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

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

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

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

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

The people are in the streets demonstrating in Egypt, Yemen, Jordan, and several other Muslim countries. What appears to be the case is, there are a significant number of demonstrators who would like to see a real democracy established. There are in Egypt some thugs hired by the government to do some beat downs. There are also Muslim radicals, who obviously see this as an opportunity to change their governments to Islam theocracies, and it is this latter group which is sometimes small but very well-organized.

In Egypt, you have no doubt heard that newsmen have been attacked. Bear in mind, any demonstrator who truly wants a democracy wants this news to go out to the rest of the world. In most cases, it appears as though newscasters are beat down by government thugs, although this is not clearly the case. There are also a lot of rapes taking place in Egypt, from what I have heard (which is not mentioned by the media, but known among the people).

Also displayed in these demonstrations are a lot of antisemitic signs and signs which associate Mubarak with the Davidic star. There are also a number of anti-democracy signs in English being carried about.

CodePink, the famous peace activists, have joined the Egyptian demonstrations in Cairo.

On Thursday, Louisiana Federal District Court Judge Martin Feldman found that the Obama Interior Department was in contempt of his ruling that the offshore oil drilling moratorium, imposed by the administration in 2010, was unconstitutional. After Feldman struck down the initial drilling ban, the Interior Department simply established a second ban that was virtually identical. Even though this story was picked up by the AP, ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN, all ignored the story.

There is a birthright citizenship bill in Congress and in Arizona. The belief is, the 14^th Amendment has been incorrectly interpreted. The primary purpose of the 14^th Amendment was to make certain that all slaves were considered citizens. However, the idea was not to insure that every child born in America becomes an American.

Secret service organization MI6 warns Britain will face an "unstoppable wave" of homegrown suicide bombers.

Citing an "onslaught of personal attacks", a Colorado nonprofit today canceled a scheduled May appearance in Glendale, CO by former Vice Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin. The left does not like free speech, debate or dissension.

President George W. Bush has canceled an event in the neutral country Switzerland because of expected protests to his presence there. He was supposed to give the keynote address at a Jewish group's charity gala on Feb. 12 in Geneva. Leftist groups had planned to protest the visit and several human rights groups had also filed criminal complaints against Bush, demanding that he be taken into custody if he stepped on Swiss soil and investigated for allegations of ordering torture. A right-wing member of the Swiss parliament also demanded last week Bush's arrest on war crimes allegations if he came to the country.

The Muslim Brotherhood has claimed that the political unrest in Egypt should not be described as Islamic.

Lawmakers in South Dakota have prepared a bill that would require all adults to own guns (they are trying to make a point).

Unemployment is now being figured in a different way by the government, so there was a sudden drop to a 9% unemployment rate, according to the federal government. Gallup has unemployment at 9.8%.

This week, a California judge stopped the implementation of California's Cap and Trade law.

NBC fires employee who posted vintage Couric, Gumbel Internet video (this is the one where they have no clue as to what the internet is, which is quite understandable, given the date of the show). The firing is less understandable. Here’s the video; decide if you think posting this is a fire-able offense:

Bangladeshi girl, 14, is lashed to death after being raped by 40-year-old cousin.

Last week’s column was posted at Flopping Aces, which usually gets about 500 hits per article. Last week’s column, after being posted on Digg, got around 7,000 hits. Also, a whole lot of interesting discussions.

President Obama: “To the people of Egypt, particularly the young people of Egypt, I want to be clear: We hear your voices.”

President Obama from less than a year ago about much larger demonstrations all over America: "So I've been a little amused over the last couple of days where people have been having these rallies about taxes. You would think they would be saying thank you." and "Those of you who are watching certain news channels on which I'm not very popular, and you see folks waving tea bags around...”

President Obama at the Prayer Breakfast: “Now, sometimes faith groups can do the work of caring for the least of these on their own. Sometimes they need a partner, whether it's in business or government, and that's why my administration has taken a fresh look at the way we organize with faith groups, the way we work with faith groups through our Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships...There's only so much a church can do to help all the families in need, all those who need help making a mortgage payment or avoiding foreclosure or making sure their child can go to college....And that's why I continue to believe that, in a caring and in a just society, government must have a role to play, that our values, our love, and our charity must find expression not just in our families, not just in our places of work and our places of worship, but also in our government and in our politics.”

President Obama: “If we make America the best place to do business, businesses should make their mark in America. They should set up shop here, and hire our workers, and pay decent wages, and invest in the future of this nation. That's their obligation. And that's the message I'll be bringing to American business leaders at the Chamber of Commerce on Monday “

Time's Mark Halperin on Obama's performance at the National Prayer Breakfast: "[this address] had] a level of sophistication and skill that not one Republican on the field right now can duplicate."

WH economic advisor Gene Sperling: “It is a very tough budget. It will get tougher each year. When you are freezing [portions of the federal budget], it is a real cut, and it is a real cut that gets bigger each year; and we felt that this was a degree of fiscal constraint that we could do, but was very difficult but still be consistent with a strategy for investing in innovation, education and research.”

Camille Grammer explaining the reason for her breakup with Kelsey Grammer: "Oh, I love cuddling. We didn't even do that. He was too busy watching Fox News. He didn't want to cuddle."

Motto of the Muslim brotherhood: "Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope. Allahu akbar!"

Newswoman Katie Couric twittered: “As many of you have already heard Mubarak has resigned.”

A White House official, speaking anonymously: "There's something thoroughly odd and unconventional about the analysis [of Judge Vinson’s ruling declaring Obamacare unconstitutional]."

Anticsrocks (Flopping Aces columnist) poses this question to many liberals: "You detested that Bush spent so much money and raised our national debt, yet Obama is quadrupling this debt and has, in fact amassed more deficit spending than all other Presidents combined. Does this bother you?"

To which he adds, in the article: Every single time the answer has been, "No, it doesn't bother me because he is spending money on things that need to be done."

Judge Vinson (who ruled Obamacare unconstitutional): "I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that, `If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house.'"

Judge Vinson, as part of his decision to invalidate Obamacare: “It is difficult to imagine, that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place."

Judge Vinson wrote, under the Obama administration's logic: "Congress could require that everyone above a certain income threshold buy a General Motors automobile-now partially government-owned-because those who do not buy GM cars (or those who buy foreign cars) are adversely impacting commerce and a taxpayer-subsidized business."

Erick Erickson of Red State: “Yet, in the wake of numerous damaging disclosures about unscrupulous practices by abortionists (from Kermit Gosnell to Planned Parenthood clinics across the country), the Obama Administration has apparently ordered that the only Federal government report on abortion statistics - again, a report that has run continuously for 40 years - be deep-sixed. The immediate question this raises is: what is the Obama administration trying to hide?”

Rush Limbaugh: "Why, if it's a health care law, does Obamacare require 16,000 new IRS agents, not 16,000 new doctors? It's because they're going to get dollars from every one of us, including the uninsured."

Rush Limbaugh: "It doesn't surprise me that Obama hears voices in Egypt but doesn't hear the voices of the Tea Party.”

Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler statement: "This is the epitome of hypocrisy being exhibited by the Obama Administration as it hides facts and figures on abortion while claiming to want more transparency in government. This is a pattern that has become all too common with the Obama Administration, ranging from its distortion of the facts on taxpayer funding of abortions under ObamaCare to manipulated information to support repeal of the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. It is time for the Obama White House to put a stop to its disregard for openness in government and to end its practice of distorting data for blatantly political purposes."

Charles Krauthammer: “Look, if Godzilla appeared on the Mall this afternoon, Al Gore would say it's global warming.”

Sarah Palin: "The message was sent at the ballot box and it was an historic election. We were just told that the era of big government is here to stay and you will pay for it whether you want it or not. But they can't sell it to us. So this new version isn't just the same as the Great Society, it is much worse. It is couched in the language of national greatness. That is their version of American Exceptionalism. It is an exceptionally big government."

Sarah Palin, in her first comments on the uprising in Egypt, called the situation President Barack Obama's 3 a.m. phone call and said, "It seems the call went right to the answering machine."

Rupert Murdoch, when asked if he would hire Keith Olbermann again: “No...he was a nut...he’s impossible.”

Participant on Luntz group: “I don’t want my grandchildren to pay for Obama’s compassion.”

Abraham Lincoln: "The problem with internet quotations is most of them are incorrect."

Wikileaks suggests that the next big Islamic attack could involve nuclear weapons.

Chris Matthews mocks Glenn Beck’s belief that communism and Muslims will work together; along with this is, documented evidence of such a coalition.

When it comes to evaluating what is occurring in Egypt, Beck has had the most interesting approach. This won’t be the reporting you have heard anywhere else, even if you watch Fox News).

Common Cause hosted a progressive rally in Palm Springs. Various participants, when asked what we ought to do with certain conservatives, lynching and a cutting off of toes were suggested by various participants:

Live Action film report on its sting operation of Planned Parenthood. Although the vid is 11 minutes long, its length is such, so that you do not think they took what the counselors at Planned Parenthood were taken out of context. The more you watch, the more you realize that this counselor knows that she is talking about underage sex slaves. This story is ignored by the big 3 stations.

Griff Jenkins has done several very good pieces on illegal alien deportation. I could only locate 2 of them (and one is not complete). One gets a much better feel for what our government is doing:

In case you did not see this two weeks ago, Hitler Finds Out That Olbermann Has Been Fired:

Jodi Miller: “According to a recent survey, 63% of doctors say that Obamacare will make patient care worse. You know what that means. 63% of doctors are racist.”

Jodi Miller: “6 more states have joined Florida’s federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare bringing the total number of states to 27. But Obama isn’t worried because that’s still half of 57.”

1) Britt Hume, in evaluating Obama’s SOTU speech, discussed how the United States does big things. He suggests that reforming Social Security and Medicare and making them viable for the next 20 or more years would be a very big thing. The House at least could be persuaded to go along with this. If Obama chose to make these institutions financially viable, he would easily win reelection and he would be doing a very big thing.

2) There are some moderate Muslims out there. Google and read (or listen to) Zuhdi Jasser for instance (although, there are some who question him as well).

3) From Wikipedia: A caliphate, (from the Arabic khilaafah), is the Islamic form of government representing the political unity and leadership of the Muslim world. The political authority of a Caliph as head of state of a Caliphate comes from the fact that he is seen as a successor to the Islamic prophet Muhammad.

4) A lot has been made of John McCain recently referring to Obama as a moderate. We do not always get the perfect people in office that we want. However, the key is, forcing them to do what we want them to do. McCain calling Obama more moderate may be a strategy as much as anything else.

5) We all know that Obamacare is going to the Supreme Court. Lawyers, Attorneys General for the states, and the states are willing to fast track this to the Supreme Court immediately. The White House is not willing. Do you know why? My guess is, they are hoping someone on the Supreme Court will die before considering Obamacare.

About 40% of the waivers for Obamacare have been given to unions, who demonstrated mightily in favor of Obamacare.

GE spent $39.9 million for lobbyists in D.C. last year, which is the highest amount spent by any company. This is the same GE which recently was given an exemption from Obama’s new greenhouse gas regs.

I watched a CNN report on a solidarity demonstration with Egypt held in the US. This was about 45 minutes before the demonstration was to begin, and there looked to be about 20 people there. I could not help but think back to the huge anti-Ground Zero mosque demonstrations which took place and were completely ignored by the news (at first). When I received a link the first time on these demonstrations, I thought it was some internet rumor, until I saw the photos and realized that this was a real event that has been blacked-out by the media for at least a month. Same thing with the original TEA parties. All the news organizations besides FoxNews ignored the first wave of TEA parties. 3000–5000 people gathered in Sacramento, so I called my mother and asked her what she thought about it. My mother, who watches the news and reads the Sacramento Bee every day, knew nothing about this demonstration.

Live Action, an anti-abortion group which would like to see Planned Parenthood defunded, did a sting operation on several Planned Parenthood clinics wherein the counselor was more than willing to work with girls who were said to be underage (13 or 14 years old) sex workers. At no time did the counselor excuse herself and have the police called in. ABC, NBC and CBS all ignored this story.

"The constitution is a living, breathing document."= A fundamentally flawed document (Spoken by Obama in a radio interview in a 2001 Chicago Public Radio interview) that changes with political expediency

"Pandering"= What Republicans do when supporting something liberals don't like, usually applies to the NRA or religious right

"Multiculturalism"= When placed in context to other countries, it means that America is to blame for all that is wrong in the world and that the USA is only one country among many, NOT the leading nation in the world

"Choice"= Abortion - not to be confused with the choice of personal liberty, that is not allowed under the liberal system

"Tax the rich" = Increase taxes on anyone making $250,000 a year or higher, $200,000 or, er, I mean $150,000 a year - *sigh* this number keeps getting lower

"Freedom Fighters" = Terrorists, Somalia Pirates, Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, etc.

"Regulate" = Ban, as in the moratorium on deep water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico

“You claimed, as candidate Obama, that you wanted abortions to be legal and rare. Have you reduced the number of abortions since you have taken office and what steps have you taken as president to reduce the number of abortions taking place in the United States?”

“Do you believe that business ought to be hiring right now, because that is their moral responsibility?”

Obama’s smartest move, with regards to Egypt, is to keep his cabinet quiet and to say very little, and work behind the scenes, in order to maintain an alliance with Egypt. He and his cabinet seem to be all over the map when it comes to what is going on there and what ought to happen. He blew the chance to disrupts a horrible government in Iran when the people were in the streets; yet, he is clearly siding with the people against our ally, Mubarak now. This just isn’t very smart. About half of his general statements were fine, about allowing demonstrators to peacefully demonstrate. That is a simple human rights issue. However, attempting to undercut Mubarak’s authority and position is not something our president ought to do; particularly if there is no regime change.

Obama has chosen to ignore the court order to allow drilling in the gulf; he has also ignored the court order which says Obamacare is unconstitutional. I have no idea where he plans to go with this, but the press is letting him go, and not calling him on either issue.

Mubarak will probably leave Egypt, but there will be a strong man left in charge. The demonstrators will either be promised free and fair elections or they will be dispersed by the army, who has held back.

Crazy Muslim talk and action are going to be ramped up over the next 2 years, because they do not believe that President Obama will act decisively in response. Expect Muslim attacks to increase all over the world by at least 25%, if not more.

Chris Matthews compares the TEA parties to the Muslim Brotherhood (I was close; I expected someone to compare the TEA parties to the demonstrators in Egypt, which include those from the Muslim Brotherhood.

Last week, I ran an article on Islam, and how we ought to become mentally prepared for a serious war with one or more Muslim nations. The opening paragraph in Vancouver Sun story out this week reads: Al-Qaida is on the verge of producing radioactive weapons after sourcing nuclear material and recruiting rogue scientists to build "dirty" bombs, according to leaked diplomatic documents.

Nations in the Middle East will begin falling to Islamic dictatorships (although, on the other hand, that would make war easier for some to grasp).

This short column is directed toward liberals. President Obama gives his state of the union speech and immediately, right after the speech, all 3 networks and at least one other cable station either compare Obama to President Reagan or call him Reaganesque. Now, if you are a liberal, think really hard about this—how do several journalists, presumably independent thinkers, all see the SOTU speech and describe President Obama almost exactly the same way?

ABC's Christiane Amanpour hailed President Obama's State of the Union address as "very Reaganesque."

CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric touted how political analyst Jeff Greenfield thought it was "down right Reaganesque."

NBC news correspondent Andrea Mitchell said, "I think he was trying to invoke the optimism, the can-do spirit that brings to mind Ronald Reagan in these settings."

A CNN story posted by Jay Kernis, apparently quoting E.D. Hill, who said, “Clearly, he wants the nation to move out of its Jimmy Carter period despondency and channel the enthusiastic resoluteness of the Reagan era.”

AP’s Paul Wiseman wrote a story about President Obama and his 2^nd SOTU and Reagan’s name is mentioned 10 times (it was a story all about Obama and Reagan).

I will guarantee you that none of these “journalists” actually likes Reagan and not a single one would like to see someone espousing their hero as Ronald Reagan ever end up in the White House.

However, somehow, in some way, several so-called objective journalists watched Obama’s 2^nd SOTU (which was not much different from the first SOTU in terms of what it proposed) and suddenly, he became Reaganesque, where Reaganesque is used in a good way, and not as some pejorative used by a betrayed liberal.

How does this happen? How do several journalist come up with the same description of the same event, some of them simultaneously?

Do you recall any of these same people referring to, say, Mitt Romney, as being Reaganesque? Or any other conservative who espouses Reagan as his or her mentor?

If you are a liberal, at what point are you going to admit that, this is not news; this is not even good political commentary. This is simply an arm of the Democratic party giving you the party line. A little over a week ago, a number of people compared President Obama to President Reagan. However, all of these people, prior to that, if asked about Ronald Reagan, would have had little good to say about him.

This is nothing more than a snow job. This is liberal newsmen salesman hoping that enough independents will hear the names Obama and Reagan together, and then, when they vote, will pull the lever for Obama, because he is a lot like Reagan.

Interesting to watch the changes coming in the middle east and to think..President Bush was behind much of this.

We have seen our vulnerability - and we have seen its deepest source. For as long as whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny - prone to ideologies that feed hatred and excuse murder - violence will gather, and multiply in destructive power, and cross the most defended borders, and raise a mortal threat. There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom.

We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.

So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.

- President George W. Bush (Second Inaugural Address)

Egyptian President Mubarek's days are numbered it appears, under strong pressure from the Egyptian people and the U.S. to make an orderly transition to democracy.

The Bush Doctrine..that doctrine which was his justification for toppling the Taliban and Saddam. It wasn't enough to destroy al-Qaeda and the Iraqi WMD's but to turn those countries into strong democracies so that they could be a beacon for the rest of the middle east.

Both Iraq and Afghanistan have had free elections and are on their way to democracy, albeit slowly and with a few bumps in the road..as our country had. But look towards Egypt, Tunisia, Jordan, Yemen..

Can you tell me that President Bush's doctrine didn't play any part in moving towards this point? The same doctrine that was sneered at by the left as unrealistic and naive.

Well maybe it wasn't until Obama gave his speech that the Middle East then decided that "hey, maybe freedom isn't unrealistic!"

"Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope. Allahu akbar!" [1]

● The Brotherhood's goal is to turn the world into an Islamist empire. The Muslim Brotherhood, founded in Egypt in 1928, is a revolutionary fundamentalist movement to restore the caliphate and strict shariah (Islamist) law in Muslim lands and, ultimately, the world. Today, it has chapters in 80 countries.

"It is in the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet." -Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna[2]

● The Brotherhood wants America to fall. It tells followers to be "patient" because America "is heading towards its demise." The U.S. is an infidel that "does not champion moral and human values and cannot lead humanity." -Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide Muhammed Badi, Sept. 2010[3]

● The Brotherhood claims western democracy is "corrupt," "unrealistic." and "false."

● The Brotherhood calls for jihad against "the Muslim's real enemies, not only Israel but also the United States. Waging jihad against both of these infidels is a commandment of Allah that cannot be disregarded." -Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide Muhammed Badi, Sept. 2010[5]

● The Brotherhood assassinated Anwar Sadat in 1981 for making peace with the hated "Zionist entity."[6]It also assassinated Egypt's prime minister in 1948 and attempted to assassinate President Nasser in 1954.[7]

● Hamas is a "wing of the Muslim Brotherhood," according to the Hamas Charter, Chapter 2. The Charter calls for the murder of Jews, the "obliteration" of Israel and its replacement with an Islamist theocracy.

● The Brotherhood supports Hezbollah's war against the Jews. Brotherhood leader Mahdi Akef declared he was "prepared to send 10,000 jihad fighters immediately to fight at the side of Hezbollah" during Hezbollah's war against Israel in 2006.[8]

● The Brotherhood glorifies Osama bin Laden. Osama is "in all certainty, a mujahid (heroic fighter), and I have no doubt in his sincerity in resisting the occupation, close to Allah on high." -Former Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide Muhammed Mahdi Akef, Nov. 2007[9]

● The Brotherhood "sanctioned martyrdom operations in Palestine..They do not have bombs, so they turn themselves into bombs. This is a necessity." - Muslim Brotherhood Spiritual leader Yusuf al-Qaradawi, Dec. 17, 2010[10]

● The Brotherhood advocates violent jihad: The "change that the [Muslim] nation seeks can only be attained through jihad and sacrifice and by raising a jihadi generation that pursues death just as the enemies pursue life," said Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide Muhammed Badi in a September 2010 sermon.[11] Major terrorists came out of the Muslim Brotherhood, including bin Laden's deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (mastermind of the 9/11 attacks).[12]

● The Brotherhood advocates a deceptive strategy in democracies: appear moderate and use existing institutions to gain power. "The civilizational-jihadist process.is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and `sabotaging' its miserable house.so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious overall other religions," reads a US Muslim Brotherhood 1991 document.[13] It believes it can conquer Europe peacefully: "After having been expelled twice, Islam will be victorious and reconquer Europe....I am certain that this time, victory will be won not by the sword but by preaching and [Islamic] ideology." - Muslim Brotherhood Spiritual leader Yusuf al-Qaradawi, "Fatwa," 2003[14]

● The Brotherhood uses democracy, but once in power it will replace democracy with fundamentalist shariah law because it is the "true democracy." "The final, absolute message from heaven contains all the values which the secular world claims to have invented....Islam and its values antedated the West by founding true democracy."

● The Brotherhood's view of women's rights is to subjugate and segregate women: The ideal society would include "a campaign against ostentation in dress and loose behaviour.segregation of male and female students; private meetings between men and women, unless within the permitted degrees of relationship, to be counted as a crime for which both will be censured.prohibition of dancing and other such pastimes." -Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna, "Five Tracts"[16]

● The Brotherhood supports Female Genital Mutilation: "[the Americans] wage war on Muslim leaders, the traditions of its faith and its ideas. They even wage war against female circumcision, a practice current in 36 countries, which has been prevalent since the time of the Pharaohs." -Former Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide Muhammed Mahdi Akef, 2007[17]

● The Brotherhood will not treat non-Muslim minorities, such as Coptic Christians, as equals. "Allah's word will reign supreme and the infidels' word will be inferior." -Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide Muhammed Badi, Sept. 2010[18]

● The Brotherhood refuses to commit to continuing the Israel-Egypt peace treaty.[19]Muslim Brotherhood leaders have said that "as far as the movement is concerned, Israel is a Zionist entity occupying holy Arab and Islamic lands...and we will get rid of it no matter how long it takes." -Former Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide Muhammed Mahdi Akef, 2005 and 2007[20]

● The Brotherhood has anti-Semitic roots. It supported the Nazis, organized mass demonstrations against the Jews with slogans promoting ethnic cleansing like "Down with the Jews!" and "Jews get out of Egypt and Palestine!" in 1936; carried out a violent pogrom against Egypt's Jews in November 1945; and made sure that Nazi collaborator and Palestinian Mufti al-Husseini was granted asylum in Egypt in 1946.[21]

● The Brotherhood remains virulently anti-Semitic. "Today the Jews are not the Israelites praised by Allah, but the descendants of the Israelites who defied His word. Allah was angry with them and turned them into monkeys and pigs..There is no doubt that the battle in which the Muslims overcome the Jews [will come]....In that battle the Muslims will fight the Jews and kill them." -Muslim Brotherhood Spiritual leader Yusuf al-Qaradawi[22]

Oops, they did it again. President Obama's grabby-handed environmental bureaucrats have earned yet another spanking from the federal judiciary over their "determined disregard" of the rule of law. Isn't it time to give these misbehaving government hooligans a permanent timeout?

Federal judge Martin Feldman in Louisiana excoriated the Obama Interior Department Wednesday for defying his May 2010 order to lift its groundless ban on offshore oil and gas drilling in the Gulf. Nine months later, not a single permit has been issued. Several deepwater platforms have moved out of the area to take their businesses - and an estimated 5,000 jobs - overseas. Billions of dollars in potential oil revenue and Gulf lease sales-related rent have also dried up.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar - a.k.a. The Loathsome Cowboy - thumbed his nose at the judge's preliminary injunction last June and dragged his feet into July, when his bureaucracy lost its bid for a stay from the U.S. Court of Appeals. Salazar then concocted a second "revised" moratorium to replace the one Feldman had nullified as "arbitrary and capricious, and therefore, unlawful." The second deepwater drilling ban (which oil spill czar Michael Bromwich admitted was "roughly congruent with the original moratorium") was "lifted" in October, but still no permits were issued.

Every step of the way, the White House team has displayed unbridled defiance - by continually broadcasting its intent and determination to impose the blanket moratorium in spite of the judicial order, and by ramming through a second sweeping ban that did nothing to address the court's concerns after the injunction was issued.

The Interior Department's contempt for the law is outweighed only by its contempt for sound science.

Remember: Salazar is the data doctor who falsely claimed that the administration's blanket moratorium report was endorsed and peer-reviewed by seven scientific experts - when, in fact, eight of the scientists studying the issue for the government explicitly said they "do not agree with the six-month blanket moratorium" on floating drilling.

Remember: The Interior Department inspector general publicized e-mails in November showing that Salazar's office and former environmental czar Carol Browner's office collaborated on the false rewrite of the White House offshore drilling ban report. While the inspector general found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing and the White House denied any attempt to mislead the public, Feldman pointed out that "at the hearing on the first moratorium, in response to a question by the Court, the government's answer then was wholly at odds with the story of the misleading text change by a White House official, a story the government does not now dispute."

As GOP Congressman Joe Wilson of South Carolina would have put it more bluntly: "You lie."

In addition to the lost jobs and lost revenue already sacrificed at the altar of "safety," the Interior Department will now siphon tax dollars to pay for the "substantial" legal fees of the plaintiffs as a result of the contempt ruling. Another affected business, Century Exploration New Orleans, Inc., filed a drilling ban-related complaint against the department last week claiming breach of contract - which could add yet more millions or billions to publicly subsidized legal costs.

Jim Adams, president and CEO of the Offshore Marine Service Association (OMSA), noted the massive gap between Obama's words and actions this week: "[T]housands of workers are out of jobs, Americans are paying more for gasoline and heating oil, and our nation is becoming even more dependent on unstable nations for our energy needs. President Obama talks a lot about jobs and energy independence. Now it's time for him to back up his words with action and call off his de facto moratorium. Americans want an end to this manmade disaster."

But instead of reining Salazar in, the White House is happy to let him wage the administration's continuing war on the West with impunity. Despite pleas from both Democratic and Republican officials at all levels of government to retreat from an administrative usurpation of wild lands that he slipped through during the Christmas season lame duck session, Salazar is moving full speed ahead. Adding audacious insult to economic injury, Salazar this week unveiled new "scientific integrity rules" to "end political manipulation of science" and "encourage an environment of rigorous open discussion."

The Obama culture of corruption meets the culture of contempt. It's a toxic slick that will ultimately be left to voters to clean up.

One of the many strategic errors made by the Obama administration in the early days of 2009 was its decision to take on talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh-though it was, perhaps, hard to blame the president and his people for trying. After all, they were riding the wave of a big electoral win and feeling pretty invincible, with large majorities in both houses of Congress and a messiah in the White House, and Limbaugh had just stunned the country, days before Obama was inaugurated, by summarizing his feelings about the new president in four simple words: "I hope he fails." Limbaugh impatiently brushed aside the happy talk about compromise and bipartisan cooperation and scoffed at the claim that Obama was a pragmatic, post-ideological, post-partisan, post-racial conciliator and healer. Instead, he saw every reason to believe that Obama would aggressively pursue a leftist dream agenda: an exponential expansion of government's size and power, a reordering of the American economic system, and a dismantling of America's role as a world power. Limbaugh was not alone in such views, but he was the only major figure on the right willing to stick his neck out at a time when the rest of the nation seemed dazed into acquiescence by the so-far impeccably staged Obama ascendancy.

Such was the mood of the moment that it seemed a sullen breach of etiquette to utter any such criticism. In any event, the White House quickly concluded that Limbaugh's statement was a rare blunder and that hay was to be made of it. What better way to sow division among the Republicans, and confine them to a tiny corner of American political life, than to identify Rush Limbaugh as the "real head" of their party and brand him as an unpatriotic extremist and sore loser-or, in the light-touch description of longtime Clinton adviser Paul Begala, as "a corpulent drug addict with an AM radio talk show"? If they could succeed in this angle of attack, they would kill two birds with one stone, marginalizing their most popular antagonist while rendering the opposition party impotent with embarrassment and internal squabbling. Each Republican would face a choice of embracing the glittering "new age" of Obama and gathering a few scraps from beneath the Democratic table or following Rush into the fever swamps of an embittered permanent minority and getting nothing at all.

The Democrats' strategy backfired. Limbaugh's vocal opposition to the stimulus package, which he dubbed "Porkulus," helped galvanize a unanimous Republican vote in opposition-an astonishing achievement of partisan unity that would be repeated in subsequent lopsided votes on health care and other issues-and would lay the blame for these failed policies entirely on the Democrats' doorstep, culminating in a huge and decisive electoral pushback against the Democrats in the 2010 midterm elections. The question of whether Limbaugh was or is the "real leader" of the Republican Party suddenly became far less interesting to the White House and its friends in the media, perhaps because the answer was turning out to be something different from what they had expected. Limbaugh had goaded them into elevating his own importance; and in focusing on him and other putative "leaders," they blinded themselves to the spontaneous and broad-based popular revolt that was rising against them.

In retrospect, the amazing part of the story is how thoroughly the White House misunderstood Limbaugh's appeal, his staying power, and his approach to issues. It also points to a curious fact about Limbaugh's standing in the mind of much of the American media and the American left. Even though they talk about him all the time, he's the man who isn't quite there. By which I mean that there is a stubborn unwillingness, both wishful and self-defeating, to recognize Limbaugh for what he is, take him seriously, and grant him his legitimate due. Many of his detractors have never even listened to his show, for example. Some of his critics regularly refer to him as Rush "Lim-bough" (like a tree limb), as if his name is so obscure to them that they cannot even remember how to pronounce it.

In short, he is never quite acknowledged as the formidable figure he clearly is. Instead, he is dismissed in one of two ways-either as a comic buffoon, a passing phenomenon in the hit parade of American pop culture, or as a mean-spirited apostle of hate who appeals to a tiny lunatic fringe. These two views are not quite compatible, but they have one thing in common: they both aim to push him to the margins and render him illegitimate, unworthy of respectful attention. This shunning actually works in Limbaugh's favor because it creates the very conditions that cause him to be chronically underestimated and keeps his opposition chronically off-balance. Indeed, Limbaugh's use of comedy and irony and showmanship are integral to his modus operandi, the judo by which he draws in his opponents and then uses their own force to up-end them. And unless you make an effort to hear voices outside the echo chamber of the mainstream media, you won't have any inkling of what Limbaugh is all about or of how widely his reach and appeal extend.

The influence is real and pervasive. Like it or not, Rush Limbaugh is unarguably one of the most important figures in the political and cultural life of the United States in the past three decades. His national radio show has been on the air steadily for nearly 23 years and continues to command a huge following, upward of 20 million listeners a week on 600 stations. The only reason it is not even bigger is that his success has spawned so many imitators, a small army of talkers such as Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Michael Savage, Laura Ingraham, and so on, who inevitably siphon off some of his market share. He has been doing this show for three hours a day, five days a week, without guests (except on rare occasions), using only the dramatic ebb and flow of his monologues, his always inventive patter with callers, his "updates," song parodies, mimicry, and various other elements in his DJ's bag of tricks.

He is equipped with a resonant and instantly recognizable baritone voice and an unusually quick and creative mind, a keen and independent grasp of political issues and political personalities, and-what is perhaps his greatest talent-an astonishing ability to reformulate complex ideas in direct, vivid, and often eloquent ways, always delivering his thoughts live and unscripted, out there on the high wire. He conducts his show in an air of high-spiritedness and relaxed good humor, clearly enjoying himself, always willing to be spontaneous and unpredictable, even though he is aware that every word he utters on the air is being recorded and tracked by his political enemies in the hope that he will slip up and say something career-destroying. Limbaugh the judo master is delighted to make note of this surveillance, with the same delight he expresses when one of his "outrageous" sound bites makes the rounds of the mainstream media, and he can then play back all the sputtering but eerily uniform reactions from the mainstream commentators, turning it back on them with a well-placed witticism.

There are countless examples of his judo skills at work, but perhaps the most spectacular was the one in the fall of 2007, in which Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sought to humiliate Limbaugh only to have the humiliation returned to him threefold. Limbaugh had a caller who complained that the mainstream media would not interview "real soldiers" in Iraq but instead sought out the disgruntled. Limbaugh, in agreement, cited the case of Jesse MacBeth, an Army enlistee who had failed to make it through boot camp but lied about his lack of real military service in order to speak credibly at anti-war rallies. Limbaugh called MacBeth, accurately, a "phony soldier." But his statement was quickly pulled out of context by Media Matters, one of the Democratic groups that monitors Limbaugh's every word, and was reframed as a swipe at all soldiers who had misgivings about the war. Limbaugh was denounced in the House for "sliming" the "brave men and women." Reid used the occasion to address the Senate and deplore Limbaugh's "unpatriotic comments" for going "beyond the pale of decency" and then wrote a letter to Limbaugh's syndicator demanding that the talk-show host be repudiated.

But Reid overplayed his hand. Far from running from the controversy, Limbaugh embraced it. He read Reid's letter on the air, revealing it for the dishonest and bullying document it was, and then, in a stroke of pure genius, announced that he would auction it on eBay and give the proceeds to a military charitable foundation. The letter was sold for $2.1 million, and Rush matched the contribution with his own $2.1 million. Reid could only express his pleasure that the letter had done so much good. He had been flipped onto his back.

Given Limbaugh's talents and achievements, one would have thought that even his detractors would have an interest in knowing more about him: who he is, where he came from, and why he has acquired and kept such a large and devoted following. But in fact, there has been a remarkable lack of curiosity on that score and little incentive to go beyond the sort of routine demonization that only strengthens him. It was not until 2010 that a reasonably fair-minded account of Limbaugh's life and work, by the journalist Zev Chafets, appeared in print.1 As Chafets reports in the book's acknowledgments, it was not easy finding a publisher willing to take on such a book, unless it had the words "idiot" or "liar" in the title, since, as one friend explained it to him, "I have to go out for lunch in this city every day." So call it a politically correct lack of curiosity, then; but whatever the reason, it has meant our missing out on a fascinating story of a very American life.

But not missing out entirely, since much of the story comes across in Limbaugh's own account of himself on his show. Anyone can figure out from listening to the show that he was and is a quintessential radio guy, a product of that fluid, wide-open, insecure, enterprising, somewhat hardscrabble, somewhat gonzo world of the AM radio disc jockey, in which salesmanship and showmanship were two names for the same thing and in which incessant changes of name and employer were the most predictable element of life: "packing and unpacking, town to town, up and down the dial" in the words of the theme song of WKRP in Cincinnati, the 1970s TV sitcom that captured some of the knockout zaniness of that world. Limbaugh was smitten early and permanently with the romance of radio and never really wanted to do anything else with his life, including bothering to go to college, let alone taking on his birthright, the leadership of the family law firm.

It was a business one could learn only in the doing. While still in high school, he started working at KMGO-AM in his hometown of Cape Girardeau, Missouri, spinning discs in the afternoons under the name "Rusty Sharpe." Later, he was "Jeff Christie," morning-drive DJ on WIXZ-AM in McKeesport, Pennsylvania, where he hosted "The Solid Rockin' Gold Show." There was a move to Kansas City, where he would eventually begin dabbling in political discussion, and then finally KFBK in Sacramento, where he followed in the footsteps of the unpleasantly provocative Morton Downey Jr. and was able to do politically oriented talk as a solo act without guests and using his own name, finally developing the bombastic Limbaugh persona ("El Rushbo" with "talent on loan from Gawww-duh") and the familiar epithets ("Feminazis" and "Environmentalist Wackos") applied to his designated opponents. In Sacramento, he perfected his formula and proved a great success, tripling Downey's already sizable audience and attracting the attention of syndicator Ed McLaughlin, who in 1988 brought him to WABC in New York to do The Rush Limbaugh Program, 21 years after those first broadcasts back at KMGO.

On arriving in New York, Limbaugh immediately set to work building his affiliate network and his general visibility, charging forward indefatigably on all fronts at once. He wasted no time plunging the show into the 1988 presidential campaign, branding Michael Dukakis "The Loser" and assigning him update theme music drawn from the Beatles' "I'm a Loser," emphasizing the refrain: " . . . and I'm not what I appear to be," a dig at the Massachusetts governor's futile effort to disguise or downplay his liberalism. He began giving one-man "Rush to Excellence" tours around the country. These efforts paid off very quickly. By 1990, the radio-show audience had hit 20 million; his first book, The Way Things Ought to Be, was released in 1992 and sold 2 million copies in six weeks, making it at that point the fastest-selling volume in publishing history.

But he really hit his stride with the election of Bill Clinton in 1992. The two men seemed to have an elective non-affinity, perhaps because they were both baby-boomer know-it-alls from the same general region of the country (Limbaugh from southeastern Missouri, Clinton from Arkansas), and perhaps because Limbaugh's unprecedented and growing influence was so intensely and visibly annoying to the ambitious young politician. Clinton, after all, had come into office borne on a wave of mainstream hosannas, and expectations were high after the 12-year Republican control of the White House. But Limbaugh turned out to be a serious obstacle to him every step of the way, proving to be a major force in rallying public opinion against Clinton's own health-care overhaul and helping to lay the groundwork for the anti-Clinton 1994 electoral tsunami. The newly elected Republicans even made him an honorary member of the freshman class of 1995, an honor he coveted, even though he has always thought of himself as a conservative rather than a Republican.

For some time, the early Clinton years represented Limbaugh's high point. Clinton pushed back, effectively (if outrageously) associating Limbaugh and talk radio with the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 and winning re-election in 1996 in a walk, running against an aging and ineffective Bob Dole. That did not mean that Limbaugh let up, and the events surrounding Monica Lewinsky in 1998 gave him a rich new target, as did the electoral chaos of 2000. But a cluster of personal issues, including charges relating to the abuse of prescription drugs and a catastrophic loss of his hearing, all seemed to conspire to place a ceiling on his influence. There was a noticeable ebbing of energy in the show at times, and it was not immune to the fracturing effect the Bush 43 presidency had on conservatives, with internal differences emerging on issues ranging from the prescription-drug entitlement to the Iraq war to immigration reform.

But all that seems to have changed, and Limbaugh clearly has the wind at his back again with a newly growing audience. Like the radio guy he is and always will be, he is a survivor. He has wisely chosen to avoid television for the most part after a syndicated television show successful with audiences (and produced by Roger Ailes in the early 1990s in a warm-up for Ailes's unprecedented triumph as the creator of the Fox News Channel) proved less so with advertisers. Events, too, have moved his way. The abject failure of the John McCain campaign vindicated many of Limbaugh's longstanding complaints about the more moderate wing of the Republican Party. And the rise of Obama has proved nothing less than a godsend for him-though only because he had the boldness to seize the opportunity it presented.

Occasionally, Limbaugh will talk on his show about radio, past, present, and future, and you understand that his great success is no accident. Able to draw with minuteness on more than four decades of work experience, he has achieved a comprehensive and detailed grasp of the technical, performing, and business dimensions of the industry, all of which give him an unmatched understanding of the medium and its possibilities. But it is more than a wonk's understanding. He has a deep-in-the-bones feeling for what is magical about radio at its best-its immediacy, its simplicity, its ability to create the richness of imagined places and moments with just a few well-placed elements of sound, its incomparable advantages as a medium for storytelling with the pride of place that it gives to the spoken word and the individual human voice, abstracted from all other considerations. He probably also understands why he himself is not nearly so good on TV, faced as he is with the classic McLuhanesque problem of a hot personality in a cool medium.

He also understood why predictions of radio's demise have repeatedly been proved wrong, why AM radio has lent itself particularly well to the kind of simple and easy interactivity on which talk thrives, and why the movement of talk radio into the AM band would have the same revitalizing effect there as an urban homesteader turning a decrepit old townhouse into a place of elegance and commodity. AM radio was supposed to have died off years ago due to its weak and tinny sound. But the takeover by talk in the early 1990s, primarily due to Limbaugh, managed to transform a decaying and outdated infrastructure into the perfect vehicle for the medium's own aspirations.

It could not have happened without the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987. Interactive talk of one sort or another had been around since the earliest days of radio, and there had been, of course, plenty of local talk shows, mostly conservative in flavor, on many stations. But the Fairness Doctrine kept them within bounds, obliging stations holding broadcast licenses to offer equal representation to all sides of a controversial issue and to provide coverage to issues of local importance. They imposed these requirements on the ground that channels were limited and so it was necessary to ensure that they served the larger public interest.

But with the vast and rapid growth of cable and satellite television and radio and other new media, this requirement no longer made any sense. The doctrine was abolished, and the way was opened for a show like Limbaugh's to go into national syndication. His show could never have been sustained with the doctrine in place, a fact that has helped fuel the occasional expressions of Democratic interest-most recently coming from Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois-in its reinstitution.

It would be hard, though, to accomplish that without sparking something like an actual revolt in this country. Talk radio is, implicitly, talk-back radio-a medium tuned into during times of frustration, exasperation, even desperation, by people who do not find that their thoughts, sentiments, values, and loyalties are fairly or even minimally represented in the "official" media. Such feelings may be justified or unjustified, wholesome or noxious; but in any event they are likely to fester and curdle in the absence of some outlet in which they can be expressed. Talk radio is a place where people can go to hear opinions freely expressed that they will not hear elsewhere, and where they can come away with a sense of confirmation that they are not alone, are not crazy, and are not wrong to think and feel such things. The existence of such frustrations and fears are the sine qua non of talk radio; it would not exist without them.

But that is not all. Without Limbaugh's influence, talk radio might well have become a dreary medium of loud voices, relentless anger, and seething resentment, the sort of thing that the New York screamer Joe Pyne had pioneered in the 50s and 60s-"go gargle with razor blades," he liked to tell his callers as he hung up on them-and that one can still see pop up in some of Limbaugh's lesser epigones. Or it might have descended to the sometimes amusing but corrosive nonstop vulgarity of a Howard Stern. Limbaugh himself can be edgy, though almost always within PG-rated boundaries. But what he gave talk radio was a sense of sheer fun, of lightness, humor, and wit, whether indulging in his self-parodying Muhammad Ali-like braggadocio, drawing on his vast array of American pop-cultural reference points, or, in moving impromptu mini-sermons, reminding his listeners of the need to stay hopeful, work hard, and count their blessings as Americans. In such moments, and in many other moments besides, he reminds one of the affirmative spirit of Ronald Reagan and, like Reagan, reminds his listeners of the better angels of their nature. He transmutes the anger and frustration of millions of Americans into something more constructive.

The critics may be correct that the flourishing of talk radio is a sign of something wrong in our culture. But they mistake the effect for the cause. Talk radio is not the cause, but the corrective. In our own time, and in the person of Rush Limbaugh, along with others of his talk-radio brethren, a problem of long-standing in our culture has reached a critical stage: the growing loss of confidence in our elite cultural institutions, including the media, universities, and the agencies of government. The posture and policies of the Obama presidency, using temporary majorities and legislative trickery to shove through massive unread bills that will likely damage the nation and may subvert the Constitution, have brought this distrust to a higher level. The medium of talk radio has played a critical role in giving articulate shape and force to the resistance. If it is at times a crude and bumptious medium, it sometimes has to be, to disarm the false pieties and self-righteous gravitas in which our current elites too often clothe themselves. Genuinely democratic speech tends to be just that way, in case we have forgotten.

I slightly reworked last week’s Muslim column and it is posted on Flopping Aces with some interesting comments:

An Obama fundraiser awarded a cushy European ambassadorship after bundling more than half a million dollars for his presidential campaign ran her U.S. embassy like a hostile dictator, spent government funds on booze and bullied staff.

David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation observes that there has been no global warming since 1998:

Media Matters joins with 26 other progressive groups to defend planned parenthood from right-wing attacks.

RUSH: I want to get into the unemployment news here, folks, and I want to tell you... I really wish this were true. I wish everything they were telling us about this were true. You know, I was going through all of this and remembering so many contradictions. Do you realize we're into our 19th month since they say the recession ended? Nineteen months into "the recovery," nineteen months since they say the recession ended. Now, we've got this job number: 36,000 new jobs. Everybody says that's disappointing, but somehow the unemployment rate has dropped from 9.7% to 9%. Now, keep in mind we are in the presidential election campaign season already.

And also keep in mind no president, no incumbent has ever been reelected with an unemployment rate above 8%. So that's where we're headed here. Now, we were told... Before I get into any of the base numbers for this month and today's report, I want to remind you of this. We were told one year ago, almost -- actually probably closer now to 13 months ago -- by Associated Press that it would take three million jobs (new jobs, three million newly created jobs) to lower the unemployment rate 1%. They were just reporting it. Other quasi-experts have said the same thing. So people have been taking that number and forecasting the future and saying, "Well, we're gonna get us back down to where we were, around the five to six percent unemployment numbers.

"But it's gonna take to 2014, 2015." In fact, here's how it reads from January 21st, 2010. "Another way of looking at it," writes Jeannine Aversa, of the AP: "A net total of about 3 million jobs would have to be created this year to lower the average unemployment rate by 1 percentage point for 2010..." Ladies and gentlemen, in the last two months we have lowered the unemployment rate by .8%, almost a full point, with only 139,000 new jobs: 103,000 jobs in December, and 36,000 in January. Now, the unemployment rate dropped to 9% with 36,000 jobs. The number of jobs created is a thimble.

It's irrelevant. It's almost statistically zero. Yet the unemployment rate has plummeted almost a point. How is this happening? I'll tell you: We're being spun like a top, and here's exactly how they're doing it. They have just subtracted 2.2 million jobs from the universe of available jobs. And how did they arrive at the 2.2 million number? Very simple: 2.2 million people in the last reporting period have stopped looking for work. Well, we've told you about the U6 unemployment rate, the U3. The U6 calculates that. It takes into account everybody out of work for whatever reason. The U3, which is the standard reported unemployment rate every...

Like the 9% is U3, and that consists of people who are looking for work. It does not count those who have given up, who have been looking for years that have given up. It does not count those whose unemployment benefits have expired. But the U6 does. The U6 is actually up 17-point-something percent. The U6 is simply a government categorization. It's the letter "U," dash, "six" (I want to make this visible for those of you listening to radio) versus U3, and that figure actually went up. It's the more accurate of the two. So even by virtue of adding 36,000 new jobs, the real unemployment rate went up 17-point-something percent.

The reported unemployment rate went down almost one full percent, getting ever closer to the magic number of 8%. That's where the Obama regime is headed if they can massage it and pull it off. Now, okay... (interruption) Yes, there is an exception: FDR was reelected twice with a jobless number higher an 8%, but that's because FDR never squandered the goodwill that he had. Everybody still believed he was doing his best with the New Deal and to fix everything, and they had a lot of hope and change invested in FDR. That's missing with Obama now. I don't know if ever gonna recapture that.

So anyway, the bottom line is they just decided: Since 2.2 million people have dropped off of the rolls from those looking for work they have just subtracted that many jobs from the universe of jobs available throughout the country. Just 2.2 million. Well, when you reduce the overall number of total jobs, you obviously are going to reduce the percentage of overall unemployment, the way you calculate it for the U3 category. But the U6 number continues to be the real story, and it went up over 17%. There isn't... As I say, 19 months ago the recession ended, theoretically; therefore, we're 19 months into a recovery. You don't feel it. You just don't. You know it when it's happening, and it doesn't feel like it's happening.

RUSH: Now, the unemployment rate of 9.0% today, that's the federal government. That's the Labor Department, the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Yesterday the Gallup people put out their story. They count other figures, such as those who would like to be full-time employed, and they count them in a way the federal government does not. But I don't know. Who do we want to trust here, Gallup or the Obama regime? I mean, this is a toughie. But Gallup finds that US unemployment's up slightly in January to 9.8%, underemployment was at 18.9% at the end of December. It was 19. So it is not improving.

They have also said something in addition to this business that you have to create three million jobs to lower the unemployment rate a full point (and we've only had 133,000 jobs added). They also say that you need 5% GDP growth to lower unemployment 1%. We haven't had anywhere near 5% growth in the economy. Now, the AP is claiming that the unemployment rate that they reported today has gone down more in the last two months than in the last 53 years. So they're pulling out all the stops. They're doing everything they can to make it look like the policies of our young president are finally starting to take hold. After 19 months of sweat and toil, 19 months of fingers and noses to the grindstone, finally it's all starting to pay off! But it's not.

From the Zero Hedge website: "At 64.2%, the labor force participation rate ... is now at a fresh 26-year low, the lowest since March 1984..." This pretty much self-explanatory. The labor force participation rate. It plunges. This is the number of jobs in the country. I don't know where they get the number. I must be honest here. This is the Zero Hedge website, Tyler Durden is the poster's name. I don't know where they get the number. It might be in the BLS, the Bureau of Labor Statistics report. I don't know. But what he seems to be saying here is that the population is lower because of people dropping out of the workforce.

So those not in the labor force has increased to 86.2 million people, 2.2 million in one year -- 2.2 million people who have simply stopped looking for work, meaning there are 2.2 million fewer jobs and that's how you get to 9.0% on their unemployment rate. I would love to be able to sit here and telling you we're not being spun and that the news is fabulous and finally we've turned the corner, but it just doesn't seem to be the case. CNN: "January Jobs Report Disappoints," and there's a little sentence here at the very end of their story: "The Labor Department also revised payroll numbers for 2010. Eight months were revised downward by a combined total of 298,000 jobs. Four months were revised upward, adding 83,000 jobs to the 2010 total.

"Overall, there were 215,000 fewer jobs added in 2010 than previously reported after the seasonal adjustment. The labor market typically needs at least 300,000 job gains each month to make a difference in the unemployment rate." So there's no legitimate way to move this number down to 9% from 9.7. Remember we're told... This story says: Well, you need 300,000 new jobs a month a year to bring it down one point. Others say a different number altogether. AP a year ago, I just read you that story. But sadly, folks, it just doesn't add up -- and that's the scoop on the unemployment. Every Friday we have to go through this. Every Friday we have to spend time explaining how we're being spun by our own government on this.

RUSH: I checked some e-mail during the break, and I found some people who are still confused about this unemployment business. I don't blame you. It's tough to follow numbers on the radio, even presented by such a highly trained broadcast specialist as me, but here's from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and I think this will help. It's still convoluted, because we're being spun here. The unemployment rate fell by 0.4 percentage points to 9.0. That's the unemployment rate. That's U3 in January. Nonfarm payroll employment changed little. We gained 36,000 jobs. So we are supposed to believe that a measly increase of 36,000 jobs made the unemployment rate go down almost a half a point. "The unemployment rate (9.0 percent) declined by 0.4 percentage point for the second month in a row. The number of unemployed persons decreased by about 600,000 in January to 13.9 million, while the labor force was unchanged."

The number of unemployed persons decreased by 600,000 while the labor force was unchanged? Sorry. That is not even mathematically possible. Maybe the explanation can be found in the Bureau of Labor Statistics accompanying announcement below, which is changes to the employment situation tables and data. "After accounting for the annual adjustment to the population controls, the employment-population ratio," was unchanged. Folks, just trust me on this. If we're reading this correctly, after doing this apparently brand-new annual adjustment to population controls, the employment to population numbers went up. So the workforce, number of people with jobs, didn't go down. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has just decided the US population was actually smaller. Bottom line is this. What they have done, they've just taken a number of people, it's around two million, two million people who have stopped looking for work, and they've just decided that there are two million less jobs overall to be had, reducing the universe.

Now, there's another way of looking at this, and it ain't good. This is all about this employment participation business, all kinds of new terminology being used here. But they're telling us the 26-year low in the workforce participation survey, a 26-year low. What that means is opportunity is at a 26-year low. And we talk about the United States as the land of opportunity. If they're simply gonna erase two million jobs because there aren't two million jobs that there used to be, well, we're faced with a declining opportunity. That's not good. Breaks my heart. United States of America.

RUSH: Folks, a federal judge has declared Obamacare unconstitutional. The law has been voided and it does not matter. Dick Durbin, all the Democrats, they are still implementing the law. It is as though the Constitution doesn't matter. The media is not the slightest bit interested in the substance of this. They're just keeping track of it in the horse race context about how Obama's showing great courage defying this Reagan appointed judge in the interests of what's best for the American people. It's stunning. We apply the test, if this were Bush 43 that were ignoring -- let's say that the Democrats had succeeded and they had found that the invasion of Iraq was unconstitutional, just to pick something. Federal judge says it's unconstitutional so all operations have to cease. Bush doesn't cease, can you imagine? That's all we would be hearing about here. This is not an insignificant item. We've had a federal judge rule that the whole law is void.

Now, Dick Turban is out there saying, (paraphrasing) "Well, the judge did not issue an injunction. The judge didn't say stop this." The judge didn't think he had to. A judge affirms murder is illegal. People continue to murder. The judge says, well, I didn't offer an injunction against murder, or lawyers for the murderers, the judge didn't issue an injunction. The judge thought the law being voided spoke for itself. If you have any kind of respect for the rule of law this is a no-brainer. I'm just stunned by how little attention it's getting. It's just a ho-hummer for seemingly a lot of people.

"Efforts to repeal President Barack Obama's health care law died a quick death in the Senate Wednesday --" this Politico happily writing "-- but the GOP got a consolation prize -- a bipartisan fix to a tax-reporting requirement in the law that was widely panned by businesses." I assume that's the 1099 reporting requirement. The Politico, in interests of great journalism, does not identify the fix to a tax reporting requirement as the 1099 problem. They assume all of their readers over at TIME, Newsweek, and the Washington Post will understand what they're writing about. "A Democratic amendment to repeal the law's new tax-reporting requirements passed, 81-17, with broad bipartisan support. A Republican amendment to repeal the entire health reform law, meanwhile, fell along party lines, 47-51, in a procedural vote.

Mitch McConnell said just holding the votes is a political victory. "McConnell managed to force the roll call on the floor of the Democratic-controlled Senate. And some moderate Democrats are now on the record with a vote in favor of Obama's signature," unconstitutional health care bill. So McConnell forced a bunch of Democrats to say "aye" voting for what has now been ruled to be an unconstitutional piece of legislation. So Politico can say here, full repeal of health law fails, party line, no big deal. It is a big deal. Dingy Harry had vowed this would not happen. That's why I say, this Egypt thing, folks, the Republicans are doing some really good stuff, some heavy lifting, and it's not being reported elsewhere because the story of the day, the juice, if you will, is Egypt. So some Democrats, vulnerable in 2012, are on record as supporting Obamacare. Twenty-three Democrats are up for reelection in 2012 and almost half of them are vulnerable, according to polling data that people have now. So figure 12 to 13 of these Democrats are vulnerable, and they had to go on record yesterday. This was not part of the plan.

Audio sound bite time. Let's go to Harry Reid, Dingy Harry, yesterday in Washington on the Senate floor. This is Dingy Harry speaking about the differences between Democrats and Republicans in the Senate.

REID: Democrats are fighting to modernize our nation's air travel. Republicans are fighting to repeal the health reform law, ignoring the 80% of Americans who want them to leave it alone.

REID: In other words, Democrats want to give passengers the rights they deserve. Republicans want to take away patient's rights that they already have.

RUSH: By the way, it's a lame effort, Dingy Harry, to try for the Obama reverb and echo there. It just doesn't work with your anemic voice. Every time I listen to Dingy Harry, I want to clear my throat. I feel like I got phlegm in there, just listening to Dingy Harry. Did you know that 80% of the American people want the law left alone, the health care law? It's total BS. They're defending an unconstitutional law, Dingy Harry trying to score points with passenger rights. Here's Mitch McConnell on the floor of the Senate yesterday.

MCCONNELL: It's not every day that you get a second chance on a big decision after you know all the facts. This is that second chance. And for all of us who oppose the health bill, today we reaffirm our commitment to work a little harder to get it right. We can't afford to get it wrong.

RUSH: So McConnell was giving Democrats like Jim Webb and Claire McCaskill a second chance, change their vote. Claire, by the way, I'm from Missouri, I keep up somewhat with what's going on there. Her campaign is -- what's the word I'm looking for? It is schizo. It's inconsistent. She comes out against spending. She's trying to make it sound like she doesn't want to side with Obama on anything one day, and the next day it's the exact opposite depending on who the audience is, and Claire clearly is vulnerable in 2012. Anyway, McConnell said, (paraphrasing) "Look, if you guys want to get this vote right, here you go." They didn't avail themselves of the opportunity. Bernie Sanders, this is last night on MSNBC, the host: "Senator, how frustrating is this for you to see the bill tied up in a constitutional argument when the provisions that could have been in place, like the public option and other versions of the legislation that were rejected early on by the Democrat leadership, would not have posed any constitutional difficulties?"

SANDERS: One of the ways I want to see it improved is to give states flexibility to provide health care to all people, maintaining very, very high standards but doing it in a more cost effective way. And in the state of Vermont, we are moving forward toward a Medicare for all single-payer system. And I hope very much to be able to get waivers from Congress and the White House in order to allow us to do so. Because I think at the end of the day if you're gonna provide health care to all of our people in a cost effective way you're gonna have to get rid of the private health insurance companies and put our money into health care, not profiteering, not administration, not bureaucracy.

RUSH: Who let Bernie out of the cage? Bernie, you're not supposed to say that yet. Bernie just gave it all away: get rid of the private health insurance companies. We're gonna have to get rid of and put our money into health care. Not profiteering, not administration, not bureaucracy, which of course is all it will be. So this is Obamacare. This is what it's designed to be: Single payer public option, yada yada, whatever you want to call it. But they're not supposed to say this in public, and Bernie Sanders did. I mean it's one thing when Maxine Waters says we're gonna nationalize and socialize -- everybody just starts laughing. But when Bernie Sanders comes out here and says we gotta get rid of the private health insurance companies then people cringe because that is the agenda. That is the strategery.

RUSH: Here is the Cybercast News Service. Dick Durbin told the Cybercast News Service the regime should absolutely continue enforcing the Obamacare law because the federal judge, Roger Vinson. ruled only that the law is unconstitutional. He had a chance to issue an injunction but he didn't do so. So we had an unconstitutional law and Dick Durbin, Senator from Illinois says: Hey, yeah, he said it's unconstitutional, but he didn't issue an injunction so we're free to keep on implementing something that he said is unconstitutional. The Cybercast News Service reporter "asked Durbin to clarify whether the Obama administration should continue to implement the law. 'Oh, absolutely,' said Durbin. ...

"CNSNews.com asked Durbin on Wednesday whether he thinks the Obama administration should stop implementing the health care law. Durbin, a member of the Judiciary Committee, said, 'Personally, I don't, because the judge was asked for an injunction, and he didn't rule that there would be one. So he hasn't enjoined any conduct or activity. ... Judge Vinson, Monday had a chance to not only decide whether it was constitutional but to issue an injunction,' said Durbin. 'He didn't do that.'" That's Dick Turban.

Well, "there is a long-standing presumption "that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction." Judge Vinson says the executive branch must obey. "[D]eclaratory judgment is, in a context such as this where federal officers are defendants, the practical equivalent of specific relief such as an injunction ... since it must be presumed that federal officers will adhere to the law as declared by the court..." That's from Justice Scalia.

"There is no reason to conclude that this presumption should not apply here. Thus, the award of declaratory relief is adequate and separate injunctive relief is not necessary." The law has been voided. The judge specifically says that his decision is "the functional equivalent of an injunction." He says -- the bold text that I just read to you, is from his ruling -- "An injunction is not necessary because it is presumed the executive branch will obey the declaratory judgment that the law's voided." Let me read it to you again. Judge Vinson... Remember, Durban is running around saying, "He didn't issue an injunction. He didn't tell us we had to stop implementing the law!"

Here's Judge Vinson from his ruling: "[T]here is a long-standing presumption 'that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.'" The judge said it's an injunction; here it is. This is "a declaratory judgment." I'm declaring this unconstitutional. He has done so. They keep on. This is not insignificant, folks. It's being swept under the rug as though it never happened. Egypt and other stories are being used to hide and camouflage this. This is big.

RUSH: This is a story, Cybercast News Service: "Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson told a Senate panel that preventing children from being exposed to contaminated water could spare them from autism. Jackson made the remark on Wednesday at a hearing of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works in response to questioning by Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), who asked if a recent executive order by President Barack Obama about regulations and the regulatory process means that the EPA can put any rules in place if 'the benefits outweigh the costs.'" And she said, yeah.

Now, folks, I don't care in what construct of our government or bureaucracy you want to sign on to, this isn't right. There is nothing that can't be regulated for the common good, you see? Under this rubric, under this umbrella, they can do anything as long as they say it's for the common good, including death panels. So what this is really all about here is Obama giving an executive order that allows unelected people, these czars, if you will, and cabinet secretaries to do whatever the hell they want. He trusts them because they are him, and he is they. So the EPA administrator claims, claims, there's no science here. Rachel Carson, "DDT kills kids or kills animals," whatever the hell it did, get rid of DDT and now 50 million people are dead from malaria. And Rachel Carson to this day is celebrated.

Obama has announced today that he will veto any congressional legislation to limit the EPA. He's gonna veto it. Veto it. Make him veto so much stuff, send it up there. I hope that they've got the energy and the gumption to keep doing this. "EPA Administrator Claims Regulating Drinking Water Supply Prevents Kids from Getting Autism." You see how easy this is? Nobody wants a child to have autism. If I even go down this road the can of worms I would open by talking about vaccinations and autism. I mean they've got people convinced that all these vaccinations have led to autism in certain children. Don't even try to talk 'em out of it. Not worth it. They believe it. So here comes the EPA. Lisa Jackson claiming she can regulate the drinking water supply so as to prevent kids from getting autism. Have you ever heard, have you ever seen any science about drinking water causing autism? Seriously, I'm asking you. I don't have children so I may have missed it. I have to be open-minded about this. Dawn, you have not seen it? So this is out of the clear blue. Just out of the clear blue, we gotta regulate drinking water because of the public common good. They don't have this power. They are appropriating it.

RUSH: How many of you people have seen and remember the great movie Dr. Strangelove? In fact, grab When Johnny Comes Marching Home again from that. One of my favorite musical bits is from that movie. I'll cue you for it. Not yet. But in that movie they parody a lot of things. Peter Sellers plays a number of different characters. One of the characters he plays is Mandrake, a Brit sort of exchange student in some wacko general's office -- and the general starts, essentially, World War III by believing that precious bodily fluids are being poisoned by the communists, fluoride among them. And he tries to convince Mandrake of this.

It's amazing the cycle repeats. Now we have tap water causing autism! Now, in the movie, Dr. Strangelove, they parodied it. It's black and white. It is hilarious. Slim Pickens. (laughing) George C. Scott. Peter Sellers plays Dr. Strangelove, who runs (Nazi impression) "computer figures" show that at the end of the world you'd need a hundred women for every man in order to perpetuate the population and rebuild it. George C. Scott's eyes light up. Of course he wants to wipe the commies off the map. And the crazed general is named Jack D. Ripper.

"Vodka, that's what they drink, isn't it? They never drink water, right? They know. They have poisoned the world's water supply, Mandrake. They're poisoning our precious bodily fluids!"

So now we've got the Obama regime and tap water leading to autism all for the express purpose to gain total control here over everything. It just... (sigh) Gosh, these people never, ever stop. They're not gonna be stopped until 2012!

RUSH: When the B-52 was headed to Moscow to drop the bombs and the crew going through the checklists., this was the tune that was played during the movie Dr. Strangelove. I think that's "how I learned to love the bomb."

RUSH: I just got it in Blu-ray as a matter of fact. "What do you need Blu-ray for when it's black and white?" When you have the chance to get the best, you get the best.

RUSH: I remember one time I used this music over a story about Obama. The civil rights coalition was not happy about that.

RUSH: New York, by the way, has banned smoking in beaches and parks. (interruption) Outside. (interruption) Times Square, yeah. Everywhere now, essentially.

RUSH: How long did you think it would be before Algore or somebody in the environmentalist wacko movement would take the occasion of this extraordinary winter weather to say, "See? See? I told you. Global warming, climate change." Well, it has happened. Algore has posted this on his blog, Al's Journal: "Last week on his show Bill O'Reilly asked, 'Why has southern New York turned into the tundra?' and then said he had a call into me. I appreciate the question. As it turns out, the scientific community has been addressing this particular question for some time now and they say that increased heavy snowfalls are completely consistent with what they have been predicting as a consequence of man-made global warming: 'In fact, scientists have been warning for at least two decades that global warming could make snowstorms more severe. Snow has two simple ingredients: cold and moisture. Warmer air collects moisture like a sponge until it hits a patch of cold air. When temperatures dip below freezing, a lot of moisture creates a lot of snow. A rise in global temperature can create all sorts of havoc, ranging from hotter dry spells to colder winters, along with increasingly violent storms, flooding, forest fires and loss of endangered species.'"

This is what Algore has posted. The problem is nobody believes it anymore. You're not gonna convince anybody driving around Chicago or stranded. I don't know if you are aware -- I am, because we are hosting a couple events this weekend in Dallas for clients. That city, DFW shut down yesterday for a while and they're still playing catch-up getting people in there. You couldn't get there from late yesterday afternoon through last night from Houston. You could get there from New York but not too many other places. I mean they've got wind chills below zero. The two teams have had to move their practice sites indoors because of all this. Now, the weekend, forties and fifties for the actual Super Bowl weekend, but this is all playing havoc. You're not gonna convince those people they're in the middle of global warming. And we are fortunate to have been able to help expose the hoax of all this. It's a pure, unadulterated hoax.

We had a sound bite last week or earlier this week and I didn't have a chance to get to it. One of the founders of Greenpeace, Patrick is his first name, I can't remember his last name, admitted that the whole environmental movement is solely oriented toward anti-capitalism, just exactly as I've always said. The militant environmental movement since the early nineties is simply the new repository for displaced communists after the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union went bye-bye. Anti-capitalist, it's all they are, just like the feminists, just another anti-capitalist movement, pro-socialist, pro-Marxist, pro-big government, that's all they are. And now here you've got Gore, he's not a scientist, quoting all these people. For a guy who pretends to be so scientific you'll notice what I read to you here from his blog, he seldom, if ever, backs up his assertions with actual documentation.

That long quote that Gore posted above that I just read is from a famous scientist and climate expert, and that is the columnist Clarence Page. I kid you not. It is Clarence Page who wrote: "In fact, scientists have been warning for at least two decades that global warming could make snowstorms more severe. Snow has two simple ingredients: cold and moisture. Warmer air collects moisture like a sponge until it hits a patch of cold air. When temperatures dip below freezing, a lot of moisture creates a lot of snow." Clarence Page wrote that. Gore is citing it here as scientific community evidence. Clarence Page, a Chicago newspaper syndicates him. But we know that Clarence Page isn't a scientist. He's not even a pretend climate change scientist. He's just a liberal pundit. So I would like to see some of these authoritative predictions from scientists from 20 years ago that supposedly claim that man-made global warming -- I don't want to hear from UN hacks. I want to hear from actual scientists.

I would like to hear, for example, our own climate expert, Dr. Roy Spencer. Dr. Spencer, I ask you now, 20 years ago, did you forecast, did any reputable climate scientists forecast massive warming leading to record snowfalls exactly as we're seeing today in the manner in which Clarence Page describes it here, sponges and the like? A rise in global temperature can create all sorts of havoc. Hotter dry spells. We haven't had those. Colder winters. Rise in global temperature equals colder winters. People used to buy this, 'til we exposed it. But now the greatest weapon we have is all of this extraordinary weather. I don't care what people think. They know this isn't global warming. Now, they may be buying into climate change if they really are invested in this. But, if they do that, even they must know that the terminology here is being changed.

Now, let's go back, we're gonna go back 11 years. This is from the Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia, the Hadley bunch, the people who were at the forefront of the hoax. We were warned by the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia as recently as March of 2000 that snow would soon be a thing of the past. I mention this because these were people who were at the forefront of the hoax, at the forefront of the idea that we were destroying the climate with man-made greenhouse gases, emissions, driving our SUVs, you name it, you know what it is, burning coal for fuel, we were destroying the planet. Now, Gore in this post says, (imitating Gore) "Oh, yeah, scientists 20 years ago warned us of all these massive snowfalls as the world's climate got warmer." But March 20th of 2000: "According to Dr. David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become 'a very rare and exciting event. Children just aren't going to know what snow is."

But you see Algore is not a scientist; he is a propagandist. He has a considerable financial stake in the success of his own propaganda, and that's what this is about. I hate to say it, but this is about Algore enriching himself on a hoax, propaganda. So you can't expect him to bother too much about inconvenient details. While he wants to tell us that scientists were warning us 20 years ago that the snows are gonna get even worse like we have never seen before, ten years ago the experts at Hadley were telling us snow would become so rare that it would be something children will not even recognize. They wouldn't even know what it is. March of 2000.

RUSH: I want you to hear an audio sound bite. Joe Bastardi from AccuWeather was on the Fox & Friends show this morning to talk about Algore, and Steve Doocy said, "Al Gore came out within the last 48 hours on his website and he said that scientists have said that all these storms are indicative of the earth getting warmer. You got evaporation out there and more precipitation and hence, what's going on here. You say that's not right."

BASTARDI: You know what this is like with these folks? I don't mean to demean you, it's like the more your opponent scores, the more points you get. The fact of the matter is these guys are sitting here -- is there any answer they don't own? Four, five years ago, we're hearing no winters, lots of hurricanes, everything else. When the opposite happens, they say well, we're right about that. There are people who think by 2030, we're back where we were in the early 1800's, which is a mini ice age. By the way, folks, cooling is worse than warming. It takes a lot more energy -- that's why your energy bills go up in the winter -- to heat houses than it does to cool you down.

RUSH: Right. And it's a great point that Mr. Bastardi makes. Is there any answer they don't own? Whatever happens, they claim they called it. They claim they were right. There's no science about this whatsoever. And I did get the answer from Dr. Spencer, and there was no scientific prediction that anybody took seriously that global warming would produce more snowfall. It was the exact opposite. It was Patrick Moore, the guy I was trying to think of, Fox Business Network, Varney & Co., January 20th, Stuart Varney said, "Why did you leave Greenpeace? I mean you cofounded it. Why did you leave?"

MOORE: Greenpeace was hijacked by political and social activists at the time who began adopting extremist positions on a number of issues. I saw the writing on the wall, especially when they decided to ban chlorine worldwide which happens to be the most important element for human health and medicine. I had to leave because they were adopting positions I could not justify in science. And since then they have adopted many positions which I believe in some cases are the opposite to what they should be for truly being environmentally correct.

RUSH: Stuart Varney: "Well, if you looked across the whole spectrum of the environmentalist [wacko] movement, would you say that it's still primarily anti-capitalist, as opposed to pro-pure environment?"

MOORE: Yes, I believe it is. It's more about globalization and anti-capitalism than it is about science or ecology. Half a million kids go blind every year in the rice eating countries because of vitamin A deficiency. Golden rice invented 12 years ago could cure that overnight and yet the activists have prevented it from being planted in Asia and Africa.

RUSH: Exactly. And particularly Africa, people are being forced to live backward lives and not modernize them under the theory that it is modernization which has led to the destruction of the planet. So these people are essentially enforcing poverty on people found in the midst of it. So Stuart Varney finally says, "Now bring us up to speed for a moment. The key debate seems to be around global warming. Where do you stand on it? Is it happening? If it is happening, what would you, a former member of Greenpeace do about it?"

MOORE: Global warming has been happening since about 1800 when the little ice age came to an end and the Thames River in England stopped freezing over on a regular basis. This is obviously a natural phenomenon. The climate has been changing throughout the millennia and has generally been warmer than it is today for the last half billion years. I personally believe a little bit of warming would be good for the planet by and large. Certainly, we should be very concerned if it cools because in a warmer world, we can produce more food. In a cooler world, we will only be able to produce less food. I just do not believe that we have the proof of this and the alarmism is driving us through scare tactics to adopt energy policies that are going to create a huge amount of energy poverty among the poorer people in our society.

RUSH: By design. By design, folks. It is how you keep people in need. It is how you keep people from prospering. The more people prosper, the less they need government, the less they need their elected officials. It is hideous, it is heinous what is being done in the name of progressives, what is being done in the name of leveling the playing field, what is being done in the name of closing the gap between the rich and the poor. They're just making more poor people.

RUSH: I want to stay on the same theme here before we get back to the phones because, folks, there's evil being done out there. This attempt by Algore, this is utterly irresponsible. It's worse than irresponsible. There is a word... Well, I had better be very, very, very careful. I'm gonna just tell you: It's worse than irresponsible what Gore is doing. Personally profiting off this extraordinary weather, which is subjecting people... I mean, people are losing lives. People are losing livelihoods for a while. This has wrought havoc. To try to take the occasion of this to advance a false, fallacious premise -- for the purposes of what? Personal enrichment? Advancement of a liberal cause is embarrassing? It is irresponsible.

And it's like Joe Bastardi said: "Is there a position they don't own?" They have yet to be right about anything, and yet everything that's happened they've "predicted." This is the worldwide left in consort with the American left, and they are destructive. And now we've got the EPA under the authority of this regime in total control of greenhouse gases and how to regulate them, and the Republicans... As I keep saying, it's a shame that news about Egypt and the weather is keeping everybody from hearing about some of the good things the Republicans are trying to do in the House and Senate, like this:

"AP Sources: House GOP Readies Restrictions on EPA -- In a sharp challenge to the Obama administration, House Republicans intend to unveil legislation Wednesday," they may have done it by now, "to ban the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act and expect to advance the bill quickly, officials disclosed Tuesday night. The officials said the bill would nullify all of the steps the EPA has taken to date on the issue, including a threshold finding that greenhouse gases constitute a danger to the public health and welfare."

Once they have that authority, folks, it's all over. It's the same thing with health care. You put them in charge of who gets treated and who doesn't, and it's all over. Based on cost? It doesn't matter. You take you out of the equation, when you have a bunch of bureaucrats with the power guiding them that says "greenhouse gases constitute a danger to the public health and welfare," there are no limits on them. I mean, when you're fighting danger-- when you're fighting elements harmful to the public health and welfare -- you can define anything you want however you need in order exercise unchecked federal power. (interruption) "Marshal law based on a hoax" is one way of putting it. Now, a greenhouse gas, one of them is what you exhale.

Carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, you exhale it -- and somehow we've gotten to the point where that is destroying the planet. I happen to believe in God. I believe in a loving, brilliant... (sigh) I know that this... (sigh) There is no way. I don't want to sound simpleton here, but there is not possible that we would be created by a creator in such a way that we would destroy by virtue of our created existence our own planet and environment. It just doesn't compute, and yet that's what these people are trying to tell us. I don't care whether they believe in God or not. The very idea that the natural existence of mammals, something we can't do anything about -- the only thing we can do is die to prevent carbon dioxide coming from us.

That's all we can do, and even then we're gonna decompose! (interruption) Well, "not all mammals" is true. Basically, it's just humans. But all of this has been a huge insult to my intelligence. Now we have that gas, carbon dioxide, called a danger to public health and welfare. (interruption) Do I remember winters like this when I was a kid? Yeah, this... I remember 1967. I was 16 years old. Chicago's had this before. There was a day in February of 1979. I had just started work for the Kansas City Royals a month prior. I had gone home at the end of February for my dad's birthday. His birthday is February 26th, and I went home on a weekend closest to his birthday. And on a Saturday night, Sunday of this weekend, 24 inches of snow fell on Cape Girardeau, Missouri -- and eight to ten miles away, no snow fell.

Regardless, we couldn't get out of there. I had to drive back to Kansas City to get back to work. I got on the phone. I called the boss, whose name happened to be "Herk" Robinson, and I was scared to death. I thought (you know, there was the Internet back then), "Gosh, I hope he believes me, because there isn't any snow in St. Louis. There's no snow anywhere but here -- and are they reporting snow in Cape Girardeau in Kansas City?" So I got on the phone and I said, "Herk, I can't get there." He said, "Oh, that's fine. Just get here when you can." It was 24 inches of snow. (interruption) Yeah, I've had ice storms.

We've had school canceled because of freezing rain and ice storms, and we've had power lines drop because of ice on them and we've had people's roofs cave in because of ice on them and we've had store roofs and stores collapse because of the weight of snow on them. (interruption) What are you asking me this for? Ohhhhh, yeah, yeah, yeah. People are acting like this has never happened before. Well, let me explain part of that. I don't actually mind that. I don't mind the Drive-Bys doing "this is Armageddon," to this extent: This ain't global warming! Anything that convinces people there isn't global warming out there, I'm fine with.

If the Drive-Bys want to fall into a trap that they made the last ten years, "It's getting hotter! It's getting hotter! It's getting hotter! We're all gonna die! We're gonna die! We're gonna die! We gotta go buy electric cars not SUVs, change lightbulbs! Warming, warming, warming," and then we get what people think is a winter like we've never had, I'm down with it. If it convinces them that there's no global warming, fine! Drive-Bys, go to town. Lie all you want. You tell people it's never been this bad before because it's all happening in a context of them thinking it's because of global warming, and they're not gonna believe it anymore. So as far as I'm concerned, the Drive-Bys are cutting their own throats and I'm down with it. Hunky-dory!

RUSH: By the way, one other point. We are in the middle of a worldwide "great recession." In that case... I think everybody would agree to this. It's a worldwide, and if it's not a "great recession" it's a significant downturn. How come we are still having global warming? I mean, economic activity is way down, is it not? The things that "produce greenhouse gases," all of the man-made activity that caused planetary destruction, climate destruction, are way down. And it's not having any impact! We don't have anybody out there praising this, do we? No, we've got Al Gore and the others saying, "It's getting worse." Every snowfall, they say, "Look at this! It's getting warmer, warmer, warmer and it's causing all this snow." Ladies and gentlemen, for those of you that don't have a job, this is what the environmentalists want. We're part of the way there to what they say is necessary to stop the destruction of the planet. Why isn't it working?

Gore now claims 'increased heavy snowfalls are completely consistent with... man-made global warming

RUSH: A federal judge has just ruled all of Obamacare void, unconstitutional. He has not said it may continue to be implemented under appeal. This ruling, ladies and gentlemen, demonstrates that we cannot tweak Obamacare. We can't throw out the parts we don't like but keep some things we do like and then build on that. Even a federal judge -- a Reagan appointee, by the way, about which I'm gonna have more to say in mere moments. But this regime all of a sudden the last couple weeks loves Reagan, right? Obama's out there as Reagan. He wanted to be Reaganesque at the State of the Union. The Drive-Bys are singing the praise of Ronald Reagan.

We need to remind everybody, this is a Reagan-appointed federal judge and that we are living not under a Reagan economy but Obama economy. Hooverville. Obamaville. So where are we? A federal judge has realized you cannot work this health care law without this mandate tax. He has seen it. There's some brilliant, brilliant writing from this judge. Let me give you an example: "It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place."

This is brilliant. It is commonsense simplicity equaling brilliance. "It's difficult to imagine a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Tea Company a monopoly in the colonies and then imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold," leading to the Boston Tea Party. "It is difficult to imagine that [the Founders] would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place."

(New Castrati impression) "Mr. Limbaugh! Mr. Limbaugh! This was not about tea, and you know it. This was about health insurance."

Mr. New Castrati, if they can force us to buy health insurance, they can force us to buy broccoli.

With people like you in charge, Mr. New Castrati? Once you people get it in your heads that you can force us to buy health insurance, what's to stop you from making us buy a stupid electric car?

That's why this is unconstitutional, and there's no implementing it while it's under appeal. So where are we? What happens if Obama ignores it? Everything I've read from the regime says, "Eh, it's an outlier. It's surprisingly insufficient." They have objected to it every which way but legally. I have not read a legal response to this ruling from the regime. So if Obama ignores it, he's defying a federal court. I can't remember... Well, yes, I can. I was going to say, "I can't remember when a president has openly defied a federal court," but Obama did via Ken Salazar with the drilling moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico, after the rig explosion out there.

But a president, an administration, openly defying a federal court ruling is an extremely serious constitutional crisis, whether the media thinks it is or not. Again, I just ask you: If Nixon had ignored the judiciary during Watergate, what do you think would have happened? Liberals woulda gone nuts about it. So is Obama going to uphold the law and comply with the Constitution, or not? Whatever court does down the road is beside the point. The ruling of the day is the law is unconstitutional; it has been voided. The regime must legally deal with this, and they will. If they ask for a stay, then they are acknowledging the ruling and admitting that they understand it. It doesn't matter that it might be overturned later.

The law of the land right now is this is unconstitutional. We have three branches: Legislative, executive, judiciary. The executive cannot tell the legislative or the judicial what to do. This bunch thinks they can. Senator Chuck-U Schumer was asked about the three branches. I don't know if he was serious or not. Some people think he was serious. He said, "You have the House, the Senate, and the president." I wouldn't doubt if he were serious. We do know that this regime violated and ignored a federal court order on their drilling moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico. So we have an increasingly lawless president.

We have an increasingly lawless president. Look at his attack on the Supreme Court over Citizens United, plus his administration saying they'll continue to implement this law. (CBS had that story last night.) What you see is a lawless, statist mentality -- and, in this case, unconstitutional behavior -- if the regime does not comply with the court. Plain and simple. Now the media is out attacking Vinson, the judge. They're retracing his own history with our health care system, how he had to pay $700 cash or some such thing to afford the birth of his first child. As though there's something criminal or corrupt or whatever. They're doing their best. They're not trying to defend Obamacare. They are going out and attacking the judge.

They never examine the history, the past of liberal judges. I think, folks, that we should proudly play up the fact that Judge Vinson is a Reagan nominee. The left now loves Reagan. They've been invoking Reagan since the buildup to Obama's State of the Union show. "He's Reaganesque! He's been reading all about Reagan! He tried to sound Reaganesque on the economy in the State of the Union show." Obama loves Reagan now. So I assume that Obama would love the judges that Reagan appointed. Vaughn Walker, the judge in San Francisco who ruled for same-sex marriage, was also appointed by Reagan; they love him. Sandra Day O'Connor was appointed to the US Supreme Court by Reagan; they love her.

I would assume if they're going to be consistent, that they will looove Judge Vinson. I think also... Didn't this regime ignore a law regarding Arizona during the Arizona illegal immigrant law? I have to double-check that. But I think it's good. We should encourage the State-Controlled Media to identify who appointed this judge, because not only was this judge's decision brilliant and courageous, most people agree with it. We should be shouting this from the rooftops. Two-thirds of the American people don't want Obamacare. Two-thirds want it repealed. Here comes a judge who is on the side all of significant majority. Proudly proclaim his name: Judge Vinson! Proudly proclaim who nominated him: Ronald Reagan!

Brilliant decision. Reagan judge! Reagan judge! This Reagan-appointed judge upheld the Constitution, struck down Obamacare. It's great for conservatism. People on our side who believe the era of Reagan is over, you can slink away now and come outta your hole in a couple of weeks. For now the era of Reagan is alive and well and may have saved the United States from a transformation into pure, utter socialism. Long live Ronald Reagan and long live Judge Vinson, and long live all of Reagan's appointees. Two-thirds of the American people agree with the judge. The administration loves Ronald Reagan all of a sudden. We should mention Ronald Reagan appointing this judge as often as John Kerry's Vietnam service is mentioned, which is every time his name is mentioned. Let the people know who stands with the Constitution and who does not.

A lot of support articles today for the monologue I just presented, the Morning Bell at the Heritage Foundation just has a fabulous review of this ruling and what it all means. What you really need to know is that there was some erroneous original reporting that said the regime can continue to implement while they appeal. They cannot. This law has been voided. It has been ruled unconstitutional. And I heard earlier today that Obama is sequestered behind closed doors today, not having any public meetings for most of the day. It is said that he's meeting with advisors over what's going on in Egypt. Ha. I don't believe that for a minute. There may be some of that going on. I think there is abject panic over this ruling. For crying out loud, folks, you know it as well as I do, this is the linchpin, this is the foundation of the new America. They were hoping to sneak in this ability the federal government mandate people have something by virtue that not have something and that once it's been established that it's constitutional you have to buy health insurance or face a penalty or maybe jail time, where would it be constitutional to say that they can't make you buy a gun? What if some Republican regime comes along next time and says you gotta have a gun? It's sophistry to think that anything of the sort is in the Constitution.

I'll tell you Judge Vinson's reference to the original Tea Party was really a great poke in the eye for the Democrats and the media. I mean he coulda cited any number of examples, but I mean to take that one, I mean that was just ng, ng, ng, ng, I'm gonna jam this in the nearest orifice I can find and I'm not stopping 'til I hear a lot of pain, ng, ng, ng, ng. As we know, this bunch hates the founding. Well, they don't hate it; it's a problem for them, rhe whole notion. If you can mandate that anybody or everybody buy health insurance, what's to keep President Palin and a Republican Congress mandating that you buy a gun and that you shoot caribou with it?

RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, about what a "teachable moment" Tucson was, even when it wasn't teachable moment. My question is: Why aren't we hearing what a teachable moment these Middle East uprisings are -- or are they teaching the wrong lessons? The dangers of runaway power and unresponsive governments. This is what our regime is telling us we need to learn. This is what happens when you have an unresponsive government, runaway power. They could be talking about themselves. They say Mubarak hasn't listened to his people. Really? (chuckles) Is this regime listening to us? We don't want and have never wanted their health care.

You remember how so many of the Democrats refused to even go to public events or attend town halls during the last campaign. They didn't want to hear from their constituents. So let's hope this is a lesson. Here's another passage, by the way, from Judge Vinson's ruling voiding Obamacare, making it unconstitutional. "I note that in 2008 then Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was, at that time, strongly opposed to the idea, stating, 'If a mandate was the solution, we can try to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house.'"

Judge Vinson put this in the ruling, and Judge Vinson is right. Obama opposed a mandate. Do you know why? Because Hillary Clinton was for one, and during the campaign he was trying to distinguish himself from her, and when she came out for the individual mandate, he reamed it. He obliterated the whole point of a mandate. He said we can't do it that way. That's not the right way to go about it. We need to do it in other ways. The words of the framers. Obama's a constitutional scholar, folks; he taught constitutional law. More properly, he taught how to subvert the Constitution to a bunch of ACORN types when he was in Chicago.

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.

Meadia Research Center where the bias of mainstream news is exposed again and again.

Stuff you probably did not know about greenhouse gases (this is a good link for friends):

The Top 100 Effects of Global Warming (I am fairly certain that this is serious; but it is really hard to tell). It is saying goodbye to French Wines, glaciers, guacamole, mixed nuts, French fries, baseball and Christmas trees and saying hello to cannibalistic polar bears, jellyfish attacks, giant squid attacks, more stray kittens, suffocating lemmings, burning cow poop and acidic oceans.

Comprehensive List of Tax Hikes in Obamacare (this includes individual health insurance costing as much as $695/month by 2016—which is not the only cost):

The Publius Forum (more of a newscast than a blog; located in Chicago, I believe):

Political Affairs, which used to be called the Communist (in case you are interested in what the Democratic Par, I mean, the communist party is up to.

This is one of my favorite lists; this is a list of things which global warming causes (right now, it causes over 800 things—most of these are linked):

100 things we can say goodbye to (or, hello to) because of Global Warming (all of these are linked). They are very serious about these things, by the way:

Conservative blog, but with an eye to the culture and pop culture (there is a lot of stuff here):

Conservative and pop culture blog (last I looked, there were some Beatles’ performances here):

Send this link to the young people you know (try the debt quiz; I only got 6 out of 10 right):

PA Pundits, whose motto is, “the relentless pursuit of common sense” (I used many of the quotations which they gathered)

The anti-Jihad resistence (which appears to be a set of links to similar websites):

Mostly a liberal blogger, who says vicious things about most conservatives; and yet, says something sensible, e.g. posting many of the things which the healthcare bill does to us.

News Organization (I mention them because I have seen 2 honest stories on their website, which shocked and surprised me):

Even though this group leans left, if you need to know what happened each day, and you are a busy person, here is where you can find the day’s news given in 100 seconds:

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

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

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

This is an odd blog; conservativism, bikinis and whatever else posted by either a P.I. or the brother of a P.I.:

Info Wars, because there is a war on for your mind (this site may be a little crazy??):

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

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

No matter what your political stripe, you will like this; evaluate your Congressman or Senator on the issues:

AC/DC economics (start with the oldest lessons first; economics in 60 second bites):

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

This appears to be a daily pork report, apparently as pork in Washington bills is discovered, it gets posted at Tom Coburg’s website:

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

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

This is indispensable: the Wall Street Journal’s guide to Obama-care (all of their pertinent articles arranged by date—send one a day to your liberal friends):

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

A Muslim apologetic site (they will write out letters to express your feelings, and all you have to do is sign them, and they will send them on):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We watch FOX so you don't have to). Be clear on this; they do not want you to watch FoxNews.

Conservative Review
Issue #164	Kukis Digests and Opines on this Week’s News and Views	February 6, 2011