A Primary Difference between Liberals and Conservatives

Conservatives live in the real world and liberals live in this imaginary world.

Take war and meeting with our enemies. Obama has said he will meet with our enemies without any preconditions. He's not going to meet with Hamas or Al-qeada; that would be stupid; but he'll meet with Iranian President Ahmadinejad, who wants to wipe Israel off the map and does not believe that the Holocaust happened (or, at least it is up for serious discussion). Liberals believe that, if Obama talks hard to Ahmadinejab, with carrots and sticks, everything will be all right and there will be no war between us.

I spend some time talking with a liberal who just thinks, if we don't go to war, war will just end. Right at this moment, there are about 50 wars going on in the world. Take any given year, as far back as history goes, and there has been war somewhere.

I believe that there are world leaders who are crazy and who cannot be reasoned with; and that there are people who need to be killed in war. History shows me to be correct on this point. But, liberals have a hard time recongizing evil, no matter of clearly it is portrayed. You would think that, if a certain group of people was willing to strap bombs on their own children and send them to die in a crowd, that could be understood as evil. But, they think, somehow, we will be able to reason with these people.

Torture. Some liberals understand that there is maiming and killing in war, but waterboarding 3 men over a period of 5 or 6 years just might be taking war a bit too far. And they somehow think, that by taking this moral high ground, these same people who strap bombs onto their own children so that they can kill their own people, will follow our good example and treat our soldiers well if they take them as prisoners. What universe do liberals live in?

Alternative energy forms. We have real options in nuclear power which would decrease our dependence on foreign oil and cut back on fossil fuels. Nope, liberals think we need to concentrate on alternative energy forms that they like, and that the oil companies ought to be finding these alterantive forms. Wind and solar power handle about 2-4% of our energy needs. I heard some liberal talking about elecric cars, not realizing that you must plug the car in, and the energy it sucks up is not just from magical incantations, but probably from the burning of fossil fuels.

                      A New Direction

ANWR drilling....there has never been a place more forsaken in the US than ANWR, off in some northern corner of Alaska that you will never go to, I will never go to, and no one that we know will ever go to. The footprint for drilling for oil will be miniscule. But somehow, this will do great harm to an environment where no one will ever go.

Government health care: liberals somehow believe that, government can run the largest sector of the US economy and do it effciently. And they can point to what part of the government to prove their point? Public education? Our criminal justice system? Our prisons? Our welfare system? What big governmental enterprise is there which is streamlined, efficient, low cost, and intelligently run? And without rampant corruption? California is about to go belly up because they cannot pay for health care there....and it doesn't begin to cover everyone.

Political candidates. Obama supporters could care less about his lack of experience, his weird acquaintances, and his vision for America (some may even have a clue as to what that is). He is black, articulate and he gets the crowds jazzed up. Nothing else matters. When Obama was under a little sccruitiny for attending a weird church for 22 years, his supporters kept saying, "We need to focus on the issues" even though he rarely would focus on issues and even though his differences with Hillary are negliable. I've had one person who told me that she will just feel better with Obama in office.

Conservatives are concerned about McCain. We could care less about his temper (if he has one) or his age...but we do discuss his actual views on issues. There are things about McCain we like and don't like, and I hear these things discussed all the time.

What I NEVER hear from Clinton supporters or Obama supporters is, "I like this about her, but I disagree with that position." "Obama is a great candidate, but I hate his opinion on this and that." It is part of their living in a dream world.

You have to live in a real world; you have to look around you and be able to understand what is really happening; you have to make decisions based upon the kind of world we live in, and not based upon some utopian dream.

Do I wish we lived in a world without war, without weather-related tragedies, where everyone lives in a nice house and has lots of food to eat? Where every disagreement can be settled wiht a heart to heart talk? A world where there are lots of campgrounds and clean natural parks everywhere? Of course. But we don't live in that world. We have to deal with the world where we actually live.

The President Addresses the Knesset

In case you are wondering, what is all the hullabaloo about, here is a link to a transcript of the speech:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/05/20080515-1.html

More on this below, and some commentary by Rush later on.

Was Obama’s Response a Mistake?

Bush, when addressing an audience in Israel, spoke about the foolishness of a US Senator who, when Hitler invaded Poland, lamented that he missed the opportunity to talk to Hitler first, which, in his own mind, may have staved off WWII. Bush spoke accurately about how you cannot solve grand political problems by appeasing terrorists or tyrants.

As you probably know, Obama responded in at least two different ways. He took complete offense that Bush would attack him and the Democratic party in this way (even though the Senator which Bush was speaking of was a Republican). His second response was, “Bush can’t be talking about me.”

What the hell was Obama doing? Karl Rove, in part, explained it on FoxNews Sunday (today, May 18, 2008). First of all, the press and solidly behind Obama, so they are not going to make a big deal of his contradictory responses (as we saw when Reverend Wright was a big issue). What this does for Obama is get him a lot of free press time on television and radio, and time which is going to be, for the most part, positive. He gets this right before the Oregon and Kentucky primaries. Clinton has very little money in her war chest, and if Obama dominates the news cycle, this is going to hurt her in these two primaries. Obama already found out what happens when he is out of the news cycle before a primary. Hillary kicked his butt in West Virginia, winning by almost an unprecedented margin.

Next day, in order to try to minimize the thumping, Obama grabs up John Edwards and Edwards throws his support Obama’s way—one of the biggest non-stories of this campaign. However, the news services gave as much coverage to this as they gave to Clinton thumping him.

This time, he is going to dominate the media prior to the election.

Secondly, Obama drives home the Democratic mantra, that McCain is Bush’s 3^rd term. In one of his responses to Bush’s speech, he combined Bush and McCain in the same sentence 10 times in just a few minutes.

So, according to Rove, who I think has Obama pegged here, this was not a sudden, off-the-cuff, brainless response of an inexperienced Obama, but an intentional move to get his name out there in the news cycle, as well as to brow-beat us with McCain being the same as Bush.

Republican Mistakes

Republicans have lost 3 elections in the past few weeks in the House of Representatives, in districts that they should have carried.

Both Karl Rove on FoxNews Sunday and Sean Hannity, this past week, are warning Republicans that this could be shadow of things to come.

Republicans should not run a campaign like Democrats: that is, Republicans should not run a campaign using slogans and talking points; Republicans should not simply label their opponents and run them down. Nor should Republicans take up popular Democratic positions and try to out-Democrat Democrats.

Recommendations for the Republican party for 2008:

We cannot run on bumper stickers and slogans. We cannot simply portray Democrats as liberals or tie them to unsavory characters and win. Two reasons why we cannot do this: (1) The press will not play along with it. The press will put Democratic slogans in front of us again and again (McCain is angry, McCain is old, McCain is the Bush 3^rd term); but they won’t do this for Republicans. FoxNews won’t do that for Republicans. (2) Republicans tend to be independent thinkers. If you watched the original debates, the Democrats offered up 8 or 10 candidates who virtually agreed with one another on almost every major issue. The Republicans offered up candidates which very different approaches to terrorism, abortion, the war in Iraq, to Iran, and to the economy. Slogans are not going to move a constituency which is going to listen for content and make a decision.

Republicans cannot just take a Democrat position and offer up the opposite. That is just plain stupid. If the Democrats do offer up a reasonable approach or say some reasonable things, Republicans cannot simply say they are wrong, because they are Democrats. Democrats have pointed out again and again Bush’s fiscal irresponsibility. Much as I like George Bush, he spent money like there was no tomorrow. Democrats are correct to criticize the President here, and offering up candidates who espouse fiscal responsibility is prudent. McCain has said, on many occasions, tax money is the money of the people; government should be damned careful how they spend it (obviously, I am paraphrasing here).

Republicans need to offer up not just a clear philosophy, but they need to apply this philosophy to the real world. There are going to be a buttload of people (including independents) who will vote for Obama or Clinton simply because they think they will get free health care. Republicans need to point out how inefficient government is, and how corrupt governmental agencies become. FEMA and our school system is an example of this; the millions of dollars of graft associated with NYC health programs is a good example of this; and the fact that California is bankrupting itself with its state retirement system and state medical benefits, is also an example of this. The fact that our entitlement programs which are on the books right now are going to bankrupt us should also be pointed out. Then a free-market approach has to be offered up and explained.

Republicans need to explain that you cannot legislate a country into prosperity and you cannot legislate low gas prices. Business provides jobs, government does not. The free market and supply and demand determine gas prices; the government does not. What stands in our way of lower gas prices is the supply of oil. We have lots of oil in the US. We have alternatives to oil-based energy in the US (nuclear power). We can also lessen the price of gas if we refine more of it in our country or build joint refineries with Mexico near the border. The sagging dollar also affects our gas prices; and more frugal economic poliicies will prop u the dollar as well.

Furthermore, even though Republicans will never win the hearts of environmentalist Democrats who believe that there is free and clean energy right out there that big oil is keeping us from using; we need to expose the folly of wind, solar, and corn-power. At this point in time, we do not have the technology to harness enough power from any of these resources to lessen our dependence on oil. More nuclear power, which will lessen our dependence on petroleum power; more domestically produced oil, and more domestically refined gas will lower gas prices.

The Republican party needs to define a half-dozen clear issues, offer up reasonable, free-market solutions to these issues, and vow to do everything to advance this agenda.

Furthermore, those Republicans who spent our money like there is no tomorrow, need to apologize to their constituents for this lack of responsibility, and they need to vow (1) that they will not vote for any more earmarks and (2) that they will begin reducing government spending in accordance with the lead of John McCain.

[These are points which Rove and Hannity made, along with quite a number which I threw in myself].

Democratic Lies

If a political point of view has merit, then it should not require lies in order to keep it propped up. I have heard over and over again how George Bush has destroyed our standing as a leader in the free world. However, when he called a meeting this past year of Arabic leaders, 50 nations and groups showed up to meet with him.

2005: conservatives win victories in Germany and Poland.

2006: pro-American leader elected to Sweden.

2007: pro-American leaders elected to Finland and France.

The center-right party of Denmark has just trounced the liberal Democrats in their 2007 elections.

Berlusconi's center-right party won a large majority in both houses of the Italian parliament; and reelected him to a 3rd term.

Canada, the Netherlands: recent pro-American elections.

Very Pro-American President Alvaro Uribe was elected in Columbia in 2006.

And what is funny is, I read a liberal blog on this, and still, even though this person recognized the many pro-American candidates, he writes, "They won in spite of being pro-American...If one has a conversation with the average Dutchman about politics, in particular Iraq and the US president, one does not have to wait long before hearing a remark like “a stupid president for a stupid people.” The same is true here in the US. He goes on to write, anti-Americanism is stronger than ever before in Europe; despite all of the pro-American elections.

So, if a buttload of liberal leaders were elected to power in the past 4 or 5 years, that would indicate that Bush has ruined our reputation overseas. And if a buttload of conservative leaders were elected to power over the past 4 or 5 years, still, Bush has ruined our reputation overseas.

This particular person received a buttload of comments on his lack of intellectual integrity:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/europe_takes_a_right_turn/

McCain on Global Warming

There are a lot of things I like about McCain, but his approach to global warming is as bad as any Democrat's approach. He is going to use cap and trade. This means a bureaucrat will set some kind of a standard for some business (and it is going to be differnent even within the same sector of businesses); and when someone goes over the limit, they pay money to someone else who is not producing too much CO2, again, determined by some beaurocrat who hasn't a clue about most of the businesses he is regulating.

There is a very simple midway point between Global warming fear mongers and other people, and that is where McCain should be. Instead of cap and trade, which does not necessarily lower CO₂ gases; and instead of taxing this or that company (which is always high on the list of liberals...find a new way to justify taxing more); McCain should be advocating more nuclear energy plants (and maybe he will do this after the election?). Most of us conservatives could give a flying frog about global warming, real or imagined; but we would support an increase of nuclear power plants, which means, less CO₂ in the atmosphere; and, bonus, less dependence upon fossil fuels. If this were really a worldwide crisis in the minds of liberals, they would accept this compromise.

Just a joke. As if liberals comprehend the concept of compromise.

The Case for Torture

by Richard O'Leary

John McCain, and millions of Americans, are outraged by the issue of torturing terrorist prisoners. I for one take exception to their misplaced sympathies. Almost all of us can distinguish between the motives that underlie our engaging in war, and the motives of predatory nations and groups. They are driven by power lust and evil, whereas the United States goes to war reluctantly, and only to defend our nation and our freedoms.

BIG DIFFERENCE!

So if killing the enemy, leveling cities, bombing civilians is legitimate when we are provoked, they why not torture? All of these activities have the same objective, to overcome those who attack us, and save as many lives as possible. Why then, are they blind on the issue of torture? Why can't
they grasp the difference between torture for the sake of torture, and torture for the purpose of saving innocent lives?

Most of our enemies torture because they are barbarians, cruel. There is nothing they have to gain. Apparently they just torture because they derive pleasure from it, or for revenge, and that
is evil.

In a conventional war, such as we fought in WWI and WWII, and most other conflicts we have been involved in, torture would have been wrong. No single man possessed intelligence that would have much impact on the outcome of the war, perhaps troop movements or the location of armor, and such details. But the war on terror raises new issues, new dangers, which change the complexion of this argument. In this war one man can be privy to information that could save thousands, even millions of lives. The stakes have changed dramatically with the nature of the weapons they use, and so have the rules of engagement. One "dirty bomb", detonated in a major metropolitan area, could kill thousands, and afflict thousands more with radiation poisoning and lifelong side effects; cancer, blindness, birth defects. He may know of plans to poison a city's water supply, or a scheme to spread anthrax. There are a dozen
scenarios that could potentially kill and maim scores of Americans.

The North Vietnamese Communists tortured McCain for the sheer pleasure of inflicting pain on an enemy, or perhaps to ascertain trivial information. They are barbarians, cruel and merciless. The same can be said of the Japs and Chinese and Russians. I have witnessed, first hand, some things the chinks did in Vietnam that
would turn your stomachs. Those we fight at present customarily behead their prisoners. These people ignore the Geneva Convention, and yet we, and a few other nations, abide by it religiously to our detriment.

I'm not advocating brutal torture, like yanking out fingernails, or drilling teeth without a sedative. The majority of terrorists beat their chests and scream insults, but under pressure they are cowards. Simple "water boarding", and other strategies like sleep deprivation and relentless interrogation, yield the results we desire. What this amounts to is subjecting prisoners to some very temporary and relatively mild discomfort. And this is a measure so repulsive to the electorate that we deign to engage in it?

What about the legions of innocents that may pay the ultimate price for this pseudo-respectability? What will the opponents of torture think when their gaze sweeps across a barren landscape that once was a great city, charred corpses, and hundreds more in hospitals and clinics? Perhaps it may dawn on them that some "torture" of a prisoner could have avoided those terrible consequences, one man's discomfort could have saved many lives, and inconceivable suffering.

Torturing for pleasure or revenge, and torturing to spare lives are two entirely separate issues. I suggest that failing to do everything humanly possible to save lives is evil and irresponsible. War is a nasty business, and we languish in our flase sense of righteousness at our peril.

This wimpy position has gone so far that one Army captain was court-marshaled for firing into the ground at a prisoner's feet. The man was so startled that he told them about an ambush just up the road. That officer probably saved the life of one of his men, perhaps several. He was doing his job, and he was humiliated and maltreated for it. Keep in mind, he only SCARED the guy, and he was drummed out of the service for it.

This kind of insanity, along with the many other hair brained notions we hold, will converge at some future time to devastate this nation, and we so richly deserve what we get for ignoring the imperatives of war.

Liberation Theology

Liberation Theology: its origins and teachings; laid down side-by-side with Christianity.

http://kukis.org/Doctrines/liberationtheology.htm

Walking Away from a Mortgage

Apparently, a number of people, in this mortgage crisis, are simply walking away from their homes because (1) they have 97–100 LTV mortages (that is, they do not have much of their own money in the purchase of the house); and (2) in a normal market correction, the value of the house has gone down. This market correction has been quite dramatic in Florida and California, who house prices have been soaring for a decade or more.

Let me interject a little morality: the mortgage company is lending you money so that you can buy a house. Government programs, unfortunately in many cases, are designed to make it so not much money comes out of your pocket (in some case, less than a rent deposit comes out of the pocket of a home buyer). Neither the mortgage company nor the government guarantees that your home will continue to increase in value each and every year. I live in a slow market, where the housing prices have gone down dramatically and up slowly.

It is morally wrong for a buyer to figure, “I can live here for about 4-6 months without paying any payments” and “I owe more than this house is worth” and then to walk away from the property. This is where we are; and, as taxpayers, we are paying for government insured loans and government backed loans where buyers walk away from the loan for either of these reasons.

At least a portion of our mortgage crisis can be attributed to home owners and own investors who decided to let their mortgage company, and, in many cases, us the tax payers, take the hit. What percent? I have no clue. Our news sources do not see this as an important angle. We have seen over and over again, the term predatory lender; rarely are other issues brought to the forefront.

It is a sad commentary on our culture; and only made worse by politicians who misrepresent what is going on.

More information:

http://www.latimes.com/business/investing/la-fi-walkaway11-2008may11,0,7862151.story

Rush: Billy Carter Gives Us a New Place to Pee

RUSH: "The Billy Carter Service Station Museum opened after two years of planning and eight months of rummaging through the possessions of former President Jimmy Carter's late brother. The museum represents the actual service station where Billy held court with both locals and world media in this small south Georgia town before, during and immediately after his brother's tenure as the 39th American president. The project is a joint effort of several departments within the University of Georgia, the Plains Better Hometown Association and Billy Carter's widow, Sybil." This is actually great news, folks, another place to stop and pee when you are traveling through Georgia.

Museum dedicated to Billy Carter:

http://www.mercurynews.com/travel/ci_9234446?nclick_check=1

Rush: Democrats are the Racists

RUSH: Oh, I've got to address this. This is going to be tough for me, because it comes in one of my all-time favorite websites, and that is Bob Tyrrell's AmericanSpectator.org, and I like this writer. His name is Jay Homnick. His piece that I have some commentary on is called: "'A Closet Race in West Virginia' -- My father's mother was born in New York City in 1900 and passed away in Roanoke, Virginia in 1975. She grew up among poor immigrants in New York who barely made ends meet. She told me that they devised a way to save face when friends stopped by to say hello. Traditionally, they would have invited the visitors to stay for a meal, but they could not afford it if the people said yes. So they would issue this self-canceling offer: 'If you have a sense of humor, I would like you to stay for dinner.' Something of this sort occurred in West Virginia the other night, where they held a Democrat primary for President if you have a sense of humor. The winner of the Dem nomination has been a foregone conclusion for some time now but there are two classes of people who have failed to notice. One is people whose last name is Clinton. The other is people who would vote for any white person before any black person.

"The most shocking part of the story is that Madame Clinton pulled up in that state expressly to pander to that audience," the racists. "Within hours of arriving there last week, she was explaining to an interviewer that she was most adept at gaining the votes of white people. Apparently, she is proud of being the Senator in the state of alabaster. Forgetting even the issue of racism per se with all its attendant ugliness, there is something uniquely horrific in seeing this attitude operating in the political context. To consider the notion of a candidacy transacted on the basis -- even the winking basis -- of 'Vote for me, I ain't no n*****' is to look into the heart of real darkness." Did Hillary do that? You tell me, Mr. Snerdley, when she says she can go out there and get the white votes, is she saying, "Vote for me, I ain't no N-word?" Okay, yeah, she says hardworking white women vote for me, hardworking white people. So you can see a point here that she might be saying vote for me, I ain't no N-word?

"This sort of pale ontology was supposed to be a thing of the past. Although for the Clintons, nothing is too old or too dirty or too nasty or too divisive if it gets you a vote. ... Senator Obama is a leftist, with some very weak ideas about confronting national enemies, and as such he should be opposed by the forces of realism. But a part of his idealism should be embraced," now remember, this is a conservative publication. "A part of his idealism should be embraced, the part that asks us to view him through a glass lightly. In this respect, he should be seen as a candidate representing both parties. Republicans in their right minds should be making the message clear: 'That is the guy I would be voting for if I thought his ideas were on target.'" Now, my problem here, aside from the fact that normally when I cite the American Spectator, it's with praise, but this gives me pause because all this racism is on the Democrat side. It's Mrs. Clinton that said whatever she said that might have implied the use of the N-word, I don't know. Republicans aren't saying any of this stuff.

Mr. Homnick forgets that conservatives already don't care how black Barry [Obama] is, from the get-go it's been the Democrats who have asked, "Is he dark enough? Is he black enough? Is he authentic enough?" It is they who came up with the phrase "Barack the 'Magic Negro.'" It's the Democrats doing this. Why do Republicans owe it to ourselves to look at this guy as a candidate representing both parties? What the hell did we do here? What the hell are we guilty of that we need to be running around saying, make a point of? What, am I supposed to open the show, that's a guy I would vote for if his ideas were on target? What, am I supposed to say this because the presumption that I'm a racist is something I need to dispel, when the Democrats are demonstrating unabashed, pure, 100% thoroughbred, undiluted racism every day in this campaign? Both of the Clintons are, and Obama is, too, for crying out loud. Let's not let him off the hook. What is this talk about his idealism? The part that asks us to view him through a glass lightly? What the hell here? This is the guy with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. This is a guy Bishop Desmond Tutu said yesterday that Jeremiah Wright is saying what blacks all around the world really think? Obama lost this messiah image many, many moons ago. I'm stunned. Maybe I'm misinterpreting this. "Republicans in their right minds ought to be making the message clear: This is the guy I'd be voting for if I thought his ideas were on target"? If you ask me, the party that has genuine black success stories and achievement and triumph is the Republican Party. What excuses do we have to continue to make?

Now, Mr. Homnick finishes his piece: "This was not Hillary Clinton's finest hour, nor West Virginia's. The persistent sense, fanned by interviewees and poll responders, that the plebiscite there was a referendum on the compatibility of pigment with government, was an embarrassment to that state's many fine denizens. John Denver's sunny country roads were never meant to exclude. I pray that we are never again forced to use our senses of humor to grit our teeth through another such event." Again, what did Republicans have to do with this? What did conservatives have to do with this? These are Democrat voters we are talking about here. These are Democrat voters in West Virginia who participated in the exit polls that gave us all these racial and other bits of information about who they are. The Republican primary, for all intents and purposes, was months ago. Republicans weren't even on the field last night. We are talking about Democrats here. We're talking about both Clintons throwing the race card, Obama bringing out Jeremiah Wright.

Look, it's not just people in West Virginia who find Jeremiah Wright repugnant. It's not just white people who find Jeremiah Wright repugnant. There are a lot of black people who are embarrassed by the guy when he gets rolling on these riff sermons of his because they think they're going to be stigmatized, the old guilt-by-association thing. But I don't see what the Republicans have to do with any of this. I don't see why we have to run around telling the whole world, "That's the guy I'd vote for if his policies were on target," when Obama himself is doing everything he can to facilitate the racial divide that's taking place in the Democrat Party. Mr. Homnick, I've enjoyed your work over the years, and I've cited it many times. But we Republicans have our own problems. It ain't racist. Our problem is that liberals are taking over our party, and nobody's doing anything about it at the party level.

Rush on Seizing Big Oil Profits

RUSH: Jeffrey Lord in the American Spectator today does a yeoman's job of exposing that there is absolutely nothing new about Barack Obama, that, in fact, Barack Obama is nothing more than Jimmy Carter serving his second term. Let me give you some excerpts of this piece today: "Are there enough voting Americans who survived the disastrous odyssey through the late 1970s that was led by blessedly now ex-president Jimmy Carter? While Ronald Reagan is rated in poll after poll by Americans as a great president, (most recently he rated second only to Lincoln), are there enough people who recall that Reagan's election came about because of Carter's...ahhh...'performance' in the Oval Office? And will they be able to make the Obama-Carter connection for younger voters hearing terms like 'windfall profits tax' for the first time? ... And as the string of American presidents and presidential campaigns gets longer, the newest candidates and the latest president have taken to looking backwards to select the presidential policies of admired predecessors."

You know, that is dead-on right. I have to take a departure here before getting to the meat of Mr. Lord's piece, because on the conservative side, on our side of the aisle, ladies and gentlemen, we have conservative pundits in the elitist northeastern corridor who are out there suggesting we can't go back to the eighties, the eighties are old hate, Reagan era is over, we gotta forget that, gotta leave Reagan alone, that was then, this is now, we got whole new set of challenges now, we need to look to the future. We need to take stock in what America is now and come up with policies that define the new conservatism. What do we have? I don't care whether you look at Obama, you look at McCain, you look at people that are going back to recreate policies of the past under new names, under new titles, but it's the same old thing.

Those of us who still proudly call ourselves Reagan conservatives are the ones looking forward. We're the ones looking forward with the desire to save this country, to preserve the institutions and traditions that made this country great which basically are capitalism and liberty. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, small government, get it out of the way. Yet everywhere we turn in politics, doesn't matter where the party, Big Government, more expansive government, even though it might be a compassionate government. We got people looking to emulate the socialist democracies of western Europe, on both sides of the aisle. Doesn't matter. And yet those of us who are Reagan conservatives are told we're the old-fashioned ones, that we're the ones stopping progress. All right, well, let me get back to Jeffrey Lord's meat and potatoes here in his American Spectator piece. "Obama's windfall profits tax idea?" Keep in mind now Obama, a new visionary, a man trodding the political soil unlike any man who has ever trod the political soil; a man who will be able to unify the American people; a man who can make us forget our disagreements and come together in common purpose.

What a bunch of BS. There is no such politician. Every politician, every iteration of politician has already trod the precious political soil. It is not possible for somebody new to come along. Just like it is not possible for something new in a football game to happen that hasn't happened before, or a baseball game. Everybody was going nuts. Some guy in the Cleveland Indians had an unassisted triple play the other day. "Ooh, wow," you look it up, it's happened before. So is the windfall profits tax idea. Jimmy Carter on national television in 1980, quote, "'Unless we tax the oil companies, they will reap huge and undeserved windfall profits.' The New York Times agreed, warning darkly that 'legislators who sit by idly while oil profits soar will have to answer to the voters.' With Democrats controlling Congress they got their way. As if on cue, oil production -- fell. To the tune of 1.6 billion fewer barrels. America's dependence on foreign oil rose." Now, some of you might be asking, well, why? Why did our domestic oil production decrease? Because Big Oil says, "Okay, fine, you're going to put a windfall profits tax on American oil, we'll leave it in the ground and we'll go elsewhere." They are, after all, global companies. It will happen again.

There's nothing new about it, Senator Obama, there's nothing visionary, nothing unifying, and it doesn't work. And of course it's not intended to work. It's not intended to produce a drop more energy. It's not intended to produce a drop more oil or gasoline. It's designed to punish. "Another Carter favorite was to appear to attack the wealthy, going after 'rich businessmen' who enjoyed themselves with the '$50 martini lunch." That was the creation of Jimmy Carter, the 50-dollar martini lunch. "Elected, Carter went after the martini business lunch tax deduction all right, but then quickly turned on the middle class with a Social Security payroll tax. Obama is already well on board with Carteresque rhetoric about 'tax cuts for the wealthy.' What taxes will a President Obama raise that, as with Carter, can't be discussed as a candidate? Appeasement and the notion that we can look evil in the eye and smile? Another Carter favorite (captured forever with the image of the American president kissing Brezhnev on the cheek at a Moscow summit in 1979) that more famously was the notion underpinning British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's desperate face-to-face sitdowns with Adolph Hitler. Didn't work either time, nor will it ever work as Obama seems to be seriously proposing with Iran. Why? Because bullies are bullies -- be they Russian Communists, German dictators or Iranian mullahs. Senator John McCain succinctly sums up Obama's take as a lack of both judgment and experience, which surely is true."

Here's another thing, ladies and gentlemen. This business, Obama's out there, he's being praised by Hamas. I gotta get to this before the program ends. Richard Cohen in the Washington Post today is just fuming at McCain for daring to point out that Hamas has endorsed Obama, even though they did. Even though they did. (interruption) What do you mean? What do you mean, Snerdley? Yes, they did. Because it's unfair, it's dirty politics. It's dirty politics because McCain ought to know that Obama is not seeking the endorsement of Hamas, and he doesn't want to make deals with them, and Richard Cohen says McCain ought to know this. But this is exactly what the Obama camp's all about. Any criticism is not allowed. That's a distraction. Wait 'til you hear this, get to it in due course.

"Obama's views are also something else. They are the product of a worldview that has been around for centuries -- failing every time it's tried. Obama's campaign website says Obama 'will take several steps down the long road toward eliminating nuclear weapons. He will stop the development of new nuclear weapons; work with Russia to take US and Russian ballistic missiles off hair trigger alert; seek dramatic reductions in US and Russian stockpiles of nuclear weapons and material; and set a goal to expand the US-Russian ban on intermediate- range missiles so that the agreement is global.' He also pledges to stop the research and deployment of a missile defense, the same system that Reagan created to end the Cold War. America was led down this philosophical garden path most recently by Carter. Whether advocated by Carter in 1979, Chamberlain in 1939 or a President Obama in 2009, the philosophy behind this idea has simply never worked. Period. Yet, to borrow from Reagan's line in his debate with Carter, here we go again. ... Perhaps more astonishing than his advocacy of a return to Carterism, Obama channels the Republican president to whom Carter was frequently compared -- Herbert Hoover. Obama is completely on board with protectionism, seemingly oblivious to the lessons of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff that was a product of the Hoover administration in 1930."

The bottom line to all this is that there is nothing new about Barack Obama. Zilch, zero, nada. In fact, it was all tried before, 1976 through 1980. We needed something called the Misery Index to be able to categorize just how rotten things got under Jimmy Carter.

Lord’s article:

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13201

Bush, McCain, Obama Exchange

RUSH: The big news today is that George Bush is over in Israel, and in a speech at the Knesset he made some comments about how talking to tyrants is not the way to defeat them. Magic words are not going to convince your enemies to all of a sudden realize they are wrong. He said this is appeasement. The Obama campaign is erupting. They all think it's about them. Puff Daschle went, for him, what is ballistic on Fox today on the phone. I think the Puffster was actually spitting and might have shorted out his phone. Then they got the haughty John Kerry on the phone to talk about this. Howard Dean has said that McCain should denounce Bush's remarks from Israel. Nancy Pelosi says Bush's comments are beneath the dignity of the office. Here's what Bush said this morning in Jerusalem, a portion of his remarks. This is a Limbaugh echo, by the way. This is the kind of language that he should have been using about Democrats for all these years. Listen.

THE PRESIDENT: Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they had been wrong all along. We've heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American Senator declared, "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is, the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

RUSH: Right on, right on, right on, right on. We cut the applause there in the interests of time. If he'd been saying this about the Democrats the last four years, the last six -- gee, can you imagine the different playing field we might have, if he'd been consistent with this? Of course he's right, and I watched this, too. He looked authoritative. The president looked more authoritative than McCain does. He looked more authoritative than Obama does. Now let's listen to the conniption fit that the Democrats had. Here is Puff Daschle on the Fox News Channel reacting.

DASCHLE: I'm shocked and I'm actually very, very saddened by what the president has done. This is an unprecedented political attack. He doesn't have to use names to know exactly what he's trying to do. We've never seen a president do that before. The most important thing, however, is to underscore the extraordinary failure of this administration when it comes to Iraq. They're a lot more influential than they were eight years ago, their nuclear program has expanded, and so the very failures that he's been unable to address are the ones now he's trying to blame others for. This is something that we're ready for, we're going to engage in this debate, but it's really too bad, and at this point to celebrate that the 60th anniversary of Israel this way is uncalled for, and it's -- it's very, very disappointing.

RUSH: Translation: Home run, Bush, grand slam. See, this is the thing, the Obama campaign is back now to treating Obama and demanding that he be treated as a messiah. And, of course, messiahs can't be criticized. Now, this is an unprecedented attack. It's totally unprecedented. How dare he! When, in fact, Obama has said exactly this. This is exactly what he's going to do. The nuclear program in Iran has been expanded. Yes, that's what the Puffster said. He said Iran's nuclear program has been expanded. Now, what's interesting about that is that it was just, what, a year-and-a-half ago that Puff Daschle and these other guys were citing the national intelligence report that was entirely politicized, said that they weren't doing anything with nukes, that we were all wrong about this. It was a bunch of State Department people, anti-Bush, trying to inject themselves into policy and stop Bush policy and dealing with Iran dead in its tracks. Anyway, that's a side issue.

The Puffster is just beside himself here because the truth -- you know, a vicious attack, Puff, "I'm very concerned, Tim, shocked, very, very saddened, unprecedented political attack." Unprecedented political attack? For crying out loud, everything the president said is true. That's the point, you tell Democrats the truth, it is an attack. Now let's go to MSNBC. Shortly after Puff Daschle appeared on Fox, the anchorette info babe, the sweetie -- (interruption) well, if Obama can call 'em sweetie, I can. Then he wussed out, then he apologized. He wussed out for calling a reporter sweetie. Actually, I did get reprimanded for calling a co-anchor "dear" once when I was in Kansas City, but I was thinking d-e-e-r when I said it. I had to go to coaching training. I had to go to sensitivity coaching sessions with the program director. At any rate, back now to MSNBC and the sweetie anchor Monica Novotny talking to the haughty John Kerry. She said, "Obama has said that he would meet with heads of state from countries like Cuba, Iran, North Korea. Clinton says that she would reach out through other diplomatic channels. She wouldn't want to dignify the presidential office with such a meeting. Do you agree with Senator Obama on this point?"

KERRY: Ronald Reagan, who called the Soviet Union the evil empire, sat down with Gorbachev and got a deal on nuclear weapons. The world is safer when you engage with people. Barack Obama is not talking about some silly sit-down, lighthearted meeting with a leader of a country that we disagree with vehemently like Iran or others.

RUSH: Yes, he is!

KERRY: He's talking about how you engage them in a way that constructively moves the world forward. And he is willing to have his administration do that. I agree with that policy, yes. I think it's important to engage.

RUSH: This is incredible. Go get the latest loser, make him your foreign policy spokesman. What is John Kerry known for other than having served in Vietnam, and that is the global test, go out and get permission. We'll have comments on this in just a second. He then added this to MSNBC sweetie Monica Novotny.

KERRY: This is a disgraceful statement by the president. It really is. He ought to apologize to the American people for going to Israel and using the Knesset and the celebration of the 60th anniversary of a state and a people that we all support and that we're all proud of and using it for politics.

RUSH: Politics? He was recounting history! (laughing) Anyway, we'll have some comments here on this whole notion of meeting with foreign leaders and what Obama has said. I don't know if they're stepping in it, Snerdley, you mean the Democrats? It's just May. I don't know if anything you do now is... they could be stepping in it. They might well be stepping in it. They've got a really flawed candidate, this is the thing. Obama is a flawed candidate, and they know it, and that's why all of these people, they rise up and try to shield him from any of this criticism, as though he is a messiah, the criticism is racist, unprecedented attack, and so forth.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: What is going on here, ladies and gentlemen, is the Democrat Party is trying to create a false issue: Bush with an "unprecedented political attack from foreign soil. They're trying to create a false issue. They are trying to immunize Obama from criticism on his pathetic ignorance on foreign policy. So what do they do? They send Kerry out to talk, who lost the presidency. They send Tom Daschle out to talk, who lost his Senate seat. By the way, did Howard Dean or any of these other people demand that Jimmy Carter apologize for any of the so-called political attacks on his own country and on Israel that he has made in his international travels? Of course not. They are just upset because somebody got the truth out about Obama and what he intends to do. By the way, there's a piece from yesterday by Marc Sheppard at the AmericanThinker.com.

It was in yesterday's Stack. Here is a quote from Obama: "It's conceivable that there are those in the Arab world who say to themselves, 'This is a guy who spent time in the Muslim world. He has the middle name of Hussein and appears more worldly, and has called for talks with people. So he's not going to be engaging in the same sort of cowboy diplomacy as George Bush,' and that's something they're hopeful about. I think that's a perfectly legitimate perception as long as they're not confused about my unyielding support for Israel's security." Now, Obama himself is admitting that Arabs -- that terrorists, Islamofascist enemies -- might want to talk to him because he's "worldly." He spent time in the Muslim world, and his middle name is Hussein, and he's called for talks with people. So when you hear this quote, there's a lot in this quote to trouble you and to bother you.

We had this discussion yesterday about Obama and his full-fledged ignorance on the Great Depression and what caused it, and his brief that we're very close to a depression in the housing market today; which is, frankly, embarrassingly ignorant and absurd. So I take it from this quote that Barack Obama thinks that die-hard jihadists are going to be amenable to him and his diplomatic entreaties because of his middle name. They're going to be comfortable with him because of his middle name. It's Hussein. We're going to have a guy in the White House named Hussein. We can't say it now! We can't use his name. But he can. When we use his name it's racism and it is criticism and it is below the pale; it's an unprecedented personal attack, political attack -- and these things we can't do. Now, let's talk a little bit here about Kerry. John Kerry saying that Reagan sat down and talked with Gorby and got a deal. You know, that is such a distortion of what happened.

Let's talk about the first time they met in Reykjavik, Iceland. They met there on neutral soil, and Gorbachev thought he was just going to roll Reagan right over, because he believed all the publicity. Reagan was just an idiot, and Reagan offered Gorbachev: Get rid of yours; I'll get rid of mine. Gorbachev wouldn't do it. Reagan said, "No deal," walked out and went home. Then they met later in Washington, and that's where the Gorbasm was born. When Gorbachev arrived, all of official elite Washington had a Gorbasm over the fact that the guy was in town to save Reagan from pushing the nuclear button. Reagan sat down; he talked with Gorby about both countries scrapping nuclear weapons, but it was under the umbrella of, "Okay, pal! I put missiles in Europe; the Europeans went along with me. You have an evil empire. I'm going to bury your butt with the Strategic Defense Initiative and anything else I can think of. We begin bombing in five minutes."

There was none of the kind of rapprochement that the haughty John Kerry and Obama have in mind. Bush has it exactly right. There are some people who think that simply because they're really creative -- what is his exact quote here? -- "some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along." This is a sentiment born of arrogance, hubris, and even a god complex, if I may be so up front and honest and -- in mentioning it in that regard. So what are we left with here? We are left with once again the illustration that the Democrats have only losers to support their flawed candidate. They've gotta send Puff Daschle out. They've gotta send the haughty John Kerry out. They're doing everything they can to shield Obama from any attack because they need to shield his incompetence. See, I have thought all along -- even through this primary process -- since the 22nd of February when Obama stopped winning things and Hillary did, all this. We got the endorsement from the Breck Girl yesterday.

Now, that's really big, too. The Breck Girl had, what, 13 delegates or 19 delegates? The Breck Girl, who didn't tell run for reelection in North Carolina because he knew he couldn't win his own state, the guy who did not help John Kerry carry North Carolina when he was the vice presidential running mate in 2004 -- and this is somehow some sort of big deal? I mean losers rise to the top. Losing enhances your resume. It makes you a victim of the evil, mean Republicans, and when the Republicans have beaten you it's somehow cheating and therefore you understand the evil represented by Republicans -- and therefore you as a loser in the Democrat Party are qualified to explain to people how rotten and evil the Republicans are! Hence, Daschle: loser. Hence, the haughty John Kerry: loser -- and now the Breck Girl. And over the weekend, there are rumblings. There is a buzz (bzz bzz bzz bzz bzz bzz bzz) that Algore will endorse Obama. They are not as enthusiastic about this guy as they would have all of us believe.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Keith in Orlando, Florida. You're first. Welcome to the EIB Network, sir. Nice to have you here.

CALLER: Thanks, Rush. How you doing, man?

RUSH: Good there.

CALLER: Hey, listen. You know, I'm listening to what you're saying about Barack Obama's position, which he's been saying the same thing. You're completely right. And for the first time in a very long time and probably maybe the only time, I've agreed 100 percent with what President Bush is saying. You know, you can't go over there, tea and crumpets and expect to schmooze these people like you're in, you know, $2,000 shoes on Wall Street and act like they're going to deal with you like you're at a business lunch, okay? It just sickens me to death. This may sound like an oxymoron, but I'm a conservative Democrat, okay? My parents were Democrats. I came over as a Democrat. But we are very conservative people because we came up at a time when you had the have-nots and you did what you had to do --

RUSH: I have to ask you a question. Very conservative you said, very conservative Democrats. All these years, why did you stay in the Democrat Party?

CALLER: Because when I was growing up in where I was growing up in south Florida, you know, there were conservative Democrats who had their principles, and it sickens me when I hear about all these other people in the Democratic Party who have no principles, which is wrong. That's not the way I was raised. Like I said, it may sound like an oxymoron to some but --

RUSH: Wait a minute. They do have principles. They do have principles, or a philosophy. Let's put it that way. They have a guiding philosophy -- and that guiding philosophy includes you losing a little liberty at a time. It includes raising your taxes. It includes government and government regulations expanding. It includes their assumption that you are an incompetent boob and you can't handle yourself because they don't want you to be able to handle yourself because they want you to become dependent. They are oriented towards socialism, and in addition to that, I think it would be appropriate to point out the contingent of Americans (whatever percentage it is) that dislikes or hates America is found on the left, and if those people vote, they will vote in the Democrat Party. These people are about changing and altering the institutions and traditions which have been the foundation and the defining elements of American greatness. Now, they have these principles, and they just have to keep them hidden.

And that's why, you know, Obama does go out and says... When you're a messiah... You have to look at the psychology of these people. When you're a messiah, people are treating you as a messiah. Whatever you say is profound. Everything you say is a profundity. It is not to be questioned because you're special. You're new. You're unique. There has never been anyone like you. So whatever you say, nobody's to question it. Nobody's to disagree with it. Nobody is even to reference it. You're just supposed to believe it. So when Barack Hussein Obama runs around and says he's going to talk with all these leaders, because talking is good, he expects no retort; no reply, no reaction, no criticism; 'cause he's a messiah. And, believe me, I think he buys into this, too. I think that's how he views himself. He's above all this. "This usual politics stuff? Don't you realize how special I am? I'm Barack Obama! I got the answers," and now, his party knows how pathetically inexperienced and inept he is.

So the effort is underway to shield him from any of this criticism. I found a little story today on Lucianne's website. I was perusing there, Lucianne.com. Bloomberg News: "Obama May Be Targeted by Charges He's Soft on Crime." Is that news? Talking about something that might happen? "Obama May Be Targeted by Charges He's Soft on Crime." You notice that every legitimate strategery employed by Republicans is reported as sinister. It's as if the Drive-By Media, who are in the tank for Obama, are countering Republican campaign tactics even before they're launched. And they are. And the purpose for this is to protect and to shield Obama. Meanwhile, we have McCain out there with his speech today decrying partisanship. (sigh) He doesn't know what he's in for. Anyway, they know that they've got an inept guy and they can't do anything about it. So they gotta shield him from as much criticism as possible.

Obama response:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/05/obama-takes-iss.html

Pelosi response:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/05/obama-takes-iss.html

Rush Rags on McCain’s Global Warming Ideas

RUSH: We have the obligatory audio sound bites from Senator McCain's speech on the environment yesterday in Oregon. Yeah, I'm going to torture you with these. You gotta hear these. I'm gonna tell you something, folks, when it comes to global warming and the hoax and the fixes for this hoax, the solution, we do not have one of the three presidential candidates who differs from each other. We are cooked. Our goose is cooked on this. It doesn't matter who you vote for, for president, we're going to get a liberal Democrat approach to fixing something that doesn't exist. It's going to add up to more taxes. It's going to add up to the destruction of wealth. It's going to infuriate people. When you find out how much this is going to cost you, and after it has cost you what it costs you, when you then learn that it's not going to make a bit of difference in whatever climate changes, if any, are happening, you are going to be fit to be tied, just as they are now in the UK.

They are revolting against liberals over there because they've had all these carbon tax increases, all these other various tax increases to stop global warming, and yet the news every day brings news of more destruction. So all these new taxes these people are paying are not mattering a hill of beans, and they are revolting and they are throwing the bums out. In the UK I really don't know if it's enough, if it's accurate to say that the population there is fed up with liberals. I think they're fed up with the status quo, and they did install the opposition, the Tories, which are the conservatives, the new mayor and a number of seats in parliament.

RUSH: Okay, now, Senator McCain was out in Oregon yesterday standing next to a Democrat governor, Ted Kulongoski, I'm not sure how he pronounces it. We have audio sound bites, ladies and gentlemen, and I have to say that some of this sounds like -- we have a montage here -- Senator McCain sounding more like he's trying to position himself as a vice presidential candidate for Obama rather than as a Republican presidential candidate.

MCCAIN: We know that greenhouse gases are heavily implicated as a cause of climate change.

RUSH: We don't know that.

MCCAIN: And we know that among all greenhouse gases, the worst by far is the carbon dioxide that results from fossil fuel combustion.

RUSH: We don't know this.

MCCAIN: In the year 2012, we will seek a return to 2005 levels of emission. By 2020, a return to 1990 levels, and so on until we have achieved at least a reduction of 60% below 1990 levels by the year 2050.

RUSH: None of that has been proved, none of it, none of it, ladies and gentlemen. Among all greenhouse gases, the worst by far is the carbon dioxide that results from fossil fuel combustion? That's no different than the carbon dioxide we exhale. We know that greenhouse gases are heavily implicated as a cause of climate change? Implicated? May be implicated, may be suspected, but proven? No. And they've been sounding this alarm for over 20 years. It hasn't gotten warmer in the last eight or maybe ten, and even now it's predicted that temperatures are going to cool through 2012 because of La Nina and other variables such as ocean currents in the Atlantic. Now, this is the portion of the speech where Senator McCain wants to let the free market handle things.

MCCAIN: For all of the last century the profit motive basically led in one direction, toward machines, methods and industries that used oil and gas. Enormous good came from that industrial growth and we are all the beneficiaries of the national prosperity it built. But there were costs that we weren't counting and often hardly noticed. And these terrible costs have added up. Now in the atmosphere, in the oceans, and all across the natural world there are no longer sustainable or defensible or tenable.

RUSH: What is he doing?

MCCAIN: What better way to correct past errors than to turn the creative energies of the free market in the other direction. Under the cap-and-trade system, this can happen. In all its power the profit motive will suddenly begin to shift and point the other way toward cleaner fuels, wiser ways, and a healthier planet.

RUSH: Oh, man, ladies and gentlemen, I'm really conflicted here. I have not faced this situation before. I have not faced a situation where a major Republican presidential candidate sounds just like a liberal Democrat and I know of no other thing to do here than to tell you the truth about this. This is embarrassing, and it is frightening. The Wall Street Journal today has a piece about this very cap and trade thing. Let me read you two paragraphs from the Journal, and I think this will put this in perspective.

"So a chemical manufacturer, say, would pay an industry not covered by the program -- most notably, agriculture -- to reduce its emissions. Or it could pay a coal plant in China for plucking low-hanging efficiency fruit, like installing smokestack scrubbers. In other words, US consumers would be paying higher prices for energy in return for making Chinese industries more efficient and competitive. Europe is in the midst of that experience now under the Kyoto Protocol, and most of its reductions so far have been illusory. The compliance bookkeeping for this new 'market' is vastly complex, and a McCain Administration would create a public-private 'Climate Change Credit Corporation' to oversee it all. This new regulatory body is likely to morph over time into an 'Energy Fed,' similar to the one Warner-Lieberman would create. Such an agency would set the price of energy indirectly by fiddling with carbon levies, which will undoubtedly lead to economy-wide distortions."

Let me translate this for you, explain the program. Let's say you have a coal-fired power plant or some industry somewhere, and the federal government, some arbitrary federal agency is going to announce, is going to proclaim what its permissible carbon emissions are, on a yearly basis, daily basis, I don't know how they're going to do it, monthly, probably yearly. If they exceed those emissions, then they will be taxed, they will be punished. However, what they can do is they can go out and they can find another industry that is not using up all of its allowed carbon emissions and buy them, and thereby stay legal in the eyes of friendly Big Government. In either case, whether the original business exceeds its emissions -- in both cases it exceeds its emissions, it's going to pay somebody for it. It's either going to pay itself or it's going to pay somebody else. In either case, it's going to raise prices, and these prices are not just going to be absorbed. They are going to be passed on, as always, to the end of the line, which is the user, the consumer. And you will have nothing to say about these carbon emissions that these industries are engaging in, but you are going to end up paying for it, all of us are. Under a false premise!

Under a false premise that this is going to refuse, revert, whatever climate change is supposedly happening out there. And none of this has been established. Now, here's where it really gets bad. Roy Spencer, our official climatologist here at the EIB Network, wrote a piece at National Review Online today. He says this: "What worries me is the widespread misperception that we can do anything substantial about carbon emissions without seriously compromising economic growth. To be sure, forcing a reduction in CO2 emissions will help spur investment in new energy technologies. But so does a price tag of $126 for a barrel of oil. Finding a replacement for carbon-based energy will require a huge investment of wealth, and destroying wealth is not a very good first step toward that goal. When the public finds out how much any legislation that punishes energy use is going to cost them--" and that really cuts it to the nub. We are going to penalize people for energy use, and, at the end of the line, you pay for it.

"When the public finds out how much any legislation that punishes energy use is going to cost them, with no guarantee that anything we do will have a measurable impact on future climate, there will be a revolt just like the one now materializing in the UK and the EU. At some point, as they are faced with the stark reality that mankind's requirement for an abundant source of energy cannot simply be legislated out of existence, the public will begin asking, 'Just how sure are we that humans are causing global warming?' And this is where the science establishment has, in my view, betrayed the public's trust. ... But McCain has made it clear that the science really does not matter anyway because, even if humans are not to blame for global warming, stopping carbon-dioxide emissions is the right thing to do. And if we had another choice for most of our energy needs, I might be willing to accept such a claim as harmless enough.

"But carbon dioxide is necessary for life on earth, and I have a difficult time calling something so fundamentally important a 'pollutant.' Maybe the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is higher now than it has been in hundreds of thousands of years. So what? I am increasingly convinced that its influence on climate pales in comparison to the influence that natural climate events like El Nino and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation have on regional climate. Indeed, most of the warming we've seen in the last century might well be due to these natural modes of climate variability alone. The trouble is that no one has been funded by the government to investigate such a possibility, and the mandate for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is to address manmade climate change -- not natural climate change. So, here we are with bad science ready to support bad policy," leading to big increases in the cost of energy, which is going to lead to the production of less.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Now back to McCain. I don't know. You people at the GOP and the RNC, do you have any idea what you've done here? Do you have the slightest idea what you've done here? Here's McCain taking his swipe at Bush yesterday.

MCCAIN: I will not shirk the mantle of leadership that the United States bears. I will not permit eight long years to pass without serious action on serious challenges.

RUSH: I gotta tell you something. I've never heard him so fired up. He's more fired up about this than he's fired up about anything I've heard him speak about. He's actually got some energy in this, and it sounds like this is something he actually cares about. He takes that swipe at Bush, we're not going to shirk our responsibility for eight years anymore, so he's done it all, in one package here. He's embraced hard-core liberalism, including their disgust and dislike for George W. Bush. So he's made the break clean here, and he has made it possible so that there's no difference between himself and Obama or Hillary or anybody else on the left, in terms of what to do about global warming. The New York Times is all excited about this, folks. Headline today, story by Elisabeth Bumiller and John Broder: "McCain Differs with Bush on Climate Change." The New York Times is all excited because the three candidates left all embrace the hoax.

"McCain's break with the Bush administration means that the three main presidential candidates have embraced swifter action to fight global warming." The reason the Times is excited is because what that really means is they have embraced swifter action to raise taxes and grow government and limit individual freedom. They quote McCain from his speech yesterday: "'Instead of idly debating the precise extent of global warming, or the precise timeline of global warming, we need to deal with the central facts of rising temperatures, rising waters, and all the endless troubles that global warming will bring,' he said at a Vestas wind turbine manufacturing plant in Oregon, where the environment is a central issue for voters. 'We stand warned by serious and credible scientists across the world that time is short and the dangers are great.'" I go back and parse this quote. Instead of idly debating the precise extent of global warming -- now, wait a second. Isn't that somewhat important? Isn't the precise extent of global warming somewhat crucial here when massive new policy changes that restrict liberty, grow government and raise taxes are concerned? Instead of idly debating the precise timeline of global warming -- doesn't that kind of matter?

You know why he's saying "let's not debate the precise extent," is because nobody can tell him, and nobody can tell you, nobody can tell anybody when all of this destruction is going to happen. They cannot prove it! And so of course we cast that aside. (doing McCain impression) "That's right, Limbaugh, we're not. We're not going to waste time on that because I got taxes to raise." We need to deal with the central facts of rising temperatures. You know, I'm very proud of my brain, folks, I want to be very honest, I'm very proud of my brain and I'm proud and honest with you, the time I spent learning things, becoming educated and informed. But I'll be damned. It offends me that a man running for the president of the United States knows 10% of what I know about this. It offends me. In the case of Obama and Hillary, they know what their spewing is a bunch of BS. They know they're spouting lies. I don't know what McCain is doing here, but if he honestly believes this, then it is offensive. I'm not supposed to be smarter than the guy running for president, neither are you. We're not supposed to be able to know as much as those people do about things. We don't have access to intelligence reports, all kinds of things that they do. They get to talk to far many more people than we do. And the people they're talking to are just as politicized and agenda-oriented as they happen to be.

But this is pure common sense. It can't be proved. Temperatures are not rising. Water levels, what is it, rising temperatures, rising waters? Waters are not rising! They are not rising! Antarctica ice is not melting! We had the story last week, everybody shocked and stunned, it isn't happening. All the endless troubles that global warming will bring? Who's to say? Who's to say that right now, right here, right now is the ideal temperature for this planet? What kind of vanity do we have, the human beings who are but mere specks of indistinguishable dust, compared to the life span of this planet, who the hell do we think we are to say that right now, right here, when we are alive, this is what's ideal? Do you remember the Vikings? The Vikings came and they gave us Minnesota. Well, they gave us the people of Minnesota. Do you realize they would not have been able to make that trip in today's climate? You know why? Because it's too cold. It is too cold today. The Atlantic Ocean is too rough. They couldn't make it today. They came when Greenland was green and had thriving civilizations, because it was warmer then than it is now.

The Vikings could not make it across the Atlantic in the same ships that they did back then today because it's too cold, much colder than what it was when they made it. The endless troubles? Tell that to the people that lived in Greenland and thrived, that the earth, when warmer than it is today. And tell them now when we're finding relics of their civilization under ice, tell 'em that it's better today. Who are we to assume that this is ideal? I would submit to you that the climate on this planet changes every day, that it's not the same from one day to the next. Well, one thing I do know, I'm 57 years old, and every winter that I've been alive, it's been cold. And every spring when I've been alive, the leaves on the trees and the sprouts in the bushes and so forth grew. And ever since I've been alive, every summer I have sweated myself silly outside in high humidity and high temperatures. Every fall, for 57 years, I've seen leaves fall off the trees after turning brown. And every winter I have seen snowstorms and ice storms, and I have seen it hotter in the past than it is today. I've seen it colder in the past than it is today. I've looked at weather records, and I've seen record cold in 1921 and record heat in 1908. I've seen stronger hurricanes, records of stronger hurricanes and tornadoes 50 years ago than we see today. It is embarrassing, it's frustrating as it can be that people running for the presidency of the United States are less informed than I am and most of you on something that is crucial.

*BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Go back to this McCain quote in the New York Times. "Instead of idly debating the precise --" he doesn't even want to debate this. You know, this is typical of the global warming crowd: No, there's no debate, we don't have time to debate. They refuse to debate. Algore will not debate. He won't debate, because he can't. And McCain doesn't want to debate now, and of course Obama doesn't want to debate. This is Obamaesque. Obama says if you nitpick anything, if you disagree with anything about what he says or does, why, it's a distraction. McCain is essentially saying the same thing here. And then at the end of the story: "McCain's proposal in his prepared remarks to impose tariffs on industrializing countries like China and India is also made in the Lieberman-Warner bill and reflects concerns by both industry and labor in the United States and elsewhere in the industrialized world. It would mandate punitive duties on products from any country that did not participate in a global carbon-reduction system, to balance the lower cost of producing goods using dirty energy sources."

Well, I guess this is a market-based feature? This is a free market based feature where you're going to demand that companies around the world do all this? Do you think the ChiComs are going to sit still for this? Punitive duties on products from any country that didn't participate, like China and India. Who do we think we are? We might have been able to get away with this kind of stuff years ago, but after so many years of liberal dominance, of running around like we're embarrassed of ourselves, they're just going to laugh at us because we don't have the guts to back up any of this stuff. We're too interested in what the ChiComs think of us. The minute they object, McCain or somebody, "Oh, oh, oh, oh, okay, sorry, didn't mean to offend you. We'll go back to the drawing board." Same thing with India. Same with anybody. We're going to dictate to these -- I thought we couldn't do that -- oh, I know, we're going to restore our reputation in the world. That's right. We're going to restore our reputation in the world by doing everything the socialist liberal countries in the world are doing, that's how we're going to do it, I see now.

Roy Spencer on McCain and Global Warming (another excellent article):

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTUzNWUzYTA4ZTkwMTVhZmM3M2NkZDc5NDhmOTRkMzA=

McCain’s cap and trade proposals are a mess:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121063565248086701.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks

200,000 die each year in Europe due to excessive heat; but 1.5 million die each year in Europe due to excess cold. The press makes certain that we know about how global warming is killing so many; but it never seems to include that cold kills a lot more:

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/sep/global-warming-the-great-lifesaver

More Rush on Oil

RUSH: Let me ask you the question again. You think about it for a while. President Bush this week will be in Saudi Arabia. He is going to meet with the head of the royal family there, King Abdullah. He's going to ask King Abdullah to raise the oil output, to increase oil production. What is wrong with this? What is wrong with this? This ought to be very simple answer. We're going to go to Saudi Arabia and we're going to ask them to do what we won't do. We're going to ask them to increase their oil production to try to get a handle on some of the prices by flooding the market with additional supply, and yet we won't do it ourselves.

Cal Thomas, great column today: "In Defense of 'Big Oil.'" He went out, he talked to Peter Robertson who's the vice chairman of Chevron, and Peter Robertson told Cal Thomas that "it's a myth that oil companies are not investing in new energy sources. He says last year alone, Chevron spent $20 billion exploring new sources of energy." Snerdley, what was the statistic you gave me late last week, Big Oil has been investigating and spending money in alternative sources of energy for how many years? For 20 years, and they've spent about a hundred billion dollars on it, one company has, forget which, for 20 years, and they've spent a hundred billion dollars on it, and what do they have to show for it? Nothing that's anywhere near close to replacing oil. Now, the vice chairman of Chevron, again, Peter Robertson, told Cal Thomas, "President Bush's trip this week to Saudi Arabia is 'highly embarrassing' because he is 'calling on the Saudis to produce more oil when we are not doing it ourselves.' The last refinery built in America was in 1976. Tighter government regulations are the main reason.

"That's how unserious we are about our energy 'crisis.' Robertson said there would be plenty of oil available to the United States if the oil companies were allowed to get it: 'Eighty-five percent of offshore oil is off-limits.' Responding to objections to offshore drilling by environmentalists and their allies in Congress, Robertson noted that some of the strongest pro-environment nations in Europe -- he mentions Denmark, Norway, the United Kingdom -- lease offshore locations for oil exploration. The technology has become so good, he said, that during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, 'one thousand offshore wells were destroyed (in the Gulf of Mexico), but not one leaked.' Australia, he said, has allowed offshore drilling for 40 years without any environmental damage." I don't believe, as far as the environmentalists are concerned, it has anything to do with environmental damage. That's just their cover. This has everything to do with cutting the United States down in size. This has everything to do with attacking capitalism and the world's lone remaining superpower. And I have to tell you, it offends me to no end to see the Republican Party going along with this. It offends me to no end.

This is the kind of stuff that we expect to come out of the Democrat Party and the liberal Democrats. We expect it, and we expect to battle it. We expect to fight 'em on it. We expect to defeat them on it. But I guess that has gone by the wayside now. It's just frustrating as it can be. The idea that we now have ways to do all this without any environmental damage at all, and we still can't do it. And yet we run around the world asking other oil producers to produce more. I'm biting my tongue here. I've read some e-mails here, "But, Rush, but, Rush, you don't understand, McCain is simply seeking Democrat votes. It's about winning the election." Look, winning the election, seeking Democrat votes. "He doesn't really mean this, Rush, he doesn't." I can't take that chance. I've never heard him so enthused. He was more passionate in this speech than I've heard him in years, about anything, other than maybe amnesty for illegal aliens and campaign finance reform. I don't care if it's about getting Democrat votes. I don't want Democrat votes this way.

Cal Thomas' piece continues. "In addition to the sinking value of the dollar, here is the main problem: According to the Department of Energy, US oil production has fallen approximately 40 percent since 1985, while the consumption of oil has grown by more than 30 percent. According to government estimates, there is enough oil in areas accessible to America -- 112 billion barrels -- to power more than 60 million cars for 60 years." I mentioned all of this last week. I'm glad it's showing up in print here. "The Outer Continental Shelf alone contains an estimated 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Had President Clinton not vetoed exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in 1995, when oil was $19 a barrel, America would currently be receiving more than 1 million barrels a day domestically, all of it taken by better technology than existed more than 30 years ago. That was when the Alaskan pipeline was built despite protests from environmentalists who claimed it would destroy the caribou. It didn't, but the environmentalists are back with the same discredited arguments. Because most of the oil remains 'off-limits,' we are becoming more dependent on foreign oil."

I remember Clinton saying, "It will take ten years for this stuff to come online." Well, ten years ago, we'd have started, that was 14 years ago, when Clinton said it, we'd have that million barrels a day being pumped right now. Bill Clinton, for his part, could probably go to the oil companies, 'cause he's going to need a job. He's going to need something. I wouldn't be surprised, folks, when this presidential campaign is over, I wouldn't be surprised if there is a movement, it will be a quiet movement, there's going to be a movement in the African-American community to get Clinton's office moved out of Harlem. After all this race card business that they've been -- well, they have been playing it. And Mrs. Clinton running around talking about the white people won't vote for Obama and so forth. It isn't going to be long before the black community tells Clinton, "We don't want you here in Harlem anymore. You're no longer the first black president." In which case, Clinton is going to need a gig.

So what Clinton ought to do, get on the phone to Big Oil. (doing Clinton impression) "Hey, guys, you understand how really valuable to you I am? Ha-ha-ha. You talk about foresight. I see so far down the road, farther than you see down the road. They wanted me to okay that drilling up there in ANWR back in 1994, right? And what was the price of oil back then? The price of oil, $19, right? Look at how much money you would have lost by drilling way back then. I have saved you until now, if you start drilling now, if we get permission I'll work with you on this, I still have a lot of influence with people, you're going to start pumping oil down there at $126 a barrel. I have saved you money; I have earned you money. We're going to get this done, guys. You are my buddies now, and I can get this done for you at a price that you never dreamed of being able to get. They kicked me out of Harlem. I gotta go somewhere. I may as well go with you guys. No place else in my party is going to have me. Hell, McCain's taken my place in my party. What am I going to do?"

Rush Links:

An example of Muslim intolerance in the US.

http://www.sctimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080512/NEWS01/105120058/1009

Cal Thomas: the Case for Big Oil (this is excellent):

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26479

Ariel Cohen: How our oil is being used against us (also an excellent article; this is why we need to be drilling in the US for our own oil):

http://www.nypost.com/seven/05112008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/over_a_barrel_110289.htm?page=0

Europeans are beginning to complain about the Draconian measures enacted against them by their government in the name of conservation and global warming:

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/bjrn_lomborg/2008/05/money_for_nothing.html