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.

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.

A report by the Washington Post claims that more than half of Obama's 47 biggest fundraisers, those who collected at least $500,000 for his campaign, have been given administration jobs and that nine more have been appointed to presidential boards and committees.

Mitt Romney is getting some large donations from various Green groups, expecting, perhaps, that he may flip flop on global warming?

Mitt Romney clearly did better on Super Tuesday than any of the other Republican candidates. Gingrich won only his home state and Paul did not win any states.

According to the Israeli newspaper Maariv, the U.S. offered to give Israel advanced weaponry - including bunker-busting bombs and refueling planes - in exchange for Israel's agreement not to attack Iranian nuclear sites until 2013, after the coming election.

We now have documents that show that, the White House played a key role in the firing of Shirley Sherrod, even though it claimed at the time to play no role in this process.

A Wisconsin judge on Tuesday granted a temporary injunction to groups trying to stop the state's controversial new voter identification law.

The Congressional Black Congress has concluded that ethics investigations against Black members is a result of....(wait for it)...racism.

It has just come out that, In 1998, a small Chicago theater company staged a play titled The Love Song of Saul Alinsky, dedicated to the life and politics of the radical community organizer whose methods Obama had practiced and taught on Chicago's South Side. Barack Obama was not only in the audience, but also took the stage after one performance, participating in a panel discussion that was advertised in the poster for the play.

A tape was released this week of a young Barack Obama introducing a Professor Derrick Bell to a crowd. Obama asked the people to open up their minds and hearts to what Bell had to say. Portions of it had already been aired. Farrakhan has praised Derrick Bell as “A great hero for the people.” After Obama was elected, Bell visited the White House on at least 2 occasions. Bell enjoyed irritating white people and claimed that his college would only tenure white boys. When Professor Obama was teaching at the University of Chicago, one of Bell’s books was required reading. Bell wrote a number of very offensive and anything but post-racial books. Here is a list of quotes from Faces at the Bottom of the Well. HBO did a film, which was an adaptation of a Bell novel, where Ronald Reagan is a slave-trader from outer space.

Even though Warren Buffet has come out on many occasions calling to be taxed more, his lobbyists have recently gotten legislation passed which will benefit one of his companies. Rush Limbaugh has many times said that these people come out and pretend to agree with the president on raising their taxes, but that is simply to get the political benefit with aligning with the president.

NetJets Inc., the private-plane company owned by Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc., has been countersued by the U.S. over $366 million in taxes and penalties.

White House officials have summoned dozens of leaders of nonprofit organizations that strongly back the health law to help them coordinate plans for a prayer vigil, press conferences and other events outside the Supreme Court while the justices hear arguments for three days beginning March 26.

In the Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C., the Arlington County Housing Division is hosting in a happy hour called "Housing 4 Hipsters." This is a real event. That is actually happening. With the "4? in the title and everything. The purpose? To help people of the hipster-American variety (presumably) discover ways to take advantage of the county's various housing assistance programs.

Speaking of handouts, Sandra Fluke is, in reality, a 30 (31?) year old long time liberal activist who enrolled at Georgetown with the express purpose of fighting for the school to pay for students' birth control. She has been pushing for mandated coverage of contraceptives at Georgetown for at least three years according to the Washington Post. She also, apparently, believes that it is discrimination deserving of legal action if "gender reassignment" surgeries are not covered by employer provided health insurance.

Gloria Allred has sent a letter to Denise Nieman, the County Prosecutor in West Palm Beach, Florida, on behalf of the Women's Equal Rights Legal Defense and Education Fund, asking for an investigation into whether Rush Limbaugh violated Florida defamation law when he called Sandra Fluke a "slut" and a "prostitute."

Democratic state lawmakers in Michigan are ready to move forward with a proposal to provide free college tuition to anyone in Michigan who needs it.

An Occupy Strategy Session at New York University, was billed as a group talk on "The Abolition of Capitalism." One of the headline speakers at this session was Stephen Lerner, the former leader and International Board Member of the SEIU and frequent Obama White House visitor. Lerner argued in favor of people not paying their mortgages and "occupying" their homes; he spoke in favor of invading annual shareholders meetings to shut them down. But his big goal was to get workers to shut down their workplaces. That's where the SEIU agenda and the Occupy agenda truly meet: once workers begin to occupy.

Unions have paid MSNBC’s Ed Schultz $200,000 in 2011. I wonder if that has any affect on his radio broadcast or on his opinions?

This year, thousands of Christians worldwide are giving up carbon to help save the planet. (Of course, it's nearly impossible to "give up" all carbon. But devoted Christians are doing their best to reduce their carbon footprints during this time.)

The U.S. government has awarded appliance-maker Philips $10 million for devising an "affordable" alternative to today's standard 60-watt incandescent bulb. That standard bulb sells for around $1. The Philips alternative sells for $50. This can only make sense to a government agency.

Wind turbines kill 70 golden eagles each year at California's Altamont pass. As has been reported before, you destroy a golden eagle egg and you are going to do jail time in California. Not so if you kill a human baby in the womb, however. You can also be arrested for killing a bobcat in California.

The Opel Ampera, which sells in the United States as the Chevrolet Volt, has been named European Car of the Year by automotive journalists from 23 countries.

The Obama-funded $100,000-plus Fisker sports car died during Consumer Reports speed testing this week for reasons that are still unknown.

Four companies in Oregon used nearly $7 million in taxpayer-funded stimulus money for a logging job that hired 250 foreign workers. Isn’t this an old story?

The Obama administration disclosed on Tuesday that it is considering sharing some classified U.S. data as part of an effort to allay Russian concerns about a controversial antimissile shield.

Catholic leaders read letter condemning pro-gay marriage law to 2,500 churches in England

A recent college course in Egypt's southern city of Aswan is described as an "anti-Christianization course" aiming to educate youth about Islam and how to respond to attempts of converting by Christians in the country. This suggests that there are a number of people in Egypt who must be converting to Christianity, in the light of all the attacks upon Christians, their churches and their homes.

A year ago they begged for Britain's help when Colonel Gaddafi's tanks encircled their city, threatening annihilation. Now former Libyan rebels in Benghazi - liberated with the aid of the RAF last March - have systematically desecrated the graves of more than 150 British servicemen killed in North Africa 70 years ago. More than 1,000 soldiers and airmen who lost their lives in the desert wars of Montgomery and Rommel are buried at the site in Eastern Libya.

Violence and bloodshed is turning the "Arab Spring" into winter, the head of Lebanon's Maronite Church said, threatening Christians and Muslims alike across the Middle East.

A court in Edfu has sentenced Reverend Makarios Bolous, pastor of St. George's Church in the village of Elmarinab, Edfu, in the Aswan province in Egypt, to six months prison and a fine of 300 pounds for violations in the height of the church building. The court also ordered the removal of the excess height. It had not yet been completed, and a mob has set it on fire.

Hundreds of Muslim women gathered near Tunis Saturday to call for the return of the caliphate, the defunct Islamic system of governance which they said was the only means of guaranteeing their rights.

Activists told the Cairo-based al-Akhbar daily that at least 90 Iraqi teenagers with "emo" haircuts and appearances have been stoned to death by the Moral Police in Iraq over the past month.

Palestinian terrorists in Gaza fired off 100 rockets, targeting the civilian targets of cities, towns, and farming regions in southern Israel over the past couple days.

Germany's Die Welt newspaper reported that Iran held at least one nuclear weapons test in North Korea in 2010.

A Jackson Heights imam, Mohd Qayyoom, has started a campaign to make April 26, the birthday of the Prophet Mohammad, a national holiday. He said believes having a national celebration for the prophet's birthday would enable the growing Muslim population in America to have an annual celebration and would foster a spirit of cooperation with those of other faiths. "We'll give the message of peace, we'll give the message of interfaith harmony," Qayyoom said. We want one day, an annual holiday like Christmas," he added.

The New York City police department has been doing one of the most admirable jobs of keeping themselves informed about potential terrorists within the United States. They have even gone into New Jersey, although it is doubtful that they broke any laws. Attorney General Eric Holder told Congress that, months after receiving complaints about the New York Police Department's surveillance of entire American Muslim neighborhoods, the Justice Department is beginning a review to decide whether to investigate civil rights violations.

President Obama: "But I can comment on the fact that all good folks can agree that the remarks that were made don't have any place in the public discourse. And you know, the reason I called Ms. Fluke is because I thought about my daughters, and one of the things I want them to do as they get older is to engage in issues they care about, even ones I may not agree with them on. I want them to be able to speak their mind in a civil and thoughtful way. And I do not want them attacked or called horrible names because they are being good citizens, and I wanted Sandra to know that I thought her parents should be proud of her, and that we want to send a message to all of our young people that being part of a democracy involves argument and disagreements and debate, and we want you to be engaged, and there's a way to do it that doesn't involve you being demeaned and insulted, particularly when you are a private citizen."

WH press secretary Jay Carney: “We are not, and cannot be, the arbitrator of every statement that everybody makes in the policy and political arena.” Unless, of course, it is politically helpful.

Bill Burton, the former Obama 2008 campaign press secretary: "But the notion that there is an equivalence between what a comedian has said over the course of his career and what the de facto leader of the Republican Party said to sexually degrade a woman who led in a political debate of our time, is crazy."

President Barack Obama: "I firmly believe that an opportunity remains for diplomacy - backed by pressure - to succeed...Sanctions are continuing to increase...Faced with these increasingly dire consequences, Iran's leaders still have the opportunity to make the right decision. They can choose a path that brings them back into the community of nations, or they can continue down a dead end."

President Obama: "Now, because of these new standards for cars and trucks, they're going to - all going to be able to go further and use less fuel every year. And that means pretty soon you'll be able to fill up your car every two weeks instead of every week - and, over time, that saves you, a typical family, about $8,000 a year." Maybe over the life of the vehicle, and that is a big maybe.

President Obama: "Because of [Obamacare]..., preventive care is now covered and, yes, that includes preventive care for women: check-ups, mammograms, birth control." Yes, it is all free. “This is not just a political debate. This is the defining issue of our times.”

Now that GM has temporarily shut down production of the Volt, President Obama: "We've got to invest in clean energy. We've got to invest in efficiency. We've got to make sure that the advanced batteries for electric cars, for example, are manufactured here in the United States."

Michelle Obama: "There is an unspoken energy that comes from the millions of people who are lifting us up in prayer. We can't fool ourselves into thinking we can be good servants of God, good parents if we're not whole inside."

Sen. Barbara Boxer: "And I personally, I've never faced violence, extreme violence, like a number of you have endured. But I do know a little bit about what it's like to be told you don't belong somewhere, or you can't do something because you're a woman."

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

Campaign ad for Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr.: "Debbie Halvorson sided and voted with the Republicans and the NRA against gun control...President Obama and Congressman Jackson fought them every step of the way."

Former Democrat Congressman Alan Grayson, opening up a fund-raising dinner: "Dear Lord, thank God I'm a Democrat. And thank God I did not have to vote in the Republican presidential primary. They're all a bunch of losers." This comes after he ran a red light and into a bus. This man needs to be given a permanent status position in Congress; he gives the best quotes.

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer: "I'd like to see her [Sandra Fluke] take him [Rush Limbaugh] to court. She is not a public figure and, for that reason, she should be able to sue for slander, libel or whatever else might be involved."

Liberal Radio person Brian Maloney on the Mike Malloy show, regarding the people whose lives have been harmed by the tornadoes in the Midwest: "Their God ... keeps smashing them into little grease spots on the pavement in Alabama, and Mississippi, and Arkansas, and Georgia, and Oklahoma. You know, the Bible belt, where they ain't gonna let no goddamned science get in the way, it says in the Bible, blah blah blah blah. So, according to their way of thinking, God with his omnipotent thumb reaches down here and so far tonight has smashed about twenty people into a grease spot on highway 12, or whatever the hell highway they live next to."

Daily Kos mom: “I can hardly type, can hardly put this into words! I have been writing and rewriting this because if I don't break down in tears, I get so angry that I can't think straight! I know that so much has already been written about this whole issue, but I am writing this diary from a very personal point of view; forgive me if I find no humor in any of this, excuse me if I take no part in celebrating the loss of sponsorship for that pig's radio program. You see, my 16 year old daughter came home from school on Friday in tears and has been in a state of utter despair since. She was told, in no uncertain terms, that she is a slut, a prostitute, a horny piece of trash that is out to sleep with every guy in school! The horrid little monsters who started harassing my daughter had the audacity to tell her their mothers were the ones who labeled her with these despicable opinions - they were just "telling it like it is, you know, like that guy on the radio! The one who isn't afraid to tell the truth!" Who does this?! How does Rush Limbaugh or anyone else have the right to do this, to say these things about anyone?”

Pelosi: “[the radio commentators who verbally attacked Fluke should] remain nameless and hopefully advertiseless." Who is she talking about?

Sen. Chuck Schumer: "Rush Limbaugh's comments were just nasty and directed at a particular young woman who had a particular point of view and was expressing herself. Bill Maher's a comedian. It's much different."

Bill Maher: "Today, Rush Limbaugh tried to drag me into this [toro caca] he caused...I made a contribution to Obama's super PAC and Rush Limbaugh says [Obama] has to give that money back because I sometimes call Sarah Palin a bad name. OK, this analogy breaks down in so many places I can't even begin. Except, let's just start with this - Rush, I don't have sponsors. I'm on HBO. See, that's the great thing about being on HBO, whereas Rush Limbaugh has already lost a lot of sponsors." Here is the simple distinction, in Maher’s mind: you can be as misogynistic as you want to be, as long as you are on HBO.

They also need to add in that, (1) they are on at different times of the day; (2) Rush has a weekly show; (3) you can only hear Rush, but you can see Maher; (4) Sandra Fluke is shorter than Governor Palin; and (5) Girls just wanna have fu-un. There are a million reasons why it is okay for Maher to call conservative women any name that pops into his head, but it is wrong for Rush to do the same.

Former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, when she was asked about the accuracy of Sandra Fluke’s testimony that birth control would cost Law School students $3000: “I have a great deal of respect for the testimony that Sandra Fluke gave to Congress. She was factual, she was courageous, and she made a difference in the debate in our country, and we were honored by her presentation.” A Target store, 3 miles from the Georgetown campus, sells birth control pills at $9/month. Total out of pocket cost over 3 years, $324.

Head of the Democratic party, Debbie Wasserman Schultz: “It would take 45 years if the Keystone Pipeline were in place, to produce as much oil as President Obama's policy to - on fuel efficiency standards for American automobiles would in increasing those over the next few years...It would take 45 years to produce out of oil shale from the Keystone Pipeline as much oil as we save in the increase in fuel efficiency standards from President Obama's policy that would be implemented by the middle of the next decade.” So, the key to solving the oil crisis is Obama formulating and signing a bill on oil efficiency standards.

Energy Secretary Stephen Chu, when asked if the overall goal was to reduce the cost of gasoline for the consumer: “The overall goal is to decrease our dependancy on oil, to build and strengthen our economy and to decrease our dependency on oil.” Right now, the United States is close to a 15 year low for fossil fuel usage. Chu does not own a car.

President Obama: "I'm going to keep doing everything I can to help you save money on gas, both right now and in the future."

Rev. Al Sharpton: "It's against the law to organize unions [in Alabama]." Alabama is a right to work state, where the only ban is on mandating union membership as a condition of employment.

CODEPINK founder Medea Benjamin: "I think Ron Paul has a remarkable position when it comes to U.S. foreign policy, and his call for no war on Iran that something that many of us support. His call for an end of the U.S. empire - that we should be a democracy that lives within our own borders - is something that resonates with a lot of people. A call for an end to what he calls the `warfare state' is something that resonates with many people in the peace community."

3 Code Pink members in various states of undress, chant: “Bust up Bank of America.”

Susan M. Akram, Professor of Law at Boston University of Law: “Israel's claim of a state, on the basis of exclusive and discriminatory rights to Jews [sic], has never been juridically recognized. In other words, the concept of the Jewish people as a national entity with extraterritorial claims has never been recognized under international law.”

An activist on signon.org is collecting signatures in support of a petition to FCC: “[to] remove Mr. Limbaugh from the radio as he has violated FCC rules and regulations countless times. The most recent incident being his assault on women and his degradation of Sandra Fluke."

Former president Jimmy Carter: “[The Muslim Brotherhood have] assured me personally and they have made public statements accordingly that they will honor the peace treaty that I helped negotiate in 1979. They know its very important to Egypt to maintain peace with Israel and I don't have any doubt that they will carry out their promise to me."

Leftist professor and activist Frances Fox Piven: "It may well be that the Occupy movement is now in its second phase, in the phase where it makes trouble, in the phase where it threatens to shut down institutions. The Occupy movement has moved into the neighborhoods of our cities, it has moved into the schools..This spring, we'll see action against the banks, against the corporations."

Climatologist Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research: "As spring moves up a week or two, tornado season will start in February instead of waiting for April." Does anyone recall what Global Warming enthusiasts said about hurricanes and global warming?

MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell: “I want to see hard core Republican conservatism put up there on a debate stage with President Obama's practical approach to governing, and I want to see hard core Republican conservatism crushed because it represents a minority view in our politics. And if it gets crushed that way, then the Republican party is going to have to say, "We're going to have to listen to more voices than just these right-wing conservatives"

NY Times editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal on the idea that the NY Times is to the left what FoxNews is to the right: "Well it begins with bull and ends in it and you can figure out what comes in between. I think it's absolute pernicious nonsense. I think that there, you know, I've been at this newspaper a long time, I've been at a lot of newspapers. Fox News presents the news in a way that is deliberately skewed to promote political causes, and the New York Times simply does not.” I would argue that, apart from the editorial page (and editorial shows on FoxNews), that FoxNews is far closer to presenting a fair and balanced approach to the news. This was already shown with stats for the 2008 election. FoxNews gave candidates equal time and their positive and negative stories on each candidate were about equal. This is not true of the NY Times (or of anyone else in the Obama Media Complex).

Bill Maher: “Rick Santorum homeschools his children because he does not want them eating that f--king apple. He wants them locked up in the Christian madrassa that is the family living room not out in public where they could be infected by the virus of reason.”

Singer-songwriter and North Carolina native James Taylor: "I am so - I really love this president. I love what it says about America, that we were able to elect this man." Do I sense a song being written?

"Comedian" Louis CK (joking about Palin coming to the Republican convention): "...holding a baby that just came out of her f-ing, disgusting [C-word], her f-ing retard-making [C-word]."

Cohen from editorial: “It is not nice to speak ill of the dead, my mother once told me. But it is okay, I think, to speak ill of those who praise the dead when the deceased was best known for sliming a well-intentioned and wholly commendable public servant or for exposing a politician who had already exposed himself. I am referring to Andrew Breitbart, whose passing was noted and mourned throughout the conservative firmament. His eulogies tell us more about the movement than they do about him.”

John "Sly" Sylvester, a liberal talk-show host on Madison radio station WTDY, “paying tribute" to Andrew Breitbart, who recently died: “I'm just tired of people faking that they are sad when people are dead. I want to say something, and make it real clear . I will never urinate on his grave. I'm gonna pour Round-Up on his grave and I'll tell you why I'm gonna pour Round-Up on his grave. I'm gonna pour Round-Up on his grave so there's no chance that he ever comes back to life! And I can kill him like the weed that he was. I'm glad he's dead! There are very few people I can say that about. This guy, absolutely! I don't have the slightest bit compunction of saying good. The world is a better place today. Can you think of the last time you've been this happy that someone is dead? You want to make a comparison? I was thinking of Anwar al-Awlaki.”

Liberal radio host Randi Rhodes, speaking of the ovaries of conservative women: “You know, these women, somebody really needs to go repossess their ovaries. Really, truly, they have no right to them. They are fabulous, little organs and they have absolutely no right to be estrogen-bearing beings. Okay? Just cut 'em off, let 'em go through the hot flashes, let 'em just sit there and complain about hormone therapy, okay? Just take the ovaries and get it over with. Because they don't deserve to have estrogen. They really don't. It's a privilege.”

Liberal radio host Ed Schultz: “[Newt Gingrich is] lying to the American people if he thinks he has the formula to get us guaranteed down to $2.50 a gallon. I don't mean to dis the South, but low-information voters might grab onto that, but I don't know.”

Bill Maher: "I got crap from both the left and the right this week because - OK, let me address the left first, because I found this more disheartening. They were very mad at me because I tweeted that people like Rush Limbaugh - who I absolutely disagree with, I've never said a good word about him, I did a whole monologue about what an a__hole he was only a week ago - but I said I don't like it that people are made to disappear when they say something or people try to make them disappear when they say something you don't like. That's America. Sometimes you're made to feel uncomfortable, OK? Can we put this in perspective? No one died. A guy made a bad joke, a bad joke because a - it was a disgusting sentiment that he was evoking and also because it wasn't even a joke. It's a stupid fat f__k who is not funny and it annoys me that people who cannot keep two disparate thoughts in their own mind lump me in together with him and say I'm defending him. I'm not defending him. I'm defending living in a country where people don't have to be afraid that they might go out of the bounds for one minute. Do we all want to be talking like White House spokesmen?" Even when making sense, Maher still has to verbally attack Rush.

Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to us in the U.S.: "As God is my witness, the Iranian nation will not give a damn for [your] bombs, warships and planes."

Saudi cleric Muhammad Al-Arifi: “There is no doubt that one's devotion to Jihad for the sake of Allah and one's will to shed blood, smash skulls, and chop off body parts for the sake of Allah and in defense of His religion constitute an honor for the believer. Just having this notion in your heart is a mark of honor, even if you do not actually wage Jihad. The infidel countries - the US and its allies - would not have dared to fight the Muslims, to rape their wives, and to turn them into widows. . . They only dared to engage in the daily corrupting of and fighting against Islam and the Muslims when they saw that the Muslims did not even consider fighting and conquering the [infidel] countries.”

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer: "[Obamacare] was clearly a liability in the last election in terms of the public's fear."

Bud Light commercial specifically for Texans: “Sure, there are other states in the union, but they’re smaller, wousier, and the people talk funny.”

Cardinal Timothy Dolan, archbishop of New York and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, concerning Obama’s attempts to control their healthcare offerings: "We have made it clear in no uncertain terms to the government that we are not at peace with its invasive attempt to curtail the religious freedom we cherish as Catholics and Americans. We did not ask for this fight, but we will not run from it." So, will he appear on all the same talk shows as Sandra Fluke and be asked, “Don’t you think this is really a war on women?”

Dr. Katherine Hancock Ragsdale, president and dean of the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Mass. concerning the time she took a 15-year-old girl she had never met before to get an abortion: "Although New Hampshire was closer to that girl's home than Boston, as it happened, I did not take her across state lines;; nor did I, to my knowledge, break any laws. But if either of those things had been necessary in order to help her, I would have done them. And if helping young women like her should be made illegal I will, nonetheless, continue to do it." Certainly a liberal.

MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski "In our country when it comes to processed foods, sugar, and high-fructose corn syrup, unless they're regulated, we're going to continue on a downward spiral toward obesity and bad health. I think the government should step in. One way to do that is to put a tax on soda."

Joe Scarborough: “Mika's vision of the nanny state is so overreaching. She is obsessed with telling people what to eat, what to drink, how to live their lives. And to a small-government conservative like myself, that's offensive. The fact is, most people don't want the federal government involved in their bedrooms or in their refrigerators.”

Mika: “The amount of sugar our kids ingest is absolutely insane. If America's parents were educated on what it does to their children's teeth and bodies, they would be horrified.”

Scarborough: “I'm sure that Mika was raised in the woods and ate tree bark, but I grew up in a middle-class family, and most of my breakfasts were Cap'n Crunch, Froot Loops, or Lucky Charms. I was healthy and slender -because I led an active life, just like most of us a generation ago. My grandmother poured sugar into just about everything, and she lived to be 93. Instead of focusing on telling -people what to eat, we need to focus on encouraging kids to get up off the couch and go outside to play. I think most Americans have changed a lot of their bad habits over the past decade. That's why I don't think the federal government needs to aggressively step in and dictate what people eat.”

Neil Cavuto: "Eric Cantor, I know you talk to a lot of people. You called me Bret. That's ok."

Cavuto: "No you talk to Brett, and then call him Neil. It will drive him nuts. He has an ego the size of the Chrysler Building!"

Barbara Walters, after reading Rush Limbaugh’s public apology to Ms.Fluke: “Do you accept his apology?”

Sandra Fluke: "Well, let me just say this, and I encourage everyone to look at the statement in its entirety online but what I have to say is that I don't think that a statement like this issued saying that his 'choice of words was not the best' changes anything."

CNN”s Piers Morgan: “What are the negatives in your movie about Barack Obama?”

Documentary filmmaker Davis Guggenheim of his new film about President Obama: "The negative for me was there were too many accomplishments. I had, you know, 17 minutes to put them all in there."

Guggenheim: "That was the negative for me; the challenge for me was to put more in there.”

Guggenheim: “...He ran, hoping to change the poltical climate in Washington, and that hasn’t changed. He’s wanted to bring people together; he’s wanted to compromise...”

Nina Totenberg, NPR: You have to take a risk when you are running for president, and the risk that he did not take this week that he should have taken was to say something less than complimentary about Rush Limbaugh. It was a perfect opportunity for what is called in the political profession a Sister Souljah moment, to say that "I don't always play it safe, I have real values, you went over the line." And to make the optics worse, Bain Capital owns Clear Channel, which is the Rush network so to speak. Not that, he's no longer an active partner of Bain, but the optics of it aren't great.

Charles Krauthammer: Look, I'm sure that's a liberal's dream, but when the President of the United States apologizes for what Bill Maher has said about women and receives a million dollars of his for.

Krauthammer: .for his, or even acknowledge or talk about it, when Obama speaks about Maher's misogyny as he takes a million dollars for his campaign, then I'd expect Romney to denounce somebody else. But the hypocrisy on the left about this is just.

Krauthammer: About Rush Limbaugh as if he's the spokesman of the Republican Party, and as if misogyny is exclusively the province of conservatives and Republicans. It is out there all the time with Maher, with Chris Matthews, and with this guy is it CK Louis, or Louis CK who's going to be the emcee at the Congressional Correspondents' dinner? And so when I hear a denunciation on the left I'll expect one on the right.

Actress Julianne Moore, who plays Sarah Palin in the HBO film, Game Change: "You know, I'm leaving politics out of this. And she's [Palin] not a political figure right now, I mean, I think she's a - right now - she's a correspondent for Fox News, so."

CNSNews.com: "What about President Obama, do you agree with some of his policy positions?"

Chris Matthews: We have to talk about that Romney speech tonight. That was the most - is he the American candidate running against somebody else? running against the non-American candidate? How many times did he say America like he's the home team? It's brilliant apple pie, I'm not going to say the rest of it because we know what the rest of it is. It's playing home team politics against a guy who he can play to his base as somewhat exotic, somewhat foreign, right Al?

Al Sharpton: Different. He's the `other.' I think that's the implicit campaign against the president, which is a very biased campaign. And I think that he needs to be called out on that.

Matthews: America, America, America. Who are we running against, Norway? Who is the other team?

Sharpton: He's the President of the United States, he's running against. When you talk, like he's talking about somebody other than an American.

Interviewer: “Obviously in the organization there were bombings that were set up. I know you've written about it, you said maybe it was a mistake. Is it fair to say you were a domestic terrorist?”

Bill Ayers, domestic terrorist from the 60's: “That is not true. Well the reason it is not fair is because if you define terrorism in an even-handed way what you would say is that terrorism is any act that indiscriminately targets civilians for the purpose of coercing a political view, and I never did that, and we never hurt anybody, and we never killed anybody. It is a well-known fact for example that the war in Vietnam was a war of terror and if terrorism. If you take a stable definition of terrorism, it can apply to a cult or a political group or a religious group or a group of fanatics or a government, and overwhelmingly the amount of violence that is perpetrated on people indiscriminately by governments is overwhelmingly greater than by cults or groups or political.”

Rush Limbaugh: “I'm a guy on the radio. What can I do? I can't raise anybody's taxes. I can't send anybody off to war. I can't force anybody to go out and buy a $50 light bulb. I can't make anybody give up their car and buy an electric car. I can't make anybody do anything, and yet I have to be destroyed.”

Cathy Cleaver Ruse: "Should Ms. Fluke give up a cup or two of coffee at Starbucks each month to pay for her birth control, or should Georgetown give up its religion? Even a first-year law student should know where the Constitution comes down on that."

Dennis Miller: “If I was the GOP candidate come summer and fall, I would just put a debt clock on the front of the podium. I wouldn't even say a word - I'd stand there and watch it go up."

U.S. Marines sign: “It’s God’s job to judge the terrorists. It’s our mission to arrange the meeting.”

Newt Gingrich: “let's set the record straight. Barack Obama, as a state senator, voted to allow doctors to kill babies if they survived the abortion. Barack Obama, as president, in the most radical anti-religious move made by a--by any president, is trying to coerce the Catholic Church at a time when he's been told by the bishops that would have to give up every single hospital...They would have to give up every single hospital, they would have to give up every single religious--every single university and college associated with the church because he is asking them to violate their religious beliefs. Now you want--if you want a debate over whether or not the president of the United States should be able to impose his views on a religious institution and whether America's now a secular country, let's have that debate.” This coherent and sensible statement that Newt made was interrupted 4 times by David Gregory, who did everything possible to threw Newt off his game and to mess up the logical progressive point that Newt was making.

GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich: "We need an administration with the courage to say the words `radical Islam.'"

John Bolton on the U.S. “seeking permission from the international community before we act”: “That’s saying, ‘Mother, may I;’ and that’s a new model.”

Senator James Inhofe: "The Genesis 8:22 [verse] that I use in there is that `as long as the earth remains there will be springtime and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night.' My point is, God's still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous."

Here’s another quote you may never see again; Charles Krauthammer on Syria: “I think Obama is right on this one and McCain is wrong.”

I caught about the first 30 minutes of ABC’s new show, GCB, which apparently stands for Good Christian Bitches. I did not know this prior to watching the show, but stopped partway through it, not finding it to be very compelling. Of all people, New Gingrich comments on this show: "Look at the new show that's on that has the word `Christian' in it, and I want you to take the exact name, drop out Christian and put in `Muslim.' And ask yourself is their [sic] any network that would have dared to run a show like that and you know the answer is not a one, because anti-Christian bigotry is just fine in the entertainment industry but they have to be very protective of Islam"

Rush Limbaugh: "I've been doing this for 23 years. I think I've got enough evidence to know that no matter what I do, the left is focused on only one thing: getting rid of me."

Rush Limbaugh: "Everybody was happy with the Thomas Edison good old incandescent light bulb. Nobody was unhappy with it except Obama and his buddies on the left. And for some reason that light bulb of Thomas Edison's was going to destroy the planet, along with oil and any other sign of progress."

Rush Limbaugh: "When Obama's stimulus bill passed there were 12.5 million unemployment persons. Obama spent over a trillion dollars to lose an additional 0.3 million jobs. That's almost as impressive as awarding $10 million to some outfit to create a 50-dollar light bulb."

Rush Limbaugh: "There was a Reuters report from yesterday: 'US Jobless Claims Rise, But Labor Market Healing -- More people applied for unemployment checks, but the labor market is healing.' Healing! Do you think you would ever get a definition like that of 'healing' with a Republican in the White House? 'Jobless Claims Rise; Country Going to Hell,' would be the headline if George W. Bush were in the Oval Office."

Rush Limbaugh: "The longer the primaries go on, the longer Romney will have to sound conservative. Maybe it will become a habit."

Rush Limbaugh: "The American people -- and the number is well over 50%, in some polls to get close to 60% -- want Obamacare repealed. A vast majority of the American people understand full well what life in this country will be the moment that thing is fully implemented. They know in their collective guts that it's a freedom-killer."

Rush Limbaugh: "If you can imagine life in America where the media was as equally accusatory, equally suspicious of Democrats as Republicans, we'd have an entirely different national mood and national landscape."

Rush Limbaugh: "There's no greater people on this planet than the American citizens. None greater! And I really resent this implication here that we are selfish, greedy, un-sharing exploiters."

Rush Limbaugh: "The less money you have to spend on discretionary items, the more dependent you will be on Obama and his party. And that's the ultimate objective. They want to take your ambition away from you. They want to take your dreams away from you."

Rush Limbaugh: "Businesses evolve out of need and creativity and invention in the private sector. Government doesn't start anything."

Rush Limbaugh: "Folks, this is not an evil country. And the president is trying to say that we have used more than our share, and that's the justification for making us cut back. That's the justification for high prices. That's the justification for us having to drive smaller and smaller cars, and maybe not even drive cars at all but drive batteries -- and maybe get on mass transit."

Rush Limbaugh: "Folks, there's no substitute for oil. There's no replacement for it. We are not going to get off of oil. We are not going to have automobiles, airplanes, anything that moves, without oil. It isn't going to happen, because there is no alternative."

Rush Limbaugh: "Oil is the fuel of the engine of freedom, and that's dead-on accurate right between your eyes. That's not spin; that's not deception; that's not in any way painting pictures. There is no replacement for it, and there is no substitute for it."

Rush Limbaugh: "No matter how you slice it, ladies and gentlemen, there are two million fewer jobs in this country since Obama took office, two million fewer jobs that you can get, two million fewer jobs to be filled."

Rush Limbaugh: "There is enough oil in this country to run this country at current levels of usage for around 250 years, and the regime wants you to believe we've only got 20 billion barrels; we're gonna run out here in ten years or so."

Rush Limbaugh: "Every green energy area that Obama has looked into has failed. It is corrupt. And the money that he has given it, federal tax dollars, much of it comes back to him in the form of campaign donations."

Rush Limbaugh: "Obama, who's still living in his idealistic youth in college when you have people in the faculty lounge and in the classroom living in utopia in their minds, speculating about how perfect life could be. They drum up and create all of these villains and all of these enemies, all of these demons that are getting in the way."

Rush Limbaugh: "Look at everything the American left and the Democrat Party demonizes. Practically everything in the private sector -- every business, every industry -- they demonize it."

Rush Limbaugh: “What is the exit strategy for the war on women? When do you pull out in the war on women?”

Bill O’Reilly on the Chevy Volt: “I’d like to get 60 miles to the gallon as long as I don’t get fried.”

In 1787 Alexander Tyler, a classics in history professor at the university of Edinburgh was asked what contributed to the fall of the Athenian republic: "A democracy is always temporary in nature. It simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time the voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate who promised the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy which is always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's civilizations from the beginning of history up to the present is about two hundred years. During those two hundred years these civilizations go through the following sequence. They begin in bondage, and so they move from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, and from courage to liberty. From liberty to abundance, from abundance to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, and from dependence back into bondage."

George Will: "Mr. Boehner comes out and says, Rush's language was inappropriate. Using a salad fork for your entree, that's inappropriate. Not this stuff... And it was depressing, because what it indicates is that the Republican leaders are afraid of Rush Limbaugh. They want to bomb Iran, but they're afraid of Rush Limbaugh." Dems loved this quote; it was on nearly every left-wing website there ever was.

Newt Gingrich: “The Romney strategy of outspending his opponents will not work against Obama.” [quoted from memory].

Donald Trump of George Will: "I think he's a totally overrated fool. I think this guy is so overrated. I don't think he's very smart. He looks smart with the little glasses and the hair slicked to the side...He's a hack.”

I have seen this video removed from about a dozen websites; it is a parody Chevy Volt ad. :) See it before it’s gone.

If Rush offended you, then you will likely be offended by this compilation of liberal misogyny.

Obama PAC is running an ad against Sarah Palin, whose words seem to come through, even though this is an anti-Palin ad.

Even though Maher still tries to defend what he says and Rush Limbaugh says are very different, he finally defends Rush’s right to free speech.

Code Pink is now fighting to restore their relevancy and to breathe new life into liberalism. 3 female members storm a Bank of America and disrobe, chanting, "Bust up the Bank of America." This is serious....and a little sad.

Speaking of being a little sad, "Contraceptive Song" by Women Occupy: Post-Menopausal Feminists sing about their need for free contraception but, at the same time, demand that the government stay away from their uterus (uteri?). They leave their tops on.

Occupy Wall Street debuts its tactical propaganda vehicle: "The Illuminator” Like the Batmobile, it shines a spotlight on random walls, to show the symbol “99%.” No wonder this movement is almost broke.

After Blasting Rush Limbaugh, Dem Reps. Sheila Jackson Lee, Jan Schakowsky Refuse To Condemn Bill Maher's Palin Comments. Same for Nancy Pelosi.

Montel Williams speaks passionately and effectively to decry Rush Limbaugh’s “slut” remarks; and then, defends his call for Michele Bachmann to commit suicide (it was just a joke riffed from something she said). Video and transcript.

Rep. Louie Gohmert’s apology list. Quite frankly, Gohmert is not the most inspiring speaker; but the content is good.

Jodi Miller: “President Obama...said in a interview that the only thing his wife Michelle lets him do is watch ESPN; well, that and destroy the economy.”

Jodi Miller: “John McCain said, he would not be watching the HBO movie about the 2008 election called Game Change because it is not accurate. And also because he keeps confusing his cellphone with his remote control.”

1) As I have often said, when liberals argue for something, they are very dishonest about it. Sandra Fluke spend all of her time speaking at her conference of unusual circumstances involving birth control regimens; but he entire agenda, she kept hidden. She wants gender-reassignment surgery as part of any health-care package.

2) Have you noticed the odd way that contraception was framed this past 2 weeks? If you don’t want this to be free, then you must be in favor of outlawing it. One of my problems with Obamacare is, it sounds as if we get all of these free goodies, but that simply drives the price of medical insurance astronomically. If the government does not get involved, we can choose from a variety of plans, including very cheap ones which have a high deductible, but will keep us from going broke if there is a serious medical problem.

3) My strongest recommendation for medical insurance reform, which no one has offered, and which would cost nothing is, a clear designation of what the plan has on the front page. Plans could be classified as high deductible, low deductible, gold plans, limited medical coverage, percentage coverage, etc. This would be similar to the ratings that movies have.

4) Let me spell out a very elementary lesson in economics: money is freedom and money is power. If you have enough money to buy this or that, or move to a different neighborhood, or to hop on a plane, there is freedom in that. When the government comes and takes 40% of your money, that means that they have curtailed your freedom. Furthermore, they can spend this money as they choose to, and, as has been quite transparent with President Obama, he has used taxpayer money to pay back his donors and bundlers. That is power.

5) At one time in the United States, the government was just another entity, not quite as important as are larger businesses and richest men, but still important. Now the government dwarfs all of our corporations, and it continues to spend money as if there was no tomorrow. President Obama does not seem the least interested in curbing federal spending. Only Ron Paul seems to be absolutely serious about government spending, but, he will not win the presidency. Of the other 3 Republican candidates, they talk about overspending and they sound like they get it, but do they really? In this area, Romney is the least credible, who spoke of balancing the budget 10 years out. Anytime a politician says that, he is really saying, “I’m going to kick the can down the road to the next guy.” Don’t misunderstand me; I think Romney will be light years ahead of Obama; but it does not appear as though he understands how serious our overspending is.

6) As a conservative, I would not have a problem with certain nanny state provisions. I would like to see Food Stamps limited to fresh meats, cereal, milk, bread, fruits and veggies. Anything beyond that, the recipient would have to cover. If a woman is receiving welfare, section 8 or any other kind of assistance, once she gets to 3 children, then she must submit to voluntary sterilization in order to continue to receive benefits. In effect, there were be a two-child limit on all welfare recipients.

February 2012 deficit is a record $229 billion; the largest deficit in one month in the United States ever.

27 Republican jobs bills from the House sit on Harry Reid’s desk. He will not bring them to the floor; he will not debate them.

Gallup, without seasonal adjustment, has unemployment at 9.1% in February up from 8.6% in January and 8.5% in December. Underemployment is at 19.1%.

The 2009 Homeschool Progress Report found "homeschoolers scored 34-39 percentile points higher than the norm on standardized achievement tests. The homeschool national average ranged from the 84th percentile for Language, Math, and Social Studies to the 89th percentile for Reading." The average is 50. Homeschoolers also score higher on the popular college entrance exam ACT. More stats.

Although Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke testified to the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee last month that contraception can cost a law student $3,000 over three years and that some of her fellow students could not afford it, a Target store only 3 miles from the law school currently sells a month's supply of birth control pills for only $9 to people who do not have insurance plans covering contraceptives. That is about $325 for a year’s supply.

The federal government spent $24 billion on energy subsidies in 2011, with the vast majority going to renewable energy sources.

Sandra Fluke has appeared 8 times on major media over the past week or so. I do not believe that a single host or news person asked her if about the Target store, 3 miles from the Georgetown Law School campus, that sells birth control pills for $9/month. Since her presentation was all about law students who could not afford to pay for birth control, do you think one question about that might have been reasonable? These are not programs interested in disseminating news or information; only propaganda.

PBS’s Mark Shields blames Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito for the Super PAC’s. As is often the case for liberals, this decision is not examined in any depth. Nor are the roots of this decision, which is McCain and Feingold’s campaign finance bill and the concept of free speech. This is a problem and I personally do not like the Super PAC’s myself; but it is up to Congress to thread this needle and to set up a balance between free speech and people being able to “buy” an election with ads that lack their fingerprints.

Remember When NBC Thought Calling Someone a 'Slut' Was Hilarious? Video and story. When it suits their purpose, they are offended.

So far, after 72 hours since the Obama/Bell connection was made (Bell is a racist professor and author), the AP has not done any stories on this topic (after all, this was 20 years ago). But, the AP has done a number of stories on Romney and his dog from 30 years ago, where is dog rode on the roof of a vehicle while in a cage.

So, have you noticed how Obama first proposed the algae solution to gas, and now is no longer talking about it? The OMC has failed to pick up on that as well. Now, had Governors Palin or Mitt Romney proposed that we solve the oil problem with algae, this would have lit up every media source in America.

Not too much of a shock: SNL mocks Rush Limbaugh (the video is at that link). And they mocked his new sponsors, giving them the mock names The Syria Tourism Board, Barney's Butt Crack Balm, Mosquito Breeders of America, Lee's Pencil Dullers, Misaki Dolphin Poppers, and Shroder's Fake Rape Whistles (which are, admittedly, funny). However, who do they not mock? Sandra Fluke, whose deceptive and misleading testimony puts her into the middle of this. Nor do they mock the television shows who gave Ms.Fluke a free pass and did not ask her any difficult questions (as they did with candidate Obama).

In probably one of the greatest political jujitsu’s of all time, the Democratic party, by means of Sandra Fluke and Rush Limbaugh, have turned President Obama’s unpopular heavy-handed mandates for healthcare companies, making

demands of what healthcare companies must provide free, regardless of any religious considerations; into a “Republican War on Women.” This latter framing of the issue, however dishonest, has stepped up their fund-raising considerably.

Government Gives $10 million prize to Philips for Inventing the $40 Light Bulb (this is not in the mainstream media)

Why won't Mitt Romney let me like him? Every time I start to make peace with the idea of a Romney nomination, he goes and says something like this: "You know, it's very easy to excite the base with incendiary comments. We've seen throughout the campaign if you're willing to say really outrageous things. you're going to jump up in the polls. I'm not willing to light my hair on fire to try and get support."

So this is what Mitt Romney thinks of conservatives? That we're excitable masses who want him to "say really outrageous things" and "light his hair on fire"? With all respect, that is precisely how the left views the conservative movement - a bunch of mindless radicals driven not by ideas but by "incendiary" rhetoric. Apparently the GOP frontrunner shares their assessment of his conservative base.

What conservatives want is not for Mitt Romney to light his hair on fire. We want a nominee who will lead us into battle against President Obama this fall under a banner of bold ideas. We want another Ronald Reagan. But the sad reality is there is no new Reagan coming to the rescue. This election will not be a choice between Obama and another Reagan. It will be a choice between a second Obama term and a second Bush term . as in Bush 41.

Electing a transformational conservative president may not be in the cards this November - but stopping a transformational liberal president still is. Consider the consequences if Obama gets a second term: Obamacare will not be repealed. The unprecedented levels of spending in Obama's first four years will become the new floor, as America sets new records for fiscal profligacy and debt. Job creators will face massive tax increases, and more Americans will come off the tax rolls - resulting in fewer citizens with a stake in keeping taxes low and more with a stake in protecting benefits. Government dependency, already at record levels, will continue to grow. Four lost years in dealing with the entitlement crisis will become eight - digging us into a hole from which we may not be able to emerge. Obama, unworried about the impact of gas and electricity prices on his reelection, will finally wage the regulatory war on fossil fuels the left demands. He will unleash the Environmental Protection Agency to impose crushing new burdens on U.S. business. His administration's assault on religious freedom will go on and expand to new areas. The Defense Department will be gutted, with cuts so deep that America will no longer be a superpower. Obama could have the opportunity to appoint more liberal Supreme Court justices, ending the Roberts court in all but name for a generation.

A second Obama term would impose potentially irrevocable damage on our country. So the question Republicans need to ask is not whether Romney is our ideal conservative candidate, but can he defeat Obama? In South Carolina, it didn't seem he could. But then Romney took the gloves off. He faced down serious challenges from Gingrich in Florida and then Santorum in Michigan. With those victories it appeared that a candidate was finally emerging who is capable of taking the fight to Obama in the fall. Romney has a chance to solidify that impression with a strong showing on Super Tuesday - especially in the all-important swing state of Ohio.

If Romney secures the nomination, he will be far from the perfect standard bearer. But, to paraphrase Don Rumsfeld, you go to war with the candidates you've got. Conservatives are never going to love Mitt Romney - and we don't have to. But we can form an alliance of convenience with him. To win the support of the base, Romney doesn't need to light his hair on fire. He just needs to stop insulting conservatives - and show us he has what it takes to make Obama a one-term president.

Come January 2013, I am ready to stop hating the Obama administration . and start hating the Romney administration.

The statement read by Sandra Fluke was (1) brilliant; (2) dishonest and (3) classically liberal. Liberals cannot come out and unabashedly tell you what it is that they want. This woman wants free contraception from this Catholic University, in part, to tweak Catholics and, in part, because she is a liberal activist. And what Rush Limbaugh did on Thursday and Friday of 1.5 weeks ago was exactly right. She wanted sex without any consequences. She did not want to pay for it; she did not want to have any responsibilities whatsoever. But, nobody is going to buy into that. If she came out and said any of this, she would get no media and, those who heard her would oppose her 80–20. So, she has to come out and talk about a non-contraceptive use for contraceptives, and such an application apparently exists.

Now, from what I could pick up, with proper documentation, a woman could get contraceptives under these circumstances at Georgetown (although Fluke was intentionally vague here). It sounded to me like, a woman who needed contraception to prevent ovarian cysts could get them, even on the “oppressive” Georgetown plan.

So, she takes the exception to the rule and puts that out there like that is what this is all about. “I don’t really want contraception; I want to prevent ovarian cysts,” appears to be the message given, with the suggestion that was impossible to get for free or at a reduced cost, although that appears to be false.

This same approach is done with food stamps, housing, breakfast and lunch for the poor school kids, abortion and medical marijuana in California.

Let me explain what abortion people want: abortions at any time for any woman who wants it, no matter what (even if one simply does not like the gender of their child in the womb). However, whenever you argue this with them, they will always talk about rape and incest, which make up 1–3% of abortions.

Medical marijuana in California is presented the same way. There are apparently some instances when medical marijuana is a reasonable medical help for some ailments. However, as everyone in California knows, it is all about getting dope legally. Probably not 1% of those with a marijuana prescription actually really need it, medically speaking. The other 99% just want to get high.

Fluke’s statement was incredibly well-written. Even though it was all about getting something for “free” (something that Democrats love), it never sounded that way. It never sounded as if Sandra and her friends just wanted to have a lot of sex on the taxpayer dime (as Rush portrayed it). Now, either, Fluke is a very smart puppy or she had help putting this presentation together. I do not doubt that she is intelligent, but I have to think that Democrat operatives looked it over before it was presented and made suggestions.

So that is what Fluke’s statement was all about; the fact that liberal politicians were able to turn this into a Republican “war on women” was an added benefit.

It is also worth noting that Fluke was not challenged on the shows that she appeared on (she went on 8 news/information shows). So the media is complicit. Either they are not smart enough to come up with a challenging question or, they simply agree with Fluke, so there is nothing to challenge or to question.

I realize some people continue to take stabs at Sandra Fluke personally and it is their right to do so, but let's stick with the testimony she gave. Fluke mentioned prescriptions used for contraception can and are used for other reasons. Jim Vicevich mentioned this many times on his show this week.

I've already linked to her testimony, but I'm including it in full at the bottom of this post for reference. Let's first point out 14 percent of women, about one in seven, rely on contraception (the pill) exclusively for non-contraceptive purposes. You may think I selectively picked out that article to find a low number, but in reality I went to the same Guttmacher Institute quoted by Fluke in her testimony. As noted, Jim's mentioned other medical uses on the air and did you know - according to Fluke's own testimony - Georgetown's student health insurance covers the use of contraception for these purposes?

With that noted, wouldn't Fluke think that would be a good compromise? Not at all, she demands coverage for all with no strings attached, and uses a couple examples of students being denied coverage, and some being interrogated. There should be, and quite certainly are, appeal methods in place for these situations. There is no appeal for religious institutions and Catholic employers once the government mandates the coverage.

If the use of the pill for non-contraceptive purposes was the primary problem for Fluke, why did she use the the words contraceptive or contraception 12 times in her testimony? She used the term 11 times before she got to her first example of using contraception for other purposes.

There is an obvious solution to this issue, an issue that has been exclusively caused by President Obama's health insurance mandates, and legislation that required we pass it before we found out what's in it. Get the federal government out of the mandate business that has resulted in hundreds of waivers and excruciating First Amendment issues. Getting the federal government completely out of the health care business all together would even be better.

The problem, as they say, is then solved. A perfect, real compromise would allow families and individuals to select the health insurance plan that meets their needs. If their employer does not provide health care insurance or provide specific coverage (birth control) they want, they are welcome to purchase a supplemental policy directly from an insurance company that provides the coverage they are looking for. Looking for birth control? Target offers Sprintec and Tri-Sprintec for $9 per month (28 days) without insurance. (Yes, I know there are "formulations" that may cost more.)

But that is not what Fluke, Obama and Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) want. They want mandated coverage for all, no matter what the reason, and paid for by someone else even though that coverage may diminish the rights of someone else.

True rights exist simultaneously between people, and exercising those rights can not diminish the rights of another. Read that last sentences again and commit it to memory. I'm working on a T-shirt since it won't fit on a bumper sticker.

So there I proposed a compromise. I'll still be called an idiot by some, and we have not even discussed the federal mandate to cover abortifacients which we won't discuss here since Fluke never brought it up. Now let's take a look at Flukes testimony, in full. In some areas I may add emphasis and comments.

Leader Pelosi, Members of Congress, good morning, and thank you for calling this hearing on women's health and allowing me to testify on behalf of the women who will benefit from the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage regulation. My name is Sandra Fluke, and I'm a third year student at Georgetown Law, a Jesuit school. I'm also a past president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice or LSRJ. I'd like to acknowledge my fellow LSRJ members and allies and all of the student activists with us and thank them for being here today.

Georgetown LSRJ is here today because we're so grateful that this regulation implements the nonpartisan, medical advice of the Institute of Medicine. I attend a Jesuit law school that does not provide contraception coverage in its student health plan. Just as we students have faced financial, emotional, and medical burdens as a result, employees at religiously affiliated hospitals and universities across the country have suffered similar burdens. We are all grateful for the new regulation that will meet the critical health care needs of so many women. Simultaneously, the recently announced adjustment addresses any potential conflict with the religious identity of Catholic and Jesuit institutions.

No, it does not. Even though the non-compromise compromise was announced, it was not written into the federal regulations that were published after Obama's announcement. People keep claiming it's in place, and that's a total lie.

On a daily basis she hears these tragic stories? I highly doubt it. But then she's going out looking for these stories and this cause takes a significant number of her waking hours. She may be hearing daily stories, but my guess is they are from the same few women every other day.

As noted before, if they really tried I'm sure they could spend more than $3,000, but why mention the absolute worst case senario you could find when a simple visit to Target's website shows Sprintec and Tri-Sprintec for $9 per month (28 days) without insurance?

She pays no attention to the true rights of other people and religious groups. She's demanding other people - who may have a religious reason not to pay for someone's contraception - pay for it.

On a side note, Obama wrote a letter to the Afghan president including an apology, and apparently promised disciplinary action, concerning the inadvertent burning of Qurans. Where is the letter of appology to the Catholics? Why does Obama treat radical Islamic fundamentalists with more reverence than American Catholics?

That's right, her prescription is covered by Georgetown since its use is not to prevent pregnancy, but to treat polycystic ovarian syndrome.

It's simple Ms. Fluke, get the federal government out of the health care mandate business and you'll be able to purchase a policy meeting your requirements. When the president mandates stuff, you're going to get push-back and more legislation that may well make it even more difficult for you to find the coverage you need.

No more comments from me since everything else is covered at the beginning of my post.

In sixty-five percent of cases, our female students were interrogated by insurance representatives and university medical staff about why they needed these prescriptions and whether they were lying about their symptoms. For my friend, and 20% of women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription, despite verification of her illness from her doctor. Her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted the birth control to prevent pregnancy. She's gay, so clearly polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy. After months of paying over $100 out of pocket, she just couldn't afford her medication anymore and had to stop taking it. I learned about all of this when I walked out of a test and got a message from her that in the middle of her final exam period she'd been in the emergency room all night in excruciating pain. She wrote, "It was so painful, I woke up thinking I'd been shot." Without her taking the birth control, a massive cyst the size of a tennis ball had grown on her ovary. She had to have surgery to remove her entire ovary. On the morning I was originally scheduled to give this testimony, she sat in a doctor's office. Since last year's surgery, she's been experiencing night sweats, weight gain, and other symptoms of early menopause as a result of the removal of her ovary. She's 32 years old. As she put it: "If my body indeed does enter early menopause, no fertility specialist in the world will be able to help me have my own children. I will have no chance at giving my mother her desperately desired grandbabies, simply because the insurance policy that I paid for totally unsubsidized by my school wouldn't cover my prescription for birth control when I needed it." Now, in addition to potentially facing the health complications that come with having menopause at an early age- increased risk of cancer, heart disease, and osteoporosis, she may never be able to conceive a child.

Perhaps you think my friend's tragic story is rare. It's not. One woman told us doctors believe she has endometriosis, but it can't be proven without surgery, so the insurance hasn't been willing to cover her medication. Recently, another friend of mine told me that she also has polycystic ovarian syndrome. She's struggling to pay for her medication and is terrified to not have access to it. Due to the barriers erected by Georgetown's policy, she hasn't been reimbursed for her medication since last August. I sincerely pray that we don't have to wait until she loses an ovary or is diagnosed with cancer before her needs and the needs of all of these women are taken seriously.

This is the message that not requiring coverage of contraception sends. A woman's reproductive healthcare isn't a necessity, isn't a priority. One student told us that she knew birth control wasn't covered, and she assumed that's how Georgetown's insurance handled all of women's sexual healthcare, so when she was raped, she didn't go to the doctor even to be examined or tested for sexually transmitted infections because she thought insurance wasn't going to cover something like that, something that was related to a woman's reproductive health. As one student put it, "this policy communicates to female students that our school doesn't understand our needs." These are not feelings that male fellow students experience. And they're not burdens that male students must shoulder.

In the media lately, conservative Catholic organizations have been asking: what did we expect when we enrolled at a Catholic school? We can only answer that we expected women to be treated equally, to not have our school create untenable burdens that impede our academic success. We expected that our schools would live up to the Jesuit creed of cura personalis, to care for the whole person, by meeting all of our medical needs. We expected that when we told our universities of the problems this policy created for students, they would help us. We expected that when 94% of students opposed the policy, the university would respect our choices regarding insurance students pay for completely unsubsidized by the university. We did not expect that women would be told in the national media that if we wanted comprehensive insurance that met our needs, not just those of men, we should have gone to school elsewhere, even if that meant a less prestigious university. We refuse to pick between a quality education and our health, and weresent that, in the 21 st century, anyone thinks it's acceptable to ask us to make this choice simply because we are women.

Many of the women whose stories I've shared are Catholic women, so ours is not a war against the church. It is a struggle for access to the healthcare we need. The President of the Association of Jesuit Colleges has shared that Jesuit colleges and universities appreciate the modification to the rule announced last week. Religious concerns are addressed and women get the healthcare they need. That is something we can all agree on. Thank you.

The press and President Obama have been all over Rush Limbaugh for the words he used to criticize a Georgetown Law student, Sandra Fluke, who spoke on February 23 at a meeting of the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee.

There's been less attention paid, alas, to the details of Ms. Fluke's testimony.

For feminists, the Georgetown chapter of Law Students for Reproductive Justice sure have a non-egalitarian view of who should pay for birth control.

Here are a few ways Ms. Fluke and her friends might get their contraceptive costs down below that $3,000 level:

They could have men pay half. Modern men do half the parenting work or pay at least half the child support. Why shouldn't men pay for half of the contraceptive costs?

Ms. Fluke and her friends could use condoms instead of prescription birth control pills. One Georgetown student group reportedly handed out 4,500 "free" condoms during one recent semester. Or the law students could buy condoms online at $40.25 for a package of 100. At about 40 cents a condom, the Georgetown students could have sex twice a day, 365 days a year, for all three years of law school, for just $881 dollars.

Ms. Fluke and her friends could go to Walmart or Target, whose lists of inexpensive drugs include the oral contraceptive Tri-Sprintec priced at $4 for a 28-day supply. Total cost, assuming continuous use for three full years (including the summer after graduating law school or before starting): about $150.

Under ObamaCare, though, if you have health insurance, contraceptives have to be not just inexpensive, but free. That's right, as President Obama himself explained it on February 10: "As part of the health care reform law that I signed last year, all insurance plans are required to cover preventive care at no cost..We also accepted a recommendation from the experts at the Institute of Medicine that when it comes to women, preventive care should include coverage of contraceptive services such as birth control. . we know that the overall cost of health care is lower when women have access to contraceptive services. we decided to follow the judgment of the nation's leading medical experts and make sure that free preventive care includes access to free contraceptive care."

This idea that something that costs money to make can really be "free" to taxpayers or to anyone else is a deeply held left-wing belief. The New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd over the weekend faulted Mr. Limbaugh for saying that insuring contraception would represent another "welfare entitlement." That, Ms. Dowd insisted, "is wrong - tax dollars would not provide the benefit, employers and insurance companies would."

Yet Ms. Dowd's own newspaper reports that ObamaCare "seeks to extend insurance to more than 30 million people, primarily by expanding Medicaid and providing federal subsidies to help lower- and middle-income Americans buy private coverage," at a cost of "about $938 billion over 10 years, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office." If Ms. Dowd is correct and "tax dollars would not provide the benefit," what's the need for those "federal subsidies"? And if Mr. Obama is correct and dispensing "free" contraceptives really reduces health care costs, why is it even necessary for the government to step in and force insurers to do something that will save them money?

To some degree, the tax-funded contraceptive horse is already out of the barn. A study conducted in 2007 and 2008 by the Kaiser Family Foundation and George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services found that at least 39 states and the District of Columbia covered oral contraceptives under Medicaid, the health care program for the poor whose costs are split between state and federal governments. That was back during the George W. Bush administration, which is something to remember the next time a Democrat claims that once Republicans come into office they are going to take away access to birth control pills.

Another interesting aspect of Ms. Fluke's testimony is that so much of it - about a third - concerned the use of birth control pills not as contraception but as a treatment for polycystic ovarian syndrome. The Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome Association lists birth control pills as one treatment for PCOS, but it lists a lot of other treatments, too, including in-vitro fertilization, anti-androgens, and insulin sensitizers. The birth control pills are the only treatment for the syndrome that the government wants to make free to consumers, or that Ms. Fluke emphasized in her testimony. It's not clear why that treatment should get preference over other ones.

There are a lot of questions here that go right to the heart of ObamaCare. Why is the president getting involved in setting prices for prescription drugs in the first place? Where in the Constitution does he get that power? Why should people past reproductive age who are paying copayments for their heart or arthritis medication be paying taxes to subsidize free prescription contraceptives for law students?

No wonder a lot of people would prefer, instead, to discuss Rush Limbaugh's word choices.

A student demands that a Catholic school give up its religion to pay for her birth-control pills.

Last week Sandra Fluke, a student at Georgetown University Law Center, went to Congress looking for a handout. She wants free birth-control pills, and she wants the federal government to make her Catholic school give them to her.

I'm a graduate of Georgetown Law and former chief counsel of the House Subcommittee on the Constitution. Based on her testimony, I wonder how much Ms. Fluke really knows about the university or the Constitution.

Sandra Fluke, a third-year law student at Georgetown University, testifies during a hearing before the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee on February 23.

As a law student 20 years ago, I wasn't confronted by crucifixes in the classroom or, in truth, by any religious imagery anywhere. In that respect the law school has a different "feel" than the university. The law school chapel was an unadorned, multipurpose room in the basement used for Mass when it wasn't used for Gilbert and Sullivan Society rehearsals and club meetings. Among the clubs while I was there, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance was particularly vigorous.

MarketWatch columnist Jon Friedman takes a seat on Mean Street to take issue with radio personality Rush Limbaugh's recent comments about a Georgetown University law student. Photo: Getty Images.

I was not Catholic when I attended Georgetown Law, but I certainly knew the university was. So did Ms. Fluke. She told the Washington Post that she chose Georgetown knowing specifically that the school did not cover drugs that run contrary to Catholic teaching in its student health plans. During her law school years she was a president of "Students for Reproductive Justice" and made it her mission to get the school to give up one of the last remnants of its Catholicism. Ms. Fluke is not the "everywoman" portrayed in the media.

Georgetown Law School has flung wide its doors to the secular world. It will tolerate and accommodate all manner of clubs and activities that run contrary to fundamental Catholic beliefs. But it is not inclined to pay for or provide them. And it has the right to do so-to say "this far and no further."

When congressional committee counsels plan hearings, they look for two kinds of witnesses: "experts" and "victims." The experts are typically lawyers or law professors who can explain the constitutional authority for the new law and its legal impact, and the victims illustrate why the law is needed.

At the hearing of the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee chaired by Nancy Pelosi, Sandra Fluke testified as a victim. Having to buy your own contraception is a burden, she said. She testified that all around her at Georgetown she could see the faces of students who were suffering because of Georgetown's refusal to abandon its Catholic principles.

Exactly what does the face of a law student who must buy her own birth-control pills look like? Did I see them all around me and just not know it? Do male law students who must buy their own condoms have the same look? Perhaps Ms. Fluke should have brought photos to Congress to illustrate her point.

In her testimony, Ms. Fluke claimed that, "Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school." That's $1,000 per year. But an employee at a Target pharmacy near the university told the Weekly Standard last week that one month's worth of generic oral contraceptives is $9 per month. "That's the price without insurance," the employee said. (It's also $9 per month at Wal-Mart.)

What about Rush Limbaugh? I won't defend his use of epithets (for which he's apologized), but I understand his larger point. At issue isn't inhalers for asthmatics or insulin for diabetics. Contraception isn't like other kinds of "health care." Yes, birth-control pills can be prescribed to address medical problems, though that's relatively rare and the Catholic Church has no quarrel with their use in this circumstance. And the university's insurance covers prescriptions in these cases.

Still, Ms. Fluke is not mollified. Why? Because at the end of the day this is not about coverage of a medical condition.

Ms. Fluke's crusade for reproductive justice is simply a demand that a Catholic institution pay for drugs that make it possible for her to have sex without getting pregnant. It's nothing grander or nobler than that. Georgetown's refusal to do so does not mean she has to have less sex, only that she has to take financial responsibility for it herself.

Should Ms. Fluke give up a cup or two of coffee at Starbucks each month to pay for her birth control, or should Georgetown give up its religion? Even a first-year law student should know where the Constitution comes down on that.

Remember the Georgetown Law student, Sandra Fluke, who was forced to suffer through $3,000-worth of protected sex during her stint at law school? Turns out, there's a bit more to the story.

According to some sources, Fluke might just have been a well-placed fake. Not exactly the young-and-helpless female law student most took her for, Fluke's LinkedIn profile speaks for itself:

With a six year hiatus between her undergraduate time and GT Law, Fluke is probably closer to 30. And she's had plenty of involvement with the pro-contraception agenda. A Feminist, Gender, & Sexuality Studies major at Cornell, Fluke is also a past president of Law Students for Reproductive Justice. While she's presented herself in persona a woman suffering because of Georgetown's policies, it's more likely that Fluke has had her sights set on the school for quite a while.

Fluke came to Georgetown University interested in contraceptive coverage: She researched the Jesuit college's health plans for students before enrolling, and found that birth control was not included. "I decided I was absolutely not willing to compromise the quality of my education in exchange for my health care," says Fluke, who has spent the past three years lobbying the administration to change its policy on the issue. The issue got the university president's office last spring, where Georgetown declined to change its policy.

Fluke says she would have used the hearing to talk about the students at Georgetown that don't have birth control covered, and what that's meant for them. "I wanted to be able to share their stories," she says. "My testimony would have been about women who have been affected by their policy, who have medical needs and have suffered dire consequences..?.?.The committee did not get to hear real stories I had to share, about actual women who have been dramatically affected by this policy."

What did transpire, though, was a phone call from the Oval (read: Home) Office in support of Fluke's plight, and encouraging her for "speaking out about the concerns of American women." According to the White House, Obama's concerns followed directly upon Rush Limbaugh's disparaging remarks, naming Fluke as a "slut," a "prostitute," and as "having so much sex she can't pay for it."

Among others, one result of this curious turn of fact is the almost indefensible position opened up to by the president of Georgetown University, John D. DeGioia. The president, who has spoken out in defense of Fluke against her conservative rivals, now has to face the very loud music of welcoming and advocating a knowing instigator into his midst. If Fluke came to Georgetown precisely to cut her legal teeth on the school itself, DeGioia's stance seems at best dichotomous. On the one hand, he's responsible for defending the school's policies; on the other, he's (apparently) been party to an intentional and knowing act of subversion.

What's more, if President Obama has at all been privy to the Fluke situation-and it's hard to believe he wasn't, since he felt confident enough to pay her a personal phone call-what has become of the highest office in the land?

If it turns out that Sandra Fluke was just a fake, perhaps not much will change. But doubtless, the implications of what has and is happening in the contraceptive wars will be upped substantially. More than anything, Fluke continues the narrative of The Big Lie, that a segment in this country seeks to make contraception illegal for all women. It is a scorched earth policy that is as likely to leave its practitioners in infamy as it is to succeed in advancing the agenda.

Politico says it is 29 advertisers. However, Limbaugh has said that this is not exactly true.

Last Friday, we invited 30-year-old Sandra Fluke to appear on "The Factor." The Georgetown law student has now become the poster woman in the debate over birth control coverage mandated by the federal government. Unfortunately Ms. Fluke would not appear on "The Factor." Instead she has chosen friendly venues where she will not be challenged.

Now, I did not, did not want to talk to Sandra Fluke about contraception. That's a personal issue and as I said on Friday, she is free to do whatever she wants in that area. It's none of my business. By the way, that memo is posted on BillO'Reilly.com.

I did want to ask the young woman about her sense of entitlement. Why should anyone have to pay increased health insurance premiums so that she and others can get the pill, free?

As we all know health insurance companies pass any and all costs on to the consumer. Since President Obama took office, my health insurance premiums have risen about 30 percent. And once ObamaCare kicks in, they will go even higher. So that's what I want to talk to Sandra Fluke about, just in case she changes her mind.

Now the big picture. When the Obama administration decided to order the Catholic Church to cover birth control and the morning after pill, they quickly got into trouble. The President was warned not to do that by Vice President Biden but Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius won the debate and the President went up against the church.

Soon after he had to retreat because the government simply cannot order religious organizations to do anything that runs counter to their belief systems. That's flat out unconstitutional.

So sensing danger, the Obama Administration quickly pivoted and attempted to make the whole situation about women's health. Enter Sandra Fluke, a contraception activist. The Democrats tried to force a House Congressional Committee to hear her testimony. But the committee saying she was not qualified to speak on church-state issues which they were talking about, turned her down. That's when Ms. Fluke went public and into the firestorm.

So presto, what was a big loser, President Obama intruding on the Catholic Church became a potential winner, President Obama protecting the rights of women. In reality, the whole contraception situation is bogus. Under Title 10 of the Public Health Service Act; 75 percent of all the counties in the U.S.A. provide free birth control to women who want it; 75 percent. And the rest of the counties are so rural, nobody lives there.

President Obama well understands that he needs American women to support him next November; 2008 he beat John McCain 56 percent to 43 among women. Thus, Sandra Fluke is now a major part of the Obama re-election campaign. That's what this is all about.

As we reported last night, "The Factor" believes that the Sandra Fluke contraception controversy was manufactured to divert attention away from the Obama administration's disastrous decision to force Catholic non-profit organizations to provide insurance coverage for birth control and the morning after pill. That might very well be unconstitutional.

Anyway, we're having trouble tracking down just who is sending Sandra around to the media. It's very strange. So far, the 30-year-old activist has appeared on eight national news programs where she was not challenged at all. Last week, we called Sandra on her cell phone and invited her on "The Factor." She didn't call back, very unusual. There was no other public contact for the woman, just her cell phone.

A man named Mike has booked her on a few programs, but we can't even get his last name. And Mike doesn't provide call-back numbers to those with whom he speaks. So Mike, who are you? And why the subterfuge?

Now, late today we found out that Ms. Fluke is now being repped by the progressive PR agency SKDKnickerbocker where Anita Dunn, the former Obama communications director is the managing editor... a-ha!

So, this whole deal comes back to the White House, at least indirectly. So, let's run down what we know. Sandra Fluke is a former head of the group "Georgetown University Law Students for Reproductive Justice." On February 9th, a group called "The Feminist Majority Foundation" arranged for Sandra to appear at press conference criticizing the Catholic bishops for objecting to President Obama's contraception mandate.

After that, Congressman Elijah Cummings, the former Chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, invited Sandra to testify in front of the House Oversight Committee. But she was turned down by the chair, Congressman Darrell Issa, because she had no expertise in the church/state subject matter.

Nevertheless, Ms. Fluke went to the hearing and afterward complained to ABC News that she had been denied. A week later, Nancy Pelosi staged a mock hearing starring Sandra. After which Rush Limbaugh made derogatory comments elevating her to left-wing martyrdom.

So it seems there is a powerful presence behind Sandra Fluke. And as the polls show, the controversy has benefited the President of the United States, who is on the ropes with the church deal. This is all the more amazing because the controversy Sandra is embracing is completely bogus as I explained on "The View" today.

O'REILLY: Do you what it... ok. So it's in motion now that if you need birth control and you go to a federal clinic you get it.

O'REILLY: All right, so there really isn't any... any problem. You can get it and then if you don't want to drive down to the clinic you can go to Wal-Mart or you can go to Target and get it for $9 dollars a month. So to insert this into a giant ObamaCare bill seems to be unnecessary to me.

O'REILLY: And by the way the ladies were respectful and we had a very good and necessary discussion.

Now "Talking Points" believes that very quietly President Obama will pull back on his demand that the Catholic Church cover contraception. He has snatched victory from the jaws of defeat and would be foolish to continue flogging an unconstitutional mandate.

Mr. Obama knows the polls say many American women now believe he is protecting them. For that he can thank Sandra Fluke and whoever is running her.

"We have been telling you that 30-year-old Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke has become a major player in the presidential election. Ms. Fluke seems to be sincere - she has worked helping at-risk families and is devoted to liberal causes.

There's nothing wrong with that; sincere constructive activism is good. But Ms. Fluke can go on vacation and dress very well, yet she doesn't have $9 a month for pills? This story is really about the nanny state and the imposition of a huge federal apparatus on Americans.

When the Catholic bishops challenged the nanny state on moral grounds, the White House got nervous and the 'women's health' play began to ramp up. Of course, that's when Sandra Fluke appeared, popping up at Congressional hearings and showing up in the media. Polls show that President Obama's poll numbers among women are now on the rise, and he has Ms. Fluke to thank for that.

If you don't pay close attention to this story, it looks like President Obama is simply helping out a young woman under siege. But that's not what's going on here. The election in November will be between a Democratic Party that wants a nanny state and a Republican Party that does not. You the voter have a very important decision to make.

In February the U.S. ran up the biggest deficit ever - $229 billion was added to the national debt in 29 days. For that we can thank the poor economy and the ever-growing nanny state. We can also thank folks like Sandra Fluke, who desperately want it."

President Obama's Department of Energy helped finance several green energy companies that later fell into bankruptcy -- but not before the firms doled out six-figure bonuses and payouts to top executives, a Center for Public Integrity and ABC News investigation found.

Take, for instance, Beacon Power Corp., the second recipient of an Energy Department loan guarantee in 2009. In March 2010, the Massachusetts energy storage company paid cash bonuses of $259,285 to three executives in part due to progress made on the $43 million energy loan, Securities and Exchange Commission records show. Last October, Beacon Power filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

EnerDel, maker of lithium-ion battery systems, landed a $118.5 million energy grant in August 2009. About one-and-a-half years later, Vice President Joe Biden toured a company plant in Indiana and heralded its taxpayer-supported expansion as one of the "100 Recovery Act Projects That Are Changing America."

Two months after Biden's visit, EnerDel corporate parent Ener1 paid $725,000 in bonuses to three executives -- including $450,000 to then-CEO Charles Gassenheimer, who led Biden on the tour. This January, Ener1 filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

At least two other firms that benefited from Energy Department funding -- one a $500,000 grant, the other a $535 million loan guarantee -- handed out hefty payouts to executives and later went bankrupt.

The Department of Energy, asked about the payments examined by the Center and ABC, said it is troubled by the practice and intends to convey that message to loan recipients.

"We don't begrudge companies or their executives for their success, but it is irresponsible for executives to be awarded bonus compensation when their workers are losing their jobs," said department spokeswoman Jen Stutsman. "We take our role as stewards of taxpayer dollars very seriously, and as such, we will make clear to loan recipients our view that funds should not be directed toward executive bonuses when the rest of the company is facing financial difficulty."

The bonuses and bankruptcies come against a growing wave of trouble for companies financed with Energy Department dollars. Of the first 12 loan guarantees the department announced, for instance, two firms filed for bankruptcy, a third has faced layoffs and a fourth deal never closed.

The nonprofit Citizens Against Government Waste counts nearly 20 energy companies that have gotten federal loan guarantees or grants that have run into financial trouble ranging from layoffs to losses to bankruptcies. An outside consultant hired by the White House said the Energy Department's loan pool includes $2.7 billion in potentially risky loans and suggests the agency hire a "chief risk officer" to help minimize problems.

To watchdogs, the pattern of firms awarding bonuses only to file for bankruptcy raises questions about how well the Energy Department chose its winners, and how thoroughly it kept an eye on them once selected.

"Giving a bonus to the executives under these circumstances is rewarding failure with our money with no chance of getting it back," said Leslie Paige, spokeswoman for the nonpartisan Citizens Against Government Waste.

The setbacks have sharpened the focus on the president's environmental mission, already under scrutiny following the collapse of Solyndra Inc., the first recipient of an Obama green energy loan.

Solyndra, bankruptcy records show, was among the companies doling out thousands in executive payments -- in its case, just months prior to its late August collapse and early September bankruptcy. As a criminal investigation and House inquiry continue into the company's implosion, the government must navigate bankruptcy proceedings in hopes of recovering a piece of its $535 million investment.

In interviews, executives with companies backed by public dollars defended the payments as proper. Some said bonuses were granted for work done in a previous year, before financial storm clouds had fully developed, and that the executive cash infusions were sometimes linked to broad corporate milestones.

One company executive said the Energy Department explicitly allows for federal funds to be used to pay out executive bonuses.

DOE does not set salaries and benefits of companies it backs, "but we do closely scrutinize all of the expenses submitted by the companies before they are reimbursed to ensure that taxpayer dollars are being used appropriately," said spokeswoman Stutsman. "Funds are paid out as the work is actually completed."

Yet some members of Congress -- already concerned about lucrative paydays at bankrupt Solyndra -- say they're particularly troubled that failed companies backed by Energy Department funds would pay bonuses at all.

"Any company that's going into bankruptcy or any executive that ran a company into bankruptcy shouldn't be getting bonuses in the first place," said Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, former chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. "In the case where there might be federal grants or federal loans, I would be very concerned."

Grassley added: "The purpose of our grants for energy or almost any other grant of government is for the purpose of innovation. It's not for the purpose of feathering the nest of a private company executive."

Bruce Kogut, director of the Sanford C. Bernstein Center for Leadership and Ethics at the Columbia Business School, said it is not uncommon for corporate bonuses to be awarded when executives meet key achievement milestones.

"The problematic issue," Professor Kogut said, is giving out bonuses "near the time of bankruptcy."

Solyndra executives, bankruptcy records show, pocketed thousands in payments just months before the company dismissed 1,100 workers. At least 17 company executives received two sets of payments -- ranging from $37,000 to $60,000 per payment -- on the same days in April and July 2011. The insider payments, reported last year in the San Jose Mercury News, came as the company catapulted toward bankruptcy in early September. A Solyndra spokesman did not reply to interview requests.

Solyndra's crash last August put a sharp focus on the selection process the Energy Department follows in awarding taxpayer dollars. The administration backed the upstart firm despite concerns even from some government officials worried about Solyndra's financial viability, email records show. And energy officials committed to the financing before all due diligence was in hand.

Click Here to Sign Up for Breaking News and Investigation Alerts From The Brian Ross Investigative Unit

Not as well-known are three other firms backed by Energy Department dollars -- ranging from $500,000 to $118.5 million -- that also suffered financial downturns. As with Solyndra, each corporate entity rewarded executives prior to its bankruptcy filing.

One example: Ener1, whose subsidiary EnerDel won the $118.5 million Energy Department grant in 2009 to help expand its manufacturing plant. The company also received supportive write-ups on the DOE website.

Vice President Biden's January 2011 visit to the company's Greenfield, Indiana, plant was part of the government's "White House to Main Street Tour."

"This Administration is forging a new path forward by making sure America doesn't just lead in the 21st Century, but dominates in the 21st Century," Biden said after a tour with Ener1 CEO Gassenheimer. "We're not just creating new jobs -- but sparking whole new industries that will ensure our competitiveness for decades to come -- industries like electric vehicle manufacturing."

A White House report listed the EnerDel project as No. 67 among the "100 Recovery Projects that are Changing America."

In March 2011, Gassenheimer was awarded a $450,000 bonus, SEC records show. Two other Ener1 executives pocketed bonuses of $225,000 and $50,000 for a total payout of $725,000.

Energy officials noted that while the bonuses were paid to executives from Ener1, the government grant went to a subsidiary called EnerDel, which was not part of the bankruptcy case. But the two are closely related -- bankruptcy records show EnerDel now provides all of the employees for the parent company. And the distinction is new for the Energy Department -- a press release touting Biden's visit referred to the parent company Ener1 as the recipient of administration support, not EnerDel.

Gassenheimer, reached for an interview, said he could not comment. He is no longer with Ener1.

A company spokesman said the bonuses were paid through Ener1, the corporate holding company, not EnerDel. DOE said the subsidiary's project is on schedule, and an Ener1 spokesman said the battery company aims to get back on its feet through reorganization.

Beacon Power's bonuses were specifically linked to executives' progress in landing the company's $43 million Energy Department loan guarantee in 2009.

Securing the loan was among the measures used to establish how much executives would pocket in bonuses, company SEC filings show. "The DOE loan application was approved by the credit review board, making us the first public company and the second of 16 applicants to receive the commitment," the document notes.

President and Chief Executive Officer F. William Capp received a $133,256 cash bonus in March 2010. Two other company officials pocketed combined bonuses that month of $126,029.

In an interview, Capp said the company's pay structure was reasonable and that executives took pay cuts in a bid to help Beacon Power survive.

"The record is clear on that. The executives have not enriched themselves," Capp said. "We all agreed to take a 20 percent reduction in pay just to make the funds last longer in order to keep the team together. There's hardly been self-enrichment."

Last week regulators approved Beacon Power's sale to an equity firm that should help it repay $25 million of the $39 million Beacon had drawn down from the loan. The company, under new ownership, plans to continue operating the 20-megawatt flywheel energy storage plant in Stephentown, New York, a project the department said would "ensure the reliable delivery of renewable energy to the electricity grid." It hopes to build a second plant in Pennsylvania.

Capp blamed the bankruptcy on a variety of factors, including government fears about restructuring loans after Solyndra filed for bankruptcy. His firm, he said, got swept up in "Hurricane Solyndra."

Among them: SpectraWatt, a New York state manufacturer of silicon solar cells. In 2009, SpectraWatt secured a $500,000 grant from the DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory Photovoltaic Technology Pre-Incubator program. In March 2010, U.S. Labor Secretary Hilda L. Solis and a local congressman toured the company's Hudson Valley Research Park in Hopewell Junction, N.Y., highlighting the wave of coming green jobs.

"President Obama and I understand and believe that the first thing we have to do to turn the economy around is provide American families with good jobs," Secy. Solis said, according to a SpectraWatt press release. "That is why we are committed to investing in greening our economy."

While the DOE's early grant supported research and development, Haug said, a later funding request was denied. Last March, he said, the company laid off its workforce and effectively shut down. "It became increasingly difficult for us to make any more money. By the end of 2010 we basically dropped down to a cash level . that by March we would be out of business," Haug said.

In March, the big payouts began. Five company executives, including Haug, received six-figure payments in late March or early April 2011, bankruptcy records show. The five "insider payments" totaled more than $745,000.

Haug said the payouts were not bonuses, but accrued vacation and pay for executives that had been spelled out in severance agreements. "There were no golden parachutes," he said. "This was a very straightforward very honest group of people. I'd go to work with them again anytime."

Energy officials noted that their early investment in SpectraWatt was relatively small compared to other project financing. Late last year, the company held auctions to sell off its plant and property.

In recent weeks, several other companies backed by DOE dollars have encountered deep financial woes.

At least six Energy Department loan and grant recipients -- from electric car maker Fisker Automotive to electric-car battery maker A123 Systems to Colorado-based Abound Solar -- have laid off workers or suffered financial woes. Those setbacks come on top of the companies that have already filed for bankruptcy.

Administration officials, from Obama on down, say they continue to support the green energy mission. "There were going to be some companies that did not work out," Obama told reporters in October, after Solyndra's meltdown. "All I can say is the Department of Energy made these decisions based on their best judgments."

Since taking office, President Barack Obama has signed into law twenty-one new or higher taxes:

1. A 156 percent increase in the federal excise tax on tobacco: On February 4, 2009, just sixteen days into his Administration, Obama signed into law a 156 percent increase in the federal excise tax on tobacco, a hike of 61 cents per pack. The median income of smokers is just over $36,000 per year.

2. Obamacare Individual Mandate Excise Tax (takes effect in Jan 2014): Starting in 2014, anyone not buying "qualifying" health insurance must pay an income surtax according to the higher of the following

The graphs will be found on the page this came from (linked to at the end of this article).

Exemptions for religious objectors, undocumented immigrants, prisoners, those earning less than the poverty line, members of Indian tribes, and hardship cases (determined by HHS). Bill: PPACA; Page: 317-337

3. Obamacare Employer Mandate Tax (takes effect Jan. 2014): If an employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an additional non-deductible tax of $2000 for all full-time employees. Applies to all employers with 50 or more employees. If any employee actually receives coverage through the exchange, the penalty on the employer for that employee rises to $3000. If the employer requires a waiting period to enroll in coverage of 30-60 days, there is a $400 tax per employee ($600 if the period is 60 days or longer). Bill: PPACA; Page: 345-346

Combined score of individual and employer mandate tax penalty: $65 billion/10 years

4. Obamacare Surtax on Investment Income (Tax hike of $123 billion/takes effect Jan. 2013): Creation of a new, 3.8 percent surtax on investment income earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 single). This would result in the following top tax rates on investment income: Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 87-93

*Other unearned income includes (for surtax purposes) gross income from interest, annuities, royalties, net rents, and passive income in partnerships and Subchapter-S corporations. It does not include municipal bond interest or life insurance proceeds, since those do not add to gross income. It does not include active trade or business income, fair market value sales of ownership in pass-through entities, or distributions from retirement plans. The 3.8% surtax does not apply to non-resident aliens.

5. Obamacare Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans (Tax hike of $32 bil/takes effect Jan. 2018): Starting in 2018, new 40 percent excise tax on "Cadillac" health insurance plans ($10,200 single/$27,500 family). Higher threshold ($11,500 single/$29,450 family) for early retirees and high-risk professions. CPI +1 percentage point indexed. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,941-1,956

6. Obamacare Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax (Tax hike of $86.8 bil/takes effect Jan. 2013): Current law and changes:

7. Obamacare Medicine Cabinet Tax (Tax hike of $5 bil/took effect Jan. 2011): Americans no longer able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin). Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957-1,959

8. Obamacare HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike (Tax hike of $1.4 bil/took effect Jan. 2011): Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,959

9. Obamacare Flexible Spending Account Cap - aka "Special Needs Kids Tax" (Tax hike of $13 bil/takes effect Jan. 2013): Imposes cap on FSAs of $2500 (now unlimited). Indexed to inflation after 2013. There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,388-2,389

10. Obamacare Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers (Tax hike of $20 bil/takes effect Jan. 2013): Medical device manufacturers employ 360,000 people in 6000 plants across the country. This law imposes a new 2.3% excise tax. Exempts items retailing for <$100. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,980-1,986

11. Obamacare "Haircut" for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI (Tax hike of $15.2 bil/takes effect Jan. 2013): Currently, those facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction for medical expenses to the extent that those expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI). The new provision imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI. Waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994-1,995

12. Obamacare Tax on Indoor Tanning Services (Tax hike of $2.7 billion/took effect July 2010): New 10 percent excise tax on Americans using indoor tanning salons. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,397-2,399

13. Obamacare elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D (Tax hike of $4.5 bil/takes effect Jan. 2013) Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994

14. Obamacare Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike (Tax hike of $0.4 bil/took effect Jan. 1 2010): The special tax deduction in current law for Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies would only be allowed if 85 percent or more of premium revenues are spent on clinical services. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,004

15. Obamacare Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals (Min$/took effect immediately): $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new "community health assessment needs," "financial assistance," and "billing and collection" rules set by HHS. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,961-1,971

16. Obamacare Tax on Innovator Drug Companies (Tax hike of $22.2 bil/took effect Jan. 2011): $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,971-1,980

17. Obamacare Tax on Health Insurers (Tax hike of $60.1 bil/takes effect Jan. 2014): Annual tax on the industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year. Phases in gradually until 2018. Fully-imposed on firms with $50 million in profits. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,986-1,993

18. Obamacare $500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives (Tax hike of $0.6 bil/takes effect Jan 2013). Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,995-2,000

19. Obamacare Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2 ($min/takes effect Jan. 2012): Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957

20. Obamacare "Black liquor" tax hike (Tax hike of $23.6 billion/took effect immediately). This is a tax increase on a type of bio-fuel. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 105

21. Obamacare Codification of the "economic substance doctrine" (Tax hike of $4.5 billion/took effect immediately). This provision allows the IRS to disallow completely-legal tax deductions and other legal tax-minimizing plans just because the IRS deems that the action lacks "substance" and is merely intended to reduce taxes owed. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 108-113

(The graphs can be found on this page as well, which lays out some more information).

On The Factor tonight, O'Reilly will debate me about rising oil prices. Bill sees a conspiracy (though he denies that it's a "conspiracy theory.") He once said: "the oil companies are rigged. The markets are rigged. With supply and demand having little to do with what we pay at the gas pump."

Nonsense. The markets aren't even rigged by OPEC. OPEC produces 40% of the world's crude oil, according to the Energy Information Administration. 40% hardly gives them monopoly power.

The real reason prices are up is simple: Supply and demand. In other words, the decisions of billions of individuals about what they're willing to pay constantly negotiate with oil producers who want to sell at the best price possible. Currently, the revolution in Libya -- which shut down 2% of world oil production -- bumps up against increasing demand from growing economies in China and India. And if people move away from nuclear energy after the tragedy in Japan, the futures markets will bid up the price of oil.

Bill also has a guest from "Public Citizen" on tonight, Tyson Slocum, who likes to blame "Wall Street speculators" for the price hikes. That's even more ridiculous.

I wonder how Bill and his guest explain the sharp rise in price of another good: The retail price of onions. It has gone up more than the price of gasoline this year -- 36% vs. 24%. What's the deal? Is it because there's an onion monopoly that sets the price? Or greedy Wall Street speculators bidding up prices?

No. Onions cost more, and the price fluctuates more than other goods, because in 1958, our "protectors" in Congress completely banned speculation on the price of onions. The Senate Agriculture Committee said that "speculative activity causes severe and unwarranted ?uctuations in the price of onions."

Speculators help keep prices stable. When they foresee a future oil shortage, it's an opportunity for them to make money. They buy lots of oil, store it, and then sell it when the shortage occurs - they know they can charge the highest prices when there's relatively little oil on the market. Speculators are like the ants in Aesop's "Ants and the Grasshopper" fable: they save resources for lean times, and they do well as a result. Everyone benefits, because everyone has a chance to buy from them in those lean times.

Oil companies bring us ample gasoline at reasonable prices. If government controlled the oil business, gas would cost twice as much as it does today. Oil producers and speculators are heroes. Central-planners from Common Cause are ignorant fools.

Rush Limbaugh apologized on Saturday for calling a Georgetown Law student a slut for testifying about contraception and starting a firestorm of outrage. Kirsten Powers says the liberals who led the charge need to start holding their own side accountable.

Yes, it's true. Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Bill Maher, Matt Taibbi, and Ed Schultz have been waging it for years with their misogynist outbursts. There have been boycotts by people on the left who are outraged that these guys still have jobs. Oh, wait. Sorry, that never happened.

Boycotts are reserved for people on the right like Rush Limbaugh, who finally apologized Saturday for calling a 30-year-old Georgetown Law student, Sandra Fluke, a "slut" after she testified before congress about contraception. Limbaugh's apology was likely extracted to stop the departure of any more advertisers, who were rightly under pressure from liberal groups outraged by the comments.

Let it be shouted from the rooftops that Rush Limbaugh should not have called Ms. Fluke a slut or, as he added later, a "prostitute" who should post her sex tapes. It's unlikely that his apology will assuage the people on a warpath for his scalp, and after all, why should it? He spent days attacking a woman as a slut and prostitute and refused to relent. Now because he doesn't want to lose advertisers, he apologizes. What's in order is something more like groveling-and of course a phone call to Ms. Fluke-if you ask me.

But if Limbaugh's actions demand a boycott-and they do-then what about the army of swine on the left?

During the 2008 election Ed Schultz said on his radio show that Sarah Palin set off a "bimbo alert." He called Laura Ingraham a "right-wing slut." (He later apologized.) He once even took to his blog to call yours truly a "bimbo" for the offense of quoting him accurately in a New York Post column.

Keith Olbermann has said that conservative commentator S.E. Cupp should have been aborted by her parents, apparently because he finds her having opinions offensive. He called Michelle Malkin a "mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick." He found it newsworthy to discuss Carrie Prejean's breasts on his MSNBC show. His solution for dealing with Hillary Clinton, who he thought should drop out of the presidential race, was to find "somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out." Olbermann now works for über-leftist and former Democratic vice president Al Gore at Current TV.

Left-wing darling Matt Taibbi wrote on his blog in 2009, "When I read [Malkin's] stuff, I imagine her narrating her text, book-on-tape style, with a big, hairy set of balls in her mouth." In a Rolling Stone article about Secretary of State Clinton, he referred to her "flabby arms." When feminist writer Erica Jong criticized him for it, he responded by referring to Jong as an "800-year old sex novelist." (Jong is almost 70, which apparently makes her an irrelevant human being.) In Taibbi's profile of Congresswoman and presidential candidate Michele Bachmann he labeled her "batshit crazy." (Oh, those "crazy" women with their hormones and all.)

Chris Matthews's sickening misogyny was made famous in 2008, when he obsessively tore down Hillary Clinton for standing between Barack Obama and the presidency, something that Matthews could not abide. Over the years he has referred to the former first lady, senator and presidential candidate and current secretary of state as a "she-devil," "Nurse Ratched," and "Madame Defarge." Matthews has also called Clinton "witchy," "anti-male," and "uppity" and once claimed she won her Senate seat only because her "husband messed around." He asked a guest if "being surrounded by women" makes "a case for commander in chief-or does it make a case against it?" At some point Matthews was shamed into sort of half apologizing to Clinton, but then just picked up again with his sexist ramblings.

Matthews has wondered aloud whether Sarah Palin is even "capable of thinking" and has called Bachmann a "balloon head" and said she was "lucky we still don't have literacy tests out there." Democratic strategist Jehmu Greene, who is the former president of the Women's Media Center, told Fox News' Megyn Kelly in 2011 that Matthews?"is a bully, and his favorite target is women." So why does he still have a show? What if his favorite target was Jews? Or African-Americans?

But the grand pooh-bah of media misogyny is without a doubt Bill Maher-who also happens to be a favorite of liberals-who has given $1 million to President Obama's super PAC. Maher has called Palin a "dumb twat" and dropped the C-word in describing the former Alaska governor. He called Palin and Congresswoman Bachmann "boobs" and "two bimbos." He said of the former vice-presidential candidate, "She is not a mean girl. She is a crazy girl with mean ideas." He recently made a joke about Rick Santorum's wife using a vibrator. Imagine now the same joke during the 2008 primary with Michelle Obama's name in it, and tell me that he would still have a job. Maher said of a woman who was harassed while breast-feeding at an Applebee's, "Don't show me your tits!" as though a woman feeding her child is trying to flash Maher. (Here's a way to solve his problem: don't stare at a strangers' breasts). Then, his coup de grâce: "And by the way, there is a place where breasts and food do go together. It's called Hooters!"

Liberals-you know, the people who say they "fight for women"-comprise Maher's audience, and a parade of high-profile liberals make up his guest list. Yet have any of them confronted him? Nope. That was left to Ann Coulter, who actually called Maher a misogynist to his face, an opportunity that feminist icon Gloria Steinem failed to take when she appeared on his show in 2011.

This is not to suggest that liberals-or feminists-never complain about misogyny. Many feminist blogs now document attacks on women on the left and the right, including Jezebel, Shakesville, and the Women's Media Center (which was cofounded by Steinem). But when it comes to high-profile campaigns to hold these men accountable-such as that waged against Limbaugh-the real fury seems reserved only for conservatives, while the men on the left get a wink and a nod as long as they are carrying water for the liberal cause.

After all, if Limbaugh's outburst is part of the "war on women," then what is the routine misogyny of liberal media men?

It's time for some equal-opportunity accountability. Without it, the fight against media misogyny will continue to be perceived as a proxy war for the Democratic Party, not a fight for fair treatment of women in the public square.

There does not appear to be these huge oil subsidies out there given to big oil. There are costs related to finding the oil and taking the oil out of the ground. Part of the approach here is to either allow this to be written off all at once or over a period of time. It is still written off. Furthermore, there are such related deductions given to any company that mines anything, like gold or silver. One of the people who disputes this concludes his article with “oil could be replaced in our transportation system by 100% renewably sourced electricity that could, at the same time, run all of our cars, buses, trucks, and trains.” That strikes me as a person who lives in fantasy-land. What the Democratic party has done, as of late, is to trot out various enemies to get its base worked up over. George W. Bush, Big Oil, Rush Limbaugh, the 1%, the so-called Republican “War on Women;” etc. Take away the enemies, and just what does the left really have to offer?

Study shows that 30% of people with OCD obsess over the effects of global warming.

Alabama's Democratic Party has recruited controversial comedian Bill Maher to headline a fundraiser March 17, amid calls by President Barack Obama and other Democrats for greater civility in public debate.

Rush Limbaugh's McCarthy Moment: No Common Decency by Killer of Sacred Cows at the DailyKos. This is one of the big differences between liberals and conservatives. Liberals want to see a conservative voice silenced. This gives them great glee. Conservatives want liberals and conservatives to speak their minds and let others choose for themselves.

Jane Fonda, Robin Morgan and Gloria Steinem call for the FCC to ban Rush Limbaugh from the airwaves. This is how the left thinks. These women had nothing to say when Bill Maher was calling Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann c__t’s and t__t’s.

Brent Bozell sent out a number of emails concerning Louis C.K.’s upcoming sharing of a stage with President “Let’s all be civil” Obama at a media dinner. Louis C.K. is anything but civil when it comes to conservative women. Greta Van Susteren, whom I believe is a moderate (it is hard to tell with some of the anchors on FoxNews) emailed back immediately: "Another pig..and a media association has hired the pig, Louis C.K., to be their headliner for the big media dinner? Really? I am not going. I refuse to go. Everyone in the media should join me in this boycott."

Atheist behind infamous PA `slave' billboard speaks out: `It is my hate for the Bible'

RUSH: There's an interesting story to start with today. This is a Politico story, and it was out last night. Obviously this story was written before this morning's unemployment report came out. Now, the unemployment number, 8.3%, no change, and you would not believe the way this is being reported. Why, we are in a roaring-back economy. We have got a recovery that's unprecedented. Have you noticed it, Dawn? No, I mean the reporting. Wherever you look on radio, television, and print, you would believe that we are sitting atop the greatest powder keg of an economic recovery that there ever has been. It is universal.

Folks, I addressed yesterday the reason that there seems to be back and forth, up and down mood changes in this country. Really, if the media in this country were as suspicious of Democrats as they are of Republicans, if the media treated powerful Democrats with the same suspicion and curiosity and doubt and dare I say dislike and hatred as they treat Republicans, you'd have an entirely different media landscape, you'd have an entirely different national mood. It'd be profoundly different. But that's not the way it is. The media is now just willing accomplices of the Democrat Party, and particularly Barack Obama. So you get a distorted view of life in America as seen by and reported by the vast majority of what's called the mainstream media. We call them the Drive-By Media, the State-Controlled Media. And today is a great example.

No matter where you look, this 8.3% unemployment and all the robust other economic news that isn't happening, is being reported. It's an abject lie, basically, the stories. Here are some sample headlines just from Google: "Unemployment Steady at 8.3%, but Job Market Improving." That's US News & World Report. How can that be? How can unemployment not have gone down, how can there not be any new jobs, but the job market's improving? "Economy Adds More Jobs than Experts Forecast." Some FM radio station. Economy adds more jobs than experts forecast? For those of you just tuning in, the experts in economic matters are always wrong because every week, every month, whatever the reporting period, the experts are always surprised. The experts are always shocked.

"Hiring Up, Unemployment Steady, Economists Upbeat," Christian Broadcast Network, CBN. "US Adds 227,000 Jobs in February, Orange County Register." If we added 227,000 jobs, why did the unemployment rate stay at 8.3%? Well, if you want to return unemployment to 6%, which it was roughly the year prior to Obama being immaculated, you're gonna need 600,000 new jobs a month for years, to be created. That's the point. There's a new normal here that's been defined, and this is it. Eight-point-one, 8.3 percent unemployment, that's the new normal. That's why we're celebrating. The new normal has to be defined in such a way by the media so that it is not in any way detrimental to Obama. You know, we're down here from nine-and-a-half, 9.9, 9.3%, so that's how this looks good, new normal.

Just remember, folks, in 2005, 2006, unemployment in this country was at 5% under the hated, despised, and dreaded George W. Bush. "Job Growth Remains Brisk in February." "Healthcare Continues to Lead Employment Growth," TheHill.com. "Employment Grows Solidly for Third Straight Month." So the new normal is more than twice as high as unacceptable unemployment under Bush. The new normal, what the media says is a roaring economy; what the media says is a steady economic upbeat; what the media says is job market improving; what the media says is brisk job growth. Eight-point-three percent unemployment is more than twice as high as what was unacceptable unemployment during George W. Bush.

So, the Politico story, the headline: "Obama's New Hurdle: Jobs Report Optimism -- President Barack Obama has a new challenge with the jobs report due out Friday: rising expectations." Oh, the poor guy. What a real challenge. "Several months of improving numbers filtered through an election-year prism have bolstered Obama's standing -- but also have fueled anticipation that the employment outlook will continue to improve. If new jobs aren't added at the same rate, Obama's political opponents will attack him for not doing enough to sustain the economy." This is the Politico writing for a third grade anti-bullying class. Obama's political opponents will attack him for not doing enough. "If they go up, he'll almost certainly be slammed for the economy not improving enough. And if they tick down -- or the unemployment rate rises -- expect searing attacks about a president leading the country into a double-dip recession."

Poor Obama. Boohoo! He just can't catch a break. Even the news media talking up the economy for him might backfire on him. Oh, yeah! It's so fraught with danger out there for Obama. Why, even if his sycophant, slavish media talk up the economy, that might backfire. Remember how the media fretted about all the problems of perception that President Bush faced? Right. We don't, either. So obviously this piece in The Politico from which I was just reading was written before this morning's unemployment report came out, and it is clear that the news media and the rest of the Obama campaign were sweating bullets over this number.

You remember how the media fretted about all the problems of perception that Bush faced? Poor Obama! He can't catch a break. These venal Republicans, they're just waiting to pounce on any uptick in the jobless rate! Those bullies. You notice that everything Republicans do is venal? Everything is calculated for political advantage? Everything is done to try to harm our little boy president, Barack Obama? The Republicans never have the country's interests at heart like Obama does. In fact, this article sounds like the Obama campaign was using The Politico to tell their lickspittle minions in the news media to dial back their boosterism a little bit.

It sounds to me like this whole story is the White House calling Politico saying, "Hey, dial it back. We don't want to make it sound too good out there! I mean, there are gonna couple of dips between now and Election Day. It can't be that because we got this poll from Greenberg, don't forget." Stanley Greenberg, James Carville's partner, big-time Democrat pollster, last couple of weeks puts a pull out and says: Mr. President, don't go to town on this big story of a reviving, roaring-back economy because it isn't going to work. They're not feeling it. The reason a story based on a virtual economic recovery won't work is because people are living in the economy.

And they don't have jobs, and the jobs they're getting are not career jobs. A lot of the jobs that were added in this report are people taking second jobs. Our old buddy, the old reliable James Pethokoukis, is occasionally published at Reuters (we'll forgive him for that) and is also a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. He says if we're gonna compare, let's compare apples to apples. "If the size of the U.S. labor force as a share of the total population was the same as it was when Barack Obama took office ... the U-3 unemployment rate would be 10.8%" not 8.3%. What does that mean? What is the labor force participation rate?

Every time I try to explain this, I am met with people who tell me I'm wrong and don't know what I'm talking about and that it's irrelevant, but Mr. Pethokoukis continues to report it. The labor force participation rate is essentially the entire universe of jobs available in the country, and there are over two million less jobs, two million fewer jobs. They just don't exist anymore. Whereas there used to be an ABC Window Washer outfit, for example, when Obama was immaculated in 2009, the place has shut down. So the ABC Window Washer jobs are gone. That is why people talk about creating new jobs. If we need to create new jobs and we need new jobs, it means there are fewer jobs to fill. So if same time number of jobs existed...

If all the ABC Window Washer outfits had been closed down, if they were still open, and those jobs were still available, based on current numbers the actual unemployment rate would be 10.8% not 8.3%. So the universe of available jobs matters. There is no way you can tell me that the American economy, with two million fewer jobs today than three years ago, is in any way upbeat. You've got the same number of people looking for fewer jobs. That's why the percentage changes. You have the same number of people looking for fewer jobs. It's like musical chairs: Every time the music stops, somebody's left out because there aren't enough chairs. It's the same principle here. So the 8.3% unemployment rate is meaningless. It's bogus because we're not comparing apples to apples. Part of the Obama economic record is that there are two million fewer ABC Window Washer jobs than there were when he was immaculated in 2009.

RUSH: Here's a great illustration of that that I was just discussing, along the lines of what I was just talking about. There was a Reuters report from yesterday: "US Jobless Claims Rise, But Labor Market Healing -- More people applied for unemployment checks, but the labor market is healing." Healing! Do you think you would ever get a definition like that of "healing" with a Republican in the White House? "Jobless Claims Rise; Country Going to Hell," would be the headline if George W. Bush were in the Oval Office. Reuters said, "The number of Americans filing for jobless benefits unexpectedly rose last week," damn it, "but not enough to change perceptions that the labor market was strengthening."

That's how the story opens. This is journalistic malpractice. This is utter irresponsibility. This is what we're up against, folks. It has always been this way. I'm spending a little bit more detail on this stuff that you know left and right for our new audience arrivals this week. This is actually a golden opportunity. The left has driven so many new bodies here that it would be foolish not to take advantage of their arrival. So please indulge me as we go back to the first grade for some of them, and I don't mean that in an insulting way. I mean, first grade for you was 23 years ago. You now are super-duper graduate students here at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.

The first day arrivals are essentially the first grade. "The number of Americans filing for jobless benefits unexpected rose last week but are not enough to change perceptions that the labor market was strengthening." Not one "perception" is cited. We don't know whose perceptions we're talking about here other than the infobabe or the reporter, whoever, who wrote the story with tongue hanging out. (panting) Eager and panting away for Obama's success. I'm gonna tell you: This is so blatantly one sighted, this kind of stuff would make the old Soviet commissars blush.

If our media existed in Russia today, and they reported on Putin this way, Putin would call 'em and say, "Look, you guys, you gotta hit me now and then otherwise nobody is gonna end up believing what you say. "You can't continue with this nonstop love affair with me! You gotta dislike me now and then. You gotta criticize me now and then. This is getting embarrassing." Khrushchev would say that. Even Mikhail Gorbachev would say that. Certainly Putin, certainly KGB. Obama probably says: Ah, keep it up! "The number of Americans filing for jobless benefits unexpectedly rose," which means there were more of them, they went up, "but not enough to change perceptions the labor market's strengthening."

This is their revised story: "Payrolls Up Solidly; Jobless Rate at 8.3% -- Employment grew solidly for a third straight month in February, a sign the economic recovery was broadening and in less need of further monetary stimulus from the Federal Reserve." Oh, thank the Lord! Now, thanks to Reuters, we don't need any more stimulus. We don't need any more federal spending because finally all that Obama spending -- finally! -- worked. It's kicking in a little late, but it's starting to work now. Obama's policies are creating jobs. That's the big lie.

RUSH: Now, the reason I spend time on this is that everything that I'm explaining to you about the media lying and misreporting unemployment news happens in virtually every other story they do. For those of you new to the program, the real purpose of this program is to create the largest number of informed, voting participates in the country, in the arena of ideas. That's how we believe in effecting change here is at the ballot box. And an informed number of people voting equals a mandate when their elections result in victories. That's what this is really all about. There is so much disinformation in the media that I believe there really are a number of Americans who have been led to believe whole lies, untruths.

It's frustrating and it's maddening at the same time 'cause we have a business here that has a constitutional charter, the media. They have, in the eyes of our founders, a key role in maintaining liberty and freedom in this country. They've now become participants in an effort to erode freedom and liberty among individuals and transfer it to government. It's a very hideous thing. And we simply like to illustrate how it works so that when you watch media, read media, you're more equipped and better equipped to be skeptical yourself, to be doubting yourself, find out for yourself. 'Cause most of the time the mainstream media, what you're told is propaganda or a variation of it. It's just part of the agenda orientation of the Democrat Party. It's true, and there's no more complicated way to say it than that.

Another example from the Reuters story on unemployment and the economy. "Hiring Up 'Solidly,' Yet Jobless Rate Still 8.3%." How is that happening? Well, Reuters explains in the story that the unemployment rate held at the three-year low of 8.3% because more people returned to the labor force. Now, isn't that a handy excuse. The labor force doesn't mean that those are people that found jobs. The unemployment rate consists of people who are looking for jobs. There is another unemployment number for people who've looked so long they've given up. This number, 8.3%, the government calls the U3 number. But there is a number that is also reported called the U6. The U3 number is made up simply of people who are receiving unemployment checks who are actively looking for a job and can't find one. The U6 number includes all those people plus those who have exceeded their 99 weeks of unemployment and have given up.

The number that's reported, the 8.3%, does not include the number of people who can't find work after 99 weeks and have given up. However, some of those people do reenter the job market, not with jobs, but by looking for jobs. Remember, you looking for a job, you are counted as being unemployed if you don't have one. Well, what Reuters is saying here, even though a lot of people got hired, you people screwed it up, because you came back from not looking for a job to looking for a job. More people returned to the labor force. So the administration via Reuters is now blaming people for looking for work to explain why unemployment's not going down. And again, it's the same universe of numbers. The labor force participation rate that Pethokoukis talked about earlier, it's all coming into focus now.

So the Reuters explanation: we've got people being hired left and right. Why, there are jobs being created left and right. What's the problem? Why is it staying at 8.3%? Well, because people who previously had given up are now back in the market looking for work, damn it. That means they've gotta be counted, damn it, and that means the unemployment rate stays at 8.3% when it ought to be coming down, damn it. So you people who were out of work and quit looking for jobs now have decided to start looking for jobs, you're the ones who are screwing up Obama's economic report. Because if you would just stay out of work and not come back to the labor force looking for jobs we could get that number down to 8.1%. Now, you don't care about Obama, no, you're so selfish, you have to come back to the labor market, start looking for work, and that's why we can't lower the unemployment number.

I am not making up a word of that. I may be adding, shall we say, verve and color to the way I explain it, but everything I told you is factually true, and Reuters here explains the unemployment rate held to the three-year low because more people returned to the labor force. So that's that. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that there are 12.8 million unemployed persons. When Obama's stimulus bill passed there were 12.5 million unemployment persons. Obama spent over a trillion dollars to lose an additional 0.3 million jobs. That's almost as impressive as awarding $10 million to some outfit to create a 50-dollar light bulb. That story is coming up.

Have you ever noticed the Democrats are always said to be the ones who care about the little guy. The Democrats, the American left, they're the ones that really have the compassion for the poor, for the near poor, for the lower middle class, the downtrodden, the stomped upon, the hungry, the thirsty, the women that can't get contraception at law school. That's who the Democrat Party cares for. Republicans, of course, want them to be poor. They want them to be downtrodden. They want 'em to be hungry. They want 'em to be thirsty. The Republicans want all that. The Democrats love them. The Democrats care for them. Right, so what happens? The Democrats get in gear and come up with a car that's gonna save the planet, but you have to buy it.

The problem is, this party that cares so much about the little guy ends up creating a car that costs $50,000, that nobody wants. So they have to pay you $10,000 in the form of a tax credit to buy it. Or they have decided that the light bulb as invented by Thomas Edison is also destroying the climate, is destroying the planet. We gotta get rid of it! We have to replace it with something called compact fluorescents, which are filled with mercury, which is a hazard in your home if one of them breaks, and those things cost through the roof. Isn't it amazing how all of these wonderful creations and inventions to save the planet and to protect the little guy from big business and big Republicans end up breaking their bank when they have to go out and buy them?

A light bulb for $50? Fifty dollars for a light bulb, to save the planet? Who do you think benefits from that? Even with all the manipulations of the workforce, the regime still has failed to stop the longest streak of eight-plus percent unemployment since the Great Depression. Investor's Business Daily is pointing out today that the United States is "stuck in the longest jobs recession since the Great Depression." Now, measure that against all of this happy, joyous, "Boy, we're roaring back!" stuff that you get in the rest of the media. Investor's Business Daily: America is stuck "in the longest jobs recession since the Great Depression. It's been 49 months since the U.S. hit peak employment in January 2008."

"The average job recovery time since [Jimmy Carter's in] 1980 is 29 months, not including the current slump. The labor market won't truly return to health until some 10 million positions are created to rehire all those who lost their jobs and to absorb new workers." But as we mentioned yesterday, under Obama the country has lost two million jobs. The labor force participation rate: There are two million fewer jobs in America today than there were when Obama was inaugurated, and the labor market will not "return to health until some 10 million positions are created," and we're going on the opposite direction. We are losing jobs. There is no massive uptick in unemployment. There's no massive downturn in unemployment.

It's all a carefully crafted story designed to make you think that something that is not happening is.

RUSH: In addition, ladies and gentlemen, to the fact that it has been 49 months since the US hit peak unemployment back in January 2008 (that's a year before Obama) and since I told you that, it will take some ten million new jobs being created to rehire all of those who have lost their jobs and to absorb new workers coming out of college, for example. It's massive what we have to do here. To reemploy the people who've lost their jobs and take care of those coming out of school, either high school or college who want work, we're going to have to create some ten million new jobs. We've lost two million jobs since Obama was inaugurated, right?

There is no economic recovery. There is no economic growth. There is nothing to write home about.

And, yes, the media knows this because this stuff I just gave you is in the media. It's in a part of the media that the mainstream media ignores and pooh-poohs and doesn't consider legitimate. Like the way they see Fox News, or the way they see this program or any other conservative talk show or anything else that isn't ABC, NBC, CBS, a local newspaper, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times, USA Today, you name it. In fact, as I've always said: "If you miss the New York Times, no biggie. Read the Washington Post.

"If you miss that, no biggie. Read the LA Times. Miss that, watch CBS. Miss that, watch NBC. Miss that, watch ABC. Miss that, watch CNN. Miss that, watch MSNBC." I mean, it's all same. Same stories, same agenda, same opinions. But you miss this show one day, and you won't find it anywhere else. There are two stark, separate media worlds today: Ours, we think and try and strive for the truth. Although we do have opinions here that we're honest about, and we have cares and interests and outcomes that we like to effect. So do they. They just won't admit that. Anyway, we've lost two million jobs; we need ten million jobs. Investor's Business Daily also points out that the country's gross domestic product hasn't risen 4% or more in any quarter since the first quarter of 2006.

The ChiComs' economic growth right now is 9%, for example. There are other countries in the world like India growing much faster. We can't even muster two straight quarters of 4% growth. This is longest such stretch on record going back to 1950. That's how bad it is, and this is why the Democrat pollster, Mr. Greenberg, is trying to warn Obama and the Democrats (summarized), "Don't try to tell people that the economy's roaring back. Don't try to tell them that this recovery is headed on full steam, because they're not living it. It isn't going to work. And Obama's numbers on the economy are appropriately unsatisfied.

We were promised if Congress passed Obama's stimulus package it would keep the unemployment rate under 8%. He told us that. President Obama himself said: Pass this stimulus and we'll keep the unemployment rate under 8%. And yet, after more than three full years in orifice, and spending Allah knows how many trillions of taxpayer dollars, we haven't gotten unemployment any lower than it was the first month he was number of us, 8.3%. And that needs to be tied around I see had neck like a Nobel prize. This is utter, complete, total failure, where we're concerned.

RUSH: According to Gallup, the unemployment rate in February: 9.1%. We're gonna get the federal unemployment number here pretty soon, and we will hear what the Obama regime is claiming the new unemployment number is. Now, unemployment compensation requests or applications went up by about 8,000. Jobless claims jumped 8,000 to a seasonally adjusted 362,000 in the week ending March the 3rd. This is according to the Labor Department. Economists surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires had forecast that claims would rise by 2,000. So this was unexpected. Claims rose by 8,000. That's the government. Gallup says that their unemployment rate is 9.1%.

Now, bear in mind, Gallup does exactly what the Bureau of Labor Statistics does to get their monthly employment rate. That is, they take a survey. They do a poll. For their survey, Gallup interviewed 27,275 people. The government claims that they survey 110,000 adults. The only real difference between the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Gallup is that Gallup does not make any so-called seasonal adjustments like the government does. The seasonal adjustment seems to be the government's secret sauce. Maybe that's the government's pink slime.

But isn't it magical how, without using any seasonal adjustments, Gallup's monthly unemployment rate's always a good bit higher than the regime's? Now, the AP, their version of this story... I rarely have seen, other than this Washington Post story by Alexandra Petri, which is an out-and-out lie, this AP story on unemployment applications is perhaps one of the most intentionally misleading headlines and lead paragraphs that I have ever seen.

After reading this, I'm wondering: Why doesn't the Associated Press have to register with the Federal Election Commission as an Obama super PAC? Because that's what they are. The AP, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, they're all part of the Obama super PAC. They give advertising away to Obama. They give it away. It's free media. He doesn't have to buy anything from these networks or these publications. Headline: "US Unemployment Applications Hover Near Low Levels -- Slightly more Americans applied for unemployment benefits last week but the overall level stayed low enough to suggest the job market is strengthening." Eight thousand new unemployment applications and AP says: That's okay! That's such a low number that that means that the expansion is continuing. The job market is strengthening.

This is an out-and-out lie again. It's intentionally misleading, the headline and the lead paragraph. Tell me, in what significant way are they any different from the rest of the advertisers on the Obama reelection campaign? You have 8,000 new, according to government, jobless applications. And this is gonna be seasonally adjusted again and revised, probably up. You have 8,000 new applicants over last week, "slightly more Americans applied for unemployment benefits but the overall level stayed low enough to suggest the job market's strengthening." Headline: "US Unemployment Applications Hover Near Low Levels." This is shameless. Absolutely shameless.

Andrew Breitbart was laid to rest this week. Andrew Breitbart, as I mentioned, grew up in West Los Angeles. He was surrounded by West LA liberalism. He grew up as one. He goes to Tulane University, graduates, and comes out of there a liberal. It wasn't until later (the Clarence Thomas hearings is what he said) that this entire symbiotic relationship, this incestuous relationship between the media and the Democrat Party jarred him awake. It's what alerted Andrew Breitbart to how the scales are weighted vastly in favor of the Democrat Party and the American left, because of the media. And Andrew Breitbart's objective was to bust up "the Democrat-media complex," as he called it, a takeoff on the military-industrial complex.

And that's what his heirs at Big Journalism and Breitbart.com are going to continue to do, and it's flat-out necessary.

Every day on this program for 23-plus years, there's example after example after example of not just media bias, but journalistic malpractice: an entire industry lying and misleading and misrepresenting things to the American people. They hide behind the First Amendment and the freedom of the press, they hide behind the cloak of objectivity, but they're not objective. They are advocates. They are surrogates. They are part of the agenda. They advance it, and it is the primary reason that so many things in this country are out of whack, because one political party gets a pass. One segment of the American population gets a total pass.

And this AP unemployment story is just the latest in countless daily, multiple-times-a-day examples of the irresponsibility that exists in what is called the mainstream media in this country.

RUSH: Obama, ladies and gentlemen, is "lobbying Democratic senators to oppose" to oppose the Keystone pipeline on Capitol Hill. Obama really did say yesterday that oil is an energy of the past. Oil is a thing of the past. Oil is yesterday's news. And it's strikingly bogus! Oil is all we've got, and there's nothing wrong with it. Oil is great. Oil has allowed so much mobility and freedom and prosperity. It has expanded, increased lifestyles. It has expanded life expectancy. The benefits from oil are huge. It's organic, it's natural, it's every bit as part of the earth as anything else that's part of the earth is. Yet it's portrayed as a poison, something that's destroying the planet and so forth, and all of that is lies.

Now, this is simply a guy, Obama, who's still living in his idealistic youth in college when you have people in the faculty lounge and in the classroom living in utopia in their minds, speculating about how perfect life could be. They drum up and create all of these villains and all of these enemies, all of these demons that are getting in the way. And there is this romantic attachment to something called "green energy," which doesn't exist. There is no energy earn oil that will get an airplane off the ground that can take anybody anywhere or cargo anywhere. There isn't. And none of the green energy that's being talked about now will do that.

There's no solar energy that will fly an airplane. There's no wind energy that will launch an airplane. Not anything that you'd want to get on, and not anything you'd put a family member on, and not anything you would want to put cargo in. Sure, there are gliders, but you get my drift. There's nothing. Oil is it! It's nothing that's antiquated or in the past. It is the fuel of the engine of freedom. It's exactly what it is. And the free flow of oil at market prices is crucial to the economic expansion and growth of this economy and people's opportunity for prosperity along with it. And this opposition to it is absurd. It's demented. Every green energy area that Obama has looked into has failed. It is corrupt.

And the money that he has given it, federal tax dollars, much of it comes back to him in the form of campaign donations. There are countless Solyndras, countless other solar and wind energy companies that don't exist and are going belly up. There's no business there! We simply haven't mastered it yet. Oil is what it is because the market works. Yesterday, I played a sound bite of President Obama. Typical left-wing sound bite. We've been hearing it for all my life. We're only 2% of the population; we use 20% of the world's oil. That makes us just rotten to the core! How mean and evil! We are thieves who are running around stealing all these resources from the rest of the world, putting to use for ourselves. It's not fair, and we have to be cut down to size.

This 2%-oil-reserves business is a misleading statistic. Gerri Willis on her blog (she's at Fox Business): "Gas prices shot up 18 cents on average nationwide over the past two weeks, according to the latest Lundberg survey. That puts the average cost of regular gas at $3.69 a gallon. Of course, many of you around the country are already paying over $4. President Obama, members of his administration, Democrats in Congress, and his allies on the left all make the same case: we can't 'drill our way' out of this problem," which they've been saying for 30 years. What if we had been drilling for 30 years? We'd be out of the problem. "They say we use a quarter of the world's oil, but only have 2% of the world's oil reserves. So, do the math. They say it's impossible, but here's how he gets to that mythical 2%.

"For simplicity, we'll call it Obama's big oil lie because that's what it is. They're only counting proven oil reserves. The truth is that 2% oil reserves figure is whatever the government says it is. Here's the official definition from the non-partisan Congressional Research service. Proven reserves are: 'certainty to be recoverable in future years from known reservoirs under existing economic and operating conditions.' The key word there is 'existing' conditions. The US has around 20 billion barrels in proven reserves, but the amount of undiscovered so-called 'technically recoverable' oil is over seven times that. Those are the government's own figures!"

Meaning it's there. It's "technically recoverable," which means it's there. It's "technically recoverable." It's undiscovered meaning we don't have it in our hands, but we know it's there. "And we can get that oil using today's technology. In fact, the US has nearly 1.5 trillion barrels of oil," says Gerri Willis," not 20 billion, 1.5 trillion. Let me put it in a way that everybody can understand this: 1.5 trillion barrels of oil is "enough to fuel the present needs in the US for around 250 years," and that's just oil in the United States. We are not running out.

The supply may be infinite, but we're nowhere near its end. There is enough oil in this country to run this country at current levels of usage for around 250 years, and the regime wants you to believe we've only got 20 billion barrels; we're gonna run out here in ten years or so. That's outrageous. "Former President of Shell Oil on FBN earlier today on how we could easily get back to producing 10 million barrels a day: 'The best source for new oil is the world's largest consumer economy: this country. We could go back to 10 million barrels if we had the permitting that would enable it to happen. We have the oil. There is more oil in this country that we're not allowed to get at than oil we're allowed to get at.'

"Much of the oil is off-limits thanks to the policies of this President: The outer Continental shelf." Off-limits. "The Arctic National Wildlife Reserve in Anwar." Off-limits. "Shale Oil where the United States has the largest deposits in the world estimated by the government to be over 2 trillion barrels." Off-limits. "Even when the production is not in this country, the President will do anything he can to stop it, like blocking the Keystone pipeline. Also, what the President is refusing to acknowledge is the United States is in the middle of an oil boom thanks to new technology like deep-water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. So the President needs to stop with the 2% lie. The solutions are right in front of us, but this administration flatly refuses to explore them."

Now, there can be only one reason. If you know that there is nothing that will power an airplane, if you know that we don't have the energy to power automobiles the way they are powered now, I mean not even close, and yet you insist on it, what are you insisting on? You are insisting on arresting the growth of this economy. You are insisting on the end of the opportunity for prosperity in this country. You are insisting on taking this country backwards technologically by tens of hundreds of years. This is not idealism run amok. This is not willful utopianism. There's a reason this is being done. There's a reason why this country's being penalized. There's a reason why this president wants to punish this country. For some reason he doesn't like it. He doesn't like it the way it was founded. He doesn't like it the way it's been operating since it was founded. It's time we found out what it's been like to live in the rest of the world because of how mean this country's been to other people. That's what's at stake here; that's what's going on.

RUSH: Obama's press conference yesterday was amazing. No questions about the economy. There were very few questions about the budget, the debt, the lack of a budget -- the debt! One person did ask -- Ed Henry of Fox asked -- about gasoline prices. And Obama said in answer, "Ed, just from a political perspective, do you think the president of the United States going into reelection wants gas prices to go higher? Is there anybody here who thinks that that makes a lot of sense?" Where was the follow-up? Where was the follow-up to this?

"Mr. President, in 2008 didn't you call for higher prices for gasoline and carbon-based energy? With all due respect, gasoline is carbon-based, sir! Didn't your Energy Secretary just say, in testimony up on Capitol Hill, that you're not interested in reducing the price of gas? You want to get us off oil?"

Here is a man who has stated numerous times that he wants the price of energy higher.

(impression) "Uh, Ed, you really think president of the United States wants rising gas price before the election?"

Can I say something about this whole notion of getting rid of oil? It's another one of these things you have to stop and think about logically for a second. Ask: "And replace it with what?" Obama's in North Carolina today. He's at a Daimler truck factory, a Mercedes Benz truck factory somewhere in North Carolina. By the way, he's spending a lot of time in North Carolina 'cause they're in trouble there. The Democrats are in trouble in North Carolina. They're not at all confident they're gonna win it. He's at this truck factory to promote new green energy. It's nothing but a slush fund! There's no business there. Every one of his solar industry things is a scam. Wind energy: Scam.

Now he wants green energy for this, this truck plant. The next time you're outside, the next time you happen to be looking in the sky and you happen to see an airplane (preferably a jet airliner), I want to ask yourself: "Okay, we take that out of the sky and we replace it with what? What 'green energy' is going to replace that jet airplane?" What's in that jet airplane? People. Cargo. If you are gonna be one of the first to try to get a new iPad, they're all being flown here from China. Apple bought up every ounce of cargo space on DHL and some others. Nobody else can get their stuff shipped in. How would Apple get that stuff here without oil?

RUSH: Seriously, it's just as fatuous, folks, to say that there is a war on women being waged by the Republican Party. It's patently absurd, if you just stop for a brief moment and think about it. Now, I know there are people that say, "Rush, Rush, it's not what you say; it's how people hear you." I know. See, I live in Literalville. I am the mayor of Realville. And while I understand deception, spin, perception, and all that, I prefer dead in-the-eye, straight-on, here is what I mean. I don't like speaking in riddles and I don't like assuming that people know what's in my mind before I say something. So when I hear that there is a war on women, it's absurd. It's fatuous.

The real hilarity is that there are armies of stupid, small-minded Democrat voters who actually will be made to believe this kind of thing 'cause they're so bent on having an outlet for their hatred every day. So it's the same thing with, "Well, really we're not interested in lowering the gasoline price. We want to get the nation off of oil." See, oil is the fuel of the engine of freedom, and that's dead-on accurate right between your eyes. That's not spin; that's not deception; that's not in any way painting pictures. Oil is the fuel of the engine of freedom, and there is no replacement for it. There is no substitute for it.

Okay, so what is the purpose, then, of all of this green energy stuff? The purpose is an expanding government with people like Barack Obama in command and control of as much of the daily workings of this country as they can be, all the way down to what doctor you see and whether or not you're going to be treated for an illness that you have. And perhaps even more control. What you eat. We just had the story yesterday of food injustice. It's coming. Every one of Obama's crony capitalist deals with solar energy has gone belly up. And every one of them has involved a slush fund that ends up coming back to Obama in the form of campaign contributions, just like the Democrat Party's relationship with unions is basically a money laundering operation.

I know there's some of you here today who've not listened to this program before. You're curious what's going on. So those of you who are regular, indulge me. I'm gonna go back, say some things for our new arrivals to try to help them understand. Now, I know, it sounds really bad to say that the Democrats and the unions are a money laundering operation, because money laundering, you associate that with drug cartels and stuff. "Wow, this Limbaugh guy, I can't believe how over the top he is. The president is a money launderer?" Well, yeah. Let me explain it.

Organized labor, 90% or more of all campaign donations go to Democrats. That money comes from dues that are forcibly taken from union workers who have no say in how their union dues are spent. Many of those unions are made up of people who work for governments: federal, state, and local. They are paid by taxpayers. The taxpayers via their taxes pay these people. And on average, union, state government, federal government, union employees earn twice as much as nonunion American citizens who are paying their salaries. Well, where does the money, all this millions and millions of dollars that gets donated to the Democrats come from? It comes from union dues.

So the operation's very simple. Taxpayers pay for the salaries of union workers in government, anyway. Those union members pay dues, the dues are collected, and the money goes to the Democrat Party. Taxpayers are basically contributing to Barack Obama when they have no intention of it. It's a money laundering operation. It is a circuitous way. When Obama comes up with favorable policies, the Democrats favorable policies for union employees, it's because the beneficiaries of this new financial policy are gonna see jobs. For example, during the stimulus bill, so-called shovel-ready jobs, all that was, was money to keep union workers employed in the states and at various bureaucracies of the federal government, 'cause those people pay dues, those people contribute to the Democrat Party's reelection efforts.

The stimulus bill was to keep those people employed. It wasn't to create new roads and bridges. It didn't happen, did it? It wasn't to create shovel-ready jobs or to fill 'em. There weren't any, right? It's two years since the stimulus and the Democrats are complaining the same stuff needs to be done, but we spent a trillion dollars. Where are the results? What's to show for it? The money didn't go to jobs, to you. It went to unionized people for the most part, teachers mostly. Wisconsin got 16% of it. So the same thing with all this solar energy stuff, or wind energy. Solyndra is the big example. Totally underwritten by grants and loans that were forgiven by the federal government. The companies go bust because they can't compete 'cause there's no business. There is no solar energy business yet.

They're trying to force a business down everybody's throat that doesn't exist. Businesses evolve out of need and creativity and invention in the private sector. Government doesn't start anything. All it does, basically, is take from. But these dollars that Obama spent on Solyndra and other such organizations that failed also went to salaries, to the people who ran the companies and they have been found to be on record as donating to Obama, another slush fund, another money laundering operation. All this green energy stuff, it's simply a circuitous way for Obama to get his hands on taxpayer dollars. Folks, there's no substitute for oil. There's no replacement for it. We are not going to get off of oil. We are not going to have automobiles, airplanes, anything that moves, without oil. It isn't going to happen, because there is no alternative.

Have you ever stopped to think why we use oil and its derivatives, such as gasoline, kerosene, jet fuel, have you ever wondered why? Do you think it's a conspiracy? Big Oil's gotten together to conspire with others to make sure that only their product is used to power airplanes and cars? Not how it happens. It happens in the free market because it's what works. It's what powers the internal combustion engine. It's not a conspiracy. It's not big business getting together to monopolize and control and deny you freedom of choice, of fuels. It's because it works. It's found to be the cheapest and most economic and the most efficient way to move people and goods and services around. It works. That's why.

There's nothing better than oil. There's nothing even close to it. We are blessed to have it. We are blessed to have the technology to know how to refine it and make additional products from it, which you find in your everyday life. It is not evil. And the people who work in that business are not evil. They contribute to greatness and the possibility of greatness. They contribute to people's dreams coming true. They make it possible for us to feed ourselves cheaply without having to kill each other to get something to eat. Oil is something for which everybody should be thankful.

Now, Barack Obama himself, yesterday in his press conference, said, (paraphrasing) "Well, one of the reasons for high gasoline prices is the instability in the Middle East." Really? When is there not instability in the Middle East? There has always been instability in the Middle East, ever since Adam and Eve blew it. And there will always be instability in the Middle East. It's nothing new.

In fact, doesn't that instability in the Middle East argue even more for coming up with sources of oil that are not in the Middle East? If that's an unstable region, it is dangerous. If that supply could be negatively impacted simply by the Iranians blocking the Strait of Hormuz, why do we want to continue to make ourselves vulnerable to that when we have our own oil? We've got it in shale in the Dakotas. We've got it in Alaska. We've got it in the Gulf of Mexico. There's one guy and his political party making sure that we can't get it. Barack Hussein Obama does not want this nation to be independent of Middle Eastern oil.

Nobody can convince me he does. He opposed building the Keystone pipeline to get oil from Canada, that would create eventually tens of thousands jobs, by the way. But he doesn't have that because his left-wing, fringe kook base would be really mad at him because they hate oil. They hate progress. They hate technological advancement. If they had their way, we would all be living like they do in the hills of Afghanistan. "Instability in the Middle East." That's one of the reasons for high gas prices. Well, wait, we have a solution: We have our own oil.

"Nah, it's too dirty, too risky. It kills wildlife, kills plants, kills grass, kills frogs. It's too risky, too expensive. It pollutes! Global warming destroys the planet."

Well, then why are we using it at all? Why don't we ban it if it's that bad? We can't ban it because we can't get along without it! For 30 years the Democrats have been saying, "You can't say that the answer is drilling for oil 'cause gonna take four or five years." Well, four or five years was NOW in 1970. In 2000 they said, "Oh, you can't drill. It's gonna take three to four years, maybe five years for us to get any oil." Well, now is five years after 2000. If we'd have increased drilling at any point in the last 30 years when the Democrat Party objected, we would have independence when it comes to foreign oil. The Democrat Party's not interested in that. In fact, your best bet is to believe the opposite of what they say on most everything.

Real Clear Politics: Obama Mocks Ed Henry: Do You Think I Want Gas Prices Going Up In An Election Year?

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 #219	Kukis Digests and Opines on this Week’s News and Views	March 11, 2012