. Axelrod. `He does have an incisive mind; that mind is always put to use in pursuit of tangible things that are going to improve people's lives.'"

- Washington Post reporters Anne Kornblut and Michael Fletcher in a January 25 front-page story about Obama headlined, "The Seeker as Problem-Solver."

- What producer Sarah Spitz of NPR affiliate KCRW said she would do if she saw Rush Limbaugh dying, in a posting to the JournoList reported July 21 by The Daily Caller. Spitz later conceded her comment was "poorly considered."

These are just a few samples of the delight that is the alphabet media. Both text and video (where applicable).

The moral case for unions-protecting working families from exploitation-does not apply to public employment.

When Americans think of organized labor, they might think of images like I saw growing up in a blue-collar meatpacking town: hard hats, work boots, tough conditions and gritty jobs. While I didn't work in the slaughterhouses, I did become a union member when I worked at a grocery store to help put myself through school. I was grateful for the paycheck and proud of the work I did.

The rise of the labor movement in the early 20th century was a triumph for America's working class. In an era of deep economic anxiety, unions stood up for hard-working but vulnerable families, protecting them from physical and economic exploitation.

Much has changed. The majority of union members today no longer work in construction, manufacturing or "strong back" jobs. They work for government, which, thanks to President Obama, has become the only booming "industry" left in our economy. Since January 2008 the private sector has lost nearly eight million jobs while local, state and federal governments added 590,000.

Federal employees receive an average of $123,049 annually in pay and benefits, twice the average of the private sector. And across the country, at every level of government, the pattern is the same: Unionized public employees are making more money, receiving more generous benefits, and enjoying greater job security than the working families forced to pay for it with ever-higher taxes, deficits and debt.

How did this happen? Very quietly. The rise of government unions has been like a silent coup, an inside job engineered by self-interested politicians and fueled by campaign contributions.

Public employee unions contribute mightily to the campaigns of liberal politicians ($91 million in the midterm elections alone) who vote to increase government pay and workers. As more government employees join the unions and pay dues, the union bosses pour ever more money and energy into liberal campaigns. The result is that certain states are now approaching default. Decades of overpromising and fiscal malpractice by state and local officials have created unfunded public employee benefit liabilities of more than $3 trillion.

Over the last eight years in Minnesota, we have taken decisive action to prevent our problems from becoming a state crisis. Public employee unions fought us virtually every step of the way. Mass transit employees, for example, went on strike for 44 days in 2005-because we refused to grant them lifetime health-care benefits after working just 15 years. It was a tough fight, but in the end Minnesota taxpayers won.

We reworked benefits for new hires. We required existing employees to contribute more to their pensions. We reformed our public employee health plan and froze wages.

We proved that even in deep-blue Minnesota, taxpayers can take on big government and big labor, and win. In coming years, that fight will have to be joined throughout the country in city halls, state capitals and in Washington, D.C.

First, we need to bring public employee compensation back in line with the private sector and reduce the overall size of the federal civilian work force. Mr. Obama's proposal to freeze federal pay is a step in the right direction, but it falls well short of shrinking government and eliminating the pay premium enjoyed by federal employees.

Second, get the numbers right. Government should start using the same established accounting standards that private businesses are required to use, so we can accurately assess unfunded liabilities.

Third, we need to end defined-benefit retirement plans for government employees. Defined-benefit systems have created a financial albatross for taxpayers. The private sector dropped them years ago in favor of the clarity and predictability of defined-contribution models such as 401(k) plans. This change alone can save taxpayers trillions of dollars.

The moral case for unions-protecting working families from exploitation-does not apply to public employment. Government employees today are among the most protected, well-paid employees in the country. Ironically, public-sector unions have become the exploiters, and working families once again need someone to stand up for them.

If we're going to stop the government unions' silent coup, conservative reformers around the country must fight this challenge head on. The choice between big government and everyday Americans isn't a hard one.

I have an idea for a monument in our nation's capital. I envision a big bronze and granite statue that would honor an entire group of Americans who are true heroes, and unsung heroes at that.

It is time - no, make that long past time - to pay tribute to those this nation of ours owes a great debt; to those who give and give and give and in return get anything but our gratitude.

Right there, amongst the sacred national structures that honor great Americans, we need to build a shiny monument to . (this is where the drum roll would come in) The Rich - otherwise known in liberal circles as the filthy, no good, greedy, heartless rich.

The statue could be simple and elegant: a smiling rich guy in a business suit holding hundred dollar bills in both hands, extended toward the blue sky.

President Obama compromises with Republicans and gives the wealthiest two percent of Americans a temporary respite from a tax hike and listening to the yelps of the "progressives" you'd think he just tried to shut down WikiLeaks or something.

The Left is bawling about how "we can't afford" to give people "who don't need it" a tax break. This argument makes perfect sense, of course - as long as income re-distribution is a central tenet in your theology. Never mind that liberals weren't all that concerned about what we could afford when they passed a nearly trillion dollar stimulus package that didn't stimulate very much or when they poured in billions of our tax dollars to bail out General Motors. It's only now that they're concerned about budgets because those nasty rich folks are getting a break. But I don't want to pick a fight with my liberal friends over whether the wealthiest Americans "deserve" a tax break or not. I have come to praise The Rich, not to bury them.

Did you know that the top one percent of American wage earners (adjusted gross income) pay about 38 percent of all our federal personal taxes (according to the National Taxpayer Union)? The top one percent, by the way, account for 23.5 percent of all income - a substantial amount, yes, but considerably less than 38 percent.

Or that the top ten percent pay about 70 percent of all the personal income taxes collected in this great land of ours?

These "fat-cats" are the ones who do the heavy lifting in this country. They're the ones whose federal tax dollars pick up a big chunk of the tab for all sorts of noble things, such as: food for folks who don't have enough to eat . medicine and doctors for people with little money . financial aid to help other people's kids go to college . milk and diapers for poor babies whose 15 year-old mothers and deadbeat fathers are too irresponsible to take care of their own kids . a safety net for old folks who are retired on fixed incomes . and on and on.

And if they "only" bank their new found savings instead of spending it all over town? Well, that's a plus too. It means there would be more money out there for businesses to borrow for expansion, which probably would mean more jobs. Or it could mean more money for new homeowners to borrow, which would also give a boost to the limp economy.

No, I'm not saying the wealthiest Americans are all a bunch of selfless philanthropists. But try to imagine an America without those rich people.

By the way, the bottom 50 percent of tax filers pay a paltry 2.7 percent of our federal income taxes. How many poor people do you think their tax dollars are taking care of? If you ask me, they're the ones not paying their fair share. Every time they pass a "rich" person on the street, they ought to say, "Thank you for everything you do for me and for this country."

For those of you not already making plans to hang me in effigy - or for real - let me simply say this: The richest Americans may not "need" a break on their taxes, but they sure don't need being vilified, either. They need our gratitude.

So let's get busy on that shiny monument in our nation's capital. And let's get some unemployed people out there building it. It's the least they can do for those nice rich people who have been keeping them afloat.

Remember how you used to be able to go to H and R Block, file your taxes, and get an emergency loan right then and there? The federal government is fixing that for us.

Thanks to ACLU Lawsuit, ICE Now Providing Illegal Alien Detainees With Full Health Care Coverage Including Heart Surgeries, Cancer Treatment..

Read 2 stories on the same lady (whose son just blewe himself up in Stockholm) and it is hard to figure out which is the truth. However, the fact that she named one of her sons Osama Bin Laden is a slight clue.

NPR is still running stories on the odious Westboro Baptist church. Now, how many people go to this church? Are there any churches anywhere which proudly associate themselves with Westboro? When was the last time they did anything of note or interest? Oh, don’t expect those questions to be asked or answered by NPR. Those are questions which occurred to me in reading this article.

RUSH: Here's Jim in Pittsburgh. Jim, welcome to the program. Great to have you here.

CALLER: Rush, it is indeed an honor from the land of the Steelers, and I gotta tell you, I'm just floored that I finally got through to you. My comment is: I don't know why anyone would be surprised about TIME's choice for Person of the Year because every time freedom makes a comeback, you can leave it to the liberals and the elites to take rich liberal people and celebrate how they're giving their fortunes away. So this year you've got Zuckerberg giving his fortune away, and we're not having the Tea Party as a Person of the Year. The same thing happened in 2005 when the Iraqi people went to the polls to vote for the first time since the Stone Age, and they put Bono and Bill and Melinda Gates on the cover. So it's the same old song and dance.

RUSH: Poor old Zuckerberg guy. First off, he doesn't know how he made billions, and now he's being guilted into giving half of it away if not more.

CALLER: That's exactly right. And, you know, the only thing is: When are Republicans and conservatives going to stand up and make the moral argument against taxes? That's something that just frustrates me to no end. You know, when are we going to wake up -- and I know this is rhetorical. Whose money is it, and what right does the government have to take from my pocket and give it to someone else?

RUSH: Well, that moral argument is made constantly. But here, let me satisfy you, in the interests of doing it the way you will like to hear it. You want to hear the moral argument toward tax cuts and taxes, the best way to do that would be to call income "property." It is. Whether it's your money, or whether what you've bought with your money, it is your property. In this country, the way we're structured, on a percentage basis, the more you earn, the less your property rights are. The more you earn, the more the government and everybody else feels entitled to it. What if, with your money, you build a 20,000-square-foot house? Is the neighborhood entitled to 10,000 square feet of it? Is the town entitled to 60% of your house?

They look at it as though they're entitled to 60% of your income, depending on where you live. Now, private property rights are determined by how much this government spends. Property rights are a bedrock principle of our country, and property rights are always in flux, because of tax rates -- tax rates that are determined by earnings success, tax rates that vary according to how poorly the government manages our money. Do you realize your property rights are directly related to how poorly government runs things? Look at it this way. The United States government funds its excesses using escalating tax rates that are determined by their need and our level of achievement. The United States government funds its excesses by using escalating tax rates that are determined by their need and our level of achievement.

The more we achieve, the more they think they're entitled to. Your money is as much your property as your house. If you go out and spend $50,000 on a car, does the government get 25% of your car? Do your neighbors get 25%? No! But they get 25% of your money or 50% of your money, and the more you earn, the more of your money they think that they are entitled to. Now, because the government is the worst manager of more than there is, they have to invent creative rationalizations (i.e., class warfare) to take what they need, and there's no end to it. Government greed requires the force of law because their logic is absurd. Income levels ought to have no bearing on their right to confiscate private property.

Just because you earn more than somebody else does not automatically -- should not automatically mean -- they are entitled to more of it. Why, when it comes to money, is that true, but no other asset of yours? Would you think the government is entitled to 50% of your investment portfolio? You would have a fit! They already are entitled to the income of that portfolio every year, in a percentage basis; capital gains, some of it is straight income. The fact is that the less an American person makes, the more secure his or her income is. Property rights deserve much better in America. The more you make, the less secure your property rights are. Is this good enough for you, sir, on the morality of it all?

Well, he wanted the moral take on taxes. The more property you have in the form of money, the less right you have to it. What's just and fair about that? Private property, money, shouldn't be penalized due to its volume any more than free speech is. Are you only allowed a certain number of words you can say every year before the government starts to get talking for you? But the more money you make the more dollars of yours they claim to be able to take. Private property is supposed to be fundamental to a free society. So what is the moral reason to take by force of law based upon volume? The reason has to do with the disrespect government has for private property. What is the moral argument for escalating tax rates?

What is the morality? Where is the morality in a progressive tax system? Where is it? (interruption) That's not a moral argument, that you don't "need" it and somebody else does. I ask you again, then, you go out and you build a 20,000-square-foot house. Can the government take it, cut it in half, and give 10,000 to somebody else? Not without compensating you for it...yet. Here's John Adams: "The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the law of God..." This is one of our founders. "The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the law of God and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence."

John Adams. Now, there's no sliding scale for "the law of God," folks. Those who are the most moral are not required by law to give the most to charity. They do it by choice. But there's no religious law, there's not any other morality law that says, "The more you have, the more you must do away with," except in the progressive tax system. Now, it's only a matter of time before cities begin to use means-tested fines, issue means-tested fines for moving violations and other minor infractions. In other words, your fine will be based on your income. (interruption) You don't think this is gonna happen?

Okay, if you find that repugnant, if you say, "No, no, no, Rush! That will never happen. You mean a speeding ticket for me, if I make a hundred grand, is gonna be twice what somebody who makes 50 grand gets? Ah, Rush, they can't do that." They already do it with your income. What's the difference in a speeding fine? (interruption) Don't give me this "equal protection under the law." It's like exactly what I'm talking about. When it comes to your property, there is no equal protection under the law. When your property is money -- and I don't know how you can say your money is not your property. Do you have to buy something with your money before you technically have property?

Fines are based on income in Europe already. You think it's not gonna come here? It's only a matter of time. Cities, counties, states, they're plunging themselves into bankruptcy. That will be their next rationalization to take money from those who have earned it. If you earn more you're gonna be fined more. Why? Because they need it, and their need trumps everything, and their need is based on their incompetence. Their need is based on their mismanagement. Their need and their incompetence and their mismanagement is not based one thing on your earning power. How you've earned your money has no effect on how they manage it, but you pay for it.

Progressive tax rates are not gonna be enough to satisfy this beast, and then we know that there's a wealth tax being planned. We know there's a VAT tax. It's coming. That's how governments work. It's sliding scale private property rights. It's only yours until the government wants it or needs it, and there's no upper limit on this. That's why all this budget stuff matters. That's why all this earmark stuff matters. It is why all this mismanagement matters. We have got to codify restraints on this monster. They are the ones incompetent. They are the greedy ones. They make us pay for it. There are always gonna be Barack Obamas. There will always be Harry Reids. There will always be Nancy Pelosis. We have to protect ourselves from them.

Okay, how's that? Is that okay for the guy who says we're not doing enough to talk about morality in taxes? That okay? (interruption) Okay, good.

RUSH: Here's something else on the Washington Post: "Poll Finds Voters Not Impressed with Republicans' House Takeover." That hasn't happened yet. This is from Andrew Malcolm of the Los Angeles Times. "With Republicans still 20 days away from taking control of one chamber of Congress, the House of Representatives, the Washington Post could no longer resist delivering the polling news that Americans are not yet convinced the GOP is the party for them. The bold headline: 'Public is not yet sold on GOP.'" Well, the GOP's not running Congress yet! We got a poll from the Washington Post which says the American people don't like the job the Republican Congress is doing. The only problem is, there isn't one yet! The Republicans aren't running Congress. This is journalistic malpractice. It's worse than journalistic malpractice. I don't know what it is, but it's worse than that.

"Imagine, waiting for the 63 new House Republicans to actually take the oath on Jan. 4 and perhaps find their seats before polling on what dismal failures they are. With Democrats controlling merely the presidency and the Senate, the newly elected Republicans have yet to accomplish a single meaningful thing. And clearly the public knows it. As a result, 'just 41%' of those polled by the Post-ABC News survey regard the GOP takeover as a 'good thing,' 30% say it doesn't matter and 27% have already decided it's a 'bad thing.'" Mr. Malcolm suggests: "Next week's media poll: How pathetic the 2012 Republican presidential nominee already is," when there isn't one.

So this is what we find ourselves up against. This is why... Like Snerdley told me after the program yesterday, "I couldn't figure out why you were spending two hours on No Labels," and then I finally, "I'm glad you took it on, because of bull crap like this." These are the people that make up the No Labels crowd. The No Labels crowd are part and parcel with polling data like this. "Yeah, let's poll the job the Republican Congress is doing. Yeah, let's do that, and then we'll report it!" So you go out and ask people: How are the Republicans doing running the House? Except the Republicans aren't running it! Well, who's gonna say they enjoy it? I don't know in my memory, in terms of mainstream journalism reporting or polling, if I've ever seen anything like this.

This is an undisguised, purposeful effort to impugn and discredit an entire political party that has not yet even been sworn into office. And this is why I blanch when I run into these Republicans that want to be moderate and bipartisan, try to forge a way to get along here, compromise. How the hell do you compromise with liars? How do you compromise with people who will do this in the media? "Rush, we gotta do something to make the media report honestly." Oh, really? You think that's ever gonna happen? I've constantly chided people: If you're gonna wait for the news media to be fair with us as a sign of your happiness or as a measure of it, you're gonna be miserable for the rest of your lives.

Apparently a couple of things are going on here. The Democrat Party is determined to destroy our country as founded. Republicans are divided on the issue. How in the name of Sam Hill can you have any... Even Bob Bennett (as bitter as he must be) and Susan Collins (as out to lunch as she must be), how in the world can they side with technical lawlessness? Which is what this lame duck Congress is. Imagine the Washington Post's outrage if Tea Party candidates were already calling the shots without having been sworn in. Mr. Cuccinelli, the attorney general of Virginia, had a great question the other day regarding health care and the mandate that everybody buy health insurance. He said, "What would your reaction be if Congress passed a law mandating that everybody buy a gun?"

What do you think the national reaction to that would be? Well, there's crime taking place everywhere. It's just like, "Well, everybody's engaging in health care." Well, everybody's running up against crime. It happens every day. You never know when it's gonna happen to you. So we in Congress are mandating that you buy a gun, or we will penalize you. If you don't buy a gun we're gonna hire 16,000 IRS agents to track you down and make sure you buy a gun. We're gonna penalize you and fine you if you don't. Do you think there will be any support for that? It's the same principle, folks. Can the government force you to buy a gun? Universal reaction: "No way!" But when you ask, "Can the government force you to buy health care?"

It's "Well, let me think about that, Mr. Limbaugh. This could be a deeply intellectual proposition (sniffs), and let's look at the market circumstances and the day-to-day transactions occurring in the health care field. Now, you see, Mr. Limbaugh, everybody is accessing health care (sniffs) and the health care industry at some point in their lives, practically on a daily basis, and if these people are going to access without paying for it, well, we have a problem." Okay, so on that basis since everybody's accessing health care we're gonna damn well make 'em buy an insurance policy. (New Castrati impression.) "That's right, Mr. Limbaugh! That's the only thing fair to keep everything economically on the up and up."

All right, fine. Then Mr. New Castrati, we have people faced with criminal situations each and every day, many of them unarmed. They're faced with it, and the economic impact of crime can't be demanded. It's an albatross. It costs people their lives. "So does the health care industry, Mr. Limbaugh." Fine, okay, fine. You want to make everybody buy health insurance, Mr. Castrati; we're gonna pass a law says you have to buy a gun. "It's not the same thing, Mr. Limbaugh. Guns kill." So do diseases. It's a great question from attorney general Cuccinelli. But just imagine if the Washington Post... Let's assume here (and this is not a bad analogy). Let's assume that the Republicans in this lame duck session bring in the 63 new freshmen and they allow them to take part in the proceedings.

Now, they may not get to vote, obviously. They're not official members of Congress. But they're going to be. It's just a matter of days. And they're gonna be members of Congress. So they're brought in, they're allowed to study, they're allowed to listen to the debate -- and, in fact, they're even allowed to attend committee meetings. Well, the same thing is happening here. A bunch of people that have been dis-elected, a bunch of people have been defeated, a bunch of people who aren't gonna be in the next Congress are participating in legislation affecting this country next year. So imagine the Republicans bring in all the new Tea Party victors, 63 of them, and allow them to participate in the lame duck.

Can you imagine the outrage the Washington Post, the New York Times, and all the media would have over that? Imagine, imagine the conniption fit they would have if Tea Party candidates were already calling the shots. Look at this Washington Post headline: "Forget Tea Party Rhetoric -- Pork Barrel Politics is Back." That's from Dana Milbank, and it starts this way: "Dear Tea Party voter: You've been had." That is from Dana Milbank. Of course, he's happy about it. He's not worried about it. He is happy. He loves rubbing his hands. "Hey, you hicks! Hey, you throwbacks! Hey, you Neanderthals! Guess what? You've been had. My guys are running rings around you. While you're not here, they're working on budgets and spending bill. You think you won the election? Ha! You're just a bunch of rubes."

"Dear Tea Party voter: You've been had." The media is loving every minute of it. "Many Tea Party favorites, meanwhile, have discovered the appeal of Washington lobbyists' cash and advice." So now the effort's underway to say the Tea Party guys are no different than anybody else. They're coming in, and they're compromising their principles and going for the money and the parties with the lobbyists. Today's media theme is: The Tea Party has already sold out. That's Dana Milbank. The Tea Party's already sold out while the Tea Party voter has been had. So an all-out effort is being made to discredit the Tea Party winners and the Tea Party voters. They're not even there yet. Not even there yet. You idiots, you rubes.

And while all that's going on, the Democrats are trying to pass a continuing resolution (i.e., a budget) that will determine this nation's spending next year. Heritage Foundation has weighed in on this today, their Morning Bell: "Call Reid's Bluff -- Gallup released a poll this morning showing the American people dislike this 111th Congress more than any Congress ever." In fact, that's good to point out. Congress' approval, this Congress, is 13%. I can't believe it's that high, but it is. "Specifically, a full 83% of Americans disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job. Only 13% approve, the worst approval rating in more than 30 years of tracking congressional job performance." Call Reid's bluff. There is no popular support for this Congress. There's no popular support for Reid, no popular support in the country for Pelosi. Call their bluff.

RUSH: You know, I'm sitting here, I'm diligently working hard, minding my own business prepping this program and I have these TV monitors on up here. I've got PMSNBC on, which I'm actually thinking of dumping. And, hell, C-SPAN would be better, maybe go over to CNN, I mean just for the laugh factor. Anyway, I'm watching this, and here comes Obama with a statement on Afghanistan. For crying out loud, folks, I mean that's the clearest illustration yet of the circus going on in Washington. It's so bad that they're trying to distract us with news from Afghanistan. That's bad.

Has anybody actually seen Obama's vacation itinerary? I mean we've heard that Obama is going to Hawaii, but I'm wondering if he and Michelle and the girls might actually be headed to Crawford, Texas on vacation, get in some mountain biking and some brush clearing; drive the pickup around, pick up some junk. Look, folks, it's becoming increasingly obvious here, Obama's role model is Bush! Gitmo is still open. Afghanistan is still active, press conferences on how well we're doing there. Debatable spying on possible terrorists. Yep. We're doing it. Warrantless wiretaps out there. Petraeus running the war, thank goodness, but I mean that's a Bush holdover.

And now the tax cuts, the Bush tax cuts, which have now become the Obama tax cuts. Obama has put his presidency on the line to keep 'em. After blaming those tax cuts for every economic problem we've got, Obama's now out there telling Democrats that his presidency is over if they don't vote to continue the Bush tax cuts. Peter DeFazio, bald-headed liberal from -- well, I'm sorry, that doesn't matter -- Peter DeFazio, liberal from Oregon, said Obama said that and the White House said we never talked to Peter DeFazio, we haven't said that. But at any rate, we all know that Obama is staking everything here to these Bush tax cuts, or the tax rates, staying the same for two years.

And then today, we learn that Obama is hiring military contractors, i.e., African-Americanwater. He's hiring Blackwater, Bush mercenaries. That's what they used to be called, Obama's now hiring 'em. When Bush employed military contractors, they were called Bush mercenaries. Now they're Obama's angels. This from the Daily Beast: "As American commanders meet this week for the Afghanistan review, Obama is hiring military contractors at a rate that would make Bush blush. Tim Shorrock on the Blackwater heirs." Blackwater, African-Americanwater, whatever it is. I don't know if he's hiring Blackwater but he's hiring people like it. The left out there has just got to be fuming. Obama's giving us George W. Bush for Christmas. That's what is happening out there.

RUSH: Here's DeFazio. This is last night on CNN on Spitzer and Ditzer. And Spitzer said, "Do you have enough folks standing with you to create a threat that this bill will not pass?"

DEFAZIO: That's a good question, because, you know, the White House is putting on tremendous pressure, making phone calls, the president's making phone calls saying this is the end of his presidency if he doesn't get this bad deal. I think this is potentially the end of his possibility of being reelected.

RUSH: Whoa. Now, if you had any doubts about this deal, listen to that. Now, think about it. Why would Republicans want to help save the Obama presidency? Why would they? Now, here you have DeFazio saying, well, yeah, White House putting on tremendous pressure, phone calls, president making phone calls, the end of the presidency if he doesn't get this bad deal. Well, if it's the end of his presidency, we don't take the deal, right? Anyway, that's just a little review. And speaking of bad deal and end of his presidency, let's go back almost a year. This is January 25th of this year, World News Tonight, Diane Sawyer talking to the Bamster. She said, "Ever in the middle of all this coming at you, do you think maybe one term is enough?"

OBAMA: I'd rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president. And I believe that. You know, there's a tendency in Washington to think that our job description of elected officials is to get reelected. That's not our job description. I will not slow down in terms of going after the big problems that this country faces. I don't want to look back on my time here and say to myself, all I was concerned about was nurturing my own popularity. That's not why I came.

RUSH: Now he's calling Democrats, begging them to save his reelection, but just a year ago he didn't care. He'd rather be a good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president. How about a lousy one-term president because that's where we're headed here, already a failure, all these other Democrats are starting to admit it. Now, here's the thing about this. The way you analyze this, if he means this, "I'd rather be a really good one-term president," what would cause him to be a one-term president? That would be losing his reelection battle, right? What would cause him to lose his reelection? I mean the public doesn't like what he's doing. That's how he defines great one-term -- I'd rather be a great one-term president, get as much damage to this country done as I can do, yeah, I'll lose, but I'd rather do that than sit around here and just be a mediocre two-term president by going along with the way the country has always been. By the way, that Afghanistan statement, it's the second time in a week that he left a Clinton at the podium. Hillary was standing there. Listen to this.

OBAMA: I'm gonna turn it over to the Secretaries Clinton, Gates, as well as Vice Chairman Cartwright, and they will be able to answer your questions and give you a more detailed briefing.

RUSH: So he shows up, gives the overview of the briefing on Afghanistan and heads out to another, what, holiday lunch or what have you, and leaves the heavy lifting to Secretaries Clinton and Cartwright.

CALLER: Merry Christmas, Rush, and may God bless you, your loved ones, and the entire EIB staff in this new year.

CALLER: Listen, yesterday you had a caller, I believe his name was Jerome, and he said that he agreed with you 99% of the time until recently, when he had to go on unemployment. And, you know, by extension I would argue that he always agreed with you until he had to rely on unemployment. So this is an example of what economic hard times and economic disaster can do to even the best of conservatives. You know, when you have no options in life, your only option is the government. And, you know, it's just to me a perfect example of, you know, it's a micro of the macro that's happening right now.

RUSH: Well, I understand your point. The point is that we can lose conservatives to economic reality brought on by liberals. That even the most committed conservatives, when confronted with economic reality and have to turn to only one place for support, the government, we can lose 'em.

RUSH: So the only area where I would disagree with you and what I was trying to make clear to him was, the government's not his only option. He's his best option. The government doesn't care about him.

CALLER: Oh, I couldn't agree more, Rush. I'm self-employed, and I'm not eligible for any unemployment.

CALLER: So when times get tough, it's me, it's me against whatever, and I have to make it work.

RUSH: Well, yeah. Everybody does. You know, we're all different. Not everybody's cut in the same cloth, obviously, not everybody is a self-starter, not everybody is cut out to be self-employed, not everybody is hard-wired the same way.

CALLER: 'Cause you and I have a lot in common, actually, aside from being lifelong conservatives. I hated school, and as a result I never went to college.

CALLER: But I'm an engineer, I work in the professional world, I'm licensed in several states, and you've mentioned it, you know, how do you define intelligence is something I've spent a lot of time reflecting on, okay? Because life doesn't give you a scorecard, it doesn't give a report card, so the point is, the best definition I've ever heard of genius is somebody who affects the way other people think or behave. And when I look around and I see the influence that you've had on our society politically, the broadcast world, I'm not trying to suck up to you, Rush, but, frankly, in my opinion, you're the greatest genius that has ever been in broadcast or political history.

CALLER: Yeah, well, I think he's gonna get over it. I mean, after all, he is pretty old.

RUSH: No, I mean he wants to be the one telling the jokes. That's the interesting thing about it.

CALLER: Anyway, Rush, we love you, we're out here, and keep on, and Happy New Year, buddy, okay?

RUSH: Mike, same to you. Thanks very much. What he was talking about, defining intelligence, we have a way of defining intelligence. That's IQ. What I've always said is we're gonna have to redefine smart. Smart used to be defined basically to whatever degree you were educated, you know, formerly educated. I remember Bill Buckley back when I was in Sacramento -- this might have been in 1986 -- he wrote an article in Playboy magazine, "Redefining Smart." And he tackled it from the standpoint, at what point in human civilization was it no longer possible to know everything that was known at the time. And he calculated the knowledge that gets charted each and every year, in virtually all fields, and he made the point that it wasn't all that long ago that you could know everything that was known, that it was possible for somebody to know everything that was known. Not to know everything that is, but to know everything that was known at the time. Now that's not possible. It is simply not possible for anybody to know everything. It was possible at one time in long ago human civilization.

So what defines smart? I don't think Obama's smart. Obama believes things that are terribly wrong. Obama believes things that are destructive. Obama is educated. Obama's able to sound like he's confident in what he says. But how can somebody who is wrong at the same time be smart? Okay, Snerdley says, "Well, wait a minute, how can you become president if you're not smart enough to navigate the political battlefield and so forth and so on?" Well, you can be formally educated and smart, and you may not be formally educated and be smart. Every individual is different. That's the point. But we have this blanket assessment of people that says, "Yeah, he's a pretty smart guy." Based on what? To me there are a lot of publicly known people who are said to be very smart, and they're dead wrong about so many things. So my question always is what is smart about being wrong? Are you smart because other people think you are? Are you smart because the right people say you are? Are you smart because you sound smart?

Look at the people who are called dumb. Look at the people who are called stupid or shortsighted or what have you. You know, there are an awfully lot of stupid, very successful people. And there are a lot of smart failures. So it's always amazed me how we define smart. I always fall back on common sense. Common sense to me is something that really can't be taught. It's born of experience; it's born of innate intelligence. It has nothing to do with education. Some of the greatest wisdom in human history has come from people who never set foot inside a classroom. But they had certain life experiences that taught them things. They read certain things that taught them things, of course.

Pelosi, yeah, she's Speaker of the House. Yeah, she got health care done, but is she smart? She's calculating. She understands how to put the fear of God into people she's leading. But when it comes to really common sense right and wrong, is the woman smart? And, folks, I swear, I listen to her and no way is this woman smart. But she's very skilled and very talented at certain skill sets. They said Hillary Clinton, I'll never forget, "the smartest woman in the world." Why? What did Hillary Clinton ever do but allow herself to get stepped on every day of her marriage, but turn it around to her benefit? I mean a lot of women wouldn't put up with one-tenth of what Hillary's husband did. A lot of women do. When you talk about somebody who's smart, it's always interesting to me who's calling them that, who's telling us so-and-so is smart? And I know that many of the people I think are smart and brilliant are routinely laughed at, made fun of, impugned. Most conservatives are considered to be -- and, by the way, I think, now that I bring this up brilliantly, I think this whole business of who is considered smart is what motivates many of our people inside the Beltway to say and do things that they say and do, so that they will be perceived as smart by the people handing out the judgment.

I think there is a quest on the part of many to be smart, and in some cases, to be the smartest in the room. I look at commentators left and right, inside the Beltway, and I see that many of them one day want to be thought of as shapers of events, and the next day they want to be thought of as having nothing to do with events, they're way above them and just commenting on them, as the wise men of the world. And what's the quest? The quest is to be thought of as smart. In fact, in this analysis of Obama having won the day, ridiculed the Republicans, just really outsmarted the Republicans here in the tax deal, really, this guy's so smart, why, he's the comeback kid. I go totally against the conventional wisdom when I say I don't think Obama is smart, because I think Obama's wrong about so much. I have trouble with that contradiction, being wrong and yet being smart. Yeah, I know I have said in the past that the ugly know who they are. Unfortunately, many dumb people don't know they're dumb, which is one of the problems. We are led by a bunch of those people.

RUSH: Here's another one. How smart was it for Obama's voters, believers, supporters, to believe this notion that he was unlike any politician that ever trod the earth? How smart was it to believe the guy was a deity? How smart was it to believe this messianic stuff? How smart was it to believe that? But more importantly, how smart was it on the part of Obama to act it? Was Obama smart in also thinking of himself that way? Is that smart? You know, so much of what we call education today is nothing more than indoctrination. Do you think most people in college today are taught to think? I don't. I think they're indoctrinated. I think they walk in there as young skulls full of mush, and the liberal establishments at these places bend and shape their minds into a bunch of miniature human robots. They come out of these institutions thinking that they're special; that they're smarter than everybody else; that they are above and beyond, and they end up being arrogant and condescending. They haven't learned anything. They've just been indoctrinated.

Not only have they been indoctrinated, what else has happened to them -- and this is one of the major problems of higher education -- the establishments at these schools, the professoriate, they instill a respect for the authority of the establishment's perceived wisdom. While they're being indoctrinated, at the same time they are told to respect the utter infallible authority of the professor, of the establishment, of the university, and as such, rather than being revolutionaries, these young students actually are obedient. Rather than revolting and protesting things, they end up actually being obedient. And this kind of instilled respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth, because it kills, stymies the pursuit of truth. It does not promote critical thinking, and therefore real wisdom never happens. You can't have wisdom without an active, thinking mind. Look at global warming. Look at how simple it has been to indoctrinate a bunch of people into believing a hoax, and global warming is just one. But how is that possible?

How can thinking people not at all be curious about the other side? How can thinking people automatically reject the opposite point of view? They can't. But an indoctrinated person can. Somebody who has had instilled in them the ultimate respect for the establishment liberal authority becomes a member of that army, and anybody that opposes that authority that has indoctrinated them is a denier; is a radical; is an extremist or what have you. And, look, the so-called smartest people among us all believe in man-made global warming. We're in the middle here of a mini-ice age, it looks like. I'm not just haphazardly putting syllables together when I say this. Some German scientist -- I had it in the Stack of Stuff this week -- some German scientist has done a study, he says not only are we not in any kind of a warming period, we actually have the aspects here of the beginning of a mini ice age going on, and he's citing not just meteorological data, he's citing climate data as well. You know what this guy is gonna have happen to him.

Look at how easy it's been to indoctrinate the kids of this nation with a phony movie. Look at how easy it's been to indoctrinate people to believe that polar bears are dying off because of fraudulent, phony Photoshopped pictures. That's only possible if those people are not being taught to think. If they're not being taught critical thinking, they're just indoctrinated boobs with an instilled respect for the establishment authority that's doing the indoctrinating. So instead of being smart, they're robots. They're programmed little liberal automatons. They think they're the smartest people in the world, and they don't know diddly-squat. And yet they're called smart.

RUSH: Here's the thing. Smart people never have to advertise that they're smart. Smart people don't have to run around and tell other people they're smart. It's like me. I never tell you I'm smart, and you know I am. You know, half my brain tied behind my back, I'm not talking about how smart I am. I'm just talking about how little of my brain I need to be smart.

RUSH: Here is a portion of William Buckley's original mission statement -- this is from November 1955 -- the mission statement for National Review, the magazine. This is a portion of it. "The largest cultural menace in America is the conformity of intellectual cliques which, in education as well as the arts, are out to impose upon the nation their modish fads and fallacies and have nearly succeeded in doing so. In this cultural issue, we are, without reservation, on the side of excellence (rather than newness) and honest intellectual combat (rather than conformity)."

RUSH: Let's go to the audio sound bites. This is this morning on Good Morning America, Robin Roberts interviewing Sarah Palin. During a discussion about the tax rate compromise, Robin Roberts said, "How do you reach compromise if you don't flip-flop?"

PALIN: It is a flip-flop in his position on taxes because he was so adamant about not allowing the tax cut extension to take place for job creators, and then all of a sudden one day he was fine with it. So again, I appreciate that he -- you can term it compromise. I term it flip-flop. I'm thankful that he did, but it's still not good enough. It still allows the uncertainty there in the free market that our businesses, that I certainly as a businesswoman, that I fear. What we need is to make sure that we know what tax rates are gonna be so that we know if we can afford to hire people. It's a lousy deal, and we can do better for the American public.

RUSH: Sarah Palin weighing in on the tax deal, it's a lousy deal, could have been better, and she's right, it could have been better if we'd have waited, but certainly the way the Democrats are talking about it, they sound Bushian, they sound Reagan, where taxes are concerned. Now, here's Pelosi last night on the House floor during a debate on the tax rate compromise.

PELOSI: We recognize success and the job that wealth does to create jobs, etc. but we also want to reward work. We want to reward work. So in order to reward work in this legislation, we had to have a big payoff to the top one quarter percent of America's wealthiest families. Members have to make up their mind about this. They have to make their own decisions as to whether it is necessary to be held hostage to pay a king's ransom in order to help the middle class.

RUSH: All right, now, what she's claiming happened didn't happen. Nothing was done for the rich. It all depends on the baseline. It all depends on how the table was set. If you've lived all year thinking the rich are gonna get a tax increase because Obama wanted to raise taxes on the rich, he wanted to let these tax rates expire, if you're a liberal Democrat and you want to soak these people by raising their taxes, and you believe your party is gonna do that by letting these tax rates expire at the end of the year and then all of a sudden your own party comes along and says, "Nope, you know, we gotta keep these tax rates the same so as to not to hurt the economy." I mean here comes Pelosi and she characterizes this as a giveaway to the rich. There's no giveaway to the rich. There's no giveaway, period. The only giveaway is welfare. The only giveaway is our social program. The rich are not given anything by government. Well, other than these CEOs who have a back scratch deal with Obama. But in the terms you and I are talking about, the rich are not made rich because government gives them money.

So she wants to reward work. Really? Ms. Pelosi, can you name me a policy of yours that does that? Name me one liberal Democrat policy that rewards work. Name me, instead, a policy that does not punish success from you people. Every liberal economic policy is set out to punish work, is set out to punish productivity. And yet, this brilliant speaker of the House sits here and says she wants to reward work; and then, in a matter of blinding brilliance, says, "in order to reward work in this legislation --" Legislation rewards work? Government legislation rewards work? "In order to reward work in this legislation, we had to have a big payoff to the top one quarter percent of America's wealthiest families?" Now, her definition of rewarding work is also keeping middle-class tax rates the same. Nobody's tax rates are going down. There is not a tax cut, other than that payroll deal. There's no income tax rate cut. So this is stupid, plain, simple stupid. It also has as its purpose to mislead, so it is lying. It is misrepresentation. It's prevarication. She's a flat-out liar. Now, is she lying or is she dumb and really believes this? I submit both. Here's more Pelosi from her floor speech last night in Washington.

RUSH: Stop the tape. Stop the tape and recue it. President Obama, a job creator from day one with the Recovery Act. We've lost how many millions of jobs since Obama was inaugurated? We haven't created any jobs. I don't care how you slice it, gross, net, we have a loss of jobs that is near criminal because it is the result of Obama and Democrat Party policy, and yet Obama was a job creator from day one with the Recovery Act, pulled us back from that recession. What pullback? We are still in the recession. Okay, here's the rest of this.

PELOSI: President Obama was a job creator from day one with the Recovery Act and pulled us back from that recession.

PELOSI: The financial crisis that they created, President Obama pulled us back from that. And, oh, by the way, remember the financial crisis? Remember the banks that all that money went to and they didn't extend credit? Now those same people are giving out over $100 billion in Christmas bonuses, and these Republicans in this House of Representatives are saying, "We don't want you to be taxed to the proper extent on that $100 billion." I applaud President Obama for his side of the ledger. I'm sorry that the price that has to be paid for it is so high.

RUSH: Your guy led the move on this legislation! (laughing) Your guy leaded move on not taxing these so-called recipients of all this bonus money, Ms. Pelosi, your guy. Six weeks ago your guy was all for raising taxes on these people. Your guy led the way on this. But here's another myth. Financial crisis, the banks, all that money went to and they didn't extend credit. That's not what the bailout of the banks was for, another myth that these people created to extend credit. It was about buying up toxic assets caused by the subprime mortgage crisis created by the Democrats, pure and simple. Now, is she stupid and doesn't know that? Or is she stupid and does know it and is simply trying to miscast it? I say both. Does she even sound smart to you? Does she look smart? To me she never has. But she's in the special anointed crowd of Washington. She's a Democrat speaker of the House. Now, let's continue on with this analysis of who's smart and who isn't, from the woman who, while watching the Mars Rover at NASA headquarters asked if it would ever get over to the flag where the astronauts planted it on the moon, Sheila Jackson Lee on the House floor during debate on the tax rate compromise.

LEE: I'd like to make sure that we classify this not as a class warfare, if you will, but a good samaritan waving the flag. Working people need help, and so the unemployment insurance that is part of this bill is a valid part of it. The child tax credit, the payroll holiday, all of those speak to the vision of this nation, that we have the willingness to share. To give $25 to 28 billion dollars unnecessarily that would go and take away from education and Social Security and Medicare, domestic spending that is necessary, is a crime. This is not about fighting against someone who has a few more dollars than the next person. It is to do what we're sent here to do, to make sure that the capitalistic system works for everybody, including those who are now unemployed. Let's get our senses together.

RUSH: I'm not even gonna waste time with this one. Well, it's not where you start; it's when you start, where do you end? (laughing) "Working people need help so the unemployment insurance is part of the bill." By definition unemployment insurance does not go to working people. It's hopeless.

CALLER: You know the whole United States is in trouble. I think we're in an emergency situation, and the EPA has devastated about 80% of the businesses. We could open all the oil and gas and coal territories and land in the United States, and just think of the service industries, catering, construction, transportation. We need at least 200 refineries to be built by -- I believe we used to have something like 1100, and we're down to something like 80 in this country --

RUSH: We're not gonna build 200 refineries, it would take 14 years to build one. But this is another thing. This is no accident, this war on oil on the part of this regime. This regime is part of this radical left wing bunch that buys into this notion that oil is the poison. It ticks me off to even think about it. You're dead on right. It ticks me off. There's no need for any of this. The oil business alone could be an economic revival, alone, by itself if the EPA would just get out of the way. But look, all these other politicians, all these local politicians, "You can't drill off the coast of my state. You can't drill there," and it's all these people falling prey to yet another fraud and a myth and that is somehow that oil is gonna destroy their states, gonna destroy their tourism, gonna destroy their beaches and all this. The left wing has totally hijacked an industry and is in the process of shutting it down domestically. The rest of the world is drilling like crazy, in our backyard.

CALLER: Exactly. And if we could get America to really push for this, just think, 4% off the top of oil, gas, and coal, we could pay off our national debt with that. No politician can touch the first 4%.

RUSH: Well, now, wait, now, national debt's here, we're talking $14, 18 trillion. I know the point that you're making. There's a lot of revenue that we're leaving in the ground. There are a lot of jobs, therefore, that are not being created. Twenty-five percent of the rigs in the Gulf are idle. They still got the moratorium because they're still not granting leases. So this administration shut down the domestic oil business, and they did it, they took the occasion of that spill, the BP well out there, and, a-ha, here's an opportunity. So they tried to create a crisis to coalesce even more power, shut down another element of the industry, all the while talking about energy independence. This is a dangerous bunch people. That's why job creation with their stimulus bill? And we hear about all these efforts Obama's making to revive the economy, meeting with a bunch of CEOs that voted for him anyway. From what I'm told, by the way, the CEOs said, "You're gonna have to do something about our taxes and lighten the regulatory load. There's no reason for us to hire." Obama said, (imitating Obama) "Great meeting, we'll see you next year." Nothing's gonna be done, photo-op of a meeting, (imitating Obama) "I'm summoning the CEOs." He wouldn't know what a CEO has to do unless Saul Alinsky wrote a book on it. All he knows to do is resent them, think they're the enemy.

RUSH: No Labels. I first heard of this from some friends last week or the week before, and it is a bunch of people who just can't seem to find a home either on the left or on the right. That's who it really is, but there's another aspect to this, too, because here are the founders. No Labels, and it is what it sounds like. It's a bunch of people who don't want to be called conservative, who don't want to be called liberal. It's basically a bunch of gutless wonders among the true believers. Not the founders. The founders have a different game going here. But the true believers are going, "Yeah, yeah, count me in, count me in." It's a bunch of wusses, like on our side, the Frums, et al. who just can't find a home on the conservative right, they've been drummed out of it or they've drummed themselves out of it. You know, the people who said the era of Reagan is over. The people that said conservatism's going to have to recognize here the people want a welfare state. Conservatism's going to have to realize that people want a big government. They want an active executive. They just want it done smarter. People who are advising the Republican Party to go that way, to come back from the shellacking they got in 2008. And you can see how right they were.

What was it that propelled the Republicans to victory in 2008? It wasn't the Republicans. It wasn't one position they took. What propelled them was they weren't Democrats. What was it about what Democrats were doing that propelled the Republicans to victory? Spending, indebtedness, growing government, active executive, all of the stuff that the brains and the intelligencia on our side said the American people wanted got shellacked. Now, of course, they are rewriting history, "No, we weren't talking about that kind of stuff." On the left you have really not hard core leftists. You have people who want to be perceived as moderates, and the No Labels crowd is made up of a bunch of people who think they are the smartest people around, smartest people in the room, they're too intelligent and diverse, too erudite and sophisticated to be categorized by something as confining and insulting as a label, like conservative or right-wing, liberal or left-wing.

No, these people are far, far more intelligent, far, far more open-minded, far, far more sophisticated. These are the people who told us on our side the era of Reagan is over, that we need a new kind of conservatism, that it must adapt to a world where the people want higher taxes if it means a smarter government, an active, engaged executive. The American people want essentially a form of a welfare state. These people say, "It's not that we do. It's just that we recognize what the people want by virtue of the way they voted. We see what the people want." If the Republicans have any hope of winning, they've got to forget this Reagan fixation they've got, right? So we have the election of 2008 and who was it essentially that, independents, the precious independents and everybody else said they wanted more of? Reagan. What was it they said they wanted less of? Bigger government, welfare state, active, engaged, smart executive, i.e., president. So as far as I'm concerned, they have been totally discredited, and they know it. And they have their counterparts on the left.

So miraculously this group called No Labels has sprung up. Guys like Joe Scarborough are all for it. Joe, he's at MSNBC. It doesn't help him to be thought of as a Reagan conservative. And you got all these other people on the left, people like Bloomberg love the idea of No Labels. But here are the founders and as always, folks, as usual, if you follow the money, not the true believers, if you follow the money, you will find the answers to most of your questions. No Labels, founded by Nancy Jacobson who is a Democrat activist, married to Mark Penn, Democrat pollster. The Republican in charge of No Labels is Mark McKinnon, a Democrat. He's the guy who dropped out of the McCain campaign because he couldn't bring himself to be critical of the first black presidential candidate, Obama. McKinnon was George W. Bush's ad guy. He was McCain's ad guy until they started criticizing Obama. Then McKinnon quit. Before Bush, McKinnon never worked for the Republicans, but he had worked alongside the forehead, Paul Begala, for a lot of Democrats. So you had Mark McKinnon, Nancy Jacobson, oh, and I left out Kiki McLean. I think her maiden name was Kiki Moore, I'm not sure. But they're all Democrats. The founders of No Labels are all Democrats, and our guys on the right are making tracks to join up. No Labels.

Now, what is this? Well, let's take a look at who these people are. Mark McKinnon, Kiki McLean, Nancy Jacobson. I'll tell you what this is about. It is about money. These are political consultants. They need candidates. They need candidates running for office for whom they can take whatever the consultant gets, 5%, 10%, what have you. All three founders of No Labels are Democrats. They would love for Bloomberg to run for president. Why? Because he is a billionaire. Get him to run as an independent, maybe even third party. You know, sucker him into an independent run where they get the money, win or lose. Whether he wins or loses doesn't matter. They get the money. And he would lose. But there are always, as a friend of mine says, there are always political operatives who will tell a billionaire what he wants to hear, and we know that Bloomberg wants to run. He just says he's not. He says he doesn't want to, but we know he does want to.

"A who's-who of centrist and independent politicians -- including New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Sen. Joe Lieberman, Gov. Charlie Crist and Reps. Mike Castle and Bob Inglis -- will gather in New York City this morning for the launch of No Labels, a new non-profit group aimed at promoting cooperation across party lines. In a four-minute video prepared for today's launch, a collection of the group's founding leaders call for politicians to move beyond partisanship and focus on solutions." Notice how this comes on the heels of a Democrat shellacking. Notice how three Democrat campaign consultants form a group called No Labels to forget politics, to find solutions, and move beyond partisanship. Well, it's natural that a bunch of losing Democrats would want to get rid of the loser moniker and sucker a bunch of smarter than they think they are Republican conservatives to join them under the same auspices.

"'If we take away the labels, I think we'll realize the folks who are in the center of the Democratic Party, the folks who are in the center of the Republican Party, probably agree with each other more than they do with the extremes of their own party,' John Avlon, the former Rudy Giuliani adviser and centrist political strategist, says in the video. Lisa Borders, the Atlanta politician who heads the Grady Health Foundation, argues: 'We need to find a new space where people can feel comfortable to actually just get the work done.'"

Now, as I say, you're going to find a number of so-called Republicans, former conservatives joining the group here. Snerdley just said, "What work are they talking about getting done?" The end to partisanship; the end of bickering. These are people who are convinced that's what the American people ultimately want is an end. If they did, Republicans would not have gotten one vote. We already had the Democrats in total power. I mean, the Democrats owned everything. If these people at No Labels were right and want to end the bickering and they love the Democrats and love what they stand for, then keep them in power. Keep them in the House. Give me more seats in the Senate, more seats in the House, make sure Obama's there in perpetuity, but it just didn't work out that way.

The bottom line is you have a bunch of out-of-work Democrat consultants who may not be, in truth, high up on the list of consultants that Democrats want to hire. I mean, when's the last time one of them ever won a race? Last time McKinnon did he was working for a Republican. Kiki McLean is on Fox. Nancy Jacobson, I don't know when I last saw her. And these are the three founders. So folks, it's like everything else. As far as the founders are concerned, No Labels is about money, finding rich billionaires to run as third-party candidates and separate the rich billionaire from his money as consultants. And win or lose, you get paid. It doesn't matter if he wins or loses. The money is what counts. So Bloomberg wants to run his own campaign. You go, "Yep, great idea, Mr. Mayor." Implement it, make sure he loses, take your money. The people that are signing onto this, what I call the dupes making up the rank and file of the group. Not the elected officials. I'm not talking about the Liebermans. Well, I might throw Crist, Castle, yeah, these are the dupes, but they are truly liberals, Republicans who want to be known as centrist and moderate, they're truly liberals. So it's a liberal group that a bunch of wayward conservative media intelligencia people are joining because they are drinking the Kool-Aid. They really think it's about ending partisanship and rewarding smart people.

To answer your question, Snerdley, they really believe that this organization is where the truly brilliant in public policy and politics will go. It's all about hanging around with like-minded eggheads, smartest people in the room, port and cigars in the club library. Except, can't smoke now. It's bad for you. So port in the club room. Yeah, you know, the wine and croissant crowd. But they think it's all about the smartest people getting together, rising to power and owning everything. The three founders, it's about getting back in the game and earning some money, pure and simple. That's all it is.

CALLER: Hey, good afternoon, Rush. While we were on hold, I heard you talking about the Giants. I'm a Giants fan and I have agree with you. The Meadowlands has no roof, so I don't know what their problem is. But I wanted to make a comment about No Labels. I'm a conservative libertarian and at first I was pretty skeptical about the site now. But having been a member of it for a month, it actually goes back before the election a few months. There are a lot of Republican conservatives on there that are just tired of the hyper-polarization, the name-calling and all of that. They just want to get stuff done. So I wanted to... I don't know if you were aware of that.

RUSH: Yeah. Well, I'm aware of that. It's not as many as you would think, but I'm aware of it. Yeah.

CALLER: Well, I mean, because I... You know, I go on there every day and I talk to a lot of people. It covers a lot of... I mean, you got Republicans on there, Democrats, conservatives, liberals. I mean, whatever you want to call them -- and that's really the point of this organization is to get rid of the labels so that we can get stuff done and work together instead of this constant, constant gridlock like... I mean, what do you think about the tax cut compromise?

CALLER: Yeah, with them saying, "Oh, the Republicans are holding us hostage" and all that. I mean, what do you think of that? Do you think that's effective? Is that going to help anybody?

RUSH: Now, I'm not sure what you're asking me. Are you asking me if the Republicans...if it's saying the Republicans are holding us hostage is helpful? Or if you are saying that you think the Republicans are holding us hostage and that's the problem? Which?-

CALLER: No, I'm not saying anybody. I'm not saying anything. I'm not saying Republicans won't mention it. I'm talking about the other side making, you know, that statement, you know? I think that President Obama himself said that, right?

RUSH: No, but it's typical. I laugh it off. It's something to make a joke of to me. I don't... You know, I live in --

RUSH: No, the reason I'm confused is you started out talking there are a lot of Republicans who think that there's too much partisanship and, uh, they just want to get things done. So you agree with the No Labels bunch? That's where I'm stuck. I'm still back there. Do you agree or disagree with No Labels?

CALLER: I agree with the premise of it, you know, that we need to put the name-calling aside.

RUSH: It isn't possible! See, this is the thing: No Labels is not possible, and the fact that it was founded by three really-want-to-work-who-are-out-of-work Democrat political consultants.

CALLER: No, I understand that. But what I'm saying is the people who actually go on the site -- not the organizers, not the leaders of the No Labels but the people like me who go on this site -- it's a Facebook application. So we can contact each other all throughout the country and we can form our own groups. You know what I'm saying? It's not like... It's not a party. It's not a... We could do whatever we want. We can do what we want to do in our district, in our each individual congressional districts. You see what I'm saying?

RUSH: Yeah. Look, I think I do. Here's what I know. What I know is that conservatism is named two-to-one when people ask, "What's your ideological preference?" it's 40% conservative, 20% liberal. So naturally the No Labels crowd wants to come over and try to erase that. Whenever Democrats come up with a new strategy, it's always to accommodate when they just got creamed. They just got creamed. It's Democrats forming No Labels. So, of course, they want to come up with something that's going to neuter conservatives and Republicans. They want to get rid of "labels" because the brand names do not help them. Democrat and liberal are albatrosses, and they are doing it under the guise that there's all these people in the middle who don't like being labeled and so forth.

It's a scam. It's a total scam, and it exists because of two reasons: The founders want to make some money and also the Democrats are going along with it because their labels are not helpful. Democrat and liberal are losers right now. Pure and simple. That's the only reason this is happening, and everybody else that goes for it is getting sucked in because they buy into the substance of, "Yes, we all would rather get things done and we can't get things done because we are all held hostage to the far left and to the far right, and we are all in the middle and we think the solutions to problems comes with each issue. Not with an ideological litmus test. So we want to be free to have our opinion on every issue count."

Okay. Fine. So you No Labels people, I have a tryout for you. An audition. A test. Show me, show us -- all of you No Labels people -- how to handle the abortion divide. Tell me how to get rid of pro-choice and pro-life. Where are you No Labels people on the abortion issue? If you can show me where you guys at No Labels can implement your belief and solve that issue, I would be most interested. I don't think they can. I think that's the test for this No Labels bunch. But, again, it's a false premise. It's not about No Labels. It's about everything else.

RUSH: This No Labels business, I've been thinking more and more about this. I just saw a guy talking about them and the guy said exactly what I imagined them saying: "For those of us in the middle who don't really want to be held hostage to the far right or the far left but we have our solutions to issues, we want to be heard, too." Okay, fine. Somebody explain to me in what walk of life there are no labels. Religion? No labels? Business? No labels? Gender? No labels? What? Somebody tell me where there aren't any labels. Go to the grocery store and get rid of the labels and then what would you have? Well, you'd have a lot less government because you wouldn't have those phony ingredient labels on there.

How many of these people are registered with a particular political party? Most of them are, I bet, and most of them are registered Democrats. We know who they are. We know the founders are left-wing political consultants and we know that Democrat and liberal are labels that do not help political people these days. Of course they would want to get rid of them. By the same token, conservative is a good label. Naturally they would want to get rid of that. And naturally they would find some so-called pseudo smart Republicans who would agree with them on this. How many of these people belong to a particular religion, and why? Because of their belief system. Nothing wrong with labels as long as they are appropriate; as long as they are true; as long as they are properly descriptive. It's called language.

So it is not possible. It's impossible to have no labels. "Oh, it sounds wonderful, Mr. Limbaugh. It sounds right up the alley, Mr. Limbaugh. It sounds like it would be so sweet. It would end partisanship." No, it wouldn't, Mr. Castrati. Here's the bottom line. No Labels is founded by a bunch of people who don't like the labels that do apply to them: Liberal, statist, fraud, Democrat, Marxist, what have you. They don't like labels that appropriately describe them so they want to get rid of them. And as I say, a bunch of foolish Republicans, Conservatives, "Oh, yeah, sounds so sweet, so wonderful, get rid of partisanship." What we're for here, ladies and gentlemen, is truth in labeling. The No Labels people want to do away with truth in labeling, which is consistent because liberals are confounded always by the truth. It's no wonder they would form a group to get rid of the truth.

RUSH: It's so heartwarming to see a bunch of high-minded people out there on the left, you know, the no-labels crowd, come out of the woodwork and pay the bail of the serial rapist Julian Assange. I guess he was using a condom after all, otherwise how could he get bail? Michael Moore is contributing to the bail. I mean who knew that they were such fans of serial rapists out there, my friends? Of course they would help a thousand rapists if it would mean that one America hater might go free, but I think it's still great to see the accused rapist Julian Assange get bail. I mean how could he be a flight risk? He's only got a bunch of fake identities and passports and so forth. What's the concern here? It's amazing what hating America will get you in court, and in this country as well. It really is.

A little pop quiz. What was the No Label label before they changed their names? I mean this bunch that came up with a new group, No Labels, what was their label before they changed their name? (interruption) Well, losers, yeah, but that was not their label. They had a label. (interruption) Well, no. (interruption) Progressive is it! The broadcast engineer, Mr. Maimone, gets it. Progressives, exactly right. When liberalism was rejected liberals called themselves progressives, and now that progressives are being rejected, former liberals, former progressives, are now calling themselves the No Label group. How many more changes are there gonna be?

Ben Smith, Politico, notes that the No Label group has stolen its icon design from a graphic artist named Thomas Porostocky, a very unhappy graphic artist for good reason. Mayor Bloomberg is big in this group and he has lots of money which means he could easily have just paid for the designs that his group stole. Their icons, their logos, are side by side here, there's no question that they've been stolen, which is typical. From The Politico here: "No Labels Short on Republicans -- The group 'No Labels' kicked off its first conference Monday at New York's Columbia University with just one label largely absent: 'Republican.' The non-partisan initiative with the slogan, 'Not Left. Not Right. Forward,' --" Why would anybody want to emulate MSNBC and their slogan? I mean theirs is leaning forward. "-- is seeking to fill what the American people regularly tell pollsters is the vital center: a non-ideological space where the commitment is to getting things done. And its speakers -- who ranged from Republican moderates like ex-Virginia Rep. Tom Davis to liberal Democrats like New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand -- sang the praises of cooperation and compromise.

"But the only Republicans present at Columbia University's modern, square Alfred Lerner Hall seemed to be those who had recently lost primary races, such as South Carolina Rep. Bob Inglis and Delaware Rep. Mike Castle, or former Republicans like Florida Gov. Charlie Crist and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. No other senior elected Republican officials were in attendance, though a range of Democrats were present, some of them seeming a bit mystified by the bipartisan cast of the event." (laughing) Why do you have Republicans here? They are mystified by the bipartisan cast and yet they're setting themselves as No Labels: Not left. Not right. Forward.

"The effort at non-partisanship was, however, earnest. The stage was framed by two posters featuring a variety of half-red, half-blue animals -- a giraffe, a snail, four penguins of bipartisanship staring skyward." These are the stolen icons and logos from a graphic artist. So, again, what you have here is simply a bunch of people, a bunch of Democrats out of work who want to target big money politicians and get 'em to go in as a third-party candidate or as an independent. If you were a liberal Democrat or progressive, you wouldn't want to be labeled that, either. And they're sucking in a bunch of Republicans on this. That makes it look like they are the future, they are the smartest in the room, they are the ones with all the magnanimity. These No Label people, "We're the ones who really have the finger on the pulse the American people. The American people want compromise." They do? Nobody wants compromise. Nobody wants to compromise on this tax deal. If we've got compromise going on, where's all the praise for it? There isn't. You can't take labels off of things, as I so astutely pointed out yesterday. Labels are part of the English language. You can't take labels out of our conversations, political our otherwise.

Last night on the PBS NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, cohosted here by Judy Woodruff, she spoke to the No Labels movement cofounders Kiki McLean, a Democrat campaign consultant looking for her next candidate, and Mark McKinnon, a Democrat campaign consultant whose only Republican client -- well, he had Bush, and then McCain, but he quit McCain, he said, "If you guys start attacking Obama I'm outta here," and when the slightest bit of criticism of Obama was mounted by the McCain campaign, McKinnon split the scene. So these are the two No Labels people, Judy Woodruff said, "Mark, what's the dream scenario here? What would you like to have happen?"

MCKINNON: We'd like to provide a vehicle and a channel for the millions of Americans who today don't feel like their voices are represented. They look at Washington, they see the hyper-partisanship, they see loud microphones on the left, loud microphones on the right, and nobody really rewarding good behavior in the middle. People are just -- in fact, they're getting punished whenever they try and extend their arm across the aisle or work in a bipartisan fashion.

RUSH: Loud microphones. I knew it. I knew it, folks, at the end of the day this about me, loud microphones. You know what else this is about? These people, these Democrats, they don't know what to do. All these centrists, all the independents have moved to Republicans in droves, and the Republicans didn't have to do one thing but stay alive to get 'em. The independents have abandoned the Democrat Party. The independents have abandoned the left. And they've done so in a most profound way because they finally have seen liberalism wide open, up close and personal. They have seen it. They don't have to rely on people to tell 'em what it is. They've seen it. For two years they've seen how it destroys, they've seen the destruction that liberalism is, and they want no part of it. Ergo here come these people. And they don't care about the American people. You know, this, "We'd like to provide a vehicle and a channel for the millions of Americans who today don't feel their voices --" a lot of Americans do feel their voices are heard. A whole bunch of them were heard last November, Mark. That was a huge election, and the majority of Americans voted a certain way, and their voices are being heard. They don't have any question about that.

Their voices might be ignored now and then, but they know their voices are heard. But let's get to the bottom of this. You guys don't care about the people. "We'd like to provide a vehicle and a channel for the millions of Americans who today --" you care about yourselves. You guys are the ones on the outs. You guys are the ones looking for clients. You guys are the ones looking for work. This No Labels crowd, they have been rejected. Everything they said the last two years about what wins elections has been proven to be wrong. They have been totally discredited. So now they seek a new home trying to redefine themselves in the name of what the American people want. If these people knew what the American people want they would have victorious clients on their resumes, but they do not have other than McKinnon and Bush. Kiki McLean took her shot next. Judy Woodruff said, "Kiki McLean, you also hear people say what's wrong with feeling strongly or feeling passionately about issues? There's a lot at stake here. Why shouldn't we be arguing these things, debating these things vigorously?"

MCLEAN: Passion and partisanship is okay. Hyper-partisanship is not. If the goal when you start a conversation -- start a conversation is to make sure somebody else loses, we all lose, and there's too much of that going on today.

RUSH: (laughing) Can you blame me if I think this is about me? (laughing) If the goal when you start a conversation's to make sure somebody else loses? Yeah. I mean, Kiki, what happens in elections? Elections are campaigns. Campaigns are conversations. What happens in elections? Somebody loses. One of the honchos of this group, John Avlon, wrote a book with a label for a title, Wingnuts. And he mentioned me in this book a lot, hoping I would mention his book so that it would sell. But here's a No Labels head honcho with the title of his book in fact a label, Wingnuts. Even Judy Woodruff is having trouble with this. She finally says this to both Kiki McLean and Mark McKinnon.

WOODRUFF: Mark McKinnon, I heard you say today that the rest of the country is not as polarized as Washington, and yet I'll tell you quite candidly, I was around the country covering several Senate races this year, this is anecdotal, but I found people pretty partisan in their views.

RUSH: The idea that Washington is more partisan than the rest of the people, the rest of the country not as polarized as Washington? Mark, who's been running Washington the past two years? Your guys, the liberal Democrats. Next these pantywaists are gonna want to outlaw high school and college debate clubs because somebody loses. I mean there's a conversation that started and the purpose is for somebody to lose. These people are either sad they can't compete, or they don't want to compete, or in truth follow the money. They're looking for political candidates, rich political candidates to be clients. There are a number of politicians who love this whole idea of being in the center. Bloomberg is one of them. But he's not a centrist. He's an uber-leftist. Look at his policy ideas. Too much salt in the city, too much trans fat, can't smoke here, can't do that there. He's a full born uber-leftist. He's a Democrat. He called himself a Republican to get elected.

Now, what is the difference, folks, in a partisan and a hyper-partisan? I mean Kiki McLean said here that passion and partisanship is okay but hyper-partisanship is not. What's the difference? I mean that's how cockamamie these people are. Here, last night, CNN's Situation Room, Wolf Blitzer spoke with David "Rodham" Gergen about the No Labels movement. Blitzer says, "Is this a moderate version of the Tea Party movement?" Now, how can you have a moderate version of the Tea Party movement? The Tea Party movement is very active. They are grassroots, and they are conservative. And yet the question, "Is this a moderate version of the Tea Party movement?" And get this answer.

GERGEN: It is, Wolf. This is a group that's -- it's new, it's nascent, it's small, but it's trying to give voice to the many disgusted Americans who just watch our politics, see it as hyper-partisan, paralyzed, and they worry about the future of the country and would like to give a fresh voice to the middle, people saying, "Look, it's fine to be conservative, fine to be liberal, but sometimes you guys have gotta meet and agree upon things and get the country moving. We simply can't be paralyzed."

RUSH: And what Gergen and all these people mean is Republicans have to compromise. Conservatives are the ones that always have to compromise. That's how you meet in the middle. So why are we calling these No Labels people by their names? Shouldn't they assign themselves numbers? A name is a label. Kiki McLean, she should be number one and Mark McKinnon should be number two, and this Avlon guy, make him number three. You know, names are labels. What these people are is anti-conservative. They are anti- the people. They don't like the outcome of the November elections. That's why they've formed. They're not interested in the middle. They are interested in anti-conservatism. They're interested in defeating conservatism. And this No Labels nonsense just shows you how idiotic and how out of touch they are. The nation is at a crossroads. We do have to choose a direction, and they're talking about No Labels, which has nothing to do with anything that matters. A better name for this group would be No Brains.

RUSH: Mark McKinnon says, "We'd like to provide a vehicle and a channel for the millions of Americans today who," blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. We already have that. It's called the Tea Party. Average Americans who want to be heard and represented? It's called the Tea Party. And this after listening to David Gergen for almost a million years. David Gergen's had his shot at the American people for I don't know how long. He's worked in administrations, worked at ABC, and he's working at CNN. He's had his chance to coalesce a group of people behind him. I checked the e-mail during the break. I always do this and find out how people are reacting. "You care about this group? This group is stupid. They're not going anywhere."

I hope not. That's the whole point. I've been fighting this whole notion of how important "the center" is in this country ever since I've had this program -- and remember during the middle of the Christine O'Donnell/Mike Castle race, after Christine O'Donnell won the race, a Washington insider consultant Mike Murphy posted a piece on the website Ricochet in which he identified himself as one of these latte-sipping, wine and croissant people. He said (summarized), "You go ahead if you know how to do it!" He was really bent outta shape here. "If you know how to do it, then you guys do it! You quit your jobs and you get this woman elected," blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. I made the point then that these political consultants concede the following:

They look at every presidential election this way -- and in fact, a lot of local elections for state, member of House of Representatives. They look at it as 80% is already committed (40% gonna go Democrat, 40% gonna go Republican) and 15 to 20% always undecided, and that's where they make their money. They make their money there. They pitch their services to candidates by saying, "I can show you how to get to the middle. I can show you how to get the middle of the vote. I can show you how to get the moderates; I can show you how to get the independents." So a political consultant that's a Democrat or a political consultant that's a Republican still makes their living on that 20%.

So to them it always exists. They will always be "the center" and it's always the most important because that's their bread and butter, and they got everybody hopped up on this notion that elections are made in the center. Everybody falls for this as though it's just inside the Beltway, standard operating procedure. It's conventional wisdom. Nobody ever questions it -- except I, El Rushbo. And like to illustrate as my point, if you even want to say that the November elections the Republicans won big? Yeah, they won big because the independents went to the right. Well, what caused the independents to go to right? The Tea Party movement did not have a consultant per se.

The Tea Party was not represented by a candidate who had a consultant molding the campaign. It's always issues that matter, and it's always conservatism that wins when it's articulated, when it is explained, when it is lived -- or, on the other hand, when liberalism is as clearly viewable and seeable as it was. So the great unwashed, all these precious independents, look where they ended up, and there wasn't one political consultant that got 'em there. What got 'em there is Barack Obama and the rest of the Democrat Party, and that's what has this No Labels bunch just totally out of whack because they're all Democrats. They're all liberal Democrats and they've seen their precious middle move, and they had nothing to do with it.

So now -- for the sake of their jobs, for the sake of their careers -- they have to form this group which, again, at the end of all this is supposed to highlight their (and theirs alone) talent and ability to get these people to move in whatever direction they want to the benefit of their particular candidate. And in the process, this group, No Label, will seek to defeat conservatism. It's conservatism -- and, by the way, the whole buildup of the so-called moderate, centrist movement is in fact oriented toward just that: Defeating conservatism. That's why I'm interested in it, and that's why I keep pounding it so that more and more people will understand exactly why this is happening, who these people are, and why it's phony, why it's a trick, how it's a trick and all it is. It's just plain as day to see if you know who the players are.

RUSH: I'll tell you another reason why these washed-up losers joined this group, the reason why people join the No Labels group. Even Fox News is falling for this. These people end up being the "balance" on TV talk shows, and Fox News, I've seen it there. They'll have somebody from the left and they'll have somebody from the right -- some Republican flack, some Democrat flack -- and then they'll give the last word to some self-described "centrist" from this group, who will give the final and true analysis. The No Labels guy or girl gets to go on and explain why both of these extremes happen to be wrong. If you listen very carefully, the No Labels guy will sound an awful lot like the Democrat guy. Well, one other question here: Who is the center?

Who defines the center? Isn't it the left that's always defining the center? Isn't it the media that always defines the center? And guess who is never in the center? Republicans. Conservatives. Even in this group. The story on this group points out that there weren't any Republicans that showed up on the meeting, the big inaugural meeting, except for Mark McKinnon. Where were the Republicans here? Well, folks, what if you and I are the center in American politics and American life today? What if we happened to be the center? You know, we have been characterized as conservative, far right, right-wing, what have you. But what if we're the center? I would maintain, ladies and gentlemen, you and I are the mainstream of this country.

You and I represent that large swath of people that make this country work. Even geographically. You get the great flyover country, great unwashed in the center of the country. You got the far left on both the coasts. You got liberal Republicans on the Right Coast and so forth. Geographically, ideologically, in life we are the center of the country. For this group to exist, we have to be defined as "hyperpartisans" on the right. This No Labels group, let me give you another idea of who they are. This is an extension of what liberals have been forcing on us slowly for several generations. This No Labels group and the things that they say is the same liberal mind-set that we see in Little League baseball.

We're not supposed to keep score. There aren't any losers. (New Castrati impression) "That's right, Mr. Limbaugh! Losers would simply be humiliated and young children do not need to learn to be humiliated. It could be destructive and it could shape them badly for the rest of their lives!" Right. The only thing wrong here is the kids do keep score. The parents are out there thinking they're all advanced and compassionate and sheltering their precious little babies from any pain and suffering, and yet the kids, they're keeping score. They keep score silently. They know who's winning and losing, even though an official score might not be being kept. They don't want to admit the score.

The score right now is "Conservatives 63 - Liberals 0" in the US House elections. It's 6-to-nothing in the Senate, for those of you keeping score. It was about 700-to-zero in the various state legislatures, about 12-to-zero in governorships. That's why they don't want to keep score, because they're losing. That's why they want to get rid of labels. They're losing so they want to unplug the scoreboard. They want to "level the playing field," make things fair, help people feel better. They might have had enough time to make it work with the general electorate had they kept winning elections, but they didn't. They bombed out. So that's why this is important: It's just a bunch of liberals trying to reposition themselves for the future, under "No Labels."

I guarantee you just as global warming sucked a lot of people in, this has the potential to suck a lot of people in. I don't think it's gonna suck any more than already think they're in the middle. We have a lot of people in the country -- not a lot, but we have a certain percentage -- who think they are in the middle. You know, moderates think they're smarter than everybody else, they're more open-minded. That's why they like to call themselves moderate. (New Castrati impression) "That's right, Mr. Limbaugh! We make up our mind issue by issue! We are not rigid ideologues tied to something, willing to be wrong just for the sake of our ideology." Well, neither are we. We conservatives are right about everything. We are right about everything.

We are not interested in being wrong and trying to trick people into going along with us. We don't have to lie to people about what we believe. We don't need what we believe on teleprompters or on cue cards. We don't have to have somebody tell us in an earpiece what we believe when a question is asked. It's in our heart. We don't have to make it up; we don't have to lie; we don't have to take polls; we don't have to calculate what people want to hear when we're asked our opinion of an issue. We know we're right. We're happy knowing we're right, and we're also happy knowing the left knows that they're wrong. As I love to say, "Do you think Obama would have been elected president if he ran on the agenda he's implemented?"

He wouldn't-a gotten 20% of the vote. He would not have gotten 30% of the vote. (interruption) He wouldn't have, Snerdey, if he had run promising policies that guarantee 10% unemployment, a deficit of $1.5 trillion. This was the result of his policies. If he had run on, "This is what we hope to bring about," would he have won? No. He had to lie. He had to lie about every aspect of his campaign. He had to lie about it otherwise he wouldn't get elected. Mike Castle. Mike Castle ran as a conservative to try to win in the primary against Christine O'Donnell. Where's the No Labels group on that, by the way, Castle running as a conservative?

RUSH: Hey, one more thing, a little flashback, a news flashback on this No Labels business. Back to October 20th of 2009, from Kinston, North Carolina. Does that alone ring a bell? Kinston, North Carolina, October 20th, 2009: "Voters in this small city decided overwhelmingly last year to do away with the party affiliation of candidates in local elections, but the Obama administration recently overruled the electorate and decided that equal rights for black voters cannot be achieved without the Democratic Party," being identified on the ballot. In other words, the regime said Democrat voters in Kinston, North Carolina, are so stupid that without the D next to the candidate's name they won't know who to vote for.

"The Justice Department's ruling, which affects races for City Council and mayor --" these are local races, obviously, "-- went so far as to say partisan elections are needed so that black voters can elect their 'candidates of choice' - identified by the department as those who are Democrats and almost exclusively black." Do you believe this? Do you remember this now? So, in addition to everything else, No Labels is racist. No Labels is a racist organization, because the Justice Department, no less, of the regime has said that black voters in Kinston, North Carolina, have to have the word "Democrat" next to the candidate. Black voters can elect their candidates of choice, identified by the department as those who are Democrats and almost exclusively black. So the Justice Department here is saying that the only way to have a fair election is for blacks to vote Democrat. Blacks have to vote Democrat or it's not a fair election, and the only way to ensure a fair election, fair to blacks, make sure that they do vote for the Democrat, is to make sure that the D is next to the candidate's name.

"The department ruled that white voters in Kinston will vote for blacks only if they are Democrats and that therefore the city cannot get rid of party affiliations for local elections because that would violate black voters' right to elect the candidates they want." Racist, insulting. This is what the regime's Justice Department thinks of black voters in North Carolina, that they are so dumb, that everybody knows that blacks are gonna vote Democrat, that's just assumed, but you gotta put the D up there, otherwise they won't know. This is done under the guise of civil rights. "On top of that, you have an unelected bureaucrat in Washington, D.C., overturning a valid election. That is un-American." This is some people who disagree with this. So, you see the No Labels people at the end of the day even end up being racist. But the Justice Department demands labels so that blacks will know who to vote for in North Carolina.

RUSH: And let me tell you some more about the No Labels mind-set. The No Labels mind-set leads to not being willing to admit who the terrorists are. Oh, we can't say Muslim, can't say Islamist extremists, we're all in the middle, can't say that. You can't identify people, especially our enemies, you can't identify 'em. It's the mind-set that leads us to submitting to strip searches at airports for blondes and little old ladies with blue hair while burqas and young men with one-way tickets go untouched. It's that mind-set. That's why this is important.

RUSH: If we gotta get rid of labels, can we say "Merry Christmas" anymore? No. I mean, taking these people literally -- and as you know, I live in Literalville. ... This No Labels bunch. This is, I think, a last-ditch effort here. If we do this right, we can discredit this whole mind-set of the "moderate center" being the defining group in American politics, because this No Labels group is going to end up illustrating what a fraudulent idea that whole concept of, "There are people, uh, who decide issue by issue. On the left they like certain things, on the right they like certain things, and they want to matter at the table -- and hyper-partisanship is acing them out." This is just code lingo for they lost the last election and that liberalism has been discredited. Now, this No Labels bunch -- and, yeah, this does matter a lot to me, because this is all about electoral politics.

This is all about liberals trying to reinvent themselves and come back to life in the midst of a shellacking, and they're on the ropes here if we don't let up and if this is done right. 'Cause this No Labels is gonna be attractive to some people. You know the people. You know them. They don't like bickering, they don't like confrontation. They just don't like the argument. They just wish we could all get along. "Stop the fighting, please!" They don't want to fight. "Please, stop!" They're gonna gonna be sucked in by this. They have to know that they're being sucked in and they're suckers. That it's not possible. None of what this group advocates is possible. This is the mind-set that leads to a President and a general unwilling to admit to Fort Hood soldiers who just killed 13 of their buddies.

This is the mind-set that leads people stealing nativity scenes from the fronts of Christian churches. This is the mind-set, "We can't keep score!" This is the mind-set, "We can't offend!" This is the mind-set, "We gotta get rid of dodge ball! It's to dangerous." This is the mind-set that wants to take all conflict and controversy out of life, which is not possible. But more than that, they're just liberals who have been defeated and they're trying to reinvent themselves with a new label now since liberal, Democrat, progressive has been so shellacked.

RUSH: Maggie in Oregon, Ohio, you're next. Great to have you with us on the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Hi, Rush. It's great to be here. I want to say ahead of time, Merry Christmas to you.

CALLER: I'll get to the point here. I caught these two guys -- I wish I would have DVR'd it. I didn't, it would be more insightful, but I don't remember their names. One is a Republican; one is a Democrat. And Chris Wallace was interviewing them, and he interviewed 'em and then asked them, "Well, it sounds to me like you would vote for a Democrat." And neither person could give him a great answer.

RUSH: Okay, it was after Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, yeah, because he goes over to the Fox News Channel and does some stuff on Sundays. So he had two No Labels guys on to talk about No Labels?

CALLER: Right, one was Republican, the other was -- I believe he was a Democrat.

RUSH: Right and so he said to one, "It sounds like you guys would vote for a Democrat," and they wouldn't answer them?

CALLER: Yeah, they seemed real sheepish, they didn't want to really answer him one way or the other, but that's how they came across.

RUSH: Well, at some point they're gonna have to vote for somebody, even if they are No Labels, they're gonna have to vote for somebody because No Labels does not have a candidate. Who would be the No Labels candidate? They want it to be Bloomberg. That's who they want because Bloomberg's a billionaire and these people, "Oh, Bloomberg, he's a perfect mark. Bloomberg's out there talking about the great center," da-da-da-da. They think he would be easy to separate from his money, and with a billionaire you just tell him what he wants to hear and make him pay you for the privilege. But there's not gonna be a candidate from the No Labels party. At some point you're gonna have to vote for a Republican or Democrat, and that was great question because these two guys did not want to admit they would vote Democrat. Otherwise they would have discredited the whole No Labels movement. They're gonna get caught if they're not already. It's silly. Bloomberg is only No Labels 'cause he didn't want to have to run in the Democrat primary, that's all. He doesn't want to have to run against Obama. He doesn't want to challenge Obama. He doesn't want to be Republican 'cause that's just -- yuk. So No Labels is perfect for a guy like him. But we know that he's not a No Labels guy. We know that he's not a centrist. We know that he's a hard-core liberal.

RUSH: This whole thing is entirely deceitful, this No Labels business. The Tea Party movement was a spontaneous, grassroots movement. This No Labels "movement" is not a movement at all. It's all about top-down political operatives, ex-politicians who are, frankly, irrelevant. It's a top-down effort by irrelevant political hacks to make themselves matter again. It's out-of-work political consultants who are trying to find work by establishing a new niche for themselves where they can fleece potential candidates from their money while seeking office under these auspices. But they portend something really dangerous. I know it sounds like it can't possibly happen.

I know it can't possibly happen, but the point is you don't want this to ever be seductive to an increasing number of voters -- and, folks, there are a lot of people who want to think of themselves as smarter than everybody else. There are a lot of people who want to think of themselves as, "Ahhh, open-minded. People who decide things issue by issue, smarter than the people who are partisans," and a movement comes along like this, it can very easily seduce these self-important snobs, 'cause this is a movement of snobs and snobbery, and it could be seductive for a while. It's just like when I heard the Sierra Club say in 1996 or 1997 they were coming for the SUV, I spent about an hour on that warning people, and I got laughed at.

"Aw, come on, Rush! You know, we really like listening to you but sometimes you just go so over the top. Nobody's gonna ever take away the SUV! These are a small, little minority bunch of wacko activists just fundraising, Rush. They're never gonna get rid of the SUV," and here we are. Yeah, and the same bunch of people went after Joe Camel. (chuckles) Joe who? So I mean they're always out there. This is just liberalism wearing a new mask. They never go away. They are always seeking new ways to defraud people and to be deceitful. They must. They have no chance. How would the Democrat Party survive if we did away with the label "the rich"? The one thing they won't do is do away with labels. They'll never stop using them. Big Oil? Big Pharma? Big Food? Labels!

RUSH: Mark in Jupiter, Florida. I have about a minute and a half, but I wanted to get to you, sir. Hi.

CALLER: I just wanted to point out that, you know, every time the Democrats take a shellacking and the liberals get their head handed to 'em, we hear all this talk about "no labels." I started hearing about it in the early nineties. And if you remember, there was a lot of fanfare surrounding the Concord Coalition with Warren Rudman and Paul Tsongas, and it was all supposed to be nonpartisan and doing away with labels and they were gonna bring America together on sensible policies and all of that.

CALLER: Correct, but it was the same kind of an impulse, and the Democrats seized on it, a lot of them, to try and conceal who they were. But if you look at the people behind these so-called movements to get rid of labels, it's always the liberals. It's always the left trying to conceal who they are and what they want.

RUSH: Yeah. That's a good point. There are a lot of forerunners to this. They've just been brazenly honest about (chuckles) what they're trying this time. The Concord Coalition, that was Warren Rudman. There's another one out there that Pete Peterson has, I think. He's the Blackstone Group, one of their big guys. I can't remember what it is but you're right. Every time they lose, they come up with something, a new technique to hide who they are and to try to give themselves the high ground morally, politically. Thanks for the call out there, Mark. I appreciate it.

RUSH: Snerdley, are you afraid to call yourself a conservative? (interruption) Nor am I. I don't know any conservative... Well... Yes, I don't know any conservative, I don't know any genuine, real conservative who is afraid to tell you what they really are. Of course, people on the left are afraid to tell you at all truthfully what they are. But we don't have that problem. We don't have this label problem.

RUSH: This is Fabian in Staten Island. Great to have you on the program, sir. Hello.

CALLER: Thank you. And regarding this No Labels stuff, I was brought up believing that if you withhold the truth, it's the same as lying. Liberals are creating this dichotomy with this No Labels issue where they want politicians running for public office to be open and honest with the people, just as long as they don't let us know to what party they're affiliated. And that's what gets me about this. I feel like there's a certain danger here where liberals only talk about liberty when they're taking our liberties away and they're controlling our speech.

RUSH: Yeah, all of that and more. They're trying to control what your kids eat now because that can't be left to you. You're too big an idiot. You know, the guy has a good point, which candidates hid their labels in the last election? Do we know of any that did? We know the media in any story of corruption or crime that involves a Democrat, you'll never find out in the story that they're a Democrat. But what candidate hid their labels during the last campaign, and why? I'm gonna tell you what this is. See, it's easy for me 'cause I know -- not personally, but I may as well -- I know some of the people on the right joining this group. I know some of the people on the right, well, formerly on the right who are championing this group and I know their mind-set and I know that they're ticked off. They basically have been rendered irrelevant in the conservative movement because these are the people who have been spouting the end of Reaganism, the Reagan era is over, we gotta move beyond that. "You can't just say tax cuts and beat the communists anymore. That's not gonna cut it. Conservatism has to stand for active, large government done wisely." Well, those people, of course, the Tea Party said sayonara.

So they resent the Tea Party. These are the people that resent ordinary, average people, while attempting to stand up for 'em and defend 'em. So no matter how you slice it this group is gonna fall of its own weight. It's simply not possible. It is simply not possible to run around and live and engage in politics the way these people want to. At some point people are going to ask, "Are you Republican or Democrat?" "Uhhh, uhhh, in the No Labels movement that's precisely why we're here, that doesn't matter." The hell it doesn't. Are you a Republican or a Democrat? And you're gonna find out they're Democrats trying to hide the fact, or they're liberals trying to hide the fact. A lot of Democrats, to answer my own question, a lot of Democrats ran ads without party affiliation in the 2008 congressional races without saying they were a Democrat, plain and simple.

Ken in Livonia, Michigan. Welcome, sir, to the EIB Network. Nice to have you here.

CALLER: Yeah, Rush, I wanted to comment regarding this whole issue of No Labels.

CALLER: Many years ago I took a college course, it was a business class called Conflict Resolution. And what was being taught was that labels were a bad thing because when you label people, you divide people, and the way they put this insane idea into the college course is they were teaching that when there's a conflict, there must never be a winner or a loser. It must be a win-win situation so that you don't hurt the feelings of the people that you are in a disagreement with --

CALLER: -- and this whole idea is just completely out of left field because, think of it this way. The country being an automobile, as the Democrats like to use the comparison with, if you have two unmarked jugs, one gasoline, representing capitalism, you put that in the car, and it will run nice and smooth. The second jug, soda pop, representing statism, which is what the Democrats love, you put that in the car and it's dead. It won't run anywhere. And so this whole idea of No Labels is just, like I said, out of left field, it makes absolutely no logical sense whatsoever.

RUSH: Again, you're exactly right. I mean you can't even call people girls and boys or men and women, it's a label.

RUSH: It's just silly, and again, born of a bunch of losers. Bottom line, folks, it's this simple. If they want to steal our money, if they want to tax us -- you know, this whole notion of greed, Bill McGurn has a great column today in the Wall Street Journal about greed and tax cuts for the rich. The conventional wisdom is that the rich are a bunch of greedy SOBs and that the government, who wants to raise taxes on these people, they are fair, they understand the great inequities in our society and they seek to level them out. It's these greedy rich people who are steadfastly opposing giving up any more of their money. They don't need the money they've got, they'll never miss a tax increase, they don't need this -- blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And the notion gets put out there that they are the greedy ones. But who are they? Whether they're rich or not, they're people who want to keep what they've earned. Who is the government? Who are the Democrats? The Democrats are the people who want to take what they have earned. They want to take from the people who have earned it and use it as their own to spend to their own benefit.

Now, to whom does the definition of greed more properly apply? As I've always said, the real focus of greed in this country is in the government and everybody who works there. Well, not everybody. Elected officials, that's the greed, that's where it's located. It's so convoluted to have people who earn their money being called greedy simply because they think they should be able to keep a little bit more of it, that they'll do better with it than the government will. And that's greed. And when Reagan won elections, it was a triumph of greed and selfishness, the media said, on the part of the voters. Yeah, the voters, they wanted to cheat the government out of what was rightfully the government's because Reagan was for tax cuts and so forth. But the real greed exists in Washington. It is there that people who haven't earned your money want to take it from you and spend it as though it was theirs, for their own benefit, as in buying votes, continually being elected, what have you. And he's absolutely right about this. So, you know, whether they want to steal our money, have high taxes or what have you, Democrats, liberals, progressives, socialists, doesn't matter what they call themselves. We know who they are. They are people who feel entitled to everybody else's earnings while having not earned any of it themselves.

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 #157	Kukis Digests and Opines on this Week’s News and Views	December 19, 2010