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).

That killer in Norway, Anders Breivik, is now being called a Christian in a variety of newspapers, including the New York Times.

However, the Muslim world is taking a much more measured approach, blaming the Jews instead:

I pay some attention to politics. I only heard about Connie Mack’s Penny Plan to balance the budget this week. It has apparently been around since early June of this year.

Both George Soros and Steve Cohen are closing their funds to outside investors, which will allow them to operate without federal scrutiny. This is one of the unintended results of the Dodd-Frank bill. We were led to believe that there would be greater transparency in the world of high finance.

What happened today I believe is unprecedented for such an important bill. Senate leader Harry Reid put together a bill to raise the debt ceiling, as well as to identify some cuts that will probably occur, and then he sent it over to the House to be discussed and countered. What’s unprecedented? This bill was not put before the Senate for a vote. Reid wrote it, knew it would not pass the Senate, and sent it immediately to the House...the Nov. 2 drop-dead date looming large not too far off.

This is not to say the Speaker Boehner’s plan is a whiz-bang success. According to one source, it cuts only $6 billion from the first year’s budget. That is less than 1.5 days of deficit spending by our government.

According to ABC News, a tentative deal has be struck between Republicans and the White House, with the following framework:

• Debt ceiling increase of up to $2.8 trillion

• Spending cuts of roughly $1 trillion

• Vote on the Balanced Budget Amendment

• Special committee to recommend cuts of $1.8 trillion (or whatever it takes to add up to the total of the debt ceiling increase)

• Committee must make recommendations before Thanksgiving recess

• If Congress does not approve those cuts by late December, automatic across-the-board cuts go into effect, including cuts to Defense and Medicare.

True or not? I couldn’t tell you.

On Friday, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said on budget legislation would increase the nation's borrowing authority until March, 2013 and reiterated that he would not accept a short-term debt limit increase.

AWOL Muslim soldier, Pfc. Naser Jason Abdo, was charged in connection with a plot to attack Fort Hood soldiers. He had weapons and explosives.

The Southern Poverty Law Center and National Center for Lesbian Rights filed a federal lawsuit against Anoka-Hennepin Public Schools near Minneapolis last week in regards to the district's "curricular neutrality" about LGBT issues, and the U.S. departments of justice and education have announced formal investigations into the policy. Do you wonder why conservatives want to abolish the department of education?

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit affirmed that judgment in a 2-to-1 decision, that saying “Jesus” in a public prayer in association with a governmental meeting is unconstitutional.

The UK government probe into sharia courts was stopped because Muslim leaders refuse to cooperate.

An explosion Friday overnight which rocked Hezbollah's headquarters in a south Beirut suburb. Hezbollah security forces are preventing Lebanese police from investigating the scene of what appears to be a work-related accident. Where is the Lebanese OSHA to provide safer working conditions for terrorists?

News I missed: Rupert Murdoch, while at a Parliamentary tabloid hearing, was almost hit in the face with a pie. His present wife, Wendi Deng Murdoch went after the guy and punched him in the face. You’ve got to love those tiger wives.

President Barrack Obama: “Today, I'd like to speak with you about the ongoing and urgent efforts to avoid a first-ever default and get our fiscal house in order.” There is no looming default. A default on our loans would be exclusively his decision. Does the president not know this?

President Barrack Obama: "If we don't address the debt that's already on our national credit card, it will leave us unable to invest in things like education, to protect vital programs. So I've already said I'm willing to cut spending that we don't need by historic amounts to reduce our long-term deficit - make sure that we can invest in our children's future."

President Obama: "We need to reach a compromise by Tuesday so that our country will have the ability to pay its bills on time - bills like Social Security checks, veterans' benefits, and contracts we've signed with thousands of American businesses. If we don't, for the first time ever, we could lose our country's Triple A credit rating. Not because we didn't have the capacity to pay our bills - we do - but because we didn't have a Triple A political system to match it. And make no mistake - for those who reflexively oppose tax increases on anyone, a lower credit rating would be a tax increase on everyone - we'd pay higher interest rates on mortgages, car loans, and credit cards."

Senate leader Harry Reid: "Unfortunately the Republicans who used to run Congress, the two Republican caucuses, are being driven by a radical right-wing that is so in-tune with the tea party. They want their leaders to ignore the American people as they're doing. They want their leaders to ignore the business leaders like the Chamber of Commerce, that they're ignoring. And even a majority of Republicans around this country want something to happen and they're refusing to do that. They'd rather cut Social Security benefits than end taxpayer-funded giveaways for these billionaires and millionaires who have their corporate jets. We should not let these extremists dictate the outcome of this debate for the direction of our country. The time for ideological extremism should end. Now is the time for cooperation and consensus building and that's what legislation is all about.”

Harry Reid: “Reasonable Republicans have been offered absolutely everything they've asked for. Still, they refuse to take yes for an answer, all because of a cadre of unreasonable Tea Party-driven House Republicans.”

House minority leader Nancy Pelosi: “I think that this [Boehner] bill is perfect—in its absurdity. His bill was perfectly absurd, perfectly absurd....it is very, very important that we all take a deep breath; we all have important work to do...[there is] not one red cent of revenue while we’re saying kids should pay more for their student loans. So it’s time for us to end this theater of the absurd, it’s time for us to get real... the speaker chose, when he didn’t have the votes, instead of to reach out in a bipartisan way to see how we could work together, he chose to go to the dark side...and I repeat, he chose to go to the dark side.”

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) statement: "The current, so-called `debt crisis' has been completely manufactured by House Republicans attempting to advance an extremist agenda. This should be a simple vote to allow the US Treasury to fund all of the programs and obligations of the entire federal government that are already in the law."

Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi statement: "It is clear we must enter an era of austerity; to reduce the deficit through shared sacrifice.”

President Obama from a week ago (this bears repeating): "We don't need a constitutional amendment to do our jobs."

The Democratic members of the Congressional Black Caucus to President Obama to sidestep Congress and hike the nation's $14.3 trillion debt limit on his own: "[You have] both the authority and a moral obligation [to invoke the Constitution's 14th Amendment] to avoid an economic catastrophe of historic proportions. We must not allow a political deadlock to cause the United States to default for the first time in our history. Now that Congress has borrowed money and incurred debt, we cannot - as a nation and under our Constitution - walk away."

Jesse Jackson: "[Obama] has a propensity to be trusting, on the side of reconciliation. He kind of underestimates how ideological these guys are and how determined they are to destroy him."

Bill Maher on erecting a cross at Ground Zero: “The news from Norway reminds us that Christianity is also a religion with a bloody history, and perfectly capable of creating dangerous, violent extremists just as Islam does. Once you buy into the idea of things that are "holy", you're closer to buying into the idea of a "holy war." Anders Breivik was a terrorist calling for a Christian war against Muslims. In this atmosphere, symbols about whose god "rules" are not helpful.”

Bob Beckel of the Nascar pastor: “That boy is missing some dogs from his front porch.”

Cynthia McKinney on Iranian television: “There was a time when we [peacemakers] almost won. We almost won in the 1960's, but, unfortunately, because we were so close to winning, the authorities fought back. We were so close to winning, and then they killed John Kennedy, our president; they killed Malcolm X; they killed Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.; they killed...”

Iranian interviewer: “They were killed by the authorities?”

McKinney: “Yes, yes, this is all documented.”

NBC terror expert as interviewed by Martin Bashir: "Let's turn back the clock to last summer and let's remember the debate that's been taking place since then. We've seen protests here in New York outside the Park 51 complex, saying that Islam is coming to take over America and that [the mosque] can't be built . . . you had individuals showing up at political rallies in Arizona carrying assault rifles. Look, I mean, it's not that much of a jump from that to this [bombing in Norway]."

Rush Limbaugh on the media: "With these people, I don't trust anything. I don't trust anything I read. Everything is a political calculation. We know that the mainstream media is on Obama's team. We know he's there to advance his agenda, and we know that they're into manipulation of thinking."

NY Times Thomas Friedman: “Today's Republicans [are] being led around by an extremist Tea Party faction, with no adult supervision.”

CNN’s Don Lemon to Rand Paul: “The TEA party position appears to most people, remains rigid. The question is, have you made your point by continuing to go on with this, or do you feel like you are overreaching and you are going to lose the clout, and really the respect you have gotten, because you’ve really made your point here and most people would say, ‘You’ve done a good job at it’ but do you feel like you are overreaching right now?”

Chris Matthews: “I spent two years in southern Africa, it [the Republican debt approach] sounds like what the whites talked about doing. Eventually going into some sort of little circle, like Custer's last stand against the United States.”

NY Times, front page headline: "As Horrors Emerge, Norway Charges Christian Extremist."

From a Rush Limbaugh montage of Democrats and news reporters:

STENY HOYER: (rotunda noise) The Republicans are holding hostage the credit of the United States of America.

DEBBIE "BLABBERMOUTH" SCHULTZ: ...our Republican colleagues to hold our economy hostage.

DINGY HARRY: The Republican Party is holding our economy hostage.

CHUCK-U SCHUMER: (rotunda noise) It didn't say, "Hold America hostage."

LOUISE SLAUGHTER: ...hold the debt ceiling hostage.

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE: One party is holding the country hostage.

JOHN OLVER: The debt limit has never before been held hostage.

BARBARA LEE: Republicans are holding our economy hostage.

EARL BLUMENAUER: ...willing to take hostage the debt ceiling.

JASON ALTMIRE: Stop holding America's credit rating hostage.

ROSA DeLAURO: The Republican majority continues to hold the American economy hostage.

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: Let's not hold the entire American economy hostage.

JOHN LARSON: ...ideological HOSTAGE situation...

LLOYD DOGGETT: The only belt they're really tightening is right around the neck of those hostages.

JAMES CLYBURN: Holding the American economy hostage.

JESSE JACKSON, JR.: This President is being treated differently!

SPEAKER PRO-TEM: (gavel banging)

JACKSON: No other President has been stuck up, shook down, or held hostage!

CNN host Fareed Zakaria: "Instead of accepting some compromise that can get through the democratic process, what they`re saying is we'll blow up the country if you don't listen to us. We'll hold hostage the credit of the United States, the good standing of the United States and we'll blow it up..it's an extraordinary act of hostage-taking."

NY columnist Maureen Doud: “The world is watching in fearful - and sometimes gleeful - fascination as the Tea Party drives a Thunderbird off the cliff with the president and speaker of the House strapped in the back. The Dow is hiding under the bed with a glass of single malt. Can it get more excruciating? Apple has more cash than the U.S. government.

Amid the chilling anarchy, there's not a single strong leader to be seen - not even a misguided one. All the leaders are followers. You have to wonder if President Obama at some level doesn't want to lead. Maybe he just wants to be loved.

The citizens of this country tremble at the thought that these are the people governing them. Should we stick our money under our mattresses? It's not only the economy that gets nourished by confidence; it's also politics.

The maniacal Tea Party freshmen are trying to burn down the House they were elected to serve in. It turns out they wanted to come inside to get a blueprint of the historic building to sabotage it.

Like gargoyles on the Capitol, the adamantine nihilists are determined to blow up the country's prestige, their party and even their own re-election chances if that's what it takes. (Many are worried about primary races with even more dogmatic challengers, which is a truly scary thought.) If they can drag President Obama off his pedestal, even better. They think he looks down on them and sneers at their values.”

This isn’t even the half of it; here are a number of different voices, all in the Obama Media Complex, all singing the same song with their own words:

Or check this out: the media is clearly an arm of the Democratic party (this is not some editorial; this is the liberal media in their own words).

I predicted some time ago that the press would pull out all of the stops for the next election; it looks like they have already started.

Representative David Wu, back in 2007: "This president [Bush] has listened to some people, the so-called Vulcans in the White House, the ideologues. But you know, unlike the Vulcans of Star Trek who made the decisions based on logic and fact, these guys make it on ideology. These aren't Vulcans. There are Klingons in the White House. But unlike the real Klingons of Star Trek, these Klingons have never fought a battle of their own. Don't let faux Klingons send real Americans to war."

Cynthia McKinney, 5April 2011: “I knew that dissent would be intolerable under an Obama Administration, enforced both from the Black political consensus and from the Democratic Party wingnuts--quashing dissent even with all of the attendant special interest burdens that come with any aspect of the Democratic Party.”

Cynthia McKinney, 3June 2011: “And let us not forget this Administration's efforts to quash the Goldstone Report”

McKinney, who does not keep a single thought to herself, has no concept of what it means for the government to quash free speech (I said that).

U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky: "In battle, when you accidentally shoot your own, it's called friendly fire. When you deliberately shoot your own, it's called fragging. Republicans, stop fragging the American economy and the American people."

One of the things the left supported back during the Vietnam War, was the fragging of officers.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.): "I think in the last 24 hours, we've confirmed what many people suspected, which is that the tea party Republicans may be a noisy and effective protest movement, but they're unfit to govern."

Chuck Schumer: "There are 100 people in the House who don't care if we default, who are extreme and ideological. 100 people do not represent America."

Not everyone believes that the Norway terrorist is a Christian. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of Iran's Armed Forces Major-General Hassan Firouzabadi: "Any examination [of the] causes and intentions behind the Norway attack will be useless without searching for hands of Zionists involved in the attack."

Senator Barack H. Obama, March, 2006: "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that 'the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."

Anders Breivik, the Norway killer (who, in big headlines, is called a Christian terrorist by some newspapers and a Christian fundamentalist terrorist by others: "As for the Church and science, it is essential that science takes an undisputed precedence over biblical teachings. Europe has always been the cradle of science, and it must always continue to be that way. Regarding my personal relationship with God, I guess I'm not an excessively religious man. I am first and foremost a man of logic.” So, why is he not called a man of logic? Why is he said not to be excessively religious? Why is he not called a scientist?

Anders Breivik: "If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian."

Moody's Investors Services: “The limited magnitude of current deficit reduction proposals suggest that even a timely increase in the debt ceiling will lead to the assignment of a negative outlook on the rating.” Attention all Republicans and Democrats.

Sacramento's Mexican consul general, Carlos González Gutierrez: "It's now easier to buy homes on credit, find a job and access higher education in Mexico. We have become a middle-class country."

King Bill Compton on True Blood: “Vampires have often found it advantageous to maintain a hidden presence in humanity's most powerful institutions. In the 1600s, it was the Catholic church, and today, as you all know, it's Google, Fox News.”

Patriot’s owner Robert Kraft: "What kept me at the table the last four-and-a-half months was seeing the players who represented the player representatives, who represented the league's players. They didn't just look at the short-term interests of their own playing careers, but they looked long-term, especially Jeff Saturday and Domonique Foxworth. I was so impressed with them, that they acted as principals at the table, looking out what was good for the game. I believe you're going to see a very great NFL over the next decade and I hope we gave a little lesson to the people in Washington because the debt crisis is a lot easier to fix than this deal was. Thank you."

Joe Scarborough (of MSNBC): "I have got to clear this up. Mika heard two days ago on Capitol Hill Democrats all saying the same thing. And that is, this president has been invisible, he is not a leader. They said this all behind closed doors. Democratic leaders, Democratic rank-and-file. In fact, 40, 50 of the most powerful Democrats on the Hill. I will just stop right there. The complaints were all the same. The president has vanished. He has left us here alone again like he did with health care. Where is he? Now, they didn't call him a loser, but they sure as hell didn't call him a leader." Although I like Joe, I see him as more of a moderate than a conservative.

Rather than being sidelined on the debt talks, President Obama decided to make an injudicious use of twitter, whereupon, he lost 40,000 followers:

"Honestly, @BarackObama, I'm going to have to unfollow you if you don't stop filing up my Twitter inbox soon," tweeted Bostonian @melisthreadgill, a self-described "Progressive activist".

"Can't believe I had to unfollow @BarackObama for spamming Twitter. Really, really strange behavior," wrote @Arevill inConnecticut.

"I want to unfollow @BarackObama but his desperation is too entertaining," tweeted @rdpatrick of Lavonia, Georgia.

Newt Gingrich on his global warming commercial that he made with Nancy Pelosi: "I was trying to make a point that we shouldn't be afraid to have a debate with the left, even on the environment," Gingrich said on WGIR radio of the 30-second television commercial. "Obviously it was misconstrued, and it's probably one of those things I wouldn't do again."

However, in January, Gingrich said: that he "meant exactly what [he] said in that commercial." In the video, he said, "our country must take action to address climate change."

Bill O’Reilly on whether Anders Breivik is a Christian or not: “Does he have a Keep Christ in Christmas on his Volvo?”

Rand Paul: “I’m not trying to make a point; I’m trying to do what’s best for the country; and adding 7 to 8 trillion dollars of debt over the next 10 years, I don’t think is good for the country.”

Rand Paul: “When they tell you they’re going to cut a trillion [from the debt], it’s from a proposed increase in the debt—it isn’t meaningful.”

Boehner spokesman Mike Steel: "Speaker Boehner's long-standing support for a Balanced Budget Amendment has nothing to do with Darth Vader."

TEA party conservative Rand Paul: “It’s crazy that we are called extreme because we want to cut a pinny [out of each dollar].”

Republican Study Committee Chairman Jim Jordan: "An analysis released by Citigroup on Monday found that our Cut, Cap, and Balance Act is the only actual legislation that would not put America's AAA credit rating at risk of a downgrade."

Senator Marco Rubio: "If we had $1 billion for every time I heard the words `tea party extremist,' we could solve this debt problem."

Bankrupting America, on the side of a bus: “Next Stop: Greece. Raising the debt ceiling without cutting spending is our own Greek Tragedy.”

Laura Ingraham: “When Washington starts sacrificing, instead of actually increasing the salaries of individuals within the executive offices of the presidency—when they start sacrificing, we can talk about the real meaning of sacrifice.”

Columnist Kevin L. Martin: “While President Obama, Senate Democrats and inside the beltway Republicans remain addicted to spending more money they do not have, a brave bloc of Congressional Members have stood up and said, no. These 22 brave members of Congress bucked their party leadership and voted against Speaker Boehner's debt ceiling bill. These lawmakers understand full well that they were elected to represent the American People and to reject the Washington D.C. wheeling and dealing that got us in this mess in the first place.”

Marco Rubio: “In the two years before I even came here, this chamber neither proposed or passed a budget...For the last two years, this government has operated without a budget...Do you know how long it’s been since this chamber proposed a budget? Forget passed a budget—proposed a budget? 822 days—that’s a long time.”

Bill O’Reilly on the debt and debt ceiling: “This ain’t no party, this ain’t no disco; this ain’t no foolin’ around.” {words first immortalized by the Talking Heads, then quoted many times, by people like BrainSpank, who had hoped that the Obama administration would destroy FoxNews].

Ken Langone, the former director of the New York Stock Exchange and the co-founder of Home Depot: “[Obama is] not bringing us together. He's willfully dividing us. He's petulant. Ronald Reagan would never go into the Oval Office without his jacket on - that's how much he revered the presidency. Divide us and we all lose. And this has got to stop. And if [Obama's] listening, or one of his people are listening, and you can quote me exactly for what I say, he is not acting presidential, he is behaving in a way designed, in my opinion, to divide us and make us look at each other with skepticism, with suspicion. That's the end of America as we know it when that happens."

Rush Limbaugh: "We are on a disastrous trajectory. For the first time in my lifetime there are people who are actually talking about the country imploding financially."

Rick Perry: "I probably needed to add a few words after that `it's fine with me,' and that it's fine with me that a state is using their sovereign rights to decide an issue. Obviously gay marriage is not fine with me. My stance hasn't changed."

Rush Limbaugh: "I cringe when I keep hearing Boehner and the Republicans talk about the moral obligation we have not to default. We're not going to."

Rush: "A bunch of Tea Party people who can't be bought are now being tweeted. Tweeting them is going to pressure them. Is that not hilarious? They're going to tweet harass 'em."

Rush: "You are listening to the EIB Network, the home of Industrial-Strength Ideological Purity."

John McCain [reading an article from the Wall Street Journal): "The idea seems to be that if the House GOP refuses to raise the debt ceiling, a default crisis or gradual government shutdown will ensue and the public will turn en masse against Barack Obama....Then Democrats would have no choice but to pass a balanced budget amendment and reform entitlements, and the tea party hobbits could return to Middle-earth...This is the kind of crack political thinking that turned Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell into GOP nominees. The reality is the debt limit will be raised one way or another." I love and respect John McCain. I think it is time for him to retire.

Lisa Murkowski: "You have folks who are so black-and-white, who are so absolutist, that we are in a process now where we are on the brink."

Connie Mack’s Penny Plan to balance the budget (you have to give Spitzer credit for interviewing Mack on this, and he asks some good questions):

Hannity on the Penny Plan. These are short, repetitive stories, because this is a simple plan to explain.

If you feel like you are behind on this debt ceiling, and you need a primer, here it is (2 min.):

A Black TEA party protestor saying why he does not like the TEA party and it is amazing if he actually believes any of this (for instance, that the TEA party wants to go back to slavery and send Blacks back to Africa).

Juan Williams is wrong about a lot of things, but not about school choice (text and video):

Cynthia McKinney accused the United States government war mongers for assassinating John Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and Malcolm X in a televised program in Iran. So uses the expression to quash dissent on many, many occasions.

AFSCME protesters target company that hires the developmentally disabled because Governor Scott Walker will speak there (text and short video).

NewsBusters Interview: UCLA's Tim Groseclose on 'How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind'

FoxNews interviews what appears to be a real vampire, who foreclosed on Wells Fargo:

David Wu “There are Klingons in the White House” (from back in 2007, when this was apparently true):

Jay Leno, in case the debt ceiling is not raised, “I don’t care who gets paid first, just so Congress is paid last.”

Although this is not a comedy report, but about those scantily clad women who make up Putin’s army, I must admit to laughing, watching the look on the male anchor’s face while the female anchor expressed her disapproval of these women. If you are married and agreed with your wife on something really stupid that she has said, then you will recognize that look (not that the female anchor said something stupid...it is just that, well, those women are total babes—disgusting and sordid as this might all be). Look at that male newscaster and you know exactly what he is thinking: “My car is rather dirty, and this car wash is on the way home, and I need to be more personally involved in my news stories.”

Jodi Miller: “MSNBC has given Al Sharpton his own show, and this is good news. With MSNBC’s ratings, this means that we will never see Al Sharpton again.”

1) If every Senator who previously voted for a balanced budget amendment (like Harkin, Reid, Feinstein, and Durbin) voted for Cap, Cut and Balance, the debt crisis would be averted.

2) Do you recall how a few negative comments by President Barack Obama about Las Vegas helped to tank their economy (and with it, the economy of Nevada?). The president has made some rather remarkable statements of how the stock market will tank if he does not get the debt ceiling bill that he wants. I wonder if that will have an effect on the stock market?

3) In case you did not know, the so-called budget savings in the Reid budget ceiling bill comes from assuming that our troops will be withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan, and therefore, less money spent there will count as less spending.

4) I think I became a true Texan today (I’m a transplant). A New Yorker called me about a rental property and I gave him directions and recommended that he look through the windows. He revealed some apprehension, saying, “No one is going to come out and shoot at me, will they?” Without thinking, I answered, “Of course not; we always give Yankees a head start before we start shooting. No sport in it, otherwise.”

5) Because of the TEA party, we are actually discussing the debt ceiling and federal spending, as well as federal regulations and our method of taxation. Many people actually have a frame of reference for this material. This is a good beginning, despite what is happening in Congress.

6) I am one of the few people in favor of keeping American soldiers scattered throughout the world. The problem with any major war is, getting our soldiers and equipment from here to there. This way, they are already there. Secondly, our soldiers, scattered throughout the globe, act as a deterrent to war. Remember, WWI and WWII occurred almost back-to-back. Since then, we have been involved in innumerable skirmishes, but no world wars. What we need is a president smart enough to put permanent bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, so that we are both sides of Iran, one of the most dangerous rogue nations out there today.

7) Prichard, Alabama, along with several other cities, has gone bankrupt, and it stopped paying its pensions. What many states and cities are doing is, borrowing money to prop up their pension plans, which makes these pensions nearly worthless. At this point, the offer is to pay former city employees a third of what the pensions were originally. We are going to see this happen all over the United States. By the way, politicians had been warned about this problem years in advance—back in 2003. However, politicians, in order to get elected, made promises that could not be kept, and getting out of government before the music stops.

8) On Greta, Sarah Palin mistakenly confused the Stimulus Law with the TARP Law. Did not anyone notice this? Apparently, this was a mistake that she made before.

9) When will we get a politician brave enough to say, “All Americans ought to pay federal income taxes; there should not be a free ride for half the United States.” I’m not holding my breath.

10) Liberals have shown a lot of love for President Reagan, because he raised the debt ceiling 18 times. However, it may come as a surprise to them that, this is not a unilateral action. Furthermore, it shoots holes in their argument that they must have the debt ceiling raised high enough to get us past the next election in order to have financial stability. Reagan presided over a dramatically healthy economy, even though he raised the debt ceiling about twice a year.

11) At least 22 Senate Democrats and 1 Senate Independent have announced support for a balanced budget, including: U.S. Senators Max Baucus (D-Montana), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Mark Begich (D-Alaska), Michael Bennet (D-Colorado), Tom Carper (D-Delaware), Bob Casey (D-Pennsylvania), Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota), Dick Durbin (D-Illinois), Dianne Feinstein (D-California), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-New York), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Tim Johnson (D-South Dakota), Herb Kohl (D-Wisconsin), Mary Landrieu (D-Louisiana), Joe Lieberman (I-Connecticut), Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri), Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia), Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska), Bill Nelson (D-Florida), Harry Reid (D-Nevada), Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan), John Tester (D-Montana), and Mark Udall (D-Colorado). So, where is it? The House has sent over 2 bills to the Senate with a balanced budget amendment attached, which bills were quickly tabled without debate.

12) John Boehner and company were putting together the Boehner bill 1.0 and then 2.0, after Cut, Cap and Balance. Harry Reid started working on his bill, getting it done by 3 pm or so on Saturday. He sends it to Boehner without putting it up for a vote. What is Obama doing? He is burning out his twitter account, sending hundreds of twitters on July 29^th. You think I’m kidding, don’t you?

13) Why doesn’t President Obama try to use the 14^th Amendment? The funds which he will use toward the debt would be tied up in court for years—long past the next election—because this amendment does not give the president unilateral authority to raise the debt ceiling.

14) There is nothing more Hobbit-like and absolutist as siding with 75% of the American people who want a Balanced Budget Amendment.

15) I like John Boehner, but I think he is getting out-foxed these past few weeks. Remember, he told us before, that the next fight would be about trillions instead of billions. This is that next fight. Republicans should have put out one proposal and one proposal only, and it should have been so conservative that even I would have viewed it as reactionary. Then he should have said, “Here is the bill; you pass a bill in the Senate, and we will see if we can find a middle ground.” Then every conservative should have gone out and tried to sell this bill. The should have spoken of the budget being balanced in 2–4 years; that there is a Balanced Budget Amendment in the package, etc., etc. Instead, the news media and the Democrats craftily got Boehner and other Republicans to put up alternate proposals, while Obama and Reid sat on their hands (okay, Obama did not sit on his tweeting hand).

16) Moody’s is saying that none of the present debt plans on the table will preserve the credit rating of the United States. So, where are the leader’s voices saying, “Back to the drawing board”?

(You may recall that, during the Reagan recovery, there were 7% growth quarters).

About 51% of Americans do not pay any federal taxes. A larger percentage of Americans receive all kinds of benefits from the federal government (e.g., welfare, section 8 housing, tax breaks, money for the purchase of a home). The federal government sends out at least 70 million checks a month—that is a fifth of Americans. Nearly 70% take more from the tax system than they put in.

When Obama decided to participate in the debt wars via twitter, he lost 40,000 followers in one day.

3 is the number of times the debt ceiling has been raised under President Obama.

I know you have heard this or that plan is going to cut $2 trillion or $3 trillion or even $4 trillion from federal spending. This is over a period of 10 years, and all of these plans allow the deficit to grow by over $1 trillion/year during that same period of time. Rand Paul points out that freezing federal spending would be counted by the CBO as a $9.5 trillion cut.

The key to the Gallup responses above is not the approval rating, but the disapproval rating, which is almost equal for all 3 (Boehner’s is a little smaller).

Although a majority of Americans want to see a compromise solution to the debt ceiling/debt problem of the United States, when asked about which issue concerned them the most:

55% say they worry more that the government would raise the debt ceiling without plans for major spending cuts,

35% fear than that the government would not raise the ceiling and an economic crisis would ensue.

No matter how much the press tries to confuse the public, here are a variety of stats about the economy, the budget and the debt ceiling:

Much of the news has made it sound as if U.S. bonds would be downgraded if the debt ceiling is not raised. That is not even close to the truth.

You really don’t think the media is out there singing the same song? I posted this link earlier, but if you missed it:

Can you imagine any other president who was not acting as a leader, but “leading from behind” being touted as employing a good approach? The press ascribes this to Obama as if it is a good thing.

What is amazing about the chart above is, the declining influence of the media. It is there and still powerful, but, even though Republicans are blamed 4x more often by the media than Democrats, Boehner’s unfavorable are actually slightly lower than Reid’s and Obama’s. That is a good sign for those of us who believe in the truth.

If you watch the mainstream news, have you heard of Connie Mack’s Penny Plan yet? I can easily answer that—no. One of the things the Obama Media Complex is very good at—ignoring stories and information which they do not like. Why is this proposal being ignored? It sounds too reasonable. Normal people understand the concept. Freeze spending and then reduce it. Not hard. Everyone gets it, and it would be popular. OMC cannot allow for that.

Remember all of the media sources listed above by Newsbusters; how many of those shows also mentioned Connie Mack’s Penny Plan? My guess would be 0.

I have found more discussion threads on Mack’s plan than news stories on this plan.

Anders Breivik, the Norway terrorist killer was branded in many newspapers as a Christian and as a Christian fundamentalist, and I have seen this identification affirmed by that goofy New Turk guy as well as the lovely and misguided Sally Quinn, the faith writer for the Washington Post.

Meanwhile, in America, an AWOL Muslim soldier is arrested, and it appears that he was planning a terrorist attack. The foiled plot appeared on page A-11 of the newspaper's print edition. The word "Muslim" was mentioned once - in paragraph nine of the 13-paragraph story. The newspaper's top national story was a feature piece about a boy who is following his dream to be a circus clown. That story had 28 paragraphs. The Norway terrorist story was on the front page with the headline: "As Horrors Emerge, Norway Charges Christian Extremist."

Do you still want to have the debt ceiling raised without any additional conditions?

Former governor and now Senator Manchin has come out against both Boehner and Reid’s bills because they are both fiscally irresponsible. As I will predict below, Manchin may end up as VP instead of Biden or running for president in 2016.

A [more] balanced approach = those who pay a disproportionately high portion of the taxes need to pay even more

Default, going into default, defaulting on our debt = Congress being unable to borrow more money to spend recklessly

The president and the Senate have rejected each and every proposal put forth by the House. So far, every proposal has been declared dead on arrival. What must be the case is, Reid has a Senate bill, and he will bring it out at the last minute (I write this portion on Thursday, so that would mean today or tomorrow when it is formally submitted). The idea is to have a Democratic bill as the last possible chance to raise the debt ceiling. I would not be shocked if this strategy was developed by Reid and Obama (or, developed by Reid and sold to Obama a week ago).

I have to say, the Democrats have done a pretty good job putting the Republicans on defense. Armed with the power of the press, Republicans were forced to bargain with themselves, coming up first with Cut, Cap and Balance (immediately tabled by the Senate), followed by Boehner’s first plan, which could not get enough votes in the House, followed by Boehner 2.0, which barely got enough House votes to pass (and it was tabled by the Senate, which means no discussion or debate). Simultaneous to this, President Obama gives some speeches, which cannot be scored by the CBO; and Senate leader, Harry Reid, this past Saturday, puts together the Senate bill, which he sends over to the House to be worked with (but he did not put it before the Senate, because it could not be passed there). It is my understanding of the Reid bill that, most of the “cuts” are really monies which we anticipate that we will not spend in Iraq or Afghanistan, if we withdraw troops from there in the next few years.

Democrats have decided to offer up no real plan, to not get anything which can pass the House or the Senate, and continue to use the phrase “a balanced approach.”

You think that not raising the debt ceiling means a default on our credit obligations.

You think our credit rating is somehow closely related to raising the debt ceiling. Even the credit agencies have been clear in pointing this out. Have you heard that on your news station?

Rick Perry’s presidential ad: “50% of all the jobs created in the past 2 years were created in Texas. I know how to create jobs; Barack Obama does not.”

President Obama has warned that the stock markets will tank if he does not get the debt ceiling bill that he wants (but will not specify the terms for). Therefore, we can reasonably assume that, if there is no debt ceiling bill adopted by Congress, we will see a 200-600 point drop in the markets on Monday and Tuesday.

There is a very good chance the House will reject the Reid bill or an amalgamation of the Reid/Boehner bills (I wrote this prediction a few days ago).

After hearing Marco Rubio on the Senate floor, my mouth simply dropped. What an incredible speech. Very likely, he will be the vice presidential nomination for the Republican party, no matter who is on the ticket’s top spot.

I would not be surprised if Manchin is presidential candidate in the near future—2016 or a VP running mate for Obama in 2012.

Tea-Party Backed Freedom Works Supports Mack Plan to Balance The Budget Within Eight Years

WASHINGTON, July 22, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Today, Congressman Connie Mack (FL-14) welcomed the support of Freedom Works for the "One Percent Spending Reduction Act," legislation - also known as the "Penny Plan" - that was introduced by Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY) last week, and authored by Congressman Connie Mack (R-FL) last spring in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Mack stated: "I am proud to have the support of Freedom Works and the great work of their Chairman , Leader Dick Armey. Our deficits and debt hang around us like an albatross, and last November American voters sent a clear message to their elected officials that 'enough is enough' when it comes to Washington's appetite for spending."

Presently the Mack Penny plan enjoys the support of over 40 co-sponsors in the U.S House; the backing of the Republican Study Committee's 103 Members, three key U.S. Senators, and two grassroots organizations .

If Congress and the President are unable to make the necessary cuts, the bill's fail-safe triggers automatic, across-the-board cuts to ensure the one percent reductions are achieved.

Matt Kibbe of Freedom Works stated: "Washington is on an unprecedented spending binge. Our national debt has skyrocketed to nearly $14.4 trillion. The Republican Study Committee has listed the One Percent Spending Reduction Act as a bold solution in their "Cut, Cap and Balance" proposal letter to House leadership. The letter states that it would be fiscally irresponsible to raise the debt ceiling without immediate spending cuts, enforceable total-spending caps and a balanced budget amendment. Rep. Mack's "penny plan" should be considered as the second part of the RSC's "Cut, Cap, and Balance" approach for the debt ceiling in order to put federal spending on the path to a balanced budget."

Today we hear quite a lot about the U.S. debt ceiling or debt limit. So in this article I try to draw upon Internet news, political news, and economic news for sources to examine this situation. Before deciding about the politics of the debt limit, one must understand it - what it is, from where it came, and how Congress uses it.

The debt is the total outstanding liability owed by the US Federal Government to:

• Government accounts, owed by the federal government to itself, consisting primarily of Social Security and similar trust funds

The debt ceiling's original purpose was an instrument established by Congress to limit the Treasury Department's ability to borrow, but it has increasingly lost its effectiveness. It has been waived ten times in the last decade. And a vote to increase the debt limit has often been tied to "must pass" spending increases.

Failure to pass a debt ceiling increase means defaulting on our debts - Refusing to raise the debt limit does not mean defaulting on our debts. The U.S. Treasury currently takes in more than enough revenue to pay both the interest and the principal on the debts we currently owe. The government would have to prioritize its expenditures - for example, sending out checks for the troops' pay and Social Security first.

Failure to pass the debt-ceiling increase on time would be unprecedented - Both the administration and the media sound as if we are at the edge of economic Armageddon if we have not raised the debt ceiling. That's not quite so.

It's always a "clean bill" - The administration is insisting that it would be shocking for Congress to add any conditions to the debt-ceiling increase. But such conditions are far from unprecedented.

This is not about future spending - The administration insists that raising the debt ceiling is just about paying for spending that's already occurred. Depending on how high it is raised, it may be about paying only for spending that is already authorized - or much more. Authorized and spent are not the same thing.

Only Republicans oppose raising the debt ceiling - The media and the administration want to turn this into a partisan fight. The ongoing narrative is that radical Republicans in thrall to the Tea Party want to wreck our finances, while Democrats responsibly want to pay our bills.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has warned that failing to lift the debt ceiling would have "unthinkable" consequences.

Timothy Geithner said, [not raising the debt ceiling will] "shake the basic foundation of the entire global financial system."

Joshua Green, a senior editor at The Atlantic, wrote, "If Congress fails to raise the federal debt limit, the government will default, which all parties agree would have catastrophic effects on the economy."

The Associated Press reported that if "borrowing slams up against the current debt limit ceiling of $14.3 trillion and Congress fails to raise it, `the resulting' damage would ripple across the entire economy, eventually affecting nearly every American."

When Democratic Senator Mark Warner of Virginia asked at a hearing what would happen "if we were to default and not raise that debt ceiling," Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke replied ominously: "It would be an extremely dangerous and very likely recovery-ending event."

In a release this afternoon (2 Jun 11), the Moody's ratings agency said it would put the U.S. credit rating under review if Congress and the Obama administration don't make progress on increasing the debt limit. "If the debt limit is raised and default avoided, the Aaa rating will be maintained. However, the rating outlook will depend on the outcome of negotiations on deficit reduction."

The United States is at risk of having its pristine credit rating lowered if politicians in Washington cannot agree on a plan to bring down the nation's deficits over the long term, ratings agency Standard & Poor's said Monday (18 Apr 11). This means that there is a one-in-three chance that S&P could downgrade the nation's "AAA" credit rating within two years. S&P said its outlook change was based on the growth of the United States' deficits over the last several years as a percentage of gross domestic product, the broadest measure of economic activity.

Back in April, Standard & Poor's threatened to reduce America's top-shelf credit rating. Now another investment agency, Moody's, has issued a similar warning. In fact, Moody's is more urgent. S&P spoke of a one-in-three chance that our credit rating would take a hit within the next two years. Moody's is talking about downgrading our AAA credit rating within the next few weeks. There is also a difference in the stated reasons both agencies gave for issuing their warnings. S&P was explicitly worried about our mounting national debt, while Moody's is worried that we won't make it bigger. This is an important warning shot fired by the credit market. Standard & Poor's used a rifle, while Moody's used a pistol. Raising the debt ceiling without budget reforms in place means we would dodge the Moody's pistol shot and run smack into the S&P rifle bullet, which was fired to warn us of much more serious, long-term danger.

The United States has hit its debt limit on 16 May, 2011, and the world hasn't come to a screeching end, the sky isn't falling, and no one is really talking about it. The Obama Administration and Geithner have continually warned about a "double-dip recession," yet, America is still in a recession and hasn't gotten out of it. "Recovery Summer," in fact was the opposite, the economy hasn't recovered.

If Congress fails to raise the debt limit by August 2, the Treasury has only two options: It can default on its debt - meaning, stop paying its creditors around the world - or continue to pay creditors but halt any other federal spending above what the government collects in taxes. In effect, that would mean an overnight spending cut of about 40 percent. Here are six consequences if the Treasury is forced to choose one of those options:

1. Cut $125 Billion Per Month - The federal government must borrow an additional $125 billion each month to finance all of its commitments. If the Treasury chooses to continue to pay creditors but stop all other federal spending, the government will have to begin reducing its spending by $125 billion every 30 days.

2. Treasury Bonds Collapse - If the government defaults on its debt, economists say that prices for Treasury bonds would collapse and interest rates would probably soar to record highs.

3. Cut Medicare and Social Security - To reduce spending by $125 billion a month, the government would have to make deep cuts to the two giant entitlement programs.

4. Stock Market Plunge - Wall Street generally agrees with Geithner that it would be a disaster if the U.S. defaulted on its debt.

5. Government Furloughs or Mass Layoffs - The federal government would most likely turn to furloughs or mass layoffs to immediately cut spending.

6. Sky-High Mortgage and Interest Rates - If the government defaults, interest rates on mortgages would shoot up.

Current spending growth is unsustainable. The Government Accountability Office estimates entitlement spending on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid alone will amount to more than 20 percent of GDP by 2080, if current policies are unchanged. Excessive government spending and high tax rates reduce economic freedom and thus the range of choices open to individuals. When government runs large deficits and adds to the national debt, private investment can be crowded out. Today, the gross federal debt is approaching 100 percent of GDP. In addition, unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare total more than $100 trillion. Studies by leading economists Kenneth Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart have shown that when sovereign debt exceeds 90 percent of GDP, real growth tends to slow.

China, and others holding U.S. sovereign debt, will suffer huge losses if the United States cannot get its fiscal house in order and return to constitutionally limited government. By undervaluing the yuan against the dollar, China has accumulated more than $3 trillion in foreign exchange reserves, with a substantial amount invested in U.S. government securities.

For most of America's history, adherence to the framers' "Constitution of Liberty" did limit government spending, and the private sector flourished. Whether that ethos of liberty returns will determine the future path of U.S. fiscal and monetary policies.

Two of the biggest companies to warn of fallout from the debt-ceiling fight are life-insurance giant MetLife and private-equity powerhouse KKR. MetLife is brief in its warning, which appears in the quarterly report it filed May 10. It's wrapped into a broader "risk factor" disclosure about "difficult conditions in the global capital markets and the economy," and warns of market and economic volatility more generally. KKR is more specific. With its quarterly report filed on May 5, it added an entirely new section to its risk factors, warning of potential harm from a "failure or the perceived risk of a failure to raise the statutory debt limit of the United States."

Financial firms aren't the only ones worried about the debt ceiling. Hansen Medical, a small maker of medical robots in Mountain View, Calif., warns about the debt ceiling debate in its May 10 quarterly report. Seattle Genetics, a biotech company focusing on cancer and autoimmune disorders, warns of the debt ceiling debate in its May 6 quarterly report.

The Treasury is out of money, but not out of games. Now that it has finally been made clear that in order to accommodate the debt ceiling by adding marketable debt, the Treasury has no choice but to literally plunder retirement accounts, we now know that in order to fit in the just announced $110 billion in new bond issuance over the next week, Tim Geithner will have to reduce US retirement funding (the bulk of which, the Social Security Trust Fund already lost $1.1 trillion in the past year) by at least $45 billion.

It should be noted that the debt ceiling is not the problem. Raising it solves the duplicity of Treasury behavior but doesn't resolve the fact that we are caught in a debt death spiral that will result in the collapse of the dollar, producing hyperinflation and the likely collapse of our government.

Congress must accomplish three things to put the United States on a path to financial responsibility: (1) cut current spending, (2) restrict future spending, and (3) fix the budget process.

Responsibility for the Debt Lies with Congress - When the Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia in May 1787, the delegates who attended were well aware of the problems of the national debt, the state debts, and the poor financial reputation of the government. The Framers of the Constitution sought to reassure lenders that, even though it might change its form of government, the United States would honor its debt. The Framers included in the Constitution several other provisions that fixed responsibility for the national debt on the Congress of the United States. Legislative powers fix upon Congress the responsibility for the national debt.

Congress Let Debt Get Out of Control - To spend more money than you have, you borrow, creating debt. Congress has grossly overspent beyond its means, creating a huge national debt. From a debt of $79 million when the Revolutionary War ended, the United States has racked up a debt of nearly $14.294 trillion. To put today's debt in perspective, consider:

• It would take essentially everything that Americans produced (GDP) in all of last year to pay off the existing national debt of $14.294 trillion.

• The debt when the American Revolution ended was about $34 per American, which in today's, inflation-adjusted dollars would be about $653 per American. Today, the debt owed by each American is over $45,000, nearly 68 times the size of the debt when the American Revolution ended.

Default on the debt does not occur when government borrowing reaches the debt limit. When the government reaches the debt limit and cannot borrow more money to pay its bills coming due, it must, as a practical matter in the absence of guidance set by law, establish priorities in paying the bills.

Congress should proceed with an orderly change of course in federal spending - taking action to cut current spending, restrict future spending, and improve federal budgeting - and at the same time it addresses the debt limit.

Failing to Control the Spending that Causes Debt, Congress Has Raised the Debt Limit Regularly - Early in the past century Congress enacted the first aggregate public debt limit, on federal bonds. Throughout the 20th century and into the present century, Congress has from time to time raised the debt limit and also has authorized the government temporarily to exceed the debt limit.

Fifteen weeks after the Japanese attacks on the U.S. territories of Hawaii, Guam, Wake Island, and the Philippines, Congress doubled the debt limit. Following the Japanese surrender on September 2, 1945, Congress took up the debt limit again -to cut it to $275 billion on June 26, 1946. Congress left the debt limit of $275 billion in place, but several times enacted legislation that temporarily authorized the government to borrow money in excess of the debt limit. Finally, on September 2, 1958, Congress raised the debt limit to $283 billion.

Since then Congress has raised the debt ceiling 30 times, and it now stands at $14.294 trillion.

Cut Current Spending, Restrict Future Spending, and Fix the Budget Process - As federal borrowing approaches the current debt limit, Congress must reach agreement to accomplish three things to put the country on a path to financial responsibility.

1. Cut Current Spending - In making cuts in current spending, Congress should emphasize cuts in continuing programs because, given the budget practices of government that look to existing budgets as baselines for setting future budgets, the current cuts likely will result in related reductions in future spending.

2. Restrict Future Spending - In designing effective statutory restrictions on future spending, Congress should seek to reduce spending, with a reasonable transition period, to not more than the modern historical level of federal revenues.

1) amend existing federal laws that provide permanent or indefinite appropriations for federal agencies or programs (including entitlement programs), so as to retrieve congressional control of spending for those agencies and programs.

2) estimate and publish the projected cost over 75 years of any proposed policy or funding level for each significant federal program.

3) require a calculation of cost of a proposal that takes account of that response information available to Congress when it decides whether to pursue the actions.

The European Debt Crisis - The "Vienna initiative" was a plan, drawn up in 2009, that halted the rot of financial contagion spreading through central and eastern Europe. It is now being discussed as a possible model for resolving Greece's sovereign-debt crisis. The need to come up with a new plan for Greece is mounting. On May 20th, 2011, Fitch, a ratings agency, cut the country's debt rating by another three notches. Yields on Greek ten-year bonds this week reached 16.8%, more than twice what they were a year ago.

Greece's Monetary Policy - Greece, struggling to avoid default on its massive national debt, obviously is in bad shape. This year it will run a budget deficit equal to 9.5 percent of its GDP. That actually is a significant improvement over last year, when its deficit topped 15 percent of GDP. Greece also provides an object lesson to those who believe that budget deficits are the result of low taxes. Greek taxes run as high as 40 percent on incomes above ?70,000 per year. It's not low taxes that caused the Greek crisis, but high spending. (Sound familiar?)

Greek Coup? - Despite last year's 110 billion euro Greece bailout there remains serious concern that the periphery EU nation will be unable to continue its debt repayments. Due to the increasing severity of the problem, and the ongoing resistance to additional support, the Central Intelligence Agency has now issued a report warning on how worsening Greek unrest could bring rise to even a military coup. A number of European Union countries including Germany, Finland, and the Netherlands have lost already lost interest in and support for extending any further bailout funds to Greece as its austerity measures continue to flounder.

EU Safety Net Frays - "There can be no more illusions about getting help from the state," said Ms. Gema Díaz, at home on a recent evening in a charmless, government owned complex on the outskirts of the city. Hers is a story repeated across Europe, fueling the protests and strikes that have tied up airports, blocked highways and, in Greece, even turned deadly. For millions of Europeans, modest salaries and high taxes have been offset by the benefits of their cherished social model - a cradle-to-grave safety net which, in the recent boom years, seemed to grow more generous all the time. Now, governments across Europe say they have little choice but to pull back on social benefits, at least for now.

Greece, Ireland, Portugal Bailouts - It was a year ago that the European Union produced its big bazooka to quell the euro area's sovereign-debt crisis: a ?750 billion fund to safeguard the single currency, following within days of the ?110 billion bail-out of Greece. It did not work. Ireland has since been bailed out, and a rescue of Portugal is in the works.

Debt Ceiling Warnings from Europe - As the debate over America's debt burden intensifies, Europe's social and economic problems provide a warning to the United States. For over a decade, continental Europe has witnessed political and economic decline, culminating in a sovereign debt crisis which has brought the single European currency to its knees. What are the lessons from Europe on where the spiraling debt crisis will end? The Government in Britain has chosen to swallow the bitter pills of austerity cuts and deficit reduction. The Conservative-led coalition has pledged to eliminate Britain's structural deficit by 2015, as well as to cut 490,000 public sector jobs. Sweden, which is also outside the Eurozone, has successfully steered its economy through this crisis. Having learned valuable lessons in the 1990s, Sweden's center-right government has chosen to incentivize work and maintain budget discipline, which has led to economic growth of 4.5 percent in 2010.

Let us Americans analyze these different European approaches and what lessons they can offer America's next presidential candidates. Politicians (of both parties) have only to look to Europe for a free, painless lesson about what awaits this country. But, as we (taxpayers) know, politicians tend to cling to their beliefs, even in the face of contrary evidence (Reid and Schumer come to mind).

Barack Obama's political genius is his ability to say things that will sound good to people who have not followed the issues in any detail - regardless of how obviously fraudulent what he says may be to those who have. Shameless effrontery can be a huge political asset, especially if uninformed voters outnumber those who are informed.

President Obama's big pitch in his Monday night televised talk was that what is needed to deal with the national debt crisis is a "balanced" approach - not just spending cuts but revenue increases as well.

What could sound more reasonable - especially to those who have not been following what Obama has actually been doing and not doing? This is the same Barack Obama who, earlier this year, called for a "clean" increase in the national debt ceiling.

In this context, the soothing word "clean" referred to an increase in the national debt ceiling without any provisos. That is, no spending cuts at all. In other words, a blank check to keep spending. How balanced is that?

Another word that sounds good to people who don't stop and think is "fair." President Obama says that he only wants the wealthiest Americans to pay their "fair share." But he says zilch about just what that fair share is, or even how to determine it.

Is the "fair share" of the top 10 percent of income-earners 20 percent of all taxes? 40 percent? 60 percent? Those who talk about paying a "fair share" of taxes don't want to be pinned down.

This is another blank check that Obama wants. "Fair share" in plain English means "more," regardless of how large a share of all income taxes is already being paid by a fraction of the population, while nearly half pay no income taxes at all.

What President Obama says may not make any sense if you stop and think about it - which he of course assumes that most people will not do. But that does not mean that he is a confused man. He is crystal clear in what he is doing, however confusing his words may be to others.

At the heart of the political games being played in Washington is taking credit and putting blame on the other guy. That is the game that Obama played flawlessly in his speech.

It began by referring to the increased government spending that had been going on for a decade - in other words, before Barack Obama reached the White House. It is true that President George W. Bush had a record amount of deficit spending. But what is also true is that President Obama's deficit spending has broken Bush's record.

While Obama seldom misses an opportunity to blame his problems on the situation he inherited from President Bush, he says nothing about all the hundreds of billions of dollars in stimulus money he inherited from the Bush administration. Incidentally, this "stimulus" money did not do any more stimulating under George W. Bush than under Barack H. Obama.

Nevertheless, Obama is an accomplished master at playing the blame game. Having gotten all the political credit for the money he has showered on his favorites from coast to coast, he now seeks to share the blame for the resulting financial crisis with Republicans, by maneuvering them into a position where they have to help solve the debt crisis that Obama created.

He has done this in great part by simply speaking of spending cuts mostly in the abstract, leaving it to the Republicans to be specific, and thus have them face the wrath from the constituencies who support the programs they want to cut.

However one might criticize President Obama's policies in terms of their effect on the American economy, those policies can turn out to be very successful in the terms that matter most to him - namely, his own re-election.

A Washington Post-ABC poll shows that while 52 percent of the public disapprove of Obama's handling of the economy, 65 percent disapprove of the Republicans' handling of it.

The Republicans lost control of Congress in the 2006 elections. Whether the Republicans' ideas are good, bad or indifferent, they have not been able to pass economic legislation - or any other kind of legislation - for more than four long years.

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Many of us never thought that the Republicans would hold tough long enough to get President Obama and the Democrats to agree to a budget deal that does not include raising income tax rates. But they did - and Speaker of the House John Boehner no doubt desires much of the credit for that.

Despite the widespread notion that raising tax rates automatically means collecting more revenue for the government, history says otherwise. As far back as the 1920s, Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon pointed out that the government received a very similar amount of revenue from high-income earners at low tax rates as it did at tax rates several times as high.

How was that possible? Because high tax rates drive investors into tax shelters, such as tax-exempt bonds. Today, as a result of globalization and electronic transfers of money, "the rich" are even less likely to stand still and be sheared like sheep, when they can easily send their money overseas, to places where tax rates are lower.

Money sent overseas creates jobs overseas - and American workers cannot transfer themselves overseas to get those jobs as readily as investors can send their money there.

All the overheated political rhetoric about needing to tax "millionaires and billionaires" is not about bringing in more revenue to the government. It is about bringing in more votes for politicians who stir up class warfare with rhetoric.

Now that the Republicans seem to have gotten the Democrats off their higher taxes kick, the question is whether a minority of the House Republicans will refuse to pass the Boehner legislation that could lead to a deal that will spare the country a major economic disruption and spare the Republicans from losing the 2012 elections by being blamed - rightly or wrongly - for the disruptions.

Is the Boehner legislation the best legislation possible? Of course not! You don't get your heart's desire when you control only one house of Congress and face a presidential veto.

The most basic fact of life is that we can make our choices only among the alternatives actually available. It is not idealism to ignore the limits of one's power. Nor is it selling out one's principles to recognize those limits at a given time and place, and get the best deal possible under those conditions.

That still leaves the option of working toward getting a better deal later, when the odds are more in your favor.

There would not be a United States of America today if George Washington's army had not retreated and retreated and retreated, in the face of an overwhelmingly more powerful British military force bent on annihilating Washington's troops.

Later, when the conditions were right for attack, General Washington attacked. But he would have had nothing to attack with if he had wasted his troops in battles that would have wiped them out.

Similar principles apply in politics. As Edmund Burke said, more than two centuries ago: "Preserving my principles unshaken, I reserve my activity for rational endeavors."

What does "rational" mean? At its most basic, it means an ability to make a ratio, as with "rational numbers" in mathematics. More broadly, it means an ability to weigh one thing against another.

There are a lot of things to weigh against each other, not only as regards the economy, but also what the consequences to this nation would be to have Barack Obama get re-elected and go further down the dangerous path he has put us on, at home and abroad. Is it worth that risk to make a futile symbolic vote in Congress?

One of the good things about the Tea Party movement is that it resisted the temptation to actually form a third political party, which has been an exercise in futility, time and time again, under the American electoral system.

But, if the Tea Party movement within the Republican Party becomes just a rule-or-ruin minority, then they might just as well have formed a separate third party and gone on to oblivion.

This Sunday, while Congress will continue battling over the debt ceiling at one end of Pennsylvania Avenue, across town where Georgetown begins, at the intersection of Pennsylvania Avenue and M Street, Furin's restaurant will close after 27 years.

The family diner, a D.C. landmark, featured wafer-thin pancakes, great sandwiches, homemade soups and the capital's best cakes and cupcakes. It drew generations of students, social types, power brokers and travelers wealthy enough to stay at the Four Seasons across the street but savvy enough to know where to get a wonderful breakfast.

Bernard Furin came to Washington in 1960 after serving in the Army and graduating from Penn State on the GI Bill. For over two decades, he worked in catering, handling events from the State Department to the Smithsonian. In 1984 Mr. Furin went out on his own, creating a welcoming joint that won a loyal clientele. His wife, Wendy, would bring regulars decaf or regular without asking. But the last three years have been tough ones, and the business has bled enough.

A small business shutting down has become too frequent a sight in America. Such enterprises are always coming and going, but recently there have been many more going than coming. While the Commerce Department says 552,600 small businesses opened in 2009, more than 721,700 closed or went bankrupt. And 2010 looks like it was even worse.

No small business ends for just one reason. But with fewer conventions coming to Washington, a slow economy and people dining out less, it got gradually tougher to keep Furin's doors open.

Its fate is a reminder to Washington politicians all along Pennsylvania Avenue that their decisions affect real human beings. Statistics are important, but behind every number is a real person.

This is worth recalling during the debt-ceiling debate. This latest chapter of Obama-era high drama comes amid high unemployment, anemic growth, exploding deficits and collapsing public confidence. Americans deeply want a change. They've given the president time for his experiment in spending the country's way to prosperity, and they have concluded that his course has failed.

In the debt-ceiling debate, Mr. Obama had his best and last moment to restrain federal spending and thereby change the trajectory of his profligate presidency. But he let it pass.

He will come to regret his decision. Those who argue that the debt-ceiling controversy will resuscitate Mr. Obama's political fortunes are wrong, at least so far. According to Gallup, Mr. Obama averaged a 43% job-approval rating for the week of July 18-24, matching his lowest weekly average.

It is true that when compared to Congress, a president will always look better. In a July 17 CBS News survey, 43% approved of the president's handling of the debt crisis while 21% approved of how Republicans in Congress are handling the matter. And in a July 17 Washington Post/ABC news poll, 36% said they would blame the president and 42% said they would blame Republicans in Congress if the debt limit is not raised and bad things happen.

Still, Mr. Obama is not out of danger. The names of House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell will not be matched with the president's on the 2012 ballot. Instead, he will be paired with a Republican unsullied by the debt-ceiling mess and able to link our struggling economy to the president's policies.

Which brings us back to Furin's restaurant. Bernie Furin's son, Chris, will try his hand at an Internet-based specialty cake business, a sideline at the restaurant that has developed a fanatical following. But when the restaurant closes Sunday, 14 people will lose their jobs. Its patrons will lose a favorite joint, and the neighborhood will lose some sense of community.

There are worse hardship cases in America, but this one is bad enough. It is in large part the result of the economy that Mr. Obama owns. The 2012 election will have many twists and turns, many story lines and subplots as candidates rise and fall. But in the end, a large part of the contest will be about Mr. Obama's stewardship of the economy-and what happened as a result to the Bernie Furins of America, their hard work, and the enterprises they built.

By a Three-to-One Margin, Network News Stories Say Republicans Deserve More Blame than Democrats for Debt Impasse

On Election Day 2010, then-CBS Early Show anchor Harry Smith posed a hypothetical question about newly-elected Republicans to Ann Coulter: "There'll be a routine vote, for instance, to increase the debt ceiling and the Tea Party guys are going to say, `Over my dead body,' and the government comes to a screeching halt. Then what happens?" The conservative author confidently predicted: "Well, the media will blame the Republicans."

And that's precisely what has occurred. A Media Research Center study of the Big Three network evening and morning programs finds that, when it came to assigning blame for lack of a debt ceiling resolution, ABC, CBS and NBC's coverage has placed the overwhelming majority of the blame on Republicans' doorstep.

MRC analysts watched all 202 stories on the debt ceiling from July 1 through July 22, looking for statements which assigned blame or responsibility for the failure to reach a settlement. Of the 85 stories that included such statements, the skew was lopsidedly anti-Republican, with 56 stories (66%) mainly assigning them the blame for the impasse. Even though Democrats control both the Senate and the White House, only 17 network stories (20%) suggested they bore more responsibility, a greater than three-to-one disparity (see chart). Twelve stories offered a balanced discussion of which party ought to be blamed.

[METHOD: Analysts reviewed each story, then tallied all reporter statements and soundbites which clearly assigned responsibility to Republicans or Democrats. If the majority of statements within that story assigned blame to one party or the other, it was scored as "blaming Republicans" or "blaming Democrats." If the story contained a balanced number of statements, it was recorded as "balanced."]

Of the Big Three networks, NBC was the most likely to pin the blame on the GOP, by a 27 to 6 margin (with four stories assigning equal blame). On CBS, 19 stories blamed Republicans vs. nine which tilted in favor of blaming Democrats (and five balanced), while on ABC, ten stories singled out Republicans for blame, vs. only two that painted Democrats as responsible and three suggesting equal responsibility.

On the July 12 Today show, NBC's Matt Lauer exemplified his network's tendency to blame Republicans when he asked conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham the following: "When it comes to taxes, this issue of revenues, is there any way this deal gets done without the Republicans compromising somewhat on taxes?...President Obama talks about shared sacrifice. Where is the shared sacrifice going to come from on the Republican side?"

Following his lead, Lauer's colleagues Ann Curry and Amy Robach were far more skeptical of Republican motives in the debt talks, going as far to insist their proposals were just for "show." Robach, on the July 16 Today show, pondered: "No one believes that this has any chance of passing; therefore, this looks very political. Is that risky for the Republicans, in terms of it looking like they're just wasting time?"

Then on the July 19 Today show, co-anchor Curry also suggested to congressional reporter Kelly O'Donnell that the GOP's "cut, cap and balance" plan was a diversion: "Tea Party conservatives love this plan. The President has already said that he's going to veto it. Do we really have time for a plan that is really just show, Kelly?"

Not to be left, out Meet the Press host David Gregory got in a shot against the GOP when he filled in as host on the July 7 Today, pressing Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor: "If Democrats are willing to cut trillions of dollars, which is certainly what you wanted in spending cuts, what is the Republican Party prepared to do in this negotiation that is hard?"

Over on ABC, Jake Tapper used the words of former Republican Senator Alan Simpson to shame the GOP, as seen in this excerpt from a July 12 story aired on ABC's World News:

JAKE TAPPER: "Former Republican Senator Alan Simpson, who co-chaired the deficit commission, said the American people are rightly disgusted, and he's personally bothered by Republicans undermining any chance of Speaker Boehner compromising."

ALAN SIMPSON: "If that - the stuff that's going on in my party, where the pettiness overcomes the patriotism, it's disgusting to me."

On CBS, Scott Pelley set-up the President to tee off on Republicans, when he interviewed Barack Obama on the July 12 edition of the CBS Evening News. Pelley reminded viewers that "Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill were on opposite sides of the political spectrum, but they respected each other, they liked each other and they got things done." This led to Obama to chide: "If Ronald Reagan could compromise, why wouldn't folks who idolize Ronald Reagan engage in those same kinds of compromises?"

CBS correspondent Nancy Cordes' opening to her July 14 Evening News story was typical of that network's tilt, as she transmitted a litany of Democratic complaints against House Majority Leader Eric Cantor: "In Washington, where the blame game is a blood sport, Democrats have found their fall guy....Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called Cantor childish."

Assigning herself the role of judge, Cordes validated the Democratic blame-setting: "The ambitious six-term Congressman has given his opponents plenty of ammunition....He blew up the original debt negotiations, led by Vice President Biden, when talk turned to tax increases, then pulled Speaker Boehner back from a grand bargain with the President because taxes were part of the deal."

Democrats believe that they gained political advantage during the government shutdowns in late 1995 and early 1996, when the national media also disproportionately battered the Republican side of the stand-off. Once again, the broadcast networks seem eager to hand another liberal President an election-year narrative: that conservatives are an intransigent obstacle, while liberals offer a "balanced" and reasonable alternative.

A welfare state that led to permanent austerity would betray the principles that have made American culture exceptional.

The battle over the debt ceiling is only the latest skirmish in what promises to be an ongoing, exhausting war over budget issues. Americans can be forgiven for seeing the whole business as petty, selfish and tiresome. Conservatives in particular are beginning to worry that public patience will wear thin over their insistence that our nation's government-spending problem must be remedied through spending cuts, not by raising more revenues.

But before they succumb to too much caution, budget reformers need to remember three things. First, this is not a political fight between Republicans and Democrats; it is a fight against 50-year trends toward statism. Second, it is a moral fight, not an economic one. Third, this is not a fight that anyone can win in the 15 months from now to the presidential election. It will take hard work for at least a decade.

Consider a few facts. The Bureau of Economic Analysis tells us that total government spending at all levels has risen to 37% of gross domestic product today from 27% in 1960-and is set to reach 50% by 2038. The Tax Foundation reports that between 1986 and 2008, the share of federal income taxes paid by the top 5% of earners has risen to 59% from 43%. Between 1986 and 2009, the percentage of Americans who pay zero or negative federal income taxes has increased to 51% from 18.5%. And all this is accompanied by an increase in our national debt to 100% of GDP today from 42% in 1980.

Where will it all lead? Some despairing souls have concluded there are really only two scenarios. In one, we finally hit a tipping point where so few people actually pay for their share of the growing government that a majority become completely invested in the social welfare state, which stabilizes at some very high level of taxation and government social spending. (Think Sweden.)

In the other scenario, our welfare state slowly collapses under its weight, and we get some kind of permanent austerity after the rest of the world finally comprehends the depth of our national spending disorder and stops lending us money at low interest rates. (Think Greece.)

Anyone who seeks to provide serious national political leadership today-those elected in 2010 or who seek national office in 2012-owe Americans a plan to escape having to make this choice. We need tectonic changes, not minor fiddling.

Rep. Paul Ryan's (R., Wis.) budget plan is the kind of model necessary. But structural change will only succeed if it's accompanied by a moral argument-an unabashed cultural defense of the free enterprise system that helps Americans remember why they love their country and its exceptional culture.

America's Founders knew the importance of moral language, which is why they asserted our unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness, not to the possession of property. Similarly, Adam Smith, the father of free-market economics, had a philosophy that transcended the mere wealth of nations. His greatest book was "The Theory of Moral Sentiments," a defense of a culture that could support true freedom and provide the greatest life satisfaction.

Yet today, it is progressives, not free marketeers, who use the language of morality. President Obama was not elected because of his plans about the taxation of repatriated profits, or even his ambition to reform health care. He was elected largely on the basis of language about hope and change, and a "fairer" America.

The irony is that statists have a more materialistic philosophy than free-enterprise advocates. Progressive solutions to cultural problems always involve the tools of income redistribution, and call it "social justice."

Free-enterprise advocates, on the other hand, speak privately about freedom and opportunity for everybody-including the poor. Most support a limited safety net, but also believe that succeeding on our merits, doing something meaningful, and having responsibility for our own affairs are what give us the best life. Sadly, in public, they always seem stuck in the language of economic efficiency.

The result is that year after year we slip further down the redistributionist road, dissatisfied with the growing welfare state, but with no morally satisfying arguments to make a change that entails any personal sacrifice.

Examples are all around us. It is hard to find anyone who likes our nation's current health-care policies. But do you seriously expect grandma to sit idly by and let Republicans experiment with her Medicare coverage so her great-grandchildren can get better treatment for carried interest? Not a chance.

If reformers want Americans to embrace real change, every policy proposal must be framed in terms of self-realization, meritocratic fairness and the promise of a better future. Why do we want to lower taxes for entrepreneurs? Because we believe in earned success. Why do we care about economic growth? To make individual opportunity possible, not simply to increase wealth. Why do we need entitlement reform? Because it is wrong to steal from our children.

History shows that big moral struggles can be won, but only when they are seen as decade-long fights and not just as a way to prevail in the next election. Welfare reform was first proposed in 1984 and regarded popularly as a nonstarter. Twelve years of hard work by scholars at my own institution and others helped make it a mainstream idea (signed into law by a Democratic president) and perhaps the best policy for helping the poor to escape poverty in our nation's history. Political consultants would have abandoned welfare reform as unworkably audacious and politically suicidal. Real leaders understood that its moral importance transcended short-term politics.

No one deserves our political support today unless he or she is willing to work for as long as it takes to win the moral fight to steer our nation back toward enterprise and self-governance. This fight will not be easy or politically safe. But it will be a happy one: to share the values that make us proud to be Americans.

Mr. Brooks is president of the American Enterprise Institute and author of "The Battle: How the Fight Between Free Enterprise and Big Government Will Shape America's Future" (Basic Books, 2010).

While our leaders in Washington continue to embarrass the country by failing to get a debt deal done, Americans are somewhat confused about what's going on.

What the debt situation is really all about is your right to pursue happiness. America is the greatest country on Earth because it gives the most people the most opportunity to prosper. It does that by using the free marketplace, whereby people can work hard, make money and provide for themselves and their families. But since the mid-1960s, America has practiced social engineering: spending tax money trying to directly improve the lives of those who don't have very much. These payments are called entitlements, and they are now so high they threaten to bankrupt the nation.

Liberal Americans tend to support the entitlement society, while conservatives are more inclined to promote individualism and smaller entitlement spending. President Obama, of course, is a liberal, and the Democratic Party is now dominated by the left. That's why in the past two-and-a-half years federal spending has broken the bank.

It's worth repeating. Under President Obama, the government is now running up a debt of more than $4 billion a day, far more than any other president.

A new study by the Pew Research Center says that the net worth of white Americans is 20 times that of black Americans and 18 times that of Hispanics. On the surface, that looks bad. But if you look behind the statistics, it's not about skin color or ethnicity; it's about education. The unemployment rate for Americans with college degrees is 4.4 percent. If you have a high school degree, it's 10 percent. If you fail to graduate from high school, the unemployment rate is a whopping 14.3 percent.

So you can see the key to success is graduating from college. Our high-tech society demands educated people, and if you are not educated, you are likely in for a rough time.

Also, the unemployment rate proves that no matter how much money the feds pump into the hands of the less affluent, it does not make much of a difference. You build wealth by making a good salary, buying a home and saving as much as you can.

The essential mistake that Barack Obama is making is that he believes Lyndon Johnson's great society entitlements can elevate the poor to prosperity. They can't. In 1965, the poverty rate stood at 14 percent. Now, after untold trillions have been spent, the poverty rate is 14.3 percent.

The conclusion: America is bankrupting itself with an entitlement philosophy that does little.

This should be read and understood by all Americans Democrats, Republicans, EVERYONE!!

Since the Federal Government can not discipline itself when it comes to spending and since the lobbyist on K street tempt and bribe all of our leaders it only makes sense to place a balance budget amendment into the Constitution. This has nothing to do with the present party that is in the majority of government but everything to do with both parties and their ambitions for political dominance.

To the President and all 535 voting members of the Legislature of both parties..It is now official you are ALL corrupt morons:

a. The U.S. Postal Service was established in 1775. You have had 236 years to get it right and it is broke.

b. Social Security was established in 1935. You have had 76 years to get it right and it is broke.

c. Fannie Mae was established in 1938. You have had 73 years to get it right and it is broke.

d. War on Poverty started in 1964. You have had 47 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor" and they only want more.

e. Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. You have had 46 years to get it right and they are broke.

f. Freddie Mac was established in 1970. You have had 41 years to get it right and it is broke.

g. The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It has ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of $24 billion a year and we import more oil than ever before. You had 34 years to get it right and it is an abysmal failure.

You have FAILED in most every "government service" you have shoved down our throats while overspending our tax dollars.

Where you have had success is in the area as spelled out by the constitution as our defense. The rest should be handled at the State level where it would be either mandated to work within the budget restraints or the people would vote to increase taxes.

If you are sick and tired of this email this, Twitter or Facebook this to as many people as you can.

[passed in 1868 as one of the Reconstruction Amendments, and is therefore, tied to that historical context]

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Let me add this: people who support a distortion of the 14^th Amendment are the same people who believe that the constitution is a fluid document; that is, if you have an opinion and you can find any phrase or statement that seems to support that opinion, regardless of the actual meaning or the context, you use that to make your [intellectually dishonest] argument.

Americans have built the single greatest nation in all of human history. But America's exceptionalism was not preordained. Every generation has had to confront and solve serious challenges and, because they did, each has left the next better off. Until now.

Our generation's greatest challenge is an economy that isn't growing, alongside a national debt that is. If we fail to confront this, our children will be the first Americans ever to inherit a country worse off than the one their parents were given.

Current federal policies make it harder for job creators to start and grow businesses. Taxes on individuals are complicated and set to rise in less than two years. Corporate taxes will soon be the highest in the industrialized world. Federal agencies torment job creators with an endless string of rules and regulations.

On top of all this, we have an unsustainable national debt. Leaders of both parties have grown our government for decades by spending money we didn't have. To pay for it, they borrowed $4 billion a day, leaving us with today's $14 trillion debt. Half of that debt is held by foreign investors, mostly China. And there is no plan to stop. In fact, President Obama's latest budget request spends more than $46 trillion over the next decade. Under this plan, public debt will equal 87% of our economy in less than 10 years. This will scare away job creators and lead to higher taxes, higher interest rates and greater inflation.

Betting on America used to be a sure thing, but job creators see the warning signs that our leaders ignore. Even the world's largest bond fund, PIMCO, recently dumped its holdings of U.S. debt.

We're therefore at a defining moment in American history. In a few weeks, we will once again reach our legal limit for borrowing, the so-called debt ceiling. The president and others want to raise this limit. They say it is the mature, responsible thing to do.

In fact, it's nothing more than putting off the tough decisions until after the next election. We cannot afford to continue waiting. This may be our last chance to force Washington to tackle the central economic issue of our time.

"Raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure." So said then-Sen. Obama in 2006, when he voted against raising the debt ceiling by less than $800 billion to a new limit of $8.965 trillion. As America's debt now approaches its current $14.29 trillion limit, we are witnessing leadership failure of epic proportions.

I will vote to defeat an increase in the debt limit unless it is the last one we ever authorize and is accompanied by a plan for fundamental tax reform, an overhaul of our regulatory structure, a cut to discretionary spending, a balanced-budget amendment, and reforms to save Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

There is still time to accomplish all this. Rep. Dave Camp has already introduced proposals to lower and simplify our tax rates, close loopholes, and make permanent low rates on capital gains and dividends. Even Mr. Obama has endorsed the idea of lowering our corporate tax rate. Sen. Rand Paul, meanwhile, has a bill that would require an up-or-down vote on "major" regulations, those that cost the economy $100 million or more. And the House has already passed a spending plan this year that lowered discretionary spending by $862 billion over 10 years.

Such reductions are important, but nondefense discretionary spending is a mere 19% of the budget. Focusing on this alone would lead to draconian cuts to essential and legitimate programs. To get our debt under control, we must reform and save our entitlement programs.

No changes should be made to Medicare and Social Security for people who are currently in the system, like my mother. But people decades away from retirement, like me, must accept that reforms are necessary if we want Social Security and Medicare to exist at all by the time we are eligible for them.

Finally, instead of simply raising the debt limit, we should reassure job creators by setting a firm statutory cap on our public debt-to-GDP ratio. A comprehensive plan would wind down our debt to sustainable levels of approximately 60% within a decade and no more than half of the economy shortly thereafter. If Congress fails to meet these debt targets, automatic across-the-board spending reductions should be triggered to close the gap. These public debt caps could go in tandem with a Constitutional balanced budget amendment.

Some say we will go into default if we don't increase the debt limit. But if we simply raise it once again, without a real plan to bring spending under control and get our economy growing, America faces the very real danger of a catastrophic economic crisis.

I know that by writing this, I am inviting political attack. When I proposed reforms to Social Security during my campaign, my opponent spent millions on attack ads designed to frighten seniors. But demagoguery is the last refuge of the spineless politician willing to do anything to win the next election.

Whether they admit it or not, everyone in Washington knows how to solve these problems. What is missing is the political will to do it. I ran for the U.S. Senate because I want my children to inherit what I inherited: the greatest nation in human history. It's not too late. The 21st century can also be the American Century. Our people are ready. Now it's time for their leaders to join them.

The 50 Most Beautiful People for 2011. I only got as far as the top 12, but almost all of them were quite young and Republican.

RUSH: Michael in Hillsborough, North Carolina. It's great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: I'd like to see Ryan's mega dittos and raise them to giga dittos. I've been listening to you for many years.

CALLER: I have two comments -- suggestions, actually -- about taxes. One is about Obama and his political donors. He's going to have a birthday party next week, and he was going to have a fundraiser. He should remove the tax exemption from the donations so they're all taxable donations and see how his rich people like that. That's suggestion one. Suggestion two is about raising taxes on the rich. If they want to raise taxes, raise them on everybody: The bottom 48% who pay no taxes as well as everyone else. It can start at the low end. I mean, really the bottom quintile.

RUSH: Uh, uh, uh, uh! But you're making so much sense, which means you don't understand the objective. We're saying, "Everybody ought to have some skin in the game."

RUSH: Obama's objective is to take the money away from the only people who have any left and redistribute it.

CALLER: But I'm really being serious. The low end, $100 a year; that's like $2 meals a week. That's really not privation -- and it gradually goes up to the bottom 48% of the people who do not pay taxes. I mean, what's the top end of that, 30, 40 a year with a family of four or five or something like that? They can pay a thousand bucks.

RUSH: Look, everybody agrees with you. The 48% who don't pay taxes, that's where his approval numbers are. That isn't going to change for that reason. Look. That's not in a Democrat playbook. The playbook is: Class envy, tax the rich. Corporate jets. All that stuff. Anybody who makes $250,000 a year or more. The objective here for Obama is not to do the right thing or "fairness." It's not even to raise revenue. That's not what he's about. This is about the transformation of a country to a socialist democracy, à la European country.

It has14% unemployment. Government is responsible for everybody. Nobody really has much. You have an aristocracy. You have a few people who have a lot and a bunch of people who don't have anything, and they're driving around in little Ford Focuses or take your pick of some electric car. Parking spaces are no larger than what you can fit a golf cart in. You narrow the streets so people can't drive their Cadillacs in them or SUVs. What is intended? We've got the politics of grievance going on here. We've got somebody with a huge grievance against this country, a chip on their shoulder. It's time to get even. I want to remind everybody, folks, this is not irrelevant.

This is our president in March of 2006, five years ago: "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the United States government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance in foreign countries to finance our government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means, 'The buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today on to the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better." That was Senator Barack Obama inveighing against raising the debt ceiling in March of 2006.

Contrast that now with Barack Obama, the President of the United States, who apparently wants to "weaken us domestically and internationally," who no longer believes "the buck stops here," who wants to "shift the burden onto the backs of our children and grandchildren," who wants to "continue and exacerbate our debt problem" and who wants to "fail to lead." America doesn't "deserve better," according to Barack Obama, July of 2011. No, I'm sorry, folks. He said it. Words mean things. What does it mean? It means he's a political hack. It means that he's a pure, 100% partisan hack. He's not a man of principle. He's not concerned about anything but advancing his agenda. Back in 2006, advancing his agenda meant stopping the Bush administration , embarrassing them, and weakening them politically. He sits there and talks about "typical Washington ways" and we have to get away from it?

RUSH: By the way, speaking of Algore: This fraud that took all those pictures of the polar bears on melting ice is being called on it and may have his scientific credentials stripped for engaging in fraudulent science. All those pictures of these polar bears on three square feet of a remaining glacier, when polar bears play on those things constantly and they can swim 60 miles? This guy may have his scientific credentials, whatever they're worth, stripped.

Here's the story on the Arctic scientist under investigation: "A federal wildlife biologist whose observation in 2004 of presumably drowned polar bears in the Arctic helped to galvanize the global warming movement has been placed on administrative leave and is being investigated for scientific misconduct, possibly over the veracity of that article. Charles Monnett, an Anchorage-based scientist with the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, or BOEMRE, was told July 18 that he was being put on leave, pending results of an investigation into 'integrity issues.'

"But he has not yet been informed by the inspector general's office of specific charges or questions related to the scientific integrity of his work, said Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. On Thursday, Ruch's watchdog group plans to file a complaint with the agency on Monnett's behalf, asserting that Obama administration officials have 'actively persecuted' him in violation of policy intended to protect scientists from political interference." (laughing) Protect him from political interference while he is in the process, while he's playing the game of political interference.

"Monnett, who has coordinated much of the agency's research on Arctic wildlife and ecology, has duties that include managing about $50 million worth of studies, according to the complaint, a copy of which was provided to The Associated Press. The complaint seeks Monnett's reinstatement along with a public apology from the agency and inspector general. It also seeks to have the investigation dropped or to have the charges specified and the matter carried out in accordance with policy." I will bet you the guy survives. I will bet you, the way things are going, this guy survives. But this is the guy who got the whole ball rolling here on the polar bears dying because the Arctic was melting. Fraudulent articles, fraudulent pictures. He's now under investigation.

CALLER: This is the second biggest thrill of my life. My first biggest thrill was when I followed you in the gallery at the Bob Hope Chrysler Classic in 2001 at La Quinta Country Club. Your partners were Arnold Palmer and Emmitt Smith. It's a privilege to talk to you again today.

CALLER: Oh, it was one of the thrills of my life. But what concerns me is I saw Martha MacCallum on Fox News interview a female press aide for Obama. She said Obama is considering invoking the 14th Amendment, and he thinks he has the right to do so and he can go ahead and on his own increase the debt limit here and the crisis will be averted. However, there was a gentleman that she interviewed subsequently named Mike Carvin, and he said that Obama is not paying attention to one section, one bit of wording in the 14th Amendment and that says that he has to be authorized by law, meaning he needs a vote of the Congress to be able to raise the debt limit on his own. Is this going to be an impeachable offense, Rush?

RUSH: Well, nobody is going to bring up impeachment articles against Obama. That isn't going to happen. Now, this 14th Amendment business. We dealt with that, what, three weeks ago, three weeks ago in profound detail. What you need to know about this is quite simply the 14th Amendment does not authorize the President of the United States to spend money. They're claiming that the Constitution gives the president the authority to protect the full faith and credit of the United States. It does not. They're taking out of context one sentence in the 14th Amendment. They're ignoring a couple of Supreme Court decisions. This has been written about extensively by legal scholars. If the 14th amendment allowed the president to spend money anytime he wants for whatever reason it would have been done by now --

RUSH: -- by plenty of other Democrat presidents when we needed to raise the debt ceiling. It does not authorize that. Now, the left-wing activists believe it does. They read the Constitution and they don't see the 2nd Amendment in it. The Constitution says whatever they want it to say. They'll leave a sentence out, skip a paragraph to have it say what they want 'em to say. I think that what you heard from the female press aide, it's just a threat. Now, I don't doubt Obama wants to. Obama would love to be able to just, by dictate, do anything that he wants to do.

RUSH: But the 14th Amendment does not, we've been through it. I don't have the legalese in front of me, and I'm not going to have time to go get it today but it's on our website. In fact, I'll tell you what I'm going to do, I'm going to have Koko repost that whole segment that we did at Rushlimbaugh.com complete with monologue, links to all the places we cited so you can see for yourself, read it for yourself and rest assured that the authority does not exist.

CALLER: Well, I listen to you every day, Rush. You're doing the Lord's work, and I think of that song that that operatic star sang for you thank God Rush Limbaugh is on. I say that every morning first thing when I get up in the morning. You're always in my thoughts and prayers. Keep up the good work, Rush.

RUSH: Yeah, we should. I should go back to the archives. The Grooveyard of Forgotten Favorites. And there was also Barbara Chenault Law who did her take on Puccini's O Mio Babbino Caro, We Love to Hear Rush Limbaugh. We've got both of those. And I think you probably have heard both. No doubt about it. I appreciate the call, Pam.

CALLER: Hey, Rush, you know, I'm a member of the Millennial Generation, I'm 24 years old. Everybody says we're gonna be paying higher taxes because all this debt we're accumulating, but when I look back and I see all this spending, a trillion dollars for ten years for tax cuts to the very rich, it's two unfunded wars, it's Medicare Part D package, all that from the previous administration. I think if you're gonna cut spending you should start there. Start with corporate welfare. Start with these corporate tax loopholes and --

RUSH: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Whoa, whoa, whoa, ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho. I have to take a break, and I really want to talk to you.

RUSH: All right. You sit there, Carl, we'll come back and we'll continue right after this. Don't go away.

RUSH: Okay, we're back with Carl in Elizabethtown, Kentucky. You're 24 years old, and you're from the "Millennial Generation." I want you to start out exactly as you did. Speak a little slower so that I can chat along with you.

CALLER: Okay. Well, you know, as I was saying I'm 24 years old, member of the Millennial Generation and everybody says that all this debt we're accumulating will mean that folks like me will, you know, pay for it if the future.

RUSH: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Wait. "People are saying that all the debt we're accumulating now means that people like you will pay for it in the future." That... Carl, I don't care whatever you're gonna say next.

RUSH: Not only is that true, but people older than you are going to be paying for it as well. We already are.

CALLER: (pause) Exactly. So when you talk about cutting spending, you go back over the last ten years, and you see that we spent a trillion dollars on tax cuts for the very rich that haven't (garbled).

RUSH: Carl... No, no, no, no, no. I'm not... I'm seeking an opportunity here. I don't want to be condescending. I'm seeking an opportunity to reorient the way you have been taught. I want you to intellectually explain to me why you believe a tax cut is government spending. Explain to me what a tax cut is.

CALLER: A tax cut depletes necessary revenue needed to keep the government operational and functioning.

RUSH: Carl, that's not what a tax cut is. A tax cut is you work for a living, and you are paid X. At the present, you have a tax rate -- let's just pick one, may not be accurate -- of 30%. Which means that 30% of every dollar you earn goes to Washington, but the money starts with you. It's yours. You earned it. You did what was necessary to be paid that money.

RUSH: If a tax cut happens, and your tax rate goes to 20%, then all of a sudden you get to keep 80¢ of every dollar you earned rather than 70¢ of every dollar you earned. How in the world is that spending?

CALLER: Because when I spend that money out of my own paycheck, that's money that I spend on my own life. When the government spends my tax dollars, they're spending it on necessary infrastructure that's to keep the entire government running, to keep schools running, to keep teachers (garbled).

RUSH: No, no, no, no. Wait a minute. So are you telling me that you believe that it is more important for government to spend whatever money it has than it is for you to spend whatever money you earn?

CALLER: The government spending tax dollars benefits everybody, whereas me spending my own money benefits me.

RUSH: No. Carl, you are as wrong as you can be. I'm sad to tell you, but you are as wrong as you can be. You spending your money has far more benefit for you -- for your family, for your community, for people that come into your orb -- than the government spending your money. The government wastes your money. The government doesn't really have any money. We're $14 trillion in debt because of their mismanagement of the way they spend money. The government, if roads and bridges were what they do, how come roads and bridges are in such a state of disrepair? 'Cause it's not that they've had a shortage of money.

CALLER: Well, Rush, let me ask you: When Eisenhower was president we had a 90% top tax rate. We put a man on the moon. (sic) We built the Interstate System. We expanded Social Security, we're more prosperous than we have been in... y-years. I mean, that -- that 91% top tax rate (garbled).

RUSH: But we did not have a 90% tax rate. What we had was a series of multiple tax rates. The 90% tax rate was what the super rich paid on the last dollars they earned. However, Carl, they never paid the 90% because at the same time, there were numerous tax shelters in the law, written in the law -- investment opportunities where they could, quote, unquote, "shelter that money" and give it to charity, for example, or invest in real estate or whatever.

CALLER: Or hide it in the Cayman Islands and not pay taxes on it. That's happening right now.

CALLER: Uhhh, it's all over the news. It's all over. Th-there's plenty of information out there, Rush.

RUSH: I agree it's all over the news, but it's not true. Carl, what I'm trying to tell you is that you're being lied to about all of this. The Interstate Highway System was not built with a 90% tax rate on the American people. A 90% tax rate on the American people would have resulted in the American people stopping working.

CALLER: Mmmm, no. No, we were pretty prosperous during the sixties. That's when the top tax rate was 91%. (sic) Look at history.

RUSH: The number of people who paid... Nobody ever paid 90% on every dollar they earned. Nobody. Even when Reagan took office and the top marginal rate was 70%, nobody paid 70% on every dollar they earned. You have got to somehow get it out of your head that government spends money better than you do. You've got to get it out of your head that all money is government's. They are the worst. They don't produce anything, Carl. They don't create anything. All they do is confiscate from others and destroy wealth. The government does not create wealth. It's the private sector and entrepreneurism that generates growth and opportunity and prosperity for people. It is not the government. Now, you obviously have been taught along the line in school and wherever your news sources are that the government is godlike, the government is benevolent, and that government should have all the money. It is intellectually impossible to say that a tax cut is federal spending. I know Obama's talking about it, but for you to believe that, you must believe that every dollar that exists is government's, and that your salary is is what government decides you should have.

CALLER: Well, Rush, my money is my own. I paid my fair share to the government so the government can keep teachers in school and cops working and firefighters who -- you know, working and government operating like it should be. That's why I pay taxes. That's why you pay taxes. That's what I'm saying.

RUSH: But, Carl, see, here's the problem: It isn't working. The whole mess isn't working. We are about to destroy the economy of this country. Nobody is gonna have the ability to earn any money for the government to take it and do anything with it. Carl, you gotta promise me. You've got to promise me that you'll expose yourself to the opposite information, 'cause you are so wrong, you can't imagine -- and the damage you're going to do voting this way is gonna destroy this country if you don't fix it.

RUSH: Twenty-four years old and spouting the mantras. Twenty-four years old, saying things he doesn't possibly understand and saying them well.

RUSH: Now, I wish I still had Carl from Kentucky on the phone. So much more to say to him. Now, some of you, I checked e-mail, which I always do during the break. "Rush, you wasted your time. He's a lost cause. Twenty-four-year-old kid, thinks he knows everything, why did you waste time? We don't want to hear a caller like that on this program." Oh, no. A call like that is a golden opportunity for me. Even if I blow it with that guy, there are people like him listening, and it was a golden opportunity. I wish I would have had more time. For example, I would have told him, "Carl, do you realize, since about February of 2009 the United States government has spent almost a trillion dollars on roads and bridges?" Highways, as he called them. And yet there hasn't been any change in the highways. No schools have been rebuilt. No roads have been refurbished. No bridges have been ensured against collapse.

I'm sure he would have had some BS answer that he's been taught, but the fact of the matter is we know that that $800 billion did not go to any of those things. That $800 billion was a Democrat Party slush fund and the vast majority of it went to states so that they could keep their state and local employees on the payroll while everybody else was falling prey to the unemployment figures, the unemployment circumstances, while people were losing their jobs, state and local officials -- teachers, the precious teachers. You notice they got to him, made him think who's crucially important: teachers, firemen, cops. None of them lost their jobs. They're starting to now because they're running out of government money because the $800 billion only had a certain life span to it. And I woulda said, "Carl, the $800 billion was spent specifically on keeping teachers and firemen and so forth employed if they were members of unions," and he would have said, "Why? I don't believe you, why?" Because those are all dues-paying members of unions that contribute to the Democrat Party.

So, in essence, the $800 billion to rebuild your precious roads and schools actually was a slush fund, the majority of the money went to Barack Obama and other Democrats and their campaign war chests. It was a money-laundering operation. I would love to have had the time to tell him. I would loved to have say, "Carl, in 1950-some-odd when Dwight Eisenhower was president, your precious 90% tax rate, Jimmy Carter became president in the seventies and somehow we reduced that top rate of 90 to 70%, and then when Ronaldus Magnus came along --" he would have said, "Who?" I would have said, "When Ronald Reagan came along, Carl, do you realize the 70% marginal rate when Ronald Reagan took office generated about $500 billion in revenue to the federal government. When Reagan left office in 1989, the top marginal rate was 28%, and the take, the revenue to the Treasury had nearly doubled, to almost $1 trillion." I would love to have told him this.

I doubt that he would have been believed me. He's 24, knows it all and I'm this old fuddy-duddy old man, but I still would have loved the chance to tell him. Somebody's gotta put it in his head. I hope he's still out there listening. And I would have reminded him again, we spent $800 billion, almost a trillion dollars on your precious roads and bridges, and not a one of them was touched. You know, Ronald Reagan explained the 90% tax rate in his Hollywood acting days. He invoked this a lot of times. He said the actors would work six months and then stop because they'd lose 90 cents on every dollar they made over that on more movies. So once they had reached the 90% tax bracket they stopped working because they only kept a dime of it.

At the height of his Hollywood career, Ronaldus Magnus was making $400,000 a movie. With the top federal tax rate over 90%, Reagan used to tell his White House chief of staff, Donald Regan, he always chose to loaf around rather than make more than two pictures a year. Why should I have done a third picture? Even if it was Gone With the Wind, what good would it have done me? Ninety percent goes to the government. But the big thing, somebody's actually gotten to that poor man, young guy, and has actually convinced him that tax cuts are spending. And that's relatively new, that's a new oration from Obama. Well, I know, that, too, the reverence he had, the government always does best with money. He had a reverence for it. That is pure and simple indoctrination in schools, pure and simple. All money was government's to him, and that was fine. And anybody who disagreed with that, they are selfish, and they are greedy.

I get calls like that from young skulls full of mush, folks, I can't help it, I see an opportunity. I like to avail myself of the opportunity. I have no idea how we did with young Carl because we didn't have much time and he did, you know, the typical 24-year-old talking to somebody 60, I don't know what I'm talking about. He knew and knows it all. He was a nice guy, but clearly somebody had told him, "You call Limbaugh and you tell him the way it is. See what Limbaugh says. Listen to the lies Limbaugh tells you." I'm sure that's what he was prepped with. "You listen to how Limbaugh will lie to you and squirm," and all of that. I wonder if Carl's ever heard of JFK? You know, it was JFK that demanded Eisenhower's tax rates be lowered. We have the speech, young Carl, of Kennedy at the Economic Club of New York. In fact, it was the 90% tax bracket that ultimately turned Ronaldus Magnus to the Republican Party.

RUSH: Jeff in Warwick, Rhode Island great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: You know, the Federal Reserve printed $16.1 trillion between December of 2007 and July of 2010 -- $16.1 trillion. This money went to US and foreign banks, some of which were Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Bank of America. The only good thing that was the result of the Dodd-Frank Act was the one-time audit of the Federal Reserve. That's the only reason we find out about it.

RUSH: Wait a sec. What is happening? What in the world is happening to me today? Did I just hear you right? Did you say the only good thing to happen from all that spending was the Dodd-Frank Act?

CALLER: No, no, no, no, no. I said the only good thing to come from the Dodd-Frank Act was the one time audit of the Federal Reserve.

CALLER: No, no, no. I'll feed off Carl Jr., but my question is we're arguing over $2.5 trillion and a debt ceiling raised 1.5 or $1 trillion here and there. These are pennies compared to $16.1 trillion from basically another branch of the federal government who we do not elect, who do not require congressional approval to print money out of thin air and loan it out to their buds around the world.

RUSH: Well, it has been but only recently. There was a ruling for the longest time that the Fed did not have to identify who they gave that $2.1 trillion to. They have now had to identify it.

CALLER: Well, we're talking about $16.1 trillion in other loans. This does not include Quantitative Easing 1 and 2. These were emergency loans given across the world with no oversight.

CALLER: Now, why is everybody in an uproar over this debt ceiling debate when this is pennies? Our GDP last year was $14.5 trillion, and they just printed $16.1 trillion, and we're concerned about what happens in Washington over a debt increase? You gotta be kidding me. Now, this is what people on Wall Street, this is what investors in this country and bonds and everything, this is what they're looking at. The people who are really involved and really have money at stake with looking at things like this. They're not concentrating on the propaganda you're getting in the media, and everything else that everybody is arguing about. This is $16.1 trillion. How can you even wrap your head around that?

RUSH: No, no. People are talking about it. It's not widespread, but I saw today a story in my stack that the true amount of unfunded liabilities just in Social Security and run to about $114 trillion. That's unimaginable. So even your $16 trillion pales. Look, I know what you're getting at, and what you're getting at is: Nothing has been real. There hasn't been any backing whatsoever for all of this money that's been printed, distributed, put into the money supply, spent, it hasn't been real, and that's scary. And I don't mean gold standard. I'm not talking about that. This -- What, you're telling me is the $16 trillion was paid back. I got somebody trying to tell me $16 trillion was paid back.

I haven't heard that. Regardless, though, that QE3, this is just money printed in order to shore up the stock market. The real coercive over all this is the Fed may not have had a legal standing to do what they did, to print QE1, QE2, QE3. They may not have had the legal standing to do it in the first place, but it all adds up. Folks, whether people understand the details or not, the one thing they understand is this is not right. It isn't real. These amounts of money are not real, and they know this is not how things happen in this country. They can't put their finger on it. It's just like you: They know this is not the way things happen normally.

CALLER: I was wondering, Mr. Limbaugh, what do you think if Washington and the government doesn't come up with a budget, is there a good chance that I will not be getting my Social Security check next month?

RUSH: I'm gonna give you some numbers on this. Your Social Security check should be made with ease. There is money. In fact, one of the ways that it happens is that Treasury bonds, by law, will be sold and redeemed and the money used to fund Social Security payments.

RUSH: That is a matter of law. It's certainly a matter of choice. It has nothing to do with running out of money. I'm gonna find this thing. I've got four stacks today, and I thought I knew which stack.

CALLER: Well, I and a lot of other seniors, people that get Social Security that I know of are kind of worried about it.

CALLER: If I don't get my Social Security check next month, I will lose everything I have.

RUSH: I know that's why you're susceptible to somebody saying you're not going to get it, but who's told you you're not gonna get your check?

CALLER: Well, they keep mentioning every once in awhile in the paper, if you can believe anything you read in the paper, every once in awhile they mention that the Social Security could be ousted. We just won't get our checks.

RUSH: No, it's not true. I'll tell you what. If you don't get your Social Security check, it is going to be because Barack Obama chose not to pay you.

RUSH: Well, I can understand you're worried about. When that's all you've got and somebody comes along and says somebody wants to take yours away, I understand you might not vote for that person who they tell you is going to take your Social Security away, right?

CALLER: Well, I never voted for Obama in the first place, I don't care for the man. He probably is a good man, but as a president, he stinks.

CALLER: I mean there's just no way getting around it. I don't think he knows what he's doing. Like I say he's probably a wonderful person socially-wise, but --

RUSH: Very nice of you to say. I'm sure he's a wonderful guy, too, yeah. That and a dime will get you your Social Security check.

RUSH: Here it is. Professor Michael McConnell, law professor Michael McConnell. " "The Social Security trust fund holds about $2.4 trillion in U.S. Treasury bonds, which its trustees are legally entitled to redeem whenever Social Security is running a current account deficit." Are you listening to me on this?

RUSH: "Thus, if we reach the debt ceiling ... this is what will happen. The Social Security trust fund will go to Treasury and cash in some of its securities, using the proceeds to send checks to recipients. Each dollar of debt that is redeemed will lower the outstanding public debt by a dollar. That enables the Treasury to borrow another dollar, without violating the debt ceiling." We have income coming in to handle your Social Security. When you hear Barack Obama tell you, when that reporter says, "Can you guarantee checks --" (imitating Obama) "I can't, Scott, and it's not just Social Security, we're talking about the Medicare." They're lying and trying to scare you. I'll tell you, it is economic terrorism what they're doing to you.

RUSH: Your Social Security check will go out, and there is already a mechanism in the Social Security trust fund to sell Treasury bonds to come up with the cash to pay you. It is there. Obama is demagoguing this. The Democrats are demagoguing this. Your Social Security check will go out. Only unless...

RUSH: Okay. 'Cause there's no point in me lying to you, to anybody, period, which I don't do. There's no point in me lying to you about this.

CALLER: Well, you've eased my mind in one way, but then in another way it is kind of, you know, he could still stop it if he wanted to. I can't believe that he would 'cause he would ruin thousands of thousands of people. I mean there would be people on the streets the very next day, people with no food the very next day --

RUSH: Let me tell you something now, Janice, if Obama thinks -- and I'm dead serious about this, too -- if he thinks that he can blame the Republicans, if he thinks he can make you think the Republicans are responsible for that, he might do it. But I just want to assure you the money is there and there is a mechanism for you to be paid.

RUSH: You need to tell your friends the money is there. You need to tell your friends that if you don't get your checks and this debt ceiling doesn't go up, the one-word answer is Obama. Only he can stop it. Now, you're gonna get a lot of ridicule and you're gonna have a lot of your gummer buddies yelling and shouting at you. I want you to tell 'em, the mechanism is there, selling Treasury bonds, Social Security trust fund has $2.4 trillion in Treasury bonds which the trustees are legally entitled to redeem whenever Social Security is running an account deficit, meaning running out of money. So with somebody who is honest and constitutional running the show, you will get your check.

CALLER: I certainly am because there are some people that are really, really upset.

RUSH: Well, you tell 'em. And, Janice, what are you gonna tell 'em when they ask you how you know?

RUSH: "Well, of course Rush Limbaugh hates Obama and Rush Limbaugh doesn't care about you, and Rush Limbaugh wants you to eat dog food."

CALLER: I'm gonna say Rush Limbaugh is the one that cares, and he finds out what is really going on, and apparently the government don't give a rat's ass.

RUSH: That's not gonna help. You just tell them that whenever any government official tells 'em that the debt limit not being raised means they don't get your checks, they're being lied to.

RUSH: You are going to get your checks. The money is there. There's a mechanism for it to be found.

RUSH: All right, don't cave on us out there. You know, as Margaret Thatcher told George H.W. Bush, "Don't go wobbly on us."

RUSH: When I get call like that from, um... What was her name, Joanne? I don't remember. Anyway, if she loses her check, she loses everything. Does she have no family? Does she have no savings? Nothing. No church? Is that it? Is Social Security all that she has? I just wonder. (interruption) No, no, no, I'm not being critical. I'm just curious. Every dollar, every egg is in Social Security? No family, no church, no nothing? Just asking. Just asking. (interruption) I know they've been told it was there in the first place and it's their lifeline. I understand that, I understand that. (interruption) They're that alone? Am I that alone? Are you asking me if I'm that alone? (interruption) They "feel" that way? I'm not asking 'em how they feel. I'm asking them what is the status. No kids, no nothing? (interruption) Kids are broke in this economy? All right. You know, I'm gonna deputize a bunch of gummers and send 'em out there to send a message that we sent her out with, to tell the truth out there. We've gotta do it.

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.

Sunshine State News (almost the only news service which ran a story on Mack’s Penny Plan). They are not a conservative news source, by the way.

Mish’s Global Economic Trend Analysis (a number of fairly easy to understand article on economic matters):

Start Thinking Right, a mostly conservative blog, but he does not support every single conservative in each and every case:

Watts Up With That (a lot of recent scientific news is posted here—there were 9 stories for July 5^th alone):

If you are a small business and you want to air out your problems with how government has hampered your business, here’s the place to go (enjoy the video):

Framing the Dialogue (mostly individually produced blog postings and interesting articles):

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 the Democratic Par, I mean, the communist party is up to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The anti-Jihad resistence (which appears to be a set of links to similar websites):

Mostly a liberal blogger, who says vicious things about most conservatives; and yet, says something sensible, e.g. posting many of the things which the healthcare bill does to us.

News Organization (I mention them because I have seen 2 honest stories on their website, which shocked and surprised me):

Even though this group leans left, if you need to know what happened each day, and you are a busy person, here is where you can find the day’s news given in 100 seconds:

Weatherman Underground 1969 “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.”

Janine Turner’s website (I’m serious; and the website is serious too). This is if you have an interest in real American history:

Judith Miller is one of the moderate and fairly level-headed voices for FoxNews:

This is an odd blog; conservativism, bikinis and whatever else posted by either a P.I. or the brother of a P.I.:

Info Wars, because there is a war on for your mind (this site may be a little crazy??):

The Magic Negro Watch (this is peppered with obscenities and angry conservative rhetoric):

Do you want to watch what is happening on our border? These are actual videos of observations cams along the border:

No matter what your political stripe, you will like this; evaluate your Congressman or Senator on the issues:

AC/DC economics (start with the oldest lessons first; economics in 60 second bites):

The Freedom Project (most a conservative news and opinion site which appears to concentrate on matters financial)

This appears to be a daily pork report, apparently as pork in Washington bills is discovered, it gets posted at Tom Coburg’s website:

Weekly poll, asking you to identify what we ought to cut in governmental spending:

This is an interesting site; it seems to be devoted to the debate of climate change:

This is indispensable: the Wall Street Journal’s guide to Obama-care (all of their pertinent articles arranged by date—send one a day to your liberal friends):

Obamacare class action suit (as of today, joining in on the suit costs you whatever you want to donate, if I understand the form correctly):

A Muslim apologetic site (they will write out letters to express your feelings, and all you have to do is sign them, and they will send them on):

Since this will be with us for a long time, the timeline of the BP gulf oil spill:

This is cool: a continuous timeline of the spill, with the daily info and the expansion of the oil, and the response:

Army Ranger Michael Behenna sentenced to 25 years in prison for 25 years for shooting Al Qaeda operative

Maybe the White House does not need to hold press conferences? It releases exclusive articles daily right here:

This is quite helpful; it is a list of all leftist groups, with links to background information on each of these groups (when I checked, 879 groups were listed). This is a fantastic resource.

In case you need to reference this, here are the photos of all those on the JournoList:

Are you tired of all the unfocused news and lame talking heads yelling at one another? Just grab a cup of coffee, sit back, and see what is really going on in the world:

Conservative New Media (it is so-so; I must admit to getting tired of seeing the interviewer high-fiving Carly Fiorina 3 or 4 times during an interview):

One of the more radical people from the right, calling for the impeachment of Obama:

The Center for Freedom and Prosperity, a free enterprise site (there are several videos on the flat tax):

This is a pretty radical site which alleges that Obama is a Marxist hell-bent in taking over our country:

1982 interview with Larry Grathwohl on Ayers' plan for American re-education camps and the need to kill millions

This is a news site which I just discovered; they gave 3 minute coverage to Obama’s healthcare summit and seemed to give a pretty decent overall view of it, without slanting one way or the other:

I have glanced through their website and it seems to be quite professional and reasonable. They have apparently been around since 1942.

This is fantastic; Florida (the Sunshine State) is now putting its state budget online:

Suzanne Somers s supposed to be older than Bill O’Reilly? He interviewed her this week, and she looked, well, hot. She is big into vitamins and human growth hormones.

The National Journal, which is a political journal (which, at first glance, seems to be pretty even-handed):

And I am hoping that most people see this as non-partisan: Citizens Against Government Waste:

This website reveals a lot of information about politicians and their relationship to money. You can find out, among other things, how many earmarks that Harry Reid has been responsible for in any given year; or how much an individual Congressman’s wealth has increased or decreased since taking office.

This is an outstanding website which tells the truth about Obama-care and about what the mainstream media is hiding from you:

Politico.com is a fairly neutral site (or, at the very worst, just a little left of center). They have very good informative videos at:

On Obama (if you have not visited this site, you need to check it out). He is selling a DVD on this site as well called Media Malpractice; I have not viewed it yet, except pieces which I have seen played on tv and on the internet. It looks pretty good to me.

We watch FOX so you don't have to). Be clear on this; they do not want you to watch FoxNews.

Conservative Review
Issue #189	Kukis Digests and Opines on this Week’s News and Views	July 31, 2011