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).

Forgot to include this with last week’s news, but 2011 was worst year for new home sales, going back to 1963. This is what happens when the government gets involved with the economy.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has publically stated that he believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June - before Iran enters what Israelis described as a "zone of immunity" to commence building a nuclear bomb.

In Eastern Europe, there has been a dramatic week-long cold spell which has killed at least 164 because of the freezing weather conditions. Temperatures have dropped to a –35 degrees Celsius.

The President did a Google “online townhall” where Google chose the questions from this public forum. Although the legalization of marijuana was near the top of the list of questions this townhall group wanted the President to talk about, Google left such questions out of the mix. More important than this issue was how the President feels about dancing and late-night snacks.

After saturating the airwaves with thousands of negative ads, Mitt Romney wins the Florida primary. With much less advertising, Romney pulls off an easy victory in the Nevada caucus.

The Catholic church sent an open letter to President Obama concerning his requiring anti-Catholic contraception to be provided in their healthcare policies (including the morning-after pill). This letter was read in many Catholic churches across the United States. The military forbade their chaplains to read this letter. Planned Parenthood has been running ads in support of Obama’s policy.

The Komen foundation first withdrew its support from Planned Parenthood because they were under investigation. However, after a great deal of pressure from liberal groups, including 26 Senators, they have decided to continue giving grants to Planned Parenthood, even though their contribution to the cure of breast cancer is tenuous at best.

Donald Trump comes out and endorses Mitt Romney; and Snoop Dogg endorses (more or less) Ron Paul.

Attorney General Eric Holder has been called in for a new round of questioning regarding Operation Fast&Furious.

During Obama’s “speech” (prayer? Whatever) at the annual prayer breakfast, Republican Rep. Phil Gingrey quietly walked out.

The Forecast the Facts campaign—led by 350.org, the League of Conservation Voters and the Citizen Engagement Lab—is pushing for more of a focus on global warming in weather forecasts, and is highlighting the many meteorologists who do not share their beliefs. They would like to eliminate weathermen that do not believe in global warming.

California will run out of cash by early March if the state does not take swift action to find $3.3 billion through payment delays and borrowing, according to a letter state Controller John Chiang sent to state lawmakers.

The textbooks used to educate Palestinian children who live in refugee camps are partially paid for by United States taxpayers. Recently, on Capitol Hill, experts claim that these textbooks are filled with lessons of intolerance and hatred toward Jews and Israel.

The Arab world's most famous comic actor, Adel Imam, has received a three-month jail sentence for insulting Islam in films and plays.

A Christian convert whom security authorities arrested in her home was sentenced to two years in prison by the Revolutionary Court in Tehran.

It has been somewhat of a quiet week for Islamic radicals. Between Jan. 27 and Feb. 3, there were only 24 terror attacks, in 8 countries, and 83 people killed.

Egypt is putting 19 Americans, including transportation sec's son, on trial over funds. How do you feel about Arab Spring in Egypt now?

The Philippine military said it killed three most-wanted leaders of the al-Qaida-linked terrorist groups Abu Sayyaf and Jemaah Islamiyah.

U.S. intelligence officials acknowledged Tuesday that the United States may release several Afghan Taliban prisoners from the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as an incentive to bring the Taliban to peace talks.

The U.S. military said in a secret report that the Taliban, backed by Pakistan, are set to retake control of Afghanistan after NATO-led forces withdraw, raising the prospect of a major failure of Western policy after a costly war.

President Obama, for about the 100^th time: "We can't go back to the policies that led to the recession."

President Obama at the annual prayer breakfast: "When I talk about our financial institutions playing by the same rules as folks on Main Street, when I talk about making sure insurance companies aren't discriminating against those who are already sick, or making sure that unscrupulous lenders aren't taking advantage of the most vulnerable among us, I do so because I genuinely believe it'll make the economy stronger for everybody. But I also do it because I know that far too many neighbors in our country have been hurt and treated unfairly over the last few years, and I believe in God's command to love thy neighbor as thyself...And when I talk about shared responsibility, it's because I genuinely believe that in a time when many folks are struggling, at a time when we have enormous deficits, it's hard for me to ask

seniors on a fixed income, or young people with student loans, or middle-class families who can barely pay the bills to shoulder the burden alone. And I think to myself, if I'm willing to give something up as somebody who's been extraordinarily blessed, and give up some of the tax breaks that I enjoy, I actually think that's going to make economic sense. But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus's teaching that ‘for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.’ It mirrors the Islamic belief that those who've been blessed have an obligation to use those blessings to help others, or the Jewish doctrine of moderation and consideration for others."

President Obama: “Lenders sold loans to families who couldn't afford them. Banks packaged those mortgages up and traded them for phony profits. It drove up prices and created an unsustainable bubble that burst - and left millions of families who did everything right in a world of hurt.” It is against the law for a mutual fund, for instance, to tell you they invest in one set of investment products, but to actually invest in a different set of products. If banks could do this, then why? What legislation allowed them to do this?

President Obama: “Right now, there are more than 10 million homeowners in this country who, because of a decline in home prices that is no fault of their own, owe more on their mortgages than their homes are worth. Now, it is wrong for anyone to suggest that the only option for struggling, responsible homeowners is to sit and wait for the housing market to hit bottom. I don't accept that. None of us should.” Investments go up and down. At what time should investments involve no risk?

Lyrics by Rep. John B. Larson (D-Conn.) and Terisa Griffin, with "apologies to Al Green."

"We're . We're so in love with you .

We're going to help you make it through .

By turning the red states blue .

You make us feel so darn proud .

We want to shout it out loud .

Let's bring the country together .

Supporting you whether . whether times are good or bad . happy or sad

Let's bring the country together .

Supporting you whether . whether times are good or bad . happy or sad

Let's . Let's stay together."

Michelle Obama: "And when our kids get older and they graduate from school, we all know how hard it is for them to find jobs, let alone jobs with insurance. And that's why, as part of health reform, kids can now stay on their parents' insurance until they're 26 years old."

President Obama, following a meeting with Georgia's President Saakashvili, to reporters: "[O]ne of the first things that I did was express my appreciation for the institution-building that's been taking place in Russia - in Georgia." Georgia is currently celebrating its 20^th anniversary of independence from Russia.

President Obama: "We're starting to see some signs that the economy is picking up. We've created 22 million jobs over the last—or 3 million jobs over the last 22 months."

Michelle Obama: "We are blessed to have someone not just of his intellectual caliber but with such a strong grounding of values that all of us identify with - these basic American values that have made our country great and will continue to make us the strongest country in the world."

Michelle Obama: "In the last 3 years, we've worked hard to get out of this mess and we've made some remarkable progress."

White House spokesman Jay Carney: "[The President] absolutely stands by the attorney general [Eric Holder] and thinks he's doing an excellent job."

Democratic National Committee Debbie Wasserman Schultz: "[President Obama is] going to run on his remarkable record of accomplishment."

Debbie Wasserman Schultz: “You know why I'm not enjoying it [the Republican primary]? I'll tell you. As a Floridian, and I'm here in the state of Florida as we speak, as a Floridian their extremism, their callous disregard for undocumented immigrants.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid: "We do not need to bring a budget to the floor this year - it's done, we don't need to do it." I believe this is the 3^rd year without a formal budget in Congress. The House did pass a budget last year that was voted down by the Senate. The claim is, the agreement to raise the debt ceiling functions as a budget.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid: "I've done earmarks all my career, and I'm happy I've done earmarks all my career. They've helped my state, and they've helped different projects around the country."

Sen. Barbara Boxer when it appeared that the breast cancer awareness group Susan G. Komen to pull funding grants from Planned Parenthood: "I was not born yesterday, as most of your viewers can tell, and the fact is, I'm reminded of the McCarthy era."

Senator Barbara Boxer on the Komen’s Foundation changing their minds and continuing giving grants to Planned Parenthood: "women's health triumphed over right-wing politics...health care for our people should never, ever be politicized from any side." To reinforce that politics should not be a part of healthcare, Boxer and 25 other liberal U.S. senators made the issue political with their letter to Komen.

House minority leader Nancy Pelosi: "It was an unfortunate situation but it was dealt with in a short period of time, [and] I commend the Susan G. Komen foundation for seeing the light on this...[It] just goes to show you, when women speak out, women win. Women's health has a big victory this morning."

Attorney General Eric Holder: "ATF's ability to stem the flow of guns from the United States into Mexico suffers from a lack of effective enforcement tools. Unfortunately, in 2011, a majority of House Members - including all members of the majority on this Committee - voted to keep law enforcement in the dark when individuals purchase multiple semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and long guns - like AK-47s - in gun shops in four southwest-border states." So, the ATF’s Fast & Furious Operation, where guns were allowed to walk, without being tracked, into Mexico, is ultimately a problem of weak gun control laws?

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano: "The Obama administration has undertaken the most serious and sustained actions to secure our borders in our nation's history.”

Mayor Michael Bloomberg: “You'd think that if a congresswoman got shot in the head, that would have changed Congress' views [about gun legislation]...This past, this week, even though the murder rate in New York is so much lower than almost every big city, we still had a cop shot last week with a gun that somebody had even though the federal laws prohibited that person from having a gun.

Representative Barney Frank: “Yes, we have a deficit. It is a very large deficit. Much of it incurred because of the policies of President Bush. Supported by Republican majorities in Congress. I'm told, I didn't read it...the bill we passed yesterday said the tax cuts under George Bush did not add to the deficit. Um, that is Marxist Reasoning—Chico Marxist reasoning. It reminds me of the time in one of the movies where Groucho caught Chico red-handed and Chico denying that he had done it said "Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?”

Rosa Brooks, formerly a "Counselor to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy" in the Obama administration: “Any honest diplomat will tell you that American power and global influence is waning, and if we shy away from acknowledging that fact, we'll only speed up the process. By many measures, we've hollowed out the American dream: American life expectancy ranks well below that of other industrialized democracies, and the same is true for infant mortality rates and elementary school enrollment rates. We have the highest documented per capita incarceration rate in the world. And as the Occupy Wall Street movement has helped point out, we have greater income inequality in this country than in any other state in the developed world - and most states in the developing world.” Interestingly enough, in this piece that she wrote, she was not identified as having any connection with the Obama administration.

From the UN:

Milos Koterec, President of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations: "No one should live below a certain income level. Everyone should be able to access at least basic health services, primary education, housing, water, sanitation and other essential services."

Jens Wandel, Deputy Director of the United Nations Development Program: "We will need a modest but long-term way to finance this transformation. One idea which we could consider is a minimal financial transaction tax (of .005 percent). This will create $40 billion in revenue."

FoxNews’s Juan Williams: “The language of GOP racial politics is heavy on euphemisms that allow the speaker to deny any responsibility for the racial content of his message. The code words in this game are ‘entitlement society’ - as used by Mitt Romney - and ‘poor work ethic’ and ‘food stamp president’ - as used by Newt Gingrich. References to a lack of respect for the ‘Founding Fathers’ and the ‘Constitution’ also make certain ears perk up by demonizing anyone supposedly threatening core ‘old-fashioned American values.’ "

Rep. Emmanuel Cleaver: "In the last few days, both Gov. Romney and Speaker Gingrich have been guilty of saying things that are not helpful to a society begging for racial inclusion. Whether they are intentional or not, I'm not 100 percent certain; I do know that it doesn't matter in many cases. It's just unfortunate and it tends to divide."

MSNBC anchor Rev. Al Sharpton on Newt Gingrich: "He's going after a southern mentality, and racial allusions, always wrapped around when he refers to the president, when he talks about this food stamp stuff."

Charles Rangel: "The government doesn't have the racism and discrimination that the private sector enjoys."

Piers Morgan to Jerry Springer, asking him to run for political office "It is time you did your duty for your country."

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow: "Newt Gingrich brought back the food stamps president thing - and then tonight, he went to `President Obama ought to stop singing, ought to stop being the Entertainer-in-Chief.' Sort of caricaturing him in a way that calls out to minstrelsy."

Al Sharpton added: "These are - Newt Gingrich is many things, stupid is not one of them. He knows exactly what he's saying, he knows exactly who he's playing to, when you look at that map, when you deal with the northern border of Florida, which is southern Alabama and all of those states where they [sic] headed he knows what card he's playing."

Economist Barbara Streisand: “Barack Obama has not put anyone on food stamps. The grossly irresponsible and greedy practices of those on Wall Street, which led to the subsequent crash of the housing market, created the most severe recession our country has experienced since the Great Depression (which Obama inherited from George W. Bush when he entered office). These events, along with the continuous deregulation of our financial sector, conspired to make a record number of people eligible for government food assistance. ”

NBC chief environmental affairs correspondent Anne Thompson on Nightly News with anchor Brian Williams: "Add to that a world warming because of climate change and it stacks the deck, Dr. Meehl says, against a traditional winter." On the bottom of the screen was the headline "Where's Winter?"

Thompson, on another NBC show: "Now scientists are unwilling to pin any one weather event on climate change but they say there's no question that our warming world is shifting the odds against a traditional winter, winters as we have known them." The record cold winter occurring in Europe apparently has not reached their desk yet.

“Financial expert” Suze Orman on HBO: “I think he not only should run on his record, so he can run on his record, but let's take a look at this. We have jobs. You can't do anything without a job. In 2010, we averaged about a million jobs. Okay?”

Bill Maher, Host: “A million jobs?”

Orman: “A million jobs that were created. In 2011, it was 1.8 million jobs. Now, in 2012, we are average 200,000 jobs a month that are being created. So he can run on his record. The jobs are coming up. And he's done so much in the past four years I can't even tell you.”

Red is the current recovery; blue is a typical recovery (no differentiation is made for party).

Bill Maher: “The numbers that came out today, government lost 14,000 jobs. We've added private sector jobs, 270,000. We've lost 500,000 public sector jobs since Obama took office and added 3.7 million private sector jobs.” Perhaps this is based upon Martin Bashir claiming that Obama has created 3 million jobs and Bill added on the .7 because it sounds more real and official. However, when Obama took office, there were 110,985,000 private sector workers. As announced by the Labor Department Friday, that number currently stands at 110,436,000, a decline of 549,000.

In the report that followed, added to the alarmism as she declared: "This most unusual January ending on a remarkably mild note across the country....2,890 daily high temperature records broken or tied." She later cited climatologist and global warming proponent Dr. Gerald Meehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research

FoxNews Alan Colmes: “The next day you have Trump endorsing him [Romney], one of the most notorious billionaires.” Trump is a notorious billionaire; are you kidding me?

CNN’s John King: “Let's just look at one more as we come down the line here. If you look here among faith, obviously Governor Mormon is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. He's a Mormon, and he won big among Mormons. He won 9 out of every 10 votes among Mormons.”

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow: “Rick Santorum says that he would like states to be able to make contraception illegal.” Not even close to being true.

MSNBC newsman Chris Matthews takes a look back in recent history and rewrites it somewhat: "There is a real level of national hatred of the president that I hadn't seen before, certainly not under Clinton, or under Dubya. The hatred, the Hitler mustaches, all that stuff. I haven't seen that before." Google “Bush Hitler” under images.

MSNBC's Martin Bashir "Many Republicans will say didn't democrats attack George Bush in exactly the same way. what's your response to that?"

DNC spokesman Brad Woodlouse "I don't remember anything that equates from official Democratic Party. I mean, of course there are interest groups and people have their say, but I don't remember anything coming from Democratic Party about George W. Bush being equated to a terrorist or George W. Bush being equated to somebody who has been accused of manslaughter. I don't remember anybody questioning some of the things about George W. Bush that have been questioned about the president. I don't remember an opposing Governor wagging his or her finger in president George W. Bush's face."

MSNBC Contributor Karen Hunter questions author of The Obamas: "I haven't read the book . . . don't plan on reading it. . . What was your motivation for doing it?"

MSNBC’s Al Sharpton carefully avoiding the “A” word: “And I don't think people understand how vile towards women's right to choose, women's right to deal with their own options, that the right wing has become in this day.”

MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry shows how a masterful pro can talk about abortion without ever saying the “A” word: “Well look: this would have been a masterful strategy, had it worked, right? Because what it did was to separate out good girls from bad girls, which has always been an effective way to limit some women from having having the same freedoms and opportunities, right? So if breast cancer is separated out completely from Planned Parenthood; if Planned Parenthood can't provide breast-cancer screenings, cervical-cancer screenings. If all they're doing is providing reproductive choice opportunities like birth control and pregnancy terminations, then you can after them because those are the bad girls, those are the people who have done bad things.”

Occupy Oakland spokesperson at a press conference about the police: "I want to believe underneath those ridiculous war suits you are human."

Another occupy Oakland:"To these monster with this riot gear, they don't even look human, with this look in their eyes. Who cares if some windows are broken."

Polk Award-Winning Rolling Stone writer Michael Hastings: “Most journalists I know are liberal...Any journalist worth his salt often has a real moralistic kind of righteousness to them somewhere in their soul.” Could I suggest that this is code for being a liberal bleeding heart?

Mike Malloy, former CNN employee, current leftist radio person when he heard that the Koeln Foundation would not be giving money the Planned Parenthood: “So the fact the people are reacting to the Nazis that took over the Susan G. Komen Foundation, especially this Karen Handel freak that comes right out of Georgia...She is the type that would take every Jew in America and crucify `em. She is the type that would take, uh, every Muslim in America and execute 'em.”

Politico's Jonathan Martin on MSNBC as a part of their Florida election coverage: "Chuck, a lot of the counties in the Panhandle, in north Florida, the cracker counties, if you will . . . more resemble Georgia and Alabama than they do Florida."

Eric Holder to a Puerto Rican Congressman during Fast and Furious hearing: "Maybe This is the way you do things in Idaho or wherever you are from." At least he didn’t call him a cracker.

MSNBC’s Ed Schultz: “This is America being transformed right in front of our eyes...You don't have to go very far to find your school district being gutted by the righties. You don't have to go very far before you better be packing iron 'cause we ain't got any cops left.”

Black radio host Thaddeus Matthews to Black GOP candidate: “Get your stupid ignorant ass outta my studio. Another token-ass Negro that asks white folks to approve you. Take your stupid ass on out my damn building...I don’t need to shake your hand...I’m scared because some of your whiteness might rub off on me.”

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: "Why did they [the western powers] install the Zionist regime (Israel)? To gain control over oil, as well as the popular and revolutionary uprisings in the Middle East...It is clear that this was a historical scheme."

Egyptian cleric Sheik Abdallah Kamal: “I mentioned yesterday that the Prophet Muhammad married Aisha when she was six years old, and had sexual intercourse with her when she was nine years old. People might raise an eyebrow and ask how such a thing could be...In warm places, girls reach puberty at a very early age - generally at the age of 8 years. In cold places, girls' puberty is delayed until the age of 21 years - as is the case in some cold countries.”

Sheik Bassam Al-Kayed, head of the Palestinian Islamic Scholars Association in Lebanon: “The Jew is a satan in human form. Allah inflicted the Jews upon humanity in its entirety, and especially upon the nation of Islam, including the early prophets and the Prophet Muhammad. The Jew is a satan in human form.”

Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei: "Threatening Iran and attacking Iran will harm America ... Sanctions will not have any impact on our determination to continue our nuclear course ... In response to threats of oil embargo and war, we have our own threats to impose at the right time...I have no fear of saying that we will back and help any nation or group that wants to confront and fight against the Zionist regime (Israel)." In the same speech, he referred to Israel as a “cancer” which “will be cut.”

Ayatollah Khamenei: "In light of the realization of the divine promise by almighty God, the Zionists and the Great Satan (America) will soon be defeated."

Majid Qadiri, head of the toy department at the Iranian Center for Early Childhood Development: “[Toys] have an evident influence on children. [It is harmful] to dress dolls in the best clothes of the best quality, in keeping with the culture that children see in cartoons and in the cinema. But if these are in keeping with our national and Islamic ideology, [our children] will not be subject to a cultural invasion. This is what the Islamic world is dealing with today. It has been invaded by foreign dolls and toys, like Barbie dolls and others, which are sold to children. These dolls should not be bought, because they have an impact on the mentality of children, and when these children reach adolescence and can choose for themselves, they will find themselves in a situation where the invading culture is dominant.”

Ayatollah Khomeini: "There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humor in Islam. There is no fun in Islam."

Sunni scholar Yousuf Al-Qaradhawi: “I think [the shari'a] should be implemented gradually. This is a law of the shari'a and a law of nature...I think that in the first five years, there should be no chopping off of hands. This period should be dedicated to teaching things. A transitional phase.”

Josephine Terry, the mother of slain Border Patrol agent Brian Terry, on Facebook: "Mr. Holder, how come you never say my son's name? You never have. I'm actually tired of hearing your double talk in answering questions. What a joke you are. You know my son was a real AMERICAN, a WARRIOR, and a HERO, who was also protecting COWARD POLITICIANS like you."

In a commercial for a Samsung tablet which features an agent of the Mossad, Israel's national intelligence agency, one person says: "What? Another mysterious explosion in Iran?" A large explosion is seen in the background.

Vice Prime Minister of Israel and Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya'alon: "Any [nuclear] facility protected by humans can be infiltrated by humans. It's possible to strike all Iran's facilities, and I say that out of my experience as IDF chief of staff."

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta: "We could be fighting a land war in Korea, and suddenly Iran moves to close the Straits of Hormuz. We've got to have the capability to be able to confront each adversary, to not only deter them, but defeat them. And we can do that with the force that we've put in place."

President Obama: “So I want to send a clear message to Congress: Do not slow down the recovery that we're on. Don't muck it up. Keep it moving in the right direction."

Brendan Buck, spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner: "With the president having 'mucked up' the economy pretty well over the last three years, we appreciate his perspective."

Bill O’Reilly asked what President Obama needed to do in order to get reelected.

Alan Colmes: "He has to get out there and explain in simple language what he has done and how he has helped the American people. And he has to get the progressives to vote."

Bill O’Reilly: "He's got to get out there?? Those are the dumbest words I've heard in months! Has he been cloistered in the basement for three years? Did you even think about this segment at all, Colmes?"

NBC’s David Gregory: Well, religious institutions, churches and the like, would be exempted, and there are states that have very similar rules to ensure the health and safety of, of women that they get covered in their workplace, whether it be a Catholic hospital or other kind of institution.

Newt Gingrich: Well, I mean, you, you just managed to precisely repeat the Obama administration's line, which is also the American Civil Liberties Union line. The fact is what you're saying is there cannot be a genuinely Catholic university, there cannot be a genuinely Catholic hospital, that in fact it will have to be subordinated to the rules of a secular government. I mean, I happen to oppose rules that, that have, for example, forced Catholic Adoption Services to be closed because they're only willing to have adoptions for marriages between a man and a woman. There are states that now close that. I think that is a tremendous infringement of religious liberty. And I think you're saying the same thing. You're saying basically, "Oh, you can have the name on it, but you can't actually be a Catholic institution. You can't actually be an evangelical Christian institution. You can't actually be an orthodox Jewish institution because we the secular government are going to impose on you." I think that's--I think this is a very profound moment for Americans to decide...

Gingrich: What? Very substantial, yes. Because, because every American who cares about religious liberty, and I've been talking, for example, with evangelicals here in Nevada, every American who cares about religious liberty recognizes that from, from, from judges who say you, you can't say a prayer in high school, you can't--the New York City decision recently--you, you can't rent an empty school building on Sunday morning--every time you turn around, secular government is closing in on and shrinking the right of religious liberty in America, and I think there are millions of people who are very disturbed by it.

The Daily Caller: “Do you think thought at this point, Harry Reid, yourself and President Obama should take ownership for the current state of the economy?”

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (with a very long and rambling answer that has been edited here): "President Obama was a job creator by, on day one. I've probably said this to you before but just in case I think it bears repeating, a job creator from day one. In his inaugural address, he called for swift, bold action now; and one week and one day after his speech, the House of Representatives passed the economic Recovery Act, which even the CBO says has saved or created over 3 million jobs...We are in a very, very deep hole and that's what we have to come out of. It's not cyclical. It's systemic. It's structural, it's very big and that's why it was really important for us to have more job creation but as you know, once we didn't have the 60^th vote in the Senate, that was hard to do, even with the Democratic majority in the House and now of course, with the Republican majority in the House, [there's] no job agenda...Up until, I think, his last day in office, President Reagan was blaming his economic woes on President Jimmy Carter, who hadn't been president for 8 years already. It's not about - again, this president has been so professional, and by that I mean he understands the role that he has to play and the responsibility that he has. So, with the given that he [Obama] got he has I think tried very hard to take us down the right path. . Blame it on the do-nothing Congress because they have obstructed so much in addition to the policies that that he inherited."

Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz tweeted, after hearing that Donald Trump would support Mitt Romney: "Next up: Who is Snooki going to endorse?”

Nicole "Snooki" Polizzi, star of MTV reality show "Jersey Shore" later tweeted herself: "I will not be voting for Chris Christie."

Later Polizzi Tweeted. "I DEF don't want a judgmental president who has NEVER met me in person . I'll stick w Obama."

Senator Orin Hatch: “Mr. President, our nation faces grave challenges. We are looking at our fourth straight trillion dollar deficit. Our credit rating has been downgraded. Public spending is out of control. The nation demands leadership. At some moments in our nation's history, at moments of crisis, leaders have emerged, put partisanship aside, and worked to solve our greatest challenges. Though our current President has compared himself to both Franklin Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln, his leadership is falling well short of their examples. Instead of taking the reins and making tough choices, when presented with our current fiscal crisis, he has decided to put politics first. He always puts politics first. Just this morning at the National Prayer Breakfast the President took what has always been a non-partisan opportunity for national unity and used it to promote his political agenda. He suggested to the attendees that Jesus would have supported his latest tax-the-rich schemes. With due respect to the President, he should stick to public policy. I think most Americans would agree that the Gospels are concerned with weightier matters than effective tax rates. As long as the President has decided to assume the role of theologian-in-chief, he would do well to put tax policy aside and consider the impact of one of his latest Obamacare mandates. Secretary Sebelius' decision to force religious institutions - over the strong objections of churches and universities representing millions and millions of Americans - to provide insurance coverage for abortifacient drugs and contraceptives to their employees will require these groups to violate their deepest held religious beliefs. The President's comments this morning share more with political strategy than they do the religious beliefs of most Americans. In 2008, the President declared that his nomination was the world historical moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal. Someone needs to remind the President that there was only one person who walked on water. And he did not occupy the Oval Office.”

Charles Krauthammer: “Romney is late to his new ideology [conservatism] and he obviously doesn’t speak it very well.”

FoxNews commentator James Freeman of Romney: “We’ve learned he’s not an instinctive conservative.”

Mitt Romney: "I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs a repair , I'll fix it. I'm not concerned about the very rich.. I'm concerned about the very heart of America, the 90-95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling." The left has already been using Romney’s quote against him.

Mitt Romney: "My test is - is a program so critical that it's worth borrowing money from China to pay for it?"

Mitt Romney: "I happen to think it's immoral for us to keep spending money we don't have and passing on to our kids our obligations,"

Rep. Dan Burton on Fast&Furious documents that Eric Holder has not handed over to them: "I think you're hiding behind something here that will not stand up. You ought to give us the documents. There are 93,000 documents that you're not giving this committee, you're saying separation of power prevents you from doing that. That's baloney. That's just baloney."

Sen. Jeff Sessions: "It's been more than 1,000 days since Senate Democrats have offered a budget plan to the American people. Now, once again, the Senate's ineffectual Democrat majority balks at the task of leadership."

GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum: "[Obama] made the claim that his policies of taxing the rich is authorized by the Bible, that he is doing what is biblically called for by taxing the rich, by having the government tax the rich. Now, I've read the Bible, and I must have missed that passage."

Greg Gutfeld on Komen withdrawing support for Planned Parenthood and then reinstating it: “It’s about political intimidation.”

Jen Kalaber, spokesman for Rep. Phil Gingrey who walked out of President Obama's speech at the National Prayer Breakfast: "He was disturbed and offended by the president's use of prayer and reflection time for partisan politics and class warfare. Rep. Gingrey enjoyed listening to the keynote speaker and found the breakfast to be inspiring until President Obama began politicking."

Rush Limbaugh: "Take any person in this country who's totally absorbed in pop culture. The big thing in their life is watching Entertainment Tonight. They vote. If they vote, we're screwed. You know damn well they haven't the slightest idea what's going on. But that's always been the case."

Rush Limbaugh: "The vast majority of people on the minimum wage are teenagers, young people. If the minimum wage gets too high and then they start cracking down on interns, what's the next place business will go? Illegal aliens."

Rush Limbaugh: "I feel bad for Rachel Maddow. She was a Jeopardy question recently, I think it was Jeopardy, some game show on TV, and nobody knew who she was. None of the contestants had ever heard of her. That's gotta be a blow, particularly when you work at MSNBC and you end up thinking that gazillions watch you every night."

Rush Limbaugh: "When the government's sole source of revenue outside printing it or borrowing it from the ChiComs is taxing the output of the private sector, how does it make any sense to put $800 billion into the private sector that can only come from the private sector in the first place?"

Rush Limbaugh: "After the elections, after November, we can look forward to a 1% GDP. That's a recession, folks. The New York Times called 3.5% GDP a recession under Bush."

Rush Limbaugh: "The Republican Party is hell-bent on making sure that the Tea Party (i.e., conservatives) do not conquer this party and end up controlling it or running it."

Rush Limbaugh: "The federal government doesn't have a dime until it takes it from people who produce it and earn it. Pure and simple. The federal government produces nothing. Absolutely nothing."

Rush Limbaugh: "The Republican establishment wants spending. They want active government, they want to be in charge of it. They'll tinker with it on the margins, but they want to be inside the entire power structure. They don't want to be at odds with the power structure in New York, in Washington, in the whole Northeastern Corridor."

Rush Limbaugh: "Contrary to what many of you might believe, I do not have an out-sized ego. I don't have really much of an ego at all. I frankly wish I had a bigger ego than I do. I don't think that my endorsement is gonna change a whole lot of opinions."

Rush Limbaugh: "Have you seen any evidence of any Republican going after Obama the way Republicans are going after each other? You haven't."

Rush Limbaugh: "I don't care who's telling lies in the Republican campaign, they are pikers compared to what's gonna happen when the Democrat campaign begins."

Rush Limbaugh: "I've long maintained that whoever can articulate conservatism the most consistently, the most confidently and the happiest, is going to win this thing. And that pretty much could overcome any of the negatives."

When asked if he still supported automatic increases in the federal minimum wage to keep pace with inflation, Mitt Romney answered: "I haven't changed my thoughts on that,"

You will laugh; you will cry. High school students in Washington state (try to) answer basic social studies questions. The story to go with this. Maybe Obama’s “57 states” is not so nutty of an answer.

This is great! MSNBC’s Ed Schultz gives the Democratic talking points in an MSNBC ad. As Weasel Zippers proclaims, “The thin line between the DNC and MSNBC just disintegrated.”

On CNN, Soledad O’Brien got Mitt Romney to say those precious words, “I’m not concerned about the poor.” When viewing and discussing this, Roland Martin attempted to high five her for her reporting. Her high five was tepid, but it is clear, she got Romney, and that deserved a high five. It’s not news; it’s, did you skewer a Republican candidate? Good job!

Here is a lesson on how to talk about abortion but without using such a tainted term as abortion.

Obama: “If I don’t turn the economy around in my first term, then this is a one-term proposition.”

Jodi Miller: “Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner has announced that he will be resign at the end of the year. No worries. We have a feeling that a lot of people in the administration aren’t coming back next year.”

Jodi Miller: “Hillary Clinton says that she plans to step down soon as Secretary of State. Hmm. Let’s see—Mexico’s run by drug cartels, the Muslim Brotherhood controls Egypt and Iran is about to have a nuclear bomb? Guess her work is done.”

Jodi Miller: “Actress Cynthia Nixon outraged gay activists by saying that she chooses to be gay. In related news, Rosie O’Donnell admitted the reason she is gay is no man in his right mind would want to see her naked.”

1) In operation Fast&Furious, someone has to issue the order for guns to walk from the United States into Mexico with the provision that these guns not be followed or tracked. We have a number of agents in the field who began to complain about this as well as gun owners. They certainly did not decide to do this on their own, so they had to receive their orders from someone. That person had to get his orders from someone. Why is our Congress starting with Eric Holder? Why not start at the bottom and work their way up the chain of command? It makes me wonder if the Republican Congress is just grandstanding or they are too stupid to figure out how to investigate this. “Agent Charlie Brown, you were told to let guns walk; who gave you that order?” And then they call in that guy next.

2) Nearly every time I hear Sarah Palin comment on this or that, I agree with her. Probably more so than with any other politician.

3) In watching these debates and things transpire, it appears to me that Mitt Romney is playing Newt Gingrich like a fiddle. He knows how to get under his skin and he knows how to get the reaction out of Gingrich that he wants.

Private employers added 257,000 jobs while budget-strapped governments cut 14,000. Our unemployment has dropped to 8.3%.

Although the official bureau of labor statistics has said that the unemployment rate is now 8.3%, the civilian labor force participation rate has declined, from 64% to 63.7% in a single month (that is 1.2 million people who have dropped out of the work force in 1 month). Since January 2009, it has declined from 65.7%. This means that there are approximately 4.7 million people no longer being counted towards the unemployment rate. If they were included, the real rate of unemployed working age adults would be 11.01% and the underemployed would be 17.6%.

Overall, that includes the 12.7 million people that BLS says are actually unemployed, and then 4.7 million who have given up looking for work

The president devoted just 189 words to the deficit and our growing national debt in his state of the union speech.

We borrow 32 cents out of every $1 we spend. Our national debt now tops $15.2 trillion.

The unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare increases our total indebtedness to over $120 trillion.

For the official national debt, every man, woman and child in America owes $48,700.

Add in the unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare, and every one of us owes $189,000.

The Congressional Budget Office projects that the national debt under President Obama's policies will rise to $21.665 trillion by 2022, according to its updated budget outlook.

The Congressional Budget Office also predicted the budget deficit will rise to $1.08 trillion in 2012 and that the jobless rate would rise to 8.9 percent by the end of 2012, and to 9.2 percent in 2013.

The largest deficit recorded before that was $458 billion in 2008 (a Democratic Congress with a Republican president).

The $500 million in green job training grants has placed just 10% of their trainees in jobs.

25 wealthy donors pay $35,800 each to talk with President Obama behind closed doors at a Washington hotel.

In Florida, Mitt Romney ran 65 ads for every ad that Newt Gingrich ran. Democrats say that Romney bought Florida; it is hard to argue with that point of view. I recall hearing that somewhere between 95–99% of these ads were negative.

The percentage of Democrats is now 32.5%, the lowest every recorded by Rasmussen.

It is possible that some of these numbers represent those who simply want to vote in the Republican primary.

The CBO predicts financial Armageddon or Candidate Romney says something stupid. Although those were not the exact headlines in newspapers and on television media outlets, they’re close. Which one did you hear? Which story is the most important to you?

So, let’s say that President Bush accidentally called Georgia, which is celebrating 20 years of freedom, Russia; how do you think the media would have portrayed that? Do you think it might have been played and replayed with commentary? Do you recall when Michele Bachmann made that comment about the “shot heard around the world”? But she was 50 miles off. Several news articles collected these gaffs and printed them all together. Will we see them do this with Obama, who is very gaff prone? Not hardly. The NY Times, the Washington Post, all the Network news, and CNN will not mention them. Sometime, google Obama’s gaffs and compare them to Bachmann’s gaffs. Hers are rather difficult ones most of which I did not know. However, the gaffs Obama makes are caught by 5^th graders.

Operation Fast&Furious is finding its way into the Obama Medica Complex; apart from FoxNews, only one mentions the 93,000 documents that Holder has not released to the Congressional Investigating Committee.

The Occupy movement has disrupted at least 3 pro-life rallies this past week. Was this mentioned in your newspaper? Did you see a single reference this on your news? If you watch FoxNews, you probably heard about it; if not, then you probably didn’t.

President Obama’s economic proposals which he proposed during the SOTU address borrow from previous Obama initiatives, from bipartisan legislation that has either already passed in the House or is being proposed in the Senate. Did you know this? Is there not one reporter who will gather up the 30 or so jobs bills passed in the House and see how they match up with President Obama’s proposals?

CNN's Candy Crowley discussed, in two segments, Friday's unemployment report. She left out one tiny little stat; how many people are no longer considered to be in the job market.

A big shout out and thumbs up to CNN’s Fareed Zakeria for honestly dealing with Mitt Romney’s “poor” statement.

Okay, I will admit that SNL had to spoon Newt going to the moon. Have we seen them one time portray President Obama as being a little dumb; or insanely egotistical? It as if they are unable to find a hook with Obama, and so have essentially stopped doing any skits with him. They have a default hook with all Republicans—just make them sound dumb. With Democrats, that is much more difficult, because in their mind, Democrats are brilliant.

Just as Sarah Palin and Herman Cain were attacked unceasingly until they stepped out of the candidate position, so the pressure will be put on Marco Rubio. It has already started, but if there is any change that he could be a vice presidential candidate, he will be hit hard, by a number of different groups as well as by the news media. Expect this to kick into high gear before the presidential primary is wrapped up. The reason is, those on the left do not want a Black, an Hispanic or a woman put into a high position by the Republican party unless the Democrats have done this first.

I have said that we are looking at a serious war with Islam in the near future. It hasn’t happened yet, obviously, but the Iranian parliament's official website has published an article calling on the government to attack Israel before the end of the year. Of course, this is saber rattling, but we are on a collision course. You cannot bottle hatred for any length of time.

Romney is not my first choice in the Republican primary. Nor is he my second. On some days, he is not even my third choice.

It does not bother me that he is rich; I have no problems with the sort of work he does, but I do abhor dishonesty, and it riles me that he is buying this election with a staggering number of dishonest ads.

I also have problems with Romney’s core. Is he really a conservative, or is he just portraying himself as one because he thinks that will get him the presidency? Bachmann, Santorum, Palin, Cain, Paul? I know where all of these people stand and I trust that what they say is what they actually believe. Romney got elected in a blue state saying some very liberal things. He passed the precursor to Obamacare, so he’s done some very liberal things.

Some people change. Some people govern, find themselves, and become more conservative. But Romney’s dishonest negative ads make he think, maybe this guy is dishonest himself,

You see, conservatives Republicans see their candidates very differently than Democrats see theirs. You talk to any Democrat about Barrack Obama and his shortcomings, and he will defend Obama to the hilt, blame Bush or blame Republican obstructionism. Those liberals who might say something ill about Obama might admit, “He just isn’t doing enough;” as if putting 2 car companies, the entire housing market, the student loan sector, the banking industry and soon the medical sector under government control is not going far enough. Or, appointing two Supreme Court judges who could care less about the founding principles or the constitution; they will vote for their left-wing ideas every time, and write supporting opinions for same even if they have to quote Venusian law in order to support their position. Not nutty enough for some liberals. That is the worst you will hear about Obama from his fan base/supporters.

For most conservatives who are paying attention, if you ask them what’s wrong with Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, Paul, McCain or Bush, make sure you have 30 minutes each, at least, to allow them to unload. That’s how we’re different from liberals. We don’t like our own guys most of the time, and we’ll let you know why.

Conservatives aren’t looking for a messiah; conservatives aren’t looking for a utopia; we know that this is a real world with flawed candidates; so we just want someone who will actually uphold the constitution and protect our freedoms.

Many of us would love a government that was so not in our lives that, we might even forget to vote.

We all know that Romney probably doesn’t have a conservative core. It’s possible that he does, but I doubt it; and about 60% of the Republican electorate seem to feel the same way. This is why he may get a majority of the votes, but not over 50%. Even though he has been campaigning now for 6 years and even we have heard for the past 6 months that he is our inevitable nominee. We still don’t like him much.

But, who we like less? Obama. After 3 years, with our economy not really recovering, with food stamp usage soaring, with the most anemic “rebound” from a recession in American history, this guy is not able to re-calibrate. It is not in his DNA. None of his programs are really working and there are a stack of ignored jobs bills stacked up in the Senate—but, it would never occur to President Obama to try something different. It never occurs to him to take one of the small jobs bills and say, “You know, I disagree with this in principle, but I believe as President of the United States, I should at least give it a try. Reid, let this come up for a vote, and if it passes, I will sign it.” Not going to happen. Not now. Not next month. And not over the next 5 years. For whatever reason, Obama is so steeped in his political theology that he cannot even consider that he is wrong. He cannot even consider an alternate approach, even though half of the country would like to see him try something different.

When the American people sent him a message in 2010, and trounced the Democrats in the House, in historic proportions, President Obama never thinks, “Okay, this is what the American people want...maybe I should listen to them?” All he does is try to set himself up politically against the House, and “run against a do-nothing Congress.” It is political strategy to him; nothing else.

Now, he will use a conservative vocabulary when he gives a speech. He knows that polls well. He’ll talk about tax cuts all day long, but he has never proposed any tax cuts at any time ever. The best Obama has done is he has gone along with the current tax rates or he does something known as tax credits. A tax credit is, “I, the government, will give you, the taxpayer, money, if you do what I tell you to do.” That is not a tax cut. 2 or 3 years from now, the same people who pass these tax credits will rail against them as evil tax loopholes for the rich. Just in case you didn’t know, this has already happened. Democrats have come out against tax credits which they themselves passed a few years back. Most voters did not even know.

So, back to Romney. Probably not a true conservative; probably not a true conservative core. But he may be our candidate.

What are our options? Stay home and don’t vote? Send a nasty note to the GOP saying revoke my membership? Vote for some 3^rd party candidate?

Here is the end result for all 3 of those approaches: Obama gets elected for a second term, and he may even see this as a mandate for more of the same.

I know one person who suggested a mass exodus from the Republican party to a 3^rd party so that we would keep this discussion alive. You do know about Ralph Nader’s party right? Do you know its name? When was the last time you heard Nader spout his viewpoints?

In the past year, Ron Paul has done more for the libertarian cause than all of the libertarians added together over the past decade. I am not a libertarian, but I do know their positions, and this is because of Ron Paul—who is a Republican running as a Republican. If Ron Paul recognizes that he is more credible as a Republican than as running for the Libertarian party, maybe he knows something?

Don’t try to tell me Congress will control Obama. We have spent around $1.5 trillion more than we take in for each of the past 3 years, and one of those years was with a Republican-controlled House. Do you really think this will change in Obama’s second term? The House, theoretically, could shut this spending down...but they did not.

We already know who Obama will nominate for the Supreme Court. Do you think that will change?

We already know that Obama will do everything in his power to take over more sectors of the economy. It is in his DNA. He believes that if government runs the show, that things will be more fair. He believes that if we just take a few more dollars from the rich and give that to his rich cronies and to the poor, that things will be better.

Here’s what we get with Romney. It may not be his first instinct to move in a conservative direction. Fine. However, it will not be in his first instinct to take over any sector of our economy. What about Massachusetts healthcare, you say? That is with an 80% Democratic state congress. The likely makeup of Congress this coming term, if he gets any grandiose ideas, is to say, “No you don’t, Mr. President. That’s not happening.” Well, we can hope, anyway.

When it comes to a Supreme Court nominee; we will have to take Romney’s word on that. He has named off legitimate, constitutional justices as his preferred choice. Maybe he’s lying? I don’t know. But, at the very least, he gives a full-throated support to our good justices. Do you think Obama would ever appoint a Scalia, a Roberts or a Thomas? Never. Not on your life. However, there is a reasonable chance to suppose the Romney would. That 5^th constitutional vote on the court is EVERYTHING. That will affect life in the United States for the next 30 years.

Next, legislation. It is my understanding to the House has passed 30 jobs bills and they are sitting in the trash can over at the Senate. They won’t be looked at, they won’t be debated and they will not be voted on.

Let’s say that Romney was in charge. Do you think that Speaker of the House Boehner might talk to him about this? Do you think that there might be a push from the House for him to support these bills? Again, under Romney, that is likely; under Obama, not a chance.

Let me remind you about FDR. He took a tough recession and drove us into the Great Depression. Did he change his mind? Did he try something new? For 12–13 years, even though some of his own cabinet began to disagree with his approach, he determined that the solution is government. Government is always the solution. Do you think that Obama is any less an ideologue?

So, sure, Romney is an establishment Republican; he’s a country club Republican and I’m a Sam’s Club Republican. I have no problem with his wealth; I just don’t trust his core.

But I know that he will be better than Obama. At the very least, Romney can be pushed to the right and he will probably select a good judge or two. But as the saying goes, we cannot let the perfect get in the way of the good.

Everywhere you turn these days, someone is proclaiming that the economy is improving. Barack Obama is endlessly touting the "improvement" in the economy, the mainstream media is constantly talking about "the economic recovery" and an increasing number of Americans seem to be buying into this line of thinking. A new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that 37 percent of Americans believe that the economy will improve over the next year, while only 17 percent of Americans believe that it will get worse. But is the economy actually improving? Not really. At the moment things are relatively stable. Some economic statistics are improving slightly and some continue to get even worse. However, it is very important to keep in mind that one of the biggest reasons why things have stabilized is because the federal government is pumping more than a trillion dollars a year into the economy that it does not have. The Obama administration is engaging in a debt binge unlike anything America has ever seen before, and yet many economic indicators are still in decline. So what is going to happen when the federal government stops injecting gigantic waves of borrowed money into the economy? That is a frightening thing to think about. The best efforts of our "leaders" in Washington D.C. are not accomplishing a whole lot. The Federal Reserve has pushed interest rates as low as they can go and the federal government is spending unprecedented amounts of money. But even with the federal government and the Federal Reserve pushing the accelerator all the way to the floor, the economy is still not improving much at all. Millions upon millions of Americans out there are anticipating some sort of a "great economic recovery", and they are going to be bitterly disappointed.

But right now there are some "bright spots" in the economy, and you are bound to run into family and friends that will repeat to you the nonsense that they are hearing on the television about how the economy is recovering.

When they try to convince you that the economy is getting better, ask them these questions....

If the economy is getting better, then why did new home sales in the United States hit a brand new all-time record low during 2011?

If the economy is getting better, then why are there 6 million less jobs in America today than there were before the recession started?

If the economy is getting better, then why is the average duration of unemployment in this country close to an all-time record high?

If the economy is getting better, then why has the number of homeless female veterans more than doubled?

If the economy is getting better, then why has the number of children living in poverty in America risen for four years in a row?

If the economy is getting better, then why is the percentage of Americans living in "extreme poverty" at an all-time high?

If the economy is getting better, then why is the Federal Housing Administration on the verge of a financial collapse?

If the economy is getting better, then why has the number of self-employed Americans fallen by more than 2 million since 2006?

If the economy is getting better, then why does median household income keep declining? Overall, median household income in the United States has declined by a total of 6.8% since December 2007 once you account for inflation.

If the economy is getting better, then why has the number of Americans living below the poverty line increased by 10 million since 2006?

If the economy is getting better, then why is the average age of a vehicle in America now sitting at an all-time high?

If the economy is getting better, then why are 18 percent of all homes in the state of Florida currently sitting vacant?

If the economy is getting better, then why does the number of "long-term unemployed workers" stay so high? When Barack Obama first took office, the number of "long-term unemployed workers" in the United States was approximately 2.6 million. Today, that number is sitting at 5.6 million.

When Barack Obama first took office, an ounce of gold was going for about $850. Today, the price of an ounce of gold is over $1700.

The era of great prosperity that America has enjoyed for so long is coming to an end.

As I have written about previously, many are warning that Europe is on the verge of a nightmarish financial crisis that could potentially plunge us into a global recession even worse than 2008.

Just because the economy is about to go through hard times does not mean that you have to go through hard times personally.

Right now, you can decide to make an investment or start a business that will thrive in a tough economic environment.

Victory often goes to the most prepared. So don't just sit there while the storm clouds gather. Instead, this should be a time when you are gathering resources and developing a gameplan for the coming economic chaos.

Those that choose to have blind faith in "the system" are going to be tremendously disappointed in the years ahead. Just because you have a job right now does not mean that it is always going to be there. Just because your stock portfolio is doing well right now does not mean that will always be the case.

Hopefully we all learned some important lessons from 2008. The global financial situation can turn on a dime. When markets fall apart, they tend to do so very rapidly.

Ultimately, the debate about whether the economy is improving or not is going to be ended very emphatically. When the next wave of the financial crisis hits, there will be no doubt about what direction things are going.

The Republican establishment is pulling out all the stops to try to keep Newt Gingrich from becoming the party's nominee for President of the United States -- and some are not letting the facts get in their way.

Among the claims going out through the mass media in Florida, on the eve of that state's primary election, is that Newt Gingrich "resigned in disgrace" as Speaker of the House of Representatives, as a result of unethical conduct involving the diversion of tax-exempt money. Mitt Romney is calling on Gingrich to release "all of the records" from the House of Representatives investigation.

But the Wall Street Journal of January 28, 2012 reported that these records -- 1,280 pages of them -- are already publicly available on-line. Although Speaker Gingrich decided not to take on the task of fighting the charge from his political enemies in 1997, the Internal Revenue Service conducted its own investigation which, two years later, exonerated Gingrich from the charges. His resignation was not due to those charges and occurred much later.

Do the Romney camp and the Republican establishment not know this, a dozen years later? Or are they far less concerned with whether the charges will stand up than they are about smearing Gingrich on the eve of the Florida primaries?

There are also charges made about what Congressman Gingrich said about Ronald Reagan on March 21, 1986. But this too is a matter of public record, since his remarks are available in the Congressional Record of that date, so it is remarkable that there should be any controversy about it at this late date.

On that date, Gingrich praised Reagan's grasp of the foreign policy issues of the day but later questioned whether the way the actual policies of the Reagan administration were being carried out was likely to succeed. Gingrich was not alone in making this point which such conservative stalwarts as George Will, Charles Krauthammer and others made at the time.

Since a column of my own back in the 1980s suggested that the administration's policies seemed to be to "speak loudly and carry a little stick," I can well understand the misgivings of others. But that is wholly different from saying that all who expressed misgivings were enemies of Ronald Reagan.

One can of course lift things out of context. But if you want to read the whole context, simply go on-line and get the Congressional Record for March 21, 1986. Among the other places where the smears are exposed are the Wall Street Journal of January 29th, Jeffrey Lord's article in the American Spectator's blog of January 27th, and an article by Heather Higgins in Ricochet.com of January 29th.

Unfortunately, there are likely to be far more people who will see the smears than will have time to get the facts. But, if nothing else, there needs to be some understanding of the reckless accusations that have become part of the all-out attempt to destroy Newt Gingrich, as so many other political figures have been destroyed, by non-stop smears in the media.

Gingrich is by no means above criticism. He has been criticized in this column before, over the years, including during the current primary season, and he will probably be criticized here again.

But the poisonous practice of irresponsible smears is an issue that is bigger than Gingrich, Romney or any other candidate of either party.

There have long been reports of people who decline to be nominated for federal judicial appointments because that means going before the Senate Judiciary Committee to have lies about their past spread nationwide, and the good reputation built up over a lifetime destroyed by politicians who could not care less about the truth.

The same practices may well have something to do with the public's dissatisfaction with the current crop of candidates in this year's primaries -- and in previous years' primaries. Character assassination is just another form of voter fraud.

There is no law against it, so it is up to the voters, not only in Florida but in other states, to punish it at the ballot box -- the only place where punishment is likely to stop the practice.

There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy.

Editor's Note: The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article:

A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.

In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"

In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.

The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.

This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.

Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word "incontrovertible" from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question "cui bono?" Or the modern update, "Follow the money."

Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.

Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.

A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.

If elected officials feel compelled to "do something" about climate, we recommend supporting the excellent scientists who are increasing our understanding of climate with well-designed instruments on satellites, in the oceans and on land, and in the analysis of observational data. The better we understand climate, the better we can cope with its ever-changing nature, which has complicated human life throughout history. However, much of the huge private and government investment in climate is badly in need of critical review.

Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of "incontrovertible" evidence.

Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.

The Republican candidates' circular firing squad now seems to be using machine guns. Whoever the eventual "last man standing" turns out to be, he may not be standing very tall or very steadily on his feet - and he may be a pushover for Barack Obama in the general election, thanks to fellow Republicans.

Whether you are a Democrat, a Republican or an independent, this is a very serious and historically crucial time for the United States of America. What Mitt Romney did or did not do when he was with Bain Capital, or what Newt Gingrich did or did not say to his ex-wife, are things that should be left for the tabloids.

With the economy still faltering and Iran on its way to getting nuclear bombs, surely we can get serious about the issues facing this nation. Or can we?

Mitt Romney's boasts about what he did at Bain Capital are as irrelevant as Newt Gingrich's demagogic attacks on Romney's role there. Romney is not running to become head of Bain Capital.

While Gingrich backed away from his demagoguery about Bain Capital, Romney is continuing to press ahead with his charges that Gingrich was a lobbyist for Freddie Mac. As someone who has been a consultant, but never a lobbyist, I know the difference.

As a consultant, I have offered advice to people in government and in private organizations, both businesses and non-profit organizations. But I have never gone to a government official to urge that official to make a decision favorable to those who were paying me, or to those for whom I did free consulting.

It takes two to tango, and lobbying requires not only a lobbyist but also someone who is being lobbied. With more than 500 people in Congress alone who could have been lobbied, and additional officials in the bureaucracies, if Romney cannot find even a single person to say that Gingrich lobbied him or her, then it is long past time for him to either put up or shut up.

On the other hand, if Romney just wants to sling a lot of mud in Newt's direction and hope that some of it sticks, then that should tell the voters a lot about Romney's character.

So much of what has been said by various Republican candidates, as well as by the media, has been in the nature of unsubstantiated, peripheral or irrelevant talking points for or against particular candidates, rather than serious statements about serious issues confronting the nation.

So common has this approach become that even some conservative writers have come to the defense of John King, the CNN reporter who opened the South Carolina debate with a question about Newt Gingrich's former wife. These writers have declared that question "legitimate," in some undefined sense.

If all that "legitimate" means is that John King was not doing anything that many other reporters would have done in the same circumstances, that is making common practice a substitute for our own judgments about what is and is not relevant in a given context. Neither the audience in that room nor the millions watching on television were there to find out about Newt Gingrich's marital problems. If it is a common practice for the media to focus on such things, so much the worse for the media - and for the country.

"The politics of personal destruction" - as Bill Clinton called it, and as he himself practiced it - is not the way to solve the nation's problems. It has already poisoned the well of political discourse this season and claimed Herman Cain as its first victim, on the basis of unsubstantiated accusations by women with checkered pasts of their own.

Whether Herman Cain was good, bad or indifferent as a candidate, and whether his chances of winning the Republican nomination were substantial or non-existent is not the issue. Nor is this the issue as regards Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney or any other candidate.

Poisoning the well of political discourse may be one of the reasons why we see such unsatisfactory sets of candidates for political office in both parties, not only this year but in previous election years as well.

Many able and decent people are understandably reluctant to subject themselves and their families to a mud-slinging contest or to media "gotcha" questions. The creeping acceptance of such practices is hardly a justification, but is itself part of the degeneration of our times.

Palin targets Establishment GOP "cannibals" terrified of party's conservative base.

"Ford Declares Reagan Can't Win" -- Headline in The New York Times, March 1, 1980

The war between conservatives and the Republican Establishment -- and make no mistake, this is a war -- is on once more.

The people who brought the GOP losing candidates from Dewey to Dole are at it again.

Last week's assault on Newt Gingrich -- with various Romney supporters seriously and deceptively trying to tell unwitting voters that Gingrich was never really a real Reagan ally -- in reality has nothing to do with Newt Gingrich at all.

The attack on Gingrich's Reagan credentials, by the way, which I discussed here, backfired badly on the Romney forces. They were quickly dropped when:

• Reagan's White House political director and campaign manager Ed Rollins crisply dismissed them, Rollins saying that Gingrich in the Reagan-era was "one of the most important players and most loyal to Ronald Reagan."

• Another video surfaced of Nancy Reagan saying, "Ronnie turned that torch over to Newt"

• Last but certainly not least, Michael Reagan spoke up, pointedly ending the entire idiotic line of attack. Said Ronald Reagan's son:

I am deeply disturbed that supporters of Mitt Romney are claiming that Newt Gingrich is not a true Reaganite and are even claiming that Newt was a strong critic of my father.

Recently I endorsed Newt Gingrich for president because I believe that Newt is the only Republican candidate who has both consistently backed the conservative policies that my father championed and the only Republican that will continue to implement his vision.

But the real question here is: Why? Why do this kind of politically senseless, totally tone-deaf thing?

There is an answer. An answer directly related to that headline above quoting former President Gerald Ford as insisting Reagan couldn't win the general election in 1980. The same charge, by the way, that Ford made against Reagan in 1976 when the two tangled over that year's presidential nomination.

And the former Alaska Governor, with characteristic courage, was not shy about taking the conservative fight directly to the GOP Establishment with this statement on Facebook titled "Cannibals in GOP Establishment Employ Tactics of the Left." Starting off this way, Palin said:

If Newt Gingrich disappeared from the planet today and in his place stood only Rick Santorum -- or Sarah Palin herself or some other conservative -- you can be certain the Establishment GOP would have their sights trained on that conservative, running some version of precisely the same multi-gazillion dollar campaign they are running against Newt Gingrich right now. As a matter of fact, they did exactly this to Governor Palin from the very moment she stepped on the national stage in 2008. If by chance Rick Santorum emerges as the sole conservative left in this race -- look out Rick.

The hard fact of the political matter, to give the short version, is that with the advent of the American progressive movement at the beginning of the 20th century, there were many in the Republican Party who in their own fashion went over the side, abandoning the good ship of conservative principles. It's not that they necessarily left the GOP -- although some, most prominently Theodore Roosevelt -- did so. No, what happened is that they simply folded like a cheap suit, caving to what they were certain would be the eternal popularity of the progressive movement. Becoming what was eventually known as the "me-too" Republican. Or, in the tart summation of Barry Goldwater, supporters of "the dime store New Deal." Today, the name is RINO -- Republican in Name Only.

The real problem on display with the Romney-Gingrich duel is that since the advent of the GOP moderate, moderation has become the default position of the Republican Establishment. In the day, to decry the New Deal or the Great Society or, today, abortion or gay marriage or any number of other liberal favorites, is to open oneself up to social approbation from this or that set of self-anointed elites. Elites who put a premium on being seen as "moderate," "nice," and "smart" as opposed to "extreme," "mean," or -- God forbid -- "not very bright." Sniff, sniff and all of that.

As someone who grew up for all but two years in the Northeastern United States (Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania, with considerable professional time afterwards in Washington) this is something one learns quickly. In truth, for some, to be perceived as somehow challenging these so-called values is so much of a psychological freak-out (invitations to the right parties dwindle, the right friends shy away, business possibilities -- income -- can be negatively affected) that it is simply easier to just shut up and join the herd.

Politically speaking, for many in the GOP Establishment this is a terrifying set of thoughts. In an electoral sense, to not be suitably "moderate" equates to losing elections. After all, if voters (read: "Independents") don't want to have you at their parties or even be friends with you or do business --much less if they think you're not very smart -- why would they ever vote for you or your candidates?

Perhaps the best expression of this moderate GOP world view came over half a century ago -- 63 years, to be exact -- from the premiere moderate Republican of the day. That would be New York Governor Thomas E. Dewey.

Here's a sampling of Dewey from a speech in Washington delivered in February 1949 -- months after he had managed to lose the presidency. For the second time. Said the moderate Dewey:

Some 63 years and $15 trillion in debt later, with the country teetering on financial disaster and the tidal wave of un-payable entitlements looming, the reason so many of those early conservatives were horrified at what Dewey proposed has come all too vividly clear. If Thomas E. Dewey had lived long enough to read Mark Levin's Ameritopia, even Dewey might finally understand what this feckless, wimpy moderation of conservatism has wrought.

And how did Dewey think the Republican Party would fare if it failed to nominate moderate candidates who did not view the GOP as .and you'll love this Dewey quote.a "liberal and progressive party"? What would happen politically were the GOP to return to its origins and nominate a conservative? Said Dewey: "You can bury the Republican Party as the deadest pigeon in the country."

In short, the man who had just finished losing the White House for the second time in a row as a moderate -- following a string of losing moderate GOP presidential campaigns featuring names like Hoover, Landon, and Willkie -- had all by himself raised the moderate losing streak to five in a row. Yet Dewey had the gall to insist that nominating a conservative would result in: losing the White House.

THIS HYMN TO MODERATION-as-an-election-winner was the same song being sung by Gerald Ford some 31 years later when Ford was insisting that Ronald Reagan would be a loser as well if nominated in 1980. The fact that Ford had made the same argument successfully about Reagan in 1976 -- and then lost to Jimmy Carter as Dewey himself had lost -- twice -- never even caused Ford to blink. Ford went on at length in this March 1980 Times interview, digging moderate Republicans an even deeper political hole in 1980 than the one they were already in thanks to Dewey and the GOP Establishment. Assured the latest moderate GOP icon of the day:

Asked if he shared the view that Mr. Reagan could not win, Mr. Ford said "it would be an impossible situation" because Mr. Reagan is "perceived as a most conservative Republican."

"A very conservative Republican," he said, "can't win in a national election."

Meaning [asked the reporter] that Mr. Reagan can't win?

"That's right," replied Mr. Ford.

You might call this an electoral learning disability. Ronald Reagan carried 44 states in his 1980 landslide over Jimmy Carter, the man who had defeated Gerald Ford in 1976. In 1984, Reagan was re-elected, carrying 49 states and coming within a few thousand votes of carrying the 50th -- opponent Walter Mondale's home state of Minnesota.

Years later, after both Reagan and Ford had died, Ford biographer and Newsweek's White House correspondent during the Ford era, Thomas DeFrank, wrote a book based on his long off-the-record conversations with his friend Jerry Ford. The book, Write It When I'm Gone: Remarkable Off-the-Record Conservations with Gerald R. Ford, sums up the moderate Ford's thoughts on the conservative Reagan in March of 1980 in a more potent, decidedly then-unprintable fashion.

THIS, OF COURSE, IS PRECISELY the kind of stuff now being said of Newt Gingrich by Mitt Romney's Establishment supporters right this minute. It is exactly the kind of sentiment Governor Palin was addressing when she said that this argument was really about the GOP Establishment versus the Tea Party. To wit: "cannibalism."

Palin has also put her finger on the problem when she said that the Establishment GOP had "adopted the tactics of the left in using the media and the politics of personal destruction to attack an opponent."

This is correct. And there is a reason for it. The very "moderation" sought by the Establishment is designed to nudge America's conservative party ever so appropriately and socially acceptably -- left. Thus there is no mystery why the leftist tactics Palin cites surface inside the GOP Establishment.

William F. Buckley once noted that liberals, the very premise of their ideology challenged, morph quickly into beings of what Buckley termed "hurtling irrationality." Since one of the joint underpinnings of liberals and Republican moderates is an always amusing sense of intellectual superiority that is amusing primarily because of its hilarious untruth, one could easily say that the Establishment GOP is possessed, adapting from Buckley, of "moderate mania."

Substitute for Buckley's word "liberal" the words "GOP moderates" or "the Republican Establishment" and the reality of the attacks against Newt Gingrich are instantly clear.

Attack the moderates' core belief that they are somehow electable -- in spite of their long record as political losers -- and they come at you, as Buckley also noted with amusement, with lances cocked. And that's before you challenge them on the perpetual squishiness of their views on issues of the day. This, in short form, is precisely how an alarmed Romney campaign and GOP Establishment is responding to Newt -- and would respond to Santorum if need be.

PERHAPS A SHADE MORE indelicately put, and borrowing from a once-famous headline about Jimmy Carter, conservatives see the central theme of the moderate Romney campaign and the GOP Establishment -- as it was from the Dewey campaigns, the Ford campaign, or for that matter any moderate campaign anywhere being pushed by the GOP Establishment -- as amounting to nothing other than yet more "mush from the wimps."

Since this business centers in Florida at the moment, can you say "Charlie Crist"?

Reagan biographer Stephen F. Hayward (The Age of Reagan) captured the results precisely in this description of the difference between the Reagan presidency and that of Reagan's moderate GOP successor, his own vice president -- George H.W. Bush.

Wrote Hayward: "It was said of Bush appointees that, unlike Reaganites, they had mortgages rather than ideologies."

Another way of saying, perhaps, that the difference between a Romney/Establishment Republican presidency of moderation or liberal Republicanism, and a conservative (Gingrich or Santorum or Palin or other) Reagan-style presidency is that Romney's would be a mortgage presidency -- filled with people who simply want to pay their own mortgage by having a nice job working for a president. Versus a conservative presidency like Reagan's, specifically filled with people focusing on the use of ideology and imagination to move America forward.

This hostility to conservative ideas and imagination under the guise of intellectual superiority is precisely illustrated in recent episodes.

A case in point would be the sneering directed at Newt Gingrich's thoughts about moving the country deeper into the 21st century of science and technology by setting a goal of having colonies on the moon by the end of his second term.

Once upon a time in America, John F. Kennedy had an earlier version of the same Gingrich thought. On a visit to Rice University in Houston, Texas in 1962, JFK said this about precisely the kind of vision and imagination Newt Gingrich is talking about:

The exploration of space will go ahead, whether we join in it or not, and it is one of the great adventures of all time, and no nation which expects to be the leader of other nations can expect to stay behind in this race for space.

But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?

We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."

And what was Mitt Romney's positively disdainful response the other night in one of those debates when the subject of going to the moon came up? Here's the exact quote:

I spent 25 years in business. If I had a business executive come to me and say they wanted to spend a few hundred billion dollars to put a colony on the moon, I'd say, "You're fired!"

The idea that corporate America wants to go off to the moon and build a colony there, it may be a big idea, but it's not a good idea.

This appallingly timid and backward response is a decided signal of another GOP Establishment mortgage presidency. It is a flashing red light that signals a complete and utter failure in possessing the conservative ideology and imagination that drives conservatism and drove the Reagan White House. Indeed, it was Reagan's ability to visualize the Strategic Defense Initiative -- Star Wars as his critics quickly tried to derogate it -- that resulted in the end of the Cold War.

Had Mitt Romney been president in that day and someone walked in the door to suggest a speech to the nation on SDI we now know exactly what Romney would have said: "You're fired."

Recently, there was a bit of a fuss over my revelation that National Review had published a piece from ex-Reagan State Department aide Elliott Abrams cherry-picking a Newt Gingrich speech on American-Soviet relations back in 1986. What's interesting are two remarks made in response by Romney supporters.

In his still-further cherry picking response to me, NR's editor Rich Lowry had this to say of the Gingrich speech:

Meanwhile, in her Washington Post blog on Sunday, Establishment Romneyite Jennifer Rubin, by way of reprimanding me, displayed her elitism by unleashing her inner Tina Fey, recycling Fey's bit about Sarah Palin. Said Rubin:

When one adds the Lowry eye-rolling comment about Gingrich to Rubin's snarky from-her-house comment on Palin -- not to mention Romney's "You're fired" comment about space exploration -- one gets the pluperfect illustration of the Establishment mindset that launched Dewey and Ford and all manner of moderate-inspired political disasters.

Newt Gingrich's old friend Jack Kemp -- loyal Reagan lieutenants both -- would breezily call this kind of thinking "elitist and patronizing." Buckley, the founder of Lowry's magazine, called this kind of attitude an example of "consistent intemperance, insularity and irascibility." Add the absence of Romney's conservative ideology to his thus far disturbing pride in his utter lack of vision and imagination and the same old dreary picture painted by Thomas E. Dewey and Gerald Ford comes clear yet again.

To wit: yet another losing presidential campaign or a disastrously weak "mortgage presidency"-- filled with intellectual and programmatic mush staffed by wimps afraid of their political shadow.

AS NIGHT FOLLOWS DAY, if Romney is nominated the hard-edged bashing of Gingrich will vanish when the opponent becomes President Obama. Why? Because, Romney and the Establishment GOP will run the updated version of the Dewey-Ford mortgage driven campaign. After all. A presidential campaign, to quote Romney, isn't talk radio. One can't attack Barack Obama in this fashion. One can't say the reason this presidency is an utter failure is because of an Alinsky-ite, far left philosophy. Nooooooooo. One must say simply and politely that Obama is, to quote Romney directly, just "over his head." And at Romney's side (aside from all those Washington lobbyists there now) will be mortgaged aides like ex-GOP Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman. In the finest tradition of Establishment wimpiness assuring that Romney really doesn't mean it when he talks about undoing Obamacare. Oh no. After all, in Coleman's words:

"We're not going to do repeal. You're not going to repeal Obamacare. It's not a total repeal. You will not repeal the act in its entirety, but you will see major changes, particularly if there is a Republican president.. You can't whole-cloth throw it out. But you can substantially change what's been done."

Hold on to your conservative hat. That would be no less than uber-leftist George Soros, who recently said this:

Thanks George. One hates to say it, but George Soros is right. Note well: It is conservatives Gingrich and Santorum that Soros fears -- not Romney. No less than the Wall Street Journal editorial page -- no admirer of Soros -- picked up on this problem long ago, writing up Romney as "Obama's Running Mate."

As it happens, Ronald Reagan himself -- but of course -- long ago addressed just this issue. On December 16, 1976, barely over a month after Gerald Ford rang up yet another loss by a moderate Republican presidential candidate, Reagan -- not happy -- was interviewed by the New York Times.

Reagan's message was plain. It was the same as it was when he said this at the Conservative Political Action Conference in 1975: "And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way."

The very same problem Thomas E. Dewey was discussing 63 years ago and that Gerald Ford was talking about 32 years ago. The difference is that neither man, running on an Establishment GOP platform, ever won the presidency.

Ronald Reagan, running flat out as a conservative, won it twice. In two landslides that changed America and changed world history.

The attacks on Newt Gingrich by the Establishment Romneyites are not about Newt Gingrich at all. They are attacks on conservatives. By the Republican Party Establishment.

Or, as the saying might go after all these years: still more mush from the wimps.

One of Barack Obama's great attractions as a presidential candidate was his sensitivity to the feelings and intellectual concerns of religious believers. That is why it is so remarkable that he utterly botched the admittedly difficult question of how contraceptive services should be treated under the new health-care law.

His administration mishandled this decision not once but twice. In the process, Obama threw his progressive Catholic allies under the bus and strengthened the hand of those inside the Church who had originally sought to derail the health-care law.

This might not be so surprising if Obama had presented himself as a conventional secular liberal. But he has always held himself to a more inclusive standard.

His deservedly celebrated 2006 speech on religion and American public life was a deeply sophisticated and carefully balanced effort to defend the rights of both believers and nonbelievers in a pluralistic republic.

Obama's speech at Notre Dame's graduation in 2009 was another tour de force. His visit to South Bend was highly controversial among right-wing Catholics. Yet his address temporarily silenced many of his critics because it showed an appreciation for the Catholic Church's contributions to American life - particularly through its vast array of social-service and educational institutions - and an instinctive feeling for Catholic sensibilities.

Obama was also willing to annoy some in his liberal base during the battle for the health-care bill by making sure that Catholic institutions do not have to perform or pay for abortions. Rather than praising him for this, the bishops and the Catholic right invented the idea that the health law covers abortion.

It doesn't, as Sister Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Association, insisted at the time. For this brave act, she took much grief from the bishops. That's why it was unconscionable for Obama to leave her hanging out to dry in the latest controversy.

At issue are regulations promulgated Jan. 20 by the Department of Health and Human Services that required contraceptive services to be covered by the insurance policies that will be supported under the Affordable Care Act.

In its interim rules in August, HHS excluded from this requirement only those "religious employers" who primarily serve and employ members of their own faith traditions. This exempted churches from the rule, but not Catholic universities or social-service agencies and hospitals that help tens of thousands of non-Catholics.

As a general matter, it made perfect sense to cover contraception. Many see doing so as protecting women's rights, and expanded contraception coverage will likely reduce the number of abortions. While the Catholic Church formally opposes contraception, this teaching is widely ignored by the faithful. One does not see many Catholic families of six or 10 or twelve that were quite common in the 1950s. Contraception might have something to do with this.

Speaking as a Catholic, I wish the Church would be more open on the contraception question. But speaking as an American liberal who believes that religious pluralism imposes certain obligations on government, I think the Church's leaders had a right to ask for broader relief from a contraception mandate that would require it to act against its own teachings. The administration should have done more to balance the competing liberty interests here.

And it was offered a compromise idea to do just that by Melissa Rogers, the former chair of Obama's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. (Rogers and I have worked together on religion and public life issues over the years, though I played no role in formulating her proposal.) In The Washington Post's "On Faith" forum in October, she pointed to a Hawaii law under which "religious employers that decline to cover contraceptives must provide written notification to enrollees disclosing that fact and describing alternate ways for enrollees to access coverage for contraceptive services." The Hawaii law effectively required insurers to allow uncovered individuals to secure this coverage on their own at modest cost.

Unfortunately, the administration decided it lacked authority to implement a Hawaii-style solution. The Obama team should not have given up so easily, especially after it floated a version of this compromise with some Catholic service providers who thought it workable. Obama would do well to revisit his decision on the Hawaii compromise.

"The tensions and the suspicions on each side of the religious divide will have to be squarely addressed," Obama said back in 2006. "And each side will need to accept some ground rules for collaboration." I wish the president had tried harder to find such rules here.

[I must admit that I thought E. J. was a total tool when it came to Obama and the Democratic party; it surprised me that actually takes a stand against Obama here—however slightly].

The Anti-Obama Administration Letter That Was Read To Almost Every Catholic Sitting In Church On Sunday

The Catholic Church is fighting mad with the Obama Administration, and nearly every Catholic sitting in a pew this weekend heard the reasons why.

The Health and Human Services Department recently announced it will require all employers (with few exceptions) to provide health insurance to their employees which includes subsidized contraception, sterilization and coverage for abortion-inducing drugs.

This meant that religious institutions, like Catholic colleges and hospitals, or other Christian institutions would be compelled to violate their conscience by cooperating with that which they believe to be wrong. Currently many of these institutions purchase health-insurance plans which do not provide free coverage of these services.

To give an analogy, it would be like the government mandating that all delis, even Kosher delis, serve pork products and then justifying it by saying that protein is healthy, and many Jews who don't follow Kosher laws and many non-Jews go to those delis. The law wouldn't technically ban Jews from owning delis, but it would effectively ban their ability to run them according to their conscience.

In thousands of parishes this weekend, Catholic priests read a version of the following letter to their congregation denouncing this decision as an attack on their religious freedom. Each bishop personally sent the letter out, and so there were some local variations. Here's the one read in the Phoenix Archdiocese. Here's another from the Bishop of Trenton. What follows is from the Bishop of Marquette:

I write to you concerning an alarming and serious matter that negatively impacts the Church in the United States directly, and that strikes at the fundamental right to religious liberty for all citizens of any faith. The federal government, which claims to be "of, by, and for the people," has just been dealt a heavy blow to almost a quarter of those people - the Catholic population - and to the millions more who are served by the Catholic faithful.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced last week that almost all employers,

including Catholic employers, will be forced to offer their employees' health coverage that includes sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs, and contraception. Almost all health insurers will be forced to include those "services" in the health policies they write. And almost all individuals will be forced to buy that coverage as a part of their policies.

In so ruling, the Obama Administration has cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, denying to Catholics our Nation's first and most fundamental freedom, that of religious liberty. And as a result, unless the rule is overturned, we Catholics will be compelled to either violate our consciences, or to drop health coverage for our employees (and suffer the penalties for doing so). The Obama Administration's sole concession was to give our institutions one year to comply.

We cannot-we will not-comply with this unjust law. People of faith cannot be made second class citizens. We are already joined by our brothers and sisters of all faiths and many others of good will in this important effort to regain our religious freedom. Our parents and grandparents did not come to these shores to help build America's cities and towns, its infrastructure and institutions, its enterprise and culture,

only to have their posterity stripped of their God given rights. In generations past, the Church has always been able to count on the faithful to stand up and protect her sacred rights and duties. I hope and trust she can count on this generation of Catholics to do the same. Our children and grandchildren deserve nothing less.

And therefore, I would ask of you two things. First, as a community of faith we must commit ourselves to prayer and fasting that wisdom and justice may prevail, and religious liberty may be restored. Without God, we can do nothing; with God, nothing is impossible. Second, I would also recommend visiting www.usccb.org/conscience,to learn more about this severe assault on religious liberty, and how to contact Congress in support of legislation that would reverse the Obama Administration's decision.

As we predicted last night, the fact that Mitt Romney addressed poor people in a rather business-like way is now a national issue.

MITT ROMNEY (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I'm in this race because I care about Americans. I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs a repair I'll fix it. I'm not concerned about the very rich they are doing just fine. I'm concerned about the very heart of America the 90 percent, 95 percent of Americans who are right now are struggling.

O'REILLY: Well obviously the governor used a poor choice of words with the very poor and left is running wild with it. But so are some on the right.

GINGRICH: Well Governor Romney and President Obama seem to believe that a, quote, "Safety net is all the poor needs". I don't believe that. What the poor need is a trampoline so they can spring up and quit being poor.

O'REILLY: All right, let's take a look at poverty in America. Right now there are close to 50 million poor people in the U.S.A. Back in 1964 the poverty rate stood at 19 percent of the population. And so the great society programs were launched by President Lyndon Johnson. Since that time more than $16 trillion have been spent on welfare payments to the poor. And the Heritage Foundation estimates that over the next ten years, an additional $10 trillion will be spent.

Yet the poverty rate is only down four points. So do the math; $16 trillion, four percentage point decline. Obviously welfare is not the trampoline Newt Gingrich is talking about.

The dilemma for Governor Romney is this, he's a rich guy; he doesn't hang around with the folks. Contrast that image to President Obama who portrays himself as a community organizer, in tune with the street. Mr. Obama wants a massive federal intervention to redistribute income to the poor. That's what Obamacare is all about. That's what tax the rich is all about. Romney says, no, he wants the private sector to create jobs saying that will lead more people out of poverty.

In the meantime, Romney says he'll keep the welfare safety net in place. The mistake the Governor is making is he's not dealing with the true causes of poverty thereby showing real concern for the impoverished. That's what all politicians should do and the causes are these: poor education, addiction, irresponsible behavior and laziness. That's right far-left people. Some folks are lazy.

On the education front, America spends the highest amount per student in the world with the exception of Switzerland. So if the kids aren't learning it's likely because of terrible family situations or awful teachers, not money.

Addiction, an estimated 10 percent of the American population is involved with substance abuse.

And finally, irresponsible behavior; if you are a criminal and go to prison, you are going to have a hard time getting a good job. If you have a giant tattoo of a scorpion on your neck, IBM will not hire you. Personal choices can lead to prosperity or dereliction.

There is usually a reason people are poor in a country that has more opportunity than any other place on earth. It almost always comes back to personal circumstances. And all the government in the world is not going to change that. And that's what Governor Romney should be talking about and that's what Barack Obama should be talking about and Newt Gingrich as well and everybody else.

New Homeland Security report. In this report, terrorism is compared to "ordinary crime" in metropolitan U.S. cities and it omits the radical Islamic factor, instead finding "significant variability in the ideologies motivating terrorist attacks across decades."

Thomas Sowell on California’s impending high-speed rail system, despite California’s huge state debt and Washington’s huge national debt. Still, Governor Jerry Brown and President Barack Obama have faith.

Obama’s approval, state by state (interactive map). He is now below 40% in 20 states, declining in all but 3 of the states. The decline has been particularly substantive in the battleground states.

RUSH: "Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney renewed..." Now, listen to me, folks. Mitt Romney "renewed his support yesterday for automatic increases in the federal minimum wage to keep pace with inflation, a position sharply at odds with traditional Republican business allies, conservatives, and party senior lawmakers." By the way, folks, have you seen the teenage unemployment rate in this country? Well, can you say "25%"? It's 16%, 18%. It's way, way up there. The teenage unemployment rate, it's at record highs.

Whatever it is, it is at a record high, and why do you think that is? In part, it's the minimum wage. Businesses are having enough trouble as it is in this economy, and then to be told to go out and hire a bunch of people who have no experience and pay them an arbitrary amount of money that has no relationship to the business's operation or cost structure, is literally absurd. And so the only option the small businessman has is not hiring anybody. You can price it... It's sort of like raising tax rates and these dummkopfs in Washington think, "Well, you raise the tax rate and these taxpayers just sit out there like a bunch of idiots and they'll pay it." And every time tax rates are increased, guess what? Revenue goes down. If you want more of an activity, you cut taxes on it. If you want less of an activity, you raise taxes.

If you want more homes sold, then you allow the interest on a mortgage to be deducted. If you don't want a lot of homes to be sold, take that deduction away. If you want to spur teenage hiring, lower the minimum wage or get rid of it. If you want to retard teenage hiring -- if you want to slow it down, if you want to limit the amount of teenagers to get jobs -- raise the cost of hiring them. And that's what an increase in the minimum wage is. The minimum wage, the stock conservative answer to it is get rid of it. It certainly isn't to raise it. It certainly isn't to tie it to the cost of living index. But here we have from the AP: "Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney renewed his support Wednesday for automatic increases in the federal minimum wage to keep pace with inflation. "Said the former Massachusetts governor, 'I haven't changed my thoughts on that.' He told reporters this aboard his chartered campaign plane, referring to a stand he's held for ten years." Yeah, I want to raise the minimum wage. "He did not say if he would ask Congress to approve it."

Now, to my e-mail. "Dear Rush: You know Romney doesn't really believe this. Romney has to know the harm the minimum wage increase causes. This is probably a backtrack to show he cares about the poor." So here we have -- and this is not criticism. It's an illustration. He's doubled down on it. On an increase in the minimum wage, and a Romney supporter says, "No, no, Rush. He really doesn't mean that." What do you do? "He really doesn't mean it." It's not helpful.

RUSH: Look, I'm not being critical of this e-mailer. This e-mailer is a teachable moment. Mitt Romney says he's doubled down. "I believe in an automatic increase in the minimum wage tied to inflation." The Romney supporter says, "He doesn't really mean that. He has to know the harm the minimum wage begets." Well, for ten years he's held the policy and he's telling us today he's doubling down on it. If he knows the harm it causes, why does he support it? E-mail contains the answer. "He's probably just backtracking to show he cares about the poor. This is a way to try to make up for his blunder on the poor comment." Well, doubling down on this only makes it worse. 'Cause let me tell you what's going on.

There is a Republican primary going on right now, and who votes in a Republican primary? Starts with a C. Conservatives. There are elements of conservatism that are fundamental. And we conservatives, we have radar. We know when somebody isn't. If a Republican doesn't know the studied truth, the published data on the minimum wage, then red flags go up. It's not that hard. By the way, you don't have to have read a bunch of conservative work. You don't have to have immersed yourself in a bunch of conservative magazines to understand here it's no different than a tax increase. The minimum wage is a tax increase on small business disguised in fairness to the poor. You know what small businesses do, especially at a time like this? They say, "Okay, I'll go hire interns, pay 'em nothing. Just go hire interns." There's always a way around this stuff.

There's always a way around onerous regulations. Sometimes it's not worth the trouble. Other times it is. The national teenage unemployment rate in November, 21.4%. The teenage unemployment rate in Washington is over 50%. Now, who does the unemployment rate hit besides teenagers? It hits the unskilled worker. The unskilled worker who needs the first rung of that ladder. We got two great examples here. The comment on the poor. I know what Mitt Romney was trying to do. I know what he was trying to say. In the process of doing what he did, saying what he said, he made it clear that he is a stranger to fundamental conservatism. And for the people who oppose Romney, that's the biggest red flag.

The Republican primary is made up of largely conservative voters. A lot of people think Romney's conservative enough; others say he's not conservative at all. And these two statements, "I don't care about the poor. We'll fix the safety net." No. No. The whole safety net idea is a disaster. It's robbing people of opportunity. It's robbing people of dignity. It's creating dependents. It's creating perpetual Democrat voters reproducing. That's what it is. That's what it was designed for. LBJ, FDR, that was the purpose in all it is, to create an ever-growing and perpetually renewing pool of Democrat voters who never learn to depend on themselves, who never learn the skills to support themselves. That's fine with the Democrat Party. That's fine with guys like Barack Obama.

Two things happen. Those people become dependent and then you run around and talk about how heartless and cruel the Republicans are for opposing ever more money in the policy to give them ever more benefits. So it's a double whammy for 'em. And the only way out of this is for somebody who understands conservatism in elective office to explain it. We can do it all day here on talk radio, the blogs, the conservative magazines, the conservative education establishment. They can write, they can publish all the stuff they want. But, at some point, you have to have a candidate. Who is this? Who instinctively understands this? Who can say this on the stump? A Reagan, if you will. I'm not asking for a carbon copy of Ronaldus Magnus. Everybody knows that's not possible. The real safety net's a job. The real safety net is a job, and the minimum wage is one of the many obstacles in the way of people trying to find work in this economy.

But it boils down to conservatism. So I guarantee you there are a lot of people who oppose Romney in conservative circles who are pointing to these two examples, saying, "See, this is what we've been trying to tell you," and what are they up against? "Well, you know, he has to know the minimum wage causes problems." If he has to know, why is he supporting it? "Well, he has to, Rush. The media's liberal, he's gotta act like he cares about the poor." Well, that's McCain. We're tired of having to tailor what we do and say to get the approval of the New York Times or the Washington Post or everybody else in the media, the Democrat Party. We want somebody who can teach, who can inform, who can explain, who can persuade the way we can. Pure and simple.

And businesses, you think that they're sitting around getting screwed -- and they are, in their own way with all these regulations. But if the minimum wage gets to the point, and it arbitrarily is, 'cause it's never related to market forces, what will businesses do? They'll just hire young people as interns and not pay them anything, or pay them very little. Don't pay 'em at all. So internships become the only entry-level position open up to young people. That's not good. They get college credits from Obama's friends in Big Education for doing the internship, but that's it. Your first job, you know nothing. You don't know anything. They're training you, they're teaching you. I learned shining shoes. And there wasn't a minimum wage. I made $50 in three months. There was no minimum wage. It was whatever I earned, which was fine with me.

And then there's this added distortion that everybody who earns the minimum wage has a family of four to support. This is another part of the charade the Democrats play. They try to convince you that every minimum wage earner is a 40-year-old, bedraggled person who the Republicans don't care about, who the Republicans are trying to keep poor and homeless, trying desperately in this horrid country to support a family of four. And the vast majority of people on the minimum wage are teenagers, young people. If the minimum wage gets too high and then they start cracking down on interns, what's the next place business will go? Illegal aliens. You see how this works? The minimum wage can be said to be responsible for a whole bunch of problems in this country. While a bunch of dummkopfs run around thinking with their hearts, "Oh, boy, is that compassion. We need a high minimum wage, Mr. Limbaugh, so that these unfortunate people can at least go out and buy some Swiss cheese. That's the kind with holes in it. It's gotta be cheaper than the real cheese, right, Mr. Limbaugh? And you just oppose this." No.

So it all gets couched as people who oppose it, mean-spirited, cold-hearted, want people to be poor when it's just the opposite. We want the best for everybody. We want everybody to be able to taste the opportunity this country provides. You take the bottom rung of the ladder away from 'em and you create a bunch of dependent people who then beget a whole bunch of other dependent people. The number one most important thing about them is they vote Democrat, which ensures they're going to be kept dependent. That's why it matters that a Republican conservative be able to counter that and all the other distortions that are out there about conservatism.

That's why this matters. It's why it matters that, "Well, I don't really care about the poor. They've got a safety net. If that needs repairs, I'll fix it." Um, everybody knows he was trying to zero in and say, "The middle class is who's getting hurt," and I appreciate that, but that's been lost in this, hasn't it? But why has it been lost? Not 'cause the media is unfair. Everybody knows that going in. It's not because the media is doing something dirty to Romney. It's because he gave 'em the chance. In this charged atmosphere, if you don't instinctively know that saying, "I don't care about the poor," means whatever follows is never gonna be heard -- if you don't instinctively understand that -- then people are going to question just how conservative you really are.

That's what's happening here. I'm just trying to explain it to you, folks. (New Castrati impression) "So, Mr. Limbaugh, does this mean that you endorsing Newt?" No, no, no. Don't go there. Snerdley, don't put up a bunch of calls today that are gonna try to apply pressure, 'cause it isn't gonna happen.

RUSH: The Reagan administration, by the way, is the only administration in recent history to not raise the minimum wage -- and look how that hurt the economy! Yeah. Thomas Sowell, once called the minimum wage "the Black Youth Unemployment Act." I get e-mails from Greg Mueller a lot. Greg Mueller is a public relations guy who always sends me notes about what his clients think, what he wants me to say about 'em, and he sent me this. He said, "Hey, Rush. Here's my view in today's National Journal. Some Republicans said that Romney spoke a simple truth, one the middle class understands. Romney was saying that the very rich can take care of themselves, the very poor receive numerous benefits; that it's the working middle class that's often overtaxed and neglected in tough economic times," said Mueller.

"This is true, and Romney's point was the best way to raise all boats is through limited government and a free economy, not socialism. We'll win that argument." Did Romney say "raise all boats" and "limited government" and all that? Here again, let's read between the lines: "Let's look at what Romney didn't say for what he means," and there are people... I should tell you this, "just to be fair." There are people who are sending me notes say, "Rush, you're missing the boat. Romney is genuine. This is authentic. He's not worried about saying it the right way. This is authentic! Here's a guy who's not trying to shape and form his comments for consumption. He's just open book.

"He's just telling us who he really is and what he really thinks, and that's authentic, Rush, and everybody says we need more authenticity in our candidates." This is my point. It's all over the board, and I don't think an endorsement is gonna change anybody. That's my point.

RUSH: Marco Rubio delivered the keynote speech at the HLN Conference in Miami. I want to read you one quote. I want to lift one paragraph of Marco Rubio's speech, which I think he delivered in Spanish, if I'm reading this correctly. I don't know if he delivered it in Spanish or not. Maybe the first 1-1/2 minutes was in Spanish on YouTube. (interruption) No, no, not Headline News. Well, maybe it was. For all I know it was. The Headline News... I really don't know what HLN is. But it is the name of their network, right? HLN? Doesn't matter. Here's what he said:

"And so, when the choices that are put before us today are dangerous ones because if we choose this path of pitting people against each other, if we buy into this notion that our economy really can't grow fast enough for all of us to prosper so we're going to have to somehow empower government to distribute the wealth of this country among us, we've chosen to become like everybody else. We've chosen to become like the countries that your parents and grandparents came here to get away from. And that's a powerful message. And that's the message that we need to deliver. And that's the message we need to work on delivering. It's a winning message."

Boy, he's exactly right. Barack Obama is taking... Hispanic Leadership Conference. That's what it was, the Hispanic Leadership Conference. What Barack Obama is doing is taking this country back to being just like the countries your parents and grandparents came here to get away from. We're becoming "just like everybody else." Barack Obama is taking this country in the direction of Europe, just like everybody else. He's gonna make this country the exact kind of country your parents and grandparents fled. From the first time I heard this guy give a speech, I told you: He's got a future.

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.

Conservative Review
Issue #214	Kukis Digests and Opines on this Week’s News and Views	February 5, 2012