If you receive this and you hate it and you don’t want to ever read it no matter what...that is fine; email me back and you will be deleted from my list (which is almost at the maximum anyway).

I attempt to post a new issue each Sunday by 2 or 3 pm central standard time (I sometimes fail at this attempt).

I try to include factual material only, along with my opinions (it should be clear which is which). I make an attempt to include as much of this week’s news as I possibly can. The first set of columns are intentionally designed for a quick read.

I do not accept any advertising nor do I charge for this publication. I write this principally to blow off steam in a nation where its people seemed have collectively lost their minds.

And if you are a believer in Jesus Christ, always remember: We do not struggle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places (Eph. 6:12).

President Obama is now accepting help from foreign nations to clean up the gulf on day 72 of the spill. The first offers were made on day 3.

A Taiwanese shipping mogul has brought his 1100 ft. super skimmer, known as the Whale, into the gulf. Apparently, there has been some delay over EPA and Coast Guard red tape. The owner claims that this ship can, in 2 weeks time, do what all of the skimmers in the gulf so far have done in 2 months (there are now 500 small and medium skimmers in the gulf, about 5x the number of skimmers in the gulf in June). They claim they can effectively skim 300,000–400,000 barrels a day (I am assuming that is, they can remove that much oil from the water in 1 day?). Another source said 500,000 barrels per day. Taiwanese owner Su simply decided to do this on a whim. He retrofitted the tanker and sent it to the Gulf on his own dime. The ship sailed to the Gulf with no prior permission from BP or the Coast Guard to help in the cleanup effort. The Coast Guard will spend 48 hours testing this ship before allowing it to be used to help clean up the spill.

The Coast Guard has set up a 65' barrier between the news and problems on the coast. Even CNN’s Anderson Cooper was surprised. One headline about this story: “Obama's New Gulf Oil Spill Strategy - Suspend The First Amendment.” I am interested whether this gets more play in the alphabet media.

The Pentagon issues a new policy saying that all interviews with high-ranking soldiers must be cleared through them. They claim this has nothing to do with the Rolling Stone interview of General McChrystal.

A survey of 238 "presidential scholars" released Thursday ranked Barack Obama as one of the nations's best presidents ever.

The U.S. Supreme Court throws out Chicago’s gun laws; Chicago Aldermen vote 45 to 0 to install a new ban, which does not allow a gun owner to take his gun outside. Critics suggest that this may reduce a person’s experience and proficiency with a gun.

The vapid hearings on potential Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan took place this week. To her credit, when one Democrat asked whether she preferred werewolves or vampires, even Kagan appeared taken aback by the vapidity of that vapid remark.

By a procedural vote of 215-210 (with no Republicans voting in favor along with 38 Democrats), a $1.1 trillion budget was deemed as passed. Never before -- since the creation of the Congressional budget process -- has the House failed to pass a budget, failed to propose a budget then deemed the non-existent budget as passed as a means to avoid a direct, recorded vote on a budget, but still allowed Congress to spend taxpayer money.

Congress did not pass additional unemployment benefits. Most Democrats wanted to add this to the deficit, and most Republicans would favor extending benefits, if there were spending cuts elsewhere.

J. Christian Adams, Former Justice Department Lawyer, resigns his position because a clear case of poll intimidation was dropped by the DOJ.

10 men and women are picked up by the authorities as Russian spies. This is the end result of almost a decade of work by the FBI.

You may recall the Lockerbie Bomber, who was given 3 months to live, so, in an act of British compassion, was released to spend these final 3 months in Libya? It is 12 months later and he is living in relative luxury in Libya. Only one doctor actually said he had 3 months to live, and that doctor had been apparently paid for by Libyan money. In a completely unrelated story, BP at that time was given a lucrative contract with Libya, which would benefit both BP and the U.K.

Although most of the country is enjoy hot weather, there was a slight snow on Mount Washington in New Hampshire at the beginning of July.

President Obama commits $2 billion in loans to solar companies, claiming that there will be 5000 jobs created (that’s $400,000/job).

3 or 4 times, Supreme Court nominee Kagan was asked if she wrote a memo to Clinton which supported partial birth abortion. Finally, she admitted, “The document is certainly in my handwriting.” Then she spent a great deal of time indicating that she agreed with or disagreed with what she wrote (which was a product of several people?).

MSNBC’s Alex Witt concerning Obama’s immigration speech: “I gotta say, I got a few chills listening to him there. It was very powerful.”

Representative Pete Stark (CA-D) to a self-proclaimed minuteman who attended his townhall meeting, “Who are you going to kill today?” This is the same Pete Stark who, in 2007, accused President Bush of sending troops to Iraq "to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement."

Commenting on the loss of 125,000 jobs last month, President Obama said, "Make no mistake, we are headed in the right direction." He then added that we are not moving in that direction fast enough.

Newsweek explaining why Republican women are suddenly being attacked for their beauty: "There seems to be an insistent, increasingly excitable focus on the supposed hotness of Republican women in the public eye, like Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Michelle Malkin, and Nikki Haley-not to mention veterans like Ann Coulter...Women in politics are used to being trivialized, and have tended to dress and behave soberly in response. The wisdom has long been that discussions about their sexuality are not just distracting and degrading, but also destructive.” Nowhere in this article was the possibility explored that we are dealing with a overwhelmingly liberal press, which is going to attack conservative anything in any way they can.

Nancy Pelosi: “Now let me say that unemployment insurance—we talk about it being a safety net—this is one of the biggest stimuluses (sic) to our economy. Economists will tell you: this money is spent quickly, it injects demand into the economy, and it is job creating; it creates jobs.”

Joe Biden at a fund raiser: "There's no possibility to restore 8 million jobs lost in the Great Recession."

Joe Biden to Charlie Rose: [the Stimulus bill was] "An absolute success...We will create over 3.5 million or save over 3.5 million jobs before this is over."

Biden in Kentucky: "I love those guys who say the government should stay out when we're in deep crisis, like some of the people you're hearing from in this state and other places. We're using

Homeland Security Head Janet Napolitano “the border is as secure now as it has ever been."

Charlie Crist, former Republican, about Obama’s oil spill expertise: “I think the administration has gotten up to speed and I am very pleased about that.”

Jeremiah Wright, “Thank you for meeting a need and an environment that is suffocating with this ‘need to know’ mindset which controls the media-speak and the media-spin where the American is told about the latest events in Latin America, Asia and Africa.”

With reference to the possibility that we may leave Afghanistan in 2011: “Just because you walk out of a movie, doesn’t mean it’s over,” said Ryan Crocker, ambassador to Afghanistan.

"History will not judge President Bush kindly for his failure to act in a way that could have prevented or alleviated this economic crisis," Obama said in March 2008 shortly after Bear Sterns' collapse.

Ivan G. Seidenberg, the chairman of the Business Roundtable, and President Obama`s closest ally in the business community, accused the president and Democratic lawmakers Tuesday of creating an "increasingly hostile environment for investment and job creation...By reaching into virtually every sector of economic life, government is injecting uncertainty into the marketplace and making it harder to raise capital and create new businesses."

GE Chief Executive Jeff Immelt and strong Obama supporter, just said,"We [the US] are a pathetic exporter...We have to become an industrial powerhouse again but you don't do this when government and entrepreneurs are not in synch...business did not like the US President and the president did not like business." Although GE is backing away from these comments, Immelt has not.

Dick Morris: “Katrina made Bush look insensitive; the oil crisis makes Obama look incompetent.” (slightly paraphrased)

Newt Gingrich: “The President gives lots of speeches.” and “This is a President who wakes up every morning wondering who he can blame.”

House Republican leader John Boehner: "Real economic growth requires creating jobs in the private sector, and to do that we need to start reining in Washington's out-of-control spending spree. Less spending, more jobs - it's that simple.”

Dennis Miller: “We’ve got some Jane Austin rules of engagement [in Afghanistan].”

In order to fund the financial recovery bill, money which has been paid back to TARP will be used. Senator Judd Gregg, a New Hampshire Republican. "If we did this in a private sector action, we would all be in jail. This is fraud on the American taxpayer!''

Michael Steele (at a fund-raising event): "This was a war of Obama's choosing. This is not something the United States has actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in. Well, if he's such a student of history, has he not understood that, you know, that's the one thing you don't do is engage in a land war in Afghanistan, alright, because everyone who's tried over a thousand years of history has failed," This is embarrassing for Steele to get so many facts wrong. I am at a loss to explain this, as I used to hear Steele on talk radio on many occasions, and he seemed to know what was gong on, besides being a very likeable guy. However, this statement is riddled with inaccuracy.

Calvin Coolidge: "Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery."

George Washington: "What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ." [in a speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs May 12, 1779].

Washington: "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible."

John Adams: "We recognize no Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus!" [April 18, 1775, on the eve of the Revolutionary War after a British major ordered John Adams, John Hancock, and those with them to disperse in "the name of George the Sovereign King of England." ]

John Adams: "[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty." [from a letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress].

Thomas Jefferson: "Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus."

Jefferson again: "I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus." [Letter to Benjamin Rush April 21, 1803]

At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, James Madison proposed the plan to divide the central government into three branches. He discovered this model of government from the Perfect Governor, as he read Isaiah 33:22:

Madison: "We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We've staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia]

Samuel Morse, inventor of the telegraph: "Education without religion is in danger of substituting wild theories for the simple commonsense rules of Christianity."

James Clerk Maxwell, Statistical Thermodynamics: "No theory of evolution can be formed to account for the similarity of molecules, for evolution necessarily implies continuous change."

Sir Joseph Lister, Father of antiseptic surgery: "I am a believer in the fundamental doctrines of Christianity"

Lord Kelvin [William Thomson], Laws of Thermodynamics, Absolute temperature scale: "With regard to the origin of life, science...positively affirms creative power."

Wernher Von Braun; first Director of NASA: "Scientific concepts exist only in the minds of men. Behind these concepts lies the reality which is being revealed to us, but only by the grace of God."

Louis Pasteur : "The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator." and "Science brings men nearer to God."

Banishing God from our classrooms (July 1, 2010) and Women of the American Revolution (July 2, 2001). If you have not been watch Beck’s Friday Founders shows, you are missing some of the best television of the week. You will learn a number of things about our history that has been hidden from us (e.g., African American founders and early race relations).

Art Laffer predicts a second recession for 2011; a 6 minutes interview (it’s good):

CNN’s Anderson Cooper pleads for the Coast Guard to give them better access to the gulf in order to report the news. Although Cooper says nothing negative about Obama, and keeps saying, “We are not the enemy here;” it is still an important report about the most transparent administration ever:

Tom Colburn asks Kagan if it is okay for the government to regulate what people eat everyday:

Sessions asks Kagan if she is a legal progressive; she does not know what that is.

Obama administration posts signs 30 miles from Arizona’s capital city warning people not to enter(I may have posted this last week?):

President Obama commemorates Senator Robert Byrd as a voice or principle and reason; President Clinton describes Byrd’s fleeting association with the KKK as just a country boy trying to get elected, and something that he spent the rest of his life making up for it. Glenn Beck offers up a slightly different view:

Jeremiah Wright praises a magazine for providing a forum where Marxism can be presented with a happy face:

Jodi Miller, “In a recent survey, 48% of Americans said that the United States government is a threat to individual rights; not surprisingly, the other 52% said that they are too afraid of the government to complain.”

“White house Budget Director Peter Orszag will quit his post in a few weeks; he said he plans to spend more time with his family. But we all know it’s because there is no actual budget to direct anymore.”

“U.S. News just published a list of the ten reasons you don’t need a hybrid [car]. Reason #1: you’re not a self-righteous, sanctimonious moron.”

Dennis Miller, on Obama’s golf outfit: “What’s he going to do next—rise llamas? He’s the President of the free world. Get a look together.”

2) Revisionist history is a term from 1903, a Communist strategy for takeover. They remove a people from its history and they are easier to take over. For instance, if we see our founders as a bunch of racist white guys who stole the land from the Indians, using germ warfare, we are less likely to cling to our founding documents and the founding principles.

3) Gleaned from the Neil Cavuto/Chris Christie (Governor of New Jersey): NJ passed its smallest budget for the past 5 years, where almost every department received a cut in NJ funding. The teacher’s unions, since Christie became governor, have spent $7 million on attack ads against him. Groups which support him have spent about $200,000 on response ads. Prior to Christie’s election, NJ had 115 tax raises over a period of 8 years.

4) One mark of a liberal program is deception. Two examples: medical marijuana. Probably 1% of those who buy medical marijuana actually are suffering from some problem which only marijuana can take care of. 2^nd example is abortion. Have you ever talked over abortion with someone who supports it, and almost immediately they cite incest or safety of the mother to support the use of abortion. Less than 1% of all abortions are performed for either of those reasons. Virtually all abortions are retroactive birth control.

5) Recent Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor claimed that she supported the 2^nd amendment, and then voted against it this past week.

7) At the inception of social security, counties were given the option to opt out and form their own retirement system. 3 counties near Galveston, Texas did this, and invested their money into safe savings funds. They have returns which are 50–200% higher than those in social security.

8) Another reason why there must be some way to keep government away from our money. Some of the TARP money which has been repaid, is not being used to pay down the debt or reduce the deficit, but to fund the Financial Reform Bill.

9) When running for President, Obama said, "Folks, we don't need a commission to spend a few years and a lot of taxpayer money to tell us what's going on in our economy. We don't need a commission to tell us gas prices are high or that you can't pay your bills. We don't need a commission to tell us you're losing your jobs. We don't need a commission to study this crisis, we need a President who will solve it - and that's the kind of President I intend to be." And: "Senator McCain's first answer to this economic crisis was - get ready for it - a commission. That's Washington-speak for 'we'll get back to you later.'" Since becoming President, Obama has initiated 3 commissions and the Senate has commissioned 1.

10) In a Bible class taught 3 decades ago, the pastor explained the ingredients of a revolution: you need 2 sets of people, those involved in crusader arrogance and those who are involved in criminal arrogance. The crusaders are those who (and now I am making application of this doctrine) believe in global warming, the unfairness of capitalism, the importance of equal outcomes, etc. These people are motivated to rebel against a free, capitalistic society (although crusaders can be motivated against pretty much any form of government). They help to motivate enough people to revolt. Lenin called these kinds of people “useful idiots” (a phrase he applied to anyone he was able to manipulate to assist in his getting his ends). The other facet of revolution are the criminals who desire the power, and don’t care really how they take it. Both sets of people engage in the revolution, whether it be by force or even by voting (crusaders can be very persuasive).

11) In another Bible class of the same era, the pastor explained that you cannot have freedom and equality (or, equality of outcomes; or financial equality). You have to decrease one in order to increase the other. Today, equality of outcomes is called social justice.

12) I have always had problems with employer sanctions when it comes to illegal aliens. I never really had a good reason to be for or against them; however, it was pointed out this week that, employer sanctions will result, very likely, in racial profiling by employers. At this point in time, e-verify is not accurate (I heard someone say 50% of the time, but that seems to be an exaggeration). However, if an employer can lose his license for hiring an illegal, even if e-verify was not accurate, then certainly an employer will practice racial profiling. If someone with brown skin and an accent comes in asking for a job, how many employers will not hire them for fear of being fined and/or jailed?

13) I agree with Kagan that the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominees are often vapid. There are 2 basic philosophies with regards to the law: whatever the law is, it must be properly and correctly interpreted and enforced. A law would be struck down if it violates the constitution. Even if a judge does not like the law or the outcome of a case, he votes that way anyway. The other philosophy is called judicial activism, where someone thinks that a certain outcome is best, and they will use any justification that they can come up with in order to justify that outcome...even if they have to go to foreign law precedent. This is true judicial activism, and a number of people believe in it. Why can’t a person who is a judicial activist simply admit that they are, and defend it? Why do they have to pretend as if the are a constitutionalist when they are not? Constitutionalists will very clearly state that their decisions will be based upon properly interpreting the original documents, which the Roberts court did awhile ago with a previous case on the 2^nd Amendment, to the point of parsing the amendment itself.

14) The CBO, finally, projects soaring debt level for Obamacare. Almost every American understands this. Why did it take them months after the legislation to get passed before this came out?

15) When you watched footage of Obama eating dinner with Medvedev, while his spies were being arrested, unbeknownst to him, was like a low-rent version of the ending of Godfather I?

16) Several people made this argument that Obama’s sudden interest in immigration reform is all for show. He pushed cap and trade and healthcare through the House (and the latter through the Senate) along with the largest stimulus bill in U.S. history. With his early majorities in Congress, Obama could have passed anything he wanted to. What bill has not been put together? Immigration reform. He will pontificate on it and blame Republicans for it, in order to gain Latino votes, but nothing is going to be passed. It is doubtful that he even has a plan with any specifics.

17) In my generation, we had the contrast of Carter and Reagan, despite and alphabet media and SNL, we were able to figure out, Carter bad (really bad) and Reagan good. These younger kids just coming up have been mis-educated by their schools, and the only contrast they know is Clinton and Bush (and they barely understand anything about this). So, perhaps what we need is another contrast, between the ultra-radical policies of President Obama and whoever comes along in 2012 to defeat him (Ryan? Palin? Romney? Jindal? Christie?). Personally, I like anyone from that group, except for Romney.

18) Al Gore parlayed his meager $1 million net worth into $100 million using global warming in order to build his fortune. Does Obama intend to do the same thing?

Estimated 22,700 deaths in the Mexican drug wars since 2007. 4,281 American deaths in Iraq since the beginning of that war and 1000 Americans dead in Afghanistan since the beginning of that war.

55% of Americans have either lost their job or suffered a pay cut since the beginning of this recession.

Quite frankly, this stat surprised me: nearly ⅓^rd of all houses purchased in the first quarter of this year was a foreclosure property. Months ago, I told you the Obama had not changed our lending practices, and that FNMA and FHLMC continue to guarantee loans which should not be made in the first place (these are usually first-time home buyers with questionable credit; and often the federal or local government gives them money to use toward the down payment). That is what got us into the mess that we are in, and it continues today. In a standard market, only 1–2% of homes are usually in foreclosure.

The Wall Street Journal projected losses at FNMA and FHLMC at over $370 billion through 2020. Losses at these entities will dwarf the losses incurred from the TARP funds (which Wall Street Journal estimates at $89 billion). Don’t forget, the Financial Reform Bill does not touch Fannie or Freddie.

19% of those who are in default on their home mortgage are able to pay it. The end result will be 6–12 months of living rent free at their own house, with barely a blip on their record. So you recall that one used to be taxed on a foreclosure (if it cost the bank $10,000 more than the house was worth to sell it, that was counted as income and the person had to pay taxes on it. No more. A Democratic Congress did away with that in 2007 (signed by Bush).

According to CNN reports, more than 1 in 4 Americans can’t name England as the country the colonists fought in the Revolutionary War. That figure includes 20% who said they didn’t know and 6% who just plain got it wrong—answers included France, China, Japan, and Mexico, among others. The numbers were especially bad among young people—the question stumped a whopping 40% of 18-to-29-year-olds. Women too had trouble, with only 67% answering the question correctly, compared to 81% of men.

16 workers supported 1 Social Security retiree when SS began; now, 3 support 1 retiree.

1070 offers from 44 nations have offered the United States help cleaning the gulf. So far, Obama has accepted help from 12 nations.

Obviously, BP has way, way too many violations. So, where is the competent government oversight?

15% of American voters think the Founders would be proud if they could see the country today.

78% think the Founders wouldn't be proud of the country they helped launched 234 years ago.

Almost all polls have Obama’s approval/disapproval ratings in a dead heat. Quite frankly, this surprises me, given his handling of the gulf crisis.

Time Magazine just put out this year in pictures. Do you know what they left out? Photos of the TEA party events. There are none. Do you recall when the TEA party events first began? If you watch FoxNews, you do; if you watch anything else, you could have 5,000 people gathering in your town, and no local news or major news media of any kind covered it—not for several months after these events occurred. If Cindy the Pacifist goes to Bush’s ranch along with 10 of her friends, the news covers that; and on the radio, it was every hour for several days. But, if 100,000 people demonstrate across the United States, there was not a single word anywhere except on FoxNews. The media coverage did not begin until the second wave of TEA parties.

Let me explain this to the novice or the liberal, in case you do not know what is going on: liberals want to control current events and history, and it is slanted in order to get their philosophy out there. One way of slanting the news is to ignore certain events altogether. Like TEA parties.

Obama is at a meeting with his cabinet, and they are informing him about the gulf oil spill, with descriptions of the oil, where it is, and how much is washing ashore, and smothering a variety of animals, destroying their ecosystem. He comes up with ideas like, “Uh, better send some lawyers. Uh, uh send Holder, since he dropped that case against the brothers at the polls”

More input. Obama: “Okay, if you were to sum this up, exactly whose ass should I be kicking?”

More input: Obama: “Okay, I got it. Let’s establish a commission, to see who’s at fault here.”

More input. Obama: “That’s a red state, right? We aren’t that worried about red states right now.”

“If the skimmers are in front of a red state, send the EPA and the Coast Guard in there to study the skimmers for a couple days. Shut those skimmers down for awhile. Show them who’s in charge. Next time, they might think twice when it comes to voting for the wrong candidate.”

Bill Clinton (in the middle of a lame speech) said this, “1^st thing to do is you fix the leak. The 2^nd thing to do is to keep the oil from the shores. The 3^rd most important thing is to minimize the damage of the oil that reaches the shores. The 4^th most important thing today is to figure out who did what wrong...[and that is important], but let’s do number 1, 2 and 3 first.” President Obama, are you listening?

Senators Schumer and Franken both spoke of Chief Supreme Court Justice John Roberts’ activist court. What they mean by activist is, restoring some court precedent to match what the law actually says (as opposed to making it conform to judicial precedent, which is often a distortion of the law). You can usually distinguish a liberal or progressive justice from a conservative one, because the former will talk about judicial precedence and the latter will speak of their decisions conforming to existing law.

Are you aware that oil interests in Brazil are putting in bids for our oil platforms that you want to shut down? Are you aware that you are lending this same oil company a few billion dollars? Are you aware that their biggest single investor is George Soros?

After passing the largest stimulus bill in U.S. history, he decides what we need is, more stimulus.

If you think that anything that Obama is donig in the gulf and any “protection” given by the EPA has anything to do with saving, helping and/or preserving the environment. It is all about money.

Not a very difficult prediction: Michael Steele will resign within the next 2 weeks from being Republican National Committee chair.

Rove: there will be no real comprehensive immigration reform before the next election.

Several public statements recently made by Hillary Clinton. Look for her to become more and more visible, particularly after the 2010 election.

The President appears to be on the campaign trail again, beating down those obstinate Republicans.

Is Obama just trying to destroy the economy of the southern states who did not vote for him? Shutting down those additional wells will do just that.

We nearly lost our independence in 1877. For 35 years the Patent Office in Washington, D.C. displayed the official signed copy of the Declaration of Independence for all to see - beginning with those bold words: "'The unanimous declaration of the thirteen United States" and ending with John Hancock's equally bold signature followed by fifty-five others.

As a special present to the nation, the declaration returned to its birthplace, Philadelphia's Independence Hall, for ongoing celebrations of its 100th birthday in 1876. It then moved to the State Department Library in early 1877. Within months, the Patent Office burned. Had the declaration been returned to its usual spot, the nation's first treasure would have been lost forever - a close call and warning to preserve it as tightly as a mother protects an infant.

By modern standards, they were really reckless with the declaration in its early days. At first it was frequently unrolled and then rolled up again, weakening the paper. At the Patent Office, a nearby window exposed its already rapidly deteriorating ink to sunlight. Today the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and all four pages of the U.S. Constitution are carefully displayed at the National Archives in Washington, D.C.

They reside in $4 million aluminum and titanium fireproof containers. The fragile parchments do not touch the glass, and their airtight cases are filled with a non-leaky preserving gas. The treasures enjoy a steady climate controlled temperature of 67 degrees.

We have taken great pains to preserve our charters of freedom, which makes it hard to understand why a small publishing company would slap warning labels on the declaration and U.S Constitution.

Last month Fox News Channel reported that Wilder Publication's reprints equated our founding documents with old novels by warning: "This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if written today." What were they thinking? They weren't.

If any label belongs on the declaration, it's this one: "The Declaration of Independence: A Must Read."

The principles behind independence haven't changed. Because the U.S. Constitution has been amended over the years, the declaration's most controversial line "all men are created equal" can easily be interpreted to include men and women of multiple races, ethnicities and creeds.

Our founder's belief that rights came from a Creator - and could not be doled out like candy from a king - hasn't changed. The principle of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness still screams the "American dream" as much as it did in 1776.

Failure to read and appreciate the Declaration of Independence today is a failure to understand who we are as Americans. We need to remember that the declaration outlines more than 25 acts of tyranny. The king was the culprit.

He "kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature." He was guilty of "cutting off our trade with all parts of the world" and "imposing taxes on us without our consent." He took "our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments." Declaration drafter Thomas Jefferson daringly called the king a tyrant and "unfit to be the ruler of a free people."

The best way to preserve independence - not simply the document but what it means - is to pass its principles to the next generation. We must read the declaration for ourselves and to our children.

And because this national treasure wasn't burned in a fire in 1877, it's available for all to see in person by visiting the National Archives in our nation's capital or, more conveniently, through the Internet at

There are obvious actions to speed things up, but the government oddly resists taking them.

As the oil spill continues and the cleanup lags, we must begin to ask difficult and uncomfortable questions. There does not seem to be much that anyone can do to stop the spill except dig a relief well, not due until August. But the cleanup is a different story. The press and Internet are full of straightforward suggestions for easy ways of improving the cleanup, but the federal government is resisting these remedies.

First, the Environmental Protection Agency can relax restrictions on the amount of oil in discharged water, currently limited to 15 parts per million. In normal times, this rule sensibly controls the amount of pollution that can be added to relatively clean ocean water. But this is not a normal time.

Various skimmers and tankers (some of them very large) are available that could eliminate most of the oil from seawater, discharging the mostly clean water while storing the oil onboard. While this would clean vast amounts of water efficiently, the EPA is unwilling to grant a temporary waiver of its regulations.

Next, the Obama administration can waive the Jones Act, which restricts foreign ships from operating in U.S. coastal waters. Many foreign countries (such as the Netherlands and Belgium) have ships and technologies that would greatly advance the cleanup. So far, the U.S. has refused to waive the restrictions of this law and allow these ships to participate in the effort.

The combination of these two regulations is delaying and may even prevent the world's largest skimmer, the Taiwanese owned "A Whale," from deploying. This 10-story high ship can remove almost as much oil in a day as has been removed in total-roughly 500,000 barrels of oily water per day. The tanker is steaming towards the Gulf, hoping it will receive Coast Guard and EPA approval before it arrives.

In addition, the federal government can free American-based skimmers. Of the 2,000 skimmers in the U.S. (not subject to the Jones Act or other restrictions), only 400 have been sent to the Gulf. Federal barriers have kept the others on stations elsewhere in case of other oil spills, despite the magnitude of the current crisis. The Coast Guard and the EPA issued a joint temporary rule suspending the regulation on June 29-more than 70 days after the spill.

The Obama administration can also permit more state and local initiatives. The media endlessly report stories of county and state officials applying federal permits to perform various actions, such as building sand berms around the Louisiana coast. In some cases, they were forbidden from acting. In others there have been extensive delays in obtaining permission.

As the government fails to implement such simple and straightforward remedies, one must ask why.

One possibility is sheer incompetence. Many critics of the president are fond of pointing out that he had no administrative or executive experience before taking office. But the government is full of competent people, and the military and Coast Guard can accomplish an assigned mission. In any case, several remedies require nothing more than getting out of the way.

Another possibility is that the administration places a higher priority on interests other than the fate of the Gulf, such as placating organized labor, which vigorously defends the Jones Act.

Finally there is the most pessimistic explanation-that the oil spill may be viewed as an opportunity, the way White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said back in February 2009, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." Many administration supporters are opposed to offshore oil drilling and are already employing the spill as a tool for achieving other goals. The websites of the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, for example, all feature the oil spill as an argument for forbidding any further offshore drilling or for any use of fossil fuels at all. None mention the Jones Act.

To these organizations and perhaps to some in the administration, the oil spill may be a strategic justification in a larger battle. President Obama has already tried to severely limit drilling in the Gulf, using his Oval Office address on June 16 to demand that we "embrace a clean energy future." In the meantime, how about a cleaner Gulf?

When Obama could have passed comprehensive immigration reform - when he still had 60 Senate Democrats - he didn't lift a finger to push it. Now that he can't pass it - it is too late in the year, he doesn't have 60 votes, and many Democrats will defect - he aggressively pushes it in a national speech.

The opportunism and hypocrisy of his attempt to manipulate America's Latinos into forgetting his previous inaction is transparent and obvious. Polls show him losing Hispanics due to high and continuing unemployment and losing Congressional seats in the bargain, so Obama has dug up the immigration proposals of former President George W. Bush, dusted them off, and made them his own. He knows it won't pass. But he hopes that it will reignite Latino enthusiasm for his failing presidency and anger at Republicans for frustrating immigration reform.

In the process, Obama is neglecting the real answer to immigration. It is ridiculous to speak of sealing the border. A border of more than 1500 miles can't be sealed. It can't even be controlled. As long as people want to cross, they will be able to get over. Some won't make it. They will just keep trying until they do.

To sell his amnesty program for those already here, Obama raised the red herring of deportation, saying that we could never round up and send away 11 million people.

But he brushed over the real answer: To dry up the jobs. If employers would not hire illegal immigrants, they would stop coming here and those already here would pack up and go home of their own accord. Obama's promise, in his speech, to invigorate the enforcement of sanctions on employers who hire illegals rang hollow. If he hasn't done it over the past year and a half, what confidence do we have that he will see the light now?

Employer sanctions, a guest worker program at good wages with health care, and a national biometric identification card must be the pillars of a real solution to illegal immigration. The promise of amnesty would be totally unnecessary if there were no jobs here to lure them and hold them. Amnesty presents a false choice. It assumes that we cannot dry up the jobs. But we can!

Were companies to face heavy corporate fines and jail time for those who hired the illegal workers, they would stop hiring. If a guest worker program brought in a sufficient labor force to meet their needs - and returned them back home again - it would not be necessary to hire illegal immigrants.

But as long as employers can get away with hiring illegals and paying them starvation wages, they will do so. It is only when they face the prospect of prison that they will see the light and start paying good wages as part of a national guest worker program.

The cynicism of Obama in kindling hopes for amnesty only to see them certainly dashed is breathtaking. And his pushing the false choice of amnesty - when eliminating the jobs that fuel illegal immigration is a readily available solution - is revolting.

He doesn't want a law. He wants a fight and he wants the votes that a fight may bring him. It is Chicago polarizing politics at its very worst.

It's one thing to say that Obama's Administration showed its ineptitude and mismanagement in its handling of the Gulf oil spill. It is quite another to grasp the situation up close as I did during a recent visit to Alabama.

According to state disaster relief officials, Alabama conceived a plan - early on - to erect huge booms off shore to shield the approximately 200 miles of their state's coastline from oil. Rather than install the relatively light and shallow booms in use elsewhere, the state (with assistance from the Coast Guard) canvassed the world and located enough huge, heavy booms - some weighing tons and seven meters high - to guard their coast.

So, Alabama decided on a backup plan. It would buy snare booms to catch the oil as it began to wash up on the beaches.

But.the Fish and Wildlife Administration vetoed the plan saying it would endanger sea turtles that nest on the beaches.

So, Alabama - ever resourceful - decided to hire 400 workers to patrol the beaches in person scooping up oil that had washed ashore.

But.OSHA (the Occupational Safety and Health Agency) refused to allow them to work more than twenty minutes out of every hour and required an hour long break after forty minutes of work so the cleanup proceeded at a very slow pace.

The short answer is that every agency - each with its own particular bureaucratic agenda - was able to veto each aspect of any plan to fight the spill with the unintended consequence that nothing stopped the oil from destroying hundreds of miles of wetlands, habitats, beaches, fisheries, and recreational facilities.

Where was the president? Why did he not intervene in these and countless other bureaucratic controversies to force a focus on the oil, not on the turtles and other incidental concerns?

According to Alabama Governor Bob Riley, the Administration's "lack of ability has become transparent" in its handling of the oil spill. He notes that one stellar exception has been Obama aide Valerie Jarrett without whom, he says, nothing whatever would have gotten done.

Eventually, the state stopped listening to federal agencies and just has gone ahead and given funds directly to the local folks fighting the spill rather than paying attention to the directives of the Unified Command. Apparently, there is a world of difference between the competence of the Coast Guard and the superb and efficient regular Navy and military.

Now, the greatest crisis of all looms on the horizon as hurricanes sweep into the Gulf. Should one hit off shore, it will destroy all the booms that have been placed to stop the oil from reaching shore. And there are no more booms anywhere in the world according to Alabama disaster relief officials. "There is no more inventory of booms anywhere in Earth," one told me in despair.

The political impact of this incompetence has only just begun to be felt. While Administration operatives are flying high after a week in which the president's ratings rebounded to 49% in Rasmussen after his firing of General McChrystal, the oil is still gushing and the situation is about to worsen.

The obvious fact is that Obama has no executive experience nor do any of his top advisors. Without a clear mandate from the top, needed efforts to salvage the situation are repeatedly stymied by well meaning bureaucrats strictly following the letter of their agency policy and federal law. The result, ironically, of their determined efforts to protect the environment has been the greatest environmental disaster in history. But some turtles are OK!

As we head into Independence Day weekend, my column today reflects on the other "A" word missing from the immigration debate: Assimilation.

In his immigration speech on Thursday, President Obama heralded America as a "nation of immigrants" defined not by blood or birth, but by "fidelity to the shared values that we all hold so dear." If only it were so. Left-wing academics and activists spurned assimilation as a common goal long ago. Their fidelity lies with bilingualism (a euphemism for native language maintenance over English-first instruction), identity politics, ethnic militancy and a borderless continent.

Obama blames "politics" for the intractable immigration debate. Whose politics? The amnesty mob has taken to ambushing congressional offices this week to scream at lawmakers to choose "reform" (giving a blanket path to citizenship to millions of illegal aliens) or "racism" (their description of any and every legislative measure to stiffen sanctions for and deter the acts of border-jumping, visa-overstaying and deportation-evading).

Is there no middle ground for all sides to agree that clearing naturalization application backlogs should take priority over expanding illegal alien benefits, or that tracking and deporting violent illegal alien criminals should take precedence over handing out driver's licenses to illegal aliens, or that streamlining the employee citizenship verification process for businesses (E-verify) and fixing outdated visa tracking databases should come before indiscriminately expanding temporary visa and guest worker programs?

Must every response to even the most modest of immigration enforcement measures be "RAAAAACIST"?

Further, as I've noted many times over the years when debating both Democrats and Republicans who fall back on empty phrases to justify putting the amnesty cart before the enforcement horse, we are not a "nation of immigrants." This is both a factual error and a warm-and-fuzzy non sequitur. Eighty-five percent of the residents currently in the United States were born here. Yes, we are almost all descendants of immigrants. But we are not a "nation of immigrants." (And the politically correct president certainly wouldn't argue that Native American Indians, Native Alaskans, Native Hawaiians and descendants of black slaves "immigrated" here in any common sense of the word, would he?)

Even if we were a "nation of immigrants," it does not explain why we should be against sensible immigration control. The Founding Fathers were emphatically insistent on protecting the country against indiscriminate mass immigration. They insisted on assimilation as a pre-condition, not an afterthought. Historian John Fonte assembled their wisdom, and it bears repeating this Independence Day weekend:

George Washington, in a letter to John Adams, stated that immigrants should be absorbed into American life so that "by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures, laws: in a word soon become one people."

In a 1790 speech to Congress on the naturalization of immigrants, James Madison stated that America should welcome the immigrant who could assimilate, but exclude the immigrant who could not readily "incorporate himself into our society."

Alexander Hamilton wrote in 1802: "The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education and family."

Hamilton further warned that "The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils. It has been often likely to compromise the interests of our own country in favor of another. The permanent effect of such a policy will be, that in times of great public danger there will be always a numerous body of men, of whom there may be just grounds of distrust; the suspicion alone will weaken the strength of the nation, but their force may be actually employed in assisting an invader."

The survival of the American republic, Hamilton maintained, depends upon "the preservation of a national spirit and a national character." "To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens the moment they put foot in our country would be nothing less than to admit the Grecian horse into the citadel of our liberty and sovereignty."

As pro-amnesty extremists moan that "we didn't cross the borders, the borders crossed us" and illegal alien marchers haul foreign flags above Old Glory, President Obama pretends that the "common national sentiment" our Founding Fathers embraced still binds us all together. Many of us still have faith in a strong, sovereign America - the unhyphenated, the law-abiding, the gratitude-filled sons and daughters and grandchildren of legal immigrants for whom such distinctions still matter. But it's no thanks to the assimilation saboteurs who put "one world" over "one nation under God."

For all his John Wayne rhetoric on the BP oil spill, President Obama has failed to administer a swift kick to the ample, deserving rump of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. No matter. Federal judge Martin Feldman has now done the job the White House won't do.

In a scathing ruling issued Tuesday afternoon, New Orleans-based Feldman overturned the administration's radical six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling -- and he singled out Salazar's central role in jury-rigging a federal panel's scientific report to bolster flagrantly politicized conclusions. In a sane world, Salazar's head would roll. In Obama's world, he gets immunity.

The suit challenging Obama's desperately political ban was filed by Covington, La., rig company Hornbeck Offshore Services, which spoke on behalf of all the "small people" in the industry whose economic survival is at stake. As the plaintiffs' lawyer argued in court, the overbroad ban promised to be more devastating to Gulf workers than the spill itself. "This is an unprecedented industry-wide shutdown. Never before has the government done this," attorney Carl Rosenblum said.

Scientists who served on the committee expressed outrage upon discovering earlier this month that Salazar had -- unilaterally and without warning -- inserted a blanket drilling ban recommendation into their report. As Feldman recounted in his ruling:

In the Executive Summary to the Report, (Salazar) recommends "a six-month moratorium on permits for new wells being drilled using floating rigs." He also recommends "an immediate halt to drilling operations on the 33 permitted wells, not including relief wells currently being drilled by BP, that are currently being drilled using floating rigs in the Gulf of Mexico."

Much to the government's discomfort and this Court's uneasiness, the Summary also states that "the recommendations contained in this report have been peer-reviewed by seven experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering." As the plaintiffs, and the experts themselves, pointedly observe, this statement was misleading. The experts charge it was a "misrepresentation." It was factually incorrect.

Allow me to be more injudicious: Salazar lied. Salazar committed fraud. Salazar sullied the reputations of the experts involved and abused his authority.

And for what purpose? To exploit the Gulf crisis, appease the eco-extremists and stymie the economic recovery to which the Obama White House pays oily lip service.

The scientists whose views were misrepresented reportedly received an apology from the evidence-doctoring Salazar, but where are the consequences? Where is the accountability? Terrific news: Salazar, the report-rigger, is in charge of overseeing it. That's right. The Teflon Interior Secretary spent Monday afternoon swearing in another bureaucrat, litigator Michael Bromwich, who will head the newly named "Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement" (formerly the beleaguered Minerals Management Service).

According to Salazar, Bromwich "will be a key part of our team as we continue to change the way the Department of the Interior does business." Present company exempted, of course.

Feldman soberly illuminated the way the Department of Interior does business in concluding that Salazar's "invalid agency decision to suspend drilling of wells in depths of over 500 feet simply cannot justify the immeasurable effect on the plaintiffs, the local economy, the Gulf region and the critical present-day aspect of the availability of domestic energy in this country." Salazar, with his boss's blessing, imposed the blanket moratorium on Hornbeck and 33 permitted rigs without a shred of threat/safety analysis. Of course, Hope and Change have always been exercised with Arbitrary and Capricious power.

The White House immediately announced plans to appeal the ruling. But for once, Chicago-on-the-Potomac has run smack into the rule of law and lost. For all the other small people over whom the Obama administration has run roughshod, let's hope it sets a lasting precedent.

Uncertainty about future taxes and regulations is enemy No. 1 of economic growth.

The administration's stimulus program has failed. Growth is slow and unemployment remains high. The president, his friends and advisers talk endlessly about the circumstances they inherited as a way of avoiding responsibility for the 18 months for which they are responsible.

But they want new stimulus measures-which is convincing evidence that they too recognize that the earlier measures failed. And so the U.S. was odd-man out at the G-20 meeting over the weekend, continuing to call for more government spending in the face of European resistance.

The contrast with President Reagan's antirecession and pro-growth measures in 1981 is striking. Reagan reduced marginal and corporate tax rates and slowed the growth of nondefense spending. Recovery began about a year later. After 18 months, the economy grew more than 9% and it continued to expand above trend rates.

Two overarching reasons explain the failure of Obamanomics. First, administration economists and their outside supporters neglected the longer-term costs and consequences of their actions. Second, the administration and Congress have through their deeds and words heightened uncertainty about the economic future. High uncertainty is the enemy of investment and growth.

Most of the earlier spending was a very short-term response to long-term problems. One piece financed temporary tax cuts. This was a mistake, and ignores the role of expectations in the economy. Economic theory predicts that temporary tax cuts have little effect on spending. Unless tax cuts are expected to last, consumers save the proceeds and pay down debt. Experience with past temporary tax reductions, as in the Carter and first Bush presidencies, confirms this outcome.

Another large part of the stimulus went to relieve state and local governments of their budget deficits. Transferring a deficit from the state to the federal government changes very little. Some teachers and police got an additional year of employment, but their gain is temporary. Any benefits to them must be balanced against the negative effect of the increased public debt and the temporary nature of the transfer.

The Obama economic team ignored past history. The two most successful fiscal stimulus programs since World War II-under Kennedy-Johnson and Reagan-took the form of permanent reductions in corporate and marginal tax rates. Economist Arthur Okun, who had a major role in developing the Kennedy-Johnson program, later analyzed the effect of individual items. He concluded that corporate tax reduction was most effective.

Another defect of Obamanomics was that part of the increased spending authorized by the 2009 stimulus bill was held back. Remember the oft-repeated claim that the spending would go for "shovel ready" projects? That didn't happen, though spending will flow more rapidly now in an effort to lower unemployment and claim economic success during the fall election campaign.

In his January 2010 State of the Union address, President Obama recognized that the United States must increase exports. He was right, but he has done little to help, either by encouraging investment to increase productivity, or by supporting trade agreements, despite his promise to the Koreans that he repeated in Toronto. Export earnings are the only way to service our massive foreign borrowing. This should be a high priority. Isn't anyone in the government thinking about the future?

Mr. Obama has denied the cost burden on business from his health-care program, but business is aware that it is likely to be large. How large? That's part of the uncertainty that employers face if they hire additional labor.

The president asks for cap and trade. That's more cost and more uncertainty. Who will be forced to pay? What will it do to costs here compared to foreign producers? We should not expect businesses to invest in new, export-led growth when uncertainty about future costs is so large.

Then there is Medicaid, the medical program for those with lower incomes. In the past, states paid about half of the cost, and they are responsible for 20% of the additional cost imposed by the program's expansion. But almost all the states must balance their budgets, and the new Medicaid spending mandated by ObamaCare comes at a time when states face large deficits and even larger unfunded liabilities for pensions. All this only adds to uncertainty about taxes and spending.

Other aspects of the Obama economic program are equally problematic. The auto bailouts ran roughshod over the rule of law. Chrysler bondholders were given short shrift in order to benefit the auto workers union. By weakening the rule of law, the president opened the way to great mischief and increased investors' and producers' uncertainty. That's not the way to get more investment and employment.

Almost daily, Mr. Obama uses his rhetorical skill to castigate businessmen who have the audacity to hope for profitable opportunities. No president since Franklin Roosevelt has taken that route. President Roosevelt slowed recovery in 1938-40 until the war by creating uncertainty about his objectives. It was harmful then, and it's harmful now.

In 1980, I had the privilege of advising Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to ignore the demands of 360 British economists who made the outrageous claim that Britain would never (yes, never) recover from her decision to reduce government spending during a severe recession. They wanted more spending. She responded with a speech promising to stay with her tight budget. She kept a sustained focus on long-term problems. Expectations about the economy's future improved, and the recovery soon began.

That's what the U.S. needs now. Not major cuts in current spending, but a credible plan showing that authorities will not wait for a fiscal crisis but begin to act prudently and continue until deficits disappear, and the debt is below 60% of GDP. Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wisc.) offered a plan, but the administration and Congress ignored it.

The country does not need more of the same. Successful leaders give the public reason to believe that they have a long-term program to bring a better tomorrow. Let's plan our way out of our explosive deficits and our hesitant and jobless recovery by reducing uncertainty and encouraging growth.

Congressional Democrats are now demanding another economic stimulus package to "inject" as much as $300 billion into the economy. The package will fail -- just like last year's $333 billion in emergency spending and $150 billion in tax rebates failed. There's a simple reason why.

Government stimulus bills are based on the idea that feeding new money into the economy will increase demand, and thus production. But where does government get this money? Congress doesn't have its own stash. Every dollar it injects into the economy must first be taxed or borrowed out of the economy. No new spending power is created. It's merely redistributed from one group of people to another.

Of course, advocates of stimulus respond that redistributing money from "savers" to "spenders" will lead to additional spending. That assumes that savers store spare cash in their mattresses, thereby removing it from the economy. In reality, nearly all Americans either invest their savings (where it finances business investment) or deposit it in banks (which quickly lend it to others to spend). The money gets spent whether it is initially consumed or saved.

Governments don't create new purchasing power out of thin air. If Congress funds new spending with taxes, it is redistributing existing income. If the money is borrowed from American investors, those investors will have that much less to invest or to spend in the private economy. If the money is borrowed from foreigners, the balance of payments must still balance. That means reducing net exports through exchange-rate adjustments, thereby leaving net spending on the economy unchanged.

Yet Congress will soon borrow $300 billion from one group of people and then give it to another group of people and tell us we're all wealthier for it.

Lawmakers commit this fallacy repeatedly. They tout unemployment and food-stamp spending as stimulus without asking where the programs' funding comes from. They hype a federal bailout of the states as stimulus, as if having Congress do the taxing and borrowing instead of state governments makes it a free lunch.

And, especially in this era, when "our crumbling infrastructure" seems to have become the new mantra, legislators and lobbyists tout a 2002 Department of Transportation (DOT) study that they believe proves that every $1 billion spent on highways adds 47,576 new jobs to the economy.

The problem is that the study doesn't actually make that claim. It stated that spending $1 billion on highways would require 47,576 workers (or more precisely, would require 26,524 workers, who then spend their income elsewhere, supporting an additional 21,052 workers). But before the government can spend $1 billion hiring road builders and purchasing asphalt, it must first tax or borrow $1 billion from other sectors of the economy, which then lose a similar number of jobs.

In other words, highway spending merely transfers jobs and income from one part of the economy to another. As economist Ronald Utt has explained, "The only way that $1 billion of new highway spending can create 47,576 new jobs is if the $1 billion appears out of nowhere as if it were manna from heaven."

The DOT tried to correct this misperception in an April 2008 memo specifying that their analysis refers to "jobs supported by highway investments, not jobs created" (italics in the original). The Government Accountability Office and Congressional Research Service also released studies making the same point.

In reality, economic growth -- the act of producing more goods and services -- can be accomplished only by making American workers more productive. Productivity growth requires a motivated and educated workforce, sufficient levels of capital equipment and technology, a solid infrastructure, and a legal system and rule of law sufficient to enforce contracts.

The best measure of a policy's impact on economic growth is through productivity rates. Lower marginal tax rates encourage working, saving and investment, all of which increase productivity (as opposed to tax rebates, which are grants that require no additional productive efforts). Reforming -- rather than merely throwing money at -- education and infrastructure will raise future productivity. These necessary improvements would take time and shouldn't be considered short-term "stimulus."

It's time for lawmakers to stop futilely trying to wave the magic wand of short-term "stimulus" spending, which threatens to push the deficit above $1 trillion. Focusing on productivity will build a stronger economy over the long run and leave America better prepared to handle future economic downturns.

In just six months, the largest tax hikes in the history of America will take effect. They will hit families and small businesses in three great waves on January 1, 2011:

In 2001 and 2003, the GOP Congress enacted several tax cuts for investors, small business owners, and families. These will all expire on January 1, 2011:

Personal income tax rates will rise. The top income tax rate will rise from 35 to 39.6 percent (this is also the rate at which two-thirds of small business profits are taxed). The lowest rate will rise from 10 to 15 percent. All the rates in between will also rise. Itemized deductions and personal exemptions will again phase out, which has the same mathematical effect as higher marginal tax rates. The full list of marginal rate hikes is below:

Higher taxes on marriage and family. The "marriage penalty" (narrower tax brackets for married couples) will return from the first dollar of income. The child tax credit will be cut in half from $1000 to $500 per child. The standard deduction will no longer be doubled for married couples relative to the single level. The dependent care and adoption tax credits will be cut.

The return of the Death Tax. This year, there is no death tax. For those dying on or after January 1 2011, there is a 55 percent top death tax rate on estates over $1 million. A person leaving behind two homes and a retirement account could easily pass along a death tax bill to their loved ones.

Higher tax rates on savers and investors. The capital gains tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 20 percent in 2011. The dividends tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 39.6 percent in 2011. These rates will rise another 3.8 percent in 2013.

There are over twenty new or higher taxes in Obamacare. Several will first go into effect on January 1, 2011. They include:

The "Medicine Cabinet Tax" Thanks to Obamacare, Americans will no longer be 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).

The "Special Needs Kids Tax" This provision of Obamacare imposes a cap on flexible spending accounts (FSAs) of $2500 (Currently, there is no federal government limit). 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.

The HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike. This provision of Obamacare increases the 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.

When Americans prepare to file their tax returns in January of 2011, they'll be in for a nasty surprise-the AMT won't be held harmless, and many tax relief provisions will have expired. The major items include:

The AMT will ensnare over 28 million families, up from 4 million last year. According to the left-leaning Tax Policy Center, Congress' failure to index the AMT will lead to an explosion of AMT taxpaying families-rising from 4 million last year to 28.5 million. These families will have to calculate their tax burdens twice, and pay taxes at the higher level. The AMT was created in 1969 to ensnare a handful of taxpayers.

Small business expensing will be slashed and 50% expensing will disappear. Small businesses can normally expense (rather than slowly-deduct, or "depreciate") equipment purchases up to $250,000. This will be cut all the way down to $25,000. Larger businesses can expense half of their purchases of equipment. In January of 2011, all of it will have to be "depreciated."

Taxes will be raised on all types of businesses. There are literally scores of tax hikes on business that will take place. The biggest is the loss of the "research and experimentation tax credit," but there are many, many others. Combining high marginal tax rates with the loss of this tax relief will cost jobs.

Tax Benefits for Education and Teaching Reduced. The deduction for tuition and fees will not be available. Tax credits for education will be limited. Teachers will no longer be able to deduct classroom expenses. Coverdell Education Savings Accounts will be cut. Employer-provided educational assistance is curtailed. The student loan interest deduction will be disallowed for hundreds of thousands of families.

Charitable Contributions from IRAs no longer allowed. Under current law, a retired person with an IRA can contribute up to $100,000 per year directly to a charity from their IRA. This contribution also counts toward an annual "required minimum distribution." This ability will no longer be there.

Give a gun to each person in the United States - desiring to lawfully carry it for self defense. This person must be a law abiding citizen (no criminal record, age 21 , no mental history, you know...responsible). Make sure he/she knows how to use it for self defense (proper training). You'll see violent crime drop substantially.

* Here's the obvious: If you're a criminal - do you break into a house where a little old lady will shoot you or where a helpless victim is easy prey?

* If you're a criminal - do you care anything about the law? Obviously not! Isn't it naive to believe criminals will follow gun control laws?

* Why have we let our government legislate us into becoming potential victims? Criminals have guns while law-abiding citizens are left helpless.

* Why add more gun control laws when criminals clearly ignore existing gun control laws?

* Any gun control that restricts law-abiding citizens is ridiculous - we're not the people who commit crimes.

* More guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens will lower crime and make the world a better place.

* One more quick point: If gun control works - why is crime so high in Washington D.C.? After all, guns are barely allowed in D.C.

WASHINGTON -- Residents of Austin, Texas, home of the state's government and flagship university, have very refined social consciences, if they do say so themselves, and they do say so, speaking via bumper stickers. Don R. Willett, a justice of the state Supreme Court, has commuted behind bumpers proclaiming "Better a Bleeding Heart Than None at All," "Practice Random Acts of Kindness and Senseless Beauty," "The Moral High Ground Is Built on Compassion," "Arms Are For Hugging," "Will Work (When the Jobs Come Back From India)," "Jesus Is a Liberal," "God Wants Spiritual Fruits, Not Religious Nuts," "The Road to Hell Is Paved With Republicans," "Republicans Are People Too -- Mean, Selfish, Greedy People" and so on. But Willett thinks Austin subverts a stereotype: "The belief that liberals care more about the poor may scratch a partisan or ideological itch, but the facts are hostile witnesses."

Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.

The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism, Willett says, is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks' book says, "the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have 'no religion' has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s." America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative. One demonstration that religion is a strong determinant of charitable behavior is that the least charitable cohort is a relatively small one -- secular conservatives.

Reviewing Brooks' book in the Texas Review of Law & Politics, Justice Willett notes that Austin -- it voted 56 percent for Kerry while he was getting just 38 percent statewide -- is ranked by The Chronicle of Philanthropy as 48th out of America's 50 largest cities in per capita charitable giving. Brooks' data about disparities between liberals' and conservatives' charitable giving fit these facts: Democrats represent a majority of the wealthiest congressional districts, and half of America's richest households live in states where both senators are Democrats.

While conservatives tend to regard giving as a personal rather than governmental responsibility, some liberals consider private charity a retrograde phenomenon -- a poor palliative for an inadequate welfare state, and a distraction from achieving adequacy by force, by increasing taxes. Ralph Nader, running for president in 2000, said: "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity." Brooks, however, warns: "If support for a policy that does not exist ... substitutes for private charity, the needy are left worse off than before. It is one of the bitterest ironies of liberal politics today that political opinions are apparently taking the place of help for others."

In 2000, brows were furrowed in perplexity because Vice President Al Gore's charitable contributions, as a percentage of his income, were below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income, one-seventh of the average for donating households. But Gore "gave at the office." By using public office to give other peoples' money to government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, and conveniently, understand that word.

Harry Truman was a different kind of President. He probably made as many, or more important decisions regarding our nation's history as any of the other 42 Presidents preceding him. However, a measure of his greatness may rest on what he did after he left the White House.

The only asset he had when he died was the house he lived in, which was in Independence Missouri. His wife had inherited the house from her mother and father and other than their years in the White House, they lived their entire lives there.

When he retired from office in 1952, his income was a U.S. Army pension reported to have been $13,507.72 a year. Congress, noting that he was paying for his stamps and personally licking them, granted him an 'allowance' and, later, a retroactive pension of $25,000 per year.

After President Eisenhower was inaugurated, Harry and Bess drove home to Missouri by themselves. There was no Secret Service following them.

When offered corporate positions at large salaries, he declined, stating, "You don't want me. You want the office of the President, and that doesn't belong to me. It belongs to the American people and it's not for sale."

Even later, on May 6, 1971, when Congress was preparing to award him the Medal of Honor on his 87th birthday, he refused to accept it, writing, "I don't consider that I have done anything which should be the reason for any award, Congressional or otherwise."

Modern politicians have found a new level of success in cashing in on the Presidency, resulting in untold wealth. Today, many in Congress also have found a way to become quite wealthy while enjoying the fruits of their offices. Political offices are now for sale. (sic. Illinois )

Good old Harry Truman was correct when he observed, "My choices in life were either to be a piano player in a whore house or a politician. And to tell the truth, there's hardly any difference!

Are Conservatives driving you up a wall at work, school or at home? Here is a list of 10 things I hate about conservatives

1. Greedy- Conservatives love to talk about money, and how they hate having to pay for welfare moms and illegal immigrants.

2. "Moral Values"- Conservatives are always harping about moral values even though it's been Republican's who have the most scandals (Vitters, Foley, Gingrich, Haggard, Baker)

3. Patriotism- Conservatives constantly wave the flag and say they are patriotic and will call anyone "un-patriotic" if you disagree with the war in Iraq.

4. Terrible in Bed- Conservatives are the worst in the bedroom. The women think it's the 1950's and you can only use one position.

5. Hypocrites- Conservatives lambasted President Clinton for lying under oath but have become quit since George Bush's lies have been made public.

6. George W. Bush- They elected George W. Bush as their conservative leader.....enough said.

8. Intolerant- Conservatives have been at the forefront of intolerance, whether it's women, African-Americans or Gays and Lesbians.

9. Talk Radio- Conservatives dominate the talk radio waves with their bigoted and hate-filled comments so you can't even think about turning the dial to AM.

10. Global Warming?- Conservatives choose to believe in a mythical god in the sky but when scientific evidence points to humans being the cause of Global Warming they ignore it as liberal spin.

Are Liberals driving you nuts at work, school or at home? Here is a list of 10 things that I hate about Liberals.

1. No War on Terrorism- Liberals believe that there really is no war on terror and that it's just a "bumper sticker," I guess those 3,000 dead bodies in New York can't disagree.

2. Obsession with Global Warming- Liberals are obsessed with Global Warming, and consider it the most important issue of our times. I'm sorry but I'm more concerned with terrorists flying planes into buildings then the temperature increasing 1 degree every 100 years.

3. Human Shield- Liberals love to put human shields up to cover their weak arguments ("You can't attack Cindy Sheehan, she lost a son in war!) even though their comments and arguments are incoherent and wrong.

4. Conservatives are stupid- Liberals consider themselves to be above "country folks" intellectually and think of conservatives as stupid or ignorant.

5. Tolerance? Liberals are always preaching about tolerance towards Gays, Lesbians and other minorities yet spew some of the most viscious and hate-filled comments towards Christianity and other people of faith.

6. Liberals Smell- Hippies, a wild and untamed form of liberal, think it's a good idea not to use deodorant or shower. That's fine if you decide to live in the woods and smoke grass but please don't stand next to me on the subway.

7. Peace Dudes- Liberals constantly hold up the peace sign and think peace is the answer to all of the worlds problems. (War, Genocide) I think Hitler, Stalin and Osama would disagree.

8. Dominate TV News- Liberals dominate TV News and constantly slant every news story in their favor.

9. Hypocrites- Liberals constantly preach about gun control, public schools and global warming. But do they practice what they preach? Rosie O'Donnel's bodyguards carry guns, Michael Moore sends his kids to private schools and Leonardo Dicaprio and Al Gore still fly around in private jets.

10. No Ideas- Liberals are always talking about "terrible Iraq War" and the problems with Social Security but when pressed for ideas on what they would do give you blank stares.

I count three current or former Georgians on the list - Newt Gingrich, Clarence Thomas and Erick Erickson; no Tom Price or Ralph Reed - and it's interesting that 4.5 of the top 10 are women (the half referring to the fact that No. 7 is "the tea party patriot").

8. Dick Cheney (Only question imo is whether he or Karl Rove ires liberals more.)

7. The tea party patriot (A little too close to "Time's Person of the Year: You" for my taste.)

6. Michelle Malkin (Not many liberals naming babies Michelle [or Michele] these days, I suppose.)

4. George W. Bush (How many years will pass before he makes it out of the top 10? Will he, or we, live to see it?)

Obama and Congresses’ out of control spending, text and video of John Boehner:

This is hilarious! 238 presidential scholars rate President Obama, after 18 months in office, as the 15^th greatest president ever. #1 is FDR; and surprisingly enough, TR was #2. Interestingly enough, Hoover was in the bottom 10, even though is was only slightly to the right of FDR. Of course, W is listed is 5^th from the bottom.

Here’s the article where some of the individual scores are examined (e.g., when it comes to the economy, Obama is rated higher than Reagan):

Megan Kelly interview J. Christian Adams, the DOJ lawyer who resigned because poll intimidation charges were dropped against Black Panthers:

Is this true? The biggest users of emergency rooms are medicare patients? That is only a part of the article, but it certainly jumped out at me.

Critics of of Obamacare say the $5 billion high-risk pool program will run out of money before Jan. 1, 2014.

[this is one of the funniest things I have heard on Rush’s show; but it won’t translate very well, unfortunately]

RUSH: For little comic relief before we get back to Kagan sound bites. John Lewis -- you want to know what Obamaville sounds like? United States of America is now Obamaville. You know, back in Herbert Hoover's days they called places of high unemployment Hoovervilles. The whole country is Obamaville. On the House floor during one-minute speeches, John Lewis, Democrat, Georgia, spoke and said...

LEWIS: Mr. Speaker, it is a shame and a disgrace that we did not extend unemployment insurance. Every single mem'er who voted yesterday should be ashamed of themselves. People are suffering, they are hurting, they are in pain, they cannot make ends meet -- and too many, just too many on the other side of the aisle turn a deaf ear! (shouting) I ask my Republican colleagues, "Can't you hear? Can't you feel? Can't you see? Where is your heart? Where is your compassion? Where is your concern? Extend unemployment benefit[s], and extend it now.

RUSH: John Lewis of Georgia, a Democrat member of the US House of Representatives. That's the sound of Obamaville. Obama was going to end all of this misery. Obama was gonna bring about a screeching halt to it. Where is the end of the misery? (interruption) No, Snerdley, don't do that. (laughing) Snerdley... (interruption) Snerdley, don't do this, because you're gonna cause me to start doing it, and if I do it, we are in deep doo-doo. Snerdley is impersonating John Lewis on the IFB, very effectively so. I can also impersonate John Lewis, effectively so, but if I do it, I'm in deep doo-doo. All right, let's turn now to the Official Obama Criticizer. The Official Obama Criticizer, Bo Snerdley, with a reaction to the one-minute floor rant of Congressman John Lewis of Georgia.

SNERDLEY: (doing John Lewis impression) Where is your heart? Where is your compa'shun? We want everybody on unemployment from now until forever and ever. Where are your feelings? Where, where, where is your money? That money is ours, and we want to give that money -- from Obama's stash, from my stash, from your stash -- to my unemployed peoples. Where is your feelings. (end impression) Thank you.

RUSH: That's Official Obama Criticizer Bo Snerdley. Could I...? I heard during the Clarence Thomas hearings, I heard Congressman Lewis say something. I want to tell you in my voice what he said. Would you repeat it in his voice? He was equally passionate, energetic. He was in the well of the House, the floor of the House, and he said, "I have been beaten upside the head, but it doesn't mean that I'm qualified to be on the Supreme Court." Would you say that in John Lewis' voice? Three, two... Here's the Official Obama Criticizer, Bo Snerdley.

SNERDLEY: (doing John Lewis impression) I have been beaten upside the head, but it doesn't mean that I am qualified to be on the Supreme Court.

RUSH: It's the Summer of Recovery. How's that working out for you? Thirteen thousand, 13,000 private sector jobs added in June. If you divide 13,000 by 50, just for illustration purposes, you get 260 jobs created in the private sector per state. Two hundred sixty jobs per state. This is Herbert Hoover type stuff. Obama is Herbert Hoover, except Hoover wasn't trying to do it. Obama is. Great to have you, folks, Rush Limbaugh, fastest week in media, already Wednesday. Damn. 800-282-2882 if you want to be on the program. The e-mail address, ElRushbo@eibnet.com.

Obama is Herbert Hoover. You know they used to call those unemployment camps Hoovervilles. Well, now we're going to see Obamavilles springing up all across the nation. Thirteen thousand private sector jobs created last month. That means we only have 7,987,000 jobs to go until we reach where we were before, and that would total eight million except Vice President Bite Me said that we're never going to get those jobs back. And at this rate, this may be the first accurate thing that Vice President Bite Me has said in quite a while. That's why I say, Snerdley, Hoover was trying to fix things. Obama's not. The only difference is Obama is doing this on purpose. Hoover wasn't. The whole country is Obamaville. The whole country, Obamaville. Obama's America. The way to look at this is we have destroyed our economy to create 13,000 jobs in one month, 260 jobs per state. This is day nine of the Summer of Recovery. On day nine of the Summer of Recovery we get this news. Thirteen thousand jobs in June, 260 per state. And it's even less than that, if you divide it by 57, which is the number of states Obama said he visited during the campaign.

As I point out, this is being done on purpose. Now, according to Obama, this is progress, because we're not losing 700,000 jobs a month. Now, consider how stupid that is. We were never going to lose 700,000 jobs per month for years and years, because we don't have enough people working age to lose 700,000 jobs every month for years and years. So here we have the first president in history, to my knowledge, anyway, who actually wants his nation to fail. And, by the way, Wall Street Journal today, "Why Obamanomics Has Failed." Do you realize how cutting edge your host and this program was back on January 16th of 2009? "I hope he fails." "Why Obamanomics Has Failed." This is Allan Meltzer in the Wall Street Journal today. "Uncertainty about future taxes and regulations is enemy No. 1 of economic growth." Amen, right on, right on, right on. We're going to have massive tax increases hitting next January. People are still not sure how much it's going to cost them, particularly businesses. That's why there's no hiring. Thirteen thousand jobs in June. I took heat, and in some sectors, ladies and gentlemen, I'm still taking heat for saying I wanted Obama to fail. But I wanted him to fail because I want the nation to succeed. We now see that Obama succeeding does not equal the nation succeeding, and that is a major, major thing for people to have to come to grips with.

Remember when I said I hope he fails people said, "Oh, Limbaugh voting against the country; Limbaugh wants the country to fail." It was just the exact opposite. Obama succeeds, gets what he wants, what happens to you? What happens to your job, what happens to your taxes, what happens to your private sector? Obama is praised for wanting the nation to fail in order for him to succeed. Listen to this headline. This is a brilliant headline from Reuters: "Hiring By Private Companies Up Slightly In June." Up slightly, 13,000 jobs, 260 per state. The country is Obamaville and they say hiring by private countries is up slightly in June. Headline ought to be: "Obama Spent Us Into Bankruptcy For This? Thirteen Thousand Jobs A Month?" Now, you couple this with the consumer confidence number, I told you yesterday, the Drive-Bys, they're depressed as they can be, because it was supposed to be panacea, this was supposed to be utopia. Everything, 18 months in, liberalism unchecked, it wasn't going to be Detroit nationwide, it was going to be the Garden of Eden, it was going to be everybody who can't afford a house is in a house anyway so that it's fair. Everybody who wants a job is going to have a job, digging ditches or what have you. It isn't happening.

And now there's a disconnect between the American people and the president, and the Drive-Bys don't like that. Investor's Business Daily headline: "A Drop In Confidence? No Wonder! -- As the White House proclaims its 'recovery summer,' --" this is day nine, by the way "-- Americans are suddenly feeling pretty bad about things. Maybe it's because their can-do spirit has come face-to-face with a 'can't-do' government. Given the many serious problems faced by the U.S., the last thing we need is a government that runs up spending to unprecedented levels and then says, sorry, we can't fix anything. But that's exactly where we find ourselves today." After all of the spending, $1 trillion to destroy the private sector for 13,000 jobs, and there have been a couple of other stimulus package since then. For 13,000 jobs. We got Obama and Geithner saying, "No, no, no, no, the days of America being the engine of economic growth, no, no, no, those days are over." Vice President Bite Me, "Those eight million jobs, no, we're never going to be able to replace them." There's not one person in any position of leadership anywhere in this regime or the Democrat Party that speaks positively about this country, its past, or its future. Certainly not its present. We have a party happily, apparently, to be presiding over the nation's decline, which in fact may be one of the purposes.

"The 'can't dos' from our elected and appointed officials, both at the federal and state level, are piling up. Consider the following: 'I can't suck the oil up with a straw,' said President Obama when asked what he was doing about the BP spill that began April 20. Nor could he approve the building of sand berms, or the suspension of the Jones Act, which would have let foreign skimmers into U.S. waters to help with the oil cleanup. 'You're never going to totally seal that border,' said Janet Napolitano, making excuses for why Homeland Security has essentially ceded entire parts of Arizona to violent Mexican smuggling rings while still seeking 'comprehensive immigration reform,'" and suing the state of Arizona and joining boycotts, the federal government. That's really confidence inspiring.

"'I think the world understands now that growth in the future around the world cannot depend as much on the United States as it did in the past,' opined Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner in a defeatist interview with the BBC before the G-20 summit. 'There's no possibility to restore 8 million jobs lost in the Great Recession' was how Vice President Joe Biden put it at a fundraiser for Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold. But wasn't that the reason for the $862 billion stimulus package, the $700 billion in bailouts and the takeover of the auto industry and Wall Street?" Wasn't it to get back the eight million jobs that were lost? And now this inspiring regime says, "Ah, sorry, can't happen, can't close the border, not gonna lead the world, not sure we want to win in Afghanistan, screw the oil leak, and not going to get those eight million jobs back."

Steny Hoyer, House Majority Leader: "It isn't possible to debate and pass a realistic, long-term budget until we've considered the bipartisan commission's deficit-reduction plan." This is the can't-do administration. This is the won't-do administration. This is unparalleled. Never in my lifetime has there been an administration that is so filled daily with depression, negativism, can't-doism. There is nothing that is reflective of American exceptionalism, of the great American spirit represented anywhere in this regime. It's all malaise. And, meanwhile, Obama golfs and goes out and has burgers with Dmitry Medvedev, who probably has a little earpiece in, spies over in New Jersey reporting to him while he's chowing down on the burger. Even after Obama takes him to the burger joint, Medvedev comes back to the joint press conference and rips the burger joint. "Yeah, traditional American place, probably not very healthy, but very tasty." Mental midget, Dmitry Medvedev.

"On Tuesday, the Conference Board announced that the Consumer Confidence Index 'declined sharply' in June, erasing three months of gains. Its Expectations Index, which gauges how consumers view prospects, plunged 16%. All this confirmed our own IBD/TIPP Poll released earlier in the month. ... We can only guess, but consumers and investors are looking six months to a year off and see massive debt growth, higher taxes (the Bush tax cuts expire this year) and tepid economic and job growth. They are, to put it mildly, greatly disappointed." And there's not one word coming outta Washington from anybody in a leadership position which tells them it's going to be any different than how bad they are imagining it.

RUSH: Now, what happened to small businesses in the month of June? Small businesses, of course, Obama claims to be helping so much with all of his "tax cuts." Small businesses actually lost jobs. This is in May, according to ADP, from the report: "'Large businesses, defined as those with 500 or more [people], saw employment increase by 3,000 and employment among medium-size businesses, defined as those with between 50 and 499 workers increased by 11,000. Employment among small-size businesses, defined as those with fewer than 50 workers, decreased by 1,000 in June.'" But to be fair, Obama did prevent the swine flu from becoming a pandemic. We know that because Axelrod said it on The Daily Show the other night.

Of course... (interruption) Snerdley, I'm being facetious. That's the only thing he could say when asked, "What have you done right?"

Los Angeles Times Business Section has an unbelievable headline: "With Federal Stimulus Funds Running Out, Economic Worries Grow." The subheadline is even more unbelievable: "Much of the $787-billion stimulus has been spent, creating jobs and extending jobless benefits. But with lawmakers reluctant to approve more funding, concerns are rising about staving off another recession." LA Times, there aren't any jobs. Two hundred and sixty jobs a month have been created in June, 260 per state. The $787 billion "stimulus" led to the loss of three million jobs, and there has not been "an end to this recession," and already they're talking about another one, "double-dip" or what have you. The Los Angeles Times is joining the chorus pushing for yet another stimulus.

When I was growing up, there was a song that captivated me. My mother listened to radio all the time in the summer, and that song was Sixteen Tons by Tennessee Ernie Ford. I suspect many of you have not heard this song. Listen to it...

TENNESSEE ERNIE FORD: Some people say a man is made outta mud. A poor man's made outta muscle and blood. Muscle and blood and skin and bones, A mind that's a-weak and a back that's strong. You load sixteen tons, what do you get? Another day older and deeper in debt. Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go. I owe my soul to the company stoooore.

TENNESSEE ERNIE FORD: I was born one mornin' when the sun didn't shine. I picked up my shovel and I walked to the mine. I loaded sixteen tons of number nine coal, and the straw boss said, "Well, a-bless my soul." You load sixteen tons, what do you get? Another day older and deeper in debt. Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go. I owe my soul to the company stoooore.

TENNESSEE ERNIE FORD: I was born one mornin', it was drizzlin' rain. Fightin' and Trouble are my middle name. I was raised in the canebrake by an ol' mama lion. Can't no-a high-toned woman make me walk the line. You load sixteen tons, what do you get? Another day older and deeper in debt. Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go. I owe my soul to the company stoooore.

TENNESSEE ERNIE FORD: If you see me comin', better step aside. A lotta men didn't, a lotta men died. One fist of iron, the other of steel. If the right one don't a-get you, then the left one will. You load sixteen tons, what do you get? Another day older and deeper in debt. Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't goooo. I oooooowe my soooooul ... to the company stoooore.

RUSH: "I owe my soul to the company store" refers to debt bondage, and that's what we have in spades. The stimulus funds are running out; economic worries grow. That's Tennessee Ernie Ford. I was seven or eight years old listening to that song on the radio. If you like to put a face to a name (just off the top of my head), if you know what the owner of the Atlanta Falcons looks like, Arthur Blank, there's a similar resemblance to Tennessee Ernie Ford. "I owe my soul to the company store." "With home sales sliding, employers reluctant to hire, world stock markets gyrating wildly, the US economy is in danger of stalling." Stalling? Continuing its...? We're plummeting, for crying out loud!

"Now one of its own reliable sources of fuel is running out: federal stimulus money." Here we go. The LA Times is begging for another stimulus. That's the point this story. "Funds flowing from the [Porkulus] bill passed last year have helped create hundreds of thousands of jobs..." Who wrote this? Alana Semuels of the Los Angeles Times. "[C]reate thousands of job and propped up social programs, such as unemployment benefits. But with much of that money spent, and lawmakers reluctant to approve another big round of spending, concerns are rising about what will replace it in the short-term to keep the economy going." Not one word here about the private sector.

And the New York Times! This is why the New York Times is nothing more than overpriced bird cage liner now. A1, New York Times: "Bet on Private Sector for Recovery Could Prove Risky." That's the headline. It's the June 30th edition of New York Times front page. This sums up the thinking in the story: Keynesian government spending should be encouraged until the country becomes Greece, then it should stop. Tax hikes raise revenue. Spending cuts prevent economic growth. Tax cuts are not an option. The guy who writes this story never mentions them in his front page economic think piece in the New York Times. David Leonhardt (or Li-enhart, I'm not sure how he pronounces his name), but there you have it. "Bet on Private Sector for Recovery Could Prove Risky." Mr. Leonhardt, Leonhardt, however you spell or pronounce your name, the only hope we've got, the only salvation we've got is to revive the private sector. (sigh) That's the only place there has ever been genuine economic growth!

RUSH: Doing the work that at least 15 mainstream media newsrooms -- the work they used to do, anyway -- I am Rush Limbaugh, your guiding light.

You want to know the dirty little secret about the stimulus? Only 43% of it has been spent. According to the website Stimulus Speed Chart, it's Projects Propublica, as of June 18th they've only spent 43% of the stimulus -- and this was known going in. All these stories about we're outta stimulus money? No, no, no. We're out of stimulus money for YOU. We are not out of stimulus money for Democrats and their reelection campaigns because the stimulus bill was nothing but a giant slush fund. It was always the plan, that much of the Porkulus bill would not be spent until 2011. Some of it this year. But 2011, closer to Obama's reelection campaign -- and we were told a lot of contradictory things. We were also told that last year, "Ah, you gotta wait. You gotta wait 'til midsummer 2010. That's when the stimulus is gonna really kick in."

From Bloomberg back in January 2009, "A Congressional Budget Office analysis of President Barack Obama's plan found that most of the approximately $355 billion in proposed discretionary spending on highways, renewable energy and other initiatives wouldn't be spent before 2011. The government would spend about $26 billion of the money this year and $110 billion more [in 2010], the report said." CBO says, Bloomberg again, "Much of Stimulus Won't Be Spent Before 2011." Only 43% of it has been spent. That makes it even worse, folks! None of it has been spent on jobs. There haven't been any jobs created with this. We've got 260 jobs per state in June. By the way, Pro Publica, the source for "43% of the stimulus has been spent" is a left-wing site.

Now, the best thing Obama could do to help the economy is to not spend the rest of the stimulus. Let that money stay in the private sector where it would grow real jobs. But they won't even think of that. He has to protect the unions and the rest of his foot soldiers. He has to save his job. So this is a slush fund. It's going to be spent for him, for his supporters, for Democrats in campaigns this year, and in 2011, for Mr. Obama. And this New York Times story today... I kid you not. Here's a quick excerpt. "Bet on Private Sector for Recovery Could Prove Risky ... So it's easy to confuse its condition (bad) with its direction (better) and to lose sight of how much worse it could be. The unyielding criticism from those who opposed stimulus from the get-go -- laissez-faire economists, Congressional Republicans, German leaders -- plays a role, too. They're able to shout louder than the data."

This is the problem. It's not just economic illiteracy, it isn't just a total lack of critical thinking. This reporter is reporting liberal propaganda. He is incapable of looking at the results of failed liberal policies and drawing logical conclusions 'cause he's a partisan tool. According to the author, Mr. Leonhardt, or "Lien-hart," (I don't know how he pronounces it) out-of-control spending and debt accumulation resuscitate dying economies that failed due to out-of-control spending and debt accumulation. This story is senseless. It is deranged. It is delusional. "Bet on Private Sector for Recovery Could Prove Risky"? What that means is: You're too stupid, you can't be counted on. The government has to make these decisions. The government has to spend this money because you're too idiotic to know what to do.

RUSH: Hey, Mike, grab sound bite number eight, go a little bit out of order here as we get to the Elena Kagan hearings, the Obama rubber-stamp hearings. Even TIME Magazine has a story out there, "Are these hearings even relevant anymore?" And the reason they're asking that is 'cause it's boring as hell. Nobody's challenging her on things except Jeff Sessions. She's getting away with saying she doesn't know what progressivism is. It's like saying she doesn't know what liberalism is. I'll tell you what, we have so successfully tarnished the terms liberal, progressive, whatever they want to call themselves, they can't afford to identify with them. She's out there claiming to have no clue what progressive legalism is. That's like saying that Marx has no idea what communism is. And I'm not exaggerating. Now, yesterday Tom Coburn asked her a question during the Q&A. He said, "What about the commerce clause and the federal government telling people what they can and cannot eat?"

COBURN: If I wanted to sponsor a bill, and it said, "Americans, you have to eat three vegetables and three fruits every day," and I got it through Congress, and it's now the law of the land, does that violate the commerce clause?

KAGAN: But I think that the question of whether it's a dumb law is different from whether -- the question of whether it's constitutional. And I think that courts would be wrong to strike down laws that they think are senseless just because they're senseless.

COBURN: What is the extent of the commerce clause? We have this wide embrace of the commerce clause which these guys who wrote this never, ever fathomed that we would be so stupid to take our liberties away by expanding the commerce clause this way.

RUSH: She would not deny that the federal government has the power through the commerce clause to tell us what we can and can't eat. She would not deny it, because she wants to reserve that power for herself and for her friends on the left. If the commerce clause is so powerful why wasn't it used to do away with slavery? But here's the real irony in this. Liberals tell us in the Constitution there is a right to privacy regarding a woman's reproductive rights. But there is no right to privacy when it comes to all of our digestive rights. That's essentially what Kagan is saying here. The government telling us what to eat -- and, by the way, it's not a theoretical question. They already do. Go to New York and try to get some trans fat. If the mayor up there gets his way, salt is going to be regulated. There won't be any. Is that their right, to tell you what you can and can't eat? She wouldn't answer the question. If there is a right to privacy regarding abortion, I would certainly think the people arguing that point would say there's a right to privacy when it comes to the food we consume and digest.

If our reproductive rights, or at least a woman's, are totally off the record and private, then how can our digestive rights not have equal rights to our reproductive rights? Why is it written that our digestive rights must be subordinated to our reproductive rights? I can't believe we're even talking -- yes, I can believe we're talking about it because this is where we are in 2010, run by a bunch of Nanny State Marxists. If Elena Kagan believes that there are privacy rights allowing a woman and her doctor to kill a human baby just before it's born without government interference then I would think using the same logic must assume she believes the government can't stop me from eating an unborn chicken, which is an egg, for those of you in Rio Linda. After all, they have all that cholesterol. I listen to this, it sounds to me like Elena Kagan may have a bigger problem with me eating an egg than with a woman killing her child. It's scary. We can all agree the government has no place in the bedroom, but all of a sudden now they have a place in the dining room? They have a place in the kitchen? And she will not pooh-pooh it? Whatever happened to hands off our bodies? And we have this answer here, "I think the courts would be wrong to strike down laws that they think are senseless just because they're senseless." Meaning, a senseless law could be constitutional. Some people might think the government dictating what we can and can't eat is senseless. But that doesn't mean it's unconstitutional.

RUSH ARCHIVE: The reason there's nobody criticizing Kagan on the left is 'cause she's exactly what they want, an Obama rubber stamp. She is a full-fledged, far-left ideologue who believes the Constitution's unjust and immoral, needs to be rewritten, and she's going to be happy to do it. But she can't get confirmed if she admits that.

RUSH: Well, but the problem is that's what she does believe. They went and asked Ed Rollins about that. "What do you think, Ed? She thinks the Constitution's unjust and immoral?"

ROLLINS: No, she's not. But I think the bottom line is everybody knows she's appointed by the president, she's pretty liberal, and I think she'll fit right in the seat that she's -- was the Douglas and then the Stevens seat. It's been the liberal seat for a long time.

RUSH: (imitating Rollins) "She doesn't think the Constitution is immoral and unjust, but she's a liberal," blah, blah, blah. What's the difference? Liberals look at the Constitution and they have great resentment for it. It's a charter of negative liberties after all, it tells them what they can't do to us, it tells them they can't dictate what we can and can't eat, but that's going to change if they get a majority control of the court.

RUSH: Arlen Specter today in Washington, the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings on Elena Kagan. Specter, not happy with Kagan's non-answers, says he hopes he can find a place short of voting "no."

SPECTER: You have followed the pattern which has been in vogue since Bork, and you quoted me in your law review article that someday the Senate would stand up on its hind legs. It would be my hope that we could find some place between voting "no" and having some sort of substitute answers, but I don't know it will be useful to pursue these questions any further. I think we are searching for a way how senators can succeed in getting substantive answers, as you advocated in the Chicago Law Review, short of voting "no."

RUSH: Senator Specter, now Democrat from Pennsylvania, saying, we're not getting any answers from you. I got no reason to vote "yes" here. Maybe, Senator Specter, you should try waterboarding. We know that waterboarding works. It makes people talk.

RUSH: This is John King on his show on CNN last night talking about my assessment of Elena Kagan, Supreme Court nominee of "Barack Hussein Obama! Mmm! Mmm! Mmm!

RUSH: Exactly right. That doesn't disqualify what I said. They're laughing. "Nobody could!" There's very few people that would admit it. There are very few people that would be nominated for the court, Mr. King, that hold the view she does. She's one of them. That's why you're getting worse than an empty suit. I mean for crying out loud, when Arlen Specter says, "My gosh, I can't get anything substantive out of you." Hey, Mr. King, for tonight's show (Did you miss it?) last hour I said, "Maybe the Senate should resort to waterboarding to get answers out of her because we know that does make people talk. See: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed." Now, there was another guest on King's show last night, Cornell Belcher, a Democrat strategist whom I have never heard of. And John King said, "What about Limbaugh, Kagan, and all this Constitution unjust and immoral stuff?"

BELCHER: Look, that's crazy babble. But, eh, you know, and it -- it's crazy babble by a crazy guy. She's a remarkably well-qualified woman. She's going to be a great justice.

KING: Eh, uh, t-to the point of why he's doing that. Obviously we're in a midterm election year. I -- I think the tone this year is a little sharper than it was in So-to-mayor a year ago, if only for the reason, uh, that's an odd-numbered year, this is an even-number year. Is that it there? That's a base issue?

BELCHER: Well, I would argue that it is. I mean, part of that sort of "energizing the base" that my friend here always likes to talk about, the energizing their base -- and their base does have more enthusiasm. But you keep throwing them red meat like this. I mean, you keep throwing 'em sort of red meat. I mean, "She's going to (stammering). They're gonna take away their in... They're going to take away your guns." They're going to, you know, do all this crazy stuff.

RUSH: Meanwhile, she will not deny that the Constitution gives her the right to tell people what they can and can't eat! Meanwhile, she won't confirm that she wrote a memo that is in her handwriting. Mr. Belcher, I am not a political consultant. I'm not throwing "red meat" to anybody, I don't have a "base," and I'm not working with the Republican Party. Try as you people might to make me out to be the leader of the Republican Party, I'm not. I may be de facto, but I am not because I seek it, and I don't coordinate anything. I don't have a base. I'm not throwing red meat at people. I tell people what I think. Political consultant? I couldn't do it. I'm too honest. Let's go to more of Kagan. This is, let's see -- da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da -- Charles Grassley. "Should judges ever look to foreign law for a, quote, unquote, 'good idea'? Should they get inspiration for their decisions from foreign law?"

KAGAN: I'm in favor of good ideas coming from wherever you can get them. Uhh, so, in that sense I think for a judge to read a law review article, or to read a book about legal issues, or to read the decision of a state court -- even though there's no binding effect of that state court -- or to read the decision of a foreign court to the extent that you learn about how different people, um, might approach and have thought about approaching legal issues. But I don't think that foreign law, uh, should have independent precedential weight in any but, um, a very, very narrow set of circumstances.

RUSH: Unbelievable. What did she say here? Oh, yeah, I gotta look to foreign law! Of course we gotta look to foreign law, absolutely. I'll look to anywhere is a good law. If Alice in Wonderland has a good idea, judge, I'll certainly consider it, Senator. Did you get this answer? I think anywhere. "Oh, yeah. If Al-Qaeda had a good idea it might be senseless in somebody's view but it's a good idea, we might want to look at it. I'm open to all ideas, Senator." Who is this? Do you people realize the depths of depravity to which this bunch is taking the American judicial system? Of all the things that they are doing, the assault on the rule of law and the populating of our judiciary with mindless theoretician ideologues who are hell-bent on rewriting the Constitution is just striking. Let's see. Grassley said, "Well, if confirmed will you rely on or cite international foreign law when you decide cases?"

KAGAN: It depends. There are some cases in which the citation of foreign law or international law might be appropriate. We spoke earlier -- I, I forget which of the senators -- about the Hamdi opinion. The Hamdi opinion is one in which the question was how to interpret the authorization for the use of military force.

KAGAN: And Justice O'Connor in that case, one of the ways that she interpreted that statute was by asking about the Law of War and what the Law of War usually provides, what authorities the Law of War provides.

KAGAN: And that's a circumstance in which, in order to interpret a statute giving the president various wartime powers --

RUSH: This is a first grade, Dick and Jane reader. Why the hell am I playing this stuff anyway?

Coburn grills Kagan: Could Congress require people to eat certain foods under the Commerce Clause?

RUSH: Bill Clinton was at the funeral of Robert Byrd today and said that Robert Byrd joined the Klan to get elected, and that kind of made it okay for a while.

CLINTON: There are a lot of people who wrote these eulogies for Senator Byrd in the newspapers, and I read a bunch of them, and they mentioned that he once had a fleeting association with the Klu (sic) Klux Klan and what does that mean. I'll tell you what it means. He was a country boy from the hills and the hollows of West Virginia. He was trying to get elected, and maybe he did something he shouldn't have done, and he spent the rest of his life making it up -- and that's what a good person does.

CLINTON: There are no perfect people! There are certainly no perfect politicians.

RUSH: Clinton makes it sound like this is a good old boy from the hollows and the hills in West Virginia. (doing impression) "I tell you, a lot of people who wrote these eulogies for Senator Byrd, newspapers. I've read a bunch of them -- and by the way I said, "Klu" Klux Klan. It's Ku Klux Klan, I misspoke. Limbaugh can correct me on that. But he was a country boy from the hills and the hollows of West Virginia trying to get elected like all of us were, and he did something he shouldn'ta done." He didn't just go to a couple of meetings, Slick Willie! he was a Grand Cyclops! He got pretty close to the Grand Kleagle. He was an Exalted Cyclops! This was not just a casual association that Senator Byrd had.

RUSH: Well, this ought to be good but we're not going to JIP it. Our microphones are there but we're not going to JIP it. Obama is now speaking at the Robert Byrd memorial. Now, ladies and gentlemen, this is not a comfortable thing for me to do. The man has passed away, and all that. Yesterday Barack Obama fed the lie that is the Statue of Liberty. In his speech on immigration yesterday, he totally miscast the Statue of Liberty and the Emma Lazarus poem, The New Colossus -- and he furthered the misconception that everybody has been taught and raised with in country. It's as distorted as the real story of Thanksgiving, Statue of Liberty. They make it sound like the Statue of Liberty is the Statue of Immigration, and it's not. It was never intended to have anything to do with immigration.

Immigrant advocates have appropriated the statue for that purpose. As we said yesterday -- and I'm not going to repeat the whole thing, but you ought go to RushLimbaugh.com if you want to find out the real history and truth of the Statue of Liberty. The Statue of Liberty was to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Statue of Liberty! Liberty means what it means. It's not the Statue of Immigration. Lady Liberty is stepping forward. The torch of Lady Liberty is guiding the rest of the world to liberty, not providing a beacon to the world's downtrodden to come to the United States. That lore began as immigrants flooded Ellis Island, and of course you couldn't get to Ellis Island without passing by the Statue of Liberty. And the lore began, "Oh, the Statue of Liberty, that beacon, hope, 'bring us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses.'"

That's not what it was for. It's another one of these great institutions and traditions been bastardized to fit into a modern political template created by the American left. So have to do this again today. Bill Clinton. Mike, play this sound bite again that we just played of Bill Clinton at Robert Byrd's memorial funeral in West Virginia. This is a portion of Clinton's eulogy.

CLINTON: There are no perfect people! There are certainly no perfect politicians.

RUSH: All right, now the whole purpose here is to try to scrub the truth -- and, again, the man has passed away, but if the Democrats are going to continue to do this, I am going to hold them to the facts. Why even bring this up? They coulda gotten away without even mentioning this. I mean, it's a long ago thing, why even bring it up? They bring it up because they want to continue to distort it, and you'll find out why when I tell you. He's described as having a "fleeting association" with the Klan. An Exalted Cyclops means he was a recruiter. Robert Byrd formed a KKK chapter. He didn't just go to a couple of meetings. A Kleagle was a recruiter, and he was a recruiter for the KKK for years. He formed his chapter in 1943. He was still writing about the "vital need" for the Klan in 1946. Oh, yeah. Fleeting association. Repentant. Making up for it.

Senator Byrd was so "repentant" he opposed every civil rights movement. Senator Byrd filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1965. He voted against both Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas. It wasn't until the death of his son in a car accident in the early 1980s that Robert Byrd said he had to rethink his feelings about black people. He said -- in the 1980s -- that it "finally occurred to [him] that they might love their children, too." That's Robert Byrd that Clinton said had a "fleeting association" with the KKK. Somebody ought to tell Nancy Pelosi that perhaps the greatest American poet of the last century, Wallace Stevens, had a job. He was an insurance executive. He was a Republican. You know, all these people worried about artists not having health care and so forth?

Anyway, Robert Byrd wrote to segregationist Mississippi Senator Theodore Bilbo, 1944, "I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side. Rather, I should die a thousand times, see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds." Robert Byrd, 1944. He was a recruiter in the Klan. He did not have a "fleeting association." What I just read to you is Robert Byrd in a letter to Senator Theodore Bilbo (Democrat-Mississippi) 1944. Now, what does any of that have to do with getting elected, as Bill Clinton said? What does that have to do with getting elected? In 1946 or 1947 Robert Byrd wrote a letter to a Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan stating, quote: "The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia and in every state in the nation."

Robert Byrd in 1947. He voted against Thurgood Marshall, Clarence Thomas. He filibustered the Civil Rights Act 1965, and he was a Democrat the whole time. That's absolutely correct, he was a Democrat the whole time -- and he was very close friends with a fellow segregationist, J. William Fulbright, Arkansas senator, a person Bill Clinton has said is his mentor. There is footage of Robert Byrd tearing down Martin Luther King, Jr., on the Senate floor. It's been totally -- What? -- scrubbed, expunged, done away with. Nevertheless here is Barack Obama, who while he wasn't there, his heart was in Selma. He went down there and he said so. He's giving a eulogy for Robert Byrd who filibustered the '65 Civil Rights Act, voted against Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas. It wasn't 'til the death of his son in a car crash in the early eighties Byrd said he had to rethink his feelings about black people.

He said it finally occurred to him that they "might love their children, too." Might. Not sure about it, but they might. Had to rethink it. Well, folks, look. I know the man passed away, and I know that... (sigh) But if these people are gonna lie about the Statue of Liberty, if they're going to lie about the traditions and institutions that have made this country great, if they're going to lie about each other -- while at the same time accusing all of us of behavior we have never engaged in, of having thoughts we have never had, while covering up some of the most vile acts and thoughts of members of their own party -- I'm sorry, I just can't sit here and let it pass by. The First Lady is not attending. I don't know why Michelle (My Belle) is not there. But, as has been said by several black civil rights leaders, Obama does not have authentic "slave blood." But Michelle does. Maybe that's why. We can only speculate. Maybe she's at a skybox at a baseball or football game. Who knows?

RUSH: I have a little sound bite here from the president, Barack Obama, at the Robert Byrd memorial, the funeral. Here's our president. I want you to hear this. It's our president defining the quintessential American quality.

OBAMA: As I reflect on the full sweep of his 92 years, it seems to me that his life bent towards justice. Like the Constitution he tucked in his pocket, like our nation itself, Robert Byrd possessed that quintessential American quality, and that is a capacity to change.

RUSH: Did you know that? The quintessential American quality is the capacity to change -- and, of course, have health care.

RUSH: Let's go back to President Obama at the funeral for Robert Byrd at the state capital in West Virginia today. We played the sound bite with Obama saying that the quintessential American quality is the capacity to change. Let me ask you a quick question: Has Obama changed his views on a single issue since he's been in the national spotlight? No. I mean not even since he wrote his second autobiography (or somebody wrote it) Audacity to Hope. He's not changed a single view. "The quintessential American quality is the capacity to change." That's like saying that the great thing about Emma Lazarus was that she was an advocate for health care for everybody. The capacity to change? The only thing Obama's changing is America, and not for the better. Here is The Messiah absolving Robert Byrd for things he said that he regrets.

OBAMA: He said, "There are things I regretted in my youth. You may know that." I said, "None of us are absent some regrets, Senator. That's why we enjoy and seek the grace of God."

RUSH: I'll bet Obama is absent regrets. I don't think he regrets anything. So, anyway, he's absolving Senator Byrd. What was he absolving him of? The fact that he was a Kleagle, a recruiter for the Ku Klux Klan. Trent Lott said something relevantly innocent compared to what Byrd had done in his life, and of course Obama demanded Trent Lott resign as a Republican leader in the Senate. Remember, now, 1944 Robert Byrd wrote that segregationist Mississippi Senator Theodore Bilbo: "I shall never fight in the Armed Forces with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again than see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds." That's 1944, Robert Byrd. He was absolved today by Barack Obama.

In 1946 or '47 Byrd wrote a letter to the Grand Wizard of the Klan saying, "The Klan is needed today as never before. I'm anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia and in every state of the nation." Byrd was the only Senator to have voted against Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas, the only two African-Americans to have been nominated to the Supreme Court, and Byrd opposed Thomas... You've forgotten this, I'm sure, people, but Senator Byrd opposed Clarence Thomas because Byrd stated he was offended by Thomas' use of the phrase "high-tech lynching" of uppity blacks in his defense. Byrd said that. Byrd stated that he was offended by the injection of racism into the hearing by Clarence Thomas. Robert Byrd also opposed some of George W. Bush's judicial and cabinet nominees who were black, notably, Janice Rogers Brown for judge of the US Court of Appeals DC district.

He opposed Condoleezza Rice for secretary of state. Let's now go to the audio sound bites of Bill Clinton, who also basically said today that Senator Byrd had a youthful indiscretion, a "fleeting," casual flirtation with the Klan. It could have been worse. It could have been worse! Robert Byrd coulda someday used the word "Macaca" but never did. It could have been worse. (interruption) He never...? Well, he used that term. I'm not going to repeat it. He used that term on Fox, but it could have been worse. He coulda used the term Macaca. That would have really sent people over the edge. But being a Kleagle, and a recruiter? Why, he can be absolved for that. Here's Clinton. Remember, now Clinton said (doing impression), "Hey, we all have things to regret in the past and he went out there and did some things. He joined the Ku Klux Klan, but he spent the rest of his life making up for it and that's what we all do here." I actually think Clinton was not even talking about Byrd. I think Clinton was talking about himself. I think Clinton was trying to excuse himself. But let's not forget. We are forgiving today, which is fine. The Democrat Party wants to forgive Byrd, fine and dandy. Bill Clinton, April 24th, 1995, Minneapolis.

CLINTON APRIL 24, 1995: We hear so many loud and angry voices in America today whose sole goal seems to be to try to keep some people as paranoid as possible and the rest of us all torn up and upset with each other. They spread hate. They leave the impression that -- by their very words, that -- violence is a acceptable. You ought to see -- I'm sure you are now seeing the reports of some things that are regularly said over the airwaves in America today. It is time we all stood up and spoke against that kind of (pounding podium) reckless speech and behavior.

RUSH: That was Clinton, who made a career linking talk radio to domestic terrorism. He was talking about McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing there, and of course things "regularly said over the airwaves in America," why, that was directed at me. Talk radio. So he's forgiving Robert Byrd, a recruiter for the Klan. They were all glancing over the depth of the association Robert Byrd had with the organization. May 1993 White House Correspondents Dinner, here's Bill Clinton calling me a racist.

CLINTON 1993: Did you like the way Rush took up for Janet Reno the other night on his program? (snickers) He only did it 'cause she was attacked by a black guy.

RUSH: White House Correspondents Dinner. Do you think I will be forgiven for things I never even did? I fully doubt it.

RUSH: At Andrews Air Force Base today, President Obama cast his state of the economy in upbeat terms and we're working right now on an audio sound bite from last November of me reacting to Obama, basically saying identically word-for-word what he said today about the economy. It's pretty illustrative. "To every American who's looking for work, I promise you we're going to keep on doing everything we can. I'll do everything in my power to help our economy create jobs and opportunities for all people."

So he's talking to you personally, whatever you are, wherever you are. Then Pelosi's out there saying the best job creation job we've got is unemployment benefits. It doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense in any way, shape, manner, or form but that's what she's out there saying. You know, we got the jobs number today. Unemployment fell from 9.7% to 9.5%, but the reason is that 652,000 people dropped out of the workforce. So there's a smaller universe of people who are counted; 652,000 people dropped out. They're not even looking for work anymore. It is a disaster. It is an unmitigated disaster, the employment circumstances and the economy overall. The numbers are all bent. They're rigged and spun.

The keystone, I think, is to look at this year to year, from last June to this June. U3 is the official unemployment rate. U6 is where they count those 652,000 (heh, heh) who have given up work as unemployed. That's what takes the real unemployment rate up to around 18%. But the reported unemployment rate June of 2010 is 9.5%. The official unemployment rate in June of 2009 was 9.5%. U6, the real unemployment rate, in June 2010 is 16.5%. In June 2009 it was 16.5%. You will hear more spinners telling you how good or bad the figures are but the essential reality is that from last June to this June, a one-year arc of the almost trillion-dollar spending, there hasn't been any change. The bottom line is zero change. Probably it's gotten worse because of all the people who have dropped out no longer working are even looking for work.

You know, I think we need to change the terms. They call this "U3" and "U6" for unemployment three, unemployment six. The government needs to change the titles. "FU3" and "FU6" because this is essentially what they have done to us. The FU3 unemployment rate. And the worst unemployment news is not even in the report. You know what the worst unemployment news is? Obama is still employed! Geithner is still employed. Bite Me is still employed. That's what's wrong with the unemployment numbers. Obama is not among them. Vice President Bite Me is not among them. Pelosi is not among them. Dingy Harry is not among the unemployed (but that will happen soon). Geithner is not among them.

Everybody's talking about what a surprise it was to see these numbers go down like this. No. In fact, the Drive-Bys are not even trying to spin this in a positive way. They know they can't. They're not trying to say, "This is a fizzling recovery. We're putting a little dent in it here." The fastest way to create jobs, as I just said, is to get rid of Democrats in November. It's to add their names to the unemployment rolls.

RUSH: I made a mental note to myself last night to come in here and reiterate something that was on the program yesterday: Megyn Kelly's interview with J. Christian Adams, the Department of Justice whistleblower. One of the things that this guy... By the way, Snerdley, everybody talking about Pelosi and she's stupid or not, you have to understand: What the Democrats are trying to do is create a permanent underclass. Now, we've mentioned this I don't know how many times -- and they've done it. They're creating a perpetual underclass. Not middle class, but a perpetual underclass enslaved to the Democrat Party, and you have to do that with permanent unemployment benefits, just like the Europeans did. So she may be stupid in how she's selling it, but she fully intends what is happening to happen.

It's no different than why do they want all these illegal aliens, "undocumented Democrats," to become documented. It's all about elections, all about votes, all about power. It's not about empowering people. It's not about compassion and helping people. Many people ask me -- and John Podhoretz raises the question today in a piece in the New York Post -- Who is Obama? Why is he doing this? Why? Why is he doing it? Is he stupid? Is it an accident? Is he doing it on purpose or what have you? Podhoretz says it doesn't matter really, because we're a resilient people. We come back. That was his point. Things have been worse and we've rebounded. I do think that's true, but I think we face something we've never faced before in the country -- and that is, we're now governed by people who do not like the country, who do not have the same reverence for it that we do. Our greatest threat (and this is saying something) is internal.

We have plenty of external threats, enemies across oceans, but we have a threat inside as well. This is something that I've never felt. I never feel that we had a president actually governing against the country, against the will of the people. I know we've had liberals. Clinton and Hillary were, and are. They're pedal-to-the-metal liberals. But they didn't want to destroy things. This bunch does, and they make no bones about it -- and when destruction does happen, they don't lift a finger to fix it. So in this interview with J. Christian Adams yesterday talking about (he's a whistleblower who said the charges were demanded to be dropped, that he and his line attorneys were told to just drop the case against the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation in Philadelphia) he said that there were people in the office, DOJ, who said, "Well, you know, those people suffered the indignity of slavery, discrimination, segregation and so forth."

He said somebody else said, "This is payback," meaning, "All right, look. We don't care if it's the New Black Panthers or whoever it is. Black people in this country have never, ever had a fair shake. This is payback. O.J. Simpson was payback. How does it feel?" That word "payback" is not mine. It was J. Christian Adams quoting some people in the Department of Justice. It is exactly how I think Obama looks at the country: It's payback time. I think that he's been raised, educated, and believes on his own that this country has been (as you know) immoral and unjust. It has stolen. It's unfairly large; it's an unjustifiable superpower. We have become as large as we are not because of any uniqueness or exceptionalism or greatness but because we've simply discriminated against the real people that made the country work, all the minorities. People around the world, we've stolen their resources, and now it's payback time. That's what we're getting. J. Christian Adams had somebody in Obama's DOJ who said that regarding the dropping of charges against the New Black Panther Party in the voter intimidation case in Philadelphia. So don't doubt me. There's no question that payback is what this administration is all about, presiding over the decline of the United States of America, and doing so happily. Let's go to the audio sound bites. November 2nd, 2009, a segment from this program.

OBAMA NOVEMBER 2, 2009: (camera shutters clicking throughout) [H]ow do we get what I call a post-bubble growth model, uh, one that is sustainable. That's what we're going to be discussing here today. Uh, as I said, we've got experts from, uh, a wide range of business sectors, and what we're going to talk about is, are there mechanisms that we can, uh, start putting in place, uh, where we -- we see the kind of growth that used to characterize the U.S. economy --

OBAMA NOVEMBER 2, 2009: -- export-driven growth, manufacturing growth, a growth that pays high wages and provides, uhh, high living standards for a broad-based middle class. [snip] But we're also in an era of fiscal constraint, which means that we've got to start finding more creative, new approaches to financing these projects.

OBAMA NOVEMBER 2, 2009: So those are the discussions we're going to be having. Uh, not just today but, uh, in the weeks and months to come. This is my administration's overriding focus. Having, uh, brought the economy back from the brink, the question is: How are we going to make sure that people are getting back to work, uh, and able to support their families. It's not going to happen overnight, but we will not rest until, uh, we are succeeding in generating the jobs that this economy needs.

RUSH: Barack Obama, November 2, 2009, nine months ago, roughly. Eight or nine months ago. These were the day meetings, these little seminars in the East Room. He was gonna send all these various experts to their work groups and they were gonna report back to him later in the day, and he said, "What we're gonna talk about is, are there mechanisms that we can, uh, start putting in place where, uh, we see the kind of growth that used to characterize the US economy?" I guess when the work groups came back, they reported that there's no way, because just last week Tim Geithner in the G-Whiz meetings, said, the days of the US leading and being the engine of economic growth, those days are behind us. And Obama said the same thing. The kind of growth that we've had leading the world? No, no, we're not going to have that. Biden: We've lost eight million jobs; we're not going to be able to replace all those. Eight months ago, Obama said: "We need to see the kind of growth that used to characterize the US economy." So they are acknowledging a decline and telling us to be prepared for it. There's more of this, too.

RUSH: All right, here's what I want to do. I'm gonna go back. I'm going to play audio sound bite number 26 again. It's Obama, November 2nd, 2009. He's in the East Room, and he's about to send the seminar people into their various study groups to report back to him later on on creating jobs to get the economy going. This is long after the stimulus bill has been passed and implemented, and after we do that we're going to let you hear a little bit of Obama from this morning at Andrews Air Force Base as he was heading to Robert Byrd's funeral. So that means he was going to West Virginia. Okay. Fine. Well, here's Obama, November 2nd, 2009 again. It's about a minute and 20 seconds.

RUSH: Okay, that's November 2nd, 2009. This morning, Andrews Air Force Base, speaking about the June unemployment numbers...

OBAMA TODAY: Now, make no mistake. We are headed in the right direction! But as I was reminded on a trip to Racine, Wisconsin, earlier this week: We're not headed there fast enough for a lot of Americans. We're not headed there fast enough for me, either. The recession dug us a hole of about eight million jobs deep and we continue to fight headwinds from volatile global markets. That's why we're continuing a relentless effort across multiple fronts to keep this recovery moving.

RUSH: Same stuff. Same thing. We're coming back from the brink, get "this recovery" moving. November 2, 2009 to this morning, second sound bite from today...

OBAMA TODAY: The Department(s) of Commerce and Agriculture will invest in 66 new projects across America that will finally believe reliable broadband Internet service to communities that currently have little or no access. In the short term, we expect these projects to create about 5,000 construction and installation jobs around the country.

RUSH: Well, good. How many jobs was the stimulus package supposed to create by now, and it hasn't created any. So high speed broadband. Big whoop! This is like taking rural telephone service out to the country in the 1920s and thirties. How have "global markets" changed to produce "headwinds" that stop us from creating jobs? What the hell does one have to do with the other? So it's either blame Bush or blame the global markets. Here's another sound bite of Obama from this morning.

OBAMA TODAY: T'every American who is looking for work, I promise you we are gonna keep on doing everything that we can, I will do everything in my power to help our economy create jobs and opportunity for all people.

RUSH: He's been saying this since he was immaculated. It's the same speech, it's the same promise, and it's never, ever resulted in anything. We are declining. We have a president presiding over that decline. He's going to do everything in his power to help our economy create jobs? You mean like shutting down offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska that's going to wipe out a hundred thousand jobs? Is that what you mean? You mean all the other regulations that you are placing on other areas of business that are going to result in a loss of jobs? You mean all the tax increases that are coming in January that are causing businesses to not hire now because they don't really know what the impact is going to be until those taxes hit? It's just the exact opposite. This man has not lifted a finger to create any private sector jobs, and the dirty little secret is he doesn't intend to.

Why aren't we growing jobs in this country like we used to? Why aren't we? It's not hard to do. There's all kinds of textbook evidence, real-life historical evidence of how to do it. We're not doing it; we're not doing it on purpose. It's payback time. All the people who are unemployed? It's time for you to find out what it's like to be an American all these 200 years. "Yeah, greatest country on earth, superpower? Right. Well, might have been for some people, but you're going to find out what it's been like for 200 years for some of us to be an American. It's payback time." That's what's going on here.

RUSH: This is from the Huffing and Puffington Post. They actually posted it yesterday, 'cause this is July 2nd. So it was yesterday afternoon. It's by Laura Bassett. "Expired Unemployment Benefits Causing Panic, Desperation: 'I'm Drowning Fast' -- Debra Rousey of Gainesville, Georgia, says that she received an unemployment check of $194 last week, half the usual amount she receives, along with a letter announcing that this check would be her last. She is now in a complete panic over what to do next. 'I'm desperate and devastated,' she told HuffPost. 'I didn't get any warning. I was barely making ends meet on $330 a week, trying to diaper my grandchild and put food on the table for the four people I support.'" Do any of them work, Debra? I'm just asking.

"'What do I do now? How am I going to make rent next month? I keep thinking, "If I end up in a cardboard box, can I find one big enough for everybody, or do I have to send my son to live with someone else?" ... I don't want a handout. But right now I'm at the breaking point. If I don't come up with cash quick, everything will be cut off within two weeks -- gas, electric, water. Five people will be displaced. How am I supposed to come up with the money?'" Look at this. Look. This is what Obama's doing to people. This is what Obama's doing to people. This is what Pelosi is doing to people. This woman does not sound to me like she wants to be on the receiving end of a welfare check or an unemployment check forever, but it sounds to me like she's been maneuvered into a circumstance where she thinks she's got no choice.

There are no new jobs being created. What is she supposed to do when her checks run out? I'm not making the case to extend unemployment benefits. I'm using this as an illustration. Even though she called the Huffing and Puffington Post or they called her. They're using this as an indictment of the Republicans and the Democrats for not extending unemployment benefits. This needs to be looked at in a different light. This is what the United States federal government has reduced people to. This woman doesn't apparently have any hope or consideration of going out finding a job -- and she's a grandmother. She's diapering her granddaughter and supporting four other people. Payback time. Payback time. This woman's going to find out what it was like, in Obama's view, for other Americans to live as they did in this unfair and immoral country for the 230 years we've been around.

RUSH: Nancy Pelosi just put the "Depends" in Dependence Day. "Unemployment benefits create more jobs than any other initiative." We have her saying this. Grab audio sound bite number 10. Yeah, 10 and 11. Yesterday in Washington, DC... You know, it's still up for grabs. The jury is still out.

Is the woman really the dumbest woman on the face of the earth, or is all of this produced for her from some wordsmith like George Lakoff (rhymes with)? Does this indicate that she thinks we are all stupid? Does this indicate that she thinks that all the people who are not working, who are receiving unemployment benefits are stupid, or is it that she is? The jury is still out. A reporter asked her yesterday: "Congress is gonna leave with unemployment insurance not extended. This is the second time y'all have recessed. What do you say to those who are going to be losing their benefits? How do you respond to the argument that maybe Congress shouldn't be extending unemployment benefits because it's a disincentive to people to look for work?"

PELOSI: Let me say that unemployment insurance -- we talk about it as a safety net and the rest -- this is one of the biggest stimuluses (sic) to our economy. Economists will tell you, this money is spent quickly. It injects demand into the economy, and it's job creating. It creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name; because, again, it is money that is needed for families to survive and it is spent. So it has a double benefit. It helps those who have lost their jobs but it also is a job-creator.

RUSH: Okay, so is she really this stupid or does she think we are? (interruption) It is not that easily answered, Snerdley. Snerdley is in there saying, "It has to be she's that stupid." Anybody -- you know, sixth grader -- would know taking money out of the private sector and then putting it back in the private sector is not growing the private sector. Taking money away from people who are working and giving it to people who aren't is creating jobs. Somebody at home getting an unemployment check is not working. Folks, you let a Republican say anything like this and they would be drummed out of town in 24 hours on the basis that they're insensitive and stupid. Pelosi is essentially... If we wanted to spin this the way the Democrat media would spin this if a Republican had said it: "Pelosi, elitist in her ivory tower, in her corporate jet, with her $26 million husband, is telling people sitting at home on their sofas getting unemployment, 'How's your job? We're creating jobs by sending you a check.'" A Republican would be called insensitive, stupid, condescending, pandering. She wasn't through. She continued with this...

PELOSI: It's impossible to think of a situation where we would have a country that would say, "We're not going to have unemployment benefits, and the only people who want them are people who don't want jobs." That's just so contrary to what our country is about and I reject, uh, that misrepresentation of the motivation for people to be on unemployment insurance.

RUSH: Ms. Pelosi, you're creating them. Your policies along with the president are creating circumstances where people who want to work cannot. It's just that simple. Obamaville is all about welfare checks, and Obamaville is the country. "It's impossible to think of a situation where we would have a country that would say we are not going to have unemployment benefits and the only people who want them are people who don't want jobs"? Anyway, this is what passes for leadership today in Washington. There you have it.

RUSH: To the phones! Karen in New Haven, Connecticut, welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: That's good. I just wanted to let you know that, you know, pretty upset about this unemployment for almost two years. I have a neighbor who looked for jobs at the beginning of the summer last year. I own a very small company. At the beginning of the summer last year I could have offered her a job. In fact, I did so and she said take the summer off and keep her unemployment going. I offered her a job later on when I can still afford to give hardware a job, and she said that Obama was absolutely fantastic and she was just enjoying having all this time off and collecting her unemployment. That doesn't help people. Years ago I was on unemployment. I had to go out and actually get two businesses to sign a form saying that you applied for a job and you did speak to somebody legitimately.

RUSH: Well, you remember Nancy Pelosi. Nancy Pelosi selling health care. She said one of the reasons people want to have health care is so that they're not "job locked." We have artists and creative people to be able to not to have to work so they can sit at home and be creative and still have access to health care, and this is essentially what the friend you were trying to offer the job to said. "Naw, I don't want to blow up my unemployment benefits here." I know there's some I'm sure anecdotal evidence of a lot of this, people prefer unemployment check. It's one of the problems. We've got a lot of people who think being an American means being taken care of, but I think a lot of these people on unemployment want to work. I think a lot of them still do, and those are the people that are genuinely frustrated because there's no improvement and there's no light that they see at the end of the tunnel.

RUSH: Now, Obama did something else today in this speech that the left always does when they bring up the Statue of Liberty and Emma Lazarus. "Give me your tired, give me your poor, give me your huddled masses," blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. That has been interpreted over the years. First of all, most people think that that's part of the design and construction of the Statue of Liberty, which it's not. I will 'splain in a moment. They also have told us that what Emma Lazarus meant was, "Give us your downtrodden, give us your disadvantaged, give us your poor, give us your wretches, and we will take them in and we will help them," and that's not what it was all about.

It was about the United States being a home to those fleeing oppression, not poverty per se. He even had the audacity to say that Emma Lazarus devoted her life to health care. Now, here's the story about all this. The Emma Lazarus poem, "Give me your tired, your poor, your hungry, huddled masses," blah, blah, blah, does not and never has appeared on the Statue of Liberty. It was a poem written in a contest to raise money to build the pedestal for the Statue of Liberty. It was not even put on display inside the exhibit, inside the pedestal until years later. The New Colossus is the title of it. It was written in 1883. In 1903, 20 years later, it was engraved on a bronze plaque and mounted inside the Statue of Liberty. You don't go to the Statue of Liberty, wander around outside and see The New Colossus as part of the design on the outside of the Statue of Liberty.

"The poem was written as a donation to an auction of art and literary works conducted by the 'Art Loan Fund Exhibition in Aid of the Bartholdi Pedestal Fund for the Statue of Liberty,' the aim of which was to raise money for the pedestal's construction. The contribution was solicited by fundraiser William Maxwell Evarts. Initially Lazarus refused, but Constance Cary Harrison convinced her that the statue would be of great significance to immigrants sailing into the harbor. The New Colossus was the only entry read at the exhibit's opening, but was forgotten and played no role at the opening of the statue in 1886. In 1901, Lazarus's friend Georgina Schuyler began an effort to memorialize Lazarus and her poem, which succeeded in 1903 when a plaque bearing the text of the poem was mounted on the inner wall of the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty."

The Statue of Liberty was never meant to be a symbol of immigration. It was meant to be a symbol of liberty and freedom. The Statue of Liberty as designed and constructed had nothing to do with what Emma Lazarus wrote, and it's another distortion of the left to suggest that this country was founded for the express purpose of taking anybody, anywhere, any planet, any country, who wanted to come into the country. Under the guise that they were poor, they were huddled, they were hungry, they were thirsty. It was not about immigration at all. It was about liberty. We don't call it "the Statue of Immigration." We call it the Statue of Liberty. It was dedicated October 28th, 1886.

It is a monument commemorating the centennial of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, which Elena Kagan yesterday in her testimony said, (raspberry). "It's irrelevant to me when I look at the law," and yet here's her president citing Emma Lazarus as though it's part of the Statue of Immigration. It's the Statue of Liberty. It has nothing to do with immigration. It commemorated the Declaration of Independence. The French did it. So profound did everyone in the world think the Declaration was, and in fact Abraham Lincoln often gave it more weight than the Constitution itself in terms of its deep meaning. Lady Liberty is stepping forward. She is meant to be carrying the torch of liberty from the United States TO the rest of the world.

The torch is not to light the way to the United States. It is to light the way to liberty to the rest of the world. Lady Liberty is carrying the light of liberty to the rest of the world. It is not a beacon for immigrants to get to this country because they're tired, they're poor, they're huddled, hungry, or thirsty. The president of the United States has joined the chorus of those who have purposely misrepresented the Statue of Liberty -- making it out to be the statute of immigration, misrepresenting Emma Lazarus -- and it's just an outrage how wantonly open the destruction and revision and redefinition of the great traditions and institutions that define this country is taking place now, at the hands of this regime.

RUSH: What is it the feminazis used to shout all the time? "I am outraged! I am outraged!" I am outraged by what President Obama did today in this speech. The Statue of Liberty carries the light of liberty to the rest of the world. It does not welcome the wretches of the world to this country. That's not its purpose. It was never intended as that purpose. It doesn't light the way to this country. It lights liberty everywhere around the world. That Obama would lie about the Statue of Liberty -- it was given to us as a gift to honor the Declaration of Independence -- that he would take the Declaration of Independence and its weekend, the independence of this country to make a speech on immigration and lie about the Declaration and the day before his Supreme Court nominee disavows the Declaration of Independence, disavows the concept of natural law and inalienable rights, anybody still want to tell me that this is not being done on purpose?

Unlike Elena Kagan, Abraham Lincoln insisted the Declaration is the statement of principles through which the Constitution should be interpreted. Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves. Abraham Lincoln was certainly more of a student of law than Ms. Kagan ever has been, even if he never had a job at Harvard. The Declaration and the Constitution are inseparable, not only in terms of defining this country, but maintaining it. And we have somebody who is intellectually vapid disavowing it, afraid to take a stand on the concept of inalienable rights a couple days before our own Independence Day? Emma Lazarus, by the way -- give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses -- she was a huge proponent of Zionism. She was a rabid supporter of the creation of the state of Israel. It's funny how the left never brings her up when they're talking about the Middle East. But Emma Lazarus was a huge supporter of the creation of Israel, huge proponent of Zionism. So they'll selectively site Emma Lazarus when they take her words totally out of meaning and the purpose of her words totally out of meaning.

Now, if we are as Obama said today citing the Statue of Liberty as a light, as a beacon, as a GPS signal to the wretches of the world that come to America, if we are soliciting the world's huddled masses to come to this country, why have any immigration laws at all? Why have a border? Let 'em just show up. Why have any limits whatsoever? See, Obama's propaganda is arguing for no limits on legal or illegal immigration. I take it back. He said the best and brightest, we need them here. We are specifically keeping the best and brightest out. It is the dumb and dumbest that we're letting in. Let me rephrase that. It is the ill-educated and the uneducated we are letting in. The visas, college graduates, PhD's, you name it from all over the world, they are limited. The number of people of that caliber are severely limited and tightly controlled. Now he claims the border is more secure than ever, as if he has done something to create that circumstance. He's done nothing. Even the additional 1200 National Guardsmen, they're not free to prevent illegals from coming here. So he lies by claiming we're more secure than ever when he hasn't done anything to promote security about securing the border. He argues with his false references that we want the world's poor to come here, and that's what the Statue of Liberty means. So the bastardization of the Statue of Liberty, the Declaration of Independence, and indeed the country took place in about 35 minutes this morning coming out of the mouth of the president of the United States.

RUSH: Cookie has given me the Obama sound bite on the Statue of Liberty. Now, you heard me, if you were here with us in the previous hour, correctly give you the history of the Statue of Liberty. This is what our president said about it.

OBAMA: A young woman named Emma Lazarus, whose own family fled persecution from Europe generations earlier took up the cause of these new immigrants.

OBAMA: Although she was a poet, she spent much of her time advocating for better health care, housing for the newcomers.

OBAMA: And inspired by what she saw and heard she wrote down her thoughts and donated a piece of work to help pay for the construction of a new statue.

OBAMA: Which actually was funded in part by small donations from people across America.

RUSH: Stop the tape right there. She entered a contest. She wrote a poem. The contest was to raise money to pay for the PEDESTAL, not the statue. She was not inspired by immigrants. The Statue of Liberty had nothing to do with immigration. The Statue of Liberty is not on the Arizona-Mexico border. It is not the Statue of Immigration. It was not constructed to show the way to the United States for the huddled masses, the tired, the poor, the hungry, the thirsty. Emma Lazarus' poem had nothing to do with the construction of the statue. It's not even posted on the statue. It's posted on the pedestal inside, and it took years and years and years for that to happen after her poem was chosen in the contest.

OBAMA: Years before the statue was built, years before it would be seen by throngs of immigrants craning their necks skyward at the end of a long and brutal voyage, years before it would come to symbolize everything that we cherish, she imagined what it could mean. She imagined the site of a giant statue at the entry point of a great nation. But unlike the great monuments of the past, this would not signal an empire. Instead, it would signal one's arrival to a place of opportunity and refuge --

RUSH: All right, hold it, hold it. Hold it right here, right here. In the first place, I misspoke. It was not a contest. She donated the poem as a work of art, but the Statue of Liberty was built by the French, a French person in the 1800s, as a gift to celebrate our Declaration of Independence. It had nothing to do with immigration. The lore of the Statue of Liberty is that after in the early 1900s when people were fleeing oppression (not poverty per se, but fleeing oppression) they had to go through Ellis Island. That was the law. They had to go through. Well, to get to Ellis Island you had to go by the Statue of Liberty and people saw it, and so the transformation of what the statue meant began. "Yeah, lookie there! Lookie there, Mabel. Why, it's a beacon on all the immigrants around the world who come to America. Look at that, Emma. Why, how about that?" Nope. The original intent... (chuckles) Are we allowed to talk about the original intent? The original intent Statue of Liberty was to light the way of liberty for the rest of the world. Obama seems to think the only thing worth cherishing about America is that everybody can live here. I've never heard him be more impassioned about this country than talking about the fact that everybody can move here because the Statue of Liberty is the invitation. Let's go to the phones. I've had my piece about this. This is how the whole thing was distorted today and how it continues to be distorted by the left.

RUSH: I have a question about Algore and the massage therapist. The National Enquirer will not drop the story. What happens if there is a consensus that Algore assaulted the massage therapist, should we say then that the debate is over and declare him guilty? What if there's a consensus on this? I mean, using his own reasoning, if there's a consensus, he'd be a potential threat that has to be stopped, right? Yeah, if there's a consensus that he did it, then he did it, right? Ha-ha-ha.

Well, yeah, I'm joking, but every really good piece of humor has an element of truth in it, which is why it's funny. And I'm just saying if we came to a consensus that Algore assaulted the massage therapist then can we assume he did it?

Some Republican Congressmen wanted to go down by the gulf and survey the damage. Dems block this field trip:

RUSH: Speaking of this Russian spy ring in Yonkers, there was Vicky Pelaez, Juan Lazaro. She was a columnist for some newspaper, Spanish language. Mr. Lazaro taught a course in politics in Latin America and the Caribbean at Baruch College. His students said he was a professor like none other. So these alleged Russian spies, where did they take their cover? As journalists and professors, which is all the evidence you need to prove what we have been saying about the media and Big Education for years. They are so comfortable in their anti-American ideology that Russian spies go into those businesses to blend in with journalists and professors because they share the same anti-American sentiment. This is the classic hiding in plain sight approach to spy craft. Okay, we're spies from Russia, where do we hide best? Oh, let's go become journalists and professors, nobody will ever spot us there, we'll blend right in. And that's apparently what a lot of these people did.

Have you seen this all over the news? Petraeus says he did not suggest a date for withdrawal. You haven’t? I wonder why....? This is live testimony before the Senate.

Program to help poor with electric bills paid $100M to people who were dead, in prison or rich

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.

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

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

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

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

Celebrity Jihad (no, really). The headline to one story: Heroic Helen Thomas Tells Jews to "Get the Hell Out of Palestine," Go Back to Germany, Poland. Under the heading harlots, there are bunches of photos of starlets showing cleavage or wearing bikinis. This site appears to be deeply tongue-in-cheek.

Legendary White House reporter and founding member of the Muppets Helen Thomas made a heroic stand against the Zionists late last month, telling Jews to "get the hell out of Palestine" and to go home to "Poland and Germany."

Before the Jews sink their devilish claws into Helen, we want to show our solidarity by calling on all Jews to leave Zionist Occupied Hollywood by the end of June, or we shall begin "Operation Gevalt," which will disrupt all shipments of Nova lox to the west coast.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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