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).

Much more was found out about the Arizona shooter, Jared Loughner, this week. He had nothing to do with conservative politics and was clearly mentally unbalanced. He has been arrested on several occasions but lacks a criminal arrest record and his mother works for the Pima County Board of Supervisors. He was actually kicked out of a junior college due to his bizarre and scary behavior there.

Dozens of news stories are out there concerned about Loughner’s mother being Jewish.

Tucson shooting victim J. Eric Fuller is arrested for making a death threat against TEA party leader.

A rather raucous memorial service was held for the victims of the Arizona shooting. Even blue tee shirts were handed out as mementoes.

After about 2 or 3 days, most, but not all, people stopped blaming Palin, talk radio and Bill O’Reilly for the shootings. Now Palin is blamed for using the words blood-libel and for inserting herself into the Arizona shooting.

Michael Steele, the most visible Republican chair ever, stepped down, after overseeing the most significant change of power in 60+ years. There was a strong anti-Steele movement within the Republican party (not by me).

Donald Trump has given several political interviews as of late, and has been talking about running for president.

Jobless claims up; foreclosures up; food prices up; gas prices up. However, most of the news at the beginning of this week was about the heated rhetoric of conservatives causing the Arizona shooting.

On a CNN panel, brilliant liberal Ames blames wealth inequality for people going out on machine gun rampages in the United States.

It turns out that the slogan printed on the blue memorial tee-shirts, Together we thrive, was written 3 years ago as part of an essay by John Berry of Organizing for America, the campaign arm of the Democratic National Committee.

The National Labor Relations Board (i.e., the feds) on Friday threatened to sue Arizona, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah over constitutional amendments guaranteeing workers the right to a secret ballot in union elections.

Yahoo news reports that, even if humans stop producing excess carbon dioxide in 2100, the lingering effects of global warming could span the next millennia. The results? By the year 3000, global warming would be more than a hot topic - the West Antarctic ice sheet could collapse, and global sea levels would rise by about 13 feet (4 meters), according to a new study. Well, crap! (Commentary added by me).

Also on the global warming front, a new study published in Science magazine suggests climate change actually played a major role in bringing on the decline of Rome.

Even in an article written today (January 16, 2011), the NY Times associates Tuscon killer Jared Loughner with 2 conservative organizations.

Homeless outreach in Houston is being shut down because they do not have the proper permit (they feed 60–120 people per day).

There are more killings in Prince George’s County in Maryland (11) than killings of Americans in all of Afghanistan so far this year.

There is some actual hate speech out there. US-Yemeni radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaqi writes: "Both the (US) government and private citizens should be targeted...The American people who vote for war-mongering governments are intent on no good. Anyone who inflicts harm on them in any form is doing a favour to the ummah (Islamic nation)." Have many news stories have you seen featuring this quote?

You will note how much liberals decided to tone down their rhetoric, after claiming that it causes violent attacks upon politicians. Although a couple of these quotes are a week old, most are from the previous week:

NY Time columnist Paul Krugman: “We don't have proof yet that this [shooting in Arizona] was political, but the odds are that it was. She's been the target of violence before. And for those wondering why a Blue Dog Democrat, the kind Republicans might be able to work with, might be a target, the answer is that she's a Democrat who survived what was otherwise a GOP sweep in Arizona, precisely because the Republicans nominated a Tea Party activist. (Her father says that "the whole Tea Party" was her enemy.) And yes, she was on Sarah Palin's infamous "crosshairs" list. ... You know that Republicans will yell about the evils of partisanship whenever anyone tries to make a connection between the rhetoric of Beck, Limbaugh, etc. and the violence I fear we're going to see in the months and years ahead. But violent acts are what happen when you create a climate of hate. And it's long past time for the GOP's leaders to take a stand against the hate-mongers.”

Bernie Sanders, taking advantage of the shootings in Arizona, sent out the following message in a fund-raising letter: "This horrendous act of violence is not some kind of strange aberration for this area where, it appears, threats and acts of violence are part of the political climate. Nobody can honestly express surprise that such a tragedy finally occurred...In light of all of this violence - both actual and threatened - is Arizona a state in which people who are not Republicans are able to participate freely and fully in the democratic process? Have right-wing reactionaries, through threats and acts of violence, intimidated people with different points of view from expressing their political positions? At this moment, Karl Rove and other Republican operatives are organizing big money interests to become financially involved in the next election in a way that will completely revolutionize campaign financing. Republicans now believe that no matter what they do or say, they will be able to buy many seats in Congress because of their financial advantage.,,But, for my Republican colleagues, all of this is not enough. They need to help the rich get more, more and more. That is what their agenda is all about."

Mike Malloy, liberal radio host: “Now, of course Republicans are so g***n stupid - so grossly stupid and ignorant - they think it's a good thing! Oh, goody goody good, the government will be insolvent! YAY! This is what the Tea Baggers uh and - and the right wing Republicans and Libertarians have been pushing for for a long time. Well, you animals are going to get it, you really are, you're going to get your wish! ... Here are these late middle-aged cretins who are cutting their own throats because there's a black man in the White House? Really? Is that all black folk had to do to pound the white race into oblivion - is get a black man in the White House and the white people will all stand up and commit suicide? Is that all it took?”

Ed Schultz, liberal radio host: “It's all about taking down President Obama. They don't want to create jobs. They're not about that at all. And I'll guarantee you, if you do see the numbers change, which I believe they will, you won't hear Boehner or any of these new righties give one ounce of credit to the last Congress for fighting like hell for a jobs bill. This is an ideological war. I say it on camera tonight here on MSNBC. I will fight these bastards every night at 6 o'clock because I know what they're up against. I know what they want to do. They want to take down American workers. They want to outsource jobs. They want to destroy the American dream. Concentrate the wealth to the top, and control minorities. That's what they're about.”

Bill Maher: “Now I want you tea-baggers out there to understand one thing, while you idolize the founding fathers, and dress up like them and smell like them, I think it’s pretty clear that the founding fathers would have hated your guts; and what’s more, you would have hated them—they were everything that you despise: they studied science, read Plato, hung out in Paris and thought the Bible was mostly bullsh*t.” On a related topic, the founding fathers’ writings have been examined, and the most quoted book/source/individual is the Bible, which was quoted 34% of the time. Among the other things quoted, anything and anyone else was quoted less than 10% of the time.

Bill Maher: “The founders disagree amongst themselves about that [slavery] and most issues, but the one thing that they never argued about was that, political power must stay in the hands of the smartest people and out of the hands of the dumbest loudmouths slowing down the checkout lines at Home Depot. And yet, Sarah Palin once said of Obama, ‘We need a commander-in-chief, not a professor of law standing at a lectern.’ [pretending to continue Palin’s quote:] How gay is that?”

Bill Maher: “Ben Frnakling studied scientific phenomenon of his day, including lightening and the aurora borealis, and if he were alive today, he could probably explain to Bill O’Reilly why the tides go in and out.”

Chris Matthews: "How can she [Sarah Palin] be a pundit? She doesn’t know anything."

Chris Matthews: “I jut wonder with what must be her self-recognized lack of information about terms like ‘blood-libel’ would even to her occur as important as reasons not to run for president—not knowing things she ought to know.”

Chris Matthews: “...Monday night, Sarah Palin at 9:00 is going on the home team...she’s going to Sean Hannity. It’s sort of an informerical, it’ll be like Victoria Jackson selling make foundations to whoever...it’s not going to be a real interview because he’s not going to be tough on her.” Then he spends about 1 minute on the phrase blood liberal.

Liberal on Chris Matthew’s program: “She’s speaking to a narrower and narrower and more paranoid group. Sarah Palin’s the only person on earth who could put a target on 22 Congressional districts, including Gabby Giffords’, and then watch what happened last weekend, and then come on, pop up 3 days later, and claim to be the victim.”

Chris Matthews: “Isn’t she selling yahoo? Like, ‘I don’t know anything’? ... There’s a lot of well-educated conservatives in this country, obviously, maybe as many as there are liberals, but the fact is, she doesn’t want to be one of them. Why doesn’t she want to be educated on the basics? ... Why doesn’t she want to know what she’s talking about?”

Tucson shooting victim, J. Eric Fuller: "It looks like Palin, Beck, Sharron Angle and the rest got their first target...Their wish for Second Amendment activism has been fulfilled - senseless hatred leading to murder, lunatic fringe anarchism, subscribed to by John Boehner, mainstream rebels with vengeance for all - even 9-year-old girls." Fuller was arrested this week for threatening a TEA party member.

Bill Maher, who knows what the Tucson shootings was all about: “Because we don't have government healthcare, that's one reason why a crazy person gets a gun, because you know what, it's hard for a crazy person to get a job. So therefore it's hard for them to get healthcare in a country that doesn't have government.”

Zach Osler on high school friend Jared Loughner: “He did not watch TV. He disliked the news. He didn't listen to political radio. He didn't take sides. He wasn't on the left. He wasn't on the right.”

Ex-Rep. Paul Kanjorski in a recent NY Times op ed: “We all lose an element of freedom when security considerations distance public officials from the people. Therefore, it is incumbent on all Americans to create an atmosphere of civility and respect in which political discourse can flow freely, without fear of violent confrontation.”

Paul Kanjorski in October: "That Scott down there that's running for governor of Florida. Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him. He stole billions of dollars from the United States government and he's running for governor of Florida. He's a millionaire and a billionaire. He's no hero. He's a damn crook. It's just we don't prosecute big crooks."

Todd Harris (so-called Republican strategist): “I think she’s missed a huge opportunity this past week; but, at the same time, I think it’s absurd for anyone to point a finger at her and say...that she was somehow culpable or responsible—“

Chris Matthews: “Nobody said that; who said that?”

Some liberal on Matthew’s show: “She is the only person it is saying that people are saying that...and she went on and she did the blood-libel thing—no one else did that to her. She’s the person claiming to be the4 victim here. People were shot and killed and Sarah Palin is claiming to be the victim here.”

Todd Harris: “She handled it terribly.”

Chris Matthews: “My problem with Sarah Palin about this, constantly mentioning bullets and guns and ammo and bulls eyes and reload and all that language this country, and I don’t think it’s helpful; I don’t think it’s good thing...Why is she still doing it?”

Todd Harris: “Well, I don’t know...”

Chris Matthews (with a smile): “She’s not the only one sticking to her guns.”

Cohen: “I don’t think for a moment that Sarah Palin knew what blood-libel mean—I just don’t—there is nothing in her background that would suggest it, and if she did, I don’t think she usee it all that inappropriately. I mean, it refers to a false accusation for which a community is blamed, then she was right.”

Fareed Zakaria: “Sarah Palin is stupid enough not to know what the blood-libel is?”

Cohen: “How much time do we have left to talk about how stupid Sarah Palin is?”

Rush Limbaugh: “Obama’s naturally assumed to be smart. Name one smart thing he’s done. Outside of political craftiness and scheming, name one smart policy hat Obama has given us to help revive a sour economy.”

Rep. Doug Lamborn, who wrote a bill to defund NPR: "We're running annual deficits of over a trillion dollars. With 500 cable TV channels, Internet on people's cell phones, satellite radio, we have so many sources of media that we don't need a government-subsidized source of media."

Rush Limbaugh: “How good are Obama’s speeches? How much do they really matter? Obama gave hundreds of speeches advocating Obamacare, but that didn’t change a damn thing. Voters overwhelmingly want to see the law changed.”

Rudy Giuliani: “Moments afterwards, there was a rush to judgment on both sides. The left wingers trying to blame it on right wing, TEA party, Sarah Palin; the right wingers trying to right back and defend themselves against what was really an outrageous charge; but the reality is, that settled pretty quickly when we learned the history, and I thought the President’s speech put it on a different tone.”

Michelle Malkin collects much of the hatred on video and photographs from the past several years. This is an outstanding article and with a great substantiating collection. If you really think that, maybe, there was some sort of climate of hate, ginned up by the right, then you need to read this and go through the clips, stories, and various other media which represents what has been going on for years, if not decades:

Sarah Palin, in her first public statement, after being wrongfully and insanely tied to the shooting of Gabriele Giffords. This is an excllent introduction to those of you who hate Palin or think that she is stupid. Or email this to those you know who feel that way.

NRO Online interview of Thomas Sowell (if you are confused about economics, including about the fed, this is the interview for you):

Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz defended Sarah Palin's use of the term "blood libel" from multiple detractors (article).

Jodi Miller: “Nancy Pelosi said that, under her leadership, deficit reduction was a high priority for Democrats. She then added, her hummer gets great gas mileage, Paris Hilton is a virgin, and Al Sharpton is a big fan of the Jews.”

Jodi Miller: “A British study linking autism to childhood vaccines has been exposed as an elaborate hoax. How could this happen? Everybody knows that autism is caused by global warming.”

1) I have found myself disagreeing with Charles Krauthammer more and more often. This time, he said that Sarah Palin’s speech was unnecessary. From 2 hours after the Arizona tragedy, she was being slandered throughout the left for having had a target on Giffords’ district from a year ago. She had to answer. She did not insert herself into this situation; she was dragged into it, and her response was clear, smart and without rancor (as opposed to those on the other side). Had she not said anything, there would have been some level of guilt imputed to her.

2) We cannot continue to pay 10–35% into medicare and social security benefits. We are close to the point where, we are going to have to do something about that. Obama lessening the social security tax was almost the exact wrong thing to do. It should have been accompanied with social security cuts or benefit changes.

3) If you are a liberal, has it occurred to you yet just how much the press lied to you about the shooting in Arizona? Before there were any facts, not just liberals, but almost every news outlet was giving air time to the idea that the tough rhetoric from the right was somehow involved with the Arizona shooting. It does not matter if, at the very end, the do a disclaimer, like, “Now, you don’t have any evidence of this, right?” “Nope.” They ran 2+ minute segments during which people who had absolutely nothing to do with this tragedy were being blamed. That is dishonest journalism. When was the last time there was a tragedy like this, and every news source started claiming, Al Gore was to blame?

4) There are 2 real issues that our news services should have focused on: mental health and drug use. In the past 30 years, there has been a dramatic change in our mental health laws and facilities; as well as a loosening of drug laws and penalties. Real surveys have been done about chronically homeless people, and about a third of them are homeless because of mental illness and over half because of drug or alcohol abuse. Those who are chronically homeless because they lost their job and then lost their house is lower than 5% (if memory serves).

5) At some point, if you are a liberal, you will need to understand that, the far left wants to shut up the right, and they will do anything to make that happen—accuse us of racism, accuse us of violence-inducing rhetoric, demonize or marginalize FoxNews and conservative news broadcasters and commentators, and attempt to change what is on Talk Radio (either by giving the stations away to someone else or by instituting some kind of a fairness doctrine).

6) By the way, I am more than willing to agree to the fairness doctrine, as long as there is a state or federal worker assigned to every family who will sit with them and make certain that they listen to “both sides” of an issue. Of course, they must answer a quiz on what they listened to, and, if they fail, their taxes are immediately doubled. Then I could support the “fairness doctrine.”

7) Liberals want to integrate Democrats and Republicans for the State of the Union so that it is not apparent that, Republicans are the ones who stand and clap for what are generally the most popular issues. Furthermore, the overwhelming numbers of Republicans would be more apparent as well, if we remain segregated.

7) O’Reilly made the simple logical point, if Sheriff Dupnik knew that there was serious heated rhetoric to cause him to be concerned for Gabby Giffords, then why was there no police detail assigned to her? In nearly every gathering, demonstration, or whatever, police are assigned. O’Reilly said that, when he goes even to a book signing, there are always police there.

8) Maybe the problem with liberal is, they do not recognize or understand the sin nature and the concept of a moral right and wrong.

9) Rush made the point that, we have heard, over and over again, that television programs and movies will not change the thinking of those who see them; they will not be encouraged to have sex or to take drugs as a result. Yet, Palin puts crosshairs on a dozen districts, and, magically, every right-wing nut is going to take a gun to that district to eliminate that candidate. Preposterous!

6 is total number of Congressmen killed over the past couple hundred years (to the best of my knowledge). This is a very tiny number to base legislation on.

12 U.S. military deaths that have occurred this year in Afghanistan as of Friday morning.

90 girls who attend Frayser High School in Memphis, TN, are now pregnant or have already had a baby this school year (this is 20% of the school’s female population).

So, only 32% of our population is brainwashed, uncurious or ignorant about actual facts, or insane.

As reported last week, much of the alphabet media, including CBS, NPR and AP, ran stories which connected Sarah Palin and her bulls eye on Gabriel Giffords as somehow a fundamental cause of the horrific shooting last week. None of the comments made were followed by, “Are you crazy?” Or “Do you have even the slightest scintilla of proof, beyond your own imagination.” No questions—the insane statements were just taken as a reasonable opinion. How many of these same news sources pointed out that the Daily Kos put Giffords in the cross hairs as well, because she is a moderate Democrat? How many in the media showed this screenshot, which was scrubbed from the Daily Kos website about the same time that its founder Markos Moulitsas blamed Palin for the shootings?

Obviously, no conservatives pointed to this screenshot as proof of Moulitsas’ culpability, because conservatives don’t tend to grab onto every tragedy as a chance to make political points. However, the news services which took this opportunity to slander Palin (and others on the right) are lying sacks of fecal matter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjsNev95bHE The last 30 seconds of a 2.5 min. broadcast are devoted to asking is there any evidence of such a connection—so, 2 minutes devoted to suggesting that conservative rhetoric and Sarah Palin are to blame, followed by 30 seconds of, “well, of course, there is no evidence for this.” Then why broadcast the first 2 minutes? Why not show the bulls eye target that the dems place on states they want to take? Why not show that the Daily Kos had targeted Giffords on its site? Or why not spend 2 minutes blaming the sheriff of that city for his lack of police presence, despite knowing that this kid was a problem and had threatened others. Then they could spend the final 30 seconds saying, “Well, we do not have any proof of this yet, but we are still investigating.”

There has been a hew and cry for political rhetoric to be toned down. However, none of those cited what President Obama has said:

Obama on ACORN Mobs: "I don't want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I'm angry!"

Obama on the private sector: "We talk to these folks. so I know whose ass to kick."

Obama: "I will be happy to see the Republicans test whether or not I'm itching for a fight on a whole range of issues. I suspect they will find I am."

Not once have I heard a liberal use any of these statements as examples of heated rhetoric; however, Sarah Palin drawing a target over vulnerable districts, I have heard that is dangerous rhetoric over and over again from a dozen different people.

SNL gives their cold bit over to FoxNews anchors, all sounding like doofuses, trying to tone down their hate-filled rhetoric on tv. This was really a sad bit.

Lately, over the past few years, liberals have been besides themselves. At one time, they could say one thing to one group, something completely opposite to another, and the news would not report on it. They could state this or that position, platform or program, and, at one time, virtually no one in the media questioned them. However, there is the problem today that FoxNews allows a different view point to be presented and its reporters will sometimes call out a politician on what he says or does.

There are all kinds of radio stations out there with conservatives commentators who give their take on the news. Liberals have tried to match this, and they cannot get even a fifth of the audience of Rush or Sean.

And then here is the internet. For many, this is their way of getting the news, and a lot of stories which would be ignored or buried can be found on hundreds of different news and blog sites.

On top of this, there are so many different forums where all kinds of political discourse occurs, along with links to various news stories. So on liberal or conservative political sites where discussion is allow, there is all kinds of discussion offered up by those on the left and the right.

He still has no idea and no clear path for economic recovery. He has on several occasions promised to focus like a lazar beam on jobs and the economy and our economy still sucks. In all previous recessions, the economy has come roaring back (except for the Great Depression, which was a result of FDR using Obama-like strategies to solve the economic crisis of his reign).

If you think so-called heated rhetoric had anything to do with the shooting in Arizona (there are still 32% of the public which believes this, despite all of the evidence to the contrary).

We have 2 choices: continue to bail out states, which is not going to happen; or allow them to get rid of all of their public union obligations. In order to do that, a state must be able to go bankrupt (or threaten to go bankrupt) in such a way as to not destroy its credit rating or its outstanding bonds, but yet get the unions off the backs of the taxpayers. I suggested something like this last week and this is simply more detailed this week.

Whenever liberals get into power again, there will be a “Civil Discourse Act” proposed, which will allow some governmental limitations on political speech, probably to be regulated by a government board of some sort (like the FCC).

The left will begin to use the phrase “The American Dream” to mean economic justice (economic equality).”

This is not quite yet a prophecy fulfillment, but a step in that direction. There is now talk among some about states going bankrupt in order to divest themselves of public sector contracts and retirement obligations.

Democrats will succeed, at some point in my lifetime, to shut down free speech (on the radio, internet or television).

There is a point at which we, as a nation, need to have a national strategy with regards to Muslims. Most people are completely uneducated about Muslim ideology and believe that the problem with Muslims is a handful of crazies who give the rest of Muslims a bad name. People who think like this are unable to process information, e.g., millions of Muslims rioting and killing people over a silly cartoon; or the fact that millions of Muslims celebrated 9/11 by dancing in the streets.

First of all, we need to recognize that Islam is a worldwide problem. There have been approximately 17,000 Muslim attacks since 9/11 and every year, about 10,000 are killed by Muslim attacks around the world. They know we are in a war; many of us do not.

The best place for you to initially educate yourself is at: http://thereligionofpeace.com/ There, you can see that Muslims attacks occur daily, all over the world.

Even if you want to delude yourself and say, “Well, that is only 1% of Muslims that do that.” That is 1 million people, which is a pretty formidable army.

Within the United States, we need to have 2 approaches: we need to revamps our sedition laws and make them very specific, so that they clearly define traitorous behavior by Muslim-Americans, but cannot be used to silence either political party or political dissent. Then the FBI needs to be involved in surveillance and string operations throughout the United States, concentrating on mosques. When sedition is encouraged in the mosque, then that mosque needs to be shut down. I am fully aware that is going to be troublesome for some, and result in some violence by Muslims. However, Islam is not simply a religion; it is an all-encompassing political movement which seeks to circumvent and eventually supplant whatever governmental system is in place where they live. This is why communities will first attempt to establish sharia law in their communities, and then, as their population grows, expand the boundaries of sharia law.

The second approach is immigration control. Personally, I am for completely stopping the influx of Muslims from other countries. However, I doubt that will happen. However, the key is Muslim population concentration. At 1–2%, Muslims tend to live peacefully, side-by-side whomever is their host country. Once this is exceeded, then Muslims begin to act more and more crazy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNN-K44Qv14 There are several very good videos on Muslims throughout the world, and these are routinely removed from YouTube “by the user.”

Our foreign policy should encourage the Muslim countries with whom we do business to be more moderate, to not broadcast anti-American programs on their airwaves (by anti-American, I refer to programs where young children at age 2 and older are taught to want to kill infidels in the west). When we are militarily involved in Muslim countries, we need to establish bases within those countries and encourage freedom of religion (as a part of a bill of rights). This was our great failure in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Finally—and this will be very difficult for Americans to stomach—we have to prepared to go to war with any Muslim country, and to be willing to destroy much of its population, if necessary.

Wars between nations and Muslims have been going on for centuries. This is not a new thing. This is where we are heading, and to think otherwise is simply burying your head in the sand. How is this different from Communism? Most Communist leaders do not want to die; they are willing to sacrifice millions of their own men in war, but they themselves to not want to die. They enjoy their power and riches and partaking in a western-style prosperity. In a nuclear world, there is a reasonable chance that America will go to cut off the head of a Communist foe (i.e., attempt to kill the leaders).

Muslims, on the other hand, see Jihad as their pathway to heaven, and some even desire the chance to die in a war with infidels. Not all of the leaders are this willing to die, but it appears as though some might be. It is at that point, a Muslim nation becomes more dangerous than anything we have ever faced as a free nation.

Part of our remaining a free and prosperous nation is the ability to recognize evil and, if necessary, be willing to confront it head-on.

● It was not the fear of conservative violence that caused Ann Coulter's speech to be cancelled this week.

● It was a liberal who bit the finger off a man who disagreed with him on healthcare.

●It was Obama-loving Amy Bishop who took a gun to work and murdered co-workers.

●Joseph Stack flew his plane into the IRS building after writing an anti-conservative manifesto.

●It was progressive SEIU union thugs who beat a black conservative man who spoke his mind.

●It's doubtful that a conservative fired shots into a GOP campaign headquarters.

●Don't forget it was Obama's friend Bill Ayers who used terrorism as a tool for political change. SDS is still radical, with arrests in 2007 and the storming of the CATO Institute in July 2008.

●It was a liberal who was sentenced to two years for bringing bombs and riot shields to the Republican National Convention in 2008.

●It was a liberal who threatened to kill a government informant who infiltrated her Austin-based group that planned to bomb the RNC.

●It was liberals who intimidated and threw rocks through the windows of researchers.

●The two Black Panthers who stood outside polls intimidating people with nightsticks were probably not right-wingers.

●Every time the G20 gets together, it's not conservatives who destroy property and cause chaos.

Do you recall all of the news services going on and on and on about these acts of violence and how they sprouted up from the left? Do you have any idea how many people have been convicted of violent acts who subscribe to man-caused global warming or have a clearly left-wing perspective? You probably don’t because these stories are either ignored by the media, downplayed and rarely to they make a connection between the violence and left-wing ideology.

We emptied state mental hospitals starting in the 1960s without providing adequate treatment alternatives.

The killing of six people in Tucson is one more sad episode in an ongoing series of tragedies that should not be happening. The alleged shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, is reported to have had symptoms associated with schizophrenia-incoherent thought processes, delusional ideas, erratic behavior-and almost certainly was seriously mentally ill and untreated. The fact that he was barred from his college until he was evaluated by a psychiatrist would appear to confirm the nature of the problem.

The truth is that these tragedies are happening every day throughout the United States. The only reason this episode has received widespread publicity is because there were multiple victims and one victim was a member of Congress. Such senseless killings have become increasingly common over the past 30 years, starting in about 1980, when Allard Lowenstein, coincidentally a former congressman, was killed by Dennis Sweeney. Sweeney was a young man with untreated schizophrenia who had been Lowenstein's protégé in the civil rights movement. Congress was also prominently involved in 1998, when Russell Weston, who also had untreated schizophrenia, killed two policemen while trying to shoot his way into the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C.

These tragedies are the inevitable outcome of five decades of failed mental-health policies. During the 1960s, we began to empty the state mental hospitals but failed to put in place programs to ensure that the released patients received treatment after they left. By the 1980s, the results were evident-increasing numbers of seriously mentally ill persons among the homeless population and in the nation's jails and prisons.

Over the past three decades, things have only gotten worse. A 2007 study by the U.S. Justice Department found that 56% of state prisoners, 45% of federal prisoners, and 64% of local jail inmates suffer from mental illnesses.

A 2008 study out of the University of Pennsylvania that examined murders committed in Indiana between 1990 and 2002 found that approximately 10% of the murders were committed by individuals with serious mental illnesses. There are about 16,000 homicides a year in this country. Using the Indiana study as a guide, roughly 1,600 of them are likely committed by people with serious mental illnesses.

In Arizona, public mental-health services are among the worst in the nation. In a 2008 survey by the Treatment Advocacy Center, Arizona ranked next to last among all states in the number of psychiatric hospital beds per capita. If you don't have hospital beds and outpatient clinics to treat mentally ill people, those people don't get treated. Thus the tragedy was somewhat more likely to happen in Arizona because mentally ill individuals are less likely to receive treatment there. Although Arizona is the worst state, except for Nevada, in psychiatric-bed availability, there is no state that currently has enough beds for its mentally ill population, according to the Treatment Advocacy Center study. This tragedy occurred in Arizona, but it could easily have happened in any state.

The big picture is even scarier. Based on Arizona's 2010 population and on estimates by the National Institute of Mental Health of the number of individuals with untreated schizophrenia at any given time, there are today in Arizona over 21,000 individuals with untreated schizophrenia. Most of them, thankfully, are not violent. But a small number of them-about 10% according to my meta-analysis of relevant studies-do become violent, usually because of their delusional thoughts and what their voices (auditory hallucinations) are telling them. This situation holds in every state. It is thus not a question of if such tragedies will occur but rather when and how often.

Mr. Loughner's delusions fixated on Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, one of 12 seriously injured in the shooting. Some have speculated on the possible relationship of our acrimonious political climate to the incident. It is, however, unlikely that there is any such relationship, since similar tragedies occur in politically harmonious times as well.

The motivation for such killings is usually based on psychotic thinking, not political thinking. Dennis Sweeney killed Allard Lowenstein because he believed that Lowenstein had implanted a transmitter in his teeth that was sending messages to him. Russell Weston stormed the Capitol because he believed the government had hidden a machine there that could reverse time.

The solution to this situation is obvious-make sure individuals with serious mental illnesses are receiving treatment. The mistake was not in emptying the nation's hospitals but rather in ignoring the treatment needs of the patients being released. Many such patients will take medication voluntarily if it is made available to them. Others are unaware they are sick and should be required by law to receive assisted outpatient treatment, including medication and counseling, as is the case in New York under Kendra's Law. If they do not comply with the court-ordered treatment plan, they can and should be involuntarily admitted to a hospital. Arizona has such a provision in its laws, but it is almost never used.

Ultimately, it is important to hold state officials responsible for not providing sufficient resources to treat those who suffer from serious mental illnesses. For almost two centuries, it has been an accepted function of state government to protect disabled persons and to protect the public from individuals who are potentially dangerous. State governments have been very effective in emptying the hospitals in an effort to save money but remarkably ineffective in providing treatment for seriously mentally ill individuals living in the community.

One of the tropes you wingnuts try to pin on us all the time is this: You just can't help yourselves. By which you mean that, when a good Emanuelian crisis comes along and it simply cannot go to waste because it fits the narrative (two legs, good; four legs, Republican swine), we invariably expose ourselves as the sneering, sadistic little cultural sappers we are.

Like many of us stalwart men of the Progressive-Media-Entertainment Complex, I have never been so beamish. As the president explained so eloquently Wednesday night, what happened in Tucson was a tragedy and all, but watching the wild-eyed Nobel laureate, Paul Krugman, pin the Glock on the elephant in the pages of the New York Times was simply wonderful. Based on nothing more than the loud voices coming through the fillings in his teeth, our bearded, pot-bellied superhero leapt into action the day after the Tucson shootings and started pointing the finger of blame where it always belongs: at Sarah Palin and the "climate of hate" she has brought down from Mystery, Alaska, to torment us here in the Lower 48. Naturally, a few of you protested that there was no actual evidence that the hated succubus who haunts our fever dreams and saps our purity of essence had anything to do with the gunman. Nor did any of the other right-wing crazies on our (symbolic!) hit lists - and you Limbaugh-loving teabaggers know who you are.

It's true that Obama said: "But what we can't do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on one another. As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let us use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy, and remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bound together."

But so what if he did? In the fantasy world in which we dwell, the only thing that counts is what's inside our heads, and in our heads is where Sarah Palin lives and where she willfully continues to insert herself into the national conversation. Raised on relativism, psychiatry, and sociology; on values instead of morals; on transactional relationships instead of "absolute truths"; on heavy-metal music, atheism, and abortion on demand - we long ago slipped the moorings of empiricism and have ascended to the rarefied heights of Cockaigne and Cloud Cuckoo Land. Black is white, up is down, in is out - this is our world and you're not welcome to it. Because it's not for you to say what you do and do not stand for - we'll be the judge of that. And here's what we know about you:

You're racists. You're anti-Semites. You're homophobes. You hate progress. You hate when people (i.e., us) have fun doing things you don't like or, worse, doing things that deep down inside you really do like but don't have the guts to actually do. You hate Metallica, Miles Davis, Mozart, and Marx. You think we're something out of Petronius, licentious Roman poetasters, juvenile-delinquent voluptuaries peeling grapes while Alaric and Odovacar wait outside the gates. Meanwhile, you play the role of a disapproving, mocking Juvenal, satirizing our pagan ways.

In short, you're the curmudgeons and killjoys in favor of restrictions and rules that prevent us from fully exercising our Gaia-given panoply of rights, which are pretty much anything we say they are, especially if you're against them.

You seethe with anger over the presidency of Barack Hussein Obama II, still believe along with the racist Framers that black people are only worth three-fifths of white people, and that women belong barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, unless they're in the delivery room. On the slightest pretext you will reach for your guns, especially in a toxic atmosphere like this one, and, like that right-wing assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, you will commit any atrocity - even if it means "disguising" yourself as a Marxist and pro-Castro agitator just to fool us. There's no end to your devilry.

So is it any wonder we immediately assume that you personally are responsible for everything bad that occurs in the world, you and Sarah Palin? Your very existence can only be an encouragement to nutballs, crazies, weirdos, and jackasses everywhere either to pick up a gun and start shooting, or to think about picking up a gun and start shooting, which to us is exactly the same thing. Like the somnambulists in Christopher Nolan's Inception, we've drilled down so far into our dreams that reality and fantasy are indistinguishable, and we figure that if credentialed Ivy Leaguers like ourselves can't tell the difference, why should you Dogtooth State Teachers College johnnies be any different?

Forget all that stuff we were saying about knives and gunfights and enemies and hanging Joe Lieberman in effigy, killing Henry Hyde, etc.; that was just our typical, high-spirited use of metaphor. Putting aside all the smashed plate-glass windows, the "Days of Rage," and the photoshopped pictures of %$#@BUSH#$@! as the love child of Dracula and Hitler; we're just a bunch of pot-smoking, fun-loving pacifist draft-dodgers at heart. This violence thing - we don't really mean it, and you know it.

You, on the other hand, could be sitting on the sofa in your living room in your jammies, watching Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm with your dozens of dogs and children, slurping a Shave Ice and snuggling with the old ball and chain you've been irrationally tethered to for the past 20 years, and we would know - we would just know - that under the cushions you've got an AK-Uzi with 47 rounds in it, locked and loaded and on full automatic, or whatever, and you're just itching to use it on us or one of our protected minority groups, all of whom you loathe because, after all, you are nothing if not haters.

Which is why I'm beaming. Because we lovers finally stood up to you swaggering bullies, who dominate every conversation even if there's only one of you in the room against a dozen of us. We unleashed "The End Is Near" Krugman, foam-flecked Chris Matthews, dyspeptic Bill Maher, and every other arrow in our quiver to pin you against the wall, fill you full of lead, eviscerate you, decapitate you, burn your houses to the ground, rape your women, loot your treasure, and send your children into slavery. Like Sherman marching through Georgia, we sent our caissons rolling along, brought down the hammer and targeted you for -

Anyway, it doesn't really matter if the Tucson shooter was a garden-variety nut, allegedly apolitical (no one in our world is apolitical), fueled by anger against Representative Giffords, women, English grammar, the gold standard, and the educational system. He had a Glock, and that's all the proof we need.

The accusation that the tea parties were linked to the Tucson murders is the product of calculation and genuine belief.

There has been a great effort this week to come to grips with the American left's reaction to the Tucson shooting. Paul Krugman of the New York Times and its editorial page, George Packer of the New Yorker, E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post, Jonathan Alter of Newsweek and others, in varying degrees, have linked the murders to the intensity of opposition to the policies and presidency of Barack Obama. As Mr. Krugman asked in his Monday commentary: "Were you, at some level, expecting something like this atrocity to happen?"

The "you" would be his audience, and the answer is yes, they thought that in these times "something like this" could happen in the United States. Other media commentators, without a microbe of conservatism in their bloodstreams, have rejected this suggestion.

So what was the point? Why attempt the gymnastic logic of asserting that the act of a deranged personality was linked to the tea parties and the American right? Two reasons: Political calculation and personal belief.

The calculation flows from the shock of the midterm elections of November 2010. That was no ordinary election. What voters did has the potential to change the content and direction of the U.S. political system, possibly for a generation.

Only 24 months after Barack Obama's own historic election and a rising Democratic tide, the country flipped. Not just control of the U.S. House, but deep in the body politic. Republicans now control more state legislative seats than any time since 1928.

What elevated this transfer of power to historic status is that it came atop the birth of a genuine reform movement, the tea parties. Most of the time, election results are the product of complex and changeable sentiments or the candidates' personalities. What both sides fear most is a genuine movement with focused goals.

The accusation that the tea parties were linked to the Tucson murders is the product of calculation and genuine belief.

The tea party itself got help from history-the arrival of a clarifying event, the sovereign debt crisis of 2010. Simultaneously in the capitals of Europe, California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois and elsewhere it was revealed that fiscal commitments made across decades, often for liberally inspired social goals, had put all these states into a condition of effective bankruptcy.

This stark reality unnerved many Americans. The tea partiers' fiscal concerns were real. Despite that, a progressive Democratic president and congressional leadership spent 2009 and 2010 passing the biggest economic entitlement since 1965 and driving U.S. spending to 25%, or $3.5 trillion, of the nation's $14 trillion GDP. A public claim of that size hasn't been seen since World War II.

They expected to take losses in November. What they got instead was Armageddon. Suddenly an authentic reform movement, linked to the Republican Party, whose goal simply is to stop the public spending curve, had come to life. This poses a mortal threat to the financial oxygen in the economic ecosystem that the public wing of the Democratic Party has inhabited all these years.

The stakes for the American left in 2012 couldn't possibly be higher. If then, and again in 2014, progressives can't pull toward their candidates some percentage of the independent voters who in November abandoned the Democratic Party, they could be looking in from the outside for as many years as some of them have left to write about politics. A wilderness is a terrible place to be.

Against that grim result, every sentence Messrs. Krugman, Packer, Alter, the Times and the rest have written about Tucson is logical and understandable. What happened in November has to be stopped, by whatever means become available. Available this week was a chance to make some independents wonder if the tea parties, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Jared Loughner are all part of the same dark force.

The divide between this strain of the American left and its conservative opponents is about more than politics and policy. It goes back a long way, it is deep, and it will never be bridged. It is cultural, and it explains more than anything the "intensity" that exists now between these two competing camps. (The independent laments: "Can't we all just get along?" Answer: No.)

The Rosetta Stone that explains this tribal divide is Columbia historian Richard Hofstadter's classic 1964 essay, "The Paranoid Style in American Politics." Hofstadter's piece for Harper's may be unfamiliar to many now, but each writer at the opening of this column knows by rote what Hofstadter's essay taught generations of young, left-wing intellectuals about conservatism and the right.

After Hofstadter, the American right wasn't just wrong on policy. Its people were psychologically dangerous and undeserving of holding authority for any public purpose. By this mental geography, the John Birch Society and the tea party are cut from the same backwoods cloth.

"American politics has often been an arena for angry minds," Hofstadter wrote. "In recent years we have seen angry minds at work mainly among extreme right-wingers, who have now demonstrated in the Goldwater movement how much political leverage can be got out of the animosities and passions of a small minority."

Frank Rich, Oct 17: "Don't expect the extremism and violence in our politics to subside magically after Election Day-no matter what the results. If Tea Party candidates triumph, they'll be emboldened. If they lose, the anger and bitterness will grow."

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Tuesday in the Huffington Post: "Jack's death forced a national bout of self-examination. In 1964, Americans repudiated the forces of right-wing hatred and violence with an historic landslide in the presidential election between LBJ and Goldwater. For a while, the advocates of right-wing extremism receded from the public forum. Now they have returned with a vengeance-to the broadcast media and to prominent positions in the political landscape."

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) on Thursday released an estimate of the House Republican bill to fully repeal Obamacare. It found that doing so would increase the deficit by $230 billion.

This latest uncertain estimate should be taken with a trillion grains of salt, and Republicans would be foolish to place too much faith in it, for five reasons.

1. It reminds us of what we already knew. The health care law is full of budget gimmicks, and even if CBO is right about its fiscal impact, we can't afford it because Uncle Sam is broke.

2. Nothing meaningful has changed. The Thursday estimate, shifting the budget window from 2010-19 to 2012-21, finds a 10-year savings of $230 billion, compared to $143 billion in the estimate from last March.

We can compare apples to apples by looking only look at the 2010-19 period in both estimates. Doing so, we see the new savings figure is almost identical to the old one: $145 billion, compared to $143 billion.

3. The numbers are quite soft. Budget numbers swing up and down all the time. For example, just between March and August of 2010, CBO's baseline deficit projection for the year 2016 grew by $64 billion and its 10-year (2010-2019) deficit projection grew by $193 billion. That's a lot of play in the joints. A similar swing in the next few months would swamp this current "official" estimate.

4. CBO has warned us not to over-rely on its numbers for Obamacare. Back in March, the agency was extremely tentative in its prediction that passing Obamacare would produce any savings, and refused to make any specific prediction beyond the law's first decade. In today's estimate, CBO says, "The projections of the bill's budgetary impact are quite uncertain" and "have a roughly equal chance of turning out to be too high or too low."

If just one of CBO's many rosy assumptions is wrong, the bill won't save a dime. To take just two examples:

• Medicare's own independent actuaries have publicly warned that Obamacare's unrealistic "productivity" cuts to hospitals are very unlikely to happen. Those cuts are projected to "save" $233 billion, while the repeal bill allegedly "costs" $230 billion. Upshot: If the Medicare experts are right on just that one point, repealing Obamacare will have no cost whatsoever.

• CBO assumes only 19 million workers will be dumped by their employers into the government exchanges in 2019, when there will be 111 million workers in the pool of potential "dumpees." Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former CBO director, thinks that's way too optimistic. He predicts 35 million workers will be dumped. If so, it would add another trillion dollars to the law's costs.

5. History shows health care bills invariably cost more than the official estimates at the time of enactment - usually a lot more. Some famous examples:

• Britain's National Health Service cost 38 percent more than projected in its first year.

• Romneycare in Massachusetts cost 20 percent more than projected in its first full year.

• Medicare's kidney dialysis program, created in 1972, cost 2.3 times as much as projected in its first year.

• In 1965, Medicare was projected to cost $12 billion by 1990. Its actual 1990 cost: $110 billion - roughly nine times the original estimate. (The comparable figures for Medicare's first decade, 1966-75, are: $2 billion and $14.8 billion, respectively - seven times the original estimate.)

(Source: Joint Economic Committee, Republican Staff, "Are Health Care Reform Cost Estimates Reliable?" July 31, 2009.)

Now, for fun, what if we applied that first-10-year Medicare error ratio of roughly 700 percent to Obamacare?

If we did, we'd have a first-10-year cost of not $1.3 trillion but $9.1 trillion. Ah, you say, 700 percent seems outlandishly high (even though that's what actually happened with Medicare). OK, fine, let's assume the program will only cost twice the official estimate (200 percent). That would be a cost of $2.6 trillion, or an over-run of $1.3 trillion. Still seem too high? How about a 50-percent over-run ($1.95 trillion, $650 billion over budget). Still too high?

OK, how about a mere 10-percent cost over-run. In that case, the law will cost $1.43 trillion, or "only" $130 billion "over budget."

That, of course, would eliminate almost all of CBO's $145 billion in estimated savings.

In the light of this history, and math, does 10 percent seem like an unreasonable cost over-run percentage for a massive new government health care program?

Does anybody really believe Obamacare cost estimates will turn out to have been too high?

The health care reform law was signed 10 months ago, and what's striking now is how vulnerable it looks. Several threats have emerged - some of them scarcely discussed before passage - that together or alone could seriously endanger the new system. These include:

The courts. So far, one judge has struck down the individual mandate, the plan's centerpiece. Future decisions are likely to break down on partisan lines. Given the makeup of the Supreme Court, this should concern the law's defenders.

False projections. The new system is based on a series of expert projections on how people will behave. In the first test case, these projections were absurdly off base. According to the Medicare actuary, 375,000 people should have already signed up for the new high-risk pools for the uninsured, but only 8,000 have.

More seriously, cost projections are way off. For example, New Hampshire's plan has only about 80 members, but the state has already burned through nearly double the $650,000 that the federal government allotted to help run the program. If other projections are off by this much, the results will be disastrous.

Employee dumping. This is the most serious threat. Companies and unions across America are running the numbers and discovering they would be better off if, after 2014, they induced poorer and sicker employees to move to public insurance exchanges, where subsidies are much higher.

The number of people in those exchanges could thus skyrocket, especially as startup companies undermine their competitors with uninsured employees and lower costs. The Congressional Budget Office projects that 19 million people will move to the exchanges at a cost of $450 billion between 2014 and 2019. But according to the economists Douglas Holtz-Eakin and James C. Capretta, costs could soar to $1.4 trillion if those who would be better off in the exchanges actually moved to them. The price of the health care law could double. C. Eugene Steuerle of the Urban Institute, who has been among those raising the alarms about this, calls the law's structure "unworkable and unfair."

Health care oligarchy. Since the law passed, there has been a frenzy of mergers and acquisitions, as hospitals, clinics and doctor groups have joined together into bigger and bigger entities. The drafters encourage this, believing large outfits would be more efficient. The downside to this economic concentration is there could be less competition and cost control. In many places, the political power of these quasi-monopolies would be huge, with unforeseeable results. The law bans doctors from starting up hospitals to increase competition.

Public hostility. Right now about 53 percent of Americans oppose the health care law and 43 percent support it, according to an average of the recent polls. Complaints are especially high among doctors. According to a survey by the Physicians Foundation, 60 percent of private practice doctors say the law will force them to close their practices or to restrict them to certain categories of patients.

Given this level of unhappiness, people will blame the Obama law for everything they hate about the health care system. Political opposition was fierce last November, and it could easily shape the 2012 election and lead to changes or repeal.

Over all, there is a strong likelihood that the current health care law will face an existential threat over the next five years. Each party should be preparing contingency plans.

When the crisis comes, Democrats will face an interesting choice - to patch the Obama system or try to replace it with something bigger. The administration may want a patch, but by a ratio of nearly 2 to 1, according to a CNN poll, Democratic voters would prefer a more ambitious law. Liberals could logically say that the mistake was trying to create a hybrid system, rather than moving straight to a single-payer one.

Republicans are going to have to move beyond their current "Repeal!" posture and cohere behind a positive alternative. One approach, which Tyler Cowen of George Mason University has written about, is to allow more state experimentation. Another approach, championed by Capretta, Yuval Levin of National Affairs and Thomas P. Miller of the American Enterprise Institute, revolves around the words "defined contribution."

Under this approach, Republicans would say that the federal government has a role in subsidizing health insurance - a generous role, but not unlimited. The government would provide needy citizens with a predefined amount of money to spend on insurance and allow them to shop in a transparent, regulated, but not micromanaged marketplace.

After the trauma of the last two years, many people wish the issue would go away. But it's not going away, especially since costs will continue to rise.

Some Congresses achieve health care; members of this Congress or the next one will have health care thrust upon them.

It would be merciful if, when tragedies such as Tucson's occur, there were a moratorium on sociology. But respites from half-baked explanations, often serving political opportunism, are impossible because of a timeless human craving and a characteristic of many modern minds.

The craving is for banishing randomness and the inexplicable from human experience. Time was, the gods were useful. What is thunder? The gods are angry. Polytheism was explanatory. People postulated causations.

And still do. Hence: The Tucson shooter was (pick your verb) provoked, triggered, unhinged by today's (pick your noun) rhetoric, vitriol, extremism, "climate of hate."

Demystification of the world opened the way for real science, including the social sciences. And for a modern characteristic. And for charlatans.

A characteristic of many contemporary minds is susceptibility to the superstition that all behavior can be traced to some diagnosable frame of mind that is a product of promptings from the social environment. From which flows a political doctrine: Given clever social engineering, society and people can be perfected. This supposedly is the path to progress. It actually is the crux of progressivism. And it is why there is a reflex to blame conservatives first.

Instead, imagine a continuum from the rampages at Columbine and Virginia Tech - the results of individuals' insanities - to the assassinations of Lincoln and the Kennedy brothers, which were clearly connected to the politics of John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald and Sirhan Sirhan, respectively. The two other presidential assassinations also had political colorations.

On July 2, 1881, after four months in office, President James Garfield, who had survived the Civil War battles of Shiloh and Chickamauga, needed a vacation. He was vexed by warring Republican factions - the Stalwarts, who waved the bloody shirt of Civil War memories, and the Half-Breeds, who stressed the emerging issues of industrialization. Walking to Washington's train station, Garfield by chance encountered a disappointed job-seeker. Charles Guiteau drew a pistol, fired two shots and shouted, "I am a Stalwart and Arthur will be president!" On Sept. 19, Garfield died, making Vice President Chester Arthur president. Guiteau was executed, not explained.

On Sept. 6, 1901, President William McKinley, who had survived the battle of Antietam, was shaking hands at a Buffalo exposition when Leon Czolgosz approached, a handkerchief wrapped around his right hand, concealing a gun. Czolgosz, an anarchist, fired two shots. Czolgosz ("I killed the president because he was the enemy of the good people - the good working people. I am not sorry for my crime.") was executed, not explained.

Now we have explainers. They came into vogue with the murder of President Kennedy. They explained why the "real" culprit was not a self-described Marxist who had moved to Moscow, then returned to support Castro. No, the culprit was a "climate of hate" in conservative Dallas, the "paranoid style" of American (conservative) politics or some other national sickness resulting from insufficient liberalism.

Last year, New York Times columnist Charles Blow explained that "the optics must be irritating" to conservatives: Barack Obama is black, Nancy Pelosi is female, Rep. Barney Frank is gay, Rep. Anthony Weiner (an unimportant Democrat, listed to serve Blow's purposes) is Jewish. "It's enough," Blow said, "to make a good old boy go crazy." The Times, which after the Tucson shooting said that "many on the right" are guilty of "demonizing" people and of exploiting "arguments of division," apparently was comfortable with Blow's insinuation that conservatives are misogynistic, homophobic, racist anti-Semites.

On Sunday, the Times explained Tucson: "It is facile and mistaken to attribute this particular madman's act directly to Republicans or Tea Party members. But . . ." The "directly" is priceless.

Three days before Tucson, Howard Dean explained that the Tea Party movement is "the last gasp of the generation that has trouble with diversity." Rising to the challenge of lowering his reputation and the tone of public discourse, Dean smeared Tea Partyers as racists: They oppose Obama's agenda, Obama is African American, ergo . . .

Let us hope that Dean is the last gasp of the generation of liberals whose default position in any argument is to indict opponents as racists. This McCarthyism of the left - devoid of intellectual content, unsupported by data - is a mental tic, not an idea but a tactic for avoiding engagement with ideas. It expresses limitless contempt for the American people, who have reciprocated by reducing liberalism to its current characteristics of electoral weakness and bad sociology.

In some respects liberals and progressives have it easy. All they have to do is look around and they can find problems for government to solve. Kids are too fat? Let's get the government to decide how restaurants market their offering. Somebody walked away with a bad haircut? Impose government testing and licensing for barbers. Crime getting out of control? Let's ban all guns. Someone loses their job? Let's give them three years of unemployment checks. And just in case there were not enough real problems, liberals try and use government to solve problems that don't even exist: global warming, disappearing polar bears and widespread discrimination of minorities.

For liberals the country is a boundless universe of problems just waiting for government solutions. The problem with that of course is that the supply of problems is literally endless. Most men are imperfect humans, and until they find a way to fix that, problems will always exist.

It is the ease with which liberals can point to problems and proffer ostensibly reasonable solutions that make it so difficult for conservatives to make headway, particularly with a population that is focused on things like American Idol, Facebook or Xbox. Of course those simplistic solutions often turn out to be anything but simple and more often than not resemble nothing like a solution. As an example, one of the driving forces of the economic malaise we find ourselves in today was the result liberal regulations forcing banks to give mortgages to people who should probably not have had them. Those regulations were government solutions to the "problem" of banks not making enough loans to minorities.

In a world where problems lay below every surface, around every corner and just in plain sight, it's sometimes difficult to engage voters with a message that we don't need more government regulation. When a kid is dead in the street of a gunshot wound or a family has lost its health insurance it can be challenging to carry on a rational conversation on the big picture politics of regulation vs. freedom.

Every now and then however a situation comes to light that so starkly discredits the liberal philosophy that even the least engaged citizen almost takes notice. Just such a situation is taking place in California, and it has nothing to do with the state slowly committing economic suicide via untenable regulations and confiscatory tax rates.

The situation to which I'm referring involves the conspiracy amongst environmentalists, the state and the federal governments to turn what is possibly the most fertile land on the planet into a desert wasteland, and take with it tens of thousands of jobs. I'm talking of course about the San Joaquin Valley. The Valley, which occupies much of the center of California from approximately Bakersfield in the south to Sacramento in the north, is the breadbasket of the United States, having in some years produced more than 25% of all the food consumed in the country. It produces everything from grapes to broccoli to tomatoes to rice to pistachios to milk and cream. It's also a major producer of non food items such as hay and cotton.

In 2008, the Valley, already suffering the effects of a years long drought, was dealt a body blow by the government. That December the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a "biological opinion" that imposed draconian water reductions on many farms in the San Joaquin Valley. Why? Because California is running out of water? No. Because there's too much food and they wanted to reduce the supply? Plausible by government standards, but no. No, the government decided to cut off 100% of the water supply (later reduced slightly) of much of the Valley to protect a two inch fish called the delta smelt. The decision was the result of a 2006 lawsuit brought by the environmental group National Resources Defense Council. And the diverted water, is it being sent to other farmers someplace else? No. Is it being held in a giant reservoir for later use? No. It's being dumped into the San Francisco Bay.

The predictable result of all of this is that not only is a wide swath of some of the most arable land on the planet turning into a dustbowl, but tens of thousands of farm workers are now unemployed and standing in food lines. On the state level, although the Governator claimed that were the decision up to him he would turn the water back on, when he had the opportunity to ask the federal government to review the decision he chose not to.

Not that it had to be this way. The government had much leeway in how it might have approached the "problem" of the delta smelt. Given all of the possible routes the bureaucrats might have taken, they chose the most heavy handed avenue possible and the result has been predictably bad. And it's not even a matter of depraved indifference. This was a case of regulators actively seeking to advance the environmentalist agenda at the expense of jobs, families and communities. If there were any doubts about that the perniciousness of the government's actions U.S. District Judge Oliver Wagner put them to rest on the 15th of last month, stating in his decision that the U.S. F&WS had acted in an "arbitrary, capricious and unlawful" when issuing their "biological opinion".

Rarely are the ruinous consequences of progressive / liberal policies as rapid and stark as they are in the dying fields of the San Joaquin Valley. Nonetheless, ruinous they usually are. Be they banking regulations seeking to bring about social change, gun laws seeking to diminish crime or regulations seeking to guarantee every American health insurance coverage, progressives look at the troubled world as a place that must be fixed by government intervention.

Unfortunately, in addition to being pernicious and totalitarian, progressives are also immune to objective evidence of their failures. It doesn't matter that the outcomes from their policies are usually the exact opposite of their stated objectives or cause irreparable harm to the unwashed masses who actually have to live with them. The only thing that is important is growing government control so that citizens can finally be saved from themselves and the negative consequences of their unenlightened choices.

For nearly 20 years now I've been a conservative, which means that for nearly 20 years I've watched the hopelessly corrupt mainstream media do their dishonest dirty work on behalf of their allies on the left. And I would love to say that what happened over the weekend surprised me, but as soon as I learned of the tragic shootings, I knew exactly what was coming because we've seen it all before. Those of you old enough to remember the assassination of President Kennedy also remember the media blaming a murder committed by an openly Marxist Castro supporter on right-wing anger. I, of course, remember a mercenary President Clinton attempting to use the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing to silence his own political enemies. And it's worth remembering that these witch hunts were all successfully accomplished with the help of a complicit media that was then able to drown out reason and truth with their monopoly on the narrative.

This is simply what leftists and their left-wing media allies do, and now in the age of cable and the Internet, the broadcast networks and print publications have been joined by the likes of CNN, MSNBC, Politico, Mediaite, Media Matters, and Andrew Sullivan. In other words, the medium and names may change but the character assassins, partisans, liars, and propagandists doing everything in their power to bring down the right - including wearing a laughably transparent disguise marked "objective" - will always be with us.

The media's shameless political witch hunt we saw over the weekend was obviously counter-intuitive behavior to anyone at all interested in not looking like the worst kind of political opportunist. But frustration makes you stupid and the left is frustrated, especially those in the media, because they are losing. And other than embarrassing ratings and cratering circulation numbers, nothing points to their diminishing power more than Sarah Palin's ascendancy as a bona fide political force in this country. Whether or not the former Alaskan Governor becomes president isn't an issue. She's already changed the face of electoral politics and even managed to gain a serious foothold on the beach of popular culture while doing so.

The left cannot destroy Sarah Palin. She's only getting stronger and this fact both terrifies and humiliates them. Their power is diminishing and what we saw over the weekend was bottled frustration over that flagging influence unleashed in a perfect storm of self-defeating fury. Hoping against hope that a vicious assassin would do the left "a solid" and step into the narrative they created even before the blood of a nine year-old girl had dried, just like Dan Rather and those documents, the Left went all-in with a partisan Hail Mary and came out permanently damaged. For these last three days will rightly haunt the mainstream media for decades to come.

Let's play a game. Empty your soul of all that's decent so that for just one moment you can imagine what it's like to be a part of the mainstream media. Imagine what it was like as recently as 15 years ago to enter the field of "journalism" under the promise that if you were successful you'd have unlimited and, better yet, unaccountable powers to destroy whomever you wanted and to tell whatever lies necessary to further a personal agenda. Now imagine how frustrating it must be to have that promise almost completely evaporate with the rise of Citizen Media, New Media, and Fox News.

What we witnessed these past three days wasn't just political partisanship, what we witnessed was the horror show of entitled and angry elitists desperate for that warm, nostalgic feeling of reaffirmation that comes with a successful character assassination and a death blow to their political enemies. Yes, the media made complete fools of themselves and further damaged what was left of their reputations, but the brass ring of a momentary return to the good old days was impossible not to reach for.

Now, refill your soul and imagine what the last three days would've looked like without New Media, without the ability of decent people to have a say in the ongoing narrative - a say that included logic, facts, truths, and humanity. Thanks to the power of New Media and the patriotic willingness of everyday Americans to take the time to utilize it, "The Three Days of the Krugman" ended up being another humiliating defeat for the left, a permanent black mark on their record every bit as black as RatherGate, only more sweeping.

The partisan political media battle between the liars and the righteous will likely never be won one way or another. But for the first time in decades we can at least fight back, especially when it matters, and this past weekend mattered for reasons much more important than politics. Now that the indecent have retreated to the shadows to lick their wounds, this nation can finally unify and get on with the proper business of grieving for the victims of a monstrous attack on our country and democracy.

The folks who brought us the "Defend Public Education" actions last March in California, Wisconsin, New York and Michigan are planning a new round this year and will be drawing on the "energy" created by the violent, destructive riots in Europe.

The Huffington Post reported last year about college students shutting down major freeways in California. In Wisconsin, protesters threw "punches and ice chunks" at police after the students were refused entry into an administration building in Madison.

Now, plans are being made for a month of similar actions this year, kicking off March 2nd.

Some activists have complained that unions are not currently leading the charge because they've become too "corporatist." But they believe once they make their move, unions will move to "co-opt" the movement.

"Student strikes" will occur in March to fight budget cuts and increased fees for students. What's happening in Europe is about to be emulated in America, friends.

Radicals know this is one of their last opportunities to keep the gravy train running on time. But reality, courtesy of fed up taxpayers, may interrupt their plans.

One of the movement's leaders, Los Angeles high school teacher Omar Hussein, recruited "student militants" to support the March 4th protests in 2010. He's a leader again this time around, according to sources within the movement.

The month of "actions" will be capped off with a global action stemming from a huge union/socialist rally in London March 26th. As many as one million people will show their solidarity with those "in the firing line of the government's cuts," according to a statement posted on a public employee union website.

The pro-big government radicals are in the planning stages of something similar in the United States. One radical from Arizona pledged that the actions will be "very militant" because what they've done so far hasn't worked and "there are no other options now."

Radicals who fantasize about Che Guevara's revolution, the Soviet States of America and the good ole days of Chairman Mao will soon be making their move. They'll be doing their best to seize the current "crisis" and push their socialist agenda.

Will they get anywhere? The big government agenda certainly had its wings clipped in the November election. But that doesn't mean violence, upheaval and chaos can be stopped.

The full text of Bernie Sanders’ fund-raising letter (and his explanation for it):

A nation of Jared Loughner’s (excellent article with tons of photos, examples and vids):

About half of the Detroit school buildings are being close up to save money, while school teacher salaries skyrocket (unions):

Nearly 3 minutes of a panel is devoted to Sarah Palin’s use of the phrase blood-libel:

(If not for James Tarantino on this panel, this would have been a spectacular waste of time).

RUSH: So there's Obama being praised to the heavens, Obama being exalted and held up as only Obama can be, The Messiah, the one, being praised for this wonderful healing speech last night by the same people who are exhibiting and announcing and proclaiming a vicious hate against Sarah Palin, who gave a perfectly fine speech that morning. In fact, they're even trying to say that Palin tried to mislead her viewers at Facebook because she was using a teleprompter and didn't tell anybody. I kid you not. And then of course there's this blood libel business. Now, to show you blood libel, Glenn Reynolds is a law professor at the University of Tennessee, and Glenn Reynolds is a longtime blogger, and he had a piece Monday in the Wall Street Journal, and in the headline of his piece on the op-ed page was the term "blood libel." Not a peep. No one said a word.

There wasn't one level of outburst. There wasn't one instance of anybody disagreeing or saying that Glenn Reynolds was anti-Semitic or how reprehensible the use of that term, he doesn't understand what he's talking about, what an idiot. Palin uses it in her eight minute Facebook video and all hell breaks loose. So the very people that the president is asking to tone it down here, although not by name, just cannot stop. The unbridled hatred for Sarah Palin goes on, unchecked, uncommented upon.

RUSH: Here's an affirmation, folks, of my point earlier. Dan Balz in the Washington Post. "As Obama Urged Unity, Palin Brought Division." Now, if anybody has read the transcript or watched Sarah Palin's video speech, there's no "division" whatsoever. It's an attempt to do the same thing Obama was attempting -- unity, perspective, honesty -- and yet there the Drive-Bys out there: "As Obama Urged Unity, Palin Brought Division." They just can't help it.

RUSH: According to ABC News, the death threats against Sarah Palin have reached an unprecedented level. I have the story in the stack. In San Francisco today I guess we can say the president's words are being ignored because there are insulting posters of Sarah Palin on a street which encourage violence against her. The president's admonition for us to be nicer to each other is not working. And ABC News: "Death Threats Against Palin Have Reached 'Unprecedented Level.'" Should Obama have specifically mentioned how wrong that is? Should he? I mean this is not some vague academic hypothesis. This is actually happening and Obama is ignoring it. Now, Obama has no problem warning against the backlash against Muslim terrorists, and during the Fort Hood scenario, after it was discovered that Major Hasan had been getting inspiration from a militant Islamist, a guy named al-Awlaki, not only Obama, but some high-ranking general said, "My main priority is to make sure there's not a backlash against Muslims in the US Army." Okay. All right, cool. If that's your gig, fine.

What about the backlash against Obama? Even ABC is calling it a backlash against Obama. Dan Balz, Washington Post: "As Obama Urged Unity, Palin Brought Division." Mr. Balz, why do you feel it necessary to stir things up? Why is it that you want to continue to paint a bull's-eye on Sarah Palin, Mr. Balz? Here's the Drive-By Media doing it. So in this speech last night, basically Obama's saying what Chris Matthews and the others have been saying, that there's no causal relationship between this crime and public debate. However, public debate, meaning conservative passion and arguments, needs to change. Don't doubt me on this. Can anybody name a single Republican -- I'm serious -- can anybody name a single Republican who has said that this murder should be used to smear liberals or Democrats or to advance some political agenda? We have off-the-record types saying it to Politico and others. But can anybody name a single Republican? Is there any outpost of conservatism or in the Republican Party where a strategy is ongoing behind closed doors about how we can use this to demonize liberals? Or are we minding our own business and simply reacting to yet another spate of assaults on our character and dignity while we were minding our own business doing nothing?

The president talks about challenging old assumptions. That's something he argues for when it comes to his agenda. Challenge old assumptions. That means the way this country's been in the past, no more. Barack Obama. I put the "me" in memorial. It starts out you spell memorial m-e. I, Barack Obama, I put the "me" in memorial. Now, nobody's gonna remember any particular phrase or sentence from this speech. And I think some of the praise for this speech is forced. I actually do. Particularly among some of the conservatives who are doing cartwheels over this. There are things going on beneath the surface, people want to position themselves or to be viewed a certain way or whatever. But that whole night last night was surreal to me in a whole lot of ways with much of it spent with my mouth in various stages, phases of open, in disbelief.

Now, as you know, people from the beginning of time have tried to figure out why liberals are liberals. I, on this program, have announced various theories and reasons. Everybody has. It's Mars-Venus. I mean seriously, the left is mad that Sarah Palin is inserting herself into this. Now, Sarah Palin, I don't know, maybe killing and dressing a moose on Saturday afternoon, incident happens, 30 minutes later she's responsible for it. So three days later she does a video on Facebook, and they accuse her of inserting herself and trying to take over the story, to put herself in front of it. They dragged her into it. And Dan Balz: "As Obama Urged Unity, Palin Brought Division." Division? So here's more of the Drive-By Media pointing a finger of blame and suspicion at Palin.

CALLER: Before I get to the reason for my call I would like to make a very brief linguistic observation and that is that "civility" is the new word for "censorship."

CALLER: Yeah. We don't want to criticize the state. So, Rush, the reason I called is I can only take two minutes of that whole Wellstone Memorial yesterday, and that's exactly what it was. In essence, I think people were asked to worship at the altar of the state -- and if I may be so bold as to say the Church of Barack the Redeemer. That's why there were no religious figures reading from the Bible. The statists read from the Bible. It was very discouraging.

CALLER: Yes. Yes. In fact, I saw it on the television. I decided eventually to listen to it on the radio, because what I saw on the television with people milling around that arena, I found very distasteful, and I thought, "I don't want to be distracted by watching all the people there, so I'll listen to it on the radio," and when the whooping and hollering started, I said, "This is almost sacrilegious" and I had to turn it off.

RUSH: Since you were listening on the radio, I have to ask you what your impression was of something I was watching. I was watching before everything got started. They had the cameras in there, but they did not have the cameras on the orchestra. There was an orchestra, there was a band in there that was playing. I didn't know that, and shortly before the festivities -- uh, the ceremony -- began, I kept hearing what I thought was gunshots or a drum or something. And I'm trying to figure out, "What in the world is going on in that room?" I'm looking around and nobody's reacting to it. I figured, "There's gotta be a band." Are you aware of what I'm talking about, and if you are, I'm curious what you thought when you heard this.

RUSH: Not a drumbeat, not a drumbeat. Every now and then, you know, somebody smashing a bass drum or something object a gunshot going off. Obviously it wasn't that, but I'm trying to figure out, "What is this noise in there?" The band was doing a warm-up or something.

RUSH: Well, I did. I thought, "Maybe there's some Native American ceremony going on in here before the actual memorial begins," because I couldn't see the band, and I was --

CALLER: Yes. Well, that could well be. But it was unseemly for a memorial service.

CALLER: -- President Clinton walking out and wiping the tear from his eye when he camera was on him, and the university president reminded me of the same thing: Yukking it up beforehand.

RUSH: Yeah. Yeah. We have some sound bites from the Wellstone Memorial. I'm debating whether or not we should go back and play them, and draw... There's a slight analogy. But I think her point about words is really great: "Civility" is the new "censorship." "Civility" is the new word for "shut the heck up."

RUSH: We keep hearing about "uncivil," and I love our previous caller's comment that this civility equals censorship. That's exactly what Obama and the left mean when they start talking about civility. "We need to bring civility back to our discourse," that means shut us up! Censorship. Now, if politicians are uncivil to us -- if they are dismissive of the last election, for example. They lost. They got shellacked. But if they are dismissive of that election, if they are dismissive of the Constitution (as they were the other week, when it was read on the floor of the House) how are we to react to them?

Say we disagree but do it quietly, without passion, in hushed tones, with words "please" and "thank you." How are we supposed to react when they are uncivil to us? I've actually been thinking about doing a program the way they would like to hear this program done. (laughing) I think it would be fun to try, you know, to do an hour of civility as they mean it. (interruption) Don't get scared, Snerdley. There's no reason to fear this. (interruption) No, there's not. No, there's not. It's like every other illustration we do on this program, make the point of our silly and stifling it would be. (interruption) Well, no, I could be boring. I could very easily be boring. I'd just have to be myself. (laughing)

No, seriously, I've been thinking about it. They want it? Okay, here's what it would sound like. So we got a sound bite of them saying Sarah Palin is asserting herself improperly, she's dumb and stupid. What would be the civil way of reacting to that? What would be the civil way of reacting to their allegation that this program's responsible for what happened in Arizona? What would be the civil way of reacting to it? Because understand, it is not uncivil to make the accusation, as they define all this. There's no limit on them. They are not guilty of anything. What's uncivil is when those of us minding our own business, bothering no one, are accused of some atrocity, and we respond to it. That's the incivility.

So what would be a civil response to that allegation? I've been toying with it. I don't know. Someday I may just spring it on you without even telling you that's what I'm doing. It would be instantly spottable. You'd know it instantly what I'm doing. But I just want you to know that I've been toying it. When they pass laws to harm our businesses or control our lives, what should we do? What's the civil response? What is the civil reply to legislation that limits freedom? What's the civil response to legislation that further erodes the opportunity for economic prosperity? Well, some say that I wouldn't have to do a program the way the libs want me to. Just listen to NPR and you have the idea -- and to a certain extent, yes.

And I could do NPR. I've done it, way back, long ago. I did a half hour or so that way on this program. I actually tried to become a liberal for a half hour, and some people bought it. The point was to prove something. I forget exactly what it was, but I was getting inundated with calls about how Republicans always fail. "They tell us one thing and they're gonna lie and they're gonna go out there and lie to us in the campaign and they're gonna be cave when they get into governing," and I was being inundated, as though I was responsible for it. "When are you gonna tell the Republicans? When are you gonna tell the Republicans? Why are the Republicans...? I'm not them! "What do you...?" I was judged to be the one to have the ability to make 'em stop, so I was gonna actually be one of those guys that caved. I still think it would be fun so I'll spring it on you when you are least expecting it. Heh-heh-heh-heh-heh.

RUSH: I forgot all about the Coretta Scott King service. It took three hours for somebody to remember that there was a body in that casket, and that was Bill Clinton. So you see that's a parody of ours from years and years and years ago. There's a pattern of behavior here, of course very civil behavior. Let me ask you a question here. Was Saul Alinsky civil? Did he preach civility? Was Reverend Wright's church civil? Bill Ayers, architect of the Pentagon bombing, Obama's buddy, was he civil? Let's have some examples of leftist civility. The next time they talk about it, which will be sometime today, tonight, let's ask, "Let's have some examples of leftist civility. Where is leftist civility in any of your discussions of Sarah Palin?" Was John Kerry civil during his happy days protesting against the Vietnam War? Have you noticed we haven't heard much from Harry Reid? My guess is they locked him away somewhere, keep him away from this event 'cause very little that's civil comes out of his mouth.

Fortney "Pete" Stark, Barney Frank, well known for their civility, insulting their own constituents. Was Barbara Boxer civil when she berated that general for not calling her "Senator"? When the late Ted Kennedy went on the Senate floor and smeared Robert Bork when he was nominated to the Supreme Court by Reagan, was Kennedy civil in his vicious accusations against Bork? Was Joe Bite Me civil when he orchestrated a hateful smear campaign against Clarence Thomas during his confirmation hearings? And if you'll permit me to be blunt, you can say much about this current presidency, but civility is one of the last words that comes to mind when thinking and talking about this regime. Has Obama been civil to his predecessor, George W. Bush? Has Jimmy Carter been civil to the state of Israel? And who can forget all that civility surrounding the candidacy of Sharron Angle or Christine O'Donnell.

RUSH: Okay. Civility lessons, civility practice. Practice, ladies and gentlemen, your civil reaction to this charge: The Republican Party's policies are based on hate and racism. Tell me how you would respond in a civil way. The reason you oppose immigration is because mostly Hispanic people are coming across the border and taking your job. Give me the civil response to this charge. I got some other examples, too.

RUSH: President Obama urges civility in public discourse. F. Chuck Todd is now happily reporting this on MessNBC: President Obama urging civility in public discourse. When I think of the left wing, I think civil, don't you? Code Pink, the New Black Panthers, union bosses beating up black conservatives in St. Louis, ACORN, illegal alien marches, why, it doesn't get more civil than that. The trashing of the Tea Party movement for the last nearly two years, that's civil. When I think of MSNBC, I not only think of journalistic excellence, but civility, don't you? That whole class warfare thing, I mean that's nothing but civility on display. When I think of the counterculture movement of the sixties, I think civility. When I think of Rahm Emanuel, the man Obama chose as his own chief of staff two years ago, I think of civility. We don't need lectures from uncivil leftists about civility, much less Obama. Bitter clingers and all the other incendiary things he's had to say, both as a candidate and as president.

In fact, ladies and gentlemen, isn't one of your complaints that Republicans are too docile? Isn't one of your complaints that Republicans just sit there and take it, that the left is always on the march, always accusing, always throwing bombs, and the Republicans just sit there and take it? The fact of the matter is the Republicans are civil, as the left defines it. They don't say anything. That's exactly what civil means. Another couple of examples. Give your civil reaction to the charge that you oppose Obama because he's black. Give me your civil reaction to you are a racist because you have criticized President Obama. Show me how to react in a civil way. Give me your civil reaction to this: You want to take money from the poor and line your pockets and the pockets of the rich. You don't care about the unfortunate. In fact, you and your buddies have created homelessness. Give me the civil reaction to that. If it was up to you, we would still have slavery today.

Give me the civil reaction to the entire sports media making up quotes about you, quotes suggesting that you support slavery, quotes utterly false and made up, give me the civil reaction to this. Give me the civil reaction to you don't care how many soldiers die when you send 'em into battle. It's all about oil profits for your contributors. Give me the civil reaction to any of this. And of course this exercise establishes that we don't need lectures from uncivil leftists. What is the civil reaction to being accused of inciting murder, the Oklahoma City bombing and now the Tucson shootings. Somebody tell me how to react to that in a civil way, in a way that the left would approve, in a way that the president would approve. What are we supposed to say, "You're right, I'm sorry. I won't do it again?" What is the civil response to this? Lest we forget just a few weeks ago we were told that people were shooting their TVs because Bristol Palin was on Dancing with the Stars, what's the civil reaction to that?

Sheriff Dupnik was in attendance at the speech last night. He was not on the dais. There was no dais. He was not in the front row. He was midway. He did not get a shout-out from Obama for his wonderful civility. By the way, is that an example of civility, Sheriff Dupnik, is he civil? What's the civil response to any allegation being made by Sheriff Dupnik? Now, Sheriff Dupnik did get a camera shot when Obama was talking about the great work that had been done by people in the area to bring order to the chaos.

What is the civil reaction to the president joking that you are a racist? What is the civil reaction to a TIME Magazine cover that asks are you good for America? Many of these questions I'm asking you are allegations that have been made about me and to me. What's the civil reaction? I would venture to say I've been pretty damn civil during all of this for 23 years, laughing at a lot of it. Apparently the civil thing for Sarah Palin to do is to get down on her hands and knees and beg forgiveness for her obvious crimes, and maybe that's what some Republican candidates would have done in the past. But Palin isn't that kind of Republican, whether she's a candidate or not, I don't know.

CALLER: Hey, I just wanted to mention: I think that today's show and yesterday's show are among the best pieces of information that anyone could have who's a true conservative to combat what the insane left-wing talk television people and everyone else who's non-conservative is doing. Yesterday, in the beginning of your second hour, I believe, you gave a monologue where you were addressing somebody who was talking about incivility, and you responded to this person by saying, "Mr. So-and-So, what about what the left is doing with class warfare? Mr. So-and-So, what about what the left is doing with race? Mr. So-and-So...?" Do you remember that monologue?

CALLER: I would love, Rush, to have a copy of that. I don't care how I have it -- electronically, if I could have it printed, I don't care -- but that monologue, to me, was one of the most important monologues and one of the most important statements that I have heard, ever, on that subject. And I just need a copy of that. (chuckles) Is there any way I could get that?

CALLER: Well, I would love to be. I'm a little tight on the budget. You know, someday I'll get there. I'm not there quite yet, though.

RUSH: (sigh) Well, it's really worth the investment. The transcript of everything is there.

RUSH: It really is. I'll tell you what I'm gonna do. We're gonna make you a complimentary subscriber. (interruption) Don't frown in there, Snerdley. Don't start acting all uncivil on me. We're gonna make you a complimentary subscriber for a year. After the call you stay on hold and Snerdley or somebody will pick up the phone -- he'll probably accuse you of some unseemly things but ignore it -- and we'll get all the information necessary to make you a comp subscriber for a year, including the Limbaugh Letter newsletter.

RUSH: And then if you have an iPhone or an iPad, get the app, the Rush app and all the transcripts are right there on your iPad, right there on your iPhone, as well as on your computer. Thanks Kent. Don't go away. Snerdley, remember the order of the day is civility. Be civil.

RUSH: One thing on the pep rally-disguised-as-a-memorial on Wednesday night. I happened to, as I have been told, anger a lot of people yesterday by saying that the president delayed the memorial while waiting for the polling data to come in and the T-shirts to get printed. Well, guess what? I was right on both counts. The polling data shows, as you know, that the American people do not associate conservative rhetoric with what happened out in Arizona. In fact, there's a Quinnipiac poll out that shows a majority of America don't think that; but that 54% of Americans think that the worst of the political rhetoric comes from the left, comes from Democrats. The second thing was they had to wait to get the T-shirts printed. And that's true. Not only that, they had to wait to get a new logo for the T-shirts. It was a pep rally.

I have pictures here of chairs with the T-shirts on them prior to opening the doors to the rally, and the logo was "Together We Thrive." Remember that? That's what was on the T-shirts, "Together We Thrive." And here's pictures of the -- well, I'm not gonna waste time here zooming in on the Dittocam. I'm not a TV producer, it's a radio program, but trust me, I got pictures here of the chairs with, "Together We Thrive" and so forth. It turns out that "Together We Thrive" comes from the Organizing for America website, which is Obama's website. It was written by John Berry IV. John Berry's blog, Together We Thrive, February 11th, 2008. So they reheated an old idea. The whole point of this was a pep rally or a political rally for Obama. And, you know, you go back and you look at the speech again and he says all these wonderful things followed by "but." (imitating Obama) "We shouldn't blame, but..." "And I think we have a great thing, but..." and so forth. He didn't tie himself to anything.

"For too long Americans have been set one against the other. It is a side effect of a free market society." So this is from the BarackObama.com page, John Berry, this is the Organizing for America website on February 11th, 2008, coming up on three years ago. Three years ago, they revived. "For too long Americans have been set one against the other, it is a side effect of a free market society. How can profits be maximized, how can I get the work done for the lowest possible costs. This continually sets one group against the other, especially in the blue collar sectors of America. It has become a part of the American business model, whether it was indentured servants, slaves picking cotton, sharecroppers, the industrious people that built the railroads or today's migrant workers. As long as we remain divided, fighting for the scraps that America has to offer it will be one group against the other." That's on Organizing for America. This is from an Obama website during the campaign of 2008. "Fighting for the scraps that America has to offer." This is Obama-endorsed. "For too long Americans have been set one against the other. It is a side effect of a free-market society." And this was the pep rally theme for this brilliant oratory and really smart and articulate nothingness of a speech.

My problem is I live in Literalville. I'm not a stylistic guy. I'm a substance person. You know, we talk about what is smart on this program a lot. Obama is naturally assumed to be smart. Name one smart thing he's done! Outside of political craftiness and scheming, name one smart policy that Obama has given us to help revive a sour economy. We're now headed, folks, to $100-a-barrel oil, and this regime doesn't want anybody knowing about it. It is about to rip the UK apart. It is what consumers are about to riot over over there. The price of oil in this country right now, I checked it before the program, 91 bucks. The OPEC guys are saying, "A hundred bucks a barrel. That's normal. Get used to it. We're not gonna do one thing to bring it down. We want it up as high as we can." Obama has said (paraphrasing), "Gasoline, four or five bucks? I don't have a problem with it. I just have a problem with how fast it got there." Anything that impedes on the mobility and the freedom of the American people is fine and dandy with Obama. What's smart about this?

I've never understood this notion he's a smart guy. He sounds smart, he speaks smart, he articulates well, and he really lifts that nose and head in the air above the camera lens and has the ability to look down or make it appear as though he's looking down on all of us from above. But the substance of what he says... Anyway, it's just one of these things we have to accept. He's a smart guy. We've never seen any record of it; we haven't seen any transcripts; we just accept it.

So this guy, John Berry IV: "What I see in Obama is a chance for a revolution. A chance for every group to participate and be heard; A chance to live the American dream that has been denied to so many. Together we can and will change the world and return America to the shining beacon of Hope and Prosperity that we were and that we can be again. Only when we work together do we accomplish feats that rival any ever accomplished in the history of mankind. Diversity is our strength, that is what this campaign brings us a promise of. For many this is a scary prospect and thought, getting to know someone different from myself. We all want the same basic things, for example a safe place to live, health and a quality education for our kids. In a previous career, I was the global leader of Diversity for a global fortune 500 corporation, I have studied the affects of diverse groups working together and the results can not be denied. Together we Thrive!" February 2008, Organizing for America.

So don't doubt me. The pep rally complete with medicine man -- we all know what the purpose of that was, too. Gotta have some religion in there but let's not go too far. That was brilliant, too, of Obama, don't you think? So we have delaying for the polls and waiting for the T-shirts to get printed with the new logos. Da-da-da-da-da-da-da.

RUSH: You know, now would be a time for President Obama to give a speech on inflation so he can stop that dead in its tracks. We already had the president go out to Tucson and stop dead in its tracks the actions of insane lunatics. We had the president give hundreds of speeches on health care and the American people still don't want it. So don't be surprised that, absent a speech by Obama on the subject, inflation will be one of the top stories by the yearend, but if the president can ask the country to stop inflation... I was gonna say "whip," but that is a dangerous word. "Whip" is an angry word. It has historical notations that we don't want to dredge up. So if he can beat... Well, that's problematic now, and "dead in his tracks"? I said that.

See, I'm trying to be civil here as requested by the left. Anyway, if the president could ask the country to stop inflation, to Stop Inflation Now... SIN, S-I-N, Stop Inflation Now. Yeah, Gerald Ford was "whip inflation." He even had buttons: "Whip Inflation Now," WIN buttons. Now if we have SIN buttons, then we don't have to worry... (interruption) No, they didn't work. They didn't work, but Obama has unique powers, oratorical skills -- "a gift," as he said to Harry Reid -- and, folks, in the UK... Oil is at $90 around the world now and Mohammad Ali Khatibi said by phone from Tehran it's not a big deal. It's "not an extraordinary situation."

"Kuwait's oil minister said he considered oil at $80 to $100 a barrel to be a 'fair price' and did not expect OPEC to increase output..." All the front pages of the papers in the UK all this week have been about the rising, near-record gasoline prices. The American State-Controlled Media is suppressing the story. Their marching orders are to continue to focus on Sarah Palin, and so the State-Controlled Media in this country with marching orders from the White House is focusing on Palin, "civility," the dangers of the right wing, and the brilliance of Obama's speech in dealing with the right wing. In the meantime, nobody wants the health care bill. Seventy-five percent want it repealed; the Republicans start dealing with that next week.

Gasoline prices are rising. Reuters story: "Rising gasoline prices beat down U.S. consumer sentiment in early January, overshadowing an improved job outlook and passage of temporary federal tax breaks, a survey released on Friday showed. A year-end surge in gasoline prices ratcheted up consumer inflation expectations to their highest in more than two years, according to the latest data from Thomson Reuters and the University of Michigan." So things the American people come in contact with every day, things that matter to them, the sentiment is not good. Gasoline prices, food prices are on the rise. The cost of living is going up. That means inflation. Health care is coming with all the tax increases.

The American people simply are not focused on that which the media and the White House wants them focused, and that's Tucson and Sarah Palin. Now energy and food costs do not count in the federal core inflation statistics. In case you're wondering how inflation reports don't show much inflation, energy and food costs are not considered. They're never have been because they fluctuate too much, but it's awfully handy to not have to count those things. Now, the price of oil has about doubled in five years -- and again it's the big story in the UK. There are riots in places of the world over gasoline prices. The American media is protecting this story; the American media is covering it not at all.

Remember, the instructions from the White House are you keep focusing on Palin, you keep telling the American people what a dangerous, unqualified boob Sarah Palin is. David Cameron, prime minister of the UK, is set to act over soaring petrol prices. The London media is pushing him, but silence in the USA. From Express.co.uk: "Petrol Prices may Kill the Economy and the Coalition." They are severely worried about the economy blowing up because of rising energy prices in the UK, the same prices that are going up here. You're just not having it reported. Lots of urgency in the UK. But here it's all Palin bashing, on orders from the White House news center. "UK, fuel prices yesterday nudging their record highs of July 2008," and Obama wants us talking about the strange harmony BS!

So it's time for a speech here! Here. This is a DC gossip blog: "Washington insiders are wondering if the next real economic crisis facing President Obama is when gasoline prices spike to $4 or $5 per gallon. At today's press briefing, a White House press spokesman rebuffed queries about the possibility saying ' there are many people that would get upset at me if I started to opine on oil and gas prices, so I won't,'" and besides, we have our orders from the White House news center to focus on Sarah Palin and whether or not the president can make sure the American people are once again "civil" to each other. We're gonna focus on that and we're gonna focus on Palin.

We're not gonna talk about oil prices. We're not gonna talk about anything to damage the economy because we've sent out word from our news center that there is a robust recovery going on, and we can't feature any news in the American media that would contradict that.

RUSH: Lisa in Prairie Home, Missouri. Nice to have you up first today on the program.

CALLER: Hey, I want to give you a happy belated birthday, and I want to tell you I'm sleeping wonderful on my Sleep Number Bed that you gave me.

CALLER: Yeah. Anyway, I have a comment to make. I'm disappointed also in Charles, about his comments that he made about Sarah Palin, about the shooting. Sarah Palin can't win no matter what. Just to give a flip side of it, what if she would have came out immediately in response to it, and then they did find a book of Sarah Palin's at his house? Then they would have creamed her all over again. She just can't win. You see what I'm saying?

RUSH: That's the point. It is clear to me, ladies and gentlemen, that the White House considers her their number one threat. That's all this means. They don't think anybody else in the Republican hierarchy right now is the number one threat. It's no accident and it's not a coincidence that you can't get up every day without seeing a couple, if not more, stories -- newspaper, TV -- aimed at ripping, criticizing, destroying Sarah Palin. It's gone beyond the realm of belief now that there's serious news behind all of these stories, that there's any real journalism going on here. It's not that at all. It's attack dog journalism and it's largely in the White House news center. I'm dead serious about this. It's also to ignore and not report on the rising oil and gasoline prices and the rising food prices and the obvious impact this is going to have on the economy and a recovery they desperately want you to believe.

The White House has essentially, in journalistic terms, put crosshairs on Sarah Palin. There's no question that this is what they're trying to do. Sarah Palin, that's who they are trying to destroy because that's who they fear is the biggest threat to Obama. And don't think for a moment the Republicans don't know that, either. They know it.

CALLER: Hey, if an event such as the one that took place in Tucson had happened in Canada, the UK, or Germany, do you think the congresswoman would still be alive?

RUSH: I know what you're saying but the best health care in the world still exists in parts of Canada for certain people. If one of their elected officials got shot I'm sure their elected officials would get the best. Our problem with the Canadian health care system is not that it's horrible. It's that it's unfairly distributed. We've heard of all the lines, people having to come to the United States for routine procedures. But the ruling class is always gonna get taken care of, same thing in Germany. Hell, even in Germany we've got US military installations with fabulous health care there. I know what your point is, we've got the best health care system in the world, and this episode demonstrates it. And I think that's true, because no matter where you go in this country you're gonna get the best health care. It could happen in Tucson. It could happen in San Antonio. It could happen in Buffalo. You're going to get the best in this country. That's why people are so concerned about Obamacare, because it's gonna destroy this. It's going to motivate people -- that's the right word -- to not even go in to the medical profession. I mean in this country if you are an illegal immigrant and have no money, you still get the best health care in the world and with a smile on the professionals' faces.

RUSH: We'll go to Long Island. This is Nina. Great to have you on the program. Hello.

CALLER: Okay, Rush. I want to know: Why is no one blaming Hollywood and the music media for this young man's madness. I'm just reading today. The Black Swan, for example, a movie that's gonna be up for Academy Awards: "An obsessed ballerina practices her way toward madness. Creepy, freaky fun." How about the Green Hornet? "Two dudes decide to become vigilantes." Or Tron? "Drinking, mild profanity, sexual innuendos for ages ten and older." Or --

CALLER: I mean why is no one saying Hollywood is dictating the madness of today? Have you watched the TV? Have you watched the commercials? Often I look at the commercial and say, "Oh, yeah, I'd go see that one!" I mean, why don't we pinpoint that and say, "Hollywood, would you please stop"?

RUSH: Because that's censorship. We did talk about this this week, and we pointed out the fact that nobody ever takes a look at the influences of Hollywood movies or music or TV shows or what have you, and in fact this guy's preferred viewing list is liberal documentaries like Zeitgeist (which said 9/11 was planned by George W. Bush) and a whole bunch of other wacko leftist beliefs. This guy was a "truther." He was a nutcase left and right. His influences were all deranged leftist.

RUSH: Tipper Gore, the estranged wife of Algore; and Susan Baker, wife of James Baker; had a joint coalition there to try to clean you are lyrics or have warning labels on television shows and movies, and they were run out of Washington.

CALLER: Absolutely. Absolutely. It's this kind of thing that really... I mean, during World War II, remember, you know, to get the people of depression, there were all those wonderful musicals, those comedies. That would turn the world around if we saw some happiness and joy in this world, but instead we only find misery and madness and murder and... I mean, wow, you know like...?

RUSH: Because we must relate to misery, madness, and murder since that's what Republicans have given us.

RUSH: All of this is political. Everybody wants to take the politics out of it. The left has inserted their political beliefs in virtually every form of media. Even children's media is infiltrated with liberalism. It's everywhere, and it's all politically based. So we must identify with the depraved. We must understand the outraged and all of this, and we must endeavor to understand why -- and until their circumstances improve, no one else should be enjoying any aspect of their lives!

CALLER: Well, I think that each one of us has to take a stand and bring up our children in a better way, and that's what Michelle Obama is missing when she talks about, "Talk to your children," you know?

RUSH: She wants you to bring up your children her way, which, again, is with heavy doses of liberal indoctrination.

RUSH: Here's Spyridon in Tarpon Springs, Florida. Nice you have you on the EIB Network Open Line Friday.

CALLER: All right. I think that Megyn Kelly should get the Pulitzer Prize for her coverage of this Tucson atrocity. She has done credible interviews, and especially the one with the father. It was such a touching thing, like he even found time to praise America.

RUSH: Let me ask you a question out there, Spyridon. With all due respect, what are you doing watching Fox when this program's on?

RUSH: (laughing) You can admit it. You can watch television and listen to this program at the same time. Many people do.

CALLER: Hey, I don't, man! I was actually sitting in the airport at the time trying to get down here.

RUSH: Yeah. Well, she does a great job, there's no question. But do you understand who gives out the Pulitzers?

RUSH: Yeah. I mean, there's no chance. It's like the people who make the conspiracy movies and the cult movies and the violent video games, they're all made and distributed by major Democrat contributors. Pulitzers are given out by likewise left-wing media types. So the idea of Megyn Kelly or anybody at Fox getting a Pulitzer is (laughing). You know, if we could do one thing and just somehow hack the Pulitzer Prize voting and see to it that some Fox personality is awarded a Pulitzer Prize, can you imagine? You talk about little Marcy getting angry at a dinner party walking out in tears? Whoa!

If Megyn Kelly or somebody at Fox won? If we could hack in there and get somebody at Fox a Pulitzer Prize, oh, my gosh, there would be an earthquake! They might cancel the whole program. They might just cancel the whole Pulitzer idea. By the way, didn't Obama get a Nobel Prize for bringing peace to the world which hasn't happened yet? He got a Nobel Peace Prize for wanting peace. By the way, that speech to Cairo and the Muslims, how's that working out? Obama gave a brilliant, brilliant oratorical speech -- very articulate, very, very intelligent -- on race in this country. I'm just wondering, how is that working out?

Obama has given hundreds of speeches on health care, persuading us how it's great and we need it, but we don't want it. So how effective is Obama actually, despite his great oratory and his intelligence, his brilliance, his refinement or whatever it is that impresses people? Speaking of the Nobel Prize, do you know who endows the Nobel Prize? (For those of you in Rio Linda, that's "pays for it.") It's paid for from the estate of the inventor of dynamite. So somebody who awards prizes, the inventor of dynamite, gives Obama an award. Where's the outrage? I mean, isn't that promoting violence? Isn't that sanctioning violence?

Another example of how our government has no clue. They want to bribe businesses to hire more people, and it is not working.

Solar company which got $58 million in taxpayer money, is leaving Massachusetts:

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.

Stuff you probably did not know about greenhouse gases (this is a good link for friends):

The Top 100 Effects of Global Warming (I am fairly certain that this is serious; but it is really hard to tell). It is saying goodbye to French Wines, glaciers, guacamole, mixed nuts, French fries, baseball and Christmas trees and saying hello to cannibalistic polar bears, jellyfish attacks, giant squid attacks, more stray kittens, suffocating lemmings, burning cow poop and acidic oceans.

Comprehensive List of Tax Hikes in Obamacare (this includes individual health insurance costing as much as $695/month by 2016—which is not the only cost):

The Publius Forum (more of a newscast than a blog; located in Chicago, I believe):

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 #161	Kukis Digests and Opines on this Week’s News and Views	January 16, 2011