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 U.S. national debt passed $15 trillion this week; nearly $5 trillion of that has been added on by President Obama since he came into office.

It has started to come out that, the reason Congressmen do so well in Congress is, they play the stock market. They know what kind of legislation is up, whether or not it is likely to pass, and how it would affect a variety of companies and sectors. So, even though this is a type of insider trading, it turns out that this is not illegal for Congress to do. So, let’s say the government is about to award a huge contract to this or that company, our elected representatives then, before anyone knows about this, go out and purchase stock in that company. This is Democrats and Republicans both.

Did you know that the 8^th largest company to go bankrupt in U.S. history went bankrupt this past month? How many stories did you read about it? Why did the media ignore this story? It is because their CEO, Jon Corzine was a darling of the Democratic party. Also, there are millions of investor dollars missing. MF Global. No, these letters do not stand for what you think.

Thousands of home health care workers in Michigan are being forced to pay union dues, including one couple who cares for their disabled adult children. The union is collecting at least $6 million a year from this.

Drilling in and around the United States may be down by U.S. companies, but China, right now, has an oil rig 50 miles off of Key West. Apparently Cuba is doing the drilling? In any case, we know that they have high safety standards, so there is no reason to worry.

The president puts off the Keystone pipeline decision until after the next election. This is about 20,000 shovel-ready jobs. In 1+ year from now, it is possible that Canada may not wait to seal the deal. China wants their oil as well.

Simultaneously, a dozen or more mayors began shutting down the overnight occupy movements in their city. Although it should have been done on night #1, it is better to do this 2 months into the occupy movement than 3 months.

Last week, I reported that Bill O’Reilly’s book Killing Lincoln was said to contain some serous factual errors and was therefore not being sold at the Ford Theater (where Lincoln was shot). Turns out that this was a bogus report picked up by the Washington Post, which story it apparently did not fact-check. I repeated a synopsis of this story from WaPo. The errors in Killing Lincoln are apparently trivial, have been corrected, and the book was never banned from the Ford Theater bookstore.

Top international climate scientists and disaster experts meeting in Africa had a sharp message for the world's political leaders: without preparedness, crazy weather extremes may overwhelm some locations, making some places unlivable.

Australia passed landmark laws this week which impose a price on carbon emissions.

The Pakistan Telecommunications Authority (PTA) has told mobile phone companies to begin blocking text messages containing "obscene" words, which banned words and phrases include athlete's foot, flatulence, Jesus Christ, monkey crotch, and back door.

Women with sexy eyes in Saudi Arabia may be forced to cover them up, according to the spokesperson of the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice in the conservative Gulf kingdom. Spokesman of the Ha'eal district, Sheikh Motlab al-Nabet said the committee has the right to stop a women whose eyes seem "tempting" and order her to cover them immediately.

The United Nations declares that high-speed internet access is a basic human right, and the Obama Administration wants to spend $410 million to expand broadband into poor, rural areas of the U.S. Is this for real? The UN really declared this?

Oscar Ramiro Ortega-Hernandez, a 21 year old from Idaho Falls, Idaho was charged this week with attempting to assassinate Barack Obama by firing rifle shots at the presidential residence at the White House. The alleged assassin has spent time with the occupy movement as of late. At least one columnist has tried to tie this person’s shooting at the White House to religious teaching and to the TEA party.

Occupy San Diego holds a moment of silence to show solidarity with Ramiro Ortega-Hernandez.

Occupy protestors in Washington D.C. took over an abandoned school building, threatening to stay there indefinitely. Police stormed the building and took them out.

The "Occupy LA" protesters will go to court this week to take out a restraining order against the Los Angeles Police Department this week. They are hoping that the courts will prevent LAPD from clearing out their campsites.

Occupy Washington D.C. II is coming: Unions like SEIU and CWA and groups like the Center for Community Change are currently working on a plan to bus thousands of protesters from across the country to Washington, where they will congregate around the Capitol from December 5-9.

Jesse Lagreca, Wall Street protester/leader: “We actually had our own volunteer cleaning crew doing the best we can to maintain the sanitation in the area.”

Jesse Lagreca: “Actually, the relationship with the NYPD has been tremendous; I think they’ve done a tremendous job of protecting us and we’ve been doing as much as we can to facilitate them in their protecting us.”

Occupy Portland attendee: “F__ the police...The police are a government-run gang; they’re there to protect the hidden political interests of the politicians, period.”

50 members of the Occupy Wall Street movement chanting: "Surveillance is violence, we won't remain silent!"

Occupy Nashville person who crashes former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld speaking even at the Hilton Hotel: "I call upon you to surrender yourself as a war criminal."

40 Occupy protesters waited outside the same building chanting: "Hey Donald, you can't hide! We charge you with genocide!"

OccupyWallStreet.org “Goodbye life and freedom. License to kill is here. James Bond and Darth Vader is in your nabourhood.”

Dem Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Occupy Wall Street, "I believe that movement is unstoppable."

Anne Hathaway, who is worth $58 million, holds up a sign at Occupy Wall Street: “Blackboards not bullets.”

Shepard Fairey, creator of the iconic 2008 post of Obama: "As flawed as the system is, I see Obama as a potential ally of the Occupy movement if the energy of the movement is perceived as constructive, not destructive. I still see Obama as the closest thing to "a man on the inside" that we have presently."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid about the super-committee: “I was hoping there would be a lot of hand-holding and hugs and pats on the back; we’d be headed home for Thanksgiving.”

Nancy Pelosi: "but the truth is what I said. I'm a devout Catholic and I honor my faith and love it ...but they have this conscience thing''

Harry Reid: "While it's proper to guard against and remove onerous regulations, and we need to do that, my Republican friends have yet to produce a single shred of evidence that the regulations they hate so much do the broad economic harms they claim. That's because there aren't any."

Senator John Kerry on a debt deal: "To have something on the table that does not ask the wealthiest people in the country to share (the burden) ... is unconscionable."

Nancy Pelosi on Herman Cain calling her "Princess Nancy": "Really, it's another one of those clueless statements - clueless in that you don't say something like that."

Senator John Kerry on Mitt Romney: "There are few people I've met in public life who have changed on as many issues as he has. Every major touchstone of American politics - from abortion to guns to war to God to gays, you name it." This is the Senator who voted against the Iraq war funding after he voted for it.

From Vice President Joe Biden's schedule: "At 1:00 PM, the Vice President will attend a meeting of the Government Accountability and Transparency Board in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. At 2:30 PM, the Vice President will meet with representatives of the National Sheriffs' Association in the Roosevelt Room. These meetings are closed press."

Rep. Maxine Waters on deaths and crime taking place in the midst of the occupy movement: "that's life and it happens."

Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz: "State legislatures are attempting to impose voting restrictions that are the modern day equivalent of poll taxes and literacy tests. We cannot allow state legislatures to drag our nation backward in what is nothing more than a political quest to protect their governing majority's interests."

Michael Moore struggling with Obama conspiracy theories: "This [the many simultaneous shutdowns of the occupy movements] is not some coincidence. This was planned and I think the question really has to be asked of the federal government and of the Obama administration. Why? Why? Why are you participating in this against a non-violent mass movement of people who are upset at what Wall Street and the banks have done to their lives?"

Former Green Jobs Czar Van Jones: "You're going to see an evolution now as you go from protests, keep the protests, but now expand into politics. And if you thought there was an earthquake in

2010 when the Tea Party moved into politics, wait until this 99 percent movement moves over into politics. You haven't seen anything yet...[this evolving movement is] going to be recruiting 2,000 candidates to run for office now under this 99 percent banner [in] phase two."

Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard: "She [Mrs. Obama] said to him {President Obama] that you often don't eat because you are so focused on your work that you forget to eat, and she wanted to make sure that we feed you well in Australia."

Daily Kos columnist and occupy-phile Troubadour: “It's worse than you think. With the evolution of Occupy Wall Street, the threat that made George W. Bush reticent to go for full-blown dictatorship is now out of the bag: People are actively resisting and disrupting the money and power structure that underlies the Republican Party and, sadly, major portions of our own party - structures that now completely define the ideology, rhetoric, and policies of a huge proportion of our government without even a pretense of addressing the American people. We are resisting this state of affairs with increasing sophistication, volume, and success, while government institutions are flailing to stop us without even pretending to address our grievances. But all of what we do is dependent on a few, fragile liberties and lines of communication that a sufficiently ruthless, shameless, and desperate regime could easily shatter.” I had to check the date of this column to make sure it was current. [Photograph above is from Berkeley, this past week, also living in the past]

Brad Spitzer, California-based analyst who has been taking part in the OWS protests: “Tents are not for me," He has been staying, apparently, in a $700/night hotel.

Climate scientist and activist James Hansen: “...we can say with a high degree of confidence that events such as the extreme summer heat in the Moscow region in 2010 and Texas in 2011 were a consequence of global warming.” So, I guess if it agrees with global warming, it is climate, but if it doesn’t, it is just weather?

Film director and multi-millionaire Oliver Stone: "Americans are not really interested in problems abroad. They have no empathy." Completely ignoring that contributions from Americans for any crisis anywhere in the world is always way more than contributions from anyone else from any other country.

Oliver Stone about why there is no discussion about American support for Israel: "There is such power, money, media and lobbying are so (powerful) that the truth can't come out."

Gladys Knight (without the Pips): "There's a governing body up there. And sometimes he [Obama] can't do what he wants to do. His hands are tied. And when we get those little social things coming back into play that we had in the '60s - ah-ha! - then you get the kind of results that we're having today. We've got to come back up to where we were and start supporting each other and loving each other. Because we can change the world if we come together."

NBC news anchor Brian Williams: "And out to lunch. Does pizza really look like a vegetable to anybody? The better question may be what does Congress have against healthier lunches for kids?"

NPR’s Nina Totenberg: “It doesn't look good when half a billion dollars goes down the drain. On the other hand, this program, which was originally in the Bush administration and Solyndra was originally okayed in the Bush administration, actually allocates $10 billion for losses, because it was supposed to be a seed money program. It was endorsed by every Republican and I believe every Democratic member of the House committee that originally approved it. It was, you know, many people think it's a good idea. Many people don't. But there is nothing illegal about what went on here, or even probably very political except that somebody wanted the layoffs delayed...They shouldn't have done that, but there is no evidence that there was any political anything about the awarding of this contract.”

AP story: “Letting extended jobless assistance expire would mean that more than 6 million people would lose benefits averaging $296 a week next year, with 1.8 million cut off within a month. Economist say those jobless benefits - up to 99 weeks of them in high unemployment states - are among the most effective way to stimulate the economy because unemployed people generally spend the money right away.”

Kathleen Parker on Face the Nation: “Well, he's [Newt Gingrich]-- he's certainly the flavor of the week. And-- and Newt Gingrich does very, very well in debates. You know, he's not really much of a campaigner. In fact, he's been described as sort of a misanthrope. That would be sort of interesting wouldn't it to have a misanthropic President.” A misanthrope is someone that hates mankind.

Washington Post’s Kathleen Parker: “Gingrich, who, whatever his flaws and despite the weight of his considerable baggage, is...a populist professor - a bombastic smarty-pants.” In the context of this piece, Parker was actually paying some respect to Gingrich’s intelligence, yet managed to attack him for being intelligent just as, a few paragraphs earlier, she attacked Herman Cain for being stupid.

Paul Begala of the Daily Beast: “But today's Republican Party is more the party of Sarah Palin's defiant know-nothingness than the brainy conservatism of Bill Bennett. The GOP is a party of ideologues, not ideas.”

MSNBC’s Al Sharpton on a Balanced Budget Amendment: "This extreme piece of Republican mean-spiritedness could have destroyed up to 15 million jobs and slashed social programs."

MSNBC morning anchor Thomas Roberts: “With members of the Occupy Wall Street movement identifying themselves as the 99 percent, it leaves the question, who makes up the one percent? The easy answer -- billionaire bankers, well-known CEOs. But what about one percenters who may not know that they fall into that category? And it seems that some wealthy Americans who have been outspoken in support for the Occupy movement are unaware that they do. Our "Flipside" today takes a look at some unexpected one percenters. First up, though, 57 members of Congress who fall into the top one percent of earners in the U.S. This includes, yeah, right there, that lady, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who has come out in support of the Occupy movement. Next, we go to Hollywood where celebrities like filmmaker Michael Moore, actor Alec Baldwin and business mogul Russell Simmons have all voiced their separate support for the Occupy Wall Street movements, yet they are among the elite one percent. So it's good to know that the Occupy Wall Streeters have some friends in high places.”

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews: "Obama is wonderfully skilled at evoking what America's all about. I think he's great at it. He thrills me when he does it. In fact, that's one of the reasons I was inspired by him."

MSNBC’s Chris Matthew’s admitting to be a bit adrift, without a clear rudder in his life, speaking to Obama: “There's nothing to root for. What are we trying to do in this administration? Why does he want a second administration? We he tell us? What's he going to do with a second term? This? Is this it? Is this as good as it gets? Where do we go? Are we about to do something in this second term? He's as yet to tell us. He has not said one thing about what he'd do in a second term. . . Is he going to deal with the long term debt system? How? Is he going to reform the tax system? How? Just tell us. Why are we in this fight with him? Just tell us commander, give us our orders and tell us where we're going. Give us the mission. And, he hasn't done it.”

President Obama from last month: "The most important thing we can do right now is those of us in leadership letting people know that we understand their struggles and we are on their side, and that we want to set up a system in which hard work, responsibility, doing what you're supposed to do, is rewarded." This is capitalism, right? Isn’t that the system that rewards hard work, responsibility and doing what you’re supposed to do?

Woodrow Wilson: “Nothing has spread socialistic feeling in this country more than the use of the automobile. To the countryman, they are a picture of the arrogance of wealth, with all its independence and carelessness.” Yes, this is real. Driving around in cars was an arrogant show of riches (Wilson said this before he was elected president, when cars were a new thing).

Former CNN host Bill Press: "I think it's pretty clear to me and to you that the Republicans have dug in their heels. Their loyalty is to Grover Norquist and the American Tax Reform Association," he said, mangling the name of the group. (It's Americans for Tax Reform.) "Their loyalty is not to the American people, it's not to the Constitution of the United States. I know that's a strong statement, but I think they're guilty of treason. I think they really do care more about Grover Norquist than they do about you or me."

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews of Newt Gingrich: "He's not a human being, he's a gaseous state. Isn't he? I mean Joan, this is like a gaseous state around the world. I mean, this is Newtism."

Occupy Berkeley protester to a female student who declined to join the OWS protest: "People like you are the reason that California is in debt." Then he threw a full aluminum water container at her, hitting her in the face.

The new head of al-Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri, of the late Osama Bin Laden: "People don't know that this man was tender, gentle, kind, with refined feelings, even when life was hard...We never saw a man like him."

Libyan rebels sing a new song: “We will go in groups to stop them; We will bring back the purity of Islam to Tripoli; After all our humiliations, after all our humiliations.”

Mohammed Javad Larivani, Secretary General for the High Council for Human Rights of Iran: "We are not pursuing the nuclear armament for two basic reasons. Number one, there is a fatwa by Ayatollah Khomeini, the leader [of Iran], that it is against Islam[ic views of] prudence to build and use mass destruction weapons. Secondly, it doesn't aid our security. It is more of a liability than an asset for us. Our military muscle is strong enough to deter or repel any imminent threat."

New York Cirty Mayor Michael Bloomberg about the Occupy Wall Street protestors: "No right is absolute and with every right comes responsibilities. The First Amendment gives every New Yorker the right to speak out?-?but it does not give anyone the right to sleep in a park or otherwise take it over to the exclusion of others?-?nor does it permit anyone in our society to live outside the law. There is no ambiguity in the law here?-?the First Amendment protects speech?-?it does not protect the use of tents and sleeping bags to take over a public space." He’s right. He should have said this 2 months ago.

Senator Dick Durbin about “going big” (having a $4 trillion reduction in the next 10 years): “This is our chance to make a difference.”

MSNBC’s Chris Matthew’s making sense: "But once having won the office he [Obama] thought that was the end of it in connection to the American people. Don't you feel - I think everybody feels an absence of communication from the time he's been elected. It's not about not being left wing or too left. That's not his problem. It's connection. Mrs. Obama, she's an amazing asset. What has she done? Obesity? How about connecting with the American people about being Americans? I don't think she's - I don't think she's happy. I don't think they like being in the White House. The American people can tell that. They don't seem thrilled at the fact the American people selected them as our first family. I don't sense the gratitude, happiness level, the thrill of being president. Bill Clinton loved being president every minute and you knew it."

Elder: No, no a journalist - you think you're an objective down-the-middle journalist?

CBS reporter: “You’re saying you’re not going to leave until you get what you want; what do you want?”

Jesse Lagreca: “Well, I think it’s pretty obvious. I mean, you see all the overarching conversations that we’re having right now, but they all tie in together, that corporate greed has just trashed our economy, that lawlessness of the very wealthiest 1% has just put all of our lives at risk. So, it’s not really demands we should be discussing right now; it’s grievances. It’s almost like giving a diagnosis to a patient when you haven’t quite figured out what he’s sick of. We need to talk about what we’re sick of first, and then we’ll start talking about demands.”

MSNBC's Ed Schultz, on the repeal of Gov. John Kasich's collective bargaining reform in Ohio: "Great work in Ohio, Congressman."

Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio: "Thank you. And thank you on behalf of everybody in Ohio for all you did to help us.”

Meghan Mccain: You know, it's really sad to see the primary process turn into this, this kind of anything but Romney scenario that's happening.

Jay Leno, Host: Yeah, because Newt Gingrich was just out of it, and now he seems to be rising.

Charles Krauthammer, to a couple of liberals, repeatedly explaining that revenue increases have been offered by the Republicans: “I mean, what planet are you guys living on? This week, forget about the '90s, Pat Toomey, a Club of Rome Republican, proposed an increase in tax revenues. I'm trying to explain to you that if you're a Republican and you're a conservative, a Club of Rome conservative, you can propose raising revenues as long as the rates, the marginal rates stay the same or go down. The way that you square that is by eliminating loopholes, which is what he proposed. This isn't history, it isn't hypothetical, it's real, and the Democrats have said, No.”

Republican Senator Tom Coburn: "America is already tired of Occupy Wall Street. They've seen the vast majority are great people but they have attracted a fringe group that are both law breakers, inconsistent with their message, they haven't controlled it and the fact is, you've never seen violence like this, law breaking like this and some of the vile stuff that's occurred in any other political group in this country in my lifetime."

Greg Gutfeld, during a discussion about how the Berkeley City Council was unhappy about the name Operation Geronimo used when taking out Bin Laden: “Geronimo looks like your typical gender studied teacher.”

Cashin’ In’s Jonathon Honig: “Government is not charity...it’s not government’s role.”

Dana Perino: “Demi and Ashton have broken up. I mean, the world is spinning out of control.”

Rush Limbaugh: "'United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called on world leaders Monday to collaborate in financing a multibillion-dollar fund to combat global warming.' Does Mr. Ban Ki-moon not understand that the world now knows, at least America now knows that this whole global warming thing is a manufactured left-wing hoax?"

Rush Limbaugh: "Any attempt to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, any attempt to bring them in line and make them behave in a standard, common-sense business way was looked at as an assault on the poor. And the left did everything they could with their media to stand up and defend Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as great institutions helping the poor, the great unwashed."

Rush Limbaugh: "Here we have Barack Obama, who's traveling the world and this country and telling everybody he's focused like a laser on job creation. He's doing his level best to prevent the creation of jobs, particularly in the oil industry because if he does he runs the risk of losing his base."

Presidential candidate Herman Cain: "Who knows every detail of every country on the planet? The people that get on the Cain train, they don't get off because of that crap."

Rush Limbaugh: “Herman Cain, in remarks yesterday, ranked US ally India with China as a rising threat to the United States in Asia. No, wait, wait. That was Leon Panetta that said that.”

Rush Limbaugh: "Why would a 700 or almost $850 billion stimulus shrink the economy over ten years? Because it can do nothing else. It takes that money out of the private sector. Before you can spend $850 billion of the government you gotta take it out. It's a net wash."

Rush Limbaugh: "Folks, it is a real possibility our economy could collapse. What's so frustrating to us is that members of our own party don't even see that."

Rush Limbaugh: "The stimulus was a slush fund designed to keep union workers employed during the recession so that their dues were collected, so that Democrat campaign coffers were continually replenished."

Rush Limbaugh: "This administration is just a giant roadblock to growth, everything they've done. They're taking money out of the private sector and giving it to the public sector, unions, more bureaucracy, EPA, I don't care what agency you want to talk about, they're getting more money."

Rush: "Every photo from the Occupy protests looks like a campaign add for conservatism, and this is why they had to be cleared out of there. This is why they had to go."

Rush: "These people at Occupy whatever, they are the perfect representatives of the Democrat Party. What they did to Zuccotti Park is what the Democrats would end up doing to the whole country if every one of their policies survived unchecked."

Rush: "We are three years into Barack Obama's war on prosperity and I think Americans are coming to grips with the upside, if not the necessity, of limited government."

Rush: "We don't have a revenue problem; we have a spending problem, and raising taxes is only going to exacerbate that."

Presidential candidate Ron Paul: "Just remember that immediately after 9/11, we removed the base in Saudi Arabia, our policies definitely had an influence. To argue the case they want to do us harm because we're free and prosperous I think is a very dangerous notion, because it's not true."

Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney on Romneycare: "I am sure there are many people who have calculated, and perhaps correctly, that thehealthcare plan I put in place in Massachusetts is not good for me politically, and if I want to encourage my political future, I should say it was a mistake and walk away from it."

Megan McCain on Newt Gingrich: "I said that [Newt] was running for president purely for vanity purposes - to sell books, to sell DVDs, which I still believe. Someone told him that, and he was like `What would she know?' and his implication was, like, `dumb blond chick, get off TV, what do you know?' And he just was so - I'm so sick of being talked to like that."

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said ahead of a meeting Friday with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak that he would warn his Israeli counterpart about the global economic consequences of a military strike on Iran's nuclear program, adding that he still favors sanctions and diplomacy over a strike.

60 Minutes segment on legal insider trading which members of Congress engage in. This helps to explain how members of Congress tend

to become very rich as a result of being a member of Congress. The only negative aspect to this report is, 4 of the 5 House and Senate members who are interviewed are Republicans, so it seems like a Republican problem, but it is not.

Charles Krauthammer repeats, again, again and again, that increased revenues have been offered up by the Republicans, and this has been rejected by Democrats. In exasperation, Charles says “I've rarely encountered such thickness. I've just told you eight times that these two Republicans have proposed it, and you're telling me you gotta have extra revenues. Yes, and they were proposed.”

Taxpayers Stung for Sweetheart Deals for Millionaire Celebrities (commercial first):

Let’s say you have an iPhone or an iPad or a Blackberry, and you are interested in politics and legislation. Check this out....

Jodi Miller: “According to the Occupy Wall Street website, the demonstrators have scheduled events in New York until October 2025., at which time they plan to retire and collect social security.”

Jodi Miller: “A new poll finds that, in American, conservatives outnumber liberals 2 to 1; or, as the mainstream media reports it, liberals outnumber conservatives 30 zillion to 0.”

Jodi Miller: “Scientists in Japan have invented a motorcycle that is powered by a toilet. And the Obama administration have announced that they will now invest $500 million in American tax dollars in it.”

1) The quarterly losses of FNMA and FHLMC (Fannie and Freddie] are roughly equivalent to the yearly income of big companies, like MacDonald.

2) It is becoming apparent that the problem is really not Solandra, per se, but all of the money that seems to be flying out the door to 10–20 people who were Obama donors and bundlers who just happen to be in charge of large green companies.

3) If you have to keep telling people over and over again that you are the 99%, it makes me think that maybe you aren’t even the 10%.

4) Zuccotti Park in NYC, where the occupy protesters set up camp, is owned by Brookfield Properties. What do you think their response was to hundreds of people camping out there for 2 months? What went on behind the scenes between Brookfield and Bloomberg? This would be a great story for a newsman to pursue.

5) I’m not a poor person, but, had I purchased a tent and sleeping bag and other things in order to camp out during a large demonstration, I would want to get these things back. How is it that all of these poor students, many of whom did not have jobs and were deeply in debt with school loans, did not seem to care one whit about these tents? Who really purchased these tents? Again, another story which ought to be pursued (but it won’t be).

20 hour round trip flight to Hawaii costs, therefore, $3,635,140. The president held a $1000/seat fundraiser for up to 250 people. That means, the Obama campaign spends $3.6 million taxpayer dollars in order to raise $250,000. Is it a shock that we are in economic trouble?

A $1 investment by many Obama bundlers and donors has yield them a $10,000 return.

President John F. Kennedy's nephew, Robert Kennedy, Jr., netted a $1.4 billion bailout for his company, BrightSource, through a loan guarantee issued by a former employee-turned Department of Energy official.

The Vice President at Penn State will retire with a $330,000/year retirement salary.

According to FBI reports, of the 1,409 hate crimes offenses motivated by religious bias in 2010:

Real Clear Politics Poll
Job Approval	Approve	Disapprove	Spread
Obama	44.3%	49.0%	-4.7%
Congress	12.3%	81.7%	-69.4%
Direction of Country	Right Direction	Wrong Track	Spread
RCP Average	20.0%	73.3%	-53.3%

Are you certain to support that candidate, or do you think you may change your mind?

Did you know that Herman Cain’s most visible accuser lives in a city that Cain has never lived in (Chicago), has serious financial problems, and just happens to live in the same building as David Axelrod? There have already been over a 100 stories on Cain in less than 2 weeks on this scandal; how many stories have you seen on the women? Is it reasonable to ask if they have anything to gain by this?

So, let’s say the 8^th largest firm in American goes bankrupt and it is run by some prominent Republican—like some former governor. And let’s say millions of investor dollars were missing. This would be front-page news, day after day, in the era of Wall Street envy. But you might not even know that this happened, or even realize the importance of this sudden crash to the earth, because it is not run by a well-known Republican but by a well-known Democrat. This is every bit the story that ENRON was, but with very little coverage.

60 Minutes had a wonderful story on how Congressional lawmakers can play the market with inside information, and that they do very well on it. However, 4 of their examples are Republicans and 1 is a Democrat. They ignored these Democrats, who are fairly well-known: Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mt.), Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). Baucus is mentioned, but not interviewed.

Even more crooked are how winners of elections pay off their bundlers and donors make tons of money off the government. This was ignored by this story (which is an excellent program, nonetheless).

Bill Randall is a candidate for Congress, running in North Carolina's 13th Congressional District. Mr. Randall also happens to be an African-American. In early October, Randall had a campaign billboard vandalized with a spray-painted, vulgar phallic symbol, accompanied by the letters "KKK". It was the kind of message that would normally launch the media into full-blown racial apoplexy. Not this time, however. You have never even heard that it has happened. Why? Because Bill Randall is a Tea Party Conservative Republican.

If Randall was a Democrat, photographs of the sign would have been on the front page of nearly every paper with another round of discussion on the Sunday shows about the racism which is still integral to the Republican party. Donna Brazille would be calling for prominent Republicans to come out and denounce such a sign defacement and to clearly denounce racism and the racist elements in the Republican party.

They have done maybe 5 or 6 shows, and no spoof of the Occupiers? Are you kidding me? It’s right there, the best material they could ask for.

Last night was the first night I heard the OWS protestors mentioned, and they were spoken of in a sympathetic way by their fake news guy.

Some Democrats (and Republicans) are calling for the super-committee to go big; to put forth $4 trillion in spending cuts. Now, that is a good (not great) beginning.

Deeply concerned = “yeah, whatever; I’m not going to do anything about it except say I’m deeply concerned”

What the left loves to do is to take a word used by conservatives and begin using it in a different way. A simple example of this is, government investments, which simply means government spending. Over the past 6 or 12 months, Conservatives have used the term Palinize to refer to vicious and unrelenting attacks by the press and other media against conservative candidates (Cain, for instance, has been Palinized; Romney has not). However, liberal columnist Kathleen Parker has borrowed this phrase to refer to the intentional dumbing down of the Republican party, automatically being able to label the Republicans that she doesn’t like as stupid and being able to get in one more kick against Sarah Palin at the same time. In her own words, Palinization means the least informed earns the loudest applause.

Here is what Democrats do not want: additional revenue by simplifying the tax code and removing tax loopholes. Here is what they do want: higher tax rates for at least some people, even if it is just 1% higher. They will agree to that and nearly anything else. That will make it easier to run against conservative opponents next election cycle.

Because Australia just passed some carbon limiting legislation this past week, watch for its economy to begin to tank.

I have a lot of Occupy Wall Street stuff in this issue because (1) I find it to be very entertaining and (2) I don’t think they are going to have much of a voice in the near future. This is because mayors are beginning to realize that these guys are destroying their cities and also, the weather is cold. That is going to cut way back on this movement dedicated to...whatever it is they are dedicated to.

This was a paranoid thought I expressed a couple of years ago. Are the people in government grabbing as much money as they can possibly grab right now, thinking that, any day, our country could crash into economic chaos? The various bail-outs and the Stimulus bill have shoved billions of dollars out the door of Washington and much of it is going into the hands of their supporters. With the insider trading deal, members of Congress are also making a lot of extra money.

Prominent Dem Lead 8^th Largest Company into Bankruptcy; millions of dollars missing

The problem with the housing market is, housing prices have fallen and the government agencies which are in charge of mortgage lending guarantees (a business they ought not to be in) have a huge amount of inventory on their books (i.e., vacant houses). Until these houses are sold and occupied, our housing market will continue to fall.

There is an easy solution. No one is proposing this solution, insofar as I know.

Make easy loans available to investors. This does not mean that we give investors houses for nothing. There is a down payment (10–15%, which is below investor down payments) requirement along with a bare minimum of good to excellent credit without any foreclosures in the investor’s history.

My suggestion is, a credit score of 600 or 650 and above, no outstanding debt which is in collection, and a clear history of 5 years or more of having and operating rental property without any foreclosures in their history.

Interest rate would be 5–8%. There would be other requirements, e.g., an owner cannot purchase more than 25% of his own personal inventory in a given year without a more substantial down payment. So, a person with 12 houses could purchase 3 more, at the low down payment of 10–15%. The reason for this is to keep someone from going underwater from taking on too much debt.

Interest rates would be fixed for no less than 10 years (if not permanently fixed) and loans could be carried for 5–20 years, in increments of, say, 5 years. No prepayment penalty.

People who owned 1–3 homes would be able to purchase a second home, rental or vacation home, at 15–20% down, with similar requirements.

These mortgages would then be bundled and sold on the open market to a different secondary mortgage company, to take the weight off Fannie and Freddie. The idea would be to either get the federal government out of the housing business or to reduce their inventory to no more than 10% of the overall housing market (which should be fixed by legislation).

Real estate investors would understand the importance of this moment and would be out there buying as many houses as they would be allowed to. Many individuals who own one house would recognize that this is the bottom of the market and would buy whatever they could, recognizing that this will be a better retirement investment than their IRA or their social security benefits.

There would be no such deals on the market for owner occupied homes, although old FHA requirements might be reinstated for the purchase of these homes (pre-1996 requirements, which resulted in very few foreclosures).

This is the business I am in, and I know several others in the same business. There are a number of reasons why we cannot purchase these homes: high down payment and low income levels as shown on our tax returns (which is common for a landlord). Remove these barriers, open this up to responsible purchasers (i.e., those with a good credit history), and the inventory would fly off the shelves.

Foreclosures would be snapped up, rehabilitated and occupied within months. My guess is, the market would clear itself within 1–3 years (as we get to a 50% reduction in inventory, more and more stringent requirements would be applied).

Many people would recognize that, if they want to be on the ground floor of becoming a millionaire, this would be their chance—one of the few sure things in this life.

[I have submitted this solution to Herman Cain; it is unlikely that he will ever see it, but, hell, it is worth a try]

So, what happened with the Occupy movement and why did they manage to occupy acres of private and public property across the United States, throughout dozens of cities? How did this go on for so long?

1) Most of the mayors of these various cities where these protesters occupied were liberal Democrat mayors. That does not mean that they value protest and dissent any more than conservative mayors do; they just tend to like it more when it agrees with their own philosophy.

Therefore, mayors allowed the occupied movement to do something they would have never allowed TEA party protesters to do; they allowed these people to camp out for weeks at a time, despite the health hazards, the crime and the devastation to nearby businesses. If these mayors believe that the protest of this movement is just, then they revealed that they would tolerate almost anything, including the destruction of many businesses, which costs the city in lost revenue; and the cost of overseeing and cleaning up after the mob leaves—a cost of millions of dollars.

2) Secondly, the left completely misunderstood the relationship between the TEA party and the Republican party. They see the TEA party as an arm of the Republican party or as having been co-opted by the Republican party. Therefore, these liberal mayors expected to do the same with this occupy movement.

Some saw the TEA party as a completely independent body of ideologues being led, like sheep, by this or that person or group. This is completely wrong, and any person with a little bit of intelligence, should have been able to look at hundreds of homemade signs and recognized, “Hey, these people really believe this stuff.” They figured that, these people could be organized into a third political party (which Democrats would have loved). They assumed that TEA party goers were politically ignorant (they tend to think that all conservatives and religious types are basically ignorant).

There is another way that most liberals misunderstood the TEA party movement: It was not co-opted by the Republican party and it is not an arm of the Republican party. It is because of the TEA party that we have, this time around, a number of non-traditional Republican candidates running for president, which is Cain, Bachmann, Santorum and, to some extent, Gingrich. Look at our presidential candidates in 2008—were any of them as conservative as these 4?

What happened was, the TEA party consolidated and laid out very specific conservative ideas, ideals supposedly held by the Republican party (but rarely adhered to), and they said, “This is what I want you candidates to espouse and legislate.” The TEA party moved the Republican party to the right and they changed the Republican party. They wanted more than lip-service.

Obviously, some existing Republicans recognized this movement and understood that they were already in-synch with this movement (like Palin and DeMint). But, for the most part, a suddenly engaged public grabbed the Republican party by the shirt collar and said, “This is what you supposedly believe; now act as if you believe it!”

3) Thirdly, the occupy movement espouses many liberal principles, so these liberals had hoped for an outpouring of public support and a solidifying of their base. The problem here is, their actual base is fairly small, and it is only bolstered by a huge number of people who pay no attention to what is going on, who are often swayed by a far-left media (who took a long time to report the negative aspects of the occupy movement).

So, for these reasons—and possibly from some unseen encouragement from the top—mayors who should have had some sense to say, “Of course you can protest, but you take your signs and your bodies back home at night;” instead, tolerated crime, filth, disease and property destruction in the name of liberalism.

Sadly, many liberals will tolerate anything, if they believe that it furthers their cause. Some will do nearly anything, if it furthers their cause.

This is easy to explain, by the way. Obama rarely states simply what he actually believes or wants to see happen. He often couches his policies with language that means often the opposite of what it really means. The idea is, he wants to co-opt independents and conservatives who are not paying close attention, so that they will sign on to his proposals. He is fond of the words investments, fair share, tax cuts.

Investments are not really investments; this simply refers to the federal government spending money. We will not reap any tangible benefits from these investments nor will we be able to draw a straight line between money that the government has spent and positive results for our country. Essentially, we are looking at money which is given to companies run by Obama supporters, donators and bundlers and they have the potential to reap some profits (some do and some do not). This money might be a grant and it might be a guaranteed loan from government, but it is taxpayer money which is spent often to benefit someone who supported our president.

When Obama uses the words fair share, he is not really talking about someone paying their fair share. This is a reference to people who already pay their lion's share of taxes, and Obama is calling upon them to pay more taxes. In many cases, these are small businesses, which do much of the new hiring in the United States, and they are called upon to pay more of their profits to the government so that the government can invest that money. The media assists President Obama by having polls which ask, "Do you think the rich should pay a little more in taxes?" These polls never ask, "Do you think that small businesses are not paying enough in taxes and need to pay more?" Paying one's fare share is all about income redistribution; taking money which a person has earned and putting this either into the hands of those who make less or into the hands of those who support the President. In the latter case, the money often goes from those who make less money to those who make more money, because the latter group supports Obama and his policies.

When Obama talks about all of his tax cuts, he is really talking about tax credits, which are a bribe from the federal government to do things that Obama wants us to do. He or another politician, 2 years later, will call these tax credits by their more accurate name, tax loopholes. Obviously, the president will never say, "I want to give out some tax loopholes to the following groups of people." That would never fly. Therefore, he uses Orwellian language in order to try to gain the support of people who would not support his policies if they knew exactly what those policies are. This is why Obama's message and policies are less clear than those of Reagan or Bush, and why, for one of the few times in his life, Chris Matthews is correct in his assessment of the situation.

Were the republicans or democrats most responsible for approving sub prime interest rates by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae thus causing financial collapse?

It is not the sub-prime interest rates which are key here, but the qualifications of the borrowers. I used to work in real estate, and, in order to buy a house, your credit history, your job stability, and your verifiable income were key issues in order to obtain a loan.

During the end of the Clinton administration, these qualifications were relaxed considerably where people could simply state what their income was and, if they were first-time buyers or minorities, they could get a home loan with shaky credit

Also, a down payment requirement was waved in many cases. I had tenants who were on section 8 housing (the government paid the bulk of their rent for them). The government then offered to match whatever they had paid me, and allow them to use this money to purchase a home. So, without saving money, the government pretended that they saved money and gave it to them to buy a house with.

During the Bush administration, the housing market soared, which had a lot to do with the powerful economy under George Bush. Of course, as a million or more new homeowners came into the market suddenly, this drove housing prices sky high. So, as an example, a house might be selling for $100,000 but then there are suddenly 10 people who want to purchase this house. Some of them are going to offer more than $100,000.

As more and more people became aware of these loans and how easy they were to obtain, more flooded the market, and this sent housing prices through the roof.

At the same time, many homeowners saw that their house was now worth twice what they paid for it, so they refinanced their house and took money from the closing and spent it, also driving the economy.

So, President Bush could have stepped in and said, "People of the United States, this great boom time we are in could end at any time, because this is all based upon artificially high housing prices, which will crash." He did not do this. Remember, all of this meant additional revenues for the government and a strong stock market. So everyone was happy with the economy.

Bush did go to Congress and questioned the stability of FNMA and FHLMC (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), and he was told in no uncertain terms, by Democrats running these institutions, that everything was fine.

So, the lion's share of the blame is to be placed on Democratic policies which started this bubble off; with a reasonable amount of blame to the Bush administration for not stopping it. However, can you imagine what would have happened if President George Bush said, "I know we are in great economic times right now, but I want to stop it, and we are going to experience some economic pain as a result"? I venture to say that few politicians would have been willing to be that honest with the people of the United States.

(He wrote the recently released book Throw Them All Out). This is a story from Newsweek

When President-elect Obama came to Washington in late 2008, he was outspoken about the need for an economic stimulus to revive a struggling economy. He wanted billions of dollars spent on "shovel-ready projects" to build roads; billions more for developing alternative-energy projects; and additional billions for expanding broadband Internet access and creating a "smart grid" for energy consumption. After he was sworn in as president, he proclaimed that taxpayer money would assuredly not be doled out to political friends. "Decisions about how Recovery Act dollars are spent will be based on the merits," he said, referring to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. "Let me repeat that: decisions about how recovery money will be spent will be based on the merits. They will not be made as a way of doing favors for lobbyists."

It would take an entire book to analyze every single grant and government-backed loan doled out since Barack Obama became president. But an examination of grants and guaranteed loans offered by just one stimulus program run by the Department of Energy, for alternative-energy projects, is stunning. The so-called 1705 Loan Guarantee Program and the 1603 Grant Program channeled billions of dollars to all sorts of energy companies. The grants were earmarked for alternative-fuel and green-power projects, so it would not be a surprise to learn that those industries were led by liberals. Furthermore, these were highly competitive grant and loan programs-not usually a hallmark of cronyism. Often fewer than 10 percent of applicants were deemed worthy.

Nevertheless, a large proportion of the winners were companies with Obama-campaign connections. Indeed, at least 10 members of Obama's finance committee and more than a dozen of his campaign bundlers were big winners in getting your money. At the same time, several politicians who supported Obama managed to strike gold by launching alternative-energy companies and obtaining grants. How much did they get? According to the Department of Energy's own numbers ... a lot. In the 1705 government-backed-loan program, for example, $16.4 billion of the $20.5 billion in loans granted as of Sept. 15 went to companies either run by or primarily owned by Obama financial backers-individuals who were bundlers, members of Obama's National Finance Committee, or large donors to the Democratic Party. The grant and guaranteed-loan recipients were early backers of Obama before he ran for president, people who continued to give to his campaigns and exclusively to the Democratic Party in the years leading up to 2008. Their political largesse is probably the best investment they ever made in alternative energy. It brought them returns many times over.

These government grants and loan guarantees not only provided access to taxpayer capital. They also served as a seal of approval from the federal government. Taxpayer money creates what investors call a "halo effect," in which a young, unprofitable company is suddenly seen to have a glowing future. The plan is simple. Invest some money, secure taxpayer grants and loans, go public, and then cash out. In just one small example, a company called Amyris Biotechnologies received a $24 million DOE grant to build a pilot plant to use altered yeast to turn sugar into hydrocarbons. The investors included several Obama bundlers and fundraisers. With federal money in hand, Amyris went public with an IPO the following year, raising $85 million. Kleiner Perkins, a firm that boasts Obama financier John Doerr and former vice president Al Gore as partners, found its $16 million investment was now worth $69 million. It's not clear how the other investors did. Amyris continues to lose money. Meanwhile, the $24 million grant created 40 jobs, according to the government website recovery.gov.

One might think that the Department of Energy's Loan Program Office, which has doled out billions in taxpayer-guaranteed loans, would be directed by a dedicated scientist or engineer. Or perhaps a civil servant with considerable financial knowledge. Instead, the department's loan and grant programs are run by partisans who were responsible for raising money during the Obama campaign from the same people who later came to seek government loans and grants. Steve Spinner, who served on the Obama campaign's National Finance Committee and was a bundler himself, was the campaign's "liaison to Silicon Valley." His responsibilities included fundraising, recruiting more bundlers, and managing Obama's relationship with a cadre of very wealthy donors. After the 2008 campaign, Spinner joined the Department of Energy as the "chief strategic operations officer" for the loan programs. A lot of the money he helped hand out went to that same cadre of wealthy Silicon Valley campaign donors. He also sat on the White House Business Council, which is made up of Obama-supporting corporate executives.

Another Obama fundraiser positioned to lead the allocation of taxpayer money to Obama contributors was Sanjay Wagle, who served as the managing co-chairman of Cleantech & Green Business Leaders for Obama. Wagle's day job was as a principal at VantagePoint Venture Partners. After the 2008 election, Wagle joined the Obama administration as a "renewable energy grants adviser" at the Department of Energy. VantagePoint owned firms that would later see federal loan guarantees roll in.

Jonathan Silver, who would serve as director of the loan programs, had worked in the Clinton administration, first as counselor to the secretary of the interior and later as assistant deputy secretary in the Department of Commerce. Silver's wife has served as financial director of the Democratic Leadership Council. His business partner, Tom Wheeler, was an Obama bundler, and Wheeler's wife was an outreach coordinator for the campaign. Silver's "strategic adviser" was Steve Spinner.

The grants themselves originated in the office of Cathy Zoi, who served as the assistant secretary of energy for efficiency and renewable energy. (Wagle was her adviser.) Zoi had previously worked in the Clinton White House as the chief of staff on environmental policy, then as the CEO of Al Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection. You may be thinking, "So what? Why would we expect anything less of political appointees?" But the numbers don't lie: the recipients of loans and grants were, overwhelmingly, Obama cronies.

The Government Accountability Office has been highly critical of the way guaranteed loans and grants were doled out by the Department of Energy, complaining that the process appears "arbitrary" and lacks transparency. In March 2011, for example, the GAO examined the first 18 loans that were approved and found that none were properly documented. It also noted that officials "did not always record the results of analysis" of these applications. A loan program for electric cars, for example, "lacks performance measures." No notes were kept during the review process, so it is difficult to determine how loan decisions were made. The GAO further declared that the Department of Energy "had treated applicants inconsistently in the application review process, favoring some applicants and disadvantaging others." The Department of Energy's inspector general, Gregory Friedman, who was not a political appointee, chastised the alternative-energy loan and grant programs for their absence of "sufficient transparency and accountability." He has testified that contracts have been steered to "friends and family."

Friends indeed. These programs might be the greatest-and most expensive-example of crony capitalism in American history. Tens of billions of dollars went to firms controlled or owned by fundraisers, bundlers, and political allies, many of whom-surprise!-are now raising money for Obama again.

SHOCK CLAIM: Energy Dept. Kickbacks Make Obama America's Biggest Crony Capitalist. Ever

At least ten members of President Barack Obama's 2008 campaign finance committee, plus more than a dozen of his campaign bundlers, benefited from sweetheart loans through the Department of Energy (DOE) that collectively dwarfed those given to Solyndra and Fisker.

Investigative journalist Peter Schweizer, who is also a Breitbart editor, reveals the full extent of the DOE scandal in his explosive new book, Throw Them All Out. The book is featured in this week's Newsweek, and was the subject of 60 Minutes this past Sunday, Nov. 13.

Schweizer's research reveals that of the $20.5 billion in the DOE's 1705 Loan Guarantee Program, $16.4 billion in taxpayer money-roughly 80% of all loans in the program-went to green enterprises "either run by or heavily owned by Obama financial backers-individuals who were either bundlers, members of Obama's national finance committee or large donors to the Democratic Party."

In 2009, President Obama had promised that the allocation of all federal stimulus monies would be nonpartisan, ethical, and fair. "Let me repeat that: Decisions about how Recovery money will be spent will be based on the merits. They will not be made as a way of doing favors for lobbyists," Obama said.

However, Schweizer alleges, the Obama administration may be guilty of "the greatest-and most expensive-example of crony capitalism in American history."

The details of how the DOE loan scheme was apparently conducted are almost as shocking as the billions bagged by Obama's backers.

Instead of appointing a team of scientists or engineers to direct the DOE's loan program office, Schweizer contends, the Obama administration placed some of the president's biggest fundraisers in control. For example, Steve Spinner, who served on the Obama campaign's National Finance Committee and was himself a top bundler, was tapped as the "chief strategic operations officer" for the DOE's loan programs. Spinner was joined at DOE by another Obama fundraiser, Sanjay Wagle, and by Democrat donor Jonathan Silver, who would serve as executive director of the program.

With the scientists and engineers effectively out of the way, and the President's top backers at the levers of the DOE's loan program, the Obama administration was able to funnel billions of taxpayer dollars back to green energy companies associated with the President's political and financial patrons.

For members of Obama's national finance committee, the returns on investing in Obama's 2008 campaign were incredibly lucrative, according to Schweizer. For every dollar committee members raised, they received $24,783 in return in the form of DOE sweetheart loans, on average.

Other top winners in the Obama campaign donor giveaway included several familiar billionaires. For example, a company indirectly owned in part by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the founders of Google (Sergei Brin and Larry Page) landed a loan almost three times as large as the Solyndra loan, at $1.4 billion. And Ted Turner and Paul Tudor Jones snagged a jaw-dropping $4.7 billion loan for their green company, First Solar-a sum almost nine times as big as the controversial loan given to Fisker Automotive.

The Government Accountability Office red-flagged this apparent-and historic-pattern of crony capitalism in its March 2011 report, which found that the DOE's loan and grant programs had doled out federal monies through a process that appeared "arbitrary," lacked proper documentation, and that "had treated applicants inconsistently in the application review process, favoring some applicants and disadvantaging others."

In Throw Them All Out, Schweizer writes that untangling and uncovering every instance of Obama's crony capitalism would "take a large team of investigative reporters." Moreover, according to Schweizer, despite the fact that some successful companies were among the beneficiaries, the DOE loans and grants appear to have failed to create any significant short-term job gains.

"The true short-term effect of this money," Schweizer concludes, "has been to enrich cronies of the party in power."

Whenever I watch media coverage of another Occupy Wall Street event I am reminded of an exchange between Jewish protesters in the 1979 Monte Python movie Life of Brian. One of the protesters asks another what the Romans have brought to the area and the conversation goes like this:

Question: All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

The point is that the Roman institutions brought a good deal to the area that was being overlooked by the protesters. The Wall Street protesters, in their hatred of capitalism, overlook things including the fact that over the last 100 years capitalism has reduced poverty more and increased life expectancy more than in the 100,000 years prior.

Every semester I ask my students: "What would you rather be? King of England in 1263 or you?" Turns out, students would rather be themselves. They enjoy using their iPhone, indoor plumbing, central heating, refrigerators and electric lighting. All of these things are available to the average person in America today and none of them were available to the aristocracy when the West operated under the feudal system.

How is it that for thousands of years mankind made very little progress in increasing the standard of living and yet today half of the goods and services you use in the next week did not exist when I was born? It wasn't that there was some change in the DNA such that we got smarter. The Greeks knew how to make a steam engine 3,000 years ago and never made one. The difference is in how we organize our economic system. The advent of market capitalism in the mid 18th century made all of the difference.

We need not just rely on historical data. Look at cross-section evidence. I try another experiment with my students. I tell them they are about to be born and they can choose whatever country in the world they would like to be born in. The only caveat is they will be the poorest person in that country. Every student picks a country that is primarily organized in a market capitalist system. No one picks a centrally planned state. No one says, "I want to be the poorest person in North Korea, Cuba, or Zimbabwe," countries which are at the bottom of the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom.

What does it mean to be poor in our capitalist society that the Occupy Wall Street crowd so hates? Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation has several studies of those classified as poor by the U.S. Census Bureau. He found that 80 percent of poor persons in the United States in 2010 had air conditioning, nearly three quarters of them had a car or truck, nearly two-thirds had satellite or cable television, half had a personal computer and more than two-thirds had at least two rooms per person.

Contrast this with what it means to be poor in Mumbai, India, a country that is moving rapidly towards market capitalism but was burdened for decades with a socialist system. A recent story in The Economist described Dharavi, a slum in Mumbai, where for many families half of the family members must sleep on their sides in order for the entire family to squeeze into its living space.

The Occupy Wall Street movement has shown a lack of understanding of how the market capitalist system works. They appear to think that the cell phones they use, food they eat, hotels they stay in, cars they drive, gasoline that powers the cars they drive and all the myriad goods and services they consume every day would be there under a different system, perhaps in more abundance.

But there is no evidence this could be or ever has been the case. The reason is that only market capitalism solves the two major problems that face any economy-how to provide an incentive to innovate and how to solve the problem of decentralized information. The reason there is so much innovation in a market system compared to socialism or other forms of central planning is that profit provides the incentive for innovators to take the risk needed to come up with new products.

My mother never once complained that we did not have access to the latest Soviet washing machine. We never desired a new Soviet car. The socialist system relies on what Adam Smith referred to as the benevolent butcher and while there will undoubtedly be benevolent butchers out there, clearly a system that provides monetary rewards for innovators is much more dynamic and successful. The profit that the Occupy Wall Street protesters decry is the reason the world has access to clean water and anti-viral drugs.

The other major problem that must be solved by any economic system is how to deal with the fact that information is so decentralized. There is no way for a central planner to know how many hot dogs 300 million Americans are going to want at every moment in time. A central planner cannot know the relative value of resources in the production of various goods and services. Market capitalism solves that problem through the price system. If there are too few hot dogs, the price of hot dogs will rise and more hot dogs will be produced. If too many hot dogs are produced, the price of hot dogs will fall and fewer will be produced.

Market capitalism is the key to the wealth of the masses. As Ludwig von Mises wrote in his 1920 book, Socialism, only market capitalism can make the poor wealthy. Nobel Laureate Friedrich Hayek in his famous 1945 paper, The Use of Knowledge in Society, showed that only the price system in capitalism can create the spontaneous order that ensures that goods will be allocated in a way that ensures consumers determine the use of resources. The Occupy Wall Street movement would make best use of its time and energy in protesting the encroachment of the centrally planned state that led to the disaster of the Soviet Union, fascist Germany, and dictatorial North Korea.

In 2008, the slogan was "Yes We Can." For 2011-12, it's "We Can't Wait." What happened in between? Candidate Obama, the vessel into which myriad dreams were poured, met the reality of governance.

His near-$1 trillion stimulus begat a stagnant economy with 9 percent unemployment. His attempt at Wall Street reform left in place a still-too-big-to-fail financial system, as vulnerable today as when he came into office. His green-energy fantasies yielded Solyndra cronyism and a cap-and-trade regime not even a Democratic Congress would pass.

And now his signature achievement, Obamacare, is headed to the Supreme Court, where it could very well be struck down. This comes just a week after its central element was overwhelmingly repudiated (by a 2-to-1 margin) by the good burghers of Ohio.

So what do you do when you say you can, but, it turns out, you can't? Blame the other guy. Charge the Republicans with making governing impossible. Never mind that you had control of Congress for two-thirds of your current tenure. It's all the fault of Republican rejectionism.

Hence: "We Can't Wait." We can't wait while they obstruct. We can't wait while they dither with my jobs bill. Write Congress today! Vote Democratic tomorrow!

We can't wait. Except for certain exceptions, such as the 1,700-mile trans-USA Keystone XL pipeline, carrying Alberta oil to Texas refineries, that would have created thousands of American jobs and increased our energy independence.

For that, we can wait, it seems. President Obama decreed that any decision must wait 12 to 18 months - postponed, by amazing coincidence, until after next year's election.

Why? Because the pipeline angered Obama's environmental constituency. But their complaints are risible. Global warming from the extraction of the Alberta tar sands? Canada will extract the oil anyway. If it doesn't go to us, it will go to China. Net effect on the climate if we don't take that oil? Zero.

Danger to a major aquifer, which the pipeline traverses? It is already crisscrossed by 25,000 miles of pipeline, enough to circle the Earth. Moreover, the State Department had subjected Keystone to three years of review - the most exhaustive study of any oil pipeline in U.S. history - and twice concluded in voluminous studies that there would be no significant environmental harm.

So what happened? "The administration," reported the New York Times, "had in recent days been exploring ways to put off the decision until after the presidential election." Exploring ways to improve the project? Hardly. Exploring ways to get past the election.

Obama's decision was meant to appease his environmentalists. It's already working. The president of the National Wildlife Federation told The Post (online edition, Nov. 10) that thousands of environmentalists who were galvanized to protest the pipeline would now support Obama in 2012. Moreover, a source told The Post, Obama campaign officials had concluded that "they do not pick up one vote from approving this project."

Sure, the pipeline would have produced thousands of truly shovel-ready jobs. Sure, delay could forfeit to China a supremely important strategic asset - a nearby, highly reliable source of energy. But approval was calculated to be a political loss for the president. Easy choice.

It's hard to think of a more clear-cut case of putting politics over nation. This from a president whose central campaign theme is that Republicans put party over nation, sacrificing country to crass political ends.

Nor is this the first time Obama's election calendar trumped the national interest:

■ Obama's decision to wind down the Afghan surge in September 2012 is militarily inexplicable. It comes during the fighting season. It was recommended by none of his military commanders. It is explicable only as a talking point for the final days of his reelection campaign.

■ At the height of the debt-ceiling debate last July, Obama pledged to veto any agreement that was not long-term. Definition of long term? By another amazing coincidence, any deal large enough to get him past Election Day (and thus avoid another such crisis next year).

?On Tuesday it was revealed that last year the administration pressured Solyndra, as it was failing, to delay its planned Oct. 28 announcement of layoffs until Nov. 3, the day after the midterm election.

A contemporaneous e-mail from a Solyndra investor noted: "Oddly they didn't give a reason for that date." The writer was obviously born yesterday. The American electorate was not - and it soon gets to decide who really puts party over nation and reelection above all.

If the federal government's regulatory operation were a business, it would be one of the 50 biggest in the country in terms of revenues, and the third largest in terms of employees, with more people working for it than McDonald's, Ford, Disney and Boeing combined.

Under President Obama, while the economy is struggling to grow and create jobs, the federal regulatory business is booming.

Regulatory agencies have seen their combined budgets grow a healthy 16% since 2008, topping $54 billion, according to the annual "Regulator's Budget," compiled by George Washington University and Washington University in St. Louis.

Meanwhile, employment at these agencies has climbed 13% since Obama took office to more than 281,000, while private-sector jobs shrank by 5.6%.

Michael Mandel, chief economic strategist at the Progressive Policy Institute, found that between March 2010 and March 2011 federal regulatory jobs climbed faster than either private jobs or overall government jobs. (See chart.)

Regulatory production is way up, too, if you measure that by the number of rules federal agencies churn out.

The Obama administration imposed 75 new major rules in its first 26 months, costing the private sector more than $40 billion, according to a Heritage Foundation study. "No other president has imposed as high a number or cost in a comparable time period," noted the study's author, James Gattuso.

The number of pages in the Federal Register - where all new rules must be published and which serves as proxy of regulatory activity - jumped 18% in 2010.

This July, regulators imposed a total of 379 new rules that will cost more than $9.5 billion, according to an analysis by Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo.

And much more is on the way. The Federal Register notes that more than 4,200 regulations are in the pipeline. That doesn't count impending clean air rules from the EPA, new derivative rules, or the FCC's net neutrality rule. Nor does that include recently announced fuel economy mandates or eventual ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank regulations.

But what's good for regulators isn't necessarily good for the private sector, as compliance burdens impose ever-increasing costs on businesses.

"Our economy is continuing to sink," Sen. Barrasso said, "and it's being weighed down by regulations coming out of this administration."

By 2008, the cost of complying with federal rules and regulations already exceeded $1.75 trillion a year, according to a 2010 study issued by the Small Business Administration.

Worse, the SBA found that small companies - which account for most of America's new jobs - spend 36% more per employee to comply with these rules than larger firms.

Cass Sunstein, who runs the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, denies the regulatory upsurge, writing recently that "there has been no increase in rule making in this administration." He also notes Obama ordered a comprehensive regulatory review in January that uncovered $1 billion worth of needless red tape.

But Progressive Policy Institute's Mandel says this review "doesn't go far enough" and that having regulators prune their own rules "has been tried repeatedly in the past, and it's always fallen far short of expectations." He favors an independent "regulatory improvement commission."

Meanwhile, Rep. Geoff Davis, R-Ky., is pushing the REINS Act, which would require Congress to vote for and the president to sign off on all new major regulations.

Not everyone in the Obama administration sees a problem. The EPA thinks new regulations can fuel the economy and hiring.

The EPA wrote in February that "in periods of high unemployment, an increase in labor demand due to regulation may have a stimulative effect that results in a net increase in overall employment."

We are assembled in Zucotti Park - which we've renamed Liberty Plaza - in the financial district of New York, because we believe that the American economy is heading in the wrong direction and we have a few ideas for what to do about it.

There is a feeling shared by a growing number of people on the streets of the world that the global economy has become a kind of Ponzi scheme, a global casino, run by and for the benefit of the 1 percent.

We believe that it is possible to inject justice into the global economy. We have come up with the following list of things that can be done right now to rejuvenate democracy and economic justice in our country:

• Halt foreclosures for the unemployed, sick and elderly

• Increase funding to public services by taxing the richest 1 percent

• Forgive all student loan debt

• Reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act in order to control speculation

• Work with the other G20 nations to implement a 1% "Robin Hood" tax on all financial transactions and currency trades

• Ban high-frequency `flash' trading and bring sanity to the markets

• Break up the "too big to fail" banks that threaten our future

• Arrest the financial fraudsters responsible for the 2008 meltdown and bring them to justice

• Ordain a Presidential Commission tasked with ending the influence corporate money has on our elected representatives in Washington

If you agree with any of these demands, then join us! We will stay here in our encampment in Liberty Plaza until President Obama responds to each of these demands. This is just the beginning, there is more to come as we work together to reshape America.

Some claim that this is not the official manifesto (there appear to be many in circulation):

Steve Bennett’s manifesto:

You know, these guys are on to something. I'm going to write my own manifesto!

1) Free candy

2) Mortgage Forgiveness

3) A brand new car. Color - Red. No Hyndais!

4) More candy

5) Free Netflix for all!

6) I get to stay up as late as I want!!

7) Candy.

That is all...for now.

Goodbye life and freedom. License to kill is here. James Bond and Darth Vader is in your nabourhood.

The army and police and government will not care and think one second about shooting or killing babies or children. Army and police are only holding back the killings because they do not want the mess and the cleanup job. Secondly they believe a killingspree might make people revolt and in such a case the army and police will really have to start the killings and believe it is a little too early for the people to accept this. But in about 15 to 20 years from now it will be common to see the police and army kill at random. They will kill anyone and especially people revolting. They will kill and send in a special force cleaning team and kill anyone trying to collect evidence.

Police andarmy will arrest at will and if someone tries to revolt they will just drop a huge bomb in the area and blaim it on the people or person revolting and the survivers will now revolt against thir own people until everyone complies.

We are living in Orson Wells world and it is even worse. In 20 years time it will be so bad that your socalled freedom is a thing of the past. Every single movement you make will be controlled and if you do something out of the dictated you will be killed or perhaps just have all your resouces plugged out like debit-figures in the bank and your smartphone key will be blocked to get inside your work and essentially you will be on a nomans land mission and you will dies from starvation eventually.

Secret spies are in every street allready and the mission is called full control. Technology is used to control you from the invention of TV to the atom bomb and the next invention to be used is the smartphone. Next invention will be the chipimplant which will promiss a life of heavensand without it you are lost. GPS build in and every transaction tracked. James Bond tried all the technologies they could invent for him and today his operation is so much more easy.

It is probably too late and will take perhaps 50 years from now to turn the ship. It is worse a try but persnally I believe stupidity looses hence we are lost no matter how hard the 99% tries. 90% of the 99% are uneducated and illiterates so the battle is on for sure.

Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and

Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me "to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness":

Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the Beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we many then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have enabled do establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted; for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for the great and various favors which He has been please to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our national government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally, to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.

It is very difficult for me to wade through all of the numbers given in the article, but the gist of it is, we taxpayers are losing a lot of money in the GM bailout:

Major portions of Obamacare may need to be rewritten; and this may be attempted without a Congressional vote:

Sarah Posner of the Guardian suggests that religious teaching and the TEA party might bear some responsibility for the person who took a shot at the White House.

RUSH: From John Voorhees at Slate.com: "The congressional super committee has one week left to hammer out a deal that would provide $1.2 trillion in savings over the next decade. Think they can do it? If your answer is 'No,' you're not alone. A new poll out Wednesday shows that the vast majority of Americans would bet against the bipartisan panel. The CNN/ORC International survey shows that 78 percent of those polled say that it is somewhat or very unlikely that the panel will develop a plan to significantly reduce the federal budget deficit by the Nov. 23 deadline. Furthermore --" dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut "-- Americans are more likely to lay the blame for such a failure with congressional Republicans (42 percent) than they are with Democratic lawmakers (32 percent)."

More Americans would blame the Republicans if the super committee fails. It's just another reason why the Democrats don't want a super committee deal. It's not the main reason. The main reason is there was never supposed to be a deal. Obama's campaign is based on a do-nothing Congress.

Now, this is from TheHill.com. You're not going to like the headline, nor are you going to like the story. "Republican Leaders Preparing Rank-and-File For Deal on New Tax Revenues -- House Republican leaders began preparing their members on Tuesday to accept a potential deficit deal that includes new tax revenues. The GOP co-chairman of the deficit super committee, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), briefed the House Republican Conference on the details of multiple offers that GOP members of the panel have made to their Democratic counterparts.

"A week before the super committee's Nov. 23 deadline, a deal has yet to be struck, but Tuesday's meeting offered Hensarling his first chance to explain to his restive colleagues what Republicans have described as a major concession in negotiations with Democrats. Lawmakers emerged from the closed-door meeting saying Hensarling had made the case that offering some new revenue -- $300 billion in at least one publicized offer -- would be a good trade to secure a permanent extension of the George W. Bush-era tax rates."

Now, I'm wondering, folks, we got this story from TheHill.com about Republican leaders preparing rank-and-file for a deal that involves a concession. I'm wondering if there is a twin piece, another media piece somewhere like this about major concessions the Democrats are making. Somehow I don't think that story exists. And somehow I think the reason it doesn't exist is 'cause I don't think the Democrats are going to make any concessions. But, according to TheHill.com, the Republicans are going to make a concession, $300 billion in new tax revenue.

Now, it doesn't necessarily mean a tax increase. You can get new revenue from taxes by cutting 'em. I don't know what it means. Let's read further. "Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) told reporters after the briefing that the GOP had made 'a fair offer,' referring to a proposal from super committee member Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) that would call for about $300 billion in new taxes in a total deficit-reduction package of $1.2 trillion." Now, folks, we don't have a revenue problem; we have a spending problem, and raising taxes is only going to exacerbate that. But here's the next line in the story. "Despite the concession on taxes," despite the Republicans agreeing to raise taxes $300 billion, "Democrats have rejected the GOP offer as 'not serious.' Hensarling received a standing ovation following his presentation, which one Republican described as 'clinical' and somewhat 'detached.'"

Somewhat detached? That's how Hensarling sounded to his own caucus? I think they've all sounded detached to us, for a long time. Get this. "One lawmaker who attended the conference told The Hill that Hensarling 'did say that what with the statutory obligations that have been set before us, let alone the statutory goals -- don't be surprised if they're not met.'" So that means that even $300 billion in new taxes won't meet the goals? Sheesh. What part of "taxed enough" already don't Republicans seem to understand? Did we dream up that whole year of 2010? Did we dream up the midterm election results? Did we dream up the whole Tea Party existence and its reason for existing?

So, according to this story -- and again, I won't be surprised if I get a call from somebody in Republican leadership's office, "That Hill story is dead wrong, they misquoted us, they're not reporting the truth." I wouldn't be surprised, but what we have to go on is this story, and it seems to be that the Republican plan is to trade $300 billion in new taxes for a permanent extension of the Bush tax rates. But the problem is that nothing is permanent in Washington. Obama's been trying to undo the Bush tax rates for as long as he's been there. There's nothing to stop the Democrats from ending the Bush tax rates after they get this $300 billion in new taxes, but apparently they're not gonna take it. They're refusing the $300 billion tax increase.

So maybe what we've really got here is a sleight of hand trick by the Republicans. "Okay, okay, you guys want some tax increase, you want some new revenue, here's $300 billion." The Democrats reject it so that we can then say they don't want a deal, they're going to try to blame us for no deal. We've asked them, we've given them what they've asked for, and they still turn it down. Maybe that's the plan. Yeah. Yeah. (interruption) The Democrats were insulted not just by the extension of the Bush tax cuts. The Democrats say they're insulted by $300 billion. It's paltry. But the hope here at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies is that this is a trick, that these guys know that the Democrats don't want a deal, that these guys know the whole point here is to have no deal and have it blamed on the Republicans. So Hensarling lets it be known to the media, "I told my caucus, we're willing, okay, you keep the Bush tax cuts intact and we'll find $300 billion in new tax revenue." The Democrats say, "Nope," reject it out of hand.

Once again the problem with this is that it relies on the mainstream media to tell the truth about what's going on. It relies on the mainstream media to say, "Republicans, in a show of good faith, offered exactly what the Democrats had been demanding: new tax revenue via tax

increases. But the Democrats selfishly rejected." That's what they're hoping to get from the mainstream media? They want it reported that way? 'Cause it isn't gonna be reported that way. If that is indeed the gambit, you're gonna only gonna hear about it here and elsewhere in the alternative, so-called alternative media. The mainstream guys are not gonna give the Republicans credit here. The mantra, the narrative, the template is the Republicans won't compromise; the Republicans want the poor to stay poor; the Republicans want the air to stay dirty and the water to stay dirty; the Republicans want people to die and the Republicans want people to get sick. The Republicans will not compromise. What's gonna change about that narrative? Nothing.

Let's go to the audio sound bites. I mentioned I heard Paul Ryan on Fox this morning. It was Brian Kilmeade who said to him, "Let's talk about super committee. You're not on it. You said you didn't want to be on it. I'm sure you would have been put on it. Now, sitting inside ten days, we see Republicans yesterday were optimistic; Democrats weren't. In reality, where's the progress?"

RYAN: We've offered solutions. Our negotiators in the super committee put forward plans to actually accomplish this objective, and we put forward plans that we thought Democrats would agree to. They keep seeming to move the goalposts and walk away from the table. Pat Toomey, our Senator from Pennsylvania, put together a plan to replace the Bush tax cuts with tax reform -- lower tax rates, broadening the base, meaning get rid of the loopholes -- and that actually brings in more revenue. So our negotiators already said: Let's replace the Bush tax schedule, lower everybody's tax rates, get rid of the loopholes and reductions and you bring even more revenue into the federal government -- more importantly, you grow the economy and create jobs -- and that is what we offered, and that's what the Democrats walked away from.

RUSH: Okay. So I heard him right. "We've offered all kinds of things. We've even offered to replace the Bush tax cuts, and we've shown 'em how it'll create more revenue." It's not about revenue. The Democrats are not about increasing revenue. Increasing government is what they want to do, and the way to do that is take money out of the private sector and people's pockets who live there, you and me; and the way to do that is to raise our taxes. They'll take money out of our pocket, it will cause economic growth to slow down even more, but it will transfer more money to Washington -- and even if it doesn't significantly increase revenue that much, it still increases government power by keeping the private sector small and shrinking, which is what the Democrats want.

"The Democrats want more of what we are living through now," is the simplest way I can explain it to you. "Mr. Limbaugh, are you saying that the Democrats want 9% unemployment?" Yes, Mr. New Castrati. I'm saying they want 9% unemployment. They'd be happier with 10% unemployment, but for the next six months they want it reported as 8%. "Are you saying the Democrats would actively lie about the unemployment figures?" Yes, Mr. New Castrati. I'm saying that they are lying about the unemployment numbers. "This is simply outrageous, Mr. Limbaugh. Do you actually believe the Democrat Party wants pain and suffering on the part of the people?" Well, every policy they've put forth, Mr. New Castrati, has brought about pain and suffering.

They are rejecting solutions! They are rejecting programs which solve the problem, which will grow private sector jobs, will grow the US economy, because they want the government getting bigger. "What's wrong with the government getting bigger, Mr. Limbaugh? That's where people get taken care of." No, it's not. If a big government equals "people being taken care of," why is there so much squalor, unemployment, and all the other things you continually whine and moan about, Mr. New Castrati? "Because the program is uncompleted! It's not finished yet; the Democrats have not finished their great compassionate work." Well, it's true they haven't finished their work but it's not rooted in compassion, Mr. New Castrati -- and it depends on absolute blithering idiots like you for success. Here's Jeb Hensarling himself last night Larry Kudlow's show, CNBC. Kudlow said, "Moments ago the super committee broke up for the night. No new deal. I want to ask you about the threat of super tax increases that could sink the economy."

HENSARLING: Uh, not gonna happen, Larry. I mean, listen, we're facing a jobs crisis and a debt crisis. We're certainly not gonna exacerbate one by trying to address the other. Uh, frankly, that's one of the reasons that we are somewhat stymied at the moment. We have come forth, frankly, with a very good-faith offer of putting some tax revenue on the table, but only if we do it in a pro-growth fashion to broaden the base, bring down rates -- uh, which is what every, frankly, other bipartisan effort has done. That would help unleash pro-growth economics by one study --

RUSH: Okay, so that's the old cut taxes, create more jobs, i.e., more taxpayers, i.e., more revenue. That's their proposal. Democrats want no part of it. That's Reaganomics. They don't want more revenue. They don't want more jobs. The Democrats are gonna reject these concessions. They reject $300 billion in new revenue, via new tax policy. The choice is easy, folks: Either the Democrats are hopelessly incompetent or they want this. There is no third option. Nobody is this stupid. This is incompetence or purposeful -- and if it's purposeful, who are the saboteurs? That is what is happening.

RUSH: Grab sound bite five real quick. This is back in September. Pocatello, Idaho. Idaho State University alleged White House shooter Oscar Ramiro Ortega Hernandez made a tape and he said this.

HERNANDEZ: You see, Oprah? There is still so much more that God needs me to express to the world. It's not just a coincidence that I look like Jesus. I am the modern-day Jesus Christ that you all have been waiting for.

RUSH: "You see, Oprah?" You see, Oprah! Can you imagine if this guy had said, "You see, Rush?" But since he says, "You see, Oprah?" the guy can't be all bad, even though he is Looney Tunes. He can't be all bad. He loves Oprah.

Fantastic Column on Occupy Explains Why They Prosper from the Miracle of Capitalism

RUSH: A couple of stories here, very interesting about Occupy Wall Street. One of them is out of Harvard from Occupy Harvard site. It's actually an MIT.education website. And the headline, "Harvard Walks Out of Econ 10." This is a classic story. "On Nov. 2, 70 Harvard students walked out of class in the middle of their introductory Economics 10 lecture to show solidarity with the Occupy Boston movement and protest the conservative bias they felt was present in their course." At Harvard!

"Two weeks later, Rachel Sandalow-Ash, a Harvard freshman who organized the walkout with her classmate Gabriel Bayard, said it sparked discussion both during class sections and outside the classroom. 'It can be easy for college students to exist in a bubble, and I believe that these actions have increased discussion and debate around some of the most important issues of our time,' she said. The university has not punished the students who walked out.

"The students protested two main causes -- the alleged bias in their economics class and increasing tuition and student debt. Students have also accused the professor teaching the class, Nicholas G. Mankiw PhD '84, of showing a conservative bias. Sandalow-Ash believes that Mankiw, who acted as an economic advisor to George W. Bush, 'was a key player in creating the very economic policies that led to financial instability.' ... The students chose to walk out of Economics 10 ... because of problems students raised with the class, namely a 'bias inherent in the class,' which was identified in an open letter sent to Mankiw from the students who walked out." So the students are mad at Harvard because they are not being taught enough liberalism. They're not being taught enough liberalism in economics. They also went on to complain about the mathematical models.

On the other side of this, there's a great post here, a piece by Gary Wolfram, who is the William Simon Professor of Economics and public policy at Hillsdale College. Now, Hillsdale College, a sponsor of this program, Hillsdale College is oriented toward the Constitution. No matter what your degree at Hillsdale, you take four years of the Constitution with everything else aimed at your major. This is just a great post from this guy.

"Occupy Wall Street Crowd Blind to Benefits of Capitalism -- Whenever I watch media coverage of another Occupy Wall Street event I am reminded of an exchange between Jewish protesters in the 1979 Monte (sic) Python movie Life of Brian. One of the protesters asks another what the Romans have brought to the area and the conversation goes like this:

"Question: All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

"The point is that the Roman institutions brought a good deal to the area that was being overlooked by the protesters. The Wall Street protesters, in their hatred of capitalism, overlook things including the fact that over the last 100 years capitalism has reduced poverty more and increased life expectancy more than in the 100,000 years prior."

Now, I'm gonna take a break and I'm gonna come back and I'm gonna finish this, because it's educational and informed. It's one of the greatest little lessons in basic economics, and it's provided here by a Hillsdale College economics professor. And one of the fascinating things is to learn just how recent market capitalism is as a player in civilization on the world stage.

RUSH: Okay, back here to Gary Wolfram, Hillsdale College. "The Wall Street protesters, in their hatred of capitalism, overlook things including the fact that over the last 100 years capitalism has reduced poverty more and increased life expectancy more than in the 100,000 years prior. Every semester I ask my students: 'What would you rather be? King of England in 1263 or you?' Turns out, students would rather be themselves. They enjoy using their iPhone, indoor plumbing, central heating, refrigerators and electric lighting."

By the way, this goes to a question I ask frequently on this program, and I've asked this question over and over again.

How is it that a nation of less than 250 years became the most powerful nation on earth in human history, outdoing nations and civilizations that have been around for thousands of years, or multiple hundreds of years? How is it that we were able to conceive ourselves out of nothing 200-plus years ago and become a power for good, an economic power, unlike any the world's ever seen? Our DNA's no different than the DNA of people in Europe or Asia. How did this happen? This gets to it.

"How is it that for thousands of years mankind made very little progress in increasing the standard of living and yet today half of the goods and services you use in the next week did not exist when I was born?" This is the professor talking to his students. "How is it that for thousands of years mankind made very little progress in increasing the standard of living --" think of that, thousands of years. "-- and yet today half of the goods and services you use in the next week did not exist when I was born? It wasn't that there was some change in the DNA such that we got smarter. The Greeks knew how to make a steam engine 3,000 years ago and never made one. The difference is in how we organize our economic system. The advent of market capitalism in the mid 18th century made all of the difference.

"We need not just rely on historical data. Look at cross-section evidence. I try another experiment with my students. I tell them they are about to be born and they can choose whatever country in the world they would like to be born in. The only caveat is they will be the poorest person in that country." The point of this question is, you can choose wherever you want to be born, but you're gonna be born the poorest person in the country. So you better choose a place that offers you upward mobility. That's what he's getting at here.

"Every student picks a country that is primarily organized in a market capitalist system. No one picks a centrally planned state. No one says, 'I want to be the poorest person in North Korea, Cuba, or Zimbabwe,' countries which are at the bottom of the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom. What does it mean to be poor in our capitalist society that the Occupy Wall Street crowd so hates? Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation has several studies of those classified as poor by the U.S. Census Bureau. He found that 80 percent of poor persons in the United States in 2010 had air conditioning, nearly three quarters of them had a car or truck, nearly two-thirds had satellite or cable television, half had a personal computer and more than two-thirds had at least two rooms per person.

"Contrast this with what it means to be poor in Mumbai, India, a country that is moving rapidly towards market capitalism but was burdened for decades with a socialist system. The Occupy Wall Street movement has shown a lack of understanding of how the market capitalist system works," and that's primarily, folks, because they haven't been taught it. They've been taught socialist utopia crap. "They appear to think that the cell phones they use, food they eat, hotels they stay in, cars they drive, gasoline that powers the cars they drive and all the myriad goods and services they consume every day would be there under a different system, perhaps in more abundance.

"But there is no evidence this could be or ever has been the case. The reason is that only market capitalism solves the two major problems that face any economy-how to provide an incentive to innovate and how to solve the problem of decentralized information. The reason there is so much innovation in a market system compared to socialism or other forms of central planning is that profit provides the incentive for innovators to take the risk needed to come up with new products. My mother never once complained that we did not have access to the latest Soviet washing machine. We never desired a new Soviet car. The socialist system relies on what Adam Smith referred to as the benevolent butcher and while there will undoubtedly be benevolent butchers out there, clearly a system that provides monetary rewards for innovators is much more dynamic and successful. The profit that the Occupy Wall Street protesters decry is the reason the world has access to clean water and anti-viral drugs," that they need now.

"The other major problem that must be solved by any economic system is how to deal with the fact that information is so decentralized. There is no way for a central planner to know how many hot dogs 300 million Americans are going to want at every moment in time. A central planner cannot know the relative value of resources in the production of various goods and services. Market capitalism solves that problem through the price system. If there are too few hot dogs, the price of hot dogs will rise and more hot dogs will be produced. If too many hot dogs are produced, the price of hot dogs will fall and fewer will be produced."

RUSH: It's an interesting proposition. You have a central planner, how many hot dogs 300 million Americans are gonna want at every moment in time. Now, that's a great example because something has to decide. Something has to be the arbiter of how many hot dogs 300 million Americans are gonna want at any moment in time. Take a summer day where there are a lot of baseball games being played. Imagine if some idiot thought that he alone, with his administration, could plan something like that. Obama believes that. Obama and his people believe they should be in charge of things like that. Imagine the mess it would be. But how does it get solved? How does it happen that, given any day of the year you choose, you want a hot dog, it's gonna be there somewhere, there will be a hot dog, what makes that possible?

Now, the Occupy Wall Street crowd doesn't think about this, they've never been taught this, they don't think of things like this. It's not even on their radar. It's just there. They're Americans; there should be a hot dog. Problem they have is they have to pay for it. That's what they don't like. But somebody has to make it possible for it to be there, some system. And Mr. Wolfram's point here is that it's capitalism. And the price system will determine.

The restaurant owner. Can you imagine if you've never owned a restaurant, you have your menu, so everything on that menu has to be available. If you're gonna stay in business you can't tell customers, "Sorry, don't have the prime rib tonight." It's gotta be there. But then how do you know how much to have, 'cause you can only keep it for so long before you have to toss it out, which is a loss. So how do you know how much to order, how much to keep, and do that for your entire inventory, and if you sell booze, if you got a bar, you have to do the same thing. Then you gotta worry about theft. You have to factor all these things in. But if you've got a menu of items at your restaurant, it better be there, and you have to do it in such a way that you show a profit at the end of the day or you're gonna be closing down. How does that happen? How do you know just the right amount to have in your refrigerator or in stock, particularly when you're dealing with food?

"Market capitalism is the key to the wealth of the masses. As Ludwig von Mises wrote in his 1920 book, Socialism, only market capitalism can make the poor wealthy. Nobel Laureate Friedrich Hayek in his famous 1945 paper, The Use of Knowledge in Society, showed that only the price system in capitalism can create the spontaneous order that ensures that goods will be allocated in a way that ensures consumers determine the use of resources." Price system determines what people can afford, therefore, what moves, what sells, what gets replaced, what gets manufactured to replace. "The Occupy Wall Street movement would make best use of its time and energy in protesting the encroachment of the centrally planned state that led to the disaster of the Soviet Union, fascist Germany, and dictatorial North Korea."

Now, this stuff is quite simple when it's explained to you by somebody that can make the complex understandable, but these people have never been taught it. They just assume that stuff's there. They probably think he's right, that if they were in charge with central planners there would be more of it for everybody, you just have to redistribute it better. Everybody could have as many hot dogs as they want whenever they wanted and it wouldn't cost them anything. Basic econ 101. That's probably what this guy is the Harvard is trying to teach students that they're walking out on. They probably consider anything to do with capitalism bias, conservative bias.

RUSH: Newt Gingrich, top of the heap now. The Republican Party is still vetting their candidates, and despite what anybody tells you, we do not know who the nominee will be. But we do know what he or she should be saying. We do know, I know, so do you, what that nominee should be saying in order to secure the nomination. And that is, Barack Obama is the problem, not fellow Republicans. The problem is Barack Obama. The problem is the Democrat Party. The problem is the American left. America's greatness is not behind us. America's greatness is here. It's on the horizon. Our nominee must say we will be great again and the first step in the process is getting rid of Barack Obama and the Democrat Party and moving them out of the way.

Whichever of these people seeking the nomination makes that case the most consistently and the most believably and the most sincerely, not as phony sales type presentation but genuinely means it, that's who's gonna get this nomination in the end. And it is still up for grabs. The media is also a problem, not fellow Republicans. In the big scheme of things the problems this country faces are not Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, any of these people. The problem, the obstacles that we all face in returning this to a great nation, Barack Obama, his acolytes, his regime, the Democrat Party, and, truth be told, the media, they are an obstacle as well because they are part of the opposition, they are part of what must be defeated.

First principles are the answer. First principles, first conservative constitutional principles are the answer. Articulating that as fact with depth and conviction is what the people of this country want. We and the rest of the people of this country are sick and tired of careful politicians, business as usual politicians. We are fed up and exhausted with people who measure their comments. The blueprint for rebuilding America has been written. Ronaldus Magnus wrote it; Barry Goldwater wrote it; William F. Buckley Jr. wrote it; Burke wrote it, any number. Friedrich Von Hayek wrote it; Milton Friedman wrote it. Market capitalism is the answer. Robust liberty and freedom for the American people is the answer, and then a government willing, after unleashing that, to get out of its way is the answer.

It all starts with the individual. Private property rights is the foundation because without private property rights there are no rights for people anywhere else. The Republican nominating process is a competition of ideas and the ability to communicate how can we get back to our pursuit of happiness? How can we get back to our pursuit of excellence? How can we get back to the trusted institutions that have defined this nation and its greatness for hundreds of years? How can the individual be empowered? How can liberalism be stopped, repealed, and rolled back? What Newt's doing is no secret. Newt is tapping into the American mind-set. He has the ability to do it. He also has the ability to blow it. Which is what gives people pause, but at this point they're looking past that, they're looking past the baggage, and this is my point.

The press, the media, the Democrats are trying to focus on the baggage, trying to focus on Cain's baggage and whatever they can manufacture, or Michele Bachmann's baggage, and even Romney's baggage with his Romneycare. We don't hear any reports of the baggage that Barack Obama brings to the table, but it takes a C5A cargo jet to hold it all. Newt Gingrich is making it clear that he is proud of this country and its history, of our culture, the idea of American exceptionalism. My point is here, nobody ought to be shocked to learn that a Republican who is articulating conservatism proudly, competently, confidently, articulately, nobody should be surprised that that person is nearing the top of the heap. It has been our point all along, ladies and gentlemen, has it not? Was that not why there was so much hope invested in Sarah Palin? That's why there was so much hope in Chris Christie. They believed that that's what Chris Christie represented.

It is why Donald Trump led in the polls at the time he was involved, because Donald Trump was fearless and was taking it to Obama and was taking it to the Democrats and was letting it be known that it's not a question, it's not a mystery, it's not something misunderstood about why the country is in the problems it's in, why it faces the challenges we face. It's Barack Obama and his administration, his policies. And whichever of these Republicans has the ability to consistently say so, take it to Obama, stand up for America, stand up for the American people, articulate a great belief and faith in the decency and the potential greatness of the American people, when there are no obstacles in their way, is who is going to get this nomination. And that is who is going to lead in the polls. With some exceptions, of course, in the latter part of that, but for the most part it's going to be true.

Nobody should be shocked, I don't believe, to learn that a Republican articulating conservatism fearlessly who is also pointing out the media's partisanship, who schools the media in their own malpractice, and the media attempts to shut that down, the establishment attempts to shut that down by saying, "Hey, that's very, very, very beneath us to attack the media. Why, the media is who they are, it's gonna be seen as whining and complaining. You can't go after the media." The American people, the vast majority of them want the media defeated every bit as much as they want Barack Obama defeated because the American people understand that they're one and the same. The American people understand that American decline is being happily presided over by Barack Obama and the acolytes and stenographers and the fellow travelers in the media who build Obama up facilitate America's decline. It doesn't matter where that would be found, the American people are gonna oppose it.

If the media happen to stand for and represent support of someone happily presiding over the decline of the country, the American media are going to be considered an obstacle which must be defeated as well. Newt Gingrich points it out, despite what the warnings are from the establishment types. No, this is not an endorsement. This is analysis, pure and simple analysis. Nothing more. The media applauds Obama for running against Congress. Congress has a higher approval rating than the media does. Why shouldn't the Republican run against the media? It's well known the media is not our friend and it's about time -- I'll tell you something else. And this is very subtle. But Newt, or whoever, in the Republican primary field, this field of nominees, when they go after the media, they are signaling to the American people that they understand and are fearless and are willing to buck the establishment.

Republican voters are fed up with establishment Washington Republicans kowtowing to the media, trying to use the media to get their message out, worrying about what the media says or thinks about them. The American people don't want somebody who's afraid of the media. The American people, the voters on our side particularly wants somebody who will take 'em on, just like we want somebody who will take Obama on fearlessly and not be worried about what's going to be said about it. We don't want somebody who's gonna be reluctant because of the color of Obama's skin. That doesn't matter. The country's in decline. He's presiding over it. He's president of the United States. He's accountable. Somebody who's not gonna hold him accountable is not gonna get our nomination.

Let me read to you one thing about Newt here. Keep in mind there is rioting all over the country now, not nearly as large as the media is making this out to be. This Occupy stuff is podunk, it's tiny. They're building it up to make it look like something that it isn't. But this small group of people, they are attacking law enforcement officers, private property is being destroyed, rapes, murders, multiple infectious diseases have thousands of new hosts. These parasites are now homes to other parasites, known as protesters.

And Newt Gingrich stands up and says, "I would like everyone in the news media to look at the difference between the destructive, hostile, anti-civilization behaviors of the so-called Occupy Wall Street crowd and the serious studying of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, and all the things the Tea Party movement is doing, which are constructive, designed to get America back on track. I think there could not be a better distinction. They want to tear down our country; we love our country. We want to rebuild our country. That's the difference.

"Every city government has an absolute obligation to enforce the rule of law, to protect private property, and frankly, they ought to be filming these people and every person who engages in violence ought to be given a very long vacation from the streets in order to contemplate why in the future they're not gonna engage in violence against fellow Americans, but none of them should be tolerated if they engage in violence against either persons or property. People ask me, 'How quickly could you begin to turn the economy around?' Here's my prediction," Newt says. "The economy will begin to improve late on election night when people realize Obama's gone."

People that talk like that are gonna reside near the top of the Republican heap, despite their baggage, because these are serious times, the future is precarious. Don't have a lot of time to fix it. You've heard people call this program fed up, ticked off, can't tell you how much at this occupy bunch. Again, there's no romance associated, as far as the American people are concerned with the Occupy bunch. There is nothing but contempt. We don't need people out there saying, "I understand them. Well, we ought to relate to them. Yes, I can see their point." We don't need that. Any Republican who talks that way is not gonna get this nomination.

RUSH Just so you understand here, this is not an endorsement. I'm not endorsing Newt or anybody. I'm just analyzing, and I'm just telling you what I think and who I think, not by name, is gonna end up with this nomination. And it's not over, it's not a fait accompli, and it isn't done. A lot of people want you to think it is. The establishment of both parties want you to think it is, but it's not.

New Hampshire is first, then we're gonna have the Hawkeye Cauci, and it's not gonna be over after those two, and if you want to know an interesting little factoid, the Republican nominee for the last, gosh, I don't know how many election cycles has won the South Carolina primary. Yeah. And it's a long enough series of election cycles to be significant, as to be an indicator, much more so than Iowa or New Hampshire. It used to be New Hampshire. Florida's gonna matter too 'cause it's early on, Florida is gonna be huge, but South Carolina just statistically, I don't know what the number of election cycles it is, but it's a significant number. Whoever has won the Republican primary in South Carolina has gone on to become the nominee.

Here's Newt. This is yesterday, Jacksonville, Florida, it was a campaign town hall event, and he got a question from a woman who said, "How do you intend to counteract the bias of the media, the dirty remarks that we're getting? I've noticed that every time a Republican runs they get slammed in the press, they always take the high road. They never knock back. They never say, 'Hey, it's okay for Michelle Obama to spend $10 million taxpayer money on vacations. How come you can't spend whatever you spend on your wife and she can get away with spending all that,' why don't we fight back?" Here's the question. This is my exact point, a voter, "Why don't we ever fight back?"

You've heard people calling me on this program. "Why don't the Republicans do X?" Well, I'm here to tell you that of these Republicans that remain in our primary field, whichever one of them fire back at the media, at Obama, at the Democrats, at the ruling class, whoever fights back is gonna end up getting this nomination, and if they continue on after getting a nomination, if they maintain that theme, they're gonna be elected. And if they continue to govern after winning the election that way then they're gonna be reelected. In the process the country's gonna rebound. The woman goes on to say, "If you were to make any type of remark like that against a Democrat candidate, it would be racism, it would be bias. So how you gonna fight the press, Newt?"

GINGRICH: Here's the key thing to remember. We all complained, correctly, when the news media failed to investigate Barack Obama. We complained when they refused to look at William Ayers. We complained when they didn't actually explain what Saul Alinsky was all about and what community organizer meant, okay. We were right to complain that. So now they're actually doing for us what they wouldn't do for Obama, okay? Now, they're doing it partly out of bias, I understand that, and I understand that there are places like MSNBC that are essentially the Obama reelection team.

RUSH: That kind of remark resonates with people. And he's saying, go ahead, go ahead, vet me. We think that's what your job ought to be. Newt's essentially saying, "I knew what was coming." Herman Cain. He knew what was coming. They all know what's coming. Every Republican knows they're gonna get the media anal exam. They're not gonna complain about it. Whoever fights back against it, whoever puts it in context, whoever points out that there's no fairness here, whoever points out that it's one-sided, is going to triumph. Last night on Greta Van Susteren's show On the Record, she had Newt. She said, "Was the contract during the time of 2007 we went into a tailspin in the housing market, this contact with Freddie Mac, tell me about that, Newt."

GINGRICH: To the best of my knowledge, it ended about the time that we were going into a tailspin, but I'd have to go back, I can't give you an exact date. It was clear by that stage that what you had was a giant bubble because you had loan requirements that had collapsed to a point of absurdity where people could get mortgages who had, you know, no credit history, no down payment, et cetera. So my interest in housing and my interest in helping relatively poor Americans have a chance to buy a house is very real and goes back a long way. I was approached to offer strategic advice. I do no lobbying of any kind perform I never have. Very important point I want to make. I have never done lobbying of any kind.

RUSH: And then she said, "Well, you've also been very critical of Obama receiving substantial amounts of money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, contributions from the executives in 2008. What's the difference between the criticism you've made of Obama, getting substantial campaign contributions to help Freddie Mac, and what you did?"

GINGRICH: The difference is that under the leadership of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd in the Congress and of the president, those institutions have gotten $156 billion of taxpayers' money. I was a private citizen. I was not involved in doing any of these things, so there's a huge difference between what you do when you're in public office and you're dealing with the public trust and what you do as a private businessperson who has no direct power and no direct responsibility and you're sitting there offering advice. What I didn't do and would not do, is I didn't go and lobby the Congress; I didn't go and lobby the executive branch; I didn't try to represent any position I didn't believe in beforehand.

RUSH: There. Now, this could come back and haunt him, because this is Inside Washington stuff, lobbying, not lobbying, but being a consultant for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and nobody, nobody has a brief for Freddie Mac, and there's nobody that wants to defend 'em, and they are at the root of the problem, and here's Newt who accepted a consultancy deal, this could come back and bite him at some point, all this baggage could rear its head if he falters elsewhere. Nothing's a lock here. But so far what I'm just pointing out, he's found a way to overcome it. It could be temporary, we'll find out. It could be permanent. Depends. Here is one more. Van Susteren said, "Well, where does this go? What do you expect is gonna happen the next day or two?"

GINGRICH: The police will eventually have to arrest them. They will provoke and provoke until there's no choice and the police will arrest them. You know, the Tea Party's met in huge numbers, and we did this today down here with the first coast Tea Party, hundreds and hundreds of people. They picked up the trash, they were orderly, they were positive, they were there as citizens, not as mobs. The gap between the way Occupy Wall Street has degenerated into an anti-civilization, anti-law kind of group and the way in which the Tea Partiers were trying to understand and study American history, it's a startling contrast between the two groups.

RUSH: Exactly right. By the way, from Business and Media Institute, Obama's chief of staff, his pick for chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, is a Freddie Mac alum. Do you know that, did the media ever tell you that? Rahm Emanuel held a paid position on Freddie Mac's board from 2000 to 2002 when they were accused of accounting and campaign finance irregularities. Yeah, you might have known it and forgot it, but Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are infested with Democrat parasites.

It's where Democrats went to get filthy rich for doing nothing. Franklin Raines, $90 million. Roger Mudd's kid who ran the place for a while, tens of millions of dollars, Jamie Gorelick, $26 million, Jim Johnson, who nobody ever heard of other than Inside Washington Beltway types, 20 some odd million. Just literally taking it out like Corzine was taking money out of his company. Really no difference in what was happening. And it was Bill Clinton's going away gift to Rahm Emanuel was a seat on the Freddie Mac board. It was where these people went to get rich, legally, as the rules are written in Washington.

RUSH: Have you heard of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac? You know, I didn't know much about 'em until this news of Newt Gingrich. Newt Gingrich had a consultancy deal there, was paid, what, a million, $1.2, 1.3 million to consult. Why, you woulda thought that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, why, nobody ever heard of 'em until Newt became associated with them. But how about the fact that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac paid Franklin Raines $90 million? How about this guy Jim Johnson that ran that place for a while that walked out of there with over $20 million? Jamie Gorelick got something like $26 million working for Fannie and Freddie. And of course there's Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, never mattered. The media never reported any of that, wasn't interested at all, but now you've got Newt in a consultancy deal and all of a sudden Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are bad things. But up until Newt got involved, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, why gloriously helping people into homes and buying up mortgages and so forth. It's just amazing how the media is suddenly interested in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Remember the Stimulus Bill “debate”? Yeah, there wasn’t any. Also, you never read this either:

"The Entire System Has Been Utterly Destroyed By The MF Global Collapse" - Presenting The First MF Global Casualty

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.

Stolen History. This is a Black historian who seeks to teach the actual history of the Black man in America:

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 #204	Kukis Digests and Opines on this Week’s News and Views	November 19, 2011

Candidate	11/13–15	10/23–25
Newt Gingrich	23	12
Mitt Romney	22	20
Herman Cain	15	24
Ron Paul	8	9
Rick Perry	7	10
Michele Bachmann	6	3
Jon Huntsman	3	–
Rick Santorum	2	3