The cartoons come from:

www.townhall.com/funnies.

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).

Previous issues are listed and can be accessed here:

http://kukis.org/page20.html (their contents are described and each issue is linked to) or here:

http://kukis.org/blog/ (this is the online directory they are in)

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).

This Week’s Events

Nearly 92,000 classified Afghan war documents were posted on Wikileaks this week. Army Pfc. Bradley Manning as the main suspect in the leak, which calls into question military security, in that a Pfc was able to access these documents.

Memo leak shows Obama regime is looking at granting amnesty to illegal immigrants without going through Congress. This is an 11 page memo.

Ethics Panel will also charge Representative Maxine Waters.

President Obama goes on The View, the first time a president goes on a daytime talk show.

Huge numbers of protestors in Arizona are actually union members bused there from California.

Senator Kerry says he is going to pay the taxes on his yacht.

Chris Matthews publically defends Andrew Breitbart.

Al Gore is cleared in sex assault case.

Say What?

Liberals:

President Obama: “We shouldn't be campaigning all the time”

Vice President Joe Biden, in the middle of the Recovery Summer Tour, said, “There's never enough until we restore the eight million jobs lost in the Bush recession. Until that happens, it doesn't matter. I mean, it matters, but it's not enough.”

Senate leader Harry Reid: “We are going to have a public option; it is just a question of when.”

On "Morning Joe" New York Times columnist Gail Collins championed the federal over state government (with regards to immigration laws), saying, "You do not want state legislatures ruling these things," because basically, "They're horrible. They're all gerrymandered. They never get thrown out of office. They are all nuts!"

Jamie Sanderson: “FOX News is a right-wing propaganda outlet, not a legitimate news agency. In recent weeks the network has turned the volume up on its race-baiting political agenda. The media assault on Shirley Sherrod is just a latest in a series of racist and politically motivated attacks on targets like Van Jones, ACORN, and Eric Holder's Department of Justice.”

Shirley Sherrod about Andrew Breitbart: “I know I have gotten past black vs. white. He's probably the person who has never gotten past it and never attempted to get past it. So, he can't see -- because he has never tried and because he hasn't, he can't see what I have done to get past it. And he's not interested in what I have done to get past it. I don't think he's interested in seeing anyone get past it, because I think he would like to get us stuck back in the times of slavery. That's where I think he would like to see all black people end up again.”

Anderson Cooper, who interview Sherrod when she said that, later remarked, “I believe in admitting my mistakes....I didn't challenge her that night and I should have.”

According to Eugene Robinson Arizona's embattled S.B. 1070 "amounts to a prescription for racial profiling on a scale not seen in this country since the days of Jim Crow laws in the South." It is "anti-Latino" and "patently unconstitutional." Those who support it are "xenophobes" and "demagogues . who delight in turning truth, justice and the American way into political liabilities."

Lizz Winstead (on the Ed Schultz show): "[Phyllis Schlafly] has made a career of her one party trick. Which is basically, she can empty her bowels through her mouth and just exhaust horrifying crap onto the universe."

AP story headline: "GOP Gets Wish: Rangel Case in Campaign Season."

President Obama: "We need to pass it [the unemployment benefits extension] for Leslie Macko who lost her job at a fitness center last year and has been looking for work ever since because she eligible for only a few more weeks of unemployment, she's doing what she thought she'd never have to do. She's turning to her father for financial support." Leslie did lose her job, but it might have been for good reason. It occurred one month after she pleaded guilty to felony prescription drug fraud, in March 2009.

Ed Schultz on Sarah Palin: "I think she is shamelessly stupid."

It was the brilliant Ed Schultz, that, 3 weeks earlier, said, "A lot of Americans are circumspect about his [General Stanley McChrystal's] involvement in the Tillman death." Schultz confounded the word circumspect and suspicious.

Crosstalk:

Conservatives:

TEA party leader Mark Skoda on media smears against the TEA parties: “The couldn’t get the violence ot stick, they couldn’t get the racism to stick, so now they are calling us Republicans! (and that is offensive).”

Steve Moore, “There is a lesson in all this [the lack of a robust economic recovery]; government spending doesn’t create jobs.”

Neil Cavuto, in a panel discussion that he leads, said (with a smile), “Why did you not agree with everything that I said?”

In case, you think that the conservative commentators on FoxNews are always anti-Democrat and pro-Republican, here are some remarks by Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer:

Bill Kristol: “Look, if he broke the law, he should be charged with tax fraud or with not declaring income, or whatever. I read through this Ethics Committee document and I am not actually overwhelmed by the severity of these charges. I

mean, some of it are tax issues which should be litigated in court, presumably -- that's not really for the Ethics Committee to decide. Some of it is disclosure issues on financial forms. He was clearly not paying close attention or was sloppy. But at the end of the day he is not one of the wealthy members of Congress, and it would not have changed a thing if he disclosed $8,000 of rental income on some property or not. And then there's the Charles Rangel Center, which is really at the heart of the charges, which is, I guess, part of the City University of New York. He obviously had an interest in getting donors to give money to it, it was honoring him. He did not have any direct financial participation in that that I know of. So it was a little bit of vanity, and obviously if you are a company that has business support, Ways and Means Committee, you might think it is a good idea to give a charitable gift to something named after the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. But compared to what happens in Congress all the time, compared to the airports that are named after sitting members of Congress, the post offices, compared to earmarks that are flowing around the Appropriations Committee, I think it is pretty small beer. So I hope he actually fights it and stands up for himself. He deserves his day in court.”

Krauthammer: “On the substance, I agree on almost all of the charges as being relatively minor, of the venial variety, like misusing the rent-control apartment. Everybody in New York who has one does that. However, the trading on your office to imply you would change a law or influence the writing of a law in return for $1 million donation, even if that is only for a center and not to put in your pocket, that is corruption and that's why I think Rangel, who is a man of honor, would fight that and would not agree to it in a plea deal. ”

When asked about Obama’s appearance of The View was presidential, Charles Krauthammer said, “Look, I'm in no position to look down at other panel shows, and in fact it was Richard Nixon when he ran for president when he appeared on Laugh In, which was a comedy show at the time, stuck his head through a wall and said ‘Sock it to me.’ That was the beginning of the end of American civilization, and it was a premise you could not go lower in presidential dignity.”

Charles on the liberal achievements of Barrack Obama: “I think we've had an astounding year-and-a-half. I think the president's agenda as of now is done, political capital is spent. But he got a lot in return, historic. I think it is the most, the greatest amount of social change coming out of Washington since Lyndon Johnson and since the New Deal. What did he do in a year and a half? He's revolutionized health care. It will be incremental, we're going to see it, but it's in law now. He has taken over financial, he has redone the financial system with consequences that are, as yet, unknown, but it will be profound, a $1 trillion stimulus and two appointments on the Supreme Court. In a year and a half that is an amazing achievement.”

Glenn Beck: “We must choose. Do we choose those who create fear, limit choices, lie, cheat and steal? Do we stand with ACORN, communist revolutionaries, Black Panthers, union thugs or the troops, cops, your house of worship, small businessmen and women, moms and dads who fear that America's best days are behind her? Because the powerful forces of greed and corruption are blocking the road to individual freedom, individual faith, individual responsibility, inventiveness and volunteerism.”

Brent Bozell on Shirley Sherrod suing Andrew Bartbreit: “Andrew Breitbart is going to be fine. He's done nothing wrong. I wonder if Ms. Sherrod, who is such a champion of transparency, will publicly disclose who is putting her up to this. And I also hope this champion of honesty will stop lying about Fox News. I'm also waiting for Ms. Sherrod to publicly apologize for accusing anyone opposed to nationalized healthcare of being racist. Last time I checked, that was more than half the country.”

Sarah Palin about Arizona governor Jan Brewer, who is appealing the AZ immigration bill injunction: "Jan Brewer, bless her heart, she is going to do all that she can to continue down the litigation path to allow secure borders, because she's -- Jan Brewer has the cojones that our president does not have to look out for all Americans, not just Arizonans, but all Americans in this desire of ours to secure our borders and allow legal immigration to help build this country as was the purpose of immigration laws. If our own president will not enforce a federal law, more power to Jan Brewer and 44 other states who are in line to help support Jan Brewer in state laws, state efforts to do what our president won't do."

Joe Biden Prophecy Watch

Must-Watch Media

A month or so ago, I suggested that one of the top 3 possible Republican presidential candidates will be Paul Ryan. Here is Paul Ryan sparring with Chris Matthews on Hardball. This is a man who will be a formidable opponent for Obama in the debates and in general speeches.

The edited version:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHpmB7smCCM

The unedited version:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0a_DSuh628

On Beck’s Friday show, he chatted with 4 TEA party leaders. If you have simply believed about Beck and the TEA party what the alphabet media wants you to believe, this would be a good show to watch:

http://watchglennbeck.com/ (It is Friday’s Show, July 30^th)

Most of Beck’s shows this week take the weatherman manifesto and show how closely it is being followed today:

http://watchglennbeck.com/

SEIU ad against Arizona Immigration Law which compare the building of the border fence to the Berlin Wall and the interment of Japanese-Americans during WWII.

Jennifer Keeton in her own words (do you know who she is?):

http://www.christianpost.com/blogs/liberty/2010/07/jennifer-keeton-in-her-own-words-22/index.html

Beck video and transcript, about being targeted by Netroots:

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/43476/

Vince Curatola explains how card check works:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6yrZtq27e0

Alvin Greene is now running ads (next to Jim DeMint’s picture are the words bigot, evil and unAmerican):

http://www.alvin-greene.com/news/index.php/2010/07/23/alvin-greene-is-on-the-scene/

A Little Comedy Relief

Jodi Miller: “According to reports, Democrat operatives are now digging harder than ever to find dirt on Republican candidates. Hey, Democrats, if you want to win, why not just support policies that America actually likes?”

Jodi Miller: “Olympic gold medalist Jenny Finch will retire from playing softball, so now if you want to watch a woman toss softballs, you can just watch Matt Lauer interview a Democrat.”

Short Takes

1) If you pay attention, you know that tax breaks for the rich is simply a lower tax rate for a lot of small businesses. Obama knows this too. Why doesn’t he care? Politicians can easy sway large businesses and corporations. A president can call the top ten banks into his office and tell them what to do, but he cannot do that with the bottom 500 local banks. It is all about control. No president can control small independent businesses. This is why, there are bailouts for large corporations, but small businesses which go under (or banks which are shut down) have their assets seized and given to someone else ( a much larger bank) by the government.

2) I have had a number of people tell me that they could not watch a Glenn Beck show (including one who admitted to have never watched one of his shows before). One of them claimed that Beck made her physically unable to digest food while watching him. This strikes me as so weird. I’ve heard something like this from every liberal I suggest his show to (including at least one person I personally know has never seen his show). On the other hand, I actually find several Democrats likeable: Rangel, Blagojevich and Bayh to name 3; and I recognize that as a husband and a father, Obama is a good man. Furthermore, I think that Jon Stewart is funny; and I can watch Olbermann or Maddow and simultaneously digest food. Olbermann is hard to take seriously, but Maddow is okay, even though I disagree with about 90% of what she says. But, why do all the liberals I know unable to watch Glenn Beck?

3) Here is a simple differentiation: conservatives want to control spending and liberals (and progressives) want to increase taxes.

4) According to Glenn Beck, there is enough power in the EPA, in the Healthcare Law and in the Financial Reform Law to enact Cap and Trade by presidential fiat.

5) This will shock you: after many states received stimulus money because they were irresponsible with their spending, now they want more. Tracy on Cashin’ In made the observation that no one just gives her money once she busts her budget several times over (and, if they did, it would not encourage her to be fiscally responsible).

6) From Beck’s show: TEA party people agree on 3 principles: Fiscal responsibility, a constitutionally limited government and a free market economy.

7) The Chevy Volt is exactly the kind of car a government will design. It is overpriced at $41,000 (there will be an additional $7500 government subsidy to bring the price down). As one person observed, it is too expensive for its target buyer, the American family, and, also, too small for the average American family. It will drive 40 miles on a charge, but then have a gasoline powered backup engine that will kick in and drive an additional 320 miles. It takes hours to recharge this car, but, what I have yet to hear is, what is the cost of a charge, at, say, 12.5¢ per kilowatt hour? The Chevy Volt is why we do not let the federal government run car companies.

8) Like everyone else with a public education, I never really learned exactly what brought on the Great Depression. It just happened, it was there for a long time, and FDR and WWII got us out of it (so I was told). However, the key to the Great Depression was not that some horrendous series of events threw us into the depression, but that, we were in a recession, which FDR managed to turn into a depression. President Obama is an object lesson on how to take a recession and make it worse. Watch and learn.

9) Speaking of the President, have you come to the point where you simply doubt everything he says? Although President Bush was accused of all kinds of things, most intellectually honest people did not view him as a liar. As one liberal I knew admitted, “Okay, he seems like he really believes what he is saying, but that doesn’t mean he is right.” A statement that I could agree with. However, Obama says all kinds of things which are the exact opposite of what he plans to do. He talks about fiscal responsibility, but is the most fiscally irresponsible President in my lifetime. The few times he tells us what he wants to do, like “spread the wealth around,” that is clearly a slip-up in messaging, and the end result was, a full-tilt assault on Joe the Plummer for getting Obama to say that. What Obama will not come out and say in any public address is, “I believe that our economy will get better if we take more money from the rich who do not need all that they have and give it to those at the bottom; spread that wealth around.” Almost everyone knows that is what Obama wants to do, but he will not come out and admit to it. When it comes to Sarah Palin or Paul Ryan, they say what they mean; they clearly state what they want to do.

10) The economy has been Obama’s for a long time. He got everything he wanted, right out of the gate, passing the Stimulus Package in just a few weeks.

11)  PBS did about a 3 minute segment, making fun of the way that Sarah Palin talks, basing this upon her using the non-word refudiate when she meant to use refute. In case you don't get it yet, dozens of news sources, in one way or another, say that Palin is stupid, so that it becomes a chorus of voices (this is how Obama got elected; by a chorus of media voices). This is why i occasionally hear people who are quite intelligent say of Sarah Palin, "She's really stupid." As long as you hear it over and over again on the news, it becomes the truth.

By the way, a lot of people have gotten quite tired of this, as you can see in the comments section below the video:

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/pbs/pbs_ombud_need_to_know_palin_joke_was_fair_game_169241.asp

12) Count me as among the many conservatives who could care less that Obama showed up on The View. It was an intelligent political move, so how can I fault him for that?

By the Numbers

75% of the rich being heavily taxed are really small businesses.

Chelsea Clinton's upcoming wedding is the talk of the town and so is the price tag. Estimates run the gambit, but many put the cost in the $3–5,000,000 range (these are the high estimates). The lavish celebrity wedding of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes reportedly cost $2 million; Donald Trump's wedding to model wife, Milanya, reportedly cost $1 million and former first daughter Jenna Bush's 2008 nuptials at her parent's ranch were said to cost about $100,000.

Private businesses are sitting on an estimated $1.8 trillion. No one has any idea what government is going to do, how regulations are going to affect us, how much the government is going to tax us next year, so private businesses are being cautious with investing and expansion.

$3.2 trillion is the amount of unfunded state pension obligations.

Polling by the Numbers

FoxNews Poll:

52% think the economy is getting worse. That's up 37% who thought so in May.

56% of voters think the job situation is getting worse (up from 48% in May).

24% are "not at all" confident that the economy will regain lost ground.

10% are "extremely" confident it will

54% describes their financial situation as "just able to pay most bills."

18% say they are "falling behind."

About one in four says they are "getting ahead." These findings are almost identical to those when the question was last asked in September 2009.

Rasmussen:

65% of U.S. Voters feel finding new sources of energy is more important now than reducing the amount of energy Americans now consume.

A Little Bias

A Media Reality Check review of morning and evening news programs on ABC, CBS, and NBC from April 23 to July 25 found the networks have aired 120 stories with an almost ten-to-one tilt against the Arizona law (77 negative, 35 neutral, 8 positive).

Now that I think about it, maybe it is not Obama who was clever enough to get Shirley Sherrod out there in the previous week, but the news outlets, who could not really comment on the JournoList (except to downplay its importance or to ignore it). The JournoList was one of the most embarrassing stories about the media, and most of them did a pretty good job of treating it like a land mine.

This is how the media works: there would have been a lot of anti-Obamacare events after the legislation was passed, so, suddenly, there are outlandish claims of the N-word being called out 15 times from TEA party goers, and that was the narrative pushed by the alphabet media for the next week (good speech by Andrew Breitbart).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRHfxEe-9YE

So, let's say that President Bush brought up a convicted felon before the cameras, and said that we needed to extend unemployment benefits, so that this felon could continue to receive these benefits....do you think that might have merited a few front page stories in the NY Times or the Washington Post? Sure it would. I wouldn't be surprised if there were not a series of stories. But, when President Obama does that, what happens? Who reports it? Anyone?

Here's a good story; how would the media have reacted if Sherrod had worked for George W. Bush?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/07/31/how-would-media-have-responded-if-sherrod-worked-george-w-bush

Saturday Night Live Misses

JournoList members discuss the idea of SNL to do Palin skit.

"I've got a brilliant idea," one suggests, "Make her seem really stupid."

Producer, "You do realize that is our approach to virtually every Republican candidate for anything, apart from John McCain. We just kept referring to how old he was."

Yay Democrats!

Evan Bayh has called for some fiscal restraint; but after his last few votes—most notably for healthcare—I still like the guy, but I don't trust him anymore.

Obama-Speak

Comprehensive immigration reform means, no one is going to completely enforce the border; that is a carrot dangled in front of you, in order to legalize the illegals who are already here.

We need to have a dialogue about race = Nice all-purpose, but meaningless statement to make. No one thinks that anyone is going to sit around and talk about race because of this.

Questions for Obama

What is your opinion of JournoList?

News Before it Happens

The 3^rd and 4^th quarters this year will be less than a 2% growth and possibly one of these quarters might even be negative. There will be no appreciable change in unemployment or job creation. This will be followed by a veritable crash in 2011, unless the Bush tax cuts are extended for everyone.

The federal government will provide additional rebates to state governments and other governmental agencies to buy a Chevy Volt for their fleets. They will also buy Volts. It will turn out that a large percentage of Volts will have been purchased by various governmental agencies.

Prophecies Fulfilled

Portions of SB 1070 were temporarily struck down.

I do not recall if I really posted Rush Limbaugh's opinion on this, but he said on several occasions, early on, that the oil in the gulf would just get eaten up by the ocean. Looks like he was right.

My Most Paranoid Thoughts

There is a lot of power centered in Washington now; will anyone be willing to reduce it once they take office?

Missing Headlines

Media Ignores JournoList

Media Downplays JournoList

Obama WH Backed Release of Lockerbie Bomber

Biden Blames Bush Economy During the Summer of Recovery?

Come, let us reason together....

Brent Bozell's Open Letter to WaPo Editor Regarding JournoList Scandal

By Brent Bozell

What follows is an open letter from NewsBusters publisher Brent Bozell to Washington Post executive editor Marcus Brauchli about the controversial [now defunct] e-mail listserv JournoList, founded and operated by the Post's Ezra Klein. If you do not know what JournoList is, it was an online email exchange between 400 journalists who, in essence, plotted to elect Barack Obama President of the United States.

The JournoList scandal is getting worse every day and The Washington Post is at the center of it. Blogger Ezra Klein ran the operation and at least three other staffers were members. (Blogger Greg Sargent claims he wasn't a member after he joined the Post.) In addition, at least one member of Slate and two from Newsweek, also owned by Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, were members.

The almost constant revelations of political activism and journalistic conspiracy raise an enormous number of questions about Post policies, professionalism and ethics. As a conservative, and therefore a member of the movement JournoListers sought to demonize, I feel Post readers are owed full disclosure.

Any understanding of the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics makes clear this list and the Post's involvement violate a number of ethical guidelines. In fact, much of the code seems to have been ignored. Here are just a few examples from the code.

Journalists should:

●            "Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting,"

●            "Recognize a special obligation to ensure that the public's business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection,"

●            "Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived,"

●            "Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests [emphasis added] and resist their pressure to influence news coverage."

There is only one way for the Post to move forward from this fiasco - through transparency. You need to be forthright about the Post's failings and give readers enough information so that we know just how serious this really was and what can be done to restore your paper's credibility.

As Post Ombudsman Andy Alexander said recently about your "Top Secret Government" series: "Over the years, The Post has revealed classified information when it feels disclosure is in the public interest." It is time for the Post to live by the expectations it sets for others. Here is a list of 20 questions, we would like the Post, Klein or both to address:

1.           How many Washington Post staffers were part of JournoList and, if there are any currently unnamed, who are they?

2.           Will the Post be transparent and either release or order its staffers to release their contributions to the list?

3.           Will the Post release the names and affiliations of all those on the list or have its staffers do so?

4.           Did the Post know about JournoList when Klein was hired and that it was a "center to left" group? If yes, what does that say about the Post's claims of neutrality?

5.           Did actions on JournoList violate the Post's ethical guidelines?

6.           Has the Post revised or added any ethical guidelines as a result of this scandal?

 7.           Will the Post permit staffers to belong to or operate such lists in the future?

8.           Does the Post often embrace "off the record" e-mail conversations with hundreds of people at a time?

9.           Was Klein's supervisor(s) on the list and were they monitoring what went on?

10.        Has the Post examined the possibility that JournoList impacted Post news coverage?

11.        How much did the Post look into JournoList before hiring Klein?

12.        Were Klein and the other Post members of the list using it and posting to it on company time? If not, when were they doing so?

13.        Did Klein and the other Post members write to the list using company equipment and offices?

14.        Was Klein aware that some were using the list to boost the Obama campaign, such as adviser Jared Bernstein?

15.        Did Klein attempt to enforce a rule against campaigning and, if so, how?

16.        Did Klein post written guidelines for all members of the list? If so, what were those guidelines?

17.        Klein had said on The American Prospect on March 17, 2009: "There are no government or campaign employees on the list." That has been proven false. How did he try to monitor this issue? Were there other members of the Obama campaign and administration on the list?

18.        Did Klein ban anyone from the list?

19.        Has Klein or any other Post staffer (other than Dave Weigel) offered to resign because of their contributions to the list?

20.        When Klein shut down the list, did he delete the list? If not, will the Post order him to release it so that readers may decide for themselves?

I eagerly await your response.

Sincerely,

L. Brent Bozell

Founder and President

Media Research Center

[as if there will be any]

From:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-bozell/2010/07/28/brent-bozells-open-letter-wapo-editor-regarding-journolist-scandal

Our Divisive President

Barack Obama promised a new era of post-partisanship. In office, he's played racial politics and further split the country along class and party lines.

By Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen

During the election campaign, Barack Obama sought to appeal to the best instincts of the electorate, to a post-partisan sentiment that he said would reinvigorate our democracy. He ran on a platform of reconciliation-of getting beyond "old labels" of right and left, red and blue states, and forging compromises based on shared values.

President Obama's Inaugural was a hopeful day, with an estimated 1.8 million people on the National Mall celebrating the election of America's first African-American president. The level of enthusiasm, the anticipation and the promise of something better could not have been more palpable.

And yet, it has not been realized. Not at all.

Rather than being a unifier, Mr. Obama has divided America on the basis of race, class and partisanship. Moreover, his cynical approach to governance has encouraged his allies to pursue a similar strategy of racially divisive politics on his behalf.

The 'Beer Summit': President Barack Obama, right, and Vice President Joe Biden, left, have a beer with Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr., second from left, and Cambridge, Mass. police Sgt. James Crowley in the Rose Garden of the White House, July 30, 2009.

We have seen the divisive approach under Republican presidents as well-particularly the administrations of Richard Nixon and George W. Bush. It was wrong then, and it is wrong now. By dividing America, Mr. Obama has brought our government to the brink of a crisis of legitimacy, compromising our ability to address our most important policy issues.

We say this with a heavy heart. Both of us share the president's stated vision of what America can and should be. The struggle for equal rights has animated both of our lives. Both of us were forged politically during the crucible of the civil rights movement. Having worked in the South during the civil rights movement, and on behalf of the ground-breaking elections of African-American mayors such as David Dinkins, Harold Washington and Emanuel Cleaver, we were deeply moved by Mr. Obama's election.

The first hint that as president Mr. Obama would be willing to interject race into the political dialogue came last July, when he jumped to conclusions about the confrontation between Harvard Prof. Henry Louis "Skip" Gates and the Cambridge police.

During a press conference, the president said that the "Cambridge police acted stupidly," and he went on to link the arrest with the "long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately."

In truth, the Gates incident appears to have had nothing to do with race-a Cambridge review committee that investigated the incident ruled on June 30 that there was fault on both sides.

Sen. Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.) has said the president told him in a closed-door meeting that he would not move to secure the border with Mexico unless and until Congress reached a breakthrough on comprehensive immigration reform. That's another indication Mr. Obama is willing to continue to play politics with hot-button issues.

Add in the lawsuit against the Arizona immigration law and it's clear the Obama administration is willing to run the risk of dividing the American people along racial and ethnic lines to mobilize its supporters-particularly Hispanic voters, whose backing it needs in the fall midterm elections and beyond.

As the Washington Post reported last week, two top White House strategists, speaking on condition of anonymity, have indicated that "the White House plans to use the immigration debate to punish the GOP and aggressively seek the Latino vote in 2012."

On an issue that has gotten much less attention, but is potentially just as divisive, the Justice Department has pointedly refused to prosecute three members of the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation at the polls on Election Day 2008.

It is the job of the Department of Justice to protect all American voters from voter discrimination and voter intimidation-whether committed by the far right, the far left, or the New Black Panthers. It is unacceptable for the Department of Justice to continue to stonewall on this issue.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Mr. Obama's campaign emphasized repeatedly that his minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, was being unfairly stereotyped because of racially incendiary sound bites that allegedly did not reflect the totality of his views. In the Gates incident and others, Mr. Obama has resorted to similar forms of stereotyping.

Even the former head of the Civil Rights Commission, Mary Frances Berry, acknowledged that the Obama administration has taken to polarizing America around the issue of race as a means of diverting attention away from other issues, saying: "the charge of racism is proving to be an effective strategy for Democrats. . . . Having one's opponent rebut charges of racism is far better than discussing joblessness."

The president had a unique opportunity to focus on overarching issues of importance to whites and blacks. He has failed to address the critical challenges. He has not used his bully pulpit to emphasize the importance of racial unity and the common interest of poor whites and blacks who need training, job opportunities, and the possibility of realizing the American Dream. He hasn't done enough to address youth unemployment-which in the white community is 23.2% and in the black community is 39.9%.

Mr. Obama has also cynically divided the country on class lines. He has taken to playing the populist card time and time again. He bashes Wall Street and insurance companies whenever convenient to advance his programs, yet he has been eager to accept campaign contributions and negotiate with these very same banks and corporations behind closed doors in order to advance his political agenda.

Finally, President Obama also exacerbated partisan division, and he has made it clear that he intends to demonize the Republicans and former President George W. Bush in the fall campaign. In April, the Democratic National Committee released a video in which the president directly addressed his divide-and-conquer campaign strategy, with an appeal to: "young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women who powered our victory in 2008 [to] stand together once again."

President Obama's divisive approach to governance has weakened us as a people and paralyzed our political culture. Meanwhile, the Republican leadership has failed to put forth an agenda that is more positive, unifying or inclusive. We are stronger when we debate issues and purpose, and we are all weaker when we divide by race and class. We will pay a price for this type of politics.

Mr. Caddell served as a pollster for President Jimmy Carter. Mr. Schoen, who served as a pollster for President Bill Clinton, is the author of "The Political Fix" (Henry Holt, 2010).

This is an email exchange which I had, and it illustrates a lot of differences between the thinking of conservatives and liberals, and I think it is well-worth repeating here (particularly since, the public option is now back on the table):

From:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703700904575391553798363586.html

Surviving the Obama Assault on the Rule of Law

by Conn Carroll

Hours after yesterday's decision by President Bill Clinton judicial appointee Susan Bolton to preemptively stop enforcement of Arizona's immigration enforcement law, Thomas A. Saenz, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), told The New York Times: "This is a warning to any other jurisdiction." Just in case the message from the Obama administration and its leftist allies was not clear, Obama appointee U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke told The Associated Press: "Surely it's going to make states pause and consider how they're drafting legislation and how it fits in a constitutional framework."

But no amount of pause by states and localities could ever possibly satisfy the Obama administration, its amnesty allies, and activist judges like Bolton. In a textbook case of judicial activism, Judge Bolton rewrote the Arizona law to her own needs, invented her own facts and ignored clear federal law. President Jimmy Carter appointee and immigration law professor at Yale Law School Peter Schuck told The New York Times: "She rushed to judgment in a way I can only assume reflects a lot of pressure from the federal government to get this case resolved quickly."

The Obama administration's case against Arizona sought to preemptively stop enforcement of Arizona's new immigration law. The legal term for this is a "facial challenge," and federal precedent is clear that facial challenges "must be careful not to go beyond the statute's facial requirements and speculate about `hypothetical' or imaginary cases." But that is exactly what Judge Bolton did. First, she ignored Section 2(B) of the law as written and completely ignored the section's first sentence that required an officer to have "reasonable suspicion" that a person was in the country illegally before their immigration status should be checked. Then, she invented a completely hypothetical case about a Chilean dog walker detained by a completely fictional Sheriff Smith. Finally, despite the fact that 8 U.S.C. §1373 clearly requires the federal government to "respond to an inquiry by a state, or local government agency, seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual," Judge Bolton concluded that the Obama administration's decision not to enforce this provision was as good as rewriting the law itself.

Taken alone, the White House's behavior on this issue is troubling enough. But put into the broader context of the first 18 months of this Administration, a truly pernicious pattern emerges. First, there was the Obama Justice Department's decision to dismiss voter intimidation charges against the New Black Panther Party. Then there was the Obama administration's use of TARP to bail out its union allies in what bankruptcy law scholars have called "so outrageous and illegal that until March of this year [2009], nobody even conceptualized it." Then there was the Obama administration's shakedown of BP in the White House's Roosevelt Room. Less than a week later after a federal court found its first oil drilling ban to be "arbitrary and capricious," the Obama administration issued a second oil drilling ban that was wider and killed even more jobs than the first.

Americans cannot be cowed by the Obama administration and its La Raza and MALDEF allies. Giving into bullies only encourages their behavior. Finally this lawsuit should be a permanent reminder to everyone who wants to call themselves a conservative that any and all claims about an amnesty deal are complete fiction. La Raza and MALDEF will fight every enforcement measure in any such deal tooth and nail while administrations like this one will simply choose not to enforce them. Meanwhile, the amnesty provisions would be instantaneous and permanent. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) has vowed to fight this decision all the way to the Supreme Court, and she deserves support.

From:

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/07/29/morning-bell-surviving-the-obama-assault-on-the-rule-of-law/

Augusta State University to student: Accept homosexuality or leave school

By John Rossomando

An Augusta State University counseling student has filed a lawsuit against her school claiming it violated her First Amendment rights when it told her to change her traditionalist Christian views on homosexuality or get out.

The Alliance Defense Fund filed suit Wednesday on behalf of Jennifer Keeton, 24, seeking to stop the school from expelling her from her master's degree program.

"They made a cascading series of presumptions about the kind of a counselor she would be and have consequently . tried to force her to change her beliefs," David French, the ADF attorney representing Keeton in the case, told The Daily Caller. "It's symbolic of an educational system that has lost its way."

The suit alleges the university retaliated against Keeton for stating her belief that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice and not a "state of being," and that gender is not a social construct subject to individual change. According to the suit, the school wants her to undergo a "thought reform" program intended to change her religious beliefs. She faces expulsion unless she complies, and the suit seeks to block the university from throwing her out for noncompliance.

"Is saying there is such a thing as a male and a female as distinct, and that gender isn't merely a social construct . such a dangerous position that it has to be banned from a profession?" French asked.

According to court documents, one of Keeton's professors, Dr. Mary Jane Anderson-Wiley, told her this past May she would have to undergo a remediation program intended to change her views on homosexuality.

The university's Counseling Education Program handbook proscribes such programs for those whose conduct is "not satisfactory on interpersonal or professional criteria unrelated to academic performance."

When Keeton received a copy of her program at a May 27 meeting, she saw the document questioned her ability to be a "multiculturally competent counselor" because she dissented from the prevailing view about homosexuality and tried to get others to see things her way.

It also warned her speech had violated various codes of ethics and her support for "conversion therapy for GLBTQ (Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender) populations" departed from accepted norms of "psychological research."

The National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), however, defends the practice Keeton advocated on its website and says many of the studies opponents of "conversion therapy" cite suffer from politically motivated biases and deliberately ignore contrary evidence.

The program also required her to attend at least three pro-gay sensitivity training courses by the end of this fall, read pro-gay peer-reviewed journals on GLBTQ issues, and participate in activities such as Augusta's gay pride parade. She also was asked to familiarize herself with the Association of Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Issues in Counseling webpage, which defines homosexual behavior as healthy and suggests gender is a matter of personal choice rather than biology.

The professors also required her to submit a "two-page reflection" each month of how her participation in pro-gay activities "has influenced her beliefs" and how future clients might benefit from her experiences.

"There is no question they are putting her through a kind of thought-reform program when you think about what they are doing," French said. "It's a re-education program pure and simple, and it's . the state trying to invade the human heart and human mind to change her deepest beliefs."

He continued by noting, "It's unconscionable."

From:

http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/26/university-to-student-accept-homosexuality-or-leave/

Open-borders/SEIU caravan to Arizona: You read it here first

By Michelle Malkin

On June 29, I shared an outraged e-mail from an L.A. government worker lambasting the SEIU for using worker dues to organize a pro-illegal immigration bus ride to protest Arizona's immigration enforcement law. SB1070 goes into effect this week. Flashback:

I am a member of SEIU because, as an employee of Los Angeles County I have to be, and today I received an email from their office detailing how I can get a free seat on a bus from L.A. to Phoenix to protest SB 1070. I am furious over this and wrote an email back to them to tell them so. I forget to mention to them I am especially upset over them using my dues to pay for this bus and the trip. I fully support the intent of SB 1070, all the efforts of Gov. Jan Brewer, and the efforts of "Stand with Arizona". I believe our borders should be firmly closed, and Mexicans should stand in line with all other would-be emigres from all other countries, get a passport and visa like everyone else, and come here legally. Further, we are the only country in the world that has wide-open borders and lets in criminals along with elderly women who only want to be maids. What on earth are we thinking? This will ruin our country! Thanks for all you are doing.

Well, just as my reader indicated, the purple shirts and reconquistas will soon be hitting the road. And masses of them will be bused into Arizona funded by worker dues.

Just remember: For every shamnesty-shilling union worker you see on the streets, there are untold union workers like my reader who object.

From:

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/07/28/open-bordersseiu-caravan-to-arizona-you-read-it-here-first/

The Constitution, at Last

by Charles Kessler

Once upon a time, and not so long ago, American politics revolved around the Constitution. Until the New Deal, and in certain respects until the mid-1960s, almost every major U.S. political controversy involved, at its heart, a dispute over the interpretation of the Constitution and its principles. Both of the leading political parties eagerly took part in these debates, because the party system itself had been developed in the early 19th century to pit two contenders (occasionally more) against each other for the honor of being the more faithful guardian of the Constitution and Union. Even from today's distance, it isn't hard to recall the epic clashes that resulted: the disputes over the constitutionality of a national bank, internal improvements, the extension of slavery, the legality and propriety of secession, civil rights, the definition and limits of interstate commerce, liberty of contract, the constitutionality of the welfare state, the federal authority to desegregate schools, and many others.

What's different today is that, although it still matters, the Constitution is no longer at the heart of our political debates. Today's partisans compete to lead the country into a better, more hopeful future, to get the economy moving again, to solve our social problems, even to fundamentally transform the nation. But to live and govern in accordance with the Constitution is not the first item on anybody's platform, though few would deny, after a moment's surprise at the question, that of course keeping faith with the Constitution is on the program somewhere - maybe on page two or three.

Presidents still swear (or affirm, for you sticklers) to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States," and other state and federal officeholders take similar oaths. And, perforce, constitutional questions continue to arise now and then in our politics. But these rarely command center stage. The Democrats, for example, condemned George W. Bush's supposed abuse of presidential war powers, but they never bothered to turn their carping into a doctrine; the only remedy they were really interested in was a change of personnel, and Barack Obama now carries out many of the previous administration's policies without a whimper from the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate.

It's a little different when federal judges - especially Supreme Court justices - are to be appointed. Then the political class focuses at least momentarily on constitutional matters, usually in such a tendentious way that at the end of the process everyone is glad not to have to think about those issues again for a while. Besides, the kabuki dance of judicial nominations is now well choreographed on both sides. Sonia Sotomayor was a wise enough Latina to sound, in her testimony, like the second coming of William Rehnquist.

Against this sideshow version of constitutionalism, the tea partiers are lodging a memorable protest. President Obama's victory in the health-care battle, combined with his administration's relentless march toward higher taxes, deeper debt, and bigger government, have led to an outcry for renewing constitutional limits on the ambition and growth of the federal establishment. The new movement's very name recalls the revolt against an unwritten constitution (the British) that had become an excuse for unlimited government, and the replacement of that arrangement by a written constitution limiting government power. For Republicans, the tea party has proved tonic. Reminded of arguments they haven't made in decades, the GOP's leaders are denouncing Obamacare not only as bad medicine but as political malpractice: the deliberate and wicked violation of constitutional norms.

At this hopeful juncture, two questions need to be asked. First: Whatever happened to the Constitution? That is, why did it go into eclipse in the first place? Second: What is so good about the Constitution's strictures, and what guidance and assistance do they offer toward their own revival?

For the most part, the Constitution's diminishment was the work of modern liberalism, beginning in the progressive era and accelerating with the New Deal. Though the original Constitution has not disappeared entirely, it grows less and less relevant, or even legible, to our political class.

The precise character of the new constitutional arrangements may seem mysterious. In the New Deal, liberals called for judicial restraint to keep the courts from blocking legislative experiments at the state and federal levels. From the Warren Court on, they cheered judicial activism, at least until the bench threatened to fill up with conservative judges. The thread connecting their shifting positions is not simply their fondness for social experiments by whichever branch is mounting them, but a deep-seated attachment to a new kind of experimental or historical right. For the Framers, rights were attributes of individual human beings who had been endowed with them by nature and nature's God. The same government needed to secure these rights could possibly threaten them, so a constant vigilance was called for to keep government limited to its just powers. For contemporary liberals, rights reflect society's stage of evolution and become real only when they are actualized, i.e., granted and enforced by government. Rights are therefore government-friendly. Indeed, after a certain point of social evolution, the more power given to government, the more rights it can and will give to the people. Far from checking, limiting, and channeling government powers, a properconstitution should therefore liberate them. Only from Big Government come entitlement rights, ethnic and racial preferences, and the newfangled "identity" rights without which liberty would be meaningless. The tea party is inherently reactionary, liberals believe, because it doesn't grasp that Big Government, far from being a threat to liberty, is freedom's greatest achievement.

Conservatives have done their part to sideline the Constitution, too. In the 1960s they invoked it in opposing Medicare and Medicaid, while southern Democrats cited it in fighting the Civil Rights Act and the implementation of Brown v. Board. This mixed bag of causes - and the defeat of all of them - helps to explain conservatives' subsequent shyness about making constitutional claims. Ronald Reagan appealed to theConstitution 's spirit of federalism: In his losing 1976 campaign, he advocated returning $90 billion (a lot of money in those days) in welfare expenditures and programs to the states, and in 1980 he warned that the federal government showed signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed. But by 1984 he was proclaiming, "It's morning again in America," as if the danger had been a bad dream.

Morning quickly turned to night as George H. W. Bush espied a thousand points of light in the sky. His son later ran for president preaching the four Cs: courage, compassion, civility, and character; Constitution , notice, was not one of them. In 1996, Republican congressional majorities had forced Bill Clinton to return a federal entitlement program to the states. Seven years later, George W. Bush and his Republican congressional majorities passed a new federal entitlement, Medicare Part D, the first since the Great Society and the first ever with no specific source of funding attached to it. Complaints about the ineptitude and intrusiveness of the federal government remain aconservative staple, and the GOP has run through a pharmacopoeia of remedies for the problem without success: tax cuts, tax pledges, tax limits, spending limits, term limits, part-time legislatures, full-time conservative judges, divided government, and a host of never-enacted, barely serious constitutional amendments.

Having tried almost everything else, perhaps conservatives should consider the Constitution again. It is, as they say, no panacea. (Neither is it a panacea to note that something is no panacea!) But it could provide the spirit, the principles, the example, and even some of the institutions that might help to restore limited government to America.

The Constitution is, first and foremost, a republican document, grounded in the people's authority, even as the people's authority is grounded in the moral law. The frame of government's first words, "We the People," proclaim this, as do many of its particular provisions. "Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts," the Federalist explains, are prohibited by the Constitution because they are "contrary to the first principles of the social compact and to every principle of sound legislation." They are prohibited because they are wrong, in other words, not wrong because they are prohibited. And their wrongness has nothing to do with the race or sex or class of the person who might be the object of a bill of attainder or the group that might be ensnared by an ex post facto law. The Constitution is not racist, sexist, or anti-democratic; though the original Constitution incorporated notorious compromises with slavery, it did so to obtain a Republic whose principles were anti-slavery, as well as a Union in which, as Lincoln put it, the public mind could rest content knowing that slavery had been put on a course toward extinction. Elementary as these points are, they are essential to rebut the Left's moral indictment of the old Constitution. Fortunately, Harry V. Jaffa, Hadley Arkes, and the late Robert Goldwin and Martin Diamond have written copiously and brilliantly on the subject.

The Constitution establishes a government with two main structural principles - federalism and separation of powers - and each offers handles that citizens may grasp today to help relimit the national government.

Ours is, or was, a regime of enumerated legislative powers, in addition to certain implied powers that were "necessary and proper" to carry out the enumerated ones. The Founders disagreed among themselves about the extent of the implied powers (e.g., to charter a national bank) as well as about the exact bounds of presidential and judicial authority. But they expected to disagree in hard cases and left enough political play in the system for the people to take sides as they saw fit. Federalism was thus partly a legal or constitutional doctrine and partly a political one. Nonetheless, the state governments could serve as rallying points for opposition to federal encroachments, and still can. Though weakened by the Seventeenth Amendment (which destroyed the state governments' control of the Senate) and other factors, the states may invoke their Tenth Amendment rights and link arms with one another in demanding that the offending national officeholders be voted out and a party of constitutionally faithful ones be voted in. This is the real electoral point of the states' resistance, on display now in the impressive numbers of states protesting Obamacare. Schemes of neo-nullification (as Matthew Spalding has called them) purporting to declare a federal law null and void in a particular state are based on bad history and worse jurisprudence.

When pointing to the state governments, we mean more than the state attorneys general. When the legislatures and governors object to an unconstitutional federal law, their protest carries more weight. And the state governments hold in reserve two other constitutional powers: to ask Congress for a constitutional amendment, and - the nuclear option - to call for a convention of the states to propose such an amendment if the Congress will not.

The Constitution wisely separated the powers of government, not only to prevent tyranny but also to enable each branch to perform its functions well. When the separation of powers worked unimpaired, it helped to prevent the disease we call BigGovernment . That ugly term implies, among other things, a centralization of administrative authority in Washington, or, to put it differently, a bureaucracy that thinks it possesses the wisdom and the right to administer state and local affairs all around the country. BigGovernment thus strikes simultaneously at federalism and the separation of powers, at the external and internal checks on the federal establishment, inasmuch as a bureaucracy of this sort must combine legislative, executive, and judicial powers to be effective.

For a hundred years, liberalism has worked to overcome the constitutional separation of powers, winning many battles - but not quite the war. In the current crisis, conservative efforts to restore the separation of powers may even be more important than a campaign to shore up federalism. TARP, for example, was an unprecedented delegation of legislative power to the Treasury secretary, of all people. It was a desperate, essentially lawless grant resembling the ancient Roman dictatorship, except that the Romans wisely confined their dictators to six-month terms. Obamacare is a 2,000-page monstrosity that will need thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of pages of additional regulations before it can operate. These will be issued by more than a hundred new bureaucracies, each a source of unaccountable power wielded over individual Americans. These multiplying centers of petty tyranny will accelerate our transformation from a republic of laws to a corrupt regime of muddled and ever more arbitrary power.

To unravel these new structures of unconstitutional power - and their predecessors, added primarily since the mid-1960s - is an enormous challenge. But our efforts can start with the restatement of the constitutional goal, and the resolution that at least we shall go no farther toward centralizing and combining what should be separated. Obamacare must be repealed, even if the older bureaucracies cannot be. No new TARPs - and let us usher this one into the grave as quickly as possible. No new delegations of legislative power to unaccountable bureaucracies. We need to constitutionalize thegovernment we have, as far as we can: to pare it back as much as possible to the functions it was designed to perform, and where that is not possible, to prefer more constitutional to less constitutional means in every policy area. Here is the beginning of an agenda for conservative legislators and presidents, and for citizens, to guide us back - or rather forward - to a healthier, more responsible, and more constitutional political life.

- Charles R. Kesler is a senior fellow of the Claremont Institute, editor of the Claremont Review of Books, and professor of government at Claremont McKenna College. This article originally appeared in the May 17, 2010, issue of National Review.

From:

http://article.nationalreview.com/433444/the-constitution-at-last/charles-r-kesler

151 Names from the JournoList

1.           Spencer Ackerman - Wired, FireDogLake, Washington Independent, Talking Points Memo, The American Prospect

2.           Thomas Adcock - New York Law Journal

3.           Ben Adler - Newsweek, POLITICO

4.           Mike Allen - POLITICO

5.           Eric Alterman - The Nation, Media Matters for America

6.           Marc Ambinder - The Atlantic

7.           Greg Anrig - The Century Foundation

8.           Ryan Avent - Economist

9.           Dean Baker - The American Prospect

10.        Nick Baumann - Mother Jones

11.        Josh Bearman - LA Weekly

12.        Steven Benen - The Carpetbagger Report

13.        Ari Berman - The Nation

14.        Jared Bernstein - Economic Policy Institute

15.        Michael Berube - Crooked Timer, Pennsylvania State University

16.        Brian Beutler - The Media Consortium

17.        Lindsay Beyerstein - Freelance journalist

18.        Joel Bleifuss - In These Times

19.        John Blevins - South Texas College of Law

20.        Sam Boyd - The American Prospect

21.        Ben Brandzel - MoveOn.org, John Edwards Campaign

22.        Shannon Brownlee - Author, New America Foundation

23.        Will Bunch - Philadelphia Daily News

24.        Rich Byrne - Playwright

25.        Jonathan Chait - The New Republic

26.        Lakshmi Chaudry - In These Times

27.        Isaac Chotiner - The New Republic

28.        Ta-Nehisi Coates - The Atlantic

29.        Michael Cohen - New America Foundation

30.        Jonathan Cohn - The New Republic

31.        Joe Conason - The New York Observer

32.        Lark Corbeil - Public News Service

33.        David Corn - Mother Jones

34.        Daniel Davies - The Guardian

35.        David Dayen - FireDogLake

36.        Brad DeLong - The Economists' Voice, University of California at Berkeley

37.        Ryan Donmoyer - Bloomberg News

38.        Adam Doster - In These Times

39.        Kevin Drum - Washington Monthly

40.        Matt Duss - Center for American Progress

41.        Gerald Dworkin - UC Davis

42.        Eve Fairbanks - The New Republic

43.        Henry Farrell - George Washington University

44.        Tim Fernholz - American Prospect

45.        Dan Froomkin - Huffington Post, Washington Post

46.        Jason Furman - Brookings Institution

47.        James Galbraith - University of Texas at Austin

48.        Kathleen Geier - Talking Points Memo

49.        Todd Gitlin - Columbia University

50.        Ilan Goldenberg - National Security Network

51.        Arthur Goldhammer - Harvard University

52.        Dana Goldstein - The Daily Beast

53.        Andrew Golis - Talking Points Memo

54.        Jaana Goodrich - Blogger

55.        Merrill Goozner - Chicago Tribune

56.        David Greenberg - Slate

57.        Robert Greenwald - Brave New Films

58.        Chris Hayes - The Nation

59.        Don Hazen - Alternet

60.        Jeet Heer - Canadian Journolist

61.        Jeff Hauser - Political Action Committee, Dennis Shulman Campaign

62.        Michael Hirsh - Newsweek

63.        James Johnson - University of Rochester

64.        John Judis - The New Republic, The American Prospect

65.        Foster Kamer - The Village Voice

66.        Michael Kazin - Georgetown University

67.        Ed Kilgore - Democratic Strategist

68.        Richard Kim - The Nation

69.        Charlie Kireker - Air America Media

70.        Mark Kleiman - UCLA The Reality Based Community

71.        Ezra Klein - Washington Post, Newsweek, The American Prospect

72.        Joe Klein - TIME

73.        Robert Kuttner - American Prospect, Economic Policy Institute

74.        Paul Krugman - The New York Times, Princeton University

75.        Lisa Lerer - POLITICO

76.        Daniel Levy - Century Foundation

77.        Ralph Luker - Cliopatria

78.        Annie Lowrey - Washington Independent

79.        Robert Mackey - New York Times

80.        Mike Madden - Salon

81.        Maggie Mahar - The Century Foundation

82.        Dylan Matthews - Harvard University

83.        Alec McGillis - Washington Post

84.        Scott McLemee - Inside Higher Ed

85.        Sara Mead - New America Foundation

86.        Ari Melber - The Nation

87.        David Meyer - University of California at Irvine

88.        Seth Michaels - MyDD.com

89.        Luke Mitchell - Harper's Magazine

90.        Gautham Nagesh - The Hill, Daily Caller

91.        Suzanne Nossel - Human Rights Watch

92.        Michael O'Hare - University of California at Berkeley

93.        Josh Orton - MyDD.com, Air America Media

94.        Rodger Payne - University of Louisville

95.        Rick Perlstein - Author, Campaign for America's Future

96.        Nico Pitney - Huffington Post

97.        Harold Pollack - University of Chicago

98.        Katha Pollitt - The Nation

99.        Ari Rabin-Havt - Media Matters

100.      Joy-Ann Reid - South Florida Times

101.      David Roberts - Grist

102.      Lamar Robertson - Partnership for Public Service

103.      Sara Robinson - Campaign For America's Future

104.      Alyssa Rosenberg - Washingtonian, The Atlantic, Government Executive

105.      Alex Rossmiller - National Security Network

106.      Michael Roston - Newsbroke

107.      Laura Rozen - POLITICO, Mother Jones

108.      Felix Salmon - Reuters

109.      Greg Sargent - Washington Post

110.      Thomas Schaller - Baltimore Sun

111.      Noam Scheiber - The New Republic

112.      Michael Scherer - TIME

113.      Mark Schmitt - American Prospect, The New America Foundation

114.      Rinku Sen - ColorLines Magazine

115.      Julie Bergman Sender - Balcony Films

116.      Adam Serwer - American Prospect

117.      Walter Shapiro - PoliticsDaily.com

118.      Kate Sheppard - Mother Jones

119.      Matthew Shugart - UC San Diego

120.      Nate Silver - FiveThirtyEight.com

121.      Jesse Singal - The Boston Globe, Washington Monthly

122.      Ann-Marie Slaughter - Princeton University

123.      Ben Smith - POLITICO

124.      Sarah Spitz - KCRW

125.      Adele Stan - The Media Consortium

126.      Paul Starr - The Atlantic

127.      Kate Steadman - Kaiser Health News

128.      Jonathan Stein - Mother Jones

129.      Sam Stein - Huffington Post

130.      Matt Steinglass - Deutsche Presse-Agentur

131.      James Surowiecki - The New Yorker

132.      Jesse Taylor - Pandagon.net

133.      Steven Teles - Yale University

134.      Mark Thoma - The Economists' View

135.      Michael Tomasky - The Guardian

136.      Jeffrey Toobin - CNN, The New Yorker

137.      Rebecca Traister - Salon

138.      Tracy Van Slyke - The Media Consortium

139.      Paul Waldman - Author, American Prospect

140.      Dave Weigel - Washington Post, MSNBC, The Washington Independent

141.      Moira Whelan - National Security Network

142.      Scott Winship - Pew Economic Mobility Project

143.      J. Harry Wray - DePaul University

144.      D. Brad Wright - University of NC at Chapel Hill

145.      Kai Wright - The Root

146.      Holly Yeager - Columbia Journalism Review

147.      Rich Yeselson - Change to Win

148.      Matthew Yglesias - Center for American Progress, The Atlantic Monthly

149.      Jonathan Zasloff - UCLA

150.      Julian Zelizer - Princeton University

151.      Avi Zenilman - POLITICO

From:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2561229/posts?page=1 (this link has all of the sources for these names)

Another excellent link, is the connection between these journalists and socialist organizations:

http://noisyroom.net/blog/2010/07/26/socialist-journolistas/

Remember, there aer over 400 journalists on the JournoList.

The Healthcare Debate

What followed was a roaring endorsement of the recently passed healthcare bill by Consumer Reports.

So, I responded with this email:

(I have left off names and salutations)

Someone who also received his email responded with:

Some one else then joined in:

Sorry to hear about your computer problems.

 

I have chronicled our discussion here:

 

http://kukis.org/blog/ConservativeReview114.htm

 

which is a weekly ezeen which I put out, and those reading this are welcome to request that I sent this to them (I put it out every Sunday afternoon). I am sure that it is not your cup of tea.

 

I also have to express my appreciation that you have kept our discussion civil, even though we may never agree on anything.

 

I believe that you have hit upon a fundamental disagreement that we will always have, and that is on our founding fathers. Our founding fathers distrusted man in connection to power and government, and sought to spread power throughout several branches of government. Both George Bush and Barrack Obama have sought to further increase the power of federal government, an approach with which you apparently agree is the right direction for us to go in; and an approach which I disagree with.

 

You, and many progressives, see this as a natural evolution to be embraced; and I do not. You have a personal faith in government and government-run and government-regulated bureaucracies, and I do not share your faith. I do not believe that adopting such a healthcare system will automatically result in good and free healthcare for everyone and you do.

 

My primary objection to the Consumer Reports article, which initiated this discussion, was its complete lack of objectivity. How can an organization like CR, which purports to be fair and honest and neutral, look at a 2000+ page bill and proclaim that it to be so flawless as to not merit a single objection or caveat in their entire evaluation. This approach, which lacked any criticism whatsoever, should have set off alarms in everyone's head. CR points out that the on/off knob on its CR pick is misplaced, or the wrong color. But, absolutely no criticism of this 2000+ page bill.

 

I like that the various phone companies have separated (your illustration) and that they all want my business. I like that the electric companies are in competition for my business. I do not like that my gas company and water company have no competition, because they treat me like trash (my gas company overcharged me one day for a clerical error which they made; my water company literally dug up my entire front yard to find 1 small leak). If I get ticked off at one electric company or if I believe I can get a better deal with another one, I have that choice. Therefore, I see true market competition as a good thing.

 

The government intrusion into our healthcare system so far has resulted in fraud, waste and more people are turned down by Medicare for treatment than by any insurance company (about twice as many, on average). For these reasons, I do not trust this government-run/regulated healthcare system.

 

Furthermore, I particularly do not trust President Obama, who has said, 7,392 times that, "If you like your healthcare provider/doctor then you can keep them under my plan." Recently, he admitted, 1 time, that is not true. He has also used 3 illustrations from people's interactions with insurance companies as reasons why we should not continue with private insurance (without a government backstop of some sort). However, he mis-reported the facts of ALL 3 CASES. Why should I trust him? Why should I trust Congress? Why should I trust Democratic members of Congress who say the Republicans have no suggestions, when their bill has been posted online for months? Why should I trust Congress that tell me their medical plan will result in a budget increase, when every fibre of my being knows that is a lie?

 

You have an amazing faith in government; and an even stronger faith in a more centralized government. Any Christian would love to have the same intensity of faith in God and His Son Jesus Christ that you have in government.

 

Out of curiousity, do you want to see a universal healthcare system imposed, no matter what it does to our economy or no matter what it does to the innovaive nature of medicine in the United States? Do you want to see such a system imposed on the American people, even though a significant majority of the American people oppose the House and Senate bills?

 

Republicans have had a very short and succinct plan on the table for months (misrepresented as being the "party of no"). The propsitions in their plan enjoy popular support. Would you be opposed to a much shorter healthcare bill with only the provisions that have a majority support? For instance, a majority of Americans support torte reform. Therefore, I believe that ought to be in the healthcare bill. A majority of Americans do not support a government option; and therefore, I believe that should not be in the bill. Do you believe that, when dealing with a sixth of our economy, that all sides of the issue should have a voice and that changes should only be made where there is a clear consent of the people?

 

Finally, how do you feel about putting all of these governmental programs and spending on hold until business is stimulated enough to begin hiring again? If more people are employed, more people have health insurance; to me, that is a good thing. This would have a more immediate effect than passing the Senate or House bills on healthcare (which do not kick in for several years anyway).

 

take care,

Media reality check: networks protest Arizona's immigration law with cameras and microphones

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2010/07/28/media-reality-check-networks-protest-arizonas-immigration-law-cameras-an

GM car dealerships were closed down, based upon race:

http://americasright.com/?p=5077

The connection between these journalists on the JournoList and various socialist organizations:

http://noisyroom.net/blog/2010/07/26/socialist-journolistas/

Van Irion gives a short and simple timeline of how government has interfered with the American healthcare system:

http://www.van4congress.org/issues/health-care/

The Chevy Volt:

http://www.kcfreepress.com/news/2010/jul/29/chevy-volt-pricing-sparks-debate/

Free Donald Berwick!

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/07/27/free-donald-berwick/

[Anthony] Weiner with relish (video and story):

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2010/07/31/abc-and-nbc-showcase-weiner-s-anti-gop-scream-fest-expressing-nation-s-

Breitbart extends the olive branch to Sherrod:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/andrew-breitbarts-olive-branch-to-shirley-sherrod-hed-like-to-meet-in-private/

The real Sherrod story is still untold (even though she was interview approximately 9,382 times on the alphabet news, none of this background ever came up):

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/07/real_sherrod_story_still_untol.html

Additional Sources

Obama administration memo leak about granting amnesty to illegal aliens:

http://stargtha.blogspot.com/2010/07/memo-leak-shows-obama-regime-wants-to.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/29/memo-outlines-backdoor-amnesty-plan-for-obama/

http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2010/07/30/20100730immigration-reforms-memo-rbrk30-ON.html

Obama touts drug felon as a good reason that unemployment benefits ought to be extended (obviously, he did not know she was a felon):

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/greg-gutfeld/2010/08/01/drug-felons-and-eternal-unemployment-benefits

Democrats, Not Mortgage Holders, are Villains of the Subprime Crisis

RUSH: I got an e-mail last night. I'm glad I got this e-mail, 'cause I want to correct a misunderstanding apparently many of you might have. "Dear Rush." This is from a woman named Michelle. "I have been listening to your show for years. I have never been moved to write you, but after hearing your view regarding people that are not able to make their mortgage payments or are in foreclosure, I have to write. My husband and I are conservative. We live within our means. The economic disaster created by our politicians has pushed us into near bankruptcy. We didn't plan on getting lymphoma, that our home in Florida would become worthless due to the recklessness of our government and investors, that the business my husband worked for for 13 years would be bankrupt due to the downturn in the economy, and my small business sales would drop 60%.

"We anticipated none of that. We didn't plan on any of that. You made it sound like anyone that could not make their mortgage payment was reckless and never should have been given the mortgage. I know that many people out there mortgaged their homes and made crazy purchases and have lost them. We have a 15-year loan on our home that we have less than five years left to pay off but now our income is barely enough to make that payment because of Obama rules that our bank cannot roll our note into a 30-year note which would reduce our payment by 50%. Living hand-to-mouth was not in the plans for my husband's 65th birthday. Because of our government we have lost our retirement savings and age 65 we're starting over. Colonel Sanders could do it, so I guess we can, too. Not everyone having trouble making their mortgage payment is reckless and living above their means."

Now, Michelle (and to any of you who were listening yesterday and heard my comments on this), rest assured I'm not talking about you. I was talking about the subprime mortgage business, and I was talking about people who had no business having money lent to them. The subprime mortgage mess is the foundation of this debacle, this financial debacle. That's the sole reason -- well, not the sole reason, but it's well over half of it -- and it was all based on liberalism. It was all based on this notion that it's not fair that somebody should be able to buy a house and other people can't.

So, "We're going to make it right. We're going to make sure that people that can't afford a house are going to live in one and we're going to loan them money that essentially they'll never have to pay back, and those mortgages are gonna become worthless but that's okay. We will use Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to guarantee them," and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are now in hock like you can't believe and they're the only two organizations that have been exempted from "financial regulatory reform" and people that work at Fannie Mae in the upper echelons in the executive suites (Freddie Mac as well) got sweet mortgage deals from Countrywide, from Angelo Mozilo, the same way as Chris Dodd and a bunch of other politicians did. So the game was rigged in favor of the ruling class.

The first subprime mortgage loan, I think, was made in 1991 or 1993. It was a silly social program, and of course the banks were forced to do it. We've mentioned this countless times. Janet Reno was telling banks: If you don't make these loans we're going to come investigate you like you can't believe. Well, the people that run these banks are essentially cowards, as most people are when the government comes knocking on your door. Most people are regulated one way or another by the government. Banks, too. So here comes Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter or their emissaries Chris Dodd and Barney Frank knocking on the door; ACORN at the front gate, a bunch of ragtag advocates for the poor threatening to burn down your bank. All these people show up and demand that you essentially give money away.

Okay, so you're a bank. "I gotta do this, but I have a responsibility here to people that work here. I got a responsibility to the shareholders of the bank. I just can't give the business away. What am I going to do?" So they went about creating a bunch of ways to make something valueless have value. Collateralized debt obligations. You've heard of all these new financial products that were created which were basically insurance programs. They would package mortgages together and sell 'em to unsuspecting people, and they would think that, "These people are going to pay these loans back and the monthly payments will roll in." Nobody was paying the loans back because nobody that was lent the money had the money to pay 'em back. Some people were not even asked their income!

This was all because of the pressure of people like the Reverend Jackson and others had brought to bear. You might remember the term "redlining." It was unfair! Redlining was racist. It was "rich white bankers deciding that black people, just because they're black, were not gonna get loans." It wasn't because of that at all. It was because they didn't have the money to pay it back -- and it wasn't just black people, but they made it racist and so nobody wants to be called a racist, so bammo. They start giving the money away from the bank, and all was hunky-dory, selling these rigged financial products to give themselves insurance, to try to give valueless paper some value. Everything was fine as long as the value of homes kept rising, but when that stopped and when the bubble burst, shazam! Everything went to hell fast.

That's the foundation of the economic crisis that we're in, and the very people that caused it are giving themselves standing ovations for creating a "financial regulatory reform" bill. The very people that caused it are the very people that investigated what went wrong. They didn't investigate themselves (naturally), so here we are. So my rant yesterday was not about people who are still paying the mortgage or who are barely able to pay the mortgage. I was not talking about people who took out a loan and never intended to pay it back. I was talking about politicians yesterday -- and Obama? When he talks about this, he talks about the very people I'm talking about as having been "tricked" by bankers into taking mortgages that the bankers knew they'd never be able to pay back. Because, folks, there is nothing free.

At some point, I don't care what kind of insurance policies these bank and financial people write themselves. If you are in a house for which you can't make a payment, at some point you're not going to be in that house. Somebody's going to pay for it, and if it isn't you, somebody who is paying for it is either gonna own it and kick you out or live in it themselves. Pure and simple. But the good old Democrat Party tried to convince everybody, "You can have a house for free! It's called affordable housing, and you vote for us because we're the ones that put you in that house," and now look where we are. They look at market forces and say, "Markets are unfair, markets are prejudiced, markets are biased," and they're not. Markets are essentially fair. Left alone, they take care of themselves.

Just like any other activity, you're going to have bad actors in them and you have to have regulations to take care of them. But this whole thing was used to trash and destroy the whole financial system and definition of this country: capitalism. It was almost as though this was done on purpose. "See? See? Capitalism doesn't work. See? It leaves out the people at the bottom. It hurts the people at the bottom. Capitalism has no compassion. It doesn't care about people." Well, this was not capitalism that failed. This was liberalism that failed. It was pure, unadulterated, central planning socialism that failed. The subprime mortgage crisis was not capitalism. And yet capitalism is what's being tarred and feathered. Left alone, markets are more fair and more blind than justice is, but people just can't leave 'em alone. So, Michelle, I wasn't talking about you and your husband and so forth. I was talking about people who had no business being lent the money in the first place. Sorry you misunderstood.

RUSH: To illustrate my point even further: "Subprime mortgages accounted for 9 percent of all mortgage originations from 1996 through 2004." But that 9% became 21% from 2004 to 2006, 21% of all mortgages were subprime. Twenty-one percent of all mortgages were essentially money given away to people because they were loans made to people that everybody knew going in would never pay them back. And that 21% of the mortgage market being subprime equaled about $600,000 billion in 2006, which was at the time one-fifth of the US home loan market. And just to prove that there is no winning with some people, here's Obama, he says, "There are people like the couple I met in Las Vegas who were tricked into buying a house they couldn't afford and are at risk of facing foreclosure."

It's an out-and-out lie. They weren't tricked. They were pawns. The banks were forced into making loans to people. And even after all of that, the NAALCP turned around and sued 12 mortgage lenders for tricking blacks into subprime loans, and there was no trickery going on. That was March 13th of 2009, the NAACP said bank giants steered blacks to bad loans. I mean, you want to talk about a conspiracy? This is exactly what it was. It was a giant conspiracy, and all of these elementary parts of the left were in on the game from the get-go, follow the money. (interruption) What, Snerdley? What is it in there that you want to ask the program host about? Nothing? Fine and dandy.

RUSH: This is Bob in Lordstown, Ohio. Bob, you're first. It's great to have you on the Rush Limbaugh program. Hello.

CALLER: Brother Limbaugh, mega dittos. I'm sitting on the front porch smoking a Hoya de Monterrey Excalibur, natural wrapper, of course.

RUSH: Way to go, sir, way to go.

CALLER: Let me tell you tomorrow's news today, Rush. Americans don't want electric cars. It's some pink pantywaisting brie set politician in Washington's wet dream. Just what I want, a car I gotta plug in that has batteries that are totally against everything that these people stand for as far as the atmosphere, as far as the ability to recycle this particular kind of product, and on top of that it's going to cost me $40,000. You're a pretty smart guy. You tell me, how much gasoline can I buy for 40K? A lot, yes?

RUSH: Exactly.

CALLER: And I'll tell you something, out here in Lordstown we build gasoline powered vehicles. General Motors gasoline powered vehicles. That's what the American people want, brother Limbaugh, they don't want electric.

RUSH: Exactly, because that's what they're buying when they have the money to buy them. Not only is all of that correct, $41,000 for a Volt, but they know you'll never pay that so there's a $7500 come-on, a credit if you buy it. It will actually cost you $7500 less than $41,000. Then you go plug in the baby, for 40 miles round trip, a 40 mile round trip on a charge that takes three to four hours. How long does it take you to drive 20 miles? Where are the charge stations? The charge station will be your home, right? Now, what happens to your electric bill? You have just gone out and you forked over $41,000 for an electric car that gets 40 miles to the charge and with a backup gas reservoir to give you 375 miles to the tank. And that's the backup. The primary is 40 miles to the charge.

You plug it into your garage and you wait until you see your electric bill. And all of this is what Bob's talking about. All of this is supposed to reduce a carbon footprint. Ha! You are expanding your carbon footprint, and all the while Obama has promised to put the coal industry out of business. So where are we gonna get the electricity to charge these things? "Rush, didn't you feel guilty turning down the General Motors advertising?" No, I really didn't because I was turning down an advertising contract from Obama. It was not really hard to do, folks. I couldn't come here in good conscience and start blabbing about Obama manufactured cars, just like I wouldn't become an endorser for Obama health care. I'm not a sellout. Let other people do it.

RUSH: An executive for Obama Motors said the Volt is a game-changing product. The iPhone was a game-changing product, and it didn't need a tax credit. Game-changing products do not need tax credits, folks. No way. An e-mail said: "What kind of anchorman are you not carrying the water for Obama and Obama Motors?" The kind we used to have is the kind of anchorman I am.

RUSH: To the phones we go. Scott in Virginia Beach. I'm glad you waited, sir. You're next on the Rush Limbaugh program. Hi.

CALLER: Rush, it's an honor to speak with you. I just wanted to add another layer to your subprime premise. If you remember ten, 12 years ago prior to the buildup of the real estate and the mortgage boom, consumer credit was at an all-time high. And if you remember, it was gonna undermine the country and everybody was panicking and I think a lot of what we're talking about, they just connived to come together and rolled all the consumer credit into mortgages, and I know tons of people who did that.

RUSH: Yeah, that's exactly right. Consumer credit card debt was just rolled over into mortgages.

CALLER: That's all, and we just extended ourselves another ten to ten years of an inevitable outcome which we're now facing. So...

RUSH: Yeah and what was the purpose of that? There was a political purpose of that. What was the political purpose of that?

CALLER: Probably just, you know, everybody was upside down. I mean, even consumer spending.

RUSH: The political part of this was to ensure that Democrat voters never had to pay their bills. Pure and simple. So in effect here we had subprime credit cards, subprime car loans, subprime mortgages -- and it all came to a screeching halt. The bubble burst. Thanks, Scott, appreciate it.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/07/21/dodd-frank-lets-fannie-and-freddie-deadbeats-slide/

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/13/national/main4863917.shtml

Rush Limbaugh, the "Obnoxious Anti-Environmentalist" was Right

RUSH: TIME Magazine on their website by the putrid Michael Grunwald, he's the writer of the story: "The BP Spill: Has the Damage Been Exaggerated? -- President Obama has called the BP oil spill 'the worst environmental disaster America has ever faced,' and so has just about everyone else. Green groups are sounding alarms about the 'Catastrophe Along the Gulf Coast,' while CBS, Fox and MSNBC slap 'Disaster in the Gulf' chryons on all their spill-related news. Even BP fall guy Tony Hayward, after some early happy talk, admitted the spill was an 'environmental catastrophe.' The obnoxious anti-environmentalist Rush Limbaugh has been a rare voice arguing that the spill -- he calls it 'the leak' -- is anything less than an ecological calamity, scoffing at the avalanche of end-is-nigh eco-hype." The obnoxious anti-environmentalist Rush Limbaugh, writes the putrid Michael Grunwald.

Well, the next paragraph begins this way. Well, the obnoxious and anti-environmentalist Rush "has a point. The Deepwater explosion was an awful tragedy for the 11 workers who died on the rig, and it's no leak; it's the biggest oil spill in U.S. history. It's also inflicting serious economic and psychological damage on coastal communities. ... Yes, the spill killed birds -- but so far, less than 1% of the birds killed by the Exxon Valdez. Yes, we've heard horror stories about oiled dolphins -- but, so far, wildlife response teams have collected only three visibly oiled carcasses of any mammals. Yes, the spill prompted harsh restrictions on fishing and shrimping, but so far, the region's fish and shrimp have tested clean, and the restrictions are gradually being lifted. And, yes, scientists have warned that the oil could accelerate the destruction of Louisiana's disintegrating coastal marshes ... but, so far, shorelines assessment teams have only found about 350 acres of oiled marshes, when Louisiana was already losing about 15,000 acres of wetlands every year." So it's convoluted piece, ladies and gentlemen, but does point out that the obnoxious and anti-environmentalist Rush Limbaugh has a point, that it's all been exaggerated.

"Marine scientist Ivor Van Heerden, another former LSU prof who's working for a spill response contractor, says 'there's just no data to suggest this is an environmental disaster. I have no interest in making BP look good -- I think they lied about the size of the spill -- but we're not seeing catastrophic impacts,' says Van Heerden, who, like just about everyone else working in the Gulf these days, is being paid out of BP's spill response funds. 'There's a lot of hype, but no evidence to justify it.' The scientists I spoke with cite four basic reasons the initial eco-fears seem overblown. First, the Deepwater Horizon oil, unlike the black glop from the Valdez, is comparatively light and degradable..." something I said within the first week of the spill. "...which is why the slick in the Gulf is dissolving surprisingly rapidly now that the gusher has been capped." It's not surprising to me. It was predicted by me. I didn't have to predict it because I knew this would be true.

"Second, the Gulf of Mexico, unlike Prince William Sound, is balmy at more than 85 degrees, which also helps bacteria break down oil. Third, heavy flows of Mississippi River water helped keep the oil away from the coast, where it can do much more damage. Finally, Mother Nature can be incredibly resilient." Everything pointed out by the obnoxious anti-environmentalist Rush Limbaugh. Mother Nature can be incredibly resilient. Well, who's Mother Nature? I'll say it again. Mother Nature is God, the God of the Bible, the God of creation. This is the putrid Michael Grunwald, the writer: "Around Casse-tete Island in Timbalier Bay, where new shoots of spartina grasses were sprouting in oiled marshes, and new leaves were growing on the first black mangroves I had ever seen that were actually black. 'It comes back fast, doesn't it?' Van Heerden said." Remarkably resilient, comes back fast. There you have it, the obnoxious anti-environmentalist Rush Limbaugh.

And the USA Today has a story: "Missing Oil in Gulf Baffles Officials." This is by Rick Jervis, USA Today, partisan political operative. "For more than three months, Gulf Coast residents and federal officials have asked where the oil spill was headed and how much damage it would deliver. Now, a new, equally baffling question looms: Where has the oil gone?" Where is it? "The amount of surface oil that has bubbled up from the leaking well at the site of the Deepwater Horizon rig sinking has rapidly shrunk in size since the well was capped. ... Recent flyovers of the spill area spotted only one sizeable oil deposit in the region, down considerably from the large pools of thick, reddish oil that washed into Louisiana's coastal marshes and beaches along the Gulf of Mexico. 'What we're trying to figure out is: Where is all the oil at?' said retired Coast Guard admiral Thad Allen, the oil response's federal overseer. 'There's still a lot of oil that's unaccounted for.'"

I'll tell you, it's hiding next to the 3.6 million jobs that have been saved, admiral. It's hiding right next to all the heat that the global warming people can't find. So you can't find the oil, the global warming hoaxers cannot find their global warming, and there's three and a half million jobs that have been saved out there that nobody else can find. They're all three hiding out together just to screw you. Do you realize the only reliable reporter in the media today is me? Now, you're going to have a lot of people, "Of course the oil was gonna --" nobody had the guts to say this when it happened. I mean Gene Taylor did, a Democrat from Mississippi, and of course Anderson Cooper of Anderson Cooper 24 raked him over the coals as well as me for being insensitive and heartless and having zero compassion about this.

"Federal scientists estimate that 126 million to 218 million gallons have spilled into the Gulf since the start of the spill. About 80 million gallons of that has been skimmed, burned off or captured in containment efforts -- leaving at least 40 million gallons of crude unaccounted for." Where is it? "The Gulf's searing summer heat could also speed up the biodegradation process. Microbes have been known to eat as much as 50% to 80% of oil patches in a few weeks during experiments." What, you mean the ocean's going to take care of it? Exactly as who said? The obnoxious anti-environmentalist Rush Limbaugh who said the ocean is gonna eat it alive, those are my exact words, the ocean is gonna eat it alive? I said try surviving in seawater for very long and see what happens to you. Oil seeps from the ocean floor daily in amounts equal to what was leaking daily from the oil rig spill. Never makes the surface. It literally is eaten alive. And now all of a sudden microbes in the Gulf of Mexico, evil microbes have been known to eat as much as 50 to 80% of oil patches. My exact words, the ocean, the Gulf's gonna eat it alive, it's gonna eat it up, it's gonna absorb it, it's gonna evaporate. And I'm not a scientist.

"Allen that said no one should breathe easy yet." Okay. (panting) We're not breathing easy. We're still in anticipation. (panting) This is still a disaster, right? Federal scientists say that "Less oil on the surface does not mean that there isn't oil beneath the surface, however, or that our beaches and marshes aren't still at risk." It's true, they're not. The beaches and marshes are not still at risk. It's right here: "beaches and marshes aren't still at risk." They're not. Just in time for the Obamas to head down there on their third of four vacations in the last 30 days. "Federal scientists are still trying to determine how much oil may be lingering underwater. The underwater oil is floating through the water column, not embedded on the seafloor, said Jane Lubchenco, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The lack of surface oil is being closely followed by the teams of fishers who have been recruited to clean up the oil as part of BP's Vessels of Opportunity program. Many of them have relied on the program for income ever since the spill forced their fishing grounds to close." And now that source of income's dried up. There's no oil.

Will BP be given its $20 billion shakedown fund back? Ha. No, he didn't say I'm anti-environment. TIME Magazine, the putrid Michael Grunwald referred to me as the obnoxious and anti-environmentalist Rush Limbaugh. Now, why am I obnoxious? 'Cause I'm right, simple as pie. I'm obnoxious because I'm right. They just can't stand it. I'm obnoxious because I'm right. (interruption) Why are they acknowledging it? That's a good question. They could have written a story without putting my name in there. I guess they just wanted to call me obnoxious. It's probably why they included me in the story. It is a good question, though. They could have written that story, "Guess what, the oil's not there, baffling everybody." But no, they say the obnoxious Rush Limbaugh wasn't fooled. Now, this is a lesson. I asked the question, "Why am I obnoxious?" The answer: Because I'm right. You see how they try to intimidate people from speaking their minds. See how the ruling class tries to intimidate you from being right. If you're right, you're mean-spirited. If you're right, you're obnoxious. If you're right, why, you're anti-environment, you're anti-everything if you're right.

RUSH: You know, there's another reason why the left is angry out there about this oil spill. Obama did not lift a finger to help. The left is looking at this, the environmentalist wackos, as such a blown opportunity. He did nothing -- sat around for how many days, 58, 60 days? -- and did diddly-squat. God took over. Obama cannot raise the seas, he cannot lower the seas, he cannot clean up the seas. He cannot get rid of the oil. I have the guts to report it. So all they can do -- and don't be surprised if this happens. Don't be surprised if the partisan political operatives in the so-called media, the Fake Media, say, "Well, of course Obama didn't do anything. He knew that this would take care of itself on its own."

No, no, no! We're not going to let 'em get away with that because it wasn't long ago -- how long ago was it? -- that Obama went on TV and said he was in there shaving one morning (which he has to do, I understand, once a week) and his little girl came in and said (child voice), "Daddy? Daddy? Did you plug the leak yet, daddy? Did you plug the hole?" So when the Fake Media comes around and says, "Obama knew it was going to take care of itself and that's why he wasn't in a panic." No, no, no, no. Obama's family was panicking over whether or not he'd plugged the hole yet. Very, very simple. During the break I went back to the El Rushbo Stack of Stuff at my website. This is from my website Quick Hits page back on May 18th. The headline was "Hayward Got Bashed for Telling the Truth."

This is what I said on this program back on May 18th: "I saw on television today the CEO of [BP]. I forget his name but he's a doctor, a Ph.D. doctor. This guy is really in for it. I don't know... This guy obviously has not been trained about how to deal with the media in this era, because he told the truth. He said (paraphrased), 'Come on. Do not worry. This is not heavy crude like came out of the Exxon Valdez.' He said, 'When you look at the total water volume of the Gulf of Mexico, compared to what's leaking from this oil well, it's nothing." Now, that's my word; he didn't say 'nothing,' but he said, 'This is not oil. It's not even going to kill marine life. They'll adapt to it. The marine life would not be able to adapt to heavy oil but this is light sweet oil and compared to the entire water volume of the Gulf, why, this is like raindrops in the ocean.'"

"He's a geologist. I know he's a geologist, but this guy is crucified now," I said back on May 18th when he said this. I continued by saying, "I just learned that the British Petroleum CEO's name is Dr. Tony Hayward. Dr. Hayward gained a first-class geology degree and a Ph.D. from Edinburgh University at the age of 22, but what does he know? He's the [BP] CEO who put in perspective the amount of oil that's coming out of that leak compared to the entire water volume of the Gulf of Mexico. He would know much more than these politicians, of course, and yet the Obama [regime] is now having more investigations, and Ken Salazar's come out, 'You know, we failed.' Somebody call Obama and say a member of his regime is using the word 'fail.'" So the point is Hayward was right just like I was. Now he's been forced out of a job. He was attacked unmercifully and he has been forced from his job, all because he was right. He didn't show sufficient compassion. He didn't show sufficient empathy, didn't show sufficient understanding. So he's gone. He's literally been dispatched to Siberia, and he was right. He put it in perspective.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2007202,00.html

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/07/29/time-mag-shocker-rush-limbaugh-might-have-been-right-about-oil-spill

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews_excl/ynews_excl_sc3270

Parsing Politico on Journolist

RUSH: Let's just do the Politico piece right now, because this may be one of the most embarrassing pieces I have ever read -- and looking back on the things I have read, there's a lot of competition for most the embarrassing thing I've ever read. This piece may be at the top. "Journolist Veers Out of Bounds," by Roger Simon, Politico. Ahem. "This may be the most embarrassing thing I have ever written -- and looking back on my writing, there is a lot of competition for that dubious distinction -- but when I became a reporter, it was almost a holy calling." Now, Roger, the thing about journalism is it's supposed to be objective, dispassionate, and skeptical. There's supposed to be a lot of curiosity in there. A "holy calling" implies none of that. A "holy calling" means you got all the answers, and you're out there to save something. That's what a holy calling is. "We really believed we were doing good," he writes. "We informed the public and helped make democracy work."

He didn't say this, but go to any J school and ask the students running around the halls, "Why are you here?"

(sniveling student impression) "I want to save the world! I want to right the injustices of the world."

"Well, why are you here? This is not where this is supposed to happen."

"I want to save the world."

This is basically what he's writing here.

"We really believed we were doing good. We informed the public and helped make democracy work." (sigh) Folks, even I frighten myself sometimes with how right I am. For the entire history of this program -- and dating back to even before this program when I was doing this program in Sacramento -- people would ask about journalists, and I'd say, "They think they are the personal guarantors of freedom. They are the personal guarantee. They are the last line of defense against the Constitution and the First Amendment." They do believe they are our personal guarantors of freedom. What does he write here? "We really believed we were doing good. We informed the public and helped make democracy work.

"We exposed wrongdoing wherever we found it. We reported without fear or favor. As a columnist, I tried to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable." Well, even that's true! How do you rise through the ranks of journalism? Find somebody and destroy 'em, and then the Washington Post might hire you. "Afflict the comfortable"? When's the last time you did that, Roger? When is the last time you "exposed wrongdoing wherever you found it"? When's the last time you "reported without fear or favor"? Why all the polls that prove journalists are liberal and vote Democrat with the regularity of a well-made clock? A journalist doesn't try to "comfort" anyone. They inform them!

What is this "comfort" business, and when did becoming "comfortable" become a sin worthy of affliction? We're here to afflict...? I'm comfortable right now. I guess that's why they come after me, 'cause I'm comfortable. What in the world is sinful about being comfortable? Why is that an affliction? They inform, or are supposed to. Why be proud of afflicting the comfortable? That to me sounds like you enjoy attacking achievers, and you think that's a "holy calling," to attack the achievers -- and yes, as I answer my question. Yes, it is. Attacking achievers is a "holy calling." He next writes, "I warned you that this would be embarrassing." You're right, Mr. Simon, but not for the reasons you think.

"We loved what we did," he writes, "and we did it with passion. We were proud. We felt -- I am just going to go ahead and say it -- honorable." As far as I'm concerned, honorable people don't do what journalists today do. Forget Journolist. Forget the listserv. Don't try to use that as a scapegoat for what journalism, et al, has become. Journolist (the listserv, those 400 activists) are a tiny, tiny story compared to what we know about the partisan hack media that is coast to coast. Rathergate? Rathergate? You circled the wagons, Roger, to protect a guy who used and forged fake documents to affect an election! This is honorable? You have mindless promotion of climate fraud? No curiosity whatsoever! There's a giant hoax that's been perpetrated on the world, and you're right there promoting it?

You're honorable? Journalism was honorable? The things that you at Politico and others have done to Sarah Palin and Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork and George Allen are honorable? The politics of personal destruction advanced by phony journalists did not start with Ezra Klein, Mr. Simon. Honorable? What did remembrance Sarah Palin ever do to you? Best we can figure she threatens you somehow. Mr. Simon then writes, "There were wrongdoers. Fakers, plagiarists, those with private agendas who wished to slant the news. When found, they were often fired. Even when they were subjected to a lesser punishment, their sins were made clear as a lesson to the rest of us." (snorts) When found? They weren't "found," they were exposed!

Nobody was looking for them on the inside. They happened to be exposed. By the way, if you're Laurence Tribe and you hire an assistant to plagiarize somebody else, you can still hold onto your job at Harvard -- as can Doris Kearns Goodwin. A lot of you people have plagiarized and stolen. Honorable? You circle the wagons to protect each other. "There were ... those with private agendas who wished to slant the news." "Were...those with private agendas"? Any and all of you perpetrating a hoax on global warming -- any and all of you who fail to investigate and probe the power of this administration and how it's being used to govern against the will of the people... Slant the news? How about become part of the agenda? There is no news anymore, Mr. Simon. There's no more media. Nothing's real.

"Even when they were subjected to a lesser punishment, their sins were made clear as a lesson to the rest of us. (At a few papers, those who wished to slant the news were publishers or editors who wished to please their publishers. They were rarely fired. But their numbers were few.)" Oh. We're back to this: There aren't that many people slanting, and most of them were editors and publishers but they were close to the conservative owners. (That's how this is to be translated.) "The lines were not muddy. You played it straight," he writes. "Even if you were a columnist and allowed to publish your opinions, you were expected to be fair and accurate." Yeah, this is an embarrassing piece. "At the end of the day, you often went home feeling good."

When was that? Somebody's career had been destroyed? Somebody's life had been destroyed? Somebody had been lied about? Somebody been distorted, maligned, and impugned sufficiently that they were finished? Is that when you went home and felt good? "And when people asked what you did, you replied with pride, not shame." The last time I think you went home happy is when you got Obama elected.

"What do you do for a living?"

"I got Obama elected!"

"What do you do for a living?"

"I got Democrat majorities in the House elected. I got Democrat majorities in the Senate elected, and I -- I -- I'm helping Obama destroy the American capitalist private sector. I go home and I feel really good. That's what I do. I'm...a journalist!"

"[A]s I said, almost a holy calling," he writes. "(And often accompanied by a vow of poverty.) Somewhere along the way, things have gone terribly wrong. Journalism has become a toy, an electronic plaything. I do not blame technology. The giant megaphone of technology has been coupled with a new, angrier, more destructive age. (Yes, you can find extremely angry, extremely partisan times in our past, but I always thought the goal was to progress over the centuries, not regress.) Until recently, there was a semisecret, off-the-record organization called Journolist. It was a listserv, which is a bunch of people who sign up (if allowed) and then get the same e-mails and can reply to everybody on the list. "Journolist was founded by Ezra Klein [a 22-year-old kid] in early 2007, when he was 22 and working for the liberal publication The American Prospect. Klein continued running it when he went to The Washington Post in 2009.

"The Post is a mainstream publication..."

No, it's not, Mr. Klein. It's a liberal, activist agenda-oriented enterprise. "[B]ut Journolist was limited to those 'from nonpartisan to liberal, center to left,'" and then he goes on to describe what Journolist was. "And yet some are still troubled" after the exposure. "Chuck Todd, political director and chief White House correspondent for NBC News, who was not part of Journolist, told me this: 'I am sure Ezra had good intentions when he created it..." No, he didn't. Define good intentions. "[B]ut I am offended the right is using this as a sledgehammer against those of us who don't practice activist journalism. 'Journolist was pretty offensive. Those of us who are mainstream journalists got mixed in with journalists with an agenda. Those folks who thought they were improving journalism are destroying the credibility of journalism. 'This has kept me up nights. I try to be fair. It's very depressing.'"

F. Chuck Todd, NBC, is not an activist journalist. We just gotta make sure Obama wins the day every day, but we're not activist journalists. No! We don't have any of those at NBC.

Tracing Our Decent in Depravity

RUSH: I was asking myself the other night, -- I'm serious about this -- you can have a political figure or a celebrity involved in one of the most embarrassing, illegal or borderline legal things, take your pick, truly despicable things, and yet they become famous, they become the focus of even more attention, they become wealthy, with genuine reprobate behavior. I was asking myself, "At what point in our culture did it change?" It used to be that there was a stigma, an embarrassment to being a reprobate, or to have broken the law or to have just engaged in utter moral depravity. When did it change that this became a resume enhancement? I can't put my finger on it. All I know is that ever since I started this show in the late eighties, early nineties, I have watched this happen, and I have watched this deviancy in our culture get defined downward. We've just given up. As Moynihan said, "We've defined deviancy down." We can't fix that so it's now normal. Bad behavior, we can't stop it so we're just going to say it's normal now.

I have been waiting for the day when society finally says, "Enough! We're going to stop rewarding this kind of behavior." There's not only been no stop to it, it's getting worse and worse and worse, and it's epitomized by Mr. Hillyer's summary here. Half the people he writes about should be in jail, or impeached, or convicted of treason. He's also right when he says there's a whole lot of people on our side of the aisle that are not revved up enough about it. In fact, a little personal illustration of this. When I moved to New York in 1988 to start this program, this program nationally started August 1st of 1988, you will remember, those of you in New York and some of you around the country, you will remember that there was a phenomenon on television at the time, the Morton Downey show.

Now, I replaced Morton Downey Jr. in Sacramento. He got fired for telling a joke using the word "Chinaman" about a city councilman, he wouldn't apologize, so they blew him out of there. They brought me out, they said, "Look, we want controversy. We'll back you up, but not if you make it up. If you're going to say things just to incite riots, just to make people mad, if you're going to say things just to rile 'em up but you don't really believe it, we're not going to back you up. But if you're honest about it, and you stay sane, we'll back you up," and they were true, they were honest about that.

RUSH: So I get to New York in 1988, and shortly after the summer ends, sometime in September, I'm invited to a cocktail party on the Upper East Side at the townhouse home of the noted Lou Lehrman, who was not there. He had just given the use of his home. It was a bunch of the conservative print media that I was being introduced to, and I can remember a number of them came up when they were introduced to me and had it explained why I was in town and what I was there to do they said, "Oh! Are you going to be the Morton Downey Jr. of the radio?" and they seemed to be excited about that prospect.

Now, here these world class models of decorum in print getting all excited about in-your-face, insult broadcasting. You know, putting cigarettes out on people's hands and spitting in their face. I said, "No, no, no. I'm not going to do that. There's no way I'll succeed. I want to be just as classy on my radio show as you are in print," and I said, "That stuff is not going to have a lifespan, that stuff is not going to survive -- and even if it does, I don't want to be part of it. I have no desire to be part of insult broadcasting or insult radio. I don't want to be that far gone into showbiz," and it was at that point I started thinking that the deviancy that was occurring in media would eventually bottom out and there would be a rebound -- and it hasn't bottomed out.

We're still pluming the depths. We're below the gutter. Most media is in the sewer. I don't care what media you're talking about, books, movies, television shows, newspapers. There are examples, rare examples of the opposite. There are exceptions and so forth, and I've always thought of myself as one. But it's not just in broadcasting. It's just the overall cultural decline, the depravity -- and with that decline and that depravity comes increased fame and notoriety. Not for anything but the erratic, depraved behavior become famous for -- and that has given rise to what? My Face, My Butt, My Mouth, My Book, Facebook this, Facebook that. Nobody wants any mystery about themselves anymore.

In fact, there was a piece -- I forget what paper it was; it might have been the New York Times -- about the absence of mystery. Nobody wants any mystery about themselves. I think this paper used the example that it's not possible for there to be a Greta Garbo anywhere. Greta Garbo was a recluse. It was the biggest deal in the world to see Greta Garbo walking the dog or go to the grocery store. It hardly ever happened. Now you couldn't survive as an entertainer, an actor. You couldn't survive living a normal life. You have to be on display and you have to be making a mess of your life in order for the paparazzi to be interested in you. You have to be throwing up bird seed every night. You have to be going in for drug rehab overdoses in the hospitals.

I mean, I'm on the way to the hospital in Hawaii, and before I get there the media vans are waiting outside the hospital emergency room. Before we get there! (interruption) Well, obviously. Reporters pay off EMT people. It's just the way it is. How do you think they get these pictures of Michael Jackson on the gurney? Somebody has to let 'em in there. My point is that this is what Quin Hillyer's writing about here today. No matter where the depravity is -- be it in our media culture, entertainment culture, now the political culture -- there's utter depravity, and it's rewarded! It wins. Lying, cheating, stealing, anti-Americanism wins -- and face it, this is what's got everybody so discombobulated, because none of it makes sense. None of the things that we were raised with, none of the manners we were told to exhibit and live by seem to be rewarded. If you live the life that you were raised to live -- Golden Rule, be polite -- you are a boring.

The MTV Awards. If somebody doesn't drop the F-bomb every ten minutes the critics say, "What a boring show." You go back and look at some of the old Academy Awards presentations (you know, before Marlon Brando brought the Indian babe up to not accept the award and they went politically nuts.) The Cary Grant, Grace Kelly era was bigger than life, the epitome of class. There's no class anywhere anymore, and we certainly don't have class at the highest levels of our politics. All we have is a bunch of people seeking attention in a whole bunch of ways, but they all add up to one thing: "I can't be who I am and get noticed. I have to be outrageous here or do this. I can't even be honest. I gotta come up with an opinion that nobody else has that could be totally wrong but I want to be perceived as the smartest guy in the room 'cause I want to get noticed because my middle name is 'Notice Me! 'Notice Me! 'Notice Me!'" It's an affliction that everybody has, and I've kept waiting for this to bottom out, and it doesn't.

We keep sinking lower.

RUSH: I think I do. I think I do know why it's happened. I think I do know what caused it. In fact, I have very little doubt about this. In fact, I've even said it in so many words on this program when discussing abortion over the years. But I really think the reason for this sinking, spiraling-down deviancy and depravity that gets rewarded -- and people seeking fame on that basis rather than achievement. Back in the old days there wouldn't be a Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian. I don't have anything against them, fine and dandy. What have they done? They haven't done anything. They're circus acts, and life is filled with more and more circus acts. But I think all of this can be traced back to God being shunned, to God being removed from people's lives, to there being no God or false gods or what have you.

You've heard of Nietzsche. In 1882, "God is Dead," he wrote the book. The ruling class has been teaching this. TIME Magazine did a cover: "Is God Dead?" The book was called "The Gay Science," and in it he postulated God was dead. Once you take God out -- once you take conscience out, once you get rid of morality, once you get rid of reasons larger than your own existence, once you get rid of judgmentalism -- then there's nothing left. There no guardrails. There's nothing to keep you on the road. Who cares? Now, the "death" of God. These people had always promulgated it. The death of God is a way of saying that humans are no longer able to believe in any cosmic order. There's no such thing as anything larger than ourselves. There's no concept of intelligence design. No God.

"No, this is all an accident!" I think you have to be brain-dead to believe this also an accident. You have to be brain-dead to believe this all a coincidence. I don't know how anybody, particularly educated people who study the human body, can think that this is an accident. I don't know intellectually how anybody can come to that conclusion, but millions of people have. But if you succeed in convincing people there is no God or that God has died, that will lead not only to (this is what Nietzsche said) the rejection of a belief of cosmic or physical order, but also to a rejection of absolute values themselves because where do they come from?

Where do absolute values come from? Where is the notion of absolute right and wrong? Where does it originate? You go to any religion in the world you want. There aren't too many areas of gray. For example they are not the Ten "Suggestions," and a lot of people we know do not want to live under any kind of judgmentalism at all from other human beings, certainly not from a force that they can't understand. The whole concept of a universal morality, that's scary. That's scary. That means there's a price to pay, and we don't want to pay the price. We don't want to have to pay the price for being who we are, and this is what's happened.

Ever since the whole notion that there is no God has taken hold or that God is dead or that God's just a creation of a bunch of freak wackos that the true intelligent people know that there's no such thing as intelligent design. Allan Bloom. You remember him? I'll never forget this guy. Allan Bloom wrote a book called "The Closing of the American Mind" on campus at the university, and he traced it back to this. I remember watching him on Firing Line. The thing I remember is Alan Bloom was a chain smoker on Firing Line, and nobody made him put the cigarette out. A chain smoker! University of Chicago I think he came from.

If it's not that, if it's not the absence of God that explains the triumph of depravity then it has to be that liberalism breeds insanity. It's one of the two. I happen to think it's the absence of God, because when you boil it all down, if you don't stand for something, you will believe anything -- and doesn't that describe the buffaloed, fooled idiots on the left? They will believe anything! They will believe the most unrealistic, wild things like a Chevrolet Suburban can destroy the climate. They will believe it and they will live their lives that way. They'll become zealot evangelists about it because nothing else has meaning to them. They stand for nothing so they fall for anything. You know, people have asked me, "How are you so sure that global warming is all made up?"

I say, "Because I believe in God." I've been through this riff with you thousands of times. It's 'cause I believe in God. I do not believe I have more power than God. I don't believe God even notices me, much less creates all of this that insignificant microbes like us can destroy. I just can't get my arms around that intellectually. Yet people who stand for nothing who want significance and want to matter and want to think they're all important will buy into the notion. The most insignificant people in the world, the most inconsequential people in the world... I'm talking about the average, run-of-the-mill American liberal. The most inconsequential people in the world, look what they believe!

They are so hungry for relevance that they actually believe that they and us are destroying a planet! It's insane to believe this, and they are so caught up in it that they demand that everybody live an equally inconsequential, irrelevant life like they do -- and their anger and their rage at all of us is really nothing more than fear. Because people like you and me show them daily that they're irrelevant and inconsequential and wrong. We're happy. We're pursuing happiness. We try to live by a standard. It's all a big threat. So the objective is to get rid of anything that equals black or white. Get rid of any truth, because truth is giant, giant threat. Can't live with threats. Threats make us nervous.

Moral values? "Ah, that could be explained away. Yeah, you can explain moral values. That's just the opiate of the masses. That's just a bunch of irrelevant people trying to tell themselves they're good people. Morality? Morality, that's for the great unwashed. We intellectuals, we members of the ruling class, we understand (haughty laughing) what a joke morality is," and yet the people that are heralded as the Wizards of Smart -- the unifiers, the people who are gonna save the country and save us -- are in the process of destroying it. Some people do think that it's being done purposefully, and it's a hard thing to tell 'em it's not 'cause the evidence is incontrovertible. The worst thing that you can be in society today is judgmental. That's why people like us are so hated, folks. The worst thing you can be is judgmental and right. That's why TIME Magazine writes "the obnoxious Rush Limbaugh" was right about the Gulf oil spill.

Obnoxious? Why obnoxious?

Why not be heralded?

No, can't do that. That doesn't fit the template.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio: Why Doesn't the Regime Partner with Arizona?

RUSH: Joe Arpaio, Maricopa County Sheriff, on CNN last night, John King said, "The federal government cites statistics, says, 'You know, there are more guys on the border than ever before, there's less major crime along the border than ever before. This is an overreaction you people are having.'"

ARPAIO: Why don't they just say, "Thank you, sheriff, let's join forces? We cannot do this job alone. We need local law enforcement to work together." The feds can't do this job alone. They know it, the people know it, but why are they fighting us? Why don't we join together? We go after bank robberies, federal, we go after guns, ATF, we do all these other federal laws, but why is it this one law, this other federal law, causes so much controversy from the White House all the way down to the streets of Phoenix? I don't understand that.

RUSH: Yes, he does understand it and he'll explain it here in the next sound bite. He's got a great point here. You listen to that answer carefully, it's the same thing Obama's doing with the economy. If he really wanted to fix it he would partner with business. If he really wanted to stop the oil leak in the Gulf, he would have partnered with BP. If he really wanted to secure the border he would partner with Arizona. After all we're one country, we have the same objective. No, we don't. The objectives of 70 to 80% of the people are not the objectives of this regime. This regime's objectives are all political. They're all about voter registration, it's all about amnesty, it's all about undocumented Democrats becoming documented so they can go out there and vote for Democrats from Obama on down, pure and simple.

This is a great point from the sheriff. Why are we in Arizona the enemy? Why aren't the people crossing the border dragging drugs and bodies and committing all kinds of crime, why aren't they the enemy? Why are we in Arizona the enemy of our own government? Why is our own government governing against our will? Why does our own government partner with others opposed to our own national and state self-interests? A great, great question because Obama's agenda is not Arizona's. Obama's agenda is not the agenda of 70 to 80% of the people in the country. John King said, "What do you think the answer is, sheriff? I mean you say so much controversy from the White House all the way down to the streets of Phoenix. We partner on every other crime, why not this. I don't understand it. Well, what do you think the answer is, sheriff?"

ARPAIO: I'll tell you what the answer is. They want amnesty. Employers want to keep hiring cheap labor and politicians want to make sure they get the Hispanic vote. Doesn't everybody know that?

RUSH: Doesn't everybody know that? It probably was news to the people at CNN.

RUSH: To Rochester, New York, Rick, you're first on the EIB Network. Hello, sir.

CALLER: Hello, Rush. Giga dittos for you. I've been a front row classroom student of yours since 1990.

RUSH: Thank you, sir.

CALLER: My only point is that we need to get better about turning the arguments back around on the liberals. I loved Sheriff Arpaio's comments yesterday, but I wish he'd pressed the reporter to say, "What level of crime are you comfortable with?" I feel like the reporter was patronizing him pointing out his successes at crime suppression but then he made the snarky comment, "Well, isn't that good enough?" I wish sheriff Arpaio had said, "What exact level of crime should I be comfortable with?"

RUSH: Well, here's what Arpaio knows. Arpaio knows that he's gonna leave that studio, but the anchor, the activist is not. Joe Arpaio knows he does not sit behind a Golden EIB Microphone. He has a pistol and a baton, but he doesn't have a microphone. A lot of you, I know you don't like the way our people appear on TV. Turn it around on the media. You want to see the media shamed; you want to see them exposed; you want to see them humiliated. But that's a visceral pleasure. It's nothing more than a visceral pleasure because in truth, nobody is doing more to keep the people safe in Arizona than Joe Arpaio. There's no reason to be critical of Joe Arpaio because of how he does or doesn't behave in the media. This is how we get sidetracked. Leave handling the media to me. Let Arpaio be the great sheriff that he is. He doesn't need to sit there and provoke John King, it's not worth it. He's talking to somebody with the intellect of a pencil eraser. What's the point? John King, everybody at CNN, everybody in the media is a known entity. They are partisan political operatives. Joe Arpaio's not going to change their minds, and, by the way, if John King or anybody else gets humiliated, who's going to see it? There's nobody watching CNN.

I guarantee you more people heard what Sheriff Arpaio said on this program than who watched him say it on CNN. And Joe Arpaio is not a conservative political leader. I know he runs for office and gets elected but he does his job, he's focused on it, he does it very well. Now, we can search for these visceral pleasures. "Yeah, did you see what Arpaio did to the journalist?" The journalist is just going to sit there and say, "This is not about me. I'm here asking the questions." Okay, then what? Arpaio: "No, no, you're asking them, but I want to know what you think." Oh, we'd love to see it. We would love to see it. And I've tried it. You know, I do it. I do it. And you still complain that I shoulda said something else that I didn't say. I'm just kidding.

RUSH: Let me give you some statistics on Joe Arpaio in Maricopa County, Arizona. Maricopa County has deported 26,000 illegal aliens, illegal Democrats, which means they have deported a whopping six and a half percent of Arizona's illegal population over the last four years. These figures come from the partisan political operatives at AP. AP's own numbers. Is that really such a tremendous number? Twenty-six thousand sounds like a lot. Do you think that only six and a half percent of murderers should be rounded up? Do you think only six and a half percent of rapists or purse snatchers or muggers or drug dealers, six and a half percent of drug dealers, do you think only six and a half percent of them should be rounded up? Six and a half percent, Maricopa County, Joe Arpaio, and we got people in this country that think Joe Arpaio is the bad guy.

NYT Targets Justice Roberts in Front Page Story

RUSH: Now, there was something fascinating, front page, above the fold, New York Times last Sunday. Did you see it, Snerdley? It was a huge picture of the Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts. The headline: "The Most Conservative Court in" whatever length of time. Decades, centuries, what have you.

This is how they do it, see? This is how they do it. It's no accident. Here you've got Kagan, who's going to be an absolute disaster. Kagan is not a judge. She's never been a judge. They're gonna give her a robe and a gavel and it's going to be like putting somebody from the Institute for Policy Studies or Greenpeace or the Sierra Club or the NAGs, some interest group like that or Media Matters for America on the Supreme Court. That's essentially what's going to happen here.

Or Todd Gitlin, professor of journalism at Columbia. He's big on the Journolist, the listserv. He's no more a professor of journalism than I am. He has one of the founders of the Students for a Democratic Society. He's Bill Ayers without the bombs and he's teaching journalism at Columbia University! Zev Chafets told me when he was writing the book about me, An Army of One, he went and talked to Todd Gitlin.

Todd Gitlin said, "The guy shouldn't even be on the air," meaning me. Zev told him, "You're a professor of journalism. Have you ever listened to him?"

"I don't need to listen to him! He ought not be on the air," and of course the guy has said Fox News ought not be on the air. And this is a professor of journalism!

Anyway, Kagan getting on the court would be no different than this guy getting on the court. She's not a judge. Bolton's not a judge. These are just liberal activists, partisan political operatives disguised as judges, lawyers, senators, congressmen, representatives, lobbyists, judges, journalists, you name it. So this is... folks, it's an amazing thing to watch a 20% minority rule -- not even govern, but rule -- the country like this.

I mean, the "most conservative court in decades", that big picture of John Roberts, the chief justice. This is how they do it at the New York Times and the Washington Post. This is direct pressure on John Roberts. The last thing you want to be in Washington is to be described as a conservative, right-winger. You're never gonna get the right Style section profiles. You're not gonna get accepted into the ruling class clique. You're not going to be raved about if you're in charge of the most conservative court. This is how they pressure the justices to moderate their views. Now, mind you, this most conservative court in decades barely approved the right to bear arms, 5-4. We're hanging by a thread constitutionally, and the New York Times says this is the most conservative court in decades. There were four votes out of nine to say the Second Amendment doesn't exist. This is the same court that barely approved free speech in elections, the Citizens United case, 5-4. We're hanging by a thread constitutionally. And here comes the New York Times, a couple of days before the judge in Arizona rules on the immigration law, a federal judge, in a case that now looks like it is obviously gonna end up at the Supreme Court.

There are no coincidences out there in politics, very, very few, especially, especially if the Clintons are involved. These judges at the US Supreme Court, somebody tell me how they differ from the mullahs in Iran issuing fatwas? How, exactly? Five to four on a constitutional amendment, number two, 5-4 on the First Amendment, freedom of speech, 5-4, and we got the most conservative court in decades with that big picture of John Roberts? He's the target. He doesn't want to be considered the leader of the most conservative court in decade. That's what they're trying to make him realize. "Judge, you don't want to be considered a conservative, not here in Washington, you're not gonna go anywhere. The cocktail parties? Forget it. Respect in the newspaper, no, no. Not going to happen. You keep presiding over this conservative court stuff and you're finished here socially and you're finished here professionally." That's the message.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/us/25roberts.html

Regime to Fingerprint, Register Mortgage Brokers

RUSH: Get this: "Mortgage loan originators will have to be fingerprinted and sign up to a central registry to do business in future, according to final rules issued on Wednesday by the Federal Reserve and other regulators. The rules are part of the Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008, also called the S.A.F.E. Act. They were issued by the Fed, Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp, Office of Thrift Supervision, Farm Credit Administration and National Credit Union Administration. Mortgage brokers came under tough scrutiny in the wake of the 2007-09 financial crisis, with some lawmakers and regulators sharply critical of underwriting standards and practices that were seen as so loose they helped foster a housing price bubble." This is how the ruling class does it. They create the problem. They force the lenders to make the mortgages, the loans to people who will never be able to pay 'em back, and then when that causes a financial meltdown, blame the people who were forced to do it under duress and pressure. The very federal government that made them issue those loans is now making them be fingerprinted.

Special side note: Those of you illegal immigrants in Arizona listening to me, you cannot go into the mortgage business now because you would have to be fingerprinted. No, actually they can. I take it back. I take it back. If you illegal aliens are looking for a job in Arizona, become a mortgage lender. You wouldn't have to be fingerprinted because nobody can find out whether you're legal or not. You see how this works? I mean this is incredible. Mortgage brokers to be fingerprinted and registered. The last I knew the mortgage brokers were not breaking any laws. I can't wait for November. Folks, this kind of stuff, it's going to be a powder keg out there that's gonna erupt in November. So here we have the illegals in Arizona, we can't ask 'em for papers, they don't have to prove anything, they can't even be arrested by state or local officials because the federal government's not going to arrest them and the judge said the state cannot preempt the federal law even on enforcement issues, but we damn well gonna fingerprint people in the mortgage lending business. Those are the real criminals, those people that were tricking all these poor people into taking these loans. This is Stalinist, folks. This is the stuff that happened in the old Soviet Union.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38467160/ns/business-real_estate/

Liberals Have Been Pushing the Electric Car for a Hundred Years

RUSH: "Electric cars are all the rage. Last Sunday's New York Times contained a long profile of Elon Musk, the entrepreneur behind Tesla Motors, the startup that has produced about 1,000 electric sports cars. On Tuesday, the news was dominated by the announcement of the sticker price ($41,000) of the new Chevrolet Volt. And late Tuesday," the same day, "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid introduced a scaled-back energy bill that promises some $400 million in new subsidies for the electric-car business" in addition to whatever else General Motors has been already been given.

They don't have the time or the votes for cap and trade, so now they're gonna go back and "scale back" the energy bill, and in that scaled back bill, there's $400 million new dollars in subsidies for the electric car business. "That money will be added to the several billion dollars that the federal government has already committed to electric-car development and production. But amid all of the hype, the essential question is obvious: Why is the government throwing so much money at a technology that shows so little promise? The electric-car industry has a century-long history of failure tailgating failure." This is Mr. Robert Bryce at the Daily Beast, TheDailyBeast.com. "The electric-car industry has a century-long history of failure tailgating failure. And yet we are being told that this time things are different," just like this time socialism is gonna work.

We are the people we've been waiting for. This time we've got people that know how to implement socialism. This time we know how to do it. We have the right people, here. We finally have the right kind of money. This time the electric car is going to work. "[T]he technologies are better, the batteries are better..." By the way... (sigh) I'll preface this: I don't want General Motors to fail. Don't anybody misunderstand this. Do you know where they're building the batteries for the Volt? They're building the batteries in South Korea. All these "jobs" Obama's touting as he goes to his own automobile companies today? All of these jobs that we are saving and creating? They're building the batteries in South Korea. Wanna know why? It's dangerous!

There's a lotta toxic and hazardous material in these batteries. If something goes wrong, people can get sick. That's not good, so let the South Koreans get sick, and we'll build up their economy. So the battery's being built over there. But we're told the batteries are better now. (sigh) Forty miles to the charge. Who ever...? Did you ever think...? If I were Jay Leno that would be a great punch line for a monologue. "Oh, yeah, see Obama's new car? It gets 40 miles to the charge." Instead this is being touted as a breakthrough in battery technology: 40 miles to the charge. "[A]nd that consumers are ready to adopt electrics like never before." Really? Is that why you have to subsidize these things at billions and billions and billions of dollars? "[C]onsider this declaration..."

Look at me. "[C]onsider this declaration: The electric car 'has long been recognized as the ideal solution' because it 'is cleaner and quieter' and 'much more economical.' That story was published by The New York Times on November 12, 1911." "The electric car 'has long been recognized as the ideal solution' because it 'is cleaner and quieter' and 'much more economical.'" The New York Times, 1911. "[T]he new Chevy Volt costs as much as a new Mercedes-Benz C350, consider this assessment by a believing reporter: 'Prices on electric cars will continue to drop until they are within reach of the average family.'" That's what a reporter said this week about the Volt: "Prices on electric cars will continue to drop until they are within reach of the average family." (interruption) That's what I said yesterday: If you've got 41 grand in a Mercedes C class... (interruption) Look, this is what's sad to me. I am not here to (sigh) rip into General Motors. At any rate, it is what it is. (interruption) Mercedes has a sunroof, yeah. (interruption) Don't... Don't... (interruption) Snerdley, just cool it. Cool it in there. Just cool it in there. Yes, it has real seats. It's got a bench seat. It's got... (interruption) Yeah. It's got headroom and leg room, yeah. (interruption) Just be quiet. Rob in Wichita, I do not want General Motors to fail. It's just the exact opposite. This is painful.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/30/opinion/30neidermeyer.html

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-07-29/electric-cars-subsidized-by-harry-reid-and-the-senate/

Conservatism Over Republicanism

RUSH: Pete in Pensacola Beach, Florida, you're next on the Rush Limbaugh program. Hello.

CALLER: Hi, Rush. Mega dittos.

RUSH: Thank you.

CALLER: My question is Newt Gingrich might be running for office, your take on that, when he made a comment last time with that, I think New Jersey liberal that was running there, the conservative, saying we need some of them in our party? That kind of worries me when he makes a statement like that. No, we don't. We need to get back to conservatism. I just want to know what you thought.

RUSH: Did Newt actually say we need some New Jersey liberals?

CALLER: If I remember correctly he said we needed some in our party.

RUSH: I am unfamiliar with Newt having said that we need some New Jersey liberals running as conservatives; we need some of them in our party. I'm not aware --

CALLER: I might not be quoting him right but it led me to believe--

RUSH: Perhaps it was -- (crosstalk)

CALLER: -- it kind of shocked me --

RUSH: You might be interpreting something that a lot of DC Republicans are saying and that is that they're very sad that there are no elected Republicans in the northeast and we cannot become a national party unless we are able to include the Republicans of the Northeast.

CALLER: Sure, but not the liberals (unintelligible) Republican and saying they're truly liberal in their beliefs and their voting. What was the lady that actually was running, I forget her name and then she ended up bowing out and backing the Democratic person. Was it New Jersey?

RUSH: That's New York 23. Dede Scozzafava, I know who you mean. I think what Newt's saying is that we need more Colin Powells.

CALLER: I don't agree with that, neither, but that's my take.

RUSH: The problem is, if we need more northeastern Republicans in our party to win and then expand our coalition, the only kind of northeastern Republicans there are are liberals.

CALLER: That is true. They don't believe in smaller government. They can cut your taxes but if they don't shrink the government at the same time, the small business guys like us are destined to fail.

RUSH: Here's the best way to understand this. I'm going to use Karl Rove as a way. Zev Chafets before he wrote the book on me, Rush Limbaugh: An Army of One, he wrote a profile in the New York Times Sunday magazine about me. He went and talked to Karl Rove. And he asked Karl Rove, "You know, Rush sometimes jumps on people in the Republican Party." Karl Rove said, "Well, Rush is not a party man, Rush is a conservative." And that's right. There's a huge difference. Newt is a party man. Newt's a Republican through and through.

CALLER: (unintelligible)

RUSH: The guy sounds like he's in a ditch or underwater here. Are you okay out there?

CALLER: Oh, I'm sorry.

RUSH: What happened?

CALLER: No, I was listening to you and I'm driving at the same time and kind of watching the road, too.

RUSH: Oh, jeez.

CALLER: I didn't know if I was still on or not. But I appreciate everything you do Rush.

RUSH: Thank you very much.

CALLER: You know, truth is everything and we gotta keep to it, and I appreciate it.

RUSH: When you cross a Democrat with a human being what you get is a RINO. The best way to explain this is very simple. You cross a Democrat with a human being, you breed a Democrat with a human being, what you get is a Republican-in-name-only. Pure and simple. And they are party people. Newt is a party guy. Well, he has to be. If he wants to run for president he's going to have to get the Republican Party nomination and if you want the Republican Party nomination as it's currently structured there are certain things that you're going to have to do, and where Newt and I differ, and I guess we do, is that I think that conservatives ought to take over this party and there's no greater time to do it than now. There's no greater opportunity to contrast conservatism with what we've got destroying the country. Republicanism is not the answer. Conservatism is. Because Republicanism does include people like Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Lincoln Chafee. (interruption) Yes, a question from the official program observer. What is it? I answered the guy's question. Newt is a party man. Newt is a Republican, and if he's going to run for president he's got to do what anybody wants to do to get the Republican Party nomination these days.

Anyway, I've gotta take a brief time-out here. I'll be back right after this. Don't go anywhere, folks, and thanks very much for the phone call out there, Pete. Don't try that again, though.

75% of metro markets note foreclosure rate is up

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2910144320100729

Obama doubles education budget:

http://askheritage.org/Answer.aspx?ID=1232

Obama WH backed release of Lockerbie Bomber:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/white-house-backed-release-of-lockerbie-bomber-abdel-baset-al-megrahi/story-e6frg6so-1225896741041

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jul/25/barack-obama-megrahi-release-lockerbie

Since there are some links you may want to go back to from time-to-time, I am going to begin a list of them here. This will be a list to which I will add links each week.

The Magic Negro Watch (this is peppered with obscenities and angry conservative rhetoric):

http://magicnegrowatch.blogspot.com/

North Suburban Republican Forum:

http://www.northsuburbanrepublicanforum.org/

The Alliance Defense Fund:

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/

Media Research Center

http://www.mrc.org/public/default.aspx

Obamacare class action suit (as of today, joining in on the suit costs you whatever you want to donate, if I understand the form correctly):

http://www.van4congress.org/contact/obamacare-class-action/

America’s Right

http://americasright.com/

Weatherman Underground 1969 “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.”

http://www.archive.org/details/YouDontNeedAWeathermanToKnowWhichWayTheWindBlows_925 (PDF, Kindle and other formats)

http://www.antiauthoritarian.net/sds_wuo/weather/weatherman_document.txt (Simple online text)

The conservative plan to get us out of this financial mess:

www.Americanroadmap.org

The Left Coast Rebel:

http://www.leftcoastrebel.com/

Emerging Corruption (founded by an ACORN whistle blowe:

http://emergingcorruption.com/

PolitiZoid on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/user/politizoid

In case you need to reference this, here are the photos of all those on the JournoList:

http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=29858

A conservative blog:

http://www.baltimorereporter.com/

A place where you may find news no one else is carrying:

http://www.lookingattheleft.com/

Joe Dan Media (great vids and music):

http://www.youtube.com/user/JoeDanMedia

Good conservative blogs:

http://tammybruce.com/

http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/

http://faultlineusa.blogspot.com/

http://makenolaw.org/ (the Free Speech blog)

Insane, leftist blogs:

http://teabaggersrcoming.blogspot.com/

http://poorsquinky.com/politics/all.html

Answering Muslims (a Christian site):

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/

Angry White Dude (okay, maybe we conservatives are angry?):

http://angrywhitedude.com/

The Patriot’s Network (important videos; the latest):

http://patriotsnetwork.com/

News Website to get the Headlines and very brief coverage:

http://www.newser.com/

Conservative news/opinion site:

http://www.humanevents.com/

The 100 most hated conservatives:

http://media.glennbeck.com/docs/100americans-pg1.pdf

Right Wing News:

http://rightwingnews.com

Secure the Border:

http://securetheborder.org/

A little history of Republicans and African-Americans:

http://grandoldpartisan.typepad.com/blog/

Back to the basics for the Republican party:

http://www.republicanbasics.com/

National Institute for Labor Relations Research

http://www.nilrr.org/

This man questions global warming:

http://themigrantmind.blogspot.com/

Glenn Beck’s shows online:

http://www.watchglennbeck.com/

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

http://constitutingamerica.org/

Obamacare Watch:

http://www.obamacarewatch.org/

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

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2010/05/obamas-katrina-illustrated-timeline.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/epic/bpdot/7816715/Gulf-of-Mexico-oil-spill-timeline.html

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/05/bp-gulf-oil-spill-timeline.php

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

http://www.esri.com/services/disaster-response/gulf-oil-spill-2010/timeline-advanced.html

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

http://secureborderintel.org/

http://borderinvasionpics.com/

A conservative worldview:

http://www.divineviewpoint.com/sane/

http://www.theamericanright.com/forums/index.php

http://politipage.com/

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.

The story on Helen Thomas:

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.

Watch the video below and see for yourself.

Free Palestine! Allahu Akbar!

http://www.celebjihad.com/

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

http://www.freedomproject.org/ Yankee Phil’s Blogspot:

http://yankeephil.blogspot.com/

Ann Althouse ("Crusty conservative coating, creamy hippie love chick center.")

http://althouse.blogspot.com/

Independent American:

http://www.independentamerican.org/

If you want to be scared or depressed:

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/

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

http://republicanwhip.house.gov/YouCut/

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:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/video

It is not broken, but the White House wants to control it: the internet:

http://nointernettakeover.com/

Sensible blogger Burt Folsom:

http://www.burtfolsom.com/

Whizbang (news and views):

http://wizbangblog.com/

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

http://www.judithmiller.com/

http://ifbushhaddonethat.com/

John T. Reed comments on current events:

http://johntreed.com/headline.html

Investors Business Daily:

http://www.investors.com/

IBD editorials:

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/IBDEditorials.aspx

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):

http://conservativenewmedia.com/

Ann Coulter’s site:

http://anncoulter.com/

Allen West for Congress:

http://allenwestforcongress.com/issues/

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

http://defendmichael.wordpress.com/

The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/

Reason TV

http://reason.tv/

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

http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-and-releases

Jihad Watch

http://www.jihadwatch.org/

If you want to see 1984 style-rhetoric and tactics, see:

http://www.freepress.net/

Project World Awareness:

http://projectworldawareness.com/

Bookworm room

http://www.bookwormroom.com/

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.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/summary.asp?object=Organization&category=

Their homepage:

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/default.asp

David Limbaugh (great columns this week)

http://davidlimbaugh.com/

Wall Builders:

http://www.wallbuilders.com/default.asp

Texas Fred (blog and news):

http://texasfred.net/

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

http://www.ldlad.com/

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

http://www.freedomandprosperity.org/

The Tax Foundation:

http://taxfoundation.org/

Compare your state with other states with regards to state taxes:

http://taxfoundation.org/files/f&f_booklet_20100326.pdf

Political news and commentary from the Louisiana Political News Wire:

http://www.lanewslink.com/

Dick Morris:

http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/

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

http://commieblaster.com/

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWMIwziGrAQ

Another babebolicious conservative (Kim Priestap):

http://politics.upnorthmommy.com/

Stop Spending our Future:

http://stopspendingourfuture.org/

DeeDee also blogs at:

http://somosrepublicans.com/author/deedee/

Somos Republicans:

http://somosrepublicans.com/

Global Warming headlines:

http://www.dericalorraine.com/

In case you want to see how other conservatives are thinking,

Zomblog:

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/

Conservative news site:

http://www.liberalwhoppers.com/

http://dailycaller.com/

http://conservativeamericannews.com/

Here’s an interesting new site (new to me):

http://www.overcomingbias.com/

Conservative Blogs:

http://atimetochoose.wordpress.com/

http://americanelephant.com/

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/*/index

The top 100 conservative sites:

http://deathby1000papercuts.com/dbkpreport/2010/02/the-conservative-100-most-popular-conservative-sites-feb-14-2010/

Here is an interesting blog, but, it is not all conservative stuff:

http://afrocityblog.wordpress.com/

Dr. Roy Spencer on climate change:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

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

http://www.climatedebatedaily.com/

These are some very good comics:

http://hopenchangecartoons.blogspot.com/

Helps for liberals to call conservative talk shows:

http://radio.barackobama.com/

Sarah Palin’s facebook notes:

http://www.facebook.com/notes.php?id=24718773587

 Media Research Center:

http://www.mrc.org/public/default.aspx

Must read articles of the day:

http://lucianne.com/

Republican Stop Obamacare site:

http://www.nrcc.org/codered/main.php

The Big Picture:

http://www.bigpicweblog.com/exp/index.php

Talk of Liberty

http://talkofliberty.com

Lux Libertas

http://www.luxlibertas.com/

Conservative website:

http://www.unitedliberty.org/

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/

Twitter to locate Glenn Beck clips:

http://twitter.com/GlennBeckClips

Excellent articles on economics:

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/

http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/ (Excellent video on the Department of Agriculture posted)

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:

http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/

(The segment was:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UU-evdGu1Sk )

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

Conservative site:

http://www.keepamericasafe.com/

An online journal of opinions:

http://caffeinatedthoughts.com/

American Civic Literacy:

http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/

The Dallas TEA Party Organization (with some pretty good vids):

www.dallasteaparty.org

America people’s healthcare summit online:

http://healthtransformation.net/

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

http://transparencyflorida.gov

New conservative website:

http://www.theconservativelion.com

The real story of the surge:

http://www.understandingthesurge.org/

Conservative website:

http://www.unitedliberty.org/

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.

http://www.suzannesomers.com/Default.aspx

The latest Climate news:

http://www.climatedepot.com/

Conservative News Source:

http://www.newsrealblog.com/

Your daily cartoon:

http://daybydaycartoon.com/

Obama cartoons:

http://obamacartoon.blogspot.com/

Wall Street Journal’s articles on Climate Change:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704007804574574101605007432.html

Education link:

http://sirkenrobinson.com/

http://sirkenrobinson.com/skr/

News from 2100:

http://thepeoplescube.com/

How you can get your piece of the stimulus pie:

http://www.economicstimuluspackageinfo.com/

Always excellent articles:

http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/

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

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/

Conservative blog: Dan Cleary, political insomniac:

http://dancleary.typepad.com/dan_cleary/

David’ Horowitz’s NewsReal:

http://www.newsrealblog.com/

Stand by Liberty:

http://standbyliberty.org/

Mike’s America

http://mikesamerica.blogspot.com/

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

http://www.cagw.org/

Excellent blogs:

http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/

www.rightofanation.com

Keep America Safe:

http://www.keepamericasafe.com/

Lower taxes, smaller government, more freedom:

Freedom Works:

http://www.freedomworks.org/

Right wing news:

http://rightwingnews.com/

CNS News:

http://www.cnsnews.com/

Pajamas Media:

http://pajamasmedia.com/

Far left websites:

www.dailykos.com

Daniel Hannan’s blog:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/danielhannan/

Liberty Chick:

http://libertychick.com/

Republican healthcare plan:

http://www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare

Media Research Center

http://mrc.org/

Sweetness and Light:

http://sweetness-light.com

Dee Dee’s political blog:

http://somosrepublicans.com/author/deedee/

Citizens Against Government Waste:

http://www.cagw.org/

CNS News:

http://www.cnsnews.com/home

Climate change news:

http://www.climatedepot.com/

Conservative website featuring stories of the day:

http://www.lonelyconservative.com/

http://www.sodahead.com/

Global Warming:

http://www.climatedepot.com/

Michael Crichton on global warming as a religion:

http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-environmentalismaseligion.html

Here is an interesting military site:

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/

This is the link which caught my eye from there:

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=169400

Christian Blog:

http://wisdomknowledge.wordpress.com/

Muslim Demographics (this is outstanding):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU

News feed/blog:

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/

Conservative blog:

http://wyblog.us/blog/

Richard O’Leary’s websites:

www.letfreedomwork.com

www.freedomtaskforce.com

http://www.eccentrix.com/members/beacon/

News site:

http://lucianne.com/

Note sure yet about this one:

http://looneyleft.com/

News busted all shows:

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/search.aspx?q=newsbusted&t=videos

Conservative news and opinion:

http://bijenkorf.wordpress.com/

Not Evil, Just Wrong website:

http://noteviljustwrong.com/

Global Warming Site:

http://www.climatedepot.com/

Important Muslim videos and sites:

Muslim demographics:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaZT73MrYvM

Muslim deception:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNZQ5D8IwfI

Conservative versus liberal viewpoints:

http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/other/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/

Excellent list of Blogs on the bottom, right-hand side of this page:

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/

Not Evil, Just Wrong video on Global Warming

http://noteviljustwrong.com/

http://www.letfreedomwork.com/

http://www.taskforcefreedom.com/council.htm

This has fantastic videos:

www.reason.tv

Global Warming Hoax:

http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php

A debt clock and a lot of articles on the debt:

http://defeatthedebt.com/

The Best Graph page (for those of us who love graphs):

http://midknightgraphs.blogspot.com/

The Architecture of Political Power (an online book):

http://www.mega.nu/ampp/

Recommended foreign news site:

http://www.globalpost.com/

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.

http://www.opensecrets.org/index.php

http://www.fedupusa.org/

The news sites and the alternative news media:

http://drudgereport.com/

http://newsbusters.org/

http://www.hallindsey.com/

http://newsbusters.org/

http://reason.com/

Andrew Breithbart’s websites:

http://biggovernment.breitbart.com/

Kevin Jackson’s [conservative black] website:

http://theblacksphere.net/

Notes from the front lines (in Iraq):

http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/

Remembering 9/11:

http://www.realamericanstories.com/

Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball site:

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/

Conservative Blogger:

http://romanticpoet.wordpress.com/  

Economist and talk show host Walter E. Williams:

http://economics.gmu.edu/wew/

The current Obama czar roster:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/26779.html

45 Goals of Communists in order to take over the United States (circa 1963):

http://www.rense.com/general32/americ.htm

How this correlates to the goals of the ACLU:

http://dianedew.com/aclu.htm

ACLU founders:

http://www.angelfire.com/mi4/stokjok/Founders.html

Conservative Websites:

http://www.theodoresworld.net/

http://conservalinked.com/

http://www.moonbattery.com/

http://www.rockiesghostriders.com/

http://sweetness-light.com/

www.coalitionoftheswilling.net

http://shortforordinary.com/

Flopping Aces:

http://www.floppingaces.net/

The Romantic Poet’s Webblog:

http://romanticpoet.wordpress.com/

Blue Dog Democrats:

http://www.house.gov/melancon/BlueDogs/Member%20Page.html

This looks to be a good source of information on the health care bill (s):

http://joinpatientsfirst.com/

Undercover video and audio for planned parenthood:

http://liveaction.org/

The Complete Czar list (which I think is updated as needed):

http://theshowlive.info/?p=572

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

http://www.obamacaretruth.org/

Great business and political news:

www.wsj.com

www.businessinsider.com

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:

http://www.politico.com/multimedia/

Great commentary:

www.Atlasshrugs.com

My own website:

www.kukis.org

Congressional voting records:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/

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.

http://howobamagotelected.com/

Global Warming sites:

http://ilovecarbondioxide.com/

35 inconvenient truths about Al Gore’s film:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5J7JNfLYco

http://www.noteviljustwrong.com/trailer

Islam: