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).

At first, it appeared as though the Libyan rebels might take out Qadaffi’s army with (mostly) American air support. However, not it appears that they are not up to the job.

Starting Sunday, no U.S. combat aircraft are to fly strike missions in Libya. NATO's on-scene commander can request American strikes in the days ahead, in which case they may have to be approved in Washington.

Syrian authorities have detained two Americans amid an unprecedented wave of protests in the repressive Middle East nation, relatives and state media said Saturday. Syrian government television has been blaming foreigners, among others, for the unrest that began more than a week ago.

Facebook has removed a page called 'Third Palestinian Intifada' that had called for a new Palestinian uprising against Israel, after more than 350,000 people signed up to it. The Third Palestinian Intifada page had called for an uprising on May 15 (Friday) after Muslim prayers were completed, with one of its quotes saying: "Judgment Day will be brought upon us only once the Muslims have killed all of the Jews."

David Petraeus, perhaps the most celebrated American general of his generation, is likely to leave his job as the top US commander in Afghanistan this summer, multiple defence officials say.

3 days of rioting have taken place in Afghanistan where more than 20 people have died, over that Florida pastor who apparently burned a Koran. It is claimed that President Karzai gave a speech which stoked the anger of his people. Top UN official in Afghanistan, Staffan de Mistura, blamed Taliban infiltrators for the killings, saying the victims were deliberately murdered rather than killed by an out-of-control mob.

According to an Al Jazeera source, US and Egyptian special forces have reportedly been offering covert armed training to rebel fighters in the battle for Libya.

Militants early Friday beheaded three security guards at a NATO truck terminal and damaged 10 oil tankers in a restive Pakistani tribal area bordering Afghanistan.

Aid workers find 1,000 bodies in Duekoue, in the Ivory Coast. This is despite UN troops in the area.

Russian President Medvedev has announced the ending of daylight saving time starting in the autumn of 2011.

If there is a government shutdown, it is the executive branch that determines which services are essential and which are not.

President Obama finally and quietly accepted his "transparency" award from the open government community this week - in a closed, undisclosed meeting at the White House on Monday. The secret presentation happened almost two weeks after the White House inexplicably postponed the ceremony, which was expected to be open to the press pool.

Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards, in a public interview, cited mammograms as one of the benefits of Planned Parenthood. Calls made to dozens of Planned Parenthood centers throughout the United States revealed that they did not provide mammograms. Apparently, the official explanation is, breast exams are given, and referrals for a mammogram may follow.

The ATF decided to let some guns go through into Mexico so that they could investigate gun running into Mexico. As a result, 2 Americans have been killed by these guns.

Florida has threatened to hold the primary before those states which have traditionally gone first (Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina). This places Republicans in a tough spot, because no one is going to be happy with the outcome.

It has come out that AARP will probably make a great deal of money because of Obamacare, which they clearly supported.

Democrats have been digging into the family medical records of Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts, in order to find anything untoward. The joy of Romneycare.

A former National Health Services director in the UK died after waiting for nine months for an operation--at her own hospital.

Far leftist Rosie O’Donnell reveals that her 15-year-old son wants to join the military.

President Obama’s stated energy goal is to use a third less oil in the U.S. counted from the day that he took office (at which time, we were using considerably more oil than we do today).

Moral equivalence by President Obama )of the desecration of the Quran) "[It] is an act of extreme intolerance and bigotry."

Obama, of the attacks on innocent people: "[It is] outrageous and an affront to human decency and dignity."

Obama, of the killings of innocents: “[no religion tolerates] the slaughter and beheading of innocent people."

USAID Administrator, Rajiv Shah: "We estimate, and I believe these are very conservative estimates, that H.R. 1 (proposed budget cuts by Republicans] would lead to 70,000 kids dying."

President Obama: “When someone like Qaddafi threatens a bloodbath that could destabilize an entire region.” Because the Middle East is the model of stability right now.

John Kerry on Libya: “I would not call it going to war. This is a very limited operation that is geared to save lives, and it was specifically targeted on a humanitarian basis.”

John Kerry on Bahrain: “The president has been crystal clear about Bahrain. He has said that the violence needs to stop in Bahrain.”

Charles Schumer on Democratic strategy on taped call: "The main thrust is basically that we want to negotiate and we want to come up with a compromise but the Tea Party is pulling Boehner too far over to the right and so far over that there is no more fruitful negotiations. The only way we can avoid a shutdown is for Boehner to come up with a reasonable compromise and not just listen to what the Tea Party wants." This is Schumer’s strategy, not an opinion.

Harry Reid: "I am extremely disappointed that after weeks of productive negotiations with Speaker Boehner, Tea Party Republicans are scrapping all the progress we have made and threatening to shut down the government if they do not get all of their extreme demands...The division between the Tea Party and mainstream Republicans is preventing us from reaching a responsible solution on a long-term budget."

Howard Dean: "If I was head of DNC, I would be quietly rooting for [a government shutdown]."

Howard Dean: “The TEA party is all over 55 and white; this is a shrinking minority. The shrinkier they get, the madder they get. This is why they have gotten so far off the deep end.”

Howard Dean: “What Fox News says is not true and they know it is not true, and they say it anyway; it is not a news organization. It is a very expensive, incredibly well-funded right-wing propaganda organization.”

Dr. Caroline Heldman (FoxNews): “Boycotts are the most American thing you can do.”

President Obama: "American taxpayers are now positioned to recover more than my administration invested in GM." According to the Washington Times, this could be, ultimately, an $84 billion loss, paid for by the taxpayers.

NY Time Columnist Paul Krugman: "All of this stuff about [economic] uncertainty is just a myth being made up to blame this on Obama"

Planned Parenthood's CEO Cecile Richards: "If this bill ever becomes law, millions of women in this country are gonna lose their health care access-not to abortion services-to basic family planning, you know, mammograms, cancer screenings, cervical cancer." Planned Parenthood does not provide these 3 things.

Ed Schultz on US Arming Qadhafi's Foes: “Well, why are we concerned with who gets arms? I'm just, for conversation now. ... I mean, if they're going to take out Qadhafi, hell, they can't be all that bad!”

Staffan de Mistura, the top U.N. envoy in Afghanistan, speaking of the deadly demonstrations in Afghanistan: "The demonstration was meant to protest against the insane and totally despicable gesture by one person who burned the holy Quran."

Russian President Medvedev has announced the ending of daylight saving time starting in the autumn of 2011, arguing: "Every fall and every spring we are swearing at this system. Our biorhythms are damaged. We are all angry. We either oversleep and turn up late for work or wake up too early and don't know what to do with this free time. Let alone poor cows and other animals that can't understand why they should have their meals or be milked earlier or later."

Joe Biden: “I went to five leading scholars, Constitutional scholars, and they drafted a treatise for me that is being distributed to every Senator. And I want to make it clear, and I'll make it clear to the President: that if he takes this nation to war, without Congressional approval, I will make it my business to impeach him.”

Barack Obama: “You know, ummm, I - I would say that ah, when I, uhhh, the one thing I'm clear about is that I'd rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president. Ahh, and I, and I believe that.”

Adolf Hitler: "Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it."

Katherine R. Windels allegedly wrote in an email to several Wisconsin Republican legislators: "Atten: Death Threat!!!! Bomb!!!" Portions of the text:"Please put your things in order because you will be killed and your families will also be killed due to your actions in the last 8 weeks...I hope you have a good time in hell...putting a nice little bullet in your head." Windels has since been arrested.

Anthony Weiner: “This is all a real thrill for me being broadcast on C-Span, so tens of Americans will see this. Down at the CNN table, they’re saying, ‘Tens; what’s their secret?’ ”

Dick Durbin being quoted: “It is wrong to link all Muslims to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.”

Howard Stern: “Well, who’s doing that? I hate when guys tell us the obvious. We know it’s not every Muslim; we just know that is’s a bunch of them. And how are we going to figure out who’s who? Why can’t someone tell us something that means something, like, how do you tell who the terrorists are? [Mocking Durbin] ‘I’m here to tell you that not every Muslim is bad.’ ‘Oh, I thought every single one was bad.’ ”

Michele Bachmann: “Harry Reid supports [government-funded] cowboy poetry and the people are thinking that maybe that’s not an essential government service.” (Quoted from memory)

John Boehner: "The House has passed our bill and it's been nearly 40 days and yet we've seen nothing pass the United States Senate. ...Now the Senate says, `we have a plan.' Well, great! Pass the damn thing, all right?! And send it over here and let's have real negotiations instead of sitting over there rooting for a government shutdown."

Peter Kirsanow: ‘We bombed Qaddafi's forces because they were killing civilians. So Qaddafi's forces began dressing like civilians. So the rebels began killing civilians. So NATO is warning the rebels not to kill civilians, otherwise NATO will bomb the rebels. But the rebels are dressed like civilians. So NATO may end up killing civilians. In other news, the administration continues to debate arming the rebels who are dressed like civilians. But Qaddafi's forces are also dressed like civilians. So we may be arming Qaddafi's forces who are killing civilians while we also bomb the rebels who are killing civilians and bombing civilians who really are civilians but look like Qaddafi's forces who are killing civilians.” [I think he is a conservative?]

John McCain: “I don’t know what we do about Yemen.” This is one of the few times I have heard a politician give an “I don’t know” answer to a direct question.

Jeff Sessions, on Libya: “We--I can't quite see where we are heading. I can't see exactly where the endgame is, and I do think it is a troubling situation. We just hope for the best and maybe this will be successful. But I don't see the certainty of it for sure.”

Mark Steyn: “The war in Libya should be under Mexican leadership because [according to the President] this is a job Americans won’t do.” (Quoted from memory)

John Bolton: “You’ve got tens of millions of young Chinese men who will never be married. You don’t think that can be socially disabling? Think again.”

Orin Hatch: “He’s a person you want to like. You want him to be a success as the first African American president.”

Rush Limbaugh: "If there's anybody who could make a claim to attracting the independents, it would be the hated Tea Party people. I mean, they were the only ones offering an alternative."

Rush: "This is exactly how liberals people think: It's just not fair that some people are able to afford a loan to buy a house while others can't, and so the way to change that is to force the lender to give people a loan who can't pay it back, and we'll figure it out later."

Rush: "You have no idea how desirous the American media is to be able to portray Obama as a kick-butt military leader. You can't understand the desire they have to portray Obama as one of the most powerful and decisive foreign policy presidents in the history of the country."

Rush: "We have Chuck Schumer out there advising everybody to call the Tea Party people extremists. Frankly, folks, I want some extremists when it comes to budget cutting."

Rush: "This country will not survive very long with too many people thinking their neighbors owe 'em a living. Europe has shown us this."

Rush: "You are not engaging in collective bargaining when you're a public employee union member -- you're just shaking down your fellow citizens."

Bill O’Reilly’s interview of Donald Trump. One of the things which I noticed in the O’Reilly-Trump interview is, Trump gave mostly clear, unequivocal answers.

The original ABC 20/20 show called “Freeloaders” (I could not find the entire show here either):

Not sure if I posted this before; Stephen Crowder, going green by killing people.

Jodi Miller: “At a recent address to a group of business leaders, President Obama proved that he is a great public speaker as he spoke for nearly 20 minutes without using his teleprompters. April Fools; I gotcha.”

Jodi Miller: “The text expressions OMG and LOL have been added to the Oxford English Dictionary. Hey, they had to be, with this administration in power.”

1) I don’t know if this is a good sign, or if the rebels in Libya learned how to do PR; but, they were friendly to FoxNews and they showed their faces when talking to the news (they were not all covered up).

2) If we produces all of the oil and gas that we need in the United States, then the price of oil and gas would depend upon the cost of getting it and refining it, and not upon speculators or the Arab oil cartel.

3) We have another war in the Middle East, along with the 2 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; an enhanced Patriot Act, military tribunals, and Gitmo is still open. Insofar as foreign policy goes, this sounds like 4 more years of Bush to me.

4) Mark Steyn, a Rush Limbaugh guest host, made a brilliant observation the other day. Adriana Huffington, who used to be a conservative, and now claims to be a liberal, launched the Huffington Post, a leftist on-line news/opinion website. Many of the contributors worked there for free. Huffington had a lot of money already, but that was never an issue to anyone. It is okay for liberals to be wealthy. But, suddenly, she sells the Huffington Post for $315 million. Who will get that money? Will all these loyal contributors who have been writing for free for the past many years see a dime of this? Will their hard work, insight, and—oh, I’ll just come right out and say—their propaganda skills be rewarded? They have worked for a low salary and no salary, and have built this little online opinion-news site into quite the media empire. So now, will the person whose ideals are their ideals—Adrianna Huffington—share any of this money with them? She could take a small amount from this deal—say, $10 million—and spread this around to all of her contributors, as her way of saying, “Thank you. The Huffington Post would be nothing without you.” Remember, this woman is a liberal now, and she believes in social justice and economic justice—so, will she back up her liberal ideals with real liberal action? And, will any liberal outlet call her on this?

5) From USA Today: “Health and Human Services proposed new regulations Thursday that it hopes will reduce Medicare costs and improve care by focusing funds on prevention and quality.” Yes, because when I want to save money and improve quality, the first place I look to is Washington D.C.

429 new pages of Healthcare Regulations released by White House. My understanding is, these 429 pages of new regulations were based upon 6 pages in the Obamacare law.

The Nissan Leaf, an electric car, is selling fewer than 100 cars per month in the U.S.

in 14 major metropolitan areas, home prices are where they were in 2003, before the start of the housing bubble. Housing prices in Washington D.C. have gone up by 11% over the past 2 years.

While ABC was interview Donald Rumsfeld concerning his new book (which is linked to a website with supporting documents), at the bottom of the screen in large letters throughout most of the interview was “Rewriting History.”

I cannot tell you how many liberals castigated Bush over gas prices; and I saw a flurry of articles on gas prices when Bush was president. Where are those articles now?

Instead, we get a number of articles and newsmen who talk about who much Obama had to deal with when he came into office.

ABC, CBS, MSNBC, NBC, PBS and NPR totally ignored Wisconsin Republicans receiving death threats as a result of their support for Gov. Scott Walker's budget repair bill. I recall a great deal of coverage about all the hatred on the right which probably resulted in the shooting in Arizona, even though, there was no clear hatred on the right and there was no connection between the shooter and the right. Also, no major American newspaper has reported this story, outside of Wisconsin; and the AP has not filed a report.

On the other hand, 60 Minutes did a show on how high corporate taxes have driven thousands of jobs overseas; and how a low corporate tax rate attracts businesses, and therefore, attracts jobs. I was shocked to see this on 60 Minutes.

For Seth Meyers: “Although Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards claimed that mammograms was one of the benefits provided by Planned Parenthood, it turns out that they do not provide mammograms, but that they will do breast exams instead, and sometimes offer a referral elsewhere for a mammogram. Heck, I already do that at my apartment.”

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo is proposing to cut $4 billion from New York’s budget. Watch and learn, Jerry Brown.

A governmental shutdown is the key player on the political chess board this week. Republicans would love to see a government shutdown, because not all of the news sources out there will demonize them. Furthermore, they know that many voters, going a week or two without government doing stuff, will be fine with it. Of course, in public, they have to act as if they do not want a government shutdown. Therefore, at every opportunity, they need to say, "Oh please Brer Fox, whatever you do, please don't throw me into the briar patch government shutdown.”

On the other hand, Democrats have mixed feelings about this. Last time there was a government shutdown, they won the media war (duh!). Some are stupid enough to think, that is enough. However, there are others who see an elimination of nonessential government services is not going to bother that many people.

Biden is publically named as the White House representative in the budget talks. He then leaves Washington D.C. He returns. Obama is now talking with Democrats and Republicans about the budget.

This just in; Donald Trump, barring any earth-shattering change, will be the Republican nominee and the next president. I m not stating what I wish for. My heart was with Herman “Muddy Waters” Cain. However, we live in a celebrity-obsessed culture. This is why Arnold Swartzenegger became governor of California. He had some great ideals and, on several occasions, he was able to articulate them well. However, he did not translate all of his ideals into policy, and he faced a very, very liberal congress. So, he was a failure. Furthermore, there is nothing in Swartzenegger’s background to even suggest that he could run a state like California.

As of today, Trump has done almost nothing, and now, in one poll, he is tied with Mitt Romney at 10% each as the front-runners (Mitt was never going to win). On the plus side, Trump will better be able to deal with world leaders, because they don’t know what he will do (which is what many of them feared with Reagan).

The national press is unaware of all this right now. However, when they first realize that Trump is the Republican frontrunner, they are going to go after him like they did Sarah Palin. Expect to know how many wives he has had, what has happened to them, how many children he has; and if anyone in his family are wayward types. Furthermore, if any business deal can be dug up that makes him look bad, expect it to be front page news, even if it comes from 10 or 15 years ago.

Frank Luntz says that we need Republicans going out there and educating the public on the national debt and deficit. So, Republicans are going to be doing this. Expect to see them out there in townhalls on tv with charts and graphs.

There will probably be a negotiated cease-fire in Libya, with the rebels in one city and Qaddafi in another. This will be hailed by the media as one of the great diplomatic feats of this century. “It was brilliant, it was quick, and it did not cost very much; and loss of life was held to a minimum;” Chris Matthews will say.

No bad press on Obama over Iraq, Afghanistan; and no bad press on Obama concerning the gas prices.

A very long time ago, I suggested the Michelle Obama is looking to run for president after her husband completes his 2^nd term. There is now a bumper sticker which reads: Barack 2012 Michelle 2016.

All of the unmarried Chinese males, who will never get married. This is an infantry as we have never seen before. Combine say their self-righteousness about our debt to them with their desire for American women and we could find ourselves invaded.

President Obama has gotten himself into a little bit of trouble when he set up a no-fly zone in Libya. We really do not know how this all came about. Many suggest that the women under his command (like Clinton and Rice) pushed him into this. Others suggest that France, Spain and Italy get a great deal of their oil from Libya, and they do not want anyone to shut off these pumps; so that they have coerced the President or the President’s women to enter into this war.

At the same time, several people on the right, including Gingrich and Palin, all suggested that a quick no-fly zone would be the best move for the President.

What I have a hard time believing is, Obama woke up one day, upset over the possible killings in Libya, and decided to protect the rebels and the civilians.

In any case, the President has never made executive decisions like this before—he has absolutely no experience in this field—and so, for whatever reason, we are in a shooting war with Libya.

I think that his expectations were, set up a no-fly zone and the rebels will be able to easily defeat Qaddafi. That means limited contact with Qaddafi and his soldiers, resulting in a regime which may or may not be better than Qadaffi’s. If this happened, the President Obama would be hailed as a genius by the media. There would have been headline banners on our newspapers which would rival VE Day, except that, Obama’s name would be somewhere in all of that.

It is hoped that, this would overshadow the mixed messages coming from the Obama administration. As a campaigner, everyone in the Obama campaign spoke with the same voice: hope and change. However, when governing, there is more going on that 2 meaningless platitudes. Do we want Qaddafi to stay? Do we want him to leave? Can we go either way? How does the U.S. have one opinion about Qaddafi, but the military objective says nothing about him?

As a conservative, I have nearly always known the end-game in Iraq and Afghanistan; and it seems to have changed very little under Obama (which I think is a good thing). In Libya, I have no idea what the end game is, beyond the rebels beating Qadaffi.

However, the alternative—one of the horribles which could result—is, the rebels do not defeat Qaddafi, as Qaddafi now has the upper hand, and closes in on them.

This takes us back to square one—the reason we are supposed to be there in the first place—the humanitarian effort. The exact thing Obama expected to stop with a few planes will be the exact thing which comes to pass, unless we put boots on the ground. With 2 wars going on, and most of our ground forces engaged, we cannot put troops on the ground. Politically, Obama can’t do this because he will hear, “And President Obama got his eye off the ball by going into Libya.” Exactly what he accused George Bush of.

George Bush, who is much more of an intellect and an historian than he is ever given credit for, decided that, what we did in Japan, Germany and Korea would work in the Middle East. We could not simply ignore an attack of the magnitude of 9/11, so we went into Afghanistan and into Iraq, with the idea of working with the people to get rid of those that we do not like, and install a semi-functioning democracy in both countries. He obviously miscalculated when it came to removing Saddam Hussein, as Bush figured the people would be happy about that—and they weren’t; not enough of them, anyway.

Then there is the problem of, can any Muslim country be ruled by a semi-democracy. Bush faced this and now Obama faces this. President Bush believed with all his heart that a functioning democracy is possible in a majority Muslim country.

A friend of mine that I used to argue with about Iraq, suggested on several occasions, maybe the Iraqis are incapable of functioning under a democracy; and I had to admit that he might be right on this one point.

So, Obama is now in a very unenviable position. He put all of his poker chips on the rebels. It no longer matters how we got in there or why, but what happens next. How much more is he willing to bet on them.

His end-game, from what I can tell, is to hand this over to NATO as quickly as possible, and not speak of the fact that U.S. troops make up much of NATO and that 22% of NATO’s budget comes from American taxpayers.

Like any president at war, he deserves our support, as do our troops. However, he needs for someone like Donald Rumsfeld to sit down with him and present him with a list of horribles, because in the middle east, what can go wrong, will.

Furthermore, there is one thing we ought to bear in mind, no matter what we think about Obama: what happens in Libya reflects upon the United States. Right now, it appears as though Qadaffi has framed all of this as, him versus the U.S. If that is the perception of the Middle East, then we cannot let him win, because, if he does, that will bring with it a whole new set of horribles.

More Americans work for the government than in manufacturing, farming, fishing, forestry, mining and utilities combined.

If you want to understand better why so many states-from New York to Wisconsin to California-are teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, consider this depressing statistic: Today in America there are nearly twice as many people working for the government (22.5 million) than in all of manufacturing (11.5 million). This is an almost exact reversal of the situation in 1960, when there were 15 million workers in manufacturing and 8.7 million collecting a paycheck from the government.

It gets worse. More Americans work for the government than work in construction, farming, fishing, forestry, manufacturing, mining and utilities combined. We have moved decisively from a nation of makers to a nation of takers. Nearly half of the $2.2 trillion cost of state and local governments is the $1 trillion-a-year tab for pay and benefits of state and local employees. Is it any wonder that so many states and cities cannot pay their bills?

Every state in America today except for two-Indiana and Wisconsin-has more government workers on the payroll than people manufacturing industrial goods. Consider California, which has the highest budget deficit in the history of the states. The not-so Golden State now has an incredible 2.4 million government employees-twice as many as people at work in manufacturing. New Jersey has just under two-and-a-half as many government employees as manufacturers. Florida's ratio is more than 3 to 1. So is New York's.

Even Michigan, at one time the auto capital of the world, and Pennsylvania, once the steel capital, have more government bureaucrats than people making things. The leaders in government hiring are Wyoming and New Mexico, which have hired more than six government workers for every manufacturing worker.

Now it is certainly true that many states have not typically been home to traditional manufacturing operations. Iowa and Nebraska are farm states, for example. But in those states, there are at least five times more government workers than farmers. West Virginia is the mining capital of the world, yet it has at least three times more government workers than miners. New York is the financial capital of the world-at least for now. That sector employs roughly 670,000 New Yorkers. That's less than half of the state's 1.48 million government employees.

Don't expect a reversal of this trend anytime soon. Surveys of college graduates are finding that more and more of our top minds want to work for the government. Why? Because in recent years only government agencies have been hiring, and because the offer of near lifetime security is highly valued in these times of economic turbulence. When 23-year-olds aren't willing to take career risks, we have a real problem on our hands. Sadly, we could end up with a generation of Americans who want to work at the Department of Motor Vehicles.

The employment trends described here are explained in part by hugely beneficial productivity improvements in such traditional industries as farming, manufacturing, financial services and telecommunications. These produce far more output per worker than in the past. The typical farmer, for example, is today at least three times more productive than in 1950.

Where are the productivity gains in government? Consider a core function of state and local governments: schools. Over the period 1970-2005, school spending per pupil, adjusted for inflation, doubled, while standardized achievement test scores were flat. Over roughly that same time period, public-school employment doubled per student, according to a study by researchers at the University of Washington. That is what economists call negative productivity.

But education is an industry where we measure performance backwards: We gauge school performance not by outputs, but by inputs. If quality falls, we say we didn't pay teachers enough or we need smaller class sizes or newer schools. If education had undergone the same productivity revolution that manufacturing has, we would have half as many educators, smaller school budgets, and higher graduation rates and test scores.

The same is true of almost all other government services. Mass transit spends more and more every year and yet a much smaller share of Americans use trains and buses today than in past decades. One way that private companies spur productivity is by firing underperforming employees and rewarding excellence. In government employment, tenure for teachers and near lifetime employment for other civil servants shields workers from this basic system of reward and punishment. It is a system that breeds mediocrity, which is what we've gotten.

Most reasonable steps to restrain public-sector employment costs are smothered by the unions. Study after study has shown that states and cities could shave 20% to 40% off the cost of many services-fire fighting, public transportation, garbage collection, administrative functions, even prison operations-through competitive contracting to private providers. But unions have blocked many of those efforts. Public employees maintain that they are underpaid relative to equally qualified private-sector workers, yet they are deathly afraid of competitive bidding for government services.

President Obama says we have to retool our economy to "win the future." The only way to do that is to grow the economy that makes things, not the sector that takes things.

The latest published data from the 2010 census show how people are moving from place to place within the United States. In general, people are voting with their feet against places where the liberal, welfare-state policies favored by the intelligentsia are most deeply entrenched.

When you break it down by race and ethnicity, it is all too painfully clear what is happening. Both whites and blacks are leaving California, the poster state for the liberal, welfare-state, and nanny-state philosophy.

Whites are also fleeing the liberal welfare states in the northeast, like Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, as well as the same kinds of states in the Midwest, such as Michigan, Ohio, and Illinois.

Although California has long been a prime destination of Asian immigrants and the homes of their descendants, the 2010 census shows a striking increase in the Asian American population of Nevada, more than in any other state. Nevada is adjacent to California but has no income tax, nor the hostile climate for business that California maintains.

The movement of the black population - especially young, educated blacks - is the most striking of all.

In the past, the massive movements of millions of blacks out of the South in the early 20th century was one of the epic migrations of a people - comparable in size with the millions of the Irish who fled the famine in Ireland in the 1840s or the millions of Jews who fled persecution in Eastern Europe in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

In more recent decades, blacks have been moving back to the South, however. While the overall black population of the northeastern and midwestern states has not declined in the past ten years, except in Michigan and Illinois, the net increase of the black population nationwide has increasingly been in the South. About half of the national growth of the black population took place in the South in the 1970s, two-thirds in the 1990s, and three-quarters in the past ten years.

While the mass migrations of blacks out of the South in the early 20th century was to places where there were already established black communities, such as New York, Chicago, and Philadelphia, much of the current movement of blacks is away from existing concentrations of black populations.

Blacks are moving to suburbs, and even to cities like Minneapolis. Overall, the racial residential-segregation patterns are declining in the great majority of the largest major metropolitan areas.

Blacks in their prime - from 20 to 40 years of age - were more likely to migrate than the black population at large, as were those with college degrees. In short, with blacks, as with other racial or ethnic groups, those with better prospects are leaving the states that are repelling their most productive citizens with liberal policies.

Detroit is perhaps the most striking example of a once-thriving city ruined by years of liberal social policies. Before the ghetto riot of 1967, Detroit's black population had the highest rate of homeownership of any black urban population in the country, and their unemployment rate was just 3.4 percent.

It was not despair that fueled the riot. It was the riot which marked the beginning of the decline of Detroit to its current state of despair. Detroit's population today is only half of what it once was, and its most productive people were the ones who fled.

Treating businesses and affluent people as prey rather than assets often pays off politically in the short run - and elections are held in the short run. Killing the goose that lays the golden egg is a viable political strategy.

As whites started leaving Detroit, then-mayor Coleman Young saw this only as an exodus of people who were likely to vote against him, enhancing his reelection prospects.

There is a lesson here somewhere, but it is very doubtful if either the intelligentsia or the politicians will learn it.

Americans have built the single greatest nation in all of human history. But America's exceptionalism was not preordained. Every generation has had to confront and solve serious challenges and, because they did, each has left the next better off. Until now.

Our generation's greatest challenge is an economy that isn't growing, alongside a national debt that is. If we fail to confront this, our children will be the first Americans ever to inherit a country worse off than the one their parents were given.

Current federal policies make it harder for job creators to start and grow businesses. Taxes on individuals are complicated and set to rise in less than two years. Corporate taxes will soon be the highest in the industrialized world. Federal agencies torment job creators with an endless string of rules and regulations.

On top of all this, we have an unsustainable national debt. Leaders of both parties have grown our government for decades by spending money we didn't have. To pay for it, they borrowed $4 billion a day, leaving us with today's $14 trillion debt. Half of that debt is held by foreign investors, mostly China. And there is no plan to stop. In fact, President Obama's latest budget request spends more than $46 trillion over the next decade. Under this plan, public debt will equal 87% of our economy in less than 10 years. This will scare away job creators and lead to higher taxes, higher interest rates and greater inflation.

Betting on America used to be a sure thing, but job creators see the warning signs that our leaders ignore. Even the world's largest bond fund, PIMCO, recently dumped its holdings of U.S. debt.

We're therefore at a defining moment in American history. In a few weeks, we will once again reach our legal limit for borrowing, the so-called debt ceiling. The president and others want to raise this limit. They say it is the mature, responsible thing to do.

In fact, it's nothing more than putting off the tough decisions until after the next election. We cannot afford to continue waiting. This may be our last chance to force Washington to tackle the central economic issue of our time.

"Raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure." So said then-Sen. Obama in 2006, when he voted against raising the debt ceiling by less than $800 billion to a new limit of $8.965 trillion. As America's debt now approaches its current $14.29 trillion limit, we are witnessing leadership failure of epic proportions.

I will vote to defeat an increase in the debt limit unless it is the last one we ever authorize and is accompanied by a plan for fundamental tax reform, an overhaul of our regulatory structure, a cut to discretionary spending, a balanced-budget amendment, and reforms to save Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

There is still time to accomplish all this. Rep. Dave Camp has already introduced proposals to lower and simplify our tax rates, close loopholes, and make permanent low rates on capital gains and dividends. Even Mr. Obama has endorsed the idea of lowering our corporate tax rate. Sen. Rand Paul, meanwhile, has a bill that would require an up-or-down vote on "major" regulations, those that cost the economy $100 million or more. And the House has already passed a spending plan this year that lowered discretionary spending by $862 billion over 10 years.

Such reductions are important, but nondefense discretionary spending is a mere 19% of the budget. Focusing on this alone would lead to draconian cuts to essential and legitimate programs. To get our debt under control, we must reform and save our entitlement programs.

No changes should be made to Medicare and Social Security for people who are currently in the system, like my mother. But people decades away from retirement, like me, must accept that reforms are necessary if we want Social Security and Medicare to exist at all by the time we are eligible for them.

Finally, instead of simply raising the debt limit, we should reassure job creators by setting a firm statutory cap on our public debt-to-GDP ratio. A comprehensive plan would wind down our debt to sustainable levels of approximately 60% within a decade and no more than half of the economy shortly thereafter. If Congress fails to meet these debt targets, automatic across-the-board spending reductions should be triggered to close the gap. These public debt caps could go in tandem with a Constitutional balanced budget amendment.

Some say we will go into default if we don't increase the debt limit. But if we simply raise it once again, without a real plan to bring spending under control and get our economy growing, America faces the very real danger of a catastrophic economic crisis.

I know that by writing this, I am inviting political attack. When I proposed reforms to Social Security during my campaign, my opponent spent millions on attack ads designed to frighten seniors. But demagoguery is the last refuge of the spineless politician willing to do anything to win the next election.

Whether they admit it or not, everyone in Washington knows how to solve these problems. What is missing is the political will to do it. I ran for the U.S. Senate because I want my children to inherit what I inherited: the greatest nation in human history. It's not too late. The 21st century can also be the American Century. Our people are ready. Now it's time for their leaders to join them.

The reasons for Barack Obama's intervention in Libya has never been really clear- or honest. The most commonly offered explanation given for bombing Libya has been the prevention of a humanitarian disaster. Sunday morning, Obama's Abbott and Costello foreign policy team said that Libya was a direct threat to US national interest and at the same time that it was not. Of course, that does not explain why we interfere in Libya but not in other regions in which human rights are being oppressed- like North Korea, Iran or China.

In 2010 Barack Obama renewed sanctions on Syria, calling Syria an "unusual and extraordinary threat." At that time Obama had little good to say about Syria.

In the wake of those comments, Hillary Clinton declared that the US would not intervene in Syria even though more than 60 "protesters" were killed in a week of violence. In her statement excluding Syria from intervention Clinton went so far as to call Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad a "reformer."

First, let's have a look at the countries in Sarkozy's coalition (This really is Sarkozy's coalition. Obama was very late to the game but fully expect Obama to take credit for anything that comes out well).

COALITION COUNTRIES - LIBYA 2011

United States

France

United Kingdom

Italy

Canada

Belgium

Denmark

Norway

Qatar

Spain

Greece

Germany

Poland

Jordan

Morocco

United Arab Emirate

You might notice that the major consumers of Libyan oil are Italy, France, China, Germany and Spain.

Note: A few weeks before Obama began bombing Libya, the US State Department allowed Moammar Gaddafi's son to visit the US, spending a few weeks in the US, touring ports and military facilities.

Let's look at another diagram. This one depicts the destinations of Libyan refugees.

Refugees from Libya are flooding into the neighboring countries (Primarily Egypt and Tunisia) and Italy. More ominously, it is thought that between 750,000 and 2 million Libyans could flood into Europe.

Some of us believe that this is already a fait accompli even if the country does not split.

These are the real reasons we are bombing Libya- the flow of oil and the Muslim exodus. One could understand coming to the aid of Italy and France and prevent a huge Muslim flood into Europe. One could understand our allies seeking to maintain the flow of oil. But that's not what the President stipulated as the reasons for our involvement and it once again shows why you're an idiot to believe anything Barack Obama says.

Right now we are not protecting "civilians." We are engaged as the air cover for the rebel war against Gaddafi. The goal is to remove Gaddafi from power. Do not for one moment think it is anything else. And it could all end very badly.

WASHINGTON (AP) - There may be less than meets the eye to President Barack Obama's statements Monday night that NATO is taking over from the U.S. in Libya and that U.S. action is limited to defending people under attack there by Moammar Gadhafi's forces.

In transferring command and control to NATO, the U.S. is turning the reins over to an organization dominated by the U.S., both militarily and politically. In essence, the U.S. runs the show that is taking over running the show.

And the rapid advance of rebels in recent days strongly suggests they are not merely benefiting from military aid in a defensive crouch, but rather using the multinational force in some fashion - coordinated or not - to advance an offensive.

Here is a look at some of Obama's assertions in his address to the nation Monday, and how they compare with the facts:

OBAMA: "Our most effective alliance, NATO, has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and no-fly zone. ... Going forward, the lead in enforcing the no-fly zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners, and I am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on Gadhafi's remaining forces. In that effort, the United States will play a supporting role."

THE FACTS: As by far the pre-eminent player in NATO, and a nation historically reluctant to put its forces under operational foreign command, the United States will not be taking a back seat in the campaign even as its profile diminishes for public consumption.

NATO partners are bringing more into the fight. But the same "unique capabilities" that made the U.S. the inevitable leader out of the gate will continue to be in demand. They include a range of attack aircraft, refueling tankers that can keep aircraft airborne for lengthy periods, surveillance aircraft that can detect when Libyans even try to get a plane airborne, and, as Obama said, planes loaded with electronic gear that can gather intelligence or jam enemy communications and radars.

The United States supplies 22 percent of NATO's budget, almost as much as the next largest contributors - Britain and France - combined. A Canadian three-star general was selected to be in charge of all NATO operations in Libya. His boss, the commander of NATO's Allied Joint Force Command Naples, is an American admiral, and the admiral's boss is the supreme allied commander Europe, a post always held by an American.

THE FACTS: Even as the U.S. steps back as the nominal leader, reduces some assets and fires a declining number of cruise missiles, the scope of the mission appears to be expanding and the end game remains unclear.

Despite insistences that the operation is only to protect civilians, the airstrikes now are undeniably helping the rebels to advance. U.S. officials acknowledge that the effect of air attacks on Gadhafi's forces - and on the supply and communications links that support them - is useful if not crucial to the rebels. "Clearly they're achieving a benefit from the actions that we're taking," Navy Vice Adm. William Gortney, staff director for the Joint Chiefs, said Monday.

The Pentagon has been turning to air power of a kind more useful than high-flying bombers in engaging Libyan ground forces. So far these have included low-flying Air Force AC-130 and A-10 attack aircraft, and the Pentagon is considering adding armed drones and helicopters.

Obama said "we continue to pursue the broader goal of a Libya that belongs not to a dictator, but to its people," but spoke of achieving that through diplomacy and political pressure, not force of U.S. arms.

OBAMA: Seeking to justify military intervention, the president said the U.S. has "an important strategic interest in preventing Gadhafi from overrunning those who oppose him. A massacre would have driven thousands of additional refugees across Libya's borders, putting enormous strains on the peaceful - yet fragile - transitions in Egypt and Tunisia." He added: "I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America."

THE FACTS: Obama did not wait to make that case to Congress, despite his past statements that presidents should get congressional authorization before taking the country to war, absent a threat to the nation that cannot wait.

"The president does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," he told The Boston Globe in 2007 in his presidential campaign. "History has shown us time and again ... that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the legislative branch."

Obama's defense secretary, Robert Gates, said Sunday that the crisis in Libya "was not a vital national interest to the United States, but it was an interest."

OBAMA: "And tonight, I can report that we have stopped Gadhafi's deadly advance."

THE FACTS: The weeklong international barrage has disabled Libya's air defenses, communications networks and supply chains. But Gadhafi's ground forces remain a potent threat to the rebels and civilians, according to U.S. military officials.

Army Gen. Carter Ham, the top American officer overseeing the mission, told The New York Times on Monday that "the regime still overmatches opposition forces militarily. The regime possesses the capability to roll them back very quickly. Coalition air power is the major reason that has not happened."

Only small numbers of Gadhafi's troops have defected to the opposition, Ham said.

At the Pentagon, Vice Adm. William Gortney, staff director for the Joint Chiefs, said the rebels are not well organized. "It is not a very robust organization," he said. "So any gain that they make is tenuous based on that."

OBAMA: "Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action."

THE FACTS: Mass violence against civilians has also been escalating elsewhere, without any U.S. military intervention anticipated.

More than 1 million people have fled the Ivory Coast, where the U.N. says forces loyal to the incumbent leader, Laurent Gbagbo, have used heavy weapons against the population and more than 460 killings have been confirmed of supporters of the internationally recognized president, Alassane Ouattara.

The Obama administration says Gbagbo and Gadhafi have both lost their legitimacy to rule. But only one is under attack from the U.S.

Presidents typically pick their fights according to the crisis and circumstances at hand, not any consistent doctrine about when to use force in one place and not another. They have been criticized for doing so - by Obama himself.

In his pre-presidential book "The Audacity of Hope," Obama said the U.S. will lack international legitimacy if it intervenes militarily "without a well-articulated strategy that the public supports and the world understands."

He questioned: "Why invade Iraq and not North Korea or Burma? Why intervene in Bosnia and not Darfur?"

Associated Press writers Jim Drinkard and Robert Burns contributed to this report.

[I must admit, I did not expect to see a story like this from AP; did any papers run it? When I did a google search on this article, I did not find it associated with any major newspaper.]

Think of all the militant anti-war types who were thrilled at the removal of the Bush "war machine" in 2008, only to see President Obama's strained endorsement of military action in Libya. Oh, how the political wave of the hard left has crashed ashore. It seems like only yesterday when they were celebrating Cindy Sheehan as she flagrantly called President Bush "the biggest terrorist in the world."

Over the last two years, these chagrined radicals have watched in stunned disbelief while their hero Obama continued the Iraq War wrap-up on the generals' timeline and then added more troops in Afghanistan. They listened in shock as Team Obama announced it was reversing itself on indefinite detentions at Guantanamo.

Where are our friends in the press? they must be wondering. The media's said nothing about Iraq for them, nothing about Afghanistan. Virtually nothing about the Gitmo flip-flop.

Were these journalists ever "anti-war"? Or was all that coverage of George W. Bush as a Constitution-shredding global embarrassment just a convenient partisan campaign? If the No War for Oil crowd thought the run-up to war in Iraq featured a docile media, how on Earth must they feel about the docility of the press as Obama started dropping bombs on Libya? Someone pass the smelling salts.

It's pure and simple: The re-election of Barack Obama trumps all. The news media will bury anything negative that threatens his return in 2013.

The media know full well that Obama's refusal to obtain congressional approval is a flat-out betrayal and a documentation of a lie. The media have the footage of Candidate Obama in 2007: "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

The media also know (then-) presidential candidate Joe Biden said he'd personally lead the impeachment if Bush went to war with Iran without a congressional vote.

Some in the print press found this, like Washington Post "fact checker" Glenn Kessler. But had this been Bush exercising such brazen dishonesty, it would have been the lead story on every TV network news program -- for days. But it was Obama and Biden who lied through their teeth, and nothing will interfere with Obama-Biden in 2012.

Like their Democrat friends, Harry "The War is Lost" Reid and Nancy "Iraq Was a Grotesque Mistake" Pelosi, our media were the loyal opposition in the Bush years. It is astonishing to see them so shamefully switch their talking points so quickly and robotically -- perhaps as quickly and robotically as Gen. Obama.

Exhibit A is former Washington Post defense reporter Thomas Ricks. Five years ago, he wrote an Iraq book with the title "Fiasco." That tome was touted as "a searing judgment on the strategic blindness" of Bush's war. In his book, Ricks even trashed Democrats. They were not doves but "lambs" for their failure to oversee the excesses of the executive branch.

So who is this lobotomized Tom Ricks who showed up on "Meet the Press" on March 27? This man put on rose-colored glasses and magically transformed himself into Mr. Best-Case Scenario.

NBC's David Gregory asked: If Gadhafi stays, can we really say "Mission accomplished"?

Ricks didn't hesitate. "Yes. I think what they'll say is we gave it a chance. All Obama is saying is give war a chance," Ricks proclaimed. "Not our war. All we did was kick the door down, let the Brits and the French and the others do it. And I think his notion is we're going to be out of there long before this is resolved. That's the hope. That's the best-case scenario."

As one of Obama's media "lambs," Ricks also insisted that if there are Islamic extremists among the Libyan rebels, that's OK, since they seem to like us right now.

"I don't think that all Islamic extremists are necessarily our enemy. What we're at war with is violent Islamic extremists who want to attack the United States. I think what you're seeing now is something very different, which is some of those Islamic extremists are cheering the United States."

The economy is in shambles -- who cares? The country is broke -- who cares? We're in a third war now, and we don't know why or to what end -- and who cares? All that matters is that whatever helps Obama is the top "news." Whatever hurts Obama is destined to be left on the back burner in a rusting pot.

When King George VI gave his Sept. 3, 1939, war message to the people of the British Empire, it was a time of great moment. It was a "grave hour," he began, "perhaps the most fateful in our history." The king said that "for the second time in the lives of most of us, we are at war." That, however, was back when war was war. Now it is just kinetic military activity.

The king's speech, so recently dramatized in an Oscar-winning film starring Colin Firth, was significant because though George VI suffered a speech impediment, his message was of the highest importance. President Obama, by contrast, has always been given ludicrously high marks for his abilities as an orator but seldom has anything substantive to say.

Mr. Obama waited nine days after U.S. forces began to engage in hostilities in Libya to make a major address to the nation. He initially avoided making more than perfunctory remarks because U.S. involvement in the nonwar was supposed to be brief and limited. But as the kinetic became more frenetic, and Mr. Obama didn't see the favorable bump in public opinion most presidents enjoy after unleashing military force, he was compelled to address the issue head on. Unbeknownst to the novice commander in chief, Mr. Obama faces a mass of contradictions that makes this conflict a hard sell.

● Mr. Obama is using military force, but his secretary of defense says there is no vital American interest involved.

● Mr. Obama sold the country and the United Nations on a no-fly zone, but coalition forces are targeting Libyan ground troops.

● Mr. Obama's mandate was to protect civilian lives, but he is actively siding with the rebellion.

● Mr. Obama has praised the "legitimate aspirations of the Libyan people," but many of the rebels are Islamist radicals and even members of al Qaeda.

● Mr. Obama has gone to war to prevent a "bloodbath" in Libya but only offers empty words to innocent Syrians being gunned down by the Assad dictatorship.

● Mr. Obama has said the United States is not seeking to force regime change but believes that Moammar Gadhafi "has to go."

● Mr. Obama said there would be no "boots on the ground" in Libya but reports are emerging that some boots have landed.

● Mr. Obama said the operation would be handed over to NATO but the United States will still be doing the heavy lifting.

● Mr. Obama said Operation Odyssey Dawn would be limited to "days, not weeks," but now it is projected to go on for months, or longer.

● Mr. Obama denounced his predecessor President George W. Bush for unilateralism but the O Force has gone to war with no congressional authorization, fewer coalition partners and weaker support from the Arab world.

All of these contradictions were of the president's making and are the product of trying to preserve an exalted image that now only a few members of the White House inner circle still believe. The Nobel Prize-winning man of peace who expanded America's wars; the champion of Muslims who only helps them when it's convenient; and the great global leader who continually emphasizes America's declining influence: What a long strange odyssey the Obama presidency has become.

SEAN HANNITY, HOST: And tonight, it is a "Hannity" exclusive. He is a Tea Party favorite, a rising GOP star who has somehow managed to keep a lower profile since his last talked about election to the U.S. Senate last November.

Not that Marco Rubio has not been busy. He's just been focusing on issues important to his home state, the Sunshine State, Florida.

Now, the second youngest U.S. Senator is opening up about what he says is the greatest challenge facing our generation today.

And joining me now for his first live national TV interview since being elected, the man himself, Florida Senator Marco Rubio. Senator, welcome back. It's such a pleasure to have you back, thank you.

HANNITY: All right. So, I interviewed you on the radio a while ago. And I predicted that one day you will be president. And the response was overwhelming. And -- meaning from the audience, they really would like to see that. But you're saying not this time around?

RUBIO: Well, first of all, I'm very flattered by that, and by their response. The reality of it is I have a pretty important job right now, you know, being in the United States Senate is an important job and it needs to be done well. And that's what I'm focused on because that's what I ran for. I mean, I ran because I wanted to have this opportunity to kind of get involved in some of these issues that we are facing, you've been talking about tonight and for weeks. And that I hope we get to talk about a little bit tonight.

HANNITY: Now, we are going to talk about it at length. But you would not rule out if candidate, would not rule out, somebody said you are not going to run, but if somebody said, Senator Rubio would you consider running with me, you will not rule that out?

RUBIO: As vice president, no. I'm not going to be the vice presidential nominee, I'm focused on this. And it is important that I have that attitude too because otherwise, I won't be able to do this job well. You know, I really believe, and I've learned this in time from being involved before that. If you know focused on anything other than your job, you are not going to do your job well, and the job I have is an important one, the United States Senate job -- Florida deserves to have a full time senator and that's what I want to be.

HANNITY: Senator, I was very impressed when you wrote a piece, it's called, "It is not too late to save America." You said you will not go along anymore continuing resolutions. America borrows $4 billion a day. We have a $14 trillion debt, explain.

RUBIO: Well, it is not difficult to understand, this is the greatest country that has ever existed. It was built through hard work, some difficult choice that the people that were here before has made. And as great as the last 100 years were for America, the next 100 years can truly be better. Now, the American people haven't forgotten how to create jobs. The people of our country are the same people that built this extraordinary nation. The only thing standing in their way are government policies. Government policies like runaway regulations and unpredictable and high taxes that discourage job creation.

You know, these regulatory agencies that are tormenting job creators across America. And a government that spends more money than it takes in, continually spends money that it doesn't have, borrowing $4 billion a day, half of it from foreigners. Most of that from the Chinese. We cannot continue on this road. And we are -- yes, we can continue to be the greatest country in the history of the world. But there are some things we have to deal with. And we are running out of time to deal with them.

HANNITY: You said that America now is at risk, that our children will inherent a country for the first time worse off than the one their parents were given. And you say you will not vote to increase the debt limit unless certain things happen. What are they?

RUBIO: Well, first of all. It's got to be the last time we ever do it. Number two, there has to be meaningful tax reform. Number three, there has to be meaningful regulatory reform. We can't continue to allow these regulatory agencies to torment job creators. Number four, we need a balanced budget amendment. Number five, we need spending caps. Number six, we need to use the debt limit itself as the way to ensure that America's debt limit begins to decline, not always go up. How about the debt limit starting to go down? These are the kinds of things that I hope we'll focus on.

Now, here's what the critics are going to say, we don't have enough time to do all of that. That's not true. These ideas have been around for a long time. Everybody here knows exactly what needs to be done. The problem is, they don't want to do it. They want to either use it to win their next election, I think you talked about it in your earlier segment, they want to use all this debt stuff as a political tool to win elections. They are more interested in winning their next campaign, even it means losing the essence of their country. I think that is shameful.

HANNITY: What do you make, is there really -- what have you learned in the short time now that you have been in Washington, you've got this good old boy network, Harry Reid says, no way I'm not going to support Social Security reform. Democrats still have the majority in the body in which you work. So, what have you learned in the short time you have been there? And how do you break that institutional hold they have?

RUBIO: Well, let's remind everybody that the reason we are still talking about the 2011 budget is because folks around this place, House, Senate and White House, the Democrat Party didn't pass a budget last year. That's why we're still talking about 2011. And in fact, the Senate Democrats still haven't passed a budget even to this very moment, they still haven't dealt with it. But I think there are really three camps. There's a group of people that really want to make a difference. There's a group that want to make a difference but are afraid to step out because it will be used against them. There's a third group of people that are hoping that we step out, so they can use it against us or try to use it against us.

You just talked about Social Security and Medicare, I want those programs to survive. My mom is on Social Security and Medicare. I want these programs to exist when I retire. I don't want to see any changes for current beneficiaries. But if we don't do anything, these programs aren't even going to exist before long and they're going to begin to see benefit reductions because they start running out of money, we have to save these programs by reforming these programs. And the reforms should not be on the shoulders of current beneficiaries or retirees. It should be on people in my generation, decades away from retirement. It is up to us to deal with this in our lifetime.

HANNITY: You are really drawing a line in the sand with these stands that you are taking here. So, obviously, when you make such a strong commitment, you have to stand by it or people will say, well, you didn't have the courage of your convictions. Where did these values come from? Because I got to know you a bit during your campaign and I was very impressed with your background and your story, your family background. Where did this -- because you are so passionate about it. Where did these values come from in your life?

RUBIO: Well, I mean, it really comes from my upbringing. A small story I shared over this last week, a small story about my upbringing. My parents -- my dad passed away in September, but my mom, in particular, I've been able to talk to her recently a lot about this country and what it meant when they came here. And asked her what was the most -- the thing that struck you the most? And one thing she told me it was the first time in her life that she had ever met anyone who owned or ran something that they didn't inherit.

Where she came from in Cuba, almost everybody who owned land or owned a business that was what their parents had and left for them. This is the first time that she actually met people that they told her, no, we started from nothing, but we worked hard and we're able to accomplish this.

For the first time she actually felt, so did my dad, that they would have a chance to fulfill their dreams and more importantly that their kids would. That's unique about America. That's the product of the difficult decisions that the people who were here before us made.

I'm afraid we are going to lose that if we continue on the road we're on right now. I'm not afraid we're going to lose that. I know that we will. That doesn't have to happen. There's an alternative here, but we have to get to work on it now.

HANNITY: Do you fear if Barack Obama would be reelected that we would continue down that wrong road? The title of your article was "It's Not Too Late to Save America." If he got a second term, would it be too late?

RUBIO: Yes, if we continue with the policies of this president and the leadership and Senate have pursued over the last couple of years, if we continue on the road we are on right now, this country will be a very different place four years from now.

HANNITY: All right, Senator Rubio, thank you so much for being with us. Appreciate your time.

RUSH: First, the president of the United States locked out of the White House. After his vacation plans changed he comes home early. He came home early to find his NCAA brackets in tatters. Then he sees his secretaries of state and defense are not on the same page as to why we're in Libya. Did you see this on Meet the Press yesterday? Gates says (paraphrasing) "No, there aren't any vital US national interests --" and Hillary jumps in, cuts him off and not another word is heard from Gates the rest of the show. What is the term I heard over the weekend, hawk hens. The Obama hawk hens, meaning the babes of the -- well, the women. Aren't any real babes in this bunch, but the hawk hens just shut Gates up there. So then Obama has to hastily schedule a national address tonight. By the way, seven and a half hours for Obama to figure out what he's going to say, 7:30 tonight, big, big remarks from the Oval Office. I'm thinking about doing a Wolf Blitzer here. (imitating Blitzer) "We're only six hours away now from President Obama and a big announcement on Libya. We're only five hours and 45 minutes away now," for the whole show here.

Have you ever noticed, folks, the media is constantly breathless. Each time Obama is going to say something, the media just gets breathless as though his words can mean anything. He's going at 7:30 tonight to make sure he doesn't step on Dancing with the Stars, which is at eight o'clock on ABC, but have you ever noticed the media is always waiting breathlessly for Obama to say something, tongues hanging out hitting the street. (panting) They seem to be always living in the hope that Obama will make a pronouncement that will suddenly change everything. You would think that they would have learned by now that they're always gonna be disappointed, that those days are long gone. There aren't any magic words. While Obama might speak well, he doesn't communicate well. He's a very, very poor communicator. So, anyway, he has got this national address at 7:30 tonight to clean up any of the confusion as to why we're at war, and, by at way, I now know why we are at war in Libya.

I got a chart right here. We are at war to protect European energy. We are at war in Libya to

protect European oil and energy. This is stunning when you see this chart. We'll put it up at RushLimbaugh.com. I forgot to send it up to Koko, but we'll do that when the break comes around. It's patently obvious why we're here. Then the story, the latest headline, Sarkozy -- that's France, for those of you in Rio Linda -- Cameron, UK, call on all Libyans opposing Khadafy to help create a process of national transition. It's about oil, which I have no problem with, by the way, don't misunderstand. I'm not a leftist who bemoans that, but Obama can't dare say it. That's why there is seemingly so much confusion. Gates says one thing, Hillary says another, and Obama's gotta now go clean it up.

RUSH: At any rate, ladies and gentlemen, this is a comedy of errors, except it's not funny. But it does appear to be a comedy of errors. Biden, by the way, has said nothing about this "kinetic military action." He said nothing about it. Gates, Hillary, we've got Obama speaking at 7:30. What kind of community organizer is this? I always think community organizers are organized. Wouldn't you think that anyone who proudly calls himself a community organizer would be a little bit more organized than this? He's running a kinetic mess and he's supposed to be the organizational expert. His own community does not know why he started a third war. They don't know why he's on vacation while bombing a Middle East country. They don't know why he kept the Bush tax cuts. They don't know why he's publicly celebrating Brazil's oil.

RUSH: Saturday, White House YouTube Channel, President Obama: Libya mission is succeeding.

OBAMA: We're succeeding in our mission. We've taken out Libya's air defenses. Khadafy's forces are no longer advancing across Libya.

OBAMA: In places like Benghazi, a city of some 700,000 that Khadafy threatened to show "no mercy," his forces have been pushed back. So make no mistake: Because we acted quickly, a humanitarian catastrophe has been avoided, and the lives of countless civilians -- innocent men, women, and children -- have been saved.

RUSH: This just adds to the confusion of what this is all about. Khadafy's still there. This is really hard. We're dealing with somebody who's not ground in reality on this in any way, shape, manner, or form. This is... My gosh, folks, it's embarrassing. It's worse than embarrassing. Also Saturday, White House YouTube Channel.

OBAMA: When someone like Khadafy threatens a bloodbath that could destabilize an entire region and when the international community is prepared to come together to save many thousands of lives, then it's in our national interests to act, and it's our responsibility. This is one of those times.

RUSH: Khadafy threatens a bloodbath. Well, here we go. And a lot of other people now are picking up this refrain that we offered last week: "Well, there's a lot of bloodbaths around the world. Darfur. North Korea. Syria. Why aren't we there?" It was fascinating on Meet the Press yesterday. The audio is coming up here, but this was a stunning power play. On Meet the Press yesterday, after Defense Secretary Robert Gates conceded that Libya is not a vital interest of the United States... Stop and think of that. He conceded, the Secretary of Defense, that the action in Libya is not rooted in a vital national interest of ours. Before he could complete his comments, Mrs. Clinton cut him off, and she launched into a minute-and-40-second monologue seeking to justify US military involvement in Libya.

RUSH: Here is why we're in Libya. There's the chart. This chart shows every energy and oil installation in Libya, offshore and on, every one of them is a European-owned entity. You got BP, you've got ExxonMobil. This chart is from STRATFOR, Stratfor.com. We will put this at RushLimbaugh.com. Sarkozy and Cameron today have come out and are urging Libyans to oppose Khadafy. This is no more a humanitarian mission than a mission to save the animals and the pets of Libya. This is about European energy, pure and simple, and who was there first? Who didn't wait for us? The Europeans. We were stragglers, were we not? We were the last there. There are no vital US interests, we're told. Gates says, "No vital US interests." That's not true and Mrs. Clinton interrupts him and goes on a minute and 40 second monologue on Meet the Press yesterday to suggest that there might be some vital US interests. Well, that's a pretty big chunk of that country, particularly on the northeastern coast of this country that's got a lot of energy installations. Now, in the lower-left hand corner as you're looking at it, the lower-left hand corner lists by color-code every country that owns one of those installations.

RUSH: Well, you just heard it, President Obama on Saturday, the White House YouTube channel, claiming that Libya is a vital US national interest. Hmm, not so fast. Sunday morning on Meet the Press, the guest, Secretary of State Clinton, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. David Gregory said, "Secretary Gates, is Libya in our vital interest as a country?"

GATES: No, I don't think it's a vital interest for the United States, but we clearly have interests there, and it's a part of the region which is a vital interest for the United States.

RUSH: No, I don't think it's a vital interest for the US. We have interests there. I just showed you what the interest is, folks. The interest is European energy. That's why we're there. And, by the way, don't anybody misunderstand. I'm all for that. I am of the camp that believes oil, the free flow of oil, the free flow of energy at market prices is the fuel of freedom. You're not gonna find any quarrel from me going anywhere to maintain the free flow of oil at market prices. The left will, but I don't. If it could be firmly established that we are there because the Europeans are there for protection of their energy installations, and there's a lot of them, I've shown you the chart. You can see the chart at RushLimbaugh.com, Stratfor.com. You can see it on my Facebook page. You can see how heavily invested in Libyan energy the Europeans are, and you can see which companies and countries are there. There's no question. You will have no doubt once you look at the chart. I think it's entirely understandable the Europeans are there. They didn't waste time, folks. You'll note they did not waste time getting in there. They didn't wait for us to dither. We are the last in.

People have watched what people like Hugo Chavez have done, nationalizing oil and energy institutions, installations, companies in Venezuela. They don't want that in Libya. They don't want that in the Middle East. It makes perfect sense. You've got instability in this country, Khadafy murdering and who knows what could end up running this country. I guarantee you they don't want the Muslim Brotherhood running this country. They do not want a caliphate here. They do not want this. People interested in the free flow of oil at market prices do not want the Muslim Brotherhood running the show here. It would make perfect sense to me to go in here to protect their interests. That they would persuade us to go eventually? It seems to me that Obama is more than willing to help everybody else in this world maintain their own flow of oil at market prices -- Brazil, we'll give 'em $2 billion or loan them $2 billion to grow their own oil industry. We'll put drilling moratoriums on ourselves. We will hamper the free flow-of-oil at market prices in our country, but around the world if anybody's oil interests are upset, we're right there to help 'em out, eventually.

But stop and think of this. Here you have Gates: "No, we don't have a vital interest there, is not a vital interest for the United States." I think Gates knows what he's talking about. Obviously he does. He knows what's going on there. It means there's no vital US oil there. But what are we doing? Here we have our own secretary of defense saying there's no vital US interests, but we are putting members of our military at risk, we are spending a billion taxpayer dollars, what is it, a day on something that's not in the vital interests of the United States. In fact, it sounds like the US went into "kinetic military action" to protect the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions, to protect the Muslim Brotherhood. Notice that Mrs. Clinton's claim may not be true. Let's move on to Mrs. Clinton here, because Gregory, after Gates said, "No, there's no vital US interests there," David Gregory said, "I think a lot of people would hear that and say, 'Well, that's quite striking, not in our vital interests and yet we are committing resources there?'"

HILLARY: But then it wouldn't be fair as to what Bob just said. I mean did Libya attack us? No, they did not attack us. Do they have a very critical role in this region, and do they neighbor two countries? You just mentioned one, Egypt; the other, Tunisia, that are going through these extraordinary transformations and cannot afford to be destabilized by conflict on their borders. Yes. Do they have a major influence on what goes on in Europe because of everything from oil to immigration? And, you know, David that raises a very important point 'cause you showed on the map just a minute ago Afghanistan. You know, we asked our allies, our NATO allies to go into Afghanistan with us ten years ago. They have been there, and a lot of them have been there despite the fact they were not attacked. The attack came on us, as we all tragically remember. They stuck with us. When it comes to Libya, we started hearing from the UK, France, Italy, other of our NATO allies --

HILLARY: The UK and France were the ones who went to the Security Council and said --

HILLARY: They didn't attack us, but what they were doing and Khadafy's history and the potential for the disruption and instability was very much in our interests, as Bob said, and seen by our European friends and our Arab partners as very vital to their interests.

RUSH: Read: oil. All of that adds up to oil, folks. I hate to tell you if you don't want to hear it, but it adds up to oil. Libya did not attack Europe, Mrs. Clinton. Sure, they didn't attack us. They did not attack Europe. Khadafy didn't attack anybody. What was going on? Nothing was going on except Khadafy was attacking his own people. That was leading to instability. You had Tunisia, you had Egypt, you had Europe saying, "Oh, my God, we got that much energy dependence in that country, and all hell's breaking loose? We've got to stabilize." Not for humanitarian purposes. That's what the left says. But the way, that question, that minute and 36 answer you just got, the question was intended for Gates. She took it. She didn't let Gates answer the follow-up. She took it. Because the minute Gates said, "No, we don't have any vital US interests there," I mean that was red flag panic city.

So Lead Hawk Hen number one, Mrs. Clinton, moves in there, co-opts the question, gives the answer, "They stuck with us, UK, France, Italy." UK, France, Italy, you take a look at the color-code on the chart as to what nation owns what companies that own what installations in Libya. It's all perfectly clear what's happening. And again, don't misunderstand. I got no problem with it. It was Ed Markey, Democrat, Massachusetts: "Libya is about oil, it's all about oil." He's probably right. He doesn't like it. Humanitarian, ah, it's just what the left says. So we have joined a war for Europe's oil and isn't that better than going to war for oil for ourselves? Blood for oil, American blood for European oil, from 15,000 feet, no-fly zone. As I say, we'll come to the aid, apparently, of anybody in the world who wants to protect or find more of their oil. It's just when our oil is on the table, this regime says it's gonna stay on the table, or it's gonna stay in the ocean, or it's gonna stay underground.

RUSH: Here's Eric in Wilmington, Delaware, as we return to the phones. It's great to have you on the program, sir. Hi.

CALLER: I have a question. I have two, really. The first question is: If it's illegal for Americans to aid and abet Al-Qaeda, and they prosecute you, why is it not illegal for the executive branch to supply and aid and abet a candidate and jihadist in Libya -- or just supply and help them out?

RUSH: Well, it's an interesting question. The answer that I would come up with is that the regime is above the law. The regime's own health care bill is said to be unconstitutional. The regime doesn't care.

CALLER: Yeah, but, Rush, one thing. I mean, in 1980s when Iran-Contra went on, they had the Boland Amendment.

CALLER: And they went after the Reagan administration unrelentlessly (sic) to try to impeach Reagan. I mean I don't hear a peep. Everybody is agreeing that we should be there, and I once remember Patton said, "If everybody is thinking the same thing, somebody's not thinking." So I was just wondering why no one is even bringing it up that it's illegal to supply Al-Qaeda and jihadists that have killed our soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq.

RUSH: I don't know. As I say, I'm not sure that it's been established to the legal extent that we are openly, willingly supplying Al-Qaeda in Libya. In ousting Khadafy, we might be assisting Al-Qaeda in their quest, but actually giving them military support? I don't know. As I said, the regime is above the law in their own minds. Their health care bill is unconstitutional? So what! We're gonna keep implementing it. It's clear that in many cases the law does not apply to them. Bob in Franklin, Tennessee, welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Yeah, I noticed yesterday that Secretary Gates said that he had reports of Khadafy planting dead bodies near our Tomahawk missile strikes. And, you know, if that would have been Bush in Iraq, if that would have been reported, it woulda been I'm sure very much discredited in the fact that we were doing so much collateral damage.

RUSH: If, for example, the defense secretary in the Bush administration had claimed that Saddam and others were moving already dead bodies to make it look like collateral damage, why, there would have been no end of the assaults on the Bush administration. "How dare you make these outrageous claims!" Gates claims it about Khadafy and, of course, "Khadafy is the enemy!" I don't know what to say here. Clearly the media, the left loves Obama. He can do no wrong. The only way he can disappoint them is not meeting up to their expectations, but they keep holding out hope.

RUSH: On this civilian casualty thing in Libya, it's important to remember that it is Gates who's claiming this. It is the regime. Our Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, is claiming that there aren't any real civilian casualties, that what's happening is that the Libyan government is moving the bodies into position to make it look like civilian casualties. And, of course, the point is: Imagine if anybody in Iraq in the Bush administration had made such a claim. The left wouldn't put up with it! They wouldn't tolerate it. CNN ran a crawl, I think for several hours over the weekend, saying, "Libyan Government Can't Backup Claims of Collateral Damage." So, Obama has his defense secretary claim it, the Libyans claim it, and the media says, "Well, Khadafy's lying!"

Would we have ever gotten a story from CNN, Saddam or others in Iraq are lying? No, it would be the Bush regime, the Bush administration which was lying. This was the fundamental point of a previous caller. But where has there ever been a war without collateral damage? This is the point. When has there ever been a war where there was not citizen damage? In fact, that used to be how you won wars, folks (I hate to tell you), is by killing innocent civilians. Who do you think we targeted in Nagasaki and Hiroshima and all the bombings of Germany World War II? That's how you used to define victory. Now it's called "collateral damage," and the idea that we can conduct war without any is absurd.

RUSH: Okay, time for the Media Tweak of the Day. Nation building, that was bad enough, folks. But it would seem that Obama is now into caliphate building. It's almost as though Obama might believe he's the 12th imam. How can he possibly know how things are gonna turn out in Libya and the rest of the Middle East? How could he possibly know this? Look at his NCAA brackets. By the way, if you want any proof that this is all about the oil in Libya, don't forget the UK freed the Lockerbie bomber so that BP could get a good deal on oil in Libya. Do you remember that? That's why the Lockerbie bomber was freed, to get a good deal on Libyan oil, and that was called humanitarian, too, if I'm not mistaken. So don't doubt me, folks. Energy installations, oil in Libya, UK, Europe, that's what this is.

RUSH: Five and a half hours, ladies and gentlemen, five hours to be exact, 24 minutes, and Barack Obama will explain why we are in Libya. Five hours and 24 minutes. Wolf Blitzer will continue our countdown starting with his show at five o'clock on CNN. (imitating Blitzer) "We're eagerly waiting, President Obama speaking to the nation tonight at 7:30 to explain why we're in Libya and who's there and who we hope won't be there when we finish, CNN eagerly awaiting, breaking news, President Obama at 7:30, five hours 23 minutes and 15 seconds from now." That's how it will be.

The plot thickens. "Russia said on Monday attacks on forces loyal to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi amounted to intervention in a civil war and were not backed by the UN resolution authorizing no-fly zones. In the latest Russian criticism of military action by the Western-led coalition, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the resolution passed by the UN Security Council on March 17 had the sole aim of protecting Libyan civilians. 'And yet there are reports -- and nobody denies them -- of coalition strikes on columns of Gaddafi's forces, reports about support for actions by the armed insurgents,' Lavrov said. 'There are clear contradictions here. We consider that intervention by the coalition in what is essentially an internal civil war is not sanctioned by the UN Security Council resolution.'"

So the Russians are dissenting. Hey, this ain't what you told us at the UN. Hey, this ain't what you said when you went after that resolution. Hey, we're gonna call you on it. And that's because it's about oil, and the Russians know it. Libya is an oil competitor to the Russians. We can't say this, folks, we cannot say. That's why the administration's willing to make itself look silly by saying this is about humanitarian Meals on Wheels or what have you. It's why they're willing to contradict themselves and tie themselves up like pretzels, because they're a bunch of libs and they can't admit that they're doing this for oil or there would be a revolt on the left. But that's what this is and everybody knows it.

It's just like "I told you," and I hate using that phrase. I really do. But there was no way they're gonna close Gitmo. There was no way. I told you they weren't gonna secure defeat for themselves. They're not gonna lose the war on terror with themselves in charge. They'll saddle it with somebody else if they can but they're not gonna lose it themselves. They might put a moratorium on oil drilling in this country but they're not gonna deprive this country of oil from around the world. We'll get it. It's gonna cost an arm and a leg, and they don't have any problem hurting our own domestic industry, but Brazil wants oil, fine, here's two billion, go get it. Cubans, you want to drill in the Gulf with the Chinese, go ahead, we're not gonna stop you. We'll stop ourselves.

Cameron, Sarkozy, "Hey, look, this unrest in Libya, let me show you a chart with all the installations we have over there. We gotta protect our energy investments." We say, "Okay, yeah, we get it. We'll help you out with a no-fly zone. We'll tell our people it's about humanitarian violations and so forth. That will play well with our people." It's not what it's about and the Russians have now called everybody on it. Hey, this is what you said, UN resolution, this is not in there. Meanwhile, the Iranians, there's a video out, just saw it on Drudge, the Iranians say we're getting ever, ever closer here to the Islamic messiah. That would be the 12th imam. Getting ever closer.

Let's go back to the audio sound bites. On Face the Nation, Bob Schieffer, talking about Syria, asked Clinton: "Why not go into Syria?

HILLARY: No. Each of these situations is unique, Bob. The situation in Libya, which engendered so much concern from around the international community had a leader who used military force against the protesters, from one end of his country to the other, who publicly said things like, "We'll show no mercy. We'll go house to house."

RUSH: Each of these situations is unique, Bob. Assad's a reformer. Everybody knows Assad's not a reformer! He's a murderer. Bashar al-Assad is a murderer. No, each of these situations unique, Bob, situation in Libya, so much concern, international community, leader, military force. It's exactly what Assad's doing. And then she called him a reformer. Schieffer said, "How can it be worse than what's happened in Syria over the years? Bashar al-Assad's father killed 25,000 people at a lick. They opened fire, live ammo on these civilians. Why is that different from Libya?"

HILLARY: There is a different leader in Syria now. Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he's a reformer.

RUSH: Well, now, who's gone? Pelosi went. John Kerry went. Remember all these guys going and talking to Bashar al-Assad? They've been pretty quiet about it, but it was a long time ago. I mean year, year and a half ago that they went to Syria, but I do remember they made the trek. But now even the media -- and I wouldn't be surprised if it's 'cause we asked the questions first. Well, wait a minute, now. Everything you're saying about Libya you can say about Syria, North Korea, and Iran. Why are you choosing Libya? And they haven't had an answer for it. And so now when Schieffer gets specific about Syria and Assad, well, it's a different Syria. It's not. Bashar al-Assad's the same as his dad, Hafez al-Assad. But, see, there isn't really any oil to speak of in Syria, folks, not to speak of. So let's go back to February 14th of 2007. This is when Mrs. Clinton was a Senator. She's on the Senate floor and the subject is a possible attack on Iran. This is what Mrs. Clinton said.

HILLARY: If the administration believes that any, any use of force against Iran is necessary, the president must come to Congress to seek that authority.

RUSH: Okay, so Jake Tapper asks her yesterday, "Well, you guys go into Libya here, why not ask Congress?"

HILLARY: I don't think that this kind of internationally authorized intervention where we are one of a number of countries participating to enforce a humanitarian mission is the kind of unilateral action that either I or President Obama were speaking of several years ago. I think that this had a limited time frame, a very clearly defined mission, which we are in the process of fulfilling.

RUSH: This is a joke, right? There is no clearly defined mission. They're not telling the truth of what the mission is, and we're gonna be there the rest of the year now. That was news yesterday. Not weeks. It's gonna be months. We will be in Libya the rest of the year. Mark my words. And she says this is different from Iran because Iran, we were just talking about us, but this is international, there's a whole coalition here. We were warning President Bush not to go into Iran all by himself. What's the difference? If you're going in to save people, what does it matter if the mission purpose is to stop suffering, if the mission purpose is to make sure that innocent civilians are not attacked, what does it matter who's going in there? Are we not the leader? This is how you get tripped up when you refuse to tell people the truth of your actions. They just can't bring themselves to say that this is about preserving European energy installations in Libya. They don't dare say it, so they concoct all this do-gooder, namby-pamby leftist feel-good stuff as the explanation. But then that falls apart because you could use the same justification to go to Syria, to go to Iran, to go to North Korea, to go to Darfur. But we don't go there.

Do you know how ticked off she has to be? She's having to go out there, she's the one, we're playing sound bites of Mrs. Clinton who's putting herself in a pretzel position. Obama, he's getting to pick his NCAA picks, and he gets to go make a speech to the country. Five hours and 14 minutes, by the way. Mrs. Clinton's out there having to justify all this in ways that are clearly not believable. Mrs. Clinton is the face of the war. Mrs. Clinton is the face of our policy. Mrs. Clinton, Hillary Clinton, secretary of state, running this whole show, Hen Hawk number one. Samantha Power, Hen Hawk number two. And Susan Rice, Hen Hawk number three. It's a close contest there, number two, number three, but clearly Hillary Clinton is Hen Hawk number one. And back in the Clinton days Janet Reno was Hen Hawk number one. Time to invade Waco, call Janet. Ruby Ridge, call Janet.

Now, Ted Koppel, friend of mine, I haven't spoken to Ted in a long time. We used to be friends. I assume we still are. Ted Koppel was on Meet the Press yesterday in a roundtable, and David Gregory asked him a question. He said, "We've just heard this discussion, Mrs. Clinton and Robert Gates, particularly the secretary of defense say that this campaign in Libya is not in America's vital interests. Pretty high stakes for the president who is about to address the nation and the secretary of defense says it's really not about US vital interests. What do you say about that, Ted?"

KOPPEL: The question hasn't yet been answered as to why it is that Libya, of all the countries in that region, has won the humanitarian defense sweepstakes of 2011. We have seen many countries, both in that region and throughout the world, where civilian loss and civilian suffering has been much, much greater. Congo for the past 12 years, we've lost about five million people. Sudan, two to three million people, never any talk about military intervention. Why, why Libya? Hasn't been answered.

RUSH: There it is, folks. I'm holding the chart up again of European energy installations in Libya. That's the answer. Notice we were the first to start asking, "Why Libya?" Darfur, North Korea, Iran. He throws in Congo. By the way, Calypso Louie raised Congo. In that same speech where he asked Obama, (imitating Calypso Louie) "Who the hell do you think you are? You don't tell a man to leave like that. Who are you? If you not careful, somebody gonna tell you to leave." That's what he said. Ted Koppel: Why Libya? Why not Congo? Why not Sudan, Darfur, any number of places? Coulda made George Clooney very happy, going into Darfur.

RUSH: Vinny in Brooklyn. I'm glad you waited, Vinny. It's always a pleasure to have you here on the EIB Network. Hi.

CALLER: Now, I seem to remember the administration's stated reason for going to Libya was to avert, and I quote, "a humanitarian disaster." In Syria, as we speak, the dictator has killed dozens of civilians protesting his government. How do I know this? Well, the New York Times reported this -- above the fold, mind you -- on Saturday. So, when do the bombing runs start, Great One? When does President Obama pull the lever to avert a humanitarian disaster? And one more item, if I can add: If we won't, or if we don't, won't our interests in Iraq and other allies in the immediate region possibly suffer through Syria's instability as per Hen Hawk Hillary Clinton's stated reason? I ask you, Great One.

RUSH: Well, see, I was gonna tell you here, Vinny: Mrs. Clinton said that Bashar al-Assad is a "reformer," that it's a different Syria now, that there's no reason to go into Syria. There really is not a humanitarian disaster going on there. She made it very, very clear: There's no similarity whatsoever.

CALLER: So the killings are what, then? What would you say they are? Just someone's figment of their imagination?

RUSH: Well, they're not happening from coast to coast. She said that in Libya, they're happening all across the country; in Syria, it's just in a limited part of the country.

RUSH: That's what she said! I'm just telling you that's what she said. (interruption) Don't look at me that way! It's what she said, Snerdley.

RUSH: What it all means is that they're not telling us the truth about why we're in Libya, because if this is the stated reason, you're absolutely right: What's stopping us from Syria? What's stopping us anywhere else where civilians are being killed, mass murdered, abused, or what have you?

RUSH: Vinny, it's always a pleasure. I don't care whether you call from the Queens, Bronx, Brooklyn, wherever you call from, it's always a pleasure to talk to you, Vinny.

RUSH: Steve in Rocklin, California, I'm glad you waited, sir. You're on the EIB Network. Hi.

CALLER: Oh, yes, dittos, Rush. Good thing I'm not calling suicide prevention. Anyway, thanks to Mr. Snerdley again. I was Steve in Brooklyn, then Steve in New Jersey and now Steve in Rocklin, California.

CALLER: Anyway, I spent most of my working life as US representative of European manufacturers. Often I was the only American in the room. I speak German, which did wonders for politeness. Europeans may have a genetic inability to take responsibility for their actions. In the former Yugoslavia they had cheap vacations. They went to business conferences. They went to the beaches in Dubrovnik, skiing in Sarajevo. We didn't, and yet they were totally incapable of solving the problem in their own backyard and it's the same thing in Libya. If you go to Jane's Fighting Ships and so on, you add up what Italy has and you add up what France has and you add up what Libya has, they could handle this on their own, but they're just not mentally capable of it. Same thing in Hungary, I'm of Hungarian origin, and I was there and the place is just full of Germans, German tourists, my Scandinavian colleagues at business conferences there. As far as NATO, NATO itself is not the problem. It's just governments don't make the forces available to NATO. The US military trains to NATO procedures as do the Canadians.

CALLER: The point is that the Europeans are not capable of solving it on their own without Americans taking charge. We walked away from our victory in World War I and look what happened. After World War II we fixed it so the Germans would never do it again, and they haven't. In fact, maybe we went too far because the German military has a labor union.

RUSH: Okay, so you're saying that the Europeans cannot protect their own oil installations in Libya.

CALLER: No, they can't protect their own oil installations. I mean, they're physically capable. They have the forces but they don't have the will.

RUSH: This may be one of the last times we're able to if Obama's not stopped. If this guy gets four more years, how often are we gonna be able to go do this for the Europeans, much less ourselves?

RUSH: I got hold of Koko today, our webmaster. I said, "I've had it with this. I want you to go back to the website and I want you to find as many examples as you can of me talking about Obama supporting with money the Brazilian oil industry."

There's a post at National Review Online, and nothing against Mr. Hayward here, Steven Hayward, National Review Online: "Credit Where Credit Is Due." This is a post at NRO crediting the Washington Post. "The Post lead house editorial notes Obama's incomprehensible remarks in Brazil supporting more offshore drilling there . while still opposing it here at home." Well, you people in this audience have known about this for two years. We have been telling you, I have been telling you about Obama's in bed, under the sheets relationship with Petrobras, George Soros, and Brazil, about the drilling. Koko found August 24th, 2009, about a year and a half ago. (paraphrasing) "Last week the regime announced $2 billion for Brazil to help them drill for oil. The company that's getting the money, the largest stakeholder, George Soros." So two things are happening here, we are handcuffing ourselves in terms of our own energy exploration and development and discovery and use. At the same time we're helping another country, in this case a Democrat contributor, Soros.

So once again George Soros, who would love to see this country on its hand and knees. Soros would love to see this country suffering. Soros doesn't need $2 billion from Obama. Pelosi doesn't need a government jet. She and her husband could buy four of them themselves. They don't need government jets. They just want you to pay for everything so they don't have to. Soros doesn't need $2 billion from us if he wants to explore for oil in Brazil. He's got his own $2 billion he could throw into it. But, no, we are gonna give $2 billion down there to a company in Brazil, the largest investor at the time Soros, a big Democrat contributor. We've been talking about this since August of 2009. We did a Morning Update on this. This has been a constant refrain and long before the moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. At one time I think the number was actually ten billion that we were thinking of investing.

You might remember my talking about this because it was in conversations about not just helping Brazil, but the Mexicans keep drilling, the ChiComs are drilling in the Gulf of Mexico with the Cubans, the Vietnamese are getting involved. We've been talking about this for two years. We've known for the longest time here that Obama is anti- the US oil industry. Now all of a sudden the Washington Post comes out with an editorial calling Obama on all this, and a lot of other people, and it's not new, folks. This has been going on, well, at least since August 24th of 2009. We first talked about this way back then. Last week, maybe the week before, Obama went to Brazil and made it official, and so everybody's now having a cow over this. But this isn't new. It's been around for many, many moons.

So the aspect of the story that Obama is helping the Brazilians drill for oil, and he says he wants them to be able to drill for oil, he wants them to be able to be energy independent, but not implementing identical policies here. In fact, doing just the opposite, harming our own ability to be energy independent. But some people just learned about it last week when Obama went down there to speak about it. We've known about it for a year and a half, and as such, so have you.

RUSH: Back in 2009, ladies and gentlemen, the original reports were the US government was offering to provide up to $10 billion in loans to Brazil and Petrobras. Back in August of 2009 it was $10 billion in loans. It got scaled back to $2 billion, at least so far.

RUSH: Let's go back to the audio sound bites. We're gonna pick up here at number seven. We have a media montage. The media twisting themselves into pretzels to try to see the Obama Doctrine in this Libyan mess. Now, remember, you know what the Obama Doctrine is. It's three words: "2012 or Bust."

BLITZER: The clearest form of what we can call the Obama Doctrine, when to deploy US military forces around the world.

GERGEN: The emerging Obama Doctrine. Unless we are directly threatened, he's only going to use force in extremely limited circumstances.

HENRY: Laying out an Obama Doctrine, when he said, "I refuse to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves."

SPITZER: There is the beginning of a doctrine about how President Obama views the use of force.

ENGEL: Talked about a new doctrine of preemptive war, going to war when the President of the United States doesn't feel it is morally right not to go to war.

RUSH: That was Piers Morgan at CNN. It's an unusual doctrine. Well, everybody's got their own theory as to what the doctrine is. I would have been embarrassed to say half of those, what I thought the doctrine is. I mean, "The emerging doctrine, unless we're directly threatened. We're only gonna use force in limited circumstances." That's a doctrine? "There's a beginning of a doctrine about how Obama views the use of force." That's a doctrine? "You act on threats." That's what Dennis Kucinich said the Obama Doctrine is, you act on threats. Last night on CNN Piers Morgan spoke with Rudy Giuliani. Question: "What happens if, as we're seeing now in Syria, for example, you're seeing the leadership there killing large numbers of people, ever-increasing numbers of people, same kind of argument. You know there's a humanitarian situation in Syria, likely to be one in Yemen, both probably more dangerous places than Libya as far as the security of America than Libya. What do we do?"

GIULIANI: To say that he has a policy, even like an Obama Doctrine, is really just a fawning on Obama. There's no doctrine in this. Here's the doctrine, if France wants us to do it, if the UN wants us to do it, if the Arab League wants us to do it, then we'll do it, that's the Obama Doctrine.

RUSH: Rudy's close. The Obama Doctrine is it's the UN. Our sovereignty, we're waving it good-bye. Obama didn't go to Congress. He went to the UN. He appoints NATO. Citizen of the world. James Carville, last night, CNN, The Situation Room. Wolf Blitzer: "So, you think the president made a mistake by doing this?"

CARVILLE: You know, there was always a good reason to go in Iraq. There was a good reason to go in Afghanistan. There's a good reason to go in Pakistan. There was a good reason to go in Libya. There'll be a good reason to go in Bahrain. There'll be a good reason to start a war anywhere. And, you know, I don't know, but we're a little tuckered out here. I don't know if he made a mistake. You know, the secretary of state and other people really were urging him it was a humanitarian crisis. I hope that it turns out to be the right decision.

RUSH: That's James Carville speaking from a barrel toss in New Orleans. The partying continues in the French Quarter. Ed Henry last night, The Situation Room, CNN, Wolf Blitzer said, "Set the scene for us. Give us a little bit of the flavor of what's going on there in the Oval Office here. Obama is getting ready to make history."

HENRY: A lot of people expect that an address about military action tends to be in the Oval Office. In private administration officials acknowledge the president didn't want an Oval Office address because he did not want to raise the stakes any more or raise the level of this and compare it to Iraq, Afghanistan, because his point tonight is that this is a much more limited engagement than either one of those conflicts.

RUSH: Ed Henry on the case. Did anybody understand what he said? You got it? More comfortable standing alone, godlike reverb. Donald Trump was on CNN last night. Every sound bite here is from CNN. Well, partly because MSNBC, I've said no more, no more sound bites from MSNBC primetime. So we gotta go somewhere. Trump was on with Piers Morgan. Question: "When you hear Obama say that he wants to get rid of Khadafy but he doesn't want regime change, does that make sense to you?"

TRUMP: It makes no sense whatsoever. What he said just makes absolutely no sense, and at this point if you don't get rid of Khadafy, it's a major, major black eye for this country, but you also have to ask the other question, who's paying for this? You have Saudi Arabia, the Arab League, the richest nations in the world saying, "Go in and get him. We don't like him. Go in and get him." And why aren't they paying for this?

RUSH: (laughing) I get the impression Trump doesn't like paying for much. He's got a good point here, everybody is saying, "You go get 'em, you go get 'em, you go get 'em, you go get 'em." Okay, how much you gonna pay us? Makes perfect sense to me, too.

RUSH: We do have these polls. It isn't working. His approval numbers are plummeting. He's at 42% in the Quinnipiac poll -- and, of course, we're not hearing about that. We don't hear about that. In fact, I'm gonna change my audio sound bite request on the fly. We'll do Schumer and stuff in the next half hour. Go grab audio sound bite number two. Who could forget this? Wolf Blitzer, March 13th, 2006...

BLITZER: It's 4 p.m. here in Washington. So you're getting the first look right now at our brand-new poll. The president's job approval rating has taken a downward turn again, falling to only 36%.

BLITZER: This represents his lowest rating ever in the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll.

BLITZER: The president's poll numbers are pretty bad, pretty awful right now, rock bottom as far as the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll.

RUSH: That's enough of that. Number three standing by, sound bite number three. So we remember that went on and on and on all day. That's all Wolf Blitzer could talk about. It's all he could promote. "President Barack Obama's approval rating and prospects for reelection have plunged to all-time lows in a Quinnipiac University poll released [today]. Half of the registered voters surveyed for the poll think that the president does not deserve a second term in office, while 41 percent say he does.

"In another Quinnipiac poll released just four weeks ago, 45 percent said the president did not deserve reelection... The decline in support for a second Obama term comes as his approval rating has dropped 4 percentage points since early March, landing at 42 percent -- a record low..." We are three points above the dreaded thirties -- and, remember, we didn't even have to get to the thirties before we had the media doing fits like you just heard Wolf Blitzer doing when it was George W. Bush. But now nary a mention! I've got a Politico story. I'm actually reading from a Politico story that is two paragraphs about this. (interruption)

No, I'm not complaining. I'm illustrating it. It's classic. Here's Bloomberg: "President Barack Obama's job approval reached its lowest level, and nearly half of Americans surveyed opposed the U.S. military intervention in Libya, a Quinnipiac University poll found. Also, 50 percent of the registered voters surveyed by the Hamden, Connecticut-based university's polling institute said Obama didn't deserve re-election in 2012..." So what are they talking about? Let's go to the audio sound bites. Carol Costello, who in the past has been assigned to stalk me as a reporter at CNN. Here's a little bit of her report on CNN this morning.

COSTELLO: The new poll out that shows support for the Tea Party slipping away! Maybe it's because of how a couple Tea Party-backed governors are trying to balance their budgets and the kind of language they're using. Forty-seven percent of all Americans have an unfavorable view of the Tea Party movement!

RUSH: Wow. Really? You've got the president sitting at 42%. Carol Costello and CNN can't seem to find that story, but they come up with "47% of all Americans have an unfavorable view of the Tea Party." To me that means a majority has a favorable view, and she goes on to editorialize as to why: "Maybe it's because of how a couple Tea Party-backed governors are trying to balance their budgets..." Ahhhh, yes. Well, Ms. Costello and the rest of you, let's just wait 'til November 2012, shall we? You want to find out what the American people are really thinking? There are stories in the stack today: The Tea Party, have they gone away? The Tea Party, have they faded away? Tea Party, did they think it was over in November? The Tea Party hasn't gone anywhere. The Tea Party is out there as passionate as ever; the Tea Party is out there growing. It's almost kinda good that the left might think the Tea Party has peaked and is on its way down.

Here Dingy Harry, this is this morning on the Senate floor, Dingy Harry talking about John Boehner.

REID: (whispering) It's obvious that he's in a difficult situation on his hands, and I don't envy him in that regard. He's getting a lot of pressure from the Tea Party folks to dig in his heels, even if it hurts and destroys the recovery that we have going now. What's worse, the country doesn't care much about the Tea Party. There's a new CNN poll out today that says this very directly.

RUSH: There you have Harry Reid. Here is Harry Reid talking about the CNN poll on the Tea Party, on the floor of the Senate, assuring everybody: Nobody likes the Tea Party anymore. Nobody cares about the Tea Party, and Boehner's got a big problem because he's getting a lot of pressure from the Tea Party folks, but nobody likes the Tea Party anymore.

Now, the Quinnipiac poll was taken before Obama delivered his Libya speech, just to keep the timeline here intact. We don't know what the Quinnipiac poll would be if it had included the president's speech on Libya. And we've looked everywhere. We cannot find the raw data on CNN's poll about the Tea Party, and we want to find that because we want to find out how they skewed it. We want to find out how they sampled. If you're gonna go out and do a poll on the Tea Party, and if you want a negative result, you're gonna have to oversample Democrats so we want to find out how many Democrats versus likely voters, registered voters, adults. There's any number of ways that CNN could get this result.

But as you well know polling is not a reflection of public opinion; it is an attempt to shape it -- especially as evidenced here by Dingy Harry taking the CNN poll to the floor of the House to try to pressure John Boehner. All this talk of the government shutdown is coming up coincides with Schumer, Senator Chuck-U Schumer and his claim that the strategy (from deep in the bowels of the Democrat Party) is to call the Tea Party and all these supporters "extremists."

RUSH: Chris in Houston, welcome to the EIB Network. Great to have you with us on the program. Hi.

CALLER: Rush, I wanted to talk about Obama, who we actually call Obummer down here. It seems that every time he talks to the American public he's lying. And I'm wondering what it's gonna take to get some of these Republicans to finally start calling him each and every time he --

RUSH: Oh, gosh, here we go. I don't know. I've had this question for 23 years, "How are we gonna get the Republicans to do. when are the Republicans gonna do X, Y, and Z." I don't know.

CALLER: Each time that he speaks to the American public he lies, and he puts out different catch phrases which are supposed to make you think that he's on your side. Now he's talking about democratic principles in the Middle East and everything else. Well, who cares if there's democratic principles in the Muslim Brotherhood? They're still gonna be anti-America.

RUSH: He doesn't care himself whether there are democratic principles in the Muslim Brotherhood. Look, don't be that concerned about this. Have you seen his latest approval numbers? In the Quinnipiac poll he's at 42% approval. He's just three points above the dreaded thirties. Now, my point to you is that the smooth talker is not convincing 75% of the people like he did two years ago. Sometimes the Republicans don't have to say anything for voters to get it. Sometimes the Republicans don't have to point it out. People have figured it out. People have figured out Obama's policies do not create jobs. People have figured out Obama's mortgage savior program has led to more foreclosures.

People living their lives in Obama's America understand full well, and the polling data backs it up, that he is not who he says he is. His programs do not accomplish that which he claims and promises they will accomplish. It is why there is an abject, borderline panic on the left in the media and at the White House. This is not where they thought they would be. They thought they would be with 90% approval by now. They thought the Republican Party would cease to exist. Do you think they thought they would lose the Congress in November? This was not part of the plan where we are right now. Why do you think they're still trying to destroy Sarah Palin? Why are so many of our people trying to destroy Sarah Palin? That's another story. Why are they still trying to destroy the Tea Party? People at the Tea Party get it. So Chris, the bottom line is you don't need to wait for the Republican Party to call Obama out. People know it simply by virtue of living their lives.

RUSH: We've only taken one phone call today, Mary Jo from Madison, Wisconsin. And just to remind you, I am not entirely comfortable with phone calls like that. I'm not into yelling and screaming with people, but it was required because she wouldn't shut up. (interruption) Well, compared to others, yes, I was polite. But I spotted the filibuster going on. The worst thing, though, about Mary Jo, our first caller, the most alarming and dispiriting thing is something that we're all fully aware of. Her thinking demonstrates just how far we have to go to roll all this back. It shows how far socialism has taken over in this country, how deep the roots of socialism are. This country will not survive very long with too many people thinking their neighbors owe 'em a living. Europe has shown us this.

Now, here we have Chuck Schumer, the Democrat Party, they have spent nearly $5 trillion in the last few years that we don't have. They want you to believe that all we gotta do to be sensible here is cut another ten billion. They can live with that, that's rational. But anything beyond ten billion is extremist and Draconian. But $10 billion in cuts, oh, yeah, they're rational, they're thoughtful, very moderate. If we go along with this, if we go along with the notion that, okay, five billion here, ten billion there, we're making headway on reducing the budget and our deficit. We're not gonna gain any ground at all. We're not gonna impress anybody, and we're not gonna make anybody like us, if that sadly remains the objective. They've spent nearly $5 trillion in the last few years that we don't have. They want you to believe that if we cut another ten billion or so that they're rational, thoughtful, and that they are moderate. That's what they're aiming for.

What it will prove is the opposite. They are destructive, diabolical, and a disaster. The Democrat Party is a disaster for this country. Barack Obama as a Democrat, as a socialist, is a disaster for this country. The Democrat Party is destroying the economic well-being of this nation. The Democrat Party is destroying the economic well-being of millions of American families. In the real world, 20% unemployment and underemployment, and despite trillions of dollars in deficits, massive government expansion, all kinds of programs supposedly to fix this, we had TARP, we had Porkulus, we had Porkulus 1, Porkulus 2, we've had all kinds of stimuli, and it was supposed to create jobs, and everybody knows, and everybody knew going in that it would not create private sector jobs. What it was and what everybody now knows, some with the courage to admit it, the stimulus bill was nothing more than a money laundering operation to make sure that state and federal employees did not lose their jobs, so that their union dues were continually paid, because those union dues end up in the various campaign headquarters and coffers of the Democrat Party. That's what the stimulus was.

The stimulus was a slush fund. It was a pile of money, the percentage of which was earmarked for the Democrat Party, under the guise of creating jobs and rebuilding schools and roads and bridges and all of that that has not happened. It was never going to happen. The money was never earmarked for that. It was just said to be earmarked for that. And then when there wasn't any noticeable improvement, what happened? Not an admission that, "You know, maybe this is not the way to do it." No. Come back for more. Come back for more. Let's be clear about this. The Democrat Party is not taking on the Tea Party. The Democrat Party is not taking on the GOP. Our leadership seems perplexed how to deal with Schumer and these guys anyway, they don't know quite what to do.

The Democrat Party is taking on every family in this nation. The Democrat Party, as it attempts to prevail on issues that matter most to it, are taking direct aim at every family at this nation, every parent, every child. Because when the Democrat Party succeeds with this agenda, it is the people of the United States who suffer. And if that sounds a bit extreme for you, let me ask you to take a look at any protected constituency group of the Democrat Party and let me ask you, how are they doing? Outside of the unions, how are they doing? How are the unemployed doing? How are the African-Americans doing? How are the poor Latinos doing? How are the women doing? How are the children doing? Take a look at any constituency that the Democrat Party claims that they are there to defend, that they are there to protect, that they are there to promote. The Democrat Party sought to protect home ownership. How is that going? Take a look at those who have been foreclosed upon.

Virtually every constituency group that the Democrat Party claims to love, help, support, revive, what have you, is dying, except the public sector unions. The Democrat Party is known as the party of pro-choice. Who's dying? Children in the womb. Who wins? Planned Parenthood, the Democrat Party. What do they get? Money. Where does it end up? Back in the coffers of the Democrat Party and its various campaigns. Yet we were told yesterday we're the extremists, and we were told that that's how we must be portrayed. The Democrat Senate caucus was told to portray the Tea Party as a bunch of extremists. So what we have right now is the Democrat Party versus the US taxpayer when they attack the Tea Party. We have the Democrat Party versus virtually every group of people in this country. There's a little slack on the illegal aliens 'cause those are potential voters. Do what they can to help there.

It's happening right in front of our eyes, the destruction of the engine that produces prosperity and wealth in this country. It's being destroyed. And I submit to you the people doing the destroying are the extremists. Individually, collectively, we suffer.

RUSH: Sharon in Daytona Beach, Florida. Hi. You're next on the EIB Network. Welcome.

CALLER: Thrilled to speak with you. I think you may have answered my question already, but given your comments earlier in the program, I'd like you to address whether you truly think our president is a man-child who is naively doing the things he's doing, or if you think that this is a systematic plan to take down this country, as many of us do.

RUSH: Well, let me answer it this way: If the end result is that the country's being destroyed, does it matter why? Does it matter? Does it really matter if he's doing it purposefully or is just naive?

RUSH: Because regardless how you answer it, it's happening. I'm not trying to evade it.

RUSH: I'm just saying regardless how you answer the question, it still is happening. I think it's a little of both. I think there's a glaring incompetence. I think there's a huge lack of qualifications for this job that this man has. On the other hand, I think the way he's been raised and educated, he does have it in for this country on many things. He thinks this country's unfair and unjust. He thinks that this country has stolen a lot of resources from the rest of the world and it's time for us to pay the price. I think it's a combination of both of them.

CALLER: Well, I certainly agree with you, and I want to thank you for addressing the concerns of those of us who are out here working hard every day trying to raise children the right way. You know, when my 13-year-old son can say to me, "Mom, our money is worthless. It isn't worth the paper it's printed on." He's 13.

CALLER: When my 17-year-old son can say to me, "China owns us," it's very discouraging.

RUSH: On one hand it's discourages, but, look, it's gonna take people with knowledge like your kids apparently have to stop this. You gotta look at this in both ways. It is what it is. We want to stop it; we want to roll it back. Having people who are informed and understand what's happened and why is part of rolling it back, and you know the kind of people we're dealing with. I mean, there are a lot of people who... I'll tell you, folks, it's always about the money -- and I don't care how virtuous you might think somebody or some group is. It's always about the money, and when we talk about public sector unions and a number of things, they exist for a host of reasons. The Democrats want the money that their dues give 'em. The union workers themselves need to eat. They have to have houses. It's all about money. It's all about how much they can score and so forth. It's just that they're "scoring" at the expense of everybody else. They're not producing anything. There isn't any net growth. There's just a wealth transfer going on here, and it's out of kilter, and it's way out of balance -- and it's not sustainable as it is for very much longer.

RUSH: Here's Richard, Michigan City, Indiana. Great to have you on the EIB Network. Hi.

CALLER: Yes. Rush, it's a pleasure to talk to you. It's an honor to talk to you.

CALLER: I don't want to hold you too long. I just wanted to tell you, I grew up as a young man from McKeesport, Pennsylvania. I heard you mention that one time on the radio but you never elaborated, but I moved the family out here to Indiana a long time ago, 40-some years ago, worked for the second largest steel mill in the nation --

RUSH: And what their legacy costs, what it was I don't know if Joanne or what's her name was up in Wisconsin realizes it, but Bethlehem Steel was pushed against the wall with their legacy costs, and it came to a point where they had to turn out the lights, close the door, and let 95,000 employees go.

RUSH: They had to off-load their pension to the federal government. Now look who owns them?

CALLER: Well, I don't know what's wrong with these people. I'm ashamed of the Democratic Party. And as a Hungarian, I cringe when I hear the name George Soros. He's a disgrace to our nationality.

RUSH: Let me try to explain it to you from their standpoint. This might be a useful exercise. And, by the way, I mentioned McKeesport because that's where the first radio station that I worked at when I left home was. It's the Pittsburgh market, but it was a suburban station in McKeesport. It was WIXZ, salted rot and mold, played oldies. Well, it was solid rock and gold, WIXZ, "solid rock and gold," the jingle. And I called it "salted rot and mold" 'cause after two years I'd heard every song on the playlist 20,000 times. At any rate, let's look at this from their perspective. You mentioned Mary Jo who called. Now, I know a lot of these public sector union people have become activists. A lot of them are political, ideological activists in addition to whatever else they are.

Okay, you end up going to work for a union, a school teacher or whatever your job is that requires you to be a member of a public sector union. Let's just say Wisconsin. And your union goes out and through the vehicle of collective bargaining they arrange a compensation package for you, and it's gonna pay you X, and you're gonna get your health care paid for, mostly, large percentage of it, you're gonna have a pension and they tell you this and then every three or four years you're gonna expect a bump in all of it. And along the way you think that you are a crucial cog in the wheel. You are educating the future of America. You're making a difference. You are teaching the children. You're doing all of these wonderful things. And besides that, you didn't have to choke anybody or bend their arm to get this deal. Your union might have, but you didn't.

Whether it's General Motors or whether it's the state, somebody agreed to this. And it goes on like this, and occasionally you might have to threaten to go on strike if your demands aren't met, but eventually it all works out and you keep going on like this until one day the bottom falls out, and you hear that there just isn't the money to pay you anymore. But yet the people saying this made a deal with you. This is what you're gonna get. And then out of the blue they come out and say, "Sorry, we don't have the money for it anymore." What are you gonna do? I understand where these people are. I understand their mentality. Taking away their political activism for a moment -- and it's hard to do because it's very much a part of who they are -- but still, as far as they're concerned, they made the deal, General Motors made the deal. Yeah, yeah, a lot of people don't have it but they're gonna give me my health care and a pension until I die, even after I retire. And, you know what? I'm only gonna have to work 15 to 18 years to be totally vested.

That was the deal and then somewhere somebody comes along and takes it all away from you. What are you gonna do? You're not just gonna sit there and say, "Well, okay," especially when you don't know how to earn money any other way. And all along there's probably a little voice in the back of your head that tells you you're really not earning anything anyway. This is the government. The government owes you and the government owes everybody and in reality you ought to be getting even more than what you're getting, but you're satisfied. But then the bottom drops out. That's why when Mary Jo called here I knew it was gonna be impossible but I really wanted to get her answer on why do you think your neighbors are obligated to pay you for nine months a year, twice what they make? Why do you think your neighbors are required to pay your health care until you die and pay your pension? I want to know. I would love to know when you first realized that's what was happening and think that it's justified.

I'd like to know the mind-set because, see, I don't have that mind-set. I've never had it. And I really would like to know how those people think. Rather than sit here and assign an ideology to them, "Well, they're liberals and they think they're entitled and so forth," which is probably true, but just in the human being sense, in the humanity sense, where does that attitude come from? Who teaches that? Well, we know guys like Alinsky, angry multiculturalists and leftists. People who hate the country end up telling other people that it owes you a living because it's mistreated you, it's screwing you left and right, all these rich people and it's your money. You understand how these people get to the point that they are. They've had nothing but hatred and anger being preached to 'em for who knows how long depending on whether or not they grew up in a union household. This is what's always bothered me about how much hatred for this country there is that it's institutionalized in our education system. It's taught. It's codified. It's part of the multicultural curriculum.

The multicultural curriculum is based on the premise that America is flawed, that America is a fraud, that America is a lie. I mean that's the thrust, that's the whole reason for multiculturalism in the form of a curriculum. So take these people and they've had all this stuff, they've soaked it up like sponges, and then the fateful day comes when everybody who thinks about it knows has to come, the money runs out. Well, it is kind of expecting a bit much for them to say on a dime, "You know what? You're right. I have been earning too much. I shouldn't be taking this much from my neighbors. I ought to be paying for my own health care and retirement." That's not something people are going to willingly agree to. That's something that's going to have to be enforced as a matter of law, as it's happening now. There's gonna be civil disobedience. There's going to be riots. There will be burnings and so forth. We've seen it in Greece, wherever this happens.

The Democrat Party, the American left -- look at it this way -- have had their boot on the neck of the golden goose for 50 years, and that golden goose is down to its last breaths. And when the golden goose is dead, when the private sector no longer generates the wealth necessary, and it hasn't for a long time, all of this is fake money, all of this is unreal. Everybody who has anything, from a state or federal government, has it because of debt, borrowing, or what have you. It isn't real. The golden goose got killed off long ago, in terms of reality. This country's not producing the wealth that will sustain all of the demands being made on the country. This country is not producing the wealth to provide for all the services we want: the military, border control. We've long ago passed this. This is why I keep talking about how nothing's real anymore. All of this is borrowed time. And yet the people who are living on all of this illusionary money, they don't want to give it up. Where else are they going to go to earn it? How are they gonna replace it? What do they know, other than having some thug negotiate a contract for 'em? What do they know?

Mary Jo, if you're in Madison, or any of the rest of you, if you are a public sector employee and you're mad as hell at me right now 'cause I don't get it, because you think I have no compassion for you, because I don't want you to have a decent life and decent living and so forth, when this does eventually implode, there's one or two places you can go to complain. One would be Beijing. Go talk to the ChiComs. Another would be Havana. Go talk to Fidel Castro. Find some old Soviet communist still alive, go talk to him, because they're the people responsible for it. The people who have made you believe that you can score all these riches, the people that have made you believe that all you need for everybody to be wealthy and fair and equal is a fair and just government redistributing wealth, when it all implodes, and it's not working, and it's not working now, don't complain to me, because I've been telling you for years it won't work. You need to go to the people who have been lying to you from the get-go telling you that it does work, 'cause they're the ones that screwed you.

Governor Walker is not screwing you. Fidel Castro screwed you. Hugo Chavez screwed you. Che Guevara, I don't care, whatever communist leader you idolize, they're the ones that have screwed you. They're the ones who lied to you. Saul Alinsky, Karl Marx, whoever, Hegel, whoever you believed, Barack Obama, whoever has told you that the redistribution of wealth, that liberalism, socialism makes things equal and fair, can create a utopia, that's where you go to complain because those are the people who have lied to you.

CALLER: Thanks a lot, Rush. I'm calling you from Tampa where unemployment is 11.5%.

CALLER: Outside of Tampa, Fernando County, 14% unemployment -- and that's after a trillion dollars went down the proverbial rathole.

CALLER: What I wanted to say was my problem and our nation's problem is not Moammar Khadafy. Khadafy's not trying to destroy the economy. Khadafy is not every day of his life driving a stake through the heart and soul of this nation. It's Barack Obama. There's the problem: Obama. Not Khadafy. Khadafy does not want to usurp my freedom of speech. Khadafy doesn't want to compromise our national security. It's Obama. Let me tell you something, man. Every day of my life, every -- excuse me. When Reagan was president --

CALLER: Every day I was employed, I was a truck driver. Every day that George Bush was president, number one, I was employed. Every day that George Bush number two was president, I was employed. Not until this hen-picked miserable little character came along has unemployed infested itself in my life.

CALLER: That's right. That's exactly right. One more thing, Rush, you were right about this Libyan thing being about 2012. For two years this miserable little turd has been urinating on the workingmen and women in this country. We're "cowards." Every radical that despises this nation has been in and out of that White House. The welcome mat has been out. The welcome sign is on for every radical that despises this nation.

RUSH: It's an interesting scenario that you construct here. Who poses the greater threat to the United States economy: Moammar Khadafy or Obama and the Democrat Party? I don't think there's any question about the answer.

RUSH: I hold here, ladies and gentlemen, in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers today's column in the New York Times by Thomas L. Friedman. Can I read to you the last line of this piece? This is hilarious, but that doesn't do it justice.

"Dear Lord, please make President Obama lucky." That's the last line of the lead foreign policy columnist in the New York Times today, and it's all about please get rid of Khadafy. Khadafy has to go. Please, God, make President Obama lucky. "Which is why, most of all, I hope President Obama is lucky. I hope Khadafy's regime collapses like a sand castle, that the Libyan opposition turns out to be decent and united and that they require just a bare minimum of international help to get on their feet. Then US prestige will be enhanced and this humanitarian mission will have both saved lives and helped to lock another Arab state into the democratic camp."

Not even his staunchest allies are made comfortable and confident by what Obama's doing. They are praying to God in the New York Times. Do you understand, ladies and gentlemen, the depths to which they have plunged? They are praying to God on the op-ed page of the New York Times, and they are praying for luck for Obama, as though he has no control over the events. Dear God, please let something good happen to him. It's not very inspiring here. We'll get into Khadafy and air forces and NATO and so forth in a minute. There are other things that I want to do here, folks, 'cause we are loaded with things. Even as the program started here I'm trying to still organize what did I want to start with.

For example, UK Daily Mail Online, it's about Trump, the birth certificate controversy. You know, birth certificates are in the news and Trump released a birth certificate. The first one was not official. So he had to release a second birth certificate. Now Mr. Trump's lawyer has defended Trump's New York origins by pointing out there are hospitals named after the Trumps in New York City. The only things named after Obama are in Africa, according to Trump's lawyers. (laughing) The only thing named after Obama -- well, there was a school, but it closed. I don't know that his brother's hut has a name. We've got Thomas L. Friedman, the New York Times on the op-ed page praying to God, praying to God-d for luck for Obama. You know what the New York Times thinks of people who pray. You know what the New York Times thinks of people who believe publicly, happily, proudly in God-d. And now the New York Times is asking.

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.

Translating Jihad. What is broadcast in the Arabic is one thing; and how it is said in English is something entirely different:

The right weather underground (blog, with some emphasis upon the phony green agenda).

The Other Half of History (the history which is ignored in the modern classroom):

Liberty’s Army (mostly economic and middle eastern revolutionary news right now):

The Iowahawk, which is a blog, at times, heavy with stats, and at other times, it is hard to tell:

In case you want to refer others to this; statistical comparison between gays and straights:

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 #172	Kukis Digests and Opines on this Week’s News and Views	April 3, 2011