Memorial Day: Conservatives and Liberals

In church today, our pastor (R. B. Thieme III) spoke of the Korean War as the forgotten war and as a great reason to memorialize our veterans from that war. It also helps to carve out some of the differences between liberals and conservatives.

Conservatives recognize that there is true evil in this world and many liberals do not. One of the bill of goods which was sold to us over the past several decades was, Communism is good for some backward, agrarian countries and, if they want to become Communists, we ought to let them. Some of us see Communism as being an evil in this world; others see it as an appropriate form of government for some people.

We have had time to see what happens in Communist and Socialist nations. Mao is the greatest killer in history, murdering about 50 million people. Stalin comes in second, having murdered 23 million. These are aggressively godless philosophies where people who think differently are murdered or reeducated (read, prison camps).

Our Democratic congress cut off funding to the Vietnam war, requiring us to remove our people from there as quickly as possible, which move resulted in the deaths of 3 million of our allies in both Vietnam and Cambodia. The perpetrators of this evil: Communist leaders and a godless, Communist philosophy. What is particularly sad is, victory was within our sight, as the top North Vietnamese general has admitted.

This Congress did not recognize the evil that these men were capable of and they did not recognize the good that we were doing.

Korea was a different matter—we fought North Korea and maintained a separation between North and South Korea. South Korea today is the greatest economic powers in the world. North Korea had the leader Kim Il Sung, who was president over the Democratic People’s Republic of Korean between 1972 and 1994. During this time, this godless tyrant killed 1.6 million of his own people in both purges and reeducation (concentration) camps.

About 30% of South Koreans identify themselves as Christian today. Those who do so in North Korea are likely to find themselves thrown in jail.

Our Korean veterans did a good thing. They did a great thing. Because of them, 49 million South Koreans enjoy personal, religious and economic freedom today.

Florida/Michigan Votes: What is Ignored

The voters in Florida and Michigan did not vote to move up their primaries. This was done by their legislature. The voters are not at fault. How can the Democratic party summarily ignore their voices?

Early this past week, it occurred to me that Democrats, who love to have courts determine the big issues, would sue over this. They did.

http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=7b748861-cd21-40c0-a80c-92c461e94394

If Senator Clinton is not the Democratic nominee, look for the Clintons to take the DNC to court.

Religion and Global Warming

I have compared those who believe that global warming is imminent and man-made to a religion, which comparison I have posted at:

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

There is a new comparison:

I am sure that you have heard of this or that preacher who says that Hurricane Katrina was a judgment on New Orleans and some of its inhabitants. I personally believe that God has a purpose in all natural disasters; I don’t believe natural disasters to simply be random events. Many people—particularly unbelievers—think this is poppycock, and that is their right to think so. However, the exact people who believe this think that, Hurricane Katrina (and other natural disasters) are a result of our messing with Mother Nature, in some way or another. They do not believe in the judgment of God, but they do believe in the judgment of nature, which comes because, for instance, there is far too much CO₂ in our atmosphere (I think we are up to 38 parts per million?), and we can blame civilization, Big Oil and SUV’s for this.

Terrorist News You Don't Hear

I have recommended the website www.thereligionofpeace.com many times in the past, so that you get a fuller picture of what is going on in this world--that Islamic terrorists are throughout the world killing innocents.

I am sure that you have heard the Democratic talking points that, because of George Bush, we are no better off today than we were 7 years ago with regards to terrorism.

On his website, Obama said (this is taken from a speech of his): "Perhaps the saddest irony of the Administration's cynical use of 9/11 is that the Iraq War has left us less safe than we were before 9/11. Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants have rebuilt a new base in Pakistan where they freely train recruits, plot new attacks, and disseminate propaganda. The Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan. Iran has emerged as the greatest strategic challenge to America in the Middle East in a generation. Violent extremism has increased. Terrorism has increased. All of that is a cost of this war."

Source:

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/09/12/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_23.php

These are statements which Obama has made many times. However, this is not actually true. Terrorist attacks around the world have decreased 40% since the year 2001, the year that the war on terror was declared. Here's the source for that:

http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5iJciaxCBODpiOZKXuLS73Q0gpaBA

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5ha-9pTu_47bMMDgpKEqorfFTzZhQ

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/05/global-war-on-t.html

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=7ff15ab5-0480-4001-8d98-373e8aa04ad8

In other words, the much-maligned War on Terror has been working. This war, proclaimed by John Edwards as a bumper sticker and derided by Obama as ineffectual, has been successful. We are killing terrorists, and, for those who can distinguish between right and wrong, that is a good thing.

Have you heard about this on your nightly news? Has it made the headlines of your newspaper? Probably not. Our news sources, for the most part, are very anti-Bush, so that you should simply expect that bias in most everything you read or see.

Maxine Waters Wants to Run Big Oil

I waw only able to catch a few snippets of Congress grilling various oil executives, but, in case you did not catch it, at least one point during the proceedings, one executive correctly told whatever congressional member he was addressing that Congress was at fault for the high price of oil (which is the result of no more nuclear plants, no more new drilling in the US, reduced drilling in the US—in fact, my understanding is, we have scaled back about 40% over the past 20-30 years--and no new refineries have been built--all due to laws enacted by Congress).

The other highlight was when a congressional member threatened to nationalize the oil industry (she had trouble either remembering or speaking the term; but this should tell you what is in our future from the left--a demand for government to take over the oil industry, so that "gas is cheaper because government can produce and distribute it more efficiently").

Maxine Waters: “And guess what this liberal would be all about. This liberal will be all about socializing...uh...uh...would be about basically takin’ over and the government running all of your companies.”

See the video on this:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=PUaY3LhJ-IQ

Kahunas/Cojones Confusion

A few issues back, I confounded Kahunas and cojones. Yesterday, on FoxNews, there was this cute blonde announcer, and she also spoke of a politician having the Kahunas to do this or that. I can only imagine the trouble and confusion that has caused her in her own personal life.

McCain versus Obama

by Kathy13134

The following came from a message/discussion board which I frequent; it was posted by Kathy13134:

Ok here is a perfect example, this went down today.

1) Obama Starts Some Sh*t

2) McCain Finishes It

3) Obama Whines Like a Little Girly-girl

1) Today on the Senate floor, Barack Obama criticized John McCain for not supporting Senator Jim Webb's (D-VA) bill on benefits for veterans. He said the following:

“I respect Sen. John McCain's service to our country. He is one of those heroes of which I speak. But I can't understand why he would line up behind the President in his opposition to this GI bill. I can't believe why he believes it is too generous to our veterans. I could not disagree with him and the President more on this issue. There are many issues that lend themselves to partisan posturing but giving our veterans the chance to go to college should not be one of them.”

2) McCain Responds:

"It is typical, but no less offensive that Senator Obama uses the Senate floor to take cheap shots at an opponent and easy advantage of an issue he has less than zero understanding of. Let me say first in response to Senator Obama, running for President is different than serving as President. The office comes with responsibilities so serious that the occupant can't always take the politically easy route without hurting the country he is sworn to defend. Unlike Senator Obama, my admiration, respect and deep gratitude for America's veterans is something more than a convenient campaign pledge. I think I have earned the right to make that claim.

"When I was five years old, a car pulled up in front of our house in New London, Connecticut, and a Navy officer rolled down the window, and shouted at my father that the Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor. My father immediately left for the submarine base where he was stationed. I rarely saw him again for four years. My grandfather, who commanded the fast carrier task force under Admiral Halsey, came home from the war exhausted from the burdens he had borne, and died the next day. I grew up in the Navy; served for twenty-two years as a naval officer; and, like Senator Webb, personally experienced the terrible costs war imposes on the veteran. The friendships I formed in war remain among the closest relationships in my life. The Navy is still the world I know best and love most. In Vietnam, where I formed the closest friendships of my life, some of those friends never came home to the country they loved so well .

"But I am running for the office of Commander-in-Chief. That is the highest privilege in this country, and it imposes the greatest responsibilities. It would be easier politically for me to have joined Senator Webb in offering his legislation. More importantly, I feel just as he does, that we owe veterans the respect and generosity of a great nation because no matter how generously we show our gratitude it will never compensate them fully for all the sacrifices they have borne on our behalf.

"Senators Graham, Burr and I have offered legislation that would provide veterans with a substantial increase in educational benefits. The bill we have sponsored would increase monthly education benefits to $1500; eliminate the $1200 enrollment fee; and offer a $1000 annually for books and supplies. Importantly, we would allow veterans to transfer those benefits to their spouses or dependent children or use a part of them to pay down existing student loans. We also increase benefits to the Guard and Reserve, and even more generously to those who serve in the Selected Reserve.

"I know that my friend and fellow veteran, Senator Jim Webb, an honorable man who takes his responsibility to veterans very seriously, has offered legislation with very generous benefits. I respect and admire his position, and I would never suggest that he has anything other than the best of intentions to honor the service of deserving veterans. Both Senator Webb and I are united in our deep appreciation for the men and women who risk their lives so that the rest of us may be secure in our freedom. And I take a backseat to no one in my affection, respect and devotion to veterans. And I will not accept from Senator Obama, who did not feel it was his responsibility to serve our country in uniform, any lectures on my regard for those who did. [I bolded- just LOVED that!—Kathy13134].

"The most important difference between our two approaches is that Senator Webb offers veterans who served one enlistment the same benefits as those offered veterans who have re-enlisted several times. Our bill has a sliding scale that offers generous benefits to all veterans, but increases those benefits according to the veteran's length of service. I think it is important to do that because, otherwise, we will encourage more people to leave the military after they have completed one enlistment. At a time when the United States military is fighting in two wars, and as we finally are beginning the long overdue and very urgent necessity of increasing the size of the Army and Marine Corps, one study estimates that Senator Webb's bill will reduce retention rates by 16%.

"Most worrying to me, is that by hurting retention we will reduce the numbers of men and women who we train to become the backbone of all the services, the noncommissioned officer. In my life, I have learned more from noncommissioned officers I have known and served with than anyone else outside my family. And in combat, no one is more important to their soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen, and to the officers who command them, than the sergeant and petty officer. They are very hard to replace. Encouraging people not to choose to become noncommissioned officers would hurt the military and our country very badly. As I said, the office of President, which I am seeking, is a great honor, indeed, but it imposes serious responsibilities. How faithfully the President discharges those responsibilities will determine whether he or she deserves the honor. I can only tell you I intend to deserve the honor if I am fortunate to receive it, even if it means I must take politically unpopular positions at times and disagree with people for whom I have the highest respect and affection.”

3) Later, after hearing McCain’s responds to his comments Obama countered:

“I am proud to stand with Senator Webb and a bipartisan coalition to give our veterans the support and opportunity they deserve. It's disappointing that Senator McCain and his campaign used this issue to launch yet another lengthy personal, political attack instead of debating an honest policy difference. He should know that this is not about John McCain or Barack Obama - it's about giving our veterans a real chance to afford four years of college without harming retention. Senator Webb's bipartisan bill will do this, and the bill that John McCain supports would not. These endless diatribes and schoolyard taunts from the McCain campaign do nothing to advance the debate about what matters to the American people.”

The Phoney Rhetoric of Obama

Although Obama has presented himself as a candidate who is not going to be like the same old same old politician, he uses the same old same old tactics. He has misrepresented John McCain's position of staying in Iraq for 100 years. If one explanation does not quite do the trick, he polishes it and polishes it until he has a position that people will buy into. When the Wright story first made headlines, Obama went through a series of several explanations about Wright (this is not what Wright teaches, these a few of the stupidest things a person can say all strung together, this is not a representative sampling of a what Wright said; it was taken out of context and strung together, to "I repudiate these statements, but i cannot repudiate Reverend Wright"). Reverend Wright has gone from being Obama's spiritual mentor to someone who said some very outrageous anti-American things but only when Obama was not in church. When Wright went on a speaking tour, and confirmed that he believed the crazy things that we heard (he justified his statements), then Obama finally repudiated the person of Reverend Wright (but, he is quick to add, he had never heard any of the outrageous statements that we have heard nor has he ever read a church bulletin after attending this church for 22 years and giving it 10's of thousands of dollars as recently as 2005. My point is, Obama will say whatever he needs to say, which is like almost any other politician.

Most recently, Obama, the candidate of unity, cannot even unite his own party behind him. In the two most recent trouncings, Clinton lead him by over 30 and 40 points in Kentucky and West Virginia, even though almost all the media sources (including FoxNews) is treating Obama as if he is the party nominee. This is not a few voters here and there who are unhappy with the idea with Obama being their candidate, but an overwhelming majority in those two states.

Furthermore, when it comes to unity, Obama has not once stood with the Republicans on any issue generally unpopular with Democrats in order to lead and unify the Senate on any issue.

Obama has promised to speak to foreign leaders, no matter who they are and without pre-conditions. More recently, his camp is refusing to say that he will meet with Ahmadinejad but continually use the phrase leaders in the nation Iran. Now these talks will begin at lower levels and there will be preparations; and, with regards to Hamas, Obama set down 3 conditions.

Like a politician, he keeps changing his position to make it more palatable; and he implies the phoney contrast that no one else will consider these kinds of approaches (I have heard the phrase "cowboy diplomacy" applied to Bush time and time again from Obama). The implication is that Bush would not consider any sort of diplomacy, which is flat out wrong. The 5 nation talks occurring with North Korea are a result of Bush negotiations. We know there have been lower level interaction between the US and Iran and Pakistan. What we do not have is Bush meeting with these leaders unconditionally.

It is even more telling that, we have a great relationship with Columbia, an ally of ours in that region, and Obama has voted against the trade agreement between the US and Columbia. Does this mean that, Obama is going to continue to act against our closest allies? What sense does that make?

Bush Mideast Legacy a Failure?

by Richard O'Leary

I'm surprised to hear even conservatives agreeing that Bush's legacy in the Mideast is a failure; terrorists are more entrenched than ever, an ongoing unpopular war in Iraq, and more powerful rogue states on the loose.

I wonder what wind has blown that whisks away the memory of the American People so quickly? And what perverse nature compels us to ignore the lessons from mistakes past? It would seem that it is in our interest, no....germane to our survival, that we avoid disaster by avoiding the same mistakes.

Yet we have already forgotten that both George Bushes inherited the tragic legacy of James Earl Carter, who did more to create chaos, and strengthen terrorism worldwide, than any ruler since Ghengis Khan.

How dare we blame The President of failure, when he has employed the only options open to him, and those have been severely hampered by the enmity of the Mideast that Carter left in his wake.

Rhodesia, Nicaragua, Iran and South Africa succumbed to the Peanut Juggernaut, and of those states only Nicaragua has reemerged asa free country, after a fashion. They recovered from the evil work of an American President. His crowning glory, in this hemisphere, was to give away the Panama Canal, the most critical strategic point on this continent.

Carter has been hugging terrorists, and hobnobbing with creeps like Arafat, for decades. His latest journey into La La Land was an oft repeated disgrace, where he embraced the head gangster of Hamas.

I suspect that Jimmy's problem is that he believes the way to mitigate a thorny climate is to appeal to the loving nature of the criminal, make a friend of him, a good ol' back slapping' pal. He thought he could puff up his flaccid cheeks at them, and pour on the southern charm, and the path ahead would bestrewn with roses and clover....

Not since Neville Chamberlain have we witnessed so acute an attack of stupid. We wouldn't have the threat of a nuclear Iran today but for Jimmy's woeful blundering. He should have stayed with his peanuts and left international diplomacy to some other maniac. What amazes me is that he STILL doesn't see the light! I'm afraid those nuts got to his head.

George Bush has refused to entertain and aggrandize terrorists, or terrorist states. He has used his considerable power and influence to urge the international community to cooperate in sanctions. Many of them have refused, and continue to bolster the Iranian economy, and prop up their unpopular theocracy. China has supplied those psycho-pagans the materiel to build a reactor.

Even some big American companies are doing a lucrative business with Iran, and the their blame can be shared with Carter. Bush can use diplomacy to impose his will on Iran, but he has no part in guiding foreign governments.

Our President has expressed his scorn of terrorism, and it's supporters, as he darn well should! The only alternative to Mr. Bush's policy is one that leads down the path taken by Carter, and we can thank God that The President stands firm in those convictions.

Before the press, and political pundits malign George Bush, they should indulge in a little reflection, and recall the vainglory of Jimmy Carter, and the residue of his insane meddling.

In Support of the Super-Delegates

In the past, I have railed against the Democratic party nominating process, making the point that, if these people cannot run a simple election, how on earth can we trust them to run our health care system, which is far large and much more complex? It is like finding someone who is unable to drive a car, and then sticking them in the cockpit of a commercial airline and expecting them to be able to take off, fly to a specific destination, and then to land safely with all their passengers.

That being said, the Super-Delegates are a good idea, if they are used properly. Many Democratic candidates get a free ride with respect to network television, some cable television and most newspapers. Bill Clinton and Hillary got a free-pass from the media over and over again, despite the fact that Bill was probably the closest thing that we have ever had to a gangster president (and let me qualify this by saying, I don't think Clinton was a bad president, except with regards to foreign policy, where he sucked).

But, since the media favorite, Barack Obama, is not going to be carefully scrutinized by the media, things are going to come out about him on talk radio and on FoxNews, slowly but surely (Sean Hannity hammered away at the Jeremiah Wright issue for a full year before the mainstream media even acknowledged it). At this point, it appears as though Obama may not be electable. He certainly leads in delegates and he is not far from getting the Democratic nomination, but it is highly unlikely that he will become president. Clinton, on the other hand, has a better chance at beating McCain.

The super-delegates, sitting back and watching this process play out have a difficult choice to make. Do they throw their support behind someone who cannot get elected (obviously, this is a subjective call) or do they throw their support behind someone who has a chance to win the presidency (Clinton). From the last few elections, it is becoming quite clear that, if Obama were better known 6 months ago, he would not be the front-running Democratic candidate. We know enough about him, to recognize (1) his values may not match those of mainstream America (this is based upon his associations more than anything which he has said himself); (2) he has no clue when it comes to foreign relations (he has misstated historical facts and he has given several different positions on fairly simple foreign policy questions); (3) and he had no experience in running anything (if his actual legislative background is ever exposed, it will be clear that he has actually done very little); and (4) he is anything but a man of unity (which is not going to have any bearing on the far left; but it will definitely affect the opinions of moderate Americans).

The super-delegates are going to piss off a huge voting block in the Democratic party no matter who they choose to vote for. Who do they vote for? Clinton, who could possibly win the presidency or Obama, so that the Democratic party will retain the Black (and young) vote, even though they will lose this election. It is an awesome responsibility, and, it is not necessarily anti-Democratic. The people have chosen, roughly 50-50, for Clinton and Obama. The super-delegates are going to act as the tie breaker. Super-delegates could not, for instance, make Gravel of Kucinich the Democratic candidate. So, even though the Democratic party has a weird and convoluted system, the idea of super-delegates is not necessarily a bad one, all things considered.

On the other hand, this caucus thing has got to go...

Ecology Run Amuck

by Richard O'Leary

I was raised in remote Northern Montana, WAY out in the boonies, 50 miles from any town over gravel logging roads. I boarded out to go to high school, in the beautiful mountain community of Libby. I still love that fabulous country, but it has undergone profound change since my youth.

The environmental cartel influenced Bill Clinton to declare the entire Northwest Corridor the habitat of the Spotted Owl. When the government designates an area as "habitat" for an "endangered species" everything grinds to a halt. Citizens cannot even make improvements on their property without an exhaustive Environmental Impact Statement. The cost is about $5,000-$7,000 dollars, and it takes years to complete. So property values plummet, along with jobs. I could fill several single spaced pages with the terrible consequences of this tragic Federal bungling.

In Montana the effect of the Spotted Owl edict destroyed the backbone of the economy; logging and lumber mills. The largest employer in Libby was J. Neils Lumber Mill. It went bankrupt long ago. Today Libby, and every other small to medium sized town in that region, are sweltering in poverty. Unemployment is in the double digits. Young people flee to the cities, as soon as they graduate from high school, because the economy is so bleak.

I made the mistake of visiting Libby about 10 years ago. It brought tears to my eyes. A once bustling hamlet is a ghost town today. Every business along main street stands vacant. Only gas stations, bars and casinos populate the barren landscape.

The great irony of this travesty is that the Spotted Owl only nests within a short distance from the sea coast. There are none of them in Montana, or Idaho and most of Oregon. If there were, let me assure you, they would be DEAD! Montanans bristle at the mere mention of an owl, spotted or otherwise. There is no measure the enviro-crats could have imposed that would so effectively guarantee the demise of this bird, because every man with a rifle in that region (most of the populace) is gunning for the critter that they consider the cause of the disaster that came into their lives.

I came across some graffiti in a gas station john up there; "Wipe your *** with a spotted owl. No wood products available!" That pretty much sums it up.

But their protestations are for naught. You see, the objective of the eco-loonies was not to protect an owl, but to destroy the logging business, and they enjoyed spectacular success. It matters nothing to them that millions of Americans have been deprived of their livelihood, and the price of lumber has climbed so high that the cost of a middle class home rose an estimated $10,000.00. They could care less.

I was so overwhelmed by this terrible injustice that I embarked on a crusade to expose the evil of environ-mania. I wrote an expose', The Environmental Mafia, which was published several years ago. What I discovered in my research is mind boggling! You'll have to read the book to get the full impact of what this very powerful bunch of creeps is doing to this country.

For example: the Klamath Basin, in Oregon, was once the most fertile farming region in the United States, until the eco juggernaut came to town. Back in FDR's Administration the government made the Klamath River available to irrigate that region.

But a large fish kill changed that. The eco-gestapo claimed that irrigation was the problem, and the Feds cut off the water. Hundreds of families lost this farms.

An Ecology professor from Berkley discovered that the fish kill was caused by the toxic chemicals used to make crystal meth. It seems several huge labs, tucked away in the mountains, were pouring their poison waste into the river. Yet, the irrigation rights were never restored.

And here's a real funny punch line....the NGOs who spearheaded this crime against free Americans then started campaigning to make the entire Klamath Basin a WETLAND!!! Yeah! They want to flood it and make a swamp of the whole area. What's funny about this (NOT!) is that this plan would drain 10 fold more water from the river than irrigation did.

So much for salmon dying for lack of water!

Once again, the eco juggernaut could care less about salmon. Their objective is to marginalize human beings, not save or protect anything. I'll relate the story I opened my book with; John Posgai immigrated to the U.S. from Hungary to escape the Communists at the close of WWII. He worked hard and saved his money. Not long before I started my research he purchased the site of an old junkyard to build his dream home for retirement.

Most of the debris had been cleaned up. Just some scattered garbage remained, including 26 old tire casings. Naturally, he disposed of them. About two weeks later a couple guys in suits, packing guns, showed up and served him with a summons. He was being charged with 26 violations of the Clean Water Act.

According to the insane rationale that drives the eco-machine, old tires support marine life. They collect water, and mosquitos thrive in them. This whole rhubarb would be laughable, but for the horrible consequences that befell Mr. Posgai. He was convicted, fined $103,000.00, and was still serving a 3 year prison sentence as I wrote my book. Talk about sad. Tears welled up in my eyes, as they are this moment, when I read that as they lead him from the courtroom, handcuffed and shackled, he was heard to lament; "I thought America was a free country?"

It's supposed to be, Sir, but we have our own brand of tyranny here that is every bit as evil as Communism.

I can't possibly summerize the magnitude of the evil I uncovered in my exploring. It defies the imagination! Suffice it to say that enviromania is a virulent threat to our way of life, and it flies beneath the radar. I included a couple hundred of the most outrageous stories I found, but I didn't even scratch the surface.

It may interest y'all to hear what I learned about the motives of "deep ecologists", like Albert Gore.

All of us have surely puzzled over the reasons why environmentalists impose their tyrany when it has terrible repercussions for people, and all to save a sculpin, or a bug. This mystery was dispelled for me when I stumbled across a reference to Gaia, The Earth Goddess, on the Sierra Club website.

At first I was unbelieving. How could this be? It's so ridiculous that even Stephen King wouldn't write a horror novel about it! But when I Googled "gaia" I got OVER 30 MILLION HITS! This is mysticism that predates Greek Mythology, so Satan has been sponsoring it for thousands of years.

Everything suddenly became clear, in a moment of crippling realization. What drives these loonies is RELIGION! They worship at the altar of "Mother Earth". They consider humans to be parasites who desecrate the domain of their "god".

The terrible truth is that they aren't for saving any animal, fowl or fauna. In their eyes, Mother Earth manages her domain, and man is an interloper that must be removed from the environment. This is why they believe in letting forest fires rage without interdiction.

The American People have unwittingly vested this bevy of psychos with their trust, and we take every word they say as gospel. How tragic that we have invited chaos in the name of environmental protection.

Global warming is just the latest in a litany of pseudo-issues designed to cripple our economy and punish man for meddling with the sacred territory of Gaia, the God of Nature. Unfortunately my revealing compilation of data, that documents the systematic attack on property rights, has been ignored by the reading public.

Alas! My warnings falls on deaf ears!

The Ethanol Crisis

It has become clear to even the most strident environmentalist that ethanol is a bad idea. It costs more to produce it than it does to produce gasoline. It takes more energy and apparently causes more greenhouse gases to be produced. It also has driven up the cost of food, as corn is as basic a crop as rice and wheat, used all over the world as a staple because it was, at one time, cheap.

Farmers and taxpayers alike have invested billions of dollars into the production of ethanol, which will accounts for about 3-4% of our gas needs now, and will probably top out at about 5-7%. This was a stupid idea, and then unintended consequences (the horrendous increase of corn prices all over the world) should have been obvious.

Here's the problem: billions of dollars has been invested in this enterprise. Farms have been turned upside down in order to go from producing corn as a food to corn as a fuel. Most of us are not farmers, so we do not appreciate all that has been done in order for this to come to pass.

It would be as if the government mandated for each of us to purchase a new air conditioner because home AC Freon was going to be phased out; and then, after we all buy one, the government comes back and says, "We've changed out minds. The old AC's were fine."

Most conservatives are not anti-environment. Most of us like clean water, clean air and nearly-pristine forests, mountains and lakes. What we do not care for is, sudden and dramatic disruptions in our lives because of theory suggesting that we do something that should theoretically have some sort of good effect. We do not like global warming agendas which are exactly like every single other liberal agenda—which seeks to take money out of the hands of those who work for it and put it into the hands of government.

And we hate wasting our money on worthless schemes like ethanol.

Here is an excellent article specifying some of the ethanol problems:

http://archive.columbiatribune.com/2007/jan/20070105comm001.asp

The most interesting fact in the article was, if we were to handle all of our energy need with ethanol, we would have to devote 97% of our land to corn production. There has got to be a better way.

Another excellent article from 2005 (so, it is not as if we have just begun to recognize ethanol problems):

http://www.slate.com/id/2122961/

Clinton Gets Screwed

I don't really know how else to put it. I have watched the news this past week and every single news service and every single pundit seems to think that Obama has the nomination and that Hillary is wasting her time staying in the nomination process.

She kicked Obama's butt in West Virginia-40 point lead. This was 10x more significant than Edwards throwing his belated support to Obama...but each story was given equal coverage. That Clinton trounced Obama so badly when the nomination is virtually over is significant. The kinds of voters he needs, she has in her hip pocket. The voters he has--90% of the Black vote most recently--will mostly vote for her if she is the nominee.

By the way, in past elections, NO ONE has called over and over for the 2nd place candidate to drop out. When Ted Kennedy ran for president and was much farther behind, no one kept telling him day in and day out to drop out of the election.

By the way, the press is not anti-feminist; they are anti-Clinton and pro-Obama. One of the most fascinating aspects to the race on the Democratic side is how quickly and thoroughly the press has deserted Hillary Clinton (along with a number of Clinton insiders). I find this fascinating. I have heard from several Democrats who praise Bill Clinton to the skies, and yet are supporting Obama. If Clinton was so great, why not put him back in the White House? Republicans would vote for another Reagan in a heartbeat. Why don't Democrats feel the same way about Clinton?

In any case, this fight is not over; and if the super-delegates have a clue, they will break for Hillary. In the general election, she has a much better shot at beating McCain. I mention this out of intellectual integrity, not because I want Senator Clinton to win. As a conservative, I would much rather see Obama as the Democratic nominee, because ad after ad could be constructed from what he and those of his inner circle have said.

Right now, depending upon the super delegates, it is anyone's game; they can throw the election in either direction, even though it sounds as if Obama is the Democratic candidate on almost every news station (including Fox) and in almost every newspaper.

I must admit, I did believe that Hillary was going to take this election, because I saw the Clintons as being powerful beyond belief. So far, they have only been competitive. Still bear in mind, no matter what he media says, this race is not over yet.

Solving the Energy Crisis

Drill for oil in ANWR. Begin drilling off shore. Start the construction of 100 nuclear plants and make all of the workers dress in green shirts with blue jeans and call these green jobs. Slowly wean ourselves off of corn fuel, by reducing subsidies each year (ditto for all subsidies, including oil subsidies). Stop worrying about CO₂. 20 years from now, there will be absolutely no more energy crisis.

I forgot...wear earplugs, because there will be an incredible amount of liberal whining over the loss of our environment.

Assassination?

This past week, Senator Clinton has given as one of the reasons that she has stayed in the race is the assassination of Bobby Kennedy, who would have been our president had his life not been cut short by an Islamic extremist.

This is one of the things which has concerned me greatly. I must admit, there are times when I believe the Clintons are capable of doing anything. And, I mean anything. Obama, although I see him as probably the worst presidential candidate possible, might say anything, but I don't think that he is capable of doing anything to become president.

Clinton could have brought up other previous Democratic primaries where people with less of a chance than she has (like Edward Kennedy) stayed in the primary until the very end. She chose Robert Kennedy as her example and chose to mention that he was assassinated.

Assassination is something that we don't even like to speak of. President Bush assigned secret service protection to Barack Obama almost from the beginning, but this was done quietly and without mentioning the A-word. The press, which seems to be willing to reveal anything about our troops in Iraq, has not used the A-word until Hillary dropped it.

Did she just speak as a baby boomer viscerally affected by Bobby's death? Did she want to get the A-word out there in the press? Or, did it just slip from her tongue? I want to give her the benefit of the doubt here.

Obama: Jimmy Carter II?

Do you recall Jimmy Carter wearing sweaters and telling us that we need to lower our thermostats to 68° in the winter.

Obama has just said, “We can’t drive our SUV’s, and, yo, eat as much as we want, and keep our homes on, you know, 72°, at all times, whether we are living in the desert or living in the tundra, and then, and then, just expect that every other country is going to say, okay.”

Let me add, “Lay off my wife; Michelle is not fair game.” Even though she is out on the campaign trail speaking on his behalf.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=YMJyFKuKqck

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

What’s Rush been up to?

Nancy Pelosi offers her solution to the energy problem, which includes “suing OPEC...and personal methane reclamation.” ☺

http://mfile.akamai.com/5020/wma/rushlimb.download.akamai.com/5020/New/pelosienergymsg.asx

I must admit, at first, I thought this was real.

Good Rush Links

Iraqi Troops Take Charge of Sadr City in Swift Push

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/21/world/middleeast/21baghdad.html?_r=1&bl&ex=1211601600&en=d0a1ed67ee5b8c74&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin

Pelosi May have violated McCain-Feingold law

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200805/POL20080521a.html

(I agree; it was a stupid law; but the law is the law; and I bet that Pelosi voted for it)

More Proof of Global Warming: 5 states with winter storm warnings for this Memorial Day Weekend:

http://www.nws.noaa.gov/view/nationalwarnings.php?map=on

The government solves everything better; new leak in the new New Orleans levee system:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hC6vp5pFdl3BKR15CDnn0-czcFogD90QHBPO0

Which state receives most of its power from nuclear plants? You might be surprised...

http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/nuclear_statistics/usnuclearpowerplants/

(It’s Vermont; it gets 73% of its power from nuclear energy).

Rush: Count Michigan’s Votes as 3/5^ths

RUSH: I got an idea for you Democrats. Maybe you could do this. Maybe the Democrats could count three-fifths of each vote in Florida and Michigan. Well, it beats not counting any of the votes at all. Do you realize what they're on the verge of doing here disenfranchising this many people? Exactly right, Snerdley, three-fifths. Well, I don't know where you've heard it before. I'm sure you've got a great historical context for this, but I chose this number not at random, I chose it on purpose. We need to count three-fifths; Democrats count every vote three-fifths. It's the way you used to count black votes. It's the way the Democrat Party counted black votes, three-fifths of a vote for every black person of voting age. So maybe the Democrats could count three-fifths of each vote in Florida and Michigan.

I mean, it beats not counting the votes at all, and get a little bit further down the road here of not having a totally illegitimate nominee. Look, the Democrat Party used to support slavery 'til they were defeated in the Civil War. Let's be honest about this. They might be familiar with this three-fifths vote concept. But as I say, three-fifths would be a compromise with the Obama campaign, which doesn't want to count these votes at all. I mean you gotta start somewhere, and three-fifths I think is a great number. And, by the way, I agree with that lady. The cameraman ought to stop showing us Hillary's backside. Now, here's a funny story. There's an interview in the Florida St. Petersburg Times. Obama believes the votes in Florida and Michigan should count as a half a vote. "Obama, D-Ill., called the idea of cutting Florida's delegation in half 'a very reasonable solution' to the party's standoff over how to treat a primary contest that was not sanctioned by the Democratic National Committee."

Okay, so Mrs. Clinton can say no, three-fifths. Well, actually, Mrs. Clinton should start with every vote counts. Obama says, no, half a vote per person. Then you compromise out of tradition at three-fifths. But you gotta do something here, as I advised the Democrat Party and the superdelegates. Let me repeat this. I would encourage the Democrats to count each vote in Florida and Michigan as three-fifths of a vote just to tie it in with their historical position in a different context prior to the Civil War. Now, we Republicans, we believe in counting every vote. We Republicans, we believe in one person, one vote, even the people of Florida and Michigan. The Democrat Party, as it stands now, believes those votes don't even count. Obama says, okay, well, half of them will count, one half vote for every person. And, hell, he doesn't even have a slavery heritage and he's got more understanding of this than apparently some of the Democrats do, three-fifths, half, or what have you. Three-fifths is the number.

Ladies and gentlemen, I erred mere moments ago when I said that Obama has no slavery heritage. I was wrong. From the UK Times of March 4th, 2007, a little over a year ago: "The maternal ancestors of Barack Obama, the Democrat who hopes to become America's first black president, once owned slaves, genealogists have revealed. As the son of a white woman from Kansas and a black man from Kenya, the background of Obama, who went to a school in Indonesia, was already considered exotic. According to the genealogists, George Washington Overall, Obama's great-great-great-great grandfather, owned two slaves, a 15-year-old girl and 25-year-old man, who were listed in the 1850 Kentucky census. Another maternal ancestor owned two older slaves. In his autobiography, Dreams from My Father, Obama referred to family rumours that his relatives had links to both sides during the Civil War, but he did not know he had slaveholding ancestors. Bill Burton, a spokesman for the Illinois senator, said it showed his relatives were 'representative of America'." So now having relatives that owned slaves is a plus for a Democrat, because it shows that you have the ability to relate to all Americans from the beginning of our country's histoire.

See also:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Clinton_compares_the_Florida_and_Michigan_fight_to_civil_rights_movement.html

Obama’s forebears owned slaves:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article1466665.ece

Rush: Obama is Illegitimate Nominee

RUSH: Let's go back to the Democrat Party nomination process here, shall we, ladies and gentlemen? As I said back on May 7th, it has become clear to me (and I think to all the Democrats, too) that the only way Obama can sail to victory here is by not counting votes, specifically the votes of Michigan and Florida. Now, what does that say, that the Democrat Party's nominee was only able to capture the prize because votes in two states were not counted? Now, after having listened to Mrs. Clinton from yesterday in Boca Raton, Florida, I have to agree with her. If Barack Obama becomes the Democrat nominee, and if he becomes the nominee without counting the vote in Florida and Michigan, I have to agree with Hillary that Obama's nomination will then be illegitimate. If Obama becomes the Democrat nominee by virtue of fixing the vote -- by refusing to accept the votes of the Democrats in Florida, by refusing to accept the votes of the Democrats in Michigan -- then Obama is an illegitimate nominee for president.

Barack Obama: On the verge of becoming the illegitimate nominee of the Democrat Party. This is what they said after Florida 2000. Bush was an illegitimate president. Back then, by the way -- people forget this -- Algore, who has established the precedent now of litigating election results... As I suggested yesterday, by the way, to Mrs. Clinton: Do what the Democrat Party is known for: Sue! Litigate. If you don't get what you want after Florida and Michigan, litigate. You can use the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution equal-protection clause -- and in your case, Mrs. Clinton, you'll be asking that all votes be counted. Algore, in the Florida aftermath of 2000, was not asking for all votes to be recounted. He only wanted the votes recounted in three counties, all Democrat counties: Miami-Dade, Broward, and of course (our very own, home of the hanging chads) Palm Beach County.

Mrs. Clinton could go Algore one better. If necessary, litigate under the Fourteenth Amendment, equal-protection clause, count all the votes. And, Mrs. Clinton, you need to get your spokesman out there and you need to start using the words "illegitimate nominee." You might not want to make that direct attack. You might want to say, "The party will have produced an illegitimate result." Blame it on Dean; throw it back to the party. Speak as a proud Democrat -- and you, as a proud Democrat, having served in the White House for two terms (blah, blah, blah) you don't want the party to be accused or even, in reality, be a party of illegitimacy by virtue of not having counted all the votes. Yeah, I know. The rules were the rules for Florida and Michigan. "The Democrat Party has no rules," you tell 'em. "The Democrat Party has customs, and among them: Every vote counts."

RUSH: Look, it's real simple. Obama is cruising to becoming an illegitimate nominee of the Democrat Party, because every vote will not have been counted. Hillary's right. He would be the illegitimate nominee. I mean, look, this is the same party, ladies and gentlemen, that complains about voter IDs. I mean what a joke. Voter IDs, now they're disenfranchising millions of voters, minority voters especially, because the state parties didn't bow to the DNC and Howard "George Wallace" Dean. How can they nominate anybody if the guy can only win by having votes not count? I mean, that would not only taint Obama as illegitimate, it would destroy their entire ability to go back and use Florida 2000 as an attack against Republicans. You Democrats cannot afford to give that up. You gotta be able to use Florida 2000 for the rest of our political lives. If you don't do this, if you allow votes to not be counted, if you purposely reject votes from Florida and Michigan, then you can never with credibility use Florida 2000 and talk about how votes didn't count, Supreme Court chose the president, Bush was illegitimate 'cause you are on the way to nominating Barack Obama as an illegitimate nominee for the presidency of the United States from your party. It is something else for you superdelegates to put in the hopper and think about. J. B. in Miami as we start on the phones. Great to have you on the program today, J. B. Hello.

CALLER: Good afternoon, Mr. Limbaugh. I'm very upset that you're speaking in that manner, saying illegitimate candidate or this thing about not counting the votes. You know that he was not on the ballot in Michigan. Now, Florida, whatever they want to do with Florida, that's their problem with the Democrats, but he was not on the ballot in Michigan. How do you expect them to count the votes of Michigan? You are giving wrong information to the people, and you're using your radio to do that. This is not right.

RUSH: I firmly reject your premise. That was his choice.

CALLER: Yes, because he abided by the rules and she also agreed to the same rules, right?

RUSH: There are no rules in the Democrat Party. There are only traditions and customs.

CALLER: But she agreed to the rules, correct? Yes, I know.

RUSH: Yeah and then she stayed on the ballot because Mrs. Clinton's a fighter and she is smart and she'll hang in there for you people.

CALLER: No, that's cheating, she's cheating.

RUSH: She will fight for Democrats. Obama is one of these wusses who if he doesn't have a teleprompter doesn't know what the hell he's saying and he's going to be rolled and caved by the Congress if he becomes elected president. This is a crucial moment here for the Democrat Party, J. B., it really is.

CALLER: Man, I still think it's sad.

RUSH: Well, it is sad when you don't count every vote. You're from Miami. You know what went on here in 2000. Were you living in Florida in 2000?

CALLER: Of course. Of course. I'm an independent, so I don't care about the Democrats or Republicans. But I just think it has to be fair.

RUSH: Exactly. And how is it fair if you don't count the votes from two states, J. B.?

CALLER: You cannot count the votes in Michigan. You can go ahead and count Florida. They could do whatever they want with Florida. They cannot count Michigan.

RUSH: Okay, J. B., I'll play it along your line. There have been proposals by Democrats in Michigan -- Carl Levin among them, the ranking Senator -- to have a do over, to have a revote.

CALLER: Then they can go ahead and do that.

RUSH: No. Because Howard "George Wallace" Dean, who is the chairman of the Democrat National Committee, rejected it. No, we're not going to have a revote. We're not going to do it. No matter how you slice this, J. B., the Democrat Party is on the verge of having somebody illegitimate as their nominee on the basis of purposely not counting votes.

CALLER: Then it's the same if they actually go with Hillary. If she becomes the nominee, it's going to be the same situation.

RUSH: How can it be illegitimate if you count all the votes?

CALLER: You're counting votes from a state that the other candidate was not even on the ballot.

RUSH: What kind of rule is that?

CALLER: I don't make the rules.

RUSH: We're talking about the Democrat Party, for crying out loud. This is like a rule they still have time to fix. This is a bad rule, a mistaken rule, a rule that was written in conceit. They still have time to fix this.

CALLER: Then you should push on your radio to tell them to do it over.

RUSH: Well, there's a number of various ways of providing influence, but telling them that they are producing an illegitimate candidate here, that might spur them to make those votes in Michigan count however they have to do it, if they have to do a revote. But, you know, I'm not suggesting what they do because that's their business. I'm merely pointing out to them the ramifications and results of what they have already done and what they're about to do and that is not count those votes, and that's not good for them. Frankly, personally, I'm happy about it. I'm happy that they're gonna establish for the whole country to see that they are willing to disenfranchise their own party's voters, that they can't get their nominee unless certain states' votes don't count. As a conservative, I'm happy to see that.

CALLER: Well -- (laughing)

RUSH: I'm just warning you.

CALLER: I know you're having fun with this.

RUSH: Well, of course it's fun. I mean life is to be enjoyed. You only get one of them, and we try to get the most out of it regardless the oil price and the price of corn. We try to do that here and share our good fortune and our good moods and our good vibes. J. B., I'm glad you called. Thanks very much.

Rush: Count Every Vote

RUSH: Moving on, ladies and gentlemen, I want to get into the latest on oil prices and other elements of that story, but here are the details: "Three Florida delegates, including the state's Senate Democratic leader have filed a federal lawsuit against the Democratic National Committee claiming the DNC violated their constitutional rights by barring them from the party's national convention. 'This litigation addresses the view of Howard Dean and the Democratic National Committee that 1.75 million Democrats can be ignored at will.'" They're mad about this in Florida. Operation Chaos has provided a road map and a blueprint here because they don't want to be disenfranchised. They don't want to be three-fifths of a vote per vote down here. They want their votes to count, and the Democrat Party is disenfranchising them in one of the greatest disenfranchisements since the '65 Voting Rights Act was passed.

They're trying to secure the nomination for Barack Obama on the basis of not counting the voters in two whole states. The lawsuit says, "We believe we've found a winning legal strategy that will once and for all force the DNC to not only obey its own rules but to listen to the voices of millions of Democrats in one of the most influential states in the nation." Yeah, the DNC, Howard "George Wallace" Dean doesn't want your votes; he doesn't want to listen to your votes. He wants to disenfranchise you as well as the voters in Michigan. "The lawsuit claims there are rules which the DNC is obliged to follow but did not, along with certain US Constitutional rights the veteran state lawmaker and party super delegate contends are being violated." I know what they're doing. That's gotta be the Fourteenth Amendment, the equal-protection clause. As I suggested yesterday, this is the route to go.

"The litigation takes aim at three essential issues: The DNC broke its own rules by not investigating the events that led to Florida's early vote before punishing the state. Even though Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina also broke the same party rules by moving up their primaries, they were not sanctioned as Florida was, but were instead granted a waiver by the DNC from any such penalties." That's big. Separate but unequal in the Democrat Party; separate but unequal. And, hell, Obama is out there saying that he thinks the way to solve this is to count half a vote for every vote. I mean, that's not even three-fifths, which is part of Democrat Party tradition.

This is the third point in the lawsuit: "As the controversy unfolded, the DNC maintained that Florida should have held a post-primary Caucus. Doing so, Geller argued, likely would have resulted in only about 100,000 votes being counted, a tiny fraction of the 1.75 million voters who turned out in January, while at the same time, completely disenfranchising Florida Democrats in our country's military serving outside of Florida." So we don't want no caucus in Florida. It's a way to not count even more of our votes, including our valorous military personnel. Of course, in Florida, the Democrats didn't want to count them in 2000, but here in 2008 they do wish to count them.

"'Count every vote' is a very familiar war cry among Democrats. That cry is set to be heard this Saturday in Washington, DC, when the Democratic National Committee Rules Committee meets at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel in tony Northwest Washington. Here is the message from the Hillaryresponders.com site: '...the DNC Rules Committee is meeting that day to make a determination with respect to MI and FL and we think it is essential to convene in Washington to support our cherished democratic principles, help enfranchise MI and FL and to show that Hillary has equally high numbers of passionate, devoted supporters who believe fervently that she will be the better general candidate and best president. Our purpose is not to divide the party or attack the DNC or Senator Obama. At the same time, Hillary's strong support cannot be dismissed in DNC efforts to unify the party.'"

How much coverage will this demonstration get? I don't think it's gonna get a lot. It's on a Saturday, there will be media bias on the prowl, but, anyway, ladies and gentlemen, hell's a-poppin' out there in the Democrat Party over the disenfranchisement. May 7th I laid all this out for the Democrats. Now the Florida delegation, Clinton campaign following the blueprint. In fact, they're doing the litigation route. Algore started this as a Democrat tradition, sue over election results, and they're even doing that. I would bet you they're going to use the equal-protection clause in the Fourteenth Amendment, as I suggested yesterday.

Rush: Schumer Contradicts Himself (again)

RUSH: As you know, ladies and gentlemen, the big-time oil executives are being grilled up on Capitol Hill. Yesterday it was the Senate Judiciary Committee. Today some House committee is ripping into them. But an interesting story here just posted at AmericanThinker.com by Marc Sheppard. Senator Chuck Schumer, who is on the Judiciary Committee, says that coercing Saudi Arabia to increase oil production by one million barrels a day would drop the per-barrel price by $25, saving Americans 62 cents per gallon at the gas pump. Now, wait a second. It was just barely a week ago -- I remember this, we had the audio on this program -- it was just a week ago that Senator Schumer said drilling in ANWR was a waste of time because the same amount of oil, a million barrels a day coming from ANWR, would only ease oil prices by a penny. So a million barrels of oil from Saudi Arabia would drop the barrel price $25, according to Senator Schumer; a million barrels a day from ANWR would drop the barrel price by only one cent.

"Schumer repeated these words almost verbatim when grilling oil company executives during yesterday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearings." It was May 13th that he said this, and then he repeated this yesterday: "If Saudi Arabia were to increase its production by 1 million barrels per day that translates to a reduction of 20 percent to 25 percent in the world price of crude oil, and crude oil prices could fall by more than $25 dollar per barrel from its current level of $126 per barrel. In turn, that would lower the price of gasoline between 13 percent and 17 percent, or by more than 62 cents off the expected summer regular-grade price -- offering much needed relief to struggling families." And he said that to the oil company executives yesterday. And yet, I remember, we had the bite, Schumer out there at a press conference saying a million barrels from ANWR would only reduce the price of gasoline by one penny. It's not even necessary; don't talk to me about ANWR, not even necessary.

From the Washington Post today: "'Skyrocketing Oil Prices Stump Experts.' -- Confused about oil prices? So are the experts. Executives from the giant oil companies say it's partly the fault of 'speculators' or financial players. Key financial players say it's really a question of limited supply and expanding global demand. Some members of Congress accuse the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries for bottling up some of its production capacity. And OPEC blames speculators, wasteful US consumers and feckless US policy. Almost everyone points at China's growing appetite for fuel." Now, the second page of this story, Jeffrey Rubin, chief economist of CIBC World Markets, says, "The basic story that has brought oil from $20 to $130 dollars is that world demand is growing robustly when world supply is not. As a result, we need ever-higher world oil prices to kill demand in the [industrialized countries], which is exactly what's happening." So here's a guy that's happy, we need to kill demand in the industrialized countries. It's their fault. We need to kill demand. In other words, we better get used to doing away or doing with less.

I remember when we first started talking about this last week, I spent a little time trying to explain how these high prices at some point are going to burst because the markets will not be able to support this. Look at what's happening with American Airlines, and they're just the first. You know, Jet A fuel, which is essentially kerosene, has now gotten to the point they can't raise their fares and stay competitive with other airlines. The published fare price is an advertising thing or a marketing thing. They don't want to raise the fare. But they have to recoup some of this increase in the cost of fuel if they hope to keep flying. So what American's done is announced they're going to ground some airplanes, will be fewer flights, less capacity. They're also going to start charging for your first bag of luggage. And you can look for a whole lot of incidental charges to be added on as well. I'm telling you, let's say that the price of kerosene per gallon got up to ten bucks, that would have an effect on the aviation industry that it might not be able to deal with. At some point these prices have to come down, because markets simply won't support 'em. You can sit there and say all day long it's a great thing because we're going to reduce demand.

Look, there are stories out there, people are changing their diets; they're changing what they eat before they are spending less on gasoline. You all know about the American love affair with the automobile and driving around and so forth, and in most cases, people have to. I don't know how much joyriding goes on out there anymore; a lot of commuting to and from work, going to grocery stores, shopping and things that you have to do. It's not something you just park the car and take the bus, and a lot of Americans don't want to do that. Now, there's a story from the UK Telegraph today by Ambrose Evans Pritchard, and the headline is: "'Oil's Perfect Storm May Blow Over' -- The perfect storm that has swept oil prices to $132 a barrel may subside over the coming months as rising crude supply from unexpected corners of the world finally comes on stream, just as the global economic downturn begins to bite. The forces behind the meteoric price rise this spring are slowly receding. Nigeria has boosted output by 200,000 barrels a day (BPD) this month, making up most of the shortfall caused by rebel attacks on pipelines in April. The Geneva consultancy PetroLogistics says Iraq has added 300,000 BPD to a total of 2.57m as security is beefed up in the northern Kirkuk region. 'There is a strong rebound in supply,' said the group's president Conrad Gerber. Saudi Arabia is adding 300,000 BPD to the market in response to a personal plea from President George Bush, and to placate angry Democrats on Capitol Hill -- even though Riyadh insists that there are abundant supplies for sale."

So basically what's happening here, summarize this, why oil prices could come down: "What we know is that the International Monetary Fund has cut its forecast for world growth for 2008 three times since last autumn to 3.7pc, and the United Nations is predicting just 1.8pc -- technically, a global recession. The major oil forecasters have halved their estimates for crude demand growth to 1.2m BPD." So a slowing economy will equal less demand, which will of course reduce some of the pressure on supply. "The US added just 7pc of crude demand growth from 2004 to 2007, compared with 34pc for China, 25pc for the Middle East and 17pc for emerging Asia. Goldman Sachs argues that fuel prices in most of these countries are held down by state controls, insulating demand from the effect of any global downturn." Anyway the story goes on, and we'll link to it at RushLimbaugh.com, but essentially there are pressures out there, market forces, market pressures, that are going to bring down the price of a barrel of oil and accompanying drop in the price of gasoline.

It just stands to reason. I get up every day, I see this 130 bucks, 135, whatever, to 132, and frankly I've gotten to the point of laughing at it here because it's almost become -- I know it's real, but it's not real. You watch; this is not going to be supported. All these doom-and-gloomers out there saying $12-, $15-a-gallon gas is inevitable. Well, maybe in 15 years, who the hell knows, but not next week, which is the tenor of these news stories. At some point, markets work. Now, you know what a gallon of gasoline is in Saudi Arabia? It's like 75 cents. In Egypt it's 91 cents. Even China, in order to promote economic growth, is subsidizing gasoline prices for the people who have cars there. The price of gasoline in China is under two dollars, and maybe under a dollar. There are a lot of places in emerging economies where the government -- ChiComs are ChiComs but they understand they need economic growth, and they need disposable income in the back pockets of their citizens. They're subsidizing gas purchases. That's why people in these emerging countries are able to go out there and buy gasoline out the wazoo. That's probably going to change as well as these prices skyrocket because the government's are not going to spend that kind of money. So you watch, folks, it's going to work out.

Chuck Schumer yesterday talking to Big Oil execs, said if Saudi Arabia would increase their output by a million barrels a day, it would reduce the per barrel price by $25 and the pump price by 62 cents a gal. One million barrels additional from Saudi Arabia, $25 cheaper to buy a barrel of oil, 62 cents cheaper to buy a gallon of gasoline. April 28th, Chuck Schumer at a press conference.

SCHUMER: What does the president do? He takes out the old saw of ANWR. ANWR wouldn't produce a drop of oil in ten years, and it's estimated that if they drilled in ANWR, in 20 years it would reduce the price one penny. We've been pushing for a long time for energy efficiency. We believe in a price-gouging bill so that the big oil companies can't collude. We believe that there's too much speculation in the markets, and we believe that ought to be reined in.

RUSH: And not one thing that you believe in will produce one drop or BTU of energy. So there you have it, your brilliant Democrat Party, Senator Schumer, a million barrels from America reduces the price a penny. A million barrels from Saudi Arabia reduces the price $25. Look at this. PMSNBC.com: "Even the Cost of a Barbecue is Heating Up." Oh, let's just scare everybody, let's just scare and make everybody chaotic and miserable. "Hamburgers and hot dogs? Check. Lighter fluid? Check. Beer? Check. More money? Americans are about to fire up their barbecues for the start of the summer cookout season, and one thing has become painfully apparent: It's going to cost a lot more than it did last year to roast a burger, or just about any other barbecue favorite, on the grill. Food inflation is the highest in almost [twenty years], driven by record prices for oil, gas and mounting global demand for staples such as wheat and corn, and for proteins such as chicken. And that's reaching into Americans' backyards." Does this story ever blame the people responsible for all this?

Let me see if I can find the word Democrat in this story. Not here. Why is corn so damn high? Why is wheat so damn high? Because of all these biofuels. We're growing food and not using it to feed people, and it's not reducing the price of gasoline, is it? Is it, folks? Are all these biofuels putting any downward pressure on the price of gasoline? "'I'm finding myself questioning every purchase, wondering if it's gonna get eaten or if we really need it,' said Tony Caballero, an advertising and marketing consultant, as he filled his cart with paper plates at a Food Emporium in New York City. 'When you do your everyday shopping, you try to cut corners. But it's a shame to have to scale down when you're trying to throw a party.' ... Basic economics account for most of the increase: Bad weather has hurt crops...'" Oh, give me a break.

One more thought on oil. One thing you have to keep in mind about big oil companies. This is just something that you've gotta keep in mind. What do they do? Obviously, they produce energy, they find oil, they drill for it, they bring it up, they send it off to refineries, in some cases they own the refineries. But like every other company, they have a duty to their shareholders to keep the stock price up. And so, it may well be that some of these companies don't want to really massively increase the amount of oil they produce every year because they don't want to overshoot one year so that they can't meet their expectations the next year. They want to be able to show a steady increase in production for their stockholders and so forth. You can imagine if whatever their production is last year, they up it by 20% next year. Ooh wow, really good, then the year after that they can only up it ten. You know what Wall Street analysts are going to say, "Big Oil in big trouble, can't meet demand, stock price goes down, not good." I am saying this to you only because there's more oil out there than anybody can shake a stick at. It's just a question of going to get it.

Truth In Politics: Illinois Gas Prices And Taxes

http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/gas.prices.taxes.2.729939.html

Bear in mind, the government pockets about 4x as much as the oil companies do when you buy gas.

Big Oil defends profits before irate senators

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080521/D90Q9U601.html

Oil's perfect storm may blow over

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/05/22/ccoil122.xml&CMP=ILC-mostviewedbox

And this is a goodie:

How much have the Democrats cost you at the pump?

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/05/how_much_have_the_democrats_co.html

Hillary Follows Rush’s Advice

RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, here is Jonathan Chait at the New Republic blog. "Hillary Clinton's rhetoric today about counting the results in Florida and Michigan is simply incredible. Her speech compares discounting the Florida and Michigan primaries to vote suppression and slavery." It's worth repeating. They supported this disenfranchisement. Also at Politico.com, the Ben Smith blog: "Hillary Clinton compared her effort to seat Florida and Michigan delegates to epic American struggles, including those to free the slaves and win the right to vote for blacks and women." I want to take you back to this program, May the 7th. This is May 22nd. We're going to go back 15 days. This is a little over two weeks. The Drive-Bys listening to Mrs. Clinton are apoplectic about what she's saying. Operation Chaos claims another success. I have three bites of me on this program from May 7th.

RUSH ARCHIVE: The Democrat Party is willing to disenfranchise voters of all stripes from two large states in order to end the chaos that is their party nomination process. As I say, not since the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 have we witnessed such a large-scale effort to obstruct the vote. The Democrat Party up to its old tricks. The party of slavery, the party of segregation, the party of poll taxes is now the party of disenfranchisement in Michigan and in Florida.

RUSH: This stated by me, you just heard it from May 7th. Here's Mrs. Clinton yesterday in Boca Raton.

HILLARY: In each successive generation, this nation was blessed by men and women who refused to accept their assigned place as second-class citizens. The abolitionists and all who fought to end slavery and ensure freedom came with the full rights of citizenship. The tenacious women and a few brave men who gathered at the Seneca Falls convention back in 1848 to demand the right to vote. The men and women who knew their constitutional right to vote meant little when poll taxes and literacy tests, violence and intimidation made it impossible to exercise their right. So they marched and protested, faced dogs and tear gas, knelt down on that bridge in Selma to pray and were beaten within an inch of their lives.

RUSH: Wow, ladies and gentlemen, my advice offered here to the Clinton campaign on May 7th has finally been taken. Here is more of me on May 7th saying this about Mrs. Clinton.

RUSH ARCHIVE: Mrs. Clinton needs to demand counting the popular vote in Michigan and Florida. She needs to demand this. She then perhaps should do what liberals always do in the end and take the whole matter to court. As for the votes in Michigan and Florida, I have a question: Will the Democrat Party become the party of disenfranchisement? Will it become the party that denies millions of people the right to participate in their own electoral process? Will it become the party where some votes count more than others? Will the Democrat Party become the party of backroom deals? The Justice Department civil rights division should investigate the Democrat Party's rules, and Mrs. Clinton should call for this. Those rules disenfranchise millions of voters, including minority voters in Michigan and Florida, and the Democrats are very concerned about the minority vote, and there's a bunch of minorities in Florida and Michigan whose votes are not going to matter a hill of beans to the nomination process. I also have a little aside for those of you women who are supporting Hillary Clinton in this process of backroom deals. You are about to get screwed. The Democrat Party is aiming to make as many people -- this is unintentional -- unhappy and miserable as they can.

RUSH: Yesterday in Boca Raton, Mrs. Clinton.

HILLARY: People have fought hard because they knew their vote was at stake and so was their children's futures. Because of those who have come before, Senator Obama and I and so many of you have this precious right today. Because of all that has been done, we are in this historic presidential election, and I believe that both Senator Obama and myself have an obligation as potential Democratic nominees. In fact, we all have an obligation as Democrats to carry on this legacy and ensure that in our nominating process, every voice is heard and every single vote is counted.

RUSH: Yay! And again, we go back to me on this program May the 7th.

RUSH ARCHIVE: I thought that we as a nation had put all this behind us. Where is the civil rights division of the Justice Department? Where are the House and Senate judiciary committees? Why are there no investigations? Why are there no demands for investigations? The closest we've come to examining the undemocratic process of the nomination of the Democrat Party nominee is an episode of Boston Legal last week in which the Democrat Party was sued over its rules. The party won. But it was the first exposure in mass media of the entirely undemocratic process. I realize they're a private group, private organization, they can set their rules up, but what's the name of the party? They call themselves Democrats. There is nothing democratic about their nomination process, as is evidenced now, not only by the existence of their superdelegates, the party hacks who will be making this decision behind closed doors, smoke-filled rooms and so forth, then denying two states their right to be seated at the Democrat National Convention. And again, we're not talking about small states; we're talking about Florida and Michigan. We're about to witness the most egregious assault on voting rights since the 1960s. Howard Dean, as the chairman of the Democrat National Committee, Howard Dean is responsible for this. Howard Dean is in charge of the process. He is the George Wallace of our time. Howard Dean is standing in the way of counting the votes from Florida and Michigan.

RUSH: Now, remember, these three sound bites you're hearing of me, these were all aimed at the Clinton campaign. I was addressing the Clinton campaign and urging them not to sit down, to stand up and fight, to count Florida and Michigan, to stop the disenfranchisement and going back and comparing it, the poll taxes and the Democrat Party being the party of poll taxes, and of course greatest violation of the Voting Rights Act since 1965. Mrs. Clinton one more time from Boca Raton yesterday.

HILLARY: We believe the popular vote is the truest expression of your will. We believe it today just as we believed it back in 2000 when right here in Florida you learned the hard way what happens when your votes aren't counted and the candidate with fewer votes is declared the winner. The lesson of 2000 here in Florida is crystal clear: If any votes aren't counted, the will of the people isn't realized and our democracy is diminished. You didn't break a single rule, and you should not be punished for matters beyond your control.

RUSH: Yes, yes. Shouting, count the votes, count the votes, count the votes. So you see what happened here. On May 7th, I, El Rushbo, the commander-in-chief of US Operation Chaos, suggested to the Clintons that they not give up Florida and Michigan and that they attack this on the basis of disenfranchisement. Not since the Voting Rights Act of 1965 have we seen this kind of denial of the democratic process to so many voting Americans including minorities in Florida and Michigan. And beginning early this week the Clinton campaign followed my advice. Earlier this week we had sound bites of Howard Wolfson, spokesman, and The Punk, Terry McAuliffe, both using the word disenfranchisement to talk about what's happening with Florida and Michigan. Now, the Drive-By Media is trying to ignore Hillary's argument here, but CNN's Gloria Borger picked up on it. Last night on CNN's Election Center the hostette, Campbell Brown, talked with Gloria Borger about all this. And Campbell Brown said, "Earlier today, Senator Clinton told the AP she might take this Florida battle all the way to the convention."

BORGER: She started making counting votes in Florida and Michigan a civil rights issue. She's talked about abolitionists and suffragettes and counting your vote, and that's what she worked for as a young student. And so she's kind of made this an issue larger than Florida and Michigan, and if she feels that the results of that May 31 meeting of the rules committee doesn't turn the out the way she wants it, it's going to be hard for her to climb down off that tree.

RUSH: This is just amazing. This is frankly just amazing. I'm waiting for the next round of reporters to accuse me of tampering with our precious electoral process and accuse me of altering the outcomes. Here is Mrs. Clinton from Sunday, Bowling Green, Kentucky, she said this to the Washington Post.

HILLARY: The manifestation of some of the sexism that has gone on in this campaign is somehow more respectable, or at least more accepted. And I think there should be equal rejection of the sexism and the racism when and if it ever raises its ugly head. But it does seem as though the press, at least, is not as bothered by the incredible vitriol that has been engendered by the comments and reactions of people who are nothing but misogynists.

RUSH: Nothing but misogynists. And so also part of that monologue on May 7th, ladies and gentlemen, was an appeal to Mrs. Clinton and to the women of the Democrat Party that they were going to get screwed, politically, of course. They're being shafted here, politically, of course, in a number of ways, in favor of a young black guy with no experience, better looking guy, remember I made an appeal to women. It's all coming out. They're using it now in their own ways, but the premise of Operation Chaos to keep this going has been picked up by the Clinton campaign successfully.

Rush: Obama is a Seriously Flawed Candidate

RUSH: This happened while I was gone. I read this on Sunday. Barack Obama in Roseburg, Oregon, during a campaign rally, this is what Senator Obama said.

OBAMA: We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on, you know, 72 degrees at all times and -- whether we're living in the desert or we're living in the tundra, and then just expect that every other country is going to say, okay, you know you guys go ahead and keep on using 25% of the world's energy, even though you only account for 3% of the population, and we'll -- we'll be fine, don't worry about us. That's not leadership.

RUSH: This man is a product of his environment, and that is a line of thinking straight out of the academy. It is straight out of elitist professors, universities, teachers and so forth. It's almost an orthodoxy. It's not original thinking in any way, shape, manner, or form, but it also represents a worldview that is so starkly unrealistic and wrong as to be frightening. Because what Obama is saying is basically that he believes in a zero sum game, meaning that if you keep your house at 72 degrees, some poor slob in Darfur has to keep his thermostat at 92 degrees, or if you go out and eat a second Quarter Pounder with cheese, hold the pickles, that somebody around the world is denied their first Quarter Pounder with cheese, hold the pickles. More than that, this is the personification of the Jimmy Carter second-term campaign. You in America are guilty. You must do with less. What the world thinks of us is more important, and leadership will be defined in an Obama presidency by making you do with less.

Never mind that you doing with less will not lead to anybody else by definition having more, because that's not how it happens. Economies, world and national, are constantly enlarging. The pie gets bigger and bigger and bigger in free market systems. This is frighteningly uninformed. It is not intellectual in any way, shape, manner, or form. He is saying something that's been around from the environmentalist wacko playbook for 25 years, and it is frightening that there are people out there who applaud this. Now, I want to take a moment here once again, I've endeavored to do this on two or three previous occasions. I want to speak to you superdelegates in the Democrat Party. Mike, ready that sound bite again. You superdelegates, please, listen to this with your undivided attention.

OBAMA: We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on, you know, 72 degrees at all times and -- whether we're living in a desert or we're living in the tundra, and then just expect that every other country is going to say, okay, you know, you guys go ahead and keep on using 25% of the world's energy, even though you only account for 3% of the population, and we'll -- we'll be fine. Don't worry about us. That's not leadership.

RUSH: Now, you superdelegates have a real tough decision to make here. You know full well you have a totally flawed candidate here. You know full well when you hear that that you are hearing your party's probable standard-bearer tell this country that it is not exceptional. Your candidate is ignorant of all of the production that this country has shared with the world in the form of inventions, creations, and advancements in lifestyle that have benefited people the world over, who live in democracies and free market societies. Your candidate is doing his level best to tell the people that he wants to vote for him and your party that the United States of America is guilty, that its best days are behind us, that there is no future, that we cannot keep living as we have, and if we do, we are going to destroy our reputation in the world and the world itself. You know full well this man cannot be elected. You superdelegates know, in your hearts, he cannot be elected. He can't be elected even against John McCain. He cannot be elected. You know it. You know you are looking at a disaster. If he keeps talking like this -- and there's every expectation he will because his mind is nothing more than a sponge that has soaked up all of the gobbledygook and anti-American BS that he hears from his university buddies. When you listen to Obama speak, you may as well be listening to a college professor, tenured or otherwise.

Now, you supers, we were told that after, what was it, North Carolina, that there would be a steady stream of superdelegates announcing for Obama and for a couple days, there was a trickle, but it has stopped. I saw one today has decided to go to Obama after this huge victory in Oregon. Where are you all? Obama's now reduced, after having been blown out of five of the last seven primaries, I mean blown out, blown out, not getting anywhere near the votes necessary from your most popular constituency, working class white voters, he's demonstrating he cannot win this election. You know full well he can't. It is time for you supers to buck up here. It is time for you to get with the program and get with the plan. I share your pain. I understand the dilemma that you face. You're worried to death that if you take this away from him, that you're going to have riots, you're going to have all kinds of problems with the black vote. I keep trying to tell you, you have done far worse to black people in this country and your own party than taking the nomination away from Barack Obama. And they have always stuck with you, and they will keep sticking with you.

What is the point, superdelegates, of being super, if you're not going to be super? What's the point of being a rubber stamp? The superdelegates were set up to be "super" delegates. The superdelegates were set up to prevent the very mistake that is on the verge of being made by your party. I can hear what you're saying back to me, saying, "Mr. Limbaugh, we understand you, but do you realize what our option is? It's Hillary Clinton." Yeah, I know the dilemma that you're in. I understand the problem that you've got. I understand that for a lot of you superdelegates, it's really not even about the party. It's about you personally and you wanting a future. Let me put it in terms that are very stark to you. You want to support somebody who's going to lose this election? Does that make you a winner? Does that help you out down the road? You have, in Barack Obama, one of the most flawed candidates that a political party has ever been on the verge of nominating to be president of the United States, and you know it. He thinks he has campaigned in 57 states. He has said things that Dan Quayle would have been tarred and feathered for saying. He is a gaffe machine. Gaffe after gaffe after gaffe.

Michelle Malkin has a column today, National Review Online, in which she lists a number of these gaffes. You're all familiar with them, you'll remember that when you read them, but the press has never made a big deal out of them, but you supers, you know, you know what they are. And you know that once this primary season ends, that those gaffes are going to be exploited. Fifty-seven states; we need Arab language people in Afghanistan, where they don't speak Arabic, he said that in Cape Girardeau Missouri. Even the folks at Thorngate Limited, the clothing manufacturing factory where he spoke, scratched their heads on that one. Even the people in Rio Linda got that one. That's how bad that gaffe was. When they understand it's a gaffe in Rio Linda, you are in trouble.

You better think about this. You have time. He's lost five of the last seven. He's been blown out. Look at your own precious exit polls. Look at what the public is seeing of your party. It's either sexist or racist. And you've got nothing but anger roiling throughout your party on both sides of this primary. Livid rage used to be directed at George W. Bush. Now it's directed internally. As I say, what's the point of being a superdelegate if you're not going to be super? What's the point in being a superdelegate if you're just going to rubber-stamp? You are there to prevent just this kind of mistake. You are there to prevent another Jimmy Carter. You are there to prevent another George McGovern. You are in the process of nominating one who encapsulates both of them.

Rush on Michelle Obama

[This is from a few months ago]

RUSH: Here is Michelle Obama. This is yesterday in Madison, Wisconsin, at a Barack Obama campaign event, a portion of her remarks.

MRS. OBAMA: What we've learned over this year is that hope is making a comeback. It is making a comeback, and let me tell you something, for the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country, and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change. And I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction and just not feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment. I've seen people who are hungry to be unified around some basic, common issues, and it's made me proud.

RUSH: Now, this, folks, is unhinged. I mean, I have had heard some female commentators today, "I totally understand what she's talking about. She's black; she's African-American." Let's see, "for the first time in my adult lifetime I'm really proud of my country." She and her husband are in the upper 1% of wage earners in this country. Where did she go to school? She went to, I think, Harvard, Yale or whatever. They went to private schools. They are millionaires. They live in the suburbs. I don't think he marched at Selma. I don't think he got beat upside the head. I don't think Bull Connor turned the fire hose on him. I don't think dogs were unleashed on Barack Obama. She, Mrs. Obama did not experience any of the 1950 segregation. To say something like that and to get a complete pass; people acting as though this is something unique and revelatory, that this is some special couple. Did she not feel proud about the Berlin Wall coming down? Has she not felt proud about the way we came together after 9/11? It is unbelievable to me that -- and this goes to the root, I think, of some of the things we discuss here frequently, and that is people taking this country for granted, not having any understanding what it took to get this country where it is.

Here are two relatively young people, who grew up after a road had been paved for them. They have nothing in the world to be miserable about. He is running for the presidency of the United States. He ran for the Senate and made it. They have nothing in the world to be miserable or unhappy about or embarrassed about when it comes to this country. It is just outrageous for this kind of thing to be stated. The sad thing is it's going to resonate with a lot of people because over the years many Americans have been told from grade school on up how unfair, how unjust, how racist, how sexist, how bigoted this country is. Look at Oprah Winfrey. Does Oprah not make her proud? Oprah's success, the movies, the TV show, how can that not make her proud? Oprah is a black woman as is Michelle Obama. By the way, there's something else I had in the stack yesterday, didn't have a chance to get to it so I saved it for today, and it has to do with the fact that she said, "Only Barack Obama can fix America's soul. Only Barack Obama can fix America's broken soul."

Now, Michelle Malkin had a great reaction to this. Can you imagine if Huckabee or if Mitt Romney or if McCain, or any Republican presidential candidate came out and said, "America's soul is broken, and only Huckabee can fix it, or only McCain can"? There would be an outcry from the separation of church and state crowd. And of course the soul, whether you people want to admit this or not, is a religious concept in many ways and in most ways. So now we're getting religion mixed into all of this from Barack Obama, and his wife says this is the first time in her life she has been proud of this country. Doesn't it just grate on you that liberals in general are not proud of their country, period? Doesn't it grate on you that they're embarrassed; that they hate the country; that they dislike it, and now she comes out with this kind of comment and all these people sitting around and hoping for whatever, are swooning and fainting?

[A month later]

RUSH: It's not just Barack Obama in the news, ladies and gentlemen, his lovely and gracious wife -- lovely and angry wife -- Michelle (My Belle) Obama. A YouTube video of her has surfaced of a speech that she gave January 23rd, 2008, and in it she sounds like Rosalynn Carter. Remember when Rosalynn Carter, talking about Ronald Reagan, said, "He makes us comfortable with our prejudices." This infuriated me. Here was Rosalynn Carter saying Reagan's a bigot and a racist and a sexist and all those cliches that they attach to conservatives, but he's so sweet and he's got such an engaging personality, he's so charismatic that he makes us comfortable with our prejudices, as though prejudices that liberals hold are the fault of conservatives. Michelle (My Belle) Obama said pretty much the same thing on January 23rd, 2008, in Columbia, South Carolina.

MICHELLE: We don't like being pushed outside of our comfort zones. You know it right here on this campus. You know people sitting at different tables, y'all living in different dorms. I was there. Y'all not talking to each another, taking advantage of the fact that you're in this diverse community because sometimes it's easier to hold onto your own stereotypes and misconceptions, it makes you feel justified in your ignorance. That's America. So the challenge for us is, are we ready for change?

RUSH: Were you listening? Look at me, folks, look at me. She said because sometimes it's easier to hold onto your own stereotypes and misconceptions, it makes you feel justified in your own ignorance. That's America. This was just last January. This woman and her husband have no question been influenced by Jeremiah Wright, and wherever else they have been. So she said the challenge for us is, are we ready for change? Now, I wonder, where in the world dear Michelle Obama could have learned such a thing about stereotypes. Did she perhaps learn this at her Ivy League skrool? Did she learn this at the hospital that paid her $300,000 a year? This quote, "It's easier to hold onto your own stereotypes and misconceptions, it makes you feel justified in your own ignorance. That's America. So the challenge for us is, are we ready for change?" This quote and the attitudes of people like Michelle Obama tick me off. The essence of conservatism is that it does not care what race, sex, or creed a person is. They, on the left, are the ones obsessed with those markers, yet they on the left have to tag us constantly with racism. It's their projection, as anybody can see. The racism in this country is on full display, smack-dab in the middle of the Democrat Party.

Link to America the Ignorant:

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/03/26/michelle-obama-america-the-ignorant/

Rush: Global Warming and Carbon Credits

RUSH: The head of the IPCC, that UN global warming group that got the Nobel Peace Prize along with Algore, his name is Dr. Pachauri. He said this: "'It is ruinous for developing countries to pursue growth in the same path.' He said human addiction to petroleum products was the root of the climate problem. 'Climate change is unequivocal. The number of skeptics is dwindling.'" The number of skeptics is growing. Thirty-one thousand of them just signed a one-page piece of paper signaling that they are skeptics. But, look, here's the bottom line. Who is this guy? He is a politicized scientist.

He is a United Nations liberal, and he's telling the poor people of the world: "Stay poor. If you're eating dirt, keep eating dirt. If it turns to mud, take a bath in it. But don't you even think about growth." Now, guess who else has been instigating that policy? American environmentalists. They are equating growth with pollution and destruction of the planet, and they, US environmental leftists, these people at the United Nations, Rachel Carson, whole bunch of leftists, are the primary reason the whole subcontinent of Africa remains a Third World country. There are people outside of Africa standing in the way of that continent's economic growth and progress, from the UN to the United States, all a bunch of leftists, all on the basis of a hoax. Now, if they are willing to tell some of the poorest people in the world to stay that way, if they are willing to threaten the poorest people in the world to stay that way, can you then come to realize what their intention is for us?

RUSH: I just printed this out. Following the news that the guy running the UN's global warming hoax has told the world's poor to stay that way and has every intention of spreading poverty to as much of the world as possible, there is -- oh, wonderful! You know, I hate these British websites! I literally hate these British websites. They show up on the Internet as page one; when you print page one, and takes page four to get to page one. Anyway, here's the bottom line because I don't have time to print it again. It's the Independent, the UK Independent. The first two paragraphs of the story tell the tale. They have had over three years' experience with cap-and-trade (McCain's big plan and Lieberman's big plan) to deal with global warming. Basically, these carbon offsets where you go out and the government assigns you and your business X-number of carbon molecules, whatever; they set out how big your carbon footprint can be.

They tell you what it's going to be, and then if you exceed that (and you will) you pay a tax on it, and you can buy unused carbon footprints from other companies, but either way, the company that either exceeds the limits or has to buy others for exceeding the limits is going to have to raise their prices. It's just a huge tax increase. They've been doing it now for three years in the European Union, and people are starting to wise up. They don't believe that any of this cap-and-trade stuff is about changing behavior. They have figured out that they don't think it has anything to do with saving the planet. It's just a backdoor ruse to raising taxes, pure and simple -- and when I get to the break and have time I'll print the story and read those first two paragraphs to you because it's fascinating.

There is this story from Billings, Montana. It's the Associated Press: "A new report from the Bush administration says most of the oil and more than 40 percent of the natural gas beneath public lands in the United States are off limits to drilling. Opening those reserves would give energy companies access to an estimated 19 billion barrels of oil and 95 trillion cubic feet of natural gas... That would require Congress to roll back environmental safeguards and lift drilling prohibitions on vast areas -- from Florida to Alaska and across the Rocky Mountain West. The report, from the Bureau of Land Management," and according to AP, "is likely to add to growing political pressure to curb fuel imports and dampen prices by ramping up domestic energy production."

But then they say this: "But it comes amid a development backlash in some parts of the country, where drilling rigs are blamed for interrupting wildlife migrations, fouling water supplies and marring natural vistas. 'If we want to lower the cost of energy, we must be willing to use our own energy resources as part of a balanced and rational energy policy,' said Assistant Secretary of Interior C. Stephen Allred." You know, here's the problem. I'm feeling pretty irrational about this right now. None of this is making any sense, unless you look at it in a political sense; unless you want to believe that the Democrat Party is interested in causing as much economic distortion, malaise, and misery as they can leading up to the November elections in order to secure their electoral chances or to improve them. Because none of this makes any sense. To sit around and send our president over to beg the Saudis, to have to beg OPEC, have to ask others to increase their production? We've got plenty here, and we have all these obstacles in the way. The polar bear being placed on the endangered species list -- by the way, the humpback whale has come back. It was on the endangered species list. It's come back. There are 20,000 of them out there.

Does this mean it gets off the list? No, no, no, no! It's just like a tax increase. Once it's there, it's there, just like an entitlement. It doesn't change. The governor of Alaska, Ms. Palin, is out there going to sue the federal government over this stupid, idiotic ruling on the polar bear. There are more of them today than there were in 1974. Of course the answer to that is, "Well, yes, but the ice is shrinking up there, their habitat." Well, it's not shrinking, and even if it were, let 'em adapt! They're animals; they'll be fine. They don't need icebergs to live on! Hell, I've seen a couple of them in the city zoo in New York, in the summertime. Now, they do have to lay on ice now and then, have to keep the water cold, but for crying out loud, the things will adapt! I mean, it's never going to get so warm in the Arctic Circle up there that the polar bear is ever going to be threatened.

Hell, we have to hunt the damn thing! Five hundred thousand a year shot or something like that because they pose threats and dangers. None of this makes any sense whatsoever, especially during a period of time like this. Most of the oil, more than 40% of the natural gas is on government land, and it's off limits to drilling. Almost all of our oil we are not allowed to access. Almost half of our natural gas, we can't get to it. "Opening up these resources would give energy companies access to 19 billion barrels of oil, 231 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Based on current consumption, the inaccessible reserves amount to a two-year supply of oil and a ten-year supply of natural gas." That might look ugly. We can't do that. It might foul waterfowl and wildlife.

"House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick Rahall pointed out that drilling on federal lands has increased steadily since 2000 -- even as gas prices rose. He said [that the] report gives the 'absolutely false impression' that more drilling results in cheaper energy prices. 'We simply cannot drill our way to lower prices at the pump,' Rahall said." Really, Nicky? If we can't, then somebody explain to me why we're asking everybody else in the world to increase their output? These people are damn fools. How did it ever happen that we began to treat members of Congress as something special and five or ten cuts above everybody else, when the evidence goes to show that they're just like everybody else? They're morons half the time! How in the world can you say that there's no evidence that drilling will help reduce price? We simply cannot drill our way to lower prices at the pump? Okay, fine. Then let's shut down all of the drilling that we're doing in this country. Let's really go safe. Let's really be environmental correct. Let's shut down every oil well, since it doesn't matter, since our own production doesn't matter.

This is absurd -- and this guy, as the chairman, is obviously a Democrat. It doesn't say this in the AP story, but I know enough to know that a chairman of a committee that's dominated by Democrats is also going to be a Democrat. Nick Rahall, the House Natural Resources Committee chairman. Hey, Nick, why don't we try it and see what happens? Why don't we try drilling some? Why don't we try? Gotta get started. I mean, the ChiComs and the Russians and the Italians are moving forward on nuclear, and what are we doing? We're putting windmills off Ted Kennedy's place up in Cape Cod; we can't do that because he can see 'em, and the windmills, what kind of havoc are they causing on birds and so forth? And now we're talking about capturing solar power and all this other wacko leftist stuff. It doesn't make common sense. Yet there are explanations for it -- and then in Illinois. Dick Durbin, Little Dick Durbin sits in Washington, points his finger at oil executives for their excessive profits. His home state is bleeding people in taxes.

RUSH: I finally in the break had a chance to print out this story from the UK Independent. Here are the first two graphs: "More than seven in ten voters--" that's more than 70% for those of you in Rio Linda. "More than seven in 10 voters insist that they would not be willing to pay higher taxes in order to fund projects to combat climate change, according to a new poll. The survey also reveals that most Britons believe 'green' taxes on 4x4s, plastic bags and other consumer goods have been imposed to raise cash rather than change our behaviour, while two-thirds of Britons think the entire green agenda has been hijacked as a ploy to increase taxes."

Amen, bro, because they've been at it for three years now. They've been doing the stupid carbon credit thing, the cap-and-trade thing, and they haven't seen any reduction in global warming. And they still hear these same naysayers and fearmongers promising even more doom and gloom. They're paying more taxes, they're getting rid of their cars, they're doing all the things that good little socialist people do when their leaders tell 'em to do it, and all of a sudden what the leaders promised isn't happening and then they finally see what this is all about, separating them from their money! The next paragraph is hilarious: "The findings make depressing reading for green campaigners, who have spent recent months urging the Government to take far more radical action to reduce Britain's carbon footprint. The UK is committed to reducing carbon emissions by 60 percent by 2050, a target that most experts believe will be difficult to reach." It's impossible! It's not possible! Well, you could turn the whole world into a Third World planet, you might, but nobody would want to live here, and some of the people aren't going to put up with it. This is not possible.

"The results of the poll by Opinium, a leading research company, indicate that maintaining popular support for green policies may be a difficult act to pull off, and attempts in the future to curb car use and publicly fund investment in renewable resources will prove deeply unpopular," as long as they still have their freedom. As long as they still have their freedom to say, screw you, greenies, screw you, Labor Party, we're not paying your new taxes. As long as they still have the freedom to vote those people out, then yes, that's a point.

Now, little Dick Durbin, sits there all sanctimonious, lecturing these oil company executives. Dick Durbin would not know what an oil derrick looks like if he saw one. He wouldn't have the slightest idea how to produce a drop of energy. The same guy who accused our interrogators at Club Gitmo, where I, by the way, have a thriving merchandise business in Club Gitmo gear, accused them of being Pol Pot-like, Nazi gulag-like, Soviet gulag-like. He has the nerve to complain that, in his state of Illinois, Chicago residents are paying the highest gasoline prices in the country, and he points his finger of blame right at the Big Oil executives. Thank goodness, even in the era of the Drive-By Media, we still have some news outlets who will not let this idiot get away with that. It's none other than CBS television in Chicago, the local CBS affiliate.

"Tired of seeing the price at the pump jump every time you need to buy gasoline? Well, the record-high price of gasoline in the Chicago area is linked to a record-high rate of taxation: nearly 20 percent of the Chicago price. As CBS 2 Political Editor Mike Flannery reports, tax refugees wait in long lines on Indianapolis Boulevard in Northwest Indiana. They jockey for position at a pump, lured by prices that are 20 cents a gallon or more cheaper than just a few blocks away back in Illinois. 'It was $4.20. I can come over here and get it for $3.93,' said Tikvah Wadley, one of the many fleeing Illinois taxes." Tikvah Wadley -- that is a great name for someone fleeing taxes. "Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin complained to oil company bosses at a hearing on Capitol Hill about Chicago having the highest gasoline prices in the United States. Largely ignored was the role taxes are playing -- an astounding 10 levels of taxation." And also in Chicago, when the price of gas goes up, the tax goes up. The federal tax stays the same, 18.4 cents, but in Chicago, a lot of other places, too, you raise the price per gallon and the tax goes up proportionately, and that of course is exactly the point for the politicians.

"Gov. Blagojevich, for example, is counting on the high price of gasoline to bring at least an extra $220 million in the State Treasury in the fiscal year that begins this July. Most of that will be used to balance the way-out-of-balance budget." So while these guys, Durbin, Blagojevich, are all over television whining and moaning trying to relate to the consumer about this high price of gasoline and pointing evil fingers at the Big Oil execs, they're privately, behind closed doors, they're rubbing their hands, "Boy, we are soaking these people, and we are never going to get the blame and we're going to be able to get some money," and they're not going to reduce any damn deficit in Illinois. No government ever does. They're going to spend it on something else. Then they're going to have to raise taxes again. So the prices in Chicago land are higher because of government taxes. Ten levels of taxation on gasoline in Chicago, not to mention it's largely because of all these different formulations for various pollution requirements that have been set up.

Much of our oil and natural gas is off-limits:

[Bear in mind, at some tipping point, this will change—whether it is $10 a gallon or $15/gallon for gas]

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D90Q9RIO0.htm

The cost and futility of trading hot air:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/cost_and_futility_of_trading_hot_air.html