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

If you can find it in the yellow pages, then our government doesn't need to perform that service.

I don’t know if Steven Goldsmith is to be credited with this quote (or its philosophical essence), but he writes a column on this at:

One thing that has been great about entering into the general election (more or less) is that there are great differences between McCain and Obama which cannot be ignored. I take that back; there are some of the Obama-faithful which are going to love him no matter what he does, no matter what position he takes. Recall, when Obama would not throw Reverend Wright under the bus, he was praised in the newspapers for being so magnanimous to a friend; and when he threw Reverend Wright under the bus, he was praised for his courage.

McCain: Stay on the offensive, wiretap, kill them on the battlefield, protect the citizenry at home, do not ever appear weak and do not retreat in Iraq, in Afghanistan or anywhere else.

Obama: Terrorists should be primarily a police action and a court function. Bear in mind that police usually show up after the fact, and deal with things after wrong has been done. That is fine with Obama; deal with terrorists as Bill Clinton did. Iraq was a bad idea; withdraw as quickly as possible. What happens, happens. If there are problems, we can always go back in. Now, I have heard Obama speak on this, and he says, “No no no, I have a much more extensive approach to terrorism than treating it as a police action.” (not an exact quote). However, if you examine his actual voting record (the little there is to examine), Obama really does not offer any additional measures—he has voted against pretty much every Bush proposal to tighten security and to act against terrorists, and Obama clearly supports the recent court decision to give Gitmo prisoners of war more rights than our military men (and women) and illegal aliens. At his website, under issues, Obama does not even list “terrorism” as a separate topic. Under Homeland Security, he proposes more security for nuclear plants (which is reasonable).

McCain: The Supreme Court deciding that terrorists should have the same rights as American citizens is the worst decision that the courts have ever made.

Obama: The Supreme Court's decision was a just referendum on the failed Bush policies which have not kept us any safer. We need to show the world that we are the most fair and just nation.

McCain: Drill, drill and drill some more. Nuclear plants, like France and other European countries. Increased supply will lower prices. Nuclear plants will reduce fossil fuel usage and provide cheaper power. Build more refineries. This reflects a change of policy for McCain. Cheaper power to the people trumps global warming and other environmental concerns. McCain is still on the fencepost when it comes to drilling in ANWR. With any luck, he will change his mind about the frozen desert known as ANWR.

Obama: No nukes, we cannot drill out way out of this. Somehow, if we tax oil companies more, that will have a favorable result. More drilling, nuclear plants and additional refineries will not provide immediate relief, and therefore, should not be considered.

McCain: Promised that he would use public financing, and will stick by this promise.

Obama: Promised on several occasions that he would use public financing if his Republican challenger agreed to public financing; he has reneged on this promise. This is not a start difference or an important difference; it simply means that, whatever Obama promises, he can always change his mind.

This is the Republican to watch. I have heard him on at least three occasions, and his enthusiasm and his understanding of this country’s fundamental principles are incredible. He is an excellent public speaker, and well-able to convey conservative principles.

Bobby is the present governor of Louisiana, a state which is known for its graft and corruption and lousy school system.

In 1995, Governor Mike Foster appointed Jindal to be secretary of the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, an agency which then represented about 40 percent of the state budget. While acting as secretary, Louisiana's Medicaid program went from bankruptcy with a $400 million deficit into three years of surpluses totaling $220 million.

He’s been a United States Congressman from Louisiana and has a very conservative, pro-life voting record. Back in 2006, he sponsered the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act, which would have lifted the restrictions against off-shore drilling.

Bobby has only been governor of Louisiana for 6 months; however, during that time, there have been 6 tax reductions.

Bobby ran on a ticket of ethics reform. A month after taking office, Jindal called the Legislature into a special session and put forth an aggressive agenda to make Louisiana's ethics laws the gold standard in the nation. Jindal was successful during the historic session in passing his main reform measures of increasing financial disclosure of elected officials, prohibiting elected officials from receiving unlimited meals from lobbyists, eliminating the loophole for free cultural and sporting event tickets for elected officials, and prohibiting elected officials from entering into contracts with the state. [from Bobby’s website] The Center for Public Integrity placed Louisiana in the bottom fifth of the states before Jindal took office; it is now listed along side the highest rated states for public disclosure.

There has been a lot of talk about Bobby being made Vice President under McCain. This would be a mistake. Bobby is just beginning his political career. He is only 37. He needs to show what he is capable of in Louisiana; and he needs to be allowed to perform. Although he is not as inexperienced as Barack Obama, he isn’t far from Obama in that area.

Bobby, if he runs for VP, then running for president cannot be too far behind. The problem is, once you are president, where do you go from there? Personally, I would much rather see him as a two-term governor of Louisiana, and then see him run for the Senate. Then the office of the Presidency. He is a star in the Republican party and we don’t want him to burn out too quickly.

I'm sure most of you have heard about the Supreme Court's decision yesterday to extend the right of habeas corpus to Guantanamo detainees, this is the most perfect example of the stark contrast between McCain & Obama that I've seen by far. It makes this election about as black & white as it gets in my opinion, no pun intended, rofl! It sounds like I am preaching to the choir I know, but I'm posting it as this is something you can use whenever you are in a political discussion with someone who is leaning toward BO. Ha ha, I just realized what those initials stand for!

Though there is still been no official statement released to the media or posted to the web site, Michael Scherer of Time reports McCain addressed the subject at his town hall today in New Jersey. According to Scherer, McCain said:

The United States Supreme Court yesterday rendered a decision which I think is one of the worst decisions in the history of this country. Sen. Graham and Sen. Lieberman and I had worked very hard to make sure that we didn't torture any prisoners, that we didn't mistreat them, that we abided by the Geneva Conventions, which applies to all prisoners. But we also made it perfectly clear, and I won't go through all the legislation we passed, and the prohibition against torture, but we made it very clear that these are enemy combatants, these are people who are not citizens, they do not and never have been given the rights that citizens of this country have. And my friends there are some bad people down there. There are some bad people. So now what are we going to do. We are now going to have the courts flooded with so-called, quote, Habeas Corpus suits against the government, whether it be about the diet, whether it be about the reading material. And we are going to be bollixed up in a way that is terribly unfortunate, because we need to go ahead and adjudicate these cases. By the way, 30 of the people who have already been released from Guantanamo Bay have already tried to attack America again, one of them just a couple weeks ago, a suicide bomber in Iraq. Our first obligation is the safety and security of this nation, and the men and women who defend it. This decision will harm our ability to do that.

Barack Obama statement on the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision today extending civilian legal protections to terrorist suspects held in Guantanamo Bay:

Today's Supreme Court decision ensures that we can protect our nation and bring terrorists to justice, while also protecting our core values. The Court's decision is a rejection of the Bush Administration's attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo - yet another failed policy supported by John McCain. This is an important step toward reestablishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus. Our courts have employed habeas corpus with rigor and fairness for more than two centuries, and we must continue to do so as we defend the freedom that violent extremists seek to destroy. We cannot afford to lose any more valuable time in the fight against terrorism to a dangerously flawed legal approach. I voted against the Military Commissions Act because its sloppiness would inevitably lead to the Court, once again, rejecting the Administration's extreme legal position. The fact is, this Administration's position is not tough on terrorism, and it undermines the very values that we are fighting to defend. Bringing these detainees to justice is too important for us to rely on a flawed system that has failed to convict anyone of a terrorist act since the 9-11 attacks, and compromised our core values.

What fascinates me is, as long as liberals say the right things, it does not matter what they do and the actual results are unimportant. Last year, there was a big hoo-hah over Gore's house. In fact, some compared George Bush's personal house to Al Gores, and Bush's house was very green and Al's was not.

The common explanations were, "This is a very old house and it was not built green." Or, "We can all do better that what we are doing." Most people ignored the fact that George Bush is much greener in action than Al Gore is. Liberals and Global Warming enthusiasts, for the most part, backed Gore and ran interference for him.

Remember that, even though Al Gore was our VP for 8 years and was a global warming guy back then, and yet did diddly squat about it; and even though Gore flies around in private jets and tells us we need to cut back in our own daily consumption, and even though Gore lived in about the most conspicuously energy non-efficient home on the planet himself, liberals love him. He's a great guy. He's not perfect, but no one is. He's not as green as he ought to be, but no one is.

All that, however, is old news. At some point in time, he had to be shamed about his house, and Big Al has taken this to heart. They've installed solar panels (libs love solar power; they love it; when our marriage laws ease up a bit and become more equitable, libs will be able to marry solar power); and he has installed some energy efficient light bulbs. I don't know if these are the Compact Fluorescent Bulbs, only made in China, filled to the brim with Mercury, bulbs that cause a bio-hazard when broken, bulbs which are dangerous to human life, bulbs which are mandated for you and me in a few years--but he has put in some kind of energy efficient bulbs. They have installed a new geothermal heating and cooling system.

The Gore spokeswoman tells us that their bills have been reduced by 40%. A watchdog group says that Gore's actual energy use was up 10% over the past year. The explanation is (and of course, there is an explanation), all this energy was expended to green up the house.

By the way, for those of you who love solar panels...they have 33 solar panels and they provide only 4% of the house's energy. How many of us want to put up that many solar panels?

This is an article of Q&A with Andy Kirk, a very green kind of guy (the Whole Earth Catalogue guy). I love this quote from that article:

Amory Lovins, William McDonaugh. Most obviously, Al Gore. He literally uses the image of the whole earth as the icon for his discussion of global warming. He tries hard to convince people that while this is a horrifyingly daunting and global issue, that individuals can still make a difference."

Rush Limbaugh comments: "This is in the face of proudly-announced (and expensive) energy-saving steps. Stop the ACLU cites the Soros-Funded Think Progress site for information: Gore's family has taken numerous steps to reduce the carbon footprint of their private residence, including signing up for 100 percent green power through Green Power Switch, installing solar panels, and using compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy saving technology," and it didn't work. His usage went up 10%. "Now that Gore has proven his measures are ineffective, it is time to drill offshore, ANWR, mine coal and oil-bearing rock, and build nuclear power plants." Algore, by the way, is not going to join Obama on the campaign trail. He's not going to subject himself to questions on global warming. He will not debate.

Btw, Gore also increased his energy usage after the release of his global warming scare film.

Let me add one thing: Gore does buy carbon offsets...from himself. So, in the eyes of Global Warming enthusiasts, this is not a scam; this is being a good citizen of the earth.

Ted Poe was always an unusual judge, and he has a clear conservative vision. He’s another conservative Republican to watch.

Congress’s energy plan? Replace all incandescent bulbs with CFL’s available only from China. Brilliant!

How many times does Barack Obama have to lie before people start realizing that this guy isn't the man that he ,or the press, claims to be. How many lies does he have to tell before someone , somewhere calls him on it? I therefore present to you what I consider to be a major lie in regards to his relationship with William Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist from the '60s. In a debate on ABC he was asked about this and his response was :

This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.

And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense, George.

So this kind of game, in which anybody who I know, regardless of how flimsy the relationship is, is somehow - somehow their ideas could be attributed to me - I think the American people are smarter than that. They're not going to suggest somehow that that is reflective of my views, because it obviously isn't.

First a little reminder of who William Ayers is. In the late '60's he was a founder of the radical group Weathermen who set over 20 bombs including one that went off in the Pentagon. No one was hurt but many important computers were destroyed. He and his wife and fellow member, Berardine Dohrn, were never charged in the bombings due to government misconduct. However Dohrn did recieve probation for aggravated battery and bail jumping. She also served a year for refusing to testify against another member of the Weatherman who was charged in an armed robbery. In an interview with the New York Times he was quoted as saying ''I don't regret setting bombs,'' Bill Ayers said. ''I feel we didn't do enough.'' The interview appeared on September 11, 2001. Yes,really. And here he is on the posing on the cover of a local Chicago magazine...standing on the American flag:

Now back to what Obama said. His statement is entirely misleading. Barack Obama would have you believe that he and Ayers were simply neighborhood acquaintances. The Politico reported that Barack Obama went to the home of Ayers in 1995:

I can remember being one of a small group of people who came to Bill Ayers' house to learn that Alice Palmer was stepping down from the senate and running for Congress," said Dr. Quentin Young, a prominent Chicago physician and advocate for single-payer health care, of the informal gathering at the home of Ayers and his wife, Dohrn. "[Palmer] identified [Obama] as her successor."

Indeed, the relationship between Obama and Ayers runs deeper. In 1993 Philanthropist Walter H. Annenberg pledged 500 million dollars to a school reform initiative called the Annenberg Challenge . This is where William Ayers comes in:

When three of Chicago's most prominent education reform leaders met for lunch at a Thai restaurant six years ago to discuss the just-announced $500 million Annenberg Challenge, their main goal was to figure out how to ensure that any Annenberg money awarded to Chicago "didn't go down the drain," said William Ayers, a professor of education at the University of Illinois in Chicago. Ayers, who was at that lunch table in late 1993, helped write the successful Chicago grant application.

So in 1995 The Chicago Annenberg Challenge Fund was created. They received 49.2 million dollars. Ayers and his two colleagues went on the form a "working group" that soon comprised over 70 members. But Ayers was a main figure in this working group as he himself says on his website:

Co-Founder and Co-Chair, Chicago School Reform Collaborative (The Annenberg Challenge), 1995-2000.

Want to guess who the working group, which morphed into the Chicago School Reform Collaborative , picked to lead the the fund? That's right..Barack Obama was tapped to be the first Chairman of the Board of the newly created Chicago Annenberg Challenge fund. The working group went on to form the CSRC which acted as amongst other things a consultant to the fund. Now , does Obama really expect us to believe that while serving as the chairman of the board of the CACF he had no contact with William Ayers? And what exactly did Ayers see in Obama to have selected him for this important role? Look at it this way..would Ayers have picked someone who holds MY views..or someone who hold views closer to his own?.If you know anything about these far-left radicals it's that they have very little tolerance for people who don't think like them. For example in 2006 Ayers traveled to Caracas, Venezuela to give a speech on..you guessed it..education. here's some choice excerpts:

[Ayers] President Hugo Chavez, Vice-President Vicente Rangel, Ministers Moncada and Isturiz, invited guests,comrades. I'm honored and humbled to be here with you this morning. I bring greetings and support from your brothers and sisters throughout Northamerica. Welcome to the World Education Forum! Amamos la revolucion Bolivariana!

I walked out of jail and into my first teaching position-and from that day until this I've thought of myself as a teacher, but I've also understood teaching as a project intimately connected with social justice. After all, the fundamental message of the teacher is this: you can change your life-whoever you are, wherever you've been, whatever you've done, another world is possible. As students and teachers begin to see themselves as linked to one another, as tied to history and capable of collective action, the fundamental message of teaching shifts slightly, and becomes broader, more generous: we must change ourselves as we come together to change the world. Teaching invites transformations, it urges revolutions small and large. La educacion es revolucion!

Totalitarianism demands obedience and conformity, hierarchy, command and control. Royalty requires allegiance. Capitalism promotes racism and militarism - turning people into consumers, not citizens. Participatory democracy, by contrast, requires free people coming together voluntarily as equals who are capable of both self-realization and, at the same time, full participation in a shared political and economic life.

Despite being under constant attack from within and from abroad, the Bolivarian revolution has made astonishing strides in a brief period: from the Mission Simoncito to the Mission Robinson to the Mission Ribas to the Mission Sucre, to the Bolivarian schools and the UBV, Venezuelans have shown the world that with full participation, full inclusion, and popular empowerment, the failings of capitalist schooling can be resisted and overcome. Venezuela is a beacon to the world in its accomplishment of eliminating illiteracy in record time, and engaging virtually the entire population in the ongoing project of education.

Is it not a legitimate question to ask whether the man who wants to be the next President of the United States shares these views? Or is this simply the William Ayers that Obama didn't know...like the Rev. Wright that he didn't know...or the Tony Rezko that Obama didn't know?

One thing is for certain: you cannot depend upon our primary news services to examine Obama in any depth—not his positions, not his political history and not his associations. The AP, NBC, MSNBC, CBS and most newspapers support Obama, and their coverage might as well be press-releases directly from the Obama camp. They are about as informative.

Now the Senator from the Land of Lincoln is promising that he will give every child in America a free college education. He says it's their birth right.

I strongly disagree. Their birth right is freedom, and in that environment they are free to pursue their dreams, get an education, and have a successful career.

Our daughter is presently attending a college here in Michigan, and she receives a Pell grant because we are what qualifies as "poor". But she still has to borrow money to cover expenses, which she is obligated to repay after graduation.

If a kid wants a higher education they will get it. They may have to scrape and scrounge for tuition, but that's OK! There is nothing wrong with a system in which a youngster must sweat and work for the privilege of an education. That is, and always has been, a character building road to travel.

Commentary (by Gary Kukis): Let me add, even though I was a high school teacher is primarily excelled with teaching college-bound student, this makes up less than 50% of the student body of any public high school. Who are we to say that these college-bound students are of a greater worth than those who go out immediately into the world and begin a career or a business or go to a trade school? Colleges raise their tuition as government funds more and more college-bound students. Colleges will not raise their tuition beyond what students can afford, otherwise, they will have no students. Most colleges have a lot of money and a very large administration staff. The money out of our pockets (as taxpayers) should not go to send other people’s kids to college, unless we want to give to this or that college.

Oprah Winfrey recently found out that money for college was not the key to inner city schools. She eventually founded a school in Africa because our inner city schools wanted expensive tennis shoes and ipods. Money for college did not interest them.

Subsidizing college education is another Democratic ploy which sounds good and buys votes, but it is not necessary in a free society.

During a recent 5^th grade graduation (which makes me think, why bother?), Principal Pam Wilson decided to remove the pledge of allegiance from the ceremony, explaining in an email:

"The Pledge contains the words, 'under God' and we have many Muslim families here. So out of respect for the diversity of religious faiths practiced by our school community (parents and families) we decided that this year the students would memorize and sing the Preamble to the Constitution. At the rehearsal on Friday they did it from memory and to a wonderful song. It was very joyful and unique. I think you, and other parents, will really appreciate the creative and new way to open the program."

I was watching the Direct TV documentary about the Great Festivals of the World, and it dawned on me how Peoples preserve their heritage in custom and tradition.

This may seem a trivial thing, until you consider that it is tradition which emphasizes the rich culture of a nation, and encourages every generation to practice the best and most enduring principles that have served their societies well in the past, and nowhere is this more true than in the United States, or it has been in years past.

America's heritage is founded upon the Judeo-Christian ethic, and it should be noted that those who founded this great nation originally came here to escape religious persecution. They were keen on recognizing God as our Benefactor, and the voices of the pagan were ignored in their public policies and institutions.

However, in keeping with Christian principles, as taught in the Holy Scriptures, they put in place a system that ensured the right of non-believers to live their lives free of any religious influence. The spirit of separation of church and state is the guarantee which elevates this right, and shields unbelievers from persecution.

It would seem that Americans of the past realized that the culture which protects them, and created a nation which offered opportunity and prosperity to all, regardless of their faith (or lack of it) were content to accept the prominent symbols which speak of God, and honor Him.

In a nutshell, unbelievers were content to allow Christians their faith, and all the more so when the society which emerged from Christian principles was an environment of freedom and progress. They may have regarded Christianity as a foolish pursuit, but they nonetheless realized that they were greatly blessed by the culture which came of it.

In analogy, we might compare the development of our society to the Christian farmer. The corn he plants, nurtures, and harvests feeds the hungry, everyone. Would an unbeliever be wise to refuse sustenance because it was grown by a man of faith?

Today we are witnessing the erosion of our culture, and this insidious influence raises logical questions that demand our intense scrutiny. In as much as the government and institutions which have been established by the Judeo-Christian ethic are clearly an immense source of blessing and security for all Americans, of every persuasion and faith, is it wise to now erase the symbols of that gave rise to that culture?

The glaring question that every American should be pondering is what will become of us if we deny our origins? Is it reasonable to expect that the culture of blessing will continue to yield advantage to all of us, if we aggressively attack the ethic that created it?

An old saying suggests that; "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" Yet there are those among us who are attempting just that, to change a system that ensures freedom to all of us.

There have been a number of public institutions, such as the high school in Oregon, that have suspended the Pledge of Allegiance because it invokes the Name of God as our Father, and the source of our freedom. This measure will allegedly protect the sensitivity of Muslims, and others who do not believe in Christ.

But is this simple observation really a violation of anyone's rights? Is it really that important, that we cater to the voices which demand that we abandon our traditions, and alter the basis for our culture in America?

It is a common misconception that the public display of religious symbols is an invasion of the atheist's rights. This simply isn't so. There are no laws enforced that mandate faith in Christ. The fact that we worship God openly should not be an affront to those who do not share our faith. They are free to live as they wish, and so should we be.

They openly voice their opinions, and yet they demand that we should not? Homosexuals parade in unison to demonstrate their "pride" in their lifestyle, and we should be denied a demonstration of our cherished beliefs?

If we dismantle the superstructure which has been directly responsible for our status as a superpower, and a lifestyle of wealth and privilege unequaled in human history, then we are inviting a culture of tyranny and suspicion. We are empowering the "word police", and those who wish to prohibit our expression of faith.

If the Supreme Court has ruled that terrorist combatants should now receive the same rights as American citizens, how do we apply this to Osama Bin Laden? If he innocent until proven guilty? Could he be tried and get off on a technicality? What is Obama’s opinion on this?

RUSH: I mentioned this yesterday. I had the scoop on this from Bill Sammon, but I want you to hear this. There was a Barack Obama campaign conference call, Bill Sammon of the Washington Examiner says to the haughty John Kerry, who served in Vietnam, "Should Bin Laden have the same rights that were granted by the Supreme Court last week to other terrorists?"

KERRY: The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that they have those rights. If John McCain were president, he would have to give them those rights.

RUSH: Okay, so here's John Kerry, an advisor to Obama -- by the way, real change here, right? Revolutionary, new, never-before-seen mind-set, enlightenment, and here's John Kerry. I've told you: Losing in the Democrat Party is the biggest resume enhancement you can have. So here's Kerry saying: Yep, damn right! Osama gets the same constitutional rights as anybody else. Next up, Richard Clarke -- another hack, certainly not new, certainly not fresh, certainly nothing enlightened -- and he chimed in on the very same question.

CLARKE: If he were to be brought back for us, fourth, the Supreme Court ruling holds on the right of habeas corpus, but fifth, terrorists have routinely in the past, prior to this administration, been successfully captured around the world and prosecuted -- including the United States. With the exception of one participant in the World Trade Center attack of 1993, they were all found, all brought back to the United States, all given their rights, and all convicted, and they're all locked up in super max in Colorado.

RUSH: That is an out-and-out falsehood! That is an out-and-out lie! And we went through the details of this yesterday, but, again, the point is that Clarke says: Yeah, damn right! Bin Laden gets constitutional rights! So this is new? We're going to go back to the Clinton era way of fighting the war on terror in the courts? You know, we indicted Bin Laden in 1998. We still don't have him, do we? We did indict, you know, the blind sheik and some of his cohorts from the '93 World Trade Center bombing, and, yep, put some of them in jail. And look at all the terrorism that happened after that. See, the thing about this... These are supposed to be the best and the brightest minds around: John Kerry! Richard Clarke! The fact is, the legal approach, the indictment approach, that only happens after they've done their dirty work. After they have committed a terrorist act and if we're fortunate to catch 'em, only then does their policy matter -- and does it stop terror? Nope. No way. It's nothing more... These people are incompetent. They cannot be put back in charge. You can see what happened all during the nineties with the buildup. But I just wanted you to hear this. Barack Obama, the enlightened one, the messiah, with brand-new policies that never before been seen, wants to bring back retreads from the past, the Clinton administration and a failed presidential campaign to put an exclamation point on the proposition that, "Yes, if we capture Bin Laden, damn straight, ethics, an ACLU lawyer. He gets Miranda rights read to him and he gets constitutional rights in the United States of America."

RUSH: Lots of noise from the mouth of Barack Obama, once again on his campaign plane yesterday, he goes right to the Democrat playbook and says: Don't lecture me on terrorism!

OBAMA: This is the same kind of fearmongering that got us into Iraq, that has caused us to be hugely distracted from the war we do have to fight against terrorism, and it's exactly that failed foreign policy that I want to reverse.

RUSH: Strictly cliches right out of the Democrat Party playbook. Folks, one of the things that's bothering me here is that this... (sigh) This is just juvenile. I'm trying here. I'm aware that being too critical of this guy can evoke all kinds of sympathy for him. "Everybody (crying) -- everybody -- is really pounding Obama. He's such a nice guy. All he wants to do is have a good country, change and future, everybody..." I don't want to create this kind of sympathy, but I tell you, I listen to this stuff, and I am going nuts over this. This is supposed to be a smart man. This man is not an independent thinker at all. This is dogma. Yeah, Clinton changed it up a little bit from speech to speech, but this is nothing but Democrat Party, leftist, anti-American dogma. I'm caught between two vises. I want you to understand, or I want to tell you how just brilliantly naive and truly dangerous this is. But at the same time I don't want to come across as...

Another thing: Can somebody explain to me why it is with every Democrat first lady possibility, we have to do a makeover? We didn't have to make over Laura Bush. We didn't have to make over Nancy Reagan. We didn't have to make over Pat Nixon. We didn't have to make over Betty Ford. And we didn't have to make over Barbara Bush or Laura Bush. But every day we had to make over Hillary. She had 14 different images a day, from baking cookies at home to Nurse Ratched. Now they have Michelle (My Belle) Obama, and there's a big New York Times story on how they've gotta repackage her. They've gone out and hired some Cutter babe to come be her chief of staff and spokesman. I'll tell you, the answer to that is they can't afford to let them be who they really are. They will offend as many people in this country as anybody could possibly do and so they have to bring 'em in and basically say, "Look, you can't be who you are or we're sunk so we're going to put different clothes on you.

"We're going to make you speak a different way. We're going to give you some words not to use. We're going to tell you to smile all the time, and we're going to really have you tell everybody how you came from dirt. You came from the wrong side of the tracks. You came from nothing -- and you don't even have much now, but you've come farther from where you started than anybody ever expected that you would." Every damn potential first lady that the Democrats have, they gotta do makeovers. Anyway, I did not lose my place here. "This is the same kind of fearmongering that got us into Iraq." Fearmongering that got us into Iraq? Have you ever heard of 9/11, Senator? We have not "abandoned" the war on terror. We're in Afghanistan. We have routed the Taliban. We have not been distracted whatsoever from the fight against terrorism. Senator Obama, it's your party that has stood in the way of fighting the war on terror. It is your party -- along with you, Senator -- who have assured the American people we can't win it. You've been out there saying, "This war is lost. We haven't even gotten Bin Laden!" Now you call this a failed policy, a failed foreign policy you want to reverse? You want to reverse victory? (sigh) Here's the next bite. He's still on the same plane. I wish this plane would land somewhere.

OBAMA: These are the same guys who helped to engineer the distraction of the war in Iraq at a time when we could have pinned down the people who actually committed 9/11. In part because of their failed strategies, we've got Bin Laden still sending out audiotapes. And so I don't think they have much standing to suggest that they've learned a lot of lessons from 9/11.

RUSH: The audacity of this inexperienced rookie to sit there and say things like, "These are the same guys that helped to engineer the distraction of the war in Iraq." Senator, what in the world have you done to prevent another attack on this country? What policies have you supported, what policies have you authored that have prevented an attack on the United States of America? Would you also explain to me, Senator, what impact -- what economic, what destructive impact -- does an audiotape from somebody claiming to be Osama Bin Laden have? How in the world, Senator, do you proclaim a failed policy on the basis that Bin Laden is still making audiotapes? What is it, sir, about audiotapes that scares you? What is it about audiotapes of Bin Laden and Zawahiri that make you feel intimidated? Would you rather have them sending out a bunch of meaningless audiotapes or hijacking airplanes?

Would you rather have them get killed and knocked off in Iraq and have their numbers dwindle and their spirits lowered, or would you rather have them sending out audiotapes? This is dangerously irresponsible. You can't just say, "Well, Rush, it's a presidential campaign. He's gotta say something opposite of Republicans." It may be a presidential campaign, but damn it, this is the United States of America, and we got a Democrat Party presidential candidate who is doing everything he can to reverse the policies of victory, to reverse the policies of national security. And he calls 'em failed policies! You know, I want to go back to something, and then I'll go back to your phone calls. It wasn't too long ago on this very program we played audio sound bites from the haughty John Kerry (who served in Vietnam) and Richard Clarke, well-known White House terrorism advisor top both Clinton and Bush 43.

They both agreed with the premise, "Oh, yeah, yeah. The indictment's the way to go. The legal system! Bring Bin Laden to court. If he were captured, damn right: We bring him to court. We give him a lawyer, and we get an indictment -- and, yeah, that's what the Supreme Court said. It's what we're going to do." You talk about a failed policy? That's the Clinton policy: to fight the war on terror in the courtroom because you only do that after you've been hit. It's not preventive in any way. And these guys want to do that. Well, let's take this to some logical steps using the US court system. We capture Osama wherever he is -- Pakistan, Afghanistan -- and bring him to the United States, and we assign his trial in Manhattan because the indictment that's on his head since 1998...

By the way, do you think he's scared of the indictment on his head? So we bring him to New York, put him on trial in federal district court in New York. Do we assume that he's innocent until proven guilty, if there's a trial? Yeah. We have to, folks. If we're going to give these guys constitutional rights, Osama Bin Laden's gotta be brought in here under the presumption of innocence. Now, stick with me on this. And then a lawyer's going to go into the case here, and the lawyer is going to have fun with this. There's going to be a trial. What if he's found innocent? What if Bin Laden is found innocent on some technicality? Or what if the evidence is not sufficient to meet the criminal standard? The criminal standard. He's presumed innocent in the courtroom, after all, right? Is that true?

You want these people brought in under the presumption of innocence? (laughing) As a matter of fact, somebody ought to ask Obama this question: "If we capture Osama Bin Laden and we put him on trial, do you believe, sir, he should be presumed innocent?" Somebody ask Obama this question. 'Cause it's a damn good question. Bill Sammon, next time you're one of his conference calls, Bill, ask the haughty John Kerry or Richard Clarke or whoever is on the conference call with you, ask 'em. "Based on your last conference call..." I can't get on these conference calls, so Bill's my plant. So I said, "Bill, ask 'em: 'Should Osama be presumed innocent if captured and brought to the US for trial?' Osama be presumed innocent in a US court, should there be a trial? Now, for the rest of you... (interruption) You don't think so? Can you imagine that circus? Can you imagine?

Now, but, with all that, here is the piece de resistance. If, ladies and gentlemen, Osama Bin Laden is brought to the United States under these new Supreme Court rules -- as supported by the haughty John Kerry and Richard Clarke and everybody else in Obama's foreign policy apparatus -- and we bring Osama in under the presumption of innocence, somebody explain to me why we are trying to kill him? Why have we sent out Special Ops, SEAL teams, drones? Why have we sent the best we've got into those mountainous regions since 2001 to kill Osama if, in our court system, he would be presumed innocent? And, why is it that so many Democrats, lo these many years, have proclaimed the war on terror a failure because we have not killed Osama? We haven't captured Osama or killed Osama. But it's okay to nuke the guy on the battlefield. Why are we trying to kill Osama Bin Laden if he will be assumed innocent in an American courtroom?

RUSH: I want to play an audio sound bite from Obama, the last sound bite from Obama on his campaign plane yesterday. He's addressing remarks that he'd previously made about Club Gitmo.

OBAMA: Let's talk specifically about my statement around Guantanamo. The question is whether or not, as the Supreme Court said, people who are being held have a chance to at least suggest that, hey, you've got the wrong guy, or I shouldn't be here. It's not a question of whether or not they're freed. And the simple point that I was making, which I will continue to make throughout this campaign, is that we can abide by due process and abide by basic concepts of rule of law and still crack down on terrorists. The fact that you are allowing habeas does not necessitate that you are suddenly putting terrorists in a full US trial court. That's not... Those two things aren't equivalent.

RUSH: Does anybody have any idea what he said there? Again, illustrating my point: Get this guy off the teleprompter or without some prepared notes, and he's wandering aimlessly for syllabic combinations that will equal a cogent, salient thought. I think the last thing that he said here is really what he was angling at trying to say. "Just because you're allowing habeas [corpus] doesn't necessitate that you're suddenly putting terrorists in a full US trial." Oh, it doesn't? Well, then why are we going to have to take them out of Club Gitmo, sir? And why are we going to have to bring them to the US court system and grant them lawyers? You don't think those lawyers are going to go straight to court? And when they go straight to court with habeas corpus, doesn't it mean, Senator, that they are presumed innocent? I often don't say these kinds of things to you people, but I'm really proud of this point.

This thing that just popped into my mind, and I really do think this is a good point. How in the world can everybody in the world in our country -- Democrats, Republicans -- be dumping on Bush because we haven't killed Osama? We haven't found him. We haven't wiped him out. We haven't got him yet. The war on terror is a failure! The same people now want him to have habeas corpus, bring him into the US court system, bring him into a courtroom -- where he's presumed innocent. Somebody needs to ask Obama: If he is brought to a court, is he presumed innocent, Senator? And then what if some slick lawyer gets him off? What if he's found innocent by a jury of his peers in New York, which won't be too hard to find. Then what do we do? We gotta release him, and then comes the civil suit, Senator Obama! Can you then see Osama suing the United States in a civil trial for damage to his reputation? We've indicted him since 1998. He hasn't stopped him from engaging in terrorist acts. Claire McCaskill, an Obama supporter, was on Joe Scarborough's show today on MSNBC, the question came from Mika Brzezinski: "I've been so outnumbered this morning on one of these on your checklist, and that's restore America's credibility in the world."

MCCASKILL: You know, the idea that simple civil habeas corpus is simply going to open up our national security or make us unsafe, is so counterintuitive as an American, it's almost offensive to me.

MCCASKILL: The credibility issue, that's why we have to restore. That's why the Supreme Court did the right thing.

RUSH: Credibility issue. Okay, then the question: What if he's found innocent? This habeas corpus business, both Senator McCaskill and Senator Obama... I'm telling you, they're going to be freed from Club Gitmo. We're going to close it down. They're going to be brought to the US. If they've got constitutional rights, for crying out loud, they've got US constitutional rights; and they can go get a lawyer and they can go to a US court, and they can do so under the presumption of innocence. Shall we allow that? Is that what you want? Is that what you want? You know, this Supreme Court ruling was not all that definitive; there's a lot of area for expansion and interpretation. So all you Obama supporters and Senator Obama yourself, you need to ask yourselves a question: "What if Osama's found innocent?" He's brought in and presumed innocent, is he not? He's innocent 'til proved guilty.

If there's a trial, what if he gets off on some technicality or the evidence is not sufficient to meet the criminal standard in a US court with an ACLU-type lawyer? He's presumed innocent in court, right? He has to be. I mean, he's got constitutional rights! He's presumed innocent. So somebody needs to ask Obama two questions. "Senator, if we capture Osama, and we put him on trial, do you believe he should be assumed innocent? He's been indicted, Senator. Don't give me this rigmarole that habeas corpus does not mean jury trials. He is under US indictment, ergo, he'd be brought to trial. If he is brought to trial, do you believe, Senator Obama, that Osama Bin Laden should be assumed innocent?" That is a damn good question. And then, "Senator Obama, if you think he is presumed innocent, then why in hell are you and your party defining victory in the war on terror by saying it isn't over, it isn't won, 'til Osama is killed?"

CALLER: You said earlier that it sounds so profound and yet it's so simple and the reason why it's so profound is first because you're right, and second because it's so rarely said. You hit a home run earlier, Rush. You did something that the McCain campaign could not do. You convinced me to vote for McCain because of the convoluted logic coming out of Obama and Obama's campaign. This is the man who said he would drop a nuclear bomb on Pakistan, our ally, if it turned out that Osama Bin Laden was hiding there. But now his campaign is saying that just because of a Supreme Court ruling, which frankly I think is wrong, that if we had Osama Bin Laden, we brought him here for trial, that he would be entitled to the same rights as American citizens? And the brilliant point that you made, that he has to be presumed innocent. This is so asinine, and you've now energized me with this brilliant observation that nobody else is doing, you've energized me now. I was going to wait until Election Day to decide whether or not I was too busy to vote and now I'm going to vote and it's going to be for McCain.

RUSH: Well, fabulous. That's nice of you to say, and I really appreciate it. I'm not trying to be a spoilsport here. I just want you to be honest. Are you going to vote against Obama or for McCain?

CALLER: I gotta be honest with you, I'm voting against Obama. I have felt that this man is a danger to the country, and I mean this in all sincerity. When it was the Democratic primary and the brilliance of Operation Chaos, I was like, you know what, I almost hoped that Hillary would be the nominee, because, to be honest with you, I was kind of wanting to vote for Hillary 'cause I felt that the Clintons was the evil that we knew. I do not trust McCain. I don't like him on a lot of issues, but there's one issue that I absolutely trust him on, and it's this issue of the war on terror, and one issue that Barack Obama is totally dangerous on, I think he would ruin our economy, but I'm convinced that he would be very, very bad for our national defense.

RUSH: Yes. Regardless the reason, whether it's actually his thoughts or the thoughts of others that he has been told to articulate, I'm sure he probably doesn't disagree with many Democrats and liberals on this stuff anyway, plus tax cuts and the economy. We know Obama's going to raise taxes. We know he's going to cut back on energy supplies. We know that he is going to expand the federal government's entitlement services. We know he's going to raise the capital gains tax. We know he's going to raise Social Security taxes. We know he's going to take policies that are going to result in people losing jobs and income. The two questions, okay, if he's brought to court, if Osama Bin Laden's brought to court and has to be presumed innocent, and what if he pleads insanity and a New York jury says, "He'd have to be insane to do what he did." "Yes, not guilty by reason of insanity," he'd still go to prison perhaps. He won't do that, but okay, he gets the presumption of innocence, and yet at the same time, you're right, Obama was threatening to nuke Pakistan if they didn't give us Bin Laden when we found him. So how do you juxtapose the two? What it illustrates is the folly of trying to impose the US criminal justice system on top of the prosecution of a war against enemies trying to kill us.

RUSH: Now back to Frank in Richmond, Virginia, on the phones. Frank, welcome, sir.

CALLER: In the process of comparing the military approach to Mr. Bin Laden and friends with the civilian, you're missing all of the other constitutional rights that the Supreme Court might be expected to give, such as not only the presumption of innocence, but freedom from pretrial publicity and an impartial jury and an impartial judge. Where are you going to find an impartial judge in the federal or state legal system in New York? Where are you going to find a jury?

RUSH: Now, wait a second. What do you mean, an impartial judge? Do you mean all the judges in New York are going to see him as a victim and be predisposed to his acquittal?

CALLER: The problem is that the judges in New York are tainted by personal exposure. Every one of them is bound to know somebody who was killed on 9/11.

CALLER: Well, they can blame Bush on one hand and they can make the connection on the other. But they can recuse themselves, and then the judges outside the area could go even farther and say, "I can't hear this case. I'm afraid to." I mean that was one of the exciting problems they had in Colombia during the drug business when they first started trying to get a handle on it. The judges were murdered systematically and new judges had to step up to hear the case. Well, here, the judges will be rightly concerned about their security for the rest of their lives. And, you know, how about the jurors? Would you sit on the jury and let your name be leaked or not just, you know, whether your name was leaked to the press or not --

RUSH: Look, you're making some great points here, I understand, but this has happened. We did have judges, we did have lawyers, prosecutors and defense counsel. We had juries in the trial of the 1993 gang, sheik Omar Abdel Rahman who blew up the World Trade Center.

CALLER: It's been done, but Omar Abdel, whatever, Mr. Rahman, the blind sheik, is hardly the worldwide notorious, most wanted man in the world. He's just another Islamic fascist thug. Osama Bin Laden is the kingpin of the whole seat.

RUSH: I understand this, and I'm just playing devil's advocate with you. I know one of the lawyers that prosecuted Rahman and he got countless death threats, as did Pat Fitzgerald who was the lead prosecutor in the case. Judge did, too. But, look, I get your point. Let's go back to the beginning here because all of that is not known whether it will go that far, but if it does, your points are well taken and very wise.

CALLER: I hope so. I went to law school 30 years ago to find out about that. (laughing)

RUSH: (laughing) All right, since you went to law school, you'll know this better than I. The ruling of the Supreme Court right now is vague. All it says is that these people who have been held without being charged have a right to know with what they're being charged.

CALLER: That was the only issue before them at that point, but the way they ruled today on that issue gives guidance to prospective appeals in the future on the other rules.

CALLER: They will be very happy -- you know, they've given cert on every issue that's been brought to them on the war on terror. They had the authority to say, "We don't want to hear it," and it would have passed, but they have not denied certiorari or a hearing on any issue that's been brought to them on the war on terror. They have systematically defined the Constitution far broader than anybody not in the Supreme Court could imagine. And they put us in great harm.

RUSH: No question about it. This could lead to the Mirandizing of these terrorist suspects.

CALLER: If they're not Mirandized, then any information that's obtained from them is inadmissible. If you don't have admissible evidence to present to an impartial jury --

RUSH: Precisely. It's also possible the, quote, unquote, arresting soldiers would have to be brought to trial, "Okay, under what circumstances did you capture this prisoner and on what basis did you deny him the rights of innocence as presumed by the US?" It could be a total circus.

CALLER: And how do you keep him available as a witness for ten years while you get the case to trial in the first place?

RUSH: Well, you probably start the draft, 'cause you gotta replace the soldiers you're going to have in court. It's absurd. The whole thing is absurd. This is why, you know, you ask the basic question, all this stems from the presumption of innocence that they would have being in possession of US constitutional rights.

RUSH: In the case of Bin Laden, at the same time we have people who say, yeah, let's capture and bring him here and give him the same ruling of habeas corpus that the Supreme Court decided, then that brings in the presumption of innocence. At the same time, we are having military teams trying to kill the guy.

CALLER: And then what does it do to other people who are not citizens of the United States? Illegal aliens now have free constitutional rights or stand to have every constitutional right that a valid citizen has.

RUSH: Wait, wait, wait, wait. If we grant these rights, as the Supreme Court has, to an unlawful enemy combatant, a terrorist --

CALLER: That's right. Because they are less obnoxious, they are less of a threat, they are less offensive to the people who are illegally here than terrorists. The terrorists are trying to kill everybody. They don't care who they kill. But an illegal alien allegedly is just here to try to find a better life, and, you know, there's good things and bad things to be said about them, but there are no good things to be said about the terrorists and yet they're getting the best treatment you can give, so why not give the same treatment to other illegal people or -- I mean, you know, not even illegal aliens. That is to say that a citizen of another country for some reason is charged with a crime in the United States, he's just become a US citizen for all the purposes under the Constitution.

RUSH: No, it's worse than that. It's worse than that. He doesn't have to be charged in order to have these rights.

RUSH: I know, it's terribly perverted, and most people are puzzled here, Frank. They don't know what they can do about it, they don't know what constitutional recourse there is.

CALLER: The constitutional recourse is very simple. Report to the Democrats in Congress and make the Constitution very clear. Congress controls the jurisdiction of the entire federal court system.

RUSH: I know. But they had a law, and the Supreme Court just overruled the congressional law signed by the president.

CALLER: Then Congress can turn around and overrule the Supreme Court the same way they literally packed the court back during Roosevelt's term, because the Supreme Court wouldn't play ball in the New Deal business. Roosevelt offered to raise the number of Supreme Court judges to 15 in order to outnumber the judges that were standing in his way. And, you know, there's no constitutional limit on 9 judges. It's just how many more (unintelligible) nomination and confirmation.

RUSH: Okay, but since we have a Democrat majority Congress that remedy isn't going to happen. They are not going to go back and try to overrule this court. They love the ruling. So the constitutional remedy, quote, unquote, that's most available is Republican majority in the Senate with a Republican president, conservative, who is going to appoint proper people when there are vacancies. Your prescription is valid, don't misunderstand. I'm just saying the circumstances now, with the Democrats in charge of everything, it's not gonna happen. Frank, I could talk to you for the rest of the program, but I gotta go, and I've got a couple things here to do before I get outta here. But thank you so much for the call.

RUSH: Okay, let me clarify here after the call. We just hung up with Frank, the lawyer. What I'm trying to do here on this Osama Bin Laden thing and the Obama camp and the whole interpretation of the Supreme Court decision, is I'm just trying to point out the illogic of Obama's position, of the Supreme Court's position, and the position of all those who insist that fighting the war in the courtrooms is logical or even acceptable. The concept is simple. Out of one side of his mouth, Obama says we need to kill Osama because for this war to be won, that's the definition. Out of the other side of his mouth he says if we capture Bin Laden, he needs to be treated as innocent until proven guilty. Obama gets away with applying military and civilian standards for the same thing, and people say, "Oh, he's so brilliant! He's so, so smart."

RUSH: Now, I've mentioned in the past on this program -- and I've been very serious -- in discussing Barack Obama, that I really do think that somebody else is behind this campaign. You can even look at it as you want as an Oz behind the curtain pulling the strings. I don't mean it that way. Politics is what it is. Every candidate has sponsors and friends and people that encourage the candidate, "You gotta run, Barack. You gotta run." There's somebody behind the strings, 'cause the things that he is saying in response to various things McCain says or the president says are so predictable. They're right out of a particular page in the Democrat Party playbook. For example, McCain has changed his mind. In his mind, the facts about oil drilling and energy independence have changed. So he is now advocating exploration and drilling for oil offshore the US continental shelf. What does Obama do? He comes out and says, "This is just another example of the failed policies of the past."

"Failed policies of the past" is a preapproved, focus group-tested little phrase. It's a cliche. Any Democrat can say it; they all have said it. I don't know what page in the playbook it's on, but it's in there. Obama didn't think of it. It's a traditional, knee-jerk Democrat response. What are the policies of the past when it comes to oil exploration? What is it? The policies of the past were discovering oil, building the oil industry, creating an energy source that lead to the geometric exponential growth of the United States and world economies, that increased standards of living, that changed forever the way pleasure and business were conducted. And Obama wants us to believe that all of that is the result of a failed policy of the past, oil discovery, oil exploration, oil discovery and refining? The creation of gasoline, jet fuel, diesel, this is a failure? That's why I said it's like they have three-by-five little...

Well, it's a computer file, but visualize it as a three-by-five-inch index card holder. And in that three-by-five-inch index card holder are approved responses based on all the opponent says. So McCain comes out in favor of oil exploration, so somebody in the Obama office or the Democrat Party goes to a little three-by-five-inch index card box, finds the appropriate response for, "We need to drill more oil," and out come two cards. One says: "We can't drill our way out of this." The other is: "This is a continuation of failed policies of the past." In the meantime, we're told that this is the best that the messiah can do. This guy that's brand-new! There's never been another like him! Nobody's smarter. Nobody is more compassionate. There's nobody with a better feel, a better touch for the circumstances of average people in the country -- and all he is is a walking, talking, leftist cliche! And he comes out with these cliches. It's like his speech. It's like his speech in church on Sunday urging black fathers to stay home and be fathers.

He's the first to talk about the importance of fatherhood in the black community or anywhere else? No. Lots of people have done it. A lot of fathers have done it on their own without having to be told by the messiah to do it. But you know what's really ironic about that is that Obama should have and could have said, "By the way, I understand why some of you fathers there have taken leave of your responsibilities, and I intend to change it -- and that is the federal government became the provider of your responsibilities. We provided welfare payments and AFDC payments for every child you fathered whether you stayed home or not, and so as far as the mother of your children was concerned, she didn't need you. She had us. Well, I, Barack Obama, am going to change that." So Barack Obama's out there saying we need to fix this problem, when in truth it's people like Barack Obama who caused the problem! Then he's out there getting all kinds of credit for ingenuity and genius and courage for daring to say what he said in church. When, again, it's on an index card in their index box.

There's somebody out there that's putting all these words in his mouth, and further evidence of this: ABC News posted on their website this story that Obama thinks that the way we ought to fight the war on terror is the way we fought the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. In the courts. This is huge, in indicating and illustrating how little Obama knows about the war on terror, about the '93 attack on the World Trade Center, about how and why certain suspects were prosecuted. A lot of it, Senator, had to do with the fact that they were in New York! The blind sheik and his buds were in New York. They blew up the building and then these idiots did something with their receipt, turning their rental truck back. They were tracked to their mosques. The blind sheik was here. Anyway, this is an interesting example.

RUSH: Let's go to last night's Nightline. Barack Obama, the Democrat presidential nominee, appeared and Jake Tapper interviewed him. Jake Tapper asked him this question: "Senator Obama, you applauded the decision that the Supreme Court made last week. The Bush administration says that no matter what people think about their other programs, other policies they've initiated, there has not been a terrorist attack in the US since 9/11 and they say the reason that is is because of the domestic programs, many of which you opposed, the NSA surveillance program, Guantanamo Bay, and other programs. How do you know that they're wrong? It's not possible that they're right?"

OBAMA: It is my firm belief that we can track terrorists, we can crack down on threats against the United States, but we can do so within the constraints of our Constitution.

OBAMA: Let's take the example of Guantanamo. What we know is that in previous terrorist attacks -- for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center -- we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in US prisons, incapacitated.

RUSH: This is so dangerously ignorant, and I mean this. I'm not trying to be funny. I know I'm a naturally funny guy. I'm not trying to be insulting. This is dangerously ignorant. Let's go back to 1993. Yeah, we did apprehend a bunch of these guys. The blind sheik, Omar Abdel Rahman, a number of others, they were here. They were right in New York. They gave themselves away. We already had intel that these people were here and were doing things. But we didn't catch 'em all. Do you know who was involved in this we didn't get? Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The name ring a bell? Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was part of the first '93 World Trade Center bombing, was not apprehended, Senator Obama, and guess what he did? He finished the job on 9/11, 2001. And between the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 and the destruction of the World Trade Center in 2001, after we'd arrested these guys, Senator, and after we'd incapacitated them, what happened? More terrorist attacks occurred all over the world, against Americans, Khobar Towers, the USS Cole, and might I remind you, Senator, with these guys in captivity, in our prisons, 9/11 still happened, Senator, but since 9/11 we have not had a single attack on the soil of the United States.

What's different? We've not been using the court system, Senator. We have been in the belly of the beast. We took the fight to them. It happens to be Afghanistan and Iraq. And, you know what, Senator? We're wiping 'em out. The Taliban has been disbanded. They're trying to re-band but they're having trouble. In Iraq, Al-Qaeda in Iraq is on the run. Even the AP today, in one of my stacks, has to admit, it has turned around in Iraq, both militarily and politically. I can't believe it, but it's there. What's changed, Senator? He wants to go back and fight the war on terror the way the Clintons did. What's new about that? Where is the change in that? He wants to fight the war on terror in the court system. Hey, Senator, do you know something? We indicted Osama. We indicted him long before the 9/11 bombings. After the embassy bombings, the US embassy bombings, Bin Laden was indicted along with his top henchman, Ayman al-Zawahiri. Also, 24 others were indicted. Do you know how many of those 24 have been prosecuted, I should say?

Six of them. Exactly six. And of those, the top-ranking Al-Qaeda figure, Mamdouh Mahmud Salim has never been tried for the embassy bombing and that's because when we gave him all the glorious privileges of the American Constitution, he used his access to free legal help as an opportunity to attempt a kidnapping escape from custody in the course of which he maimed a prison guard by stabbing him in the eye before being subdued. The attack on the USS Cole happened in October of 2000 in Aden Harbor, Yemen. No arrests, Senator, no indictment, until well after the 9/11 attacks. That indictment has been on the books for years. As our many allies have pretended to pursue the Al-Qaeda perpetrators, there's no prospect of an American prosecution because of the justice system's painfully obvious limitations. But, look, the major point here is another opening for Senator McCain, a huge opening for Senator McCain to draw a huge distinction.

Here is Barack Obama, the messiah, the candidate of change, the candidate of doing it a different way, the candidate of the future. In prosecuting the war on terror, he wants to go back and replicate the policies of the Clinton administration. When you're prosecuting the war on terror in your own court system, you are not prosecuting the war on terror. You can indict the world. If you can't apprehend the people you've indicted, you haven't done diddly-squat. All you've done, Senator, is do what your elitist, Northeast corridor buddies love, and that's this whole little magic phrase called "due process." Oh, yes, when we've engaged in due process as Americans, we love ourselves, we are good people; we are following our Constitution. And while we engage in due process, the people that we are using due process to apprehend are continually blowing other people up around the world. But we great, good Americans, we can fall back on due process, and we're good people. In the meantime, after 9/11, the second attack on the World Trade Center, despite the first attack had many prosecutions and guilty convictions, didn't stop 9/11 from happening, did it, Senator? All this stuff that you want to re-institute didn't stop it from happening. Well, we haven't had an attack since, Senator. You think it's 'cause the Bush administration is throwing indictments down all over the world? You think it's because the Supreme Court's usurping the commander-in-chief role? You think it's because your lawyer buddies and your judge buddies are going to get to run the war on terror now in our court system?

Or do you think, Senator, that one of the reasons that we have not been attacked since 9/11 has been because brighter people than you will ever be looked at the past and said, "This isn't working in our court system," and we deployed the mighty, the brave, and the courageous United States military to do the job. And guess what, Senator? Despite the fact that you have 20/20 vision for the future, you can't see the present, and you don't even want to go see the present in Iraq. I understand he is going to go. The fact of the matter is this brave and courageous US military is what's prevented an attack on this country since 9/11. They don't deal in indictments, Senator. They have to put up with members in your party accusing them of rape and murder of women and children, and yet they still do the job and have made it safe for your skinny little rear end to run around and utter all these inane stupidities while people think you're the messiah. You owe them a debt of thanks, sir, not the court system.

RUSH: Back to the phones to Bill in Kenmore, Washington. Hi, Bill. It's great to have you with us.

CALLER: It seems to me what this guy is talking about is police action. Police action only works after the attack.

RUSH: You know, we are being sold a bill of goods on this, and I think a lot of people are buying it because of these soaring speeches that say nothing, that are written for him by David Axelrod. This guy is not, by any stretch, the way he's being marketed and packaged.

CALLER: See, he's talking about a police action. Police is only after the crime. It doesn't do anything about preventing the crime.

RUSH: That's an excellent point. That's an excellent point: if you're going to use the court system, what? You have to wait 'til the criminals hit you.

CALLER: Yeah, only time you call the police for something, they say, "Well, have they done anything yet?" They won't do anything 'til it's happened. You can't prosecute a murder until it's been done. Right?

RUSH: Well, not necessarily, if the Democrats get total control. I'm not sure what they'll change in terms of people they don't want to deal with. I'm being facetious here, but, yes, you're absolutely right.

CALLER: He's talking about using the Constitution. Follow the Constitution. Well, that means you can't do anything 'til the crime happens.

RUSH: That's what I meant by this. These guys are so taken with this whole notion of "due process" and "fairness." See, everybody to them, they look for the victim everywhere they can find them, and of course in world geopolitics, everybody outside America is a victim -- a victim of us. We're the world's only superpower, and we have a giant footprint, and we're just squashing people like bugs all over the world. We're wiping 'em out, invading countries, and these people that fight back -- these poor little victims who fight back, like Al-Qaeda, who can't take us being the world's superpower -- we capture 'em, and, "Why, we're really mean to them to find out what they know about the next attack. We need to grant them due process." I tell you, the Democrat Party may one day in the past may have been constituted with people about whom you could say they were the backbone of America, but no longer.

If Barack Obama had been around during World War I or World War II and running this country, if the Democrat Party had been constituted then as it is today, with all the various constituent groups, America would not exist today as it does. We'd still be here, but it would be an entirely, entirely different country than it is today. These people are ladled with so much guilt, they think that we deserve some of what's happening to us, if not more of what happens to us, because we're just too big and too powerful. So this whole notion of everybody else being a victim -- Al-Qaeda is a victim, everybody is a victim, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is actually a victim. We're making him the way he is. This is what these people think! That's why they want to go talk 'em. Obama wants to go talk to these people and say, "Look, I understand how you feel. We know that you hate us because we've had some cowboy presidents here who have invaded your area, and we've had our bases and our interests there, and we know you don't like us because we're supporting Israel and so forth -- and you have a point.

"I just want you to know that with me in charge, no longer are we going to act as the cowboy of the world, and we're going to back off here." And of course Ahmadinejad and his little nutcase buddies just sit there and chuckle and laugh at this. But this is what they genuinely think. They're nothing but a bunch of Neville Chamberlains. The whole damn Democrat Party and the leftist movement is a bunch of Neville Chamberlains, and that's what Obama is here. This recitation of his on comparing Guantanamo Bay to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing is just so ignorant. It is ignorant of history that's recent. What, 15 years ago was 1993 when the World Trade Center was first hit. Fifteen years, it's not that bad. He was just getting ready to be a Chicago community organizer. He know what's going on -- or does he? There's something about this that just doesn't pass the smell test. This whole campaign does not pass the smell test, and it's going to show up. It's going to show up more and more as this whole thing unfolds.

Here's Troy in New Orleans. Hi, Troy, glad you called, nice to have you with us.

CALLER: Hi, Rush. I'm a first time call, bit nervous, but I was just thinking. We're giving these terrorists US citizens' rights, basically, and they got to be rolling around on their backs laughing at us.

RUSH: Their lawyers certainly are laughing. But this is a huge problem. Not just the substance of the Supreme Court's decision, Troy, but look at it from a logistics standpoint. What are there, 270 people down in Club Gitmo right now?

RUSH: And nobody knows how this is going to manifest itself. These guys are going to be dumped on the US court system, put where? What guidelines was this judge going to have? This was not in the Supreme Court decision. This was an absolute disaster, not to mention a rape of the US Constitution.

CALLER: What's going to happen next? Are they going to sue us monetarily for wrongful imprisonment? You know, the government's going to have to pay them millions of dollars.

RUSH: I don't know that they're going to have standing to file civil suits. That's another thing that remains to be seen. But you are on to something. The tort bar, the plaintiff's bar of lawyers is going to see to it. They're going to lobby for that, and the Democrat Party would love nothing better than a whole bunch of show trials: the United States being sued for gazillions by these poor little victims that have been mistreated and tortured and held against their will by the Bush administration. Yes, you're on to something there, sir. It's not quite understood where this is all headed because the Supreme Court, of course, didn't sit there and say, "Here's how you did it." They just said, "What you've been doing, you can't do. You're holding these people without due process, habeas corpus and all this." I'll tell you where we're ultimately going to have fight the left, folks, and that's in the court system. We had the decision, Supreme Court decision yesterday basically a green light for illegal immigration, regardless the will of the people here, and that was an extralegal decision. That was not their purview to make that ruling in this case. The Constitution doesn't grant them at the Supreme Court the power to make immigration policy. The Congress makes that, the representatives of the people, elected representatives. The courts are where we're going to have to beat back liberals. In addition to Congress and the Senate, of course, local legislatures and so forth, but it's also going to have to include the courts.

RUSH: I just got a note from one of my favorite reporters, Bill Sammon. Bill Sammon writes for the Washington Examiner, formerly of the Washington Times, occasionally appears as a Fox All-Star on Brit Hume's roundtable discussion toward the end of his six o'clock show, and he just got off a conference call with Obama foreign policy specialists. By the way, this represents, ladies and gentlemen, yet another illustration of how Obama is not about change. The two foreign policy advisors on the conference call were John Kerry, who served in Vietnam, and Richard Clarke, the national security advisor in the Clinton administration held over by the Bush administration. Here's the question that was asked of John Kerry and Richard Clarke. "The McCain camp said that if Osama Bin Laden were captured and detained at Guantanamo Bay, Obama would want to give him habeas corpus rights. They said that this morning. I'm asking you two gentlemen, would he? In other words, should Osama Bin Laden have the same rights that were granted by the Supreme Court last week to other terrorism suspects?"

John Kerry, who served in Vietnam, took the first stab at this. He said, "First of all, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that they have those rights. This is not Obama. This is the Supreme Court of the United States. If John McCain were president, he would have to give them those rights. This is a phony argument. It's typical of what the Republican playbook is, which is say anything no matter what the other side has said, just say it and enough people may believe it, unless you folks write the truth and write it boldly and write it clearly." A little defensive there, Senator Kerry. And then Richard Clarke chimed in. Richard Clarke said, "If Osama Bin Laden were brought back, the Supreme Court ruling holds on the right of habeas corpus, but fifth, terrorists have routinely in the past, prior to this administration, been successfully captured around the world and prosecuted, including in the United States. With the exception of one participant in the World Trade Center attack of '93, they were all found, they were all brought back to United States, they were all given their rights --" that is not true. We haven't got the people who did the Khobar Towers. We haven't got the people that did the USS Cole. This is not true, but anyway, this is Richard Clarke saying this, "and they're all locked up in Supermax in Colorado. It can be done and it has been done."

So, what do we conclude from this? It's very simple what we conclude. Obama's foreign policy advisors said today that Bin Laden, if captured, should be allowed to appeal his case to US civilian courts. That's change? That's the Clinton administration. We went through this earlier in the program. That did not stop terrorism. That's a police action. You only deal with these people after they've hit you, after they've blown up your buildings, after they've killed your population. After they've blown up your barracks, after they've blown up your Navy ships, that's when you deal with them? That's going to stop terrorism? We put the blind sheik in prison, we put a bunch of his accomplices in prison after the World Trade Center bombing of 1993, and then terrorism continued to happen and the World Trade Center itself blew up when the airplanes hit it on 9/11. The best and the brightest, the backbone of America, John Kerry, Richard Clarke, change that we can believe in.

RUSH: A fascinating story just cleared the wires at Politico.com: "Two Muslim women at Barack Obama's rally in Detroit Monday night," where Algore came out with that silly endorsement speech, "two Muslim women at Obama's rally in Detroit were barred from sitting behind the podium by campaign volunteers seeking to prevent the women's headscarves from appearing in photographs or on television with the candidate. The campaign has apologized to the women, both Obama supporters, who said they felt betrayed by their treatment at the rally." Bill Burton, Obama spokesman, said, "This is of course not the policy of the campaign." Of course not, Bill. No, it can't possibly be the policy of the campaign. You just have some renegade volunteers running around telling women wearing burqas, "Not on this shot, you're not going to be sitting behind us, babe." It's just a couple of freelancers running around doing this, eh, Bill? No, of course not. It's not the policy of the campaign. Burton then continued by saying, "It is offensive and counter to Obama's commitment to bring Americans together and simply not the kind of campaign we run."

This is like somebody who gets caught committing some sort of crime or a DUI or something, a celebrity, "This is not the me that I know." I don't think McCain would have done this. All campaigns do this. The Obama campaign, during the heat of the primaries, made sure there were lots and lots and lots of mostly white people sitting behind him in the TV camera shot, and that's been established. I just love this. This of course is not the policy of the campaign. (laughing) No, we're not running the show. We just showed up to get the Gore endorsement and lo and behold, here are these people running around, you know, putting together, decorating our crowd. No, no, no, nothing to do with us. "Building a human backdrop to a political candidate, a set of faces to appear on television and in photographs, is always a delicate exercise in demographics and political correctness. Advance staffers typically pick supporters out of a crowd to reflect the candidate's message.

"When Obama won North Carolina amid questions about his ability to connect with white voters, for instance, he stood in front of a group of middle-aged white women waving small American flags. On the Republican side, a Hispanic New Hampshire Democrat, Roberto Fuentes, told Politico that he was recently asked, and declined, to contribute to the 'diversity' of the crowd behind Sen. John McCain at a Nashua event. But for Obama, the old-fashioned image-making contrasts with his promise to transcend identity politics and to embrace all elements of America. The incidents in Michigan, which has one of the largest Arab and Muslim populations in the country, also raise an aspect of his campaign that sometimes rubs Muslims the wrong way: The candidate has vigorously denied a false, viral rumor that he himself is Muslim. But the denials seem to some at times to imply that there is something wrong with the faith, though Obama occasionally adds that he means no disrespect to Islam." Of course not. (doing Obama imitation) "I'm not a Muslim, don't you dare accuse me of being one, not that there's anything wrong with being a Muslim. I mean, I respect Islam." And of course this is the kind of stuff the Drive-Bys handle with, "Isn't he wonderful the way he handles this? He really is unique. He's the messiah."

One of the women that was denied the opportunity to sit behind Obama wearing the burqa, Hebba Aref, a 25-year-old lawyer who lives in the Detroit suburb of Bloomfield Hills, said, "I was coming to support him, and I felt like I was discriminated against by the very person who was supposed to be bringing this change, who I could really relate to. The message that I thought was delivered to us was that they do not want him associated with Muslims or Muslim supporters." In Detroit Monday, "the two different Obama volunteers in separate incidents --" of course the campaign, nothing to do with this, not the policy of the campaign, two instances here "made it clear that headscarves wouldn't be in the picture. The volunteers gave different explanations for excluding the hijabs, one bluntly political and the other less clear. In Aref's case, there was no ambiguity. That incident began when the volunteer asked Aref's friend Ali Koussan and two other friends, Aref's brother Sharif and another young lawyer, Brandon Edward Miller, whether they would like to sit behind the stage. The three young men said they would, but mentioned they were with friends.

"The men said the volunteer, a twenty-something African-American woman in a green shirt, asked if their friends looked and were dressed like the young men, who were all light-skinned and wearing suits. Miller said yes, but mentioned that one of their friends was wearing a headscarf with her suit. The volunteer 'explained to me that because of the political climate and what's going on in the world and what's going on with Muslim Americans, it's not good for [Aref] to be seen on TV or associated with Obama,' said Koussan, who is a law student at Wayne State University. Both Koussan and Miller said they specifically recalled the volunteer citing the 'political climate' in telling them they couldn't sit behind Obama. 'I was like, "You've got to be kidding me. Are you serious?"' Koussan recalled. Shimaa Abdelfadeel's story was different.

"She'd waited on line outside the Joe Louis Arena for three hours in the sun and was walking through the giant hall when a volunteer approached two of her non-Muslim friends, a few steps ahead of her, and asked if they'd like to sit in 'special seating' behind the stage, said one friend, Brittany Marino, who, like Abdelfadeel, is a recent University of Michigan graduate who works for the university. When they said they were with Abdelfadeel, the volunteer told them their friend would have to take the headscarf off or stay out of the special section, Marino said. They declined the seats. After recovering from the shock of the incident, Abdelfadeel went to look for the volunteer and confronted her minutes later, she said in an e-mail interview with Politico. 'We're not letting anyone with anything on their heads like baseball [caps] or scarves sit behind the stage,' she paraphrased the volunteer as saying, an account Marino confirmed. 'It has nothing to do with your religion!'"

The campaign, of course, said, this is not the policy of our campaign. "Photographs of the event also show men with hats in the section behind Obama and former Vice President Al Gore, though not directly behind the candidate." So they were letting people wear hats, they were letting guys sit back there, but no Muslim women with the head scarves. And, of course, this is the man of enlightenment, the messiah, the man of change, the man of unity; the man who is going to bring us an America that's enlightened and unlike any that we have ever witnessed nor seen before.

RUSH: This is yesterday in Taylor, Michigan. Christian Broadcast Network News senior national correspondent David Brody interviewed Barack Obama, and Brody says, "Michelle Obama has come under criticism from some conservatives. Because of some comments, they suggest she's unpatriotic, not proud to be an American, and outside the mainstream."

OBAMA: This has unfortunately become a habit in our politics, where anything is fair game, and we just make things up about people. The fact that people have tried to make her a target based, essentially, on a couple comments in which she was critical of what's happening to our American dream, and the enormous difficulties that people are experiencing -- difficulties that she hears directly as she's traveling across the country -- I think is really distressing, and you know I've said publicly before, and I'll say it again: I think families are off limits. I would never consider making Cindy McCain a campaign issue, and if I saw people doing that, I would speak out against it. And the fact that I haven't seen that from John McCain I think is a deep disappointment.

RUSH: Awwwwwwwwwww! (crying) "McCain won't criticize people who are criticizing my wife!" Look, McCain's got a lot on his plate, Senator. Why is it McCain's responsibility to denounce these people? Besides, Senator Obama, you and I both know who got this whole thing going. We know what you're talking about. You're talking about The Tape, the rumored tape. The "whitey" tape which nobody's ever seen, doesn't exist. I'm not trying to spread the rumor. He knows what we're talking about here. That's what he was talking about, and we all know that it was a Democrat blogger that started that whole thing. Larry Johnson, who is working for the Clinton campaign, that's who started this whole thing, and he knows it, and why it's up to McCain or any of us to denounce this liberal blogger is beyond me.

Apparently, an attack of his wife involves taking her very own words, often given as a speech in support of Obama’s run for presidency, and asking, “What is Michelle Obama really saying here?” This is mud-slinging of the worst kind.

RUSH: Last night and today, we finally have an issue, an issue that represents a goal for the United States of America: energy independence, drilling for our own oil and our own natural gas. Finally, the president of the United States is willing to lead the charge on this. I know you can say, "Yeah, where has he been the last seven years?" He actually has proposed drilling in ANWR. He hasn't gone all the way, but he finally has now. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth and say, "Yeah, where's this been?" We finally have, ladies and gentlemen, an issue that can rally people -- a simple issue that's easy to understand. This is easy to understand as the House Bank scandal was easy to understand. We don't have to explain the falling dollar, or why it's happening and how to get the dollar back up We don't have to explain.

All we have to do is say: "Four dollar gasoline, $4.10 gasoline, $135 per barrel of oil, supply and demand." Everybody knows that we are not bringing up as much as we have and if we brought more of our own up, the very people that are demanding energy independence are standing in the way of it... It's easy to understand. Case has been made. This is the time, just like it was during the illegal immigration debate, for elected officials in Washington to hear from you about what you think. We already have the Gallup showing 67% of the American people want to start drilling. Last night, the brilliant Barack Obama said there is no way offshore drilling will lower prices right now. The Democrat Party is digging in and they are going to oppose this. They're going to oppose energy independence; they're going to oppose advancing technology.

They're going to oppose the economic growth of the country. They're going to oppose your prosperity. They're going to oppose all of that by standing in the way of this. Now, let's take this statement made by Obama: No way offshore drilling will lower prices right now. Wow, praise the sky! What brilliance! The messiah has spoken. Delivered with the authority of a great leader: There's no way offshore drilling will lower prices right now. A tingle goes up the leg of the Drive-By Media. But wait a second, wait a second. You know what, folks? There's no way alternative energy will lower prices "right now." There's no way CAFE standards on automobile mileage will lower prices "right now." There's no way an excess profit tax on oil companies will lower prices "right now." Does he even know what he's talking about? Who's putting the words in this puppet's mouth?

RUSH: Here's the president from the Rose Garden this morning announcing his change of heart on offshore drilling.

THE PRESIDENT: In the short run, the American economy will continue to rely largely on oil, and that means we need to increase supply, especially here at home. So my administration has repeatedly called on Congress to expand domestic oil production. Unfortunately, Democrats on Capitol Hill have rejected virtually every proposal, and now Americans are paying the price at the pump for this obstruction. Congress must face a hard reality: Unless members are willing to accept gas prices at today's painful levels or even higher, our nation must produce more oil, and we must start now.

RUSH: He nailed it. This is exactly what the Democrats are going to do. Congress is willing to accept gas prices at today's painful levels. They are more than happy to accept gas prices at today's painful levels. And it's two reasons. One, pure politics. And I'm not prioritizing these in any order. Pure politics. I mean, the angrier the voting population is over the price of gasoline and the related economic fallout, the greater the odds the Democrats think that they can get elected president. So it goes back to what we've always said: What's bad for America is great for the Democrats. What's great for America is bad for the Democrats. So they're going to dig in, they've already started to dig in to oppose this. They want you in pain, 'cause they want your anger directed at the administration, therefore you'll want change, which is the Democrats. Here's another sound bite from the president.

THE PRESIDENT: First, we should expand American oil production by increasing access to the Outer Continental Shelf, or OCS. Second, we should expand oil production by tapping into the extraordinary potential of oil shale. Third, we should expand oil production by permitting exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR. And finally, we need to expand and enhance our refining capacity. Refineries are the critical link between crude oil and the gasoline and diesel fuel that drivers put in their tanks.

RUSH: See how easy this is? There are people like me and you, ladies and gentlemen, who have been desperately wanting this to become not only our movement's policy, but our country's policy for years. Every time we have heard Democrats whine and moan about energy dependence, every time prices of gasoline have spiked and they do hearings on windfall profits of Big Oil, there's a solution to this. Then we hear Obama say, "No drilling for oil, why, that's just sticking to the failed policies of the past." The failed policies of the past! What? The discovery and the drilling and the extraction, refining, and the distribution of petroleum products is a failed policy of the past? What, pray tell, is his new policy of the future? Nothing that's going to pay off any time soon. He sits there and says, "Well, drilling ain't going to reduce prices any time soon, not right now." Nothing that these people are proposing will, either.

You could put all those stupid compact fluorescent lightbulbs you can find in your house, it's not going to produce any more energy and it's not going to reduce the price of gasoline. And you can unplug your cell phone charger and your toaster and computer and whatever else. You could put solar panels on your lawn mower. You could put solar panels on your house. You could put solar panels on the roof of your hybrid; it isn't going to make gasoline any cheaper. You can put windmills wherever you don't want them. It ain't going to make gasoline any cheaper. There is no substitute for oil, and there isn't going to be any time soon. So this whole notion that we're not going to be able to lower the price any time soon by drilling, not gonna get lower prices right now, nothing else that the people are proposing will do so, either. One more from the president and then Senator McCain will chime in.

THE PRESIDENT: I know the Democratic leaders have opposed some of these policies in the past. Now that their opposition has helped drive gas prices to record levels, I asked them to reconsider their positions. If congressional leaders leave for their Fourth of July recess without taking action, they will need to explain why four-dollar-a-gallon gasoline is not enough incentive for them to act. Americans will rightly ask how high gas prices have to rise before the Democrat-controlled Congress will do something about it.

RUSH: Whatever the price is on January 20th next year, when Obama is elected president is when they'll start caring about it, or inaugurated, if he is. The Democrats have already dug in. They do have a reply to this. They've got their talking points and they're lying through their teeth about it. And you may have heard it. Bill Nelson of Florida, one of, ahem, my senators, is out there saying that, (paraphrasing) "Hey, the federal government's already leased a whole bunch of land to the big oil companies; they're not even using it." It's such a smoke screen, the number of years left on these leases is very few, and the whole thing is a lie anyway. I have the figures to prove it. We'll get to this as it all unfolds here before your very eyes and ears. Yesterday in Houston, McCain went down to talk to Big Oil execs. He gave a speech on energy and conservation. Here is the first of two portions.

MCCAIN: We have proven oil reserves of at least 21 billion barrels in the United States, but a broad federal moratorium stands in the way of energy exploration and production, and I believe it is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions and put our own reserves to use. (cheers and applause)

RUSH: All right, all right, all right, drill here, drill now, pay less. Drill here. Drill now. Pay less. Folks, this is the issue. It's not the equivalent of going to the moon, but it is close. This is a goal, a national goal, to become energy independent. We have the crude. We have the supply. We have it. We just have to go get it. And you don't get it by sitting around waiting. You gotta take the first step. In building anything, it takes time. So this is something to rally the people behind. We've got the tipping point here, four dollar a gallon gasoline, and it's going to be great because the Democrats are going to oppose this. They're going to stand in the way of it. They're going to be easy to caricature. It will be easy to explain to people. This is not a complicated issue at all. Here's the second McCain bite.

MCCAIN: He wants a windfall profits tax on oil. (crowd booing) To go along with the new taxes he also plans for coal and natural gas. (crowd booing) My friends, if the plan sounds familiar, it's because that was President Jimmy Carter's big idea, too. (crowd booing) And a lot of good it did us.

RUSH: He's right about that. He's ripping off my Jimmy Carter line. I don't care. It's accurate, it's correct, and he's telling the truth about Obama. He wants to raise taxes on all these things. The more you tax an activity, the less of that activity you get. It's just that simple, proven by years and years and years of human existence. Here is Obama. This is aboard his campaign plane, he's trying to paint McCain here as a flip-flopper while he has on his staff the original flip-flopper, John Kerry, who served in Vietnam. Here's Obama, first of two.

OBAMA: This is yet another reversal by John McCain in terms of his earlier positions, and I think we could set up an interesting debate between John McCain 2000 and John McCain 2008.

RUSH: Let me help out here, Senator Obama. If you say no to offshore drilling or drilling in ANWR when oil is at $20 or $30 a barrel, and then you change your mind and say yes to offshore drilling when oil is $140 a barrel, sir, that's not a flip-flop. That's just common sense. It's like John Maynard Keynes, the famous economist, was asked, "Sir, how come you've changed your mind?" He said, "Sir, when the facts change, I change my mind." The facts have changed here. Oil is no longer $30 a barrel, it's $140. It's now profitable to get the shale oil the president was talking about. This is not a flip-flop. What we have here, the "No-Drill Democrats" -- and that's a good name for these, the No-Drill Democrats, unless a waitress is involved -- are on a crash course not to meet our energy needs. They are in a full-court press to cover their rear ends. This is almost, not quite, but similar to what's happening in Iraq. Last year at this time and the year before that, the Democrats were openly embracing defeat, saying our troops couldn't win, they had no chance, we were fighting an unjust war, we need pull out, we need to lose, and Harry Reid was saying we already have lost.

Now we've done a 180 and all of a sudden the news out of Iraq is good, but Democrats don't dare admit it. Same thing's happening here with the price of oil, energy independence. They continually are on the wrong side of every major issue facing this country and its growth and its future. So the no-drill Democrats are doing everything they can to cover their rears here, not meet our energy needs. As the law of supply and demand jacks up prices, as more voters realize they're paying the price for liberal special interests, as the polls swing in favor of more drilling, which they are doing, the last refuge of liberals is always Barbra Streisand, BS. They pop up on television, they smile, they say drilling will not lower prices now. Nothing will right now. There's not one thing we could do to lower prices right now. ANWR alone won't make us energy independent for more than six months. Nobody ever said that it would. But I'll tell you what, just this announcement, just the announcement of this initiative, I'm going to be curious to see what goes on in the speculation market, in the futures market, I'm going to be interested to see how it affects the overall market.

I'll guarantee you that if the Democrats ever got wise and went along with this and we lift the executive order that prohibits offshore drilling, you watch what happens to the price of oil, once the world knows that the United States of America is going to go get it, because the rest of the world knows we're the ones who did it; we're the ones who know how; that with the right leadership, the United States of America is the country on this planet that can do anything it wants for the good of the rest of the people who live on this planet. They know it, they resent it, and they fear it, as do the Democrats. Democrats don't like us being this big. They don't like us being a superpower. They think it creates victims in the rest of the world; we need to be cut down to size. This issue fits perfectly. So actually I'd like to amend. We could probably have a fairly immediate effect on price just by announcing our intention to start drilling. Democrats are saying that there are drilling leases out there. Is it, what, millions of acres? Well, the leases are too short-term to allow for EPA rules and test drilling. So then they blame it on Big Oil or Big Speculators or Big Bush or Big Cheney. They blame it on everything but themselves, and their no-drill, no-refine, no-nuclear-plant policies, and that's exactly who they are: the no-drill, no-refine, no-nuclear-plant Democrats.

RUSH: Barack Obama and the Democrat Party are out there suggesting that drilling for oil off the coastline of the United States and at ANWR is nothing more than "the failed policies of the past." Can I be honest with you and tell you what the failed policies of the past are? In 1988, New York governor Mario Cuomo shut down a nuclear plant. That is a failed policy of the past. In 1996, the delightful, the wonderful, the roguish Bill Clinton vetoed exploration and drilling in ANWR. That is a failed policy of the past. Both of those are failed policies of the past. Changing from these failed policies of the past would be to un-fail the failures, to dis-fail the failures. Building nuclear plants, opening ANWR -- and then we could sue Cuomo and Clinton for malpractice, political malpractice, for gumming up the works. I'll tell you something else. How many times have you heard, ladies and gentlemen, that immigrants made us great? We've heard that a lot in the last two years, right?

Well, we hear it all our lives. And nobody disputes that when talking about legal immigration. But let me tell you what made us greater. You know what really made us greater? Petroleum. Oil. (interruption) Don't grimace in there, Dawn. I'm not talking about greater as individuals of character. I'm talking about what propelled this country. It was a number of forces coming together: the establishment of a worldwide Navy, which was not possible without petroleum. Petroleum made us greater. You don't have to be a Nostrademus -- and I know it's Nostra-damus; I'm saying Nostra-demus -- to see that reality will get us off the dime and produce the energy we need. The only question is sooner or later? Will the left help solve this now or wait until the prices at the polls cause enough voters to throw them out of office, which is entirely possible. But I, ladies and gentlemen, don't just come here and flap the gums. I don't just come here and utter meaningless syllables.

I, El Rushbo, America's Real Anchorman and Truth Detector, offer solutions, and I have a solution to this to get the Democrats on board. Have you heard of the Countrywide Six led by Chris Dodd of the banking committee and Kent Conrad, Richard Holbrooke, and a bunch of other Democrats who got sweetheart loans from Countrywide, the mortgage lender? Sometimes they paid no closing costs, lower interest rates -- and, of course, they all say, "We had no idea!" They're now offering legislation, Dodd is, to bail out these lenders. They got a few points in their mortgage loans either for or not for their support. Here's what we do. If you want the Democrat on board the new drilling, we offer them like 50 cents for every barrel of oil from ANWR and a dime from every barrel of oil that we drill offshore. Sort of like a domestic UN oil-for-food program, we have our oil-for-our-future payola if we just give enough Democrats what they're used to, graft and bribes, of a small amount per barrel, I'll bet we can get 'em on board, ladies and gentlemen.

RUSH: We've got one more audio sound bite here from Barack Obama as we conclude our little discussion here on the president's proposal today to lift the executive order prohibiting drilling and exploration off the continental shelf and in ANWR. This is Obama yesterday aboard his campaign plane.

OBAMA: The most optimistic assumptions indicate that offshore drilling might reduce the overall world price of oil by a few cents. So this is not something that's going to give consumers short-term relief, and it is not a long-term solution to our problems.

RUSH: The guy is an idiot! He is just an idiot. He is locked into this position because he's a leftist, radical Democrat. Have you ever noticed...? Who is it that really makes things happen in this country? It's the entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs of all stripes, all sizes, create business of all sizes. They're a wide range. And who is it that always sets out to punish them and destroy them? Liberals, the American left! Absolutely right, Brian. I could read your lips in there. Good going. What does Obama want? Barack Obama wants you to suffer. Barack Obama wants higher prices on fuel. right now. Barack Obama wants a windfall profits tax. right now. Barack Obama wants to raise your income taxes, by the way, right now. He wants to raise capital gains taxes, right now. He wants to raise Social Security taxes, right now. Obama wants you to suffer. The Democrat Party wants you in pain. They want you angry, and they are willing to block any remedy to this problem in order to keep you suffering and in pain and angry. Obama wants prices up, he wants your income down, and he wants taxes up, ladies and gentlemen.

This business, "The most optimistic assumptions indicate that offshore drilling might reduce the overall world price by a few cents"? He's getting that from Chuck Schumer, but Chuck Schumer is contradicting himself. The world's going nuts here over the fact the Saudis are going to pump an additional 800,000 barrels a day. ANWR would give us a million -- and everybody is talking of 30 to 40 dollars a barrel off the market price if we could just add a million barrels. But nobody is saying cents except the Democrats. So Obama says, "Offshore drilling will only save a few cents; repealing the gas tax, ah, that will only save a few cents; offshore drilling, ah, it will only save a few cents; ANWR, ah, it will only save a few cents." Everything is only a few cents. How much does changing your lightbulb save, Obama? Here's a Democrat talking point on this, a montage. This is Senator Barbara Boxer, Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, and Representative Peter DeFazio, a Democrat from Oregon.

BOXER: Bet you didn't know that there are 31 million acres leased in the Gulf of Mexico that the oil companies have not drilled.

MCCASKILL: The oil companies have 68 million acres already under lease they're not using. So why just give them more acres?

DEFAZIO (screaming): Come on, guys! They are not developing what they have now! There's 20 years' supply out there! They haven't developed it!

RUSH: Well, even if this is true -- and it isn't -- could we ask all of you Democrats why? Could it be you? Could it be that there are so many ridiculous, stupid environmental obstacles in their way? Could it be that there are so many taxes weighting upon them put in place by you? Could it be that you are the ones impeding them? But I don't even accept the premise. Hear are the numbers. As you just heard, the congressional Democrats are claiming that the oil companies are sitting on millions of acres and are not tapping federal leases they own. Here are some facts for you on this, and this is from the Institute for Energy Research. Now, the Institute for Energy Research is the energy equivalent of the Heritage Foundation. Great people.

The reality is that 97% of federal offshore areas are not leased. "Ninety-seven percent federal offshore areas are not leased. Ninety-four percent of federal onshore areas are not leased. Right now only 15% of the Outer Continental Shelf acreage is even available for leasing. With domestic oil production in the US declining since 2000 to the lowest level since 1947, it is clear that we need to tap more domestic oil." The oil companies have paid money for the leases they own in addition to an annual fee. So it would make no sense to leave them dormant and not drill for oil or even test to determine what oil capabilities are there, particularly at a time of $130 oil. The companies have every incentive to explore, tap the existing leases that they have. It's just a series of lies and misrepresentations by the Democrats.

They want you mad; they want you suffering. I'm telling you, this is a great issue of contrast -- Republicans versus Democrats, conservatives versus liberals, rightists versus leftists, however you want to put it -- because it is clear who is on the side of the American people, who's on the side of independence, who's on the side of liberty, who's on the side of lower prices -- and it ain't the party of the so-called little guy. It is not the Democrat Party.

RUSH: We'll start here with Mike in Bend, Oregon, great to have you with us, sir, hello.

CALLER: I'm not a highly educated guy so maybe you can help me out with something. Didn't the threat of Star Wars technology from President Reagan and the showing of funding for that from Congress, didn't that start the dismantling of communism in Europe?

RUSH: It was the final straw. It didn't start things. It was the final straw. You're exactly right, by the way, according to Lady Thatcher, you know, I've spoken to her several times about this personally. I've heard her give lectures on this and she said the Soviet Union knew that when we announced the Strategic Defense Initiative, Star Wars, they were a Third World country with a first-rate military. They could not keep up with us. They did not have the ingenuity, didn't have the entrepreneurism, they didn't have the freedom to create something like that, they could not keep up with us. What they tried to do, Gorbachev tried a bunch of things: glasnost and perestroika, tried to hold on to the communist infrastructure while granting a little freedom here and a little freedom there, and it fell apart on him.

CALLER: And Star Wars technology may never have even existed, but the threat is what started that process.

CALLER: This may be apples and oranges, but wouldn't the solidarity of our country with the president and Congress that shows that we are going to drill, that we're going to go after our own oil, wouldn't that bring the price of oil down like tomorrow? I mean the last thing OPEC wants is for us to produce our own oil, and the fastest way for them to slow us down would be for them to drop the price of oil so that we would not be so interested in drilling for our own oil?

RUSH: But, see, nobody's in charge of dropping the price of oil or raising it. Too many market prices that really make the price of oil what it is. But theoretically, I assume that, yeah, they would be very alarmed if there were much greater supply coming on the market, regardless where it came from because it is going to put downward pressure on the price. For those of you in Rio Linda, let me speak your language. It will lower the price rather than downward pressure. I also think that simply if we did unite and get congressional approval with the president, sign the legislation, yep, we're going to do this, I do think that it would immediately impact the oil markets in a positive way with a whole lot of confidence because it would mean more supply.

You know, it's always the lack of supply, of necessity, that causes unease and sometimes panic, it causes disquiet, it causes nervousness. We're talking about a need here. You know, we're not talking here about a shortage of paper clips. We're talking about a shortage of supply, necessary supply, just to maintain current levels of use and even growth, oil. And that's going to make a lot of people nervous. If people figure out that the world's banding together one way or the other to go get more of it, it will no question have a very positive effect. But OPEC would not -- in the first place they're not the cartel. OPEC is not the cartel that they were. Not every oil producing country is a member of OPEC. There is a cartel, but the problem is that the oil cartel today is not producing any. The oil cartel is people standing in the way of production.

RUSH: The Countrywide Six. "Christopher Dodd said he and his wife knew that Countrywide, Inc., was treating them as VIP customers when they refinanced mortgages on two homes in 2003, but that it didn't cross his mind he was getting a perk from Countrywide." What does VIP mean? VIP is a perk! Here is Senator Dodd on Capitol Hill yesterday.

DODD: I would never, ever, ever be a part of that. That there was a VIP section we were in, but we're [sic] assumption was -- No one ever said to us, "You're going to get some special treatment." We thought it was a courtesy.

RUSH: V! I! P! You do get specialty treatment. VIP. Come on, Senator. This is like Bob Torricelli. "Never in my life! Never! (Three watches, $10,000 in cash.) Have I ever accepted anything. (Two trips to the Bahamas.) I resent this allegation of my character," blah, blah, blah. What is VIP? These guys! Then to come back with legislation that benefits and bails out Countrywide and other people? Here's more Dodd.

DODD: I never talked to them about my mortgages, and I never would! I mean the idea you call a CEO of a bank to get a mortgage to try to work something out, I just wouldn't do.

RUSH: Why not? A lot of other people do? Kent Conrad did; Richard Holbrooke did. There are six of you that did. Donna Shalala did. The point is, all you people have enough money. This should not happen. Don't we always hear that we can raise taxes on the rich 'cause they have more than they need? Didn't the Clintons say they got tax cuts they didn't even ask for? These people were looking for a deal. The people that get freebies in their lives are the most greedy people you have ever met. Folks, trust me on this. I've seen it. The people who have grown up and have been given things -- stars, athletes or whatever -- they expect everything is going to be given to them. That's how business was done. It's what they learned. It's what we know. This is a very powerful decision. Of course you call a CEO, and maybe he didn't call the CEO, but the CEO called him. He's chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. I'm going to tell you, if I went out to get a mortgage and I was getting a deal, I would know it.

You're told what the rate is, and I guaran-damn-tee you the bank is going to say, "By the way, we're going to knock a little off of this here, Mr. Limbaugh, because we enjoy your business."

"Yeah. We're going to waive closing costs and we're going to waive a point here off the interest rate."

And then you walk out of there and you don't even know it? (sigh) Culture of corruption? Really the funny thing is that these are people that are independently wealthy. Well, they may not be independently wealthy, but Richard Holbrooke is one of these guys that got one of these things, and so did Donna Shalala. And the culture of greed piece in the American Spectator today by the columnist called The Prowler quotes

an ethics aide: "You have to keep in mind that for folks like Shalala and Holbrooke, there's nothing wrong with what they did. They just got a sweet deal that the great unwashed probably couldn't get. It's just interesting to see all these people who financially are well off by any standard, getting caught up in something totally unnecessary." It's not. This is my whole point. The rich and the powerful always demand a deal. That's what rich and power is all about. They always want something that's cut off. They want a better deal than the great unwashed. They think they're entitled to it, for crying out loud! This makes total sense. They're all Democrats -- phony baloney, plastic banana, good-time rock 'n' rollers -- who tell us and everybody else, "You shouldn't object to a tax increase. You have more than you need." Seems like they never do, do they?

[to be fair, there is one guy on Bush’s payroll who also got a deal from Countrywide]

RUSH: Here is a story that illustrates how the Drive-By Media -- and who is this? Well, I don't know who wrote this. Is it Live Science? I don't know what the website is here. I'm hoping it's AP, but I don't recognize the author's name. It's the French News Agency. But this is a classic example of a nature story, a global warming story that is designed to instill fear and to promulgate the notion here that: Man, we humans, we are just messing everything up; we are causing so much damage! Headline of the story: "Jellyfish Outbreaks a Sign of Nature Out of Sync -- The dramatic proliferation of jellyfish in oceans around the world, driven by overfishing and climate change, is a sure sign of ecosystems out of kilter, warn experts. 'Jellyfish are an excellent bellwether for the environment,' explains Jacqueline Goy, of the Oceanographic Institute of Paris. 'The more jellyfish, the stronger the signal that something has changed.'"

I am about, ladies and gentlemen, to share with you a profundity. "Jellyfish Outbreaks a Sign of Nature Out of Sync." Ladies and gentlemen, it is impossible -- it is physically, geophysically, ontologically, metaphysically, intellectually impossible -- for nature to be out of sync. Nature is, by definition, natural. There cannot be anything out of sync in nature. We're talking about the Mother Nature type. I know. I can hear you shouting at your radios, "You're wrong, Rush! You're wrong, you're wrong." No, you are, if you're shouting at me. Human beings can become out of sync, but even then, who's to say who's out of sync? Are we not measuring this by our own observations and therefore our only statistical analysis? You see, only by virtue of our perception can nature be said to be "out of sync." We observe. We see things and say, "Oh, haven't seen this before," but we have. I dare say there's probably nothing happening in the climate or within nature that has not happened before, and therefore how can it be out of sync?

Only by virtue of our perception can nature be said to be out of sync. So we spot a lot more jellyfish out there. "Ooh, ooh, global warming! Global warming! We're overfishing." (sigh) Nope. Nope. That's our perception. "But, Rush! but, Rush! We're causing it!" No. We're part of nature, too, folks -- and, you see, this is the key. We are not innocent bystanders. We are not irrelevant here. Other existence on this planet is every bit a part of nature as this stupid jellyfish. We in south Florida are having an iguana infestation. The little buggers are just popping up everywhere. They're eating people's gardens. I happen to love lizards; I think they're cute as hell. These things, though, they don't eat insects. I love the little anoles and the geckos. Their little buddies eat the insects. But these things are running around. They stowaway on ships coming up from the Caribbean. They're sold as pets, then they get too big and the pet owner says, "I don't want this damn lizard running around."

They don't like to be petted. They don't like to be picked up and held very much. So people just throw 'em away. Well, they start reproducing out there left and right. Is it nature out of sync? "But, Rush! But, Rush. There's never been this many iguanas here before." How do we know? There haven't been any in our lifetime but in our recorded history, how do we know? But what's to say them coming here is not natural? Perfect climate for the damn things. It's perfectly natural for them to exist here, otherwise they couldn't exist here. I'm not trying to make too big a deal out of this. What I'm saying is, we are not destroyers. We are not predators. We are not the people responsible for destroying the environment or the planet 'cause we can't. We are part of it.

No more than a beaver destroys a forest by chopping down trees and building a dam. Why don't we get mad at the beaver? I mean, for crying out loud, this is just so simple, yet it sounds so profound -- and it is. Nature by definition is natural. So if there are more jellyfish running around out there tell these Jacques Cousteau types just to be quiet. Folks, I don't know about you. As a human being, I'm getting fed up being blamed for every damn thing that's bad in the country, and everything in the world, too, that's bad. Do you realize we humans are the only ones that destroy things? We're the only ones that destroy the planet and the climate? Everything else is pristine and lovely and wonderful, but we? We? We're just debris. We're human debris, soiling the pristine nature of the planet.

RUSH: I have had this story since last Friday. I think last Friday. June 14th. I don't have a calendar right in front of me. But I've been waiting to get audio of this before using this, and we have it. McCain was having a town hall meeting somewhere, a virtual town hall (whatever that is). I don't even know where this was; I just have the story. He was in a virtual town hall. I guess it's on the Internet or something. He's on TV, and he's taking phone call questions, or virtue town hall questions. So the guy gets a question of McCain. The questioner said that he had been educated at Princeton and Harvard, that he made more than $300,000 a year, and then the questioner said, "How can I be proud of my country?" Now, I'm looking at the faces of Dawn and Brian to see if they get this. Do you get this? Do you get it? Tell me. Do you get it? Tell me. (interruption) You don't get it.

Neither did McCain. This was a question from a McCain supporter. The McCain supporter was throwing McCain a very low hanging softball. This was almost tee ball. The questioner almost brought the ball and put it up on the tee for McCain to hit. This was a question; he was simply echoing Michelle Obama. She went to Princeton; her husband went to Harvard. She only now is proud of her country. This was a question for McCain to knock out of the park. He blew this in flying colors. Now, some are speculating, "Well, maybe Senator McCain knew that it was a hanging curveball, just a tee ball question, and maybe he didn't, and maybe..." Folks, trust me: he didn't get this. Here is McCain. He was on the phone during his virtual town hall, and I guess he had to repeat the questions that he was asked. And this was what he told the audience about that question.

MCCAIN: The question is from a gentleman who was educated both at Princeton and at Harvard, and the simple question was, how can he be proud of his country. I'll admit to you, that's tough, that it's tough in some respects.

RUSH: So Senator McCain on Saturday, rather than realizing that he had just been given an opportunity to blow Michelle (My Belle) and Barack Obama out of the water for the embarrassing statement that she'd made about only now being proud of her country, instead pandered to the guy who asked the question. "It's tough. I'll admit it's tough. It's tough to be proud of your country sometimes." The Straight Talk Express. Pure politician 101. Pure politician 101. He went further. He said, "I'll admit to you it's tough. It's tough in some respects." McCain said America needed to be more humble and more inclusive, and he said that one of the ways to be proud of the country was to look at our history and the sacrifices that US troops have made abroad. So be more humble and more inclusive. (interruption) I know, Snerdley. I know! I know. People don't like hearing me rattle the papers. It just, I'm doing that instead of speaking.

RUSH: Let me give you an example of the recent attempt by the Drive-By Media to establish a narrative and how that narrative has now been blown to smithereens, and yet the Drive-Bys won't give it up. This all started last Wednesday or Thursday. And, by the way, let me take a new tack on this. When I talk about the Drive-By Media, of course you know to whom I refer. I refer to CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, LA Times, you name it. It would be easier and shorter to list all the member media that are not part of the Drive-Bys. But I've never really gotten specific about what is the number-one culprit of all of these people, and that's the Associated Press. The Associated Press is the one area of the Drive-By Media which still does have its monopoly. The Associated Press is the news service for however many newspapers are left in this country. What is it, three or four thousand newspapers? From the New York Times to the Washington Post and down to the Rug Rat Central in a town of 25 people that has a weekly newspaper, they all subscribe to the Associated Press.

The Associated Press sets the agenda and the narrative, along with the New York Times. The New York Times sets the agenda for network television coverage. The Associated Press, think of it as a massive gazillion-times-larger enterprise than Media Matters for America, which is nothing more than a liberal hatchet job website that exists to take members of the New Media out of context and to besmirch their character and credibility and honor. The Associated Press has no competition. Whatever they write about Iraq, whatever they write about me, whatever they write about domestic oil drilling; gets printed in 4,000 or whatever number of newspapers there are. And American citizens, who may not even like the Drive-By Media that they watch on cable TV, read their local papers, see the little thing, "(AP)", many of their stories not even bylined and it is accepted because nobody really takes on the AP. We just take on "the media" in general. But who feeds the media? Who feeds these people? In large part, they're not reporters anymore.

The AP is just an enlarged fax machine that sends out talking points disguised as news stories. Now, last Wednesday or Thursday, there was one of these stories, and it involved me. And I'm not bringing it up because it involved me. I'm bringing it up because it's just a recent and good example because of what's happened since. This story mentioned me and conservative bloggers in the second paragraph as being responsible for the rumor and spreading the rumor and continuing to keep the rumor alive, that there was a tape of Michelle Obama from the pulpit of Obama's church using the term "whitey" in a way that would be very damaging to Obama. Now, the real genesis of this is a left-wing Democrat hack, a guy by the name of Larry Johnson. He said he had the tape; he started the rumor. Larry Johnson is the guy who spread the rumor that some of the Drive-Bys picked up because they were so excited about it, that Patrick Fitzgerald had indicted Karl Rove on a Friday afternoon, long before Libby had been indicted.

As you know, Rove was never indicted, but the left-wing blogs picked it up and some of the Drive-Bys. They were just dying to go with it. Some of them rumored that it existed, because they didn't want to be cut out of this if it was true, they wanted to be in on the scoop. This is the guy that started this rumor. It was started three weeks ago, or maybe a month ago now. Maybe even longer than that. I didn't comment on it for three weeks. Then I saw Bob Beckel on Fox on the Tuesday night, I think, of the South Dakota and the Montana primaries, and there was Beckel, and he was all worried. He said he's heard a lot of rumors, heard a lot of stuff. This thing is going to hit tomorrow. Normally he ignores this kind of thing, but this really had him worried this could be a huge problem. It was worse than her thesis, Michelle Obama's thesis at Princeton or wherever it was that she went to college. So after that I said, "Whoa, I mentioned that Bob Beckel mentioned this!"

I was the last one to say this because, frankly, I never saw any evidence of it, and I never heard anybody say they had seen it. All other kinds of people... I'm actually... (sigh) I'll address this in a specific way. I'm getting the credit that a lot of other people actually deserve. So why did the AP put me in this story with the conservative bloggers? Why did they put me there? Why didn't they put others who are actively talking about it, on the radio and in the conservative blogosphere? Why didn't they put others? Why did they put me in there? Well, I'll answer it in a second. After putting me in there, guess who picked it up? After the AP put me in, the Obama website puts it on their new website. It's Fight the Smears. FightTheSmears.com -- and number one, the number-one entry on the FightTheSmears.com website at BarackObama.com is, Rush Limbaugh says there's a tape, and that I'm out there promoting it. The first smear mention is "LIE: Rush Limbaugh says a tape exists of Michelle Obama using the word 'whitey' from the pulpit of Trinity United."

I never said it. AP didn't say it, but they got the ball rolling, and once AP links to anything or alleges anything, then stories begin to be told -- and you know what happens when people start telling stories. So I am Lie #1 at FightTheSmears.com on Obama's website, and I had nothing to do with it. So why me? Well, there's a reason for this. It's very simple. The Drive-By Media is agenda-oriented. They have an agenda. Their agenda is the destruction of conservatism as a viable political force in America and the Republican Party as well. Since they hate me in the Drive-By Media -- and I don't say that with any disappointment, don't misunderstand. I'm not whining, "They hate me. Why do they hate me?" They do, and they should! I'm the guy responsible for their having lost the monopoly. For 20 years, we have been just blowing holes in all of their credibility. There's no reason they should like me.

But, as is the case with all liberals, their universe extends no further than themselves. So they think that everybody in America must also hate me, and so they are very comfortable putting my name in this story for two reasons. They hope to discredit the story. They hope to discredit me, because they look at me as America's number-one conservative. Whether it's true or not, that's how they look at it. So they could discredit the whole movement by putting me in there and linking me with this story. It furthers the notion that conservative Republicans are racists, sexists, bigots, homophobe, the cliches that they all use. So this is an attempt by the Associated Press -- and the reporter, by the way, was Nedra Pickler -- to establish the narrative of the "whitey" tape, that it had nothing to do with a liberal Democrat, Larry Johnson; that had only to do with racist, sexist Republicans who were spreading this vicious rumor, and causing poor old Obama to have to reply to it and so forth.

And then this gets picked up in every newspaper in the country. I have, for PR purposes, a little service here that clips any story that's got my name in it; and there were 2,500 that came back on Thursday and Friday with this Nedra Pickler story. So it's all over America that I was involved in this whole thing, and I never was. I never said I'd seen it. When I talked about it, I did describe it as a "rumor." I even went so far as to suggest that maybe, folks, be very careful with this, I said, "It might be that she's saying 'why'd he,' a contraction: 'Why did he?' and people are thinking she said 'whitey.'" I brought up the source. I brought up that the source of this was not credible, a guy named Larry Johnson who, as previously explained, is a left-wing hack. Larry Johnson is in absent any of these stories in the AP or the rest of the Drive-By Media in terms of being the guy who got it all started. This is a hit piece on me and the conservative blogosphere, and they are fit to be tied as well at the AP, which is, you know, understandable.

RUSH: Let's start with audio sound bite number two first, Mike. Let's go back to June the 3rd. Fox News Channel's Fox & Friends. It's early in the morning, and Alisyn Camerota is talking with Bob Beckel, and he says this about Michelle (My Belle) Obama.

BECKEL: I always hear rumors. I hear thousands of them in the course of a presidential campaign. But this one I have heard from enough sources, it worries me. I won't get in details on what it is except to say that there is some thought that there might be a very big shoe dropping on Michelle Obama tomorrow --

BECKEL: -- and that -- yeah. I can't tell you what it is because I don't want to perpetuate the rumors. But I will tell you this, it is -- whoever is promoting this thing is doing it in enough ways, in a very smart way that it gets to me in ways that make me get worried about it. Normally I don't worry about these things.

CAMEROTA: But it's your understanding that this is bigger than, say, a college thesis paper?

RUSH: Everybody knew what he was talking about. Alisyn Camerota knew. This had been out there for a couple weeks. Beckel knew who it was that was supposedly supplying all these great rumors that was getting this some traction. Then last night back on Fox -- and I don't know why they keep having him back here; he is as discredited as anybody else they could find. Bob Beckel, they got a program on Sunday night at eight o'clock called Strategy Room, and he's talking to guest Bret Baier. And he says, "Look, FightTheSmears.com has been set up by the Obama campaign. What about that, Bob? Do they need to do this kind of thing?"

BECKEL: If you got some evidence, it's fine, but these guys don't have any evidence. This story that they ran about Michelle Obama, which, by the way, I got in some trouble on by trying to cut it off, and -- and -- and Rush Limbaugh got on the radio and said, "Well, Bob Beckel mentioned it." I did not mention it. I said that there were smears coming around, one of them had to do with Barack Obama. But that gave Limbaugh the chance to say it all over again.

RUSH: So you see how this works? He didn't say anything about Barack Obama, he was talking about a big shoe dropping on Michelle Obama, and everybody knew what he was talking about. He did not try to cut this off. He tried to expand it. He tried to amplify this rumor. He wanted this rumor to be picked up by even more people. He knew who was behind it, and then they throw me in. So it starts with the Associated Press putting my name in the story, when I had nothing to do with this. Now since it's in the AP and it's in the annals of the Drive-By Media narrative, okay, I had a role, I was the one who spread it, so now it's free and clear for hacks like Beckel and anybody else who wants to include me in the story, and including me in the story, they think is more damaging to conservatives 'cause I'm target number one. So Rush Limbaugh got on the radio, said, "Well, Bob Beckel mentioned it. I didn't mention it." Yes, you did, Bob, we just played the soundbite. Bob Beckel says he didn't mention it. He said there were smears coming around, one of them had to do with Barack, but that gave me the chance to say it all over again? It's probably the first time I had talked about it.

CAMEROTA: But it's your understanding that this is bigger than, say, a college thesis paper?

RUSH: Significantly. Yeah. Then last night Beckel tries to deny that he had anything to do with it, that he was trying to shut it down, that I picked it up and ran. So, see, now the blame is with me, for wallowing in it, for furthering it, for giving it impetus, for giving it weight when it didn't have any prior to that, and it's now even manifested itself on my friend Howard Kurtz's show on CNN's Reliable Sources. Howard Kurtz is a better reporter than this. He uses a sound bite of me taken totally out of context that fits the narrative that he undoubtedly first read about in an AP story. This is yesterday morning, and you'll also hear Obama and Kurtz on this bite along with me.

KURTZ: Among the other falsehoods swirling around about -- there's this story that appeared on certain sites about Michelle Obama supposedly having used the word "whitey" in some kind of talk or rant at church or elsewhere. Rush Limbaugh was one of the ones who talked about it on the air, and Senator Obama was asked about that afterwards. Let's watch.

RUSH ARCHIVE: They're waiting to use it in October of Michelle going nuts in the church, too, talking about whitey this and whitey that.

OBAMA: There is dirt and lies that are circulated in e-mail, and they pump 'em out long enough until finally you, a mainstream reporter, asks me about them. And then that gives legs to the story.

KURTZ: And Limbaugh says that he -- this rumor was pretty well widely circulated by the time he mentioned it.

RUSH: Right. So you mention that as the last thing in your report. This little bite they played of me: "They're waiting to use it in October of Michelle going nuts in the church, talking about whitey this and whitey that." They leave out what I had said leading up to that, which is my describing for you what is being said about this tape and who has it and how they intend to use it. They're waiting to use it in October, Michelle going nuts at the church, whitey this, whitey that, I was just advising you what was happening with this thing, long after everybody else had. But so it all starts in the AP, then it ends up with Bob Beckel running with it, Obama puts it on his website as I am the primary culprit, that causes Kurtz to pick it up on CNN, and you see this kind of thing has a life of its own. This is the Associated Press that did this. New York Times didn't do it, Washington Post didn't do it, CBS, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN didn't do it; the Associated Press did it. They did it on purpose.

The Associated Press also has a story out today referring to Joe Lieberman as the Democrats' public enemy number one. It is a full-fledged hit piece on Joe Lieberman. Democrats public enemy number one, Joe Lieberman, which goes to show that the Democrats do not allow mavericks in their party. They don't celebrate 'em. They run 'em out and then they destroy 'em, with the help of the Associated Press. But there is, ladies and gentlemen, you see contrary to the AP's desires, there are now ways to thwart the narrative. The Chicago Sun-Times runs this piece that checks statements made by campaigns and public figures for accuracy and so forth, and here's what this little piece from the Chicago Sun-Times yesterday said: "News item: Barack Obama campaign starts new Web site to fight smears from political opponents at www.fightthesmears.com. The first smear mentioned: 'LIE: Rush Limbaugh says a tape exists of Michelle Obama using the word "whitey" from the pulpit of Trinity United.' Well. No. This is what Limbaugh said: 'The rumor is -- and we don't like dealing with rumors here -- but the rumor is that Michelle Obama from the pulpit of this church used the term "whitey." Some are saying be very careful with this because she might have said 'why'd he,' why did he, the contraction "why'd he" instead of "whitey."' He added: 'I can't find anybody who's seen it.' So while Limbaugh was happy to wallow in the rumor, he was careful not to claim the tape exists." So this is the Chicago Sun-Times.

The reason I spent so much time on this, of course, ladies and gentlemen, as you well know is not because it involved me, it's just a recent example to illustrate, 'cause I think not enough time has been spent by those of us who have been trying to blow up the monopoly that's the Drive-By Media on the Associated Press. The Associated Press has a monopoly still, they are totally in charge, nobody else competes against them in determining what's in most of America's newspapers on crucially important news stories, and I tie this to the coverage of Tim Russert and his death because from four o'clock Friday, maybe five o'clock Friday on, the coverage of Tim Russert's death ceased to be about Tim Russert, it was all about the media. They used the occasion of his death to talk about themselves, to talk about how important they are. And one thing this thing proved, and I've made this point countless times as well on this program, the Drive-By Media primarily uses other Drive-Bys as its audience. Their audience is them. Their audience is not news consumers, contrary to what you might think.

They want to shape opinion, don't misunderstand. But they do their work, they write what they write, they do their TV appearances. It's all a little cluster. It's just a circle, and these people do what they do to be seen by their peers, to be judged by their peers. So this coverage of the death of Tim Russert was nothing more than the media demonstrating that in their minds all of this is about them, and this gave them the occasion to talk about their importance and their fears, and their fear is that it's not just Tim Russert who passed away, but their era and their dominance and their monopoly. And they're right, and they know it. They presided over their own wake over the weekend, and they will continue to do so as this week unfolds.

RUSH: So essentially (to close the loop on this), the AP, the Associated Press, used me to spread the rumor itself! The AP used me to spread the rumor so that they could then turn around and say that I was spreading the rumor. This is how this stuff works.

CALLER: Hi, Rush. It's a pleasure to speak with you finally, and I want to thank you, thank you, thank you for pointing out the extreme differences in the coverage and in the reaction to the two floodings which have been in the media the last number of years. Number one: the New Orleans flooding following Katrina, and the current flooding in Missouri and Iowa. The differences are so different. I want to know: Where is a breathless Geraldo rescuing people? Where is Louis Farrakhan stating that George Bush blew up the levees in Iowa? Where have these people gone to? Where have they disappeared to? You're the only one who has had the nerve to discuss this at all. Thank you so very much.

RUSH: Well, you're more than welcome. Also, I'd like to know where Shepard Smith of Fox News is.

CALLER: Right. In New Orleans, they could not evacuate the Ninth Ward after the president called and begged the mayor of New Orleans -- a Democrat, Ray Nagin -- and the Democratic governor of New Orleans to evacuate New Orleans. They did not do that. I've heard on the news that whole cities and towns have been evacuated in Iowa and Missouri. They have moved everyone out orderly.

CALLER: Exactly. Exactly. I knew there was a third one. Thank you. And the difference is, it was indeed a tragedy that the lower Ninth Ward in New Orleans was flooded and all of those people lost their property and possessions, but the hit on the economy, for that is going to be very minor compared to the impact on the American economy of the loss of the farmland and the crops which are being lost today. That impact is just now being realized.

RUSH: Yeah, far more than that. Look, I'm glad you raised a point out there, Nancy, about the tragedy. What happened in Katrina with the human tragedy is no less important than what happened here in Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, and so forth. We're talking about media coverage. We're talking about the Democrat Party. We are talking about the mind-set of the left in this country, and it was on full display in the post-Katrina aftermath. You can even say, "Hey, look there was devastation over Mississippi, but we didn't see Shepard Smith or Geraldo or anybody else -- Anderson Cooper, all these people that won their little Pulitzers or whatever they get. We didn't see 'em spending any time over in Mississippi, either," and we all know why. We all know why. This was an excellent opportunity to bash Republicans and conservatives under the time-honored and old-hat cliche that they are racists and that they are sexists and that they are bigots and that they are homophobes, and when a flood happens to minorities, "Republicans don't care. Bush doesn't care. I mean, Bush might have even steered the hurricane right in there! Bush wanted half the residents of New Orleans to leave so that the Republicans could win the state in future elections," da-da-da-da-da. It went on and on and on. I reached my boiling point listening to Algore bring this up, especially now with what's going on in the heartland of the country.

RUSH: Headline here from the Rocky Mountain News: "'Denver Stocks Up on Pepper Weapon' -- The city is ordering guns that fire special plastic balls of pepper spray for the Democrat National Convention." Hee, hee. Well, no, there's no mention of the crap cannon in the story. The crap cannon, remember, now, that's a rumor that the left-wing activists are spreading that the Denver authorities have a crap cannon. It's some sort of infra-something, a frequency gun that makes you lose control of your bowels. So they're worried about the crap cannon.

Conservative Review
Issue #30	Kukis Digests and Opines on this Week’s News and Views	June 22, 2008