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).

The Federal Housing Finance Agency has approve $12.79 million dollars in bonuses to be paid to 10 executives at FNMA and FHLMC, the two quasi-federal agencies which are at the heart of our housing boom and bust, and the recession that followed. FHLMC is also requesting a $6 billion bailout.

Former New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine resigns from MF Global, this week, which filed for bankruptcy. Corzine was CEO and chairman of MF Global and has since hired a lawyer. $633 million of client’s money is missing, which was apparently taken out of client accounts as the fiscal solvency began to collapse. Apparently Corzine has forgone his severence package of $12.1million.

Beacon Power, which secured a $43 million federal loan guarantee to install a flywheel grid storage system, has declared bankruptcy. Beacon Power has never been profitable and earlier this month received a Nasdaq delisting notice after its stock had been under $1 for more than 30 days.

A 3^rd woman speaks through her lawyer and claims that, over a decade ago, Herman Cain sexually harassed her. She will not identify herself and she has never filed a formal complaint. Cain first blames the Perry campaign and then backs off on that assertion.

One of the keys to Obamacare are the regulations which become a part of this program—regulations which no one votes on.

The latest is mandates that all private health insurance plans must cover sterilization and birth control. Included in the mandated coverage are the IUD, the `morning-after' pill and abortion-inducing drugs. This means that private health plans must provide contraceptive drugs to prevent pregnancy and abortifacients to terminate a pregnancy. This will apply to Catholic hospitals and Catholic colleges and schools which provide healthcare coverage. This is causing no little stir in the Catholic community. Part of the support comes from the fact that government, since the mid-1990's, has given various Catholic groups and institutions a total of $800 million.

Republican lawmakers want FDR’s D-Day prayer added to the WWII memorial; the White House objects. Robert Abbey, the director of the Bureau of Land Management, said, "It is not a judgment as to the merit of this new commemoration, simply that altering the Memorial in this way, as proposed in HR 2070, will necessarily dilute this elegant memorial's central message and its ability to clearly convey that message to move, educate, and inspire its many visitors."

The City Council of Sebastopol (which I assume must be in California), which had previously approved of anti-smoking restrictions written into all new apartment leases, has decided this week that medical marijuana smoking is to be removed from their definition of smoking.

The anti-smoking ordinance, aimed at second-hand smoke, requires apartment owners to write no-smoking restrictions into all new leases and imposes a smoking ban on other renters within 14 months.

A district judge in St. Paul threw out Jesse Ventura’s lawsuit Thursday, ruling it should have been filed in a Circuit Court of Appeals. The former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura sued the federal government in January, alleging that airport scans and pat-downs amounted to unreasonable search and seizure. Ventura is so upset by the dismissal of his lawsuit that he threatened Friday to apply for dual citizenship so he can spend more time in his Mexico; or, in the alternative, run for president of what he labeled "the Fascist States of America."

Occupy Boston woman arrested for selling drugs. She gives the undercover police a group hug, apparently before she discovers that they are undercover. Taking her out of Occupy Boston was apparently quite dicey, and the police feared retaliation from the crowd.

Michael Moore speaks to about 1000 Occupy Denver protesters. He was in Denver to promote his new book.

An all female safety tent is up and running at Occupy Wall Street, guarded by women, because of the many sexual assaults there.

In the middle of an Occupy Chicago teach-in this week, traders at the Chicago Board of Trade dumped several sheets of paper on top of the heads of protesters below. The protesters had been showered with employment applications for McDonald's.

Speaking of protests, there are still protesters in Wisconsin, against Scott Walker, who reduced the power of the public unions dramatically. One teacher has his 4^th grade students take part in the protest.

San Francisco’s city's Board of Supervisors has adopted new rules that ban naked people from eating in restaurants, and forces nudists to place a cover on public chairs and benches before they sit down.

Mississippi is voting on legislation which will say that life begins at conception (biologically, no other position can be taken).

80,000 Muslim men knelt shoulder-to-shoulder in prayer on the freezing streets of Moscow to celebrate the religious holiday of Eid al-Adha.

President Obama, pretending to speak to Republican House leader John Boehner at one of Obama’s rallies: "In the House of Representatives, what have you guys been doing, John? You've been debating a commemorative coin for baseball. You've had legislation reaffirming that 'In God We Trust' is our motto. That's not putting people back to work. I trust in God, but God wants to see us help ourselves by putting people back to work."

President Obama: “Michelle and I extend our greetings for a happy Eid al-Adha to Muslims worldwide and congratulate those performing Hajj.”

President Barack Obama at the G20 conference: "The most important aspect of our task over the next two days is to resolve the financial crisis here in Europe,"

Former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi: "I think it's really important to know that President Obama was a job creator from day one. Now, was the ditch that we were in so deep that when you're talking to people and they still don't have a job, that that's any consolation to them? No. But I'll tell you this, if President Obama and the House congressional Democrats had not acted, we would be at 15 percent unemployment. Again, no consolation to those without a job, but an important point to make."

Senate leader Harry Reid: "I can't imagine that they really believe they're doing the right thing by voting against asking the richest of the rich - .2 percent of the richest people in America - not contributing a small amount to creating jobs in America today. I would hope someday we'll see a few Republicans break from the pack."

Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-Fla.) And chair of the Democratic National Committee, of Mississippi passing a law on personhood beginning at conception: "For the vast majority of Americans, including people on both sides of the abortion issue, this is an extreme and radical step."

The Reverend Jesse Jackson Jr. to dozens of Occupy Atlanta protesters: "It's not the size of the crowd, it's the substance of the discussion."

US's special coordinator for transitions in the Middle East, William Taylor on the Muslim Brotherhood being elected to power in Egypt: “[the US would judge elected parties in the Middle East based] on what they do, and not what they're called."

Oakland Jean Quan of the Occupy Oakland protesters (who have caused approximately $1 million in damages to the city): "The highway patrol and other forces came and ensured that it was peaceful tonight. We will act if we need to tonight to maintain safety. But it looks like this was a good day for the demonstrators and for the 99% movement."

LaughinWillow from Occupy Wall Street: “...you don't see the right turning on its "extremists." If they do, they keep it on the downlow. This is why you never succeed at anything - because you have no solidarity and you're ready to turn traitor on people in your movement who use tactics you don't like. Read some Derrick Jensen, please. Nonviolence may be the tactic you employ, but nonviolent protest as leftist dogma is just entitlement crap. The Indian people didn't throw off colonialism solely with Ghandian pacifism - they employed a wide range of techniques, some of them violent.”

Michael Malloy, radio host: “The sporadic violence that occurred at a Whole Food’s store and other places was stopped by the protesters. You know, once again, as we talked about the other night, this movement now is attracting its share of provocateurs, I’m sure sent by Andrew Breitbart and the rest of these freaks, I’m sure to disrupt what is essentially, at this point, a peaceful movement...so the scum that were sent to disrupt by Beck or Breitbart or Limbaugh or the rest of these right-wing pigs were stopped in their acts of vandalism by the occupy protesters in Oakland themselves, which, to some people, is surprising.” Count me among them.

Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright, who served under President Clinton, said, of Herman Cain:"Well, he didn't call me [for advice]. I'm the wrong gender."

Michael Moore to a newsman who asked if he was worth $50 million: "You're just punk media is all you are. You lie. You lie to people. Stop lying to people. Stop lying."

CNN's Fareed Zakaria: "The American dream seems to be thriving in Europe not at home"

On PBS, Mark Shields: Well, I think if I told you that by a 5-1 margin people thought the country was headed in the wrong direction, that 9.1 percent unemployment, an economy growing at whatever 1, 1.5 percent, you would say, where's the president, you would say in the low 30s. So I think he [Obama] has defied gravity so far, and I think that's because there is a -- still a residual reservoir of good feeling, people rooting for him to succeed.”

Touré:: “We don't see them dealing with this in a forthright way at all; it's certainly not a presidential way. It's not even really a professional way to deal with it, as a politician. But this is a major moment for the GOP because Cain is a really important candidate, perhaps more important than any of the other candidates because he serves a massive psychological purpose. Because there's a lot of people in the GOP who've been critical of Obama and have been made to feel that they are racist because of their criticism. Some of it has been racist, some of it has been reasonable, some of it has been business as usual Republican/Democrat stuff. Ok. Cain comes along, offering salvation, liberation. You're not racist if you support Herman Cain. So now they have this Herman Cain card they can throw at us any time they are made to feel racist. So this is like a beautiful thing for them. So they need him to succeed as long as they can deal with him so that they can get their Cain card and make it as valuable as possible.” So, if I understand this correctly, the Republicans are still just a bunch of racists, but they haul out Herman Cain, whom most support as their president, to try to prove they aren’t racists?

Mark Shields, PBS: “Hey, don't count out the chubby fellow from Georgia, Newt, the rehabilitated Newt Gingrich, carrying along a bogus IQ and some other baggage.”

Nia-Malika Henderson of The Washington Post, defending the press coverage of a Democrat versus a Republican: “This has renewed this whole argument that the press is somehow in bed with Obama or in bed with Democrats and that the press goes easier on Democrats than they do on Republicans. You know, I don't see that pattern, but I think it just feeds into, again, people are very partisan, people see the things they want to see when they look at the press and the press' treatment of black Republicans or white liberals. And I don't see any evidence of it.”

Katty Kay, NPR guest host, defended the presses lopsided coverage of Herman Cain as versus Bill Clinton: "And it wasn't, of course, just the one woman. We should stress this, that we have three."

Brian Ross: "But behind the scenes, several of the campaigns are still urging reporters to continue to dig, George, saying, there's more to be found in the private life of Herman Cain."

Brian Ross: "It fits with the kind of culture we were told that existed there, with young women who had been, sort of, lobbyists for the restaurant association, working with various states. They were the new ones, the young ones. And they say that's where Cain often socialized." No facts, no eyewitnesses, no documentation to “the kind of culture we were told that existed there.”

George Stephanopoulos: "Another woman. Herman Cain facing new allegations that he was aggressive and inappropriate to a third employee, inviting her back to his corporate apartment. Is the pressure finally getting to the front-runner?"

Stephanopoulos: “Now to the firestorm surrounding Herman Cain. A third woman is accusing him of acting inappropriately when she worked for him at the National Restaurant Association back in the 1990s. And an eyewitness to one of the incidents is saying that if the whole truth came out, it would sink Cain's campaign.“

Richard Wolffe, MSNBC political analyst: “[Herman Cain] appeals to...this ultraconservative base who actually hate the media even more than the general population.”

David Brooks: “The fact that they [Cain’s campaign] didn't do kindergarten-level preparation for this story is just incredibly damning. And so he's charming, people are going to like him, but you have got to practice politics at the kindergarten level.”

Alan Colmes: “I'd like to address those numbers [of far more stories being done on Herman Cain’s supposed sex scandal]. The reason the numbers are so different is because Herman Cain unlike Bill Clinton was out front on all of the media outlets talking about this, doing interview after interview as soon as this broke, changing the story numerous times. Bill Clinton, the accusee of who you mentioned previously, wasn't out talking about it. Herman Cain has created a media firestorm because of the way he's reacted to it.”

Mike Papantonio, being interview on MSNBC: “[Cain] is just the latest purchase by the Koch brothers. They purchased Michelle Bachmann, they purchased Sarah Palin, for this purpose: it's to go out and talk crazy talk. It's to talk about taking more things away from the middle class and giving more to the rich. It's about deregulating virtually everything to where the Koch brothers can go ahead and kill more people with their toxins.”

And quotes from Rush Limbaugh’s website of news people on Cain’s handling of the alleged sex scandal:

Chuck Todd: (outdoor noise) This is a campaign that is falling apart. Not ready to handle this at all.

John King: (outdoor noise) ...how a candidate and his team handle pressure, handle crisis.

President Obama, 2010, in Jakarta, Indonesia: "In the United States, our motto is E pluribus unum -- out of many, one"

U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson of congressional Republicans for trying to blame a sour economy on environmental regulations: "Those jack-booted thugs...”

Dawud Walid, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said, of a Christian prayer summit to be held at Ford Field: "There's a bigger force or movement behind this prayer summit and how they're literally demonizing Muslims."

Evan Bayh on Iran obtaining nuclear weapons: “There’s only one way of keeping that from coming on pass and that is military force.”

One Cain accuser sees "no value in revisiting this matter now nor in discussing the matter any further publicly or privately"

Peter Bella, Washington Times writer: “Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the hybrid semi-private mortgage entities, are issuing seven figure bonuses to some of their executives. There is not one peep out of the media or the professional protesting mobs. No one is averse to this, no groups are planning to picket the homes of the executives. The White House is silent, both houses of congress are mute. No one is threatening to drag these people before hearings to explain themselves.”

MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell: “Did you see people throwing bottles and rocks at the police before they used those tactics [of tear gas and other crowd control actions]?”

Tasha Casini, Occupy Oakland protester: “Um, yeah [shrugs shoulders] , yes, people were doing that.”

O’Donnell: “And what do you think the police response should have been to that?”

Casini: “Um, I think that the use of tear gas, rubber bullets, and, uh, blast grenades, are a completely, um, inappropriate response to bottles being thrown at police officers who are in full riot gear.”

Keith Hall, the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the federal agency responsible for tracking unemployment in the United States, told the Join Economic Committee of Congress today that he knew of no study that would back the claim that House Miniority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) made on Thursday that the unemployment rate would now be 15 percent were it not for the economic stimulus President Barack Obama signed in 2009.

Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.) asked Hall: "Have you seen any reputable studies that would lead you to believe or that would show that the unemployment rate today would be 15 percent but for the stimulus program?"

"No," said Hall, "but I haven't, I haven't looked. I'm not sure I would call - Was the CBO [Congressional Budget Office] estimating that?"

"You've never heard of any study that would say that unemployment would be 15 percent?" Mulvaney asked.

"I'm focused on the real data as well, I just sort of was wondered if this had anything to do with real data and it sounds like it doesn't," Mulvaney said before concluding his questioning.

For the record, the Tea Party was not "protesting Wall Street." It was protesting, in order:

5) The president, who was a blackity-black-black Democrat, and also a Muslim Socialist Hitler who was born in Kenya.

Why do progressives love saying "black" so much? Let's try to fix obtuseness and correct Mr. Pierce:

3) Continued bigger spending and crappy, nationalized health care under said President

4) Continued mammoth spending, crappy nationalized health care, and job-killing new regulations under aforementioned President

5) Continued gigantor spending, crappy nationalized health care, job killing regulations, and massive Fast and Furious/Solyndra/IG corruption under said aforementioned President

But Charles Pierce, obsessed with race, can only see BLACK. Sad. Someone inform him that it's 2011. Oh, and also share with him that the Democrats started the Kenya/birther thing. Thanks!

Sarah Palin: "Barack Obama is owned by Wall Street. The fat cats, as he calls them, they're his friends. They're his pals. That's where he gets his campaign donations. And he's very generous about giving these cats their cat nip - bigger returns on their investments in bailouts.”

Sarah Palin on the occupy movement: "The nation's dividing line today is how you answer this question: Are you entitled to other people's money? The Wall Street crony capitalists, the Obama administration, the leftist politicos, big union bosses and the occupiers, they all say, `Yes!' The rest of America says, `No!'"

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell: "I'm sure that it is the case that most Americans support raising taxes on high-income individuals. My guess is they might have a different view if they knew that four out of five of those individuals would actually business owners."

George Will: “The problem is by next Sunday they have to have a plan if they're going to get it scored by the Congressional Budget Office before the 23rd. The President needs this committee to fail because he's already decided to run against what he calls "The Republican Congress." While he was lecturing in Constitutional law, he missed that part of the Article I that says there's a Senate also. And the Democrats control that, and as Boehner said, they're holding up a lot of legislation.”

Monica Crowley, on the media coverage of Herman Cain: “This screams double standard.”

Dick Army on Herman Cain: “He dares to go and campaign very directly and in a manner that doesn’t seem to be beleaguered by an excess of advice from political professionals.”

Charles Krauthammer: “The problem that Cain has is that he's winging it. He's a very smart guy and he's trying to handle everything as he remembers stuff. The problem is that this happened a long time ago and we saw him contradict himself on whether he knew about the settlement. He said in the beginning no, and then on the Greta show he talks about details of it. What he needs to do, and it's not as if he's lying, people don't.I can't remember what I had a lunch yesterday let alone what happened fifteen years ago, he needs to retire with his staff to make sure he knows the facts, call people who might remember it, and get the story in his own head straight otherwise he's in deep trouble.”

Herman Cain to the press: “What did I say? Excuse me. Excuse me! What part of "no" don't people understand?”

Newt Gingrich, about his mic when he is about to debate Herman Cain: “Mine’s not on; that’s a disadvantage.”

Star Jones, contrasting Obama and Cain: “They put up clean and the GOP is putting up smart and they don’t know how to handle it.” [quoted from memory]

Dennis Miller of Kim Kardashian’s wedding: “That train had the biggest caboose of all time.”

Greg Gutfeld on Michael Moore: “Talk about thin-skinned, which can happen when it’s stretched.”

Greg Gutfeld: “Smith & Wesson has done far more for women than feminism ever has.” [quoted from memory]

Rush Limbaugh: "What kind of fools do you people at AP think we are? We don't forget $787 billion to 'build roads and bridges and schools' back in 2009. That was $787 billion, and now they're years later, 2-1/2 years later you come to us and whine and complain about a measly $60 billion being voted down for the same roads, bridges and schools? What happened to the first $787 billion? If you people in the media don't get a handle on what's happening, you're gonna lose everybody."

Rush Limbaugh: "Lot of conservative Republicans think that Herman Cain's place should be in the White House, and a lot of conservative Republicans thus like Herman Cain because he knows his place. For the left, Herman Cain knowing his place means he's to shut up, grovel, say he's sorry, and then go away."

Rush Limbaugh: "Herman Cain did not seek Madeleine Albright's foreign policy advice for a simple reason: She's Madeleine Albright! Who the hell wants her advice?"

Rush Limbaugh: "We got all kinds of people from Herman Cain's past coming up, 'Yeah, I knew Herman. I didn't like Herman' or 'I did like Herman.' There is nobody from Obama's past that comes forward, 'Yeah, I knew Obama.' We haven't heard from any old girlfriends. We are witnessing here the attempt that appears to be press successful to take out every Republican candidate with this story, when you get right down to it -- and that is starting to irritate me profoundly."

Rush Limbaugh: "You can find no bigger star in the Democrat Party today than Bill Clinton. He's bigger than anybody. With women, with the feminazis, with anybody, there is no bigger star than Bill Clinton."

Rush Limbaugh: "What our side doesn't understand is there's nothing Cain can do to make this go away. They lie about us! If this turns out to be untrue, it's gonna be reported as it was always 'alleged.' They're never gonna let go of this. So trying to get the approval of the mainstream media or to get them to report the truth is a fool's errand. "

Rush Limbaugh: "Herman Cain obviously is proving he's not qualified to be president, but Clinton? Not only could he be qualified to be president, he can be president and be a sexual harasser at the same time and be the most admired man in the Democrat Party because he apparently knows how to handle it right."

Rush Limbaugh: "'Michael Bloomberg said this morning that if there is anyone to blame for the mortgage crisis that led the collapse of the financial industry, it's not the 'big banks,' but Congress.' Bloomberg actually has said something now that makes sense. This is the first time I can recall in I don't know how long that Bloomberg has said something that makes sense."

Rush Limbaugh: "If Barack Obama can use taxpayer money to invest in risky private sector investments like all of these fraudulent, phony, there-is-no-business-there green energy loans...? If Obama could do that, shouldn't we be able to put our retirement money in a safer place than Washington?"

Rush Limbaugh: "Social Security is broke, and it's not because any of you misspent your savings. Social Security is broke because the people you are forced to send it to can't manage it properly."

Rush Limbaugh: "The government has lost $16 trillion since it was founded. That is the national debt. They've lost $16 trillion, and they tell us that we can't be trusted with our money. It's patently absurd."

Rush Limbaugh: "The idea that the rich are not spending their money is so absurd. If the rich were not spending their money, we'd be a Third World country. If the rich weren't spending their money, there would be no jobs. Unemployment wouldn't be 9%; it would be a hundred percent."

Rush Limbaugh: "The subprime mortgage is the primary reason for unemployment today; it's the primary reason for economic collapse throughout other areas of the economy -- and it was brought to you by Bill Clinton and Barney Frank and Janet Reno and Chris Dodd and any other Democrat you might want to name. "

MSNBC new-hire, Sen. John McCain's daughter, Meghan McCain, about New Gingrich: "I think he's delusional. And him calling me clueless I think is so sexist and disgusting and lame and a really offhanded remark. . . that he's making towards me. And I think it's ridiculous. Any polls that he's reading, if you were seriously running for president, you wouldn't be taking vacations to Greece during the middle of your campaign trail. I think he has a lot of other issues that all of us are very well aware of. And I would bet my career he's not going to be our next nominee."

Bill Krystal on Herman Cain: “He’s not going to be the nominee; he was never going to be the nominee.”

Israel is involved in very public testing of their military might, with plans that include taking out the nuclear sites in Iran. As long as the U.S. is in Iraq, they have a clear shot to fly directly into Iran over friendly air space. We leave in December.

Many videos of what Wall Street Occupiers are up to; one includes destroying a Whole Foods Store in Oakland.

Job applications are offered to Occupy DC protesters. They talked to 3 dozen protesters (who are protesting about employment) and got 2 job applications:

This anti-soda ad cost taxpayers $230 million, so you should watch it and get your money’s worth:

Jodi Miller: “President Obama’s fund-raising visit to Los Angeles snarled traffic for hours last week. Of course, the administration refers to these fund-raising trips as traffic police jobs saved or created.”

Jodi Miller: “The state department purchased 70,000 copies of President Obama’s book, Dreams from my Father to give out as gifts. You know what that means—the state department is trying to get a green energy contract from the White House.”

Jodi Miller: “A coroner in London says that Amy Whitehouse died from drinking too much alcohol. And a surprised David Hasselhoff replied, ‘You can do that?’ ”

1) There seems to be this confusion that, you graduate from college, and suddenly, you have all of this wealth. Wealth is accumulated over a lifetime. Someone who is 60 is generally going to be more wealthy than someone who is 40, who is wealthier than someone who is 20. It only stands to reason that, as you work more, you simply accumulate more. The idea that a 20 year old marches and complains about his lack of wealth—how stupid is that? He hasn’t worked for anything yet.

2) Income inequality is not nearly as important as income mobility. That is, given where you are today, what are the chances that you will move up? However, when it comes to income inequality, we are near the top of the middle, throughout the world. When it comes to income mobility, we are near the top, but not at the top. We ought to be the greatest country for income mobility.

3) In the last year that the Democrats controlled the House, they passed more than 250 commemorative resolutions, honoring everything from beer to motherhood to motor homes.

4) A couple more reasons to like Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan: the 9% sales tax is out in the open, and not hidden (like our gas taxes are). Therefore, everyone would know if this tax went up 1% or 5%. Remember how the public responded to Bank of America charging a $5 fee? You would think this was going to cause people to become homeless. Secondly, the percentages for everything are so small that, individuals and corporations would not be spending huge sums of money on tax accountants, advisors and lawyers in order to get out of paying taxes. When someone does not believe that the government is fleecing them, they tend to be more honest.

5) Has anyone in the Department of Justice offered an explanation for Operation Fast and Furious? Has anyone in the media asked for a simple explanation as to why Operation Fast and Furious was done in the first place? How can anyone justify letting guns walk across the border when no one is ever stopped; there are no tracking devices on the guns, and most of those who handle these guns are never arrested.

6) Here is a good example from out past where government got too involved in private markets. During the Great Depression, on the one hand, you have people starving and going hungry; and, on the other, people are burning crops or paid not to grow food.

7) Here’s another example: Detroit; once one of the most prosperous cities in the United States. Democratic policies combined with the unions destroyed this city. Now, some homes are being sold for $1/home.

As of Saturday, there were no fewer than 63 stories on Herman Cain and his accusers who will not come forward of specify the charges against him.

FNMA and FHLMC control approximately $5 trillion in mortgages, and continually ask to be bailed out by the taxpayers. Right now, they owe the taxpayers $170 billion and FHLMC recently asked for another $6 billion.

If you make $34,000 a year or more, you are in the top 1% of the world. Being in the top 1%, do you now think that your taxes ought to be around 40% of your income?

The debate over the nation’s motto in the House of Representatives: 35 min. The number of jobs bills passed by the House and sitting in the Senate, not discussed or voted on: 15.

Total arrests for occupiers has passed the 4000 milestone. TEA party arrests still stands at 0.

Judy Miller, a moderate on FoxNews, claimed that there are 100 anarchists who are causing all of the problems for the 7000 legitimate protesters in Oakland. I have seen enough video to have seen the vandalism by 100 people in Oakland. Am I to think we caught every one of them on film?

Exxon-MobilProfits:

$45 billion in 2009

Federal taxes paid: ZERO

General ElectricProfits:

$10.3 billion in 2009

Federal taxes paid: ZERO

Tax Rebates Received $1.1 billion

Bank of America (BOA)Profits:

$4.4 billion in 2010

Federal taxes paid: ZERO

TARP Bailout $45 billion in 2008-09

Wells Fargo

Profits: $12 billion

Tax Credits: $19 billion after purchase of Wachovia Bank

This requires a willing government and a very complex tax code.

67% to 24% do not think the "Super Committee" will come up with a debt reduction plan,

48% to 39% believe that the solution should include only spending cuts and no tax increase

39% to 30% of American voters have an unfavorable opinion of the Occupy Wall Street movement, with 30 percent who don't know enough about it for an opinion.

50 network stories on Herman Cain in less than 4 days. This is based upon no woman coming forward by name and no woman being clear about any complaints against Cain.

1 network story after in 3 days after Paula Jones held a public press conference in February of 1994, complaining that Clinton had exposed himself to her.

3 network stories in 3 days on Kathleen Willey after she, in July 1997, claimed that she had been groped by the President.

3 network stories in 3 days after Juanita Broaddrick came forward in February 1999 to say Clinton raped her.

To review: Clinton was a sitting president; Herman Cain is not. No one will give their name or give explicit details as to their complaint against Herman Cain; the women who spoke about Clinton all gave their names and described exactly what happened. All of the women who spoke up about Clinton were vilified and attacked in the press. Have you heard a single negative comment on the unnamed women who have laid unspecific claims at Cain’s doorstep?

Also, Politico, which poses as a neutral site, has published 90 stories on Cain and this supposed sex scandal.

ABC does not report the resignation of former New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine and CBS and NBC avoid using the Democrat label

Politico broke the Herman Cain sexual harassment story, and, so far, has published at least 90 online stories on further developments and public reaction to the story.

By contrast, according to a good faith count using Politico's own search engine..

• There have been exactly two stories with the words "Rielle Hunter" in them not only during the time it mattered, the Year of our Lord 2008, but still months after John Edwards dropped out of the race.

• There were only 16 stories about Jeremiah Wright the week that bombshell dropped, and more than a few were favorable to Obama.

• There have been fewer than 40 total stories about Fast and Furious since that story broke months ago.

Bear in mind, no one is revealing their name; no one is coming out and speaking on the record; no one is filing charges; so far, 2 suggest that the sexual harassment charges did not quite reach the level of sexual harassment.

CNN, in six days, has done at least 94 reports on the sexual harassment allegations involving Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain. According to LexisNexis, the supposedly most trusted name in news did a total of 77 stories on Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's ties to domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, convicted real estate developer Tony Rezko, and America-hating Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Okay, I am going to put in what I hope for: a Herman Cain-Newt Gingrich ticket; or, in the alternative, a Gingrich-Cain ticket. Never before, to the best of my knowledge, have a President and Vice President come from the same state. Obviously, this is due to political considerations (e.g., select a conservative and a moderate; select 2 people from widely different states). According to Snopes, which I do not completely trust, there is no legal barrier to such a pairing.

Whether or not Israel takes out the nuclear sites in Iran before the end of the year is a tough call. Right now, they are involved in a lot of high tech saber rattling. However, when they have acted militarily before, they just suddenly did it, without warning or obvious training.

Rush Limbaugh predicted that the Occupy Wall Street types would be gone with the first hint of winter. Many have thinned down considerably, however.

President Obama says the Occupy Wall Street protests show a "broad-based frustration" among Americans with the financial sector, which continues to kick against regulatory reforms three years after the financial crisis.

"You're seeing some of the same folks who acted irresponsibly trying to fight efforts to crack down on the abusive practices that got us into this in the first place," he complained earlier this month.

Rewind to 1994. That year, the federal government declared war on an enemy - the racist lender - who officials claimed was to blame for differences in homeownership rate, and launched what would prove the costliest social crusade in U.S. history.

At President Clinton's direction, no fewer than 10 federal agencies issued a chilling ultimatum to banks and mortgage lenders to ease credit for lower-income minorities or face investigations for lending discrimination and suffer the related adverse publicity. They also were threatened with denial of access to the all-important secondary mortgage market and stiff fines, along with other penalties.

The threat was codified in a 20-page "Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending" and entered into the Federal Register on April 15, 1994, by the Interagency Task Force on Fair Lending. Clinton set up the little-known body to coordinate an unprecedented crackdown on alleged bank redlining.

The edict - completely overlooked by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission and the mainstream media - was signed by then-HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros, Attorney General Janet Reno, Comptroller of the Currency Eugene Ludwig and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, along with the heads of six other financial regulatory agencies.

"The agencies will not tolerate lending discrimination in any form," the document warned financial institutions.

Ludwig at the time stated the ruling would be used by the agen cies as a fair-lending enforcement "tool," and would apply to "all lenders" - including banks and thrifts, credit unions, mortgage brokers and finance companies.

The unusual full-court press was predicated on a Boston Fed study showing mortgage lenders rejecting blacks and Hispanics in greater proportion than whites. The author of the 1992 study, hired by the Clinton White House, claimed it was racial "discrimination." But it was simply good underwriting.

It took private analysts, as well as at least one FDIC economist, little time to determine the Boston Fed study was terminally flawed. In addition to finding embarrassing mistakes in the data, they concluded that more relevant measures of a borrower's credit history - such as past delinquencies and whether the borrower met lenders credit standards - explained the gap in lending between whites and blacks, who on average had poorer credit and higher defaults.

The study did not take into account a host of other relevant data factoring into denials, including applicants' net worth, debt burden and employment record. Other variables, such as the size of down payments and the amount of the loans sought to the value of the property being bought, also were left out of the analysis. It also failed to consider whether the borrower submitted information that could not be verified, the presence of a cosigner and even the loan amount.

When these missing data were factored in, it became clear that the rejection rates were based on legitimate business decisions, not racism.

Still, the study was used to support a wholesale abandonment of traditional underwriting standards - the root cause of the mortgage crisis.

For the first time, Washington's bank regulators put racial lending at the top of their checklist. Banks that failed to throw open their lending windows to credit-poor minorities were denied expansion plans by the Fed in an era of frenzied financial mergers and acquisitions. HUD threatened to deny them access to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which it controlled. And the Justice Department sued them for lending discrimination and branded them as racists in the press.

"HUD is authorized to direct Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to undertake various remedial actions, including suspension, probation, reprimand or settlement, against lenders found to have engaged in discriminatory lending practices," the official policy statement warned.

The regulatory missive, which had the effect of law, advised lenders to bend "customary" underwriting standards for minority homebuyers with poor credit.

"Applying different lending standards to applicants who are members of a protected class is permissible," it said. "In addition, providing different treatment to applicants to address past discrimination would be permissible."

To that end, lenders were directed to "make changes in marketing strategy or loan products to better serve minority segments of the market." They were also advised to "change commission structures" to encourage brokers and loan officers to "lend in minority and low-income neighborhoods" - a practice Countrywide Financial, the poster boy of the subprime scandal, perfected. The government now condemns the practice it once encouraged as "predatory."

FDIC warned banks that even unintentional discrimination was against the law, and that they should be proactive in making "multicultural" loans. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure," the agency said in a separate advisory.

Confronted with the combined force of 10 federal regulators, lenders naturally toed the line, and were soon aggressively marketing subprime mortgages in urban areas. The marching orders threw such a scare into the industry that the American Bankers Association issued a "fair-lending tool kit" to every member. The Mortgage Bankers Association of America signed a "fair-lending" contract with HUD. So did Countrywide.

HUD also pushed Fannie and Freddie, which in effect set industry underwriting standards, to buy subprime mortgages, freeing lenders to originate even more high-risk loans.

"Lenders should ensure that their loan processors and underwriters are aware of the provisions of the secondary market guidelines that provide various alternative and flexible means by which applicants may demonstrate their ability and willingness to repay their loans," the policy statement decreed.

"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac not infrequently purchase mortgages exceeding the suggested ratios" of monthly housing expense to income (28%) and total obligations to income (36%).

It warned lenders who rejected minority applicants with high debt ratios and low credit scores to "be prepared" to prove to federal regulators and prosecutors they weren't racist. "The Department of Justice is authorized to use the full range of its enforcement authority."

It took a little more than a decade for the negative effects of the assault on prudent lending to be felt. By 2006, the shaky subprime mortgages began to default. In 2008, the bubble exploded.

Clinton's task force survived the Bush administration, during which it produced fair-lending brochures in Spanish for immigrant home-loan applicants.

And it's still alive today. Obama is building on the fair-lending infrastructure Clinton put in place.

As IBD first reported in July, Attorney General Eric Holder has launched a witch hunt vs. "racist" banks.

"It's a more aggressive fair-lending enforcement approach now," said Washington lawyer Andrew Sandler of Buckley Sandler LLP in a recent interview. "It is well beyond anything we saw during the Clinton administration."

Tom Perez, assistant attorney general for civil rights, recently testified that his division "continues to participate in the federal Interagency Fair Lending Task Force." And he and the task force are working with the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to "enhance fair-lending enforcement."

The fair-lending task force's original policy paper undercuts the notion the financial crisis was all about banker "greed," though it certainly played a role after the fact. Rather, it offers compelling evidence that the crisis evolved chiefly from government mandates and threats to increase lending to applicants who could not afford them.

Rick Perry says Texas is the most successful state in America. He's right. Texan economic output exceeds Mexico's and Australia's and rivals India's. Rick Perry has been governor of Texas for nearly 11 years. Does the logic of politics lead us to conclude that the governor of the nation's most successful state, ipso facto, is the best man to be president of the economically gasping United States?

We are about to find out. Getting lost, however, among the governor's adventures in the lovely hamlets of New Hampshire is that Texas, with or without him, has a story the rest of the U.S. should hear-the parts of the country that want a better economy than they've got now.

In a preview of his "Wonderland" column, Dan Henninger discusses what he thinks the U.S. can learn from Texas.

Texas, unlike California, isn't America's most beautiful state. Through October this year, parts of Texas had 90 days of 100+ temperatures. Yet companies and people keep moving into the high heat of Texas.

Rick Perry's argument for himself is rooted in accounts of his efforts to bring companies to Texas. But the desire of businesses to sample Texas trail dust pre-dates Rick Perry. In 1990, one of the world's biggest companies, Exxon Mobil, left New York City for Dallas. Exxon's former CEO, Lee Raymond, says the move in part was indeed about costs and New York State's notoriously overbearing tax authority. But it was also about working amid a culture of competence. "It's just the attitude in Texas of getting things done and doing them well," he says.

Mr. Raymond remarks that the economic policies that in time trapped the Northeast and Rust Belt in spirals of decline never touched Texas. But this is about something beyond low taxes and no unions: "In Texas the people tend to be farmers or individual businessmen, and they have this attitude: We have to make do with what we have and work together to get things done and survive. It's can-do. That attitude permeates everything there."

A more recent corporate immigrant, Alan Boeckmann, until recently CEO of Fluor Corp., the engineering and construction firm, says regulatory and legal hassles pushed Fluor out of California. Congress passed Sarbanes-Oxley, but "California had its own version." There were constant class-action suits over Fluor's benefits. "It could have been settled, but not in California. That's how the game is played there."

When word of the 2006 move got out, "California made no attempt to keep us." In Texas, "things started to happen quickly, without us initiating them." The Irving Chamber of Commerce did orientation sessions for employees and spouses, even helping with new-house searches. Or "little things": Irving on its own renamed a street Fluor Drive, which in California or the Northeast would be laughable. Those Texas rubes!

Ed Trevis, a smaller fish, is also happy. A California-educated Brazilian immigrant and tech entrepreneur in Silicon Valley for 25 years, Mr. Trevis moved Corvalent Corp. to Austin for similar reasons. He had to hire a firm just to do California's compliance. "In California," he says, "you are always doing something wrong."

"What I found in Texas is that from the standpoint of running a business, cost of living, education, the labor pool, quality of life, it just blew other states out of the water." I heard this constantly-people enjoy being in business in Texas.

"Austin," says technology consultant Bob Barker while taking a visitor around the nearby hills, "may have more Ph.Ds driving taxis than any city in the country." Austin's famed population of big and small technology companies has suffered layoffs. "But," said Mr. Barker, "no one wants to leave." They stay, plugging into Austin's numerous business-support networks. In Austin you discover a primary reason beneath Texas' success: It's about competition plus collaboration. It seems everyone in Texas high-tech knows everyone, and if they can help each other, they will.

David Booth, who moved Dimensional Fund Advisors's headquarters to Austin from Santa Monica in 2008, puts Rick Perry's role in perspective: "He understands his job isn't to get in the middle of everything." (Fluor's Alan Boeckmann seconded that.) But Mr. Booth and others said this is also true of the Texas lieutenant governor, its attorney general and the comptroller.

"They are very supportive of business," says Lee Raymond, "in the sense of moving things along. If there is a rock in the road, they want to know what they can do to move it out of the way."

This isn't merely the "pro-business" bias of a Rick Perry or any other governor. Texas' pro-business bias goes back about 175 years-and never died. "It's just that they believe in the whole Horatio Alger myth down here," said Mr. Booth. "It's hard to understand if you haven't lived here."

And so Perry's Paradox: Rick Perry is a success because he nominally presides over an American tiger state, a genuine free-market economy that doesn't much need-or want-his tender loving care. If the job before us is unwinding an unimaginably vast, smothering national government, is Lone Star Gov. Rick Perry the man for that job?

This much is obvious: Texas, not California, better be the American future. Somewhere inside of him, Rick Perry of Texas understands this distinction. He should stick to explaining what he knows. Let voters figure out if he can explain it to Washington.

Paula Jones (AR) - unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault

Carolyn Moffet -unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault

Lenora Steinkamp - rumored - mystery jogger on video tape entering the "infamous hallway" with Clinton

Benazir Bhutto - rumored - current opposition leader in, and former prime minister of Pakistan

In the fall of 2008, then-candidate Barack Obama made a campaign promise to jumpstart the economy with an influx of green jobs. "We'll invest $150 billion over the next decade and harness private efforts to build a clean-energy economy," he said. This expenditure of taxpayer dollars, averaging $15 billion a year, would then "create 5 million new jobs that pay well, and can never be outsourced."[1]

The President has kept his promise to spend billions of borrowed dollars on green energy, but his promises that such spending would create a new, self-sufficient industry capable of providing millions of jobs for Americans have proven empty. The President's stimulus law alone included tens of billions in new government subsidies for politically favored renewable-energy interests: $6 billion in loan guarantees for renewable energy investments; $17 billion for the Department of Energy's energy efficiency and renewable energy programs; $2 billion for energy-efficient battery manufacturing; and billions more on other "clean-energy" programs for a total of $80 billion.

Two years later, the President's promise of millions of jobs stands in stark contrast with reality. As a recent report from a Bay-Area news organization made clear, green jobs predictions are "proving a pipe dream."[2]

Why haven't the President's promises translated into real economic gains? The answer lies in the federal government's unsuitability for the role the President wants it to play. Since his inauguration, the President has spoken often of the federal government as an "investor" in alternative sources of energy. But the federal government's job is to make and enforce the rules of the road, so that markets are fair, transparent and competitive - in other words, to foster an environment that is conducive to private-sector job creation.

When the government takes on the role of "investor," it usually does so because, according to the party in power, the "wrong" companies are winning in the free market, and the "right" companies are losing. By seeking to pick winners and losers in a dynamic and diverse economy, the government-as-investor model distorts markets, weakens the rule of law, wastes taxpayer dollars, and fails to spur sustainable job creation.

The President's energy policies have exemplified this failed model. His approach has been characterized by punitive regulations on commercially competitive sources of energy, coupled with reckless spending on uncompetitive alternatives. Instead of promoting the innovative and entrepreneurial genius of American business, the President's agenda has consolidated decision-making in Washington through a toxic mix of increased spending and more regulations.

Those who support this agenda argue that government can direct labor and capital markets more equitably than individuals and businesses, without sacrificing efficiency. In fact, forcing firms that do not enjoy government support to compete against firms that do - instead of letting all firms compete on a level playing field - is neither equitable nor efficient. The government-as-investor model has a poor track record in general, and its track record of investing in energy alternatives is positively abysmal.

In the late 1970s, in response to oil embargoes, the Carter Administration championed the development of synthetic fuels and ethanol. One memorable failure pushed by the Carter White House was the Synthetic Fuels Corporation, intended to finance the development of commercial synthetic fuel plants through massive subsidies. After exposing taxpayers to more than $400 billion in subsidies, this government-created corporation shut its doors in 1986.[3] Commercial "synfuels," which were unable to compete commercially, stand today as just one example of the government's inability to choose wise or productive investments in energy sector. There is a long history of failed efforts by federal agencies to develop commercially viable energy projects.

In 1979, the Carter Administration also initiated subsidies for corn ethanol, continued today in the form of tariffs on imported ethanol and the federal renewable fuel standard (RFS), which requires a percentage of ethanol to be used in gasoline. A favorite of both parties, these "temporary" benefits have calcified into decades-old corporate welfare, and American families are still living with the resulting higher tax burdens and energy costs over 30 years later.

Inflating one sector of the economy through complicated tax deductions, government handouts and new mandates carry hidden costs as well. Subsidizing a favored industry drives down productivity, while driving up costs to the broader economy. Targeted gains often prove fleeting, with losses in job creation and growth, not only in the favored industry, but throughout the wider economy.[4]

This effect is clearly seen in the employment picture for "green" jobs, not just here in the U.S., but also in Europe, where government subsidies statistically had the counterproductive effect of either double-counting jobs that were shifted from one sector to another or, worse, of actually destroying jobs. In Spain, which spent $600,000 for every green job, recent research found the country's interventions into the energy market destroyed 2.2 jobs for every green position it created. Similarly, the United Kingdom found that 3.7 jobs were lost for every job identified in renewable energy.[5] Job-creation and job-shifting are not the same.

In Europe, policymakers made the same flawed assumption that President Obama made when he promised that government spending on green energy would create 5 million new jobs: that the "labor-intensity" of green energy was a virtue unto itself. Labor intensity - the labor required per unit of energy produced - is much higher in the green-jobs sector. Advocates point to this higher labor requirement as a benefit because, they say, it will tend to increase employment.[6]

However, as Dr. William Bogart, a professor of economics at York College, explained in testimony before the House Committee on Education and Labor in 2009, if the cost of energy increases as a result of inefficient production, then the net benefits available decrease. In the past, the efficiency and comparatively low cost of energy use in the U.S. led to higher productivity and higher standards of living. With costlier energy systems, many goods will become more costly, requiring consumers to pay more and making American producers less competitive in world markets.[7]

With green-energy stimulus funding driven by political calculus at the expense of economic return, the question becomes: How much is enough?

In 2007, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) conducted an analysis of subsidies received by both alternative and conventional energy sources. On a dollar-per-unit-of-production basis, the level of subsidies received by the wind and solar industries were almost 100 times greater than those for conventional energy.[8]

Subsidies for renewable energy production have surged since the Obama Administration and the 111th Congress dramatically increased taxpayer support for these sources of energy with the stimulus law and other appropriations. In 2010, $11.9 billion was recorded in total federal subsidies for electricity production, according to a report from the EIA. Of this nearly $12 billion in subsidies, renewable-energy sources received $6.6 billion, or 55.3%, even though they accounted for just 10.3% of the electricity generation. Wind plants alone accounted for 42% of total electricity-related subsidies.[9]

Total subsidies for renewable energy, including biofuels, rose from $5.1 billion in 2007 to $14.7 billion in 2010. Much of that increase was due to stimulus spending, the report noted, a 188% increase.[10]

Since its introduction in the 2009 stimulus bill, the Department of Energy (DOE) has issued $40 billion in new loan guarantees for private-sector loans for renewable energy projects that might not otherwise have been market-viable. Already, multi-million dollar projects, initially labeled as successes, have failed:

• The first renewable energy loan guarantee recipient, solar start-up Solyndra, received a loan guarantee for $535 million in the fall of 2009, even after repeated warnings from federal financial analysts. In the spring of 2010, it failed to complete its initial public offering after an independent audit questioned the ongoing viability of the firm. Then, in the fall of 2010, the firm closed one of its manufacturing facilities and laid off 180 workers. Finally, the firm declared bankruptcy and laid off 1,100 employees only 15 months after Obama visited a company factory.

• Beacon Power, received a $43 million loan guarantee in July of 2009. Since then, its stock price has dropped by 90 percent - a period during which the NASDAQ exchange on which it is listed has increased by 40 percent. The company has not been in compliance with NASDAQ listing requirements, leading to a delisting determination from the exchange.

• First Wind Holdings, received a $117 million loan guarantee in March of 2010. First Wind withdrew its initial public offering in October of 2010, due to a lack of investor demand. [11] According to the Boston Globe, investors shied away from the company because "First Wind owes more than $500 million, loses money on a steady basis, and reports a negative cash flow."[12]

Even in the midst of these failures, DOE has been advertising additional loan guarantee recipients, announcing a $1.2 billion loan guarantee to another solar company just one day after the FBI raided Solyndra's offices. Congressional investigators are initiating a review to examine how many future Solyndras have been already financed by this loan-guarantee program or approved through shoddy review, and how can we prevent future examples of this kind of wasteful federal spending.

Western states, which have invested billions in state subsidies for the green economy, have had to deal more than most with the consequences of mismanaged expectations and lost investments. For all the pie-in-the sky campaign claims touting millions of new permanent, high-paying jobs, there has not been a full accounting of positions created. Monthly Labor Department employment reports are silent on a "green-collar" workforce. However, in July, the Brookings Institution released a study which found green jobs only accounted for 2 percent of employment nationwide and 2.2 percent in the Silicon Valley.

Rather than its intended effect of boosting new employment, Brookings found the clean-energy sector actually lost almost 500 jobs from 2003 to 2010 in California's South Bay, where the unemployment rate in June was 10.5 percent. A $20 million federal grant in Seattle, Washington to invest in weatherization programs has resulted in only three completed projects and just 14 new jobs, many of them low-wage administrative positions.

As a Heritage Foundation report recently noted, taxpayers are hit by a "double wallop" - first by paying for ineffective, wasteful subsidies, then by paying higher energy prices caused by energy taxes and regulations.[13] This kind of wasteful government spending is not sustainable. U.S. taxpayers cannot afford billions of dollars in mismanaged resources, with poor oversight and no accountability for results.

Advocates of green energy have long argued that it's not just enough for the government to subsidize alternatives - it also needs to promote policies that make commercially competitive sources of energy more expensive.

This is the idea behind the controversial "cap and trade" bill that President Obama tried to pass through Congress in 2009, which would have established an elaborate and bureaucratic structure for allocating conventional energy sources. This bill passed the House, but it was unable to overcome bipartisan concerns in the Senate. Cap-and-trade legislation was deemed costly, economically harmful, and ineffective in its means and goals. But instead of accepting this verdict on its preferred policy, the administration decided to let the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) carry out a unilateral plan to impose emissions restrictions on American businesses.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson is pushing for greenhouse gas emission standards for power plants, and although the President has temporarily delayed this move, he has not ruled out letting the EPA move forward with it in the future. If eventually enacted, the resulting rule would cost the country $1 trillion or more over a decade and millions of jobs. Similar severe costs to the economy influenced the President's decision to pull back EPA's proposal to prematurely readjust current ozone standards. In addition, the EPA's move to implement the final Clean Air Transport Rule and the Utility Maximum Achievable Control Technology on power plants in November could increase electricity costs amidst a struggling economy.

This reflects a larger push by the Obama administration to pursue energy and environmental policy through heavy-handed regulations, circumventing accountability to taxpayers and leaving decisions in the hands of the bureaucracy infrastructure. Unnecessary regulations tie the hands of small businesses and create an uncertain business environment, discouraging job growth.

Instead of Washington-knows-best government policy, the House-passed budget, The Path to Prosperity, advances fundamental tax reform to promote economic growth and job creation. Comprehensive tax reform would broaden the tax base; simplify the tax code by cleaning out many of the special exemptions and deductions in the tax code, including special tax breaks for all energy companies; and lower tax rates for both individuals and corporations. Cutting the marginal tax rates on labor and capital to increase incentives to work and invest would be the most effective and sustainable way to revive economic growth - in our energy sector and all sectors of the private economy.

The Path to Prosperity scales back the EPA's large budget increases to prevent it from imposing a job-destroying maze of regulations that would act as a national energy tax. It also assumes increased revenues from bonus bids, rents, royalties, and fees as a result of lifting moratoriums and bans on safe, environmentally responsible exploration for domestic energy supplies. As part of this effort, the House has already passed three major pieces of legislation on a bipartisan basis as part of its American Energy Initiative to expand domestic energy production and create new jobs. These bills are still waiting on action in the Senate.

The Path to Prosperity would continue to fund essential government missions, including energy security and basic research and development, while paring back spending for projects best left to the private sector. Ultimately, the best energy policy is one that encourages robust competition and innovation to ensure the American people an affordable and stable supply of energy. The House-passed budget would roll back federal intervention and expensive corporate welfare directed to the President's allied industries. Instead, it would promote policies aimed at reliable energy, lower energy prices, greater revenue generation through prosperity, and market-based solutions that advance the nation toward the goal of sustainable energy.

[1] Rhee, Foon, "Obama promotes alternative energy plan", The Boston Globe, October 14, 2008.

[2] Glantz, Aaron, "Green Jobs Predictions Proving a Pipe Dream." The Bay Citizen, August 18, 2011.

[3] Edwards, Chris. "Downsizing the Federal Government: Department of Energy." Cato Institute.

[4] Green, Kenneth, "Environmental Consequences of Energy Choices: Horton Hears a Who's Who", Speech for the 23rd Annual Texas Environmental Superconference, August 4, 2011.

[5] Green, Kenneth, "The Myth of Green Jobs: The European Experience", AEI Energy Outlook Series, February 2011.

[6] Morriss, Andrew P., et al. The False Promise of Green Energy. Cato Institute, 2011.

[7] Bogart, William, "Five Questions about Green Jobs", Testimony to House Committee on Education and Labor, March 31, 2009.

[8] Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy Markets 2007, Energy Information Administration, April 2008.

[9] Direct Federal Interventions and Subsidies in Energy in FY 2010, Energy Information Administration, July 2011.

[11] Kreutzer, David. "Green Jobs and Red Tape." House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. April 13, 2011.

[12] Syre, Steven. "First Wind IPO sputters suddenly." The Boston Globe. October 29, 2010.

[13] Brownfield, Mike, "Obama's Green Jobs Pipe Dream", The Foundry, August 23, 2011.

This document was prepared by the Republican staff of the Committee on the Budget, U.S. House of Representatives. It has not been approved by the full committee and may not reflect the views of individual committee members.

The article reviews the major issues of our time including failing public schools, high unemployment, a lost war on drugs. etc. in the context of the trivial efforts our politicians are actually spending time and money on. These efforts include worrying about college football conferences, whether football players use drugs, and how many potatoes our kids should eat weekly.

• Unemployment is stubbornly stuck at around 9% with about 400,000 Americans filing for first time unemployment benefits every WEEK.

• This 9% translates into about 14 million Americans and does not include those Americans who have given up looking for employment or who are underemployed.

• We continue to wage a lost war on drugs with a lawless narco state evolving just south of our borders, a state controlled by violent drug cartels.

• Our borders still leak and we have no effective or compassionate plan on how to deal with the millions of illegal aliens already in the country.

• Our national debt is fast approaching $15 TRILLION, or about $132,000 per American household.

• Health care costs continue to increase unabated, rising about 9% in 2010, with no relief or solution in sight (including the ill written, ill designed, and doomed Obama Care).

• Gas prices are still up about 100% from a few years ago with no relief in sight along with also no national energy strategy in sight.

• Corporate, union, PAC, and other organized big money sources continue to pervert and subvert our democratic and political processes, with the blatant cronyism of President Obama's failed alternative energy loans just the latest example of rampant government corruption.

• Our political processes are so broken that incumbent politicians start running for re-election over a year before the election, about the same time when the resolution of our nation's issues become secondary in these incumbents' eyes.

This list probably includes most of the pressing issues that Americans would put on their personal list as being the biggest challenges and fears in their lives. However, while the country seems to be burning down, what have the Washington politicians been working on or fiddling with recently:

Let's do some simple math. There are 32 NFL teams with about 50 players on their roster at any one time. Thus, there are only about 1,600 members of the NFL at any one time. There are 14 million unemployed Americans.

So now at least four members of Congress, and more if hearings are actually held, are preoccupied with and will be investigating the potential of HGH abuse by a very small set of rich Americans rather than focusing on the generally non-rich 14 million unemployed Americans. Fiddling around while millions struggle economically.

- College football is undergoing a lot of changes lately, with conferences looking to expand and pick off schools from other conferences to expand the number of schools/teams in their own conference. The primary driver to the reshuffling of these conferences is the potential for increased television revenue. Bigger college football conferences usually equates to more revenue flowing to the schools already in the conferences.

One of the subplots to this whole situation is the competition between Louisville University and West Virginia University as they compete for one opening in the Big 12 Conference. Rather than work on reducing the onerous national debt of $15 TRILLION, Kentucky U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell reportedly personally called the Big 12 conference's officials to lobby for Louisville and West Virginia U.S. Senator Jay Rockefeller is reportedly to also be involved, according to an article in the October 27, 2011 issue of the St. Petersburg Times. Fiddling with college football while the nation burns.

- In the October 18, 2011 issue of New York Times, the following news blurb occurred:

The Senate stood up Tuesday for the humble white potato and rebuffed an effort by President Obama to limit its consumption by millions of schoolchildren around the country. The administration has proposed limiting the amount of potatoes and other starchy vegetables that can be served in school lunches to one cup per student per week, and banning them from school breakfasts.

The Senate on Tuesday moved to block the proposal by adopting an amendment to the 2012 spending bill for the Agriculture Department. The amendment, approved by unanimous consent, prohibits the department from setting "any maximum limits on the serving of vegetables in school meal programs."

So let's review. At least four House members are worried about whether rich football players use HGH and now we find out that all 100 members of the Senate and major members of the executive branch are heatedly debating what should be the weekly ration of potatoes should for our kids. Our kids are going to school to be under educated while our so-called leaders debate about what the kids should eat while they are being under educated. Fiddling around in the cafeteria while they should be working to fix what goes on in the classrooms.

- The Obama administration recently declared that it will aggressively start to shut down and prosecute the owners/operators of medical marijuana clinics in California. Even though the clinics are legal under California state law, they are illegal under Federal law. The original purpose of the clinics was to provide marijuana pain relief to people suffering from various ailments and sicknesses, ailments and sicknesses that most medical authorities agree can be eased by smoking marijuana.

While a strong case can probably be made that the process has been subverted in some cases to get marijuana to people that really do not need it for pain relief, at least some Americans' lives are eased and made more bearable because of the clinics. By shutting down the clinics, there is no doubt that this Obama administration drive to shut down the clinics will add significant physical pain to the lives of many ailing Americans.

While the administration fiddles with some marijuana clinics, it has no plan in place to deal with the overwhelming violence, reach, and drug operations of the Mexican drug cartels. Seems the administration would rather hassle and persecute some small shop owners and medical marijuana users, entities that pose no threat to our national security, then deal with the real drug abuse problem, namely the Mexican cartels.

- Recent news reports indicate that Obama's economic stimulus initiative paid out about $230 million to various entities to run anti-soda ads. The purpose of the ads was to address the obesity problem in the country by demonizing the drinking of sugary soda drinks such as Coke and Pepsi.

No one can doubt that we do have an obseity problem in this country, a problem that directly contributes to disease and increases our health care costs. No argument there. But solving the obesity problem should be a long term, strategic, coordinated public health effort, not a one time set of anti-soda television ads.

Again, just another example of the Obama administration's blatant inability to think strategically, it only can develop short term tactical programs that seldom work without an overarching strategic framework.

The point of the stimulus program was to immediately help create jobs and the conditions for an economic recovery. The stimulus plan has obviously failed, as witnessed by the 14 million Americans currently unemployed. Maybe it failed because the political class was on a sugar high and did not realize that another quarter million taxpayer dollars was not being used for its intended purpose, i.e. create economic recovery as soon as possible. Telling people to stop drinking soda does not create jobs and does not attack the obesity problem, it just fiddles away millions of taxpayer dollars.

Giving this inability to set priorities straight, always dealing with insignificant issues vs. our nation's most pressing issues, we must find a way to reform our political processes so that we start getting smart people in office that can resolve our economic, drug abuse, education, and other major issues.

The most important reformation step is to find a way to implement term limits for Federally elected officials. As a nation, we deserve better than the fiddlers we currently have in Washington, fiddlers that would make Nero proud but who do nothing to stop the burning down of America.

With the so-called Obama healthcare "reform" law and the horses out of the barn, Catholic leaders are now complaining with a fevered pitch that the administration's definition of a "religious employer" is going to force Catholic and other pro-life healthcare providers to choose between violating their consciences or curtailing access to care. Catholic educational institutions will also be forced to provide employees with healthcare plans that are inconsistent with the Church's moral teachings.

Testifying before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee, the Chancellor and General Counsel of the Archdiocese of Washington, Jane Belford, said that if the definition of religious employer is not changed:

Criticism has become more vocal since the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, approved new regulations that order nearly all private health plans to cover FDA-approved "contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling" as part of their "preventive services" for women. The new regulation defines a religious employer as a non-profit organization that "inculcates" religious values and primarily hires and serves people who share its religious tenets.

The problem this definition presents is that it excludes many "employers of conscience"-including Catholic hospitals, universities and social services-which serve all people in need, regardless of their religion and whose commitment to Christian service is not intended primarily to inculcate religious values.

The President and CEO of the Alliance of Catholic Health Care, William J. Cox, said this narrow definition HHS has overlooked "the contributions of Catholic health care and undid centuries of religious tolerance." Cox testified:

“It is particularly ironic that HHS is substantially burdening Catholic institutional ministries because they respectfully avoid inculcating religious beliefs, and compassionately serve persons of all faith traditions and those having no faith tradition at all.

“Simply stated churches and religious institutions have the right to define and govern themselves free from government interference and entanglement.”

The Catholic leaders were unanimous in imploring Congress to pass the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act (HR 1179), which aims to expand the religious exemption allowed under Obamacare.

The criticism is accurate: The definition is exclusive rather than inclusive. It divides rather than unites. It's dismissive of rather than accommodating.

At the same time, however, isn't much of it a bit late in the "game"? After all, in the debate leading up to the passage of the so-called Obamacare "reform," many Catholic leaders seemed very content to accept the "promises" the President and members of his administration offered them while lobbying for their support of the so-called "healthcare reform" scheme.

Having danced with wolves, why should the critics be unhappy that the wolves have bit the hand that fed them?

So, the horses are now out of the barn and the critics are hoping that the other side of the aisle will come to their aid. Let's hope so!

But, having provided support in opening the barn door to this anti-life scheme, isn't the criticism coming a little late? Who duped whom?

Now we learn that the mortgage agencies Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, in business with the federal government, paid almost $13 million in bonuses to their top executives in 2010. That is an outrage because those agencies currently owe the American taxpayer $141 billion.

Let me repeat. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac owe us $141 billion and doled out $13 million in bonuses last year.

This is why the federal government is out of control. Freddie and Fannie are not government agencies per se. They are private companies, but they receive support from the federal government -- taxpayer money -- in subsidies and loans.

ED HENRY, FOX NEWS CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: There is a report that Fannie and Freddie, in particular Freddie Mac, their top five officers got some bonuses in 2010. These are institutions that obviously got taxpayer bailouts.

JAY CARNEY, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: These organizations, these entities are independent, and therefore they are independent decisions. The White House is not involved and nor should it be.

Wrong, with all due respect. The White House should be as outraged as "Talking Points" is, and Congress should immediately suspend Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We do not need those agencies. They are poorly run, and they are hurting America. Get rid of them.

If the federal government wants to practice social justice -- that is funneling money to poor Americans for housing -- do it under the authority of Congress, not flimflam outfits run by incompetents.

Now, where are the "Occupy Wall Street" protests when it comes to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Why aren't they marching in D.C. against these people? $13 million in bonuses? They owe us $141 billion, but you won't see the "Occupiers" do that because they want the feds to give people houses.

The bottom line on this story is that government waste continues unchecked; our taxpayer dollars are being flushed away. There are so many scams, so many out-of-control situations in Washington that it's impossible to keep track of them. What a disgrace.

ENVY: Shows how others have 'gotten over on you' personally, professionally, and politically

GREED: Others 'got it', and you obviously are entitled to more of it - whatever IT happens to be

NEED: The evil twin of Greed, as in, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" - Karl Marx (The really-unlikeable Marx Brother)

FEAR: That feeling of knowing that you're not good enough to make it on your own - you yearn for other comrades to accompany you on your personal road to nowhere

Michigan legislature actually debates whether or not they should pass legislation to outlaw teacher-student sex. The idea that such a thing even requires discussion blows my mind.

ACORN Officials Scramble, Firing Workers and Shredding Documents, After Exposed as Players Behind Occupy Wall Street Protests

Weasel Zipper unscientific poll of who Republicans want as their next president (this was after the Cain scandal broke). 53% voted Cain; Newt Gingrich was second at 20%.

New Bill Clinton book is policy-heavy, and it takes a few shots at President Obama:

Michael Malloy’s insane theories about Occupy Oakland—Beck, Limbaugh and Breitbart sent in thugs to break the law and make it appear as if the protesters were doing this.

RUSH: I am starting to sense it. I am starting to see it. When I sense it, when I see it, it is probably true. That's been my track record. I think I detect the media heading into damage control on the Herman Cain story. A lot of media are. This day five now, and still nobody knows what he did. Not a single media outlet can report what he did! Some are even suggesting that The Politico had no business running this story. These are other journalists who are beginning to say this. ... The media is also in damage control over the Occupy Oakland riots the night before last. I mean, yesterday the media was trying to pretend the Oakland protests were peaceful; the very model of a love fest, but now the truth is coming out along with some of the pictures and they're switching over to damage control mode -- and they're doing the same thing in the Herman Cain story.

Really, folks, five days now, and nobody knows what he did. Think of all the news stories there have been, think of The Politico and how they got this ball rolling, and after five days there has yet to be a report what he did. Nobody knows still. Five days! As Wes Pruden, former editor-in-chief of the Washington Times, points out when he ran the Washington Times newsroom: If somebody like The Politico reporters would have brought this story to him, he woulda thrown 'em down the steps -- and if they survived that, he would have fired them. (paraphrased exchange) "You're telling me you want my newspaper to publish this rotgut? What do you got? There's nothing here! I want names, places, activities, things that happened. There's nothing here!"

"No, we want to run this, and we want Cain to respond to it. We want him to provide the information." A lot of even seasoned journalists don't like this. I've got sound bites you can tell they're getting edgy because they're getting all upset at me playing the race card in reverse on these guys. The reverse race card works every time it's tried when I play it and it's got them all ticked off. So we've got that to do. Here's Washington Post, ABC poll: "70% of Republicans say the Cain allegations don't matter." Can I tell you...? Folks, behind the closed doors of the mainstream media outlets, that poll (because it's in the Washington Post) I can't tell you how that ticks 'em off! This was supposed to destroy Herman Cain, and I'll tell you something else.

It was supposed to destroy every other Republican by shifting the focus to all of them in this matter; getting them to comment, to not comment, to pile on Cain or what have you. I'll tell you what: There's a question out there that I really think needs to be asked, because the way the media is doing their backtrack on this -- the way they're doing damage control -- is the same thing as yesterday. They're starting to focus on how "poorly" Herman Cain is handling this, which of course we (on the cutting edge) were on that aspect of the story yesterday. "He's doing such a lousy job handling this." How about a poll on how good a job Obama's doing handling the economy? What do you think a poll like that would look like? Well, we already have that poll, and it's called, "What do you think of the direction of the country: good, bad, worse, horrible, what?"

Only 16 to 30%, depending on the poll, think the country's headed in the right direction. So on what do you want to judge a candidate or a political person's qualifications? On how he's handling a no-name, no-information, empty "scandal" (with quotation marks around it), or how he's handling the US economy? As I said yesterday: I don't care, folks. No matter what happens here, every Republican candidate for the nomination -- every one of them -- is so superior to Barack Obama, it's laughable. Of course the Drive-Bys know that, and Democrats know that. But when you have the Washington Post and ABC News in their joint poll saying that 70% of Republicans don't care about the Herman Cain allegations, what that can be translated to is the following:

"Politico, you failed. You attempted, along with others in the mainstream media, to take out the guy, and you failed. Your influence isn't what you thought it was. Alana Goodman at Commentary magazine writes, "Basically, the entire Washington media could have collectively called in sick all week, and it wouldn't have made a difference - at least not for 70 percent of Republicans. The latest Washington Post/ABC poll, one of the first to be taken post-scandal, reports: 'Seven in 10 Republicans say reports that [Herman] Cain made unwanted advances toward two employees when he was head of the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s -- allegations which have been stiffly rebutted by Cain's campaign -- do not matter when it comes to picking a candidate.'"

Could it be...? In determining why this result is what it is, you could say, "Well, maybe people don't care as much about sexual harassment anymore. Maybe people recognize what it's always been: A tool for advancing liberalism," or maybe people are just fed up with the media in its modern incarnation, particularly Republicans. We know that's true. We know that most Republicans, even if they're RINO Republicans, are fed up with the way the media is going about conducting business these days. Herman Cain's manager, Mark Block, was on Fox this morning, American Newsroom. He was on there with Martha MacCallum and he said this is the last day he's gonna talk about this. He said the media and everybody has turned Washington into a cesspool, and we are not going to swim in that cesspool anymore. We are not gonna play by the rules that the media has established.

Block said, "The fact of the matter is The Politico article if it was held up to the same standards as the code of ethics -- of the code of ethics for journalism the people involved would be fired." This is Mark Block, who is a target of the media this week as being the architect of the guy who's "mishandling" this; who's advising Cain poorly, making Cain look like an idiot. This Block guy, he's the guy that puffed on a cigarette in the TV ad. They hate the guy! So he finally has awakened. He also said that the Cain campaign's "considering its legal options and may sue Politico over the as yet unsubstantiated allegations," and that's what they are. Five days now, folks. Do you realize, in one day we knew what Clinton had done with Lewinsky -- and we knew that Newsweek spiked the story and that the estimable Matt Drudge ran it.

We knew on day one what Clinton did, and he was advised to go out there and lie about it, and it didn't work. Five days running, and we still don't know what Herman Cain did and there doesn't appear to be anybody in the media who can tell us. The media is openly begging for the women to "come forward and tell their stories." Wait a minute, don't you know? How could you run the story without knowing what the women were gonna say? You need the women to come forward and tell the story? Why can't you just report it, if you know it? Why is it incumbent upon the women -- who don't want to come forward, apparently? So that's where we are on that story.

RUSH: The Politico with another story. I'll tell you, this bunch is the most sex obsessed people I've seen since I don't know when. Imagine if Ken Starr had been this obsessed! There's a big, long story here by Kent Vogel and Maggie Haberman and Alexander Burns (three people), and I can tell you what it says in six words: More anonymous Cain details from The Politico. More anonymous details. This bunch is positively sex obsessed, and now it's in damage control mode. "Herman Cain flatly denies the most serious allegation facing him ... but POLITICO has learned new details making clear there were urgent discussions of the woman's accusations at top levels of the National Restaurant Association within hours of when the incident was alleged to have occurred." What's new about that? We all knew that.

"The new details -- which come from multiple sources independently familiar with the incident at a hotel during a restaurant association event in the late 1990s -- put the woman's account even more sharply at odds with Cain's emphatic insistence in news media interviews this week that nothing inappropriate happened between the two." What "new details"? We still don't know what they are! I'm not kidding when I say "anonymous details." Not anonymous sources. We've got anonymous details now make up the bulk of a story! If I didn't know better I would say journalism had created a new standard. Anonymous sources has now morphed into anonymous details. "In recent days sources ... have offered new details of the incident.

"The woman in question, roughly 30 years old at the time and working in the National Restaurant Association's government affairs division," we know all that, "told two people directly at the time that Cain made a sexual overture to her at one of the group's events, according to the sources familiar with the incident. She was livid and lodged a verbal complaint with an NRA board member that same night, these sources said," but still we don't know what! Remember, the Duke lacrosse case? Seasoned reporters hounded those kids, based on no evidence -- none, zero. "Seasoned reporters," and many of the faculty at Duke signed all kinds of whatever they were, supporting the accuser, condemning the lacrosse team members; and remember how that turned out?

It was a total, fabricated, made-up story that was believed simply because it fit stereotypes of the left, it fit the narrative, it fit a template -- and then there's this. This is back to The Politico, from Jonathan Martin. This scandal now, folks, really intensifies. "Joel Bennett, the attorney for one of the women who complained about Herman Cain at the National Restaurant Association said Friday that his client's settlement was dated in September of 1999 and signed by the trade group's general counsel but not Cain. Cain had already left the organization by then, before his three-year term was up..." So when was the settlement signed? 9-9-9! September of '99!

What will the media make of this? The settlement date, September of 1999, equals "9-9-9," the same name of Herman Cain's economic plan. Somebody needs to call the dethroned Dutch sociologist and have him make something of this for us. To the audio sound bites we go, and we are... What did I tell you, start number five? Starting at number five, last night on PMSNBC Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson was on to discuss the Americans for Herman Cain ad. And he was asked, "Okay, obviously that was Limbaugh's voice, and they're calling it 'a high-tech lynching.' They're playing the race card on this. What do you think of this, Gene?"

ROBINSON: It's interesting that people like Limbaugh who always accuse the likes of me of playing the race card (chortling) when I write about racism and its continuing presence in American society are awfully quick to play that same card, duh, when they think it's to their advantage. Uh, I assume that means that Rush is now gonna change his position on affirmative action, on a whole lot of other things in this race that's involved. I guess not. I guess probably not.

RUSH: What is he babbling about? Does somebody want to translate that for me? They can't handle it when their own technique is thrown back at 'em, when their own technique is turned on 'em, they just can't stand it. "It's interesting that people like Limbaugh who always accuse the likes of me of playing the race card when I write about racism are awfully quick to play that same card when they think it's to their advantage." I'm doing nothing based on any advantage whatsoever. I'm simply describing what I see, and there's no question that this is being done to a black conservative and that the left doesn't like black conservatives. The left doesn't like Hispanic conservatives. The left doesn't like minorities who are conservative, who show an ability to rise to the top of any organization they're in.

The left doesn't like it. (interruption) Well, that's right. I have crossed a line because the charge of racism is theirs exclusively to make. No one's allowed to make that charge, and here I come making the charge, and they can't deal with it. It hits 'em right upside the face and they don't know what to do, except call foul. "You can't do that! That's what we do. You're not allowed to do that! You can't call us racists! You're the racists! You can't do that especially now 'cause it's true. You can't call us out like that. You're gonna blow up our whole game if you keep doing this. You gotta shut up! We're gonna start trying to make fun of you and now maybe say you're in favor of affirmative action!" What an odd connection to make there, but it didn't stop. Different show, MSNBC, Lawrence O'Donnell talking to a Politico writer (sigh), Maggie Haberman about me.

I have not said that. Has somebody produced to me where I've said that? I have never said the women are lying. All I've said is, "We don't know what happened," and on day five we don't know what happened because the accusers in the media have not told us what happened. I did say, "What if there's another version of this?" I have pointed out instances where women have lied about this, but I didn't accuse these women of it. So, anyway, the premise of the question is flawed, but nevertheless the question was asked. "Rush Limbaugh's out there saying these women are lying. Rush Limbaugh -- who doesn't know who they are, who believed every single word of every

female accusation ever sent the direction of Bill Clinton or any Democrat for that matter but especially Clinton -- firmly believes these unnamed women are lying."

HABERMAN: In terms of the Rush Limbaugh piece of it, I think that you're seeing, you know, generally a lot of rallying in the conservative media around Herman Cain. There has been a lot of criticism about the fact that this was reported on; uhhh, a lot of defense of Herman Cain, a lot of insistence that it couldn't be true. Some of his loudest support has come from that direction.

RUSH: It's not support of Herman Cain, by the way, although I can see where the media might think that. It is not support of Herman Cain so much as it is we've all had it with your tactics in the media. We've had it with the double standard. We've had it with people like you elevating Bill Clinton to superstar status. We've had it with you looking the other way during the Tawana Brawley lies. We've had it with you in the Duke lacrosse story. We've had it with you trying to cover up for John Edwards! We've had it with you lionizing Ted Kennedy and Chris Dodd, of "waitress sandwich" fame at La Brasserie in Washington. We've had it with you holding up as national heroes reprobates like this, and we've had it with you trying to take out our people on the basis of no knowledge whatsoever.

We still don't know what you think Cain did -- and until you can tell us, as journalists, with incontrovertible proof, we're gonna doubt you because you have given us every reason in the world to not trust your reporting, because it is biased against us and our side and our people. That is inarguable! That is as obvious and honest as the sun comes up. Even Clinton has given up trying to deny the accusations against him. Clinton doesn't even deny them anymore. He knows he doesn't have to. You've made him a hero, and you continue to make him a hero by telling us that Cain is not handling this the right way, and we know who you think did handle it the right way: Slick Willie!

Bimbo eruption teams! Send Carville and whoever else out to destroy Ken Starr as a sex pervert, to destroy Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey as nothing but a bunch of trailer park trash. You supposed feminists in the media loooved Bill Clinton and wished he would come to your bedroom at night as he trashes these women who made these true allegations about him; and you come along with innuendo and five days of smears, and we don't even know what he's guilty of! We're standing up for our side. We are standing up for each other. We're circling the wagons around us. If you people were trying this against any of the candidates with the same lack of information that you've got, it would be the same thing.

I sit here and I wonder -- you heard her sound bite -- is she really this closed off and insulated from what this is all about? Does she really think this is just the conservative media defending Cain because he's a conservative? Does she really think that even if Cain did it, we'd still be treating this the way we're treating it? Sometimes I wonder. I see evidence every day that leads me to believe these people are closed off and walled off in a little small area that they've called their own reality, and it's as distant from the real world as anyplace you could get. So it could well be that Ms. Haberman is clueless, genuinely clueless about what this is all about -- which is to our advantage, by the way.

RUSH: I even remember one time even defended Janet Reno, and Bill Clinton (hero to the left) told a joke at the White House Correspondents Dinner and said (impression), "Hey, did you hear? Huh huh. Did you hear Rush defended Janet Reno on his program the other night? It's only because she was being attacked by a black guy." The media in the room did two things. There was a (gasp!) and then wild laughter as the president of the United States went racist. They applauded it. Ms. Haberman, we don't know the details of this story because you refuse to publish the details, and I'm beginning to think the details of the story might get in the way of the rest of your agenda. So the details are gonna remain anonymous in the Herman Cain story. Here is a montage of the Drive-By Media going full bore on Cain's real problem.

CHUCK TODD: (outdoor noise) This is a campaign that is falling apart. Not ready to handle this at all.

JOHN KING: (outdoor noise) ...how a candidate and his team handle pressure, handle crisis.

DANA PERINO: You have ten days to get ready for something like this; this is how you handle it?

RUSH: That's Dana Perino, by the way, joining in from the Bush team, jumping all over Herman Cain. I wonder how many of these journalists could take 30 seconds of what they dish out? It's happened now and then and they all start crying wolf. "Wait a minute, you can't do it! Who I am doesn't matter! I'm not the story! I'm the journalist, I'm the reporter. You -- you can't -- you can't delve into my life and find out how many affairs I've had and whether I've smoked dope, You can't do it!"

"You can't! I'm the journalist! You can't! It doesn't matter! I'm not the story!"

They can't handle 30 seconds of what they dish out. Jan Crawford, Early Show, CBS today, is stunned that Cain continues to do well.

CRAWFORD: People are really sticking behind Herman Cain, his supporters are. That's reflected in a lot of the reporting that we've been doing, talking to voters, particularly out in Iowa; where supporters of Cain say they just think this is going to fade away. They think these charges are, quote, "sketchy," one person told us, and it's just not really that pertinent; and, interestingly, the campaign is still -- still! -- raising lots of money. And then, finally, I think look at talk radio. I mean you know that is very important with conservative voters. The conservative talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh, they are really rallying to his defense, and that could end up being a huge help to him if they stay with him.

RUSH: You know, folks, I apologize. That bite I did not read the entire transcript. I did not know I was also mentioned in that bite. I don't... (interruption) Well, I know it's my show, but I'm not playing these sound bites just 'cause they mention my name. I just didn't read the transcript far enough to know that she did. Where are the calls for the Restaurant Association to release the results of their investigation, which Cain says cleared him? You know, the media will not even mention that? The media won't even join this call for the NRA to release the results of the investigation. They just want the women to come forward and the women don't want to. I wonder what's up with that.

RUSH: One of the things that the left attempts to do is to codify elements of their ideology as "science." That is what global warming is all about -- and many other things as well. Codify liberalism as science, therefore making it irrefutable, making it inarguable -- and, of course, they failed. Everybody knows that it's a hoax. But the attempt is made frequently to codify liberalism as science or some other unquestionable aspect of life that people just accept on the basis of the credibility of the field that we're talking about.

Of course, science, up until the global warming hoax, had almost perfect credibility. If somebody was a scientist and said something, it was automatically believed, just the way journalists used to be believed. (interruption) What are you frowning at in there? (interruption) Nothing to do with me? What, you got a technical problem in there? (interruption) Oh! We got a technical problem with the screener program. Does that mean that we won't be able to take calls? (interruption) Oh, okay. Just means you won't be able to put 'em up for me? I got it. Anyway, there was a very important and major story that we touched on yesterday, but there's much more information in the latest AP story that makes this story even more pertinent -- especially vis-a-vis the scientific "consensus" on manmade global warming.

And make no mistake: All of that was nothing more than an attempt to codify liberalism as science, to codify political beliefs as science. "Dutch Professor Faked Data for Years -- A prominent Dutch social psychologist who once claimed to have shown that the very act of thinking about eating meat makes people behave more selfishly has been found to have faked data throughout much of his career," and he was, by the way, lionized and treated as a hero all during his career. "In one of the worst cases of scientific fraud on record in the Netherlands, a review committee made up of some of the country's top scientists has found that University of Tilburg Prof. Diederik Stapel systematically falsified data to achieve the results he wanted," just like what happened at the University of East Anglia Centre for Climate Prediction and Research; i.e., global warming.

So, "The university has fired the 45-year-old Stapel and plans to file fraud charges against him, university spokesman Walther Verhoeven said Thursday. Stapel acknowledged in a statement the accusations were largely true. 'I have manipulated study data and fabricated investigations,' he wrote in an open letter published by de Volkskrant newspaper this week. 'I realize that via this behavior I have left my direct colleagues stunned and angry and put my field, social psychology, in a poor light.'" This guy's the Madoff of science! "The committee set up to investigate Stapel said after its preliminary investigation it had found 'several dozen publications in which use was made of fictitious data' in the period since 2004, though Stapel's career goes back to the early 1990s.

"This year, Stapel co-authored a paper published in Science magazine that said white people are more prone to discriminate against black people when they encounter them in a messy environment, such as one containing litter, abandoned bicycles and broken sidewalks." This guy actually reported this as the results of a scientific study! White people "are more prone to discriminate against black people" when they run up against them in a garbage dump where there are abandoned bicycles and broken sidewalks -- and of course news people on the left, like at Politico, and MSNBC, just ate it up! I mean, they Sucked it up! Sllllllllllllurp! They loved it because it confirmed everything their stupid liberalism has taught 'em, and there it was now finally "codified as science."

White devils codified discriminate against poor Rastas near garbage dumps, broken sidewalks, and littered bicycles. Something as absurd as that was accepted as genuine since, the result of research and study. "'These findings considerably advance our knowledge of the impact of the physical environment on stereotyping and discrimination and have clear policy implications,' the paper's abstract says. Science has now flagged the article with a note to readers that 'serious concerns have been raised about the validity of the findings.'" The findings that white people are more discriminatory against black people in rubbish areas, broken sidewalks, and around dilapidated bicycles, "considerably advances our knowledge of the impact of the physical environment on stereotyping and discrimination and have clear policy implications. Although the paper that linked thoughts of eating meat with anti-social behavior was met with scorn and disbelief when it was publicized in August, it took several doctoral candidates Stapel was mentoring to unmask him."

RUSH: Here's the meat-eater story from the fake scientist in the Netherlands. It was published August 30th of this year in something called the Dutch Daily News; and the point of this story was, "Meat Eaters are Selfish and Less Social." This is what this guy Stapel, Diederik Stapel, who's now admitted everything he's done the last five, six years has been a fraud. "Meat brings out the worst in people. This is what psychologists of the Radboud University Nijmegen and Tilburg University concluded from varrious studies on the psychological significance of meat. Thinking of meat makes people less socially and in many respects more 'loutish'. It also appears that people are more likely to choose meat when they feel insecure, perhaps because it is a feeling of superiority or status displays, the researchers suggest."

Let me make an observation here, folks. I know meat eaters. I am a meat eater. I have never met anybody who feels superior to anybody or anything because they eat meat. But I have run into all kinds of holier-than-thou vegetarians and vegans and other wackos who do think they are superior and better and smarter than everybody else. I know gazillions of beef eaters, and I don't know a'one of them who has forced his eating choices on anybody else; but I know a bunch of ragtag, stupid vegan vegetarians -- holier-than-thou superiorists -- who try to force everybody to eat what they eat and to not eat what they don't approve of. Such as this bunch of louts that demanded in Berkeley, California, that Burger King sell veggie burgers -- and, of course, Burger King caved. So lie after lie after lie about "white people," other aspects of sociology and science, and meat eaters and so forth -- and all of it fraudulent.

RUSH: Just one more excerpt from this fraudulent sociologist's piece on meat. It's important. This is what he wrote, which he's now admitted was totally fraudulent, made up out of whole cloth. "Thinking of meat, does not exactly bring out the best in people, Roos Vonk noted. People who looked at the steak had made selfish choices during a division game, they often chose in their own interest. In imaginary situations, they found themselves more important than others and reacted less social: in a fire they found that they often wished to be saved first, and that they were less willing to help someone who is upset. It was also found that after people eating meat they felt less connected to others, lonely and unpopular" after eating meat. Now, you think that sounds preposterous, right?

It is no more preposterous than some of the absolute BS that we've had to listen to about global warming for 20 years and that we continue to hear about global warming, or any of this other cockamamie BS about other dietary news the left puts out in an attempt to codify itself as science. The important thing to remember is this guy's writing was accepted, welcomed unanimously by American journalists, worldwide journalists who reported this with glee when he wrote this about meat eaters. I mean, it's patently ridiculous. But it just goes to show you how gullible people (or better stated: how desirous the left is) for any codification of their asinine beliefs as science.

RUSH: I just watched something hilarious on PMSNBC. Not only was it hilarious, it was quite instructive. The host of the show was a non-broadcaster, Chris Cillizza. He's a newspaper guy at the Washington Post. He sends me e-mails now and then wanting comments. I get along with him. But MSNBC...? Well, I guess they broke the barrier with Al Sharpton when they put something who knows nothing about broadcasting on the air, as a host. Anyway, Cillizza is talking to David Gregory, the host of Meet the Depressed, and they're beside themselves trying to understand how it is they haven't taken Herman Cain out. Now, they don't use those words, but they're just beside themselves that he's still around.

They're beside themselves that he has survived. They don't understand how in the world his poll numbers are going up. They are mystified that his fundraising is going through the roof. David Gregory at that point said to Chris Cillizza, "I tell you, Chris, what has the media so upset about this is that the Cain campaign has no strategy, no organization! They're just wingin' it. Nobody there knows what they're doing." I'm thinking, "Okay, now, how do I translate that?" Cillizza then said, "Yeah! You know, that's right. It's just a scatter operation. They're just scattered. They don't know what they're doing," and I figured it out. Here they are -- this finely tuned, well-oiled, powerful destructive force known as the mainstream media -- and over here is this geek, this inexperienced nerd who hasn't the slightest idea what he's doing (in their view) outsmarting them; surviving their best efforts to take him out.

And they just can't stand it. "How come some neophyte like this can outsmart us? How come some neophyte with no strategy and no organization...?" and Gregory said, "I've even talked to people inside the campaign, Chris," and Chris said, "You have? Yeah, I really have! I've talked to people on the inside. I've got some internal people, and they say that there's no organization; that there's no strategy to deal with this." Ahem. Let me offer a wild, totally out-of-this-world observation: Did you people in the media ever stop to consider that maybe Herman Cain is simply telling the truth and that it doesn't need any strategy or organization? Truth genuinely stands alone (it has that power), and if some guy thinks he's got the truth, he's telling the truth, and he's being honest about his answers, what kind of strategy is needed for that?

Now, if you're gonna concoct a bunch of lies -- if you're gonna come up with scenarios based on strategery -- well, yeah, that's gonna require some intricate planning by well-seasoned experts. So they're just beside themselves, folks, that some amateur campaign here has withstood their shots, and they were openly admitting this. Not in the words that I have just explained to you, but I can read the stitches on a fastball; I'm translating this for you.

RUSH: I want you to hear the little exchange David Gregory had with Chris Cillizza about a half hour ago on MSNBC. This is the one I told you about where they're just beside themselves that Herman Cain's triumphing over their best efforts to take him out; and it is in this sound bite that David Gregory explains what really has the media in a frenzy.

GREGORY: There's been a rallying around Herman Cain about Republican conservative base in the media, on talk radio. That's been an enormous boon to him. There's money coming in, the campaign says. I've talked to folks on the ground in Iowa who say enthusiasm is only growing there in the state. What's got the media in a frenzy, let's be honest about it, is that there's just a weirdness about the campaign, a sense that there's no strategy -- and that's not just observation.

GREGORY: I've talked to people internally who were complaining about the fact there's no real strategy, they knew about this, they haven't responded well to it and Herman Cain's still driving the organization -- whatever organization there is.

CILLIZZA: I think you get to strike at the heart of it: That's the problem. There isn't organization.

RUSH: It's so scattered and Herman Cain is leading it! (paraphrased) "Who is this idiot?" they want to know. "Who is this dumb, amateur idiot who's entered our business of politics? He never done anything but run a pizza place and he's outsmarting us with no strategy? How is this possible? That's why we're in a frenzy."

RUSH: It really is. I am going to characterize this whole Herman Cain thing for exactly what it is, because it is an historic moment. It's an historic moment for scandals. Stop and think of this: The lack of a cover-up is the crime! No strategy, no organization, a scatter-ball response, a candidate simply answering the questions put to him by a media with no specificity, a candidate who is expected to deny things that haven't been alleged. Nobody -- in day five, now -- has told us yet a single thing Cain did; and when David Gregory and Cillizza and all the others (and you've heard the montage) talk about how horrible his response to this is, how unseasoned, how amateurish, and how he's guilty simply because his response is so unprofessional, what they're really saying is, "He hasn't engaged in a cover-up!"

That's what they mean by "strategy." That's what they mean by "organization." Cain has not tried a cover-up! The axiom in Washington is, "The cover-up is always worse than the crime." That's why they love cover-ups! The whole point of this, I think, was to generate a cover-up. It's sort of like a process crime. The FBI's gotcha in their sights for something but they can't prove it so in the interrogation they try to get you for lying to 'em. Okay. Here, they've got nothing. They allege all of this sexual harassment. They wanted Cain to engage in a cover-up in which they could then entrap him for botching that. But Herman Cain blew it wide open because he didn't try to cover it up! Therefore, ladies and gentlemen, an historic moment for scandals in Washington, DC!

As far as the media is concerned, the real crime here is the lack of a cover-up. That's what has them ticked off. Herman Cain hasn't tried to hide it. He hasn't constructed an elaborate series of lies that can be discovered as lies, which can then be used to nail him and wipe him out so they can move on to the next Republican to take out. Whatever happened to the old "You can't prove a negative"? I'll tell you what ought to happen. Larry Flynt! Some Republican Larry Flynt... Do we have one? Do we have a Republican Larry Flynt? We don't? That says something, too, doesn't it? Well, I wish we did for this occasion. You know why? (interruption) If we had a Republican Larry Flynt, I would urge him to wave around $50,000 for proof of sexual harassment at Politico.

I mean, that's what Larry Flynt does. He waves around a hundred thousand dollars, $50,000 for proof of sex with a Republican. So if we had a Republican Larry Flynt (You want strategy, Mr. Gregory? I got one), we have our Larry Flynt offer 50 grand for any news, any proof -- quote, unquote, "proof" -- of sexual harassment at The Politico offices, and we could win it because the rules have been established by Politico! The truth is whatever the accuser says. So we wave around 50 grand, we get some woman to come forward and say, "Yeah, I got harassed at The Politico office," and it's over, because she says so. We're supposed to automatically believe that there was sexual harassment if someone says so.

You see how this could work? Our Larry Flynt waves 50 grand around for proof of sexual harassment by anybody at Politico. Then a woman says, "It happened! Give me the money!" What happened? "Well, I was in there once and David Gregory, or David Gergen, pick a name, hit on me big time, made me feel real nervous! Joe Biden was talking about how his parents had sex on the other side of the bedroom walls and it was real thin walls. I could hear it and it made me real nervous. I was in The Politico and, hell, that's all they do is talk about sex inside that building." Bam! She's gotta be believed because she's the accuser. Now, while that was going on, the pantywaists on our side would be decrying it and defending the people at The Politico. But everybody knows that the accuser never lies.

RUSH: Before I get outta here, as this Herman Cain thing continues -- and it will swirl through the weekend -- Politico's done 90 stories on this this week. Nine-zero. I had somebody count it up. There's one thing that cannot be stressed enough: A report that we had earlier today that Herman Cain did not sign any settlement. There's a CBS News article that says may have been reached after Cain left the association and Bennett, the lawyer, said it's conceivable Cain didn't even know about it. That's the thing to keep in mind. He probably doesn't even know what he's denying.

RUSH: Michael in New York City, glad you waited. You're on Open Line Friday. Hello, sir.

CALLER: Hey, Rush, thank you so much. I appreciate it, everything that you do, actually. Informing people the way you do. I really appreciate it.

RUSH: Thank you very, very much. Sounds like you even appreciate it when I'm not working.

CALLER: There is something that's kind of a different different direction. Here in New York, this whole Zuccotti Park thing, many of the people that have been interviewed, one of the questions that have been asked is: Do they believe in God -- and many of them have said no. And I notice, I'm a churchgoer, I'm not one of those, you know, Bible carrying right-wingers. I am a Republican, I am a conservative, I'm a county committee member, but bothers me is that increasingly in my own parish I notice that fewer and fewer children and younger people are coming, and it seems that over the years the generations are just not emphasizing God and faith, and without faith there's no remorse. I guess for me, I'm more concerned about my children years from now what's gonna happen to them they're part of that really small minority that do have that belief and think twice about what they're doing and --

RUSH: You know, I agree with you about this. I think this is contributory to the notion that the nation could lose its soul.

RUSH: Let me tell you a little story. I read Phil Mushnick every Friday, Sunday, and Monday in the New York Post. He's a sports columnist, but his expertise and focus is in the area of... of... ah, morality and sports and how our moral decline is being led by (or severely contributed to) by sports. He cites something that happened in his column today last Sunday in the Denver Broncos-Detroit Lions game. The quarterback of the Broncos is Tim Tebow, and Tim Tebow has made no secret of the fact that he's a devout Christian, and he's laughed at for this. During the game there were two instances that Mushnick writes about where Tebow was sacked, I believe. Two different Lions players taunted and mocked him after the sack by getting on the ground and mocking the whole notion of praying. There were no penalties called -- and there are taunting rules in football.

There were no penalties called, and Mushnick's point is that it is perfectly fine, even now in American sports, to make fun of good people. Good people are no longer marketable because they're boring. But the bad actors, the guys that shoot themselves with guns at nightclubs at three in the morning? They're the people are gonna be on the cover of magazines. They're the ones that get all the feature stories on ESPN. The good guys, we can laugh at 'em, and we can make fun of 'em -- particularly if we're laughing at their religion. Now, if the quarterback were a Muslim, we couldn't do it. If the quarterback were Jewish, we couldn't do it, but since Tebow is a white Christian? This is Mushnick's theory and he was pointing out how none of the announcer crew at this game even pointed it out, even though it was right there for every viewer to see. It's a point that dovetails with what you're making. Not only do these people down at Occupy Wall Street claim not to believe in God, the whole concept is made fun of as old-fashioned and quaint and boring and nerdy.

RUSH: And get this story. Now, get this. I found this today. This is right up your alley, too. This is Fox News and Commentary, a guy named Todd Starnes. "The Air Force Academy..." I'm not making up a word of this. "The Air Force Academy apologized last night after it was accused of religious intolerance for promoting Operation Christmas Child in an e-mail. Operation Christmas Child is a program designed to send holiday gifts to poor children around the world. The Military Religious Freedom Foundation said that military commanders crossed the line when they promoted the program, which is sponsored by Franklin Graham, Billy Graham's son. Operation Christmas Child said they expect to send more than eight million shoebox gifts to poor kids in a hundred countries.

"Sixty thousand churches, 60,000 community groups in the US are participating." Now, the guy who got all this started is Mikey Weinstein. He is president of a group that opposes this, and he said this is a proselytizing entity of Franklin Graham. "He filed a complaint on behalf of 132 Air Force Academy personnel, including two sets of Muslim-American parents. The attack on Operation Christmas Child has generated outrage across the country. Randy Forbes, a Republican from Virginia, said it's another anti-faith effort that we're seeing by this administration. Tony Perkins, the president of Family Research Council, told Fox News this is evidence that the Obama [regime] is engaged in a culture war beyond measure." So you had a couple of Muslim parents complain to a group, a watchdog group that this is a Christian effort that made 'em uncomfortable and so the Air Force has been forced to pull out of a charity operation to give poor kids in a hundred countries Christmas presents.

CALLER: It's terrible. I have a 12-year-old daughter who wants to start a food drive, and we talked to the parish about it, and the parish is a hundred percent behind her. She wants to get her friends involved, and I had indicated to her that, like us, I'm not gonna just have... She happens to be 12 years old. I'm not gonna have her go knocking door-to-door, handing out these fliers, indicating that she wants to do this food drive to help the local food bank within our own community.

CALLER: She had started to recruit some of your friends, but I said, "My only stipulation is, I want the parents involved. I want the parents to go with the kids. I don't want them walking around the whole neighborhood. Just walk up and down their block. That's all I'm asking," and so far she's only had one child now that's said "yes," that the parent would agree. Many of the other parents have said, "No," because they have to be involved in this. They want to let child do it on their own.

RUSH: Well, they're just afraid of being stigmatized. That's another success of the pressure that's been applied. Michael, I gotta take a break. I'm way long in this segment and I gotta get outta here now but I'm glad you called. I appreciate it. That Air Force story is true, every word of it. I didn't make up anything.

RUSH: One of the intriguing things to me, folks, about watching the coverage of the Herman Cain story... Like Snerdley came in here to me today and asked me, "Who do you think really leaked this stuff? Do you think it was Romney or do you think it was Perry?" I said, "I think it only matters who leaked it if it's not true. If it is true," if there's genuine real sexual harassment that went on here, "it's silly to focus on who leaked it."

Because it was going to come out anyway, and if it's true, that's the bottom line here. You can get sidetracked, "Well, why should the Republicans be eating their own?" Well... (laughing) We've been "eating our own" since as long as I've been paying attention. But it's also part of the primary process. That's not really what interests me. I mean, it holds some, but I am as fascinated (if not more fascinated) as I read and listen to people talk about how Herman Cain has handled it, and it seems to be universally agreed that he's botched it; that he and his campaign by dribbling things out with conflicting bits of information rather than just, "Okay, here's the whole ball of wax in one announcement;" Others are saying he's really blowing this.

"You don't send your campaign chief out there and publicly accuse somebody else's campaign. What you do is you whisper it to people, like at The Politico, and you let them run it as a blind item. But you don't send your own guy out there to do this!" So a lot of the coverage is on how Cain and his campaign don't know what they're doing here. I have a lot of people on our side writing to me saying, "You know, I don't care if he's done it or not. What troubles me more is the way he's handling it. This is not presidential. This is not giving me confidence that he knows how to handle these things." That's got me scratching my head a bit, because the message seems to be that Herman Cain hasn't handled a media ambush well and therefore...

"I don't know, Rush! I don't think he's good to go. He didn't handle this media stuff very well. I don't think he can be president." Okay, so what is handling it "right," then? We have to look to the past. We have to go back in time and we have to see where in similar circumstances other candidates similarly accused have handled this -- and I did that, and here's what I have concluded. "Herman Cain can't be president," based on what I'm hearing, "because he hasn't handled this right." What he should have done is assigned, as we discussed earlier this week, somebody on his staff to head up a Bimbo Eruption Department. That's the way to do this, apparently.

To do this right, you need the guts and the foresight to set up a "bimbo eruption" plan and turn it over to unscrupulous people to execute the immoral, unethical, and probably illegal instructions. The right way to handle this therefore is you go out and you have a bimbo eruptions babe who deals with all the women who come forward, and then you hire a mad dog assistant who will go out and destroy all the women. Such comments as (James Carville impression), "That's what happens when you drag a dollar bill through a trailer park!" Apparently that's the right way to do this? I guess Herman Cain doesn't have the right way to do this in him.

He hasn't handled a largely irrelevant media ambush very well. He isn't a sufficiently good enough liar to be president, I guess. So we've all seen enough. He doesn't know how to lie. He doesn't know how to go out and attack his accusers. He doesn't know how to have a Bimbo Eruptions Department. He doesn't know how to destroy everybody involved in the investigation. He's a rank amateur and he doesn't know how to deal with this. Similar to Newt Gingrich, who didn't bat down the story of visiting his soon-to-be-ex wife when she was in the hospital. That's a story that survived for years. I know women who hate Gingrich because of this story. It turns out to be not true.

The story is that Newt walked into his cancer stricken wife's hospital bedroom and told her he was divorcing her and walked out of there. It's not true. His daughter set the record straight this week with an op-ed column someplace, and now there are a number of (I've seen it on conservative blogs) blogs, "I want to apologize to Newt Gingrich." All these years it wasn't true. But it wasn't true but Newt not qualified to be president, either, I guess because he didn't bat it down. He let it survive. He didn't do what the experts here do. Had he done the right thing, what he would have done was have hired somebody to go out and attack his wife and besmirch her even further and make up the names of people and falsely accuse them of spreading this story.

A man of presidential timbre would have immediately forced his family into the public spotlight with signed affidavits and corrected the smear. So I guess what this country needs is a John Edwards. That's the right way to handle it, I guess. I guess what we need for president is a Ted Kennedy type. I guess that's the right way to handle these kind of things. Maybe a reincarnation of Bill Clinton. What I'm hearing from everybody, they're the ones who do this the right way. They're the ones who handle media attacks the right way: Edwards, Clinton, Ted Kennedy. You know, if it wasn't for that stupid Constitution with its restrictions on how many terms a person can serve as president, we could use Clinton again.

He's obviously better at batting back sex claims in the media than Herman Cain is. Herman Cain obviously is proving he's not qualified to be president, but Clinton? Not only could he be qualified to be president, he can be president and be a sexual harasser at the same time and be the most admired man in the Democrat Party because he apparently knows how to handle it right. Herman Cain doesn't know what he's doing; we can't support him. So what if Clinton pushed community shakedown reinvestment act down our throats, so what if Clinton's responsible for the subprime mortgage crisis and a bunch of other crap? "He's still qualified to be president," we are told, "because he handled the media the right way on his sexual harassment charges, bimbo eruptions, Carville, and all that."

RUSH: Okay. So, ladies and gentlemen, here's where we are. I have been watching (as I do) the media react to Herman Cain react to them; and I have been watching our own media react to Herman Cain. Just this morning I had e-mails from a couple people: "What do you think of this Cain business?" and I purposely responded, "I don't know. What do you think?" "I think he's blowing it! I don't like the way he's responding. This is not presidential, Rush. I'm not so much concerned -- I mean, everybody's gonna have things in their past -- I just don't like the way Cain is handling this." It got me to thinking, "Well, who did handle this kind of stuff well? Hey, who got praised for the way they handled it? Whose careers were enhanced because of sexual harassment or infidelity or what have you?"

Whose career was not damaged when a woman was killed when with him in his car? That would be Ted Kennedy. So maybe if Herman Cain isn't doing it right, that's who he needs to learn from? What we're saying is and what this country needs is an "exceptional liar" back in the office of president? Frankly, Obama's one of the biggest liars we've ever seen. There's no reason for Herman Cain or anybody else to oppose him. He's so good at it, we can't outdo Obama at lying. What are we saying? "Good-bye, Mr. Cain! Washington's no place for a man like you. You're not handling this right. You need a bimbo eruptions team. You need to be out there now destroying these women.

"You need to be trying to put The Politico out of business. You know what you need to be saying, Mr. Cain? You need to point out that the Politico was created for one reason: So that the Washington Post wouldn't have to tarnish its own reputation by doing this kind of stuff," because everybody at The Politico, at least the founders, came from the Washington Post; and the Washington Post gets their little farm team over there at The Politico and they go out and they do all this questionable journalist stuff on occasion. Whereas the Washington Post, they'd think, "Ah, I don't want to do it this way with our banner and our name at the top of this kind of stuff." Say stuff like that! Hire somebody to go out there and talk about what sluts these women are.

In fact, go out there and hire a bunch of people to say you were minding your own business; these women came on to you and they took their clothes off and they're nothing but a bunch of stalking groupies. Apparently, that's the right way to do this. Those are the people that get praised as belonging in Washington. They're the ones who know how to do this. This town's not for you, Mr. Cain. You're too interested in having some version of the truth involved in this. See, I thought we didn't want slick politicians anymore. Did Clinton handle Lewinsky right? Apparently so! You can find no bigger star in the Democrat Party today than Bill Clinton. He's bigger than anybody. With women, with the feminazis, with anybody, there is no bigger star than Bill Clinton.

Mr. Cain, what you need to do is go out and get on TV. Get your wife out there! Your wife needs to go on the Today Show and say this is a "vast left-wing conspiracy" out to do you in because you're the first viable black Republican ever to have a chance at the office. You just don't know what you're doing! I don't know how any of us can support you -- and next you know what? You need to call Jesse Jackson and you need to have a public prayer session with Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton where you confess your sins to them, offstage; then you all three come on stage and hold hands and pray that you never do it again; and with whom are you praying?

A serial abuser! I mean, who better to offer such counsel? The Reverend Jackson has his own love child, and he survived it. I don't know, folks. Really when I look at people talk about how Herman Cain doesn't know what he's doing and how he's not handling this right, what I hear is we still have people on our side who want to judge us by how well we do what the mainstream media wants. And until every one of us understands that not one of us will ever be treated with respect or promoted by the mainstream media -- until that happens -- we're gonna be flailing away in dreamland. Too many people, apparently, still want to define their own relevancy, their own success by virtue of how they appear in the mainstream media; and Cain's not appearing in the mainstream media very well.

Clinton always does, so maybe that's the way to go. John Edwards? They did everything they could to cover that story up for as long as they could. They wanted nobody knowing any part of what John Edwards had done, and even after the story was out there -- while it was widely known to be true -- the mainstreams had not reported it. There were still pockets of the mainstream media who were supporting Edwards for president, because it's all about policy. It's all about ideology. It's not about "fairness" or anything of the sort. You watch the latest developments in this Herman Cain witch hunt and you really (and we say this a lot) have to wonder why anybody would go into politics, especially somebody who is a conservative, which is exactly the way the media wants it. They want, and the Democrats as well, to tamp down any desire on the part of qualified conservative candidates to get into this.

What's happening to Herman Cain's a warning shot to every other Republican: "You're next if you become viable. If it looks like you could defeat Obama, if it looks like you could go all the way, you are next." That's right. Bill Clinton officiated at the wedding of Anthony Weiner and Huma Weiner. The Weiners! Clinton officiated at Weiner's wedding -- and Weiner? They did everything they could to cover that up for as long as they could. "Ah, nothing to see here." That was due to Andrew Breitbart keeping things alive, that the media was finally forced to deal with that. Client No. 9, Eliot Spitzer? You can find examples where the media turns on them. Eliot Spitzer, Client No. 9, was not all that well liked in Democrat media circles to begin with. That also is a factor in all this. I'm gonna take a brief time-out, we're gonna come back and I've got a bunch of sound bites that will put all of this Cain stuff in perspective and bring us up to date as to where we are on it at the moment. Cain has no public appearances today.

RUSH: Maybe if Herman Cain's candidacy is cut short (or if it's not but he loses), maybe CNN could give him a primetime television show just as they did Eliot Spitzer, Client No. 9. Apparently that is a qualifying resume aspect for people in the left-wing media. Ted Kennedy, serial womanizer and worse; Bill Clinton, we know the story; and they are the big stars of the Democrat Party. They're the ones who tell us the right way to handle these scandals in the media. I know I'm gonna get some blowback on this. "Rush, we're better than that! We don't want our people dealing with that." No, you may not want our people dealing with it, but you still -- people on our side still -- seek the approval of the mainstream.

You still want us to be approved by the mainstream, just like you're seeking it for yourself. It's on that basis that you say Herman Cain's mishandling this. If you think he's mishandling it, just say he's mishandling it; not because he's not gaining the approval of the media or not. What our side doesn't understand is there's nothing Cain can do to make this go away. They lie about us! If this turns out to be untrue, it's gonna be reported as it was always "alleged." They're never gonna let go of this. So trying to get the approval of the mainstream media or to get them to report the truth is a fool's errand. Let's say these women came forward and say, "You know what? We were paid to say all this. None of this ever happened." And the country is convinced that he's been victimized by scandal.

I guarantee you the next day there would be a story in the media: "Herman Cain alleged to have sexually harassed three women," and then they would talk about whatever he's in the news about. That will never go away. That's a "tag," if you will. That's something he's gonna be forever tagged with. Bill Clinton will never be tagged with it. Clinton's tag is, "Clinton Global Initiative." John Edwards' tag is, "He had such compassion for the poor." Herman Cain's tag in the media is always gonna be, "Alleged to have sexually harassed three women." He's gonna be forever tarred with this. That's the way they play, and there's nothing he can say to anybody at The Politico -- there's nothing he can say to anybody at the New York Times or the Washington Post or ABC, CBS, NBC -- to change that.

RUSH: Remember the book Game Change, Mark Halperin, about all of the stuff they knew in the 2008 campaign that they withheld? They knew that Edwards and his wife were at odds, hated each other, that things were falling apart; and they withheld it on purpose so as -- well, to sell books, but also -- not to negatively impact the Edwards campaign. Nothing is ever going to change that. There's nothing Cain can do.

RUSH: Jason in Colorado Springs, it's great to have you. You're next on the EIB Network. Hi, sir.

CALLER: You know, everybody calls these people evil capitalists, but if you get rid of the evil capitalists, you get rid of the iPhone and everything else -- and he had two things going for him that made him really successful, and that's the fact that he gave you technology but he didn't give it to you all at once. He would give it to you in increments and you could get new iPhones every six months or so.

RUSH: Well, not that frequently. Generally every year. What is your point about evil capitalists?

CALLER: (beeping) Well, the fact is everybody calls them evil capitalists but they're the ones that move our country forward --

RUSH: What does that have to do...? Are they calling Jobs an evil capitalist, too, is that what you mean?

RUSH: I'm trying to figure out what Jobs... Are they calling Jobs an evil capitalist, too?

CALLER: (beeping) Well, no. I'm saying that Jobs is a capitalist. I mean that's -- that's what he did. He -- he made money by giving people what they wanted. He gave them a good product and he made money off it. That's -- that's the definition of a capitalist --

RUSH: (sigh) So you're defining how evil capitalists do what they do? You're explaining that?

CALLER: Yeah. Yeah. And I'm kind of wondering how they lump him in as evil when they give you something you want, you get money for it, and you call 'em evil for getting rich off of it.

RUSH: That's why I'm asking who the "they" is, because I think the "they" loved Steve Jobs.

RUSH: I mean, every hero of the left loved Steve Jobs, from people in music to movies to entertainment to Occupy Wall Street. They loved Steve Jobs! I contend it's only because they really had no idea who he was and what he did. You know, one of the first things the new CEO of Apple has done? Some of you, this may shock you. When Jobs took over Apple in 1997 or '98, whatever it was, he wiped out every philanthropic program they had. He said, "I don't believe in giving away money especially when we're losing it." So Apple engaged in no public philanthropy, charitable giving, and that lasted throughout Jobs' tenure as CEO. The new CEO, one of the first things he did was to institute a matching charitable program for every Apple employee.

Apple will now match every employee's donation to a nonprofit up to $10,000. That's one of the first things the new CEO did. Jobs was a pure, unfettered, unfiltered capitalist. He was totally consumed by profit, from the days in the courage with Wozniak forward, 100% profit focus. Jobs got away with some amazing stuff. The left loved this guy. He had Bill Clinton calling him for advice on what to do about Monica Lewinsky! He refused to take a call from Obama because Obama didn't place the call himself. This is according to Walter Isaacson's book. They weren't deferential enough. He told Obama -- and, by the way, this kind of dovetails. Jobs, in his mind, was a leftist. But he told Obama, "You're a one-term president. If you don't straighten this stuff out, you have no prayer. You are a one-termer."

He told him this year ago. It's fascinating to learn about this guy and so forth. He told Rupert Murdoch at dinner at his house, Jobs' house, "Rupert, Fox News is destroying your legacy. You don't want to be responsible for that. The dynamic in America today is no longer liberal and conservative. It's constructive versus destructive -- and you, Rupert, with Fox News, are being destructive." Well, I think that's flat-out BS. (laughing) I think it's wrong as it could be. But when it comes to business, I'll tell you what Jobs... Even among people who know that he was (and this is the guy's point) a full-fledged capitalist, that doesn't matter 'cause he gave 'em what they want. He gave 'em what they want and not as often as they wanted it. He kept holding it back, make 'em want it even more, combined with not releasing anything 'til it was really ready to go, but that was part of the strategy.

RUSH: Joshua in Sylmar, California. Hi. Great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: I have a quick question. I've been hearing reports -- plenty of reports -- saying top 1%, uhh, own 42% of the wealth in America, and the wealth distribution hasn't been this lopsided since before the Great Depression; and my -- my question is: The way I see it, if there's no more money to be distributed, where exactly is someone like me -- a college graduate, you know, in the middle class...? Where's my...? Where's my opportunity for -- for advancement? You know what I mean? Because the way I see the top 1%, they're holding their money in investments and, you know, accounts, but they're not spending the money.

CALLER: There's no money. They're not spending it. If they have -- if they have all their houses, all their boats, they have everything they need, they don't need to spend money like we spend money.

RUSH: Joshua? Joshua, you have asked a very timely question with an opportunity here for me, in my answer, to educate gazillions of people. But I don't have time before the next break. So I need to ask you, politely and admirably, if you can hold on through it next segment at the top of the hour?

RUSH: Graduating in June. And you think...? Just make sure I heard right. You think the top 1%, they've got everything they need. They've got their boats, planes, houses and so they're not spending anymore and, therefore, there's no more money to be distributed. Therefore, no money for you to be paid if you get a job?

RUSH: But I want you to know that you could not have been more ill-informed about something than whoever it is that's put that thought in your head. You are... Well, not you. That is as wrong as any lie anybody has ever told you, and I'm looking forward to the chance to explain this when we talk again at the top of the next hour. Don't go away. Please don't go away.

RUSH: Now we go back to Joshua in Sylmar, California. Joshua, thank you for holding on. I appreciate you doing this.

RUSH: You're twenty-three years old, and you think there's no future for you because the people who have what they want and need have got it. They don't spend any more; there's nothing for you to get. Correct?

RUSH: Now, I want to tell you: At any time here during my explanation to you, feel free to interrupt and ask me a question.

RUSH: The reason I wanted to hold you over and talk to you is because there are a lot of people who think like you do because it's what you've been taught and I want to try to not convince you but show you how wrong you are because your future depends on it.

RUSH: You have every bit as much of an opportunity to make something of yourself as I did, and I continue to have. There's nobody shutting you out. There's no way that all the money in the country's locked up, inaccessible to you. It's not locked up and inaccessible to anybody. The thing is: You have to earn it. It's not given; it's not distributed. There is nobody in charge of who gets what. That's up to you. I want to tell you a story. I want to tell you a story about a rich guy. I want to tell you a story about a guy that's in the top 1%. This guy has an airplane. He has --

RUSH: He has a boat. He has a large house. He's got eight automobiles. He's pretty much probably what you think of when you think of the 1%.

RUSH: This guy who you probably think's got what he wants and doesn't spend any money, spends three hours every week paying bills, writing checks to people. This guy has 75 people who work for him. He pays each and every one of them. Over 20 years, only one has left. Nobody has been fired. He pays them much more than they would earn elsewhere because he loves them and likes them and doesn't want them to leave, because it's too big a hassle to replace them. People that work in his house, people that fly his airplane, people that captain his boat, sometimes earn twice what other people who do the same thing make. Because he likes them, they do a great job, and he doesn't want them to leave. When this guy takes his airplane someplace, there are three people he's paying on it.

There's a flight attendant and there are two pilots. I don't know what the total amount they're paid is, but the amount that those three people are paid, if they were one person would put them in the top 1%. All you have to do is earn $387,000 a year in America and you are in the top 1%. If you earn $50,000 a year or more, Joshua, in a year, you're in the upper 10% of earners in this country. The top 1%, bottom of that is $387,000. When this guy gets on his airplane, in addition to these three people, there's what's called the line crew. They work at the gas station that puts fuel in the jet. That fuel costs anywhere from four to five dollars a gallon, and it takes so much that you buy it by pounds. People who work for the gas station also are paid by the guy who owns the airplane.

So, in addition to the three people that are on the airplane, there are probably five or six servicing the airplane. Then there's the mechanic in the hangar that services the airplane when it's not flying. There are probably 10 or 12 people being paid to make sure that airplane can fly whenever it needs to. All of them make six figures, except the line crew. I'm not sure what they make, they're paid by another company, but the company charges a lot. It's the same thing with the boat, same thing with the house. The idea that the rich are not spending their money is so absurd. If the rich were not spending their money, we'd be a Third World country.

If the rich weren't spending their money, there would be no jobs. Unemployment wouldn't be 9%; it would be 100%. Now, I don't know where you get the idea that because there are rich people you don't have a chance, but it's precisely because there are rich people. What we have here is a meritocracy. I mean, there are some people who are rich because they inherit it. But most people who are in the 1% are there because they work harder than anybody else, because they found what they love doing, and what they do really isn't work to them. They can't wait to get up every day (including on Mondays) to go back to work because it's what they love most in the world -- and since they love it, they happen to do it better than most other people do.

That's how they end up making a lot of money: They provide a service, or make a product, do something that enough people want and love that it supports them. Now, there are a lot of other people out there who will criticize people like this, saying that they're not paying their fair share, that they're selfish or they're greedy or what have you. There's another thing, too, that you need to know: The people in this top 1%, it's not the same bunch of people. It changes. People move into and out of the various categories of wealth all the time. I knew a guy who lost $200 million twice in his life and earned it back a third time. He was in the commodities business. You are gonna be getting out of college soon, and somebody's told you that there's no future for you.

Because unless you can find a way to get the rich to unlock their money, there isn't anything left for you. You couldn't be more wrong. If you would change your thinking and realize that whatever it is you've learned in college, if it's what you love -- and if it's not what you love, go do what you love and forget what you learned in college. Find out what you love, go do it, do it better than anybody else, and you'll find that there will be all kinds of people who will pay you to do it. If you do it well, if you do it dependably, if you make it well, if you make it great, if you make it dependably, if you can be counted on, if you can be trusted, if your stuff is great, if your work is great, there will be people who will pay you more than you ever dreamed.

CALLER: And, Rush, I get that. It makes sense for the individual, and I'm happy for me. You know, and -- and I understand that for me personally. But what I'm talking about my generation as a whole. The way I see it, there's only a certain amount of money; and the way I see it, the top 1% have invested in all the vehicles possible to make sure they continue to make more money.

CALLER: And because they have more money in the vehicles they can make money faster. So as you get --

RUSH: At any point that you want to point to in American history, there has always been X amount of money. But every day it's different. Hopefully, the US economy grows. It's an expanding pie. It gets bigger. What's happening to our economy now is, it's shrinking. It is shrinking because people running the government have the incorrect policies. They are funneling all the money to government, Joshua. They're doing everything they can to take money out of the private sector where you are going to earn it. For you to do well, the government has to get smaller, and the money that they're taking from people has gotta be kept with the people because they can grow their own businesses and thus hire more people. But at any point, in any generation, somebody in any generation coulda said as you just said, "Somebody's got all the money. There's only so much money." On any given day, there's only so much money, but everybody parts with it. Nobody hoards everything they've got. My point to you was: A guy just spends three hours a week paying bills. What do you think he's paying?

RUSH: How many...? But every rich person's doing this. There's not a rich person in the world not spending his money. They can't live if they don't spend the money. There's no way to enjoy it if you don't spend it! They're all spending it.

RUSH: Are you hearing anything I'm saying? I'm really trying to help you because if you listen to what I'm saying, you're gonna go out there and be light years ahead of everybody in your generation who's gonna be sitting around thinking they're defeated because they've been taught like you have that there's no more money to be had. But there is. The rich are happy to part with it if you give 'em something they want or if you do something they need done. The object is you. The objective is you. The person who has to get this done is you. Let me tell you: You know what I once did? I'll tell you another story. I used to know, when he was alive, the former commerce secretary, Robert Mosbacher.

Back in the early nineties Robert Mosbacher told me that you weren't a player in America unless you had $250 million. If you didn't have $250 million, the rest of the wealth community would sneer at you and they wouldn't consider you one of them. I said, "Well, would you give me a hundred million so I could get in the group?" He looked at me and said, "What do you mean, give you a hundred million?" I said, "Yeah, if I just had a hundred million more, then I wouldn't have to work anymore! I could actually support the way I live now, if you would just give me a hundred million." He looked at me. "What do you mean, give you a hundred million?" "Well, you said..." I was performing an experiment.

There was no way he was gonna give me a hundred million, even though he had it times twenty. He wouldn'ta given it to a member of his family, until he died. The point is nobody gives anybody anything. Everybody who has what they have earns it, with work. There's not one power sitting there deciding who ends up with what. Obama would love to be that person, and we're trying to prevent that from happening, but there is not a god. There's not a money god that determines who ends up with what. What you end up with is owing totally to what you do. The US economy is not a zero-sum game. If somebody earns a dollar, it does not mean somebody's lost a dollar.

If somebody loses a job, it doesn't mean somebody was hired. If somebody was hired, it doesn't mean somebody was fired. It is a dynamic, expanding economy, and it's made for the fit. It's made for the competitive. It's made for those who want to play the game and have something to offer. It's not made for people who think they're owed something. It's not made for people who think the game's rigged. It's not made for people who think life's unfair. You have just as much opportunity as Warren Buffett has had or as I've had. It's up to you to use it, and it's up to you to recognize that you do have the opportunity -- and don't worry about your generation. It's not your problem.

RUSH: It's theirs. You have enough problems worrying about yourself. If your generation blows it, don't be part of it.

RUSH: Be distinct. Be different. If your generation is gonna sit around and be a bunch of slothful takers, don't defend 'em, and don't feel sorry for 'em, and don't be part of it. You'll be that much ahead of the game.

RUSH: Uh, yeah, if you take your mouth or hand away from the phone so I could hear you.

CALLER: (garbled) I just want to -- I just want to say, (unintelligible) stockholder since 2008 and what (unintelligible) although yes, I understand where you're coming from with the rich getting paid.

RUSH: I can't understand what you're saying. I don't know what you're doing out there. You got the phone covered. But I gather you're not hearing me. You've been a stockholder since 2008 and what?

CALLER: (garbled) Put it this way. I've been a stockholder since 2008. What I'm noticing now is that when the average American can't buy the TV from Best Buy, they can't buy -- and I know, and I know they should be saving their money, they --

RUSH: There is no average American. The average American is a myth. The average American is a statistic. People are buying TVs. They're buying them from Best Buy. They're buying them from Apple. They're buying them from everywhere. TVs are sold! You can go buy one today. Go to a mall and you'll find people buying TVs. People are buying everything today. Not as many people. The economy is not doing well. There aren't as many people working and they don't have as much disposable income. Some people it's their fault, while other people in this day and age it's not (because of policies this administration's put into effect). I feel like I've wasted my time with you, but I hope that to the others in the audience it's not been a waste of time.

You've offered me a great opportunity here, but you're clearly not hearing what I'm saying, or at least you're not acting like you're getting it. I hope at some point that you do. Because, sad as it might be, people like you do represent the future of the country; and if you're gonna sit around and be a taker -- if you're gonna sit around and be bitter, somebody's got more than you do, somebody's not spreading the wealth or whatever -- you're gonna be miserable your whole life, and nothing's gonna be able to make you happy. You're not gonna be able to make yourself happy, nobody else will make you happy, you're just gonna be miserable. And maybe you want to be miserable. Some people do. I don't. I appreciate your holding on.

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.

The Right Scoop, where there are a number of videos, mostly of recent speeches of presidential candidates.

Stop the Machine under October 2011, which apparently had permits for months for October. This is very organized; these are not people who just showed up suddenly. Their issues: protect the planet, healthcare for all, end wars, tax the rich and end corporate welfare.

In case someone tells a fib about Obama, we need to turn that person in. Luckily, the President has provided for us such a website:

The Obama Diary. This appears to be a pretty serious site, dedicated to telling you what the president is doing right:

Workforce Fairness Institute (it sounds like a liberal group, but it looks like a conservative group):

Wrote Left Turn and measures media bias as well as individuals. There is a 40 question test to measure your political quotient and the quotient of various media outlets are given.

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.

Liberal filter for FoxNews: News Hounds (motto: We watch FOX so you don't have to). Be clear on this; they do not want you to watch FoxNews.

Conservative Review
Issue #202	Kukis Digests and Opines on this Week’s News and Views	November 5, 2011