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 5 or 6 pm central standard time (I sometimes fail at this attempt).

I try to include factual material only, along with my opinions (it should be clear which is which). I make an attempt to include as much of this week’s news as I possibly can. The first set of columns are intentionally designed for a quick read.

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

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

There is a second flotilla, designed to break through Israel’s blockade, is set up and ready to go. It is named, The Audacity of Hope.

New York legislature votes to legalize gay marriage. Governor Christie in New Jersey refuses to sign a similar bill.

Republicans Eric Cantor and Jon Kyle walk out of the Biden debt talks. It looks as if Obama might put down the clubs and join these talks now.

Both Goldman Sachs and Macroeconomic Advisers, a research firm, had originally projected that our economy would grow at 4% and 3.5%, respectively; and both have reduced their projections to around a 2% growth prediction.

Nancy Pelosi, who oversaw at Speaker of the House, some of the greatest debt ever piled on this country by Congress, has demanded a seat at the budget and debt ceiling talks.

Cigarette labels are going to become more graphic. At the same time as politicians try to discourage people from smoking, Barney Frank and Ron Paul sponsor a bill to federally decriminalize marijuana.

The book The Original Argument by Josh Charles just came out. It is the Federalist Papers written in more contemporary English. It is #1 on the NY Times’ paperback nonfiction list.

The sexual discrimination suit against WalMart will not be classified as a class action suit (mostly because it is only 3 women who have a beef with WalMart).

The US Supreme Court, by a unanimous vote, dismissed an environmental lawsuit that sought to use public-nuisance law as a way to force five major power companies to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases in a campaign to fight global warming. The high court said the federal Clean Air Act and the actions of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) displace any common-law right to have federal judges develop and police enforcement of carbon dioxide pollution standards.

The Florida Education Association filed a class action lawsuit against Gov. Rick Scott (R-FL) and several administrators, alleging that they violated teachers' existing contracts with an "unconstitutional" 3% pay cut imposed by the recently-passed budget (they now have to pay for 3% of their own retirement).

The Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from ACORN, the activist group driven to ruin by scandal and financial woes, over being banned from getting federal funds.

NBC Sports has this patriotic video of kids saying the pledge to the flag, interspersed with the military raising the flag. They leave “under God” and “Indivisible” out of the pledge.

Former New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin writes in his new book that, after the Katrina debacle, he suspected the federal government of trying to poison him, and he believed at one point that the city's wealthiest, most powerful residents were trying to bug his hotel suite.

Apparently, Van Jones is organizing his own grass roots "tea party" is called "The American Dream Movement." Jones is says he is forming the movement because liberal activists expressed frustration that they lacked the political power or media focus given to the conservative tea-party movement. You may recall, the first set of demonstrations held by the TEA parties all over the United States were virtually ignored by the Obama Media Complex. It was like the first large protests against the Ground Zero Mosque. Ignored, as if it was not even happening.

There are lots of OMC ignored stories. There is this little human interest story: the USDA go after John and Judy Dollarhite for selling over $500 of rabbits (without USDA approval); and so the USDA was suing them for $3.9 million. Their story is found on the alternative media, and, because of this, the USDA is backing off somewhat (but not totally).

The anti-groping bill in Texas (for airline travel) has been stalled; some of the strong language was removed and a number of Senators did not show up for the vote, putting it off for a few days.

Another suspected would-be airline terrorist was neutralized in Michigan. This was a 95 year-old woman, in the last stages of Leukemia, who was asked to remove her adult diaper before going through the checkpoint area.

The White House sends out a memo on what ought to be considered when enforcing immigration law. Get rid of the criminals and overlook those who have served in the military (or are related to someone who has) as well as those who are going to college (or related to someone going to college). This is the Dream Act, put into law by an executive memo. Republicans are crafting legislation to stop this defacto amnesty.

In what has become a new trend, a flash mob of about 40 people stormed into a Philadelphian Sears department store, stealing thousands of dollars worth of merchandise.

The U.S. soccer team played for a prestigious championship in the Rose Bowl, in Los Angeles, and they were received with boos. Somehow, Mexico, who defeated the U.S. 4–2, appeared to be the home team. Even the national anthem was accompanied air horns blaring and beach balls bouncing throughout. Most of those in attendance are U.S. residents.

A mob of nearly 200 Muslims torched 8 Christian homes in Egypt, based up a rumor that a house which is being built would be turned into a church. Two Christians and one Muslim were injured, and no fatalities were reported.

The Israeli government has promised that the Israel Defense Forces will stop the Gaza-bound flotilla from docking near the Gaza strip.

1,060 species of previously unknown varieties of animal, bird, fish, insect and plant have been identified in the forests and wetlands of New Guinea over the past 10 years.

President Barack Obama: “We’ve created 2 million jobs over the past 15 months.”

President Obama: "Of course, there's been a real debate about where to invest and where to cut, and I'm committed to working with members of both parties to cut our deficits and debt. But we can't simply cut our way to prosperity,"

President Obama on Debbie Wasserman Schultz: "If you're in the foxhole, you want Debbie alongside you, because not only is she charming and has that dazzling smile, but she's tough as nails. And that's what's needed during challenging times."

Obama on Schultz again: "We are so thrilled to have her. You want Debbie on your side. She's a mom, she's got that cute smile and all that, but she is tough. Don't mess with Debbie. We are so glad of her leadership."

Former Representative Cynthia McKinney: “We were all stunned when we heard the allegations, because you see, in the United States we do not have free health care. We do not have free education. So the politics in the US right now is around health care issues. It is around education issues. People inside the United States are losing their homes, and the government of Libya is building homes for people. So when we came here, we saw a society, an economy, a country on the rise, and setting the appropriate leadership model. Libyans were not content to just rise by themselves. They were bringing an entire continent along with them. In so doing, they were bringing all of us, from the Americas, from Europe, all of us Africans - they were bringing us along with them.”

Chicago Police Chief Garry McCarthy: "So here's what I want to tell you. See, let's see if we can make a connection here. Slavery. Segregation. Black codes. Jim Crow. What, what did they all have in common? Anybody getting' scared? Government sponsored racism. Now I want you to connect one more dot on that chain of the African American history in this country, and tell me if I'm crazy. Federal gun laws that facilitate the flow of illegal firearms, into our urban centers across this country, that are killing our black and brown children. The NRA does not like me, and I'm okay with that. We've got to get the gun debate back to center, and it's got to come with the recognition of who's paying the price for the gun manufacturers being rich and living in gated communities." There is fairly strict gun-control in Chicago.

Former census bureau spokesman, Sonny Le, tweets: “Let’s revoke Michelle #Malkin’s, another Filipino, citizenship & give it to #JoseAntonioVargas, who has done more 4 America & Journalism” Jose Antonio Vargas is the journalist who revealed that he is an illegal immigrant.

Union lawyer Thomas Geoghegan, in the Wall Street Journal” “Why is Boeing, one of our few real global champions in beefing up exports, moving work on the Dreamliner from a high-skill work force ($28 an hour on average) to a much lower-wage work force ($14 an hour starting wage)? Nothing could be a bigger threat to the economic security of this country. .We should be aghast that Boeing is sending a big fat market signal that it wants a less-skilled, lower-quality work force.”

Attorney General Eric Holder: “[the courts are the nation's] most effective terror-fighting weapon."

Al Gore: "One of the things we could do about it is to change the technologies, to put out less of this pollution, to stabilize the population, and one of the principle ways of doing that is to empower and educate girls and women...You have to have ubiquitous availability of fertility management so women can choose how many children have, the spacing of the children...You have to lift child survival rates so that parents feel comfortable having small families and most important - you have to educate girls and empower women. And that's the most powerful leveraging factor, and when that happens, then the population begins to stabilize and societies begin to make better choices and more balanced choices."

Van Jones (to Glenn Beck and FoxNews): “We see the effects of your cynicism and your disrespect and your hate-mongering and it’s not just immoral, it’s un-American to abuse the airwaves and to abuse the ears of our children with your lies and your filth and we’re tired of it....You’re not America.”

Minister Louis Farrakhan: "We voted for our brother Barack, a beautiful human being with a sweet heart, and now he's an assassin. They turned him into them."

Former New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin in his recently released book, during the Katrina debacle, he thought: " `I'm a dead man! I have just publicly denounced the governor, U.S. Senators, FEMA and the president of the United States. I started wondering if during the night I would be visited by specially trained CIA agents. Could they secretly shoot me with a miniature, slow-acting poison dart?”

NAACP’s Rev. Amos Brown spoke about airline personnel who required a young African American boy to pull up his pants: "The NAACP, in no uncertain terms, contends that this young man was profiled. He's been a victim of racial injustice, and US Air owes to him and his mother an apology."

Alan Colmes to Cal Thomas: "You keep presuming the media is supporting this guy [Obama] and they're not"

Ted Turner: “[climate change is] probably the most serious--and, in all fairness, the most complex--problem that humanity has ever faced. It is really easy to understand how some people don't get it, because it's so complex and complicated."

Former Democratic Sen. Tim Wirth of Colorado, now the president of the UN Foundation: “[the flooding and forest fires in the United States this year are evidence of] the kind of dramatic climate impact [climate change models have predicted and we must] undertake an aggressive program to go after those who are among the deniers, who are putting out these mistruths, and really call them for what they're doing and make a battle out of it. They've had pretty much of a free ride so far, and that time has got to stop."

Bill Maher: "You know, I understand we're on our way to being a third-world country, could we just stop at second-world before we get there? Why doesn't he point to this and say this is all because of climate change. He doesn't seem to use what he has to make a case. I don't hear the Democratic case being made. That's my point."

Bill Maher, apparently talking about Chris Christie policies in New Jersey: “I take it very personally that this is where New Jersey is going; you know, it’s okay if this ___ happens in Kansas and Alabama, but don’t ___ with the smart states.”

Bill Maher: "It's one thing to argue with the company that sold you a refrigerator that you don't like, it's another thing to argue with an insurance company. How can you defend the status quo? It's like defending slavery."

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., on why Air America failed: “So much of the media's really dependent on corporate money, so you're not going to see, like Air America failed not because it wasn't popular. In every jurisdiction where it was operating it was beating out right-wing radio. There was a huge appetite for it. The problem was, it couldn't get advertising because the corporations, the oil companies, the biggest advertisers, the pharmaceutical companies, which is now 70 percent of the, of the revenue for, for, news shows on TV, is pharmaceutical companies. And so it's very hard to criticize them on the news. Automobile companies, which is the other big player, and many other, these companies won't, wouldn't advertise, they all boycotted Air America.”

Comedienne Janeane Garofalo: "If it was a white Democrat, you couldn't get so many Tea Party people so upset whatever it is they're upset about - showing up armed to town hall meetings. By the way, if a black person showed up armed at a town hall meeting where a white politician was speaking, it would be on lockdown martial law and we'd never hear the end of it." One of the iconic photographs was of a TEA party member who showed up armed to a TEA party gathering; which photograph was carefully cropped by the news, so that no one could tell this was an African American TEA party member who was armed and dangerous.

Janeane Garofalo: "[I]t is absurd to me... there is no liberal media bias. There's never been a liberal president. There's never been a liberal machine in power, per se. And you're quite right - anything that the right-wingers are doing, you will know what they are doing by what they accuse their opponent of doing."

Jon Stewart to newsman Chris Wallace: “Being a comedian is harder than what you do.”

Pulitzer Prize-winning author Alice Walker: “I think Israel is the greatest terrorist in that part of the world. And I think in general, the United States and Israel are great terrorist organizations themselves.”

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, speaking at an international conference on terrorism in Tehran: "If the black box of the 9/11 incident and Holocaust were opened, then some of the truth would be exposed, but the United States does not allow this. There are those who believe that the goal of 9/11 was to revive the Zionist regime, reinforce stability in the region, divert US public opinion from the poor economic state. In terms of reference and benefits, 9/11 is very similar to the Holocaust."

Again, I include nutballs like Ahmadinejad here simply because, next to African-Americans, Muslims are the most reliable voting block for Democrats.

Hatem Bazian, at the University of California at Berkeley: “Islamaphobia is just present across the spectrum; it is present in Congress with the King’s hearing...it’s present in all districts across the country where Islamaphobia is being mobilized; it is present in the press; you just open the TV and you have 24/7.”

Dr. Kamal Al-Helbawy, former Muslim Brotherhood spokesman in the West: "The Muslim Brotherhood is organized in 80 countries, and they and the Islamists have a right to establish a global movement, much like global socialism or Zionism... Why Shouldn`t We Have A Country Called 'The United States Of Islam'...I Propose That the Arab Peoples...Take To the Streets With the Slogan `The Arab People Wants To Remove the Borders [Between Its Countries].' You may recall that, earlier this year, the NY Times (among many others) made fun of Glenn Beck for suggesting that the Muslim Brotherhood was closely involved in the revolutions throughout the Middle East, and that their goal is a Caliphate (a united Muslim country made up of many smaller Muslim countries).

Lebanon's highest Sunni Muslim authority Dar al-Fatwa on a law against domestic violence and marital rape: "Islam is very aware of and concerned with . . . resolving problems of poor treatment . . . but this should not happen by cloning Western laws that encourage the breakdown of the family and do not suit our society...[a bill that criminalises marital rape] will have a negative impact on Muslim children. who will see their mother threatening their father with prison, in defiance of patriarchal authority, which will in turn undermine the moral authority...We must continue to follow sharia (Islamic law) as concerns the Muslim family."

The very cute Debbie Wasserman Schultz: “[Republicans] want to literally drag us all the way back to Jim Crow laws."

New York Times columnist David Carr "If it's Kansas, Missouri, no big deal. You know, that's the dance of the low-sloping foreheads. The middle places, right? [pause] Did I just say that aloud?"

CBS White House correspondent Norah O'donnell: “There's an argument that can be made, and there are numbers that support that Obama has more aggressively prosecuted the quote unquote War on Terror - if you like that phrase, some don't - than Bush did.”

NPR host John Hockenberry: "The Taliban has never been an enemy of the United States. They don't love us in Afghanistan, but they're not sending planes over to New York or to the Pentagon and it seems to me much more broadly that the debate needs to happen is what is the sort of multi-state strategy for dealing with rogue nations of all kinds. Yemen is about to fall apart. You've got Somalia problems. The idea that terrorists just go to Afghanistan and launch weapons at the United States it seems in 2011 is an absurdity."

Washington Post’s Colby King: “But, when you get right down to it, he [Jon Huntsman], and, and, and, and Mitt Romney are the, are the two Ken dolls in the, in the, in the Republican race. You got Michele Bachmann who is Barbie with fangs. [Laughter] I mean, it's, the, the, the field itself is just sort of a, like a caricature. There's no substance.”

Jon Stewart, mocking Herman Cain: “If I am president, treaties will have to fit on the back of a cereal box. From now on the state of the union address will be delivered in the form of a fortune cookie. I am Herman Cain, and I do not like to read.”

Rev. Al Sharpton: “[for Gingrich to attempt to court the black vote as a Republican candidate, is] an insult [intended to] cover up the fact that his campaign is falling apart...[This] is something that insults us." A Republican talking to Black voters to make his case? That’s just wrong.

William Daley, the new chief of staff for President Obama about the economy and the budget: “This is a real crisis.”

NY Times newsman Motokoa Rich: “Two years into the official recovery, the economy is still behaving like a plane taxiing indefinitely on the runway. Few economists are predicting an out-and-out return to recession, but the risk has increased, with the health of the American economy.” I do not know Rich’s political leanings.

Although PBS’s David Brooks is identified over and over again as a conservative (the lone conservative on NPR, where there are 17 or 18 liberal regulars), he recently said: “Tom Coburn is completely right, and Grover Norquist is completely wrong [Norquist says no new tax hikes or any kind]. If you're going to have a deal, there's going to have to be revenue as part of it. It doesn't mean you have to raise rates, but it does mean you have to raise revenue by closing loopholes. And the loopholes that they're now talking about as part of the budget deal are technical things about closing loopholes on corporate taxes for a plane and things like that.”

Megan McCain (in her blog to Republican presidential candidates): “You are not cooler than President Obama. No, you are not. No, seriously, you are not, not even you, Sarah Palin-no matter how many motorcycles you jump on in a sexy leather jacket.”

Jon Stewart to Chris Wallace: "All the polls showed that Fox News viewers were the most misinformed TV viewers in the nation."

The Washington Post's Politifact team : “The way Stewart phrased the comment, it's not enough to show a sliver of evidence that Fox News' audience is ill-informed. The evidence needs to support the view that the data shows they are consistently misinformed - a term he used not once but three times. It's simply not true that every poll shows that result. So we rate his claim False.”

The study which claims that FoxNews viewers were the least informed (or most misinformed) was done by World Public Opinion, and it was a George Soros funded study.

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke: “Part of the slowdown is temporary and part of it may be longer-lasting. We do believe that growth is going to pick up going into 2012 but at a somewhat slower pace from what we had anticipated in April. We don't have a precise read on why this slower pace of growth is persisting. One way to think about it is that maybe some of the headwinds that have been concerning us - like weakness in the financial sector, problems in the housing sector, balance sheets and deleveraging issues - some of these headwinds may be stronger, more persistent than we thought. I think it is an appropriate balance to attribute the slowdown partly to these identifiable temporary factors but to acknowledge the possibility that some of the slowdown is due to factors which are longer-lived and which will be still operative by next year.”

Glenn Beck: “Ben, if you don't know what's wrong with the economy, if you're just like, [voice] 'You know, I don't really know, maybe it's some headwinds or somethin'?' Step away from the engine, Ben. Step away from the economy.”

First Lady Michelle Obama: "When it comes to the campaign we're ready to work hard. We did it before and we'll do it again, so we're rolling up our sleeves and getting on with it."

CNN reporter: "How's the family ready for this [the election]? It's going to be quite vicious, isn't it? How do you prepare for that?"

First Lady Michelle Obama: "You know, it's . we're ready, you know. Our children, you know, could care less about what we're doing. We work hard to do that. Fortunately, we have help from the media. I have to say this: I'm very grateful for the support and kindness that we've gotten. People have respected their privacy and in that way, I think, you know, no matter what people may feel about my husband's policies or what have you, they care about children and that's been good to see."

Rep. Kevin McCarthy: "[President Obama has] got to get off the golf course and he's got to get engaged [in the budget/debt ceiling talks]. He has a responsibility as a leader."

Senator Jim DeMint on raising the debt ceiling: "Based on what I can see around the country, not only are those individuals gone [who vote to raise the debt ceiling], but I would suspect the Republican Party would be set back many years. It would be the most toxic vote. I can tell you if you look at the polls, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, they do not think we should increase the debt limit."

Paul Gigot on Obama inheriting an economic mess: “The question is, did you make it better or did you make it worse?”

Sarah Palin on MSNBC's accusation that her bus tour violated US Flag Code by using a flag to advertize: "What a goof! ...What a joke! [The MSNBC reporter] has no clues what the laws are."

Rick Perry, on his website promoting a national day of prayer: "America is in crisis. We have been besieged by financial debt terrorism, and a multitude of natural disasters."

Glenn Beck: “We’re the country that invented the light bulb; we are also the country to ban it.” [quoted from memory]

Karl Rove to Juan Williams: "How can an obscure United States senator from Illinois who had done diddly squat in the senate become the nominee of the Democratic Party and the President of the United States?”

Rush Limbaugh: "Obama plans to release 30 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Well, that must mean that increasing supply is pretty important, so why not drill for it here? Why not raise the drilling moratorium? Oh, we can't do that!"

Rush Limbaugh: "There is news out there from the Labor Department: Jobless benefits are up 'more than expected' again, and the so-called experts are surprised."

Rush: "It has been a political calculation from the beginning not to present a budget because at some point these people have known that their president and their policies are destroying the nation's economy."

The possible alliance between dozens of Muslim states could far outweigh the dangers of communism that we faced for a century.

In a previous issue, I made mention of a political discussion between my mom and my uncle: “Palin—she’s so stupid.” “No kidding.” (Not an exact quotation). This is what passes for political discussion in California. They have no idea that, this was repeated again and again and again, with the most ridiculous examples (like not using blood-libel correctly, but she did; not telling this history of Paul Revere correctly, but she did, etc.). What I have noticed, in nearly every single show where her name is mentioned is, someone will say that she is stupid, and then repeat it, repeat that, restate it, and then repeat the restatement. So, when you hear it over and over again, it eventually sinks in, even if you only half watch the show before you. Anyway, this is a great media compilation of commentators saying how stupid Sarah Palin is, interspersed with video of our president.

John Stossel has been doing some outstanding shows; this is about the State Against Blacks through welfare and racial preferences (with Walter Williams).

Stossel does 2 shows a week on Fox Business Channel and one of these is usually repeated 2 or 3 times over the weekend on FoxNews. On ABC news, Stossel did about 4 or 5 excellent shows a year. On Fox, he is doing at least 1 excellent show each week.

Bill O’Reilly interviews Lupe Fiasco; Bill defends Obama and Lupe calls him the biggest terrorist.

NBC’s pledge of allegiance (which is just like Obama’s pledge of allegiance):

Alan Petrochevski: “President Obana recently lamented not being able to spend more time with his daughters. But if he really wants to spend more time with his daughters, he should just go out and buy them each a set of golf clubs.”

1) There has been a lot of talk out there about how, Republicans need to set the social issues aside and focus on the economy. There are two problems with that: (1) gays will not give up their fight for “marriage rights;” and (2) morality is our problem. We are in debt $14 trillion because of a morality problem. It wasn’t as if someone accidentally moved a decimal point, and we just discovered the error. Immorality got us here.

2) Remember the batteries, be they in flashlights or in cars, do not provide energy in and of themselves. They have to take energy from somewhere and store it. If you are against coal burning, the last thing you want is a plug in car, particularly if it is in an area where coal burning is done to provide electricity.

According to a Planned Parenthood chart, abortion services is only 3% of their services while STD testing is 35% and contraception is 35%. Now, do you really think this is true? What is very likely the case is, 3% of their clientele come in for an abortion, but this is where all of the money is. If 3% was an accurate representation, then Planned Parenthood could easily sever abortion from their services, and avoid a huge amount of trouble. However, they are financially and philosophically tied to the abortion industry. This Planned Parenthood is another of the many examples of liberal dishonesty.

Given these stats, and how quickly Romney has been eclipsed by Michele Bachmann, I think there is a good chance that Bachmann and Cain will end up being #1 and 2 in the Iowa caucus. Rick Perry of Texas will also be in the top 3, assuming that he enters into the race.

NPR ran a story Saturday afternoon on how not raising the debt ceiling is going to directly affect your pocketbook (it will raise the interest on the money that you owe). No opposing views are offered; the fact that Obama controls who gets paid by federal income is ignored; and there are no historical examples of previous times when the debt ceiling was not immediately raised.

Jon Stewart did an Amos and Andy bit, making fun of Republican candidate Herman Cain, for not wanting to read long bills (Cain said he wanted bills from Congress to be no longer than 3 pages). Jon Stewart mocked in an illiterate sounding black voice: “If I am president, treaties will have to fit on the back of a cereal box. From now on the state of the union address will be delivered in the form of a fortune cookie. I am Herman Cain, and I do not like to read.” I thought the bit was reasonably funny. However, can you imagine if any conservative mocked Obama in the same voice, about the 57 states or his “corpsman” mispronunciation or seeing those honored by Memorial Day out in his audience (or one of his many, many gaffs)? If someone pulled that, Al Sharpton would be picketing in front of the building within 24 hours, and there would be all kinds of calls for him to be fired.

There was apparently quite a dispute between two Minnesota judges, who got into a physical battle. Although there was a lot of eyewitness testimony available, AP only told this story in a way that favored the liberal judge.

The ABC and NBC evening newscasts both had stories on Billy Bulger, the long-time Massachusetts Democratic political hack who is the younger brother of just-captured reputed mass-murdering Mobster Whitey Bulger; neither network identified Billy Bulger's party affiliation.

Although they have done bits on Joe Biden and his insane statements, not once have they done a bit on Obama’s goofy statements.

ubiquitous availability of fertility management = a Planned Parenthood on every corner

Fertility management, family planning and reproductive rights = using abortion as retroactive birth control

Rush Limbaugh suggests, and it is hard to argue with this, that the Democrats had no intention of producing a budget. That would be too easy to attack. This way, they can get away with the exact same spending, but without being tied to it.

Two things we know about raising taxes on the rich: this will slow the economy and there is not nearly enough money there to make a dent in the national debt (taking all of the money of the rich will solve the problem of the deficit for one year). So, why do democrats in power want to do this? They are philosophically dedicated to reducing income inequity. It is not an issue to them that this will not solve the debt problem.

With the Republicans committed to no new taxes and the Democrats (many of them) committed to “increasing revenue” with higher taxes, how will this play out? The media is going to continue to portray the Democrats as reasonable and the Republicans as possibly destroying the U.S. economy. Is there enough alternative media to present the other side?

The lines are drawn and the gloves are off. The press will become even more demonstrative in acting as Obama’s right arm in this coming election. If any one comes close to Obama, expect him or her to be skewered.

Rick Perry, governor of Texas, will announce his candidacy right after he hosts a national day of prayer on August 6.

Bachmann and Cain will end up being #1 and 2 in the Iowa caucus. Rick Perry of Texas will also be in the top 3, assuming that he enters into the race.

A significant number of Democratic Senators will vote against raising the debt ceiling, if it is offered up without significant offsets in federal spending.

The media is going to continue to throw love in the direction of Jon Huntsman, as a civil and thoughtful Republican. Over and over, we will continue to see him portrayed as a top-tier candidate who just isn’t known well enough yet. The rest of the Republicans will be portrayed as nutjobs, moral failures, and/or extreme right wingers.

Capitol Confidential claims that the fix is in on the debt ceiling limit, and that the Cantor/Kyl walk out was just theater...that there will be agreement to raising the debt ceiling limit. Say it ain’t so, Joe! If that is the case (and I have no opinion myself at this time), Boehner, Kyle and Cantor will all face tough primary challenges when their time comes.

The push of Democrats has been to install a system of bureaucrats and regulations, separate from the Congress, so that what they want to get done, can get done through these bureaucracies. Obama is using executive order to enact a defacto dream act policy.

One of my earliest memories of revulsion against war came from seeing a photograph from the First World War when I was a teenager. It was nothing gory. Just a picture of a military officer, in an impressive uniform, talking to a puzzled and forlorn-looking old peasant woman with a cloth wrapped around her head.

He said simply: "Don't you understand, madam? The village is not there any more."

To many such people of that era, the village was the only world they knew. And to say that it had been destroyed in the carnage of war was to say that there was no way for them to go back home, that their whole world was gone.

Recently that image came back, in a wholly different context, while seeing pictures of American seniors carrying signs that read "Hands off my Social Security" and "Hands off my Medicare."

They want their Social Security and their Medicare to stay the way they are - and their anger is directed against those who want to change the financial arrangements that pay for these benefits.

Their anger should be directed instead against those politicians who were irresponsible enough to set up these costly programs without putting aside enough money to pay for the promises that were made - promises that now cannot be kept, regardless of which political party controls the government.

Someone needs to say to those who want Social Security and Medicare to continue on unchanged: "Don't you understand? The money is not there any more."

Many retired people remember the money that was taken out of their paychecks for years and feel that they are now entitled to receive Social Security benefits as a right. But the way Social Security was set up was so financially shaky that anyone who set up a similar retirement scheme in the private sector could be sent to federal prison for fraud.

But you can't send a whole Congress to prison, however much they may deserve it.

This is not some newly discovered problem. Innumerable economists and others pointed out decades ago that Social Security was unsustainable in the long run, including yours truly on "Meet the Press" in 1981.

But the long run doesn't count for most politicians, since elections are held in the short run. Politicians' election prospects are enhanced, the more goodies they can promise and the less taxes they collect to pay for them.

That is why welfare states in Europe as well as here are facing bitter public protests as the chickens come home to roost.

It has been said innumerable times that nobody already on Social Security will lose their benefits. But it needs to be spelled out emphatically, so that political demagogues will not be able to scare retired seniors that they are going to have the rug pulled out from under them.

Retired seniors have the least to fear from a reform of Social Security, since neither political party is about to take away what these retirees already have and are relying on.

Despite irresponsible political ads showing an old lady in a wheel chair being dumped over a cliff, the people who are really in danger of being dumped over a cliff are the younger generation, who are paying into Social Security but are unlikely to get back anything like what they are paying in.

The money that young workers are paying into Social Security today is not being put aside to pay for their retirement. It is being spent today, paying the pensions of the retired generation - and it can't even cover that in the years ahead.

What needs to be done is to allow younger workers a choice of staying out of a system that is simply running out of money. Nor can the system be saved by simply jacking up taxes on "the rich."

Generations of experience have shown that high tax rates that "the rich" can easily avoid - through tax shelters at home or by investing their money abroad - do not bring in as much revenue as lower tax rates that keep the money here and the jobs here.

Since the law does not allow private pension plans to be set up in the financially irresponsible way Social Security is, that is where young people's money should be put, if they ever want to see that money again when they reach retirement age.

When liberal investor George Soros gave $1.8 million to National Public Radio , it became part of the firestorm of controversy that jeopardized NPR's federal funding. But that gift only hints at the widespread influence the controversial billionaire has on the mainstream media. Soros, who spent $27 million trying to defeat President Bush in 2004, has ties to more than 30 mainstream news outlets - including The New York Times, Washington Post, the Associated Press, NBC and ABC.

Prominent journalists like ABC's Christiane Amanpour and former Washington Post editor and now Vice President Len Downie serve on boards of operations that take Soros cash. This despite the Society of Professional Journalists' ethical code stating: "avoid all conflicts real or perceived."

This information is part of an upcoming report by the Media Research Centers Business & Media Institute which has been looking into George Soros and his influence on the media.

The investigative reporting start-up ProPublica is a prime example. ProPublica, which recently won its second Pulitzer Prize, initially was given millions of dollars from the Sandler Foundation to "strengthen the progressive infrastructure" - "progressive" being the code word for very liberal. In 2010, it also received a two-year contribution of $125,000 each year from the Open Society Foundations. In case you wonder where that money comes from, the OSF website is www.soros.org. It is a network of more than 30 international foundations, mostly funded by Soros, who has contributed more than $8 billion to those efforts.

The ProPublica stories are thoroughly researched by top-notch staffers who used to work at some of the biggest news outlets in the nation. But the topics are almost laughably left-wing. The site's proud list of "Our Investigations" includes attacks on oil companies, gas companies, the health care industry, for-profit schools and more. More than 100 stories on the latest lefty cause: opposition to drilling for natural gas by hydraulic fracking. Another 100 on the evils of the foreclosure industry.

Throw in a couple investigations making the military look bad and another about prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and you have almost the perfect journalism fantasy - a huge budget, lots of major media partners and a liberal agenda unconstrained by advertising.

One more thing: a 14-person Journalism Advisory Board, stacked with CNN's David Gergen and representatives from top newspapers, a former publisher of The Wall Street Journal and the editor-in-chief of Simon & Schuster. Several are working journalists, including:

ProPublica is far from the only Soros-funded organization that is stacked with members of the supposedly neutral press.

The Center for Public Integrity is another great example. Its board of directors is filled with working journalists like Amanpour from ABC, right along side blatant liberal media types like Arianna Huffington, of the Huffington Post and now AOL.

Like ProPublica, the CPI board is a veritable Who's Who of journalism and top media organizations, including:

• Christiane Amanpour - Anchor of ABC's Sunday morning political affairs program, "This Week with Christiane Amanpour." A reliable lefty, she has called tax cuts "giveaways," the Tea Party "extreme," and Obama "very Reaganesque."

• Paula Madison - Executive vice president and chief diversity officer for NBC Universal, who leads NBC Universal's corporate diversity initiatives, spanning all broadcast television, cable, digital, and film properties.

• Matt Thompson - Editorial product manager at National Public Radio and an adjunct faculty member at the prominent Poynter Institute.

• Ben Sherwood, ABC News president and former "Good Morning America" executive producer

Once again, like ProPublica, the Center for Public Integrity's investigations are mostly liberal - attacks on the coal industry, payday loans and conservatives like Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour. The Center for Public Integrity is also more open about its politics, including a detailed investigation into conservative funders David and Charles Koch and their "web of influence."According to the center's own 990 tax forms, the Open Society Institute gave it $651,650 in 2009 alone.

The well-known Center for Investigative Reporting follows the same template - important journalists on the board and a liberal editorial agenda. Both the board of directors and the advisory board contain journalists from major news outlets. The board features:

Readers of the site are greeted with numerous stories on climate change, illegal immigration and the evils of big companies. It counts among its media partners The Washington Post, Salon, CNN and ABC News. CIR received close to $1 million from Open Society from 2003 to 2008.

Why does it all matter? Journalists, we are constantly told, are neutral in their reporting. In almost the same breath, many bemoan the influence of money in politics. It is a maxim of both the left and many in the media that conservatives are bought and paid for by business interests. Yet where are the concerns about where their money comes from?

Fred Brown, who recently revised the book "Journalism Ethics: A Casebook of Professional Conduct for News Media," argues journalists need to be "transparent" about their connections and "be up front about your relationship" with those who fund you.

Unfortunately, that rarely happens. While the nonprofits list who sits on their boards, the news outlets they work for make little or no effort to connect those dots. Amanpour's biography page, for instance, talks about her lengthy career, her time at CNN and her many awards. It makes no mention of her affiliation with the Center for Public Integrity.

If journalists were more up front, they would have to admit numerous uncomfortable connections with groups that push a liberal agenda, many of them funded by the stridently liberal George Soros. So don't expect that transparency any time soon.

Dan Gainor is the Boone Pickens Fellow and the Media Research Center's Vice President for Business and Culture. He writes frequently for Fox News Opinion. He can also be contacted on FaceBook and Twitter as dangainor.

Editor's note: This is the second part of a two part series by on billionaire investor George Soros and his ties to the U.S. media. To read Part 1 of the series, click here.

It's a scene journalists dream about - a group of coworkers toasting a Pulitzer Prize. For the team at investigative start-up ProPublica, it was the second time their fellow professionals recognized their work for journalism's top honor.

For George Soros and ProPublica's other liberal backers, it was again proof that a strategy of funding journalism was a powerful way to influence the American public.

It's a strategy that Soros has been deploying extensively in media both in the United States and abroad. Since 2003, Soros has spent more than $48 million funding media properties, including the infrastructure of news - journalism schools, investigative journalism and even industry organizations.

And that number is an understatement. It is gleaned from tax forms, news stories and reporting. But Soros funds foundations that fund other foundations in turn, like the Tides Foundation, which then make their own donations. A complete accounting is almost impossible because a media component is part of so many Soros-funded operations.

This information is part of an upcoming report by the Media Research Centers Business & Media Institute which has been looking into George Soros and his influence on the media.

It turns out that Soros' influence doesn't just include connections to top mainstream news organizations such as NBC, ABC, The New York Times and Washington Post. It's bought him connections to the underpinnings of the news business. The Columbia Journalism Review, which bills itself as "a watchdog and a friend of the press in all its forms," lists several investigative reporting projects funded by one of Soros foundations.

The "News Frontier Database" includes seven different investigative reporting projects funded by Soros' Open Society Institute. Along with ProPublica, there are the Center for Public Integrity, the Center for Investigative Reporting and New Orleans' The Lens. The Columbia School of Journalism, which operates CJR, has received at least $600,000 from Soros, as well.

Imagine if conservative media punching bags David and Charles Koch had this many connections to journalists. Even if the Kochs could find journalists willing to support conservative media (doubtful), they would be skewered by the left.

For Soros, it's news, but it nothing new. According to "Soros: The Life and Times of a Messianic Billionaire," he has been fascinated by media from when he was a boy where early career interests included "history or journalism or some form of writing." He served as "editor-in-chief, publisher, and news vendor of" his own paper, "The Lupa News" and wrote a wall newspaper in his native Hungary before leaving, wrote author Michael T. Kaufman, a 40-year New York Times veteran. The Communist Party "encouraged" such papers.

Now as one of the world's richest men (No. 46 on Forbes' list), he gets to indulge his dreams. Since those dreams seem to involve controlling media from the ground up, Soros naturally started with Columbia University's School of Journalism. Columbia is headed by President Lee Bollinger, who also sits on the Pulitzer Prize board and the board of directors of The Washington Post.

Bollinger, like some of Soros' other funding recipients, is pushing for journalism to find a new sugar daddy or at least an uncle - Uncle Sam. Bollinger wrote in his book "Uninhibited, Robust, and Wide-Open: A Free Press for a New Century" that government should fund media. A 2009 study by Columbia's journalism program came to the same conclusion, calling for "a national fund for local news."

Conveniently, Len Downie, the lead author of that piece, is on both the Post's board and the board of the Center for Investigative Reporting, also funded by Soros.

Soros funds more than just the most famous journalism school in the nation. There are journalism industry associations like:

Readers unhappy with Soros' media influence might be tempted to voice concerns to the Organization of News Ombudsmen - a professional group devoted to "monitoring accuracy, fairness and balance." Perhaps they might consider a direct complaint to one such as NPR's Alicia Shepard or PBS's Michael Getler, both directors of the organization. Unfortunately, that group is also funded by Soros. At the bottom of the Organization of News Ombudsmen's website front page is the line: "Supported by the Open Society Institute," a Soros foundation. It is the only organization so listed.

The site doesn't address whether the OSI money creates a conflict of interest. But then, who could readers complain to anyway?

There's more. The Open Society Institute is one of several foundations funding the Investigative News Network (INN), a collaboration of 32 non-profit news organizations producing what they claim is "non-partisan investigative news." The James L. Knight Foundation also backs the network and is possibly the most-well-known journalism foundation. Knight President and CEO Alberto Ibargüen is on the board of directors for ProPublica.

INN includes the Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University, the liberal web start-up MinnPost, National Institute for Computer-Assisted Reporting, National Public Radio, and the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism. The network had included the liberal Huffington Post investigative operation among its grants, but HuffPo investigations merged with the possibly even more left-wing Center for Public Integrity, on whose board Arianna Huffington sits.

Liberal academic programs, left-wing investigative journalism and even supposedly neutral news organizations all paid for by a man who spends tens of millions of dollars openly attacking the right. George Soros is teaching journalists that their industry has a future as long as he opens his wallet.

Even a small drop in the share of black voters would wipe out his winning margin in North Carolina.

President Barack Obama is likely to be defeated in 2012. The reason is that he faces four serious threats. The economy is very weak and unlikely to experience a robust recovery by Election Day. Key voter groups have soured on him. He's defending unpopular policies. And he's made bad strategic decisions.

Let's start with the economy. Unemployment is at 9.1%, with almost 14 million Americans out of work. Nearly half the jobless have been without work for more than six months. Mr. Obama promised much better, declaring that his February 2009 stimulus would cause unemployment to peak at 8% by the end of summer 2009 and drop to roughly 6.8% today.

After boasting in June 2010 that "Our economy . . . is now growing at a good clip," he laughingly admitted last week, "Shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected." The humor will be lost on most. In Wednesday's Bloomberg poll, Americans believe they are worse off than when Mr. Obama took office by a 44% to 34% margin.

The last president re-elected with unemployment over 7.2% was FDR in 1936. Ronald Reagan overcame 7.2% unemployment because the rate was dropping dramatically (it had been over 10%) as the economy grew very rapidly in 1983 and 1984. Today, in contrast, the Federal Reserve says growth will be less than 3% this year and less than 3.8% next year, with unemployment between 7.8% and 8.2% by Election Day.

Mr. Obama also has problems with his base. For example, Jewish voters are upset with his policy toward Israel, and left-wing bloggers at last week's NetRoots conference were angry over Mr. Obama's failure to deliver a leftist utopia. Weak Jewish support could significantly narrow Mr. Obama's margin in states like Florida, while a disappointed left could deprive him of the volunteers so critical to his success in 2008.

Mr. Obama's standing has declined among other, larger groups. Gallup reported his job approval rating Tuesday at 45%, down from 67% at his inaugural. Among the groups showing a larger-than-average decline since 2009 are whites (down 25 points); older voters (down 24); independents and college graduates (both down 23), those with a high-school education or less, men, and Southerners (all down 22); women (down 21 points); married couples and those making $2,000-$4,000 a month (down 20). This all points to severe trouble in suburbs and midsized cities in states likes Colorado, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Nevada.

There's more. Approval among younger voters has dropped 22 points, and it's dropped 20 points among Latinos. Even African-American voters are less excited about Mr. Obama than they were-and than he needs them to be. For example, if their share of the turnout drops just one point in North Carolina, Mr. Obama's 2008 winning margin there is wiped out two and a half times over.

While many voters still personally like Mr. Obama, they deeply oppose his policies, and he tends to be weakest on issues voters consider most important. In the June 13 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, 56% disapprove of Mr. Obama's handling of the economy. Fifty-nine percent in the Economist/YouGov poll of June 14 disapprove of how he's dealt with the deficit.

And his health-care reform still holds its unique place as the only major piece of social legislation that became less popular after it was passed. According to yesterday's Pollster.com average of recent surveys, 38% approve of ObamaCare, while its survey average when the bill was passed in March 2010 showed that 41% approved.

Finally, Mr. Obama has made a strategic blunder. While he needs to raise money and organize, he decided to be a candidate this year rather than president. He has thus unnecessarily abandoned one of incumbency's great strengths, which is the opportunity to govern and distance himself from partisan politics until next spring. Instead, Team Obama has attacked potential GOP opponents and slandered Republican proposals with abandon. This is not what the public is looking for from the former apostle of hope and change.

In politics, 17 months can constitute several geological ages. Political fortunes can wax and wane. And weak incumbents can defeat even weaker challengers.

At the same time, objective circumstances like an anemic economy and bad decisions not only matter; they become very nearly dispositive. Mr. Obama is now at the mercy of policies and events he has set in motion. He can't escape accountability, especially on the economy. He's not done yet, but it will be tough to recover. More in a future column.

A kerfuffle was stirred up last week by a devastating McKinsey & Company study that concluded up to 78 million Americans would lose their current health coverage as employers stopped offering insurance because of President Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

The report contradicted Mr. Obama's frequent pledge that under his reform, "if you like your health-care plan, you can keep your health-care plan." And McKinsey's was at least the fourth such analysis calling the president's promise into question.

Pulitzer Prize-winner Joseph Rago tracks the White House effort to prevent the impact of its policies.

In May 2010, former Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin concluded that employers would drop coverage for about 35 million Americans because of ObamaCare. A month later, in June 2010, the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) pegged the number between 87 million to 117 million. And last November, Allisa Meade, a McKinsey analyst, told health-insurance company executives that 80 million to 100 million people might lose their employer-provided health insurance.

Simple economics is the reason. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation's Employer Health Benefits 2010 Annual Survey, the annual premium for an average policy last year was $5,049 for a single worker, with the company picking up roughly $4,150 and the employee the rest. For a family of four, the total cost was $13,770, with the company picking up $9,773.

Yet under ObamaCare, businesses can stop providing health-care coverage, paying a $2,000 per-worker fine instead. For small businesses, the trade-off is even more attractive: They are given a pass on the first 50 workers.

Workers losing coverage will be moved into the "exchange," a government-run marketplace to buy health plans. Those whose insurance costs were more than a specified share of their income (9.5% in 2014) could get subsidies. The exchange starts in 2014 and is fully operational by 2016.

Perversely, ObamaCare both drives up the cost of insurance with mandates and rules while making it attractive for companies to dump the increasingly more expensive coverage and pay a lesser fine. There will be huge ramifications for the country's finances if more workers lose coverage than was estimated.

When Mr. Obama's health-care bill passed in March 2010, the CBO and the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation predicted that 24 million workers would be covered by the exchange. Of these, nine million to 11 million would lose their employer-provided coverage, offset by six million to seven million who would be getting employer-provided insurance, for a net of three million workers losing company-sponsored coverage. The CBO said the exchanges would cost $511 billion over ObamaCare's first decade.

But what if more people are dumped into the exchange than originally estimated? Costs from the increased subsidies will explode.

If Mr. Holtz-Eakin is correct that there will be 11 million more people in the exchange, then costs could be nearly 40% higher than the $511 billion price tag. If between 78 million and 87 million people are moved into the exchange, the tab could more than triple. And if NCPA's upper-range estimate is right and 117 million people were dumped into the exchange, ObamaCare would cost nearly $2 trillion more than expected in the first decade alone. Much of this extra expense would come from workers losing their employer-sponsored insurance.

Mr. Obama's health-care law has already put the country in bad financial shape. He claimed it reduced the deficit by $143 billion-but that was before the CBO added $115 billion to administer the legislation, including the hiring of bureaucrats and thousands of IRS agents to enforce the new mandates. This reduced Mr. Obama's claimed savings to $28 billion.

The deficit-reduction claim also came before House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan drew attention to the law's Ponzi scheme. It's funded by borrowing $521 billion from the Social Security Trust Fund, Medicare, and new long-term care insurance premiums, and by ignoring the $300 billion cost over 10 years of the annual inflation increases in reimbursements to hospitals and doctors. These gimmicks hide the fact that ObamaCare is really $701 billion in the red in its first decade.

ObamaCare's deficits in its second decade (2020 to 2029) will be even more horrendous as it continues borrowing from Social Security, Medicare and the long-term care insurance program to meet its much larger than anticipated expenses, including a much higher number of people who end up in the exchange.

On March 9, 2010, then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi famously told a meeting of county officials that "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."

We are now, to our horror, finding out how harmful this measure is. More Americans are realizing that unless repealed, ObamaCare will sink America in a sea of red ink. This helps explain why the nation has turned so hard against it-and against its author whose slippery pledges so misled us.

Big Media doesn't pay much attention to them, even though Obama makes an amazing number of errors in his public statements. And I think it's easy enough to understand why the BM largely ignores them: to report them all would totally undermine the image of the president to which a surprising number of "reporters" and pundits are wedded: that of an unusually intelligent and well educated man.

Yet someone who tells a crowd in Vienna that his "Austrian" isn't very good, who tells Marines that he's pleased to speak to the "Marine Corpse," and who, just today, said he'd given the Medal of Honor to a survivor from the 10th Mountain Division, when in fact the award was given posthumously, doesn't fit my definition of a brilliant and cultured man.

Yes, there was a Medal of Honor winner who lived to receive it, but it was a different man. The living honoree is named Giunta; the deceased hero from the 10th Mountain Division was named Monti. Both are Italian names. Did a White House speechwriter confuse the two Italians? And if so, what does that tell us about the ship under the command of President Obama? That's worth pondering for a moment.

When you add up all the mistakes he's made-not slips of the tongue, but real errors in statements and speeches he could read from the ubiquitous teleprompter-they make quite a number. So what? you may ask. The answer is that hundreds of people traditionally read the drafts of presidential speeches and statements. That happens for two good reasons. First, presidential utterances are instant policy. It's hard to walk away from a public statement. Second, the myriad political appointees want their leader to look good, and they strain to ensure the accuracy of his statements. Or at least they did when I had first-hand knowledge of such things, now a few years back.

I don't think that is happening in this administration. A friend said to me earlier today that he was really amazed at the discipline of Obama's team, specifically in the small number of leaks compared with previous administrations-especially W's years. It's a good point, and that only happens when information flow is severely restricted; when only a handful of folks know what's happening, chances to leak are reduced. (On the recent decision on force level reductions in Afghanistan, for example, most of the "inside the Beltway" rumors were dead wrong).

I suspect that drafts of presidential speeches and statements are treated the same way. I think they are only circulated among a very small number of people for comment, and those people are probably very busy, and don't have the time to check things like the precise name and history of a Medal of Honor recipient.

That would explain today's embarrassment (embarrassment to us, to the nation-he speaks for us, after all-since he doesn't seem to suffer embarrassment very often), but it doesn't explain things like the apology for his lack of fluency in "Austrian" or his lack of knowledge that we have a Marine Corps (pronounced "core"). That comes from lousy education, from lack of basic knowledge about the world. And if I'm right about the small number of administration officials who get to see his words before they're delivered in public, it tells us that they, too, aren't properly educated.

It tells us that the president and his trusted advisers are the products of the atrocious, politically correct educational system that's wrecking the country in so many ways. And it's very worrisome. It's part of the Orwellian universe that envelops many of our leaders, a universe in which they feel free to simply invent "facts" so long as they fit the emotional and ideological pattern that really matters to the elite.

And these people think they're the smart guys, and we're the dummies, even though we know that German is spoken in Vienna, and many of us would be mortified to make a glaring error about an American hero.

The gaffes are important. They tell us a lot about the nature of our leaders, and it's not good news. But it is news, even though it's not reported as often as it should be, or with the sort of concern the gaffes deserve.

George Soros meeting where most of the speakers are tied to him, about reorganizing the global economic system...an essentially unreported meeting:

Bill Clinton on 14 ways to save the economy; some of the ideas are so-so; many involved government spending.

There is a British study which suggests that electric cars produce more emissions than their petrol brothers. However, bear in mind, this is highly disputed:

World Public Opinion, which determined in a survey that FoxNews viewers were the most misinformed, in a Soros-funded study.

RUSH: I know a number of you are just dying to know, did I break 80 yesterday when I went out and played Bel-Air again? No. I had 84, 85. One of those two, I forget which it was. No, I am not playing as much as Obama is. I mean, to play as much as Obama I'd have to play for three straight weeks every day. He is playing every weekend this year so far.

It was one week ago today that we launched Two If By Tea, two, t-w-o. One week ago today history was made on this program. Yesterday was one of the greatest programs in the history of the program. I want to thank all of you for the nice thoughts that you expressed in your e-mails about those Reagan sound bites. I went out to the golf course yesterday. I got out there an hour after the program ended, and I met R. J. Wagner, Robert Wagner. It turns out Robert Wagner is a friend of a friend of mine in Palm Beach, the noted thriller author Ted Bell. And I didn't know that R. J. -- that's how he introduced himself, folks, so don't get on me -- it's R. J. Wagner, great actor. And all these people were going on and on and on about the Reagan sound bites yesterday.

It was just wonderful because we hear all these people telling us what Reagan was and who Reagan was and how Reagan did things. And most of the time people with their stories are not correct. They got this incorrect view of Reagan, and those bites yesterday of Reagan going after Jimmy Carter at the Statue of Liberty in 1980, people were shocked. Pleasantly surprised, let's put it that way. Even people old enough to have remembered Reagan and have been actively involved, 1980, you know, 30 years ago. To me, all that seems like yesterday. The eighties really does seem like yesterday to me. Sacramento, I moved there in 1984. Seems like yesterday. Honestly. But it's still a long time ago. And even though I remember all of these things about Reagan a lot of people have forgotten, obviously, and they hear what Reagan went after these people and they contrast it to what they hear Republicans suggesting as the right way to do it today, and then they are led, as we did yesterday, into an analysis, okay, who's winning and losing elections and how are they doing it, and it becomes abundantly clear that for all this talk about remaining true to the ideals of Reagan, the Republican Party's forgotten how to do it. So it was a lot of fun yesterday. The Huntsman announcement provided a lot of fodder.

RUSH: I want to revisit one more time, Ronaldus Magnus and his reigniting his campaign against Jimmy Carter in 1980 at the Statue of Liberty on September 1st, and this is important. (I'm gonna leave Jon Huntsman out of this time; it's not the point.) The whole Republican Party needs to wake up and understand what's at stake here and how to go about it. We have enough destruction taking place here. To sit here and simply say, "To be nice about this, under the guise of civility, isn't going to get the job done." When you got somebody that's causing great problems, this is how you campaign against them...

REAGAN: The Carter record is a litany of despair, of broken promises, of sacred trusts abandoned and forgotten. His answer to all this misery? He tries to tell us that we're only in a recession, not a depression, as if definitions -- words -- relieve our suffering. Let it show on the record that when

the American people cried out for economic help, Jimmy Carter took refuge behind a dictionary. Well, if it's a definition he wants, I'll give him one: A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours. And recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his!

REAGAN: I'm looking forward to meeting Mr. Carter in debate, confronting him with the whole sorry record of his administration -- the record he prefers not to mention. If he ever finally agrees to the kind of first debate the American people want, which I'm beginning to doubt, he'll answer to them and to me.

REAGAN: This country needs a new administration with a renewed dedication to the dream of America, an administration that will give that dream new life and make America great again.

RUSH: There's a story in USA Today that asks the question: "Is Social Security a Ponzi Scheme?" Now, of course, it is. Social Security at a Ponzi scheme. It is a Madoff-type Ponzi scheme. But, you know what?

USA Today, State-Controlled Media, they say (paraphrased): "No, no, no! Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme because our intentions were honorable. We really intended for Social Security to work out really well, so it can't possibly be a Ponzi scheme, because we intended it to be real." So the left, the Democrats, can do anything -- they can employ strategy and policy which is destructive -- and be excused for it on the basis that they had good intentions. And, by the way, that's how they skate on virtually every bit of destructive policy, which is every policy they have. There's not one that works as designed. Now, this morning... Folks, it just keeps getting worse, the news. I feel like I'm piling on. The CBO, the Congressional Budget Office today (just this morning, mere moments ago) released its updated long-term budget projections -- and it's worse than anybody thought.

The document is called "Outlook," the CBO projection document. In last year's document, the Congressional Budget Office projected that the national debt would be 91% of GDP in 2021. Can you even get your arms around that? Our national debt, last year, they projected to be 91% of GDP. Now they say it's gonna be 101%. They were wrong by 10%. Our national debt, will be 101% of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2021, that is ten years from now. In other words, let me put it this way: In ten years, our national debt will be larger than our economy. That's what that means. When we say that the national debt is 101% of GDP, that means that the national debt is larger than the economy.

But they're not through. By 2030, the CBO projects national debt will be 150% of GDP, or, in other words, one-and-a-half times larger that be the economy in total; and by the year 2037, 200% of GDP. The national debt -- if nothing changes, if we stay on this course -- if nothing changes, by 2037, the amount of debt that we owe will be larger, twice as large as our economy -- and, of course, the assumption is that it will continue to grow and grow after this. Of course there's no reason it's gonna stop! There's not a single policy in place to reverse this; and certainly no policy being offered, articulated, supported by the regime that does anything other than speed this up and expand it. I know what you're saying. "Okay, what can we do?"

Folks, it's not complicated, the answer. It's very difficult to implement. You gotta reform entitlements. You've got to get rid of Obamacare. You have to! Obamacare cannot be fully implemented. One of the largest contributing factors to these stats I just gave you is Obamacare, and it just frosts me 'cause they sold us this bill of goods on the notion it was gonna lower the deficit. It was gonna lower national debt. It was gonna lower premiums. It was gonna expand coverage. I mean, it was lie after lie after lie after lie -- and the media promulgated it, knowing full well they were lying on behalf of the regime. It's to the point now that if this monstrosity is not repealed and not defunded, I don't know how to illustrate life in a country where the debt is twice the size of the economy, or even equal to it!

I'll tell you this: We have a number of elected officials who have participated in writing laws, voting for laws, passing laws that have made this possible, who aren't gonna be alive in 2021, who're not gonna be alive in 2037 -- and a couple of them have even gone on record saying, "Oh, yeah, yeah, I voted for Obamacare. I'm not gonna be alive then. It won't matter to me. It will help my party now, and it'll get votes for me now, but I'm not gonna be alive." When you have the national debt equal to your economy, you're getting to the point where... Folks, we are already at the point where it is impossible to pay the debt back. The focus now is servicing it.

If you can't even do that, there's no... Literally everything will be the government's! They will have dibs on every dollar there is, and probably in 2022 they'll still be blaming George W. Bush for it. You see Greece is falling apart; Spain, you've seen the near riots that are taking place. Greece's GDP-to-debt is 125%, meaning that the total debt of Greece is one-and-a-quarter larger than their economy, and look at the problem they're having. We're on our way to two, the debt being twice as large as our economy, and we're gonna have similar kind of problems. Greece and the European Union are realizing they can't sustain this. They're going backwards. They're trying to reduce the size of their governments and so forth. That's why the people are rioting and so forth. Then the Federal Reserve: The Fed hoped that three years of printing money and giving it away would have stimulated the economy, and guess what?

RUSH: This business here about the Fed and their three-year rescue plan -- and, of course, you don't need the news stories to confirm the results. You need only to understand liberalism, and when they announce a plan to grow the economy, you know it isn't gonna work. When they announce a plan to create jobs, you know it's not gonna work. That ought to happen. Liberalism fails every time it's tried. It ought have been relegated to the ash heap of the world years ago. But, you see: "Good intentions." Ahhhh, yes, the big hearts! All of that compassion the left has. That saves them. USA Today, a story by Matt Krantz on Social Security.

Somebody sent him a question. It's one of these Q&A pieces. Some reader at USA Today (a typical idiot) writes in with a question of the day, and they assign some reporter to answer it -- and the question of the day from the assigned idiot of the day: "Is Social Security an Investment Ponzi Scheme?" So the assigned Matt Krantz to answer it, and Matt says: "There's just one thing that's worse than having a large chunk of money taken out of your paycheck: Taking a chance you won't get it back. Workers who see Social Security deductions taken from their paychecks every pay period can't help but wonder if they'll ever see the money again. That's especially true with younger workers, whose contributions are being used to pay benefits to the swelling ranks of Baby Boomers, who are reaching retirement age [now] or who are already retired.

"Making things even more troubling is the amount investors need to save in order to retire is only increasing, even as incomes are flat, or even down." It goes on and on to explain the program and why people are anxious about it, and then he finally gets (in the middle of next page) to the answer. "Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme because it wasn't an intentional fraud," says Jack Coffee, professor of law and securities law expert at Columbia Law School.

Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme 'cause it wasn't an intentional fraud. "In fact, the system has worked as expected since its creation in the 1930s. What's happening now is that, like many corporate pension plans, Social Security is running the risk of being underfunded as obligations grow faster than contributions."

Uh, what? How does that then differ from a Ponzi scheme? It pays out more than it has coming in? It doesn't matter when that happens. You know, Madoff lived and died on this for a long, long time. Finally he couldn't do it anymore. When the market tumbled and he couldn't give people money when they wanted out of the market, it was up, it was over. This dynamic's been going on a long time. The only difference is government is not gonna put itself out of business or put itself in jail like it did Madoff. The government will continue its Ponzi scheme, but you see it's not a Ponzi scheme because it had good intentions.

The same thing here with the Federal Reserve: They had wonderful intentions, bailing out all these entities. This is a New York Times story: "Fed's Three-Year Rescue Plan Falling Short of Promise." Well, we knew it was going to "fall short of promise" because it was a bunch of liberal ideas. "The Federal Reserve hoped that its..." Imagine this! The Federal Reserve: Home of financial wizards; home of financial experts, the best and the brightest; home of tax cheats. That's where Little Timmy worked. He was at the Fed, until he was discovered by Obama. I think Obama discovered him in one of the Lord of the Rings movies and said, "I need to get this guy for my administration!"

So he went out and found Little Timmy and put him in charge of TARP and then was learned that Little Timmy was cheating on his taxes. The regime said, "That doesn't matter! There's only one guy in America that can possibly understand what needs to be understood and help us through this mess that is TARP and that's Tim Geithner. The only person in America could possibly figure it out, the only person in America who could navigate the treacherous waters here is Tim Geithner." So he goes from the Federal Reserve to the Treasury secretary post. The Fed -- all these experts, the best and the brightest-- and they are "hoping." They are hoping. The New York Times: "The Federal Reserve hoped..."

That's like saying, "NASA hopes the shuttle achieves orbit." Well, naturally, hopes, but you're doing it on a little bit more solid ground than hoping! When you launch the shuttle, there is a full expectation it will reach orbit because it's done it a number of times before. The science has been tested, and it works. But here we are trying something that never has worked, and we're doubling and tripling down on it, hoping that that's why it hasn't worked: We just haven't spent enough. Hoping? The best and brightest in our country are engaging in policies and then "hoping" it works out? "The Federal Reserve hoped that its three-year-old economic rescue campaign would reach a climax at the end of June. It hoped that consumers and businesses by now would be spending more and more..."

Does this make you feel confident in the best and brightest, the people that told us they had the answers were hoping for a climax at the end of June -- and the closest they got, I guess, was Weiner. Then next they're hoping that you would start spending more along with businesses, and then after you did that, they could start spending less and less. That's what the New York Times says. But of course none of this is happening. Despite all the hope, despite all the great intentions and wonderful wizardry of intelligence, it doesn't happen. And the New York Times says: "That peak now looks like a long plateau. The Fed still is expected to announce [today] that it will halt the expansion of its aid programs at the end of June, as scheduled, when it completes the purchase of $600 billion in Treasury securities.

"But growth is sputtering, and economists now expect that the Fed will leave its $2 trillion of bandages, props and crutches untouched until next year." What does that even...? What does this mean? How is the Fed leaving $2 trillion untouched? I don't even know what it means. "The pace of economic expansion has repeatedly fallen short of the Fed's predictions," I guess the hopes didn't pan out, "and the central bank is expected to lower its eyes once again when its releases a new forecast after a two-day meeting of its policy board, the Federal Open Market Committee."

Lower its eyes? What, are they embarrassed? They ought to be! Do you know why it didn't work? The New York Times says right here: The Japanese earthquake. That's why the $2 trillion in bailouts didn't work. Quantitative Easing 1, Quantitative Easing 2? I'm holding it right here in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers. That's why it didn't work, the Japanese earthquake. So what we've here (I'm not gonna spend any more time with the whole piece) is a vaguely written New York Times article. They do say that the Fed's bailout of the stock market has not increased spending. It was a bailout of the stock market.

The stock market -- and it was an indirect way. We've talked about this before. The Fed printed money, called Quantitative Easing. They distributed that money in such a way as securities were bought, shares of stock. This built up the stock market, grew the stock market, while nothing else in the economy was working. Yeah, it kept the illusion here that there was at least something growing in the economy, and it was hoped that that illusion would transfer into spending, increased spending by consumers and other businesses. "Oh, look at the stock market! Oooh! Okay, I guess there's a recovery go on; we can go out and spend."

It didn't happen. Consumers are not consumin' out there. So now after $2 trillion of this propping up the stock market, they're blaming the Japanese earthquake. It's kind of weird, too: There's no mention in this story of what this bailout cost the taxpayers in actual dollars, or in the devaluation of the dollar because of printing more money. But this has been a debacle, folks: $2 trillion of printing money and deploying it strategically and then hoping! What's laughable is the left says, "Well, we just haven't spent enough yet!" The Paul Krugman wing says, "We just haven't spent enough yet. Just stick with this awhile! Keynes will eventually be provable correct."

But I think the story is a little bit amazing in that the Times is admitting all of this has been a bit of a failure, a boondoggle. Also, if you read this, it don't sound like there's gonna be a QE3, which is good, but I'm not sure of that. It doesn't sound like there's gonna be a QE3, which means the Fed is gonna admit here that they're outta arrows, that they've got normal ammo to throw at this in the form of spending. I hope that's what it means, but don't hold your breath.

RUSH: Missoula, Montana. Kevin, I'm glad you waited. Welcome, sir, to the program. Nice to have you with us.

CALLER: Well, thank you for taking my call. I have two things -- and one thing I didn't talk to your call screener about, but I think the projections, the CBO projections are rosy compared to what's really going to happen.

RUSH: You're talking about government economic growth and debt and that kind of thing.

CALLER: Yeah. Well, they're basing on a projected rate of growth of maybe 2.3 to 3%, but what they aren't putting in here: Who's gonna by the debt it takes to service the debt? There are so many things that could happen.

RUSH: You know, they have the debt auctions occasionally that they can't find buyers, so they have to up the interest rate they offer.

CALLER: Well, and so you up the interest rates, so then you start to take the money back out of the system that the private market could borrow to create jobs.

CALLER: That brings me for the other thing: I wanted to thank you for starting a business during the recession, because the one thing that bothers me about some of the wealthy people -- and I don't mean to put you in that category, but you could put your money in a foundation if you wanted to. You know, and like Buffett or Gates or Turner, they put their money in foundations; they spend the interest. They don't reinvest it back into business that creates wealth -- and I want to thank you for that.

RUSH: Well, you're very kind. You're very perceptive, by the way, too. As you know... Well, no, I can't say that. You don't know. Let me tell you: I have people who routinely tell me that I should do a foundation.

"Well, because you'd be able to take the entire annual charitable deduction off the top that year, but you only have to spend 5% of it."

"Really? So I can start a foundation with, say, a million dollars, but I only have to give $50,000 of it away, and I still get the million-dollars?"

"Well, yeah, of course you lose the money, but it's a good thing. It's going to charity."

"Okay. It's never really appealed to me unless the foundation's gonna be something that is its own functioning entity rather than someplace to park money. If it's a functioning enterprise that's gonna seek its own growth for genuine philanthropy, but it's never really appealed to me as a place to park money. I'd rather just, you know, write a check to a charity or whoever, rather than set up the foundation."

That's just me. We all have our individual quirks. But I appreciate your observation. I really do. That's very kind of you to say.

CALLER: Well, it makes a difference to more people to create job growth and create wealth than it will ever do to put money into a foundation to fund more nonprofits, and I do want to thank you.

RUSH: Well, you're more than welcome. I appreciate that. Profit does the most social good. There's no question about it. Every time I take a call we lose the network. Anyway, the point that he was making before that was that the projections that we shared with you on the Congressional Budget Office on how much of the US economy will be debt; and we get to 2021, that the debt will be as large as our total economic output; and by 2037 it will be twice as large. His point was that that's assuming an annual economic growth rate of 2.5 to 3%, and that's assuming a lot. We're not anywhere near that right now, and I wanted to make sure that point that he made was emphasized.

RUSH: Two of our most favorite wizards of smart are in the news, Thomas L. Friedman, the columnist of the New York Times, and David Brooks, wizard of smart conservative columnist at the New York Times as well. They both appeared with PBS wizard of smart, Charlie Rose. One of the smartest shows on TV. It's where you can hear people actually say, "We don't know who this guy is," meaning Obama, yeah, "We don't know what books he's read." That's the place to go to find the really smart people. And they're talking about how they're disappointed here in the Bamster, thought he was gonna be more of a leader, the sharp crease in his slacks, told Brooks that the guy was eminently qualified to be president and he's tough minded, no nonsense, had all the answers. It hasn't worked out that well and that way.

So here's Charlie Rose, and he says first to Thomas L. Friedman, the New York Times, "The idea of Obama leadership, has he not acted boldly where we might have wanted him to act?" So picture this. Charlie Rose, you got two wizards of smart, Friedman and Brooks, and they're wringing their hands now because Obama was the answer, one of them, intellectual, well spoken, articulate, nuanced, serious, all of these adjectives. But where's the boldness? Where's the leadership? And Charlie Rose wants some guidance. He wants some insurance here. He wants to be told that everything's okay. So he turns to a fellow wizard of smart, Thomas L. Friedman, the New York Times, and says, "Thomas, has the president not acted boldly where we might have wanted him to act?"

FRIEDMAN: I voted for Obama for one reason, because I thought he could change the polls and not read the polls. My biggest disappointment is I really see a guy reading the polls as closely as ever. Those two words, climate change, became a four letter word in American politics under Barack Obama's watch. It's against the law in the Republican party. Romney was just so courageous, he actually said he believes in science. Oh my God! And Rush Limbaugh said "You're out of the party, pal." Okay. That goes as courage.

RUSH: See, and these are the smart people, and there isn't any science in the global warming these people believe in. Folks, if there were science, I'd be a believer. I do not have my head buried in the sand. I'm not an ostrich. I live in Realville. I'm the mayor. I'm the town council president. I'm the police chief. There aren't a whole lot of people that live in Literalville, but I do. And manmade global warming is not science. It's a consensus. It's a guess. It's a good guess. It's a best guess. It's a vote. And a majority of people have been paid to say that man is causing the climate to warm up. And that's why there's global warming, that enough people have been paid to say so. "You can't say that, Mr. Limbaugh, you are attacking the integrity of decent --" well, they've been paid. Their entire lifestyles, their standard of living depends on their grants that they get to conduct the studies, and they only get the money if they come up with the right result.

So enough people have banded together, come up with a consensus, man is causing the climate to warm, bingo, you got science. Except there isn't science. You have a political agenda being advanced by people calling themselves scientists and in fact may even work at places where scientific discovery takes place. But, you see, here's Thomas L. Friedman, smartest man in the world, why, if he thinks there's global warming, it must be, right?

It's like in the movie Wag the Dog, if television shows you a war in Albania, but there isn't one, who's to say there really isn't a war? "I saw it on TV. I saw people. I saw a woman running for shelter. They told me that it was in Albania, she's running for her life." "Spy satellites don't show any war." "Well, okay. How do you know? My TV says there's a war there. I got pictures that show polar bears barely surviving on little three-square-foot plots of ice. There's gotta be global warming."

Thomas L. Friedman is the dupe. I don't know if he's been duped or if he's part of the group that's duping everybody else. I don't know if he's being paid for his opinion on global warming, but most of the scientists who advocate it are. Believe me, folks, my integrity's intact. If there were scientific proof, undeniable, thus making it science, that man was causing the climate to warm, I'd be the biggest proponent. I would be the one the one ringing the bells. Actually, I wouldn't because I'd also understand there's nothing we can do to fix it because we didn't cause it. This is really just common sense.

Anyway, you see here, Thomas Friedman, his big disappointment is "I thought Obama could change the polls, not read them. My biggest disappointment is I see a guy reading the polls as closely as ever. These two words 'climate change' became a four-letter word in American politics under Obama." Well, Mr. Friedman, work continues unbated on the whole concept of manmade global warming. The EPA is gonna implement cap and trade for all intents and purposes. You're getting what you want. The American people don't believe it, the American people aren't buying into it so they're having to be defrauded, but what do you care? And then Charlie Rose says, "Now Romney suggested that he thought man contributed to global warming."

FRIEDMAN: What is so disturbing is that, is that we don't -- we're not having an adult conversation about, you know, what are the real problems. So my frustration with Obama really flows from that. I mean Rorschach test, we all go around the table, Barack Obama, what comes to mind right now in the middle of this crisis? I have to tell you, it's a blank sheet of paper for me. I have no real strong sense of how he defines the problems, where he wants to go, what his bottom line is.

RUSH: Now, all credit is due Mr. Friedman here for finally admitting this, but I would say when did you know otherwise? Hasn't Obama always been this blank piece of paper? Obama was always a Rorschach test. Obama was always an empty canvas. It's just back in the campaign years of 2007, 2008 you guys got all caught up in your dreams and your fantasies and your utopias. You figured this guy was one of you, a fellow intellectual, so he had to be brilliant and he had to have all the answers and he was gonna fix everything and he was gonna put you in charge of it when he was finished. Wouldn't it have made much more sense, Mr. Friedman, if you had had the view of him then that you have of him now? 'Cause he really hasn't changed.

All that's changed is your perception. All that's happened here is that Obama has not turned out to be the person you hoped he was, but you never knew, because on this very show, Charlie Rose, we've got the tape, we could go back and play it if you want to, Brokaw and Charlie Rose themselves said, (imitating Brokaw and Rose) "I don't know anything about Obama. I don't know what books he's read. I don't know who his friends are. I don't know what he would do," but they were telling us we should all vote for the guy. So now it's Mr. Brooks' turn, the conservative columnist in the New York Times decided that this was his chance to chime in. This is what he said.

BROOKS: Sometimes I've been thinking recently that as president he's shown he can be a really great Senator, which is to say that his natural skills are for the deliberation, for the organizing of coalitions, but the getting out front part and the sort of active determining and shaping history part, we've seen it sometimes, but not a lot. I just wish I knew whether it comes from some sort of deep sense of caution that he doesn't want to put himself out there, or for some other reason, I simply don't know.

RUSH: So Obama, he's been a really great Senator. I guess the crease in the pants isn't cutting it for Brooks anymore. It's not enough. It was enough to get Brooks' vote, the crease in Obama's slacks, that was enough to tell Brooks he was gonna be president and he was gonna be a great president, but it hasn't worked out. Now he doesn't know. None of these guys know. None of these people have the slightest idea. The thing is they never have had the slightest idea. (interruption) What is that, Snerdley? Snerdley wants to know what the L. stands for in Thomas L. Friedman. Loopy, that's the middle name.

RUSH: May as well grab it. Grab audio sound bite number 29. We may as well go back and relive this. By the way, folks, I have erred. There will not be a Dittocam Monday or Tuesday. I will not be here on Monday or Tuesday. We got guest hosts. Yeah. Yeah. Brain you-know-what. So, we'll have the Dittocam a week from today. That's -- that's the more accurate thing to say perform we've got Mark Davis next Monday and Tuesday next week.

This is like two or three days before the election, October the 30th in 2008. This is Brokaw on Charlie Rose on Charlie Rose's show.

BROKAW: We don't know a lot about Barack Obama and the universe of his thinking about foreign policy.

ROSE: I don't really know. And do we know anything about the people who are advising him?

ROSE: He is principally known through his autobiography and through very aspirational (sic) speeches.

RUSH: Yeah. That's October 30th. That's less than a week before the election, after they spent months and months and months telling us, "You gotta vote for the guy! Vote for the guy!" They don't know who he is, and they still don't! Brooks and Friedman have no clue who he is. June 21st of 2011.

RUSH: There is this guy at the Washington Post, a blogger, his name is Greg Sargent, and I don't know where he came from. He came from some previously failed Drive-By institution. He might have come from some place called Editor and Publisher, I'm not sure. Editor and Publisher was almost like a trade publication for the media. It's far-left, just insane, and this guy has got his own blog now and he sends me snarky e-mails now and then. I got his latest piece, I said surely I can't be seeing what I'm seeing here. This is the headline: "Dems Will Not Shy Away from Accusing GOP of Deliberately Sabotaging Economy." What? Republicans are sabotaging the economy? With what power? With what power do the Republicans have to sabotage the economy? I mean this is turning everything upside down. This is turning everything 180 degrees out of phase.

"Today Senate Dems went there: They accused Republicans of deliberately sabotaging the economy in order to further their own political interests." Okay, this answers the question. This answers the question, it is purposeful, folks. The Democrats engage in this kind of stuff all the time, projection. They constantly accuse us of what they are really doing. So now that they've come out and accused us of sabotaging the economy, that means that that's exactly what they are doing. So the question is no longer open. It's not a matter of, "Gee, are these people really this idiotic, naive and ignorant or is this done purposefully?" We now have the answer. They've accused us of sabotage. We don't run anything. Well, yeah, we run the House, we can block stuff, but we can't get our agenda passed.

Obama still runs the White House. The Democrats still have the Senate. The Democrats had the whole show for 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010. And that's when all of this damage happened. The Republicans didn't have one -- well, they had the White House with Bush, but he was neutered for the most part. This is quite telling. A Senior Democrat Senate aide tells me, the estimable Greg Sargent, the Democrats "will not shy away from making that case in the weeks to come, if the Republicans keep blocking their efforts to spur job creation." So the Republicans are purposely destroying the economy and the Republicans are purposely blocking the effort to create jobs. My friends, as I've said, we now know, and we have the answer: The Democrat Party is purposely sabotaging the private sector of this economy, job creation, and they are purposely sabotaging the creation of private sector jobs. The answer is in, both of them. Thank you, Mr. Sargent. Thank you, Democrats.

"Senators Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin made the charge in remarks to reporters today. Durbin said: 'Unfortunately our Republican colleagues in the House and Senate are driven by putting one man out of work -- President Obama.'" It's exactly right. That will equal economic recovery for everybody else. Senator Chuck-U Schumer said, "Do Republicans really oppose a tax cut for businesses that created jobs?" You are hearing me right. Chuck-U is out there now trying to tell people Republicans oppose business tax cuts. Yeah, I know, it's brazen and it's audacious, but this is who they are. I think isn't it that the Republicans have actually proposed tax cuts for businesses? Isn't that in their budget, a budget, by the way, that Democrats nor Obama have even presented in two budget cycles now?

Chuck-U Schumer: "If they oppose even something so suited to their tastes ideologically, it shows that they're just opposing anything that helps create jobs. It almost makes you wonder if they aren't trying to slow down the economic recovery for political gain?" So you see the twist on this? Now we know the campaign: it's worse than we thought. Our plans are starting to work. Obama's plans are starting to work, but the problems are worse than we thought. It's gonna take longer. They don't want to change horses in the middle of the stream. Besides, the Republicans are doing all this.

I don't know. I guess the Democrats have proposed a tax cut for new job hires. All these wonderful ideas, I didn't know they were Democrat ideas and that the Republicans were blocking them. But I know that now, thanks to the ideologically driven Greg Sargent of the Washington Post. This is hilarious and it is audacious and it stands a chance of working with some people 'cause they, as is evidence here, I'm holding this thing in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers, you got Greg Sargent, stenographer-in-chief, just simply reporting this garbage as though it's absolutely true. So you take every problem that is directly traceable to Obama and you blame it on Eric Cantor and you blame it on Paul Ryan. You blame it on everybody but Jon Huntsman. They will not blame it on Huntsman. He-he-he-he. Blame it on Chris Christie. Blame it on Palin. The stimulus was our fault. The stimulus was our fault, exactly, it's all gonna end up being our fault.

RUSH: Greg Sargent was not at Editor & Publisher. That was some guy named Greg Mitchell. This guy was... Where was he? It was at... Ah, Talking Points Memo and a couple of other places out there, but he was not the same guy, Greg Mitchell. But it doesn't matter, cookie-cutter libs. I mean, he's just as extreme as you can imagine, and Democrats will not shy away from accusing Republicans of deliberately sabotaging the economy. You know, there are things that you come across in show prep that are profound -- and, as you know, I myself am known for profundities. For all of us who have been really struggling, "Is this really being done on purpose or is this just the accidents of a bunch of really truly arrogant, misguided people?" we have the answer.

It's on purpose. All of this economic destruction is on purpose, and now blame the Republicans (laughing), and I guarantee you it's a trial balloon. They're gonna see how this floats. They're gonna see how it goes in the blogs. They're going to see how it floats on the cable networks. They're gonna see if they can get a bunch of Democrat strategist guests. I mean, this is a huge leap of faith. If you are a Democrat strategist and if you value your guest status as a commentator on a cable news network, you gotta think long and hard about what you're really gonna get behind and what you're really gonna push -- what you are going to lend your name and your so-called credibility and image to -- and if you're gonna go on, say (pick your favorite show on cable news) and you represent the Democrats, and you are going to seriously try to make the point that this is all because the Republicans really want to destroy the economy?

That's the trial balloon. They're gonna see if they can come up with anybody that will actually say that. If they can come up with a significant number of Democrats who will actually take this, they'll go. That's why all bets are off here. I have to think that in greenrooms across cable news networks, Democrat strategists are huddling together, saying, "Okay, do we want to glom onto this? Are we gonna attach our names to this? Can we go out and make this case and not get laughed off of this show?" That will be the question. Time will tell.

RUSH: It's fascinating to watch all this stuff materialize right before our very eyes. This Greg Sargent guy at the Washington Post... Remember, Dick Durbin and Chuck-U Schumer know that they're pulling a con job. So they go out there and say that all of this economic destruction and all the assault job creation, "Ah, that's Republican sabotage." So they know they're doing a con job; they know that they're perpetrating a con job and trial balloon. This reporter doesn't. He believes it. He's such a partisan, he actually believes this stuff and writes it with glee. So according to their logic, Bush wanted to destroy the economy, too. That's what's been going on here. Think about it in a nutshell: Obama now says we cannot continue to fight in Afghanistan because it's too expensive.

What is the logic here? Doesn't Obama insist that massive government spending is the only thing that will lift us out of the recession? In fact, folks, I'm gonna dig this up. I've got this somewhere in the stack here. It's not in the sound bite roster. It's somewhere, and I'll find it, but I remember a bunch of people back when we were in the midst of all this stimulus spending, a bunch of Democrats lamenting the fact that they didn't have the one ingredient FDR had in ending the Depression, and that was World War II -- and everybody knows that it was the spending on World War II, a committed, unity, unified American cause that really got the American economic engine back up and running.

It wasn't the New Deal and it wasn't any of FDR's social policies. So here you've got a war! You've got the Afghanistan war and you've got the Iraq war, and Obama throwing away the opportunity, because these people have been saying massive government spending is the only thing that will lift us out of the recession. Well, I'm sorry. Funding a war is massive government spending! "No, it's not Mr. Limbaugh not in the sense that President Obama means it. We have to talk about where the money is spent, if you want to be consistent in your analysis." No, I don't. Government spending. They've never said what kind. They say government spending, "priming that pump," that's what revitalizes an economy. But it hasn't, has it?

All that money being spent in the right way and all the stimulus money. So the trillion dollars spent on Afghanistan was a waste, but the trillion dollars spent on the stimulus, that was not a waste. You see how this works? And now there wasn't a trillion dollars spent on the stimulus, 'cause Obama hasn't done anything yet. That was all Bush. Everything up until yesterday that hasn't worked, that was all Bush. Obama wants a reset. Remember Hillary heading over to Soviet Union (well, the Russians) when she was first named Sex'retary of State? They sent her over there and she had some kind of device. They rigged up a device or a doll or something, and it was supposed to say in Russian, "restart," and they got it wrong.

It said something like: "Screw you." They got the translation wrong. I forget what it was. So here's Obama. He wants a restart now, wants a reset. Throughout his presidency, the media was always trying to hint that Ronaldus Magnus was suffering from Alzheimer's when of course he wasn't. Now, who acts more like they are an Alzheimer's sufferer than Barack Obama? He is talking and acting like every day for him's the first day in the White House, the first day of his political career! He doesn't remember the two years of economic destruction that his policies have brought. We haven't had any stimulus spending yet. Do you realize we haven't invested in you yet.

We haven't invested in those shovel-ready jobs because last week there weren't any. Yeah, Obama and Jeff Immelt? Heh, heh. There weren't any shovel-ready jobs. Ha-ha, ho-ho, hee-hee. Now, Obama, this is unique. Is there such a thing as selective Alzheimer's? Because Obama is suffering from it. He's the first known case of selective Alzheimer's, selective dementia. Now, Durbin and Dingy Harry are leading the push for another round of stimulus spending -- and Krugman wanted another World War II to lift us out of recession. That's who it was. That's what I read today. It was Krugman, the New York Times columnist. So the left, if they were to be consistent, would be livid that we're pulling out of Afghanistan.

What Obama ought to be doing is using Afghanistan to bring us finally out of this recession. But he can't do that because they have made the decision here, folks, that it's all Bush's fault. Obama just showed up for work last night. That was his first day. The two previous years when we thought Obama was at work, he was still nailing down the benefits package, the sick day schedule, and the vacation schedule. He was still negotiating that, and until he had that nailed down he wasn't gonna go to work. But apparently he's now willing. He's got the vacation day thing nailed down, he's got the sick days (all that's been agreed to), and now he finally has time to show up for work, just in time to save us from all of the errors the Bush administration.

I find this fascinating. I'm fascinated by this. Every question that we've had has now been answered. The audacity of this is breathtaking to behold. I know they engage in projection all the time and they accuse us of doing what they're doing, but this! It's going to be really interesting to me to see how many Democrats they can get on board, like the Bob Beckels of the world and whoever these people are. Everybody on cable TV is it a "strategist." That identifier, the graphic identifier, such-and-such "Republican strategist." When I first saw that (and I know you think the same thing), Guest So-and-So, Republican Strategist, you think that they're an official of the Republican Party somewhere and that they officially strategize ideas with the party leadership.

That's what I always thought when I saw "Republican strategist" or "Democrat strategist." But that's not what they are. Ninety-five percent of these people on cable TV who are ID'd as Democrat or Republican "strategists" have never been to the Democrat National Committee or the Republican National Committee, and they don't know anybody there. They just happen to be people that the relative cable networks would like to hire and put 'em on the air. They think they're telegenic. They think they say things unique enough that people will watch them or that they'll bring credibility somehow. So they just call 'em "Democrat strategist" or "Republican strategist," but they're not, in the real, literal translation of the world.

They are not officials of the Republican Party, and they don't engage in strategy sessions. They may write a column at the East Timbuktu Times that suggests something ought to happen here that ten people read. Ergo, they get to be described as strategists. It's another one of these giant American media scams. Just to set that up. So I now will be interested to see which of these Democrat strategists buys into this, and there will be a few. Like, almost guaranteed will be Alan Colmes. You can almost guarantee it. You could make 2-to-1 odds on this. Is 2-to-1 odds good odds? What's the best odds, 3-to-1, 10-to-1? I don't understand odds. It's 10-to-1? Okay, so 10-to-1 odds Colmes tonight (he will probably not now since I'm saying it but if I hadn't said anything, Colmes) will be on maybe Fox this afternoon saying, "Republicans sabotaging the economy" almost word-for-word from that Washington Post story. Now he won't do it 'cause I've mentioned it. So I gotta shut up about it.

RUSH: Yeah, you know, "Democrat strategist," you put that on television, "Democrat strategist," that sounds better, and it looks better than a graphic that says, "Somebody who will say what we want said from this side of the aisle at this time." If that was the graphic they put up there that would not be cool. So I guess, ladies and gentlemen, is it safe to say now that Obama is agreeing with me that he has failed? These last two years he hasn't done anything. He showed up for work for the first time, after the 2008 elections.

RUSH: Summit, New Jersey. Jeff, you're up first. Great to have you with us, sir. Hello.

CALLER: Great to be here, Rush. First let me say in the best way I possibly can, thank you for everything you do on behalf of my children.

CALLER: Well, we appreciate it out here, and I'm not sure that you have any idea the extent to which we really value what you do. Anyway, back to the economy, I think Obama's been playing a little too much golf, because I think what he's looking for here is, to put it in golfing terms, a mulligan on the economy. I mean clearly this is their economy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it Debbie Wasserman Schultz who a week or so ago stepped up and very proudly said, yes, absolutely, sure, this is our economy.

RUSH: Yeah, it was last week, Debbie "Blabbermouth" Schultz, we own the economy.

CALLER: That's right, we own the economy. Well, you can't own the economy last week and disavow it this week. I think she spoke out of turn. I think she --

RUSH: Well, but these people can. In their minds, they can, and with a compliant media they can. Look at this guy in the Washington Post. He's reporting this without one question mark. I mean it's just a fact. You have Durbin and Schumer say that the Republicans are sabotaging the economy, and that's the way it is. So you write the story, that's what they say, there's no questioning them, there's no suspicion, there's no curiosity, it's just what is. So if Obama wants a mulligan, it's a good way to put it, by the way, Jeff, if he wants a mulligan on the economy, he's got it.

CALLER: Listen, I think this indicates that they are scared to death, not only of the economy which is theirs, but of people like Debbie "Blabbermouth" who will step forward and say, sure it's our economy, and I think they know deep down inside that we're not as dumb as they think we look, and that we know it's their economy, and I don't care how much of the mainstream -- listen, there's always that small percentage is going to read the New York Times or tune into the six o'clock news --

RUSH: You're exactly right, it's a minority of people who buy into this stuff now. We always have to keep that in mind.

RUSH: Now, this really is something, folks. It's one thing to read about it in a sycophant newspaper story in the Washington Post, but to hear these guys (as we announced in the first hour Dick Turban and Chuck-U Schumer) say the new strategy is to blame the Republicans for sabotage, purposely sabotaging the economy. Republicans are purposely sabotaging whole notion of job creation by not passing anything, which, ladies and gentlemen, answers the question that we've been asking about the Democrats.

Is this destruction of the US economy on purpose or are they just a bunch of well-intentioned, ignorant know-nothings, idiots? Now we know because of their tendency to project. They'll always tell you what they're doing by accusing us of doing it. Therefore we now know. They are purposely targeting the private sector of this country -- sabotaging it, if you will. They'll slow down the economy, eliminate job creation and so forth. Their reasons are different than what they accused the Republicans of doing.

They say the Republicans are doing it to gain electoral advantage. We say they are doing it because they fundamentally don't like America as founded and they want to transform it. They want it to be an official, no-doubt-about-it, socialist regime -- and you gotta tear it all apart first and then rebuild it socialist to get there. You have to destroy it first. That's nation-building in reverse: You gotta destroy the country as it is, take away people's jobs, and then set yourself up as the place they go to get another one. That's what the Democrats are doing. They're not doing it for any electoral advantage; they're doing it to fundamentally change a country they don't like.

DURBIN: When we bring up bills that really have a chance to create jobs, they stop 'em with a hundred amendments, unrelated amendments. That avalanche of amendments is not a show of good faith in dealing with this economy; it's a show of bad faith. They want to play political games at the expense of getting this economy back on its feet. They believe that a weak economy is their best chance of winning the next election.

RUSH: Well, you do, too. There's no question that you do. But of course these are the guys that have not presented one plan. They don't have a plan for jobs. They have not submitted a budget in I don't know how many hundreds of days. Here's Chuck-U Schumer at the same press conference getting in on all this action...

SCHUMER: (camera shutter clicks) So if they'd oppose even something so suited to their tastes ideologically, it shows that they're just opposing anything that would help create jobs. It almost makes you wonder (dramatic pause)

SCHUMER: -- if they aren't trying to slow down the economic recovery (dramatic pause) for political gain.

RUSH: What are we, four years old, Senator Schumer? (impression) "It almost makes you wonder if they aren't trying to slow down the economic recovery for political gain." It almost makes you wonder? No, it doesn't. But, okay, it's now official: This is the game plan. Nothing Obama has done the last two years has happened. He's not even a factor here. Now, I mentioned in the last hour if you're just joining us: Can they float this...? Part of this is they're floating this in a trial balloon, they put it out there; can they get any Democrat strategerists on cable TV to go along with it? Can they get somebody to carry their water out there?

Can they get a strategist, an ally, somebody on cable TV regularly to pick this up and run with it and make their case? And it appears, ladies and gentlemen, they have found just the person: Jonathan Alter, Bloomberg View magazine columnist. He used to be with Newsweek (a lot of people did), but he's no longer with Newsweek. He's with somebody out there. He's on MSNBC all the time. He got a question from Sergeant Schultz out there. "Those are the top Democrats right there, some pretty strong language. Is this gonna be politically successful for them to drive this narrative home? Do you think they can sell this, Jonathan, that the Republicans are who's sabotaging the economy?"

ALTER: (condescendingly) There's a lot to recommend what they're saying. The evidence supports it. Let's just take one (pause) proposal: A payroll tax holiday extension so that people are paying less in taxes as workers and as employers. You would THINK that that would be enormously popular with Republicans. Their religion is tax cuts. Do they support this? No! Why not? Well, that's the question that's on the table right now: Why would Republicans not support a Republican idea to help create jobs? And that's why the Democrats have gone with this explanation that maybe they do. It sounds SICK, but maybe they do, duhhhh, want to keep the economy in the doldrums through the 2012 election.

RUSH: Oh, my friends, I am so good at this, it scares even me. (laughing) They found a guy! They found a guy to carry their water: Jonathan Alter. So, yeah, he's saying, "Yes, there's a lot to recommend what they're saying. You wouldn't think so, but there really is. Yes, they do have a point; the Republicans are indeed sabotaging the economy." Now, just so we all know, Dick Durbin wants to spend more money. There's nothing to talk about with him; he doesn't care. All he wants to do is spend more money. Durbin is responsible for this economic disaster as is Chuck-U Schumer. I mean these are... (laughing) These are the losers demanding more disaster. This is exactly what they're doing. It just is. I'm sorry to keep being repetitive, but this is audacious, to blame the Republicans.

Of all the things I thought they would come up with to counter, I never -- honestly, I will admit to you, I never -- thought that they would be so brazen as to actually take the last two years of utter disaster and try to blame it on the Republicans. I shoulda thought of it. It's what they always do first. I figured, "No way will they try it here. It's not possible. The Republicans are not responsible for one policy. They have not had the votes to stop anything or to pass anything," but that doesn't matter because these people know they've got the press on their side and they think they can create this alternative universe reality and sell it and who knows? Maybe they can.

It's gonna be fascinating to watch. Folks, now, let's be very quiet from now on talking about this. Let's just keep a sharp eye on cable TV, and we'll see who are the Democrat "strategists" that begin to appear to reveal themselves this afternoon and tonight carrying this ball forward, that the Republicans are sabotaging the economy. Now, they're saying sabotaging the economy for the purposes of winning elections. They want to have the economy in bad shape for winning reelection. That's not it. Both parties always accuse each other of that. That's not what makes this audacious. What makes this audacious is that Obama has -- the Democrats have -- singularly targeted this economy to destroy it. They don't want a recovery, and that's what this proves. So now we're gonna find out if they can get some people on their side to join them, because when you suggest now that Republicans want to sabotage the economy, this means, "Sabotage the economy for good." They're doing it on purpose.

Let's just see who and how many they can find to start singing the same tune later this afternoon and tonight, maybe even tomorrow, all over cable TV.

RUSH: The Republicans are gonna have to call 'em on this. If the Republicans just sit there and let this go by... of course, one of the things that Democrats are counting on, you know, they're talking about a miniature sunset on Social Security taxes and this kind of thing which, a temporary holiday reduction is not gonna change behavior. People are just gonna pocket the money and go about their lives. They're not gonna change behavior. So, you know, while we like holidays and so forth, it's not tax reform. It's not bold tax reduction, and this is one of the reasons that Cantor is walking out here. It's like getting a raise for one year and then they take it away from you. It's not serious. It's not substantive. It's nothing you can count on. There's nothing that you could derive any certainty from. So it's just a gimmick, and that's what Cantor is saying, stop playing games and we'll sit here and we'll talk to you about all this.

Do you remember when the Republicans were fighting tooth and nail to extend the Bush tax cuts? Were they trying to sabotage the economy then? Because Obama, as you know, agreed we needed to extend the Bush tax cuts last December in order to preserve our robust recovery, remember that? Now the Democrats are resorting to "the devil made me do it" defense, the devil being the Republicans. It's not a new tactic. It's quite common, in fact. It's just in this case it is so obvious to even the sycophant stenographers in the media. It is so obvious that Obama policies are the problem with unemployment, Obama policies are the reason the economy's not growing. Everybody knows that.

It's just how big do you want to wink and nod and look the other way because you really love Obama, he's the first black president, that matters to you, and you really want him to succeed. You certainly don't want the Republicans winning anything, so, you know, you gotta balance here, what's more important to us, saving the nation's economy or destroying Republicans? And obviously destroying the Republicans is always gonna get more votes than saving the economy. I'll deal with that later. Any chance we have to destroy Republicans, we'll take it. That's the media view of things and the options that they have. But they know, everybody knows that stimulus was a slush fund. Everybody knows that TARP was crony capitalism. Everybody knows, for example, what I meant when I said "I hope he fails."

I do not want a socialist nation. Everybody knows that Obama's in over his head with these policies and that what he's doing is not gonna grow the economy. They all know that. That's actually what makes this even more brazen, and in one sense, hilarious. The very people -- and there are some exceptions. I must admit, when Durbin and Schumer go out there and start singing this tune, there are some journalists who fall for the con job. Schumer and Durbin are conning us and some of these reporters fall for the con. There are a few, the really hell-bent ideologues. But a lot of the others know. That's what makes this so audacious. They all know that it's Obama, and yet the line of the day is that Republicans are committing sabotage, so we'll run with it. They all know that they're reporting lies. They all know it. They all know that it's bogus.

There's a name for this. In the old Soviet Union this tactic is as old as communism. The Soviets used to call these people wreckers. Wrecking was an official crime against the state in the old Soviet Union. Wrecking means, of course, inflicting damage or harming. It was a crime specified in the criminal code of the Soviet Union in the Stalin era, and it is often translated as sabotage. Wrecking or sabotage could be broadly construed to mean anything that negatively affected the economy, including failing to meet economic targets, causing poor morale among workers, and wrecking in the old Soviet Union was punishable by ten years of prison, or in some cases, even death. So there's a name for this. And the Democrats are accusing the Republicans of doing the wrecking, when everybody knows that it's Obama who's doing it, and the reason they know is because most of them agree with it. They do think the US needs to be shown a thing or two, learn a couple of lessons, if you will.

RUSH: Seattle. Anya, welcome to the EIB Network. Nice to have you with us. Hello.

CALLER: I want to wish you a wonderful day from Seattle. I'm a Los Angeles native and you're near my old hometown of Pacific Palisades, so have fun out there. I just wanted to say that I'm a conservative but I've gotta hand it to the Democrats, they're being consistent. Let me just tie it to the global warming for a second. The Republicans are ruining the economy by existing, just by breathing, same as global warming like we as humans, you know, besides the libs and the Democrats who are saving the earth, we are ruining the earth and the economy just by existing. So the Republicans just go away and things will be okay, just like if we on the earth, the people that are not Democratic, go away, then they can go on saving the earth. I just think that their blame matrix is consistent, you know, according to the Democrats, Bush is the most powerful man since Jesus. I mean he changes history before him, and after him, and on into eternity. It's amazing to me how they can blame him on this economy still.

RUSH: But it's part of the reelect strategery. I have to apologize to the audience. It's so audacious I can't drop it. I am still struck by it. I think I've seen everything they can do, and I've thought they can't surprise me anymore. They might be able to surprise a lot of other people, but not I, El Rushbo. Blame us? (laughing) We don't have a vote. We don't have any power. We're trying to save the economy, and they're admitting that there's an assault on the economy. This is profound what's happening here today. This is not insignificant in terms of just the average new day political strategy. They are admitting that a sabotage of the economy is taking place. They are admitting that somebody's purposely harming the creation of jobs. They are admitting that all of this is happening by design, in order to try to get it blamed on the Republicans. This is a new low even for this bunch, which I think they're so low when they look up now they see the gutter. Are you still there, Anya?

CALLER: Oh, I'm here. I'm here. I'm just listening to you. I love listening to you. And I have to say one more thing. I think Wasserman is the new Weiner. I just have to say she's the new Weiner. They're gonna use her as the new Weiner.

CALLER: Yes. I think she'd make a perfect stand-in while he's out doing what he needs to do, until he regroups. But I love your show. You are brilliant and funny and have a wonderful time in California.

RUSH: You know, I watched a TV series called The Killing that is set in Seattle. I think The Killing was on AMC and it was on Sunday nights at ten o'clock. I arrived at this thing late. I had never heard of it until I read that everybody who watched it was excited about the finale, which aired this past Sunday night. So I engaged with my iPad in a marathon. I watched 12 of these things inside of about ten days, coupled it with all the other aspects of my schedule, and I got hooked. Pretty good show. And the finale, it was supposed to be Sunday night, one of the greatest finales ever, and whoever wrote this finale phoned it in, they took a cop-out. I've talked to so many people who love The Killing who have been profoundly affected, disappointed at the finale. But it takes place in Seattle and they portray Seattle as no sunshine ever.

RUSH: Thirteen episodes, it was like the movie Seven, just constant rain and darkness.

CALLER: Yeah, when I first moved here from Los Angeles and Calabasas area, it was literally a hundred days of rain; it broke the record the first year I moved here. And I said, "What is this, the rain planet?" But I guess the global warming thing isn't working out, but it is beautiful. It is beautiful.

RUSH: It is. There's many myths about a lot of places in the country, and Seattle is always raining is one of those myths. Anya, thanks for the call. I appreciate, I really do.

Do we have time? Yes, we do. We're gonna stop next in Queens. This is Bill. Your turn here on the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Yeah, how you doing, Rush? I'll start off with The Killing. I thought they phoned in the last three episodes, and I also thought, I would have bet on -- who, Jonathan Alter, I think he was the favorite, you know, as who would get out there first.

RUSH: You thought Jonathan Alter would be the media guy to first agree with the theory Republicans are sabotaging the economy's destruction and all that?

CALLER: No doubt about it, unless Matthews could get through makeup a little early, you know.

CALLER: But what I really called about, I think you're being a little too easy on Obama. I think he's not only destroying our country and our economy, but the entire world's political stability and economy. I think the Egyptian riots were really about commodity prices. I think in China they have trillions of dollars that they're taking in from around the world and they need to invest it, and they don't know where to put it anymore because the dollar was this stabilizing force of the world's economy, they can't put it in the dollar anymore, they can't put it in commodities; where they gonna put their money? So their economy is shaky.

CALLER: I think he might be cosmically horrible and maybe the worst leader in the history of the world.

CALLER: Well, I don't think he's trying, I don't think he wants to. I just think it's a by-product of him trying to change fundamentally America. I mean fundamentally America was the anchor of the world's stability.

RUSH: Yeah. See, this takes me back to square one. Anybody taking a look what he's doing knows it's not gonna work and never will work. Everybody knows that this is destructive. He has to know it and yet they persist in it. They persist in it so when you say, "I don't think he's trying to destroy the world," if he's trying to sabotage the US economy, and if we're the linchpin of the world economy, then the conclusion is the conclusion.

CALLER: Well, yeah, maybe he is knowingly trying to do that. I can't give you a reason.

RUSH: He wants to run the IMF, the United Nations, or whatever, the head honcho of the world. And maybe the way he figures to get it is to totally screw it up, blame it on Bush so the world will beg him to run the world. Who knows? We're not dealing with balanced people here, folks, to be quite honest with you. That's another Undeniable Truth of Life. We're being led to believe that the best and the brightest are among us. We are not being led by the best and brightest. These are the mediocre and the dangerous. If they're allowed to continue unobstructed this political march that they're on, I shudder to think, 'cause I know where it's all gonna end up for the country.

RUSH: Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, says he doesn't know why the economy is limping along. From an equally stumped Associated Press, headline: "Economic Trouble Puzzles Fed Chief, Too." What economic trouble? I thought we were in a recovery. AP keeps telling us that. By the way, I thought Obama kept telling us we're in a recovery. What is this sabotaging the economy business? See, we heard that, too. We hear Obama say we're in a recovery. We read the media report that Obama says that we are in a recovery. What is this economic sabotage, then, that's going on?

"The economy's continuing struggles aren't just confounding ordinary Americans. They've also stumped the head of the Federal Reserve. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke told reporters Wednesday that the central bank had been caught off guard by recent signs of deterioration in the economy. And he said the troubles could continue into next year." Oh, no. We were supposed to be on our way to creating 500,000 new jobs every month by now, according to Vice President Bite Me. So, in other words, Bernanke is saying that it is the economy holding the economy back. It's what he said here. "We don't have a precise read on why this slower pace of growth is persisting," but it's gonna be "more persistent than we thought." So the economy is screwing up the economy. That's, I guess, the answer.

"It was the Fed chief's most explicit warning yet that the economy will face serious challenges next year. For several months, he had said the factors working against economic growth appeared to be 'transitory.'" Well, if you take a long enough view, everything's transitory. Temporary, transitory. Now, here's the guy that's got all the answers. Here's the guy that spent $2 trillion. We still don't know who got it all. Two trillion dollars to rebirth the US economy. He has no clue why it hasn't worked. Doesn't have the slightest idea, folks, when it will start working. That was AP.

Forbes is equally befuddled: "In his second post-FOMC press conference, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke touched on every topic, admitting that the recovery was weaker than expected and that beyond temporary factors like supply chain disruptions in Japan and high energy prices." So it's not the Japanese earthquake. Obama's not gonna like that. The regime's been focused on that as a excuse. So it's not Japanese earthquake. It's not gasoline prices. Something else is going on to sabotage the economy, and Ben Bernanke says he doesn't know what it is. He says we're in a soft patch; he doesn't know what's causing it. No weather to blame. No natural disasters. No way to look in a mirror to see the problem. How about Obamacare, Mr. Bernanke, think it might have anything to do with that? What this is, Bernanke is saying he's a failure, too.

Obama's a failure; Bernanke is a failure; Schumer and Durbin admit they are failures. They are admitting there's economic sabotage going on. I don't care how you slice this, there's no way the Democrats win it. The Democrats are in power. Look at it this way. Look at me, they got the White House, they got the House, or they had it until this past January, they had the Senate, and the last two years the Republicans, without a majority anywhere, have sabotaged the great Obama? The Republicans, these idiots, right when everybody's looking at them have sabotaged the economy? Why, how smart can Bernanke and Durbin and Schumer be if they let the Republicans sabotage the economy, how could that happen? Republicans did this under the cover of darkness. Republicans did this sabotage when nobody was looking? The Republicans put one over on the great Obama, destroying his economic plans, causing unemployment?

This is pathetic. This means that they know they own it. Mr. Bernanke, let me tell you what the factors are that you just can't seem to figure out here to explain this. Leftists, liberals, socialism, spending, spending, spending, and your printing. Does that maybe help? But on the other side of this, ladies and gentlemen, by virtue of the chairman of the Fed now -- look at me -- by virtue of the chairman of the Fed saying he has no idea what has happened, by the chairman, the all powerful chairman of the Federal Reserve saying he's clueless, befuddled, he has no idea how this can happen. Does that not open the door for the Democrats to blame sabotage, Republican sabotage? I see how all this is shaping up now.

RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen -- Mr. Bernanke, specifically -- we all here have a suggestion as to what's causing all the trouble. Now, we aren't economists, but we do know a little history, and what we know is that throughout human history Obamanomics has failed every time it's tried. Keynesian spending never works. Socialism never creates prosperity, nor does communism. It doesn't work. There's your problem! It's Obama. It's not complicated.

CALLER: You know, I've got a couple of statements and a question. If this were a private business, and a man you had hired to do the job that Ben Bernanke has been hired to do came into the board meeting and stated, "Well, I've done all I can and I don't know what to do," would there be anything to do other than to ask for his resignation?

CALLER: Why isn't everybody, including the Democrats, asking for the man's resignation?

RUSH: No. That would admit culpability on their part. They're not gonna do that.

RUSH: But getting rid of him is like a nail in the coffin. That's like the Democrats admitting they, the Democrats, are the problem here -- and now they're trying to blame the Republicans for the sabotage. So Bernanke is just an innocent bystander, a victim. They're not gonna get rid of him. They don't get rid of their own. They do not get rid of their own. It takes a Weiner-type scandal before they get rid of their own, and they don't even really like getting rid of guys like Weiner.

RUSH: They don't. No way. These people do not throw themselves overboard. They do not throw themselves under the bus. They don't do it. They don't care. They don't take action that will harping their ideology. They're not gonna shoot themselves on purpose. They do get circular firing squads going, but they're not like us. We will shoot ourselves on purpose to show that we're good people. They won't. If this were a Republican president and Bernanke's out there saying this stuff, the Republican president, of course, would be asking for his resignation.

He can't, really. The guy served independently for all practical purposes, but there would still be a clamor for him to go. I still think, folks... Let me just be blunt once again. I don't care what they're trying to sell today that the Democrats are trying to blame the Republicans for this sabotage. I still think that Bernanke is doing what he was hired to do. I think what the Democrats are doing is trying to escape blame for this. They know how mad you are. They know how fit to be tied you are over what's happened to your 401(k), to your kids' future, your own future, your job, your house.

They know. They know how mad you are. They knew that was gonna happen. They're not idiots. They know if they set out on a course to fundamentally transform the country, change the economy, and get rid of the routes to capitalism since our founding, they know it's gonna upset people. So what they're trying to do now is fix the blame elsewhere. They're just trying to escape the blame. That's this latest policy -- the latest trick, if you will. But Bernanke is simply doing what he was hired to do, as is Obama, as are they all.

"How can you say this, Mr. Limbaugh? You keep saying this and this is just outrageous! We in the New Castrati, we want to believe you, Mr. Limbaugh, but how can you say this?"

Okay, let me ask you this, Mr. New Castrati. If (take your pick: Bernanke, Obama, Schumer, Durbin) don't want the economy to tank -- if they really don't want it to tank -- they would be doing far different things than be what they're doing. If they don't want the economy to tank, they wouldn't be adopting positions assuring the piling up of more debt. If they didn't want more uncertainty -- if they didn't want what's happening here -- they would embark on policies designed to create jobs, increase revenue to the Treasury; have some confidence and certainty in the economy for businesses large and small. They're not doing any of that. If they really wanted what they claim to want, they'd stop all this. They have two-and-a-half years of failure as a track record. It's obvious what to do, and they're not doing it.

RUSH: Just so you know I'm not making it up, this is Bernanke yesterday afternoon in Washington, his press conference where he says he doesn't have the slightest idea why the economy is doing so poorly.

BERNANKE: We don't have a precise read on why this slower pace of growth is persisting. One way to think about it is that maybe some of the headwinds that have been concerning us like --

BERNANKE: -- you know, weakness in the financial sector, problems in the housing sector, balance sheet and deleveraging issues. Some of these headwinds may be stronger and more persistent than we thought and I think it's an appropriate balance to attribute a slow down partly to these identifiable temporary factors, but to acknowledge a possibility that some of the slowdown is due to factors which are longer lived and which will be still operative by next year.

RUSH: The headwinds, that's what it was, that's the answer. Headwinds. He's up at 35,000 feet, he's flying around, there are headwinds up there. What did he mean by headwinds? He said, well, weakness in the financial sector. That sounds like the economy. Problems in the housing sector. That sounds like economy. Balance sheet and deleveraging issues. Quick question. Do you what he means by deleveraging issues, off the top of your head? If somebody were to ask you in a couple of seconds, could you answer the question? I was just asking a certified CPA accountant moneybags kinda guy whether or not deleveraging issues could be explained in two seconds, and the answer is no. I was only kidding about wanting an answer in two seconds.

It sounds to me like he's just saying the economy is in the way of the economy and we don't know why the economy is doing what it's doing. And it might extend into next year that we won't know why it's doing what it's doing. I remember Clinton in the late nineties saying that they had defeated the business cycle. I will never forget them saying that.

RUSH: I read today a piece written by a friend of mine named Michael Ledeen. I've quoted Michael Ledeen on this program before. He's a noted scholar and think tank thinker, and he's done a lot of thinking for a lot of different think tanks. He's been associated with I think Heritage and a number of them. Now, what he's primarily known for in recent years has been championing the cause of the Iranian people against the oppression that they face each and every day. He's always been a staunch supporter of the United States military, keen observer, if you will, of the American political scene, and he has a submission here and I happened to receive a copy of it. It's about this whole notion that Obama is so much smarter than all the rest of us. The reason why this appealed to me is because it's a question I bring up on this program all the time all the time: What is smart?

I've always said that we need to redefine what it is, 'cause I don't think Obama's smart. I go totally against the conventional wisdom. I look at his gaffes, I look at his inability to speak without a teleprompter, I say, "Where is this notion that he's brilliant, where does this come from?" Does it come from his ability to speak or read a teleprompter? It must be. I know that that's a large part of it, and a lot of people by the same token thought Bush was not particularly smart because he looked like a deer in the headlights reading a teleprompter a lot, like they say Dan Quayle did. In fact, I was at dinner with some friends last night. This is kind of frustrating, too. These people are us, folks. I mean they count themselves as one of us and they're saying, "You know, it doesn't matter who we nominate, doesn't matter. The American voter doesn't care about substance. All the American voter cares about is what somebody looks like on television and how they sound. If they look good, they sound smart, that's all it takes to become president."

So the talk on the Republican side, therefore, centered around Mitt Romney. "Nobody else on our side fits the bill. It doesn't matter." I said, "Let me throw some names at you." "I don't care. Doesn't matter." I said, "Well, what about the elections in November of 2010, the congressional midterms?" There was nobody on the ballot then. I mean that was an election about nothing but substance. And in that election, the Democrats got shellacked. There wasn't a pretty boy on either ballot. There wasn't a national race that was being contested. House of Representatives, a bunch of individual races, the Senate, but you go even deep into the state ballots, and you'll find that the Democrats lost 600 to 700 seats in state legislatures.

And so my point to them was that there was a lot of substance on the ballot in November, and what was it? The Republicans didn't offer any. I mean they basically shut up. The Republicans recognized that the Democrats were committing suicide, so when that happens you get out of the way and let the suicide happen. The precious independents were not voting for looks, they were not voting for articulate intelligence; they were voting against substance. They were voting against Obama. But that didn't change anybody's mind. So I'm here, I'm doing a program each and every day devoted to substance, and I'm listening to the fact that that doesn't matter to a whole lot of people, not everybody, but to a whole lot of people.

"They're not gonna take the time, Rush, to care about the substance. They're not that smart anyway, even if they want to know about the substance, they're not smart enough to get it all. Why do you think Obama got elected? He's the first black president, he sounded smart, looked pretty good, versus who was our guy," and I had to admit they had a point there. But I don't think our guy, even though our guy was leading in the polls before they dredged up the financial collapse, and our guy willingly canceled his own campaign, I still understood what they were saying. I tried every which way I knew to budge 'em off of it, and nope, doesn't matter. So by extension you could conclude that there's only a couple Republicans that they think have a prayer, and it has nothing to do with what any of them think.

I said, "Okay, Romney." "Romney, he's good-looking, he sounds good." "Do you realize that Romney just came out and articulated the Obama position on global warming? "I don't care, Rush, that's my whole point, it doesn't matter." And then they said to me you have to win the election, then after you win the election, then that's when you really start doing what you believe. But this was stupid because most of the people do not agree with Obama on global warming. "Well, the people that don't vote Republican do, and that's why it was smart for Mitt to do it." So our guy should lie, deceive, and be good-looking. How many of you are nodding your head in agreement right now? Three people I see on my side of the glass here nodding their head in agreement. Yep, our guy should lie and deceive and be good-looking. Or our girl, too.

Oh, and they despise Palin, absolutely despise Palin, and the reason is they don't think she has a snowball's chance in hell of winning. It wasn't about specifics, well, in one case it was about specifics of Palin, although I didn't bother digging deep there, but it was just no chance. You gotta nominate somebody that could win, but not on substance. It's gotta be looks and perceived intelligence. And I know, I'll tell you, the Bush years did have that effect on people on our side of the aisle because the Drive-Bys, State-Controlled Media portrayed Bush as a blithering idiot, and Bush never defended himself or responded to it, so he just let it hang out there.

Meanwhile, we have to sit here and listen to how smart Clinton is. We have to sit here and listen to how brilliant Obama is, when in fact Obama isn't at all. And that takes me back to Michael Ledeen and a piece that he's written that is a continuation of many other pieces he's written along the same lines about the same subject. That Obama really is a gaffe machine, a walking embarrassing gaffe machine.

RUSH: "What's Up With All the Presidential Gaffes, Anyway?" writes Michael Ledeen. "Big Media doesn't pay much attention to them, even though Obama makes an amazing number of errors in his public statements. And I think it's easy enough to understand why the BM largely ignores them: to report them all would totally undermine the image of the president to which a surprising number of 'reporters' and pundits are wedded: that of an unusually intelligent and well educated man. Yet someone who tells a crowd in Vienna that his 'Austrian' isn't very good, who tells Marines that he's pleased to speak to the 'Marine Corpse,' and who, just [yesterday], said he'd given the Medal of Honor to a survivor from the 10th Mountain Division, when in fact the award was given posthumously, doesn't fit my definition of a brilliant and cultured man."

I don't know if you are aware of this, but this is a mistake that is pretty bad. This is bad. Obama did visit the 10th Mountain Division, and he congratulated them on their service, and he told the soldiers that were all gathered there that he had given the Medal of Honor to Jared Monti. President said: I've given this Medal of Honor to Jared Monti, who came back from Iraq alive. But he didn't. Jared Monti died in Afghansitan. He was killed in 2006. It's reminiscent of Vice President Bite Me in St. Louis. "Stand up, Chuck! Let 'em see you, Chuck!" He's in a wheelchair. Bite Me notices he's in a wheelchair and Bite Me says, "Oh, God bless you. Oh, gee! What I did I say? Everybody, let's stand up for Chuck! Let's stand up for Chuck." But this? Here, we have audio. Here is the president making a mistake about a soldier killed in action in Afghanistan yesterday afternoon, Fort Drum in New York.

OBAMA: I had the great honor of seeing some of you because, uh, a comrade of yours -- uh, Jared Monti -- was the first person who I was able to award, uh, the Medal of Honor to, uh, who actually came back and wasn't, uhhh, receiving it posthumously.

RUSH: He did receive it posthumously. He did not come back. Obama had no clue what he was talking about. Whoever put that on his teleprompter had no clue what he was talking about. Nobody in this regime knows what they're talking about. Now, some people think they do this on purpose, just to insult members of the military. "Yes, there was a Medal of Honor winner who lived to receive it, but it was a different man. The living honoree is named Giunta; the deceased hero from the 10th Mountain Division was named Monti. Both are Italian names. Did a White House speechwriter confuse the two Italians? And if so, what does that tell us about the ship under the command of President Obama? That's worth pondering for a moment.

"When you add up all the mistakes [Obama has] made -- not slips of the tongue, but real errors in statements and speeches he could read from the ubiquitous teleprompter -- they make quite a number. So what? you may ask. The answer is that hundreds of people traditionally read the drafts of presidential speeches and statements. That happens for two good reasons. First, presidential utterances are instant policy. It's hard to walk away from a public statement. Second, the myriad political appointees want their leader to look good, and they strain to ensure the accuracy of his statements," that they write for him and end up on the teleprompter.

"Or at least they" used to. Ledeen says, "I don't think that is happening in this administration. A friend said to me earlier today that he was really amazed at the discipline of Obama's team, specifically in the small number of leaks compared with previous administrations," and that's because so few people are in the loop and know anything going on, because nobody trusts anybody in there. But he goes on to point out we're not dealing with a profound intellect here. Fifty-seven states? We can recount all the faux pas here, and they just laugh and look the other way. "Oh, yeah, it's just Obama." But this is major: Announcing somebody as alive who isn't, at an awards ceremony!

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.

Shadow Government Statistic; excellent economics site (some information is free, but this is a subscription site):

A George Soros funded site to go after specific Fox anchors through their advertisers (is there any parallel to this on the right?):

Men with Foil Hats (occasionally borders on conspiratorial without being completely nuts; mostly a repository of news stories from elsewhere):

iwatch news is a repository of interesting news items; there might be a slight left slant? It is hard to tell.

American Legislative Exchange Council (Limited government, free markets and federalism):

It is mostly libs who post here, but this way, you get their weird perspective on things political:

Translating Jihad. What is broadcast in the Arabic is one thing; and how it is said in English is something entirely different:

The right weather underground (blog, with some emphasis upon the phony green agenda).

The Other Half of History (the history which is ignored in the modern classroom):

Liberty’s Army (mostly economic and middle eastern revolutionary news right now):

The Iowahawk, which is a blog, at times, heavy with stats, and at other times, it is hard to tell:

In case you want to refer others to this; statistical comparison between gays and straights:

Meadia Research Center where the bias of mainstream news is exposed again and again.

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

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 #184	Kukis Digests and Opines on this Week’s News and Views	June 26, 2011