If you receive this and you hate it and you don’t want to ever read it no matter what...that is fine; email me back and you will be deleted from my list (which is almost at the maximum anyway).

I attempt to post a new issue each Sunday by 2 or 3 pm central standard time (I sometimes fail at this attempt).

I try to include factual material only, along with my opinions (it should be clear which is which). I make an attempt to include as much of this

week’s news as I possibly can. The first set of columns are intentionally designed for a quick read.

I do not accept any advertising nor do I charge for this publication. I write this principally to blow off steam in a nation where its people seemed have collectively lost their minds.

And if you are a believer in Jesus Christ, always remember: We do not struggle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places (Eph. 6:12).

The Lame Duck Congress passes a myriad of legislation: the START treaty, the repealing of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell; and a preservation of the Bush tax cuts (with Obama incentives thrown in along with a temporary reduction of the payroll tax). Even though the first two are Democratic dreams, several Republicans had to sign on in order to pass this legislation. Republicans could have blocked any and all of this legislation. They chose not to.

When Obama’s 3 top terror officials were being interviewed by Diane Sawyer, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper was unaware of the significant arrest of 12 terrorists in Great Britain, something which many Americans were aware of before Clapper.

President Obama comes out in favor of indefinite detention for some of those held in Guantanamo Bay Prison.

Speaking at the first White House Forum on Environmental Justice on Thursday, Homeland Security head Janet Napolitano discussed the initial findings of the department's recently created "Climate Change and Adaptation Task Force." So, apparently, we have declared war on the climate?

WikiLeaks guy, Julian Assange, finds that information about his arrest was leaked, and was upset.

South Korea provokes North Korea by erecting a Christmas tree at the border. The communist North accused the South of displaying Christmas lights to spread religion among its people and soldiers. South Koreans publically responded with “Duh.” (Okay, I lied about the last thing).

It appears as though there has been a dramatic cyber attack against Iran’s computers, including those related to the nuclear aspirations. It is unclear with this is the CIA acting on behalf of the United States or Israel. 30,000 computers in Iran belonging to classified industrial units had been infected and disabled by the malicious Stuxnet virus (this occurred a few months ago; I just heard about it).

The 2010 census results are out, and people seem to be fleeing cities and states under liberal control and going to cities and states run by conservatives.

Muslim threat forces Bethlehem shops to ban sale of crosses. This does not make a lot of difference, since very few Christians will go as tourists into Bethlehem, which is a Muslim-controlled city.

Large portions of Great Britain have experienced record cold temperatures this past month or two. Blizzards have shut down areas from New York City to Boston. South Carolina has first Christmas snow since record began being kept. Atlanta enjoyed its first white Christmas since 1882.

Janet Napolitano: “What I say to the American people is that we are—thousands of people are working 24/7, 364 days a year to keep the American people safe.”

Joe Sims, co-editor of the Communist Party USA online magazine Peoples World, stated: "[There is] the possibility that the communists may be able to "capture' the Democratic Party entirely."

Political Affairs is an online magazine which publishes "stories on struggling to defeat the ultra right in the Republican Party, strengthening the labor movement, winning the battle for racial justice, ending war and imperialism, winning women's equality, fighting homophobia and presenting working-class views of popular culture and mass media." Which political party does this sound like to you? Political Affairs used to be known as the Communist.

Janet Napolitano: explained that her new task force was charged with "identifying and assessing the impact that climate change could have on the missions and operations of the Department of Homeland Security."

President Obama: "I have been to this point unwilling to sign on to same-sex marriage primarily because of my understandings of the traditional definitions of marriage. But I also think you're right that attitudes evolve, including mine. And I think that it is an issue that I wrestle with and think about because I have a whole host of friends who are in gay partnerships."

Ben Affleck on NPR: “...there's no deeper sense of right or wrong [in the United States today]. The banks shouldn't -- people shouldn't make such a giant profit off just moving money back and forth. And CEOs' pay shouldn't be 200 times the average worker. It used to be nine times...Okay, maybe it's legal and maybe it passes muster with shareholders. But there's something about us that fundamentally feels it isn't right. And I think that's the frustration that you feel on people speaking out from the left. I think it's the same frustration you hear from Tea Party activists.” Along with Affleck, many liberals abhor the idea that a CEO can get paid a lot of money, when his company is in the toilet. Affleck typically makes $10 million per picture and the CEO of NPR makes $1.3 million/year.

President Obama: "Obviously, we haven't gotten it [Guantanamo Bay prison] closed. And let me just step back and explain that the reason for wanting to close Guantanamo was because my number one priority is keeping the American people safe. One of the most powerful tools we have to keep the American people safe is not providing al Qaeda and jihadists recruiting tools for fledgling terrorists. And Guantanamo is probably the number one recruitment tool that is used by these jihadist organizations." I wonder where drone attacks (which I support) weigh in on Obama’s imaginary list?

Ed Schultz: “You do not see Republican senators on "The Ed Show" on MSNBC. I don't want 'em! I don't want 'em and I'm getting sick of righties on my show anyway. I'm getting sick, I mean, we might have 2011, there might not be any freakin' righties. I'm sick of 'em!

Headline in 2000 story in the Independent on global warming: “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past [in Britain]”

Muslim poster in the U.K. (remember the banner from last week in Times Square?): “The Evils of Christmas On the 1st day of Christmas my true love gave to me an S....T....D. On the 2nd day debt On the 3rd rape On the 4th teenage pregnancy. And then there was abortion, raves, claiming god has a son, blasphemy, exploitation, promiscuity, night clubs, crime, paedophilia, paganism, domestic violence, homelessness, alcohol, drugs...”

27-year-old Abu Rumaysah, who once called for Sharia law in Britain, the leader of a militant Islamic group called Islam4UK, recently said “Christmas is a lie and as Muslims it is our duty to attack it.”

Ronald Reagan: "Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement..."

Reagan: "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction; it's not something we pass along in our bloodstream. It must be fought-for, protected, and passed-along for them to do the same"

Reagan: "Of the four wars of my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong"

When Secretary of State Hillary Clinton handed Russia the mock-up “restart” button, they must have thought, “We are going to totally roll this administration.”

Stossel’s outstanding Politicians Top 10 Promises is being aired twice tonite on the FoxNews Channel.

O’Reilly’s excellent talking points from this past week, along with Ann Coulter (this is good):

O’Reilly talking points on proposed study of Muslim terrorism in the U.S. (with a great discussion afterwards):

A guy cruises through a stop sign, gets pulled over by a local cop, guy hands over his driver's license, insurance verification, his concealed carry permit. "Okay, Mr. Smith," the officer says, "I see your concealed carry permit. Are you carrying today?" "Yes, sir, I am." "Well, better tell me what you got." Smith says, "Well, I got a .357 revolver in my inside coat pocket, there's a 9-millimeter semiautomatic in the glove box, and I got a .22 magnum derringer in my right boot." "Okay," officer says, "anything else?" "Yeah, back in the trunk there's an AR-15 and a shotgun. That's about it." "Mr. Smith, are you on your way to or from a gun range?" "No." "Well, then, what are you afraid of?" "Not a damn thing."

1) The Democrats face several big problems; even though most of the alphabet media is solidly behind them, FoxNews and the internet are not (that is, there are tens of thousands of informational websites which do not tow to party line). The Democrats need to tamp down FoxNews and exercise more control over the internet. Perhaps that will be sold to us by saying, “We cannot have false information portrayed as fact on the internet, so we are going to have to police it” in some way or another.

2) There have already been myriads of Democrats who have spoken out against FoxNews, dismissing it as distortion and not news at all, but an arm of the Republican party. However, this does not seem to be working as well as they would like.

3) There has already been an attack on the internet; remember how we were supposed to contact candidate Obama about emails which sounded “fishy”? The Democratic government has more power now.

4) Remember for all of these past dozen or two dozen years, we have been told how we need to pay educators more and how a willingness to support our schools will move us forward? It turns out that, in many states, teacher unions have been taking advantage of this, and teachers in some states are retiring in heir mid-50's with around a $100,000/year retirement salary, and with full medical benefits. I don’t know of any such people in Texas like this, but rumor is that these kinds of retirement packages are available in some areas in California, New Jersey, Illinois, Ohio and New York.

5) There are a limited number of things that can happen with states which are going broke (like California and New York): (1) they can take federal bailouts (if offered), which will simply put off the inevitable; (2) they can raise taxes; (3) they can renegotiate contracts with state and country workers (many of whom make a ridiculous amount of money and have amazing retirement packages); (4) they can dramatically cut public services in order to pay the outstanding salaries and benefits; or (5) the states can declare bankruptcy which allows them to renegotiate all of their contracts and benefits. However, hand-in-hand with that will be a destruction of the states’ bonds (since they cannot pay these in bankruptcy either). Also, bankruptcy will send some states, like California, into a death spiral, because state workers and state retirees will go from making too much money to making no money whatsoever.

6) I cannot recall who said this, but it was pointed out that, if national prosperity was based upon natural resources, Russia would be the greatest nation in the world, as it is rich with farmland, oil and important metals.

126 people have been indicted in the United States on terrorism charges over the past 2 years. 50 are American citizens; 126 of them are Muslims.

More than a million people in California do not have access to good, clean tap water.

Remember Ben Affleck’s nasty words for CEO’s who make too much money? Affleck starred in the movie "Gigli" had an actual net loss of $66,733,791. Affleck's salary for the film was $12.5 million

Now that Republicans are in power in the House, there has been a constant call in the press for the parties to “work together.” Prior to this, a few Republicans were expected to go along with Democratic legislation in order “to move the country forward.”

Let’s say that one of President Bush’s top terror officials professed being unaware of a significant terror event or arrest, do you think that this might have been the lead story on every network? Of course it would. I will admit, I was surprised the Diane Sawyer actually went back and posed her question to Clapper a second time. Under Bush, there would have been a call for Clapper’s firing, and Bush would have fired him.

Seth and Amy do their “Oh Really?!?” routine on Julian Assange, who was upset because someone leaked information about his arrest.

Social justice = higher taxes for those who create jobs and invest in the economy

What Reid, Pelosi and Obama got out of the lame duck Congress should have been awe-inspiring to any political junkie. He clearly pounded conservatives in this final week or so of Congress. As a conservative, I was embarrassed for the Republican party.

Congress is going to have to write a state bankruptcy law, which will allow states to pay a portion of salaries and benefits to state employees, and to continue paying their bonds, until that state can emerge from bankruptcy.

Obama will come out in favor of gay marriage, if elected to a second term. However, between now and his election, he will continue to say, “I believe in a traditional marriage, but my views are evolving.”

Obama passed his most radical legislation in the first 2 years, complimented with the legislation passed during the lame duck Congress; he will appear more centrist over the next 2 years, possibly even coming out in support of centrist and center-right legislation.

Yesterday, the Senate voted 66-32 to begin debate on the New START agreement with Russia. Only a simple majority (51) was required, but vote counters can use yesterday's roll call as a benchmark for final ratification, which will need 67 votes to pass. With the seating of Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL), the White House needs nine Republicans to join the Senate's 58 Democrats. They got those nine yesterday, including Senators Bob Bennett (UT), Scott Brown (MA), Susan Collins (ME), Lindsey Graham (SC), Dick Lugar (IN), John McCain (AZ), Lisa Murkowski (AK), Olympia Snowe (ME), and George Voinovich (OH).

But of those, according to The Hill, only Lugar, Collins, and Snowe have fully backed ratification. And at least two of those nine went on record in favor of letting the next Congress be the treaty's judge. Early yesterday, McCain took to former Senator Fred Thompson's nationally syndicated radio show where he called the treaty "a good idea" but also said he has "serious concerns about the missile defense part of it" and wanted to vote on it next year. Meanwhile, Bennett attended a press conference organized by Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) where he told reporters: "I would hope that we could reach accord, and I would hope that it would be next year."

Kyl's press conference was a major blow to the White House as a slew of potential yes votes lined up to announce they would not vote for the treaty this year, including the newly sworn-in Senator Kirk and Senators Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Kit Bond (R-MO), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Mike Johanns (R-NE), George Lemieux (R-FL), and John Thune (R-SD).

Senator John Kerry (D-MA) staged a counter press conference just minutes after Kyl closed his where he insisted that allowing the next Congress to ratify the treaty would be "a recipe for endless delay on a matter of enormous national security significance." Kerry added: "Nine hundred questions were filed and asked and answered by the Administration."

Kerry may be right that hundreds of questions have been asked and answered. But many questions also remain unanswered. Let's start with just two: Where are the negotiating documents, and when will we be allowed to see them? These documents are crucial to resolving key ambiguities about the treaty, one of the biggest being the treaty's effect on our nation's right to implement new missile defense systems.

The Administration has claimed from the beginning that New START will have no impact on our nation's ability to defend itself against ballistic missile attack. Then why did Russians insist on inserting language into the treaty's preamble limiting our missile defenses? The American people have a right to know. Conservatives won a major victory Tuesday when the Senate parliamentarian ruled that preambles to treaties are amendable. If, as the White House and Senator Kerry claim, the missile defense language in the preamble has no impact on our missile defense rights, then they should also have no objection to removing it from the treaty entirely. When that vote occurs, we will see which Senators truly support missile defense and which do not.

In Why Does Sovereignty Matter to America?, part of The Heritage Foundation's Understanding America series, Steve Groves writes:

The proper exercise of diplomacy by the United States does not threaten our sovereignty. The Founding Fathers understood the value of diplomacy. They drafted the Constitution, in part, because they wanted the United States to be able to negotiate treaties with other nations. But they also understood that American foreign policy must ultimately be controlled by the American people.

That is why, for instance, the United States Senate must approve treaties that are negotiated by the President. That is how our diplomatic process works. But today, American sovereignty is threatened by the many treaties that seek to take power away from the nations that negotiate them. The solution is not to reject treaties or diplomacy: it is to return to the vision of the Founders, and to their belief that the American people have an inherent right of self-government, through their elected representatives, that cannot be extinguished by any treaty.

President Obama's New START creates an implementing body, called the Bilateral Consultative Commission (BCC), and gives it broad powers to promote the objectives of the treaty. These powers could include imposing additional restrictions on the U.S. missile defense program. This is an unacceptable cession of our national sovereignty. President Ronald Reagan walked away from Mikhail Gorbachev's offer to eliminate nuclear weapons because he asked us to give up our missile defenses in return. No true conservative could support this treaty as it stands.

Senator Tom Coburn Drafted a 'Wastebook' Guide to the Most wasteful Government Spending of 2010

A Republican senator has drafted what he calls a "wastebook" - a guide to what he considers to be the top 100 examples of wasteful government spending in 2010.

The Department of Agriculture awarded the University of New Hampshire $700,000 this year investigating methane gas emissions from dairy cows. The conclusion? "Cows emit most of their methane through belching, only a small fraction from flatulence," said project investigator Ruth Varner.

And The National Science Foundation spent $216,000 to study the use of "ambiguous" statements by politicians. Specifically, the grant description says, the study exams whether candidates, "gain or lose support by taking ambiguous positions." The Census Bureau blew $2.5 million on a 30-second ad that ran during the Super Bowl. To make matters worse, the ad was almost universally banned, leaving most viewers uncertain of its meaning.

"I would tell you that there's hundreds of billions of dollars every year, that if the American tax payer could go down through it, they'd say "wipe this off, this off, this off...we don't think any of this is important," said Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), the author of the report. In a federal budget that exceeds $1trillion, Senator Coburn acknowledges his examples represent a tiny fraction of government spending.

"In terms of the size of the fed budget, the examples are inconsequential but that's not what we're trying to get to," Coburn told ABC News. "It's the lack of attentiveness and the lack of structured decision making that's being carried on by congress that allows these things to continue.

The combined cost of studies of cow burps and wishy washy political statements was less than a million dollars, but some of the other items in Coburn's report are far more costly. For example: the federal government spends an estimated $930 million on unnecessary printing, even thousands of unread copies of the mammoth budget of the United States.

"How many people actually read the printed budget of the President? The printed one," Coburn said. "One, maybe two?"

The government spends $28 million a year just to print "The Congressional Record," a daily chronicle of every word uttered in Congress and countless more words submitted "for the record." The printed version of the "Congressional Record" is mostly seen filling up giant recycling bins on Capitol Hill.

The Congressional Record, of course, is available online which is they way most people who want to read it find it.

A report this year found that the Department of Energy could save $2.2 million with more efficient use of electricity in its own buildings.

The Department told ABC News they are working on it by recently installing 600 energy efficient LED lights at its headquarters in Washington. Although the Department says less than 5 percent of its electricity comes from renewable sources and, as ABC News saw on one recent evening, most of the lights in the headquarters building are left on long after the employees go home.

For the record, Coburn says the blame for most of this lies not with the White House, but with Congress. What's needed, he says, is for the President to fight Congress to stop these programs.

"We've never had a president, that I know of in my lifetime, that's willing to take on congress," Coburn said. "None of them. None of them."

Iran continues to defy the international community in its drive to acquire nuclear weapons. Arab leaders in the region rightly fear a nuclear-armed Iran. We suspected this before, but now we know for sure because of leaked diplomatic cables. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia "frequently exhorted the U.S. to attack Iran to put an end to its nuclear weapons program," according to these communications. Officials from Jordan said the Iranian nuclear program should be stopped by any means necessary. Officials from the United Arab Emirates and Egypt saw Iran as evil, an "existential threat" and a sponsor of terrorism. If Iran isn't stopped from obtaining nuclear weapons, it could trigger a regional nuclear arms race in which these countries would seek their own nuclear weapons to protect themselves.

That wouldn't be the only catastrophic consequence for American interests in the Middle East. Our credibility and reputation would suffer a serious blow if Iran succeeds in producing its own nuclear weapons after we've been claiming for years that such an event could not and would not be tolerated. A nuclear-armed and violently anti-American Iran would be an enormous threat to us and to our allies. Israel in particular would face the gravest threat to its existence since its creation. Iran's leaders have repeatedly called for Israel's destruction, and Iran already possesses missiles that can reach Israel. Once these missiles are armed with nuclear warheads, nothing could stop the mullahs from launching a second Holocaust. It's only a matter of time before Iran develops missiles that could reach U.S. territory.

Even without nuclear weapons, Iran has provided arms used to kill American soldiers and Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran is also the biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. It has shielded al-Qaeda leaders, including one of Osama bin Laden's sons. Imagine how much worse it would be for us if this regime acquired nuclear weapons.

President Obama once said a nuclear-armed Iran would be "unacceptable." Yet, Iran's nuclear progress still continues unchecked. Russia continues to support Iran's Bushehr nuclear reactors. It also continues to sell arms to Iran - despite the Obama administration's much-touted "reset" policy with Russia. The administration trumpets the United Nations sanctions passed earlier this year, but those sanctions are not the "crippling" ones we were promised. Much more can be done, such as banning insurance for shipments to Iran, banning all military sales to Iran, ending all trade credits, banning all financial dealings with Iranian banks, limiting Iran's access to international capital markets and banking services, closing air space and waters to Iran's national air and shipping lines, and, especially, ending Iran's ability to import refined petroleum. These would be truly "crippling" sanctions. They would work if implemented.

Some have said the Israelis should undertake military action on their own if they are convinced the Iranian program is approaching the point of no return. But Iran's nuclear weapons program is not just Israel's problem; it is the world's problem. I agree with the former British prime minister Tony Blair, who said recently that the West must be willing to use force "if necessary" if that is the only alternative.

But we also need to encourage a positive vision for Iran. Iran is not condemned to live under the totalitarian inheritance of the Ayatollah Khomeini forever. There is an alternative - an Iran where human rights are respected, where women are not subjugated, where terrorist groups are not supported and neighbors are not threatened. A peaceful, democratic Iran should be everyone's goal. There are many hopeful signs inside Iran that reveal the Iranian people's desire for this peaceful, democratic future. We must encourage their voices.

When the brave people of Iran take to the streets in defiance of their unelected dictatorship, they must know that we in the free world stand with them. When the women of Iran rise up to demand their rights, they must know that we women of the free world who enjoy the rights won for us by our suffragist foremothers stand with our sisters there. When Iranians demand freedom of religion, freedom of conscience and freedom to simply live their lives as they choose without persecution, we in the free world must stand with them.

We can start by supporting them with diplomacy and things such as radio broadcasting, just as we did with those who suffered under the former Soviet Empire. Most of all, we should support them with confidence in the rightness of the ideals of liberty and justice.

Just as Ronald Reagan once denounced an "evil empire" and looked forward to a time when communism was left on the "ash heap of history," we should look forward to a future where the twisted ideology and aggressive will to dominate of Khomeini and his successors are consigned to history's dustbin.

Not too awful long ago I wrote about the Communist Party USA and their support for many of the identical principles endorsed by the Democrat Party here in the US. I listed the various similarities but now I have some even more honest words from the Communists themselves. Joe Sims, co-editor of the Communist Party USA online magazine Peoples World states among other things "the possibility that the communists may be able to "capture' the Democratic Party entirely." Read that slowly and carefully..."the possibility that the communists may be able to "capture' the Democratic Party entirely."

Joe Sims is a proud little Commie. He goes on to brag that among other things, "heightened class and democratic struggle...all have combined to produce an unprecedented situation - and opportunity." How long have I been railing on against this Democrat Party effort to frame the current political debate as one of class? Clearly even the ones seeking to wage this struggle freely admit that is their effort and how said effort is an "opportunity" for them?

They are seeking to destroy this nation and they are using Democrats to wage class warfare, pitting imaginary groups of haves against equally imaginary underclasses. The US has no class structure at all...never has. Monarchies had them. Europe had them. China had them. India had them, but the US NEVER had them. NEVER! For anyone over 40 or so, does this sound like a good thing? Do ya remember the old time Communists?

In case ya missed it Communism is responsible for more human misery than the Nazi's ever hoped to cause and by one big, huge, massive, overwhelming, undeniable margin. Even blaming Hitler for every death in WWII in wartime Europe, the Communists, since the October Revolution in 1917, makes Hitler look like a minor schoolyard bully.

Stalin killed upwards of 50 million of his own. Mao killed 70 million Chinese alone. Pol Pot killed three million Cambodians. How many dead in the Communist insurgencies in sub Saharan Africa and Latin America? Millions and millions. Add in Indochina and the number climbs again. How many died in the Korean Conflict and in North Korea from starvation since the armistice? How many starved to death in the USSR? Millions? You betcha!

Anyone remember the USSR? The largest and most resource rich nation on Earth? Remember them? Bolshevism and all that rot? The faltering economy? Their closed and fascistic system of repression? The bread lines, in again, the largest and most resource rich nation on the planet? Anyone remember the palpable fear after Stalin got the bomb? Duck and cover? Bomb shelters? Khrushchev telling us at the UN "We will bury you" referring to the US? How when he was in the US he was taken and told he could go anywhere and see anything he wished? How he saw freedom and economic prosperity all over the nation but was still convinced it was all a trick to take him to places that had been prepared to look prosperous to fool him? Anyone? Anyone?

Anyone remember the stated world goal of the USSR was world domination? Despite the mantras of the American haters here in the homeland, anyone have any recollection of any stated goal of the US being to control the planet? Anyone?

Anyone recall the plight of Eastern Europe from 1945 until about 1990? Soviet tanks rolling in the

streets of Prague in 1968 and in Hungary in 1956? I know a huge number of former Comm Bloc expats and almost to a man and woman they are clear...do not let the sweet promises of Marxism entrench themselves (anymore then they already have) here in the US. Wonder why they are damned near unanimous in that refrain? Anyone?

I am left to honestly wonder what Democrats think of this revelation? Are they so desirous of political power that they will willingly bed down with the foulest of the foul - COMMUNISTS - in order to see their ideology in perpetual power? The Communists are clear they are and will use the Democrat Party to further their ends.

Again, read my Communist Goals, Circa 1963. It's highlighted as a featured article of mine. If one reads it and isn't shaken to their core, they are either okay with it or too damned dumb to come in out of the rain. I take the Commies at face value. They are a foul bunch and freely admit their goals, methods and most honestly, their media...the DEMOCRAT PARTY of the United States of America.

I dare one of them noble lefties to justify this. Tell me it isn't happening. Tell me it's no biggie. I personally don't think they have the guts. Difference between me and them is I am proud of who I am and what I am about and I freely and at every opportunity, broadcast to the whole damned world those facts! I do not hide behind any other effort to try and fool folks. I am about the Constitution...what are uber lefties about? Who knows...they will rarely admit the truth. Instead it's all "Oh, it's just so bad, etc." I don't trust folks who cannot honestly describe the end game they envision.

If progressives were honest their desired endgame is nothing any natural born American can imagine except in the deepest recesses of their nightmares. It ain't gonna look anything like the US we knew as kids. Instead of honesty needed for the debate, lefties know if they were honest their wishes would be summarily rejected outright by all except those in favor and the lame brained idiots who don't know shit from shinola. They hide from the honest truth like vermin in the dark of night...usually anyway.

I do love Mr. Sim's candor here though. I'm eye ballin' you and your pals Mr. Sims. So are tens and tens of millions of my pals. Wanna play? I mean out in the open? Level playing field and all? No? Rather use your little games of subterfuge? Can't man up, huh? Just like a Commie. Get caught stealing your soul from ya and then deny they were caught red handed, daring to demand "You gonna believe me or ya gonna believe your lying eyes?"

Political Affairs is an online magazine representing the United States communist party (it used to be known as the Communist).

President Obama is writing to the wrong people, and those wrong people are hopelessly confused about his power and their own. This is how bad agreements are born.

Senate Republicans could easily kill the wayward New START treaty, and tell the administration to go back to Moscow and cut a deal that promotes American national security. The Constitution disfavors treaties that are not patently in U.S. interests, requiring a two-thirds Senate majority for approval - seven more than the 60-vote threshold generally required to move any contentious legislation through the upper chamber.

Even in this wretched lame-duck session, without the six new Republicans who will join the caucus in two weeks, the GOP's 42 senators ought to be more than sufficient to stop a bad treaty. Even without a Scoop Jackson Democrat to count on, how tough could it be to prevent nine Republicans from defecting - from saying "yes" to a pact that imperils U.S. missile defenses, does nothing about an aggressive Russia's huge numerical advantage in tactical nuclear weapons, and creates a sovereignty-sapping "Bilateral Consultative Commission" that would undermine the Constitution's treaty process by circumventing Senate approval of future restrictions (beyond those in New START) on our national-defense capabilities?

As is too often the case, Republican senators are taking their foreign-affairs cues from John McCain and Richard Lugar, leaders of the caucus's moderate wing - which is to say, its incoherent wing. They want to support the treaty because to do so would be bipartisan (yay!), but, dimly perceiving that the treaty is atrocious, they also want to rewrite it.

So we are now watching them play "let's pretend." The Senate is pretending that it has the authority to rewrite a treaty, while the president pretends that the unacceptable treaty can be fixed by writing letters to the senators who need courting rather than writing a new treaty with Russian leaders who need convincing.

As reported by National Review's Robert Costa, this lame-duck weekend featured an amendment offered by Senator McCain to undo New START's most noxious (but by no means its only noxious) provision, the linkage of strategic-missile reduction and U.S. missile defense. Sen. Jeff Sessions went beyond that, endeavoring wholesale revisions of treaty's missile-defense terms. Taking "let's pretend" to new heights of fantasy, Republican senator James Risch tried his hand at crafting a unilateral treaty on tactical nukes. Actually, "non-lateral" would be more accurate: Because tactical weapons are not covered at all in New START, Risch's exercise would have no more effect on Russia than it would on his state of Idaho.

If we could just put aside that minor inconvenience known as the Constitution, there's no question that the Republicans are right on the policy. The Russians claim that New START prevents the United States from beefing up protections against missile attacks. That means possible strikes not only by Russia but by the likes of North Korea, Iran, and - if we look into our crystal ball - a Pakistan whose government could fall into jihadist hands, or even, say, an Egypt or Saudi Arabia that goes both jihadist (due to internal revolt) and nuclear (due to Western fecklessness in responding to Iran). And that is to say nothing of nukes, including stray Russian nukes, that could fall into the anxious hands of al-Qaeda or other terror networks.

In support of its interpretation, Russia points to language in the treaty's preamble. That's not all: There is much circumstantial corroboration for the Putin/Medvedev position. To avoid upsetting the Russians, the Obama administration has reneged on the U.S. commitment to deploy missile-defense components in Poland and the Czech Republic. It has explicitly limited missile defense in a critical 2010 report in order to avoid disturbing the "strategic balance" with Russia and China (apparently, the administration believes our security somehow hinges on maintaining current threat levels rather than altering them in our favor). And administration officials have refused to disclose the negotiation record for New START, which would allow senators to judge for themselves what makes the Russians think the treaty means what it certainly appears to say.

It is thus eminently understandable that senators concerned about our security should want New START drastically altered. The Constitution, however, does not permit them to do it themselves. Article II's treaty clause quite clearly empowers the president alone to make treaties. The Senate's limited roll is to provide the president with its advice and to decide whether to consent - meaning the senators get to counsel President Obama on how to deal with the Russians, and they get to say no or yes to the deal the president has struck.

They do not get to rewrite the deal, and trying to do so is worse than an empty gesture - it is a feint. Senatorial treaty amendments, all of which Democrats have voted down so far, would be of no legal consequence even if they passed. The reason is simple: They would not be the deal to which the Russians agreed with President Obama. A treaty is an agreement between the United States and another country. It is not an agreement between the president and the Senate to ignore the language the president and another country have endorsed.

Unless the president, the only official in our government authorized to make treaties, were to go back to the table and get Russian assent to any Senate amendments (dream on), such amendments are nullities. But the public does not know that, and the commentary certainly has not been edifying in this regard. Consequently, senators who have the power to block New START from being considered, and to vote it down if it reaches final floor consideration, appear to be preparing an escape hatch: They will abdicate their duty to withhold consent from a bad agreement but tell constituents they did their best to improve its flaws. It's a cynical charade. The way to improve New START's flaws is to tell President Obama to go back to the drawing board.

Throughout the New START debate, the Heritage Foundation's Baker Spring has provided stellar analysis on why the treaty should be rejected - with one unfortunate exception. Mr. Spring maintains that "In giving its advice, the Senate can alter the text of any treaty brought before it." That is wrong, and most surprising coming from a bastion of constitutional originalism.

The Constitution's treaty clause plainly assigns the making of treaties - i.e., negotiating them with foreign sovereigns and writing them - to the president. Spring's support for the proposition that the Senate's advice power somehow authorizes it to rewrite treaties consists of a 1981 Government Printing Office manual on Senate procedure and a 2001 report by the Senate opining on its own authority - an extravagant propensity of lawmakers that the Framers aptly feared.

Yet as John Yoo explains with characteristic erudition in The Powers of War and Peace, the Framers gave the executive near plenary power over foreign affairs, "a point that met with rare agreement by Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, and Chief Justice John Marshall." Thus was the treaty clause placed in Article II, the source of presidential authority, not in Article I, which enumerates congressional powers.

Under the principle laid down by James Madison, Article II's few legislative intrusions - such as the Senate role in treaty making - are to be narrowly construed. They are exceptions, which lawmakers have no right to extend. The power to give advice is just that: to give advice. It is not license to change a treaty. If the Senate wants a treaty changed, it must withhold its consent.

In the Washington Times, Bill Gertz reports that, in an effort to quell concerns over his handiwork, President Obama wrote Senate leaders over the weekend, assuring them that the Russians are wrong. He is committed, the president promises, to robust missile defense and, in particular, to upgrades in the capacity of the U.S. and our allies to fend off potential strikes by Iran.

The guys who need to know that, and to sign off on it, are not John McCain and Richard Lugar. They are Valdimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev. And the signing off needs to be done in a formal treaty. The Republicans' choice is an easy one here: Block New START and tell President Obama to get back to them when he has in hand a formal treaty that is consistent with his letter. The question is: Why are Republicans turning something so easy into a nail-biter?

Back in the year 2000, it looked as if snowfall in Great Britain would be a thing of the past, due to global warming:

RUSH: All right, folks, here we go. "Federal telecommunications regulators, the FCC, approved new rules Tuesday that would for the first time give the federal government formal authority to regulate Internet traffic, although how much or for how long remained unclear. A divided Federal Communications Commission approved a proposal by Chairman Julius Genachowski to give the FCC power to prevent broadband providers from selectively blocking web traffic." And that's just a ruse. This net neutrality is not what this is really all about. This is about the Feds wanting to control the Internet just as they control the public airwaves. They want to be able to determine who gets to say what, where, how often. They want to be able to determine what search services are providing what answers to your queries. It's total government control of the Internet and the regime has just awarded it to itself, after a court said no, after a court denied them this authority, they went ahead and did it anyway.

"The rules will go into effect early next year, but legal challenges or action by Congress could block the FCC's action," and there will be both. But they were expressly prohibited from doing this by a court of law, just like a court rejected the drilling moratorium in the Gulf, and Ken Salazar says, (paraphrasing) "Oh, doesn't matter, we'll just ban it again." The rule of law doesn't matter to this bunch.

RUSH: I want to talk about this net neutrality business. We have dealt with this on this program before. The FCC has just asserted its authority to regulate the Internet, this "net neutrality" is a bogus name just like most legislative titles. Well, most titles of legislation are bogus. "Net neutrality" does no such thing. It does not promote neutrality and lack of bias or any such thing. We noted on this program back in September of 2009: Net neutrality is a solution in search of a problem. It's just a bunch of liberals wanting to get their hands on something that is massive, that can harm them. They have to control, as much as they can, the free flow of information. They have to be in charge of it, they have to be able to censor it, and that's what this is all about.

There is no problem on the Internet. None. In fact, in most of life, there wasn't a problem until the liberals went in search of one so that they could control people's behavior and try to legislate the outcomes of individuals in life. The only problem here appears to be too much freedom, at least in the minds of the government. There's too much freedom on the Internet in the minds of Obama and his FCC people. All you really have to know about net neutrality is that its biggest promoters are George Soros and Google and MoveOn.org, which is heavily funded by Mr. Soros and Google. It is also promoted by a number of other radical left Soros fronts, such as the Free Press, the Center for American Progress, and a couple of additional groups improperly named.

The Center for American Progress is about the opposite. They're not about American progress. And Free Press is not about a free press. So what we're doing here is neutering the Internet. It's another private industry. It's another gleaming aspect of free speech, free market, private industry, that Obama has decided to take over as a Christmas present to himself and the Democrat National Committee and to Mr. Soros. He's even beaten Hugo Chavez to the punch. Chavez is just talking about taking over the Internet in Venezuela. Obama has got it done. They want you to believe it's about search engines, making sure that every possible result gets exposure. They want to try to tell you it's about money, and it's not. Well, it is about money but not in the way that you would think when that is offered as a reason. It's about control.

Here is a gleaming artifact of unabridged free market everything -- speech, commerce, you name it -- and they want to control it. They want to control who gets to say what on it, they want to control who gets found on it, they want to control pretty much everything about it. Monday afternoon, two Democrat commissioners on the FCC, Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn (the daughter of James Clyburn), "signaled that the order was not as strong as they would have liked but they wouldn't oppose it. Their votes along with Mr. Julius Genachowski's would be enough to approve the order or the takeover. Now, Copps," one of the Democrat commissioners, "said that he wanted to ensure that the Internet doesn't travel down the same road of special interest consolidation and gatekeeper control that other media and communications industries like radio, TV, film, and cable have traveled."

They are worried to death that the Internet is gonna become the next conservative talk radio and Fox News, and that's what they're not gonna permit. That's what so-called net neutrality is all about: To make sure that the voices of minorities and the displaced and the dis-financed and the disabused and the whoevers are equally heard. "What a historic tragedy it would be," Copps said, "to let the fate," that fate, meaning what's happened to talk radio and Fox News, "befall the dynamism of the Internet." That's from an earlier app story. Yeah, so we would really hate to see that -- and by the way, they don't have any regulatory authority over cable TV and they haven't asserted it, and that's what galls 'em about Fox. They are trying to control Fox on the basis that Fox does news.

But, see, news is specifically -- journalism is specifically -- mentioned in the First Amendment. That gives them a problem. But we wouldn't want the Internet to "suffer the fate" of TV, just gone from three networks to literally thousands of choices. We would not want that, would we? You go back. It wasn't that long ago, 1988, and it was the three networks and CNN. I think ESPN was just breaking out. ESPN first started on radio. But we wouldn't want that kind of diversity, would we? In 1988, there were 125 radio stations in this country doing talk. Today, what is it, Snerdley? It's over 2,000. Over 2,000! You have every format under the sun. If you want to listen to a talk show on baking carrot cakes for the holidays, you can find it. It's there.

Chinese opera. You name it. We certainly wouldn't want to see the Internet end up like radio where there is even room for views that diverge from the liberal establishment. Oh, we can't have that. We can't have views that diverge from liberalism. They see the Internet as something, if they don't grab control of it, they're never gonna get control of it -- and that is what they want.

RUSH: Let's go to the audio sound bites, 'cause this is part and parcel of the same thing. Today on Good Morning America (we're up to number six for the broadcast engineer) the Justice Department correspondent ABC Pierre Thomas interviewed the attorney general, Eric Holder. Question: "What keeps you up at night? What keeps you up night? What do you worry about most?"

HOLDER: The concern that perhaps that we might have missed something. The threat is real, the threat is different, the threat is constant. The threat has changed from foreigners coming here to people in the United States, American citizens raised here, born here. You didn't worry about this even two years ago. The ability to go into your basement, turn on your computer, find a site that has this kind of hatred spewed. They have an ability to take somebody who's perhaps just interested, perhaps just on the edge, and take them over to the other side.

RUSH: Oh, yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's what keeps him awake at night is threats, not from foreigners, but people in the US -- American citizens, raised here, born here. Those are the real terror threats. When was the last one of those? When was the last one of them? And so you see -- and the computer, 'cause you can take these people fragilely balanced on the edge and get some really smart molder of opinions, some terrorist, some crazy site, and the person in the basement on a computer can become a terrorist. This sounds just like Hugo Chavez. This is the language of authoritarian statists. This is the language of dictators. And this next is encouraging. Pierre Thomas said, "Are you confident the United States will continue to say they can't afford terror attacks?"

HOLDER: The American people have to be prepared for, you know, potentially bad news.

RUSH: Wait a second. I thought you were working 24/7, 364 to keep us safe! Well, that's what Big Sis said. She was on World News Tonight, and Diane Sawyer interviewed her. She said, "What do you say right now about the degree of anxiety that's just realistic right now as we head into the holidays?"

NAPOLITANO: What I'd say to the American people is that we are -- uh, and thousands of people are -- working 24/7, 364 days a year to keep the American people safe.

RUSH: What is the one day they are not working to keep people safe? It can't be Ramadan because that's like a month. What is the one day? Well, she said "24/7, 364 days a year." (interruption) No, because in leap years it would be two days. It would be 366. Election Day? Maybe it's Election Day. Martin Luther King Day? What day are they not working to keep us safe? Obviously here a... What would you call this? A gaffe. And so on Morning Joe today, Andrea Mitchell (NBC News, Washington) they were talking about this gaffe, 364 days a year to protect the people.

Scarborough said, "Help us out here, Andrea." (impression) You know, I come from the No Labels group, and I don't know what 364 means anymore because we don't believe in labels and numbers are labels. So what is she talking about here? "So, if Janet Napolitano says we're not going to have to worry about terrorism because we've got people working 364 days out of the year..." By the way, Joe, you're a No Labels guy. What are you doing talking about "terrorists" for? Isn't that a label? I'm distracting myself. "So, if Janet Napolitano says we're not going to have to worry about terrorism because we've got people working 364 days out of the year are they giving us a heads up to let us know the day they're all taking off so I can keep my family home?"

MITCHELL: That's the deal. They're covering for each other. I don't know. Maybe it's Christmas Day.

RUSH: Ah. Andrea Mitchell (NBC News, Washington) trying to cover for Big Sis. Well, they got it covered. It's just that she's taking one day off but somebody's covering for her.

RUSH: I got Ron in Corpus Christi. You're next on the Rush Limbaugh program. Hi.

CALLER: Hi, Rush. It's a pleasure. Speaking about Eric Holder, I'm acquainted with victims of the FALN terrorist group, and you know, it didn't help with the Clintons who let a lot of them free back in 1999.

CALLER: Right, Puerto Rican nationalist group, and they were really fringe. And there was one guy that turned down Clinton's offer of clemency. His name is Oscar Lopez and he was cofounder of the group; he made bombs for the group; he taught others how to make bombs; he tried to escape from prison twice; he never showed any remorse, and he repeated that over and over again, no remorse, no contrition. Now he wants to get out, but there's a parole hearing on January the 5th, and it's an uphill battle. And there will be people showing up there trying to stop this, and so I encourage everybody to go on the parole commission's website, give 'em a call, be polite, let 'em know what you think.

CALLER: See, another friend of his got out this past year. He was the other co-founder, but he wasn't as crazy as Lopez is, 'cause Lopez is a case. When he conspired to get out of prison the second time, the FBI busted it up. He conspired with members they were linked to the Weather Underground and he made up a list of stuff he wanted. I got the list here: blasting caps, armor piercing rockets, grenades, rifles, plastic explosives, bulletproof vests. He tried to break out, to kill his way out. And now he just wants to walk out.

RUSH: Well, you are informing me of something that I was not this up to speed on. I had not heard details of any of this. I've got 30 seconds. What specifically bothers you about this guy getting out after spending some time in jail?

CALLER: A lot of things. A sense of justice, compassion for the victims, they have to go and relive this again --

CALLER: Not all of them. Most of them. And also, you know, to show that the Clintons and Eric Holder can't have their way, that's part of it, but it's mainly for the victims. I've gotten to know some of these people, and I suffer with them and they shouldn't have to go through this.

RUSH: Well, that's true. That's true. That is terror. No question about it. Ron, I'm glad you called. I appreciate it.

RUSH: By the way, the FALN terrorist our last caller is talking about is a guy named Oscar Lopez Rivera. He rejected Bill Clinton's offer of a pardon, and he's served 12 years of a 70-year sentence. His hearing is coming up in January, and it is the hope of many that he is not released.

RUSH: Jay in Salem, Oregon, it's great to have you, sir, on the Open Line Friday on Tuesday version of the program. Hello.

CALLER: Rush, nice to talk to you. It occurred to me one day, I was accused by an inmate of being a Republican, and I realized that they think like Democrats. The Democrat Party is the party of criminal thinking. I got to thinking about it, and a criminal thinks that laws don't apply to them. They think there's no controlling legal authority.

RUSH: Wait a minute, now. Hold it. You were "accused by an inmate"? Where were you?

RUSH: Oh, okay. That helps. So an actual inmate accused you of being a Republican --

CALLER: Exactly. And I got to thinking, you know, what is a criminal but someone that thinks that laws don't apply to them. Al Gore said, "There was no controlling legal authority."

CALLER: Criminals, they have a problem with addiction, maybe an addiction to power. A criminal thinks a lawyer is the answer to every problem, and...and what's my last point? And lying is the redefinition of truth.

RUSH: I like it. (laughing) What better evidence could there be? The guy works in a jail and an inmate says, "You sound just like a Republican." (laughing) That's excellent, Jay. I appreciate it. I'm glad you called and got through.

CALLER: Yeah, hello, Rush! Oh, I -- I -- I -- I'm a longtime listener since 1990. On this START treaty. Obama is... He's undermining even our US missile defense. I am not kidding you. He's gonna have one-third of our nuclear weapons dismantled, he's closing down the naval base in his Virginia -- the military Joint Task Force base, which affects the whole country -- and he's already cut our military defense, our planes, our armory down to size. The B-2, the second engines on the Joint Task Force fighter, that's no longer gonna be made if he has his way. And this (unintelligible) to the treaty with the Russians? We're not gonna have a missile defense because we won't be able to update our missiles, and we won't be able to have the strategic nuclear defense. We won't be able to hit anything down if they hit us with a nuclear weapon.

RUSH: Well, these are Obama's objectives. He said this during the campaign. He wants to reduce and eliminate nuclear arsenals, and he'll start with ours.

CALLER: Yes. I wanted to say this, though, Rush. Listen. The Russians have broken every treaty -- and the Chinese, they're still building, building. I've got a graph in front of me, and it shows that China and Russia is way at the top and we're at the bottom. We're at the bottom! We hardly have any nuclear missiles left. So I mean this is dangerous for America and our defense and it's gonna weaken our defense already, so we need to stop it.

RUSH: Obama is doing exactly what he promised during the campaign. He vowed to get rid of our missile defense. Everybody knows the Russians don't live up to agreements. This is not about the Russians. This is about us. You're exactly right. Now, you sound... This is interesting to me. I don't mean this in a derogatory way. You sound like somebody who's just figured this out. You may have known it for a long time. I'm glad to hear this passion that you have, 'cause I think you represent a whole lot of people who just now are figuring out, "My gosh, who is this guy that other Americans elected?" The Russians have ten times our number of tactical weapons. Ten times! Of course they'd be happy to get rid of whatever number we're getting rid of. They will still have a vast, vastly larger number.

But this is not just liberals, Bonnie. This is Democrats. This is what they have been after as long as I've been alive. The focus of evil in the modern world is the United States. Our nuclear arsenal makes us the lone superpower. We represent the threat. We represent the focus of evil. He's just fulfilling a lifelong dream of the Democrat Party and the American left and the worldwide left, and he's got the votes to do it. Everything I'm seeing on television this morning reported about this, he's got the votes and with a number of Republicans. Because it's being misrepresented. It's being represented something that will promote peace, and depending on how the wordage is put together, the verbiage put together, some Republican Senator, "I can't vote against peace! What do you want me to do, Limbaugh, vote against peace? I'm not gonna vote against peace."

(sigh) It's sad thing. Andrew McCarthy (Bonnie, you might want to check this) at NationalReview.com: "Advise, Don't Consent." It's kind of amazing. Andy writes about this. Let me read you a couple of excerpts here. "President Obama is writing to the wrong people, and those wrong people are hopelessly confused about his power and their own. This is how bad agreements are born. Senate Republicans could easily kill the wayward New START treaty, and tell the administration to go back to Moscow and cut a deal that promotes American national security. The Constitution disfavors treaties that are not patently in US interests, requiring a two-thirds Senate majority for approval -- seven more than the 60-vote threshold generally required to move any contentious legislation through the [Senate].

"Even in this wretched lame-duck session, without the six new Republicans who will join the caucus in two weeks, the GOP's 42 senators ought to be more than sufficient to stop a bad treaty. Even without a Scoop Jackson Democrat to count on, how tough could it be to prevent nine Republicans from defecting -- from saying 'yes' to a pact that imperils US missile defenses, does nothing about an aggressive Russia's huge numerical advantage in tactical nuclear weapons, and creates a sovereignty-sapping 'Bilateral Consultative Commission' that would undermine the Constitution's treaty process by circumventing Senate approval of future restrictions (beyond those in New START) on our national-defense capabilities? Pretty tough, it turns out.

"As is too often the case, Republican senators are taking their foreign-affairs cues from John McCain and Richard Lugar, leaders of the caucus's moderate wing -- which is to say, its incoherent wing," according to Andy McCarthy. "They want to support the treaty because to do so would be bipartisan (yay!)..." Really? That's -- that's what's motivating them. It would be bipartisan. But they know that it is atrocious. They want to rewrite it. "So we are now watching them play 'let's pretend.' The Senate is pretending that it has the authority to rewrite a treaty, while the president pretends that the unacceptable treaty can be fixed by writing letters to the senators who need courting rather than writing a new treaty with Russian leaders who need convincing."

So it's a mess. It is not helpful to the United States, it's helpful to our enemies, but this is the status quo for the Democrat Party, folks. All during my early twenties and my teen years -- early twenties and ever since -- before the fall of the Soviet Union, the Democrat Party always sided with the Soviet Union over America. The Democrat Party has always done it. You remember we had news develop that Ted Kennedy had actually either gone to Moscow or called or written Yuri Andropov warning them all of Ronald Reagan. The Democrat Party was actively supportive of the communists establishing a base in Nicaragua. So this really isn't anything new. Kennedy wrote the Russians offering to help them defeat Reagan. So this really isn't anything new. It's just, as is the case with much of Obama's domestic agenda, he's getting it done for the first time. The Democrats have not really succeeded full bore in harming US national security. They made a lot of dents, but they've never done anything like this. So now it's finally happening, and people stand up, sit up and take notice.

RUSH: Now, I have a story today: "Communist Party USA Reveals: We're Using the Democrat Party." I thought they were the Democrat Party. That's why this news is kind of interesting to me. This is the Yahoo! Contributor Network. "Not too awfully long ago I wrote about the Communist Party USA and their support for many of the identical principles endorsed by the Democrat Party here in the US. I listed the various similarities but now I have some even more honest words from the Communists themselves. Joe Sims, co-editor of the Communist Party USA online magazine People's World states among other things 'the possibility that the communists may be able to "capture" the Democratic Party entirely.' Read that slowly and carefully...'the possibility that the communists may be able to "capture" the Democratic Party entirely.'"

As I say, that means they're close. I thought they already had. I thought they were the Democrat Party. I thought they were interchangeable. Now, "Read that slowly and carefully...'the possibility that the communists may be able to "capture" the Democratic Party entirely.' Joe Sims is a proud little Commie. He goes on to brag that among other things, "heightened class and democratic struggle ... all have combined to produce an unprecedented situation -- and opportunity. They are seeking to destroy this nation and they are using Democrats to wage class warfare, pitting imaginary groups of haves against equally imaginary underclasses," and so forth and so on. So there it is. This is not news to you. We've been reading to you from the Communist Party People's World magazine when it fits over the past couple of years. But now they're coming right out and saying so: "We're using the Democrat Party." It's not taking too much effort, by the way, and they're not having to fool the Democrats in order to use them.

By the way, anybody out there offended by me saying that the Communist Party USA and the Democrat National Committee are identical, just ask 'em to name one significant issue where they differ. Just one. In fact, they don't even differ on insignificant issues. Their platform is identical. The Communist Party USA platform is identical to the Democrat National Committee platform for 2008, virtually identical. So if you're out there being offended by it, don't waste your time getting mad at me. It happens to be true.

RUSH: The tax rate extension, Obama celebrating it, Chris Matthews getting two tingles up his leg over Obama's smile at the signing ceremony. I saw a picture of Obama at the signing ceremony. He did not look particularly happy. It was a still shot. He looked rather bored. Joe Bite Me, the vice president, said that not extending the Bush tax rates would have caused a double-dip recession, but he's morally troubled by having to do it. I don't know. I think the Christmas parties have started early and they're still going on. Wait 'til you hear this. It was on Meet the Depressed yesterday. It woulda been a double-dip recession if we hadn't extended the tax rates; he's morally troubled by the whole Bush tax cut thing. Larry Summers, the tax deal averted a catastrophe. Obama celebrates the George W. Bush tax rate extension. And I'm still stunned, everybody's talking about Obama as the comeback kid.

RUSH: Here's Obama last Friday night in Washington, Eisenhower Executive Office Building, at the signing of the tax rate compromise bill.

OBAMA: Tax rates for every American were poised to automatically increase on January 1st, and if that had come to pass the average middle class family would have had to pay an extra $3,000 in taxes next year. That wouldn't have just been a blow to them; it would have been a blow to our economy. Just as we're climbing out of a devastating recession.

OBAMA: -- but tens of millions of Americans will start the new year off right by opening their first paycheck to see that it's actually larger than the one they get right now.

RUSH: If this is all so wonderful, why didn't you do this two years ago? It was all so wonderful, if tax cuts -- and, look, they're being called the Obama "tax cuts" here. Let's stick with the lingo for a second. There aren't any tax cuts except the payroll thing. It's just an extension of tax rates. Somehow this is gonna lead to larger paychecks? Yeah, the payroll tax cut of TWO percent will lead to some larger paychecks. I don't know where he gets this. (interruption) Well, the $3,000, if the rates woulda gone up. The rates everybody wants, the rates everybody said led to a boom in the nineties. "Tax rates for every American were poised to automatically increase on January 1st," and we were hoping that would happen six weeks ago.

"If that had come to pass," as though the Republicans have this dastardly plan to soak you and make sure that you had less take-home pay, but because Obama and the Democrats have ridden to the rescue here, you are saved. Our economy is saved. Never mind that the Democrats included wanting the middle class to pay that extra $3,000 a year for the last ten years. That's $30,000! The Democrats have never liked these tax cuts. They have blamed the Bush tax cuts for virtually every economic calamity that we've had, and now all of a sudden they're the greatest thing since sliced bread. Here's Vice President Bite Me, Meet the Press on Sunday. David Gregory said, "Why wait 'til 2012, an election year? You really expect in an election year anybody's not gonna vote to extend the tax cuts? What's gonna be different then than now?"

BIDEN: We're not in a position, David, where we're gonna have -- ay, God willing -- the shaky economy where we could not afford to continue uncertainty for a month or two or three in the next year had we not made a deal which actually grew the economy. The obverse was equally as true.

BIDEN: Had we kicked this into the next year, it would have created such uncertainty and there are a number of economists who thought it might in fact induce a double-dip recession. So we not only avoided it getting worse, we made it -- the prospects -- much better for the economy.

RUSH: So Democrat tax policy, according to "economists," would have led to a double-dip recession; that is increasing taxes. Double-dip recession, had we stuck with Democrat policies. But, no! We stuck with Reagan philosophy, Bush philosophy. We're not going to raise taxes -- and as such, we not only avoided it getting worse, we made the prospects for the economy much better. How do these guys think this is a win for them? We're not gonna forget this language in two years. When they start talking about "raising taxes on the rich" again all we gotta do is go back and play these sound bites, talk about how raising taxes... What's the difference if the economy is going well or not?

Raising taxes -- they just admitted it here and so did Durbin last week -- will stifle and slow down an economy. And yet it's a big, big, big victory for Obama. Comeback kid! You know, even the Reverend Sharpton was invited by the White House for the tax deal signing and the buffet. Sharpton! Al Sharpton was invited. How come we never hear about how the million dollars or whatever it is that he owes in back taxes is costing the government money? What is Sharpton doing there? Here now. Here's Bite Me on the same show talking about the Bush tax cuts being "morally troubling." Gregory says, "The president wrote in Audacity of Hope he found the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy morally troubling. Is that still his belief?"

BIDEN: We... To compromise to save people who are drowning! There's people out there drowning! There are two million people this month that can't afford to go get a Christmas tree, let alone buy any gifts because their unemployment has run out, that -- which means they've been unemployed for well over a year to two years. It is unfortunate we were put in the position where the Republicans made it clear they were ready to let everything fall unless they got these tax cuts. They're for two years. They're for two years, and we're coming back and going at it again.

RUSH: All right, so in two years we're gonna come back and we're gonna stick the rich in two years. So people two years from now, we don't care whether they buy a Christmas tree. We're gonna come back; we're gonna soak the rich. It's still Obama's belief that "the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy are morally troubling." How do you go from, "We couldn't afford to continue uncertainty. We had to make a deal. We had to grow the economy with these tax cuts. We had to grow the economy," and yet they are "morally troubling"? Well, I know. He's just trying to maintain some sort of credibility with his left-wing base by saying all this. But the campaign ads, the videos, are being produced even as we speak to tie these guys in a pretzel. I mean, Biden is lying about this anyway. People have run out of benefits got nothing from this deal. He claims that this helps people whose benefits have run out, and it doesn't. The 99ers don't get anything out of this. The 98ers do, but the 99ers do not. So they want credit for things that aren't even happening.

RUSH: I just love hearing these Democrats say all these wonderful things about tax cuts. They sound Reaganesque. They sound like Art Laffer. They sound like they believe in the Laffer curve, supply-side, we have averted disaster by keeping tax rates the same, gonna cause a double-dip recession if we had raised taxes, but still they're troubled by the moral aspect of tax cuts for the rich and yet doing so saves the economy from a double-dip recession. Look, I know they don't really believe it. Don't misunderstand me. I know they don't believe any of it. They know it's true. They don't like having to do any of this and they're doing everything they can to claim credit for it. But they are saying it. And that is going to prove beneficial down the road. For ten years, folks, these Bush tax cuts have been the number one enemy of the US economy. The Bush tax cuts have been responsible for the war in Iraq, not being able to get Bin Laden, virtually everything that went wrong, the subprime mortgage crisis, the Bush tax cuts. Getting those tax rates back up to the boom Clinton years rates, 39.6 on the rich, up to 15% from 10% for the lower middle class, that's what we've always needed to do, and when the time came to actually let that happen, the truth came out. These people know for a fact that had these rates gone up it would have stopped any kind of economic activity, flat, so they have been forced by the circumstances involving real events to admit and act on the truth.

Now, I live in Literalville, and I'm a loner there. I have to tell you sometimes it is a burden to be one of the few people living in Literalville. I don't know, I've looked at this every which way, I don't know how this is concocted as a win for Obama. Now, inside the Beltway, the way they calculate political wins and losses in the horse race sense, I guess anything that keeps the economy going heading into the 2012 presidential campaign's gonna be judged to be a smart, crafty strategic move by the president, but I don't know how you factor in the fact that he and Bite Me and everybody's had to renounce one of their core -- this is like a Christian throwing away the 23rd Psalm. This is huge what these guys are admitting here. This is not compromise. These guys have totally caved. The problem for me is, given that they're willing to cave, we coulda gotten tax cuts out of this if we'd have just waited. We could have gotten so much.

We could have taken them to the cleaners if we wanted to roll up our sleeves and wait 'til next year to do this. It would have involved a little bit more hard work, but the only way this can be seen as a win for Obama is if it somehow hurts the economy and discredits capitalism. And there aren't any tax cuts. Again, we're all operating here on the baseline. This is so much like the way the federal budget works. We've set the table some weeks ago with the panic and fear that tax rates were going up, the Bush tax cuts were going to expire. And because we've set that bar so high that by doing nothing in terms of change, by implementing no change whatsoever, somehow the day has been saved. So at the end of that, what the Democrats have been caught here into admitting is that raising taxes would have caused a double-dip recession, or certainly would have slowed down or stopped whatever economic expansion or growth is taking place. I just don't see it at all. Here's Larry Summers Friday night on PBS The Newshour with Jim Lehrer, senior correspondent Jeffrey Brown with the question, "Is the tax cut deal good economics or just necessary politics? What do you think about it?"

SUMMERS: I think it's very good economics. It's very good economics for the catastrophe that it averts. If we had not been able to reach an agreement and the middle-class tax cut had gone away, family income taxes had gone up by $2,000, the risk to the economy would have been very, very great.

RUSH: Here it is again. It would have been a catastrophe. "If we had not been able to reach an agreement and the middle-class tax cuts had gone away," but, see, that reminds me again that for the last ten years there never were any Bush middle-class tax cuts. They were only tax cuts for the rich, for millionaires and billionaires. Now all of a sudden -- (interruption) yeah, the Bush tax cuts put us in the ditch. The Republicans driving the car, the Bush tax cuts, they put us in a ditch. Obama said we're not giving you guys the keys anymore, and now the keys haven't even been taken out of the ignition. Republicans are still driving the car. Never was in the ditch in the first place. Here's Mitch McConnell. This is Sunday morning, CNN's State of the Union, host Candy Crowley. "Given what you said before the election about your political priority given this tax package that you and the administration worked out, are you now best friends forever with the president?"

MCCONNELL: This tax package was 76% Republican policy, 12% Democratic policy and you can argue about the policy, the balance of it. Charles Krauthammer is very smart but on this he's totally wrong. The Tea Party group FreedomWorks that put hundreds, thousands of people on the Mall, they supported the bill. Ron Paul, the most famous Tea Party type member of Congress, supported the bill, the Wall Street Journal, the National Review, the Weekly Standard, a majority of the Presidential candidates of our party all supported this deal. Why do you think they did that? Well they did it because it was essentially Republican policy.

RUSH: Well, that's another way of putting it. It was essentially Republican policy, it was essentially Reagan policy, and the Democrats have caved to it in a big win for the comeback kid. And, by the way, notice, too, that everything Obama does averts catastrophe. Isn't that brilliant marketing? Yeah. We woulda had a catastrophe on our hands here but Obama rides in to the rescue. Everything he does averts catastrophe.

RUSH: John in Carlsbad, California. Has the rain reached you in Carlsbad, John, or is it north of you still?

CALLER: No, no, it's not raining quite as hard down here but it's still continuously spritzing.

RUSH: Getting creamed north of you and just mudslides out there on the Pacific Coast Highway and Malibu.

CALLER: Oh, yeah. That whole area is just, you know, everything burns and then it wipes away. It's part of the natural process like the warming and cooling of the earth.

CALLER: So the reason for my call is I think one of the unintended consequences of what the Democrats -- and the "progressives" and the liberals, the statists, all these people are doing now -- is that this country at one time was just a fertile ground for investment. Every country wanted to dump their money here because you had a cooperative government, we were making money, consumerism rules the day, and it was all about making profit. So everybody happily put their money here; the dollar was the greatest thing. Well, now, with some of the shenanigans like the way they handled the bonds with the GM takeover where they said, "Oh, yeah, sorry. You just don't get any of your money back," that has rendered a situation where people are not really wanting to invest here anymore. We are not the great place. There's too much uncertainty here, that the government could reach in like Greece or any other place --

CALLER: Well, you know, I've just been... I'm an independent businessman, and eeeeverybody is sitting on the sidelines. "Well, we'll see." I've done work for German companies, I've done work for Japanese companies, and they're not just willing to pour money into the investment here because of the uncertainty. I've talked to some of these people and they're saying, "Well, you know, we really don't know how things are gonna shake out here," and quite honestly if I put myself in their situation, I don't know that I'd want to invest here right now.

RUSH: You mean two years of certitude on tax rates is not enough to provide confidence to investors?

CALLER: No, of course not. It's more of an approach. The government here has slid from being a place to get out of the way and facilitate your business and facilitate a good economy --

RUSH: So this is has really not inspired anybody's confidence in President Obama as a steward of the great economy of the United States? That's what you think?

CALLER: No, that's what I think. And I quite honestly think that they're all happy 'cause he's really, like you said, the least qualified to walk into the room, so they feel like, "OPkay, now we can have our way with him. He'll go along with anything we want."

RUSH: He's the smartest guy in Washington, so... I mean, that's what all the inside-the-Beltway people are telling us. He just got through running rings around everybody. I mean, this was Michael Vick tearing up the Giants defense yesterday. The Republicans still don't know what hit 'em. The Republicans have no clue how they've been snookered here, so brilliant was the maneuvering by President Obama. We have certainty now. We know for certain that Obama's gonna jack up taxes as soon as he can. He and Vice President Bite Me and all the Democrats are reassuring us about that every day. We had to do this to avert catastrophe, but we don't like the morality of this. In two years we're gonna make it all right, even though we've saved the day here. Yeah, these people, we can't keep up with 'em they're so smart. We'll be lucky if there even is a Republican Party in two years, folks. That's how brilliant, that's how far ahead of everybody Obama is on all this. Rick in Wichita, welcome to the EIB Network.

CALLER: Hey, I'll tell you, in Wichita I think they're trying to kill the private business market. For 35 years I've been working in it, and I'll tell you, we're at about a 9% unemployment rate in Wichita. That's the highest I've ever seen in a lot of years.

CALLER: Nobody wants to order jets, you know? They are canceling their orders. You know how they go down the line, you pay down the line. And subcontractors like me, we can't get our work from them, so we have to cut employees.

CALLER: I went from 60 down to 10, and I'm gonna close up and move out because the taxes --

RUSH: Yeah, you just did that to save more money for Christmas presents. Everybody knows that. By the way, I talked to a guy over the weekend in the corrugated box business. Now, the corrugated box business, that's a great indicator. You make boxes for people to ship things in, to package things in.

Not a breath of an uptick from major, big-time producers and marketers. Just what he told me.

RUSH: The caller from Wichita must be living in a dream, folks. He has so many targets on his back, it isn't even funny. Private jets? Only the rich buy those. Only CEOs and other capitalists. On top of that look at what they do to the environment. You have the government going after those guys left and right now, and everybody else. He's from Wichita, and he's terribly upset about what's happening in the private jet market. He should be, 'cause he and everybody else associated with whatever the rich in this country do have bull's-eyes painted, front and back.

RUSH: It's Juan Williams. This is on Fox News Sunday yesterday during the roundtable. Chris Wallace has Juan Williams on, and... Who else? Well, doesn't matter. Well, no, wait. Yep, just Juan Williams and Chris Wallace. He says, "Senate Leader Mitch McConnell, big leader in this session, negotiated a tax cut deal with the president. Some would say he got the better end of it. He persuaded, as we just mentioned in the last part, his fellow Republicans, even those who had big earmarks, to abandon the omnibus spending bill. Good session for McConnell, Juan?"

WILLIAMS: The economy's gonna do well next year by all estimates, if this package -- essentially, a stimulus package which is what brought the objections from Republicans, including the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin --

WILLIAMS: It's -- it's gonna improve the economy under Barack Obama's watch and it's going to accrue to the benefit of Barack Obama's presidential hopes, and I think Democrats in general.

RUSH: Yeah, there are people have that genuine fear, that the economy, of its own inertia, is gonna improve. This is not gonna have anything to do with it because nothing's changing. The only thing that coulda happened was the economy could have been worsened if the Democrats had gotten what they really wanted: Tax increases. But you notice here that Juan Williams confirms that Obama's calling it a "stimulus." He wants that word out there. He wants it to be called a "stimulus" even though there's nothing stimulative in this. Again, it's all about how the table is set; it's all about where the baseline is. The baseline for this was: "Taxes are going up at the end of the year...unless," and so people had it in their minds that the tax increases already happened, and now all of a sudden guess what's not gonna happen? So we have a tax cut, even though nothing changed, and, "We got a stimulus now, 'cause we got a tax cut and it's gonna benefit Obama going into the election," and people on our side say, "Ah, it's over, Rush. Obama's snookered us. The president is always gonna get credit for a booming economy," blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

RUSH: To Lexington, Virginia, this is John. Nice to have you on the program, sir. Hello.

CALLER: To get to the point, I get nervous when I hear virtually everybody saying that, you know, unless Obama can stimulate the economy, get the economy rolling and get jobs created, he's finished. Well, I think that the mechanisms are already in place for him to do -- even if it's only appearing to do that -- to do just that.

CALLER: Yes, sir. I think that the carbon commodities markets, the regional greenhouse gas initiative states, the, good grief, what is it, a trillion and a half of unspent TARP, EQ1 and 2 money is just waiting to be handed out to companies like GE, Chevron, the carbon trading markets in these specific states, and there's a lot of jobs that are gonna be created, pumping out windmills and solar panels and --

RUSH: Why is it gonna work in 2012 when it didn't work in 2010? And there's not a trillion and a half in unspent TARP. It's like $200 billion.

CALLER: Right. But you add QE1 and QE2, and, you know, they're gonna print whatever money that they want to build windmills and solar to make these greenhouse gas states look like their economies are rebounding. And how are we gonna compete with that, if and when they actually start looking -- just like the ethanol --

CALLER: -- and, you know, it's gonna look like rebounding but it really won't be certainly for a long term.

RUSH: I don't know how many windmills they're gonna be able to build in the next two years and then bring online to even fake some kind of uptick in economic activity.

CALLER: Well, whether it's windmills or solar panels or whatever green industries, you know that they're waiting to get federal money to start producing these things because they're tipping their hand, they're already --

RUSH: No, no, no, no. Look, I've got one minute. Let's say they do all of this, they start hiring people in droves, they got windmills and all sorts of stuff, you drive around and that's all you see is windmills.

CALLER: Well, I'm just talking about 2012 now. I don't know how short-term economic --

RUSH: That's what I'm saying, you're saying we've got no prayer, it's over. So what do we do?

RUSH: Well, I'm trying to tell you I don't agree with you, but you sound pretty convinced that we're already dead. It sounds like New Zealand time for me.

CALLER: I don't think we're dead. I just think we might be taking our eye off the ball with a lot of distractions --

CALLER: Well, like all of the lame duck silliness that's going on in Congress right now, just --

RUSH: Yeah. I have to tell you, you know, I don't know what we can do. We are being outsmarted with every breath we take, and I don't know what we can do.

RUSH: Look, I can tell you here, folks, even the top Obama economists don't believe the economy is gonna turn huge by 2012, which is why we're constantly being told about how this is the new normal. I also think that's to lower expectations. It depends on who you talk to. I was in Boston over the weekend, there are some people there who think the economy is starting to come back and echoed what this guy was just saying: Obama is a smart guy, coming back at the right time and by hook or by crook he's gonna get credit for it just because he's president. You talk to other people, naw, naw, naw, if you're talking about employment, we're not gonna have any serious uptick in employment. The ingredients aren't there for people to start hiring on a permanent, recognizable basis, the whole dynamic has changed. If people could predict what the next two years of economic activity was gonna be, do you realize we wouldn't be in this recession? We woulda known it's coming and we coulda stopped it. This is bigger than anybody can predict or massage, and so this is one of these things you have to wait and see. But this notion that Obama's outsmarting us at every turn, I don't know. I just get worn out with that 'cause if you think that, why even try? You know, why even mess with this? If they're gonna outsmart us with windmills and green energy and GE getting a trillion and a half dollars, start hiring people, what can we do other than tell people that that's what's going on?

RUSH: I've got a story here in the stack about this, folks, a little monologue going along with it that I've gotta find here on the basis of this. Hang on here with me, 'cause it's somewhere in here. It's not a big stack today. It's about the Democrats -- here it is. I have found the story. It's classic. It's by Tiffany Stanley at the New Republic. You know, after the 2002 midterms, Wellstone memorial and all that, exit polls were stunned to learn that values voters were the -- and the Democrats were stunned, "Well, yeah, we gotta work on our appeal to the values voters," which lasted about two weeks.

Here's the piece: "Things Fall Apart -- How Democrats gave up on religious voters. When Barack Obama burst onto the national scene at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, he represented ... the shining hope for the religious left. Here was a liberal politician who was not afraid of the language of faith, who just might reclaim territory that the Democratic Party had, willingly or not, ceded to Republicans. Red America did not own religion, Obama declared: 'We worship an awesome God in the blue states.'" He's talking about himself. "Between 2004 and 2007, when Obama announced his candidacy for president, he became possibly the most prominent Democratic politician who was comfortable speaking about religion -- a liberal who gave the impression that his religiosity was heartfelt, genuine, and important to his politics."

Now, the point here is that, see, he gave the impression. With Democrats it's always about making the impression, because it's really not something that is -- well, it's not in their heart. Reverend Wright took religion away from Obama's campaign, if I recall. People found out who Obama's pastor was, Obama had to take religion and get outta there. Obama only talked about religion once during the campaign. That was on the eve of the South Carolina primaries. After that he never brought it up again. But here's the point. This is a long piece. I don't have time to read even a lot of excerpts to you, but you will understand the commentary here because the commentary I put together derives from reading the piece. It is instructive on so many things that Democrats do and think. And this is one of these pieces that proves to me that, particularly in matters of religion, liberals are from Mars and conservatives are from Venus. There's nothing about this woman's piece that makes any sense to me. It is sad in a way. The writer, Tiffany here, writing about the latest reason the Democrats are losers, describes how the Democrats have lost the religious voter since Obama's ordination due to their lack of outreach to them.

It's the same thing back during the 2002 midterms with the values voters. The Democrats, "Wow, you know, we're not reaching out the right ways," so they have to go out and find George Lakoff (rhymes with), to tell them how to reach out, what words to use. And as always, the liberals and the Democrats think that they're just using the wrong words. They think that we're just not hearing what they're saying, that we just don't get it 'cause we're a little thick in the head. So they just need to do some more summits, have some more forums, initiatives, and, of course, ask for more tax money to spend to reach us on matters of religion so that we would understand them. Meanwhile, while they think it's a lack of outreach or possibly a problem with communication, it's clearly obvious to all of us that we're not listening to 'em because we're seeing what they do. We don't have to hear what they say. In fact, listening to what they say only confuses things.

Here's what we see them do. Look, the left in the UK and Canada, same as the left here. We see them, as in this story from the UK: "Christmas Trees 'Make Non-Christians Feel Excluded'." Okay, what do we do? Get rid of Christians and get rid of their trees. Well, I don't know what kind of outreach you Democrats think is gonna help us overcome the way we see that, but it's pretty obvious. We see the Democrat Party routinely, excitedly voting for and promoting the killing of babies, abortion. I don't care what kinda outreach you come up with, there's nothing that's gonna be able to make us think that that's not what it is. We see you trying to gut the military, marriages and churches, over to a homosexual political agenda. We have no problem with who loves who. Remember, we conservatives object to political things. We object to liberals, not individuals in this case, and so there's obviously here an effort to give the military and marriage and church over to a leftist political agenda, which is hidden inside the gay political agenda. And not all gays are part of that. It's not a blanket assumption.

We see the Democrats openly supporting a mosque at Ground Zero. We see Democrats repeatedly supporting efforts to get rid of any public display of Christmas or Easter in our communities and in schools. We see the Democrat Party and the left try to destroy things based on or rooted in God, like the Boy Scouts. We see religious people in this country mocked by the lead Democrat of the day, Obama, as bitter clingers. Now, all of this, I don't know what kinda outreach, Tiffany, you Democrats think is gonna overcome these actions, because these actions speak louder than all of your words. At every turn we see Democrats racing to replace God with government. The Democrats want government to be God. We see Democrats replacing husbands and fathers with government. We see this. This has been going on since the sixties. Generally, conservative Christians believe in smaller government. We believe that government's not the highest power. Government is fallible. The left doesn't think that. Democrats don't think that. Government is infallible. Their pope, their Vatican, is government.

Liberals know that government is fallible, but they have no higher power to turn to so all their faith is placed in government. And for all their faith to be placed in government there isn't room for faith to be placed anywhere else. So as such, to the Democrats everything is some sort of sick political game. Nothing's real, especially faith in God. The only thing that's real is what Democrats can make us believe about them, and we have to be told, don't believe what you see. No, no. Don't believe what you see. You listen to what we're telling you. We're gonna be working on our outreach, and we're gonna come up with better messaging, and we're gonna show you why it's dangerous for you to dissociate us from religion or God. But faith in God panics them. Faith in God angers them. They get irritated. They make fun of people who go to church, particularly in the south, and this is what liberals never have or never will understand.

Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, it's real to people who believe it. Faith is real. It's what sustains them. The Word of God to people is real, it means something, gives structure, comfort, security, orderliness, consolation, reassurance. It attempts to answer the questions or at least to provide faith that there are answers to questions that there really aren't answers to on this earth. Democrats treat the Bible like the Constitution. It's a set of rules and guidelines that are flexible. When you tell Catholics that it's up to the church to change, to adapt to your latest fall from grace, I don't care what kinda message you come up with, outreach or what have you, you're never gonna be able to convince people that you have this same degree of faith and religious belief to the people you're trying to reach. You only have to follow these rules and guidelines, as in the Constitution, when it suits you, but the Second Amendment? It may as well not be there 'cause it doesn't make any sense, you don't like it. You can't rewrite the Bible, but you're trying, just like you rewrite the Constitution with your judges.

This piece, "Things Fall Apart -- How Democrats gave up on religious voters," how Democrats have problems with religion, and not one mention of Reverend Wright in this piece. That alone tells me that it's just a game to them. The left, "Religious people don't really understand that we love 'em and we believe what they do, so we gotta come up with a new message, make 'em think that we're --" well that isn't gonna cut it if your behavior is not similar or in line. So when you start saying, "Ah, you know what? Christmas trees, it just makes non-Christians lose self-esteem and you gotta get rid of the Christmas tree in order to spare people's feelings." Don't even try to come up with a message or outreach, 'cause nothing can overcome that.

RUSH: People in the e-mail are asking me if I'm going to touch on what's been happening on the news networks regarding me and this No Labels bunch, and we do have some sound bites on it so I think I will touch on it. (taps table) There. I just touched on it. Ah, let's go ahead and do it. Let's start Sunday morning on Meet the Press during the roundtable. David Gregory spoke with one of the cofounders of No Labels, Mark McKinnon, and Joe Scarborough about the No Labels movement and me. Gregory said, "Mark, you've been accused of 'childish magical thinking.' That was Frank Rich in the New York Times today. 'The idea that the heavy lifting of moving the country forward could be accomplished by a No Labels group is to many on the left and the right just unthinkable.'"

MCKINNON: We've had a great success already because we brought together the harsh persons on the left and the harsh persons (snickers) on the right. Rush Limbaugh, Frank Rich, they're all attacking us because they don't -- they think it's magical thinking when Cory Booker works with Governor Christie, working together for solutions. They don't want that because it doesn't help their ratings; it doesn't help their profits.

RUSH: Come on, McKinnon. You're supposed to be... Aw, jeez. He's supposed to be some media wizard. This has nothing to do with ratings or profits, for crying out loud. Now, that answer... That disappoints me. This guy is not half of what his billing is. I mean, that is just too easy. Ratings and profits? This No Labels group is somehow going to affect profits or ratings? No, this is about common sense. If anybody is concerned about profits and ratings, it's you guys in No Labels trying to come up with political clients. You're out of it. All of this is very simple, folks: Who got shellacked in the last election?

Change their name again. They're not liberals? "No! We're just a bunch of No Labels people. We don't believe in labels. We want civil discourse. What's wrong with civil discourse?" What you're doing is taking the passion out of whatever it is you're doing. Well, you're not taking the passion out. You're trying to get away with your passion by saying it's not labeled. Here's more on this. This is from the same show. Gregory said, "Well, Joe, what about devil's advocate time here, which is: Why don't we recognize that 'politics' is not a dirty word? That people do have deeply held ideological views and differences? Look what happened to the Republican Party. It's become more conservative because a lot of Republicans thought -- and even independents -- that it got away from basic principles."

SCARBOROUGH: You have Frank Rich on the left, enraged by what Mark's doing; Rush Limbaugh on the right enraged -- and they have the luxury of never actually governing, never being a president, never being a senator, never being in Congress; realizing that you actually have to, at the end of the day, sit down and deal with people across the aisle. We govern in the middle. We always have.

RUSH: (sigh) Snerdley, a lot of people ask me what happened to Joe Scarborough, and I think he works at MSNBC and he's gotta keep his job. I don't know. I have always liked Scarborough. Scarborough was a member of the freshman class of 1994 and a conservative, and he was a rock-ribbed conservative, and he's always been supportive of me. He always has. But he's fallen into this trap that everything happens in the middle, or that everything of significance happens in the middle -- and the middle doesn't drive anything. Like I say, you're never gonna find books in the library, or even one, "Great Moderates in American History," or "Great Moderates in World History."

Hey, Joe, let's talk about Reagan and Tip O'Neill. Now, Ronald Reagan had no media supporting him, he had no Republican majorities in the House or the Senate, and he succeeded in 25% across-the-board tax cuts. Ronald Reagan didn't give up anything. Ronald Reagan didn't compromise his conservatism away. What he did is he did make a deal. Okay, down the road later on he said, "Okay, if we need to raise some taxes here, I'll do it, but you gotta promise me spending cuts," which he didn't get. He was betrayed on the spending cut business. But this last election, what...? Somebody show me the middle here. The middle, which these guys claim is the independents, where'd they go? They ran away from the Democrat Party. They ran as far away as they could.

That took them to the Republican Party. Why did they go there? Well, let's be honest. It wasn't so much because the Republicans were shouting, "Here's who we are!" All they were doing was saying, "We're not Democrats!" What happened was that the great independents, the target audience of this No Labels bunch, figured out they had been snookered by the Obama campaign. They didn't want anything to do with what this guy was doing as president, the way he was governing -- and we had a huge shellacking. The Democrats got creamed from Washington all the way down to the dogcatcher level in local communities, and it wasn't centrism that did that. It was far-out, fringe, extreme liberalism that drove these people to the right.

There wasn't one campaign from one centrist that took these independents anywhere, and I actually think that many of these people in the No Labels group are failures. They're failures on the left; they're failures on the right. Somehow the left doesn't want 'em, the right doesn't want 'em, so they're trying to forge a spot for themselves. They're also trying to come up with political candidates to run as third parties or independents or what have you. It's about money. These political consultants have to have jobs. They have to eat. And they do believe that every election is won with the great unwashed in the 20%. That's where they live and breathe, and as such, they don't dare be ideologues. But it is ideological principle that drives this country and there is always gonna be a battle, and the objective is to defeat the other guy not "getting along."

Now, after you've won the election, yeah, you have to do what you have to do sometimes now and then depending on the numbers, but the first guy that wins an election that comes along and compromises what it was that got him elected, he's dead the next election. This last election is proof of it. So they continued, I guess, this morning on Scarborough's show on PMSNBC. They brought in Democrat Leadership Conference President Harold Ford, Jr., to talk about the No Labels group and me, and Mika Brzezinski said, "There's an organization called No Labels, Mark McKinnon -- who's a friend of this show, Republican strategist, among many other things -- is one of the..."

No, he can't be anymore! He's a No Labels strategist. He was a Republican for one candidate, George W. Bush. He worked with Democrats throughout his career other than George W. Bush. Anyway, for their purposes he's a "Republican strategist" now, a No Labels guy and is "one of the founding organizers, which is an organization that among other things wants everybody to come together and actually have a real dialogue." So you see? The dialogue we have here is not "real." It's just based on profits and ratings, and the same thing on the left. They're just worried about profits and ratings. There's no real dialogue, except the dialogue of these No Labels people, these centrists -- and here's Scarborough talking about it.

SCARBOROUGH: This offended Rush Limbaugh who -- who joked about it. This offended Frank Rich.

FORD: Look at Rush, and you look at -- I wouldn't put Frank Rich and Rush necessarily in the same group.

SCARBOROUGH: When Frank Rich is gonna compare Republicans to the Ku Klux Klan or have illustrations where they're in Nazi hoods or Klan's hoods, then guess what? He's in that neighborhood -- and, by the way, I got no problem with Rush doing what he does and Frank Rich doing what they do. I like an energetic debate, but the fact that they are offended by Mark McKinnon saying we need to be more civil? Well, I think that speaks to their political character.

RUSH: Joe, we're not "offended by Mark McKinnon saying we need to be more civil." I don't know anybody who's offended by that. I don't even know that "offended" is the right word. If we are offended by anything, it is the notion that these guys are superior to everybody else in their No Labels structure. It's pretty much like these independents and moderates who think they're smarter than everybody else, "'Cause we decide things issue by issue. We're not closed-minded. We are open-minded! We judge candidates issue by issue by issue. We're smarter than everybody else. We're not nearly as bigoted or closed-minded or any of these other things. We are the true smart people."

That's what's kind of funny here because these are people that basically have struck out on one side or the other who are now trying to forge an identity for themselves on some higher plane where only a select few are intellectually mentally qualified to be members, when in fact they're all liberals. They are all Democrats. Even McKinnon. They're all Democrats. Kiki McLean, whoever else, the three primary founders, they're all Democrats in this group. And they're just got shellacked, and they're just trying to get away from "liberal." "Democrat" and "progressive" now got shellacked, so they are No Labels now. Here's Nicolle Wallace. She's on the show, too. Scarborough said, "Look, you can take controversial stands and be respectful of other people."

WALLACE: I think therein lies the difference between Frank Rich's criticism and Rush Limbaugh's. I think that Frank Rich was offended and somehow threatened, and he speaks from quite a different perch than Rush Limbaugh does. He speaks to an admitted elite. Rush Limbaugh has 38 million listeners who represent a large swath of Americans, not just Republicans --

WALLACE: -- from very different perspectives. I think Rush Limbaugh was, I think, defending the right to be principled -- which you are, and which you advocate your principles here every day.

RUSH: That's pretty much right. I mean, the idea that being principled, having core beliefs and not being willing to compromise on core beliefs is somehow rigid or bigoted is a notion that the No Labels people are trying to put forth. But it's just the latest in a long line of efforts to discredit true believers in whatever they believe. I find it interesting they can't credit conservatives on conservatism, so they have to discredit us on character or comportment or behavior or one of these things that nothing to do with what we really believe. Because the whole truth of the matter is that none of these people ever tell me I'm wrong. All they do is complain about how I say it.

But they never tell me I'm wrong. They never go that route -- or they don't want to get into a discussion with me about that. (interruption) Well, true. They do make it up, Snerdley, about how I say it. All I'm doing is exposing No Labels. I'm calling a spade a digging implement. That's all I'm doing here. No Labels are people that do not want to be accurately described. That is a problem for them. When people find out exactly who they are, that is a problem. But I did... No, I noted that Scarborough said that Frank Rich is only like me when he calls the GOP the KKK. Obama did not want to be accurately described. Jeremiah Wright doesn't want to be accurately described. None of these guys on the left want to be accurately described, hence "No Labels."

South Korea provokes North Korea by erecting (gasp!) a large Christmas tree near the border.

Cubans ban Michael Moore’s healthcare movie (the one which touts Cuban healthcare):

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.

Political Affairs, which used to be called the Communist (in case you are interested in what the Democratic Par, I mean, the communist party is up to.

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